Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-02 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 2, 2000 February 7, 2000 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. John Riddick, President of the Charlottesville Albemarle Community Foundation, informed the Board that the Dave Mathews Band and an anonymous donor have donated $500,000 toward the construction of a park in the Esmont area. 5.1 Appropriation: Education, $189,834.15 (Form #99043). APPROVED. 5.2Appropriation: Education, $284,023.90 (Form ~9044). APPROVED. 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $1,360 (Form #99052). APPROVED. 5.4 Appropriation: Education, $1,212,960.29 (Form #99053). APPROVED. 5.5 Destruction of Paid Tax Tickets. APPROVED. 5.6 FY 2000/01 Revenue Projection Update. APPROVED as recommended by staff. 5.7 Resolution in support of Water Service Grant for the Town of Scottsville (attachment A). 5.8 Capital Funding Requests from Charlottesville Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CAI_AS) and Paramount Theater. APPROVED staff recommendation to consider these requests in conjunction with unfunded capital projects requests from other organizations. 5.9 Resolution for the addition and abandonment of Route 809 and Route 846 due to reconstruction of entrance to Bellair (attachment B). ADOPTED. 5.10 Proclamation recognizing February, 2000 as School Board Appreciation Month (attachment C). ADOPTED. 5~10a Proclamation recognizing February 6 through February 12, 2000 as Scouting Anniversary Week (attachment D). ADOPTED. 5.11 Copy of public comment draft of the Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River (on file in the Clerk's office). RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION. 6. Transportation Matters. · Ms. Tucker did not provide an update. · Mr. Bowerman asked for feedback on suggested signage to redirect travelers from the Richmond area around the City. Ms. Tucker said VDOT is reviewing the suggestion. · Mr. Tucker thanked VDOT for their recent snow-removal efforts. · Mr. Perkins said residents on Rt. 806 have asked that the road be paved. Ms. Tucker will follow up. · Mr. Perkins said residents on Rt. 663 have asked that potholes be repaired. Ms. Tucker will follow up. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Laurie Bentley, Clerk. Clerk: Place resolution thanking the donors on consent agenda in the near future. Parks & Recreation staff: Investigate erecting a plaque on-site, naming the park, etc., to honor donors. Clerk: Fo[ward signed appropriation form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: Fo[ward signed appropriations form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: Fo[ward signed appropriations form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: Fo[ward signed appropriations form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. None. None. Clerk: Fo[ward signed copy of resolution to Bill Brent and Wyatt Shields. Budget Manager: Include in unfunded capital projects requests. Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Angela Tucker. None. (Signed copy given to School Board at joint session.) Clerk: Fo[ward signed copy of proclamation to Stonewall Jackson Area Council. Mr. Tucker: Follow up with watershed officials. Clerk: Include in letter to Angela Tucker. None. Clerk: Clerk: __ Include in letter to Angela Tucker. Include in letter to Angela Tucker. Achieve a 9% sediment reduction from the levels that existed in 1985 for the entire basin'by the year 2010. For all areas draining directly to the tidal fresh portion of the James, Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) implementation at point sources and an equivalent reduction in nonpoint sources by 2010. This would result in.a 32% nitrogen and 39% phosphorus reduction, based on model simulation, in loading to the tidal fresh from the levels that existed in 1985. The net nutrient loadings to the lower estuary from all areas should not be allowed to increase and should be capped at 1996 levels. Growth in load coming from areas directly adjacent to the lower estuary should not exceed the reduced load coming from the tidal fresh portion of the river. The resulting zero net increase in loading to the lower estuary will prevent any degradation relative to current water quality conditions. The living resource improvements associated with the recommended reduction goals as determined by the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model are: SAV growth in areas of the tidal fresh James previously identified by VIMS as historic SAV beds, and substantial reductions in chlorophyll levels throughout the estuary. The estimated cost for these improvements is $164 million for point sources and $135 million for nonpoint source BMP implementation. Two issues will require that the recommended nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the James River be reevaluated in several years: The current version of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model overpredicts sediment loading in the James River. Future model revisions are likely to correct this. The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently working on a process to make the goals required under the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program ctnsistent with the living resources based goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Completed in July, 1998, the Initial James River Basin Tributary Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Strategy provided information on water quality and living resource habitat conditions in the James River, described the actions taken to date to reduce pollutants, and provided an overview of the kinds of additional management actions that could be taken to further restore the health and productivity of the river. The Initial Strategy document did not contain restoration goals because key information from the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model was not yet available. The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model results began to become available toward the end of 1998. In order to provide a forum for stakeholder input to the goal setting process, a James River Technical Review Committee (TRC) was formed. The TRC was composed of representatives from public wastewater treatment facilities, private environmental groups, soil and water conservation districts, industry and local governments. The TRC began to meet in October 1998 to consider the results of various Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model runs as well as other pertinent information. Staff from the Chesapeake Bay Program office of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and State Agencies provided technical assistance to the Committee by analyzing and presenting data from model runs, and by synthesizing living resource information. State staff have worked closely with stakeholders and technical experts to examine the effects of different pollutant reduction scenarios, and to develop goals which will improve the water quality and living resources of the River. The level of expected improvements in habitat conditions were analyzed for different combinations of pollutant reduction. Each combination of actions was then evaluated against the critical measures of practicality, cost-effectiveness and equity. A number of key issues regarding water quality and living resource impacts in the James River were identified during the TRC meetings: sediment load is very high in the James River and suspended sediment reduces light penetration and prevents the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV); there is no significant problem with low dissolved oxygen levels in the James estuary; nitrogen reduction in the upper tidal James River could promote SAV growth; and chlorophyll levels throughout the James estuary are elevated. Two special studies on the James River contributed to the discussions on appropriate restoration goals for the James River. The first study, by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), focused on living resources in the James River above the fall line and identified substantially impacted benthic communities primarily due to sediment. The second study, by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), established the existence of SAV beds in the upper tidal James prior to the 1940's. Smaller historic beds were identified in the lower tidal river. The James Technical Review Committee met eight times but failed to reach consensus on appropriate nutrient and sediment goals for the James River. Based on Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model output, state agency staffmade the following goals recommendation: · Mr. Perkins asked that YDOT look into sidewalk under downtown Crozet railway, as it may be unsafe for pedestrians. Ms. Tucker will follow up. · Mr. Martin said a citizen recently suggested that guardrails are needed on Stony Point Road near Park Hill. He will suggest the citizen call Ms. Tucker. · Mr. Perkins asked that Ms. Tucker provide the BOS a list of phone numbers and contacts names for VDOT maintenance facilities, as well as her email address. Ms. Tucker said she will provide that information and added that the BOS can either call the facilities or her with maintenance concems. · Mr. Dottier said the Scottsville District is setting up a public hearing on secondary roads. · Ms. Thomas said Monday she is meeting with residents of VVyant Lane at the Miller School chapel regarding paving that road. 8. Work Session: ACquisitiOn Of ConservatiOn EasementS (ACE) Program. DIRECTED County Attorney to draft ordinance. 9. School Board Report. PRESENTATION was made by Dr. Charles Ward. 10. Appeal: SDP-97-035. Calvet Virginia Preliminary Site Plan- Critical Slope Waiver Proposal. APPROVED with four conditions (see attachment E). 11. Work Session: Long Range Capital Needs. PRESENTATION made by Roxanne White. 12. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. 14. Certify Closed Session. 15. Appointments. Appointed: · Kathleen Comett to Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory Committee with said term to run from 11/2/99 through 11/03/01. · Jan Sprinkle to Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee with said term to run from 1/1/00 through 12/31/00. Reappointed: · James Clark to Equalization Board as Scottsville representative, with said term to run from 1/1/00 through 12131100. 16. Continuation of Work Session on Long Range Capital Needs. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. · Ms. Humphris initiated discussion on design of the Meadow Creek Parkway. AUTHORIZED Engineering staff to develop an RFP for a consultant to review plans. · Mr. Tucker said the Trans-Dominion Express Steering Committee asked that localities invest money to promote the TDE in the general assembly. CONSENSUS was to have County Executive provide additional information, 18. Joint Meeting with School Board. Dr, Castner PRESENTED a summary of the Superintendent's proposed 2000-01 budget. 19. Adjourn at 5:20 p.m. Clerk: Clerk: Clerk: None. None. Include in letter to Angela Tucker. Include in letter to Angela Tucker. Include in letter to Angela Tucker. CoUnty Attorney: Draft ordinance. None. Clerk: List conditions on attachment. None. None. None. Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions files and prepare correspondence. En,qineerlnl:l staff: Develop RFP. County Executive; Provide additional information. School Board: Release budget on March 15. Attachment A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR STONY POINT SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, have determined there is a need for extending sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and WHEREAS, several public hearings have been held with the residents of the Stony Point Subdivision before the Planning Commission and the Town Council of Scottsville; and WHEREAS, there has been nearly unanimous public support for approval of the extension of the sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision; and WHEREAS, a preliminary engineering report for sanitary sewer improvements in Stony Point Subdivision has been prepared for the Albemarle County Service Authority and for the Town of ScottSville, Virgir~ia~;' by Draper Aden Associates, Blacksburg and Richmond, Virginia; and WHEREAS, three options were developed by Draper Aden Associates for expansion of the sanitary sewer collection service to the Stony Point Subdivision, Scottsville, Va.; and WHEREAS, the funding for this sewer line extension project may involve potential applications for grants from four sources: Community Development Block Grants, Rural Economic Community Development, Virginia Revolving Loan Fund and Contributions from the Albemarle County Service Authority; and WHEREAS, the extension of the sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Scottsville and is located in a growth area of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, a need presently exists for the extension of this sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision of the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that: (c) the Board of Supervisors supports the extension of the sanitary sewer line to Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and the Board of Supervisors endorses the funding for the project adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and the Board of Supervisors supports the application of the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville ,Virginia, for a grant to support the funding of this project; and (o) (E) the Board of Supervisors endorses the sanitary sewer line extension as outlined in the report of Draper Aden Associates as being in compliance with and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County, Virginia; and the Board of Supervisors directs the Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Albemarle County Service Authority and to the Town of Scottsville, Virginia. Attachment B The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 2nd day of February, 2000, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated December 30, 1999, depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of the construction of project fK)250-002-112,C501, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portions of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1 and Section 2 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS, the portions of Route 846 and Route 809 identified on the sketch as Sections 3, 4 and 5, to be added to the secondary system; and WHEREAS, the new roads serve the same citizens as that portion of old road identified to be abandoned; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways a portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 3, a distance of 0.08 m~es, and a portion of Route 809 identified on the sketch as Section4 and Section 5, a distance of 0.07 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways that portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1, a distance of 0.05 miles, and a portion of Route 809, identified on the sketch as Section 2, a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, Recorded vote: Moved by: Charlotte Y. Humphrls Seconded by: Sally H. Thomas Yeas: Sally H. Thomas David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Nays: Absent: None. None. Attachment C School Board Appreciation Month WHEREAS, as Virginians we have a responsibility to prepare our children for a successful and fulfilling future, and educating the children of our great Commonwealth by increasing knowledge and understanding and developing positive character traits is of paramount importance; and WHEREAS, parents are responsible for the education of their children, and teachers, principals and school board members are entrusted by parents to guide, direct and impart knowledge to their children while at school; and WHEREAS, School Board members, along with the growing and dynamic team of teachers, set the standard of excellence in Virginia's education of its young people; and WHEREAS, local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of education for all students in the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, our great'Commonwealth is proud of its educational' system and is appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the W'rginia public schools system an excellent one to educate our children; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize February 2000, as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all citizens. Attachment D SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY WEEK WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the success of Scouting for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and E~plomrs depends on our community organizations; and there are 60 churches and synagogues, schools and parent-teacher associations, service and fraternal organizations, and other community groups that have been chartered in our area by the Boy Scouts of America to use the scouting program; and the volunteer leaders selected by these chartered organizations are performing an outstanding service for 2286 boys and young men and young women; and the Monticello District of the Stonewall Jackson Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America and its corps of dedicated volunteer leaders are providing necessary support to the leaders in the 73 Cub Scout packs, Boy S~cq~ut troops, and Explorer posts; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of February 6 through February 12, 2000 as SCOUTING ANNIVERSARY WEEK and urge our citizens to join with me in expressing appreciatibn to the community organizations and their volunteer Scouting leaders for bringing this Scouting- based program to our young people. Attachment E Appeal: SDP-97-035. Calvet Virginia Preliminary Site Plan - Cdtical Slope Waiver Proposal. Conditions are as follows: As a part of the approval of the Stormwater Management BMP plan, the program authority (County Engineering) shall require the owner to have the sand filter inspected annually be a person or firm satisfactory to the program authodty~and to report those findings of the inspection to the program authority as otherwise provided as part of the plan's monitoring and reporting requirements; There shall be Design Planner review of the proposed canopy in accordance with the adopted design standards of the County Amhitectural ,Review Board, and Design Planner review of the building in relation to its color; The number of trees shown on the preliminary site plan is adequate. The trees should be of mixed species - a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees, which should be planted at a minimum of three (3) -inch caliper. There should be a shrub layer of native shrubs beneath the trees that will provide complete coverage within two (2) years. The installation shall be done in such a way that it protects the slope from erosion in the meantime. In its consideration of approving a landscape plan, staff should ensure that plantings are arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening. A cluster of trees on-site, including a double red oak and a white oak location about fifty (50) feet from the corner of the property near the water line easement shall have tree protection during construction and be SpeCificallY retained; and All external lights and signage lights except for security lights will be turned off during non-operating hours. 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 February l5,2000 John R. Redick, Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation P. O. Box 1767 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Redick: It is with smcere gratitude that I write to express the appreciation of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the very generous gift of $500,000 to create a new park in the community of Esmont. I can honestly tell you that receiving this unexpected gift made possible by the Dave Matthews Band and an anonymous donor is one of the most meaningful and pleasurable activities I have had the opportunity to perform since becoming Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. This donation will have a tremendous impact in responding to the very real needs of southern Albemarle residents. As you know, this area is currently underserved, particularly in the area of public facilities, and has been the focus of recent county government efforts to provide additional programs and services. While we had identified the need for a park and had begun initial steps towards creating such a facility with the purchase of a 13.6 acre site, budgetary constraints have kept us from moving forward as quickly as we would have liked. The CACF gift will make construction of the park and many of the amenities requested by citizens possible by next fall, years ahead of what would have been possible without the Foundation's assistance. Our community is so fortunate to benefit from the generosity of its citizens such as members of the Dave Matthews Band and the anonymous donor who "give back" in such a substantial and meaningful way. I hope they will take great pleasure in knowing that their donation will translate very concretely into stronger families and active, healthy kids. What a wonderful legacy to create for our southern Albemarle residents. Again, please accept our heartfelt thank you for this unexpected and overwhelming gift. We look forward to inviting the Foundation and the donors to a park opening ceremony within the next year! Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM~ 00.004 pc: ~bemarle County Board of Supervisors .Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris J~:k Jouett Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Ai REMARLE office of Board of Supel~isors 40! Mclntim Road Charlottesville, V'n~inia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas February 8, 2000 Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At the February 2, 2000 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 5.9 Resolution for the addition and abandonment of Route 809 and Route 846 due to reconstruction of entrance to Bellair. The Board adopted the resolution (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 6. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Bowerman asked for feedback on suggested signage to redirect travelers from the Richmond area around the City. Ms. Tucker said VDOT is reviewing the suggestion. Mr. Tucker thanked VDOT for their recent snow-removal efforts. up. Mr. Perkins said residents on Rt. 806 have asked that the road be paved. You said you will follow Mr. Perkins said residents on Rt. 663 have asked that potholes be repaired. You said you will follow u p. Mr. Perkins asked that VDOT look into sidewalk under downtown Crozet railway, as it may be unsafe for pedestrians. You said you will follow up. Mr. Martin said a citizen recently suggested that guardrails are needed on Stony Point Road near Park Hill. He will suggest the citizen call Ms. Tucker. Mr. Perkins asked that Ms. Tucker provide the BOS a list of phone numbers and contacts names for VDOT maintenance facilities, as well as her email address. You said you will provide that information and added that the BOS can either call the facilities or her with maintenance concerns. Mr. Dorrier said the Scottsville District is setting up a public hearing on secondary roads. Printed on recycled paper Ms. Thomas said Monday she is meeting with residents of Wyant Lane at the Miller School chapel regarding paving that road. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment cc: Robert Tucker COUNTY OF ALBEM uA ,DARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Request approval of Appropriation #99043,.in the total amount of $189,834.15, for various school activities and programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Castner, Breeden, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes ~ Meriwether Lewis Elementary School Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1,000.00. $1,000.00 donation will be used to fund the Cultural Enrichment Program at the school. The Special Education Grant Award Albemarle County's Department of Special Education has received a grant award in the amount of $2,555.00. This grant award will provide 2 staff development workshops related to interpreter training: an Interactive Skills Workshop on September 18, 1999 and a Receptive and Expressive Skills Workshop on October 23, 1999. Program for Seamless Transition (POST) Grant The Virginia Board for People with Disabilities and the Virginia Department of Education has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a grant in the amount of $7,476.00 for the 1999-00 fiscal year. This grant will fund the Program for Seamless Transition (POST). The PoST program is to secure the competitive employment of nine Mildly Mentally Disabled (MIMD) high school students using three part-time Job Coaches to work on specific areas of need. Rotary Club of Charlottesville Foundation Donation Al bemarle County's Department of Instruction has received a donation from the Rotary Club of Charlottesville Foundation in the amount of $1,000.00. This donation will help to implement the Character Counts Projects. Eleven Albemarle County Schools are utilizing this program within their instructional programs. The program is based on the premise that the development of young people is a process shared by schools, parents, and the community. Textbook Fund The textbook fund has collected $3,955.19 from the schools for textbooks that were lost, damaged or sold. It is requested that this money be appropriated for the 1999-00 fiscal year to purchase replacement textbooks. Summer School The Albemarle County Summer School Programs are offered to students in grades K-8 who are having trouble meeting academic standards in the areas of Language Arts, Mathematics and/or skills necessary to successfully complete the Literacy Passport Test. These programs, which operate in a number of selected AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education February 2, 2000 Page 2 elementary and middle schools, provide focused instruction to identified students in the areas of their greatest need. Programs are four weeks in duration and are staffed with certified and qualified teachers. There is a fund balance from the 1998-99 fiscal year in the amount of $140,080.46. It is requested that this fund balance be appropriated in the 1999-00 fiscal year to help pay for expenses incurred in the 1999 summer programs. Technology Literacy Challenge Grant At the November 23, 1999 meeting, the School Board accepted funds for the Technology Literacy Challenge Grant in the amount of $50,000.00. This grant was not fully expended in the 1998-99 fiscal year and has a grant balance of $33,767.50. These funds will help to provide teachers an opportunity for professional learning and development with respect to integrating technology across the curriculum. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $189,834.15, as detailed on Appropriation #99043. 99-215 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER 99043 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X SCHOOLS/PROGRAMS AMOUNT 1 2206 61101 601300 Meriwether Lewis Inst/Rec Materials $1,000.00 3140 61312 312500 Spec. Education ProfSvc Consutant 1,600.00 3140 61312 550100 Travel-Mileage 392,00 3140 61312 550400 Travel-Education 380.00 3140 61312 601300 InsFRec Materials 183.00 I 3136 61102 138100 PoST Program PT Wages-Teacher 6,904.00 1 3136 61102 210000 FICA 572.00 1 2111 61311 601300 Character Counts Inst/Rec Materials 1,000.00 1 2114 61101 602000 Textbooks Textbooks 3,955.19 1 3310 61120 132100 Summer School Elem Teacher Wages 64,682.15 1 3310 61124 132100 Middle Sch Teacher Wages 64,682.15 I 3310 61120 210000 Elem~FICA 5,358.08 1 3310 61124 210000 Middle Sch-FICA 5,358.08 I 3131 61311 312500 Literacy Challenge Grant ProfSvc Inst. 18,000.00 I 3131 61311 601300 Inst/RecMaterials 15,767.50 CODE 2 2000 18100 181109 2 3140 24000 240358 2 3136 24000 240325 2 2000 18100 181109 2 2000 19000 190214 2 3310 51000 510100 2 3131 24000 240312 TOTAL $189,834.15 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT .Meriwether Lewis Spec. Education PoST Grant Rotary Club Textbook Fund Summer School Tech Challenge Grant Donation Interpreter Training Grant Donation Appro Fund Balance 1 3 140 33 $1 000.00 2 555.00 7 476.00 000.00 955.19 080.46 767.50 TOTAL $189,834.15 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE NOV. 15, 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ¢2- ~- ~ SIGNATURE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #99044, in the amount of $284,023.90 for various school activities and programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: / Tucker, Castner, Breeden, White, Gulati BACKGROUND: Virginia Standards of Learnin~l (SOL) Traininq Initiative Fund Albemarle County Public Schools anticipates an award of $183,880.00 via the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) Training Initiative Fund for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. The funds have been allocated to school divisions via the Standards of Learning Training Initiative for the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive teacher-training program to be conducted within the school division in the core content areas and leadership training for administrative staffing implementing the SOL. SOL Training Initiative funds will be used to support the following activities: graduate level courses for staff to support the division literacy recommendations; stipends for teacher training to support professional development efforts in the SOL's; consultant services in support of SOL training efforts; and educational materials and printing costs in support of the SOL training. Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education has made grant awards to several teachers in the Albemarle County Public Schools in the in the amount of $4,668.90. These funds will help support projects in Social Studies, Science, Math, English, American History, Reading, and Special Education classes. Virginia Department of Education Office of the Business-Education Partnerships Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant award from the Virginia Department of Education Office of the Virginia Business-Education Partnerships in the amount of $86,900.00. The program is entitled Business Education Partnership for Success (BEPS) and will provide academic and career planning skills, for a maximum of 300 students. The partnership will provide academic tutoring and mentoring to provide targeted students with adequate academic skills and career planning knowledge to graduate from high school and become productive citizens. Virginia Power Partnership Stony Point Elementary School has received a grant award from the Virginia Power Partnership in the amount of $1,800.00. These funds will be used to assist third graders at Stony Point to create a child friendly field guide for their school's nature trail, to be used by all students, staff and parents. The guides would help to identify plants and animals found in the various habitats along the nature trail. Learn and Service Virginia Grant Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant award, Learn and Service Virginia Grant, from the Virginia Department of Education in the amount of $6,775.00. This grant will provide funding for the project AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education February 2, 2000 Page 2 Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pairs second and third graders with preschool children to ease the transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide the second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $284,023.90, as detailed on Appropriation #99044. 99.214 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION 1 3139 60607 152100 SOL 1 3139 60607 160300 1 3139 60607 210000 1 3139 60607 312500 1 3139 60607 350000 1 3139 60607 580100 1 3139 60607 580500 I 3139 60607 550100 I 3139 60607 601300 1 3502 60606 601300 Shannon Grant 1 3209 61101 112100 1 3209 61101 210000 1 3209 61101 221000 I 3209 61101 231000 I 3209 61101 232000 1 3209 61101 312500 1 3209 61101 420100 1 3209 61101 520100 1 3209 61101 550400 1 3209 61101 601300 1 3209 61101 601700 1 3209 61101 800100 Partnership Grant 1 3104 60211 312000 1 3104 60211 420110 1 3104 60211 601300 1 3104 60211 601700 Va Power Grant NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X SCHOOLS/PROGRAMS 99044 AMOUNT Substitutes $10,000.00 Stipends 60,000.00 FICA 5,355.00 Consultants 25,000.00 Printing 6,000.00 Dues 6,000.00 Staff Dev 62,672.00 Travel 5,000.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 3,853.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 4,668.90 Salaries 40,000.00 FICA 3,060.00 VRS 5,620.00 Health Ins 2,268.00 Dental Ins 252.00 Prof Svc Inst 250.00 Field Trip 3,600.00 Postage 700.00 Travel-Ed 4,150.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,000.00 Copy Supplies 2,000.00 Mach/Eq uip-Addl 15,000.00 Other Prof Svcs 500.00 Sch. Transp Field Trip 150.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 850.00 Copy Supplies 300.00 3126 63328 550100 Learn/ServeGrant Travel 500.00 3126 63328 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 6,275.00 REVENUE TOTAL $284,023.90 CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 3139 24000 240354SOL $183,880.00 2 3502 18000 181223ShannonGrant 4,668.90 2 3209 24000 240299 PartnershipGrant 86,900.00 2 3104 18000 181233 Va Power Grant 1,800.00 2 3126 24000 240306 Learn/ServeGrant 6,775.00 TOTAL $284,023.90 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE NOV. 15, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 99052 in the amount of $1,360.00 for various donations. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Castner, Breeden; White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTI O N: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $1,000.00. This donation will be used for cultural enrichment events at the school. Hollymead Elementary School received a donation from Mr. & Mrs. Jae Lee in the amount of $50.00. This donation will be used by the kindergarten class to purchase beginner-reading books. Murray Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $310.00. These donations will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $1,360.00, as detailed on Appropriation 99052. 'I[3C!:ARD OF SUPER¥'XSORS 00.011 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99052 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED. CODE 2206 61101 2205 61101 2215 61411 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 601300 I nst/Rec Supplies $1,000.00 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies 50.00 580000 Misc Supplies 310.00 CODE 2 2000 18100 2 2000 18100 2 2000 18100 TOTAL $1,360.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 181109 Donation $1,000.00 181109 Donation 50.00 181109 Donation 310.00 TOTAL $1,360.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE JAN. 13, 2000 COUNTY OF ALBEMA RD OP SUPE I,'ISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: RequeSt apProval of Appropriation #99053, in the amount of $1,212,960.29, for variOus school projects and programs. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Castner, Breeden; White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: · Technology Literacy Grant ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes / The Virginia Department of Education has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools the Technology Literacy Grant in the amount of $53,300.00. The essential goal for this grant project is to provide teachers additional support and training as an extension of the Albemarle/Curry Technology Infusion Project and other Albemarle/UVA technology-training partnerships. Selected teachers will participate in either a series of basic technology skill mini-courses or extensive full-scale courses through the UVA's Continuing Education. The Curry School of Education and UVA's Division of Continuing Education serve as community partners in this project. · Textbooks At the end of FY1998/99, substantial one-time funds were committed to textbooks. These State lottery funds were to substantively complete adoption of several levels of Math and Science. All textbooks were ordered prior to Jun e 1, however, many were not received or invoiced until after the June 30 Fiscal Year deadline. The invoices dated after June 30 are unable to be paid from FY1998/99 funds. All textbooks received after June 30, have been paid from FY1999/00 funds. It is requested that $396,826.05 be re-appropriated from FY1998/99 to FY1999/00. · Bus Replacement At the end of FY 1998/99, substantial one-time funds were committed to bus replacement. These State lottery funds were to replace needed buses on a 13-year replacement cycle. All buses were ordered prior to June 1, however, they were not received or invoiced until after the June 30 fiscal year deadline. The invoices dated after June 30 are unable to be paid from FY1998/99 funds. All buses received after June 30 have been paid from FY1999/00 funds. The funds allocated for these purchases need to be moved from FY1998/99 to the current fiscal year. Additionally, the bus replacement fund had a small fund balan ce associated with the delivery of services to outside agencies; this fund 'balance of $27,907.23 is included in the re-appropriation request. It is requested that $279,976.23 be re-appropriated to the FY1999/00 fiscal year. · Frederick S. Upton Foundation Donation Western Albemarle High School received donations from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation in the amount of $1,000.00 and from Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Dupont in the amount of $1,000.00. The funds will be used to support the Fine Arts Program at the school. · State Farm Good Neighbor Grant Program Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from the State Farm Good Neighbor Grant Program. This program encourages State Farm associates to become more involved with non-profit organizations in the community. Associates who volunteer a minimum of 40 hours in a calendar year may apply for this grant for that non profit organization. Deane Begiebing, a parent, volunteered many hours and served on the Crozet Elementary School PTO Board of Directors. This donation is to be used for the Book Buddies Program at. Crozet Elementary School. · Virginia Migrant Education Virginia Migrant Education received additional Incentive Grant Funds in the amount of $18,832.00 from the Office of Migrant Education. The Albemarle County Regional Migrant Education Program received extra funds from this grant to increase direct tutorial, instruction for eligible Migrant Students. AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education February 2, 2000 Page 2 The Virginia Department of Migrant Education has requested that the Albemarle Regional Migrant Education Program be the fiscal agent for a new statewide recruitment project. Additional funds of $50,000.00 are being allocated in order to design and develop a special recruitment program targeting at risk Migrant youth within the state of Virginia. This program will involve special training and procedures specifically designed to recruit drop out Migrant students and connect them to available education services. · Mathematics Standards of Learning The Virginia Department of Education awarded Stone-Robinson Elementary School a grant in the amount of $11,500.00. This award will be used to develop a resource package for teaching the third Mathematics Standards of Learning (SOL's). The resource package will include lessons, activities, and assessments for Mathematics SOL objectives. The resource package will also provide activities correlated to other subject areas. Jeff Coleman, teacher and team leader of Stone Robinson Elementary School will coordinate this project. · Regional Migrant Program The Albemarle County Regional Migrant Program, Part C of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, has received a grant in the amount of $27,000.00. This program is a federally funded program designed to locate all eligible migrant students residing in its district and evaluate their individual educational needs, and offer services to meet those needs. The program provides extra in-school instruction, guidance, home-school coordination and coordination with and utilization of all available community resources. It also provides after school and evening tutoring sessions in migrant camps and learning activities in the summer. · State Department of Education Grant Albemarle County Schools received a grant from the State Department of Education in the amount of $4,225.01. This grant is to be used to pay for postage for schools to mail School Performance Report Cards. · Driver Safety Funds The Driver Safety Funds consists of driver education behind-the-wheel and the motorcycle safety programs. These programs, which total $155,997, have been part of the Community Education Fund for many years. In an effort to clarify the financial situation of the After School Education Program, the Driver Safety Programs are being separated into their own fund. Approximately 700 students are trained each year in Driver Safety. Operating before school, after school, and in the summer, students receive twenty hours of training. · Open Doors Program The Open Doors program provides continuing education for the general public by offering a diverse range of courses throughout t~he year. The Open Doors range of classes are published and scheduled twice a year and more than 3,000 people in our community participate in these programs. The Open Doors schedule is published in coordination with Charlottesville City Schools, CATEC, and Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department. This program has been a part of the Community Education Fund for many years. In an effort to clarify the financial situation of the After School Program, the Open Doors program, which totals $80,000, is being separated into its own fund. · Carry-Over Allocation Following substantial completion of the FY1998/99 audit, re-appropriation of school carryover funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. Re-appropriate $105,133.00 of school carryover and $27,671 of building rental funds for a total of $132,804.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations, totaling $1,212,960.29, as detailed on Appropriation #99053. 00.010 FISCAL YEAR: APPROPRIATION REQUEST 99~00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: NUMBER ADDITIONAL x TRANSFER x NEW X YES NO X SCHOOL/PROGRAMS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PER SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST OF DECEMBER 13, 1999. 99053 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 3131 61311 152100 Tech. Literacy Grant Sub Wages-Teacher $8,644.00 3131 61311 210000 FICA 661.00 3131 61311 312500 Prof Serv Inst 26,435.00 3131 61311 550400 Travel-Ed 7,255.00 3131 61311 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 10,305.00 21,14 61101 602000 School Fund Textbooks 396,826.05 3905 62320 800501 School Bus Fund Sch Bus Replacement 279,976.23 2302 61101 601300 Upton Foundation Ed/Rec Supplies 2,000.00 2203 61101 160300 State Farm Stipend-Curr/Dev 500.00 3103 61101 132100 Migrant Education Salaries 17,491.00 3103 61101 210000 FICA 1,341.00 3103 61101 132100 Migrant Education Salades 36,600.00 3103 61101 210000 FICA 2,800.00 3103 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage 756.00 3103 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 9,844.00 3141 61311 132100 SOL Grant Salaries 10,682.77 3141 61311 210000 FICA 817.23 I 3103 61101 112100 1 3103 61101 132100 1 3103 61101 210000 1 3103 61101 221000 1 3103 61101 231000 I 3103 61101 232000 1 3103 61101 312000 1 3103 61101 520100 I 3103 61101 520302 1 3103 61101 550100 Migrant Education Salaries Teach er 5,451.00 P/T Wages-Teacher 11,728.84 FICA 1,305.36 VRS 917.70 Health Ins 391.20 Dental Ins 12.60 Tuition-Fees 604.00 Postal Svc 120.57 Telephone-Long Dist 259.10 Travel-Mileage 818.64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3103 3103 3103 3103 3103 3103 3103 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2301 2302 2303 2304 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 61101 61311 61311 61311 61311 61311 61311 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61411 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61235 61236 61236 61236 61236 61236 61236 61236 61237 61237 601300 115000 210000 221000 231000 232000 601700 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 520100 132100 210000 301210 331500 440010 520301 580500 600100 6OO20O 600800 601300 800100 800501 132100 210000 331500 580500 600800 601300 800100 132100 135000 SOL Postage Driver Safety Ed/Rec Supplies Salaries-Ofc Clerical FICA VRS Health Ins Dental Ins Copy Supplies Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Posta Se rv~ces Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services Postal Services P/T Wages-Teacher FICA Contract Services R&M Equip-Veh Printing Telephone Staff Dev Ofc Supplies Food Supplies Veh/Equip-Fuel Ed/Rec Supplies Mach/Equip-New Motor Veh-Replacement P/-r Wages-Teacher FICA R&M Equip-Veh Staff Dev Veh/Equip-Fuel Ed/Rec Supplies Mach/Equip-New P/T Wages-Teacher Office Clerical 2,841.75 1,836.29 133.70 218.58 52.16 1.68 306.83 157.98 93.10 119.19 167.86 218.64 166.80 62.06 79.34 180.55 90.28 127.30 57.13 189.02 94.51 198.18 164.68 209.47 177.38 207.00 221.81 541.30 339.24 26.45 335.74 39,000.00 2,983.50 780.00 3,500.00 100.00 1,401.00 175.00 100.00 50.00 2,770.50 200.00 300.00 11,640.00 24,000.00 1,836.00 2,400.00 100.00 1,300.00 324.86 250.00 21,530.94 5,735.85 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 3305 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 I 3306 I 3306 I 33O6 1 3306 1 3306 I 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 3306 1 2216 1 2301 1 2201 1 22O2 1 2251 1 2214 1 22O3 1 2204 1 2252 1 2205 1 2253 1 2206 I 2304 1 2215 1 2303 1 2207 I 2209 1 2210 1 2211 61237 61237 61237 61237 61237 61237 61237 61237 61238 61238 61238 61238 61238 61238 61238 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 60301 61101 61101 61101 61101 611O1 61101 611O1 611O1 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 61101 210000 221000 231000 301210 331500 440010 580000 600800 132100 210000 331500 580500 600800 601300 800100 132100 135000 210000 221000 231000 312700 350000 360000 440010 520100 520301 520302 550100 580100 580305 600100 601300 601700 800710 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 601300 Open Doors Carryover Allocation FICA VRS Health Ins Contract Services R&M Equip-Veh Printing Misc Expense Veh/Equip-Fuel P/T Wages-Teacher FICA R&M Equip-Veh Staff Dev Veh/Equi p-Fuel Ed/Rec Supplies Mach/Equip-New · P/T Wages-Teacher Clerical FICA VRS Health ins Prof Svc Consultants Printing/Binding Advertising Printing Postage Telephone Telephone-Long Dist Travel-Mileage Dues/Memb Excess Fees Ofc Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Copy Supplies Data Proc Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Ret Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies Ed/Rec Supplies 2,085.91 732.10 1,043.20 585.O0 2,100.00 200.00 100.00 375.00 23,080.00 1,765.62 1,500.00 100.00 1,500.00 100.00 252.52 15,000.00 8,603.75 1,347.01 1,317.84 1,851.40 22,300.00 6,450.00 300.00 300.00 5,500.00 1,300.00 450.00 400.00 300.00 1,800.00 480.00 11,400.00 300.00 600.00 4,556.O0 9,364.00 10,107.00 2,999.00 2,405.00 6,260.00 3,574.00 1,843.00 7,882.00 1,592.00 12,573.00 10,140.00 1,362.00 6,265.00 5,255.00 4,911.00 2,197.00 2,903.00 2,121.00 I 2255 61101 601300 I 2254 61101 601300 I 2302 61101 601300 I 2212 61101 601300 1 2213 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 14,331.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 7,132.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 214.00 EdlRec Supplies 7,678.00 Ed/Rec Supplies 5,140.00 CODE 2 3131 24000 240312 Tech LitChal Grant 2 2000 51000 510100 Appro-Fund Balance 2 3905 51000 510100Appro-FundBalance 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation 2 3103 33000 330102 Migrant EdGrant 2 3103 33000 330102 Migrant EdGrant 2 3141 33000 330212 Teaching SOL Grant 2 3103 24000 240257 Migrant EdGrant 2 2000 24000 240351 SOL Postage 2 3305 16000 161209 AHSMotorcycle 2 3305 16000 161210AHSDriverEd 2 3305 16000 161211 WAHSDriverEd 2 3305 16000 161254 MHSDriverEd 2 3305 24000 240770 Motorcycle StateRev 2 3305 24000 240771 Driver EdStateRev 2 3306 60301 161201 Open Doors 2 3306 60301 161202 Open Doors-Advertising 2 2000 51000 510100 School FundBalance TOTAL $1,212,960.29 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $53,300.00 396,826.05 279,976.23 2,000.00 500.00 18832.00 '50 000.00 11 500.00 27 000.00 4225.01 18 480.00 53 100.00 23 600.00 23 800.00 16 008.00 21 009.00 78 000.00 2 000.00 132 804.00 TOTAL $1,212,960.29 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Destruction of Paid Tax Tickets SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Request authorization to destroy paid tax tickets in accordance with the Library of Virginia's Retention and Disposition Schedule STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Library of Virginia's Record Retention and Disposition Schedule requires paid tax tickets be retained by the locality for a period of five years after audit. At that time, after approval by the Department Head and designated Records Officer for the locality, tax tickets can be destroyed but only after authorization from the governing body. DISCUSSION: Staff approval has been received to destroy approximately 34 cubic feet of distribution records, which include paid tax receipts for the period of July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests authorization from the Board of Supervisors to dispose of the records as indicated above. 00.006 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 Revenue Projection Update S UBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Updated FY 2000/01 Revenue Projections STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Waiters, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: DISCUSSION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: No J Fiscal Year 2000/01 revenues projected in October, 1999 at $114,638,256 have been revised to $116,443,762, an increase of $1,805,506. This increase is summarized in the chart below: October January $ % Revenue Source 1999 2000 Inc Inc Local Tax Revenue Other Local Revenue State/Federal Revenue Transfers/Fund Balance Total General Fund 100,233,885 101,209,585 975,700 0.97% 4,708,525 4,658,730 (49,795) -1.06% 9,414,417 10,088,152 673,735 7.16% 281,429 487,295 205,866 73.15% 114,638,256 116,443,762 1,805,506 1.57% Local tax revenues increase overall by $975,700, the majority of which are sales tax revenues, motor vehicle license fees and cellular taxes. Sales tax revenues increased $383,500, reflecting continued strong economic conditions and sales. Motor vehicle license fees increased $202,185, reflecting the rate changes approved by the Board on November 10, 1999. Cellular taxes increased $300,000, reflecting cellular company billing adjustments to correctly identify Albemarle County residents who have not been billed, or who have been billed incorrectly to another locality. General property tax revenues were revised upwards by $43,715 overall, reflecting relatively small increases in both real estate and personal property tax revenues. Meals tax revenues increased by $10,600, while estimated transient lodging taxes were revised downwards by $69,700. (Previous estimates were incorrectly based on fourteen months of collections in the previous fiscal year.) Other local revenues were reduced by $49,795, reflecting downward revisions in permits and fees, charges for services, and recovered costs. State and federal revenues increase by $673,735, reflecting $357,036 in additional 599 funds (based on the Governor's proposed budget,) $237,052 in additional revenues for social services (based on projected program costs,) and other miscellaneous increases. Fund balance and transfer revenues increase by $205,866, reflecting the addition of $300,000 in carry-over funds previously reserved to defray the projected additional operating expenses associated with the jail expansion. This increase was partially offset by a $98,800 reduction in school reimbursement for technology support. (The School information Services Division now will provide this technology support directly to the schools.) AGENDA TITLE: FY 2000/01 Revenue Projection Update February 2, 2000 Page 2 Based upon the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional $610,512 in local tax revenues for FY01 (60%), leaving $407,008 (40%) for general government. The additional allocation of funds and the reSUlting school transfer are summarized below: Additional Allocation to the Schools Additional Local Tax Revenues Less Additional Tourism Revenues (1) Total Additional Local Tax Revenues for Operations 975,700 41,820 1,017,520 Schools @ 60% General Govt. @ 40% 610,512 407,008 (1) Reflects impact of subtracting a projected reduction in tourism revenues. Therefore, Revised Transfer to Schools: Previous Transfer to Schools Plus: Additional Transfer Revenue Total Revised Transfer to Schools 55,258,822 610,512 55,869,334 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2000/01 revised revenue projections and the allocation of the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General Government. 00.016 Davirl R Bowerman Rio IJndsay G. Dorrier, Jr. scottsville Charlotte Y. Humphd$ Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Wh/te Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller February 7, 2000 Mr. VVyatt Shields, Town Manager Town of Scottsville P.O. Box 395 Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Shields: At its February 2, 2000 meeting, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors adopted the attached resolution ~n support of Stony Point Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Improvements. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk Enclosure Cc: Bill Brent Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR STONY POINT SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, have determined there is a need for extending sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and WHEREAS, several public headngs have been held with the residents of the Stony Point Subdivision before the Planning Commission and the Town Council of Scottsville; and WHEREAS, there has been nearly unanimous public support for approval of the extension of the sanitary sewer service to the Stony Point Subdivision; and WHEREAS, a preliminary engineering report for sanitary sewer improvements in Stony Point Subdivision has been prepared for the Albemarle County Service Authority and for the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, by Draper Aden Associates, Blacksburg and Richmond, Virginia; and WHEREAS, three options were developed by Draper Aden Associates for expansion of the sanitary sewer collection service to the Stony Point Subdivision, Scottsville, Va.; and WHEREAS, the funding for this sewer line extension project may involve potential applications for grants from four sources: Community Development Block Grants, Rural Economic CommUnity Development, Virginia Revolving Loan Fund and Contributions from the Albemarle County Service Authority; and WHEREAS, the extension of the sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Scottsville and is located in a growth area of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, a need presently exists for the extension of this sewer line to the Stony Point Subdivision of the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that: the Board of Supervisors supports the extension of the sanitary sewer line to Stony Point Subdivision in the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and (B) the Board of Supervisors endorses the funding for the project adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia; and (c) the Board of Supervisors supports the application of the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Town of Scottsville ,Virginia, for a grant to support the funding of this project; and (D) the Board of Supervisors endorses the sanitary sewer line extension as outlined in the report of Draper Aden Associates as being in compliance with and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County, Virginia; and (E) the Board of Supervisors directs the Clerk to fonNard a copy of this Resolution to the Albemarle County Service Authority and to the Town of Scottsviile, Virginia. Adopted this 2n~ day of February, 2000. ~'TE~o-ard of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEg [OSI:\, [ g AO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Capital Funding Requests From Charlottesville- Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) And Paramount Theater SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CALAS' Request For A $55,000 Contribution For A Building; Paramount Theater's Request For A $500,000 Contribution To Renovate The Paramount Theater Building STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Wh[!e, Gulati AGENDA DATE: January 5,2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: CALAS Capital Request: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes The Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) is requesting a $55,000 contribution from the County toward the down payment on a 10,000 square foot permanent facility for their organization. The facility, which could be purchased or built-to-lease, is expected to cost approximately $1 million and be located in or near downtown Charlottesville. CALAS also is requesting $110,000 from the City toward this effort. CALAS al.so has applied for a Perry Foundation matching grant in the amount of $270,000, and is seeking financial support from legal organizations, the UVA law school, and private donors. Information on CALAS' fund raising campaign is attached. Paramount Theater Capital Request: Paramount Theater is requesting $500,000 from the County to restore the historical Paramount Theater and renovate the building to accommodate advanced theatrical and musical productions. The overall project .is expected to cost approximately $6.6 million. Paramount Theater is making a similar request of $750,000 from the City. Additional funding is being sought from the Perry Foundation, the State Department of Historic Resources, fundraising activities, private family contributions, foundations and corporations. A brief description of the project and a proposed business plan for the renovated theater have been attached. DISCUSSION: According to CALAS' written information, the Legal Aid Society has not yet identified a building to purchase. Numerous buildings have been considered, but all were unsuitable, either because of expense, size or configuration. CALAS currently is exploring the possibility of a build-to-suit lease purchase plan with several local developers. A funding commitment from the City and County is requested at this time so that CALAS can make competitive offers on suitable buildings for sale, or in order to enter into a viable agreement with a developer. Full funding in the current year is preferred, although phased contributions stretching over 2-3 years would be acceptable. : According to Paramount's written information, it has already raised $2.4 million from private donors, downtown developers, local business owners and the Perry Foundation to purchase the theater building, complete the Master Plan and the Programming and Usage Study, replace the roof, stabilize the building, restore the marquee and staff a full-time office. Approximately $1.7 million of these funds have been pledged toward the restoration project cost of $6.6 million. County funds are requested in July, 2000 (FY01), and may be phased over a multi-year period. Since both the CALAS and Paramount Theater requests were submitted recently, the County has not been aware of either organization's capital facility needs until this time. Therefore, these projects have not been discussed or prioritized by the CIP Technical Committee and are not included in the FY01- FY05 recommended CIP. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend funding either the CALAS or Paramount capital requests at this time. Although, both projects are worthwhile and have substantial community value, these requests should be evaluated in conjunction with other unfunded capital projects to be reviewed by the Board over the next three months. Although both CALAS and Paramount should be commended for their initiative in developing financing plans that address their long-term needs, it has been outside of the County's capital planning and financing process and therefore, must compete with other unfunded County priorities. In that context, the Board may want to hold these requests until all the unfunded capital projects are thoroughly reviewed, and all operating and capital budget needs to be funded with General Fund Balance have been identified. As with Region Ten last month, staff will be working with both of these organizations to determine phase-in amounts that would both meet their funding needs and lessen the one-time impact on the County's budget. 00.014 CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE LEGAL AID SOCIETY P. O. Box 197, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Alex R. Gulotta Executive Director December 17, 1999 Ms. Linda Peacock Assistant City Manager PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ms. Roxanne White Assistant County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Linda and Roxanne: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society--a 501(c)(3) corporation serving the Region Ten Planning District, and all of Virginia with its farmworker program--requests a grant from the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville in the amount of $165,000. The amounts of the request are proportional, one-third from the County ($55,000) and two-thirds from the City ($110,000). As I discussed with you at our respective meetings, the Legal Aid Society has just begun Phase One (Building Fund) of its Community Capital Campaign. Reduced state and federal funding and the growing number of individuals who are eligible for our services make it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of all low-income individuals who need access to the legal system. To provide all residents a chance to have legal representation, the Legal Aid Society Campaign Advisory Council has developed a long-term financial strategy--a $2,000,000 Community Capital Campaign--to increase the Legal Aid Society's resources. Phase One of the Campaign will raise funds for the purchase of a building estimated to cost $1,000,000. This building, defined by the requirements of the Legal Aid Society's programs and clients, will increase the effectiveness of legal service delivery. The long-term savings in rental costs will be applied to critical program needs. The plan for Phase Two of the Campaign is to raise a second $1,000,000 to endow program services. The Legal Aid Society will target its fundraising toward foundations and corporations, the legal community, local governments, area businesses, and individuals in the Region Ten Planning District. The Campaign Advisory Council, comprised of lawyers and community leaders, has coordinated, and continues to oversee, Campaign plans. The Legal Advisory Committee, made up of practicing attorneys, Board members, and representatives from the University of Virginia School of Law, is collaborating with the Legal Aid Society on strategy for Campaign solicitation within the legal community. The Public Relations and Special Events Committee, including public relations experts and Board members, is working on brochure design, a Website, and arrangements for special events. (See attachments for Committee memberships.) As a contribution to the $1,000,00 building share of the Campaign, the Legal Aid Society has asked the Perry Foundation for a $270,000 matching grant. Based on an assessment of current prospects, a substantial portion of the match will be raised through individual fundraising from the general community. The Legal Aid Society's potential to meet the Perry Foundation's match requirements has been extensively developed. Within the legal community, there is broad- based support for work of the Legal Aid Society and Piedmont Legal Services. Combined Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association grants to both organizations of $16,000 per year-- one-third of the Bar's annual budget--establish a precedent for legal community support. A recent meeting of the Legal Advisory Committee resulted in a plan for the implementation, over the next several months, of an initial solicitation in the legal community. Local attorneys Ralph Feil, Ed Lowry, and Rick Richmond direct our Legal Community Campaign Committee. David Ibbeken, Executive Director of the Law School Foundation, and Richard Bonnie, University Law Professor, have met with Legal Aid Society representatives to help structure the campaign in the University of Virginia School of Law. In addition to local governments, foundations, and the legal community, the Legal Aid Society will solicit other community individuals and businesses. Prospect development outside the Legal Aid Society's natural constituency has just begun with the installation of a new database, for which there is mailing list of over 1,000 names--with plans for an additional 3,000. The Campaign Advisory Council has already developed a detailed list of approximately 200 potential major donors, with a projected fundraising possibility of $350,000. After talking to community lawyers, volunteers, government officials, bankers, and fundraising experts, the Campaign Advisory Council members and Legal Aid Society staff are confidant that they can raise $1,000,000 for a building in the next three years. However, they need community assistance and enthusiasm. A proportional grant from the City and County is a strategic part of the Legal Aid Society's plan to raise fimds for a new building. Not only will a City and County grant significantly support the purchase of a permanent home for the Legal Aid Society, but the grant will provide incentive for other individuals and businesses in Charlottesville and Albemarle to support our Community Capital Campaign. Since its founding in1967 the Legal Aid Society has served the poor of the community by offering free legal services to those who cannot afford civil legal representation. The Legal Aid Society has never received a capital grant from the City or the County, and its annual grants are small in relation to the number of community residents served annually. Last year the Legal Aid Society and Piedmont Legal Services offered legal representation to over 2,000 community clients--providing benefit to over 5,000 low-income household members. Over seventy percent of last year's clients were from Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Expanded office facilities and resources are necessary to meet the increased need to provide free legal services for families who cannot afford private attorneys. A City and County grant will make a difference in the lives of many poor families who live in the community-- families who suffer daily with seemingly unsolvable problems concerning their homes, health, children, and personal safety. Every member of the community deserves the chance to secure adequate healthcare, equitable education for their children, and the right to live and work with dignity. Often the only way poor individuals can protect their rights and secure essential social services is through the legal system. Without fi'ee legal representation provided by the Legal Aid Society and Piedmont, these residents do not have access to legal representation. To keep the legal system accessible to all residents, the Legal Aid Society is asking the City and County to support us with a one-time capital grant for $165,000. I appreciate your consideration of the Legal Aid Society's proposal. Sincerely, Alex R. Gulotta ARG/mtd Attachments CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE LEGAL AID SOCIETY THE CASE FOR A BUILDING To provide civil legal service to the growing number of eligible clients in the Region Ten District, the Legal Aid Society must expand its capacity to advocate on their behalf. As a supplement to its core staff, the Legal Aid Society has extended its partnership with the University of Virginia School of Law; it has employed several grant-supported attorneys; and it has actively recruited pro bono attorneys and volunteer administrative personnel. Presently, the staff supervises over twenty clinical law students who deal with client issues concerning Housing, Employment, and At-Risk Children. The Legal Aid Society has a three-year Soros Foundation grant that supports three attorneys, and one staff attorney is a Skadden fellow. As of January 2000, the Legal Aid Society and Piedmont Legal Services, its sister organization, will need resources for twelve lawyers, three paralegals, support staff, pro bono lawyers, law student researchers, lay volunteers, and twenty-six clinical law students. The Legal Aid Society also houses the joint Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association-Legal Aid Society Library. The balcony library does triple duty as library, conference room, and student clinical area. This cramped area and overcrowding have become critical space issues for the Legal Aid Society. The 1998 reorganization of the Legal Aid Society created Piedmont Legal Services, which presently rents a building several blocks from the Legal Aid Society. This separation of offices adds another consideration for the Legal Aid Society's space needs. Many clients see attorneys in both organizations. To simplify access, the two Boards of Directors would like Piedmont to be housed with the Legal Aid Society. Piedmont handles initial client assessment, family law cases, and bankruptcies. The Legal Aid Society represents clients on issues in housing, employment, public benefits, and consumer protection, with special emphasis on the rights of children, farmworkers, and the elderly. The Legal Aid Society also is responsible for developing new sources of revenue to fulfill the unmet civil legal needs in the community. The Legal Aid Society will rent office space to Piedmont when they find a building that accommodates the space needs of both entities. As part of its Capital Campaign strategy, the Legal Aid Society organized a Real Estate Committee, including a real estate attorney, an architect, a bank officer, and several Board members. The Committee first evaluated the space needs of the Legal Aid Society and Piedmont Legal Services. Marthe Rowen, an architect with the finn of RBGC, has drawn up a draft plan showing space requirements of 10,000 sq. ft. for current office needs (the law library, a law student clinic area, staff offices, and rental to Piedmont) and room for growth. The Committee agreed that it does not make sense for the organization to "shoehorn" into a building that it will quickly outgrow. Therefore, the building will include some extra space, which initially will be rented. For client andpro bono attomey access, a location in or near downtown is crucial. In addition, the building must be on a bus line and have sufficient parking. The current market rate in downtown Charlottesville is approximately $70 to $100 per square foot. Improvements will add another $10 or $15 per square foot, making the estimated total cost of a downtown building between $80 and $115 per square foot. Combining these variables, the Committee projected the total cost of relocating the Legal Aid Society into its own building at approximately $1,000,000. At this time the Legal Aid Society has not yet identified a building to purchase. Committee members have looked at numerous buildings in Charlottesville's downtown and surrounding area, but all have been unsuitable, either because of expense, size, or configuration. A possible solution is to work with a developer on a build-to-suit lease-purchase plan. The Committee currently is exploring such a possibility with several local developers. However, because of limited choices in the Downtown Charlottesville area, members continue to look at existing buildings available for purchase. These explorations have also demonstrated that, because of the recent upswing in the downtown property values, suitable buildings sell quickly--with buyers making large fully- financed offers shortly after, and sometimes even before, the property is on the market. The Committee has realized that, even if the Legal Aid Society can finance a portion of the purchase, it needs to have commitments for a substantial amount of the purchase price to make a competitive offer. Likewise, the Legal Aid Society needs to make similar assurances in order to enter into a viable agreement with a developer. Therefore, because of the current overcrowding and other pressure to relocate, immediate funding for a down payment has become critical. For this reason, we are asking the City and County to support the Legal Aid Society with a one-time capital grant of $165,000. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Herbert L. Beskin Attorney, Parker, McElwain & Jacobs Patricia Brady Attorney Kathleen Caldwell Attorney, Geraty, MacQueen &Vitt Blair Carter Attorney, Wyatt & Carter Tamara Cavanaugh MA CAA F. Bosley Crowther, III Attorney Kimberly C. Emery Public Service Center UVA School of Law D. Brock Green Attorney, Jones & Green Sheila Haughey Attorney, Snook & Haughey Joy Johnson Public Housing Association of Residents Legal Assistance Society Co-Directors UVA School of Law Lula Rogers JABA Tonya Thomas Garrett Square Tenants Association Deborah Tinsley Attorney Elizabeth H. Woodard Attorney CAMPAIGN ADVISORY COUNCIL Richard Bonnie Professor, University of Virginia School of Law John Conover Staff Attorney, Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society Co-Owner, Papercrafi Printing & Design Leonard Dreyfus Architect Rhoda Dreyfus Community Volunteer Mary Ann Elwood Retired President, Chamber of Commerce William Elwood Retired Associate Dean University of Virginia Kimberly Carpenter Emery Assistant Dean, Public Service Center University of Virginia School of Law Rose Burks Emery Attorney D. Brock Green Attorney, Jones & Green William Harmon Vice President For Student Affairs, University of Virginia Edward B. Lowry Attorney, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C. Elizabeth H. Woodard Attorney LEGAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Richard Bonnie Professor, University of Virginia School of Law Kimberly Carpenter Emery Assistant Dean, Public Service Center University of Virginia School of Law Ralph L. Feil Attorney, Feil, Pettit & Williams, P.L.C. D. Brock Green Attorney, Jones & Green Edward B. Lowry Attorney, Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen & Tweel, P.C. Joseph W. Richmond, Jr. Attorney, Richmond and Fishburne, LLP Elizabeth H. Woodard Attorney REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE John Conover Staff Attorney, Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society Co-Owner, Papercrafl Printing & Design Kimberly Carpenter Emery Assistant Dean, Public Service Center University of Virginia School of Law Joseph W. Richmond, Jr. Attorney, Richmond and Fishburne, LLP Marthe Rowen Architect, RBGC Jane Tirrell Vice President, First Virginia Bank--Blue Ridge PUBLIC RELATIONS AND SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE Elizabeth Blair Carter Attorney, Wyatt & Carter John Conover Staff Attorney, Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society Co-Owner, Papercrafi Printing & Design Rose B. Emery Attorney William A. Faust, II Photographer Susan Payne Owner, Payne Ross & Associates Advertising, Inc. Waldo L. Jaquith Web Designer, WAM! BUDGET REQUEST TO .ALBEMARLE COUNTY 2000-2001 THE PARAMOUNT THEATER~ INC. P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Email paramount-charlottesville(-~juno.com I. The Project A. General Agency Information 1) Name of Agency The Paramount Theater, Inc. Charlotte Moore/Development Director P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, VA 22902 300 E. Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-1922 2) Contact Person/Title Mailing Address Street Address Telephone 3) Agency's Fiscal Year Calendar: January 2000 to December 2000 B. History Standing at the very center of Charlottesville's downtown mall, the Paramount Theater was threatened in the late 80's and early 90's with demolition by developers with plans such as building a parking garage or creating a retail/office building. In 1992 a group of interested citizens purchased the Paramount Theater and founded The Paramount Theater, Inc. This non-profit organization was established to restore the beauty of the historic Paramount, and to renovate the facility to provide a center to Charlottesville's downtown that would instill a sense of oxvnership in all citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle, and a destination location for Central Virginia. Since that time, community leaders have joined with these grassroots organizers to develop a plan for the use of the theater with the goal of providing a broad range of entertainment that will bring together diverse audiences. The Board of Directors is also committed to creating a central civic space for use for business meetings, trade shoxvs, private functions, political rallies and religious services. The center will operate as a not-for- profit enterprise, with scholarships for underprivileged children and school-related programming. C. Organizational Summary The Board of Directors is legally and morally responsible for all activities of the Paramount Theater, The Board is solely responsible for determining Paramount Theater policy, approving the annual budget, evaluating the organization's oberations, and determining the goals of the Paramount Theater, Inc. Board members are ambassadors to the community and stexvards of the Paramount Theater. P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Entail paramount-charlottesville(&iuno.cmn The Executive Committee is composed of the active officers for the Paramount Theater, Inc., the Past President(s), and Counsel, and functions on behalf of the Board of Directors when the Board is not in session. The Paramount Restoration Cabinet, under the direction of the Cabinet Co-Chairs, provides overall leadership to the Restoration Campaign. It is responsible for implementing and overseeing all aspects of the Campaign plan in accordance with general policies and procedures established by the Board of Directors. This committee meets regularly, hears progress reports or problems from members and sub-committee chairs, and assists the Development Director in policy decisions. The Governance and Nominations Committee safeguards the integrity of the governance of the Paramount Theater, Inc. The Committee identifies and recruits nominees to serve on the Board of Directors and officers to govern the organization who are representative of the top leadership in the community. The Committee recruits members who have the knowledge, expertise and dedication necessary to ensure the renovation, restoration and operation of the Paramount Theater. The Building and Restoration Committee safeguards the inmgrity of the Paramount Theater building by inspecting the premises regularly and providing for its maintenance and improvement. The Committee makes recommendations to the Board of Directors for improvements to the property, and handles usage issues related to special events. The Finance Committee develops and oversees all financial management policies, plans and budgets in accordance with The Paramount Theater Board of Directors mission and campaign goals. The Finance Committee oversees monthly and year-end financial reports. The Public Relations Committee develops an appropriate and exciting image for the Paramount Theater. The Committee maintains this image consistently in the public eye and attention by overseeing all public relations and marketing activities and materials for the Paramount Theater. Administrative/Development Staff manages all administration and fundraising for the restoration of the Paramount Theater. The Director assists in the identification and cultivation of donor prospects capable of giving between $25,000 and $1 million to the restoration fund. As the campaign progresses, the Director plays a major role in the designing, implementing and managing of stewardship and community fundraising events until the completion of the campaign. P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Organizational Chart THE PARAMOUNT THEA~INC. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART I Administrative/ Development Staff Finance Commitme Building & Restoration Programming Committee ResearchCommittee Development Govenmnce & Noninatiom Committee Board of DLnectors Executive Committee DonorCommittee Recognition Architecmralcommittee Design Restoration Cabinet Public Relations Committee Client Group P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Email paramount-charlottesville(¢/uno.com 4 The Paramount Theater Board of Directors and Officers 2000 Ms. Suzanne J. Staton President Charlottesville, Virginia Barbara B. Sieg Vice President Charlottesville, Virginia Elsie W. Thompson Secretary, Charlottesville, Virginia George W. Ray, Jr. Treasurer Charlottesville, Virginia Sheldon W. Anderson Past President Charlottesville, Virginia William D. Tucker, III Legal Counsel Charlottesville, Virginia Janice Aron Charlottesville, Virgima Ethel deNeveu Charlottesville, Virgima Mary Helen G. Jessup Charlottesville, Virginta David W. Munn Charlottesville, Virgima Daphne Reid Charlottesville, Virgima Phillip W. Shiflett Charlottesville, Virgima Marjorie B. Burris Charlottesville, Virgnnia Alison S. Dickie Charlottesville, Virginia Harold E. Jordan Charlottesville, Virginia K.K. Pearson Charlottesville, Virginia Dorothy Rolph Charlottesville, Virgtnia David Weiss Charlottesville, Virginia Donna L. Collins Charlottesville, Virginia Lynn Isabella Charlottesville, Virginia Carter McNeely Charlottesville, Virginia Betty M. Phelan Charlottesville, Virginia Jane Scatena Charlottesville, Virginia P.O. Box 2263, Chaxlottesville, Virgmia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Ernail pammount-charl0ttesville!¢jun0~com The Paramount Restoration Cabinet Janice Aron, Co-Chair Carter McNeely, Co-Chair Bob Aron Barbara Danielson Chris Faulkner Harold Jordan Mary Dorm Jordan David Kalergis Mary Kalergis Wick McNeely Brace Murray Dorothy Rolph Jane Scatena Kerri Scott Barbara Sieg Gabe Silverman Suzanne Staton Elsie Thompson P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 E~nait paramom~t-charlottesville(~,Juno, corn 6 Major Activities The Paramount Theater Board of Directors is currently working to restore and renovate the Paramount into an extraordinary regional center to meet the needs and desires of widely ranging interests. This community center will offer plays, musical performances including rock-n-roll, blues and jazz, orchestra and opera, vaudeville revivals and more. Fun and educational programming with puppets and magicians will be brought in for children and school programs. Lunchtime speaker's series, with exotic travelogues and crafts workshops will be scheduled to suit the needs of seniors activities groups. The Paramount will be available for rental to religious organizations needing more space for special services, to corporations hosting annual meetings, and any other civic group needing special space f-or events. The Paramount will continue to function as a not-for-profit organization, which will allow us to offer specialized programming for under-served populations who might not be able to create the demand required for a for-profit group to consider offering such entertainment. 1). The Paramount office is currently open to volunteers and interested community members Monday through Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM. The Paramount Theater Business Plan, developed with the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business, anticipates the Paramount will be open a minimum of 150 days out of the year with programming scheduled between 7:30 AM and 12:00 AM. The space will also be available for rental for additional hours. The intention is to fill the calendar to offer entertainment opportunities six or seven days of the week. 2). Admission fees wilt vary by performance, and are designed to provide cultural opportunities for lower income clients. Plans include scholarship opportunities for disadvantaged children. 3). The Paramount expects to serve a market of up to 694,585, varying according to the draw of each event, rI%e business plan expects a minimum of 104,100 tickets to be sold on an annual basis including 4,800 for children's programs, 3,000 for seniors programs and over 10,000 for other local non-profit's programs. Currently ~ve have over rift3, volunteers working for the Paramount Theater. Mission The mission of the Paramount Theaters Inc. is to enhance the lives of all Central Virginia residents and visitors by restoring the grandeur of a Charlottesville landmark to create a lively center offering programs to entertain and educate, enchant and enlighten. P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 E~nail paramount-c 'tmrlottesvilie~juno.¢om Fo Ho Currently the Paramount is galvanizing the volunteer efforts of this community's leaders to raise funds to restore the Paramount Theater and renovate the space into a multi-functional center for the community. As a non-profit, the Paramount plans to be self-sustaining once fully operational, with corporate and for-profit rental usage helping to underwrite Paramount sponsored programming for under-served audiences such as seniors, children and African American audiences. Charlottesville currently has several arts organizations serving a regular arts crowd of about 7,000. The Paramount intends to compliment current schedules with offerings targeted at a wider span of interests to promote cultural experiences and offer civic space for the entire community. The Paramount center intends to round out the qualifies that make Central Virginia such a popular destination. Evaluation Currently, the belief in our mission is measured by the number of volunteers who help, and community contributions we receive to support it. Once operational, the success of The Paramount in touching every constituent group in this community and Central Virginia counties will be measured by the breadth of types of cultural opportunities ~ve are able to host, usage rate, attendance records, and the socio-economic diversity of our patrons as reflected in zip code records. Capital Cost The overall project cost is estimated to be $6.6 million over the next three years (Please see detail in attached business plan, pages A-7 and A-16). Timeline The architectural team was hired by The Board of Directors and began planning in December of 1999. Architectural planning is expected to take one year and construction 12- 18 months. The Board of Directors anticipates and opening date during the year of 2002, and expects fundraising efforts to keep pace with that schedule. P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virgixfia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 II. The Budget Request A. Grant Request The Board of' Directors of the Paramount Theater and the Paramount Restoration Cabinet are requesting a grant of $ 500,000 from Albemarle County to be paid according to the schedule to be determined by the Board of Supervisors. The funds will be used for capital expenses totaling over $5,648,771 to restore the historical Paramount Theater on Charlottesville's do~vntown mall and renovate the building to transform it into a multi- functional center for the community. The Board of Directors expects capital expenses to be incurred across the next two and a half years. Explanation of Capital Expenses The Paramount Theater will be a first-rate entertainment venue with large seating capacity, superior acoustics, and a modern stage with state-of-the-art lighting and sound. To create this facility, maior renovations and equipment purchases are required. The estimate for interior and exterior renovations and capital expenditures is $5.6 million Originally designed as a movie house, the Paramount will adapt easily to live theatrical and musical productions. Transformation of the interior space requires some innovative engineering. Necessary dressing and storage rooms will be built under the existing auditorium. The floor beneath the theater seats will be excavated to construct a basement that will accommodate the new facilities. In addition, the new stage will extend forward into the audience chamber, creating ample performance space. In fact, the arrangement wilt allow room for a full orchestra and seating capacity for 1,100 patrons (Note that our financial forecast assumes 1,000 seats. This is simply a more conservative number, and the total seat count may change during the renovation). The Paramount will compare favorably in size with the 600-seat Culbreth Theater, the 1,200-seat Charlottesville Performing Arts Center, and the 900-seat Cabell Hall Auditorium. Advanced theatrical and musical production systems are critical to theater operations, and they are important components of the Paramount renovation. As part of upgrading the entire infrastructure of the theater to state-of-the-art, our $588,000 budget for stage equipment includes $331,000 for state-of-the-art lighting and sound systems. These systems will make the Paramount a suitable venue for the wide variety of performers we intend to attract. Moreover, they will create the highest quality enterta/nment experience for Paramount patrons. The theater will be improved in other ways as well. Entries to the audience chamber, the stage, dressing rooms, and public restrooms will be modernized so that the facility is P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979,8460 completely accessible to the disabled. Exterior renovation consists primarily of cosmetic masonry repairs, minor patching, painting, cleaning, and waterproofing. While building renovations and modernization will ensure the operational functionality of the theater space, we are equally committed to preserving the original beauty and character and the acoustical integrity of the Paramount. Therefore, the interior dacor will be fully restored, leaving a grand space of unmatched elegance in the region. Nationally renowned artisans from Conrad Schmitt Studios of New Berlin, Wisconsin have already worked their magic on one intricate comer of the theater, restoring the pilaster strips and gilded frieze to their original luster. The results are spectacular, and one can only imagine the visual sensation that will be created by the fully restored audience chamber. The estimated cost of the work is $300,000. We feel that the restoration of the beautiful Paramount interior is important not just as a preservation initiative, but also as a feature that will differentiate the Paramount in the hearts and minds of performers and patrons alike. The Paramount's unique and exquisite design was molded by the heritage of its Central Virginia location. Nothing like it exists, and in an age of multi-plex theaters and electronic entertainment, nothing like it xvill ever be built again. Simply put, it is a breathtaking space, and so it will remain. Co Justification In order to support its commitment to diversity and opportunity, the Paramount Theater Master Plan recommends renovations to expand the use of the theater so that it is able to offer the widest variety of events. The new stage will extend to the first row of seats creating a 30-foot depth to match the scale of the 50-foot wide proscenium. The Paramount's revamped stage will provide first-rate performance space for the best travelling sho~vs, with room for a full orchestra as well as a sprung wood floor for professional dance troupes. The original decorative painting and plasterwork will be restored, and state-of-the-art audio-visual equipment will be installed to service the theaters dramatic, musical and conferencing needs. Accommodations will be comfortable and elegant for today's audience. The plans call for a facility that is adapted for complete accessibility for handicapped performers and patrons. The growing high-tech community has expressed interest in assisting the project on an in- kind basis to create a high-tech showcase for the State of Virginia. The Paramount project is founded on the concept of equal opportunity for the improvement of quality of life through entertainment and cultural events. The Paramount also has tremendous potential as a regional tool for the democratization of technologs,. As a historic building that is too expensive to tear down, one that sits at the ver)~ center of Charlottesville and Central Virginia, the Paramount offers a special opportunity for community development. The Board of Directors and Restoration Cabinet feel that it is vital that the project succeed from a public/private partnership to allow all community members to feel a sense of ownership and participation in the Paramount. A leadership P.O. Box 2263, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 10 grant from the County of Albemarle is integral to giving that sense of ownership to the geographically broad audience the Paramount will serve, without concern for socio- economic position. The Paramount Theater Board is seeking support from the community to complete the restoration of the Paramount, return the theater to active use and secure the future of a valuable architectural, cultural and economic asset. In January of this year, Janice Aron and Carter McNeely agreed to lead the Restoration Campaign and develop the Restoration Campaign Cabinet to work to raise the leadership gifts for the Paramount Theater. Members of the Cabinet are committed to bringing in gifts and grants in the range of $250,000 to $2 million. Already the Paramount has quietly raised over $2.4 million from within the Board and from friends of the project. The group has used these funds to purchase the building, complete the Master Plan and the Programming and Usage Study, replace the roof, stabilize the building, restore the marquee and staff a full-time office. $1.7 million of these funds has been pledged toward the restoration campaign goal of $6.6 million. Early supporters of the project include local families, downtown developers and other business owners, the Perry Foundation, and others. Once the campaign goes public, we will be soliciting contributions from the general public. It must be noted that the business plan, created with the help of the Darden School, calls for the Paramount to become self-sustaining when opera6onal. A grant from Albemarle County of $500,000 would constitute about 7% of the anticipated total project cost. Public participation at this level, in conjunction with that of the City of Charlottesville and the State of Virginia, will positively establish the opportunity and ownership for the entire community on an equal basis. As a high-tech showcase for the State of Virginia, the Paramount will offer a premiere center for national and international conferencing. As a multi-functional entertainment center the Paramount will draw day travelers to Monticello and other attractions, to stay overnight. As part of the network of restored historic theaters, The Paramount will draw tourists to the area just to visit the Paramount. This very important source of revenue has not been calculated as part of the business plan's projected economic impact, but the promise is substantial. Albemarle County, Virginia is listed in many national publications as a highly rated relocation and vacation area. In these ratings, the only shortcoming frequently listed is a lack of arts and entertainment events. The Paramount is a vital step in the continued growth of Charlottesville as a prime des6nation spot. Without this level of public participation, this highly visible project runs the risk of perception that private charity is private ownership and attempts to reach out and serve minority groups in the community could be compromised. P.O. Box 2263, Chadottesville, Vixgi,fia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Email 11 D. Future Funding Amount Proposals Under Consideration Requested State of virginia $ 1,500,000 City of Charlottesville $ 750,000 Albemarle County $ 500,000 State Farm $ 250,0® Bank Of America $ 350,000 , Total: $ 3,350,000 P.O. Box 2263, Chadottesville, Virgixfia 22902 Tel. 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 Email pammount-charlottesviile/c~iuno.com 12 Source and Application of Funds SourCe 'and Appl'ic~tion 'of Funds Name of A~enc¥: The Paramount Theater, Inc. . . Amount CY 1999 CY 2000 CY2001 Source of Funds .Pfiva? Family Contributions ~led~es Rcyd) $ 185,000 $ 225,00~) $ 225,000 The Pert7 Foundation $ 100:000 $ 100,000 State of VA-Dept. of Historic Resources $ 37,500 Fundraisers . . $ 8,500 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Private Fam~.y Contributions ~rojected) $ $ 1,1.00.,000 $ 1,100,000 Foundations and Cor~orati0ns $ 600,000 $ 600,000 State of VA~Projected) $ 750,000 $ 750,000 City of Charlottesville {Projected) $ 250,000 $ 250,000 County o f 3-1bemarle (Projected) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Total: $ 193,5001 * 3,172,5001,,$ 3,135,000 AppliCation of Funds Salaries andwa~s $ 39,000 $ 80,800 $ 76~760 :Supplies andmatedals $ 8,500 $. 8,500 $ 8,500 Fixed expenditures $ 5,945 $ 5,945 $ 5,945 Eciui ment $ 2,800 $ 16,000 $ 4,000 Other operating expenses and programming start up $ 6,262 $ 112,749 $ 673,953 Capital expenses $ $ '528,289 [ $ 2,672,740 Total: * ' "62,50715 752,283I $ 3,441',868''' P.O. Box 2263. Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 TeL 804.979.1922 Fax 804.979.8460 paramOunt-charlottesville(i~jmm.coi!} 13 Table of Contents The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential Page II. The Paramount Theater Paramount Theater Products and Services III. The Market IV. Sales and Promotion V. Operations VI. VII. Additional Considerations Financial Forecast 3 5 6 7 12 13 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential Il. Paramount Theater Products and Services The Paramount Theater will provide a very special service to the community. The Paramount will possess excellent acoustics, a large seating capacity, trained technical staff, professional sound and lighting equipment and long range scheduling availability. Audiences will appreciate the Paramount's proximity to restaurants, shopping and convenient parking. The creation of another professional venue for community performance groups will complement the usage of existing spaces such as the Performing Arts Center, Old Cabell Hall, and Culbreth Theater, as different needs will be met by each space. The Paramount Theater will also provide a large, unique site for community and business meetings and events. All of these uses will bring numerous people onto the Downtown Mall during both the day and evening hours. The increased traffic will benefit area retailers, restaurants and hotels. Estimates of the financial impact of facilities like the Paramount are fi'equently expressed as an economic multiplier. While estimates of such a mukiplier can vary greatly, the intuition behind the idea is clear--people attending Paramount shows will also spend money elsewhere in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. We have made our own conservative estimates of economic impact, which are presented on appendix page A-17. Events at the Paramount will include a wide range of live theater and musical events by touting and local artists. Programming will seek to attract and serve audiences of every age and demographic group, with entertainment aimed at their interests. The main categories of product and service offerings are as follows: ' Fundraising Special Events--Twice a year the Paramount will program special performances by nationally renowned artists or groups. We will select attractions that will fill the seats, and we will sell tickets at premium prices for fundraising purposes. · Paramount Theater Sponsored Events--These events will be selected and booked by Paramount management and the Board of Directors. Every effort will be made to develop an annual program which appeals to the diverse demographic population of Central Virginia. We will include jazz, country western, rock and roll, gospel, and classical musical acts; modem dance and ballet performances, comedy, and a variety of live theater productions. The Paramount events will be sold singly and in one or more seasonal or annual packages. · Film EventsmWhile the Paramount will be converted into a live performance venue, we will include film showings as part of the yearly programming. It will take some experimentation to fred out what titles will work, but we anticipate showing classic films such as The Robe, Cleopatra, Lawrence of Arabia, and Spartacus. The goal is to attract an audience by showing films created for the big screen that today can only be seen in a community theater like the Paramount. · Children's Programming--We will add to the current selection of children's entertainment in Central Virginia by showing movies, cartoons, and plays, and by hosting musical acts suitable for the venue. 11/16/99 Page 3 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential · Local Not-For-Profit Events--The Paramount will be available at special rental rates for local non-profit groups to host entertainment and non-entertainment events. Groups may use the Paramount for a variety of educational, religious, civic, cultural or artistic programming, including additional children's entertainment. · Speaker Series and Travelogues--Some afternoons and evenings the Paramount may host speakers on academic, religious, social, medical, or other topics. Local groups may be interested in an exotic travel series. · For-Profit Enterprise Events--We welcome the use of the Paramount by local entrepreneurs, businesses, or agents who may want to book their own entertainment. For such events, the Paramount may negotiate fixed and/or variable charges for the. performance space. Opening the Paramount to for-profit organizations will further add to the diversity of programming offered in this unique venue. · Four-wall Rental--The Paramount, including the promenade space and halls outside of the auditorium is suitable for many types of functions. The Paramount may be rented by private individuals or groups for weddings, banquets, receptions, or shows. · Conference Space The Paramount may also be rented by private or public agencies or businesses for conferences, seminars, or meetings. · Civic and Community Events--The Paramount will be made available for civic and community gatherings such as town meetings, political events, and debates. · Centralized Box OffiCe An additional source of revenue for the Paramount will be to provide central box office service for non-Paramount events. The Paramount ticket office may provide central sales for dozens of organizations in the Central Virginia area. The Paramount will commit to serving targeted audiences in the community with programming aimed at their interests. The goal of the programming is to provide diverse entertainment that will appeal to all members of Charlottesville/Albemarle and the Central Virginia community. 11/16/99 Page 4 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential III. The Market Defining and reaching our target market will be a process of considerable experimemation. As stated previously, our goal is to fill the Paramount with entertainment events that, over the course of the year, will appeal to the widest variety of people. Our programming and revenue forecast for a typical operational year contains total tickets sales of just over 100,000. Whether one views this as conservative or aggressive depends on assumptions about the local population and the geographical "reach" of the Paramount. The Paramount Board's view is that some events will draw people from up to 100 miles away. Clearly, other events will not. The following are 1996 U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the populations of Charlottesville and surrounding counties. CounW or City Population Augusta County 59,515 Albemarle County 74,189 Amherst County 30,065 Buckingham County 14,388 Charlottesville City 40,767 Culpeper County 31,981 Cumberland County 7,845 Fauquier County 51,765 Floyd County 12,832 Fluvanna County 16,887 . Goochland Cotmty 16,586 Greene County 12,972 Harrisonburg City 33,446 Lexington City 7,164 Louisa County 23,321 Lynchburg City 67,250 Madison County 12,405 Nelson County 13,529 Orange County 24,512 Rockbridge County 19,006 Rockingham County 62,432 Staunton City 24,800 University of Virginia 18,000 Waynesboro City 18,928 694,585 11/16/99 Page 5 IV. The Paramount Theater Business Plan Sales and Promotion Confidential The Paramount Board of Directors will hire a full-time marketing specialist and plans for an annual advertising budget of $150,000. The promotional mix will be tailored for each event, but we intend to use every available avenue, including direct mail, television and radio, posters and flyers, a web page, partnerships and cooperative advertising, and an active public relations campaign. The long-term goal is to build a strong reputation among Paramount customers and performers. In some ways the historic venue promotes itself, and once people experience the spectacular restored interior, word-of-mouth advertising will be indispensable. As with other Downtown Mall events such as Fridays After Five, First Night, the Virginia Festival of Film, and the Dogwood Festival, we want to position many of the Paramount events as "the thing to do" in Charlottesville. All ticket sales will be handled through a convenient central location, the Paramount Theater box office. While we do not plan to distribute tickets to local businesses, customers will be able to purchase tickets by phone, mail and through the Paramount Internet site. 11/16/99 Page 6 The Paramount Theater BUSiness Plan Confidential V. Operations The operations of the Paramount revolve around the building itself. The operational functions of The Paramount Theater can be divided into two categories--management and care of the physical facility, and programming of events. Facilities Management and Care The foundation of Paramount Theater operations will be the facility itself. The Paramount Board of Directors is the steward ofa cormnunity landmark and an irreplaceable architectural asset. To ensure the long-term survival of this landmark we will transform the Paramount into a fLrst rate performing arts venue. We view our stewardship of the theater as having two distinct phases. The first phase includes the contracted renovation and restoration of the theater. This undertaking will command the lion's share of financial resources secured during the capital campaign. The second phase involves care taking in perpetuity. Basic facilities maintenance is an essential aspect of Paramount operations, both to preserve the character of the building and to secure the Paramount market position as a premium location for live performances and community activities. Phase I: Renovation and Restoration We envision that the Paramount Theater will be a first-rate entertainment venue with large seating capacity, superior acoustics, and a moderu stage with state-of-the-art lighting and sound. To create this facility, major renovations and equipment purchases are required. The estimate for interior and exterior renovations and capital expenditures is $4.9 million. Construction, once initiated, will take approximately two years to complete. Originally designed as a movie house, the Paramount will adapt easily to live theatrical and musical productions. Transformation of the interior space requires some innovative engineering. Necessary dressing and storage rooms will be built under the existing auditorium. The floor beneath the theater seats will be excavated to construct a basement that will accommodate the new facilities. In .addition, the new stage will extend forward into the audience chamber, creating ample performance space. In fact the arrangement will allow room for a full orchestra and seating capacity for 1,100 patrons (Note that our financial forecast assumes 1,000 seats. This is simply a more conservative number, and the total seat count may change during the renovation). The Paramount will compare favorably in size with the 600-seat Culbreth Theater, the 1,200-seat Charlottesville Performing Arts Center, and the 900-seat Cabell Hall Auditorium. Advanced theatrical and musical production systems are critical to theater operations, and they are important components of the Paramount renovation. As part of upgrading the entire infrastructure of the theater to state-of-the-art, our $588,000 budget for stage equipment includes $331,000 for state-of-the-art lighting and sound systems. These systems will make the Paramount a suitable venue for the wide variety of performers we intend to attract. Moreover, they will create the highest quality entertainment experience for Paramount patrons. 11/16/99 Page 7 The Paramount Theater BUsineSS Plan Confidential The theater will be improved in other ways as well. Entries to the audience chamber, the stage, dressing rooms, and public restrooms will be modernized so that the facility is completely accessible to the disabled. Exterior renovation consists primarily of cosmetic masonry repairs, minor patching, painting, cleaning, and waterproofing. While building renovations and modernization will ensure the operational functionality of the theater space, we are equally committed to preserving the original beauty and character and the acoustical integrity of the Paramount. Therefore, the interior d6cor will be fully restored, leaving a grand space of unmatched elegance in the region. Nationally renowned artisans fi.om Conrad Schmitt Studios of New Berlin, Wisconsin have already worked their magic on one intricate comer of the theater, restoring the pilaster strips and gilded fi.ieze to their original luster. The resuks are spectacular, and one can only imagine the visual sensation that will be created by the fully restored audience chamber. The estimated cost of the work is $300,000. We feel that the restoration of the beautiful Paramount interior is important not just as a preservation initiative, but also as a feature that will differentiate the Paramount in the hearts and minds of performers and patrons alike. The Paramount's unique and exquisite design was molded by the heritage of its Central Virginia location. Nothing like it exists, and in an age ofmulti-plex theaters and electronic entertainment, nothing like it will ever be built again. Simply put, it is a breathtaking space, and so it will remain. Please refer to appendix pages A-1 to A-4 for a line-item forecast of renovation and restoration COSTS. Phase II: Care Taking The Paramount Theater will be nearly 70 years old when it is officially reopened. We are committed to maintaining this one-of-a-kind architectural and cukural treasure in top condition. In addition to the expenses for normal operating maintenance already included in the operating budget, a per seat surcharge of $.50 will be set aside in a fund for major repairs and upgrades in perpetuity. Event Programming When the renovation and restoration are complete, the Paramount Theater will have already scheduled an opening series of performances. Booking the lineup for our grand opening will be the first challenge for the most critical aspect of ongoing operations, event programming. For the Paramount Theater, programming is so closely related to marketing that it is difficult to distinguish some aspects of one fi'om the other. Nevertheless, it is useful to describe programming in operational terms. Event programming involves two primary tasks--filling the calendar with quality entertainment and then executing each event. Filling the Calendar Building the schedule for the Paramount will be no small task. It will require the combined efforts of a full-time theater general manager (see Personnel below) and the Board of Directors. 11/16/99 Page 8 The Paramount Theater Confidential Business Plan While there will always be some overlap, it is useful to think of Paramount Theater scheduling as either active or passive. Each type of scheduling requires a different array of partnerships and operational capabilities. Moreover, each type involves different financial risks. Active scheduling involves researching, selecting, and booking events. This is the process by which the Paramount will put together a lineup of major attractions, to include musical, theatrical, dance and popular entertainment, performances. The first step is to generate ideas about what types of performances to include in the schedule and determine what specific performers or groups might appeal to potential patrons. It is essential in this endeavor that the Paramount Theater hears from the local community and acts responsively. We recognize that it is difficult and often impossible to predict the success of each event, especially as we seek to reach so many segments of our local audience. Even so, we have identified three success factors that we intend to incorporate into our scheduling operations. These critical success factors are: Diversity on the Paramount Board of Directors. This is really a cornerstone of community awareness and responsiveness. Only by maintaining diversity on the board can we expect to remain in tune with the diverse population of our audience. Partnerships with a variety of community organizations, including but not limited to those already comrnitted to entertainment and the arts. Such relationships will expand our knowledge base regarding potential performers and patron preferences, and they will help ensure we do not develop schedules that overlap or conflict directly with other entertainment events.. Relationships attd/or partnerships with other regional and community theaters,'. especially on the East Coast. We have already received invaluable information and support from the Paramount Theater of Bristol, VA, the Barns at Wolf Trap in Vienna, VA, and the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, NC. Once potential performers have been selected, the second step in the scheduling process is to book them. While this may be done directly in some instances, booking generally involves working through regional or national promotion agencies such as Cellar Door Entertainment, Baylin Artist Management, or ICA Management. Prices for specific performers vary based on venue seating capacity and the day of the week. In most cases, booking constitutes a contractual obligation to pay a fixed amount plus some percentage of ticket sales, and a non-refundable down payment is often required. Booking marquee acts clearly entails financial risk, but we can take certain steps to minimize this risk. First, we will try to schedule perfonners to help them fill empty dates between their performances in, say, Washington and Richmond. These dates generally cost the least and would give us the most flexibility negotiating variable payment. Second, our marketing effort will focus on selling patrons a bundle of tickets to an entire season of major attractions. This lends a degree of predictability to income streams even when the popularity of specific events is uncertain. Finally, most booking contracts have cancellation provisions. While this is a risk management option, canceling shows due to low ticket sales is considered a poor business practice because it generates lingering bad faith with entertainers and booking agents. Moreover, many smaiIer-scale entertainment events simply do not generate advanced ticket purchases, 11/16/99 Page 9 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential relying primarily on last-minute sales at the door. The best operational plan is to stay the course with each event and learn what works. The most effective risk management strategy is to have a solid "portfolio" of eVents so that inevitable failures will be more than offset by successes. Passive scheduling is not nearly as exciting or demanding as booking prime entertainment, but it will be a very large and important component of Paramount Theater operations. To succeed financially, the Paramount must be a busy place all year long, with revenue-generating events occurring almost every day. Inasmuch as we are successful generating regional awareness of the venue, we anticipate a steady demand for the Paramount space from a variety of sources. First, we intend to make it easy and affordable for local performers and artists to use the Paramount. In addition, community organizations will identify and book various types of entertainment or educational events on their own, and the Paramount will simply provide the facilities. For these types of events, the Paramount will generally charge a fiat rental fee, plus a percentage of gross revenue or per seat fee for events to which tickets are sold. The Paramount may also be rented for an even wider variety of activities, to include corporate, civic, or educational conferences, political events, or even weddings. There are two advantages to such passive scheduling. First, in the case of for-profit entertainment ventures, a third party bears the financial risk of programming. Sharing the risk helps the Paramount meet its goal of diverse programming while experimenting to find events that draw crowds. The second advantage is the co-marketing opportunity. The Paramount will have certain in-place promotional venues (e.g. our web page) which provide a good advertising start for the sponsoring organization. At the same time the Paramount benefits from the additional advertising provided by event sponsors. Whatever the case, once public awareness is built, passive scheduling primarily involves waiting for the phone to ring and then filling dates on the calendar. The more uses we can conceive of for the Paramount, the better we will be able to cover our fixed costs. Executing Events The final aspect of programming is the actual execution of each event. Whether an event is hosted by the Paramount or another local group, the Parmnount will be equipped and staffed to provide a full range of professional support services. Even experienced touring groups require local expertise for production management, lighting and sound, and backstage help. Much of the production management support takes place well before the actual performance. We will hire a full time production manager plus an assistant production manager. These positions are critical to making the most out of our state-of-the-art facility and providing the highest level of service to performers and patrons. To reduce fixed costs and ensure flexibility, we will fill other positions on a contracted or part-time basis. These positions include a sound system operator and backstage pick-up help. We may also hire temporary workers to help with publicity--posting flyers or stuffing envelopes or to clean up after some events. Some services will be provided by volunteers. We have already received a tremendous response fi'om local people and groups interested in helping the Paramount. Generally, we can count on volunteers to help with publicity and to serve as ushers during performances. Ultimately, an all- volunteer Paramount Theater Guild will serve as a committed and highly qualified workforce, 1/16/99 Page 10 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential helping ensure events nm smoothly. As the theater becomes operational, we will explore other opportunities to involve volunteers in event production and execution. Personnel Requirements The Paramount Theater professional staff will schedule and market events, provide financial control, execute logistical support for events and performances, and manage and maintain the theater facilities. The basic staff requirements are as follows: Position General Manager and Rental Coordinator--Oversees all aspects of theater operations and scheduling. Marketing Director--Works closely with performing groups to market all events. Manages publicity for programs and for the theater itself. Box Office Manager--Manages tickets and receipts. May serve as accountant for theater operations. Secretary--Serves personnel listed above. May need additional help once theater is in full operation. Production Manager Oversees iechnical needs for all performances. Assistant Production Manager Box Office Staff--1 full-time and 2 part-time ticket booth operators. Hourly Stage Help~Backstage operations. On-call Sound Technician--Nearly every performance will require technical support to operate a sophisticated control console at the rear of the auditorium. Estimate $10.00 per hour, minimum. Janitorial and Maintenance Staff--1 full time, 1 half time. FICA and Benefits--(20%) Annual Salary $ 40,000 $ 25,000 $ 22,000 $18,000 $ 35,000 $ 25,000 $ 35,000 $ 20,000 $15,000 $ 28,000 $ 52,600 Total Annual Personnel Cost $ 315,600 11/16/99 Page 11 The Paramount Theater Business Plan Confidential VI. Additional Considerations Concessions will constitute a significant source of revenue for the Paramount Theater (current projections indicate about 8% of revenue will be from concessions). Sales will include snacks and beverages as well as souvenir and gift items (CDs, tapes, tee shirts, pins, etc.) related to specific events and to the Paramount itself. Revenue sharing for some gift items will depend on contractual agreements with performers. The box office manager will oversee concessions, and concession operations will be staffed by part-time employees. The Board of Directors is currently considering purchasing the building adjacent to the Paramount Theater. This space would house a catering kitchen and would be used for concessions and ticket sales. The space could also be used to host some large group events. The Paramount Theater will not become directly involved in catering operations. For those events requiring catering service, food preparation and service will be sourced entirely fi'om one or more local caterers. We believe the addition of food service facilities would add significantly to the number and types of events that can take place in the Paramount. Furthermore, on-site catering would be an important factor differentiating the Paramount from other entertainment venues in the area. The Paramount plans to install a ticketing system to enable other performers and events to sell their.tickets through the Parmnount box office. Revenues fi'om this expanded box office service are not included in our financial projections, but based on preliminary surveys of the area's needs, these revenues could be significant. No competing vendor for universal ticket sales exists in Central Virginia. Plans for the Theater's cormnunity outreach efforts include the establishment ora fund to underwrite "Scholarship" opportunities for under-served and disadvantaged community members. This effort will be an important vehicle to demonstrate the Board's commitment to have the Paramount become an inclusive comanunity venue. 11/16/99 Page 12 VII. The Paramount Theater Business Plan Financial Forecast Confidential The appendix to this document contains the complete financial forecast for the Paramount Theater, including the development and early operational periods. The final page presents our conservative estimate of the economic impact (multiplier) of the theater. There are numerous assumptions embedded in the forecast, but clearly, the key driver of financial well-being is our ability to fill the Paramount seats and keep people coming back. Solid entertainment programming is essential. With that fact in mind, our programming and ticket sales assumptions are presented below and are based on total seating capacity of 1,000. These assumptions reflect conservative utilization during a typical programming year. We believe it will take at least one year and possibly longer to reach this level of attendance and utilization. Special Benefit Events 2 4 100% $75.00 Paramount Bookings 81 61 70% $16.00 Film Showings 40 13 60% $7.00 'Paramount Children's Events 6 4 80% $5.00 NFP Children's Events 6 4 80% NFP Miscellaneous Events 10 27 60% Seat Surcharge Revenue 0 0 0 Speaker Series 10 10 30% For Profit Events 4 4 70% Four-Wall Rentals 20 20 - Total 179 150 Average Average Average Average Events Days per Atten- Ticket Rental Tickets % of per Year Year dance Price Fee per Event Gross 1,000 - 700 - 600 - 800 - $400 800 - $425 600 - $0.50 $5.00 300 $12.00 $2,000 700 - $1,000 - 10% Total Tickets AnnUal Sold Income 2,000 $ 150,000 56,700 907,200 24,000 168,000 4,800 24,000 4,800 1,600 6,000 12,879 10.800' 5,400 3,000 15,000 2,800 11,360 20,000 104,100 $1,315,439 *This figure is the sum of not-for-profit ticket sales and is used to count revenue fi.om the per seat surcharge. Note that this revenue is in addition to the not-for-profit rental fee. Excluding the surcharge, not-for-profit ticket sales do not provide revenue for the Paramount, but to the hosting organization. Ticket sales for other events also include the $.50 surcharge, but the charge is impounded in the ticket price. The $.50 is an allocation of revenue which will be set aside strictly for building maintenance and preservation. 11/16/99 Page 13 Facilities Renovation and Restoration Detail Exterior Restoration & Modification Demolition metal fire escape Removal of existing doors & frames Removal of existing roofing flashing Misc. masonry of parapet @ entry Selective brick pointing & repair Decorative pre-east stone @ front elevation Repair & caulk existing wall copings New roofing, insulation & flashing Paint existing steel drainage platform Expand existing steel drainage platform Cut & patch roof openings for mech. systems & equipment New marquee lighted sign erected on steel supports Repair & replace roof area drains Repair & paint existing skylights Cement plaster patching of masonry walls New exterior doors frames & hardware Singles Doubles Exterior painting all doors & windows Paramount Business Plan Appendix Construction Detail 1.500 500 I 0.000 20.000 2.500 2.000 500 !0.000 5.000 70.000 I.ooo 900 5.000 Subtotal $ 3.600 $ 5.400 $ 1.000 Interior Restoration And Modification Demolition & hauling Basement areas First floor areas Balcony area Second floor areas Projection room level Storage area at marquee space Temporary protection of selected spaces Temporary lighting systems $ 138,900 Subtotal $ I 0.000 $ I 0.000 $ 2.000 $ 3.000 $ 1.500 $ 1.000 $ 20.000 $ 15.000 New Construction Basement Areas Concrete floor demolition Interior wall demolition Earth excavation & hauling Earth back-filling & compaction Concrete footings for foundation walls Masonry foundation walls Patching of concrete floor slabs New concrete floors Concrete pre-cast floor planks Concrete floor topping Doors. frames & hardware Singles Doubles Waterproofing masonry below grade Ceramic tile walls Ceramic tile floors Acoustical tile ceilings Painting Walls Ceilings Doors Misc. steel Steel stairs & railings Platform lift system Toilet partitions Toilet accessories Misc. plaster patching & replacement $ 62.500 Subtotal 9.000 3.000 60.000 25.000 5.000 9.900 3.000 7.800 12.600 4,500 6,000 1.600 5.000 10.530 4.550 8.400 1.050 130 150 3.000 10.000 15.000 6.000 4.000 2.500 $ 217,710 Appendix Page A-1 New Construction First Floor General demolition Walls Ceilings floors Casework Platform area Steam clean floors New partitions Misc. woodwork & carpentry New public seating level platforms New railings Doors, frames & hardware Restore existing doors Singles Doubles Access panels Bi-parting type Acoustical tile ceilings Misc. plaster patching & replacement Architectural special painting Interior panel drapes restoration Interior drapes--new Modify structure @ ceiling & raise center area 5' Ceramic tile walls Ceramic tile floors Painting Walls Ceilings Doors ~oors Misc. steel platforms New wood stage flooring Extend existing platform & steps Remove. restore & reset existing theater seating Restore existing concrete floor surface Restore stairs & railings Toilet partitions & accessories Signage/panel restoration Misc. millwork & casework Fire extinguishers Carpeting broadloom ($40/sq. yd.) Carpeting aisles Vinyl tile Stage ceiling & wall baffles Subtotal Balcony General demolition Walls Floors Steam clean floor New partitions Doors. frames, & hardware Singles Doubles Acoustical tile ceilings Misc. plaster patching & replacement Painting Walls Ceilings Doors Floors Restore existing concrete floor Carpeting ($40 sq. yd.) Subtotal Paramount Business Plan Appendix $ 2,000Construction Detail $ 2.000 $ 4.000 $ 500 $ 2.000 $ 960 $ 3.000 $ I 0,000 $ 13.500 $ 14.000 6,000 2.500 1.600 200 3.500 1.500 30.000 300.000 30.000 20.000 200,000 1,040 650 2.000 2.500 600 !.800 15,000 10.080 8.500 198.000 . 1'.440 15.000 3OO 5,000 20,000 3,000 24.000 12,500 1.250 25,000 994,920 500 500 400 1,500 1.000 800 3OO 3,000 2.000 1.750 120 600 600 5.600 18,670 Appendix Page A-2 Second Floor (Office Area) General demolition Wal~s Ceilings Floor Casework New partitions Doors. frames & hardware Single Double Access panels Acoustical ceilings Misc. plaster patching & replacement Ceramic tile walls Ceramic tile floors Painting Walls Ceilings Doors Floors Carpeting ($30/sq. yd.) Misc. steel Toilet partitions Toilet accessories Misc. millwork & casework Vinyl tile floor Subtotal Projector Room General painting & restoration Restore projector equipment Subtotal Mechanical/HVAC Systems Remove existing boiler & equipment Provide replacement boiler & controls Small domestic hot water heaters (3) Modify & upgrade existing ducts & insulate ducts Automatic temperature control system Air conditioning system (150 tons) Structural cutting & patching Scaffolding. supports & erecting equipment Subtotal Plumbing & Drainage Rough-in & installation of plumbing fixtures Toilets (18) Urinals (5) Sinks ( 1 I) Service sinks (2) Drinking fountains (4) Roof drainage system upgrade Floor drain--basement Fire protection system (sprinklers & pump) Structural cutting & patching Scaffolding & supports Subtotal Electrical Systems Main transformer system & leads Secondary distribution panel system Lighting system Special lighting fixtures Wall receptacles & switches Structural cutting & patching Lightning protection Subtotal Paramount Business Plan Appendix $ 2,000Construction Detail $ 1,000 $ 50O $ 300 $ 3.200 $ 3.000 $ $ 80 $ 3.360 $ 1.000 $ 3.120 $ !.430 $ 510 $ 80 $ 180 $ $ 2.400 $ 500 $ 1.200 $ 500 $ 2.000 $ 370 $ 26,730 $ 800 $ 10.000 $ 10,800 $ 3.000 $ 35.000 $ 3.000 $ 30.000 $ 5.000 $ 330.000 $ 20.000 $ 15.000 $ 441,000 $ 12.600 $ 3.500 $ 4.950 $ 1.000 $ 3.200 $ 5.000 $ 1.500 $ 59.500 $ 5.000 $ 5.000 $ 101,250 $ 25.000 $ 9.000 $ $ 30.000 $ 11.250 $ 5.000 $ 10.000 $ 90,250 Appendix Page A-3 Stage Equipment Stage Rigging I 0 line-shaft winches, manual controls Stage Drapes Main valance with swags Main curtain, brailed with rigging Stage masking drapery and drops Deduct $40K if traveler curtain Projection Screen Manual roll drop rigging, 40' wide Pivoting wall panels Two units, complete Stage & auditorium lighting Dimmer rack (288 circuits) Stage control console Distribution equipment, fixed (288 circuits) Auditorium (house) light & utility controls Auditorium & utility fixtures (new & refurbished) Stage spotlights with accessories (200) Labor & materials for installation Sound system Speech reinforce, effects playback, assisted listing system, production communication system, page/monitor system Paramount Business Plan Appendix $ 150,000C°nstructi°n Detail $ 2.000 $ 50,000 $ 20.000 $ 10.000 $ 25,000 $ 75.000 $ 10.000 $ 6.000 $ 5,000 $ 50.000 $ 50.000 $ 60,000 $ 75.000 Subtotal $ 588,000 Building Expansions And Additions Addition at stage (350 sq. ft.) Incl. toilet room and outside stair modification Addition @ lobby (530 sq. ft.) Incl. toilet rooms, offices and ticket area Modify & upgrade existing retail siore adjacent to lobby (Allow 1.920 sq. ft.) Subtotal $ 70.000 $ 79.500 $ 192.000 $ 341,500 Elevator Modification $ 15.000 Asbestos Removal $ 10.000 Restoration and Modification Sub Total $ 3,057,230 Escalation @ 20% Subtotal Architectural/Engineering Services @ 12% Subtotal Contingency @ 20% Subtotal Purchase Adjacent Building (Approximate) Subtotal Interim Construction Financing @ 10% Total .~'~Plant & Equipment Depreciation Consideration Total Plant~ net of Fees and Contingency Depreciation Schedule Annual Non-Cash Expense Total Equipmentw net of Fees and Contingency Depreciation Schedule Annual Non-Cash Expense Total Annual Non-Cash Depreciation Expense $ 611.446 $ 3,668,676 $ 440.241 $ 4,108,917 $ 821.783 $ 4,930,701 225.000 $ 5,155,701 493.070 $ 5,648,771 $ 2.962.300 98.743 '39.200 $ 137,943 Appendix Page A-4 °o ~ ~ ~ o° o o c c c COMMISSIONER 3©ARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of V/R INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 January26,2000 A.G, TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Proj. 0250-002-112,C501 Route 809 & 846 Albemarle Coumy Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of Supervisors 401 Mclmire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: Attached is a sample resolution and sketch for the addition and abandonment for Route 809 and Route 846 due the re-construction of the entrance to Bellair. Please provide this information to the Board for a resolution and return to this office upon completion. VDOT recommends that the additions and abandonments be adopted as shown. /ggu attachment Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY , The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 2nd day of February, 2000, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supe~sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated December 30, 1999, depicting the additions and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways as a.result of the construction of project #0250-002-112,C501, which sketch is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the portions of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1 and Section 2 to be abandoned is deemed to no longer serve public need; and WHEREAS, the portions of Route 846 and Route 809 identified on the sketch as Sections 3, 4 and 5, to be added to the secondary system; and WHEREAS, the new roads se[ye the same citizens as that portion of old road identified to be abandoned; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways a portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 3, a distance of 0.08 miles, and a portion of Route 809 identified on the sketch as Section4 and Section 5, a distance of 0.07 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways that portion of Route 846 identified on the sketch as Section 1, a distance of 0.05 miles, and a portion of Route 809, identified on the sketch as Section 2, a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1- 155, of the Code of Virginia; and RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Absent: Charlotte Y. Humphds Sally H. Thomas Sally H. Thomas David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphds Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Charles S. Marlin Walter F. Perkins None. None. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ) Board of County Supervi~sors J I I,l ~ / children v&ile at school; and · School Board members, along'wi~ th~ gro~ing and d~namic team of teachers, set the standard of exmlIence in Virginia's education of its young people; and WHEREAS, local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high qua!i~y of education for all s~udents in the Commonveealth; and our great Commonwealth is proud qf its educational .system and is appreciative of the qfforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public schools system an excellent one to educate our children; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of Coun.ty Supervisors, do hereby recognize February 2000, School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the attention of all citizens. DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2000. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS James s:Gilmore, iii Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, Virginia 23219-2094 Phone (804) 786-2064 FAX: (804) 786-1798 TDD (804) 786-2121 David G. Bricldey Director January 13, 2000 TO: James River Tributary Strategy Stakeholder Enclosed please find the public comment draft of the Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James Riger, To ensure that the final document will be as representative as possible, the Commonwealth continues to look for the comments of all Virginians on this draft. The public review and comment period for this draft runs until February 15, 2000. Please send comments to the address below, or contact Mark Bennett at (804) 371-7485. James River Tributary Strategy Attention: Mark Bennett Dept. of Conservation and Recreation 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, Virginia 23219 e-mail address: mbennett~dcr.state.va.us Four informational meetings have been scheduled at strategic locations throughout the watershed to provide information regarding the goals outlined in this document. On each meeting date, stakeholder meetings will be held from 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., followed by public interest meetings from 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. The locations are as follows: January 24, 2000: January 26, 2000: News, Virginia January 31, 2000: February, 1 2000: Rockbridge Regional Library, 138 South Main Street, Lexington, Virginia. Cit~' of Newport News City Council Chambers, 2400 Washington Ave, Newport Lynchburg Public Library, 2315 Memorial Avenue, Lynchburg, Virginia Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, 2104 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 101, Richmond, Virginia Sincerely, Mark Bennett James Tributary Team Leader An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat Commonwealth of Virginia Tributary Strategy Goals for Nutrient and Sediment Reduction in the James River This report was scanned under Land Use Reports. ALEXANDRIA: (703) 684-8007 BLACKSBURG: (540) 961-2762 CHARLOTTESVILLE: (804) 971-7771 N©RF©LK: (757) 624-1454 J~ICHMOND: (804) 788-2003 LEC!,AIR RYAN A Pao~ss~oN~ CoP. PO~T~O~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW INNSBROOK CORPORATE CENTER 4201 DOMINION BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 GLEN ALLEN, VIRGINIA 28060 TELEPHONE: (804) 270-0070 FACSIMILE: (804) 270-4715 ER~c M. PAGE D~RECT DI^L: (804) 968-2985 INTERNET: epage@leclairrya ri.corn FILE NUM~ER: 5247.010 January 24, 2000 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL Forest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman Board of Supervisors 'Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Virginia State Corporation Commission Case No. PUC990244 Petition of MCI WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint Corporation Dear Mr. Marshall: Pursuant to the Virginia State Corporation Commission's Order of January 18, 2000 in the above matter, I am enclosing a copy of that Order with this letter. Please refer to the enclosed Order if you have any questions or if you need anything further. Sincerely, Eric M. Page EMP/ess Enclosure Copy: Vishwa B. Link, Esquire Patrick J. Whittle. Esquire James B. Wright, Esquire Mr. Thomas W. Sokol EOARD OF SUPERVISORS P, O02 868 PETITION OF MCI WORLDCOM, INC. and SPRINT CORPORATION For approval to transfer control of Sprint Corporation's Virginia Operating Subsidiaries to MCI WorldCom, Inc. CASE NO. PUC990244 ORDER FOR NOTICE AND COMMENT AND EXTENDING TIME FOR REVIEW On December 17, 1999, MCI WorldCom, Inc. ("MCI WorldCom"), and Sprint Corporation ("Sprint"), (collectively, "the Petitioners"), filed a joint petition requesting approval, pursuant to § 56-88.1 of the Code of Virginia, of a proposed transaction whereby Sprint will merge into MCI worldCom. Sprint is the parent company of Central Telephone Company of Virginia, United Telephone-Southeast, Inc., and Sprint Communications Company of Virginia, Inc.z Tkus, the proposed transaction would result in MCI worldCom acquiring indirect control of Centel, United, and Sprint-Virginia. Pursuant to § 56-88.1, the Commission has sixty (60) days in which to approve or disapprove x Pursuant to a Final Order dated November 8, 1996, in Case No. PUC960086, Sprint Communications Company of Virginia. Inc., was authorized ~o provide local =elecommunications services an~ in=erexchan~e telecommunications ~ervices =hroughou= =he Commonwealth of Virginia. such petition and may extend that time for a period not to exceed an additional one hundred twenty (120) days. We note that the issues involved in the joint petition are complex and will require additional time for review. As such, we are of the opinion that sixty (60) days is not sufficient time in which to investigate fully matters associated with the proposed merger. It is, therefore, appropriate to extend the period for review of issues under § 56-88.1 for a period up to one hundred twenty (120) days from the original sixty (60) day time period, or through June 14, 2000. We are also of the opinion that public notice should be given and interested persons should have the opportunity to comment and request a hearing on the joint petition. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The date for issuance of a final order in this proceeding is hereby extended for one hundred twenty (120) days from February_ 15, 2000 to June 14, 2000. (2) The Petitioners shall promptly make a copy of their joint petition and supporting materials available to the public who may obtain a copy of the joint petition, at no charge, by requesting it in writing from Petitioners' counsel at the address detailed below. ?, AN.-1B'OO{TUE) 15: 5 OFC GENERAb COUNSEb TEL:8042719549 P, O04 (3) Any interested person wishing to comment on the joint 9etition shall, on or before February 22, 2000, address such written comments to: Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and refer to Case No. PUC990244. (4) On or before February 22, 2000, any person desiring a hearing in this matter shall file a request for hearing in writing with Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and shall refer in his or her request to Case No. PUC990244. Any request for hearing ~hall detail reasons that such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written comments. (B) A copy of such comments and requests for hearing shall simultaneously be sent to counsel, for the Petitioners as follows: Eric M. Page, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. [6) The Commission Staff shall review the joint petition and shall file, on or before March 28, 2000, a report detailing the results of its investigation. (7) The Petitioners shall respond to written interrogatories within ten (10) calendar days after receip~ of same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in accordance with Part VI of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 3 (8) On or before February 7, 2000, the Petitioners shall publish the following notice as display advertising, not classified, twice a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in newspapers of general circulation throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia: NOTICE OF JOINT PETITION OF MCI WORLDCOM, INC., AND SPRINT CORPORATION FOR APPROVAL TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF SPRINT CORPORATION'S VIRGINIA OPERATING SUBSIDIARIES CASE NO. PUQ9902~4 MCI worldCom, Inc. ("MCI WorldCom"), and Sprint Corporation ("Sprint"), (collectively, "the Petitioners"), filed a joint petition with the State Corporation Commission requesting approval of a proposed transaction whereby Sprint will merge into MCI WorldCom. The joint petition, if approved, would result in MCI WorldCom acquiring indirect control of Central Telephone Company of Virginia, United Telephone-Southeast, Inc., and Sprint Communications Company of Virginia, Inc. A copy of the above-referenced joint petition is available for inspection during regular business hours at the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond. Virginia. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the joint petition, at no charge, by requesting a copy in writing from Petitioners' counsel at the address noted below. Comments on the joint petition must be submitted in writing to Joel H. Peck, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, on or before FebruaI~ 22, 2000. Req~/ests for hearing must also be received by the Clerk on or before February 22, 2000. Requests for hearing shall state why a hearing is necessary and why such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written comments. All correspondence should refer to Case No. PUC99024~. A copy of the comments or requests for hearing must also be sent to counsel for the Petitioners as follows: Eric M. Page, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 2Q0, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. If no sufficient request for hearing is received, a formal hearing may not be held. MCI WORLD,OM. INC.. AND SPRINT CORPQRATION (9) The Petitioners shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of any county and upon the Mayor or Manager of any county, city, or equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate forms of government in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Service shall be made by first-class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (10) On or before April 11, 2000, the Petitioners and any interested persons may file with the Clerk of the Commission any response to Staff's Report. (11) On or before February 15, 2000, the Petitioners shall provide the Commission with proof of notice required in Ordering Paragraphs (8) and (9). AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Cot~ission to: Eric M. Page, Esquire, James P. Guy, II, 5 dAN.-IS'OO(TUE) 15: 6 OFG GENERAL GOUNSEL TEL:8043719549 P. O07 Esquire, and Robert A. Omberg, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060; Jean L. Kiddoo, Esquire, Swidler & Berlin, 3000 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20007-$116; Vishwa B. Link, Esquire, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, 1133 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Dwight W. Allen, Esquire, sprint, Mid- Atlantic Operations, 14111 Capital Boulevard, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587-5900; James B. Wright, Esquire, Sprin~ Mid- Atlantic Telecom, 14111 Capital Boulevard, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587-5900; and John F. D=dley, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, Office of Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; the Office of General Counsel and the Commission's Divisions of Communications, Public Utility Accounting, and Economics and Finance. -t UAKI9 February 2, 2000 '10:30 to 10:45 a.m. A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Past Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachments 1 & 2) - January 10, and January 24, 2000 We have a new Board! In addition to our two new board members, Ken Boyd and Gary Grant, we have now have Susan Gallion as the Vice-Chairman, Diantha McKeel as the new PREP member (with Steve Koleszar as Alternative), Steve Koleszar will continue as the Blue Ridge Virtual Governor's School representative, Ken Boyd as our Computers4Kids representative, and Madison Cummings as our Building a Community of Recruiters (BACOR) representative. Bright Stars Program - Ms. Roxanne White and Ms. Charity Haines, Bright Stars Coordinator, presented an update on this successful program, now in its fifth year at four of our elementary schools. The School Board thanks the Social Services Department, including Kathy Ralston, for their support', of the program. The Board, at its January 24 meeting, requested that the following actions be taken: Include information about the Bright Stars Program in the 2000- 2001 School Division Progress Report. 1 Provide information to the Board regarding' comparisons between those students who have access to the Bright Stars Program compared to those students who do not. Directed the Chairman to send a letter to legislators asking them to support the Governor's Proposed Budget, which includes additional ~ding for programs for at,risk four year-olds. (Attachment 3) The Board directed staff to send a letter to legislators to ask the Joint Legislative Review and Audit Commission to develop and the Virginia Department of Education to implement changes to the Composite Index (Fiscal Ability to Pay) Formula to account for the impact of revenue sharing agreements in jurisdictions having populations over 75,000. Senator Couric has included an amendment to Senate Bill 30 (SB 30) reflecting this request. We received a report on the Equity and Diversity Program Committee, which began meeting in November 1999. The overall purpose of this committee is to ,'review programs already in place in the schoOl division as they pertain to equity and diversity, research the topic of diversity and introduce appropriate policies and prOgrams as needed, and make recommendations to the School Board through the Superintendent regarding improving the overall climate of the Albemarle County School Division". The committee consists of 26 people: 18 females, 8 males; 10 African-Americans, 1 Asian American, 1 East Indian-American, and 14 European-Americans. They have received Teambuilding training and are now gathering · information on issues raised on diversity within the .school division. Their meetings are open to the public. The next meeting is Thursday, · February 10, 2000 at 4:30 at the ARC. County Student Council and Student Representation on School Board discussion provided direction to initially develop a County High Schools' Student Council. This will be a starting point towards consideration for student representation on the School Board. In their planning, students have expressed a strong desire to develop a structure that will allow their voices to be heard by the School Board. Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance (CASBA) presented an update to the Board, which included their increased revenue and an outline of projects to include a new training session for Project RESEED and a grant to help with the continued support of the Computer4Kids program. Albemarle Schools uses vocational funds in conjunction with instructional funds to support its membership in the Alliance in the amount of $17,187. CASBA's total revenues are $79,045. Athletic Directors' Presentation on the High School Athletic Program. The Athletic Directors from our three comprehensive high schools made a presentation to the School Board on January 10. Their presentation focused on some of their critical issues, including increasing costs for uniforms and equipment, increased costs of security and transportation, and the need to improve coaching stipends. The Board was surprised to learn that coaching stipends are calculated based on the starting teacher salary of 10 years ago, $19,000. The Athletic Directors also indicated that Booster Clubs are now more involved in raising funds for essential expenses versus "extras" over and above the essentials. Highlights: January 15th Retreat, January 18th Meeting, January 22nd Budget Work Session, January 26th Budget Work Session At the January 15th Retreat, Dr. Frank Barham and Ms. Barbara Coyle, Virginia. School Boards Association, presented information on how other schOol boards conduct school board meetings. A lively discussion eschewed on their comments to suggestions and recommendations made by school board members. The outcome of this productive meeting will change how we conduct future meetings and in setting up agenda deadlines. I am working with staff to see just what changes need to be made to make this happen and develop timelines for implementation. We have formed a Budget Committee consisting of Steve Koleszar, Gary Grant, and Ken Boyd to review the entire school budget process for next year, to include the CIP process, the budget book and possible budget manual, and the timelines associated with the budget process. We received the Superintendent's recommended budget on January 18th. Since then, we had two budget work sessions, on January 22na and on the 26th. Today, after our Joint Board Meeting with you, we will receive public input on the budget tonight, starting at 6:30 PM. Mr. Gerald Terrell, principal of Cale Elementary School, was the recipient of the Charlottesville Martin Luther King Award on January 16th. Present We have had 7 inclement weather days to date (9/16, 1/20, 1/25- 27, 1/31, 2/1). This means that school will now end on June 16th. If we miss 1 more day, then we will start taking up to 4 days from our Sphng Break, starting with April 17. Hopefully, we will not exceed the 11 days we have planned in this year's calendar! We will all be meeting with you this afternoon to hear and discuss the latest on the 2000/2001-budget process. At this time, our board is still receiving budget information and there has not been any voting on a final budget plan. Therefore, the discussions will truly be by individuals! I understand that you will be receiving an update on the CIP process this afternoon. Of course, we are very interested in your ideas on this at our Joint Meeting today and in the public hearing, scheduled February 9th. We too have a budget work session that night. Future We have added February 10th as another possible budget session day, in addition to February 2 for our Public Hearing and February 9th. We will be considering applying for a waiVer to start schOol · BEFORE Labor Day. The staffhas recommended that we also consider approving the start date on Monday August 28th, 2000 so people can make vacation and other plans. This will be on our February 14th agenda. We are planning to discuss a "spot" redistricting of Cale Elementary School on February 14th. Currently, we have 573 students in a school rated at capacity at 432, resulting in 4 mobile units on the school grounds. Cale is projected to have 606 students by next school year. Without a "spot" redistricting, Cale would have 174 students over capacity. We will be attending the VSBA Legislative Conference on February 21-22. We are planning to meet with Senator Couric and Delegates Van Yahres and Harris to receive updates on legislative actions. How should future Board-to-Board Presentations be presented, based on mutually agreed topics or using the current format? ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFs Also available at http://k12.albemarle, org "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: January 10, 2000 BOARD ACTION The Board appointed Dr. Charles Ward as School Board Cha/rman, Mrs. Susan Gal[ion as Vice Chairperson, Mrs. Tina Pendleton Fuller as Clerk and Mrs. Jennifer Johnston as Deputy Clerk for a one-year term. The Board appointed Mrs. Diantha McKeel as the representative for the Piedmont Regional Education Center Board for the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP), and Mr. Steve Koleszar was appointed as the alternate. The Board appointed Mr. Steve Kole, szar as the representative for the Blue Ridge Virtual Governors School and Mr. Gary Grant as the alternate. ByBoard consensus, it was agreed that Mr. Ken Boyd would serve as the Board contact on the Computers-4-Kids Board, Mr. Madison Cummings would serve as the contact on the Building a Community of Recruiters (BACOR) committee. Mr. Koleszar will serve as the alternate. A middle school student was expelled for the remainder of the school year for willful disobedience and threatening a staff member. The Board authorized Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, to sign official correspondence, to attend Board meetings, and to act on behalf of the Superintendent accordingly in the absence of the Superintendent. Based on the Superintendent's initial budget recommendation, the Board deferred hiring a Communications As, sistant. This position will be included in the Superintendent s budget as an ho_funded priority. As required bythe Virginia Department of Education's Stardarrb 9CQua//ty, the School Board Policy'Manual is available forpublic review and comment at all public libraries, school media centers, and the Clerk's office. In addition, the policy manual is on the division, website. The Board appointed Mr. Ken Boyd and Mr. Steve Koleszar to serve on a the Compensation Steering Group, comprised of two Board of Supervisors members (Mr. David Bowerman and Mr. LindsayDorrier) and staff to assist with the five-year strategic plan for total compemation. The Steering Committee report will be provided to both Boards in April. The Superintendent will present his 2000- 2001 Budget to the School Board on January 18 in the Auditorium. A motion to waive Policy BDDFA, Reoons~ ofMotit~ Pass~ regarding the November 22, 1999 Board action to reconsider how the budget should be presented to the School Board failed. The Board directed staff to send a letter to legislators to ask the Joint Legislative Review and Audit Commission to develop and the Virginia Department of Education to implement changes to the Corrfposite Index (Fiscal Abilityto Pa3~ Formula to account for the impact of revenue sharing agreements in jurisdictions having populations over 75,000. The Board directed the Chairman to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors Chairman informing that the School Board wants to continue with the monthly Board-to-Board presentations and to work out logistics, as they are informative. The January 15 School Board Retreat will be held at the Virginia School High School League at 8:30 a.m. The Retreat Mil include team building and protocol. STANDARDS OF LEARNING (SOLs) UPDATE Students that finished semester classes at Murray and other schools, where the full credk course was finished, have been tested on the SOLs. On March 6, 7, and 8, testing will begin in grades 5, 8, and 11 on the writing portion of the SOLs. Spring testing dates are still being set. Stanford 9 results have arrived and an analysis and report are being worked on. There will not be a comparison to state scores until late February or early March. SCHOOL BOARD SALARIES At the December 10, 1,999 meeting with legislators, the Board was introduced to last year s legislation, House Bill 2064 (I-lB 2064). At that time, the Board agreed to defer discussion to a later date. HB 2064 calls for the elimination of school board member salary limits specified by each school division and that salaries for school board members representing counties, cities and towns be consistent with salaryprocedures and limits set for the local governing body. Also, it would increase the amount a school board maypaytts chairman from $1,000 to $2,000. Further, no school board can be awarded a salary increase unless a specific increase is approved by affirmative vote of the school board. Govemor Gilmore vetoed this legislation during the last session because, in his opinion, HB 2064 would remove the General Assembly~s authority to approve pay raises for school board members, as k would align school board salary caps with those already adopted by boards of supervisors and city councils. The Governor also stated that liB 2064 had the effect of authorizing large salary increases for school boards without further legislative oversight, since these boards have substantially higher caps than those codified for school boards. In order to address the Governor's concerns and alleviate these problems, the School Board supported the following modifications to HB 2064 and asked that a letter be sent to legislators asking them to introduce legislation: Include a limited phase-in process that would allow school boards to receive adequate compensation. Current compensation paid to Albemarle County School Board members is currendy below that of the Board of Supervisors. The General Assembly would determine the length of the phase-in and the percentage of funding allocated. If HB 2064 passes into law, the School Board could incorporate policy language that would allow School Board members to receive a percentage increase as agreed by both the School Board and Board of Supervisors. HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS PROGRAM UPDATE The School Board has been receiving an annual status report on high school athletics. Currendy, there are 25 sports for boys and girls, 45 teams at Albemarle, Monticello, and Western Albemarle High Schools (includes varsity and junior varsit30, and there are 2,200 student athletic poskions. Given the Board's direction last year, this year athletics' cost has been separated as a narrative area in each of the kigh school budgets. Each of the high school athletic directors provided a portion of the report. Issues covered included the rising costs of uniforms, equipment, transportation, and security. The Directors also stressed the need to improve coaching stipends. The Board directed the Chairman to send a letter to the Virginia High School League Redistricting/Reclassification Committee to request that Albemarle High School be moved to another district as it is hardship ro remain in the Western District due to significant travel time for athletes and their families, resulting in lost instructional and studying time. In addition, Board consensus was reached to investigate providing academic time for athletes. CASBA UPDATE During the fall of 1995, through the combined effort of business, civic, and education leaders, the Charlottesville-Albemarle School Business Alliance (CASBA) was formed. In 1999, the name was changed to the Charlottesville Area School Business Alliance to be parallel with the name change of the Charlottesville Area Chamber of Commerce and to be more inclusive of the new membership of Fluvarma County Public Schools. In 1999, CASBA revised its mission to state: The CASBA working with community and business partners will be an effective force for high standards for academic achievement and career preparation for all students. It will be a catalyst for educational change based on the understanding that today's students will work in a dynamic global marketplace . using advanced technologies. It will provide services to address employer and workplace needs by connecting youth to high quality learning oppommities in schools, workplaces, the community, and post-secondary educational experiences. It will provide a communications link among its partners: employers, educational systems, and community groups. The oppommides envisioned by CASBA are a natural extension of community involvement in the schools. Workplace experiences provided by the Alliance are structured to provide a more predictable coordination of services for and from education and the community. The benefks of the Alliance are reciprocal for all parucipants through the combined partnerships that ensure that students attain the skills and &bilides necessary to be self-sufficient, contributing members of the community. CASBA continues to bring business, government, schools and communitytogether to enhance the learning experiences of students. CASBA's operational and actual expenses are funded by Charlottesville City Public Schools, Albemarle County Public Schools, Charlottesville Area Chamber of Commerce, and Flmranna County Public Schools as well as through contributions and donations of local businesses. Albemarle Schools uses vocational funds in conjunction with instructional funds to support its membership in the Alliance in the amount of $17,187. CASBA's total revenues are $79,045. At the direction of the School Board, CASBA will be reviewed annually and at midyear to determine ms continued effectiveness. The Annual Report includes the following: Programs and Projects: Project Reseed (recruits retired scientists and engineers to volunteer in middle schools); 1999 Job Fair; Tenth Grade Career Fair;, Business/Educator Exchange Program; Database of Business Partners; Student Job Shadowing and Internships; Workshop for Business and Education; Workforce Investment Act Exploration Committee; Governor's School for the Gifted; Computers-4-Kids Program; and Information Technology Career Academy. Challenges include the following: * With the substantially increased need for technology workers, CASBA will be in the forefront of bringing schools and business together ro provide the technologically skilled workforce required by business, increased work with the Information Technology Career Academy, Computers-4-Kids, and new technology business partnerships will be essential. · CASBA must be involved with coordinated, cooperative grant projects among participating school divisions to bring the technology resources to the schools that will support new technology-based learning. Grant writing is labor-intensive. · With the addition of Fluvanna County Schools to the Alliance, the resources of CASBA are stretched to provide services to this expanded population. · CASBA sees the need to expand and intensify its Business Educator Exchange Program to assist teachers and administrators in learning about the rapidly changing business environment. As educators become more knowledgeable about the requirements of the workplace, theywill be able to improve the preparation of their students for employment. The Board received the CASBA Report for information. COMMENDATIONS · Ms. Chelsea Curtin, a student at Broadus Wood Elementary School, was recognized for winning the Omni Charlottesville Hotel's Annual Holiday Card Contest. · Ms. Nicolette Kollar from Crozet Elementary School was recognized for first place in the Second Street Gallery's annual Holiday Happiness Poster Contest. The 1999 Knowledge Masters team from Albemarle I-rgh School, who finished third out of 39 teams in Virginia and 4Pt out of 1049 teams worldwide, will be recognized at the Board's February 14, 2000 meeting. AI.BEMARLE coUNTy PUBLIC SCHOOLS *OA O amies Also available at http://kl2.albemarle, org "WE E XPE CT SUCCE SS" SCHOOL BOARD MF ETING: January 24, 2000 BOARD ACTION The Board accepted several donations made to the following schools: Murray Elementary School, Cale Elementary School, Red Hill Elementary School, Burley Middle School, Walton Middle School, Monticello High School, and Western Albemarle _High School. The Board thanked businesses and individuals for their contributions to the school division. The Board asked that the overcrowding at Cale Elementary School be addressed through spot redistricting, using the current Board PolicyFB-R, Fab//t/es P~nn/ng. The proc,ess for spot redistricting at Cale will be addressed at the Board s ebruary 14 Board meeting. The Board also provided irect!,on that after the C_ale spot redistricting occurs, that the Board s policy be reviewed before the Northern Elementary School redistricting occurs. The Northern Elementary School is slated to open in the fall of 2002. The Board expelled a Monticello High School student for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year and summer for being in possession of a controlled substance and theft. The Board continued its review of the 2000-2001 Budget, which was carried over from its Saturday, January 22 Budget Work Session. The Board's Budget Public Hearing is scheduled for February 2 at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium. Prior to that meeting, the Board will meet with the Board of Supervisors at 4:00 p.m. in Room 235 to discuss budget needs. SUPERINTENDENT'S EQUITY AND DIVERSITY COMMITTEE On May 10, 1999, the Superintendent, Dr. Kevin Casmer, made a commitment to the School Board to start Equity and Diversity Committee comprised of school stakeholders. The overall purpose of the committee is to review equity and diversity programs already in place in the school division, research the topic of diversity and introduce appropriate policies and programs as needed, and make recommendations to the School Board through the Superintendent regarding the overall climate of the division. The committee was advertised at parent, teacher and classified council meetings and the principals' association meetings. Advertisements were placed on the School Division website and in the DaityProgmss. Principals were also asked to advertise the committee within their school communities. So that the committee would be representative of the school community stakeholders, three positions were available for each of the following categories: teachers, administrators, parents, classified employees, students, and community members. In addition, spots were reserved for two central office staff and two Superintendent appointees. Volunteers from the parent, teacher, administrator, and classified councils selected the parents, teachers, administrators, and classified staff respectively. The assistant superintendents appointed central office staff, all students who applied were selected, and the superintendent made two appointments. One superintendent appointee had to withdraw due to prior obligations./Please note that this does nor irrlude ex-officio mmtatvs: mo assistant superimoxfo~, one dirtm~ of Htarnn Rescuroes, arrl the facil~. Employee Rda~ns ~) Since the committee began meeting in November 1999, the members have participated in organizational, information gathering, and equity and diversity training activities. The committee now begins the process of reviewing concerns raised by the committee and by others (teachers, administrators, commumty members, classified staff, students, central office staff, and parents) about equity and diversity issues within the division. The committee is also continuing with diversity awareness development. Preliminary plans include another full day awareness session, a cultural banquet, and participation in diversity events sponsored by schools. A shared vision statement is being developed. The vision statement will underscore the goals and objectives supported by measurable behaviors. The next steps include issues regarding equity and diversity within the division, plan mother diversity development day, and complete the vision. Ultimately, the development of a five-year strategic plan aimed at addressing equity and diversity issues within the division is being considered. The Board received the report for information and requested that a future update be provided that would include the committee's Equity and Diversity recommendations. WOODBROOK ELEMENTARY PRE SENTS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN lV~r. Keith Hammon, Principal, reported that there are three objectives to the School Improvement Plan: Reading, Tecknolog)r, and Character Counts. Read.ing Objectives include emphasis on literac?; Stardards of .L .eam~ (SO.L) correlated books on tape for K-5 students, ' ~ma~.}e.me, n~uo~n of d3,e A. sp/re..Gu/de, purchasing of multiple copies ,~r~_~-> ~oo~s rot_graded reading, and expanding the use of the uson system of Reading to ali Special Education students. Technology. Objectives include completing a needs assessment of the faculty, identifying teachers who will participate in graduate level cours, es, beginning a mentoring program the secofid semester, and assessing student performance bY a combination of SOL checklists and portfolio items. Character Counts Objectives include emphasizing the importance of character education and integration into the curriculum, involving students, teachers, and parents in the plan, establishing a character education committee and maintaining a collection of information for the school program. MIGRANT AID PROGRAM RECEIVES HONOR The Points of Light Foundation chose the Madison House Migrant Aid program as the DailyPoint of Light for January 27. Established in 1990, the Points of Light Foundation awards a Daily Point of Light to an individual, organization, or business that makes significant contributions toward solving serious social problems. The Albemarle Migrant Education Program and Madison House, a student volunteer center at the University of Virginia, established the Migrant Aid Project in 1973 as a collaborative effort to meet the educational needs of migrant workers and their families. These student volunteers and Migrant Education teachers travel four evenings a week to migrant camps and homes in remote areas of Albemarle County. Homework help and extended learning time are provided to the students enrolled in school. The parents, adult workers, and drop out youth attend English as a Second or Other Language classes. Last year, 112 UVA students volunteered more than 3,600 hours of serve in the Migrant Aid Program. The Board will recognize this program and its volunteers at its February 14, 2000 Board meeting, under Commendations. B RIGHT STARS PROGRAM Bright Stars is an early intervention program for targeted at-risk 4- year-old children and their families. The goals of the program include: · Providing developmentally appropriate education and enrichment oppommities; · Providing famih'es access to community services; and · Facilitating and sustaining parent involvement in their children's education/ Children are identified for the program using a number of risk factors as crkeria. The factors include family income, health conditions that affect learning abilities, and home environment. The Bright Stars program has four classrooms located in Albemarle County Schools - Agnor-Hurt, Cale, Greer, and Stone-Robinson Elementary Schools. Each class is staffed by a certified teacher, teacher fide, and family coordinator trained in early childhood education, special education, and family systems. There is a teacher to student ratio of 1.8. Funding for the program is provided in part through the Virginia Preschool Initiative via the Department of Education and Albemarle County, with in-kind services provided through partnerships with the school division and local agencies serving children and families. Program management is provided under the guidance of an Advisory Board representing Bright Stars parmers and a program coordinator. The Bright Stars Program is part of a larger continuum for community children's services with early intervention. The program can be a cost reduction strategy. Currently, more than $4 million is spent on the County's Foster Care Program. Approximately $8 million will be spent on a new juvenile detention center. If money is spent on early prevention then the costs for later treatment would be reduce& The County Executive, Social Services, School Division, and Community developed the 4-year-old program. The first program started at Stone-Robinson Elementary School in 1996. The total cost of the program is about $350,000 per year. Approximately $87,000 of the program is two-thirds funded by local government and the rest is from the state. In-kind contributions from the school division and community agencies pay for transportation and maintenance to the facilities. The Bright Stats Program is also connected with the Growing Healthy Family Program, which is a community program that provides services to families in various sects. The program is managed through the Department of Social Services and the Albemarle County Schools. The Board requested that the following actions be taken: Include information about the Bright Stars Program in the 2000-2001 School Division Progress Report. Provide irdormadon to the Board regarding comparisons between those students who have access to the Bright Stars Program compared to those students who do not. Direct the Chairman to send a letter to legislators asking them to support the Governor's Proposed Budget, which includes additional funding for programs for at-risk 4-year-olds. STUDENT COUNCIL AND STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TO SCHOOL BOARD During the 1997-1998 school year, a group of division-wi& student leaders developed recommendations for establishing a COunty student council - mission, purposes, selection process, and training One of the goals cited by this student group was to provide input to decision-makers about issues that impact students. Legislation passed in 1999 (22.1-86.1 - Appointment of student representatives to local school boards) allows local school boards to adopt procedures for the appointment of student representatives from among the students enrolled in the public schools in the division. School Board members have expressed an interest in having a student on the Board. A county student council could provide a mechanism for appointing a student to the School Board and increasing representative input from students. This' winter, student leaders at Western Albemarle, Albemarle High Sqhool, and Monticello High School have discussed the proposed county student council and the possibility of a student representative to the Board. Students have expressed overwhelming support for both proposals. Students also have made recommendations for implementation. An important consideration for students is whether their voice will be heard and will make a difference. Board cOnsensus was reached to support the County Student Council and recommended that options be prepared and presented to the Board as to how representation should be presented on the Board. January 31, 2000 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the School Board 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 The Honorable Emily Comic P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905 The Honorable Paul C. Harris 100 Court Square, Annex B Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Honorable Senator Couric and Delegates Hams and Van Yahres: The Governor's Proposed Budget for the next biennium includes additional funding for programs for at- risk four year-olds. On behalf of the Albemarle County School Board, I would like to express our unqualified support for increased state funding for these programs. As you know, Albemarle County has had a four year-old program called "Bright Stars" for several years. Currently, this program is operating at four of our fifteen elementary schools, and the School Board is extremely interested in expanding these exceptional services. A recent report presented to the Board about "Bright Stars" documented significant academic gains and success for the students involved. The Albemarle County School Board firmly believes that investment in early intervention will result in long- term savings for Special Education and other expensive remedial programs. In considering funding for at-risk four year-old programs, I hope the General Assembly will also consider the actual total costs of these programs, including both staffing and facilities. In growing divisions such as Albemarle, where space is at a premium, a four year-old program requires lease or purchase and installation ora mobile unit. This cost is by no means insignificant. Please know that the Albemarle School Board is appreciative of your continued support of education. If additional information is needed, please call me at 972-4055. Sincerely, Charles M. Ward Chairman Albemarle County School Board Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Kevin Castner, Superintendent Robert Tucker, County Executive David Blount, Thomas Jefferson Planning District "We Expect Success" Albemarle County Cost of Living Study November 1999 1999 Albemarle County Cost of Living Projections I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With state welfare reform legislation now in effect for two years and associated benefit reductions possible for some recipients, the County wanted to revisit the local cost of living estimates compiled from 1995. As before, the revised study is designed to illustrate the monthly expenses for various family types to live in Albemarle County taking into consideration basic living needs. The 1999 Cost of Living results are similar to the prior study, with housing and childcare costs accounting for between 40%-50% of the hypothetical family budget. Therefore, it would require a single mother with one pre-school child to earn at least $11.50 an hour in order to obtain a minimum level of living by community standards in Albemarle County, Virginia. Typical entry-level jobs for persons without a college education are usually not sufficient to pay for all the necessary family living expenses, and often some important expenditures are forgone to make ends meet. By comparison, a family of three with two adults working full-time can survive on little under $7.25 an hour each, making the cost of living in Albemarle significantly more attainable. These are some of the updated findings in a study of the cost of living in Albemarle County. Detailed estimates were compiled on the minimum incomes needed to live in Albemarle at a level consistent with community standards. By using a community standard of living, staff included items such as health insurance and child care which are frequently excluded from the budgets of persons with low incomes. The Albemarle cost of living does not, however, provide for expenses common to middle-class households: vacation, cable television, entertainment beyond $5.00 per week, savings for personal expenditures such as a house, or retirement funds. Also, the cost of living does not include any extraordinary medical costs. The following are important conclusions from this analysis: 1) 2) The income necessary for a single parent to maintain a household for more than one child in Albemarle~ County is virtually unattainable for someone without an advanced professional degree, or some form of subsidized housing, medical care and/or child care. Child' care for pre-school children is the second largest expenditure for most low-income families and critically impacts their ability to meet other household expenses. 3) Most low-income Albemarle families with young children do not have the option of one- parent remaining home to raise the children 4) Using % of median income as a means test for state and federal assistance programs, leaves many families well below the income level required to maintain a household. L THE ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING Table 1 shows the Albemarle cost of living for a single parent with one child. This calculation reveals that the cost of living for this household is 65% of the Virginia median income. Incomes required at this level are nearly double the authorized minimum wage. TABLE 1 COST OF LIVING: SINGLE PARENT, ONE CHILD 1995 COST DATA ESTIMATES PER MONTH ITEM OF EXPENDITURE HOUSING CHILD CARE MEDICAL INSURANCE MEDICAL EXPENSES DENTAL FOOD TELEPHONE TRANSPORTATION MISC. TOTAL (AVERAGE) APPROXIMATE TAXES GROSS SALARY REQUIRED HOURLY WAGE REQUIRED ANNUAL INCOME NEEDED VIRGINIA MEDIAN INCOME COST/MONTH $575 (Average ofl-2 bedroom) $347 $127 $40 $22 $230 $25 $245 $176 $1787 $216 $2003 $11.56 $24,036 $36,885 A. HOUSING. The most expensive item in Albemarle County is housing, which accounts for the largest share of the hypothetical family budgets. Housing costs are shown as a range from 0 bedroom to 4 bedroom apartments in the Charlottesville MSA. These Fair Market Rent figures were collected from the U.S. Department of HUD for February 1999 (Attachment A). B. CHILD CARE. Child care for preschool children constitutes the second largest area of expenditure, contributing significantly to the difference in economic well-being between families with and without children. As provided by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, the weekly costs for child care are an averaged figure of the most costly unregulated/informal child care ($75) and the lowest licensed institutional child care ($85). C. ltEALTH COSTS. Monthly health insurance for major medical coverage (non-group) for adults and minors was averaged to be $73 & $54, respectively. Health insurance varied depending on the sex and age of the adult as well as the mount of the deductible ($300). Health care costs were estimated using quotes provided by Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield Individual Insurance and do not include annual physical and preventative maintenance programs. Prescription medicine and doctor co-payments were updated from HMO estimates and Medicaid Expenditures for VA. D. FOOD. Food expenditures were obtained from the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion family food cost chart (5/99). USDA calculates four levels of food expenditure: thrifty, low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal food plans. The "low cost plan" was used for Albemarle food cost requirements (Attachment B). E. OTI:IER LIVING EXPENSES Utility cost. Generally gas, water/sewer and electricity are included in the Fair Market rent allocations. Therefore, no utility costs were included in the cost estimations. Telephone Costs were determined as Sprint Centel's lowest monthly rate and do not include long distance or any special features. Transportation expenses were calculated as the monthly cost of purchasing and operating a second-hand vehicle, $245. The expense was based on revised computations provided by the Complete Car Cost Guide. Miscellaneous costs included clothing, housekeeping supplies, house furnishings, and personal needs were updated computations from Ernst & Whinney for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services. The Personal Need category includes minimal mental health needs (recreation) as well as physical needs. Federal and State taxes. Taxes for each family type (accounting for appropriate deductions) were calculated by the County Finance Department using the cost of living estimates as income. It should be noted that low income households pay a disproportionate amount of sales tax and other consumer taxes compared to higher income households. F. Expenses Omitted. The minimum budgets do not include a number of common items for households in the County. Among these are the following: 1) unusual medical, such as costs for chronic diseases or injuries; (2) savings for a new car, home purchase, or college education; (3) vacations; (4) recreation (including eating out). OTHER HOUSEHOLD CONFIGURATIONS In addition to a single parent with one child, the cost of living was calculated for eight other household configurations. The incomes necessary to support those types are listed below. When two adults are listed in a household it is assumed that both work full-time. TABLE 2 COST OF LIVING: VARIOUS HOUSE HOUSEHOLD CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON 1995 COST DATA ESTIMATES HOURLY WAGE REQUIRED HOUSEHOLD* COST** TO MEET COST OF LIVING 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHII.D 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILD~N 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 15,072 7.25 21,084 5.07 24,036 11.56 30,121 7.24 31,765 15.27 40,873 9.83 42361 20.37 48,061 11.56 45,757 22.00 * assumes child care expenses for all children, except last household type where three are factored ** see appendix for estimated costs per household H ANALYSIS OF COST OF LIVING DATA A. In every one of the above cases, the annual income to meet the Albemarle cost of living is below the Virginia median income. B. The income necessary for a single parent to maintain a household for more than one enid is extremely difficult to achieve for someone without an advanced professional degree. As noted, child care costs drive these budgets up and can, for two preschool age children, average $75 per week for informal day care and $85 per week for licensed/formal day care. Since many of Albemarle families use unregulated day care, we averaged both unregulated and licensed day care facility figures into our estimates. Since licensed day care costs are clearly beyond the reach of most single parents, there is a significant risk that without assistance, children will be exposed to substandard child care. C. Maintaining a family with two working parents makes living in Albemarle much more possible. Two adults with two children need to earn about $10.00 an hour each, working full- time, to meet the cost of living. A single adult with two children would need to obtain an income of $15.27 an hour to provide the same standard of living. The option of one parent staying home to raise children is effectively precluded for a low income household. D. The most difficult time to provide adequately for children is when they are pre-school age, and require full-time quality day care. The high cost for licensed day care makes it difficult if not impossible for low income families to obtain the services they need. A single parent with two children earning a realistic "living wage" of $8.00 an hour is only earning 52% of the cost of living. ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO OTHER INCOME MEASURES A. MEDIAN INCOME. At the Albemarle County cost of living of $24,036 for a single parent and child, the family would be earning 65% of the Virginia median income. This is illustrated in Table 3 for each household configuration. The 1999 Virginia median family incomes were updated estimates from HUD income limits for a family of four and do not differentiate for family configuration. TABLE 3 Cost of Living COMPARED TO MEDIAN INCOMES: ALBEMARLE & VIRGINIA HOUSEHOLD COST OF VA MEDIAN LIVING INCOME COST OF LIVING (COL) AS % OF MED. INCOME 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 15,072 28,209 53% 21,084 36,885 57% 24,036 36,885 65% 30,121 45,561 66% 31,765 45,561 70% 40,873 54,200 75% 42,361 54,200 78% 48,061 62,929 76% 45,757 62,929 73% The above analysis reveals problems in using a percent of median income as the means test for access to public assistance. The first is that the cost of living is highly dependent on the size and configuration of the household. It is not related to a percentage of median income; for example, a single adult needs a minimum of 53% of the VA area median income compared to a household of one adult and two children, which needs 70% of the Virginia median income. Thus,, there is a fundamental flaw in using, percentage of median income as a needs or means test for public assistance. A single person without extraordinary medical expenses would need an income of $15,072 per year to live in Albemarle, while a single adult with two pre-school children needs $31,765. This would put the two family types at 53% and 70% of the VA median income, respectively, and ineligible for most services. The difference in median incomes is important because the Virginia State median income is used to determine eligibility for state assistance programs, such as Section 8 rental assistance and Department of Social Services programs. In most cases, citizens are not eligible for state assistance if they are over 50% of the State median income. As shown in Table 4, all households in Albemarle, require an income substantially higher than 50% of the Virginia median income. For example, the State eligibility standard is only 53% of the Albemarle cost of living for a single person, but 67% for a single parent with one child. This illustrates the substantial gap between the point where people in Albemarle need help and when they are eligible to receive it. TABLE 4 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS (50% STATE MEDIAN INCOME) AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FAMII~Y TYPE COL as % OF VA MED. COST OF LIVING STATE ELIGIBLE INCOME (SO?A) 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHII,D 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHII,DREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILD~N 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 53% 15,072 14,105 57% 21,084 18,443 65% 24,036 18,443 66% 30,121 22,781 70% 31,765 22,781 75% 40,873 27,100 78% 42,361 27,100 76% 48,061 31,465 73% 45,757 31,465 Table 5 illustrates the County's eligibility standards for food stamps and ADC benefits, and compares those numbers with the cost of living in Albemarle. The ADC figures are used as threshold amounts to screen income in order to determine if the County will continue with the computation process. TABLE 5 ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR FOOD STAMPS & TANF AS % OF ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FAMILY TYPE 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 1-ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHII,DREN FOOD STAMP % OF COST TANg ELIG. % OF COST ELIG. ,INCOME* OF LIVING* INCOME OF LIVING 10,476 69% 3,864 26% 14,112 67% 5,700 27% 14,112 59% 5,700 24% 17,748 59% 7,152 24% 17,748 56% 7,152 24% 21,396 52% 8,568 23% 21,396 50% 8,568 20% 25,032 52% 10,140 21% 25,032 55% 10,140 22% * Income is only one determinant of eligibility A second problem is that median incomes are calculated by household size, not household configuration. Thus, the median incomes for a household of three is as follows: Virginia $45,561 The actual income needed varies substantially for a household of three depending on whether it consists of two adults and one child or one adult and two children due mostly to child care costs. Costs of Living - 3 person household 2 Adults, 1 Child $30,121 1 Adult, 2 Children $31,765 As a percent of median income, two adults and one child need 66% of the Virginia median income, while one adult and two children need 70% of the Virginia median. A third problem with the current methodology is that the Virginia median income does not take regional and local differences into account. The costs of housing and child care can differ substantially based on location, but State regulations do not always take these increased costs into account in calculating eligibility for assistance. FEDERAL INCOME MEASURES. The following table compares the cost of living required for Albemarle with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) poverty income guidelines for program eligibility (see attachment C). '7 TABLE 6 COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO FEDERAL POVERTY MEASURES FAMII,Y TYPE ALBEMARLE HHS HUD 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CI41LD 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 15,072 8,240 19,450 21,084 11,060 22,250 24,036 11,060 22,250 30,121 13,880 25,000 31,765 13,880 25,000 40,873 16,700 27,800 42,361 16,700 27,800 48,061 19,520 30,000 45,757 19,520 30,000 The most striking point is the wide gap between the HHS definition of poverty and the standard required to live in Albemarle. Some of this discrepancy is due to the fact that HHS figures present costs for the 48 contiguous states and do not adequately reflect the County's substantially higher cost of living. The second factor contributing to these low HHS poverty levels is that the HHS poverty guidelines were derived basically from census poverty thresholds. (With some adjustments for income differentials between families of different sizes). The basic assumption for Census poverty thresholds has increasingly come under challenge from economists and policy-makers. The Census definition of poverty is based on the assumption that families of three or more spend approximately a third of their income on food. This assumption is considered by many to be unrealistic given the pattern of inflation in non-food items. The HUD income guidelines for HUD programs are based on predetermined percentages of geographically-based median income, in this case the Charlottesville MSA. These are more realistic, but even these figures do not reflect adequately the high cost of living for Albemarle families (especially as family size increases). Table 7 summarizes the HHS and HUD income levels as percentages of the Albemarle cost of living. TABLE 7 FEDERAL POVERTY MEASURES AS PERCENTAGE OF ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FAMILY TYPE mis HUD 1 ADULT 55% 2 ADULTS 52% 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 46% 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 46% 1 ADULT, 2 CHII,DREN 44% 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 41% 1 ADULT, 3 CHII,DREN 39% 2 ADULT, 3 CHII.DREN 41% 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 43% 129% 105% 93% 83% 79% 68% 66% 62% 66% Since many recognize that the HHS poverty standards are unrealistically low, they will sometimes be increased by fixed percentages for eligibility purposes. For example, calculations may be made based on 100%, 150% or 200% of poverty. If the Albemarle cost of living is compared to HHS poverty levels in this way, one finds that a single parent with one child would need to earn 217% of poverty to meet the cost of living in Albemarle. All federal programs, such as Head Start, Medicaid, General Relief, Auxiliary Grants and ADC use the HHS guidelines as a basis, although they are upgraded with cost of living adjustments for regions throughout the state. TABLE 8 COST OF LIVING AS PERCENT OF HHS POVERTY LEVEL FAMILY TYPE HHS COL in ALBEMARLE 1 ADULT 183% 15,072 2 ADULTS 191% 21,084 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 217°/6 24,036 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 217% 30,121 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 229% 31,765 2 ADULTS, 2 CHII,DREN 245% 40,873 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 254% 42,361 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 246% 48,061 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 234% 45,757 CONCLUSION: This revised report is intended as an ongoing effort to create an information base on which to develop rational public policy for low income citizens in Albemarle County. It has identified the major costs categories for living in Albemarle and made explicit assumptions about each. From this information, an Albemarle cost of living was developed by household configuration and size. The cost data can be adjusted, based on public policy debate, to reflect community standards more accurately. The revised Cost of Living report for Albemarle continues to raise serious questions about the validity of other standards used as measures of need, especially in their failure to account for different household configurations as well as size. The next step is to analyze federal, state, and local assistance programs to assess their effectiveness in bridging the gap for households with incomes below the Albemarle cost of living. From this second level of analysis, one would have a basis for assessing and developing a rational policy to meet the needs of low income persons. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Clarification of Issues Related to Program Implementation AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Davis, White, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED By: .~~.~~'-~'-''''----'-'- / At the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 1, 1999 staff reviewed a number of issues with the Board regarding implementation of the ACE program. As a result of that meeting, the Board scheduled a public hearing on the final report of the ACE committee to receive input from .citizens. In addition to the Board's general discussion of the ACE program as a result of the public hearing, staff is seeking input from the Board regarding issues previously discussed. This input is needed to provide guidance to the County Attorney in drafting an ordinance for the program. DISCUSSION: The following guidelines have been developed based on previous discussion by the Board and recommendations from staff. Further amendment to these guidelines may be needed. 1. Applications will be taken throughout the year. 2. The purchase of conservation easements will take place at the end of a one-year application period, unless extenuating circumstances dictate otherwise. 3. Applications for the purchase of conservation easements must meet the minimum qualifying points to be considered for purchase. 4. The Board of Supervisors is not obligated to purchase conservation easements on all properties that meet the minimum qualifying points. 5. Properties not purchased in a given year are eligible to reapply for the program in a future year. 6. The Albemarle County Recreational Facilities Authority will be the holder of all conservation easements acquired through the ACE program. 7. The County will offer to pay for conservation easements based on a County or contracted appraisal and negotiation with landowner will not be permitted. 8. Property owners will not have the option to buy back the conservation easement. 9. The County will pay all costs, including environmental site assessment(s), survey(s), recording cost(s), grantors tax, if any, and other charges associated with closing except fees ncurred for legal, financial or other advice and fees in connection with the release or subordination of liens to the easement(s) being acquired by the County. 10. Points will be assigned to properties located in sensitive groundwater recharging areas, to be defined through future groundwater studies. Regarding other issues raised at the public hearing or which have yet to be resolved, staff offers the follow: 1. Acquisition of easements on "low scorin.q" properties: Staff recommends that the Board consider the purchase of easements on "low scoring" properties on a case by case basis. A "low scoring" property would be one that receives the minimum, or just above minimum, qualifying points using the proposed point system. A point range for Iow scoring properties would need to be established. For properties that fall in this range, staff would undertake a more detailed analysis of the property and provide a recommendation on whether or not to acquire the easement. :vAliD OF SUPERVISORS . -: : ,: AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements February 2, 2000 Page 2 2. Properties abutting Development Area boundaries: Staff recommends that property abutting a Development Area boundary also be evaluated on a case by case basis. The evaluation would focus on determining whether the easement would protect defined significant resources and, if not, how the easement may affect other current land use policies and future land use issues/decisions, For example, it is likely that any property that is located within a water supply watershed would be recommended for acquisition. As a result of the public hearing, the ACE committee was asked to provide additional input on a number of issues, including how income level and biodiversity would be considered in evaluating properties for purchase. Due to the inclement weather, the committee was unable to meet on January 25 as scheduled and has rescheduled their meeting to Monday, January 31 at 5:00 p.m. Staff will attempt to provide additional information from the committee prior to Wednesday's meeting. RECOMMENDATION This item was scheduled to receive final input from the Board prior to drafting an ordinance. Staff hopes to receive input from the Board on any changes you feel are necessary to the guidelines proposed above and on the other points raised regarding marginal properties and properties abutting the growth areas. In addition, representatives of the ACE committee will be available to discuss additional information from the committee that may also need to be incorporated into the draft ordinance. 00.017 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET TO BE' ELIGIBLE FOR THE ACE PROGRAM, A. PROPERTY MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITEKA: .. ,",2. _'. ,....: . ~:-,.,.-....~. ,' . .~ .,, .. :~ Eligibility for ACE,,, Program: i .... 'z--..~'- .: .-:.~..... - ' ., 3. ;.. Land Ln permanent open spac~ is cons/gtent w~tli."' '" - '": · ,.~- Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan' yes no The proposed easement terms are consistent with The ACE Criteria for Easement Terms yes__ no Minimum score fo..r eligibility: I5 points. RANKING PRIORTY POINT SYSTEM I. OPEN-SPACE CRITERA: Points Points Avail. Earned Land adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, National, State, local park or other protected open space (one point for every 500 ft. of boundary) 2. Size of property: (1 point for each 50 ac.) II. THREAT OF CONVERSION: 1. Property is threatened with forced sate: Other hardship (explain) 5 3 2. Number of usable development rights on the property: 1/2 point for each development right, incl. 21 ac. Rights minus those developmen* rights retained. * Albemarle County Planning department will provide number of usable development rights by determining with Zoning Department the number of theoretical development rights and estimating potential for loss as result of slope or wetlands. Applicants may provide alternative documents from a Certified Land Surveyor. Pg, 2 ACE PROG~ RANKING SHEET 2. Working family farm (includes forest): At least one family member's principal occupation (income) (51% or greater) i~ farming this farm/forestland 5 At least one famil'y member is producer of farm products 3 3. a. Designated Scenic road protection (State or Entrance Corridor): (One point for every, 600 ft. of road frontage) or 3. b. Frontage on public road: (One point for every 1000 ft. of public road frontage) 4. Historic resource protection: Within a Nat4onal or Va. Rural Historic District: Individual structure on or eligible for National or Va. Register Land lies in primary viewshed of Monticello (maximum possible points for # 4.: 5 points) 3 5. Na.tural habitat protection: Land contains an occurance of a plant or ·animal species as listed on Va. Natural Heritage Inventory as rare or endangered* 5 Soils 1 point for every 50 ac. of acreage in class I-III soils (NRCS Classifications) *This Inventory provides a good Proxy for biologically diverse habitat. A COunty Biological Inventory may supply additional data and .catego~es for ranking in the future. Pg. 3 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET 7. Public D.'~g~'Wajer Sul~ivI¥.Wat_drslied protecti.on- a. Pr . e - :. -.- ::'.. ... b. mparia fron gii-:';!.vz.'. C-r'ee f Doyle, Buck. M...~; ..Creek, &.iRivann"a' R:,~..-laCob' .~ Run frontage (one-half point, for ~very: I000 ft. of river boundary) -%. 8. Designated Scenic Rivers protection: Property contains frontage on State Scenic River (one-half point for 'every 1000 ft. of river boundary) points Avail. 3 points Earned IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: If you would like financial need to be considered and your income is equal to or below the current median income for Albemarle County in previous tax year: If your income is less ~han median income minus 20°70 If your income is less than median income plus 20070 10 15 5 V. LEVERAGING OF COUNTY FUNDS S~ate, Federal, or Foundation funding exist to assist landowner with funding of purchase of easement (ex's: Open-Space Preservation Trust Fund, CREP, Farrrdand Pro~ecfion Program, Forest Legacy) The following extra points are given to those applicants who make use either of one of the above options or of bargain sale (partial gift) to provide leverage for the County's funding: For each 10070 o.f leveraged funds: 1 point: total available pts: 10 Total Points in this Ranking sheet: points This Ranking Sheet provides a priorit~d ranking among the Applicants for Albemarle County's consideration. Notes for tabulation: Fractional points to the first decimal rounded should be ~abulated. ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS' PROGRAM FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY FINAL REPORT 3 November 1999 INTRODUCTION In a purchase of conservation easements program, landowners voluntarily enter'into agreements with a public agency or private organization to sell the 'd~;delOpment.potential Of their properties. In turn,~ the agency-pays the lan'doWners the difference between the value Of the land for agricultural, forest, open-space or estate (i.e. rural) Use and the value ofl the land for its "highest and best" (generally residential) use. The owner sells the right to convert the land to a non-rural use. The legal mechanism used to restrict development is a conservation easement. There is increasing recognition that farm and forest land, dean water and airsheds, scenic vistas and rural character have public value as well as private value. The AcquiSition of Conservation Easements Program proposed in this report provides a method of attaining a balance between landowners' rights and responsibilities, between the private and public values of rural land. STATEMENT OF NEED In the last decade, an increasing number of' programs, federal, state, and local, have been created to purchase conservation easements that protect farmland, forest land and other open-space lands. There has been increasing interest in such programs because of the accelerating rate at which farmland and other open-space is being lost. In the period between 1959 and 1992, for example, 37% of Virginia's farmland was lost. in Albemarle County, 25,000 acres of farmland were lost from 1974 to 1992, and 12,898 acres in the decade from 1982 to 1992. At present, 31.7% or 89,208 acres of the 283,652 acres of forest land in Albemarle County is considered by the Department of Forestry to .be too densely populated for long term timber production. The T]PDC Build-Out Analysis indicates that at the build-out permitted by the present zoning ordinance, only 4% of the Rural Areas of the County will have a density of less than one housing unit per 21 acres. Regulatory land-use planning tools acceptable to citizens and elected officials have not been able to stem the tide of land conversion. The purchase of conservation easements represents an alternative to reliance solely on regulation, while keeping the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. The Purchase of Development Rights Committee and its work: On April 9, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed a ten member Purchase of 'Development Rights Committee to develop a purchase of development rights program consistent .with the Albemarle County ComprehensiVe Plan .... The Committee mef~mgiithiy~ ~nd in sub- committee over a; two y. ear periodI. ' The.committ'e~i~ibize.se~t~.its. initial report~ 0utlining ~'ecommendations for. an Acquisition"io£ ConserVation EaSements. Program to the Board of subervisors on 2 septeiixber 1998. At that time, the Board approved the ConCePt of the Prbgrani az: '~'utlined in the Phase I Report and directed the Committee to continue developing a program as outlined in that Report and to proceed to community outreach and comment. The Committee then spoke to many interested groi~ps and citizens and sought to encourage public comment. In addition, the Committee has tested the ranking sheet with specific sample parcels of land and developed a recommendation for the valuation of easements to be purchased. The Committee reported on its public outreach efforts and presented its Phase II report to the Board of Supervisors. The Board directed the Committee to move forward with completion of its work. The Department of Planning and Zoning Department have aided the Committee in developing a methodology for determining the number of usable development rights on a given parcel. Consultation with the County Attorney and Director of Finance have assisted in preparing a funding recommendation consistent with Virginia law. The Planning Department has also assisted in providing comment on the selection criteria as they r~late to the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee has worked with the County Assessor, Director of Finance, and County Attorney in developing a process for assessing the value of easements to be purchased. To fulfill .its charge to develop public consensus, the Committee has held the following meetings: I. Landowners' meeting: In conjunction with the Farm Bureau and the Extension Service, the Committee is presently organized a landoWners' workshop on the concept of purchase of development rights and use of such programs elsewhere. At that meeting, Bill Powel, dairy farmer and Program Administrator of the Carroll County, Maryland, purchase of easements program described his experience as participant in a purchase of easements program and discussed existing programs such as Carroll COunty's. II. Public Worksession: The Committee held public work session on the program to receive comment on the proposed program before finalizing this report. 2 The Committee suggests that the Board hold a public hearing on the program. The Committee is available to assist staff in the presentation of the program for that hearing if desired and is available to ~assist with a work session if desired. The Committee wishes to express special and heart-felt thanks to Diane Mullins in the County Executive's office for her cheerful assistance through- out its work. Her help has been vital to the completion of our task. Committee Members: Sherry Buttrick, Chairman; Edward Bain, Vice-Chairman; Walter Perkins, Board of Supervisors' liaison; Gregory Edwards, Wayne Elliott, Daniel P. Jordan, Babette Thorpe (replaces C. Timothy Lindstrom), Joe Jones, Stephen McLean, Joseph Samuels, William Finley (replaces David A. Tice). 1. DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION I~_ql:~til~: The aCquisition of conservation easements may be described as the purchase' of perpetual conserVation easements Which'have the effect of extinguishing deVe!opmefit~ rights on' parcels of land.' The easement is offered voluntarily by the landoxJvner. ' ':': '"'- "~''~'' ' ~-' ' The locality is not legalIy°bligated to accept any applicati°n for purchase. The landowner is not obligated to accept the County's offer to purchase. The Board of Supervisors makes the final determination to accept each proposal to purchase made by a landowner and the individual purchase must reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of acceptance of the proposal to purchase an easement. Legal .Authority: Existing legislation, The Open-Space Land Act (1966) (Code of Virginia Section~ 10.1-1700-1705), gives authority for a county or its Public Recreational Facilities Authority to purchase conservation easements on land/or conservation purposes. A conservation easement is the legal document used to purchase development rights. More specifically, the Open Space Land Act enables any public body to acquire title to, or any interests or rights of not less than five Years' duration in real property that will provide a means for the preservation of open-space land. Acquisition may be by purchase, gift, devise, bequest or grant, but not by eminent domain. The use of the real property for open space shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan. No further enabling legislation is needed. Purpose and Application: The purpose of Albemarle County's program to acquire conservation easements is to serve as one tool among the several tools available to the County to protect and efficiently use County resources by emphasizing the importance of protecting those open-space elements outlined in the Open-Space Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time. Use of an Acquisition of Conservation Easements' program to protect diverse natural resource elements rather than exclusively farmland immediately sets apart the ACE program from many PDR programs around the country. Most PDR programs focus exclusively on preservation of agricultural lands. Albemarle County's history of according weight in its public policy to protecting a broad spectrum of natural resource values' as outlined in the Open- Space Plan leads the PDR committee to recommend a broader open-space protection program rather than a program directed solely at farmland. The Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on the importance of agriculture and forestry in the rural areas suggests, however, that protection of agricultural and forestal lands will be a major component of the program. 4 It was a governing assumption that an Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program will always be one arrow in the quiver of arrows available to protect the rural areas of Albemarle County. It is intended to supplement rathei' ~[han replace protective planning efforts of the Comprehensive ~Plan and Zoning .Ordinance, AgricUltural and Forestal Districts,' donation of conservation eas'fiments, and acqU. isit'ion'~of pifrk land and naturat areas. Acquisit~ion of conservation 'easements can never do the job. alone. " , Pro~ram's Relation to,the Comprehensive Plan Among the goals of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan are protection of the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, promotion of the continuation of a viable agricultural and forestal industry and resource base, and protection of the County's surface water and ground water supphes. The Albemarle County Open-Space and Critical Resources Plan (1992), a part of the Comprehensive Plan, lists Purchase of Development Rights as a Potential Technique recommended for further study or implementation. The Ranking System for establishing order of priority for participation in the program is intended to reflect the natural resource values as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The Ranking System therefore will need to be updated by the ACE Commission when revisions to the Comprehensive Plan occur. 2. ELIGIBILITY AND RANKING OF LANDS FOR ACOUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS' PROGRAM Eligibility: Minimum criteria for eligibility to participate in the ACE program are: 1) the property's remaining in permanent open space is consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan; (This requirement of the state Code suggests that lands eligible for the program will be lands in the Rural Areas and lands specifically designated for long-term open-space within the Growth Areas) 2) The proposed easement terms are consistent with the ACE Criteria for Easement Terms. Information and Application: The program administrator located within the Department of Planning answers landowners' questions about the program and supplies information. The landowner applies to participate in the program by filling out an application form containing basic, information to include name, address, acreage, tax map parcel number and zoning of parcel. Ranking: The ranking of properties applying for purchase of conservation easement is achieved through a point' system. The point system ranks the natural resources of the property and the development potential and pressure on the property. The ranking system favors the protection of land owned by landowners of modest income. At present, the gift of easement program provides substantial tax incentives for donation of easements, but provides little financial incentive to landowners of modest means. The ranking sYstem- provides a minimum overall total,.point, score to be eligible for the program in order to assure significant natural resources and open space. See Ranking Sheet in Appendix ..... 3. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF ACE PROGRAM Eia~¢ment Holder: The Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority is recommended as the legal holder of easements generated through the ACE program. This entity was created by the Board of Super- visors for the purpose of holding easements on December 13, 1989. The Public Recreational Facilities Authority has indicated its willingness to hold such easements if requested by the Board of Supervisors to do so. In some cases, it may be advisable for easements to be jointly held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or another entity. The Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund, for example, is enabled to re-imburse for expenses and/or purchase easements which are jointly held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and a co-holder such as the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Acquisition of Conservation Easements' (ACE) Commission: The follow- ing organizational structure is recommended. The Board of Supervisors appoints an Acquisition' of Conservation Easements' Commission of approximately 10 citizens to serve without compensation. This Commission is similar to the Agricultural Advisory Commission in the Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program. The ACE commission will have general oversight over the ACE program and should include members knowledgeable in relevant areas such as farm/estate real estate professional, rural land appraiser, farmer or forester, representatives of easement holding agencies and conservation organizations. It will review the program's criteria for eligibility and ranking on an annual basis and recommend to the Board of Supervisors any changes needed to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or, based on the experience of the previous year, to make the program more workable..-.The ACE Commission 'will also review the prioritization of applications for acquisition of conservation easements developed by staff and foreword its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The ACE Commission will work with staff to develop methods to promote the program. Role of Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors approves the list of prioritized applications presented by the ACE Commission. In addition, the Board approves the expenditure of funds once offers have been accepted by landowners on the above list. The Board appropriates funds for the ACE Program in its annual budget. Valuation, of Easement for' Purchase :,~ Th~ C'ounty Asse§S°r performs appraisals on those PrOperties identified for purchase bY the' ACE Commission through the ranking system. The County then makes the resulting offer to the landowner. If one or more landowners decline the offer, the property or properties ranking just below these are appraised and offers made. An Assessment Review Committee will be established that includes three real estate professionals, the County Assessor and at least one member of the ACE Commission. The ACE Commission may reserve the right to establish guidelines for maximum individual payments in any given year. Administration of Pro,am: The program is recommended to be housed within the Planning Department of the County government for at least the first two years of the program. The program administrator should explore ways to move the program toward maximizing private participation and investment in this public program. Additionally, staff should research ways to use State or Federal programs to leverage County funding. The citizen ACE Commission assists with increasing this participation. Administrative duties of the ACE Program include day-to-day operations such as responding to inquiries from landowners, educating and informing landowners of the program, processing applications, and marketing the program. Additionally, staff should be prepared to educate landowners about other land protection tools such as Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the tax benefits of donationand bargain sale of conservation easements and riparian and wetlands easement programs offered by state or federal agencies. Determination of number of usable development rights contained on applicant properties will be made by the Department of Planning. Staffing Level: It is anticipated that one part-time position will be required to serve in the position of Program Administrator. Virginia Beach reports that they hired one additional staff person to administer the program and that the program does not demand 100% of that position's time. That program is experiencing two to three new inquiries per month. Following the model of the Virginia Beach program, the Committee anticipates that the legal work of preparing a letter of offer, performing 'the title search and handling the easement closing would be handled by the County Attorney's Office. Administrative Process: Steps a landowner follows to participate in program: 1. Landowner learns of Acquisition of Conservation Easements' program available through newspaper or private organization newsletter, outreach programs conducted by staff and ACE Commission members. 2. Landowner completes application prior to semi-annual deadline. 3~ ACE staff comPletes'ranking: sheets on applicant properties and submits a'brioritiZed lis~f-'0f easement proposals t° ACE Commission. 4, Board· of SUpervisors'~pproves priOrities for easement proposals. 5. The County Assessor performs appraisals of properties and easements on those properties in order of priority, and offers are made to the landowner. 6. Board of Supervisors approves funding for easement proposals. 7. The landowner decides whether 'to accept the County's offer. 8. The landowner and County sign an easement which is recorded in the Clerk's Office. Easement Terms: Easements funded with public money should be perpetual in their duration. This policy is consistent with the philosophy of the Internal Revenue Service and federal government to grant tax deductions and exclusions only for easements that are perpetual in duration. A word about perpetui .ty: Under the terms of the Open-Space Land Act, the enabling legislation, easements of any duration may be released and other land sUbstituted, if in the future it happens that the development of the particular parcel under easement becomes essential for the orderly growth and development of the locality. The county's investment in open-space is prOtected by the requirement that land of greater value as open-space and at lea. st equal market value be placed under easement instead. Guidelines for permitted subdivision of a property under the terms of an easement: Under 100 acres: no subdivision. 100-200 acres: no more than one subdivision into a maximum of two parcels, one of which shall be at least 100 acres. 200 to 300 acres may be divided into three parcels, two of which must be at least 100 acres each, etc.. The remaining terms follow the sample easement (See Appendix) which is based on substantially the language of the Virginia OUtdoors Foundation in areas of the use of property, improvements, forest management, easement inspections, etc.. Recommended Guidelines for Allocation of Funds: In order to ensure the pubic benefit and fiscal responsibility of the ACE program, the following targets are recommended to guide the allocation of funds: 1. Strive'to protect at least 1,000 acres per 1 milli°n dollars of funding. , .. 2.: St,r, ive,to ,fund, at least three separat~pr0jec~s in any one year. .' 3..:Strive toward geograP~c ,diversi. ty of; properties:, protected. . If the natural resource values of a:single pr0pertyar,e sufficiently Compelling,' the ACE CommiSSion should be empowered t° recommend to the Board of Supervisors that these Guidelines be overridden by the overwhelming public value' attained in the. single property. 4. FUNDING OF PROGRAM Financing Plan: The Committee initially recommended that Albemarle follow the same installment purchase financing plan developed by Howard County, Maryland, and adopted by Virginia Beach. This program was developed by Evergreen Capital Advisors, Princeton N.J., as consultant to Howard County, Md., and adapted by them for Virginia Beach. The Albemarle County Attorney's Office has determined that this method of funding is not available to a county in Virginia, for the reason that Virginia counties are not enabled to incur long-term debt which the annual interest payments to landowners comprises. A lease-purchase arrangement was determined by the County Attorney to be inappropriate for the purchase of conservation easements because such agreements must contain "non-appropriations clauses." Such a clause provides for the return of the item being financed, such as a voting machine, should the Board of Supervisors decide not to appropriate funds for the annual payment. An easement once granted cannot be returned for lack of payment in the way that a voting machine can be returned. It is therefore contemplated that the purchase of easements would be on a cash payment basis until other options become available to Virginia counties. In the initial two years of the program, this constraint should not be a significant obstacle, in that the newness of the program will likely mean that participation will grow over time. The Committee did not, for that reason, foresee the need for a bond referendum in the initial years of the program. Studies have shown that referenda prove more successful once a program has been in existence and developed a track record. ' Fllnclin_e Level: The Committee has presented to the' Board of Supervisors its recommendation to begin funding the ACE program at the level of one million dollars per annum. It must be understood that the program needs to be securely and adequately funded in order to be attractive to landowners and to be effective in its purpose. 9 Sources of Fundin~: The Board of Supervisors has determined that funding for the upcoming year should be derived from the Fund Carryover Balance and the Lodging Tax. The Virginia Beach City Council member who met with representatives of the ACE Committee in Virginia Beach emphasized that an identified source of funding was crudal to a. successful program. Without a predictable source of funding, the program is subject to annual changes in-political climate and is not conducive to the predictability that makes the program able to achieve its goals. It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee that a designated source of funding within the budget be pursued during the first two years of the program. It is further recommended that the County continue to pursue the increased funding and award of funding grants to the County from state and federal sources which may provide for the leveraging of County funds. 5. MARKETING OF PROGRAM Marketing of the program will be the responsibility of the staff administrator and the ACE Commission. The Farm Bureau and Extension Service have assisted in the educational effort and are willing to continue to develop additional informational meetings for landowners. It is hoped that additional organizations may volunteer to assist in spreading the word to their members. The County staff and ACE Commission in cooperation with the County's public relations personnel will generate publicity and design educational workshops. 6. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS' PROGRAMS IN OTHER VIRGINIA LOCALITIES AND OTHER STATES A 1998 survey, "Purchase of Development Rights Through Permanent Conservation Easements," (Jane C. Koontz, Richmond, Va.) indicates that 21 states have initiated state or local PDR programs. The first such program began in Suffolk County, New York, in 1977. Neighboring Maryland has the most well-established PDR programs in the country and serves as a model to states and localities developing programs. Enabled in 1977, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation has purchased easements on 1,052 farms comprising 152,288 acres. Like Virginia, Maryland also has an active gift of easement program administered by the Maryland Environmental Trust. Ann Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County are the most active local programs. These programs work in conjunction with the state program and receive state funds to augment local funding. Pennsylvania made its first easement purchase in 1989 and has protected 123,500 acres as of August 1998. In the appendix isa list of counties in other states containing PDR programs and the funds available for those programs. 10 Purchase of Development Ri_ehts Pro?ams in Vir~nia Open Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund: In 1997, the General Assembly created the .Open Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund. The fund, s purposes 'are to assist landowners with costs associated in giving an easement and to purchase ali or part of the value of an easement from an individual landowner. The program is design'-ed to re- imburse individual landowners who apply for cost re-imbursement. It does not make grants to localities,.:: ....- ~.. : , :. · Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program: Begun ini995, this program has protected 4000 acres and an additional 2800 in process'with a budget of $ 3.5 million annually. Virginia Beach is the first locality to develop a PDR program. Their goal is to purchase the vast majority of the 20,000 acres still in farming use south of the city. The purchase price of their easements is proportionately higher than Albemarle is expected to experience because there is little demand for estate parcels. Virginia Beach has been extremely helpful to Albemarle and has expressed willingness to continue to do whatever they can to assist this locality.' Albemarle's committee has worked extensively with staff at Virginia Beach and is extremely grateful to Louis Cullipher, Director of Agriculture, and members of City Council for their time and assistance. Representatives of their program have twice come to Albemarle and members of Albemarle's committee have taken a field trip to learn the details of their program and to tour several farms and meet with their owners in the program. Virginia Beach serves as a model to other localities in Virginia developing programs and has been generous in its assistance. Virginia Localities in the process of developing PDR Programs: A number of other Virginia localities, responding to similar citizen interest in reducing sprawl development associated with rapid growth pressure, are in the process of developing PDR programs. Loudoun County: Report of PDR Committee to be presented on July 7th will recommend implementation of PDR Program. Fauquier Coun .t-y: Board of Supervisors has passed resolution authorizing public opinion poll preparatory to considering development of PDR Program. lames City County: A County Committee is in process of developing public consensus on a program designed in concept. The Board of Supervisors has earmarked $500,000 as seed money for the program. Henrico and Hannover Counties are also exploring the feasibility of PDR programs. ACE PROGRAlVI RANKING SHEET TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE ACE PROGRAM, A PROPERTY MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERA: Eligibility for ACE Program: Land in permanent open space is 'consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan yes__ no The proposed easement terms are consistent with The ACE Criteria for Easement Terms yes__ no Minimum score fo, r eligibility: 15 points. RANKING PRIORTY POINT SYSTEM I. OPEN-SPACE CRITERA: Points Points Avail. Earned Land adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, National, State, local park or other protected open space (one point for every 500 ft. of boundary) 2. Size of property: (1 point for each 50 ac.) II. THREAT OF CONVERSION: 1. Property is threatened with forced sale: Other hardshiP (explain) 3 2. Number of usable development rights on the property: * 1/2 point for each development right, incl. 21 ac. Rights minus those developmen'l- rights retained. * Albemarle County Planning depai'tment will provide number of usable development rights by determining with Zoning Department the number of theoretical development rights and estimating potential for loss as result of slope or wetlands. Applicants may provide alternative documents from a Certified Land Surveyor. Pg. 2 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET NATUR~L/C~~L RESOURCE cRrrERA Points Points Avail. Earned 1. Mountain protection afforded: (One point for each 1000 ft. of Mountain Ridge) As designated on Alb2 Co~ MoUntain Ore?lay maP~':: " 2. Working family farm (includes forest): At least one family member's principal occupation (income) (51% or greater) is farming this farm/forestland At least one family member is producer of farm products 5 3 3. a. Designated Scenic road protection (State or Entrance Corridor): (One point for every 600 ft. of road frontage) o_.r 3. b. Frontage on public road: (One point for every 1000 ft. of public road frontage) 4. Historic resource protection: Within a National or Va. Rural Historic District: Individual structure on or eligible for National or Va. Register Land lies in primary viewshed of Monticello (maximum possible points for # 4.: 5 points) 3 5. Natural habitat protection: Land contains an occurance of a plant or animal species as listed on Va. Natural Heritage Inventory as rare or endangered* 5 6. Soils I point for every 50 ac. of acreage in class I-III soils (NRCS Classifications) 5 *This Inventory provides a good proxy for biologically diverse habitat. A County Biologica1 Inventory may supply additional data and .categories for ranking in the future. Pg. 3 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET 7. Public Dr~ng Water supply Watershed Protection a. Property in the Watershed .:~ ~ b. Riparian frontage...` IvY creek,' Mechum, Moormans, Doyle, Buck Mt. Creek, &..Rivanna R,i JaCob's Run frontage (one-half point for every' 1000 ft. of river boundary) 8. Designated Scenic Rivers protection: Property contains frontage on State Scenic River (one-half point for every 1000 ft. of river boundary) points Avail. points Earned 3 IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: If you would like financial need to be considered and your income is equal to or below the current median income for Albemarle County in previous tax year: If your income is less than median income minus 20% If your income is less than median income plus 20% 10 15 5 V. LEVERAGING OF COUNTY FUNDS State, Federal, or Foundation funding exist to assist landowner with funding of purchase of easement (ex's: Open-Space Preservation Trust Fund, CREP, Farmland Protection Program, Forest Legacy) The following extra points are given to those applicants who make use either of one of the above options or of bargain sale (partial gift) to provide leverage for the County's funding: For each 10% of leveraged funds: I point: total available pts: 10 Total Points in this Ranking sheet: points This Rankfng Sheet provides a priority ranking among the Applicants for Albemarle County's consideration. Notes for tabulation: Fractional points to the first decimal rounded should be tabulated. CHARGE TO COMMIT'FEE: To develop a draft policy consistent with existing legislation and authority regarding purchase of development rights for the Board of Supervisors' possible implementation.. The Committee's scope of work should include: *develop program goals consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Identification of resources that it would be desirable to protect by means of this program. *develop criteria for eligibility to participate in the program and ranking system(s) for such lands. *develop possible funding mechanisms, including State, federal and private sources. *develot~ consensus among local interest groups and interested citizens. *develop recommendations for administration of the program. *develop informational literature on the program for the public's use. *develop recommendations to encourage Voluntary sale and gifts of conservation easements and to maximize the effectiveness of the program and the protection of identified resources; and *provide periodic progress reports to the Board of Supervisors. APPENDIX D SAMPLE FORM for Deed of Easement Exempted from recordation tax under the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, Section 58.1-811 (A) (3), 58.1-811 (D) and 10.1-1803 THIS DEED OF'GIFT EASEMENT, made this .,1999, between herein called the Grantors, the ALBEMARLE COUNTY day of PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY,, herein called the Grantee, whose address is 401 McIntire Road, Virginia, 22903, and , herein called the Bank. WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act of 1966 (Chapser 17, Title !0.1, SS 10.1-1700 to 10.1-1705 of the Code of Virginia, as amended) declares that the preservation of open-space land serves a public purpose by promoting the health and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by curbing urban sprawl and encouraging more desirable and economical development of natural resources, and authorizes the use of easemenss in gross to maintain the character of open-space land; and WHEREAS, {INSERT CODE CITATION FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY) WHEREAS, [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC VALUES]; WHEREAS, [INSERT OTHER STATUTORY REFERENCES OR REFERENCES TO CITY OR COUNTY PUBLIC LAND USE PLAN, IF APPLICABLE] WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners of the fee of real property hereinafter described which they desire preserved as open space land in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual covenan5s herein and the acceptance by Grantee, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the Grantee an open-space easement in gross over, and the right in perpetUity to restrict the use of the real estate consisting of acres described below and located in Magisterial District of County, Virginia, near and fronting on state route(s) and hereinafter referred to as the "Property:" [PROPERTY DESCRIPTION'] AND SUBJECT, HOWEVER, tO the restriction that the Grantee or its successors and assigns may not transfer or convey the open-space easement herein conveyed to the Grantee unless the Grantee conditions such transfer-or conveyance on the requirement that (1) all restrictions and conservation purposes set forth in the conveyance accomplished by this deed are to be continued in perpetuity, and (2) the transferee is an organization then qualifying as an eligible donee as defined by section !70(h) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. This conveyance is further made subject to all matters of record which may affect said parcel of land. Restrictions are hereby imposed on uses of the property pursuant to the' public policies set forth above. The acts which the Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns, covenant to do and not to do upon the Property, and the restrictions which the Grantee is hereby entitled to enforce, are and shall be as follows; Accumulation of trash, refuse, junk, or any other unsightly material is not permitted on the Property. o Display of billboards, signs, or other advertisements is not Permitted on. or 'over the Property except to s~ate the name and/or address of' the owners, to advertise the ~s.ale or lease of the Property, to advertise the sale of ~goods or services produced incidentally to a permitted use of the Property or to provide notice necessary for the protection of the Property and for gzving directions to visitors. No such sign shall exceed three by three feet in size. o Subdivision of the Property in any manner is prohib- ited. (See Guidelines for variations based on parcel size.) Management of forest resources shall be in accord with a forest managemenn plan approved by the Grantee. Best Management Practices, as defined by the Department of Forestry, shall be used to control erosion and protect waner quality. Grading, blasting or earth removal shall not materially alter the topography of the Property except for dam construction to create private conservation ponds or lakes, or as required in construction of permitted buildings and connecting private roads described in paragraph 6, below. Mining on the Property is prohibited. o No permanent or temporary building or structure shall be built or maintained on the Property other than (i) a single family dwelling and non-residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, (ii) secondary dwellings and non- residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, and (iii) farm buildings or structures. Farm buildings or structures exceeding 4,500 square feet in ground area may not be constructed on. the_ ~property unless prior written permission for said. ~ilding or structure is obtained in writing from Grantee. {add. if'appropriate: In the event of.subdivision of the Property as provided in Paragraph 3, above,, permitted buildings and connecting private roads may be constructed on each subdivided parcel.} o industrial or commercial activities other than the following are prohibited: 1. agriculture, silviculture or horticulture, 2. temporary or seasonal activities which do not permanently alter the physical appearance of the Property and which are consistent with the conservation values herein protected, 3. activities which can be and in fact are conducted within permitted buildings, without material alteration to the external appearance thereof. Temporary outdoor activities involving 100 people or more shall not exceed seven days in duration unless approved by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. [Optional additional language: Notwithstanding any other provision of this easement, no commercial recreational use (excepg for de minimis commercial recreational uses) shall be permitted on the Property.] o Representatives of the Grantee may enter the Property from'time to time for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of the terms of this easement after permission from or reasonable notice to the owner or the owner's representative. o Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns shall notify Grantee in writinglprior to closing on any proposed transfer or sale of the Property. In any deed conveying all or any part of the Property, this easement shall be .referenced by Deed Book and Page Number in the deed of conveyance. , herein, the Bank, is the Note holder under a certain Deed of Trust dated and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of County, Virginia in Deed Book at page which subjects the Property to the Bank's lien. The Bank and the Trustee (under the Deed of Trust), hereby consent to the terms and intent of this Easement, and agree that the lien represented by the Deed of Trust shall be held subject to this Deed of Gift of Easement. Although this easement in gross will benefit the public as described above, nothing herein shall be construed to convey to the public a right of access to or use of the Property. Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns hereby retain exclusive right to such access and use, subject to the terms hereof. Acceptance of this conveyance by the Grantee is authorized by Section 10.1-1801 of the Code of Virginia and is evidenced by the signature of its Executive Director hereto. Assignment of this easement is governed by Section 10.1-1801 of the Code of virginia. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. ,Grantor ,Grantor Bank: By: ins: ,Trustee Accepted: PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY, By: (SEAL COFIMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, - , .a Notary Public for the Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, , a Notary Public for the commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that , Chairman, Public Recreational Facilities Authority, personally appeared before me this day and acknoWledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this ,1999. day of Notary Public My.commission expires: (SEAL)~~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF I, Commonwealth ~ aforesaid, hereby certify that , TO WIT: , a Notary Public for the , as of day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this of ,1999. personally appeared before me this day My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF I, Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify Trustee, personally , TO WIT: , a Notary Public for the that . , as appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of ,1999. Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) ~: , '- 23 Tax'Mgmt. Est., Gift's & Tr. J. 253 (1998) Tax Benefits" of Conservatio'n Easementsr b.~cNancy ,d. McLaughlin, ESq.* Guire '}Voods Battle & Boo'thb ~£P : ' . Charlottesville, Virginia - The qualified conservation easement has loh'g been' a means .of obtaining income tax benefits; the ~1997 Taxpayer Relief Act added a new benefit'in the' foi'm' of an estate' tax .exclusion under new ~203] (c) of the Internal Revenue-Code. With the 1998 Internal Rev- enue Service Restructuring and Reform Act came the' addition of an estate tax charitable deduction for a conservation easement donated postmortem on behalf of a decedent's estate. Qualified'conservation ease- ments, applicable to most of the U.S. land area, are thus a means to obtaitt a constellation of related tax benefits. This article describes in detail the income and estate tax consequences of a qualified conserva- tion easement. For further discussion, of the qualified conserva- tion easement, .see 463: T.M., Estate and Gift Tgx Returns and Audits. A conservation easement is a mechanism by which.'~ the owner of land places certain restrictions on the development and use of the land while retaining ownership of the land, A' conservation easement typi- cally is donated by a landowner to a charitable conser- ' ration organization or government agency that agrees to hold and enforce the terms Of the easement.' Al- though the'terms of a conservation easement are negotiated by the landowner .and the donee of the easement, . the easement must satisfy certain~reqiiire- ments to be eligible for the income and estate tax- benefits described in this article. Before the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 ! (the .1'997 Act) was enacted on August 5~ 1997, a. landowner who during' his lifetime donated a conservation ease- ment satisfying the requirements of. §170(h)x was entitled to the following federal tax benefits: · A charitable income tax deduction equal to the value of: the donated easement; and · A ~reduction in the value of~ the land incliided in the'~tandowner's estate for estate tax purposes? Pursuant to §. 031 (c), whmh was enacted as .part of the 1997 Act, a landowner who donates a co//~erva- tion easement that satisfies the. reqUiremehtsqSf bbth? §§ 170(h)~- and 2031(c) is- entitled to the': f011owingl additional federal 'tax b.enefit: - * An 6xcliision of up to 46%'6~'the vai~te of ti/~~ lafid.' (but not impr0yeme'nts) sul~j,ect t6 th~ easement fro~ the landoWfier% estA'te roi- e~tate tax Section 2031 (c) was aiiaende'~ as part of the Iriter.< naI. Revenue:: .Service Restructuring~am!. Reform Act of 1998 .'(the 199.8 ACt),~ to add,a ,new:-provisi.oia that~ allows .an estate to claim ;a:~charitable estate tax~ deduction under .§2055(1D .for the dOnation-of a- mn-. servation easement after a deeedent's death (r~fe~.ed to below as a postmortem easement donation), pro-. vided no charitable income tax deduction is allowed to, any person with resPeCt f(~?fli~..'ilonation:~rid other requ,(reme~ts are satisfied2 - - :,5.~ . ' This 'artide'.}liscuse~s the three federal :~/ix b~nbfits associated ~/ith"lifetime. d6nati~ns"6f.'- cons~rvatiori:} easements ~nd .caiculates:ihOse' benefits i~:the' i~$iltex( of a spec~ific Se~:~f'facts. Th'e:article conclude~ ~vith.a discussion of the tax benefits associated with pos~·mor-' tem easement'donati0ns. ' " ' "~~ The principal objective, of"this arti~ie'"]'s to a~is{: practitioners in understanding the complex pfo,)isions of §§ 170(h) and-203 l(c);. The article anglyzes-'the pro,~isions of §:203.!(c) in morb-depth than~...those of § 170(h) because §203 l(c) is a relatively new addition to the Internal Revenue Code, and little gg!danc~ has been issu6d '~ith respect to'its application.' CHARITABLE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION ' · The dotiation' ~of a conservation easement generally~' will reduce the fair market value of the property which it relates because it will restrict the develop- ment and other uses of the prpperty. If the~,requi, re;": ments of § 170(h) are met, a. landowner who donates a conservation 'easement :wilF~be deemed to' have ~ade a charitable, gift 'and wilt be entitled.' to a charita, ble income tax deduction in an amount equal to the~'valtt6. of the. donated easement2 .... Eligibility Requirements., ,, - To be eligible' f0f~i ~hari't~bie in~ome tax de~i~ti~'~ under ~170(h) with ;' respect to the donation':~of'~':a conservation' 'easement,:. five requi~emen[~ m~tst ·"b~;- Qualified Real PrO'pi~rty lnt~fi~st .Requirement :.. As a general rule, contributions o~' partial'4nterestS; in property are not eligible for a, charitable income tax deduCti'0n under §'170(a)'~! How~;Jer, there"iS ~n '~xceP;. tion to this general rul6':f0r ~: ~qual!fied c6nsergati6n' Tax Management Estate§;;~'ifts and TruSts' Journav © 1998 Tax Management .Inc., a subsidiary of The Burmah 'of Natlgnal. Affairs, Inc4 Wash!ngton, D.C~' 20037 oes6.3547io's/$o+$~.oo ARTICLES contribut.ion}" -which.i~.defined as a contribution of. a qualified real propert..y interest to a,,qualified organi- ~tion exclusiyely for conservation.purposes2 A quali,. fled real property, interest is defined to. include a restriction: granted .in 'perPetuity on the 'use' ihat may b~ 'niade. Of ~'eaI proi)¢tty, ~nclud'i'ng ah easement or other interest i!].'rea~ p, roperty tha't, undef si'a{~ law has' attributes'similar to 'an-.easement (e.g., a: restrictive .covenant :or equitable: gervitude),9 Accordingly, a .'con~ Sentatibn easement ..wilt 'cofistitute" a' qualified '. real Property,'int,rest.:and,.will 'be eligible' for a charitable- Income tax 'deductioh prOVided' it' is .granted in. p~rpe~Uity:.:. ~' . '~'~ ' " QU~i'i~d organization.Requirement. .. 'The, conservation 'easement· must' ~9'doiiated to a gO(,ernmenta!",unit or Charitable organiZation that c(~nsti[utes ':a "qualified '~Si'gani~ation" .as defined· ia' §170.(h)(3);'°' and the 'l~611,owing additional require- ments' miist' be satisfied! e The qualified organization must ~h~ve, a ·commit- ment to protect the conservation purposes of the easement; ' .. *The qualified organization 'must have ~the.re- sourCes:to enforce .the restrictions in the easement; · and: ' · The terms 'of th~ easement mus~ requi're, that any transfer of' the' easement by a q~alified Organization must be made to-one or more other qualified organiza- tions that:- (1) agree to. enforce' the...t`erm~ .'of. the easement; (2) have a commitment 'to.¥pr0tect the Conservation purposes of the easement; ,.and (3) have the resources to enforce the restridtions-in, tlie easement? COnServati6n purposc~s' Requirement. Tlied0~afion'of the conservation easement must be made ..for 'one or more of the f~llowing ,conservation. purposes."" . ~. ....... .. :.. -.,-,::-: - · The preservation 'of' land~ ar'ea~:'fOr' 0utd0o{::re~re~" ation by, 0i~ the :education' of, the general public; ','The protection .of a~ relati{ely .natUral habit'i- fish., ..wil. dlife, or plants or similar ecosystem; .· The. 'P/'eservation 'of 0p~.n opace. (including farm~ land and .forest land), provided the preservation, is...: either. (1.).for the scenic enjoyment of the general!; public and will yield a significant public benefit or (2) pUrsuant to.a clearly'de~lineated federal, state, or local governmental conservation policy and will yield a significant public benefit;: ~*: and '~.The:Pr~s'ervati0ii Of ah~hi~t0rically importani~ 'l~ihd · area or a 'certified historic structure.'~ ' Exclusivity Requirement ' The conservation easement must be made "~[clu- sively"' for one 6r'm~)~e' o~' tlie conservation p[r~s~ specified above'? The'don~tibn Of a' ~ons~rvation ease- ment will be deemed to have been mad,"oxclus?el~:~ for one or' more of those ~onsOrvation"l~ti;p0sgg:'if it. satisfies each of the following requirements: · · The conservation ,purposes. in the easemenL must. be protected in perpetuity; ~o , ., ... · If the donor of the easement reserves the right to a~sS ..s.u,.b. surface..oj, l, .gas, or ot.h. er minerals, .,t.l~..~ easement mhst' contain a prohibitio//"0n the extractlbn' or removal of minerals by any surface mining' meth- od; 2~. and.,. :·' The 'easement. must prohibit any use~o~' the,proper,., ty that wouldimpair or destroy significant conserva< tion interests," unless th~ use is-: necessary, for-fliv protection of the conservation purposes, for Which~the~ easement was donated? -'~ " E-nforceability Requirement :...,. ...... .. The'donservati0n easement must"b6 %nf6r~'~able in p?petuity." 24 A conservation easement ~,~ill be con:' s~d'~red to" be?nfOrceabi'e in P~i-petuitY if~ ~ach Of ~h~, following requirements is satisfied: · Any rights to use property subject to tl~e easement t.h..~t are.. retained b:y'.the .dOnor (and. ~he. 'donor's successors in interest) must be sUbject'to legally enforceable restrictions that will prevent any uses of the retained rights that are inconsistent with the conservation purposes-of th~ donation; · If the property with respect to which the easemei!.t, is d0na.t.ed is sUbject tO' a ..mortgage, 'the. m~tgage6 must subordirihte i'ts rightsih the prope[.".t.y to'ithe right of thee qualified 0rganizati°n .~6 enforce thel .'.cgnserva- tion purposes" of the easem~ht in pe~p'Otiiity~ -- · If. the. donor of the conservation easement, tess. ryes certain r. ights, and the,exercise of:;those!:~r.-.ese~vexi rightsmay .impair 'the conservatioa .iaterests associat-. ed With the' property subject..to the easement,.., the following requirements must. be. satisfied: 2, .~ ... · Before donation Of' the,:~a~ement~ th~ d0nor.:inust provide 'doCuhaentation sufficient to" establish tho condition of the. property at the 'time of:tI~:c~on~: ':tion to:~the~ qualified' 'org~ini~ation aoceptlng th~ easement; ~ : ~-'.:,- ' ~' - .· The donor must: agree. (genera'lly.. in- the te~m~ the easement) to. notify'the qualified orgaiii'~ation~ in...~vriting, before the. dongr: exorcises, any :reserved right ~a. the. easement, that, may ha.-.ve..an..a, dv....erse .impact on the conservation interests associated with . . , ~ . . ~ . .;~-':* '. · the ~r0Perty; ~ ,..:. 254.. Tax Management Estates,.~Gifts and Trusts Journal o~1998 Tax. Management Inc., a Subsidiary.o.{.The.~i~.r~au of Natloq.at Affairs,. Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 .... osso~;~.s)$o,$~.oo'. ' A' tC ES ..e The .t~rms of the easement must granf th.e' quali: . fled. organization the right to enter.:the property :at reasonable times to inspect the property ~to. deter- .:~mine ig: there, is compliance with the' terms of the easement; ~o and : "~'The "ierms. of 'the easement musV'grant the' quaI~i2 fled organization the rigtit to enforce tt/e eonserva-' tion restrietions,:ir~. 'the-easement by appropriate , .:legal,proceedings, including, but not limited to, the: '-right to reqaii'e the restoration of the property to-it-s. . condition.at the time. of.the donation."' ~ The donor of'the easement must agFd~"(genera!ly, iii'~he terms Of* ~the easembnD that: (1)"the donation of: the easement~ gives rig~'to'a proiderty ?ight that imme- diately, vests' in th~ qualified brgani~ation 'accepting- the" easement; .and (2) if une:~peeted changes in the conditions surrou'nding .the' p~'opefty to' which the easement r~l'ates rdake the-continued Use Of the prop- 6try rog'conservation purposes impossible:or imP~aeti~:' cat; and the property is sold' or'~exchang~d, them (A) the qiiaiifi~d organization must be paid a portion'of:: the-proceeds .of the sale et: exchange equal to-a fraeti0n Of the pr6¢eeds (unless state law:provides that the donor is entitled to the full proceetts from the conversion without regard 'to the terms'of the ~ease- ment), where the~.num'eratoi~ of the fraction is the value of the easement at lhe time .of the donation of' · the easement, and.. the denominator of the fraction is. the value of the property immediately before the.. donation of the easement (that is, the fraction of.the proceeds from any sale or exchange attributable to the easement is fixed as of the date of the donation); and (B) the qualified organization must use the pro-. ceeds in a manner consistent with the conservation.'. purposes of the easementf~. Valuation of a ConServation Eh'sement The charitable'income 'tax'.d~duction.'generated by: the donation of 'a conservation easement:is equal, to the fair market value of the:'easement at the time of the';donation?' If there is a substantial record of sales of.easements:'that are' comparable to a donated ease: ment (such as are'cord of the purchase'of dasements~ pursuant to a govornmental program), the fail-' market:... value of the donated easement should be based on. the'..' sales prices of the comparable easements.'~ However, if no substantial record, of !"m.arketp~ace'.~-sales is:...; available for use as a meafiingful or valid comparisoni the fair market, value, of an easement generally: should be equal'to the difference between the fair:.markek~; value..o[-the, property Subj.ect to the 6asement. before- the donation, of the easement and the fair' .market: vatue: of the: property after the donations.of-, the ease-: ment (the before-and,after method)?' As a practical:,. matter,: marketplace sales, of: conservation easements: are rare and, thus, there are few if any substantial-, Tax Management Estates, Gifts and Trusts Journal ¢) 1998 Tax Management,Inc. a subsidiary of .Th~B~reau of National. Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C, 20037 0886.-3547/9~/$0+$1,00 .. .: records of- markelplace ~':sale's of:: easements..to'; which. donated easements can. be compared?s Accordingly., -in most cases easements. 'are valued, using' the before-and- The b~fore-and-~.i'ter' met.hod'e'an.' i~ i'ttu~ttat~d by the folloctingiex-ample.'' If ibc'owner Of-property. with a fak market ival'fie of. $1,000,000~. ~ion'ates,.a' eoii%rda- tion easement Wlth respect. ~d:ihe prol~.rty donati.0n. ,of the..~asemen/"~red//ee, s.;.~.he i:.f~,ij.r?m:ari~et . value..of the property 'to $,700,000,..the.'~a!u.e,.of ./he easement ahd~ thus,~ 'thedamount' .dfSth~ efiai-itable. The regulations contain :two .rules designed, to :i'e- duce the charitable income tax dedtletion availible' tO a landowner w&th. respect t.o the donation .of art..~as.ev other: property: . owned by.. the landg'Wner, or:~ persons related .to the' la, downer .is enhanced. Unde. r the:first: rule, if-a la. ndownerdonates an easement that.covers only a porti0n::of contiguous property o~wned:.,by the. landowner or by the landowner and,the landownei's family, the amounf Of the 'charitable inc6me tax deduction.gen.erated by ~he donation will be i'im¥/eCi/t~b the differenee4~etween. 'the:fair market value: oi' the entire cOntiguoUs 'parcel of prope}ty before'the dona-; tion of the :easement and the fair'market val~'e of'the parcel after, the donation of the- easement? .Und.e~ the second rule, if .the donation..of an easement .l~.y' a.. landowner has the effect of increasing the value of any other property owned by the landowner or 'a related person, whe~ther or.."'not the-other prop~i,t~ :is contiguous to. the'., pr0perty~ stibject to the. eaSement,' the amount of the deduction generated by the dona~ tion must be reduced by the amount of the in"c?efi~' 'in the value of the' other property:'°' ": '-: The regulatioii§' 'also contain 'a rule: design~e~:'""~6' reduce th~:value of a charitable income ta~deduetion available: to a landoWner with: respect-to the d°nafioh" of an easement 'Wheh, as a 'result of.the'don~iti0n, the'; landowner. Or a person related :to'the landO~r:eithe~'- receives or 'can 'rdaspnably expect tO receive a'finan-.- cial or.' economic benefit' that is substantial?:rn"~h~h'~ cas'es, the cliarifable income tax'd~:dtietion ~ehei-ateff' by'the donation muSt'be reduced by :the ~mounf, oi' the: financial or economic benefit received or' expected to 'be:' received by the laiadowner et; i~-elated person? ' "~ -' When thc owner of'property donates a conservation:." easement with respect to the property, a p'ortigh:efthe-- owner's, basis: in ~e property, must be. allocat'ed::~O~the easement? .The portion allocated to the"-easemei~[ is.~- equal: to..a fraction" of. the'.owner's totak basis;: the. numerator of which 'is the. fair market value of.-.-ihe;'-.- easement immediately, following:the donation-'and-t.he:~ 255 ARTICLES denominator: o1[ which is the. fair market value of the property' immediately~.before the donation." · ExdhtPle: Thdowner of properly'with a fair inarket' · 'value of $1,0Q0,000 and a basis of $450;000 don- ares a' conservation-easement wtth 'respect to the' prol~erty~ The easement is determined to hayed fali- market value :01~ $300,000. The amount' of 'basis ~illocated tO' the easement 'is $.1'35,000 (that 'is, .$450,000!.x '($~00,000' +.$1,000;000)). Immediate:- ly foll6Wing the~donati0n of the-easement~ the'fair market-.'..'valtie 'of;the owni~r's 'l/r0perty WOuld 'be "$700,600 (thatis, $1,000,000:- $300,000)~and the- owner's basis in'the pi'operty Would be $315~0001c · (that-is~'$;~50,000 -' $135,000).'s ·. Sfib~tariti~'ti6n of ~the DedUction::' If the charitable income ta-x deduction generated by. the donation ~fa conservation easement is in excess.of. $5;000, rife donoro~ the easement must SatiSfy the: follOWing'requirements to claim the deduction: ns. · The:d0hor must Obtain a qualified appraisal of tl~e' easement; ~? '~': ' · The.donor must,attach a fully completed., apprais- al' summary, to the.tax ..return on which~ the deduction for the dOnation of the easement is claimed; 4~ and "' Thed6nor.'mustmaintain certain written records pertaining to the donafion of th~ easement.° Percentage Limitations on Claiming the Chaffiable.lncome Tax Deduction A~tho'u~gh ~he d~nor.0£ a conservation, easement who satisfies the eligibility requirements described above is eligible .to claim, a charitable income tax deduction equal to'. the fair market value of the. easement, the amount of the'deduction..that may be claimed by the donor.J.n_ a.~y taxable year. generally Will be.limited_ to 30%..of, the. ,d. ongr's' adjusted gross· income for..that yeg[i~ ~h¢'."~lon'~r rnay.'eal-ry for~rd a~y":u~Used ded~c'tiim; f~.rli~P.to five years after the year of the.. dona'ti6n:iun/~i! 'th~'d~ducti0n is hilly u~ed.'(that is,,tl/e. d&oi .4iii have a-~.t6(ai Of ~ix year~ i~' Which to clairn the dedti¢~i0n)2! ' .~.., 'i.i '.~. ....~: :'. · In' ~6me. c.a.~eS, the 'projected: adjusted'. gross, in. com.-e.. of the. doiior·'0f a-conservation easement Will not be sufficient to permit the deduction of the full value of: the easement. In such 'cases the .d. onor.,might wish .to. consider the following two alte~'natives, "each of which': could.,,e:,xtend the 'number of ~egrs over which the d~ductiog':.~ay be..~!aimed. .::' .. :.* The:.xlonor could consider donating the easement-' in' plra, es.· For example,, the::donor 'initially could donate, an easement .over .half of tl~e: donor's property, and: six years later .the donor could donate a second: easement,m/er:the remaining half of t:he donor's prop- 256 erty. This "phasing' in" of an easement Would permit the donor, of .the easement to claim the"deducti0ri generated by the first easement over the six-year period following the donation of the first easement.'~ and to claim the deduction generated by-the, second e. as. ement over the six-year period following.the dona-: tion of the second easement? ' · . The donor'could.consider "staggering" the reSer- 9ation of rights in the easement. For example, the donor initiallylcould reserve substantial rights under the easement, thereby limiting the value of. the ease- ment and, thus~ the charitable income tax deduction generated b~: ~he e~sement. Six years later the do~6~: could amend the exisfing easement (or donate, a see~, end easement)' to ex. tinguish some or all of 'the re~ served rights. This...~taggering 'of the rights.reserved under an. easement would permit the donor to claim the deduction generated by the donation of the initial: easement over the s,ix-year period following the.d~n~:~ tion of that easement, and to claim the deduction generated by 'the donation of the amendment to the. easement (o~ the second easement) over the six-year period following the donation of the amendment (or second easemen, t).s' The donor of an easement with insufficient adjusted. gross income to fully utilize the deductiongenerated by the donation also may wish to explore methods: of increasing his or her adjusted gross income in the yea~ of the donation and the .following five years. For example; the donor could sell appreciated assets or shift investments generating tax-exempt income to investments that will generate taxable income. REDUCTION IN'SIZE 'OF LANDOWNER'S ESTATE As discussed above, because an easement plageS restrictions on the development and use Ofproperty;~ the' donation of a conservation'easement generally.will reduce the fair market value of the property subject to the ea. sement, Accordingly, a landowner who donates- a conservation easement during life. generally will reduce the size of his or. her estate for estate tan purposes by the amount Of the reduction in the fair market value of. the, property subject to the ease- ment? ' ESTATE TAX EXCLUSION '- .i '. Pursuant to §2031 (c), the. executor of the. estate Of-.: a. deCederlt dying after December 31~, 19'97, may.' elect.. to. exclude from the. decedent's taxable estate':up to 40% of the value df any land(but not improvements). included in.the estate 'that'is subject to a "qualifi*d conservation easement.'", As~- discussed in more detail~ below,: an easement will be considered a qualified conservation easement: if the donation of the easement; · Tax Management Estate~.;:iGifts and Trusts Journal 1998 Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary of The BiJ}~au of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0886-3547/98/$0+$1.00 ARTICLES satisfies the requirements under §~170(h) fei' a chari~ table income tax deduction (which are discussed above)' and. certain"addifi'ofiai requirements dnder §2031(c). ~ACC°rdingly, a landowner who donates an 6~is,ement' thai/satisfies l~ho'requirements of §2031 (¢) will be i~ntitled not only' to a:."charit~ble inc0m0 tax deduction'ufider.§iY0(h) ahd'a'reduction ih the Valt/e 0i?' ~e land included in the' landownOi~'s":~tate for estate tax purpOses, 'but~:also' the~ exclusion undei' §2031(c)/ '" As of:the date-of ttii.~.'artifile; no .regulations "or, administrltiize rulings, have been is'stied with'respect t6' §~03:I(~) an~-many Oh'ee"rt~inties re'main'i concern.-. ingitS '/ipplication.~ AC~rdingly~ the analys!s se't-forth: below represents, the author's i~terpi'etation of the provisions of §203 l(c). . .r: - :' Eligibility --- ir ments :.. Land. ini~lt~ded: i'n~-a~ 'deced~n't~s gross 'estate -will qualify for the exclusion Undor '§2031 (c) Only if the requirements set out' below are' satisfied. The Qualified ConservatlOn Easement Requirement ""The land'must be. subject to a."qualified conserva- tion easement:'.' ~ Land will be considered.subject to a qualified c0nse~ation easement only if. the following" two requirements are satisfied". · The donation.-0f'the e~isement"with' resiSe'ct to the land whys eI[gible for.'the churl'table inc6me tax deduc- tion under § 170(h) (that is~ the donation s~ttisfied the requirementg' dis'cussed above); except "that, unlike the charitable income tax deduction, the exclusion is not available with respect to .a.n easement granted exclu- sively for the. preservation Of an'historically important land area .or a. certified, historic structure; ?~ and · The easement includes:a prohibition, on more than a de minimis use of the land subject to.. the easement for a commercial-recreational-.activity,s' Section 2031(c) offers :.no guidance ,as to the. meaning of. "a prohibition.on more. than a. de. minimis use of the land subject to tho:easement fora commercial recreational activi'ty;" ,.T. he legislative, history of §2031(c) offers some.~ assistance by. stating that: the,.donation of an. easement that. permits certain 'de minimis co.mmercial recreational activities that are consistent, with the c, onservation~ purposes: of the. easement,, such as.. th~ gran-ting:'of hunting' and' fishing licenses, would not cause.-: the .land subject to the easement to fail. to qualify.for 'tho.exclusion.s' Howe~er, Until 'additiOnal: guida:nee is..issued;s* it is not' .clear .what activities .a landowner, Would be prohibiting by including th?.pro- hibition language' in an .easement? .. : ;It. is ac'coid!ngly reCOmmended that until additional ' guidancelis...issued, a landowner should-not, include the prohibitionqa'nguage in.'-.aa.easement (and sh6uld not amend an' exigting easement' to i:nclude.the 'prohibition' language) unless' the landowne~ i~,eertai~' that he',or .she wishes: to forevo/- prohibit any..type of.commercial recreational aetMty (other than the: granting of. hunt- ing or;fishing licen~es)...on !he property.subject .to ,the easement.'. ,Once additional-guidance:on the' scope of the. prohibition is issued, and. a .landowner is comfort: able protiibitit~glh~:activities~.to.:w,h, ieh the~pr0hibition is detexmined to.apply, an. existing;easement .can-be amended to add.the prohibition language,(or:a second easement containing the:'prohibition,'language..'.,c0uld be donated);*[ " .,..*.:, ..' .. :.- .., '.: -.~.- It also: maY:~ be possible postmortem :t6: amend.an easement-to include-.fhe, prohibitiori:l~nguage (or:to donate a second: easement-containing th~' prohi:bition language) and, thereby, qualify the land subject' to the easement included in an esta~.~,:for: tl~e: exclusion2,z The Lo~-~tion. Requirement .... ! .. ',The land. must be located 'iwone or more of: the following areas:' :. . - . · In or' within 25 miles of an area that, on the date of the decedent's death~ is. a' ine~topoli, tari,.area (as defined by'the O~ce of. Management and Budget); ~ .* In or~wit'hin 25 miles of .an area thai;,: on the date of the decedent's death~:is a national park or wilder- ness-..area,designated .as part of the' Nati0nal.Witder; ness ,Preservation System (unless it, is determined.~b3;. the Secretary that land ira.or within 25 miles of the park o~ wilderness area is not. under significant devel-' opment pressure); ~4 or · In or within ten miles of an area that, on the date of the de~edenCs death:is":an Urban. National Forest (as designated by the USDA Forest Service)2~ The D0nOr R~uirement · The easement must be or have .been:donatedby the decedent, a. member ~of the decedent's, family,: th~ executor.' of the 'decedent~s estate, or the: trustee.' of. a trust, the. corpus: of which inciudes.:the~ land to be subject:.to the easement.~ For.pUr~poses or,this requir~ ment, the phrase .ymember :.of .the...decedent?s family'.' means:: (1):. any. ancestor.=' of the..deceden~,:. (2): the decedentts spouse:, (3)any lineal' descendant of.the decedent, of the decedent's spouse, ~or, of a parent' of the decedent; or (4).th¢~spouse of..any lineal descen~. dant d~escribed {n (3)? In addition, any:legally;adopt-., ed.child'~ of an-individuat::is treated as: a .child of..th~t individual by bl, oodA~ .: . -:....:- Because land,subject-roan easement that is inClude- ed in a decedent's.:'estate.is eligible, for ~th¢:, exclusion an ancestor.of-the decedent donated the oasement~ successive generations in ,.-a: single family's-Will, be enti~: tled to the benefit of the exclusion W:here,Ih~ land subject to the easement is .passed,:down from'genera-. ~ax Management .Estates; .Gifts and.Trusts. Journal 998 Tax Managemen[ Inc., a siJbsid ary df The BUreau 6~ National Affairs, Inc., WashinGton D.C. 20037 0886-354719~/$0:-F $1'.00 ' ' ' .... 257, 'ARTICLES tion to. generati0m.-Of course, any'.individual family member, wilt: be .entitled to the benefit of the exclusion only with respect.to.:the portion of the land subject to the easement owned by that individual at-death.- For example; ..assume :a: landowner .donates a':.qualified conservation easement during life and at:death leaves the-land subject 'to' the easement to. his four children in. equal shares~. A/s,' sume also' that eactiyehitd .subse~ quently dies owning a one-quarter interest in.the, land. At. the donor's-death, the donor's' executor would, be eligible to'.exelbde .up to,4.0% of the value:of.the'-tand from the donor's estate, and at the death,of each child;:the'ehild's executor would,.be eligible' to'exclude up to 40%':cf..the v~ilue of the:~ehild's one~uarter inter~st .in. the fan, from the child's estate~.: " .... '- 2..' ,:. . The Timing~Requlrement " '. The easement, if not donated before t.h.e:decedent~s death, must be donated on or before .the due- date (including extensions) for the'filing~of th~-deeedent's estate tax return? The Ownership. Requirement The-:'land ~'~tbject to.:th'e eas'emeh't mu~t h~w been own'ed by the decedent'or a niem'ber of the· decedent's family at all times during the'" three:year, pe~ri0d· end~ ing on the.date of the deced~nt's death.'°:For pa.rposes of this requirement, the phrase "member of the'dece~ dent's family'~ has the sam~ meaning given' the phrase for purposes' of the Donor Requirement. described above. Calculating the Exeit sion AmoUnt The po~'tion o~'~the value of land subject to a qualified conservation easement that may .'be excluded from. a decedent's taxable estate (the Exclusion AmoUnt) is eq~ual..to ·the lesser of.' (1):the Applicable P~rcentage. of"the value .of ':the' land'.'subject to the easement; .reduced 'by the amount: of.any~-charitable estate tax'~deduction under '!}2055(0 with i'espect to the land .n. and the ,~alue of' any.retained:development rig.hts;*~ and.. (2) the Exclusion "Limitation.~ ' ,The,-General Explanation' provides that~. "[t] he ex, clusi0n amount is!c~ilculated: based on':thewalue.of the property includible in the gross estate;.. ;'" and?[i]n general, ~this value~will..be'.equal to the Yalue of the pi;operty":after the c0nservatidn easement has., been placed 6iivthe: pr0pert~y.' Thus;, if. land· subjed[; to; a qualified conservation easement is. inclu'ded in'.a, dece- dent~s estate and'the easement.was donated 'before the decedent's death, the EXclusion Amount should, be calculated based on' the Value of the land included in th'e. decedent's 'estate, which, will be::the 'value;:of .the land eneumbe'~ed by. the"ease'meht.". The'AppliCable 'Percentage and~the Exclusion Limi- tation are next described. Applicable Percentage '. The Applicable Percentage-is equal'' to. 40%~ r~ duced (but not below zero) by two percentage point~ for each i~ercentage point (or fracti6n there00, by which-t, he value of {he e/~sement 'is less than '3'0% ot~ the value of {he.land determihed without regard to,th~ value of,the.easement (hereinafter. Witliout-Easem, ent Value of'.the land), less' the. value of. any' 'retmned development rights?n Accordingly, to be'eligible to.use the full 40% Applicable Percentage, the .value o~" ail easement' donated with respect tO land must be eq.u.a! tO at leasi 30%· of the'Without-E~sement V~ii~ie.~f ~li~ land less the volue .of an~:re, tained devel0pm'¢in.'t' (the-30% threshold).? . .: Example: A landowner who t~wns iand of $1,000,000 donates, an ea$.ement that reducea, lho value of the land tO $;/50,000' ~ind retains no'dev~l~ opment rights. The $250,000 value of.. the easement (determined under the before-and-after method) is equal to 25% of. the Without-Easement. yalu~ of th, land less the value of any retained development rights (that io, $250,000 + $1,000,000). According, ly, the Applicable Percentage is 30% (the differ- ence between the 30% threshold and. 25% is 5%, 5% X 2 is 10%Cand 40% 'reduced'by 10% is 30%). If the value of an easement is equal.to 10% or less of the Without-Easement'Value of the land less .th~ value of anY:re.rained development rights, the Ap- . plicable Percentage is 0% (the difference between 30% and' 10% is 20%f 20% X 2 is 40%,-and. 40% reduced by..'40% is 0%), and no exclusign is avail~ able. in' the case of an casement'donated before a deer- dent's death, there is some question as to:Whether. 'the. Applicable Percentage should be determined as of the date of the donation of the easement or tke date of the decedent's death. The language of §2031(c){2) im- plies that date.of deith values should be used.,becaus~ it states" .that the Applicable. Percentage:"must be r'educed' if the 'value. of. the qualified consei-vation easement is. less than 30%' of the Without-EaSement Value of the. land less the value of.any retained development rights: Some commentators htive argued that if date of death values.are iised, landownetg'may be less 'likely to donate easements because aq~ndown- er who donates' an easement during life will never bo certain-that the easement will'satisfy the 30%:thYesh; old test at the landowner's subsequent'death (because of'h:npredictable changes in the' value-cf.'the lar~d, the easement, and any retained development rights)?: However;'if.an.easement donated during life increases in value relative to the land it encumbers :subsequ6n! to the donation, using date of death values co,aid ~v6rk in a landowner's favor. Perhaps a compromise position could be adopted, where, the. executor of-'. fhe. estate el the donor of an easement could choose to use eithe~ 258 Tax Mari~igementT. EStaies;~¢Gi,fts and Trusts Journal 1998 Tax Ma~/~gernent In&, a subsidi'~ip/.~o~ Th~/.'B.¢r~u of ~lation~l Affairs, Inc., WaShFngton, O.C.' 20037 0880-3547/98/$0+$1.00 ARTICLES date of:donation or date of death values in.:calculhtifig the Applicable :Percen'tage, while the executor ofany estate eligible for the exclusion other than'the estate of the donor, of the' easement (such as the.e~/tate' of a child of the donor) would be required to use date'.of death 'values.- '"~' ' The Exclusion Limitation, which...is 'the ..maximum amount that may be excluded under §2031(c) from the estate of. a decedent dying in' each', of,the following. :1998 1999 2000 · ,2ooi 2'002 andth~reafter' ' $100,000.~'= $200;000 $300,000. $400,000. .... $500,000~`- Example'."A landowner who Cwns land with a value of $1,000,000.donates an easement !hat.reduces the value of the land to $700,000 and retains no dev~el- opment rights: Assume at}o~'that the landowner dies in 1999 and that at the landowner's death the is still valued. at $700,000' and the easement valued at $300,000~ Because the valde of the ~a~e- ment is eqilal ~o 3'0% of-the Without:Easement~ Value of the land~ the easement ,satisfies the 30% threshold test' and the:Applicable'Percentage lS not reduced from" '40%. Accordingly, the Exctusi6h: Amount is equal to $200,000 (which is the lesse? of (1) 40% ×: $700,000 '= $280,000, and (2) theq999 Exclusion Limitation of $200,000). ":' ..... " If a husband and wife own land subject to a qualified conservation easement as. tenants in.cOmmon (that is, each owns a one-half undivided interestin the land), each of their estates could claim a .separate Exclusion .Amount ~ith resPecit' .to the value of the one-half undivided inte'rest in the ]and held'in estate. A~iiaordingly, iri the:year'20i)2 and f~e'ti~aftei~ when 'the Exclusion Limitation is $500,000;~ a hus- band and Wife p0tenti~/Ily'eoul~~''i{xcli{dg., UP'to $1,000,000 0f' the '~;alue of land. glibject' t'o;'a q"'imlifi~id conservation easemen(fr6m their combiii'~d estate~ under.. §2031(c)."f Multiple Exclusion Amount~ also can be' claitned by other, family, members, such, as children and ~grandehildren, if they die owning inter- ests in land ,su'bject'.to a qualified 'conservation easement.: , ' -' InCome ~Tax'Basis of Excluded· POrtion The income tax.' basis of an asset acquired' from a decedent g~nerally is "stePped~Up">tO its:fair market value .on the date Of the decedent's dea.th?~ However, to. prevent the .beneficiaries of-land subject, t6 a qualified c6nservation~ easement from benefiting from both the, exclusion and the basis step-dp rule, the basis 6f land subject to a ~ifialified' ~nserVa~/ion easem'efft must be "carried over:'~from a decedent to the extent that the' value of ihe' land is excluded 'from": the decedent's' ta~able 'estate? Example: A: decedent-dies in'the year 2000' owning · land subject to a~ qualified- conservation, easement and that, on tho':date Of the decedent's death; the value Of the land..includible ih 'the. decedent's, estat~ 'is $700,000, the value of the 'easement is $300,000,'° a~d .the d~cedent'i' basis in 'the land :is: $315,000. The decedent's executor elects the exclui sion under §203 l(c), and excludes $280,000 of the value of the land from,thedecedent's estate.!! Un':. der such circumstances, only $420,000 of the valtre, of the land would be included in the decedent's estate (that is;'$700~000 .-- $280,000). The benefi; ciaries of the land would receive a step-up in basis in the portioii"of the ;value of the land included" in the decedent's estate (that is, $420,000), but. carryover basis in the portion of the value of 'the. "land excluded 'from the decedent's estate (that .is,' $280,000). The carryover basis in the $280,00(} :portion of the value, of the land excluded from the.. -decedent's estate wodld equal $126,000 (becaus6 $280,000 represents 40% of the $700,000 value Of' the land; and $126,000 represents 40% of the deee: dent'i $315,000 basis in the land). Thus, the betiefi- ciaries would, receive-}and .with a value of $700,000 and a basis of $546,000 (that is, $420,000 + $126,000). Electing the Exclusion To take advantage of the exclusion, the e~ecutor of a decedent's estate must' affirmatively elect to do;So- on the decedent's esbite tax return filed on· or befor{/' the due date (including extensions) of the return? The exclusion is' el~/3ti~6 b~eauSe it will not always be in the best interests Of the.' beneficiaries of an estate tO elect the exclusion. If, an estate including land subject to a qualified conse~ti6n easement will be shelti~red from estate tax for~reas0ns other than the eXdlusi6ii' under §2031(c) (sugh as, for example, the decedent's' available app!icabl6 credit amount under §20i0) it Will be preferable to include the full value of the l'and in the decedent's estate for estate tax purposes and, thUs, to allow the 'bi~hefic[aries of the 'land t6 receivO the' land with a full step-up in basis2 AlternativelY, because estate tax rat. es are higher than capital gains. iates; if aa estate ineltiding land Sui~ject to a qualified conservation easement will be subject to estate tax,' ~'[ generally will be preferable to elect to exclude" ~' portion of the'value .of the land from the decedeiit's estate: under,§203 t (c) even. though the beneficiaries. of the land will ,receive a carryover .basis in the excluded portion. ' --" Tax' Management Estates,: (~ifts and Trusts Journal 998.Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary Of The:Bureau.of Nationat~Affairs, Inc., Washington, D~C. 20037 08SS-3S~S?$0+$~ .0o 259 ARTICLES Treatment of'Acquisition Indebtedness '.L~nd included in a decedent's estate tha:t is. subject to acquisition indebtedness is eligible.fCr'~he exclusi~)n under §2031(c) only to thc extent of the net equity in the land? For .example, if land. subject; tO. a .qualified conservation easement included.in a. decedent's,estate' has a fair market, value of $700,000: but is s.ubject., to an ou{standing ae~luisiti0n indebt, e'dness of $100,000, the Exclusion Amount will be calculated based-on only $600,000 .of the .value of the .land..,. (that is $.700,000- $100,000).~ Treatment of 'Retained Development Rights ' '"- " Definition of Retained Development Rights.-. For purposes:'of the exclusion~ a reta'i'ned develop- ment. right means any right' to use land subject, to a qualified conservation, easement for any commercial purpose that is not s.ubordinate to and .dire. ctly sup- portive of the use of the land as a farm for:farming purposes,g5 Rights to construct: residences and reason- able appurtenances thereto (such as garages, sheds, and guest houses) for. use by the .,landowner and nonpaying guests should .n~)t be considered retained de¥clopment rights because they a.re..not rights to...use land for a commercial purpose..p.In.addition, rights to construct farm buildings,, including residences to house farm employees, and to use the land.for farm purposes, should not be considered retained develop- ment rights because those rights are subordinate to and directly supportive of .th.¢~us.e, of land as a farm for farming purposes. HOwever; 'rights" to, subdivide and sell portions of the land for development purposes and 'to construct residences, for rent or sale likely would be Co'nsidered i:,.e_tained 'd'6~el6Pment rights, calculation of the Applicable"~.ercentage..When Development Rights Are.Reta.'m. ed, As dj§Cussed ~arHer, to be ~li~ible to use the'.full 40°ffApplicable Percentage; th6 ;~alue of an easement must be equal to at least 30%'0f'{he Without-Ease- ment Value of the land' less. the value of any,ret~ihed dege:lopment right, s~ SubtraCting the value of retained development ' rights . from th'e Without-Easement Val2 ue'of the land before determining 'th'e"pe~centage the ea~.~men~ rcpres~nts 'of"the Wi~h~uCEasemen~' .v.:aiu~ fo~ 'purposes of' the 30% threShold test makes it 'mor.~ likely that an:'ea~e;m~nt~will meca' the 30%. threshold test and, thUs,. 'th~'t'.the full. 40~o 'APPlichble Percent- age qan be used ..... ..: ., . E,.xample-.l: A" decedent dies"owning land 'subject to a qualified conservation, easement:and, on the date of the .decedent's death, .the-..va-l~ue of the land includible in the decedent's estate is $750;000, t, he. value' of the'casement is $250,000, and no develop- ment rights are retained .in the easement. Because the easement ~:epresents 25% .of thc' Withouf~-Ease- ment Value of thc land less thc value Of thcre--.' tained development rights (that is, $25.0,000.::.~-'. $1,000,000), thc Applicable Percentag.e, must reduced from 40% to 30% for phrposes of caleulat.- lng the Exclusion Amount (the diffeL~ncc..bet~ee.'h. the 30% threshold and 2.5% is' 5%, 5%'× 2 is and 40% reduced by 10% 'is 30%). :' "--" Example' :2J' If instead'S200,000, of ffi;" $9 value'of the land includible in the decede'nt's' ~.tate is attributable to 'the value of development r~ghlt~ retained in the.easement, the $250,000 value of thc easement would be equal to 31.25% of the V/ithbut- Easement Value of the land less thc value' 0f.'th6 retained development rights (that~ is, $250,000' + ($1,000,000 ~- $200,000)). The full 40% Appl. ic~a; hie Percentage thus may 'be used to calCula~ the Exclusion Amount. Despite its surface appeal, retaining development rights solely in an effort to maximize the Applicable P~rCent~ge is not advisable as the negative tax conse- quences resulting from the retention of development rights'flor example, a decrease in thc value of the easement, which, in turn, will result in a corresponds. ing decrease in the amount of the charitable:income tax deduction and the amount by-Which the"'~Mue the..land included in. the estate is.reduced fbr estate tax purposes) generally will outweigh the benefit of maximizing the Applicable Percentage. Calculation of Exclusion Amount When Development ~ Rights Are Retained ~rhe ~xclu~ion under §2031 (c)..sPeCifically does not ~pply .to the value'of any development rights retained. in a qualified cbnservation easement? Acqgrding!y, any portion, of the value.of l~nd subject .to. a..qualified conserVatiofi 'easement inchided in a decedeh{% e~tat6 that is',at{ributable" tp retain.ed .development· right~:will not. be eligible for tlie exclusion. - .. Example: A decedent dies in the year 2000 owning land subject to a qualified conserva.fio~ easemeht and, on the date of the decedent's death, the value of..the, la. nd includible in the decedent!s estate:'is $700,000 and' the value of the easement, is, $300,000. The easement permits the development and sale of. five small lots for residential purposes~ and each C[ex3elopment right has a value of $50,000. The'Exclusion .Amount 'available to the estate of the decedent is $180,000 (which 'is the lesser' of (1)' 40% × ($700,000 - $250,000 ~9,' and (2)' the year 2000-Exclusion Limitation 'of $300,000). Thus;: ,$520,000.of the value'of the land would be inclu'ded~ in the decedent's estate (that is,' $700,000~"~! 260 Tax Management Estates,..Gifts.and. Trusts Journal ©1998 Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary of The~Bureau of National Affairs, Inc;, Washington, D~C::20037 0886~3547198/$0+ $1.00 ARTICLES. $180,000), and $250,000 of that amount would be attributable to the retained, development rights. Termination of Retained Development Rights Landowners sometimes retain development, fights when donating easements to. provide their beneficia- ries with a means of raising cash to pay estate, taxes. However, as discussed in the previous subse, ction, the Exclusion Amount is not available with respect to any portion of. the value of land subject to a. qualified conservation' easement that is attributable to retained development rights. Moreover, there' .may be eircum-. stances in which the beneficiaries who inherit land. subject to an easement do not wish to. exercise the i'etained development rights or do not ne~dito exercise the retained development rights to raise cash to pay estate taxes. Section 2031(e)(5)(B) allows beneficia- ries in those circumstances to terminate some or all of~ the development rights retained in an easement and,. thus, to reduce the estate taxes'that otherwise would be payable with respect to the development rights, provided that every beneficiary who has an' interest (whether or not in possession) in the land. subject to the easement executes an agreement to permanently extinguish some or all of the retained development rights within nine months of the da~e of the decedent's death? Example: A deceden~ dies in the year 2000 owning land subject to a qualified conservation easement and, on the date of the decedent's ~death, the value of the land includible in the decedent's .estate is $700,000~-the value of the easement is $300,000,- : and $250,000 of the $700,000 value of the land is attributable to development rights retained in the easement.'The decedent's two children~ who are.the sole beneficiaries of the land~ are-considering whether to execute an agreement to permanently -extinguish all development rights retained in: the easement within nine months of the date of the decedent's death. If the children do not execute an agreement to permanently extinguish alt' retained development rights, the Exclusion Amount avail-:'~ able to the estate of the decedent will be $180,000, (which is the lesser of (1) 40% ×. ($700,000 - $250,000 ~0), and' (2) the year 2000 Exclusion Limi- tation of $300,000) and, thus, $520,000 of the value of the land will be included in the landowner's estate (that is, $700,000 - $180;000). If, on the. other hand, the children do execute an. agreement, §2031 (e)(5)(B) mandates that "any tax imposed by section 2001: shall be reduced accordingly." Conse- quently, if the children do execute an agreement, the value' of the'land includible in the deeedent's estate presumably should be. reduced'to $450,000 (to retie, mt the termination of the.retained develop- ment rights), the Exclusion Amount available to [he' estate should be $180,000 (which is the lesser of (1) 40% X $450,000, and (2) the year 2000 Exclu; sion Limitation of' $300,000),9~ and~ thus; only. $270,000 of the value of the land-should be includ- ed in the deeedent's gross estate (that is, $450,000 - $180,000). If an agreement to extinguish development fights 'is not implemented by the date that falls two years after the deeedent's death or, if earlier, the date of the ~al~ of the land 'subject to the easement, an additional tax in the' amount of the tax that would have been due on the retained development rights absent the agreeme:nt will be imposed? It does not appear that any inter,st.. must be paid on the additional tax?' Accordingly, the beneficiaries of land subject to a qualifying, e0nserva~- tion easement may defer a final deeisi0n on :'the extinguishment of the development rights retained in the easement, and the payment of estate taxes with." respect to the rights, for up to two years following decedent's death by executing an agreement to extin- guish thb.rights within nine months of the date Of the decedent's death. H6wever, no guidance has yet been issued as to the form the agreement to extinguish development rights must take ,4 or what would consti- tute "implementation" of the agreement..In additi6n, it may be difficult under state law in certain circum- stances to obtain an agreement to extinguish develop- ment rights from "every person in being who has an interest (whether or not in possession) in the land.". Partnerships, Corporations, and TruSts Section 2031(c)(10) provides that the exclusion "shall apply to an interest, in a partnership, corporae, tion, or trust if at least 30% of the entity is owned: (directly or indirectly)'by the decedent, as determine~i ' under the rules described in section 2033A(e)(3)." ~s Under §2033A(e)(3) (now §2057(e)(3)), an interest owned, directly or indirectly, by an entity is consid- ered to be owned proportionately by the entity's share-: holders, partners, or beneficiaries, although a person.. is treated as a beneficiary, of a trust only if the. person ::. has a present interest in 'the trust. Accordingly,: a decedent who dies owning at least 30% of the interests in a partnership, corporation, or trust that, in turn, owns land subject to a qualified conservation ease-.. ment, should be able' to claim the exclusi:~n under' §2031 (c) with. respect to the interest in the land that the decedent owns indirectly through the partnership; '~ corporat!pn, or trust.~ .. Example: A decedent dies in the year 2000 owningS? 50% of the outstanding interests in a family limited :' partnership and the sole asset of the partnership, is', land subject to a qualified conservation easement; As of the date of the decedent's death, the value of the land is $700,000, the value of the easement is ! $300;000, and no development rights are' retained"- under the easement. Because the decedent owned at'. Tax Management: Estates, Gifts and Trusts. Journal Bureau of National Affairs; Inc., Washington, D,C. 20037 © 1998 Tax Management Inc., a subsidiary' of The . ~ 0886-3547798/$0+$1.00 261 '- ARTICLES least. 30°3 of the}. family limited partners.hip, the. exclusion should apply to the value of the interest in the land that tke~decedent owned indirectly through .:.the partnership; or $350,000.9? Accordingly, the Exclusion Amount available to the decedent's es- tate should be .$140,000 .(whic. h is the lesser of (1) ' 40% × 350,000~ and :(2)'the year 2000 Ekclusi0n Limitation of $·300,000).' Thus, only $210,000 of the value ~3f the intere'~t' in the land owned. by the decedent indirectl,y through the partnership'ishould be:. included in '.the d6cedent's estat~ (that' is, $35q,ooo - $14o,o0o). ILLUSTRATIONS ' '" · The followin~ two examples .illustrate the'tax: bene- fits associated with ,donating a qualified conservation easement:during a landowner's lifetime. Exampl'e 1: Fred, a widower, owns a .large fa. rm. The value of the land (without improvements) is' $1,000,000 and Fred's basis in the land (without improvements) is: $450,000. Fred owns a significant amount of other assets: The land would be subject to a flat estate tax rate of 50% in Fred's: estate. Fred leaves the farm to his children in his will: Example 2: The facts are the same as in Example 1, but Fred places a qualified conservation ease- ment on the land during his lifetime, Fred retains no development rights under:the easement, and:-the 'Casement reduces the Val'ue of the land 'to $700,000. If in Example 1, Fred dies 'in the year 2002 and the land is not subject to a qualified conservation ease- ment, the full $1,000,000 value of the land Will b~ included in Fred's estate~ Fred's estate-Will owe' $500,000 of estate tax with respect to the land (that is, 50% × $1,000,000), and Fred's childr6n will re- ceive' a stepped-Up basis iff the land of $I,000,000. Accordingly, the net value of this inheriiance paSSing to Fred's children· will'' be:'-$500,000 (that.: is, the $1,000,000 value of 'the"l:and 16ss the $500,000 of' estate tax due with respect tq th6 lafid). In ExamPle 2, Fred ~vill be entitled to a charitabl6 inc'0me tax-dedhction in the 'taxable year o. tt'; the' donation of the"easement equal to ihe~Value.of the' easementi/0r $300,000 (calculated un:~ier the hero{e- and:after melhod)2 The amoufit 0f'ihe"deduction that Fred may claim in'an~ faxable year wilI'~b6 limited to 30% of Fred's adjusted gross income'for that 'year, but' the unused portion of: the deduction can be~'carfied forward for' up-to five years after·~the year of the donation of the easement until fully used?Assuming that .Fred is able to deduct ..the full. $300,000 .during the six-year deduction period and is in. the 36% in- come. tax..bracket, Fred would save $1.08~000 of i.n- come. ta~zes2~ However,. 30% of Fred's '$450,000' basis in the land, or $135,000, will be allocated to the- easement, leaving Fred' with a. basis in the land.of $315,000 (that is, $450,000-$135,006). -- If Fred then dies in the year 2002, the value o~ the land subject .to the easement ($700,000) is-includible in Fred's estate. However, assuming Fred's executor elects the ~xdu~i6n on' Fred's'estate tax return, the Exclusion-Amount available to Fred's.~state will be $280,000 (which is the l~ssei- of (a) 40% x $700,000:; or $280;000 and (b) the~ year 2002 Exclusion Limita~' tion of $500¢IJ00), and only $420,000 of the'value of: the land- will be included in Fred's esta{e-:'(that $700~000 - $280,000). :Aecoi-dingly, Fred's estate will owe- only $210,000 of' estafe tax with' respect to th~' land (l/hat, i's, 50% X $420,000). Fred's 6hildren will receive a stepped-Up. basis wi'~i' respect to 'the portion of 'the Oalue of the larid.' that is' included in Fred's estate (that is, $420(000); but' 3viii recei*e a' carryover ba.sis with respec[ to:ih~'portioh' Of the value 6f' the land that is excluded'.ffom Fred's estate (that is, $280,000). The 'carryoverVbasis will equal $1'26;000 (because $280,000 represents 40% of the $700;000 value of the land; and $126,000'repre- sents 40% of Fred's $315,000 basis in the land). Thus Fred's children will receive 'the 'land with a value' ~f $700,000 and a total.'ba~is of-$546,000 (that i~; $420,000 '+ $126,000). Assuming Fred's children s'ell the land f6r $700,000, they will be subject to a capital gains tax on the difference between the value Of the land and their basis in the land,~.or $154,000 (that is, $700,000 -. $546~000). Assuming the combined feder- al and state capital gains tax rate is 25%, Fred's children will.be subject to a capital gains tax of $38,500 (that is, 25% × $15'4,000). Accordingty,'the net value-Of this inheritance passing to F~-ed's children will be $451,500 (that is, $700,000 less $210,000 of estate ta~ and $38~500 of-capital.gains tax). During Fred,s lifetime, Fred may give $10,000 a year to each of his children free of. gift tax." Assum- ing Fred gives $100,000 of' his income tax.savings from the charitable income, tax :deduction to his-chil- dren during his lifetime,'°° Fred'g-children 'ultimatel~ will receive a total of. $551.,500 of assets (that:,is, $100,000 of lifetime· gifts plus the $45:1,50t3 inheritance). The appendix, 'below, compares the tax.: conse- quences of the two examples. - ' - · By donating a qualified conserV'ationeasement..wit~ respect to his land Fred reduced-the value of the, lan~ passing to, his children .by $300;000, but received",, $300,000 charitable income,.tax.deduction during, hi.~ lifetime (potentially worth.-..$108,000 of tax sav[ngsl and .a $290,000 reduction in estate tax. upon hisdeath Assuming Fred gives., his income tax savings from th{ charitable income tax deduction: (after subtracting th~ costs associated with the donation of the easement)-.t( his children;. Fred's ~children .will. receive, significantl] more net assets if Fred donates.the easement, whethe: or not the children choose to sell the land after.Fred'~ 262'. Tax Management Estates, Gifts .and Trusts. Journal 998 Tax Management Inc..a-subsidiary of The B~re.au of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 0886-3547/98150+$1.00 ARTICLES death. The above examples, illu'~trate 'that the combi~ nation of tax benefit.s available with respect to a qualified, conservation easement, may permit 'a..land- owner to donate a qua!ified conservation, easen~ent that.will protect and pre, eryc.the landQ. Eng.r's. land in perpetuity and, aLtho..same-time,~.increase, the net assets that will pass to the.landowner's beneficiaries; However; because the. tax effects of donating an easement will ~ary. dramatically based upon an indi- vidual landowner's specific circumstances, each land- owner contemplating the donation of an easement must carefully 'examine. the application of the...rules detailed.abov,.e to the donation..-. POSTMORTEM EASEMENT - ,'- DONATIONS, "' As originally enacted,-.§:2031(c). :provided that the exclusion .was available with respect: to. ~i: postmortem easement donation, but Was'. silent with. respect to the availability of a charitable estate, tax deduction under §2055(0 with: respect to the. donation. Under-the standards applicable to §2055(0, the donation.bf a qualified conservation easement.? following a. dece- dent's, death likely would qualify for a.~.charitable estate tax:deduction only if: (1) the,.decedent's will or trust'agreement.specifically'ditected the decedent's executor.or trustee to donate~ a: qualified conservation ea-sement with. respect'to land included in the dece- dent's estate (and~ thus, the. poss!bility that.the ease- ment would not be donated was.:,so remote as to be negligible) :.end (2)the terms of: .the easement were clearly delineated by the decedent in' the decedent's will or. trust agreement (and, thus, the value of the ~easemeat was ascertainable as of th'e 'date of the decedent's., death)?~ Recognizing that the strict stan- dards.of §2055(0 would render, most postmortem easement donations ineligible for the charitable estate tax deduction, 'Congress enacted new §2031(c)(9) as part of the 1998 Act. Current §2031(c)(9) allows an estate to claim a charitable estate tax deduction with respect to a postmortem easement donation even if the decedent did not specifically direct or even authorize the dona- tion of an easement, but only if no charitable income tax deduction is allowed to any person with respect to the donation. Accordingly, under current law, if a decedent dies owning land and the decedent's execu- tor, the trustee of a trust the corpus of which includes the land, or a member of the decedent's family donates a qualified conservation easement with re- spect to land on or before the due date (including extensions) of the decedent's estate tax return, the decedent's estate will be entitled to the benefit of both the charitable estate tax deduction under §2055(f) and the exclusion under 82031(c), but if the Charita- ble estate tax deduction is claimed with respect to the donation, no charitable income tax deduction under § 170(h) will be available to any person'with respect to the donation? Although the. availability of the charitable estate tax deduction and the exclusion with respect to post- mortem easement donations may provide.executors, trustees, and beneficiaries with a--postmortem plart, ning tool, there are a number 'of-disadvantages associ- ated with .postmortem easement donations and, thus, they generally should not be relied upon by landown- ers. as an' estate planning strategy.. The most, glaring disadvantage of a postmortem easement donation is that only two o[' the three tax benefits associated with easements are available; As described' previously in this article, a landowner: ~v-ho. donates a qualifying easement during lifetime will be entitled to:. :(I)' a. charitable income tax deduction under §lY0(h); (2) ~' reduction in the .fair market value of, the land included in the landov~ner's .estate for estate tax purposes; and. (3) an exclusion under' 82031 (c)..Alternatively, if the same easement is. not.donated until after the landown- er's death,.the Iandowner's estate will be entitled tO only: (1) a charitable, estate tax. deduction under:. §2055(0 (which, as with the donation of an -easement during life, effectively will reduce the value of the land included in the landowner's estate for estate tax purposes); and (2) an exclusion under §2031(c)?~ A more subtle and often overlooked disadvantage' with respect to postmortem easement donations is that' a landowner's executor or trustee may not have suffi2' cient authority under state law to donate an easement. If, under state law, title to real property included in a decedent's estate is held. by the decedent's executOr or trustee, but the decedent's will or trust agreement does not authorize the donation of-an easement, the decedent's executor or trustee generally'will be re- quired to obtain court approval b~fore donating an easement. In addition, .even if an executor or trustee is authorized by a' decedent's will or trust agreement to donate an easement with respect to land included in the decedent's estate, the executor or trustee likely will want to obtain court approval for the donation of an easement, especially if the terms of the easement are left to the discretion of the executor or trustee, or if minors or persons yet unborn are beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of the land. In such cases, court approval of the donation of an easement may be denied, or, even if court approval is granted, the approval may not be granted before the due date of the decedent's estate tax return?~ Also, even if, under state law, title to land included in a decedent's estate vests directly in the beneficiaries of the land, it may be difficult to get'all of the beneficiaries to agree to donate an easement or to agree on the specific terms of the easement. Finally, even if court approval to donate an easement is granted to an executor or trustee, or the beneficiaries who hold title to land all agree to the donation and terms of an easement, it may be difficult to complete the numerous and time-. Tax Management Estates, Gifts and Trusts Journal © 1998 Tax Management Inc4 a subsidiary of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C, 20037 0886-3547/98~0+$:1.00 263 ARTICLES consuming:tasks associated with the preparation and donation of an easement by the due date of the deeedent's estate tax return? Given the difficulties associated ~vith the postmortem donation of an ease- ment in circumstances where the decedent has ,not directed the donation of an easement or delineated the terms thereof, §2031(c)(9)' may prove to be'of little actual benefit-.to the beneficiaries of an estate. Another disadvantage to a postmortem easement donation; is.that the method 'of Calculating the Exclu- sion Amount with respect to the donation is not entirely dear. Section' 2031 (e)(1) provides that the Exelusion"Amount is equal to the lesser of '(I) "the applicable percentage of the value of land subject to a qualified COnservation easement, reduced by the am6unt"of, any deduction under section 2055(f) with respect to such .land" and (2). the Exclusion Limita- tion. It' is.not clear from the quoted language whether (1) the Applicable Percentage should be multiplied by the value of the land subject~to the qualified eonserva,. tion easement, and the 'resulting product then reduced bythe amount of any .§2055(f) deduction claimed with respect to the land (as the placement of' the comma in the quoted language would suggest), or (2) the. value of the land subject.to the qualified conserva-' lion easement should be reduced l~y any §2055(13 de. duction claimed with respect .to the land, and the resulting.amount then multiplied by the Applicable Percentage. It also is not clear whether the phrase "the value of land subject to a qualified conservation easement" refers to the value of the land before the easement donation or after the easement donation. The General Explanation offers some guidance on these issues, providing that "[t]he exclusion amount is calculated based on the value of the property includi- ble in the gross estate, reduced by the 'amount of--any deduction taken under section 2055(13 with.respect to such land," and "[lin g~neral,, this value will be equal to .the. value, of the property after the conservation easement:has been placed on the property." Based:on the General Explanation, it appears "that in calculat- ing the-Exclusion Amount, the fair market value 0f the land':in:eluded in a decedent's estaie (which, in th~ case of a':l~tmortem easement donation, is the"~,alu.o of the land before the easement donation).shOuld 'bo reduced: b3r-any §2055(t') deduction- dlaimed' With respect: tosthe land, and the r'esulting ainou~t should th~ti be.'mbltiptied by. 'the Applicable Percentage.-. Example' A decedent dies in the year. 2000-owning land with a fair market value of $I,000;000. The decedent's will authorizes the decedent's execut, or to donate an ~asement 'with respect 'to ~tie lgnd.: Before the due date of the decedent's estate: tax return, the executor obtains court apprbval to don- ate an .easement and donates an easement that decreases the :value of the land by $300,000. "If the executor' elects the .exclusion on the decedent's 'es, rate tax return, the decedent's estate will be entitled to a charitable estate tax deductiowunder §2055(0: equal to.thewS300,000 value of the easement (calcu,' lated under the before-and-after method) and..an Exclusion Amount'equal to $280,000. (which is' the lesser, of (1) 40% × ($i,000',000 to~ _ $300,000 and (2) the year 2000' Exclusion Limitation of $300,000). Accordingly, only $420,000 of the .value · of the land should be subject to estate tax in the decedent's estate (that is, $I,000,000 - $300,000? $280,000). This method of'calculating the'Exclu- sion Amount. in the context of a postmortem 'ease- ment. donation is supported by the fact that §2031(c) is .:intended to provide taxpayers with a. tax benefit that will encourage the .donation of easements,'°° and alternate interpretations of the' statute would' provide" taxpayers with little or no tax. benefit? 204 Tax Management Estates. Gifts and Trusts'.dournal 19'98 Tax Management In~;; a Subsidiary of The B~reau Of'National Alfairs, Inc.. Washington; D.C. 20037 o886-354'f/98/$o+$f.oo ARTICLES 'APPENDIX- COMPARISON OF~TAX'BENEFITS' · .WITHOUT THE EASEMENT 0 DURING FRED,S LIFE Charit,able liicome TaxDeducti0n P0~ential Income'Tax Savings. Costs Associated With Easement 0 -.. Lifetime. Gifts to.Children - 0 .... Value InCluded in Fred's Estate Estate' Tax ," Valhe 'of Land in' Children's' Hand's" Children's Basis in Land Unrealized' Apprediation 'Capit~il Gains Tax ,:NET TO CHILDREN AFTER ESTATE TAX NET TO CHILDREN AFTER ESTATE TAX A,ND CAPITAL. GAINS TAX $1;000,000 ($ 500,000) " ,. id; 1,000,000 $1,000,000 - ' WITH THE EASEMENT ,. $3~,000- $108,00ff :: :. $ 420,000' "'-~ ' ($ 210,000).:- $'700 $ 546,000 ' 0 $1-54,000.. 0 ($ 38;500) $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $590,000 $551,500 FOOTNOTES * The author thanks Robert T. Danforth, Assi:stant ProfeS- sor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law, for his editorial assistance. t P.L. 105-34. ' All section references to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and the regulations thereunder unless other~ ' In addition, a lifetime donation of a conservation easemenf should reduce the value of the land for state estat~ or i/iheri- tahoe, tax' purposes and may reduce the valUe of' th~ land for state property tax purposes. -: .. 4 P.L. 105-206. ~ See. §2031(c), applicable 'to estates of de,Orient's :dying after 1997. ~'The dCnatioii would not be "subject' to .gift .tax 'du~:' [6 the.., dedud~ion avaiIabie Under §2'522(d). ? §lT0(f)(3)(A):.'.. .~ §l'70(f)(3)(B)fiii). Section 170(h)(l). definez.,~a qualified conservation contribution. - -' · ' §1-70(h)(2)(C); Regs. §LI70A-I.4(b)(2), --- '~ The term ,qualified organization,'..' means;: (1)-the United. States and its possessions, the-states, and. any po[itieal subdi¥i- sion thereof, and the District of Columbi~ (but only if the donation of the ..easement- is made for exclusivety:.public pur- poses); (2) certain.organizations [hat are ereatexL-or.organized m or under the laws.of .the United States, funded, by.a governmental, unit.or the general public, and operated.exclu- sively for,religious, charitable, scientific~ literayy,~educational~ or other spegified., purposes; and (3) charitable organizations described in. §501(e)(3) that meet:certain Other requirementsi §170(h)(3)[ ~Regs. §1.170A-14(¢)(1). Private foundations: are not qualified .organizations. '. n Regs. §1.170A-14(c)(1). A conservation group' that'is organized or, opera:ted: primarily or substantially' for~'one 'of the conserVation purposes spe~ified4n §lT0(h)(4)(A) (and out~ lined below) will be considered:to have a .'commitment to protect the conservation purposes of a conservation easement.: ~ZRegs. §1.170A-14(c)(1). However, a qualified...organiza~ tion is not required to set aside funds to?enforce the restrictions on the,use of property under a-conservation easement. Id, u Roes:, § 1.170A-lA(c) {2~L ':. i "§170(h)(t),(C)~ .... : . "§170(h)(4)(A)(0. See Regs. §l.170A-14(d)(l)(!), -1.4(d)(2): for a more detailed description of this conservation ptul0ose. '~ §170(h)(4)(A)(ii). See Regs. §l'.170A-14(d)(l)(iiS, -i4(d)(3) for. a.m0re detaileddescviption .of this:conservation pUrpo~.. .-" § 170(h)(4)(A){iii). See. Regs.. § 1.170A- 14(d)(1) (iii), d4 (d) (~) for a more detailed der, cripti°n o£ this conservation pmpme.' .'.: · . "§ 17..0(h)(4)(A)(iv),.SeeRegs. §l.170A-14(d)(1)(iv), -.14(d)(5)' for a more detailed description 0£ this conservation Pm. ~ § 170(h)(5)(A). This requirement is somewhat/redundant given that a conservation easement will constitute a "qualified real property interest" only if it is granted, in perpetuity.':A charitable income tax. deduction will.not be disallowed'merely because the easement donated to a qualified organization may be defeated by fhe performance of some act or the happening. Tax Management.Estates, Gifts and Trusts Journal © ~1998 Tax Management InC,, a subsidiary of The.Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C, 20037 0886-3547198/$0+$1.00 265 ARTICLES of some event if, on the date of the donation, it appears that the possibility that the act or event will occur is so remote as to be negligible. Regs. §l.170A-14(g)(3). For example, a state's statutory requirement, that restrictions on the.use of land must~ be rerecorded every 30 years to remain enforceable would not, by itself, render an easement nonperpetual. Id. State laws authorizing conservation easomonts typically provide mecha- nisms by which.the easements may be terminated .or modified4 For example, Va. Code Ann. §10.1-1704A (1998) provides_ that land subject to an open space conservation easement acquired unde~ the Open Space Lafid Act may be diverted from open space use, bht only if the public body holding the easement determines that:' (I)the diversion is.essential to the orderly development and growth of the locality and in accord- ance with the local 'comprehensive plan; and (2) real property of at least equal fair market value, of greater value as perma- nent open space land, and of as nearly as feasible equivalent' usefulness and'location for use as permanent open Space land is substituted for the land so diverted. However, the possibility of termination or modification of an easement under most .stat~ laws should be deemed so remote as to be negligible and; thus,. those laws should not render easements .nondeductible .foi federal income tax purposes. · 2, §170(h)(5)(B), (h)(6); Regs. §l.170A-l'4(g)(4)(i). 'If a. conservation easement is donated with respect to property' where the ownership of the surface estate ~nd the mineral interests has been and remains separated,.the easement will be deemed to satisfy the requirement that it contain a prohibition against any surface mining method if the probability of surface mining occurring on the property is so remote as to be negligi- ble. § 170(h)(5)(B)(ii). ~ Regs. §l.170A-14(e)(2). For example, the donation.of conservation easement for the purpose of preserving open space farmland pursuant to a state program for flood prevention and control would ~ot qualify for a charitable income tax deduction if under the terms of the easement a significant naturally occurring ecosystem could be injured or destroyed by the use of pesticides in the 'operation of the farm. Id. Similarly, no deduction would be allowed for the donation of an scenic easement on property that is visible from a national park if the donor reserves the right to subdivide the property in a manner that would destroy the scenic character of the view. Regs. §l.170A-14(f), Ex. 3. Alternatively, a deduction would be allowed for the' donation of a Sbenic easement on property that is'visible from a national park if the donor reserves rights to do limited cluster developments on?the prope;rty in areas that generally are not visible .from the park and, thus, the:scenic view from the park would not be impaired, Regs,. §L170A- 14(0, Ex. 4. .. . ~ Regs. §l.17~)A-14(e)(3); For example~ a dedubtion for the' donation of an easement to preserve an archaeological site that is listed on tho, National Register:of Historic Places will. not be disallowed even. though site excavation consistent with sound archaeological practices may impair a scenic view of which tho land is a part.. Id. . 5, Regs. §l:170A-14(g). . : ... ~ Regs. §1. }70A-14(g)(l); Retained uses wilt be. considered subject to legally enforceable restr, ictions if the easement is recorded in the land records of the jur!sdiL't, ion in which the property is located:: Id. ~ Regs.· §l.170A-14(g)(2).. -' Regs. §l.170A44(g)(5)~.: n Regs.. § l'.170A, 14(g)(5)(i). The. d~umentation should' in- clude various maps, aerial photographs; '.and onzsite photo- graphs of the' property, as well as a wrRten statemefit signed the; donor and. a representative of.' the d0~ee qualified'organiza- tion stating that the documentation provides an accurate repre~ sentation of the property at the time of the donatibn.. Id. - ~' Regs~ §l.17OA-ln(g)(5)(ii). :: - ,1 Id.. 'Regs; §l;170A44(g)(6), ' §ee~','also Regsj §1..1703/-: 14(c)(2).~ ' · "Regs. §l.170A-14(h)(3)(i): ~ '"' J: "Id. See Regs. §l.170A-14(h)(3)(ii) for factors that mast be taken into account in valuing property before and after the -' ;donation of an easement; ~ Governmental entities sometimes purchase development rights from landowners (in the form of easements) as part of' land preservation programs, However, in most cases, the gov-' ~/:i~nmental agencies purchase the development rights for les§ than their fair market value. Those bargain sales should .not be considered marketplace sales and, 'thus;should not b~ d~.i. ermi- native of the fair market value of'comparable easements. See Browning v. Corer., 109 T;C. 303 (1997) (before-ahd-after-' method was .used to determine the' fa~t. mhrk~t 'value of a coi~servation easement sold to a county pursuant to a farmland preservation program even though'ther6 ://~ a substantial record of sales of ~omparable easements, to'the~oonty pursuant to the program, because the sales of the comparable easements were made' at bargain prices and, thus, did nqt reflect the fair market value of the easements sold). - ~ - ~' $ee, e.g., Stymingto. n v. Corer., 87. T,..C.. 892~(.!986y(be- : fore-and-after-method used to determine the fair market .value '7-'of an open space easement donated to a state agency that restricted development on an approximately 60-acre trac[-' of .,land); see also Rev. Rul. 73-339, 1973-2 C.B. 68 (in which the :' Service acknowledged that the before-and:after methb~' gener- ally is used to determine the fair market-value of an open space or scenic'easement because there usually is no: substantial- record of marketplace sales to use as a meaningful or valid comparison). 'nSec Regs. §l.170A-14(h)(4), Exs. 4, 7, and 12, for addi- tional examples of the before-and-after method. · -- ~ Regs. §l.170A-14(h)(3)(i). For purposes of thig fi~st:rule; the donor's family is defined as the donor's brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), sppuse, ancestors, and lineal descendants. Id; §267(c)(4)i' S~e Regs2 '§l.170A- 14(h)(4), Ex. I0, for the application of thig'rule. ~°Regs. §l.170A-14(h)(3)(i). For pu, rposes:0f.this second rule, related persons include tile donor s brother~ and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, lineal ' descendants, and other individuals and entities listed in §267(b) or §707(b). Id. ~ Regs. § 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i). For purposes of this rule, relat- : ed persons include .the donor's brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descen- dants, and other individuals and entities listed in §267(b) or §707(b). Id. ~'Regs. § 1.i'70A-14(h)(3)(i). ~' Regs. § 1.170A-14(h)(3)(iii). 44io*. "Si:e Regs.' §l.170A-14(h)(~),.Exs. 9, 11, and '12, for. additional· examples of the allocation of basis upon thb"dona~-: tion of a conservation easement. ~ Regs" §EITOA-14(i). Because' most conservation ease- meritS; will have a value in excess'of $5,000, th~ substanti~ition. requirement~ for easements valued' at $5,000 or less are 'not" addressed in this article. -' ~Regs. §l.170A-13(c)(2)(i)(A). The requiremenLs of a qb~ilified appraisal are set fo?th'{n Reg~.'§t';170A-13(c)(3).' ~ Regs.· .§ 1.170A- 13(c)(2)(i)(B).. The requirements of ...an" appraisal shmma/y aide set forth in.Regs.' .§ 1.170A-I 3(c)({). ~Regs. §1.170A-13(c)(2)(i)(C). The written r~cords that must· bo maintained are' described in'i?Regs. §I~t70A- 13(b)(2)(ii). · " ~0 §lT0(b)(l)(C)(i). Ttie don0i 6f an easement,may clhim'the charitable income *tax..d¢ducti0n' generated by the donation to the 'extent· .of 50%'of the donor's-adjusted grosS income in any taxable year, but if the election, is'made thef deduction' generated'by the donation must he,decreased by the amount that· would have been'long-tetra, capital gain if the easement 'had been sold for its .fair market ,value.at the time of' the donatioff' (that is, the deduction Will'be limited to the. arfiount of basis allocated to the" easement as described above)." §170(b)(1)(C)(iii). The'election may be beni:ficial when the 266 Tax Management Estafes, Gifts andTrus.ts Journal © 1998 Tax Managgrnent Inc., a s~Jbsidiary of The.BUreau of National Affairs, .Inc.', Washington; D.C, 20037 0886-354"/./98/50+$1 .oo ARTICLES donor of an easement has a high basis..in the property subject to the easement and, thus, a high.baSis will be allocated m the. easement. n See Regs. §l.170A-10. n An easement may be "phased in" in more than ~wo phases} and the property placed, under easement, in each phase need not.' be' equalin acreage .or valu& However, any plan involving the phasing in of an. easement must take-into consideration the pos. sibility thai' donating an easement on, only a portion of the. [16n0r's p.rol~erty will enhance the value of the remaining portion:of the donor's property and, thus, 'that :the charitable4 iheomo tax deduction generated.-bY the.donation will 'be duced to the 6xtent of the enhahi:emen~ (as described al~ove). In addition, this strategy will work only if e.a~h easement separately sa.tisfies the eligibility requirements for a charitable income tax deduction... ~' This stratcg~, w°Ul'd:'~vork only if e~ch of'tbe [n~tiai. ~se-. merit and the amendment ~hereto (6r the se~n'd easement)' satisfie~'ihe 'eligibility requirements for a charitable'iiicom¢ tax deduction. '~ 'FNI The'value' Of eve?y item of'property iricludihl~ in a decede'nt's gross, estate is its fair market value' at the time of. the dece~ient's d~ath (or bn the'alternate valuation date, if the decedent's executor so elects), and fair market value' is th~ price at which the property would.change hands between a willing buyer and'a willing '~eller; 'neither being unde'r any':' compulsion to buy .or to sell and be'th .having reasonable' knowledge Of. all of the relevant facts. §2031(a)~ Regs:' §20.203.1-1(a)(1). 5, §203 l(c)( I).. ~ §2031 (c)(8)(B). ~' Id. Based on a literal reading of §20'31(c)(8)(B), it.ap- pears that .an easement will satisfy:this' requirement only .if it conttiins language specifically prbhibiting more than. a de minimis use:o[ th.e land subject to the .easement. for a commer-. cial recreational activity. Accordingly, exi~sting easements that by their terms 'effectively prohibit commercial recreational activities may need to be amended to include the specific prohibition to be eligible for the exclusion. n See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted 'in 1997 (JCS-23-97) (12/17/97) (hereinafter General Explanation). ~ The Genbral Explanafion states that it is-anticipated that the Secretary:of the Treasury will provide additional guidance as to the meahing of the pr6hibition language. ~o For example, the prohibition could be interpreted to pro- . hibit an activity such as' the boarding of~h0rses. *~ In some cases a landowner donating a conservation' ease- ment may wi~h to specifi[ally reserve the right to Use the land .' ['or' i:ertain commercial recreational' activities, such as the.' operation of an inn or a lodge. In such cases, the land likely :. will not be eligible for the exclusion under §203.1(c). Howe~er~ provided the d6nation"of the easement satisfies the..require- ments Of: §'170(h), the'landowner still will be eligible for a charitable i'ncome tax" deduction equal-:to the V~/lue 16,f the easement: and' a r~duction' in the valise of the-land' incl'.tid~, d i~ · the landowner's estate for estate tax purposes. '" ~ Postmortem easement donations are discussed below. ~ §2031 (c)(8)(A)(i)(I). The Office of Management and Budget defines the term "metropolitan area" generously to include not only large 8ities, but also surrounding suburbs and other areas, and most metropolitan areas consist of a number of entire counties: list of metropolitan areas can .be obtained from the'U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce,.Teehnology Administration, National Techni- cal Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 or online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/ EOP/OMB/html/bulletins/95-04attachintro.html. ~ §2031(c)(8)(A)(i)(II). A list of the national parks can be obtained from the National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, or online at http://www.nps.gov/ legacy/nomenclat,u, re.html. It' is' not clear whetller all proper- ties designated as national parks," such as national battlefield parks and national historical parks, are to be considered. national parks for purposes of the exclusion. A lis~ of~ the wilderness areas can be-found in the following publication, Landres and Meyer, 1998 Naiional Wilderness Preservation System Datab~se: Key. Attributes' a~d.~b~t~ds, 1964 th?ough 1998, USDA Forest Service General.',Technical Report,'. RMRS-GTR-18, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Co14. lins, Colorado; 'or online, at http~.[/www. Wi!'derness. net/n,wps.''' Ii'iS not dear. under 'wh~' cireums, tance~ the Secretary would' determine that land in or within 25 miles 9('a' national park or' wilderness area.iS'not finder ~ignl~cant d6ve!gp'ment pressui'e:' and, thus,~ isl n6t.~ligible for tli. e eX~lUsion;~;,, ' ~ · "' ~ §2031 (¢):(8](A)(i)(III). Utbai[ NatiofiaI~ Forests ate ed within '50 miles. ~f ~puliiti6ni/greater than one miilidn~' people. A list and mal~ of the Urban National Forests .oan be . obtained from the 'USDA' Foie4t 'Sen, ice or bnline at - ht~p://ww.w;fs.fed.iis/.reereation/pei:hiits)~ban/Urban03.ht~t. ' ~ §2031(c)(8)(A)0ii). E~Sements' donat,&l postmorl[.em by a'" decedent's executor or trustee, or the beneficiaries Of a.deee- ' dent's estate are discussed below. "§203 l(e)(8)(D) adopting the definition ih' §2:032A(eS(2). '~ §2032A(e)(2). , ~ ...... - s* §2031(c)(8)(A)(iiil. Postmortem easement donati'ons are discussed below. ~ §203 l(c)(8)(A)(ii): '" §2031 (e)(l). Calculation of the E3~:ifisi6n A'mount when a charitable estate tax deduetibn under'i§~055'(f) is claimed is discussed in the context of 'postmort6m easement donations below.' n §2031(c)(5)(A). The definiti0~ Of "developn~ent 'rights": and the caleulatioh 'of the Exclusion Amount when develop- ment rights' fire retained are discussed' below. '" Calculation of the Exclusion Amount in the case of post- mortem easement donations is discussed below. "~. §2031 (c)(2). The calculation of'the~ Applicable Percentage whevi development rights are retained is discussed later. ~ See Lindstrom and Small,~ "New Estate Tax Relief for. Land Under Conservation Easement," 78 Tax Notes 1'171, 1179-1180 (1998). ~ §2031(c)(3). "This assumes, however, that the Without-Easement Value of the one-half undivided interest in the land included in the estate of each spouse (less the value of an~' retained d~velop- ment rights) is worth at least $1,250,000 (40% of which is.. $500,000), and that the full 40% App[icable..Percentage is available because the easement satisfies the 30%' threshold/In addition, the"Exclusion Amount should not be claimed if the land included in a spouse's estate otherwise would be sheltered from est~e tax (by, for example, the..~l~USe's available'appli- cable exclusion amount under §2010 of'the unlimited marital' deduction) because of the negative income tax. basis conse- quences associated'with claiming the Exclusior/'Aniount~ The income tax basis consequences of claiming 'the Exclusion Amount are discussed in 'the following section. '" §1014(a)(l). n §1014(a)(4). - . ..~ . ,o The Without-Easement Valu~ Of th~'land in this' exainple is $1,000,000. ,, The Exclusion Amount is equal m the lesser:of (1) 40% X $700,000 - $280,000, and (2) the year 2000 Exclusion Limita- tion of $300,000. r~. §2031 (c) (1), and (6). ~ See also Genera£ Explanation. For purposes of §2031(c), "acquisition indebtedness" with respect to land means the unpaid amount of: (1) any indebtedness incurred by the dece-.. dent in acquiring the land; (2)any indebtedness incurred before the acquisition of the land if the indebtedness would not have been incurred but for the acquisition; (3) any indebted- ness incurred after the acquisition of the land if the indebted- ness would not have been incurred but for the acquisition and the incurrence of the indebtedness was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the acquisition; and (4) the extension, renewal, or refinancing of any acquisition indebtedness; §2031 (c)(4) (B)(ii). Tax Management Estate,s, Gifts and !rusts Journal © 1998 Tax. Management Inc, a sub~'idiary of The ~.~/'~au of National. Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 20037 00~6-3547~8!$0+$~.00 267 - ARTICLES :.'=~'Zee General Expl'anatiom . - ' ' :.'w§203,1(c)(S){D~).',':The u~e of land. as a farm 'for familng pii[p~s~ ' h'a.a the'~'~'i}iiing pre~/fibed by §203'2Ate)(5), name~ Iv:' (1) Culti~ting the ~oil'/sr iaising or harveStihg'a~:Y' agricub' tu~I of hofticUltiiral commodity (including the rais[rig, shear-.' ifig, feeding, cildn&'f~)r, trainin~ :and, miinagemei~t of'animals. on a farm);. (2)' hahdlifi'~, drying; packing, grading; or storing· Off a farm' any agricultural '0r'horticultural..commodity in its.. mi'm/tnufacti~tCd s.tat~,"but'ionly:if'thi owner,'t~naht, .or operi~: tot. of the farm ?egularl~' pr.od.fiefs .~ir~ 'thud'on,half Of'the commodity swtreat.e.d; (3) pl~iifing, euliivating, O;r:iihg 'fo?, or' 6~fting. (if tr~,~; 'afi.d'(4) th~'l~r, epii.mtion (other thafi:!milling.), o.f.., · '~ Tho .ehsure'thiii {'~ult,¢he'easem~fit"shoiald'¥er~ver' prohib: - it' th~. u~e'~of ~h~.. s.t. ruetUr~:for a. ny commercial purpose' subordinate to'and '~liiiec~i~" ~upportD¢.of the use of the land as a'farm f6f 'farming~Pihrl:~Ses,: .' ' ' ' · "Ther .value .of. lhe land att:;i'buiaNe to the: calue .of the retained de~e. ldp~ieni"rights~ ..... ' ' ": '.~ The.agreemegl¢ m.u, st be filed with the deceden'['~ estate tax returm §~031:(i:)(5')'(B~'. '" ': · '~ The value of the land attributable, to the',{talue of the retained d.~.vdopmg, n.t rights. ~ . ~ ' . ?Tli~ giclhsio~ ~Atl!ount,. is thc 'same .in both e. xamgles becaii§e th~ valt!e. Of th..e, r~tained development' righfs is cldded fi;om'the bi~6 ~ig~i'i'nst'which the AppliCable PerCentage; is.multiplied in bothexamples. '~ .§2031(¢)(5)(C.,). Th~'additional tax'is due On the last dfiy, of the sixth month following the date that falls two years aftOi' the dec,dent's death 0?,~ i'f earlier, the date of the ~ale .of 'the ' Section 2031'(~)' ~ays notMng about interest, and the'Gen: era[ ExplanaffOn'merely states, that the. "payment. of estate taxes on' retaineffd~vdopment rightslmay be defen-ed for up:to two years; or until {h~ disposition of the propei'ty, whi/hev/r is earlier.' ..... a Section 2031 (c)(5)(B) merely provides th~i{'th6 agreement "shall be in such form as.the Secretary shall prescribe." ' 'The 1998 ~/:t redesignafed §2033~(e)(3) as'§2057(e)(3), bat neglected'to amend §2031(c)(10) to reflect this change. ' Presumiibly this amendmentmill be made DY a future techniCal" correction. ' ' ' ' : ~ Giv. en the 'increasin~ pbpillai-ity 'of limited 'liability c°mpa- hies, it'woUld be 'hel~fal'if §20'31 (c) Were amended to provide that it 'applie~ to limited fiability companies. ' ' 'EThe dec'dent 6w~gdYin",diri¢tly through.the partn~i~'h.ip, a 50%intereit in' land:,&i'ued'iit $7001000. ' ' ' "Had Fred 'not d0nat4d the easement and cl~imed deduCti0~§ he .we01d htiVe paid' ificome tax at a rate of 36~;(~ri an ~tddRignM $300,000'bf ~nco~i "-. ' '" ~ This assumes that' Fred Used' the remainmg $'8,000 of .his:' income tax savings to defray the costs associated' with' "the donation of the easement, such as the cost of an appri~isa[ and legal* ~ks. "' '~?t'See Regs. "§20.2055~2(a),'.-2(b). S(~e alsb ~.g., Lockett v.' Corn/;., 7'5 T~C.M. 1731 '(1998); Marine Est'. v.'Comr., ~90 F.2d 136 (4th Cir..1.993); Pickard Est. v. Corer., 60 T.C. 6'[8 (1973), arid without published, op!n..503 F.2d 1404 (6ih'Cir: 1974). ':' .. ~.~"~ The phras~ "?fiemb~r"6fth~geeed~nt's family" mean~:"(!~;i afiy .aneesi0r';of' the.'.d~cedent; (2) the decedent'~' sP0u~' (~)' any lfiie~l deseendant':0f th~ d65Mtent~ Of the deced~ht's sPOuse/ o? of a' parent of the'deee~iit; 0r:(4) .the.'spouse Of afl~' li.ne~j" d~cehdant - di:sc?ibed "iti':" the' preceding. "el~/h~eTM §§2031 (/)(8)(D):'and 2.032A(eX2). In addition, any adopted..child':of.an: individfiar i.s treaIed-as a'ehild.:of,'thai:: individhal b~t b166/t. §2032-7i'(e)'(2):. : ......... - '" m §2031 (e)(9). :. io, Becaiise 6}'. the'llmited, ia.n ~n~fi.t~t availabi¢ ·with. to postmortem ~asement do. nations, postmdrtem .donatiOns like: ly ivill be'app,.' ling only in' Situations ivliefe..!he heiieficiaries. 9.f th~ land' have'no intention of sellihg the land and, tlid{efor¢',. would noi guffei"'a loss from the reductiofi' in.the Yalde o£.the land'that wou[d result from the easement donation, .Of course, some'.bi~dfici'aries of:lafid ma'y 'wish. ~o 'donate a 'eofi.ie.ryatk{n. easement for Puf~ly n0ncconomic reasons; such.' as v~tion of'a fami!y farm.'. '~''..' ' . "." '" '.. 7' ." i°~..State.!aws hou.id b6 6~act'ed that 'would 13errnit an execut0t~. or. truste~ to donate a. ¢onseiwation..:easemen{ '~ven .though the decedent's document was silent with respect to,. 0r merely, authorized, but did not dire6t,, the donation of an easement: The laws could permit the postmortem donation of conserva~ tion easements only in-certain carefully controlled circum- stances, such as where every person who has an interest in the land agrees in writing, to the- donation. -~ The..task~ include the approval of the easement terms"by the. qualified organization, that will accept .an& enforce-the easement and the preparati6n of.a qualified 'appraisal. .- ,o, The value of the land' includible in the..decedeht"i'estate (which is the value of the' land before the easement 'donation);. '~' The §2055(0 deduction cla{med with respect to the dona- tion. . ,o~ According. to the General Explanation, Congress enacted. §2031(c) because it "believed that a reduction in estate taxes for land subject to a qualified.conservation easement would ease existing pressures to develoP or sell off open spaces in order't6 raise funds to pay. estate taxes, and would thereby help to preserve environmentally significant land."" ,,o If, in our example, the AppliCable Percentage is multi- plied by the value of the land before the easement donation,_ and the resulting product:' is then reducid by the amount of any §2055(0 deduction, claimed with respect to the land, the Exclusion Amount Would be only $100,000 (thai 'is, (40% X $1:,000,000) .~ .($'300,000)). Alternatively, if. the Appli6able' Per~ntage is multiplied 'by the value of ~he land after tho easeinenf: donation, and'th~ resulting pi'oduct, is 'then reduced by the.~am6imi'of.iiny ~'2055(0' deduction' claimed with respect..' to the land, theExclusion Amount would be zero (that is, X $700~000) -' ($300,~00)).. ' ' ' - ' 268 ... Tax Manager~ent' ESta't~s, Gifts and Trusts.J6umgl © ~998 Tax Manhgement INC., a ~bbsi~liat'y of The.l~Ui-~au of Natio0al Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.'20037 0886-3547i98[$0+$1.00 CONSERVATION EASEMENT DONATION ESTIMATED TAX BENEFITS* Basic Assumptions Husband and Wife Own Land Jointly Year of Donation: 2001 Value of Land Before Easement: Value of Land After Easement: Value of Easement: $1,000,000 $ 700~000 $ 300,000 Annual Federal State Estate Total Net Combined Combined Income Tax Income Tax Tax Tax Benefit/(Loss) Adjusted Estate Savings~ Savingsz Savings3 Savings from Easement Gross Income Donation4 $ 4,080 $ 25,000 $1,350,000 $ 905 $ 3,9905 -0- $ 4,080 ($300,000) ($295,920) $ 16,818 $ 50,000 $1,350,000 $ 6,8405 $ 9,9785 -0- $ 16,818 ($300,000) ($283,182) $ 41,384 $ 75,000 $1,350,000 $ 25,3685 $ 16,0165 -0- $ 41,384 ($300,000) ($258,616) $115,521 $100,000 $1,500,000 $ 37,9685 $ 22,0535 $55,500 $115,521 ($300,000) ($184,479) $268,740 $166,666 $1,750,000 $ 77,2125 $ 38,5285 $153,000 $268,740 ($300.000) ($ 31,260) $389,617 $300,000 $2,000,000 $ 90,0176 $ 75,0005'?~ $224,600 $389,617 ($300,000) $ 89,617 $426,958 $500,000 $3,000,000 $104,1588 $ 75,0006'7 $247,800 $426,958 ($300.000) $126~958 \\TAX~20050.1 * All figures contained in this chart are estimates based on assumed facts. No attempt was made in this chart to account for the time value of money. ~ For purposes of calculating the estimated federal income tax savings, an annual inflation adjustment of 1.5% was used and it was assumed that the husband and wife would file their income tax returns as married, filing jointly. 2 For purposes of calculating the estimated state income tax savings, it was assumed that the husband and wife would file their income tax returns as married, filing jointly, and that the state income tax credit for easement donations is available in 2001 (the state income tax credit for easement donations will not be available in years in which revenues or revenue forecasts fall below certain levels). ~ In 2001, every individual will be able to transfer $675,000 of assets (the "Exclusion Amount"), either during life as a gift or at death, without incurring gift or estate tax. With proper estate planning, a married couple could transfer $1,350,000 of assets at their deaths without incurring any estate tax. Accordingly, as a general nde, a married couple with $1,350,000 or less of assets would not pay any estate tax and, thus would not receive any estate tax benefit from the donation of a conservation easement. In the year 2006 and thereafter, the Exclusion Amount will be $1,000,000. Accordingly, in the year 2006 and thereafter, with proper estate planning, a married couple could transfer $2,000,000 of assets at their deaths without incurring any estate tax. Consequently, as a general nde, in the year 2006 and thereafter, a married couple with $2,000,000 or less of assets would not pay any estate tax and, thus, would not receive any estate tax benefit from the donation of a conservation easement. The figures in this coluam were calculated assuming the couple own their assets as tenants in common, die simultaneously, and are eligible for the 40% estate tax exclusion under section 203 l(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. 4 When the couple donates the easement, they reduce the value of their property by $300,000. The figures in this column represent the difference between the tax benefits received by the couple as a result of the easement donation and the $300,000 of foregone value. s This tax savings would accrue to the couple over a period of 6 years: 6 This tax savings would accrue to the couple over a period of 4 years. 7 This assumes that the state income tax credit for 2001 is capped at $75,000. 8 This tax savings would accrue to the couple over a period of 2 years. Proposal Remove consideration of landowner's income from ranking (point) system. Key percentage of easement purchased by County to the average adjusted gross income of landowner for the three years immediately preceding year of purchase. \\TAXI20069.1 ~ It is my understanding that under the ACE program the amount the County will pay for an easement will not exceed 30% of the value of land before the easement restrictions are placed on the land (the "Capped Amount"). I recommend that in purchasing an easement the County limit the purchase price to the applicable percentage set forth in the chart multiplied by the Capped Amount. The portion of an easement not purchased by the County would be considered a donation by the landowner(s) and, thus, potentially would be eligible for income and estate tax benefits. 2 Landowner(s) with $200,001 or more of armual adjusted gross income would be eligible to receive 4% of the Capped Amount, which would help defray the legal and appraisal fees associated with the easement donation. Proposed Revisions to the 3 November 1999 Albemarle County ACE PropoSal prepared by Tom Olivier, Jean Kolb, John Hermsmeier 1/9/2000 Issue 1. The "on the ground" objectives of the program are not sufficiently spelled out. Propose deletion on p. 4, of paragraph 4 (after "Purpose and Application: ") and insertion of the following paragraph: "The purpose of Albemarle County's program to acquire conservation easements is to permanently protect important open space resources, including water, biodiversity, forestry and agriculture. Albemarle County's history of according weight in its public policy to protecting a broad spectrum of natural resource values, such as those outlined in the Open,Space Plan, suggests a similarly broad application of the ACE program toward the protection of open space resources. Given that it is one tool among several, the ACE program should aim to protect important resources with an emphasis on those that have not been sufficiently protected by existing forces in the public and private sector. The program should seek to protect important resources that are largely unprotected because they do not generate income." Issue 2. Biodiversity protection is not mentioned as a goal of the comprehensive plan, despite recent addition of a major new plan section on biodiversity. Propose insertion on p.5, paragraph 2 of "biodiversity" in the list of goals specified in the sentence beginning "Among the goals of the County Comprehensive Plan are ..." Issue 3. ACE Commission does not specify inclusion of member with expertise in biology. Propose insertion in page 6, paragraph 5, in the sentence beginning "The ACE commission will have general oversight over the ACE program and should include members knowledgeable in relevant areas such as ..." of "biologist" in the list expertises to be present. Issue 4. There is undue emphasis on scenic resources, with possible harmful effects to natural resources, Road frontage generally is a detriment to wildlife habitat. Propose deletion of "Frontage on public road" as factor contributing to parcel ranking in Appendix A, p.2, "111. Natural/Cultural Resource Criteria". Issue 5. Riparian habitat protection is needed to protect aquatic and terrestrial species and water resources. Propose addition of new criterion under"lll. NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE CRITERIA." "Riparian habitat protection. One point for each 1000 ft of permanent native forest buffer to perennial or intermittent streams, with buffer excluded from livestock grazing and at least 35 feet wide. Two points for each thousand feet of similar buffer at least 100 feet wide." Issue 6. The work of the County Biodiversity Committee should generate recommendations for biological resources to be protected. The existing proposal only indicates in a footnote in Appendix A, page 2 that "A County Biological Inventory may supply addtional data and categories for ranking in the future". Propose deletion of this footnote and replacement with "Ranking criteria will be revised periodically to remain consistent with recommendations from the Albemarle County Biodiversity Committee." Issue 7. Protection of biodiversity is not included in goals of forest management. Propose insertion of "protect biodiversity" in list of goals in Appendix D, page 3, item 4, last sentence. viii In the tables in this study three dots (...) are used to show there was no response and "N IA' is used to indicate "not applicable." The dots are also em- ployed when a respondent left a blank space. Readers are encouraged to use the phone list in Appendix B to obtain .... ..c!.a_d~'ficati~ and additional detail The following table provides per- spective on the relative importance of the various local tax sources. In FY 1998, the most recent available, the real property tax was the largest source. Also significant were pers6nal property, sales and'uSe,;..consumer utility, and~business. Iicense ~ taxes. Percentage ,Distribution of Tax Revenue, Fiscal Year 1998 Percent of Total Tax Revenue Grand Cities Counties Towns ~c Total Real property 44.1 52.1 25.3 48.8 Public service corporation property 2.5 3.3 1.3 3.0 Personal property, general 15.1 20.5 6.9 18.3 Personal property, mobile homes 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Machinery and tools 2.8 2.0 3.9 2.3 Merchants' capital 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Local sales and use 9.9 8.0 9.9 8,7 Consumer utility 7.4 3.9 9.2 5.3 Business license 6.3 4.0 13.3 5.0 Franchise license 0.8 0.4 2.2 0.6 Motor vehicle license 1.4 1.5 3.0 1.5 Bank stock 0.6 0.3 3.4 0.4 Recordation and wills 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.5 Tobacco 1.1 0.1 1.6 0.5 Admission 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hotel and motel 1.3 0.8 3.4 1.0 Restaurant food 4.9 0.8 15.6 2.5 Coal oil, and gas 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 Emergency telephone service 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.9 Other local taxes 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Virginia Auditor of PubliC Accounts, Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expendituresj Year Ended June 30, 1998, Tables B and B-2 * Excludes penalties and interest on general property taxes that are included in total general property taxes by the Auditor of Public Accounts. % Limited to the 33 largest towns. John L. Knapp, Professor and Research Director of the Business and Economics Section, was the project director. The staff consisted of Stephen C. Kulp, Stephen A. Murray, Blue OConmE Enk A. Rhode~ and Kattet~ F. Wagoner. Stephen Kulp and Blue O'ConneI1 deserve special recognition for handling much of the day-to-day work. Susan E. Wormington of the Coo- pet's Center Publications and Commu- nications Division was responsible COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARy AGENDA TITLE: SDP-97-035 Calvet Virginia Preliminary Site Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Applicant appeals conditions of Planning Commission action of waiver of section 4.2 Critical Slopes of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Keeler AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The Calvet Virginia Preliminary Site Plan, proposing a convenience store with gasoline pumps, was submitted in 1997, but review was suspended due to issues of property ownership. The plan was reactivated in December, 1998 and additional notice to adjoining property owners was provided. In early correspondence, staff stated that "at the Site Review Committee meeting of January 7, 1999, it was stated that the three areas of major concern were: protection of adjoining residential areas from the deleterious effects of the proposal including lighting and visual effects; disposition of storm water as this site is situated in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed; and safety of off-site and on-site traffic circulation." Resolution of design issues required several meetings between the applicant and various staff as well as several revisions to the preliminary plan. When the plan was otherwise approvable, the plan was referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of waiver of section 4.2 Critical Slopes to allow construction on steeper areas of the site. Staff recommended approval of the waiver, subject to one condition (NOTE: This condition was not included in the Planning Commission's action). The waiver request was discussed by the Planning Commission on December 14 and December 21, 1999. The Planning Commission approved the waiver subject to the following conditions: 1. As a part of the approval of the Storm water Management BMP plan, the program authority (County Engineering) shall require the owner to have the sand filter inspected annually by a person or firm satisfactory to the program authority and to report those findings of the inspection to the program authority as otherwise provided as part of the plan's monitoring and reporting requirements. 2. There shall be Design Planner review of the proposed canopy in accordance with the adopted design standards of the County Architectural Review Board, and Design Planner review of the building in relation to its color. 3. The number of trees shown on the preliminary site plan is adequate. The trees should be of mixed species- a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees, which should be planted at a minimum of 3-inch caliper. There should be a shrub layer of native shrubs beneath the trees that will provide complete coverage within two years. The installation shall be done in such a way that it protects the slope from erosion in the meantime. In its consideration of approving a landscape plan, staff should ensure that plantings are arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening. A cluster of trees on-site, including a double red oak and a white oak located about 50 feet from the corner of the property near the water line easement shall have tree protection during construction and be specifically retained. 4. There shall be no hours of operation for the convenience store or service station after 11:00 p.m or before 5:00 a.m. Hours of operation are defined as those hours the store is open to the public. 5. All external lights and signage lights except for security lights will be turned off during non-operating hours. On December 23, 1999, the applicant appealed the five conditions of the Planning Commission to the Board for consideration. Planning staff will be prepared to review the conditions with the Board at Wednesday's meeting. Frederick W. Payne Robert P. Hodous Donna R. DeLoria Payne & Hodous Attorneys at Law 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone: 804-977-4507 Facsimile: 804-977-6574 E-mail: paynehod@cstone.net December 23, 1999 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development Agent for Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 By Hand Re: SDP 97-035--Appeal of decision of planning commission--Our file 97-1397 Dear Wayne: The following is submitted to you as designated agent of the board of supervisors on behalf of the applicant, H & H L.L.C., with respect to the site plan application designated SDP 97 -035, in accordance with Section 32.4.2.7 of the Albemarle County zoning ordinance. Appeal is hereby made of the decision of the planning commission of December 21, 1999, with respect to the imposition of certain conditions upon the approval of a modification of the critical slopes provisions of Section 4.2 of the said ordinance. The conditions in question exceed the authority of the commission under Section 4.2.5.3., are not reasonably related to the considerations set out in Section 4.2.5. and are not reasonably related to the facts before the commission. As such, the imposition of such conditions is tantamount to denial of the said site plan which does not conform to the provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.2-2259 and deprives the applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. Please schedule this appeal for hearing before the board of supervisors in due course. If you have any questions, or if anything further remains to be done, please let me know. fc: Mr. W. K. Heischman Greg Kamptner, Esquire cc (by hand): Mr. R. S. Keeler Sincerely yours, Frederick W. Payne AND ~?7ELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan: Critical Slope Waiver (SDP-97-035) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposal for a 2,576 sq. Ft. conven, ience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-1 Commercial (PROFFER). The property, described as Tax Map 60 F, Parcel 3, is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at the intersection of Hydraulic Road (Rte. 743) and Georgetown Road (Rte. 656). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas (RA1). STAFF CONTACT{S): Ron Keeler AGENDA DATE.: December 14, 1999 CONSENT AGENDA: Yes ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: This proposal is based upon a 1982 proffered zoning action which permits development of the property only with a convenience store/gasoline station (Attachment B). However, a zoning proffer does not prohibit application of site plan and other ordinance requirements and staff has endeavOred to ensure the preliminary site plan reflects current requirements as well as the zoning proffers. Application of current requirements and other changes in circumstance combined with site constraints, has resulted in multiple plan revisions. DISCUSSION: The applicant proposes to grade and construct on critical slopes. The areas of critical slopes are shaded on Attachment C. In justification for the waiver request, the applicant has stated that "we believe this waiver is justified as the slope in question is a manmade slope created by the reconstruction of Hydraulic Road and that this project will not have any adverse affect on the slope" (Attachment D). The Engineering Department commented that: The waiver request for development of areas of critical slopes according to section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance has also been reviewed. These slopes are evidently the remains of a previous fill operation with small trees and underbrush which have grown up in the last 10-15 years. The applicant proposes a building, retaining walls and constructed slopes in this area. Proper slope and wall construction will address the permanent stability concerns of section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, Engineering also stated that "temporary concerns of sediment and erosion control during construction must also be addressed before approval of the waiver can be recommended by the Engineering Department. It does not appear that as though adequate room has been left for adequate construction and removal of erosion control measures for the site without disturbance of the buffer area." This was also a concern of the Zoning Department in terms of determining compliance with the zoning proffers and a concern to Planning in terms of minimizing the aesthetic impacts to adjoining residential properties. For these reasons, a conservation plan (including staging of development) was required with the review of the preliminary plan instead of the final plan. All three departments have reviewed the conservation plan and can support the waiver request for encroachment into critical Slopes (Attachment E). RECOMMENDATION: As stated earlier, the proffered rezoning envisioned construction on critical slopes as well as encroachment into a proffered 50 foot buffer (The ordinance requires a 20 foot undisturbed buffer). Engineering, Zoning and Planning directed reviews at minimizing these impacts. Approval of the waiver request for encroachment into critical slopes is recommended for approval subject to the following condition: The conservation plan described in the letter dated November 2, 1999 from Arthur Edwards to John Shepherd shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan and soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for final site plan approval. The f'mal site plan shall not be approved without approval of this condition by the Department of Engineering and Public Works, the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services and the Department of Planning and Cofiununity Development. ATTACHMENTS A- Location & Tax Maps B- Zoning Proffers: ZMA-81-07 & ZMA-82-06 Co Preliminary Site Plan & Critical Slopes Delineation D- Applicant's Justification for Critical Slopes Waiver E- Comments from Engineering & Zoning Departments MOUNTAIN ]IBSON MOUNTAIN MTN. '-~., Famlington Country Club SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Prelimina~ Char Albemarle Advance Mills Profi~ imeon ATrACH/V~NT A / TO RUCXERSVILLE / [~ Keswick ALBEMARLE COUNTY ./ / SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan G~O,RGETOWN GREF'N D.~.440 PcI 93 JACK JOUETT D I STRICT SECTION 60 F ROBERt V/: TUCKER. JR. Department of Planning ! 804/206-5823 414 EAST MARKET STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA March 20, 1981 Mr. Malcolm J. Reid 919 Mt. Elliott Avenue Staunton, Virginia 24401 RONALD S. KEELER R. KEITh MABE NANCY MASON CAPERTON ~ENIOR P~NN~E KAThE~]NE L. IMHO~ RE: ZMA-81-7 Malcolm J. Reid Dear Mr. Reid: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on March 18,' 1981, voted to approve your petition to rezone 1.27 acres from RA Rural Areas to "C-1 Commercial. Property described as Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3, located on the north side of Georgetown Road (Route 656) at its intersection with Hydraulic Road (Route 743), with the following amended proffer: March 13, 1981 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Relocation ~ Hop-In Food Stores, Inc. Gentlemen: An application for rezoning from RA-Agriculture to C-1 Business of the lot belonging to Exxon, located at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road, was heard before the Planning Commission on March 10th. The Planning Commission is recommending denial of the application but indicated it would recommend approval of the application if the applicant proffered certain conditions or restrictions on the subject property. Therefore, Hop-In 'Food Stores, Inc., the contract purchaser of the above described property, would like to, and does hereby, proffer the following conditions for development of the subject property: The only entrance to t~'~ subject property shall be located on Hydraulic Road so. that the northern margin of the entrance at the property line will be located 12% feet south of the northern boundary of the subject property; Mr. Malcolm J. Reid 919 Mt. Elliott Avenue Staunton, Virginia 24401 March 20, 1981 Page two e The subject property will be used for a relocation of the convenience store-in accordance with the general lay-out of the enclosed preliminary site plan.' Of course, a more definitive site plan will be presented at a later date. The new store shall not cover more than a 2,300 square foot land area and is expected to be 42 x.51.4 feet, more or less; The applicant will comply with all requirements of the storm water runoff ordinance. A 50 foot buffer zone, adjacent to the residential areas, will be maintained and as many trees.as possible will be retained in this area, and , if sufficient trees are not retained, the applicant will plant sufficient evergreens to provide reasonably adequate screening; The applicant will install, within 60 days after rezoning, a guard · rail along the boundary adjacent to the play area of Georgetown Green. The guard rail shall be constructed of 4 foot pipes planted in the ground, with horizontal pipes running between vertical posts. This installation has proved very satisfactory in other locations. The ~xisting operation of the Hop-In Store will be severely damaged by the widening of Hydraulic Road. The gas pumps are being removed, some of the parking taken, and' the attractiveness of the store severely 'damaged° This applicant simply wishes to continue the operation of its store in the neigh- borhood and is willi.ng to purchase the expensive adjoining lot'in order to do so. A contract to purchase this lot was executed in November of 1980 and would have been closed much sooner had it been known that this property would be rezoned from business to agriculture on December 10th. The property is assessed for taxation at $84,800.00, but none of the uses permitted in a RA zone could possibly justify the purchase of the property at the assessed figure. For the above reasons,~Hop-In Food Stores, Inc., respectfully urges you to rezone the subject' property from RA Zone to-C-1 Zone. Yours very truly, (signed) David J. Wood, Jr. If we can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to 'contact ~]is office. slr cc: Sincerely, Department of Planning Mr. David J. Wood, Jr. ~/ OF Departmei~t of Planning 401 Mcintlre Road Gharlott~v~e, Va. 22901-4596 ....... 804./296-5823 Hop-In Food Store, Inc. Post Office B~x 260 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Re: ZMA-82-6 WITH PROFFER Gentlemen: The ~le County Planning Cc~zission, at its meeting on May 11, 1982, voted to reccmmend approval of your above-referenced rezoning petition to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the proffer as contR4ned in Mr. David J. Wood, Jr.'s letter of April 2, 1982, addressed to the Department of Planning: "Hop-In is now reapplying for the same C-1 Ccnmercial zoning with the same proffered conditions except that the size of the building will now be 2579 square feet measuring 42x61.4." Your petition will be heard by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June 2, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Rom 7, M~n Lobby, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. YCU OR YOUR REPRESESED~IVE 5~JST ~E PRESENT AT THIS M~7~ING. If you should have any questions with regard to this action, please contact Mr. Ronatd S. Keeler at 296-5823. slr Stuart L. Richard Department of Planning cc: Mr. David J. Wood, Jr. Mr. Thomas Lincoln Miss Lettie E. Neher 09~1 ~1 ROU liVi£ IV lAOI ~D ~tO ~ D I /' ×× / / ! ./ / / / ./ / / / / / f B. A UBREY HUFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CML ENGINEERING- LAND SURVEYING- LAND PLANNING 195 RIVERBEND DRIVE, SUITE 2 ~AILING ADDRESS- P.O. BOX 6124 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22906 TELEPHONE (:804) 9'79-8121 FAX (804)979-1681 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ATTACHMENT D FEB B. AUBREY I NY Feb. 19,1999 RE: SDP-97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan Dear Mr. Keeler, Please find 7 revised full size copies and one 11 x 17" reduction copy of the above referenced project. We believe these plans have been revised to adequately address all comments by the site review members. Attached you will find 3 copies of the plan showing the turning movement of a tractor trailer leaving this site. It shows that this vehicle will not enter the multipurpose lane in Hydraulic Road, which was the main concern of the Highway Department. Also included is a copy of the parking easement recorded at Deed Book 754 Page 464 and preliminary computations for stormwater management. With this letter we also wish to request a waiver in regards to construction taking place on a slope that exceeds 25%. We believe that this waiver is justified as the slope in question is a manmade slope created by the reconstruction of Hydraulic Road and that this project will have not have any adverse affect on the slope. My client and myself are somewhat puzzled why this waiver should be necessary. The proffers set forth during the rezoning of the site mandated that the building, parking lot, etc. be placed as we have shown them, which necesskates working on the steep slopes. This may also be another justification for the waiver, should you still think approval by the Planning Commission is necessary. If you have any other questions or comments, please, contact this office at your earliest possible convenience. Sincerely, Arthur F. Edwards. AFE/mb cc Mr. Kim Heischman Ron Keeler ATTACHMENT E From: Sent: To: Subject: Glenn Brooks Thursday, December 02, 1999 8:54 AM Ron Keeler Calvet Virginia Com~3any, critical slopes The Engineering Department's concerns regarding development on areas of critical slopes have been addressed. These concerns were for temporary sediment and erosion control during construction, and for protection of the buffer area in the back of the site. The grading has bee~ pulled back from the buffer area. In addition, the conservation plan and details to be provided on the erosion control plan address this concern. The addition of the sand filter on the preliminary site plan has addressed recommendations from the Engineering Department regarding water quality concerns. Approval of the critical slope waiver is recommended by the Engineering Department. Please contact me if further information is required. Glenn Brooks Senior Engineer FAX (804) 972-4126 RECEIVED COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING AND Department of Building Code and Zoning Servic~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 'l-rD (804) 972-4012 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning John Shepherd, Zoning Manager,~__- November 30, 1999 SDP 97-035; Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan; Revised December 14, 1998 February 17, 1999 Revised July 9, 1999 Revised October 27, 1999 Conservation Plan Narrative dated November 2, 1999 The Albemarle County Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will approve the preliminary plan for zoning compliance when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. The Building Official may provide separate comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise specified.] 1. [4.2, 4.2.3.2] Be aware that the earth disturbing activity on the slopes of 25% or more will require a waiver from the Planning Commission. Final tentative approval from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will be subject to the following conditions: (The following conditions are those that have been identified at this time. Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [ZMAs 81-7 and 82-6 Proffer #3 ] The conservation plan described in the letter dated November 2, 1999 from Arthur Edwards to John Shepherd must be incorporated into the landscaping plan for this site. 2. [32.5.6 n] Show the location of all Outdoor lighting on the plar~. [32.6.6 j & 4.17.4 b] As a condition of final approval, include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area luminaires are in .compliance with 4.17.4 b] Calvet November 30, 1999 Page 2 [32.6.6 j] Provide a description and photograph or diagram on the plan and show the location of each type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens. Be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future which are not shown on this plan will .require an amendment to this plan. [31.2.3.1 and 1825.5 (National Building Code/1996)] Certificates of Occupancy will be subject to a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the issue of guards on the retaining walls is satisfactorily addressed. It is recommended that this be resolved in the course of the review of the landscape plan. Be aware that the Engineering Department may make recommendations for railings or barriers where they see safety concerns beyond what is required by the building code. Vehicle barriers may be required for any walks that border travelways or parking areas. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Albemarle County Planning Commission- December 14, 1999 SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slope Waiver - Proposal for 2,576 square foot convenience store/gas station on !.051 acres zoned C-l, Commercial. At Mr. Rooker's suggestion, Commissioners agreed to remove SDP 97-035 from the agenda for further discussion. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. R_ieley seconded approval of the remainder of the Consent Agenda as presented. The morion passed unanimously. Regarding SDP 97-035, the Commission requested that the applicant's representative address them. Mr. Bruce Payne, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating that the development of this property has had "everything go wrong with it." He noted that there was a fraudulent conveyance in the purchase of the property, which was reconciled in court. Mr. Payne emphasized that the applicant.has a "proffered rezoning" which stipulates that a convenience store will be constructed on the site; the rezoning has a site plan attached to it. He mentioned that there was a meeting held approximately one year ago, whereby all parties involved - including county en~neering, the county attorney's staff, county planning, and the applicant - met to discuss problems with the site. Mr. Payne said that problems that were mentioned at that tm~e have now been addressed by the developer. He noted that the critical slopes issue had been raised in the 1970's by the county engineer, who said then that the critical slopes regulations are "not intended to prohibit to develop on these critical slopes; they are intended to require sensitive treatment of them." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Payne if he would be willing to request a deferral to January 11th, 2000 in order to allow the Commission to get information directly from the engineering department at that meeting or before then. Mr. Payne responded that he did not feel that was fair, because the item has been scheduled on the Commission's agenda - as known by staff- for quite a while. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Payne if he wanted to ask for deferral or have the Commission vote. Mr. Kampmer indicated that the Commission could meet the following week - on December 21 st _ to consider the item. Mr. Cilimberg noted there was no way to calculate the legal.time frame for action on the item because the project was submitted, revised, re-submitted, revised, etc. "It's not a simple application to figure the time frame on." Mr. Payne said, "Our position is that we're entitled to this approval, and this Commission does not have the authority to deny this site plan unless it doesn't comply with the ordinance. We believe it does comply with the ordinance." Mr. Finley said, "Well, it's a waiver. You're requesting a waiver because you are in critical slopes, so that's normal procedure." Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 14, 1999 2 Mr. Kamptner clarified that the Commission wants engineering staff present so that they can answer questions the Commission has that aren't addressed in the staff report so that findings can be made under the applicable code section to grant or deny the waiver. Commissioners agreed that his statement reflected their reason for needing engineering present. Mr. Rooker said, "Based on the preliminary information that I see here - and I certainly was not a party to every meeting that Mr. Payne had with staff on this - I would vote against this, because you're talking, about a huge area of critical slopes...in a very sensitive area, in an area that's designated in the Comprehensive Plan P.A., not commercial - albeit it is presently zoned commercial - but unless I was significantly convinced that this critical slope waiver was not in some way acting to the detriment of the county, then I wouldn't support it. And fight now I'm not there...perhaps with further discussion with the Engineering Department, I can get there." Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I feel for very much the same reasons that this is a questionable waiver at this point, and I don't have enough information in the staff report to be able to make a finding otherwise. It's possible that with more information that could change, but right now, based on what's in front of me, I couldn't vote to support this waiver." Mr. Nitchmann said, "It didn't have any vegetation on it when the man made it, and our controls over erosion and so forth weren't near as good and as detailed as they are today. And so a man is going to change that slope...it's not a natural slope..." He added that if the critical slope was such a detriment to the county, the issue would have been raised by engineering before now, but instead en~neenng has stated that the work can be completed in a judicious manner that's going to protect the watershed area. Mr. Kampmer mentioned, "The critical slope provisions can't be applied - as the ordinance states - ~n a way that would effectively prohibit or unreasonable restrict the use of the property." He emphasized that Commissioners need to take that into account when making their decision, given the size and the topography of the piece of property. Mr. Finley asked if there was a pond to receive nmoff. Mr. Payne replied that the runoff control measures are underground. He mentioned that the drains are directed into a sand filter for purposes of controlling the quality of the water. Mr. Loewenstein asked i'f all of the runoffin that direction is going through the sand filter. Mr. Payne replied that there is a filter placed to catch the runoff from the parking lot, which was identified as the critical area for runoff. Mr. Rooker asked if Buddy Edwards designed the runoff control for the property. Mr. Payne replied, "This is probably his stamp on it. The county probably had as much input as anybody." Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 14, 1999 3 Mr. Cilimberg noted on a map presented where the sand filter would be placed that would receive the parking lot runoff. "Most of the critical slopes are natural flow down the slope through an area that is to be re-vegetated, and ultimately through areas that are wooded in the back." Mr. Rooker asked how close that is to the Georgetown Green property line. Mr. Cilimberg said he was unsure where the units in Georgetown Green are in relation to the filter. Mr. Loewenstein asked about the replanting that would be done on the newly created slopes. Mr. Payne said that the applicant has submitted a conservation plan, as required. He noted that there was a lot of concern expressed by engineering about the stabilization of the slopes. Mr. Payne said that Kenny Thacker recommended putting a flat area - landing - at the bottom of the slope to allow an area to treat the water. He said that fast-growing conifers are planned to be placed on the site. Mr. Rooker asked if the building is entirely in the critical slope area. Mr. Payne replied, "It essentially has to be...because...this is a very small building area because of the setbacks and buffers...we had to redesign this building to make it fit." Mr. Rooker asked how much earth is being moved on the site. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not have the exact calculations, but there is grading that will be occurring all through the site. Mr. Payne said it is both cut and fill. Mr. Finley asked Mr. Rooker if the gasoline runoffwas his primary concern. Mr. Rooker said that the gasoline runoff and runoff from the site were his primary concerns, given the site's location in the reservoir watershed. Mr. Cilimberg said, "These are all things that are engineering department and water resource folks were looking at during review...that is - particularly for development that would occur in the reservoir watershed going to be a primary emphasis for their review." He noted that there have been several revisions of the application because of things that had not been addressed. "This went through some phases to get to a point where all of the departments said it was appropriate." Mr. Payne emphasized, "The fact that this was in the watershed didn't escape anybody's attention, and the engineering staffwas particularly careful for that reason...they were as careful as I've ever seen on a project of this size." Mr. Rieley said, "There's no reason why - on a site like this - where you can catch up with 2 to 1 slopes - that these slopes cannot be made stable. Nevertheless, I've heard enough questions raised that I am uncomfortable voting in favor of this without being able to address the Engineering Department directly. So my inclination is to look at this again as soon as we possibly can." He Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 14, 1999 4 added, "I have great sympathy for the merry-go-round that the applicant has found himself on, but we are faced with making a decision, and we have several members of the Commission that don't feel that they have adequate information to go on, and I don't feel comfortable voting in favor of a project under those circumstances." Mr. Finley said, "Having heard what it's been through, I think in good faith I have to believe that we are not going to hear much more from engineering than what we've heard. They've looked at this, they know it's [in the] watershed .... I think in good faith I could go ahead and vote for it, believing that engineering has covered the bases, and will not allow them to have a runoff that's going to affect our resbrvoir." MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved for approval of deferral of action on SDP 97-035 to December 21, 1999. Mr. Kamptner noted that if the county is up against a deadline for approval or denial of the site plan, staffmay have to act in the interim. He said that there is a 10-day "kick-in provision" which the applicant can pursue their rights in court to force an action if the staffholds off; the Commission's action on the waiver can be made at an appropriate time, as long as there's a site plan. Mr. Rooker seconded lVtr. Rieley's motion. Mr. Cilimberg said that if there is a time factor that forces staff action, the final site plan will be subject to a waiver of critical slopes. The motion for deferral of SDP 97-035 to December 21st passed unanimously. Mr. Payne noted for the record that they do not intend to waive their rights for the timeliness of the approval. ATTACHMENT 2 Freder/ck W. Payne Robert P, Hodous ' Donna R. DeLoria Payne & Hodous Attorneys ar Law 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Telephone: 804-977-4507 Facsimile: 804-977-6574 E-mail: paynehod@cstone.net December 17, 1999 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning for Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 By hand Re: Calvet Virginia Co. SDP 97-035 Our file 1397-97 Dear Ron: Enclosed please find a detailed outline of the applicant's justification for the "critical slopes" modification we have requested from the planning commission. This is intended to supplement the previously filed request. Please distribute this to the members of the commission. IfI can be of help in so doing, or if anything else remains to be done, please let me know. I look forward to our meeting on Monday morning. Sincerely yours, Frederick W. Payne Enclosure fc (w/enc.): Mr. W. K. Heischman Mr. A. F. Edwards APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF CRITICAL SLOPES RESTRICTIONS CALVET VIRGINIA CO., SDP 97-035 SUPPLEMENT, DECEMBER 17, 1999 The following is intended to address in detail the provisions of Section 4.2 of the County Code relating to development on slopes in excess of 25% for the above-captioned development. HISTORY'OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS The basic concern addressed by the critical slopes provision of the zoning ordinance was to prevent disturbance of steep slopes from causing damage to downstream properties, particularly with respect to drinking water impoundments. The 25% figure was (1) never intended as a magic figure and (2) never intended to represent a figure whereat development would be absolutely prohibited. Rather, it represented a figure as to which there is general agreement among engineers that development on such slopes can be expected to cause significant problems related to erosion, sedimentation, etc., unless particular care is taken to prevent such evils. Obviously, Albemarle County is characterized by a high percentage of slopes in excess of 25%. The ordinance does not specify a minimum area of slope which is to be considered "critical": Strictly speaking, a slope one foot long which drops (or rises) by three inches would qualify as "critical" slope. Secondly, there are many "critical slopes" which are totally artificial, having been created at some time in the past, either with or without the benefit of the application of the ordinances in question. Thirdly, because of both the natural and artificial conditions commonly applicable in Albemarle County, there are some sites which simply cannot be developed to any reasonable use without the use of "critical slOpes." Through the application of sensitive development and sound engineering, it is entirely feasible to address all of the areas of concern in the ordinance in a manner resulting in development which is thoroughly responsible and environmentally unobjectionable. , With these considerations in mind, the ordinance is designed to permit the County to approve such development. While such approvals are Commonly referred to as "waivers", they are more appropriately characterized as "modifications" necessary to accommodate particular circumstances, based upon the expertise of the developer's design professionals, as well as the County's staff, particularly in the fields of planning and engineering. ORDINANCE STANDARD--Section 4.2.3.2 The ordinance provides, in pertinent part, that No improvement nor earth disturbing activity to establish such improvement shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater except as otherwise permitted under section 4.3.01. PURPOSES OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS--Section 4'.2 The purposes of the critical slopes provisions of the County Code are · . . to implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes. The following are items of particular concern: 2. 3. 4. 5. rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock excessive stormwater runoff siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water loss of aesthetic resource as to septic system failure, travel of septic effluent FACTS APPLICABLE TO CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The property in question consists of approximately one acre, located at the southwest comer of the intersection of State Routes 743 and 656 (Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road), just west of the City of Charlottesville. While technically not located in an area recommended in the comprehensive plan for intensive development, the property is located in the urban area of the County and is entirely surrounded by urban- type uses, including relatively high-density residential and commercial uses. It is, for practical purposes, the only property in the immediate area which is not fully developed in such uses. For many years, this property has been zoned for commercial use. In 1981, the County rezoned the property from RA--Rural Areas to C-1 Commercial (ZMA 81-7). The rezoning was accompanied by certain proffered conditions which include: 1. Restriction of entrances to a single, specified location on Hydraulic Road; 2. Use solely for a convenience store substantially in accord with a conceptual site plan which was attached to the rezoning application; and 3. Compliance with the County's runoff control regulations and maintenance of a vegetated buffer area, 50 feet in width, from the adjacent residential areas. Because of these conditions, the property can only be developed for use as a convenience store having a physical design substantially as reflected in the current application. (The County's action on this rezoning is included in the commission's materials relating to this item.) The rezoning was requested at the time of the major reconstruction of Hydraulic Road. A significant amount of land was taken to permit this work, including much of the front portion of the subject property, as well as the property abutting to the west, on which a convenience store was already in .operation( The reconstruction of the road resulted in substantial fill, and much of the "critical slopes" on the subject property were created by VDOT 'at that time. The express purpose of the rezoning was to permit the construction of a convenience store on this property to replace the store which was previously in business next door but which was put out of business by the widening of the road. The property is within the urban project area of the Service Authority for both public sewer and public water, and both sewer and water facilities exist either on or immediately adjacent, and available, to the site. While the ordinance has been refined since the County's rezoning action in 1981, the zoning ordinance contained then substantially the same restrictions on "critical slopes" which apply today. The applicant acquired the property in 19972, in reliance on the existing proffered zoning. As evidenced by the application's numerical designation, the current application has been under County review for more than two years. Literally hundreds of hours of professional design time have been spent to produce the proposal represented by this application. The applicant has solicited the input of every concerned public agency, including VDOT and the Albemarle County Service Authority, as well as the County's planning, engineering, zoning and water quality staff. Each and every concern expressed by these agencies has been proactively addressed by the applicant, and every agency, without exception, concurs in recommending approval of the application. CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION OF DISTURBANCE OF 25% SLOPES--Section 4.2.5.2' The commission has the authority to modify these restrictions t Because of the reconstruction of Hydraulic Road. the adjacent property was made unusable as a convenience store. It remains in other commercial use to this day. 2 The applicant contracted to purchase the property, in March of 1997 and submitted the original site plan application shortly thereafter. The contract seller violated the terms of the contract and sold the property to a third party in fraud of the rights of the applicant. After extensive litigation, the circuit court of Albemarle County set aside this conveyance and ordered the property conveyed to the applicant. Because of delays on the pan of the sellers, the transaction finally closed in 1999. where the strict application of the ordinance would not forward the purposes of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest; OR where alternatives have been proposed by the developer which will satisfy the purposes of ordinance at least as well. In the alternative, the commission has the authority to approve such modifications where, due to unusual 2. 3. 4. 5. size; toP°graphy; shape; location of property; or other unusual condition (other than proprietary interest of developer) the requirements of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the property. In effect, if' the property cannot practically be developed without the use of the "critical slopes", the modification must be allowed, provided the developer can show that he has properly addressed the concerns set out in the ordinance. Because of the peculiar circumstances of the property, this applicant is entitled to the modification requested. REASONS MODIZ'ICATION MUST BE GRANTED The legal and physical conditions which exist on this property are so unusual as to be virtually unique. 1. Use of the property.: Because of the terms of the 1981 rezoning, this property can be used for one, and only one, use: A convenience store designed substantially as shown on the conceptual site plan. The current plan was consciously designed with the earlier plan in mind, subject to revisions (approved and/or required by the zoning administrator and planning staff) necessary to accommodate current design considerations, To put it another way, if this property cannot be used for this purpose, it cannot be used at all. This being the case, the circumstances of the property are such that, if the requested modification is not approved, "the requirements of Section 4.2 [of the County Code] would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property.' 2. Size, shape, location and topography: Because of the physical changes to the property occasioned by the reconstruction of Hydraulic road, virtually all of the otherwise usable area of the property consists of slopes at or above 25%. These slopes are almost entirely manmade, having been created by the affirmative acts of VDOT. The areas to be developed consist of (1) a single store building and (2) an area for parking and traffic circulation. Because of the concerns of the staff and VDOT, including the proffered condition restricting the location of the entrance, it has been determined that it is not feasible to locate the parking and traffic circulation areas behind the building. There is, for practical purposes, only one way to accommodate these features which satisfies the requirements of the County's staff and VDOT. A great deal of design effort was made to ensure that these concerns can be accommodated on the site. In fact, in order to accommodate these concerns, the applicant was forced to make substantial revisions to the design of the building, thereby significantly increasing the difficulty and expense of both the design and construction of the building, along with some sacrifice in efficiency of use of the interior space The site is further constrained by building and parking setbacks along both Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, as well as the 50-foot buffer area at the rear property line adjacent to the neighboring residential properties, which is required to remain undisturbed. As a result, the developed areas can be located only substantially as proposed. If they cannot be located on the "critical slopes", they cannot be built at all and the property will be deprived of all practical use. RELATION TO EXPRESS PURPOSES OF ORDINANCE Each concern specified in the ordinance with respect to slopes in excess of 25% has been addressed in the preparation of the subject plan: Rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock. Once the building, retaining walls, paved areas and vegetation are in place, the property will be more stable than it is in its current state. The portions of the developed area which are not actually occupied by construction have been carefully examined by the County's expert staff, including their review of a conservation plan which complies with the County's requirements and recommendations. These measures are specifically designed to ensure continued stability, both during and after construction, thereby eliminating any practical potential for erosion. Excessive stormwater runoff. The proposed development includes provisions for underground stormwater detention which meet or exceed all .County requirements. In particular, in order to ensure the quality of runoff leaving the impervious areas of the site, the applicant proposes to install a state-of-the-art sand filter through which all of the surface drainage from the paved areas will flow. This feature, which is unusual both in design and in expense, was recommended by the County's engineering staff As a result, the runoff from the paved areas will be, in both rate and quality, virtually indistinguishable from the runoff from the site in its current state. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water, As noted above, strict application of the County's soil erosion and other water protection ordinances will prevent any danger of downstream siltation, both during and after construction. Loss of aesthetic resource. The slopes in question are not an aesthetic resource. To the extent that they might be considered aesthetically pleasing, they are not an available resource since their location at the back of the property precludes their being seen from any point off the property. Moreover, the proposal includes provisions for installation and maintenance of landscaping, screening and other vegetation which meet or exceed the County's requirements, as set forth in the conditions of the rezoning, as well as the general ordinance provisions. o As to septic system failure, travel of septic effluent. The site is served by public sewer. Therefore, this provision is not applicable to the current proposal. CONCLUSION The development proposed represents the only practical use which can be made of the property, given the existing physical and legal constraints applicable to it. The applicant and the County's staff have engaged in an extraordinarily lengthy, sensitive and detailed process of design development with the express objective of providing the best possible protections against the environmental evils which the ordinance seeks to control. As a result, the environmental quality of the proposed plan is as good as, or better than, that of a similar plan, developed in compliance with ordinance requirements in the absence of steep slopes. It is worthy of note that the experts specified in Section 4.2 (i.e.. the County's departments of planning and engineering) are unanimous in recommending the requested modification. Each of the concerns expressed in the ordinance has been addressed by the applicant, and it is clear that granting of the modification requested will protect the public interest as well as eliminating a hardship amounting to confiscation of the applicant's property. For the foregoing reasons, the requested modification complies with the provisions of Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance and is therefore entitled to be approved. Respectfully submitted, H& H L.L.C. By counsel PAYNE & HODOUS Frederick W. Payne (V'SB//14185) 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 804-977-4507 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer -21 December 1999 Calvet Virginia Oil, critical slope waiver This summary of Engineering Concerns regarding the critical slope waiver for the Calvet Virginia Oil site on Hydraulic Road is written in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission on 14 December 1999, and the letter from Fred Payne, the applicant's attorney, received the morning of 20 December 1999. The critical slope areas under discussion run through the middle and rear of the site from north to south. They are wooded irregular slopes, the majority of which are the result of previous earth disturbing activities on Hydraulic Road. The critical slopes make up 0.22 acres of the site's 1.05 acres. The plan shows all o f the critical slopes being disturbed. The proposal is to fill over the slopes to place the building and associated parking. This results in the replacement of the existing slopes with a smaller area of steeper (2:1, or 50%) slopes and retaining walls (3'-5' high). The letter from Mr. Payne addresses each of the concerns of section 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the engineering department is in general agreement with these statements with a few minor corrections; Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; Under item 1 of Mr. Payne's letter, the site is currently stable, and will be so after completion. Whether it is more or less stable than current conditions is not an issue. The most critical time period for movement of soil is during construction. Excessive stormwater run-off; Under item 2 of Mr. Payne's letter, strictly speaking their will not be development on critical slopes generating runoff. The critical slopes will be replaced by buildings, pavement, and 2:1 slopes, and wails. The replacement will be engineered to not release more runoff. Issues of detention, water quality, and downstream channels are addressed by the Water Protection Ordinance (Chapter 17), and state regulations, and are separate issue from critical slopes. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; Under item 3 of Mr. Payne's letter, final plans will meet all erosion control regulations. However, this should not mislead the public into believing that all siltation will be halted. Erosion and sediment control construction methods are not 100% effective, and the risk of downstream damages is always present. The limited room between the proposed slope and the 20' vegetative buffer reduces the size and limits the designer's and staff's options for the erosion control measures. The building configuration (mention in Mr. Payne's letter) allowed the bottom of the slope to be pulled back to create an 8' wide flat area to help accommodate erosion control protection. The site will require frequent inspection to assure compliance with erosion control regulations. Loss of aesthetic resource; Under item 4 of Mr. Payne's letter, the Engineering Department offers no opinion with regard to aesthetics. A greater tra'~el distance of septic effluent Under item 5 of Mr. Payne's letter, this is irrelevant in this case Below, the following additional information is provided for some of the concerns of section 18- 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance: Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; Proper construction of slopes will prevent movement of soil and rock. This refers to benching and compaction of the fill, slope surface compaction, erosion control matting and vegetation stabilization other than grass seed. Excessive stormwater run-off; The stormsewer system shown on the site plan will prevent excessive runoff from, or on, the newly created critical slopes. The surface matting and vegetation above will significantly reduce runoff directly fi.om the new 2:1 slopes. Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; County inspection and bonding of erosion control measures will help to address excessive siltation during construction. Proper vegetative stabilization as mentioned above will prevent long term siltation. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the approval of the critical slope waiver. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Copy: file File: Calvet critical slopes.doc B~1 - 115 South Pantops Drive - Suite - - Charlottesville, Virginia Phone (804) 977-7424 - Fax (804) 977-7428 email address dsrooker(~spdntrnail.com Pr~d~r~ December 21, 1999 Aamilt~ to Pm__'_~ice_ Law ;n Vi~inia, W~t Virginia anti Florida Via Fax 972-4068 Mr. Grog Carnpner RE: SDP-97-035 Grog: There are a number of questions which need to be answered regarding this application. 1) ! am not sure that the proffer #2 in ~1981 rezonmg regarding "relocation~ is being met. The proffer was that this was for relocation of a convenience store-The Hop. in. What that proposed is builcting a new convenience store with an entirely different franchise. This is a new owner. Also, the old bui[cling continues in commercial use. 2) I am not certain.proffer ~4 was ever met. 3) I think the proposed building face is 2,730 sq. ft,, which exceeds the 2,579 sq. ft. permitteci by the 1982 amended proffer. Also, I don't think the proposed building dimensions match the 4) It appears to me that Fred Payne faxed a modification request for the first time to the planning department on 12/17/99. Since the modification is all that is before why doesn't the clock start ticking on 12/17? 5) The staff seems to be talking about this modification request as though it is mandatory. The attached copies of the code seem to clearly state that it is discretionary, in fact, the cocle basically says that the modification cannot be granted unless certain findings are made. One of those findings is that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area or to adjacent properties. 6) The staff report seems to make it clear that the proffers do not trump the ordinance requirements. In other words, just because the developer proffered items does not mean I~e has a dght to them if they violate the ordinance. Please give me a Gall when you have a chance after you have looked this over. Thank you. From: Sent: To; Cc: Subject: Ron Keeter Monday, January 04, 1999 12:18 PM Charlotte Humphds Ben Blankinship; Wayne Cilimberg RE: SDP 97-035 Calvet VA Co. Preliminary Site Plan A pre-application conference was held with the applicant on Dec.14 to discuss changes in procedures and regulations since this plan was submitted in 1997. As written site review comments were provided to the applicant in 1997. those were not reviewed again. Following reactivation of the plan, 1 reviewed the prior comments and found many of them unaddressed. M~eting was held with VDOT. Engineering & Planning on Dec.22 to dicuss this plan and other submittals. I have not.received written comments from all site review agencies at this time-- by proc~t, ure site review comments are to be availa 13lo tomorrow afternoon. rkeeler~albemafle.org R~nald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning County of Albemarle Depamment of Pier, trig and Community Develq3men[ Chadottesvtlle, Va. 22902-45'96 Voice: 80~296-582.3, e~(t. ~ Fax: 804~72~35 At the conclusion of the Site review meeting on this plan in April, 1997, it had been determined that the Development Director would coordinate a future meeting to resolve the many problems presented by this use at this site. ! had sent to you a list of concerns of mine because this is suc[' a sensitive site, both visually and environmentally. During that site review meeting, many questions were raised: length of turn lane; stacking problems posed on Hydraulic Road; proffers relating to parking and the adjoining property; ability of even small fuel trucks as well as Coke, Pepsi, etc. trucks to maneuver, runoff control and steep slopes; effect on the Georgetown Road/Hydraulic intersection; full landscape plan for buffering residential area; ho_._~ of operatior ~ it adjoins residential; etc. I guess these boil down to the areas of acc~. ss,~e .affects on-Hvaraut~c Anct the'!nterse~io.n at Hydraulic and Georgetown; protection of the watershed; and protection of the neighbors. Again, I think we ail realize what an impact the development of this site in this manner will have on this whole area. it must meet the highest standards. I will try to be at the meeting Thursday AM, but I am leaving town that day and will have to leave earlier than planned if the weather [oaks like it's going to be icy. Please let me hear from you as to the status of this application. Thanks. Chado~ Humphris ATTACHMENT 3 Albemarle County Planning Commission December 21, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, December 21, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering; Mr. Steven Boiler, County Engineering; Mr. John Shepherd, County Zoning Department; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:' Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington, Vice-Chairman. Other matters not listed on the agenda None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Deferred Item: SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slope Waiver - Proposal for 2,576 square foot convenience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-l, Commercial. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval to enter Executive (Closed) Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344A of the Code of Virginia, under subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding SDP 97-035. The motion passed unanimously. After Executive Session, the Commission then reconvened their public meeting. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of adoption of a resolution that to the best of each members knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempt from public meeting requirements and identified in the motion that convened the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting held. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that each Commission member should have received 'copy of a submittal by the applicant's representative, Mr. Bruce Payne. Mr. Keeler presented two additional pieces of information to the Commission: Mr. Glenn Brooks' evaluation of Mr. Payne's submittal; and some landscaping information related to the slope issue from Planning staff. Mr. Brooks addressed the Commission, presenting recent photos of the site. He described the photos, noting the view from Georgetown Green units in relation to the site. Mr. Brooks presented a photo showing a channel that would can'y all of the runoff from the site, adding that the channel is along the property line on the back of the Georgetown Green apartments. Mr. Rooker asked what percent of the trees in the critical slope area would be removed under the plan proposed by the applicant. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 1 Mr. Brooks said that they haven't made an effort to identify that, but he surmised that about half of the trees would be removed. Mr. Rooker asked about the age of the trees. Mr. Brooks responded that the trees on the slope itself are not very old, but the ones near the property line are taller and bigger in circumference. Mr. Rieley a~ked if the soil along the sides of the channel was exposed. Mr. Brooks replied that there is some cutting in the channel, starting at where the first apartment building starts, ranging fi:om 2-3 feet deep. He noted that the area has been disturbed, but said that it was difficult to ascertain whether the erosion was caused by weak soils over time, or the direct result of stormwater discharge. Mr. Thomas asked if the soil had been pushed into the channel. Mr. Brooks responded that all the soil is cut and washed downstream; the only thing .pushed into the channel is leaf debris. Mr. Rooker asked if there would be any increase in water entering the channel as a'result of the buildout of the applicant's plan. Mr. Brooks replied that Engineering has not dOne a final design, but the applicant is required to have no increase for two and ten-year storms. Mr. Rieley noted that the storm intervals used by the county stop at a ten-year storm, and any storms more severe than that are not addressed by county regulations. "This site as proposed would have a great deal more impervious area than in it's natural condition." Mr. Brooks agreed. Mr. Rieley said, "In'that case, we could expect a great deal more runoff." He mentioned that the applicant's plan proposes to deal with the two and ten-year storm runoffs through oversized pipes for detention in the upper part of the basin. "Anything that exceeds a ten-year storm, there is no detention [for] whatever, and in fact this increase - because of the increase in impervious area - we could expect to impact the stream downstream." Mr. Brooks agreed. Mr. Rieley said, "There would in fact, in anything that exceeds the ten-year storm, be an increase in runoff, an increase in impact on downstream landowners, and ultimately, an impact on the watershed. Because all of the increase in runoff, the major impact of that is increased erosion, which creates additional sediment that goes downstream. And sediment, as well all know, is our biggest pollution problem in our watershed." Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 2 Mr. Brooks agreed. "That would be tree of any site in the watershed supplying the reservoir." Mr. Rieley noted the sand drain filter proposed in the applicant's plan to deal with runoff, and asked Mr. Brooks to comment on its limitation in dealing with mnoffrelative' to the frequency of rainfall. Mr. Brooks explained that the effectiveness of the filter is contingent on its design and its size. "It's my understanding that it's designed for our regulations for the first half-inch of runoff from the site. Runoffbeyond that is washed through the system." Mr. Boller commented that the device "should take the first ½ to 1 inch offofthe diSveways and shunt that through the filter." He noted that the county ordinance was written based on phoSPhate removal, but have been shown to be effective with hydrocarbons, adding that the filters remove approximately 40-60% of material. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Boiler and Mr. Brooks to verify the applicant's written statement that there would be "virtually undistinguishable change in water quality and quantity" of runoff with this development. Mr. Brooks said that they could not verify the statement, but added, "to the extent that cun'ent technology allows, they've done what they can." He added, "Our ordinances don't go beyond the ten-year storm, and our erosion control technology and water quality filter technology is only 60% effective on average." Mr. Rieley noted that the drainage swail has springs along the side, which make it more of an intermittent stream, and asked the Engineers if they could identify at what point that happens. Mr. Boiler responded that he visited the site and measured the distance from the point at which it becomes a stream back up towards the property line. "The ordinance, the buffer covers 100 feet from the stream, and that does not take it to the property line of this site." Mr. Rieley asked about the limitation of retaining wall height to below 5 feet, noting that the wall along the building is essentially a 12-foot tall retaining wall if it is.filled behind it. Mr. Brooks said that he didn't know if it was filled behind it, and said that in that case it would be a basement wall that retains soil, which is covered under the building code, and would go through the building permit process. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler about the language Used in the original rezoning which described the intent of the site as a "replacement" for the Hop-In, noting that the building currently on-site is the old Hop-In. "It's really not a replacement, it's an addition." Mr. Keeler said that he was not aware if the applicant every represented they were going to tear down the old building. Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed store would be a Hop-In, noting the statement in the original proffer on the property that."subject property will be used for a relocation of the convenience store Albemarle County Planning Commission- December 21, 1999 3 in accordance with the general layout of the enclosed preliminary site plan." He added, "I guess the question is whether or not it's a relocation or a new business going in there." Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Kamptner reviewed the board minutes from the second rezoning application, and Zoning has also been involved. He suggested that they address that concern. Mr. Kamptner said he reviewed the minutes from both the 1981 and 1982 Board of Supervisors meetings. H.e explained that the original proffer as submitted by the applicant specified the "relocation ora Hop-In," and at the request of a Board member, that language was changed to. "convenience store" to use a more general' term in the event that Hop-In was no longer the occupant.. Mr. Kamptner said that he did not see anything in the minutes whereas part of the relocation included any agreement that the old Hop-In site would be abandoned. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a determination made that the application made to build a new building with a new franchise on it meets the proffer that says the subject property will be used for relocation of the convenience store. Mr. Kamptner said that his understanding is that determination has been supported by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Rieley said he did not recall a canopy over the old Hop-In store gas pumps. Mr. Keeler said that he did not recall if the original Hop-in had canopy over the pumps. Mr. Rieley asked if consideration had been given to the visual impact of the canopy in light of the fact that grading on critical slopes will expose much more of the canopy to the view of the public if no grading were occurring on the critical slopes. Mr. Keeler said there was a period in the review last April where a meeting occurred with several agencies, the applicant, etc. to discuss a number of issues, including lighting of the canopy. He said that the applicant agreed to recess the lighting fixtures in the canopy, which goes beyond the county's ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that he has concerns about the impact of lighting to the residents of Georgetown Green, as that is a lower elevation. He added that he has not yet written his conditions for submittal of the final plan, and that is an issue that would be addressed. Mr. Rboker asked if the extent to which the recess would occur was known. Mr. Keeler replied that it has been discussed with Zoning - who will actually be reviewing it - to recess the lighting to shield it from the buildings in Georgetown Green. "We're talking about a stovepipe kind of situation where you wouldn't actually see the bulb." Mr. Keeler said that when the current lighting ordinance was adopted, a provision in the prior zoning ordinance was dropped, that required shielding of lighting. "If the luminaire is at the same elevation as the bottom of the canopy, you're going to be seeing it." Mr. Rieley said he is concemed about the canopy's appearance in the daytime as well as at night. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 4 Mr. Keeler said that the facility is not located in an Entrance Corridor, and thus is not subject to ARB review. Mr. Rieley said, "We are disturbing critical slopes that are going to open up the view to something, and it seems to me that what it is we're opening up the views to are pertinent." He added that the canopy serves for a source of lighting at night, and as a billboard. "I think the issue of the degree to which we have a new sign that will be affected by our decision on critical slopes is a pertinent one." Mr. Rieley recalled that the old Hop-In is brick, and asked if there is a commitment that the replacement building will also be brick. Mr. Keeler said, "We have not discussed building materials." Mr. Rieley noted that related to building materials is the issue of the loss of aesthetic resources due to the disturbance of critical slopes. "This is one of the factors we must consider under 18.4.2 in granting a critical slopes waiver." He noted that some visual impact studies refer to the principle of "inter-visibility," and emphasized how visible the slope is from Georgetown Green as illustrated in the slides presented by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Rieley said that the slope in question and the trees on it are in the view of Georgetown Green residents and in the view of anyone who drives on Georgetown Road. He mentioned that the retaining wall as previously discussed meets grade about 12 feet above floor level on the back side, adding that if an additional 10-12 feet is added for the height of the building itself, the wall is 22-24 feet tall, and 78 feet long on the back side of the building. "The view will change from a steep wooded slope to the big rear end of a convenience store. Not a change many people would regard as an aesthetic improvement." He asked how the extent of the impact on the aesthetic value of the critical slopes could be measured, or how it might be appropriately mitigated when there was uncertainty of what the building would be made of or how many trees would be removed. Mr. Keeler resp0nded,."I was attempting to function within the framework established by the proffered zoning and by interpretations of that zoning by the Zoning Department." Mr. Keeler noted that at the site review meeting on January 7th, it was stated by staff that the three areas ofmaj0r concern were: protection' of adjoining residential areas from the deleterious effects of a proposed building, including lighting and visual effects; the disposition of stormwater at this site as it is situated in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed; and safety of on-site and off-site traffic circulation. He said that these were the major - but not the only - issues raised. Mr. Keeler said that it was staff that caused the reconfiguration of the building in order to address the access issues. "The building is pretty much fixed in its location from the framework that I was given to work in." He mentioned that the measures discussed with the applicant regarding Georgetown Green, originally included a board fence along the property line; Mr. Keeler indicated to the applicant that the fence would be more effective in providing protection from headlights if it were moved up to nm along the back of the parking area and tie into the building, which has been done. He added that the recessed lighting has also been mentioned, and said that he also mentioned using more indigenous landscaping than white pines. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 5 Mr. Keeler emphasized, "This is a preliminary plan, and the approval of the landscape plan is actually the last act in the approval process at the time of the final plan." Referencing an executive summary that Commissioners had received, Mr. Keeler said that Engineering is addressing soil and water issues, Zoning was ensuring that the plan met the provisions of the proffer, and Planning was looking at the aesthetics in relation to Georgetown Green." Mr. Rieley asked how the opening of the slopes would be mitigated. Mr. Keeler responded that replanting would'mitigate the building's mass effect. Mr. Rieley noted that it would take 30-40 foot trees to mitigate a building of that size. Mr. Keeler said, "The initial plantings won't do that." Mr. Rooker asked if there was any discussion regarding the color and the building materials. Mr. Keeler said there was not. Mr. Thomas asked why there was a required 50-foot buffer, when the normal buffer is 20 feet between commercial and residential. Mr. Keeler replied that the original applicant proffered the larger buffer as part of his plan to entreat the Board to approve the zoning allowing for the store's complete relocation rather than just rezoning allowing replacement of gas pumps and parking spaces as recommended by staff. Mr. Rieley asked if Zoning regarded this or any setback as relating to any part of the building. "Are their parts of the building that are excluded, such as roof overhangs or porches?" Mr. Shepherd said that Zoning would interpret the proffer such that the entire building would have to be kept out of the 50-foot buffer. Mr. Rieley. asked, "As shown with the building wall right at the 50-foot line, we presume that's a building with no roof overhang?" Mr. Shepherd replied, "I believe that is correct. Because with the way the proffer is written, I think that would have to be the way that would have to be interpreted." Mr. Kamptner noted that with a normal setback regulation, stairs and related building accessories are excepted from the rule. Mr. Keeler mentioned that in Zoning Ordinance section 4.6, things that can intrude into yards include stairs, eaves, etc. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Shepherd if his opinion is that everything related to the building has to be out of the 50-foot buffer. Albemarle County Planning Commission -December 21, 1999 6 Mr. Shepherd replied, "I think that is the way the proffer would be interpreted .... there's an allowance for overhangs with setbacks, but with the way [this] is proffered, I think it would have to be interpreted more strictly than that." Mr. Kamptner stated, "The buffer zone as proffered...envisions that there won't be any structures within that zone." He added that he was not sure without further investigation whether that would include overhangs. Mr. Finley aJked Mr. Rieley to summarize his major c0ncems. Mr. Rieley said he would like to hear comments from the applicant and the public before summarizing. Mr. Loewenstein asked if Mr. Brooks' statement in his memo regarding siltation, "the site will require frequent inspection to ensure compliance with erosion control regulations," was referring to the construction phase. Mr. Brooks replied that it was. Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Brooks to explain his statement that compliance after that time would be monitored in the normal way. Mr. Brooks replied that after construction, when the county releases the erosion control bond, there is no more monitoring. Mr. Rooker asked how the county could be assured that the sand filter would continue to function to improve the water quality before it leaves the site. Mr. Brooks responded that there is a maintenance agreement that the applicant is required to enter into with the county, which is recorded as a legal document to nm with the land, and requires a yearly maintenance inspection and report 'filed with the county. "In addition to that, with these underground systems, we've been asking that the applicants have a maintenance contract with a company that cleans these systems on a yearly...basis." Mr. Rieley asked if an agreement had been made for this property. Mr. Brooks replied that there is a standard agreement prepared by the county attorney's office. Mr. Rieley asked if County Engineering had the authority to require the contract. Mr. Brooks answered, "I believe we do. We've required that of storm scepter systems on a few other sites in the county." Mr. Finley asked about the purpose of the sand filters. Albemarle County Planning Commission- December 21, 1999 7 Mr. Brooks said that the filtration system is strictly for water quality benefits; the water has to filter through the sand layers. Mr. Fred Payne, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. Mr. Payne emphasized, "This is not a rezoning. This is a use that is permitted by right in the C-1 district...it has one and only one use." He added, "This is C-1 property that can be developed for a convenience store. Moreover, it cannot be developed for anything other than a convenience store. Moreover, it cannot be developed for anytl~g other than a convenience store substantially as shown on the proffered plan." Mr. Payne continued, "This is a site plan review and...there is a statutory standard for this...your review must relate to the provisions of the ordinances that apply to this." He added, "We're dealing with the art of the possible as set forth in the county's ordinances. That is the scope of your review." He mentioned that every one of the regulations the Commission is considering was in existence when .the rezoning was done: the critical slopes requirement, the nmoff control ordinance, and the soil erosion ordinance. Mr. Payne added, "If people don't want to see the back of a building, the property can be bought. And we'll be glad to sell it." Mr. Payne said that the color of the building and things like that "are really totally material." He said that the building is not in the Entrance Corridor, and is not subject to ARB control. He further emphasized that it is in the interest of the developer to make this site.attractive, because if it is not attractive, it's not going to attract customers. Mr. Rooker asked if the developer was planning anything specific to make the site attractive. Mr. Payne responded that this is a very early stage in terms of specifics, and an architect has not yet designed the site. He added that the landscape provisions of the ordinance are specific. Mr; Payne said that the deYeloper addressed the fence issue'at Mr. Keeler's suggestion to address the lights shielding from Georgetown Green. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Payne to explain how the planning scheme will mitigate the aesthetic detriment on the property and on the critical slope area. Mr. Payne said that it is difficult to categorize the slope as an aesthetic resources, noting that none of the trees are more than 20 years old because it is an artificial slOpe. He said that the applicant is proposing to replace the trees with landscaping in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, adding that staffhas not yet offered specific recommendations about what should be planted. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant currently plans to put white pines in. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Payne if the applicant would be flexible about the size of the trees. Mr. Payne said, "The'ordinance I think specifically addresses those things." Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 8 Mr. Rieley said, "We're talking about mitigating a special condition which is a critical slope waiver .... you say you're flexible in species. Are you flexible in size as well." Mr. Payne responded, "I don't really know quite what you had in mind...ifwe knew that, we might be able to address it more readily." He added that Mr. Keeler's suggestion was to try to introduce as many indigenous species as possible to make it look natural. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if Mr. Payne would address the issue of size, because the trees are being described as small. "When'I walked that site, I didn't come away with that impression at all." Mr. Payne said he felt confident that the recommendations Mr, Keeler would make would be reasonable. He stated that the applicant was limited somewhat because it would not be possible to get large machinery on the slope. Mr. Keeler stated that the size of the landscaping in the landscaping provisions of the site plan ordinance was set in part on survivability, and smaller trees often perform better than larger trees. He added that another standard would be to use the size required by the ARB, which is generally larger. Mr. Keeler said once a certain size is reached, equipment will have to be brought in to do the planting, and mentioned that with the Pantops Shopping Center rezoning, that applicant was required to screen the building from Monticello within a period of 15 years. In that application, staff recommended species and varieties to accomplish that. Mr. Keeler added that if the Commission wants the Hop-In site screened with large trees, the result may not be the indigenous type of planting. Mr. Finley asked where the 15-year time frame had come from in the Pantops case. Mr. Keeler said that as part of the modifications that were part of that Planned Development, the Board could apply conditions to those modifications. Commenting on the retaining wall height, Mr. Payne said that the building is subject to. the provisions of the uniform statewide building code, which preempts county regulation. He added that the building will comply with the building code. Mr. Payne emphasized that the runoffprovisions of the water protection ordinance and the soil erosion ordinance were developed over many years, .and they give specific criteria as to what is to be done - such as the I O-year storm levels. "We have no indication that that's not appropriate in this case." He added, "There's never been a commercial property for which a 25% slope waiver was requested that was not granted." Mr. Payne concluded, "We think we've done what we can do with this site in the way that the county's ordinance...require us to do it. You can't do it another way. If you can't do this, you can't do it at all." Public comment was invited. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 9 Ms. Pat Hurst, representing her neighbors at Georgetown Green, addressed the Commission. Ms. Hurst said that they just learned the day before the meeting that the project was going forward, and a lot of the neighbors' preparation has been last-minute. She explained that Georgetown Green is a family-type neighborhood, and is not a rental property area. Ms. Hurst noted that the neighborhood is surrounded by Albemarle High School on one end, and the Hop-In site on the other. Ms. Hurst outlined eight issues as identified by Georgetown Green neighbors:, the runoff drainage (all of which is on the Georgetown Green property); the sewage pumping station (which already exhibits problems by putting raw sewage into the stream;.traffic problems; noise & general activity;. lights; building aesthetics; questionable drawing of the survey; and possible decreasing property values. Mr. Michael Sprinkle of Georgetown Green addressed the Commission. He said that upon review of the site plan, the back of the building from the basement up to the hard surface is 20 feet. Mr. Sprinkle said that large trees would need to be planted to screen the building from his property. He expressed concern that there would be gasoline pumps allowed within 200 feet from the beginning of the spring that feeds the creek. Mr. Sprinkle mentioned that his well will be just 250 feet from the gasoline tanks. He added that the general runoff from the site and its proximity to the water supply is also a major concern. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Thomas asked if there were codes in place to protect the distance from gasoline tanks being located from wells. Mr. Kamptner responded that Albemarle County does not have a well-head protection ordinance. Mr. Morrisette mentioned that with above-ground petroleum tanks, the Health Department and the State requires 100 foot setback from wells. Mr. Keeler said that these tanks are underground, so those standards would not apply. Mr. Rooker commented, "It's a tragedy that we are faced with what we're faced with here. Without speaking to the merits of this particular application for a waiver from critical slopes, we've got a convenience store/gas station being built in the reservoir near streams, on what would amount to about 80% slopes that are going to be completely filled for the purpose of building the entire convenience store building on top of an area that used to be critical slopes. It's adjacent to residential areas, it's adjacent to properties with wells. I think it's just a tragedy that we're faced with this application at all." Mr. Rieley agreed. He thanked Mr. Rooker for bringing the application to the attention of fellow Commissioners. Mr. Pdeley said, "It's clear that no matter how we eventually decide this matter, there are a lot of serious issues that are intertwined with the critical slopes waiver, and my view is it certainly should never have been on the Consent Agenda to begin with." Mr. Rieley thanked the Planning and Albemarle County Planning Commission- December 21, 1999 10 Engineering staffs for meeting with him to review the history and technical issues involved with the requested waiver. Mr. Rieley said he supported staff's recommendation 18 years earlier that only the gas and the parking from the old Hop-In be relocated on the adjacent property in compensation for the widening of Hydraulic Road. He noted that the Board's decision at that time to rezone the property has now forced the county to deal with the rezonlng. He added, "I'm not certain that we're obliged to sanction apl .a:n in which new elements have been added - like this canopy which is in full view of the very view that is being opened up by the same critical slopes that this waiver is being applied for, in which the quantity'of the mnoffbeyond this arbitrary 1 O-year cutoff point is indeed increased.'~ Mr. Rieley said that because this is a discretionary matter, it is a legitimate issue to consider, noting that Engineering has confirmed the filtering is only effective for 40-60% of the runoff. Mr. Rieley emphasized that there would be a "gross diminution of the aesthetic quality of this area as a direct result of the imposition on these critical slopes," adding that "all of this impact would be accomplished or exacerbated through this wholesale reshaping of virtually all of the wooded critical slopes on this property - slopes which I believe contain trees 40-50 feet tall." He added that neither staff nor the applicant have adequately addressed the diminution of the critical slopes. Mr. Rieley emphasized that the applicant's argument that the Commission must approve the waiver associated with this particular preliminary site plan because failure to do so would render the site unbuildable is "simply erroneous." He added, "I believe that a plan could be developed that is substantially in compliance with plan references in the rezoning procedure that would have much less impact on critical slopes, and less associated impact on the environmental and the aesthetic assets that we're charged to protect." Mr. Rieley said he has no interest in using the critical slopes provision of the ordinance to stymie the · legitimate use of the property - which is in fact a convenience store. "But I believe the applicant has an' obligation to satisfy the environmental and aesthetic concerns that are spelled out clearly in the ordinance." He .added that he could not support the waiver until those concerns are addressed. Mr. Rooker agreed, pointing out that the code regulation governing the waiver is discretionary. He mentioned that there are at least two areas under Section 4.2 that have not been adequately addressed by the application. Referencing Section 4.2.5.3, Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission "may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public interest" in granting any such modification. "I think that there are conditions that could be imposed that woUld deal with the problems that have been raised." He concluded that as applied for, he is not prepared to support the application. Mr. Finley pointed out that in Section 5.2.5.3, the imposing of conditions goes along with the granting of the waiver. He asked Mr. Rieley about the loss of aesthetic resources. Mr. Rieley said, "I think the loss has to be viewed within the context of what views it is going to open up or reveal, and so it's not going to be opening up the view to what's there now. It's going to be opening up the view to a 24'x78' blank wall of unknown material and a canopy over gas pumps that supposedly are a replacement, but there was no canopy in the original." Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 11 Mr. Kamptner clarified that the loss of the resource is in the context of the disturbance of the critical slope, not the use itself of the property. Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission is limited in its purview for imposing conditions, given the standards already outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Kamptne. r said that conditions can be imposed to the extent that a particular impact is not addressed by county ordinances. Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Brooks if the potential increased runoff from'the property is connected to the critical slope or to the development of the property. Mr. Brooks replied, "All of it. Everything generates runoff." Mr. Finley clarified that the ordinance only stipulates protection for ten-year storms. Mr. Rooker reiterated his question as to whether the Commission had the leeway to go beyond what is required in the ordinance through imposing conditions. Mr. Kamptner said, "I think you can if there is a particular impact that is not addressed by the ordinance, and you need to address that particular impact." Mr. Thomas asked, "Does it satisfy the pollution in accord with current provisions of the Virginia Department of Transportation drainage manual?" Mr. Brooks replied, "Yes, it does." Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission could impose a standard beyond the ten-year storm as a condition for the property. Mr. Kamp.tner said that the Board has not determined legislatively that runoff above a ten-year storm level should be subject to a particular standard. Mr. Loewenstein said he was also Concerned about the runoff issue and loss of aesthetic resources. "If We were going to try to find a way to impose conditions on approval of this waiver that would address that, because I also don't think that's been addressed by this application as we have it, how would be do that?" Mr. Rooker suggested a condition that the building - from, sides and back -be a brick building, to help diminish the negative impact on the aesthetic resource. He pointed out that the building this replaces was a brick building. Mr. Rooker suggested that the plantings along the back and front of the property be much larger caliper as what is required by the ordinance. Regarding the water quality issue raised, Mr. Rooker said he was unsure based on what staff has said, what the Commission legal parameters are for imposing a condition to address that. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 12 Mr. Rieley said that the addition of a canopy causes him concern as it "relates directly to the loss of the screening of the trees that exist on those critical slopes. The diminution of aesthetic resources directly related to the views that are going to be opened up to this canopy." Mr. Rieley stated that it is understory that is going to prevent the 50% slopes fi.om eroding, and suggested including a shrub layer in the landscaping plan. He agreed with Mr. Keeler that the plantings should look like a deciduous forest, with large trees, and said that if big equipment would be accessing the site for cutting the slopes, it could also access the site to plant big trees. Mr. Rieley said that the ~and filters only work if they are well maintained, and emphasized the need for a maintenance contract with an acceptable maintenance company that could be reviewed by Engineering. He also expressed his desire for the building to be brick. Mr. Kamptner clarified that the uniform statewide building code prohibits zoning fi.om designating use of a particular building material. He said that brick by color could be specified. Mr. Rieley suggested having an ARB member look at the plan; Mr. Kamptner said that the design planner on the Planning staff could review it. Mr. Rooker said, "I think it's imperative that the building not stick out like a sore thumb to the 300 and some residents that are immediately behind it." Mr. Kamptner asked if the restrictions would be applied to the back of the building, the part visible from Georgetown Green. Mr. Rooker said that he was referring to front, sides and back, as most of the property is visible fi.om Georgetown Green. He noted that other Calvet stations are brick. Mr. Rooker said that he would like to discuss Mr. Rieley's suggestion for a condition prohibiting the canopy. Mr. Kamptner said that it would be helpful for the record to establish a connection between not having a canopy and the disturbance of critical slopes. Mr. Ri.eley said, '.'I think there is a direct connection because the disturbance of the critical slopes is what's going to open up this canopy to full view on both the Georgetown Road side and much of the Georgetown Green side." Mr. Loewenstein stated, "It's also going to open up a view of the building." Mr. Finley said that a canopy is needed for service stations. Mr. Rooker asked about limitation on hours of operation, and wondered if there was a "reasonable nexus" between the critical slopes decision before the Commission and the hours of operation. He added that the critical slopes disturbance will remove a large number of sizeable trees, revealing the lights of the property to the nearby residential areas. Mr. Thomas agreed that it was a good idea for Commissioners to discuss the hours of operation. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 13 Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner if he felt the connection between the slopes disturbance and the hours of operation was valid. Mr. Kamptner replied, "Given the existing zoning and the proximity of these other uses, if this was a flat piece of property, all the trees could be removed." Mr. Keeler said, "All the trees could be removed; they'd be required to replant a percentage under the canopy provisions." Mr. Kamptner emphasized, "The record needs to have something that distinguishes that fact in this case because of the critical slopes, and similar with the canopy. Because of the byrright use that's allowed here, if this was a flat piece of property, the people in Georgetown Green would see...the building and the canopy, and anything else on the property - subject to the replanting requirements of the ordinance." Mr. Keeler clarified that all the trees could be removed except for the 20-foot strip buffer. He mentioned several situations where stores and gas stations had to replace their tanks; and the ARB adopted design standards for canopies, which the Commission could use in this case, "That's intended to apply on Entrance Corridors, and I've always been reluctant to take that legislation and apply it somewhere else, but if you believe that in order to overcome the aesthetic issue, I don't see why you can't do that." Mr. Rieley asked if that could be done for the canopy, it could be done for the entire building. Mr. Keeler responded that it would be the Commission's decision as to whether those standards could be applied to the whole building. Mr. Rieley said, "Because of the 20-foot buffer, and the fact that the critical slopes are what elevate this site, this in fact will have a lot more impact than if it were a level site." Mr. Thomas stetted that the canopy is not as much of an issue as the replanting of the screen behind the building to protect the residential sections. "I don't personally have-a problem with the canopy at all. I think the maintenance of the contract of the sand filters should maybe one of our conditions to protect the water...the building itself...I think the developer would probably want to make the building as appealing to the public as possible." He added that the project is a good way to infill, and added ti'fat he could support the application, with conditions addressing the sand filter, the appearance of the building, and the planting of larger trees behind the building. Mr. Finley asked if the applicant was required to have a maintenance contract that goes on record. Mr. Keeler replied that that is handled in the Engineering Department, and noted Mr. Rieley's discerning between a maintenance agreement and an actual executed contract with a maintenance company. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 14 Mr. Brooks said, "There's a distinction there. Our ordinance speaks to a legal agreement to provide maintenance and inspection. It doesn't speak to getting a contract with a maintenance company that we assume would be more competent than the property owner going out and doing it." Mr. Kamptner said that as part of Engineefing's approval of a stormwater management BMP plan can require monitoring and reporting and specify the method and frequency of the monitoring, specify the format of the report and the frequency for submitting the report. Mr. Brooks responded, "That speaks 'to the forms that we require to be tumed in for the annual inspection, but it doesn't specifically speak to a contract with a commercial agency'that cleans sand filters." Mr. Kamptner noted, "As part of the approval of the stormwater BMP plan, the program authority [Engineering] has the ability to impose conditions to assure compliance...with the plan and determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater management, require that the monitoring and reporting state the method and frequency of the monitoring and state the format of the report and the frequency for submitting reports." Mr. Finley said, "If they're in violation, they're subject to legal action, fines and otherwise." Mr. Kamptner stated that it falls under the water protection ordinance, and there are mechanisms within that to enforce it. He suggested to Commissioners that they express what they want to address this to be implemented by the program authority through the stormwater management BMP plan." Mr. Finley asked fellow Commissioner if they agreed with Mr. Thomas's summation of necessary conditions. Mr. Rieley replied that the canopy also needs to be addressed in some fashion, agreeing with Mr. Keeler's suggestion that it be reviewed under ARB standards. Mr. Keeler offered wording for a condition that the Design Planner review the canopy.. The Commission discussed specific wording for additional conditions, to address the building color, the maintenance of the sand filter, Design Planner review of the canopy, the planting plan including the preservation of the existing oaks, and the hours of operation. Mr. Keeler asked for clarification on the hours of operation, whether the hours included all hours or just those open to the public. Mr. Rooker stated that he envisioned the hours of operation as hours open to the public. Mr. Shepherd asked if the lights would be turned off when the store was closed. Commissioners agreed that some security lights should remain on. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 15 MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SDP 97-035 with the following eunditions: (1) As part of the approval of the Stormwater Management B1V[P plan, the program authority (County Engineering) shall require the owner to have the sand filter inspected annually by a person or firm satisfactory to the program authority and to report those findings of the inspection to the program authority as otherwise provided as part of the plan's monitoring and reporting requirements. There shall be Design Planner review of the proposed canopy in accordance with the adopted design standards of the County Architectural Review Board, and Design Planner review of the building in relation to its color. (3) The number of trees shown on the preliminary site plan is adequate; the trees should be mixed species - a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees, which should be planted at a minimum of Y' caliper. There should be a shrub layer of native shrubs beneath the trees that will provide complete coverage within two years. The installation shall be done in such a way that it protects the slope from erosion in the meantime: In its consideration of approving of a landscaping plan, staff should ensure that plantings are arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening. A cluster of trees on-site, including a double red-oak and a white oak located about 50 feet from the comer of the property near the waterline easement shall have tree protection during construction and be specifically retained. (4) There shall be no hours of operation for the convenience store or service station after 11:00 p.m. or before 5:00 a.m.; hours of operation are defined as those hours the store is open to the public. (5) All external lights and signage lights except for security lights will be turned off during non-operating hours. Old Business There was no old business presented. New Business There was no new business presented There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Albemarle County Planning Commission - December 21, 1999 16 Action Memo Albemarle County Planning Commission December 21, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, December 21, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officialg present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering; Mr. John Shepherd, County Zoning Department; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hitda Lee-Washington, Vice- Chairman. Other matters not listed on the agenda None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Deferred Item: SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan - Critical Slope Waiver - Proposal for 2,576 square foot convenience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-l, Commercial. The Commission entered Executive Session to discuss legal matters pertaining to SDP 97-035, then reconvened their public meeting. The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved SDP 97-035 with the following conditions: (1) As part of the approval of the Stormwater Management BMP plan, the program authority (County Engineering) shall require the owner to have the sand filter inspected annually by a person or firm satisfactory to the program authority and to report those findings of the inspection to the program authority as otherwise provided as part of the plan's monitoring and reporting requirements. (2) There shall be Design Planner review of the proposed canopy in accordance with the adopted design, standards of the County Architectural Review Board, and Design Planner review of the building in relation to its color. (3) The number of trees shown on the preliminary site plan is adequate; the trees should be mixed species - a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees, which should be planted at a minimum of 3" caliper. There should be a shrub layer of native shrubs beneath the trees that will provide complete coverage within two years. The installation shall be done in such a way that it protects the slope from erosion in the meantime, tn its consideration of approving of a landscaping plan, staff should ensure that plantings are arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening. A cluster of trees on-site, including a double red-oak and a white oak located about 50 feet from the comer of the (4) (5) property near the waterline easement shall have tree protection during construction and be specifically retained. There shall be no hours of operation for the convenience store or service station after 11:00 p.m. or before 5:00 a.m.; hours of operation are defined as those hours the store is open to the public. All exremal lights and signage lights except for security lights will be turned off during non?perating hours. Old Business There was no old business presented. New Business There was no new business presented There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Frederick W. Payne Robert P. Hodous Donna R. DeLoria Payne & Hodous Attorneys at Law 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone: 804-977-4507 Facsimile: 804-977-6574 E-mail: paynehod@cstone.net December 23, 1999 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development Agent for Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 By Hand Re: SDP 97-035 Appeal of decision of planning commission--Our file 97-1397 Dear Wayne: The following is submitted to you as designated agent of the board of supervisors on behalf of the applicant, H & H L.L.C., with respect to the site plan application designated SDP 97-035, in accordance with Section 32.4.2.7 of the Albemarle County zoning ordinance, Appeal is hereby made of the decision of the planning commission of December 21, 1999, with respect to the imposition of certain conditions upon the approval of a modification of the critical slopes provisions of Section 4.2 of the said ordinance. The conditions in question exceed the authority of the commission under Section 4.2.5.3., are not reasonably related to the considerations set out in Section 4.2.5. and are not reasonably related to the facts before the commission. As such, the imposition of such conditions is tantamount to denial of the said site plan which does not conform to the provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.2-2259 and deprives the applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. Please schedule this appeal for hearing before the board of supervisors in due course. If you have any questions, or if anything further remains to be done, please let me know. lc: Mr. W. K. Heischman Greg Kamptner, Esquire cc (by hand): Mr. R. S. Keeler Sincerely yours, Frederick W. Payne COMMUNiT'.~' _ :~'. ,.2LO,.C.MENT PETITION: Reclassification/Study of site (SDP 97-035) 1 January 2000 We, the undersigned residents of Georgetown Green subdivision and other interested persons, signing below, ask that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors consider this petition in responding to the appeal of conditions set by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1999 regarding a convenience store/gas station being built at the busy intersection of Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road. Furthermore, the undersigned Petitioners ask that the Board of Supervisors respond to this appeal by: (1) Passing a resolution to send the application to build this convenience store/gas station back to the County Planning Commission for further study OR (2) Amending the zoning classification of this property to permit a different use at that site, more beneficial to nearby residential neighborhoods and schools. In support of this Petition, the undersigned citizens of Albemarle County, advance the below listed reasons, among others, for granting this request: 1. The Planning Commission improvidently waived the 25% critical drainage slope requirement in violation of Section 4.2.5.2.b of the Albemarle County Code. Section 4.2.5.2.b. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties. Such modification, waiver or variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or to sound engineering practice; or (Added 11-15-89) Based on discussions with the Planning and Engineering departments, we believe this waiver will be detrimental to: - public safety due to dangerous traffic conditions - adjacent properties due to erosion, pollution, and increased/concentrated water runoff PETITION: Reclassification/Study of site (SDP 97-035) January 2000 public safety and welfare due to environmental pollution of wells on property and the Rivanna watershed area. 2 adjacent 2. The site at this intersection was zoned for this use almost 20 years ago, without intervening review of this designation, long before the substantial growth and change that took place at that busy and now populous location. 3. This site is in the Rivanna Water Shed at the source of Ivy Creek upstream from the Ivy Creek Natural Area, the Rivanna Reservoir and, therefore, this use is not environmentally safe. 4. The Planning Commissmn improvidently waived the 25% critical drainage slope requirement to permit a 50% runoff slope adjacent to the Georgetown Green subdivision. 5. The Planning Commission did not adequately consider the adverse drainage effects on the surrounding residential property, residential wells, and Water Shed in terms of pollutants, erosion, and water runoff (e.g. water collecting in nearby residential lots). 6. This already busy and dangerous intersection will become significantly more unsafe when the much larger than average population of inexperienced teenage drivers in that area start using it as a convenience store/gas station destination. 7. The commercial convenience store/gas station use differs significantly from the professional businesses that are adjacent to other nearby homeowners. 8. The general safety of minors and unauthorized school absences will become problems if this convenience store/gas station business is permitted to locate within walking distance of the elementary, middle and high schools nearby. PETITION: Reclassification/Study of site (SDP 97-035) 3 January 2000 9. A convenience store/gas station at that location could increase the incidence of crimes and mischief in the area because it will inevitably become a popular destination and gathering place for teenagers. 10. Potential problems with direct or indirect sale of alcohol to minors will arise if a convenience store/gas station is located there. 11. Convenience store/gas station night hours will attract undesirable outsiders near and into the currently safe nearby residential neighborhoods and could possibly cause an increase in crime in those areas 12. After dark, the convenience store/gas station lights .will adversely affect residents of all nearby neighborhoods. 13. Even if hours are at first limited, it will only be a matter of time before the convenience store/gas station ownership seeks to remain open for 7 days ~each week and for 24 hours each.day. 14. Locating a convenience store/gas station at that intersection will adversely impact residential property values in all nearby neighborhoods. .................. Cut here --- leave behind storm door or tape to front door .................. I/we (all adult members of household can sign) support the petition titled: Reclassification/Study of site (SDP 97-035) January 2000 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TEl ~EPHONE A. Margarete Gr0schel and Dieter H.M. Gr0schel, M.D. 150 Terrell Road East Charlottesville, VA 22901-2165 Tel. (804) 979-0970 29 January 2000 Mrs. Charlotte Humphrls Board of Supervisors Re. Meeting on 2 February 2000 County of Albemarle Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Charlotte: We support the petition of the Georgetown Green Homeowner Association to rezone or alter the zoning of the property on the corner of Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road. Our reasons are: e The building of a convenience store with a gas station endangers the environment by potential run off, erosion and pollution, especially the drinking water wells of our neighbors and the small creeks of the watershed of the Rivanna reservoir providing drinking water for all citizens of our county. By waving the 25% critical drainage slope requirement the Planning Commission agreed 5o a variance that could endanger public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this county. Having known the involved corner for over twenty .years we believe that a convenience store with gas station will further endanger the traffic flow and adversely affect the safety of all drivers on these roads and of school Children walking to the nearby school complex. A store and gas station will adversely affect the peace and quiet of a family oriented neighborhood due to noise and light pollution and, consequently, have an impact on the property values of all neighbors. We urge you to reconsider both the zoning and the waiver, and to support the concerns of our neighbors on Georgetown Road and in Georgetown Green. Sincerely, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Long-Range Capital Needs SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on Long-Range Capital Needs STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Foley, Ms. Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 2, 2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In light of ongoing revenue limitations within the Capital Improvement Program, as well as the significant long-range capital needs facing the County, staff has identified the need for a strategic planning process that will a) identify the long-range needs facing the County, b) solicit guidance from the Board on County funding priorities; and c) address options for financing the County's long- range capital needs priorities. The first of three work sessions on County long-range capital needs was held at the Board's January 5, 2000 meeting. This work session addressed long-range needs related to court facilities, administrative space, facility maintenance and upkeep, fire/rescue facilities, public safety space needs and public safety technology. Additional work sessions are planned for February 2, 2000 and March 1,2000. A copy of the executive summary from the January 5 work session is attached. DISCUSSION: The second long-range capital planning session will address the following areas: parks and recreation, library facilities, school needs, and stormwater control. J~ The March 1 work session will address community developments. Staff also will wrap up the discussion on long range needs by focusing on those specific issues with an impact on the FY 2000/01 operating and capital budgets. A discussion of financing options with the financial adviser, although originally scheduled for March 1, will be deferred until April. RECOMMENDATION: The above is provided for information purposes only, in preparation for the Board's February 2nd meeting, and requires no action at this time. O0. 015 Albemarle County, Virginia Long- Range Capital Needs ~iStrategic Planning Background Increasing capital needs competing for financial resources. FY 00-04 CIP: $16.3 Million Unfunded (GO Bond) FY 01-05 CIP: $25.5 Million Additional Unfunded $41.8 Million Total Unfunded Requests FY00 CIP Transfer @ 2% of General Fund ($2.2 Million) - Avg 45% Allocated to Ongoing Technology & Maintenance/Repair Avg 55% Available for New Projects - $1-2 Million/yr Operating Budget Can Not Absorb Substantial Increases in the transfers to CIP or Debt Service Context Identified Capital Needs Extend Beyond CIP to Include Other Items From Approved County Plans and Policy Decisions: ~ Acquisition of Conservation Easements ~ Community Development - Expanded Funding for Neighborhood Improvements, Streetlighting & Sidewalks, Pedestri~in/Bikeway Improvements Road Prc~jects- Meadowcreek Parkway, Southern Parkway, 240-250 Connector Police, County Administrative Space Needs Strategy Develop 10-year capital needs assessment and financing plan ~ Identify long range capital needs ~ Delete or defer projects ,~ Prioritize remaining projects ~ Work with Financial advisor to develop 10-year financial plan -Bond referendum(s), debt level, resource plan, tax rates ~ Present draft strategy to Board based on work session discussions. 2 Work Session Agenda .lanuary 5 - Long-Term Needs/Issues Administration/Courts Public Safety Parks, Recreation & Culture February 2 - Long-Term Needs/Issues 1 Community Development/Public Works Infrastructure Sch6ol Division March 1 - Financing Options with Financial Adviser April 5 - Draft project and financing plan Administration & Courts Courthouse Expansion Administrative Space Building Maintenance/Upkeep Courthouse Expansion Project Scope and Timeline: Includes ]uvenile Court, Court Services, General District Courts, Circuit Courts, Commonwealth's Attorney & Sheriff Offices Reorganized Committee Meets Bi-Weekly Public i~Input Sessions .lanuary/March/May Present Final Alternative to Board and City Council in ]une Courthouse Expansion Additional Space Needed: Currently Facility Occupied Circuit Courts 21,905 General District Courts 7,661 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts 9,134 Commonwealth's Attorneys 3,626 Sheriffs 4,144 Shared Support Space Total 46,470 Needed Now 22,749 14,342 17,794 7,566 11,057 6,168 79,676 Needed in 20 Years 35,218 19,306 24,452 9,692 12,370 6,168 107,206 4 Courthouse Expansion Issues Under Consideration: ; Historical Preservation, e.g. Old .]ail, .]&D Court ~ Economic Vitality, i.e. Keeping Courts Downtown ; Security, i.e. Grouping Facilities Together ~ Parking: On Site or Within Walking Distance ~ Cost: Current Estimate $38 Million ~ County'Share: Approximately 50% i., FY01-05: $:L0.3 Million; FY06-10 $7.:~ Million Bond Referendum Administrative Space Existing Standard: 250 Square Feet of Office Space Per Employee (Comm. Facilities Plan} Additional Space Needed *: Department Currently Current Occupied Space Space Needs Police 12,000 22,000 Education 10,500 17,300 Social Services 8,000 11,600 Finance: Administration 1,500 3,100 Fire/Rescue ~ 1.600 Subtotal Selected Depts. 32,900 55,600 Other Depa~men~ 59.100 74.400 Total All Depa~ments 92,000 t30,000 * Source: Commonwealth of Virginia Space Guidelines for State Buildings, Reduced 10% for Use as an Albemarle Standard Administrative Space Operating Budget Impact: ~ Potential Debt Service Cost of New or Renovated Space ~ Potential Rental/lease Cost to Address Immediate Needs ~ Additional Space Will Cost $7 Per Square Foot to Operate, ,Maintain and Repair, Depending on Age and Condition of Space Administrative Space Issues for Consideration: Renovation -vs- New Construction to Neet Long Term Needs Short Term Rental/lease to Address Immediate Needs Impact of Growth and Board Priorities on Staffing Levels/space Needs Use of Modified State Space Standards Use of Technology to Reduce Future Space Needs 6 Administrative Space Recommendations: Continue Space Studies.to Better Define Future Space Needs and Cost Alternatives I County Office Building 1 Public Safety Facility Pursue Additional Space ]:mmediately to Relieve Overcrow~ded, ]:nadequate Conditions Need Most Acute for Police, Education, Social Services, Finance: Administration, and Fire/rescue Building Maintenance/Upkeep Current County Facilities: ~ 6 Buildings (Totaling 200,000 Square Feet) county Office Building ~ Court Square Old Jail & Old .Jailer's House ~ Old Real Estate Building ~ Old Parks & Recreation Building ~ Other Buildings - Joint maintenance arrangements ~ Crozet Waldorf School ~ Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court ~ Albemarle/Charlottesville Visitor's Center Building Maintenance/Upkeep Issues for Consideration: Continuation of Current Funding Level for Maintenance of Existing Facilities ] Currently Utilizes 26% of CIP Funding ($675,00 Avg. Per Year) Tncreased Funding Level for New or Renovated Facilities; ~ New Court, Public Safety and Administrative Facilities Higher Cost to Maintain Older Facilities No Current Standards Public Safety Fire/Rescue Stations Public Safety Facility Technology Needs Fire/Rescue Stations Existing Service Standards: 5 Minute Fire Response'Goal in the Development Areas 4 Minute EIVlS Response Goal in the Development Areas 13 Minute Fire and EMS Response Goals in the Rural Areas Source: Community Facilities Plan Fire/Rescue Stations Other Factors: City Fire Contract Dramatic Cost ]:ncrease Over :LO Years Without New County Stations to Reduce City Call Load City Stations Not Located to Achieve Response Goals in Development or Rural Areas Fire/Rescue Stations Existing Needs: ~ Southern Development Area Underserved t New Station Planned in Millcreek Area 1 Limited City Coverage W/in 5 Minutes ~ Northern Development Area Underserved ~ Limited Volunteer/Career Coverage W/in 5 Minutes ~ 250W/~[vy~ Area Underserved ~ Highesb Rural Area Population Density in County ~ Limited City Coverage W/in 5 Minutes Projected Needs: !;~! Tmpact of Growth? Fire/Rescue Stations Operating Budget Impact: ':'~ Staffing cost to Supplement Volunteer Efforts ~ New Stations i! Current Volunteer Stations ~ Other Ongoing Costs ~ Debt Service Cost of New Stations ($1.5 - 2.0 million per station) !~ Normal Operating Costs of New Stations l0 Fire/Rescue Stations Issues for Consideration: ] Volunteer -Vs- Career Staffing of New and Current Stations ] Supplementing Volunteer Efforts Needed to Achieve Stated County Response Goals ~ Station Locations i ConstruCtion Within the Development Areas Critical to Provide'Adequate Service IA Achieve Stated Response Goals ~i Funding Equipment Needs for New Stations :i Expanded Role of Fire/Rescue Division :~i Potential Regional Solutions Fire/Rescue Stations Recommendations: Construct County Fire/Rescue Stations in the Southern and Northern Development Areas to Achieve Stated County Response Goals Southern Development Area at Mill Creek - County site Northern Development Area at UREF Property - Proffered site Construct Fire/Rescue Station in the 250w/]:vy Area to Better Serve Densely Populated Areas West of the City ] Consider Possible Joint County/City Station to Achieve Stated Fire and Rescue Response Goals Public Safety Facility Existing Standards: ~ 1.5 Police Officers Per 1,000 Residents ~ Average Response Time of 10 Minutes or Less to All Police Emergency Calls Throughout the County ~ Space Standards ~ Modified State Space Standard ~ Unique~ Space Needs - Training, Records Storage and Managi~ment, Evidence Storage and Management, Etc. No Existing County Standard Source: Community Facilities Plan Public Safety Facility Existing and Projected Needs: Current Space Shortage i! Police: 10,0o0 S.F. i Police Dept. Identified As the Most Significant Shortage of All County Departments ~ Fire/Rescue: 700 S.F. Effect of Expanding Role Not Considered in Current Estimate Projected Needs ~ Detail Space Study Funded in Current Fiscal Year to Evaluate Administrative and Special Space Needs 12 Public Safety Facility Operating Budget Impact: ~ Additional Space Will Cost $7 Per S.F. To Operate, Maintain and Repair, Depending on Age and Condition of the Space. ~ Debt Service Cost Public Safety Facility Issues for Consideration: ~ Is Current Standard of :~.5 Officers Per :[,000 Population Adequate to Neet Service Demands? ~ Use of Substations Throughout the County ~ Location of Police Administrative Operation Relative to Other County Departments ~ Impact of Police Accreditation Standards ~ Expanded Role of Fire/Rescue Division ~ Potential .Joint Public Safety Operations (Training, Etc.) 13 Technology Needs Projects: ; 800 MHz Radio System ; Critical to Basic Emergency Communications ~ .]oint Project - $6.5 Million County/S13 Million Total I Portion of Project Currently Funded/contract Being Prepared ~ Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) ~ Basic Component of New Emergency Communications Center ~ Joint Project - $900,000 County/S2.0 Million Total Portion of Project Currently Funded/contract Being Prepared mi Mobile Data Technology Tmproves Officer Safety, Response 'limes, Field Productivity $1.44 Million County Project Technology Needs Issues for Consideration: No Existing Standards for Public Safety Technology Defining Requirements for Basic Level of Service Defining Enhanced Level of Service 14 Parks & Recreation ~ ~,~ - . ......... ~... ~, . · Outdoor Recreation Space (Athletic Fields) ]:ndoor Recreation Space (Gym/ Multipurpose Space) Enhanced Service Levels Outdoor Recreation Space Existing Service Standards: Neighborhood Parks- Private Community Parks ~ 3 Acres/1,000 within 5 minute Drive/25 Acres District Parks i 6 Acres/1,000 within 10-15 minute Drive/30 Acres County Parks ~ 10 Acres/1,000 within 10-30 minute Drive Source: CommUnity Facilities Plan OutdOor Recreation Space Existing & Projected Need: Service Goal Existing Park Type Acres/1,000 # Acres * Community 3 103 District 6 143 County ~<10 1,855 Total 2,101.0 * Useable Recreational Space 1999 Required Acres 240.6 481.2 802 2010 [2:q~ Q Required Acres 300 600 1,000 1,900 Outdoor Recreation Space 1998 Athletic Field Study Recommendations: Additional 2,000 Players - 30% ]:ncrease 28 Additional Fields Needed Upgrade Current Fields ~[mprove Routine Maintenance - $$ FY01-05 Capital Cost: $1.69 Million FY06-10 Capital Cost: $1.25 Million Indoor Recreation Space Existing Service Standard: ~ 0.75 Square Feet Per Resident Existing & Projected Need: Service ~ Goal Existing Gym Space SF! Resident S.F, Indoor Gym Space 0.75 173,295 Without H.S. Gyms 0.75 117,607 Required ~1~~ !: Required 6o,15o ~i~::~;~)il75,000 60,150 75,000 Source: Community Facilities Plan Indoor Recreation Space Issues To Consider: School Gyms Not Always Available One Day Per Week Practice Elementary Schools - 2 Teams Practice At Same Time Late Night Practices 200 Turned Away from Indoor Soccer No Open Gym Play Adult Basketball Full People Turned Away from Dance Programs 17 Enhanced Service Levels Indoor Recreation Centers: ~ 8,800 $.F. Gym Space (2 Cross Courts or 1 Full Court) ~ 5,000 S.F. Multipurpose/Community Room ~ Location: .louett/Albemarle, Henley/Brownsville, Sutherland/Hollymead ~ Capital C~st: $2 Million ~ Annual Operating' $50,000 Enhanced Service Levels Major Indoor Recreation Center: i~ 35,000 - 50,000 S.F. ~ Gym, Swimming, Weight Room, Racquetball, Dance & IVlultipurpose Rooms i{i Capital Cost: $6 Million ~ $50,000 Budgeted in CIP (FY02) to Study Swimming Pool at Monticello High School ~ Annual Operating: $250,000- $300,000 Enhanced Service Levels Issues For Board: ~ Government Function or. Responsibility? ~ Public/Private Partnership for Enhanced Service Levels ~J Funding Mechanism/Timing Libraries Existing Service Standards: 0.7 Gross Square Feet Library Space Per Resident 4 Volumes Per Capita 1Parking Space Per 200 Square Feet of Building 25,000 Square Feet IVlinimum Headquarter Size 4,500 Square Feet Minimum Branch Size Source: Community Facilities Plan State Library Standards 19 Libraries Current Space Needs Gap (t999): 24,115 S.F. Locality Population Existing Facility Projection Facility Space t999 Space (SF) Required * Central 24,081 29,000 16,857 Northside 34,880 15,572 24,416 Gordon .~ 28,321 7,394 19,825 Crozet 20,032 1,864 14,022 Scottsville 9,664 3,940 6,765 Total 116,978 57,770 81,885 * Assumes Goal Service Level = 0.7 S.F. Per Resident I(~prr~n~ ~rvice Level = .4g Goal Service Level = .7 I Libraries Projected Space Needs (20t0)-' 52~234 - 89~088 S.F. Locality Central Northside Gordon Crozet Scottsville Total Projected Population 20t0 (Low) 2010 (High) 32,711 54,361 51,083 71,289 36,545 42,244 27,146 32,239 9,664 9,664 157et 49 209~797 Existing Facility Space (SF) 29,000 15,572 7.394 1,864 3,940 57,770 Projected S.F. Needed 2010 (Low) 20t0 (High) 22,898 38,053 35,758 49,902 25,582 29,571 19,002 22,567 6~65 6,765 110~004 146,858 Libraries Current Circulation Demand (1999): 23.4 Volumes/S.F. Existing Facility Existing Branch Space (SF) Circulation Central 29,000 522.969 I No~hside 15,572 486,16 Gordon Avenue 7,394 158,815 [ Crozet.~ 1,864 102,568 Scottsv, ille 3,940 83.419 57,770 1,353,937 Current Circulation/ S.F. * 18.0 31.2 I 21.5 55.0 21.2 23.4 Above 25 Max Recommended maximum circulation per square foot is 25 Libraries Recommendations i~ Expand Service in Route 29 Corridor (50,000 S.F.) Provide Large, New Facility: North Fork Research Park Provide Large, New Facility: Airport/Profitt Road :~ Provide Large, New Facility: South of Rivanna River Provide Two New Facilities Along Rt. 29 North Totaling 50,000 S.F.: Urban Area & Hollymead/Earlysville Provide New Facility in Crozet (15,000 S.F.) Convert Old Crozet Elementary/Replace -~ Secure Other Land for New Facility 2[ Libraries Recommendations (continued) ~ Provide New Facility to Service Neighborhoods 4 & 5 ~ use County-Owned Property Near Monticello High School Expand Scottsville Library (15,000 S.F.) Total Co~t Estimate: $14 Million Libraries Issues for Board ~ Funding Priority, Relative to Other Growth Needs i~ More Definitive Study Funded in FY01 - $20,000 ~ Funding lVlechanism - Timing ~ Under Utilization of Central Library - Study Underway by Library Board 22 Stormwater Control Stormwater Control Purpose, Policies & Existing Regulations: ! PUrpose: Provide master planning and stormwater controls to manage quantity and quality of runoff ~ to protect properties, stream channels & environment. Existing P~olicies: ~. Land Use Plan - Utilities: "Protection of Surface Water & Ground Water Supplies" i Natural Resources & Cultural Assets Chapter, Water Resources Section, "Stormwater Management" Stormwater Control Purpose, Policies & Existing Regulations: ~ Existing Regulations: ~ Federal - Clean Water Act of 1977 ~ State - Virginia Stormwater Management Law; Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Law; Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Phase ]~! (VPDES, PH. :IT) ~ County - Water Protection Ordinance Stormwater Control Existing Facilities: I 9 Stormwater Basins Controlled by the County ~! 100 Stormwater Basins Privately Owned & Maintained ~ inspected annually by County ~ Niles of Above Ground Drainage Channels, Privately Owned & Maintained ~ not inspected by County ~ Miles of Underground Pipe Systems, Privately Owned & Maintained ~ not inspected by County Stormwater Control Projected Cost Increases to: Comply with Federal & State IVlandates (VPDES, PH Locate and Establish Regional Facilities ~ Strategic stormwater planning ~ Drainage area studies & mapping ~ Acquisition of Property (Possible Private partnerships) ~ Construction of Facilities (Possible Private partnerships) Maintain Current and Future Facilities ~ An increasing number of private facilities may be offered for dedication Stormwater Control Projected Capital Budget Impact: { FY 1996-01 { Avg. Annual Budget: $110,000 i Proposed FY 2000-01 - $422,000 { FY 2002-05 { Requested - Avg Annual Budget: t Recommended - Avg Annual Budget: $475,000 $100,000 Stormwater Control Operating Budget Impact: Current Budget ~ Basin Maintenance @ $13,000/yr i 0.5 Environmental Programs Coordinator Future Budgets ~ Engineering Inspector/Plans Reviewer - FY01 Request I Additional Environmental Engineer ~ Inspector ~ Contract Manager Stormwater Control Issues for Consideration: Public -vs- Private Responsibility ] ]:ncreasing public role to: ~ ensure compliance ~ address environmental concerns identified in County policy I protect properties Management of Program - County or Service Authority? ~ Master Planning ? ~ Construction ? ~ Maintenance ? Stormwater Control Issues for Consideration: Funding of Program - Capital & Operational ~ General Fund Tax Revenues - a~ce~edto allCounty taxpayers General Obligation Bonds - Voter approval C:[P Funds (tax revenue) Development Fees ~ Service Authority Revenues - a.~ses.~edto users/n serv/ce areas ~vhere stormwater control needs are greatest ;, User Fees : Development Fees - provided by County ~ Combination of Revenues 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C., Senior Deputy Clerk January 28, 2000 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through April it0, 2000. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: DATE: RE: Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk January 28, 2000 ~.// Applications for Boards and Commissions I have attached copies of applications from those persons you will interview on Wednesday, February 2, 2000. In Mdition, please be advised that the closing date for applications for the Commission on Children and Families is January 31. The closing date for applications for the new vacancies on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee and the Housing Committee is February 16. I will forward any additional applications to you prior to the March 1 meeting. Thank you. Attachments: 3 cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION [ NEW TERM APPLICANT/ ] INTERVIEW, ~ tDATE ' INCUMBENT t IF I Jan Sprinkle 1:20 p.m. Eric J. Stmcko I :. '"'"h~"'~'"~;~ ..................................................................................................................................... T. Comett 1 O0 P m David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Huraphris ,I~k JouSt Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEHA~i F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, %rtrginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Wh~t, Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Mi~,r February 8, 2000 Mr. James E. Clark, Jr. 1130 Oak Hill Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Clark: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 2, 2000, you were reappointed as the 'Scottsville Magisterial District representative to the Equalization Board, with said term to run from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Fonest R. Ma~h~ll, Jr. COUN'I~ OF ALBF_aMARI F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntim Road Charlottesville, Vaginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Samuel ~ February 8, 2000 Ms. Jan Sprinkle 271 Lakeview Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Sprintde: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 2, 2000, the Board appointed you to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, with said term to run from Janhary 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lab Enclosure James Camblos Larry Davis Arthur Petrini Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Board of Coun_ty Supervisors 401 Mclntire Koad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee ~1VAAI/~tA ,~OZ./z:~ //t/,4~ ~'~. &I"/Z~M$ Applicant's Name ,,.f~/d ..~P~/A//a.~ Home Phone Home Address ~"2'/ ,L,4 g. ff..v l ~..n/ "~,~ ff,~ ~ ~] ~) J Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~/o Z),,~ Employer. fi.t.,~~t..~ C~oa/z-~t ~l~:>~.~!2o~v.) Phone ...~q~ Business Address ~0 ! /f~g/Atr~t~_.. Date of Employment .. -*/'/7 ~, Occupation / Title ~t't,,~P a,~ Years Resident in Albemarle County /.~' 7~/~ ~--t',,~ Previous Residence ~_~.6' Spouse's Name ~.//MI ~,~5~'~l~t.~ Number of Children Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) Z t,f, ta~ ~ ~ ~ Memberships in Fratemal,iBusines~, Church and/dr~Social Group._~ Public, CiviC and Charitable Office and / or Other Activki¢$ or Interests Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee The information provided on this application~ill be released to the public upon request. Signature Return to: ~]t~rk, BgarAI of ,County Supervisors ~jpe. m, a~r i.e.t, o~ nty.. ~/1 clntlr K ~ h a~lt~ttes~i~le,°Ot 22902-4596 Date COUNTY OF Al REMARI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlottesville, V'm:jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas February 8, 2000 Ms. Kathleen T. Comett 2919 Blue Haven Farm Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Ms. Cornett: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 2, 2000, the Board appointed you to the Public Defender office Citizens Advisory Committee, with said term to run from November 2, 1999 through November 3, 2001. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/Iab Enclosure CC: James Camblos Larry Davis lames Hingeley Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun~ Supervisors 401 McIntire Rbad Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMIIWEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee ~3ct~["c- [~e'~eaode.q Ofi-~;C¢ Applicant's Name N/-~/~'/'~ [e'~'ttJ 77 C~9,q~¢/'/ Home Phone HomeAddress o)-q lq l~/6ce //'~ve',~ F/4~.t'r~ ~gl.,Ut'(.~ O~. Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer L1/Iff ~o$~3~'VgLj CI;to'~c~qL l,~t~J3s-A/tcc( Phone Business Address C/i q fan n~i 7t ST., Ctx ~a &t'te.soi tlc ~ O tN ~.~ ~ Date of Employment ]~]rqhc~. 19gg Occupation/Title CLi~c~lk L,ql3,5..-;e/,v77'.sT-- Years Resident in Albemarle County /oq~ Previous Residence EJA;o SPOuse's Name O_o ~e~ 06[ ¥ C_-o &NcTP Number of Children Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~o, tJ/~ I ~t [,~/x - / ~b] - /~$edrno~'t Ivlemberships in Fratemal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups c ~ ~ ~ cJ~ o,~ 'the ..~ e,q ~ tV g't i o ni .... Public, Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. Signature Return to: tT!~rk, BqarAI of .County Supervisors ~Ape. m. a.r Lc. ~o$!nty, O! cln£1r K ~h aTlt{~ tt es~i~l e, °0X 22902-4596 Date BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Commiuee to Advo#ce the ronsOominion press LT. General Sam Wilson, Chairman Hampden-Sydney College (804) 223-6tl 0 Mayor David Bowers City of Roanoke (540) 853-2444 Delegate Batch Davies Culpepe~ (540) 825-6000 Rex Hammond, Executive Secretary Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce (804) 845-5966 Mayor Roger Iiedgepeth Town of Blocksbarg (540) 961-1148 Mayor Farnham Jarrard City of B~istol (540) 645-9400 Mayor Marshall Guy Town of Morion (540) 783-6626 Dr. Tom Morris President, Emo~y and Hen~, CoJiege (540) 944-6107 Dr. Janet Rasmussen President, Hollins Universify (540) 362-6321 Vice Mayor Meredith Richards Cha~lo~esville (804) 984-1578 Sarah Terry Fo rmville Ama Cbe mber of Commerce (804) 392-3939 Dr. Charles Warren Pmsident Lynchbu~g College (804) 544-8200 t'Mtm-/' The Commiltee to Advance the TransDorninion Express P.O. Box 2027 · 2015 Memorial Avenue Lynchburg, VA 24501 (804) 845-5966 · Fax (804) 522-9592 Emoii: info@Jynchburgchomber.org January 19, 2000 Mr. Charles Mari~ County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Supporter: A statewide steering committee has organized to advance the TransDominion Express, expanded passenger tall service for Virginia. As one of 75 organizations endorsing this exciting project, we wanted to provide you with an update and to ask for your help. We are asking the General Assembly for $10 mi11ion in each year of the biennium budget to be earmarked for development of the Tro_nsDominion Express. Lawmakers who support this project will soon introduce the necessary legislation. In the immediate weeks shead, we have an opportunity to convince our legislators that. the TransDomlnlon Express is worthy of their support. We are enclosing talking points, a list of endorsing organizations, a list of legislators and contact ingormation, a sample communication, o_nd o_n investment schedule for your review. As the old song suggests, "we have a long way to go and a short time to get there." Here's what you can do. Immediately, contact the legislators in your area (and any other legislators that you know) and Governor Gilmore and tell them that you support the proposed budget smendment for the TransDominion Express. Mailing, faxing, or emaillng the enclosed sample letter would be helpful. However, assembling a group from your community to meet with your legislators would even be better. Ask your org~,ization to join the Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express by sending a check based on the enclosed investment schedule. Every penny of your investment will go toward promoting the project in this legislative session. We need to know how much money to budget for support materials and lobbying. A check or pledge before the end of the month would be tremendously helpful. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Get as many business and community leaders as you possibly can to communicate their support to your legislators and Governor Gilmore. We suggest that you organize an event in your community explaining the many benefits that the TransDominion Express will bring to Virginia. If we are to be successful, we need to generate thousands of communications to our legislators o_nd Governor. For a variety of reasons, this is the best *.ime to advance the TransDominlon Express. Will you help us with thi~ historic endeavor? The Steering Committee listed on the front, left of this letter is anxious to assist you. A group of 12 individuals is not sufficient to break through on this visionary project. However, if you can mobl]i~.e support from 100 people in your community and dozens of other TransDominion Express supporters do the same in their communities, we can send an unmistakable message. WE WANT THE TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS TO CONNECT VIRGINIA! Please make this a high and immediate priority. Don't put this letter down and plan to get back to it later - act now! Sincerely, LT. General S~muel V. Wilson Steering Committee Chairman Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express Membership Investment Schedule The Steering Committee has devised an investment schedule to solicit necessary funds for expenses to be recurred during the 2000 session of thc General Assembly. Time is of thc essence. Based on the following investment schedule, please submit the appropriate request to your organization. This effort needs support from cities, towns, counties, colleges, chsrnbers, businesses, and individuals from across Virginia in order to make the TransDominion Express a reality.. Station Locations (note locations below): $2,000 for city/town population of more than 20,000; $1,000 between 5,000 and 20,000; $500 for less than 5,000 Other Cities and Towns: $1,000 for population of more than 20,000; $500 between 5,000 and 20,000; $250 for less than 5,000 Counties: $1,000 for population of more than 50,000; $500 between 30,000 and 50,000; and $250 for less than 30,000. Colleges and Universities: $1,000 for large enrollment~ $500 for medium enrollment; $250 for small enrollment Chambers of Commerce: $500 for membership of more than 500; $250 between 500 and 250; $100 for less than 250 Business Patrons: $500 or $250 (investor option) Non-Profits: $250 or $100 (investor option) Individuals: $250 or $100 (investor option) Station Locations listed in the 1998 feasibility study are: Abingdon, Alexandria, Appomattox, Bedford, Bristol, CharIottesville~ Christlansburg, Culpeper, Farmville, Lynchburg, Manassas, Marion, Orange, Pulaski, Radford, Richmond, Roanoke, and Wytheville. RETURN THIS FORM BY FAX OR MAIL Organization Address Contact Person City, State ZIP Email Address Ye~ No (check appropriate response) ... Can we count on your organization to invest according to this schedule? Will you se~ up a meeting/contact your legislators about your organization's support? Will you assemble of group of 10 or more business and community leaders to contact targeted legislators immediately prior to key committee votes? Are you willing to offer legislative testimony in support of TransDominion Express? Please fax this completed form to (804) 522-9592. Or, mail your check and this form to: Committee to Advance the TranzDominion Express, P.O. Box 2027, 2015Memorial Avenue, Lynchburg, VA 24501. Call Rex Hammond at (804) 845-5966 if you have any questions. The £ommittee to Ativ nce the ronsOominion El press CONTENTS · Project Summary · Route and Station Map · Endorsing Orga.nizatJons · Steering Committee Contacts · Sample letter to Legislators · Legislatiw Contact Information · Communication Tips Contact Us: The Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express P.O. Box 2027 · 2015 Memorial Avenue · Lynchburg, VA 24501 (804) 845-5966 ° Fax (804) 522-9592 Email: info@lynchburgchamber.org TRANSDOMINION EXPRESS: EXPANDING PASSENGER RAIL ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH 1998 Bristol Rail Passenger Study, conducted by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Virginia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creation of the TransDominion Express would decrease traffic congestion on highways and interstates, reduce air traffic pollution, increase safety, stimulate tourism and commerce and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. The TransDominion Express system would link the following communities: Bristol, Abingdon, Pulaski, Radford, Christiansburg, Roanoke and Bedford with Lynchburg. There, the line would split, continuing north to Washington through Charlottesville, Orange, Culpeper, Manassas and Alexandria, or east to Richmond by way of Appomattox and Farmville. Trains would operate on existing tracks owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation, Conrail and Amtrak, with the exception of a small section owned by CSX. Essentially, the only changes that would need to be made to existing tracks is the installation of spurs to allow freight and passenger traffic to exist on the same tracks. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation would need to work out specific terms with the rail companies who own the rail in the TransDominion Express corridor. Modem trainsets would be used to allow trains to maintain higher speeds. Increased speeds would be competitive with car travel time between desired destinations. Implementing the TransDominion system is relatively inexpensive when compared to multi- billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations, and to acquire equipment, should be no more than $10 million in each year of the biennium allowing service to begin by 2003. The study projects that within 12 years ridership will be sufficient to cover operating costs. It is expected 372,000 passengers will ride the trains annually, increasing to nearly 800,000 by 2020. The Cascades line in the Pacific Northwest met its ridership projections within just a few years of initiating similar service. The fare is estimated to be $0.20 per mile, or approximately $70.00 to ride from southwestern Virginia to Washington, D.C. With the implementation of expanded passenger rail in southwestern Virginia, plans to expand high-speed rail from Washington, D.C. to Richmond would create a "passenger rail loop" in the Commonwealth. To date, over 70 counties, cities, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting expanded passenger rail in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would be accessible to over 20 colleges and universities along the proposed train routes. 1999-2000 Endorsements for Expanded Passenger Rail Service CITY/TOWN COUNCILS *Town Council of Abingdon *Town Council of Altavista *Appomattox Town Council *Amherst Town Council *City Council of Bedford *Blacksburg Town Council *Bristol City Council *Burkeville Town Council *Charlottesville City Council · Town Council of Chilhowie *Chfistiansburg Town Council · Culpeper Town Council · Drakes Branch Town Council *Farmville Town Council *Town Council of Glade Spring · Town Council of}rfllsville · Town Council of Kenbridge · Keysville Town Council *Lynchburg City Council · Town Council of Marion · Orange Town Council · Town Council of Pulaski *Radford City Council *The Council ofthe City of Richmond *Rural Retreat Town Council *Council of the City of Roanoke · The Council ofthe City of Salem · Town Council of Wytheville COUNTY BOARDS *Albemarle County Board of Supervisors · Appomattox County Board of Supervisors · Bedford County Board of Supervisors · Bland County Board of SupeaMsors · Campbell County Board of Supervisors *Charlotte CountyBoard of Supervisors *Culpeper County Board of Supervisors *Cumberland County Board of Supervisors · Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors · Montgomery CountyBoard of Supervisors · Nelson County Board of Supervisors *Nottoway County Board of Supervisors · Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors · Pulaski County Board of Supervisors · Roanoke County Board of Supervisors · Smyth County Board of Supervisors · Washington County Board of Supervisors · Wythe County Board of Supervisors CHAMBERS/ASSOCIATIONS · Bristol Chamber of Commerce · Blacksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce · Charlottesville Regional Chamber · Faiffax County Chamber of Commerce · FarmviHe Area Chamber of Commerce · Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce · Giles County Chamber of Commerce · Orange County Chamber of Commerce *Orange County Industrial Development Authority · Orange County Visitor's Bureau · Radford Chamber of Commerce · Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce · Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce · Smyth County Chamber of Commerce · VLrgi~a West Business Legislative Coalition (14 chambers of commerce) · Wytheville-Wythe-Bland Chamber of Commerce PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS *Central V'a'ginia Plam~g District Commission · Charlotte~rille-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization · Mount Rogers Planning District Commission · New River Valley Planning District Commi~on · Piedmont Planning District Commission · Roanoke Valley Regional Commission · Thomas Jefferson Pla,ming District Commission · West Piedmom Planning District Commission TRANSPORTATION GROUPS · Blue Ridge Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society · Greater Lynchburg Transit Company · Virginia High Speed Rail Development Committee COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES · Longwood College · Radford University *Virgim'a Tech TRANSDOM1NION EXPRESS STEERING COMMITTEE LT. General Sam W'flson, President, Hampden-Sydney College, 804-223-6110, Chairman Mr. Rex Hammond, President, Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce, 804-845-5966, Executive Secretary Mr. David Bowers, Mayor, City of Roanoke, 540-853-2444 Delegate Butch Davies, Culpeper, 540-825-6000 Mr. Roger Hedgepeth, Mayor, T own of Blacksburg, 540-961 - 1148 Mr. Farnham Jarrard, Mayor, City of Bristol, 540-669-1226 Mr. Marshall Guy, Mayor, Town of Marion, 540-783-6626 Dr. Tom Morris, President, Emory and Henry College, 540-944-6107 Dr. Janet Rasmussen, President, Hollins University, 540-362-6321 Ms. Meredith Richards, Vice Mayor, Charlottesville, 804-984-1578 Ms. Sarah Terry, Executive Director, Farmville Area Chamber of Commerce, 804-392-3939 Dr. Charles Warren, President, Lynchburg College, 804-544-8200 SAMPLE LETTER TO LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR Dear <Delegate, Senator, Governor> <Last N~me>: Expanding passenger rail service throughout the Commonwealth will benefit Virginians in many ways. On behalf of <your organization>, I ~m writing to urge your support for the TransDominion Express. The 1998 Bristol Passenger Study, conducted bythe Virginia Department and Public Transportation, recommends proposed passenger rail service be implemented to connect southwestern Vir~nia with both Washington, D.C. and Richmond via Lynchburg. Creating this TransDominion Express will decrease tr-~ic congestion on highways ~nd interstates, reduce air tr-ffic pollution, increase safety, s~.imulate tourism and commerce, and provide an efficient alternative to automobile travel. Implementing this service will be relatively inexpensive when compared to multi- billion dollar highway projects. Total capital costs to improve existing tracks and stations and to acquire equipment should be no more than $10 ml]llon in each year of the biennium. Your support of the proposed budget ,mendment would ,llow service to begin by 2003. The Study projects that income from ridership will cover operating costs within just 12 years. More than 70 counties, cities and towns, chambers, and planning divisions have passed resolutions supporting this proposal to expand passenger rzil service in the Commonwealth. The TransDominion Express would also be accessible to more than 20 colleges and universities along the proposed rail corridor. For these reasons, this is the best ~.ime to advance the TransDominlon Express. We strongly urge your support of the proposed budget 9mendment for $10 million in each year of the biennium. Sincerely, <Your N~me> <Your Orgznization> 2000 Virginia House of Delegates Mailing Address for members during session: House of Delegates, PO Box 406, Richmond, VA **New members 23218 District Name Party Address Work 59 ABBITT, WATKINS M., JR. (D) P.O. Box 683, Appomattox 24522 (804) 352-2880 42 ALBO, DAVID B. (R) P.O. Box 6412, Springfield 22150 (703) 451-3555 47 ALMAND, JAMES F. (D) 3444 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 102, Arlington 22201 (703) 524-9700 44 AMLrNDSON, KRISTEN J. ** (D) P.O. Box 143, Mount Vernon, VA 22121 (703) 768-1889 11 ARMSTRONG, WARD L. (D) P.O. Box 1431, Martinsville 24114-1431 (540) 632-7022 64 BARLOW, WILLIAM K. (D) P.O. Box 190, Smithfield 23431 (757) 357-9720 71 BASKERVILLE, VIOLA O. (D) 3223 Hawthorne Ave., Richmond 23222 (804) 698-1071 60 BENNETT, WILLIAM W. (Ted), JR. (D) P.O. Box 1219, Halifax 24558 (804) 476-4032 32 BLACK, RICHARD H. (R) 20978 Flatboat Ct., Sterling 20165 (703) 406-2951 78 BLEVINS, HARRY B. (R) P.O. Box 16207, Chesapeake 23328 (757) 436-9893 100 BLOXOM, ROBERT S. (R) P.O. Box 27, Mappsville 23407 (757) 824-3456 43 BOLVIN, THOMAS ** (R) 6159 Old Brenfford Ct, Alexandria, VA 22310 (703) 921-3900 48 BRINK, ROBERT H. (D) 2670 Marcey Rd., Arlington 22207-5234 (703) 243-5778 30 BROMAN, GEORGE E. ** (R) 570 Greens Ct, Culpeper, VA 22701 (540) 23 BRYANT, L. PRESTON, JR. (R) P.O. Box 3589, Lynclaburg 24503 (804) 528-1097 22 BYRON, KATHY J. (R) P.O. Box 4409, Lynchburg 24502-0409 (804) 582-1592 34 CALLAHAN, VINCENT F., JR. (R) P.O. Box 1173, McLean 22101 (703) 356-1925 73 CANTOR, ERIC I. (R) P.O. Box 28280, Richmond 23228 (804) 261-7500 92 CHRISTIAN, MARY T. (D) P.O. Box 1892, Hampton 23669 (757) 723-6060 20 CLEMENT, WHITrlNGTON W. (D) P.O. Box 8200, Danville 24543 (804) 793-8200 75 COUNCILL, J. PAUL, JR. (D) P.O. Box 119, Franklin 23851 (757) 5624283 66 COX, M. KIRKLAND (R) 1309 Appomattox Dr., Colonial Heights 23834 (804) 526-5135 14 CRANWELL, C. RICHARD (D) P.O. Box 459, Vinton 24179 (540) 344-7111 95 CRITTENDEN, FLORA DAVIS (D) P.O. Box 5046, Newport News 23605 (757) 380-0025 49 DARNER, L. KAREN (D) 969 S. Buchanan St., Arlington 22204 (703) 271-5284 96 DAVIS, JO ANN S. (R) 1213-E Ceo. Washington Mem. Hwy., Yorktown 23693 (757) 591-9587 Home 352-4455 451-5527 533-9223 768-7520 629-5980 357.2822 321-2947 476-6943 406-7850 482-2812 665-4203 922-3972 524-1275 825-0833 384-1938 237.1651 356-6231 360-1946 723-2673 799-5755 562-4283 520-2797 985-9110 244-6698 271-5284 898-4401 10 DAY, BARNIE K. (D) 604 Braswell Dr., Meadows of Dan 24120 (540) 593-2050 63 DeBOER, JAY W. (D) 212 N. Sycamore St., Sm 602, Petersburg 23803 (804) 861-4310 18 DEEDS, R. CREIGH (D) P.O. Box 360, Warm Springs 24484 (540) 839-2473 35 DEVOLITES, JEANNEMARIE (R) P.O. Box 936, Vienna 22183 (703) 938-7972 94 DIAMONSTEIN, ALAN A. (D) 12350 Jefferson Avenue, Newport News 23602 (757) 873-4600 56 DICKINSON, V. EARL (D) 9549 Fredericks Hall Rd., Mineral 23117 (540) 894-8802 41 DILLARD, JgaMES H., II (R) 4709 Briar Patch Ln., Fairfax 22032 (703) 323-9556 87 DRAKE, THELIvlA (R) 2306 Bay Oaks Pl., Norfolk 23518 (757) 588-8787 9 DUDLEY, ALLEN W. (R) 1521 Altice Mill Rd., Rocky Mount 24151 (540) 489-8989 97 GRAYSON, GEORGE W. (D) P.O. Box 1969, Williamsburg 23187-1969 (757) 253-0553 8 GRIFFITH, H. MORGAN (R) P.O. Box 1250, Salem 24153 (540) 389-4498 69 HALL, FRANKLIN P. (D) P.O. Box 3407, Richmond 23235 (804) 698-1069 93 HAMILTON, PHILLIP A. (R) P.O. Box 1585, Newport News 23601 (757) 249-2580 55 HAP, GROVE, FRANK D, SR. (R) 10321 Washington Hwy., Glen Allen 23059 (804) 550-4000 58 HARRIS, PAUL C. (R) P.O. Box 1276, Charlottesville 22902 (804) 979-5570 28 HOWELL, WILLIAM J. (R) P.O. Box 8296. Fredericksburg 22404-8296 (540) 371-1612 38 HULL, ROBERT D. (D) P.O. Box 2331, Falls Church 22042 (703) 573-4855 62 INGRAM, RILEY E, (R) 3302 Oaldawn Blvd., Hopewel123860 (804) 458-9873 6 JACKSON, THOMAS M., JR. (D) P.O. Box 333, Hillsville 24343 (540) 728-9545 79 JOANNOU, JOHNNY S. (D) 709 Court SWeet, Portsmouth 23704 (757) 399-1700 4 JOHNSON, JOSEPH P., JR. (D) 164 E. Valley St, Abingdon 24210 (540) 628-1002 70 JONES, DWIGHT CLINTON (D) P.O. Box 2347, Richmond 23218-2347 (804) 233-7679 89 JONES, JERRAULD C. (D) 125 St. Paul's Blvd., Suite 300, Norfolk 23510 (757) 627-6568 76 JONES, S. CHRIS (R) P.O. Box 5059, Suffolk 23435-0059 (757) 483-6242 31 KATZEN, JAY (R) P.O. Box 3004, Warrenton 20188-1704 (540) 341-1993 593-2050 265-3568 862-3419 938-6559 599-4300 894-4470 323-7354 588-7251 483-1817 253-2400 387-0184 272-8724 87%4280 227-3300 293-7923 373-7402 573-4575 458-2823 236-8979 399-8277 628-3954 751,5288 623-3546 238-3667 364-1652 Dis~ict 2000 Virginia House of Delegates Mailing Address for members during session: House of Delegates, PO Box 406, Richmond, VA 23218 Name Party Address Work 7 KEISTER, W.B. "BENNY" ** (D) 628 Hudson Drive, Dublin, VA 24084 (540) 674-2000 1 KILGORE, TERRY G. (R) P.O. Box 669, Gate City 24251 (540) 386-7701 25 LANDES, R. STEVEN (R) P.O. Box 42, Wey~rs Cave 24486 (540) 245-5540 91 LARABEE, P.E. "PHIL" JR.** (R) 5 Crandol Ct, Poquoson, VA 23662 (757) 827-0009 15 LOUDERBACK, ALLEN L.** (R) 1131 Old Farms Rd, Luray, VA 22835 (540) 743-7644 13 MARSHALL, ROBERT G. (R) P.O. Box 421, Manassas 20108-0421 (703) 866-7177 33 MAY, JOE T. (R) P.O. Box 4104, Leasburg 20177-8259 (703) 777-1191 67 McCLURE, ROGER J. (R) P.O. Box 437, Cenlreville 20122-0437 (703) 968-8348 84 McDONNELL, ROBERT F. (R) P.O. Box 62244, Virginia Beach 23466-2244 (757) 671-8484 74 McEACHIN, A. DONALD (D) P.O. Box 1321, Richmond 23218 (804) 775-2374 51 McQUIGG, MICHI~LE B. (R) 2241-R Tackett's Mill Drive, Woodbridge 22192 (703) 491-9870 Home 674-6248 452-2578 234-9602 715-868-4167 sallle 368-6306 777-9484 968-8348 427-2215 262-7377 491-2294 80 MELVIN, KENNETH 1~ (D) P.O. Box 69, Portsmouth 23705-0069 (757) 393-2555 46 MORAN, BRIgaN J. (D) City Hall, Box 65,301 King St., Alexandria 22314 (703) 549-8253 488-1416 370-1227 98 MORGAN, HARVEY B. (R) P.O. Box 949, Gloucester 23061 (804) 693-4750 88 MOSS, THOMAS W., JR. (D) Bank of the Commonwealth Bldg., Suite 360 403 Boush (757) 623-6677 27 ND{ON, SAMUEL A., JR. 40 O'BRiEN, JAMES K. (Jay), JR. 54 ORROCK, ROBERT D. (Bobby), SR. 50 PARRISH, HARRY J. 2 PHILLIPS, CLARENCE E. (Bud) 36 PLUM, KENNETH R. 99 POLLARD, ALBERT C.** 82 PURKEY, HARRY R. (Bob) 19 PUTNEY, LACEY E. 72 REID, JOHN S. (Jack) 68 RHODES, ANNE G. (Pamay) 90 ROBINSON, WILLIAM P., JR. 52 ROLLISON, JOHN A. (Jack), III St., Norfolk 23510 P.O. Box 34908, Richmond 23234 7903 Clifton Hunt Ct., Clifton 20124 10805 Crestwood Dr., Spotsylvania 22553 8898 Bond Ct., Manassa~ 20110-4327 P.O. Box 36, Castlewood 24224 2073 Cobblestone La., Reston 20191 P.O. Box 1256, White Stone, VA 22578 2352 Leeward Shore Dr., Virginia Beach 23451 P.O. Box 127, Bedford 24523 P.O. Box 29566, Richmond 23242 P.O. Box 14569, Richmond 23221 256 W. Freemason St., Norfolk 23510 13514 Minnieville Rd., Suite 202, Woodbridge 22192 693-4750 623-4900 (R) (804) 745-4335 743-7773 (R) (703) 750-9801 968-9322 (R) (540) 891-1322 786-9615 (R) (703) 36%0505 368-3539 (D) (540) 762-9758 395-5915 (D) (703) 758-9733 391-2978 (D) (804) 436-9117 438-5714 (R) (757) 481-1493 481-0724 (~ (540) 586-0080 586-9300 (R) (804) 717-6017 740-2951 (R) (804) 285-2718 285-4460 (D) (757) 622-4770 588-4322 (R) (703) 690-4368 730-3430 61 RUFF, FRANK M. (R) P.O. Box 332, Clarksville 23927 (804) 374-5129 37 RUST, JOHN H., JR. (R) P.O. Box 460, Fairfax 22030 (703) 385-8000 53 SCOTT, JgaMES M. (D) P,O. Box 359, Merrifield 22116-0359 (703) 560-8338 29 SHERWOOD, BEVERLY J. (R) P.O~ Box 2014, Winchester 22604 (540) 667-8947 12 SHULER, JgaMES M. (D) 1480 S. Main St., Black,burg 24060 (540) 953-1103 77 SPRUILL, LIONELL, SR. (D) P.O. Box 5403, Chesapeake 23324-0403 (757) 545-2573 3 STUMP, JACKIE T. (D) P.O. Box 429, Oakwood 24631 (540) 498-7207 81 SUIT, TERRIE L. ** (R) 3304 Ives Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23457 (757) 421-4531 85 TATA, ROBERT (R) 4536 Gleneagle Dr., Virginia Beach 23462 (757) 499-2490 5 TATE, JOHN H., JR. (D) P.O. Box 26, Marion 24354 (540) 783-7238 17 THOMAS, A, VICTOR (D) 1301 Orange Ave., N.E., Roanoke 24012 (540) 345-4120 45 VAN LANDINGHAM, MARIAN (D) 301 King St., Alexandria 22314 (703) 549-2511 57 VAN YAHRES, MITCHELL (D) 223 W. Main St., Charlottesville 22902 (804) 977-7863 21 WAGNER, FRANK W. (R) P.O. Box 68003, Virginia Beach 23471 (757) 671-2250 83 WARDRUP, LEO C., JR. (R) P.O. Box 5266, Virginia Beach 23471 (757) 490-8383 65 WARE, R. LEE, JR, (R) P.O. Box 535, Powhatan 23139 (804) 598-6696 39 WATTS, VIVIAN E. (D) 8717 Mary Lee Ia., Annandale 22003 (703) 978-2989 26 WEATHERItOLTZ, GLENN M. (R) 2 S. Main St., Suite 606, Harrisonburg 22801 (540) 574-3225 24 Mr. Speaker, S. VgaNCE WILKINS, JR. (R) P.O. Box 469, Amherst 24521 (804) 946-7599 86 WILLIAMS, DONALD L. (D) 809 W. Ocean View Ave., Norfolk 23503 (757) 451-1111 16 WOODRUM, CLIFTON A. (Chip) (D) P.O. Box 990, Roanoke 24005 (540) 982-5547 374-2091 280-5195 560-2834 667-8840 951-8742 545-6718 859-0200 499-2490 783-8475 342-4308 548-4318 293-6483 671-8392 363-2963 598-4539 978-2989 434-4636 946-2528 587-5035 343-8784 2000 Vir~nia Senate (Last Name Order) Mailing Address for Members During Session: Senate of Virginia, PO Box 396, Richmond, VA 23218 **New Member District Name Party Address City Zip Phone (W) 37 Barry, Warren E. R P.O. Box 1146 Fairfax 22030-1146 (703) 321-0900 4 Bolling, Bill R P.O. Box 112 Mechanicsville 23111-0112 (804) 730-4202 34 Byme, Leslie** D 6442 Queen Anne Ten'ace Fails Church 22044-1417 (703) 534-4988 28 Chichester, John H. R P.O. Box 904 Fredericksburg 22404-0904 (540) 373-5600 29 Colgan, Charles J. D P.O. Box 1650 Manassas 20108-1650 (703) 368-0300 25 Couric, Emily D P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville 22905-5462 (804) 296-5491 21 Edwards, John S. D 725 Crestar Plaza, 10 E. Roanoke 24006-1179 (540) 985-8625 Franklin Rd, P. O. Box 1179 14 Forbes, J. Randy R 524 Johnstown Road Chesapeake 23320-5617 (757) 54%1000 24 Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. R P.O. Box 2 Mount Solon 22843-0002 (540) 885-7440 19 Hawkins, Charles R. R P.O. Box 818 Chatham 24531-0818 (804) 432-9672 15 I-Iollahd, Richard J. D P.O. Box 285 Windsor 23487-0285 (757) 242-6111 17 Houck, R. Edward D P.O. Box 7 Spolsylvania 22553-0007 (540) 786-2782 32 Howell Janet D. D PO Box 2608 Reston 20195-0608 (703) 709-8283 9 Lambert, Benjamin J., III D 904 North First Street Richmond 23219-1002 (804) 643-3534 18 Lucas, L. Louise D 1120 Lakeview Drive Portsmouth 23701-3611 (757) 487-5705 16 Marsh, Henry L, III D 600 East Broad SWeet. SuRe Richmond 23219-1800 (804) 648-9073 402 11 Martin, Stephen H. R P.O. Box 36147 Richmond 23235-8003 (804) 674-0242 39 Marye, Madison E. D P.O. Box 37 Shawsville 24162-0037 (540) 268-2741 2 Maxwell, W. Henry D 350 Maple Avenue Newport News 2360%4900 (757) 245-2855 26 Miller, Kevin G. R 737 East Market Street, Suite Harrisonburg 22801-4265 (540) 433-6553 A 5 Miller, Yvonee B. D 2816 Gate House Road Norfolk 23504-4021 (757) 627-4212 33 Mires, William C. R P.O. Box 741 Leesburg 20178-1741 (703) 779-1888 23 Newman, Stephen D. R PO Box 2209 Lynchburg 24501-0209 (804) 385-1065 3 Norment, Thomas K., Jr. R P.O. Box 1697 Williamsburg 23187-1697 (757) 259-7810 27 Pelts, H. Russell Jr. R 14 North Braddock Street Winchester 22601-4120 (540) 665-2092 38 Puckett, Phillip P. D P.O. Box 924 Tazewell 24651-0924 (540) 979-8181 36 PUller, Lirida*'* D PO Box 73 Mount Vernon 22121-0073 (703) 765-1150 13 Qua~le, Frederick M. R 3808 Poplar Hill Road, Suite ' Chesapeake 23321-5524 (800) 742-8255 A 6 Rerras, Nick** R 1821 Hartford Dr Norfolk 23518-5417 (757) 499-3900 x3313 20 Reynolds, Wm. Roscoe D P.O. Box 404 Martinsville 24114-0404 (540) 638-2315 35 Saslaw, Richard L. D P.O. Box 1856 Springfield 22151-0856 (703) 978-0200 7 Schrock, Edward L. R P.O. Box 62996 VA Beach 23466-2996 (757) 460-3777 8 Smile, Kenneth W. R 607 Lynnhaven Parkway, VA Beach 23452-7313 (757) 486-5700 Suite 200 12 Stosch, Walter A. R 4551 Cox Road, Suite 110 Glen Allen 23060-6740 (804) 527-7780 30 Ticer, Patricia S. Room 2007, City Hall, 301 Alexandria 22314-3211 (703) 549-5770 King Street 22 Trumbo, Malfourd W. R P.O. Box 448 Fincastle 24090-0448 (540) 473-2781 40 Wampler, William C.,Jr. R 510 Cumberland SWeet, Suite Bristol 24201-4387 (540) 669-7515 308 10 Watkins, John R P.O. Box 159 Midlothian 23113-0159 (804) 379-2063 31 Whipple, Mary Margaret D 3556 North Valley Street Arlington 22207-4445 (703) 538-4097 1 Williams, Martin E. R P.O. Box 1096 Newport News 23601-1096 (757) 599-8683 HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOIYR LEGISLATOR You may contact your legislator by phone, letter, fax or email. If you do not know who your legislator is, you may call 800-889-0229 or find it on the World Wide Web at http://legis.smte.va.us. Click on "State Legislature" and then on "Who's My Legislator" and follow the instructions. Phone Individual phone numbers and addresses for each legislator are enclosed in this packet. You may use these numbers to contact your legislator directly. · During the General Assembly session, you may want to leave a message for a legislator or group of legislators regarding the TransDominion Express. You may do so by calling the Constituent Viewpoint Hotline: 800-889-0229. · If you are unable to contact your legislator, you may call: · House of Delegates Legislative Information Office: 804-698-1500 · Senate Legislative Information Office: 804-698-7410 Letter · Your purpose for writing should be stated in the first paragraph of the letter. Be specific that you are writing in support of the TransDominion Express and would like the General Assembly to make it a funding priority. · Be courteous, to the point, and include key information and examples to support your position (see enclosed talking points). If possible, keep your letter to one page. · Addressing your letter: To a Senator: The Honorable (full name) Address Dear Senator (last Name): To a Delegate: The Honorable (full name) Address Dear Delegate (last Name): Fax · During the session you may fax your legislator at 804-786-4640 (this is for both Delegates and Senators). You may contact your legislators' office for individual fax numbers. Email To obtain a legislator's email address, either call her/his office or find it on the World Wide Web at h. tl_'¢://tegis, state.va, us. Click on "State Legislature" and then on "Who's My Legislator" and follow the instructions. Albemarle County Public Schools Summary of the Superintendent"s Proposed 2000-200'! Budget Budget Information on Division Web Page http://K12.albemarle.org BOARD OF S~'?'''''°'-'''°: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-459~ January 18,2000 Dr. Charles Ward, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Dr. Ward, School Board Members, and Citizens of Albemarle County: With this document, I present the Supedntendent's Proposed Budget for FY 2000-2001. This budget totals $89,546,046 and represents an 8.14% increase over the School Board's Adopted FY 1999-2000 Budget. This budget reflects the many budget-relatsd discussions held by the School Board over the past year, in addition to significant input from staff and community. It also reflects the School Board's Adopted Mission and Goals, the Strategic Plan for a Total School Commitment to the School Improvement Process, the School Board/Superintendent Priorities, and the Standards of Quality. In the development of this budget, I have attempted to meet the Board's direction to present a needs-based budget, while at the same time recognizing the reality of fiscal constraints. In so doing, I have clearly shown the division's most critical needs in a tiered structure, while also communicating how I would make reductions based on available revenue, i firmly believe that this approach will effectively support the Board in its dual obligation of advocating for the needs of the school division and meeting its fiduciary responsibilities. For most years in recent memory, we have made the support of enrollment growth our highest budgetary pdodty, which places us in a very difficult position for this budget cycle. By funding growth, we allowed our salary structure to become less competitive, which now causes us to have to take steps to improve our effort in this area. In addition, we have had to restructure existing funds in ways that have otten been extremely difficult and painful to students, staff and families. These restructuring efforts have included changes in school operating schedules, differentiated staffing, level-funding of schools and departments, reductions in the Department of instruction budget, and reductions in building improvements and equipment pumhases. These past sacrifices, however, have simply delayed the choices that we will have to make in this budget. The FY 2000-2001 Budget is the filth one I have completely prepared as Superintendent. It has been, by far, the most challenging. If we must ultimately adopt a budget based on the revenues projected at this time, we will be forced to pursue a course of action that will seriously inhibit our long-term effectiveness as a school division. One of these courses of action would be not to fund fully the costs of projected enrollment growth and other cdfical instructional initiatives, which will effectively increase class size and limit needed services to students. The other course would be not to fund appropriate adjustments in employee compensation, which would be a serious step backward at atime when, based on the current labor market, we need to be moving forward. Without a change in the existing revenue picture, the FY2000-2001 Budget will result in this school division being less able to meet the significant challenges we face now and in the coming yeats. "We Expect Success" Status of the School Division Albemarle County has a strong school division, and one that continues to improve at a sure and steady rate. The emphasis on data-driven decision-making and the School Improvement model established by the School Board several yeare ago has reaped great benefits for our students and for the community as a whole. Through the Annual Progress Report, Albemarle County has been at the forefront in the Commonwealth of Virginia in terms of communicating its results, both favorable and not so favorable, to the public as a tangible means of accountability. The following data, I believe, effectively reflects the excellence and continuous improvement of our school division: Composite results for Albemarle County on the Stanford 9 Achievement Test in Grades 4, 6, and 9 were in the top 10% in Virginia. Composite results for Albemarle County on the 1999 Standards of Learning tests were in the top 20% of Virginia. · Albemarle County's pass retes on the 1999 Standards of Learning tests were higher than Virginia on 24 of 27 tests, compared to 22 out of 27 in 1998. Yancey Elementary was recognized as one of Virginia'a Top Improving Elementary Schools and one of the Top 10 Improving Schools in Region V for its performance on the 1999 Standards of Learning tests. · Burtey and Henley were each recognized as Top 10 Improving Middle Schools in Region V for their performance on the 1999 Standards of Leamingtests. Albemarle and Western Albemarle High were each recognized as one of Virginia's Top 25 Improving High Schools and as Top 10 Improving High Schools in Region V for their performance on the 1999 Standards of Learning tests. Are all of our results where they need to be? No. For example, I am adamant that the gaps in our results based on race and socioeconomic level are too wide and must be closed. Are we making progress? Definitely._ Do we have structures and plans in. place to maintain the momentum of this progress? Absolutely. However, this budget represents a major crossroads if we are to be able to continue the momentum of this improvement over the long term. Improved results are very much a function of staff quality and motivation and accountability to focused instructional programs. Attracting and motivating the highest quality teaching and support staff and providing strong instructional programs are imperative to achieving high quality results. Impacts on the FY 2000-2001 Budget The following factors are ones that, in my perspective, have a significant impact on our budget situation as we plan for FY 2000-2001: For a number of years, the School Board has been forced to use a large proportion of its new revenue to support fundamental needs related to growth. The impact of growth has caught up with us. Since 1992, our enrollment has increased by more than 1,750 students, or about 17%. An additional 203 students are projected for FY 2000-2001, with a similar yearly increase projected for at least the next'several years. Funding for the additional teachers to maintain our very favorable class size, to purchase textbooks and instructional materials, and to support other basic growth-related needs such as mobile classrooms has utilized the lion's share of any new state or local revenue we have received. In addition, the cost of new facilities to handle the additional students has placed tremendous pressure on the County's Capital Improvements Program. Because so much of the existing resources has been targeted to keeping up with student growth, critical instructional programs and competitive compensation for school division employees have become, by necessity, a lower priority. School division employees, both teachers and claSSified, are paid well below market. A November, 1999 report to the School Board and the Board of Supervisors by the Slabaugh Morgan White consulting group indicated that teachers are compensated approximately 6% under market and that classified employees are 8-12% under market. Given the impending national teacher shortage, the new Virginia Early Retirement Program, and a local labor market that boasts under 2% unemployment, it is evident to me that employee compensation must be the highest priority. The fact that the cost of living in the Chadottasville-Albemarle area is the highest in the State, except for Northern Virginia, makes the need to address employee compensation even more compelling. The revised Virginia Standards of AccreditaSon (SOA) and the accompanying Standards of Learning (SOL) testing program have been, for all practical purposes, partially funded mandates. Meeting these mandates has required the school division to restructure existing resources. For example, the administration of the 39 tests that are now required by the State (up from 11 previously) costs in excess of $250,000 per year, which the State does not directly factor into its funding formula. It has also been necessary to redirect resources to fund curriculum alignment, instructional materials, and most importantly, intervention with students who are not achieving as well or as fast as we want. The critical point that must be made is that the paradigm under which we operate has radically changed. Ail students are now expected to learn at a level that had been previously expected for perhaps 25/; of our students. Whether we want to admit it or not, this change in paradigm has tremendous fiscal implications, both in the short-term and the long-term. Since 1992, the share of State funding to support the school division budget has decreased from 37% to 34%. For the 2000-2002 Biennium, Albemarle County's Composite Index, which reflects the state's measurement of a Iocality's ability to pay for education, will increase to 0.6339. In FY 1994-95, Albemarle County's Composite Index was 0.5585. This reduction in State support because of our high level of affluence, coupled with the pressures of funding enrollment growth are key causes of the difficult choices we now face. All of these factors, taken together, place the school division in a difficult position in terms of meeting all of its needs. In crafting a Proposed Budget, I have had to be mindful of these factors. After much reflection and discussion 'with our Leadership staff, I believe that in this budget, employee compensation, rather than growth, must be the first priority. If new revenue does not exceed the approximately $5.9 million that can be reasonably foreseen now, I must recommend, albeit reluctantly, that 12.28 teaching positions needed to maintain class size given projected enrollment growth not be funded. Further, I will recommend that bus replacement and an increase in the daily pay rate for substitute teachers be deferred and/or other services be eliminated or curtailed. While these are choices ! do not want to have to make, our current revenue position forces me to do so. Our long. term success in meeting the increased level of accountability to which we are being held will be based on the quality of the staff that we are able to recruit and retain, which is why I believe compensation must be my first priority this year. The past, present, and futura strength of our division ara firmly and irrevocably tied to our people. We must treat them accordingly. Structure of the Superintendent's Proposed Budget In developing the Proposed Budget, I have attempted to meet the following goals: To the greatest degree possible: Support Division Goals and School Board/Superintendent Priorities. - Identify critical needs while also planning for possible fiscal constraints. - Provide competitive compensation for both teachers and classified staff. - Maintain emphasis on current services and initiatives. The Proposed Budget is based on the following fiscal assumptions: · Approximately $5.2 million is the current projection for additional revenue, based on local and State soumes. · Approximately $700,000 more is expected beyond the $5.2 million after the General Assembly and Board of Supervisors budget processes, based on previous trends. · Approximately $5.9 million is a reasonable estimate of available new revenue, without a tax increase, once the General Assembly and Board of Supervisors budget processes are completed. · Employee compensation will be the first priority, which may prevent full funding of growth. · The budget is structured to reflect three levels of priorities. · If more than $5.9 million is not available, 12.28 growth teaching positions will not be funded, bus replacement will be deferred, an increase in the daily pay rate for substitute teachers will be deferred, and/or other current services will be eliminated or curtailed. The major difference between this Proposed Budget and ones I have previously presented is that employee COmpensation and not. growth is the first priority. I have chosen this direction because I firmly believe that our long-term success as a school division is based on our ability to attract, retain, and motivate quality employees in an increasingly difficult and expensive hidng environment. In this environment, we must step up our efforts to attract quality staff. It will not be possible to solve all of our competitiveness issues in one budget cycle; however, if substantial steps are not taken now to begin addressing these problems, it will be significantly more difficult in the longer term. The fiscal emphasis that this school division has had to place upon growth, to the exclusion of many other needs, has made this change of emphasis imperative. Budget Process In reality, the budget process occurs year-round. At School Board meetings throughout the year, reports are presented that have fiscal implications. During the next several weeks, the community will have seven specific opportunities to be involved in the budget process. A schedule of these opportunities is attached to this letter. Conclusion This budget cycle, in my mind, represents a critical watershed for this school division and the community as a whole. This budget cycle will allow us, as a community, to make important decisions about the future direction of our schools. The decisions we make will have tremendous impact on the future viability of this community, and more importantly, on the opportunities we can provide for our children. This Proposed Budget now becomes the School Board's BudgeL I look forward to working with the Board and the community as a whole as we make decisions that will have long-term implications for all of us, and most importantly, our children. Sincerely, Dr. Kevin C. Castner Division Superintendent SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC BUDGET DISCUSSIONS AND SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET WORK SESSIONS Wednesday, January 19 Public Budget Discussion at Monticello High School at 7:00 p.m. Saturday, January 22 School Board Budget Work Session at 8:30 a.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Tuesday, January 25 Public Budget Discussion at Albemarle High School at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 26 Thursday, January 27 School Board Budget Work Session at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Public Budget Discussion at Western Albemarle High School at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 2. Public Hearing on Preliminary School Board Budget at 6:30 p.m. in the Auditorium of the County Office Building Wednesday, February 9 School Board Budget Work Session/Possible Adoption of Preliminary School Board Budget at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Projected Revenue Funding for Growth Maintain Competitive Compensation Misc. Operational/ Maintenance Adjustments Expenditure Changes Summary of Superintendent's Proposed Budget Available Additional Funds Local Revenue Decrease Increased General Fund Transfer (Recurring Funds from LOCal Government) State Revenue Increase (Estimated ADM of 12,057) Additional Federal Revenue Less Local Govemrnsnt One-Time Funding Less FY 1997-98 Carryover Less ClP Transfer (FY99/00 was the last year of this transfer) Include FY 1998-99 Cam/over Anilctpated Additional Funds (estimated fimds received by April) 35,635 3,823,258 1,754,748 183,575 -250,000 -790,000 -100.000 590,000 ~Totai Available Funds First Level Funded Priorities with Recommended Reductions 100% Fuqdin~l for Regular Education Staffin~i to Support Growth (12.28 FTE') Additional Funds for ESOL Part-Tmte Staff & 0.4 FTE Teacher Allocations to Schools (203 additional Students) Special Education Staffing to Support Growth (3.5 FTE) Special Education Summer School Support Textbooks for Growth 2.0% Classified Market Adjustment Pool 4.0% Classified Merit Pool 4.25% Teacher Scale Adjustment (eliminates bubble) Consolidation of Steps 0-2 to increase starting teacher pay to $28,803 Funding for Final Phase-in of Compression Adjustments Increased Dental Insurance (From $84 to $97 Per Person) Increased Medical Insurance [Fmm $2,608 to $3,035 Per Person) Mandated Group Life Insurance Payments Mandated VRS Rate Increase Teacher Step Incraase Alternative Education/Return II 52g.po?I 40.670 145,507 151,032 7.000 50,267 417,761 835,523 1,576,708 25,684 17.169 645,369 378,273 223,900 621.915 127,582 Bus Replacement (first year of phase.in) , Continued Funding for 0.5 FTE Employee Relations Coordinator Contracted & Repair ServlcesfMatedals - Building Services DeDartment Elementary Health Clinicians (;[.75 FTE) Fuel Price Increase Human Resources Department .Budget Adjustment Increased Comprehensive Sun)ices Act Funding (partial funding) Increased Custodial Overtime for Building Rental Irt=eased Early Redmrnont Payments Increased Funding for CATEC Increased Long Term Teacher & Nde Sub Wages (underbudgeted for the size of staff) Increased SRO Transfer PREP Operational Increases Special Education Legal Requirements Sub Teacher Pay Increase - $52 to $57 273,000~* 30,563 100,000 50.730 77.500 55,608 50,000 32,295 126.845 44.411 19,915 19,625 154,978 34,200 45.540~* Decrease Lapse Factor to -$255.000 lOne-Time Item Reductions ILess Budgeted Board Reserve lOther Reductions 21.715 -200,000 -53,815 -29,927 ~Total Proposed Expenditures Reserve School Board Reserve * $,691,9171 ITotal Reserve 50,000! Total New Expenditures & Reserve Less Available Funds lAdditional Revenue Needed to Fund Bud~let 6,741,917 5,897~2t 5 544,7o2! * These items are included in the Sups Budget, however are recommended · ' as the flint cuts should revenue not be sufficient to meet needs. - Summary of Superintendent's Unfunded PriOrities S,econd Level,Unfunded prio ,,rities Career Awareness Specialist CATEC Additional Funding Increase Coordinator of Safety (I.0 FTE) CSA Incm~e (50%) Extended Learning Time Increase School and Department Budgets by 2% Ute. mW Professional Development Uteracy Program Support Mobile Classrooms (required for growth positions funded in Firat Level) Op System Software ot Enhance Networks Programmer/Analyst - Databases (1.0 FTE) School Climate/Goal II Support Staffing Committee Recommendations (15,41 FTE) Sub Teacher Pay Increase - $57 to $65 Texlbook Fund Total of Second Level Unfunded Priorities 43,152 70,000 61,961 50,000 547,9g0 127,667 105,5'78 Z23,000 160,000 32,000 58,122 70.000 864,972 ,2oo, ooo $2,660,082 Third Level Unfunded Priorities Assistant Principal for Albemarle High School (0.5 FTE) Building Improvement Projects Cledcal Staffing Standards Cledcal Support - Database Management Communications Assistant (1.0 FTE) Digital Cumculum Development Employee Relations Coordinator (0.5 FI'E) Fixed Assets Accounting System Full Funding Salary Recommendations Gifted Education Services - Phase III Head Start Teacher Salary Equity High School Health Clinicians (3.0 .F~E) Human Resources Management Analyst (1.0 FFE) Increase Operating Budget Federal Programs/Community Ed Instru~onal Technology Coordinators Orchestra (Strings)- Phase II Reclassify Health Clinicians to LPNs School Based Special Education Clerical Support Staffing Committee Recommendations - remainder (33.64 FTE) Support Analysts (2.0 FI'E) Textbooks - Health 6.12/Language Arts 6-12 Tuition Reimbursement Pilot Virtual Governor's School Web Analyst (1.0 FTE) Total of Third Level Unfunded Priorities ITotal of,All U,n,~nded Priorities , 200.436 141,980 50,846 I00,000 33,002 45,000 538,290 131.556 24,368 79,925 57,123 15,054 71,726 37,606 32,591 91,638 2,011,634 110,994 205.000 30,000 124,896 63,487 $4,290,108 6,950,190 Det~'~l)UOn~ of 8i~ Unfunded initiMiw~ am IoQitl4 in 8ecUo. C ~f the budget docm~t These Unfunded Pdodties are in alphabetical order Framework for Superintendent's Proposed Budget Goals: · To the greatest degree possible: v' Support School Division Goals and School Board/Superintendent PHorities. v' Provide competitive compensation for both teachers and classified staff. v' Maintain emphasis on existing services and initiatives. · Identify critical Division needs, as directed by the School Board, while also planning for possible fiscal constraints. Fiscal Assumptions: Revenue - · Current revenue projections reflect $5,247,215 in new revenue. Approximately $650,000 more is expected beyond the $5,247,215 in new revenue after the General Assembly and Board of Supervisors Budget processes, based on previous trends. $5,897,215 in new revenue is a reasonable revenue estimate, without an increase in local tax effort. (Any 1-cent increase in local tax effort would yield about $380,000 for the School Division at the normal 60% share.) Expenditures - · Priorities for expenditures are based on three levels of need. Salaries are the first priority, which may prevent full funding of positions to maintain current class size for projected enrollment .qrowth of 203. if ~884, 7,02 in additional revenue is not available to fund both salaries and .qrowthr growth positions to maintain class ~ize and increased substitute wares will not be funded. Furtherf bus replacement will need to be deferred and/or other service reductions will need to be made. FY Pro. posed Budget (by type of expense) Operating Expenses 14% Fund Transfers 1.6% Capital Outlay 0.7% Staff Costs 83.~ FY 2000-01 Superintendent's Proposed Budget (by functional area) Building Operations 10% Transfem 2% Transportation 7% Administration 5% Instruction 76% Synopses of Funded Initiatives First Level Initiatives- Listed by Category (* Starred items are described in additional detail' on subsequent pages.) Compensation: Salary Recommendations/Health Benefits Maintenance/VR$ Mandates ($4, 742,302)- This initiative would fund a 4.25% scale increase and step increase for teachers, a 4% merit pool and 2% pool to address positions significantly off market for classified staff, projected increases in medical and dental insurance, and the mandated increases in payment to the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) for life insurance and retirement benefits. (The mandated payment to VRS will not increase the ultimate benefit to retirees.) * Increase in Anticipated Cost for Eady Retirement ($126, 845) -This initiative would provide funding for anticipated increases in early retirement payments based on trend data related to an aging workforce and the State's new Early Retirement Program. Growth: Allocations to Schools ($145,507) - This initiative would support increases in allocations to schools related to enrollment growth, based on the established formula, This initiative also includes an increase for high school athletics. ESOL - English as a Second or Other Language ($40, 670) - This initiative would provide additional part-time staff to support ESOL services for the increasing population of eligible students. * Growth Positions- Regular Education ($529,907) - This initiative would fund 12.28 FTE teacher positions to address enrollment growth of 203 students, based on the current staffing formula. Growth Positions- Special EducaUon ($151,032) This initiative would fund 3.5 FTE positions to address projected Special Education staffing needs for projected enrollment growth of 203 students. Textbooks for Growth Students ($50,267) - This initiative would support the purchase of already adopted textbooks for a projected enrollment growth of 203 students. Operational Adjustments: Alternative Education/Return II ($127, 582) - This initiative would provide recurring funding for the Alternative Education Program being implemented during the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year and increased funding for the Return I! Program, which provides home-based , instruction for students who have been excluded from school attendance. * Board Reserve ($50,000) -This expenditure establishes an operating reserve for the School Board to use at its discretion. Bus Replacement ($273,000)- This initiative would provide recurring funding to maintain the current school bus replacement schedule. Recurring funding is required because one-time funds were utilized for bus replacement in FY 1999-2000. Failure to fund this replacement schedule would increase the current replaCement cycle to beyond 13 years. The State currently recommends a 12-year cycle. The City of Charlottesville, for example, replaces buses on a 10- year cycle. · CATEC Increase ($44,411) - This initiatiVe would fund Albemarle County's share of the baseline budget increase requested by CATEC, which wes previously presented to the CATEC Board. Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Increase ($50,000) - This initiative would provide half of the necessary projected funding for mandated services related to the Comprehensive Services Act, which provides services to students with sedous emotional or behavioral difficulties. Funds are used primarily for day treatment programs and residential placements. Continued Funding of Employee Relation Coordinator ($30,563) - Thisinitiative would fund the existing .5 Employee Relations Coordinator. contracted Services for BUilding Services Departn?.ent ($100, 000)- This initiative WOuld fund contractual services that must be utilized by the Building Services Department because of staff vacancies that cannot be filled. Elementary Health Clinicians (5) ($50,730)- This initiative Would fund five (5) part-time elementary health clinicians which are currently provided by Martha Jefferson Hospital. (Martha Jefferson Hospital will not be able to continue providing these services.) * Fuel Price Increase ($77,500) - This initiative would fund projected increases in the cost of diesel fuel and gasoline for school buses and other Transportation Department vehicles. Human Resources Department Budget Adjustment ($55,608) - This initiative would fund additional costs related to fingerprinting and other required background checks for new employees that are occurring because of increased employee turnover. Increased Custodial Time for Buildin.q Rental ($32,295) IncreaSed Lon,q Term Substitute Teacher and Aide Wages ($19,9~ 5)- This initiative funds expected increases in long term substitute pay for teachers and teaching assistants. Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) Operational Increase ($154, 976)- Certain services are more efficiently delivered on a regional basis rather than by Albemarle County alone. This initiative provides funding for four areas of Special Education: 1) Increased per-pupil costs at Ivy Creek School, a day school for students with emotional disturbances; 2) Increased costs associated with services for students with an emotional disturbance which are provided in Albemarle County Schools; 3) Increased costs associated for students with autism, severe profound disabilities and multi-disabilities which are provided in Albemarle County Schools; and, 4) Increased costs for related services, specifically for students with visual impairments. School Resource Officer (SRO) Increase ($19,625) - This initiative would fund increased costs for existing School Resource officers. In FY1999-2000, the Board used some of its Reserve for this area. Special Education Legal Requirements ($34,200), This initiative would fund projected additional need for outside legal counsel for increased frequency of due process proceedings. Also Provides for increased summer evaluations. ~ Special Education Summer School Support ($7,000) - This initiative would fund mandated teacher and teacher assistant support for special needs students attending summer school programs. Substitute Teacherpay Increase ($45,540) - This initiative would fund an increase in substitute teacher pay from $52 to $57 per day. * Recommendations, Context, and Rationale for Employee Compensation in the Superintendent's Proposed Budget The division's strength and its hope for future success rest firmly with the ~quality of the people it is able to aitract and retain. The che//enges facing Albemarle County and every other school distrfct in Virginia are greater than ever before, Because of the reform being driven by the revised Standards of Accreditation and Standards of Learning, ail students are being expected to learn at a levsl that has been previously expected for perhaps 25% of students. While this higher level of expectation is not insurmountable, a critical factor to success will be attracting, retaining and motivating the people that impact students each and every day. '. I, Specific Recommendations In the Superintendents Proposed Budget the following recommendations are made relative to employee compensation,, by specific area: Salaries: · 4.25 % scale increase for teachers (which will eliminate the current 'bubble" in the scale) · Consolidation of steps 0-2 on the teacher salary scale to $28,803, which increases the starting teacher salary from $26,532. · Normal step increase for teachers · 4% merit pool for classified employees · 2% pool for classified positions to address specific areas that are significantly below market Mandated Vi~inia Retirement System ("ViIS) Benefits: · Cost-of-living prefunding (will not increase actual retiree benefit) · Life insurance Maintenance of Other Benefits: · Projected medical/dental insurance increase to maintain current level of benefit · Increases in funding for early retirement benefits for projected additional retirees The costs of these recommendations are broken down as follows: Salaries: · 4.25% scale increase for teachers: $1,576,708 · Consolidation of steps 0-2 on the teacher salary scale: $ 25,684 · Normal step increase for teachers : $ 621,915 · 4% medt pool for classified employees: $ 835,523 · 2% pool for classified positions for specific below market areas: $ 417,761 Mandated Vi~inia Retirement System (VRS} Benefits: · Cost-of-living prefunding: . · Life insurance: $ 223,900 $ 378,273 Mai0tenance of Other Benefits: · Projected medical and dental insurance increases: o Funding for increases in early retirement benefits: $ $ 662,538 126,845 II. · Context for the Superintendent's Recommendations Because of other needs and fiscal pressures, employee COmpensation has been an area that has not received sufficient attention over the past several years. Simply funding needs related to maintaining class size and existing services as the division's enrollment has increased by approximately 1,750 students since 1992 has taken a tremendous percentage of the available new resources. This has resulted in employee COmpensation taking on a lesser priority in budget deliberations. During these years, the need didn't seem as immediate as the need to fund growth; however, changing circumstances and other economic factors make it necessary to place COmpensation at a higher level of priodty for the next fiscal year, and beyond. These areas can be summarized as follows: · A national teacher shortage has begun, and will only worsen in the coming years as an aging teaching force retires. Attachment I provides a graphical illustration of the national situation. Further, fewer college graduates are entering the teaching profession, making it more essential than ever to be able to provide attractive starting salaries. In terms of the age of its teaching force, Albemarle County strongly reflects the national trend, as shown on Attachment 2. In terms of teacher salaries, Albemarle County's starting salary is 70t" out of 132 divisions in the state, which definitely hinders the division in attracting recent graduates. While the division is somewhat more competitive at other points on the teacher salary scale, other school divisions are committing greater resource effort towards teacher salaries. To simply remain minimally competitive, Albemarle County will have to make a similar or greater commitment. In Albemarle County, a parallel situation exists with building level and other administrators as does with teachers, as shown on Attachment I11. In the next few years, a large number of the division's most experienced administrators will be retiring. Even dudng the past several years, Albemarle County has experienced difficulties, primarily because of sala.ry issues, in attracting acceptable pools of candidates for administrative positions. As many of our current administrators retire, this situation will only become more difficult. Research clearly shows that effective administrative leadership is critical to student achievemenL A very strong national, state, and local economy has made it extremely difficult for the school division to attract and retain classified employees in a number of areas, including custodians, maintenance workers, bus drivers, technology support staff, and clerical staff, among others. As Mr. Jackson Zimmermann, Director of Fiscal Services, reported to the School Board on December 17, 1999, this has caused the school division to have fill vacancies with higher- salaried employees than the ones who have left. This is a completely new phenomenon; in the pest, new employees have by-and-large been less expensive than the ones they replaced. It must be emphasized that for nearly all classified positions, Albemarle County must compete with the private sector. At this point, the division's competitive position for classified positions relative to the private sector is extremely poor. The sheer strength of the local economy can be illustrated by.the factthat the local unemployment rate is less than 2%. When ValueAmerica recently laid off almost half of its work force, the consensus of the local business community was that the displaced workers would be absorbed without much difficulty into other jobs in the area, at equal or greater pay. This is indicative of the very challenging hiring situation the division faces and will continue to face into the foreseeable future. The cost of living in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area is the highest in the state except for Northem Virginia. Consequently, salaries that are even close to those in other areas of the state provide less actual buying power. Logically, therefore, simply having salaries that are relatively competitive to those elsewhere in the state still places Albemarle County employees at aneconomic disadvantage. III. Consultant Recommendations On November 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors and a series of recommendations from Slabaugh Morgan government and the school division on a Five-Year S~ratE recommendations were desig..ned to inform decisions as t developing these recommendations, the consultant exam specific to particular positiOns; for example, the market fo teachers is more statewide and regional. In terms of our noted the following: Teacher salaries in Albemarle County are approxim= conclusion assumed that statewide teacher salary inc 3%. There is strong indication that statewide increas~ which would make the 5.7% figure too Iow. · Classified salary ranges in Albemarle County are 8.4 the position. In the coming years, the demand for labor in the Chal increase at a faster rate than the employable populati openings in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area during environment will make it more difficult to hire staff, es · Benefits for Albemarle County employees are compa Based on its analysis, the consultant made the fo compensation in FY 2000-2001' · For teaching staff, a 5.7% pay scale adjustment, plus · For classified staff, a 4% pay scale adjustment, a 4% adjustments to address posib.'ons that are significant~ IV. Rationale for Superintendent's F The recommendations for compensation in the S~ based on the following rationale: The division must take proactive steps to maintain sai so, especially in an ama with a particularly strong eco cost of living. Othenvise, catching up in future years The division faces the reality of having to replace a ia~ administrative force in the relatively near future. Albel quality individuals to these positions without being abl can offset the high cost of living in the ama. Albemarle County is the 19a largest school division in a year. It is located in an extremely affluent area and ind the School Board received a report White, a consultant working with local gic Plan fOr Total Compensation. These salaries for FY 2000-2901. In ~ed competitiveness with markets · custodians is local while the market for ~arket competitiveness, the consultants t ~ly 5.7% !nder market, although this reeses in FY 2000-2001 would be about ;s will be significantly higher than 3%, ~ - 12.4% under market, depending on Iottesville-Albemarle area is projected to 3n. There;will be a projected 28,000 job the period, of 1996-2006. This hiring )eciatly in ~igh demand areas. able to those in the competitive market. owing recommendations concerning step increase. merit pooll and a 2% pool for strategic t~low markat. ,commendations ~rintendent's Proposed Budget am ry compefi~eness as other divisions do ~omy, Iow unemployment rate, and high lill be even more difficuit than it is now. ge portio~ of it~ teaching and narie County will not !:~ able to attm~ to offer a competitive salary scale that /irginia, and hires 100 or more teachers its students are achieving in the top 10- 20% of Virginia. In light of these circumstances, it is ,reasonable to expect, especially given the cost of living in this area, that teacher salaries should be in at least the upper third of Virginia. While the consultant's recommendations are compelling, it is not fiscally feasible to fully meet them in one budget cycle. The Supedntendent's recommendations will still leave Albemarle teachers at least 1.45% under market (more if statewide increases exceed 3%, which is probable) and classified staff 6.6% - 10.6% under markeL The Superintendent's recommendations are a minimal first phase. To do much less will make addressing market disparities even more challenging in future years. It is important to maintain the existing employee insurance benefit structure, which, as Slabaugh Morgan White noted, is comparable to other entities. If salaries are enhanced but insurance benefits are not maintained, the net impact to the employee will be negative. The division's strength and its hope for future success rest firmly wifft the quality of the people it is able to attract and retain. The challenges facing Albemarle County and every other school district in Virginia are greater than ever before. Because of the reform being driven by the revised Standards of Accreditation and Standards of Learning, all students are being expected to learn at a level that has been previously expected for perhaps 25% of students. VVhile this higher level of expectation is not insurmountable, a critical factor to success will be the people that impact on students each and every day. Attachment 1 Attachment 2 0 0 0 sJoqoeol ~o JoqtunN -Attachment 3 s~ole~,s!u!udp¥ j.o .~eq~ .unN Syno_oses, of. Unfunded Jnitiatives Second Level Initiatives - Listed Alphabetically (* Starred items are described in additional detail on subsequent pages.) Career Awareness Specialists ($43,152)- This initiative would fund .33 FTEs of the Career Awareness Specialist. position at each of the three comprehensive high schools. These positions have previously been funded by grant monies, which are no longer available. * CA TEC Additional Funding Increase ($70, 000) - This initiative would fund enhancements to the CATEC program beyond the baseline increase that have been previously presented to the CATEC Board. * Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Increase ($50,000) .-- This initiative would proVide the portion not funded in the Superintendent's Proposed~ Budget of the necessary funding for mandated services related to the Comprehensive Services Act, which provides services to students with Serious 'emotional or behavioral difficulties. Funds are used primarily for day treatment programs and residential placements. Coordinator of Safety/Security- Loss Control Officer ($61,961) - This initiative would support the hiring of a Safety Coordinator, who would be responsible for all safety-related activities in the school division, including crisis planning, hazardous materials management, fire prevention, accident prevention, and loss prevention. * Extended Learning Time ($547, 990) - This initiative would support the implementation of Extended Learning Time at the following schools in the Southern Feeder Pattern: Yancey, Red Hill, Scottsville, Cale, Walton, and Monticello. * Increase SchoOl and Department Operating Budgets b}~ 2% ($127, 667) - This initiative would provide a 2% increase to school and department operating budgets. (These budgets have not been increased during 5 out the past 7 fiscal years.) * Literacy Professional Development ($105,678)- This initiative would support courses and other staff development activities related to the recommendations of the Literacy Task Force. (This initiative could possibly be funded by a Virginia Department of Education grant.) Literacy program Support ($223,000)- This initiative would fund various literacy support programs in schools based on recommendations of the Literacy Task Force. * Mobile Classrooms ($160,000)- This initiative would support the purchase or lease of 4 mobile classrooms to support enrollment growth and enrollment shifts: OperaUn.q System SOftware to Enhance Network Services ($32,000) - This initiative would support the purchase of software to enhance and expand the scope and quality of the current network services used by the school division, including improved e-mail accessibility and less restrictive Internet access. * programmer~Analyst.-. Student Data Bases ($58,122) - This initiative would support a position to provide custom programming and other support for the SASI xp Student Data Base program, which tracks a wide variety of information for management and instructional accountability purposes. * School Climate~Goal. fl Support ($70,000) - This initiative would support diversity training and other staff development activities to support school climate and School Division Goal I1. * Staffing Committee Recommendations ($864,972) - This initiative would support the first phase of recommendations made by the division's Staffing Committee. The initiatives address Teaching Assistant time for K-1 Reading, staffing for "double block" Language instruction in middle and high schools, Literacy Specialists, and media specialist time in elementary schools under 300. Five mobile units are budgeted to house this staff. * Substitute Teacher Pay Increase ($45,540) -This initiative would fund an increase in substitute teacher pay from $57 to $65 per day. * Textbook Fund ($200,000,)- This initiative would provide recurring funding to maintain the current textbook replacement cycle. Recurring funding is required because one-time funds were utilized to maintain this cycle in FY 1999-2000. Third Level Initiatives- Listed Alphabetically (* Starred items are described in additional detail on subsequent pages.) Assistant Principal (0.5 FTE) for Albemarle H~qh School ($37, 956)- This initiative .would support an additional .5 Assistant Principal, based on Albemarle's projected enrollment of 1,568 and the established staffing standards for this position. Building Improvements Projects. ($60,000) - This initiative..would support building improvement projects that are not funded in the Capital Improvements Program (ClP). ($90,000 for this purpose was elirn}nated from the budget in FY 1997-98.) * Clerical Staffing Standards, ($200,436) - This initiative would support the full implementation of the Clerical Staffing Standards for Schools developed during FY 1997-98. To this point, funding has not been available to implement these standards. * Clerical Supoort for Elementary Student Data Base Mana.qement ($141,980) - This initiative would fUnd five (5) Office Associate II positions for elementary schools for student data base entry. These positions would be allocated based on I position for every 1,200 students. * ' Communications Assistant ($50,846) - This initiative would provide recurring funding for a position to coordinate the Public Information Center and to provide support to the Superintendent to allow him to spend additional time in school buildings. Digital Curriculum Deveiopment.($100, 000) - This initiative would support the purchase of software and other materials to assist teachers in utilizing the Intemet for instruction and for meeting individual student learning needs. * Employee Relations Coordinator ($33,002)- This initiative would fund a .5 position to be added to an existing position. This position works with general employee relations issues such as mediation, and also supports recruitment, diversity training, and other diversity-related initiatives. * Fixed Assets Accounting System ($45,000) - This initiative would support the cost of an outside vendor to establish a computer inventory of the division's fixed assets. (New standards established by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) require such an inventory to be in place by June 30, 2003.) * Full Funding of Salary Recommendations ($538, 290) Initiative would provide funding for the difference between what is funded in the Supedntendent's Proposed .Budget and the consultant recommendations presented to the Joint Boards. * Gifted Education Services - Phase !!1 ($131,556) - This initiative would fund the third phase of an initiative started in FY 1998-99 to enhance Gifted Education services across the division through additional Gifted Resources positions. * Head Start Teacher Salary Equity ($24,368) - This initiative would provide funding to supplement current Head Start teacher salaries so that fully certified teachers can be hired for this program, creating equity with teaching positions in the Bright Stars program. * High School Health Clinicians ($79, 925)-This initiative would fund 3.5 health clinicians for the division's high schools. * Human Resources Management Analyst ($57,123) - This initiative would fUnd a position in the Department of Human Reseurces who would coordinate the new Human Resource Information System (HRIS), in addition to overseeing budgeting, imaging technology, data analysis, accounting, measurement, and strategic planning. * Increase Operating Bud. qet of Deparb,nent of Federal Programs/Community Education .($15, 054) - This initiative would increase this department's budget to support costs related to the Student Calendar/Handbook, Parent Council, and the Bright Stars Preschool Program Partnerships. * Instructional Technology Coordinators ($71, 726) - This initiative would add a position to support the use of Instructional Technology at the elementary level so that the existing position could focus on the middle and high schools. The initiative would also support a 12-month contract for both of these positions to facilitate staff development during the summer months. * Orchestra (Strings] - Phase II ($37,606) -This initiative would support the second phase of an initiative to begin a String Orchestra program implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. * Reclassification of ;School Health Clinicians to Licensed Practical Nurses ($32,591) - This initiative would fund a reclassification of Health Clinicians to Licensed Practical Nurses, which was recommended by the Health Advisory Committee. * School-Based Special Education Clerical Support ($91,638)- This initiative would provide 5.1 Teaching Assistant positions to assist with the rapidly increasing clerical requirements of Special Education. * Staffing Committee Recommendations ($2, 011,634) - This initiative would support the second phase of recommendations made by the division's Staffing Committee. The initiatives address Teaching Assistant time for K-1 Reading, staffing for "double block" Language instruction in middle and high schools, Literacy Specialists, media specialist time in elementary schools under 300, release time for Lead Teachers, and staffing for high school AP and Honors courses. Fourteen mobile units are budgeted to house this staff.* Support Anaiysts (2) ($110,994) -This initiative would fund two (2) additional Support Analysts to repair and maintain hardware and software at school sites. * Textbooks- Health and Language Arts ($200,000) -This initiative would support purchase of new textbook adoptions in Health and Language Arts. Tuition Reimbursement Pilot ($30,000) - This initiative would support a pilot program which would reimburse teachers and other staff for tuition for courses taken to become certified to teach, to become endorsed in additional content areas, and to renew certification. * Virtual Govemor's School ($124, 896) - This initiative would fund Albemarle County's participation at one site in' the Blue Ridge Virtual Governor's School, including connectivity, hardware lease, site coordinator, curriculum resources, and general operational costs. * Web Analyst ($63,487) -This initiative would fund a position to facilitate increased use of the lntemet for instructional and communications purposes. 2000 - 200I Budget Process The Primary Mission of the School System QUESTiOnS ASKED BEFORE: What is the primary mission of the school system? What will we accept as primary evidence for judging school improvement? How will schools evaluate the evidence in order tn provide further direction for school improvement? NEED TO ASK NOW: How do we maintain the momentum of improvement? The Challenge [ Increased workplace requirements and SOL standards 1900 19~0 2000 Superintendent's Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budget , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Continuous Division Improvement Process October March Evaluation INPUT Superintendent Teachers geports PTO's/FrA,$ Students State Mandates Federal Mandates Public School Board ?arents/Guardiam Programs Administrators iBUDGET IStatus of the School Division [ · Top 10% in Virginia on the Stanford 9 Achievement Tests · Top 20% in Virginia on the Standards of Learning tests · Significant improvement from 1998 to 1999 on the Standards of Learning tests Are we where we need ~o be? Are we making progress? Can we main~in this pmgres=? Superlmtendent~s Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budset ]Factors Impacting the Budget[ · Past, Present, and Future ~rowth · Below Market Employee Salaries · State MandateslSOA/SOL · Higher Levels of Learning Expected for All Students · Increased Composite Index SuperintendenPs Proposed FY 2000-200I Budget Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budget ASSUMPTIONS · $5.9 million will be available in new revenue. · Employee compensation will be the first priority. · The budget is structured to reflect three levels of priorities. · If more than '$5.9 million is not available, 12.28 growth teaching positions will not be funded, bus replacement will be deferred, and increases for substitute teacher pay will not be funded. Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budget .GOALS To the greatest degree possible: · Support Division Goals and School Board/Superintendent priorities. · Identify critical needs while also planning for possible fiscal constraints. · Provide competib've compensation for both teachers and classified staff. · Maintain emphasis on current services and initiatives. THIS YEAR (Projected) FY 2000-01 BUDGET Revenue = $88,051,345 {+ $ 650,000 projected} Total Revenue = $88,70134,5 [ Total Nmv = $$,897,215 New luoe. al ~ $~,.~08,894 - 6.22% New State t $I,7~4,746 - 6.17% ~ s tc.,,.~.~.,~a~.~ I Level One I New Federal -$18~,575- 15.99% IExpenditures I Lossofl TimeMonev _":.- ~ '- r- . .-r._ .. - - ~.000 ~ Unfund .esi.Priorities ~ Level 'lwo · S2.660,082 Level Three - ]Needs Based Budget First Level Fundin~ for Growth: Regular Education Staffing - ESOL Staff Allocations to Schools {203 additional students} - Special Education Staffing - Special Education Summer School - Textbooks TOTAL $529,907 $ 40,670 $145,507 $ 7,000 $ 50,267 $924,383 Superintendene$ Proposed FY 2000-2001 Bud[et INeeds Based Budget I First Level Funding for Competitive Compensation: · Salaries $3,522,058 · Insurance $ 662,538 · Mandates $ 602,173 TOTAL $4,786,769 Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-£001 Bud~;et ]Needs Based Budget I First Level Funding for Other Operational/Maintenance Adiustments: Alternative Education/Return II Bus Replacement (Phase I) Contracted & Repair Services/Materials - Elementary Health Clinicians Fuel Price Increase Increasect Early Retirement Payments PREP Operational Increases Sub Teacher Pay increase ($52 to $57) Other Requirements TOTAL Supermtendent~s Proposed FY g000-gO01 BudFet $127,682 $273,000 $100,000 $ 50,730 $ 77,500 $128,845 $154,978 $ 45,540 $286,617 $1,242,792 THIS YEAR (Projected) Fi' 2000-0I BUDGET Total Revenue i $88,701,345 Igxpendimres I TotaINew Revenue I $88.701.345 ] $5.897.215 ~ Unfunded Priorities Loss of 1 Time Money ~ .-~ ~ Local Government = $250.000 Level Two .- S2,660,082 from CIP = S100,000 II.~vel Three - $4.290.108 INeeds Based Budget ] SECOND LEVEL - Unfunded Priorities: · CATEC · Coordinator of Safety · CSA Increase (60%) · Extended Learning Time · Literacy Program Support · Mobile Classrooms (Growth) · Staffing Committee Recommendations (t5.41 FTE) · Sub Teacher Pay Increase ($57'- $65) - · Other (Page A.8) · TOTAL Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budget $ 70,000 $ 61,961 $ 50,000 $547,990 $223,000 $160,000 $864,972 $ 45,540 $636,619 $2,660,082 5 Needs Based Budget [ THIRD LEVEL - Unfunded Priorities: · Building Improvement Projects $ 60,000 · Fixed Assets Accounting System $ 45,000 · Full Funding Salary Recommendations. $538,290 · Gifted EducaUon Services (Phase III) - $131,556 · High School Health Clinicians (3 FTE}- $ 79,925 · Orchestra (Strings) (Phase II) $ 37,605 · Staffing Committee Recommendations remainder [33.64 FTE) $2,011,634 · Other ~a~A-8) $1,386,097 TO'TAL $4,838,098 Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-200t Bud,;et [,'Employee Compensation [ Context: Past practice of compensation being a lower priority National teacher shortage Starting teacher satary is 70th in the state (of 132) Teacher salaries approximately 5.7% under market Large number of teachers & administrators near retirement Classified salaries 8.4% to 12.4% under market Strong economy making it difficult to attract and retain classified employees · Local unemployment rate of less than 2% · Second highest cost of living in Virginia S~perintendent's Proposed FY 2000-2001 Budset Employee ComPensationI Consultant's Recommendations: · 5.7% pay scale adjustment, plus step increase for teachers 4% pay scale adjustment, a 4% merit pool, and a 2% pool for adjusting below market positions for classified staff Superintendent's Proposed FY 2000-200I Budget 6 Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested ail along:. ^ skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous difference in how well students learn." Shortage Estimated age dis~buUon of Al~emarte County School teachers and administrators for 1999-2000 · Administrators _ Age Superintendent's Proposed. ' 2.000-2001 Budget "It's a bidding war. And you can't' recruit with rhetoric." Richard Mills, Commissioner of F. ducation, State of New York '7 CHOICES The budget is merely a revenue and expenditure plan for accomplishing the organizational mission. Learning for Ail Whatever it Takes Budget Section A: Section B: Section C: Section D: Section E: Section F: Section G: Section H: Section I: Section J: Book Organization Overview Funded Initiatives Unfunded initiatives Enrollment Analysis Revenue Analysis Operating Expenses (Appendix) Compensation Expenses Narratives (Appendix) Self-Sustaining Funds Support Documents January 19: January 22: January 25: January 25: January 27: February 2: February 9: Bud$ct Communication Process Public Budget Discussion at Monticello H.S. School Board Budget Work Session - COB Public Budget Discussion at Albemarle H,S. School Board Budget Work Session - COB Public Budget Discussion at Western Albemarle Public Hearing on Preliminar~ School Board Budget - COB School Board Budget Work Session - COB (Possible Adoption of the Board's Preliminary Budget) ' V~B $~: ~t~a://k~£.a~bcma:rlc.o~$ 0000 ~ ~ o .!...~..L.~...~ ....... ~ ........... ,~.J....~...~-~...~-~ ..... ~..L~.-m.-~...~-?-~..~-.~..,~.-~...3...~..~ ........... ~..~ ........ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ................................................................... ~::~::~: '~: A:~: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::~:: :::~::::~ ::~: 0 ~:~:~ ~':]~]:~:~:~:~:~:~ ~ ~:~:~:~ ' ~I ~- ~::~ !~''~ :'~:::::':'~ ............... :' .................. ':~"'"':":" ~:: : ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~::~~ .:-- ~ -- ~:~. ~.::~ :..~:~: ~:~:~ ~ ::~:::~ o : ~:>':4" ::$~::::~;~:~C¢: >~ ~' ~:::A:f: :~::~:::~:~:: 0 Z -< ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOLS CAPACITY W/DIFFEKENTIATED STAFFING May 21, 1999 FACILITY NAME REGULAR MULTI- NEW CAPACITY CAPACITY CLASS PLIER CAPACITY DIFFERENCE ROOMS ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL i79i' 89 22..00 !,791' 0 , MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL !05i* 52 24 50 1 025* (26) 1!48 58 22.00 1,148 0 WESTERN HIGH SCHOOL _ . .... MURRAY HIGH SCHOOL i08 .... 108 0 4098 199 4,072 ,(26) BURLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL 434* 19 2!.00 415' (19) HENLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL 690' 31 2!.50 675* (!5) JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL 5!4' 23 21.50 503'* (ii) SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL 7!2' 32 22.00 712' 0 WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 566* 25 20.75 535* (31) '2916 130 2,840 (76) AGNOR-HURT ELEM. SCHOOL 572 26 18.75 488 (84) BROADUS WOOD ELEM. SCHOOL 418 !9 19.75 375 (43) BROWNSVILLE ELEM SCHOOL 330 15 !9.00 285 (45) CALE ELEM. SCHOOL 528 24 !8.00 432 (9'6) CROZET ELEM. SCHOOL 396 i8 19.00 342 (54) GREER ELEM. SCHOOL 528 24 i8.00 432 (96) HOLLYMEAD ELEM. SCHOOL 594 27 20.50 554 MERIWETHER LEWIS ELEM ~=~O~ z62 21 20 50 431 (31) · . .v ELEM. - MoRRA.. SCHOOL ~98 14 19.75 277 (3i) RED HiLL ELEM. SCHOOL i98 9 ,18.25 164 ~ ...... ~- ELEM. S~O~Svz~-~ SCHOCi 220 !0 18.75 188 (32) STOKE ROBINSON ELEM. SCHOOL 616 28 !9.00 532 (84) STONY POINT ELEM.SCHOOL 308 14 19.75 [ 277 (31) WOODBROOK ELEM. SCHOOL 382 !7 !9.50 332 YANCEY ELEM. SCHOOL !76 8 16,75 134 (42) SCHOOL TO2ALI! !3,050 605 12,!55 r/caprevis.599 11-98 5/20/99 HS = .10 ADJ 'Includes Special Ed Room ~: 8: ~HS-~.~=32 BUR-2~$=16 ~OU-I ~$=8 MHS3~g=24 HEN-i ~= 8 SUT-]~8= ~ %'AL - ~ ~a' g= 16 School Division Factors Driving School Enrollment Growth Reduction in Classroom Capacities Staffing Allocation vs. Classroom Capacity Differentiated Staffing Capital Needs Factors Driving School Capital Needs: Growth '."'~'~'~ ~ '~.. , FY94-99: Year) FYO0-05: Year) 2.3% Annual Avg. (258 Pupils/ 1.6% Annual Avg. (199 Pupils/ New Elementary School Every 3 Years Projected Needs: Gro~v~h FY 01-05 Requested CIP: Additions due to Growth' School Site Land Acq. +$0.08 05 Brownsville Addition +$0.67 02-03 Henley Addition +$0.69 04-05 ]ouett Addition +$0.70 02-03 Southern Elem. +$1.00 01-04 Total $3.14 Million Begins Process Enlarge to 440 Enlarge to 750 Enlarge to 750 Enlarge to 600 FY 06-10 Second No,them Elemental/, New Northern Middle Schoo~ New Northern High Schoo~ After FYIO 2 Common Outcry! Every Year From Public, Parents, & Politicians "Reduce Teacher-Pupil Ratio" "We want Fewer Students in Classes" Factors Driving School Capital Needs: ,~f~/ce~f C, aj~gc/~/~ Staffing Allocation vs. Classroom Capacity: Teacher Staffing at up to 15:1 Classrooms Built for 22:1 Capacity Formula with Differentiated Staffing ~ Reflects Reality (1999) Resulted in Reduced School Capacities Factors Driving SchOol Capital Needs: Reduced Capacities' Differentiated Staffing: ~ Reallocated Teachers to Schools with Greater Free-and-Reduced Lunch Populations Greer- Enrollment Increased by 7 Students; Gained 5.3 Teachers Holl'ymead - Enrollment Increased by 7 Students; Lost 3.03 Teachers l~turraryEl~m~ntary- Enrollment Increased by 13 Students; Gained 0.14 Teachers Factors Driving School Capital Needs: Stgff/n~ Factors All schools staffed at a minimum base K-3 20.25 to 1 4-5 21.25 to 1 6-8 22.35 to 1 9-!2 22.41 to I All schools staffed additionally based on the Free/ Reduced Lunch population of the school (D/fferent/ated 5taring) K-5 11.05 to 1 (for all Free/Reduced Lunch Students) 6-12 9.70 to :[ (for 50% of all Free/Reduced Lunch Students) Technology, Media, Guidance, Gifted and at the Elementary Level: Art, Music, and Health/P.E. positions are staffed according to specific guidelines 4 Factors Driving School Capital Needs: Staffi/'/9 Exam#les Allocation Staffing Enrollment Base Additional Elem: Greer 495 24.08 7.91 Hollymead 632 30.73 1.30 Middle Sutherland 611 33.57 1.15 Walton 593 32.58 4.88 High Monticello 1,078 63.06 6.21 WAHS 926 55.85 2.75 Factors Driving School Capital Needs: J?~d~ce~/ Capac/ties Differentiated Staffing: ~i Reduced Classroom Example: Capacities ~,-IViHS -26 From 22 Per ~ Burley -19 Classroom to 16.75 Overall ~ Walton -3! 895 Seats Lost ,, Agnor-Hurt -84 System-wide Cale -96 ~ Greer -96 ~ Stone Robin. -84 Factors Driving School Capital Needs: Reduced Capac/f/os School Capacity Formula: # Regular Classrooms x IVlultiplier = New Capacity Examples: Greer: Classrooms Multiplier Capacity ~ Old Formula 24 x 22 = 528 ~ New Formula 24 x :~8 = 432 Lost Capacity -96 Hollymead: Old Formula 27 x 22 = 594 New Formula 27 x 20,5 = 554 Lost Capacity -40 Classroom Capacity Conflicts: FY05 (Without Requested CIP) 12 of 15 Elementary Schools Over Capacity' Total Seats Needed = 846 of 5 Middle Schools Over Capacity Total Seats Needed = 238 of 4 High Schools Over Capacity Overall Surplus Seats Available = 5 Projected Needs: I~educed C'a, oac/f/es FY01 -05 Requested. CIP: Additions due to Capacity Formula Change: Brownsville Addition +$0.74 02-03 4 Classrooms Henley Addition +$0.15 04-05 1 Classroom ]ouett Addition +$0.15 04-05 I Classroom Southern Elem. +$3,67 01-04 12 Classrooms Northern Elem, +$0.23 02 2 Classrooms ' Total $4.94 Million Impact if Requested CIP Not Funded: Larger Class Sizes Parity Concerns Not Addressed Continue to Use 46 Mobile Classrooms Add Mobile Classrooms to Accommodate Growth (Operational Budget Increase) Redistrict Every Year Alternatives: ~ Reduce Scope of Pro~ects ~ Cancel Projects ~ Delay Pro~ects ~ Reduce Teaching Staff ~ Purchase Mobile Units to Accommodate Growth ~ Eliminate ]:nstructional Programs Issues for Consideration: Capacity with Differential Staffing Formula One Teacher Equals One Classroom Loss in Capacity System-wide Additional Capital Budget Tmpact of Making up for Lost Capacity February 2, 2000 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I move that the board go into closed session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia · Under subsection (1) to conduct interviews for and to consider appointments to boards and commissions and to discuss the performance of a specific employee; Under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for school sites; and Under subsection (7) to consult With legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill, relating to the denial of a telecommunications tower, and relating to the constitutionality of Virginia Code Section 18.2-391