Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-042. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Approval of Minutes: February 7, 1996; January 15, April 2, August 13 and August 20, 1997. Transportation Matters: a) Discussion: FY 1998 Preallocation Hearing for Primary Roads. b) Other Transportation Matters. 10:00 A.M. - SP-97-53. Tandem Friends School Math/Science Bldg (Signs # 90&91. PUBLIC HEAR1NG on a request to allow an institutional math/science bldg of approx 14,000 gross sq ft to be constructed on 24.5 acs. Znd R-I, Residential. Request seeks to expand permit enrollment of students & staff from 200 to 260. TM91,PclgA. Loc on NW corner of Monticello High School Connector Rd & Rt 20 S, on existing Tandem School campus. (Property recommended for Institutional Use in Neighborhood 4.) Scottsville Dist. (This property is located in a designated growth area.) Presentation: Albemarle County Communications Plan - Lee Catlin. 10:30 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING to solicit input on local community development and housing needs and potential proiects in relation to Community Development Block Grant funding for a proiect in the County. 10:45 A.M. - Presentation: Virginia Game & Inland Fisheries on Deer Herd Management and Hunting Regulations. 1997 Annual Report of the Housing Committee. Update on FY 1998/1999 Revenue Projections. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Appointments to Boards and Commissions, and Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. Appointments. Adjourn to February 9, 1998 for Joint meeting with School Board. FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Appropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program Facility (PREP), $3.0 million (Form #97003). 5.2 Appropriation: Gypsy Moth Fund Balance, $23,320.75 (Form #97042). 5.3 Appropriation: Education, $68,125.56 (Form #97046). 5.4 Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1998-99. 5.5 Resolution to accept roads in Southern Hills Subdivision (SUB-93-141 ) into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.6 Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. 5.7 Policy Guidelines for Deferral of Zoning Applications (deferred from January 7, 1998). 5.8 Authorize County Executive to execute agreement to Purchase of 0.3 acre of property adjacent to Whitewood Park. 5.9 Resolution designating Februm3r, 1998 as PETFIX Month. 5.10 Prodamatlon designating February, 1998 as School Board Appreciation Month. 5.11 Road name change requests. 5.12 Set public hearing for March 4, 1998, to amend Section 8-66 of the County Code establishing time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. 5.13 Set public hearing on the proposed FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program for February 18, 1998. FOR INFORMATION: 5.14 Letter dated January 27, 1998 from Angela G. Tud(er, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters discussed at the December 3, 1997 and January 7, 1998 Board meetings. 5.I5 Proposed FY 1997/98 Operating and Capital budget reductions to meet revenue sho~ffallg~ 5.16 Second quarter report for JAUNT services and summary of Fall 1997 Rider Survey. 5.17 JAUNT, S BIG BLUE bus service update. 5.18 Copy of staff report on the Ivy LandfiR Recreational Use - Compliance with Comprehensive Plaru 5.19 Monthly update on the FY 1997/98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of January 20, I998. 5.20 Report prepared by Charles Gross, member of Piedmont Virginia Community College Board, on activities occurring between September, 1997 and December, 1997. 5.21 Copy of Monthly Bond and Program Report for the Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) for the month of December, 1997. 5.22 Copies of Planning Commission minutes for December 9 and December 16, 1997; and January 13 and January 20, 1998. 5.23 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of November 13, 1997. 5.24 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County SerOce Authority meeting of December 18, 1997. 5.25 Copy of letter dated January 29, 1998 from H. W. Mills Assistant Resident Engineer, to Diana M. Saunders, regarding traffic concerns near the 1-64 interchange. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~~)t~ February 9. 1998 Board Actions of February 4, 1998 At its meeting on February 4, 1998. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.. by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Item No. 5. I. Appropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program Facility (PREP), $3.0 million (Form #97003). APPROVED. [mm No. 5.2. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth Fund Balance, $23.320.75 (Form #97042). APPROVED. Item No. 5.3, Appropriation: Education, $68,125.56 (Form #97046). APPROVED. Item No. 5.4. Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1998-99. APPROVED. (Note: Mr. Perldns and Mrs. Thomas voted in opposition to this item.} Consensus of Board that staff look at redirecting these funds and look at the next CIP to see what roads would be impacted by this action. Item No. 5.5. Resolution to accept roads in Southern Hills Subdivision (SUB-93-141 } into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Item No. 5.6. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision. English Oalcs (SUB-92-087J into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 9, i998 Page 2 Item No. 5.7. Policy Guidelines for Deferral of Zoning Applications (deferred from January 7. 1998). ADOPTED. Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to execute agreement to purchase of 0.3 acre of property adjacent to Whitewood Park. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the agreement. Item No. 5.9. Resolution designating February, 1998 as PETFIX Month. ADOPTED. Item No. 5.10. Proclamation designating February, 1998 as School Board Appreciation Month. ADOPTED. Item No. 5.11. Road name change requests. DEFERRED this item until further action by the applicants. The Board requested both applicants to get approval of the landowners along the road to_agree to changing the. road name for the entire length of the road. It was consensus of the Board that it will unlikely change road names when the road is a continuation. The Board will discuss whether to change its Road Naming Policy at a future meeting. Item No. 5.12. Set public hearing for March 4.1998. to amend Section 8-66 of the County Code establishing time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. PUBLIC HEARING set for March 4. 1998. at 10:00 a.m. Item No. 5.13. Set public hearing on the proposed FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program for February 18. 1998. PUBLIC HEARING set for February 18, 1998. Item No. 5.20. Report prepared by Charles Gross, member of Piedmont Virginia Commtmity College Board, on activities occurring between September, 1997 and December. 1997. was received for information. Consensus of Board to make a contribution to the V. Earl Dicldnson Building for Hnmanities and Social Sciences. Directed staff to communicate with other localities to see what they are doing. Agenda Item No. 7a. TransportationMatters: Discussion: FY 1998 PreallocationHearing for Primary Roads. Final draft statement to come back to the Board on March 4, 1998. The following comments/corrections were made to the draft statement: Page 1 - Paragraph#l, next to last sentence reads: "Other projects listed in CATS in the northern urbanized area which would be funded with other than primary funds, such as the Memo To: Robert W. Tnd*er, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 9. 1998 Page 3 Hydraulic RoacVRoute 250 Bypass interchange, shotfld also be actively pursued." Mrs. Humphris said the problem with that statement is that the City has asked that this interchaznge be deleted from the 2010 CATS. which the MPO iust approved. Paragraph #2, 2nd sentence should read: "The Route 29 North Corridor Study.. Page 2 - first line in italic, should read: "... implement the recommendations of this study in developing plans.., the South Fork Rivanna .... Mrs. Thomas suggested listed the recommendations after the statement "...implement the recommendationg..." Mr. Cillmberg snggested emphasizing "access management" at the end of the second sentence regarding the study and the County's endorsement. The fourth line should read: %.. with a consultant now hired ...." Delete the word "on" Item #3. first line delete the word "proposed" Item#4, forconsistencyuse"construct"insteadof"constructionof". South Fork Rivanna River should be capitalized. Item #6, next to last line should read: "... and encourages public participation ,.." Item #8, leave in the last sentence and "Committee" should be "Citizens Task Force" Page 3, to help with darification, include semicolons between each descriptive segment. Item #1, set out the comments pertaining to "the sidewalk out on Route 20 North" and emphasize the justification. Item #2. should read: "Installation of traffic ...." Item #6. second sentence should read: "the County continues ro request VDOT to consider ...." Page 4, under National Highway System. update rite language in the 7th sentence which reads: %.. South of Charlottesville which is currently out for consultant proposals." Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Martin thanked VDOT for their cooperation over the past three months and especially for taking care of the problem on Advance Mills Road and the ditch problem. Mrs. Thomas thanked Mrs. Tucker for pursuing the tight-of-wayissue on Grassmere Roac[ Mrs. Humphris said the patching job VDOT did on Colthurst Drive has devdoped into a huge hole in the roadway. Mrs. Tucker said VDOT will use a cold mix asphalt to £LX this problero~ Memo To: Robert W. Tucker_ Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 9, 1998 Page 4 Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter received from EARL (copy attached) regarding an entrance permit on Route 743 given by VDOT. Mrs. Tucker said she would investigate. Mr. Bowerman asked about the status of the issue regarding the use of exhaust brakes on diesel trudcs on the downgrade from Woodbrook to the light at Hilton. Mrs. Tucker said she is waiting on some information and will get back with Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Tucker said she will respond to Mr. Eades' letter regarding Route 605 and copy the Board members. Mrs. Tucker commented that delineators have been installed on Proffit Road, east of the one lane bridge at Profflt. Agenda Item NO. 8. I0:00 A.M. - SP-97-53. Tandem Friends School Matl~Science Bldg {Signs# 90&91. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow an institutional math/science bldg of approx 14,000 gross sqft to be constructed on 24.5 acs. Zud R-1. Residential. Request seeks to expand permit enrollment of students & staff from 200 to 260. TM91 ,Pcl2A. Loc on NW corner of Monticello High School Couuector Rd & Rt 20 S. on existingTandem School campus~ (Property recommended for Institutional Use'in Neighborhood 4.) Scottsville Dist. (This property is located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-97-53 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with the proviso that this authority does not apply to the athletic fields: The new facility will be located approximately as shown on the attached site layout {Attachment C); 2. Total school enrollment and on-site staffing shall be limited to 260 persons: Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit; and 4. The new facility shall connect to public ~vater and sewer. Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Albemarle County Commuraications Plan - Lee Catlin. Received. Agenda Item No. 10, 10:30 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING to solicit input on local community development and housing needs and potential projects in relation to Community Development Block Grant funding for a project in the County, The Board recommended that Project #1- Housing Rehabilitation/Comprehensive Community DevelopmentProject-AlbemarleHousing Improvement Program (AHIP) and Project #5 - Planning GrantApplication- CommunltyOrganizingGrant, Whitewood Village, as outlined Memo To: Robert W. Tud<er, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 9, 1998 Page 5 in the staff's report, be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for CDBG funding. Agenda Item No. 11. 10:45 A.M. - Presentation: Virginia Game & Inland Fisheries on Deer Herd Management and Hunting Regulations. Received. Directed staffto develop a report outlining how Countypolice resources can be utilized to supplement the Game Warden during peak times. Agenda Item No. 12. 1997 Annual Report of the Housing Committee. Received. Agenda Item No. 13. Update on FY 1998/1999 Revenue Projections. Received. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. ADOPTED the attached Resolution authorizing the purchase of a parcel of land of approximately 15 acres, near the Keene Landfill. and shown as Tax Map 29. Parcel DIRECTED the Clerk to draft a resolution opposing Senate Bill #605 and forward the same. to Senator Couric. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Appointments to Boards and Commissions, and Legal Matters. At 12:50 p.m.. the Board adjourned into Executive Session. Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 3:10 p.mi, and certified same. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. APPOINTED Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr.. to the Board of Social Services,with term to expire on December 31, 2001. REAPPOINTED Mr. Donald J. Wagoner to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, with term to expire on April 16. 2002. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: February 9, 1998 Page 6 REAPPOINTED Mr. Frank Rice to the Equalization Board, with term to expire on December 31, 1998. REAPPOINTED Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney to the Industrial Devdopment Authority, with term to expire on January 19, 2002. APPOINTED Mrs. Martha S. G. Orton to the Board of Social Services, with term to expire on December 31, 2001. REAPPOINTED Mr. James E. Clarke, Jr., to the Equalization Board, with term to expire on December 31, 1998. REAPPOINTED Mr. Robert Humphris to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, with term to ex~pire on April 16, 2002. APPOINTED Mr. Bryson Grover to the Commission on Children and Families, as the youth representative, for a one-year term. Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to February 9, 1998 for Joint meeting with School Board. At 3:20 p.m., the Board adjourned to February 9, 1998, for a joint meeting with the School Board. /ewc Attachments cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprlnlde Yadira Amari File AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (the "Agreement") is madethis J_/-l~ dayof ,~.d~t~,~,1998, by and among WILLIAM H. WHITE, III, DAVID W. CARR, AND MARGARET GALE FRIZZELI, (collectively the "Sellers") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("Buyer"). I. Sale and Description o£Propertv. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Sellers agree to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), located near Whitewood Road in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The Property consists of approximately .3 acres, more or less, and is described as lying in between parcel A. consisting of 1.942 acres, and parcel B, consisting of 1.365 acres, as shown and identified on the subdivision plat entitled "Dedication of Streets and Division of the Lands of David J. Wood, Jr. Etals, R.C. Minor Estate. and Albemarle County School Board" prepared by Huffman-Foster and Associates and dated December 1970 (the "1970 Plat"); and is described further as that parcel adjacent to the "Area dedicated to public use, 0.5349 ac." as shown and identified on the plat entitled "Subdivision Plat Showing Lots 55L & R To Lots 66L and R Phase Two Wynridge' prepared by B. Aubmy Huffman & Associates, Ltd. and dated June 5. 1985 (the "1985 Plat"), copies of which are attached hereto. The Property is a portion of a parcel containing 14.778 acres as shown on the 1970 Plat and conveyed to David J. Wood. Jr.. Joseph M. Wood II, William H. White Iit, David W. Cart and Lockwood Frizzell, by deed dated December 29. I970 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 482, page 164. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the property is Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00), and shalI be paid in full by Buyer to Sellers at closing. 3. Title. Sellers agree ro convey the Property by appropriate deed containing general warranty and English Covenants of titte, which title shall be good, marketable, and insurable~ free and clear of alt liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants, and restrictions of record wkich do not adversely affect marketability and insurability oftitle. In the event Buyer's attorney finds title to be defective, and should Sellers fail to remedy any default within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to Sellers by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days. 4. Expenses and Prorations. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all expenses incurred by Buyer in connection with the purchase, including, without limitation, title examination, survey costs, preparation ora plat of subdivision and deed, environmental reports, and recording costs shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes (current or delinquent), assessments. interest, and penalties, if any, shall also be paid by Buyer. Sellers shall be responsible for the recordation tax applicable ro grantors, and for any attorney's fees or other legal expenses incurred by them in connection with this conveyance. 5. Inspection. Buyer and its agents shall have the fight to enter upon the Property ar any time prior to closing for purposes of engineering, surveying, site analysis, and such other work, so long as the studies do nor result in a change in the character or topography of the Property. 2 6. Deed and Plat. Sellers agree to execute upon request all deeds, plats and other legal documents necessary to transfer the Property to Buyer. 7. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's Office on or before February I6, 1998, or earlier if Buyer and Sellers agree, or as soon thereafter as title can be examined and papers prepared. 8. Risk of Loss~ Ali risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casually or other cause are assumed by, and shall be borne by Sellers, until closing. In the event of any material toss, destruction or damage to the Property, Buyer may declare the Agreement null and void and all funds paid to Sellers by Buyer shall be refunded within thkty (30) days. 9. Condition of Property. Sellers warrant that the Property shall be in substantially the same condition at closing as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement. 10. Construction, Benefit and Effect. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virgima. shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties~ constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and may not be modified or changed except by ~wirren instrument executed 'ay alt parties. 11. Agreement Survives Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by Buyer and Sellers that all agreements, promises, stipulations, representations, and releases contained herein shall survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, agents~ successors and assigns of the parties hereto. t2. County Approval. Irhis Agreement is subject to and contingent upon approval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. tN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above written. SELLERS: WILLIAM H. WHITE, III MARGARET GALE FRIZZELL BUYER: Approved as to form: COU~ OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA '~RO~3ERT W. TUCKER, JR.. '~ 4 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA -.4~-~-Y/COUNTY OF ~ \ x%o The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~x_b~o3x~ ,1998, by William H. White, III. day of \ My commission expires: ~:~'v,~0 '5,, Ug~ 6~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA C4~Y/COUNTY OF ~"~\'I~o w,r~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~b day of ~o, xj&oo'o-\ , I998, by David W. Carr. My commission expires: Q2x~,~ ~b ~6~, ~ N-~u'y Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA C't'TY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~t3 . day of ~-,~.,~ ~.t 0o~, ,1998, by Margaret Gale FrizzelL My commission expires: ~___~ %©k. ~-~5t2~,_~__ Public ~ ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,~/ _ day of ~ t 998, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. County of A~fl~emar~mia. ' My commission expires: Notary Public RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of record of certain property identified as the Keene Landfill, Tax Map ]L29-2A, located in Southern Albemarle County; WHEREAS, the County has determined that a need exists to acquire certain real property adjacent to the Keene landfill; WHEREAS, the County intends to utilize the acauired property for buffer and related purposes in connection with the closure of the Keene landfill; WHEREAS, the County has conveyed an offer, conditioned upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, to purchase approximately 15 acres of privately-owned property adjacent to the Keene landfill for the per-acre assessed value; and WHEREAS, the properly owners have accepted the County's conditional offer. NOW THEREFORE, BE [T RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the purchase of the above-described property according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement and Deed attached hereto. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing [sa true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of /~ to ~) on February 4, 1998. Clerk. Board of County Supervis/'rs / RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATE BILL NO. 605 IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, SB 605 has been introduced in the General Assembly of V~rginia and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources; and WHEtLEAS, SB 605 will require any truck or trailer used for the purpose of hauling mtmicipal solldwaste, as defined in the Board's regulations, to a solid waste disposal facility for disposal shall be designed and constructed for the sole purpose of transporting municipal solid waste; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, believes such a regulation would be detrimental to rural trash collection and small trash haulers since these haulers would not be able to use their small trucks to travel on rural county roads which in turn would create a monopoly for large trash haulers; and VVHEREAS, the Board believes that such a regulation would cause an undue burden on county citizens thereby increasing illegal dumping; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, strongly opposes this regulation and requests Senator Emily Couric to demonstrate her concern to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources by opposing SB 605. I, Ella W. Carry, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on February. 4, 1998. of County Supervlsprs / David R ~owerman Rio Charlotte Y. Humphris Formst R. Marshall. Jr, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors [ 401 Mdntim R6ad Charlottesville. V~rghq~a 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Marian Walt~r E Perkins Sa~; H. Thomas February 9. 1998 Mrs. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville. VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on F~bruary 4. 1998, the Board of Supervisors made the fbllowing comments regarding transportation matters: Item No. 5.4. Partidpation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1998-99. APPROVED. Consensus of Board that stafflook at redirecting these funds and look at the next CIP to see ~vhat roads would be impacted by this action. Item No. 5.5. Resolution to accept roads in Soutl:nern Hills Subdivision SUB-93-141) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Item No. 5.6. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks SUB~92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED. Item No. 5.11. Road name change requests. [ ! DEFERRED this item until further action by the al~plicants. The Board requested both applicants to get approval of the landowners along the roa~ to agree to changing the road name for the entire length of the road. It was consensus of the Board that it w21 mdikely change road names when the road is a continuation. The Board will discuss whether to change its Road Naming Policy at a future meeting. Printed on recycled p To: Angela G. Tucker Date: February 9. 1998 Page 2 Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: FY 1998 Preallocation Hearing for Primary Roads. Final statement tc come back to the Board on March 4. 1998. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Martin thanked VDOT for its cooperation over the past three months and especially for taking care of the problem on Advance Mills Road and the ditch problem. Mrs. Thomas thanked you for pursuing the right-of-way issue on Grassmere Road. Mrs. Humphris said the patching iob VDOT did on Colthurst Drive has developed into a huge hole in the roadway. You said VDOT will use a cold mix asphalt to frx this problem. Mrs. Humphris m~ntioned a letter received from EARL (copy attached] regarding an entrance permit on Route 743 given by VDOT. You said you would investigate. Mr. Bowerman asked about .the status of the issue regarding the use of exhaust brakes on diesel trucks on the downgrade from Woodbrook to the light at Hilton. You said you was waiting on some information and will get back ~vith Mr. Bowerman. You said you would respond to Mr. Eades' letter regarding Route 605 and copy the Board members You said that the delineators have been installed on Profit Road, east of the one lane bridge ar Profit. /EWC Attachments cc: Robert W. Tuckez, Jr. Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk /' / ~ RD OF SUs'ERVISOR~ E. A. R. L. A Commgnity Ax~ociation Earlyswille Area Residents' League P.O. Box 684 December 28, 1997 ~.~y~ne v~ 229~6 Chairman Forrest Marshall Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Members of the Board: The transportation committee of E. A. R. L. has been investigating a problem in Earlysville that now needs your attention. The location is the a driveway, giving access to a family division of the Ayres property, now owned by Tom Kane and Susan Hawkins. This driveway is immediately south of the Jacob's Run Bridge, 1 mile north of the Earlysville General Store on Rt. 743. Even though there is little southbound site distande, ¥~DOT gave an entrance permit. Rt. 743 northbound is a downgrade in this area, and the driveway is rendered invisible by a right curve just before the bridge. Approximately eight feet of the bridge's guard rail, which protected drivers from sliding off into the stream, were permanently removed to allow this road to be cut into the hill. At the suggestion of Ass't Cotmty Attorney Greg Kampner, General Kidd of E. A. R. L. contacted Mr. Baber at VDOT, who reported that there was no action planned concerning this driveway. As you are well aware, Rt. 743 or Advance ,.x/tills Road has become a heavily travelled road. Many neighbors are concerned for the owners' safety entering and leaving the property and the safety of the public passing by. Can the County regulators take a more pro-active role to solve this problem? Can YT)OT be directed to cut back the bank to the south of the driveway to improve the site distance as they have recently done at the next bridge, just 50 yards to the north? ! look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter. I fear that the current owners and the driving public including children in school buses are at risk. Thank you. Sincerely, Arm H. Mallek President COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC February 9. 1998 Board Actions of February z~, 1998 At its meeting on February 4, 1998. the Board of Supervisors approved the following appropriation requests, Attached are the signed forms. Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program Facility (PREP), $3.0 million ~Form #97003). Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth Fund Balance, $23,320.75 Form #97042L Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education. $68,125.56 .Form#97046~. Item No. 5.8. Authorize County Executive to execute agreement to purchase of 0.3 acre of property adjacent to Whitewood Park. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the agreement. Item No. 5.12. Set public hearing for March 4_ 1998. to amend Section 8-66 of the County Code establishing time Iimits for appeals of real estate assessments. PUBLIC HEAPdNG set for March 4. 1998, at 10:O0 a.m. Item No. 5.13. Set public hearing on the proposed FY 1998 '1999 - FY 2002 2003 Capital Improvements Program for February 18, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING set for February 18, I998. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD, ADOPTED the attached Resolution authorizing the purchase of a parcel of land of approximately 15 acres, near the Keene Landfill and shown as Tax Map 29. Parcel 2A. /ewe Attachments (5) cc: Rick Huff Roxanne White Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Al Reaser Pat Mullaney File APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NI/MBER 97903 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TP,3~NSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND SCHOOL CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PIEDMONT REGIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM FACILITY. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1981061!943~2350 ENGINEERING/PLANNING $215,584.00 1981061194800200 PURNITURE/FIXTURES 151,000.00 1981061194800605 CONSTRUCTION 2,504,200.00 1981061194800982 INSPECTIONS/TESTING 25,000;00 1981061194999999 CONTINGENCY 104,216.00 TOTAL $3,000,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900041000410502 LEASE PROCEEDS-P.R.E.P. $3,000,000.00 TOTAL $3,000,000.00 TRANSFERS ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE ~. ?-~ APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 97/98 AIUMBER 97042 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CLOSEOUT OF GYPSY MOTH GRA_NT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1123C34010110000 SAf_J%RIES $8,784.24 11230340102~0000 FICA 671.54 1123034010270000 WORKER'S COMP. 1,289.48 1123099999S30009 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND 12,575.49 TOTAL S23~320.75 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2123051000510100 FUND BALANCE S23,320.75 TOTAL S23,320.75 REQUESTING COST CENTER: PARKS & RECREATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 97/98 NUMBER 97046 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: VARIOUS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND GRANTS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT i 2201 61101 132100 PART-TIME TEACHER $1,000.00 1 2251 61101 601300 INST/REC. SUPPLIES 150.00 I 3130 61102 301210 CONTRACTED SERVICES 2.100.00 1 3205 61108 1121 O0 SALARIES-TEACHER 6,572.16 1 3130 61108 21000C :ICA 502.77 3128 61311 31270O PROF. SER. CONSULTANTS 3 000.00 I 3131 61311 152100 SUB/WAGES- TEACB ER 1,950.00 1 3131 61311 160200 STIPENDS 20,000.00 3131 61311 210000 FICA 1,679.18 · 3131 61311 312500 PROF. SERV.-INSTRUCTION 2.882.10 1 3131 61311 601300 INST. MATERIALS 13,350.00 3104 60202 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 300.00 I 3104 60206 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 300.00 I 3104 60212 601300 INSTR. MATERIALS 900.00 1 3210 60293 115000 SALARIES-CLERICAL 2.000.00 1 3210 60293 210000 FICA 153.00 · 3210 60293 580000 MISCELLANEOUS 3.286.35 1 3104 61311 312500 PROF. SER.-INSTRUCTION 8.000.00 TOTAL $68,125.56 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 15100 181109 DONATION $1,000.00 2 2000 181 O0 181 t 09 DONATION 150.00 2 3130 24000 240311 VDOE MEDIATION SERVICES 2,100.00 2 3205 51000 5101 O0 PRESCHOOL GRANT F/B 7,074.93 2 3128 33000 330116 TITLE VI GRANT 3,000.00 2 3131 24000 240312 TECHNOLOGY LITERACY GRANT 39,861.28 2 3104 24000 240313 VA. COMM. FOR THE ARTS 300.O0 2 3104 24000 240314 VA. COMM. FOR THE ARTS 300.00 2 3104 24000 240315 VA. COMM, FOR THE ARTS 900.00 2 3210 51000 510100 VAACE ASSESSMENT F/B 5,439.35 2 310,4 18000 189900 COMM. FOUNDATION GRANT 8.000,00 TOTAL 568.125.56 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS; DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: VDOT Revenue Sharing Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by County to participate in the VDOT Revenue Shadng Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: .REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: VDOT's County Pdma~ and Secondary Road Fund or Revenue Sharing Program, provides the opportunity for the County to receive an additional $500,000 for road improvements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match bythe County. The result is a total commitment of up to $1,000,000 toward improvements to the local read system. The County has participated in this Program since 1988. The current recommended Capital Improvement Plan (ClP) allocates $380,000 for fiscal year 1998-99. DISCUSSION: The County must formally request participation in the 1998-99 program by March 27, 1998. Attached is a draft letter of intent to participate in the program. The funds for FY 98/99 would be used for the construction of Airport Road from Route 29 to Route 606. As noted previously, the CIP proposes participation in the Revenue Sharing Program in the proposed 1998-2004 draft and staff has recommended a total match amount of $380,000 in 1998-99. Staff recommends that the County. request the full $500 000. If the total statewide requests exceed the $10 million allocated for the program, VDOT will pre-rate the awards to requesting localities based on the percentage overage. It is typical for the total requests to exceed allocated amount; therefore, the county usually receives less than the full $500,000 award (over the last eight years the County has average $428,063 in Revenue Sharing). Once the grants are awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Board can then decide whether to match that full award or a portion thereof. RECOMMENDATION: Participate in the Revenue Sharing Program requesting a total of $500,000 (to be matched with available County funds) for the Airport Road improvement project and author~.e the Chairman to notify VDOT of our intent participate in the program. 98.007 BOARD OF Sl m g DRAFT February 4, 1998 Mr. James S. Givens Stale Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Xrtrginia 23219 Dear Mr. Oven: The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer and developed the attached list of eligible projects to be undemaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program wilt be reduced on a pro rata basis if request exceeds available funds. Sincerely, FRlVI, Jr/ Forrest R. Marshall, Ir. Chairman pc: Ms. Angela G. Tucker David R Bo~Tnan Charlotte Y. Humphris Fom~ R. M,~sh~. Jr. COUNTY OF A! REMARLE Office of Board of Su~m 401 Mc~ Road Ch~o~e. V~m~ 22~2~96 (~) 2~ F~ (~) 29~5~ Charles S. Martin R~ranna Walter E R~rkim Sally H. Tl~omas February 9, 1998 Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond. VA 23219 Dear Mr. Givens: The County of Albemarle, Virginia. indicates by this letter its offidal intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollarbasis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer and developed the attached list of eligible projects to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRMJr/ewc Attachment pc: Angela G. Tucker V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper DAVID R GEHR COMMISSIONER OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMONE. 23219 January 14, 1998 JAMES W. ATWELL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FINANCE Boards of Supervisors of All Counties And the City of Suffolk Council Re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Fiscal Year 1998-99 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors And Members of the Council: The County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the '~Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of primary and secondary highways in your county. This money also may be used for the addition of subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1 Code of Virginia. Such a cooperative program between local governments and VDOT allows for an increased number of road improvements throughout the Commonwealth. In the current fiscal year. 45 counties chose to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, thereby providing $20 million dollars for additional improvements to the primary and secondary system. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation of state funds in this program is limited to $10,000,000.00 (Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1 [C]). If your county wishes to participate in the program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999, the Board of Supervisors or members of Council must notify VDOT off its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, the amount of local funds to be provided, not to exceed $500,000, and the prioritized list of eligible projects with individual estimated project COSTS. The Resident Engineer for your locality will work with you to identify a list of one or more improvement projects to be undertaken with these funds. Your Resident Engineer will also help you establish estimated project costs. VDOT must receive this information on the attached form by March 27, 1998. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY The submittal of this package should be coordinated through the Resident Engineer's office. The Resident Engineer's office should forward the package to: Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engmeer Virginia Departmem of Transportation Secondary Roads Division 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Note: A sample letter of notification of desire to participate in the 98-99 Revenue Sharing Program is attached for your reference. In the event that localities throughout the state request a total in excess of the available matching funds, the Commonwealth's participation will be adjusted downwards on a pro rata basis to remain within the limits of the appropriation. The adjustment may requke that the lowest priority or projects be dropped from the program. You will be notified of the preliminary amount available to your locality in April 1998; this amount will be subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in July 1998, Conversely, should total requests require less than the available funds, those counties which initially requested the $500,000 maximum may apply for a part of the remaining appropriation (Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1). The allocation of any remaining funds will be decided in June 1999. Note: A set of guidelines for administering this program is enclosed to assist you in making these assignments. Thank you for your continued support of this effort. Sincerely, Assistant Commissioner Finance Attachments Pc: District Administrators Resident Engineers ,1998 County Primary and Secondary Road Fund ~Revenue Sharing Program) Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1 Fiscal Year 1998-99 County of Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad St Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Givens: The County of , Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1998-99. The County will provide $ ($500,000 maximum) for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. (Applicable if County requested $500,000 and wants to participate in additional funding from the Revenue Sharing Program): Having requested the maximum of $500,000 in state funds, the County further requests that an additional amount of $ be made available in the event that any funds remain unallocated after initial allocations are made. Sincemly, Chairman. Board of Supervisors pc: Resident Engineer Attachment: Priority Listing of Projects Z © GUIDE to the REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM of the Department of Transportation Secon&,ry Roads Division Memorandum SR-48-92 Ricbmmld, Virginia March, 1992 Copyright 1992, Commonwealth of Virginia 1o: Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer Department of Engineering & Public Works From: Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, CMC -~ C-- Subject: Road Resolutions [}ate: February 9, 1998 At its meeting on February 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolutions: (1) to accept roads in Southern Hills Subdivision SUB-93-141 into the State Secondary System of Highways. to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision~ English Oaks, SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. Attached is the origh~al and four copies of the adopted resolutions %WC Attachments I0} The Board of Counuy Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeuing Dn the 4TH day of Februaz~, 1998, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sEreeEs in Southern Hills Subdivision, SUB-93-141 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February 4, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparnmenn of Transporna- ~lon has advised the Board that the s~reeEs meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Deparnmen5 of Transpormamzon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED~ that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requesEs the Virginia ~epartment of Transportation to add the roads in Southern Hills Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 A) dated February 4, 1998, to the secondary sysnem of shame highways, pursuan5 no ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require- menEs; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenms drainage as described on the recorded plats; and ~lear and unrestricted Eor cues, fills and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparmmenn of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. and Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins A Copy Teste: Ell¥~. ~a~ey, CVlerk,/CMC__ Board of County SuperVisors ! The Board of county Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia in regular meeuing on the 4TH day o~ February, 1998, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sureeus in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks SUB- 92-087 described Dn the attached Additions Form SR-5~A) dated February 4, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office o~ the Circuit Court of Albemarle Counsy, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparnmenu of Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the streems meet the requiremenns established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Deparumenu of Transporuauion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requesus the Virginia Deparsmen~ of Transportation to add 2he roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-51A) dated February 4, 1998, no the secondary system o~ stane highways, pursuan5 to §33.t-229, ~ode o~ Virginia, and the Department,s Subdivision Street Requiremenss: and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guaranuees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenns for cuns, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED tha~ a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Englneer for the Virginia Departmen% of Transporzauion. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mrs. Humphris. Seconded by: Mr. Martin. Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Mr. Martin, Mr Perkins A Copy Teste: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: VIA: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer ~ Bill Mawyer~ Director ~ January 6, 1998 Southern Hills Subdivision (SUB-93-1#1) The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, / request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the roads specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) forms. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.. Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. MBH/mbh Attachment The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 4TH day of February, 1998, adopted the following resolntion: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sureens in Southern Hills Subdivision, SUB-93-141 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5 A) dated February 4, 1998, fully zncorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virglnza DeparEmen5 of Transporua- tion has advised the Board that the ~ree~s meeu the recfumremen~s esuablished by the Subdivision Street Re~ulremenEs of the Virginia Deparsmenu of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requesss the Virginia Deparsmenu of TransporuaEzon uo add the roads in Southern Hills Subdivismon as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated February ¢ 1998, uo the secondary sysuem of sua5e highways, pursuanu mo §33.1-229, Code of Virginza, and the Department's Subdivision ~treet Require- menus; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, ~nd any necessary easemenus for CUES, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded uo the Resident Engineer for the Vir~-inia Deparumenu of Transportation. Recorded roue: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Ways: A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: Southern Hills Drive from Station 0+00, right edge of pavement of northbound State Route 712 to Station 24+13.86. rear of cul-de- sac, 2988.69 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 6/12/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1473, pages 141-145, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats ~ecorded 12 23/97 in Deed Book 1664, page 173, for a length of 0.57 mile. NOTE: Statzon equation: 9+59.99 back 3+85.16 ahead 2~ Southern Hills Court from Station 0+10, left edge of pavemen5 of Southern Kills Drive go Station 14+27.30, rear of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 6/12/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, zn Deed Book 1473, pages 141-145, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi- tional plat recorded on 12/23/97 zn Deed Book 1664, page 170, for a length of 0.27 mile. Total length - 0.84 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARL~ _ ~ ? _ ~ ~ ? ~ ~: ~ DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: VIA: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer Bill Mawyer, Director January 6, 1998 Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks (SUB-92-087) The roads serving the referenced subdiws/on are substantially complete and ready for VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the roads specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) forms. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A. Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions, MBH/mbh Attachment The Board Df County Supervisors of Albemarle 2ounty, Virginia, in regular meeting an the 4TH day Df February, 1998, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sEreets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Oaks SUB- 92-087 described on the attached Additions Form SR-S{A dated February 4, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office Df the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transporsa- ~ion has advised the Board that the sureens meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Re~ulremenus of the Virginia Deparnment of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Depar~menn of Transportation ~o add the roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, English Daks, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5[A) dated February 4. 1998, nc the secondary system of ssane highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that $ cernified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Resident Engineer for the Virginia DepartmenE of Transportation. Recorded vose: Moved by: Seconded by: Nays: A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) English Oaks Circle North from Station 0+15, right edge of pave- ment of State RouEe 1675 Lo Station 13+50.20~ rear of cul-de-sac, 1335.2 lineal feet am shown on plat recorded 1/26/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1452, pages 250-257, with a right-of-way width of 50 f~et, with additional plats recorded 1/19/94 mn Deed Book 1376, pages 338-343, 12/30/97 in Deed Book 1665, page 595, for a length of 0.25 mile. 2~ English Oaks Circle South from Station 0+10, right edge of pave- menu of English Oaks Circle North ~o Station 10+31.94, rear edge of pavemenu of English Oaks Circle North, 1,021.94 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 1/26/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1452, pages 250-257, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with addi- tional plat recorded on 10/23/97 in Deed Book 1650, page 112, for a length of 0.20 mile Total length - 0.45 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Selected VA County Policy Guidelines for Deferral of Zoning Applications SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Zoning deferral guidelines for the Board's review STAFF CONTACT(S}: Tucker, Huff, White & Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: February 4, 1997 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: I REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: The Board requested that staff review how other Virginia counties hand!~ deferring zoning submittals and make several changes based on the Board's last discussion of the issue. Attachmont-A~briefly details the vadaty of guidelines other localities follow to manage this process. RECOMMENDATION: Applicants should submit a written deferral request signed by the applicant to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors no later than the Wednesday morning a week before the board's public hearing. This will enable the request to be included in the Board package/agenda that is distributed on Fdday afternoon, as well as provide an opportunity for a public announcement at the Wednesday Board meeting that an upcoming item has been deferred. If the written request is received beforethe Wednesday deadline, then the tirst deferral wilt be automatic, but the second request for deferral of thesame application will be at the discretion of the Board - with the preference of the Board to not grant deferral. Staff will make every effort to contact the public when an automatic deferral is granted. If a deferral request is received after the Wednesday morning deadline, deferrals also wilt be at the discretion of the Board. with the understanding that since public notification will be more difficult te achieve the Beard will not likely grant deferral. If this Zoning Policy is included in the Board's Policy & Procedures Manual that is adopted each year, it can be rs-examined annually to determine if it is working as planned. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -~_2~-gg~ (:53 [~g\"[ 98.010 SELECTED VIRGINIA COUNTY POLICY GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF ZONING APPLICATIONS (1998) COCNTY ~¥RITTEN POI,ICY GUIDEI.INES FOR I'OI.IC'Y ZONING I)EFEI~RAI,S Atbemarl¢ No W~ Acc~t r~e~ for d~ ~ ~g ~1 Bo~d ag~ ~ p~p~ Ffi~y Poli~ (Mop~) i mo~g ~ or&r for nofi~ to ~ ~v~ to Mj~g pmp~ ~e a~ is ~ ~q~ for &f~s of~e Bogd He~ No W~ R~g req~s~ rcq~e 48 ho~ nofi~ for M~. O~ M~ r~u~ Po~ ~c a~ up mill ~ ofBo~d ~. At m~g, Bo~d ms,es W hold public h~g ~d ~t on P. Wfl~m No WfiR~ ~ PC ~es action, ~ ~plic~t em ~te a Po~ ~e ~ ~e petition is Mv~d for ~ Bo~& Bo~d ~ ~e ~p~cmt mm w~t ~ ~ Bond's ~bliv he~g ~d ~q~st d~ at ~at ~. Ro~oke Wdtt~ Pdicy ~er Mv~m~t ~te nofi~ m~ be pro~d~ ~ defer, N ~d~ to ~e~ Mjacmt ~p~ o~. Applic~t ~ sub~t N ~g m ~c Cl~k of ~ Bo~d no tat~ ~ n~n m ~e Th~sday b~ore ~e sch~ul~ public he~g ~e m~e~ m d~ (one d~ p~ applicafim, ~ess cruces). Roc~m ~ No Wfi~n Bo~d req~s ~at ff~e applic~t ~es to d&~ he mint ~&aw ~ Pokey petition ~d rede a new application. Once adve~se~ ~e Bo~d holds ~e public he~g ~d ~es a~im reg~ess ofreqae~ ~ d~. S~lv~ No WNR~ Ac~m~ of~ ~ at ~e ~m of Po~cy ph~ ~ pubic being. ATTACHMENT A POLICY DEFERRAL OF ZONING APPLICATIONS Applicants should submit a ,vritten deferral request signed by the applicant to the Clerk of the Board of Super~sors no later than the Wednesday morning a week before the Board's public hearing. This will enable the request to be included in the Board package/agenda that is distributed on Friday afternoon, as well as provide an opporttmity for a public announcement at the Wednesday Board meeting that an upcoming item has been deferred. If the written request is received before the Wednesday deadline, then the first deferral will be automatic, but the second request for deferral of the same application will be at the discretion of the Board -- with the preference of the Board to not grant deferral. Staff will make every effort to contact the public when an automatic deferral is granted. If a deferral request is received after the Wednesday morning deadline, deferrals also will be at the discretion of the Board, with the understanding that since public notification will be more difficult to achieve the Board will not likely grant deferral. This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board's Policy Sc Procedures Manual for adoption each year. so that it can be re-examined armually to determine if it is worMng as planned. (Adopted 02-04-98) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of 0.3 acre of Property Adjacent to Whitewood Park SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize County Executive to Execute Agreement to Purchase Property. STAFF CONTACT~S~: Messrs. TuckedHuff/Davis AGENDA DATE: AC~ON: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS Agreement for Purchase of Real Estat~~~ ! BACKGROUND: The County recently discovered that a 0.3 acre parcel of property believed to have been dedicated right of way was in fact privately owned property. The parcel is desirable for access to Whitewood Park from Greenbrier Drive at a location advantageous for ingress and egress to a proposed detention basin and for future bike trails. DISCUSSION: The property is owned by David W. Cart William H. White, III and Margaret Gale Frizzell. The property owners haGe agreed to se!l the property for $13,000. This price reflects the fair market value of the property. The property owners have executed aw Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate which is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase of the subject property and authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement for Purchase of Real Estate. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.005 0 :~8~ :P~ - AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE THIS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE (the "Agreement") is made this day of ,1998, by and among WILLIAM H. WHITE, III, DAVID W. CARR, AND MARGARET GALE FRIZZELL (collectively the "Sellers") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA ("Buyer"). 1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of the mutual prornises contained herein, Sellers agree to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with alt improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), toeated near Whitewood Road in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. The Property consists of approximately .3 acres, more or less, and is described as lying in between parcel A, consisting of 1.942 acres, and parcel B, consisting of 1.365 acres, as shown and identified on the subdivision plat entitled "Dedication of Streets and Division of the Lands of David J. Wood, Jr. Etals, R.C. Minor Estate, and Albemarle County School Board" prepared by Huffman-Foster and Associates and dated December 1970 (the "1970 Plat"); and is described further as that parcel adjacent to the "Area dedicated to public use, 0.5349 ac," as show, s and identified on the plat entitled "Subdivision Plat Showing Lots 55L & R To Lots 66L and R Phase Two Wynridge" prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd. and dated June 5. t 985 (the "1985 Plat"), copies of which are attached hereto. The Property is a portion ora parcel containing 14.778 acres as shoam on the 1970 Plat and conveyed to David J. Wood, Jr., Joseph M. Wood II, William H. White III, David W. Cart and Lockwood Frizzell, by deed dated December 29. 1970 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 482, page 164. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the property is Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00~. and shall be paid in full by Buyer to Sellers at closing. 3. Title. Sellers agree to convey the Property by appropriate deed containing general warranty and English Covenants of title, which title shall be good. marketable, and insurable, free and clear of alt liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and tenancies, and subject only ;o such easements, covenants, and restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability and insurability oftitte. In the event Buyer's attorney finds title to be defective, and should Sellers fail to remedy any default within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to Sellers by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days. 4. Expenses and Prorations~ Except as otherwise agreed herein, all expenses incun'ed by Buyer ha connection with the purchase, including, without limitation, title exam/nation, survey costs, preparation ora plat of subdivision and deed, enviroranental reports, and recording costs shall be borne by Buyer. All taxes (current or delinquent), assessments, interest, and penalties, if any, shall also be paid by Buyer. Sellers shall be responsible for the recordation tax applicable to grantors, and for any attorney's fees or other legal expe~es incmxed by them in connection with tlfis conveyance. 5. Inspection. Buyer and its agents shall have the fight to enter upon the Property at any time prior ro closing for purposes of engineering, surveying, site analysis, and such other work. so long as the studies do not result in a change in the character or topography of the Property. 2 Deed and Plat. Sellers agree to execute upon request all deeds, plats and other legal documents necessary to transfer the Property to Buyer. 7 Closin~. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's Office on or before February t6, 1998, or earlier if Buyer and Sellers agree, or as soon thereafter as title can be examined and papers prepared. 8. Risk of Loss. All risk of loss or damage to the Properly by fire, windstorm. casualty or other cause are assumed by, and shall be borne by Sellers, until closing. In the event of any material loss, destruction or damage m the Property, Buyer may declare the Agreemem null and void and all funds paid m Sellers by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days. 9. Condition of Property. Sellers warrant that the Property shall be in substantially the same condition at closing as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement. 10. Construction. Benefit and Effect. This Agreemem shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virgima, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all parties. 11. Agreement Survives Closing, It is expressly understood and agreed by Buyer and Sellers that all agreements, promises, stipulations, representatmns, and releases contained herein shall survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 12. Cotmtv Approval. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon approval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above written. SELLERS: WILLIAM H. WHITE, III DAVID W. CARR MARGARET GALE FRIZZELL BUYER: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ROBERT W. TUCKER, .IR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE Approved as to form: County Attorney COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _, 1998, by William H. White, III. My commission expires: day of Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF : The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,1998, by David W. Carr. My commission expires: day of Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ., 1998, by Margaret Gale Frizzell. My commission expires: day of Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Albemarle, Virginia. day of _, 1998, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, County of My commission expires: Notary Public D~vid R Charlol~ Y. Humph~ COUNT~ OF ALREMARLE C~ce o~ Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville. V'n~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charle~ S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thom~ February 9, 1998 Mr. David E. Bailey, Coordinator PETFIX Coalition PO Box 35998 Richmond, VA 23235 Dear Mr. Bailey: At its meeting on February- 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution designating February, 1998, as PETFIX Month. Enclosed please find the resolution. S/:.~cerety, ey, Cie /ewc Printed on rec.vcled paper ~PETFZX MONTH 1998" ~E~AS, dogs and cats give co~anionship to and share,the homes of over 50,000,000 individuals in the United States; and Wq{EREAS, two unsterilized cats and their kittens can produce 420,000 more kittens in seven years and tw~ unsterilized dogs and their puppies can produce 67,000 more dogs an six years; and W~EREAS, it is estimated that more than 300,000 dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the Commonwealth of Virginia, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, simply because there are not enough homes; and Wq{EREAS, the problem of pet overpopulation is the leading cause of needless animal suffering; and W~EREAS, the sterilizing of dogs and cass has been shown to drastically reduce dog and cat overpopulation; and veuerinarzans and humane organizations throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia have joined together uo advocate sterilization of companion animals during 'PETFIX MONTH 1998"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby reco~nlze the month of February 1998 as ~PETFIX MONTH 1998" and encourages all citizens to observe this month by either havin~ their dogs and caus sterilized or by sponsoring the sterilization of a companion animal for another person. "PETFIX MONTH 1998" W~EREAS, dogs and cams give companionship mo and share the homes of over 50,000,000 individuals in the United States; and W~EREAS, two unsterilized cams and their kittens can produce 420,000 more kittens in seven years and two unsterilized dogs and their puppies can produce 67,000 more dogs in slx years; and WHEREAS, it is estimated that more than 300,000 dogs and cats are euthanized each year in mba Commonwealth of Virginia, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, simply because there are non enough homes; and W}{EHEAS, the problem of pet overpopulation is the leadin9 cause of needless animal suffering; and W~EREAS, the sterilizing of dogs and cams has been shown to drastically reduce dog and cat overpopulation; and WIqEREAS, vemerinarlans and humane organizations throughout the Commonwealth of Virglnia have joined mogether mo advocate sterilization of companion animals durin9 'PETFIX MONTH 1998"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HESOLIrED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recognize the month of February 1998 as ~PETFIX MONTH 1998" and encourages all citizens to observe this month by elmher having their do~s and cams sterilized or by sponsoring the sterilization of a companion animal ~or another person. CLERK, BOA~qD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS DATE COA .rrIoN P.O. Box 35998 Richmond. VA 23235 Tel: (80~_) 257-9663 January 5~ 1998 Co:muty Administrator AIbermarle County McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Sir: Once again, we urge Albermarle County to join other localities in desigo~tinq February 1998 as 'Pe~Fix~on~-h' as for February 1997 last year. An example of a sugqested proclamation is attached for y~ar consideration. Please mail a copy of the document to us at the above address or if you prefer a personal presentation., please advise us of the time and place and a Coalition representative from a member organization in your ar~a will be present on our behalf. We have enjoyed greater success than we had anticipated~ Last year, eiqhteen humane orqanizations, thirty veterinarians and ~wen%y localities cooperated with us in this combinecleffort resulting in 2,275 pet sterilizations durinq Fe~aary 1997, Because of a generous ~rant from Chesterfield Co~ty, we fully suf0sidized many pet sterilize%ions for owners uns]01e to pay even the reduced fees. Sincerely, David E. Bailey Coordinator Encl: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE OFFICE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Road Name Changes SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Road Name Change Requests STAFF CONTACT;S): Messrs, Tucker, Huff, Cilimber~, Weaver AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: February 4, 1998 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY.~ BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the Board s road name change policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no furthe changes to mad names would be permitted without Board approval. The following road name change requests were referred to the Department of Planning and Community Development by the ICounty Executive's Office for review. It is important to point out that the following road name changes are not being requested due to complications associated with emergency services. DISCUSSION: 1. Request to change the name of Mill Creek Drive from its intersection with Avon Street Extended (StHwy 742) to its intersection with Scottsvitie Road (StHwy 20) to Independence Boulevard (see Attachment A). This request was made by Mr. Irving C. Jones, Sr., Monticello High School Principal, and the School Spirit Committee. The Board initially named this road Mill Creek Drive at its meeting on September 3, 1997. Request to change the name of Berwick Road from its intersection with Ednam Drive to its terminus at the Amvest Building to Boars Head Pointe (see Attachment B~ atthe requestofthepropertyowner(AmvestCorpora§on). The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage, RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board approve the new road names as requested, the Board should grant staff the authority to coordinate/'m3plement the above referenced changes. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.004 I.ATTACHMENT A1 v~N -iLLS OR ]ATTACHMENT-~] AMVEST BLDG AGb~I)A ITeM 1~). A('~JxI:)A ITI~i NA~I] DEFERRI~) l. lql~ I L Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Amendment of Time Limits for Appeals of Real Estate Assessments SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize public hearing to amend Section 8-66 of the County Code establishing time limits for appeals of mai estate assessments. STAFF CONTACTfS): Messrs. Tucker/Davis/Woodzell February 4, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: · REVIEWED BY: /~' ~'-" ? BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 58.1-3330 requires the County to provide notice of any changes in the assessed value of real estate and to provide a taxpayer at least 15 days to request a hearing before the assessing officer to protest such changes. Virginia Code § 58.1-3378 provides that the-board of equalization may also hear applications for relief from real estate assessments and that the Board of Supervisors may establish a deadline for such applications, provided that the deadline is at least 30 days after the date of' the headng before the assessing officer under § 58.1-3330. Finally, § 58.1~3378 provides that the Board of SuperVisors may establish the deadline by which all applications must be I~naliy disposed of by the board of equalization. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County Code § 8-66, which establishes time limits for appeals of real estate assessments, is ambiguous with respect to the deadline for an application to the board of equalization. Specifically, Section 8-66 currently states that any additional appeal .must by made to the board of equalization within thirty (30)days, but does not dearly state what event triggers the thirty-day limit. Moreover, current Section 8-66 does not establish a deadline for the final dispositions by the board of equalization as provided in ~ru-ginia Code § 58.1-3378. The attached ordinance cladfies the thirty-day time limit and establishes a deadline of September I for the disposition of all biennial assessment appeals and a deadline of December 31 for all supplemental and pre rata assessment appeals. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for the attached Ordinance amending and reordaining Section 8-66 on March 4, 1998. OF $13pF p ¥t$OP $ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8 is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8- 66. Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments, as follows: Sec. 8-66. Time limits for appeals of real estate assessments. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 58.1-3330 of the Code of Virginia, all applications for appeals from any biennial assessment of real estate must be made by the property owner or lessee ................ ~a~_~,- o, ^_ ~_-.~ o~ .^~:_~ th C untvAss rbv day of .............. t~ ................ to e o esso the last business February of the year in which the assessment takes effect. A ~rovertv owner or lessee may also avueal any biennial assessment bv makin~ an a~lication to the board of equalization by the last business day of March of the year in which the assessment takes effect, or within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision of the County Assessor denvin~ an aooeal for such assessment, whichever date is later. ADolications for ao~)eals from any suoolemental assessment or pro rata assessment for new construction assessed between lanuarv 1 and ctober 31 must be made bv the oror)ertv owner or lessee to the County Assessor within fifteen ( 15} days of the date of the notice of the suor)lemental or pro rata assessment. A orooertv owner or lessee may also a~)Deal any supplemental or pro rata assessment by making an application to the board of equalization within thirty (30} days of the date of the notice of the suo~)lemental or Dro rata assessment, or within thirty (30} days from the date of the decision of the Counw Assessor denying an a~)r)eal for such sup lemental or ufo rata assessment, whichever date is later The board of eoualization shall finally dispose of all biennial assessment appeals by Seotember i of the year in which the assessment takes effect and of all supplemental or pro rata assessment aPPeals for new construction bv December 31 of the year in which the suuDlemental or PrO rata assessment takes effect. (Sec. 8-1.7, 7-12-89; Ord. Of 2-5-92) ~ ITHVI N&I~ DEFEgRm ItlTIL _ _ Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 98/99-FY 02/03 Capital improvement Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST.: Request approval of proposed FY98/99 - FY02/03 Capital.Improvement Program for a public hearing on March 17. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEVVED BY: ~ I BACKGROUND: At the January 7 meeting, the Board requested that staff bring back an alternative Capital Improvement Program, which continues to level fund the FY98/99,general fund contribution, b~t increases the available funding in FY00- FY03 by moving the Technical Committee s proposed increase in the general fund transfer and the debt service transfer out one year. DISCUSSION: The attached report attempts to explain, as well as demonstrate, the proposed changes to the Technical Committee's recommended Capital Improvement Program. The revised FY98/99 - FY02/03 CIP totals $47.5 million, $28.6 million in school division projects and $18.9 in general government projects. For General Government FY1998/99 - FY2002/03 ClP, projects deferred to the 8th year total approximately $1.4 million. These deferred funds are mainly in the ongoing project or sinking funds, such as County Office Building Repair/Maintenance Fund, the Court Facilities Maintenance/Repair Fund and the Highway Revenue Sharing Fund. Only one specific project, the M nt Springs Concess on Stand was deferred to the 6th year, For the School Division, projects deferred to the 6t~ year total $5.9 million, $4.8 million in VPSA funded projects and $1.1 million in maintenance and repair/technology projects, which are funded by the general fund transfer. Details of the deferred funding for both general govemment and the school division are found in the attached material. Attachment E is a copy of the proposed ad for the public headng which shows the proposed $47.6 million ClP and the expanded $54.9 million ClP, which was the Technical Committee's original recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed FY98/99 - FY02/03 Capital Improvement Program be taken to the public ~.,.hearing on February 18 for public comment. 98.017 PROPOSED FY98/99 - FY02/03 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Revisions made to the C]3P Technical Committee Recommendations SECTION I. Overall Changes to the General Fund Transfer to the FY98/99 - FY02/03 Capital Improvement Program The Technical Committee recommended Wansferring $18 million in current revenues to the FY98/99-FY02/03 Capital Improvement Program. Of the $18 million, $13.5 million wouid fund General Government projects and $4.5 million would fired school related technology and/or maintenance and repair projects over the five-year period. For FY98/99, the general fund transfer was $2.9 million or $577,000 in increased revenues over the FY97/98 tranffer of $2,323,000. The proposed or revised Capital Improvement Program transfers a total of $15.923 million in current revenues to the five- year capital program, of wtdch $12.123 million funds General Government projects and $3.8 million funds school related projects. This revision reflects an overall reduction in the general fund Ixansfer of $2.077 million dollars in the general fund /xansfer over the 5-year period: $1.377 for general government projects and $0.700 million for school related projects. To accomplish this reduction, the FY98/99 capital budget was reduced by $577,00~3, which essentially level funds the FY98/99 general fund transfer at the FY98 transfer amount of $2,323,000. Further reductions over the next four years were accomplished by pushing the Technical Committee's proposed increase in the lxansfer out one year. For example, the $577,000 increase recommended by the Technical Committee for FY99 becomes the increase in the transfer for FY00: the recommended increase for FY 00 of $300,000 becomes the proposed increase for FY01 and so forth through FY03. These proposed changes are shown on Attachment A. SECTION H. Specific Changes to General Government Projects by Year Changes m specific General Government projects are shown below by year. The majority ($1.244 million) of the total $1.377 mi/lion reduction is reflected in six ongoing project funds, or sinking funds over the five-year CIP: $80,000 in the Computer Upgrade Fund: $353.307 in the County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund: $222,500 in the Cout~ House Maintenance Fund; $47,116 in the Fire/Rescue Building Fund; $21,077 in the Sidewalk Conslntction Fund. and $520,000 in the Highway Revenue Sharing Program. The savings in these funds over the five-year period have been deferred to the s/xth year. FY04. Outside of these ongoing funds, only onet~specific project, the $45,000 Mint Springs Concession Stand (originally recommended for FY03) was moved to the 6 year, FY04. The Stone Robinson Playfield project was reduced by $70,000 based on a lower cost estimate from the school division and the S18,000 Finance Drive-In Window project will be financed out of current year carry over funds. The following summarizes specific changes to general governmem projects by year FY98/99 - Reduced ~;427,000 The following six ongoing project funds were reduced by $219,100: Project Fund Deferred County Computer Upgrade Fund $25,000 · County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund $18.023 Court House Maintenance and Repair Fund (deferred elevator installation $10.000 to FYO0) Sidewalk Conslmction $21.077 County Athletic Field Improvements (deferred $25,000 to FY00) $25,000 Revenue Sharing Road Projects $120,000 Subtotal $219,100 Plus: · Moved Chris Greene Lake purchase to FY00 $113,400 Moved Walnut Creek Park Improvements to FY00 $ 24.500 Reduced cost of Stone Robinson Playfield $ 70,000 Total $427.000 FY99/00 - Reduced $372,900 The following four ongoing project funds or sinking funds were reduced by $272,900: Project Fund Deferred County Computer Upgrade Fund County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund Fire/Rescue Building Fund Revenue Sharing Road Projects Sub-Total Plus: · Moved Greenbrier Drive Pedestrian/Bike Path from FY00 m FY01 Moved $25,000 of $50,000 for Southern Albemarle Park Organization to FY01 Total FY00/01 - Reduced $250,000 The following three ongoing project funds were reduced by $232,000: Project Fund $15,000 $110,784 $47,116 $100,000 $272,900 $75,000 $25,000 $372_900 Deferred County Computer Upgrade Fund County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund Revenue Sharing Road Projects Sub-Total Plus: Funded Finance Drive-In W~mdow & Canopy with FY98 carrg-over funds Total FY01/02 - Reduced $400,000 The fotlowingthree ongoing project funds were reduced by $152,000: Project Fund $20,000 $112,000 $100,000 $232.000 $18,000 $250,000 Deferred County Computer Upgrade Fund County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund Revenue Sharing Road Projects Sub-Total Plus: Deferred Police LAN upgrade to FY02/03 · Deferred $83,000 of $166,000 PVCC Softball Field Lighting to FY03 Total FY02/03 - Reduced 5448~000 The following four ongoing project funds were reduced by $403,000: Project Fund $10.000 $42,000 $100,000 $152.000 $165_000 $83~000 540G,000 Deferred County Computer Upgrade Fund County Office Building Maintenance and Repak Fund Court House Maintenance and Repair Fund (renovations) Revenue Sharing Road Projects Sub-Total Deferred Mint Springs Concession Stand ($45,000) to FY04 Total $10,000 $70,500 $222,500 $100,000 $403,000 $45,000 $448,000 FY03/04 (Year 6) - Added $L289,000 in projects The following five ongoing project funds were increased in the 6t~ year by $1.244 million~ Project Fund Added · County Computer Upgrade Fund $80,000 · County Office Building Maintenance and Repair Fund $353,307 · Court House Maintenance and Repair Fund (renovations) $222,500 · Fire/Rescue Building Fund $47,116 · Sidewalk Coustmction Fund $21.077 · Revenue Sharing Road Projects $520,000 Sub- Total $1,244,000 Plus: · Added Mint Springs Concession Stand(S45,000) $45,000 Total $1,289,000 Project changes over the five-year period are also reflected on Attachment B where shading reflects revised projects. I~ Changes to School Division Projects The Technical Committee recommended transferring an additional $450.000 from the General Fund to the School Division capital needs, of which $150,000 was for maintenance and repair and/or technology projects and $300,000 for increased debt service. With an increasing annual contribution over the next four years, the total transfer m maintenance and repair/technology projects was $4.5 million; the total transfer to debt service was approximately $43 mil/ion. The proposed or revised transfer to the school CIP and debt service was reduced by $450,000, which essentially level funds the general fimd Uunsfer at the FY98 level of $7.95 million for both maintenance and repair/technology and debt service. Fmther reductions over the next four years were accomplished by pushing the Technical Committee's proposed increases itt the debt and capital transfers out one year, the same ptinc~ple that was followed in the general government projects. Therefore, the $450,000 increase recommended by the Technical Commtitee for FY99 becomes the proposed increase for FY00; the recommended increase for FY00 of $500,000 becomes the proposed kncrease for FY01 and so forth through FY03. With these changes, $700,000 in mamtenanee and repair/technology prqiects and $2 million in debt service is deferred outside of the five-year CIP. These changes am shown at the top of Attachment C. Also shown at the top of Attachment C, in the "Difference" section are two additional adjustments m the lransfer and debt service proposed by the SchoolDivision. In FY98/99, the School Division would like to lransfer $150.000 from their CIP maintenance funds to their operating budget; thus you will see a total S300,000 reduction in the tinnier amount to the CIP. In FY01 and FY02. the School Division proposes to transfer $268.592 ($50,000 + $218,592) from their malntenance/repatr fund to their debt service. This will allow the school division to fund the additional debt on the Northern Elementary and keep it on the original FY01 consn-uctiun track. The more restrictive CIP, Which the Board initially reviewed in January and the School Board received, would have required the School Division to defer construclion of the Nurthem Elementary School to FY02 With the proposed additional adjustments from the School Division, the reduction m the general fired transfer m CIP maintenance and repair/technology is $1.1 mil/ion and the revised reduction in debt service transfer is ~1.7. These adjustments are shown on Attachment C. Restricting the growth in debt service by $1.7 million over the five-year period limits the amount of bond revenues that can be borrowed, the impact of which is shown in the middle of Attachment C. For the five-year CIP, the Technical Committee recouunended $28.5 million in VPSA bonds, In the revised CI~, possible bond revenues will be $23.7 million, or a reduction of $4.8 million in VPSA bonds. The following projects were either affected by the reduced general fund transfer of funds for repair and maintenance or die reduced debt service capacity for coustmction projects: Funding Changes within FY98/99 - FY02/03Projects CATEC Cosmetology Lab- Deferred 1 year to FY02/03 · Al-IS restoration- deferred 3 years m FY01/02 · Murray HS Renovations - deferred 3 years to FY01/02 · WAHS Renovations - deferred $269,000 3 years to FY01/02 · Cinller Replaeement- deferred S316,600 3 years to FY01/02 Monticello Addition Arehitectuml/Engineering ($330,000)- deferred from FY01/02 to FY02/03 Deferred Projects to the 6t~ Year ADA slractural changes - $ 215,000 Mainteaaace and Repatr $1,632,593 Jack Jouett Addition $ 641,850 Walton Addition $ 483,350 Greet ttVAC $ 284~000 Walton HVAC $ 370,000 Western Window Replacement $ 230,000 · Hollymead Gym/ Rest Rooms $ 805,500 · Henley Office/Classroom Renovation $ 440~000 Total $5,102,293 Additions Administrative Technology inFY00/01 $ 50,000 histtuctional Technology in FY00/01 $250,000 Stone Robinson I-IVAC $200.000 Total $500.000 The overall expenditure changes in maintenance, technology and construction projects are shown at the bottom of Attachment C. The proposed changes to specific projects are also shown on Attachment D, which includes funding for the Northern Elementary School in FY01, not hi FY02 as proposed earlier to the School Board. 0 0 ~ o° ~~ ° 8 o 0 8 ~- 8 o. o o ~0 8 8 ~8~ 080 ~ ~o o~ ~~°~ooo o~ ~o o ~ °° ° o °° ~- o~ ° o ' ' Attachment B: FY 98/9g - 02/03 Recommended General Government CIP TYPE FUND/PROJECT Rev Keene Landfill Closure Subtotal UtiliQes Improv. TOTAL ~,:,.: .... $...:,:....,: ,~: .... $0 $9 S20.05( S0 $75,00( 90 91925( $0 $0 90 $39.60[ S5,221.491 $3,352,563 $2.203,t47 $2,499,132 $2,773/105 s,ls,o4e,34sll Sl,289,000 $9,486,900 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($%499,9C0] 01/29/9804:08 PM FINRC98F.WK4 Attachment C: School Division Debt & Maintenance: =Y 99-03 Scenario h Technical Committee Recommendation FY 97/96 FY 98/99 General Fund Transfer to CIP 500,000 650,000 Transfer to Debt Service 7,445,880 7.745,880 Scenario I1: David Bowerman's Recommendation FY 97/98 FY 98/99 * General Fund Transfer to CIP 500,000 500.000 Less Transfer to School Operating (150,000) Less Transfer to Debt Service _0 _0 Total Transfer to CIP 500,000 350,000 Transfer to Debt Service 7,445,680 7,445,880 Plus Transfer from C]P _0 0_ Total Transfer to Debt Service 7,445,880 7,445,880 Difference Difference in Transfer Amount Less Additional School Adjustments Net Change - CIP Transfer Difference in Debt Service Plus Additional School Adjustments Transfer to Debt Service FY99/00 FY O O/Q! FY01/02 FY02/03 TOTAL 750,000 900,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 4,500,000 8,145,880 8,645,880 9,045,880 9,445,880 43,029,400 FY99/00 FY00/01 *' FY01/02" FY02/03 TOTAL 650.000 750,000 900,000 1,000,000 3,600,000 (f50,000) ~ (50.000/ /218.5921 Q (268.592~ 650,000 700,000 68t,468 1,000,000 3,981,408 7,745,880 8,145,880 8,645,880 6,045,880 41,029,400 Q 50.006 218.592 0 268.592 7,745,880 8,195,880 8,864,472 9,045,88~ 41,297,992 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 * FY 99/00 FY 00/01 ** FY 01/02 ** '-Y 02/03 TOTAL i (150,900) (100.000) (150,000) (100,000) 0t (700,000) (300,000) (100,000) (200,000) (318,592) (200,00 (1,118,592) (300,000) (400,000) (500,000) (400,000) (400,000~ (2,000,000) (3 0 50_000 218.592 _( 268.592 (300,000) (400,000) (450,060) (181,408) (400,000~ (1,731,408) * In FY99 School proposes moving $150,000 from ClP Transfer to School Dperat[ons. =' Schoo proposes moving the following amounts from the C[P Transfer to Debt Service: $50.000 [FY01); $216.592 (FY02) Bond Revenues Scenario I: Technical Committee Recommendation =Y' 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02103 TOTAL Bond Revenues 20,451,367 7,185,380 1,963,700 9,444,981 3,389,41,~ 6,515,000 28,498,475 Scenario I1: David Bowerman's Recommendation -"Y 97/98 FY 98199 Bond Revenues 20,451,367 4,245,080 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 ' FY 01/02 * FY 02103 TOTAL 2,449,067 7.243,640 4,071,887 5,674,017 23,683,691 Difference FY 97/96 FY 96/69 FY 69/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 0~ [ TOTAL Bond Revenues 0 (2,940,300) 485,367 (2,201,341) 682,473 (840,983~ (4,814,784) * Propsed addition of ClP Transfer Funds to Debt Service in FY01 & FY02 oen-nits full funding of Northern Elementary School Dy FY01. Expenditures Scenario I: Technical Committee Recommendation FY 97/98 Construction/Renovation 21.232.697 Technology Projects 675,070 Maintenance/Repair 722.700 Total School CIP 22.630.467 Scenario 0: David Bowerman's Recommendation FY 97/98 Co nst r uctior'J Renovation 21,232,697 Technology Projects 675.070 Maintenance/Reoair 722.700 Total School ClP 22,630,467 Difference Fy 97198 FY98/99 FY99/00 FY00/Q1 FY01/02 FYO2/03 TOTAL 6,431,700 1.895.000 8.452.500 2,293,734 6.232.883 25,305,817 614.460 559,700 0 465.665 520.000 2.160.045 1.489.200 459.000 2.092.481 1.829.815 1.162.117 7.032.613 8.535.380 2.913.700 10.544.981 4,589.414 7.915.000 34.498,475 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02_ FY 02/03 TOTAL 4,514.000 1,695,000 7,239,000 2,827,000 5,234,034 21,509,034 464,480 559,700 300,000 465,865 520.000 2,310,045 316.600 1.044.367 604.640 1.660.430 1.119.983 4~ 5.295.080 3,299,067 8,143,640 4,953,295 6,874,017 28,565,099 FY 02/03 TOTAL FY 98/99 ~=Y 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 ~z~i1 00- (1,917,700) (200,000) (1,213,600) 533,266 (3,796,783) 0 (150,000) 0 300,000 0 150,000 (1.172.600~ 585.367 (1.487.8413 (169.38~ (42.1341 /2.286.593~ (3,240,300) 385,367 (2,401,341) 363,881 (1,040,983] (5,933,376) 01/29/9804:11 PM COMPAR.WK4 ' Attachment D: FY 98/99 - 02/03 Proposed School Division CIP .~-~PE FUND/PROJECT 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 TOTAL FY 99 to 03 REQUESTED SCHOOL DIVISION CIP FUND $2,177,500 New Bur[ey Library Addition/Renovation $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,177,500 New Brownsville Addition $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,210,000 $1,210,000 New Southern Urban Elementary Schos SC $0 $0 $0 $30.000 $30.000 New Henley Office/Cisssroom Renovation $0 $0 Rev Cale Addition / Alterations $0 $0 $;; ~-e~'~,~ .'" =~ .... ..... S.' ~-¢~" '::':X: Cont CATEC Cosmetology Lab Renovation $0 $0 ~." $'.' 538.234 $:i!~ 23,: Cont Crozet K~tchen / Serving Line $0 $0 ~.:: ~¢;7.2:':: ="' .='."L.: '.,.;, Rev High School Technology Education Laos $344,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $344,0001 Cost Hollymead Gym / Restrooms $0 $0 33 Rev Monticello High School Addition $0 $0 c ~ 5:J "~ ..... ' ....'" Rev Weatern Albemarle Window Reo~acemen~ $0 $0 $:: $:; ~3 .~" Cont Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfig. $143.000 $0 -.. :: ~: $:: c..~ ~.~, Cont AHS Phase II & III Restorations ~ ~¢!~ i~[~ $0 $0 :i~!~!~ $0 $649,000I Cont Murray High Renovation ~iii~i~iii~i~i~ $0 $0 ~!~i~ $0 $864,000I Rev Administrative Technology (Schools) ............. '~'~% .~'~'~)'(~" $70.000 ~ev natructional Technology (Schools) ~i~i;~ ~i~.~! Cont 4en[ey Add,ion $628,000 $0 $0 $0 Cont WAHS Building Renovations ~!~:~j $0 $0 ~i~!~!!!i!~P.~6~i $0 f~i!:~:~l~.Q~~t~" - ""-"" Cont Northem Area Elementary ~!~.~i~i $1.365,000 Rev Red Hill Expansion $0 80 $0 5100.000 $1,160.000 $1.260,000 Oont Stone Robinson Addition $2.414.000 50 $0 $0 $0 $2,414,000 Rev Walton Renovation S3 Conl Jouett Addition (Includes Rostrosms) S2 ~,, . Rev Viaintensnce / Replacement Projects "" 5' ;:/- ;~5,' ~-~ ' ' '*" $~ .-'I ~ ........ Cont Chiller Reolacement (Maint / Replacement) $3' .¢'.~30 $3 32 5316.{f~:.'; -'" ."..EX! .' .... Cont Greer HVAC Renovations (MaintJ Replace) $.'.' 33 ,,,~nl Walton HVAC Renovations (MaintJ Replace) "'" '3.' '.'3 ~L' .,' :' $,~ v ADA Structural Changes ~(: .er Northern Area Elementary School Rec =""', 5.~ ::~ ~:~: ..'.c.% ~"2 ~.." " .......... .-;.;... .... 143.640 $4,953.295 $6.874.017 $28.565.099 RECOMMENDED Available Revenues: VPSA Bonds* $4,245,080 $2,449,067 $7,243,640 $4,071,887 $5,674,017~ $23,683,691 ~terest Earned $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 Proffer Funds (Glenmore) $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 CIP Fund Balance $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 General Fund Transfer to CIP . $350.000 $650.000 $700.000 $681.408 51.000.000 $3.381.408 Subtotal Revenues $8,298,080 $3,299,067 $8,143,640 $4,903,295 $6,874,017 $28,969,099 Technical Committee Recommended Project $5,290,080 $3,299,067 $8,143,640 $4,963,295 $6,874,017 $28,563,099 Over/Short $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative Over/Short $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unfunded Requested Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 01/29/9808:43 PM FINRC98F.WK4 Attachment E Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Proposed FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at 7:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 in Room #241 of the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Rd., Charlottesville, Virginia, on the FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program TWO ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SCENARIOS WILL BE DISCUSSED: a proposed capital improvements program requiring a LEVEL contribution of LOCAL TAX REVENUES; and an expanded capital improvements program that may require ADDITIONAL LOCAL TAX REVENUES. These alternative scenarios are presented below: Proposed CIP Exnenditures FY 98/99 FY 99-03 AdmnlstratDn & Courts 474 977 3.629.250 =ablic Safety 3594.189 8.445.631 Higl'~v ays & Transporbat~n 53t.750 2,666.675 Jbraries 113.000 199.500 =arks&Recreation 510.485 2.715.355 Ubhty ~mproverrents 0 372.937 Tourism Projects 213.500 570.000 School Division Projects 5.295.080 28.56~ 099 Storrr~v ater ProjecTs 110.000 :220,000 Debt Service - General Gov't 263,408 2,142,400 525000 4 303.057 3594189 6.492.7a7 672827 3.227.752 113.000 199.500 743.385 2.830.355 0 372.937 213.500 570000 8.535380 34.~8.475 110 000 220.000 263.408 2142.400 7.185.380 287~8,475 2.484.734 3.739.460 890.345 1.~01 225 2.900.000 18.0(30.000 ' 135930 2.612.253 t74,300 505T800 Summary information on the Capital Improvements Program scenarios may be obtained from the County Executive's Office at the above address, or by calling: 296-5841. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. COUNTY OF ALBEMAR[CE S ERV SO S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposed FY98/99-FY02/03 Capital Improvement Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session on Proposed FY98/99 - FY02/03 Capital Improvement Program STAFF CONTACTIS~: Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: January 7, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.'~.~ INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At the December 3rd CIP work session the Board asked staff to prepare a revised Capital improvement Program that level funded FY98/99 projects to bring to the ClP public hearing in February. In response, general government and school division staff came together to develop the following proposed FY98/99 - FY02/03 ClP that incorporates both project reductions and deferred projects for the five-year period. The reductions and deferrals impact all five years of the CIP program, since level funding in the first year has a 'ipple effect on projects over the next four years. The following attachments reflect the proposed changes: Attachment A: Proposed Changes to General Government ClP; Attachment B: Proposed Revenue Summary; Attachment C: Recommended vs. Revised General Fund Transfer; Attachment D: Recommended vs. Revised Debt Service Levels; Attachment E: Proposed Public Hearing Advertisement. DISCUSSION: The revised Capital Improvement Program is based on the following strategies: The FY98/99 general fund transfer to the CIP will be level funded which results in a savings of $577,000. The impact on general government is $427,000 in project reductions and/or deferrals. The impact on the school division is $150,000 in technology and/or maintenance project deferrals and/or reductions. Dollar changes to specific FY99 projects are shown on Attachment A. The reduction in the FY99 general fund transfer is also shown on Attachment C. The FY99/00 - FY02/03 general fund transfer has been reduced in the four year period to reflect the impact of level funding FY99, as well as the revised November revenue projections. Reduced revenues over tho four-year period will limit the county's ability to increase the annual general fund transfer as much as originally planned and to maintain the 3% target ratio. Based on reduced revenues, the general fund transfer is gradually increased from a ratio of 2.34% in FY99 until it again meets the 3% target ratio of general fund transfer to general fund revenues in FY03. This reduction is reflected in Affachment D, which shows the general fund transfer recommended by the Technical Committee versus the revised general fund transfer for a total five-year reduction of $3.5 million. Over the four-year period, FY00 - FY03, general government projects have been reduced or deferred by approximately $1.7 million for a total five-year reduction of $2.1 million. School division maintenance and technology projects have been reduced over the four-year period by $1.2 million for a total five-year reduction of $1.4 million. School division debt service will be level funded at a 7.51% ratio of general fund revenues in FY99, a ratio that will be maintained at the same level throughout the five-year CIP. The impact will be a $2.3 million reduction in debt service 0ayments over the five-year ClP. Depending on how the School Board decides to stage bonded projects within the five year period, the 7.51% ratio limit on debt service could require a $5.5 million dollar reduction in VPSA school bonded projects in FY99 - FY03 (this reduction is in addition to the $7.1 million reduction/deferral previously recommended by the CiP Technical Committee). Attachment D shows the prior PmposedFY98/99-FY02103 CapitallmprovementProgram January7,1998 Page 2 recommended debt service levels vs. the revised debt service levels based on the 7.51% ratio with the $2.3 million dollar savings shown in the lower right hand comer. Attachment B, page 2 under the School Division Capital Improvement Fund shows the impact of one scenario using the fixed 7.51% debt service and gradual VPSA bonds that increase from $3 million to $7 million over the five year period FY99-FY03, The result of this scenado is a $5.5 million dollar reduction in VPSA borrowed funds. Due to the fiscal impact of staging projects and the debt service reserve, this particular scenario may change as the School Board revises their CIP projects to conform to the 7.51% debt service limit. The School Board will approve a revised CIP within the 7.51% debt service guideline at their January 26 meeting. Two Capital Improvement Programs will be advertised and presented at the February 18 public hearing. One scenado will propose a capital program that will be funded within current revenues and will not require a tax increase. The second will propose an expanded capital program (originally recommended by the Technical Review Committee), which may require a tax increase or a shift from operating revenues in order to fund it. Attachment F shows the proposed advertisement format for the two budget scenarios. RECOMMENDATION: The attached Capital improvement Program level funds the FY99 general fund transfer and reduces the total FY99 - FY03 CIP by approximately $9 million dollars, $6.9 million in school division projects and $2.1 million in general government projects~ This revised CiP is brought to the Board for review and approval pdor to advertising the FY98/99 - FY02/03 Capital improvement Program for the February 18 public hearing. The School Board should have specific project reductions/deferrals in time for the public hearing adver[isement. 97.255 Attachment ~u Proposed Chang~sto General Government ClP FUND/PROJECT GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP FUND Administration & Courts: County Computer Upgrade Drive-in Window Replacement & Canopy Courthouse Space Needs Stuoy/Constructon Count~ Facil~es Maintenance~rReD]acement Court FacittJes Meinteeance~Repiacem est Subtotal Admin. & Courts Public Safety: Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade Police Radio Simulcsst System / ECC Link Police LAN Upgrade Police Firk~ Range Public Safety F acility Transoort Vehicle for Arrests Public Safety 500MHZ Communication S~s~em Juvenile Detention Facility P u b['~ Safety Mobile Command Center Ceil~ar Telephones for Police Vehicles Subtotal Public Safety H~lhways & Transportation: Revenue Shadng Road Program Seminole/Pens'[ p~ace Connectm Route 29 North Landscamng Ny Road Bike Lanes Meadow Creek Bicycle/Pedeetfien Path Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II Greenbrier Defoe Extended Pad/Bike Path Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streetr~ghts Ivy Road Landscaomg Airport Road Bidew~alk Georgetown Road .~deweik Sidewalk Construclicn Program Neighborhood Pla~ Implsmentatlen Program Neighborhood Traffic Calming Initiatives Subtotal Hwys. & Transportation t998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001~)2 2002-0: $200,000 $185,000 $225.000 $200,990 $9 $9 $9 $0 $271,977 $225,000 $0 $110,000 $471,977 SS20.000 $170,000 $225,000 $220.000 $190,090 $235,599 $239.009 $9 $0 $0 $0 $668,807 $385.000 $431.603 $131,250 $200,000 $400,000 $970,057 $810.600 $1,0~1,603 $157.500 $146.209 $250,000 $262.500 $~%~2.590 $205.332 $350.000 $15.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $~5,000 $0 $9 $0 $165,gg~ $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30.000 $0 $9 $30,099 $9 $9 $0 $0 $0 $40.000 $0 $2.926,623 $0 $0 $0 $0 $390.066 $1,254,726 $0 $0 $0 $9 $9 $0 $0 $0 $1,4t2~226 $146,20~ S520,000 $315,000 $3,594,189 e. =4~ ~ ....... ~ ........ ,$$$5,090 $380.000 $380.000 ~80.000 $380,000 $599.990 $599,900 ~509.900 $~0.000 $9 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $0 $0 $20.000 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9 $75,000 $9 $9 $1,750 $17,500 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39.600 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $69,9~g $0 $0 $0 $9 ~. $380.000 $590.000 $9 $0 $9 $9 $0 $0 $0 $9 $9 $9 $50,000 $35,000 $465,000 TOTAL FY99 toO~ $1,0~.00 $( $0 $1,952,38i $841,250 $3,823,631 $1.166,209 .T~71,332 $15.000 $0 $165.000 $0 $30,000 $40.000 $2,926,623 $1,644,792 $9 $~g87,624 $1,900,00( $0 $0 $0 $20.000 30 $75.000 $19,250 $9 $39,600 $50,000 $~9.009 $250,000 ~271.977. $139,870 $0 $2,493.7~ OUTYEARS $320.000 $320,000 $1.200.000 $4.600,000 $50.000 $27,900 $3,090,000 $199,000 $200,oqg $3,516.900 Page I Attachment A: PmposedChangesto Genera[ Government C|P FUND/PROJECT Libraries: Parks & Recreation: Walnut Creek Park [mprovemenm Scot~vil~ Community Ctr. improvements Crozet Park Athletic Field Develooment ~ High ~chool'R'ecmatJon Facit~ie~ Keene Landfill Closure Subtotal Utilities Improvo Capital Projeetsl Contingency Reserve Recomm. General Government CIP Fund otal Available Generat Fund Revenues er/Short 3umufatNe Over/Sh~rt 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01. 200t-02. 2002-03. $100,000 $;I $0 SG $0 513.000 $25~000 ~15~000 $33~000 ~13~00 $113.000 $25,000 $15,000 $33,000 $t3.500 $$4,500 $47.915 $45.070 $50.0O0 575,000 $26.525 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,880 $100,000 $118.000 $100,930 gl$.5dO gO gSd.dO0 $0 gO $o $o $5~21,401 $5,221,401 $0 $0 $o SO $o $o $59,900 $68,0O0 $455,227 $618,190 $68.612 er= nnn $100,000 $97,937 $100,000 $68,6t2 $1.997.996 $2,384.119 $2,903,233 $2,~99,~. 32 $2,973.!05 $2,384,119 ~,132 $~73,105 $3,128,868. S3,128,868 $0 $0 $0 90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAt FY gg to 0: $99,500 $199.500 $51.025 $172.580 $456,0OO $100,000 $448,352 $580.720 $166,000 $136,500 $20,000 $45.000 ,~6'g, SdO $200.000 ~Tt2~t20 $0 $I13,~,00 5{3 $330.000 $2,424.587 ¢372,93~ $366,549 $372,93~ $15,295,617 50 OUTYEARS SO $9,686,900 $0 $9,686 900 Page 2 Attachment B: Proposed Revenue Summary Projects FY, 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 TL 99-03 O~JT YEARS $5,221,401 $3,128,868 $1,997,996 $2,384,119 $2,563~3~ $16,295,5t7 Tour[sm Fund Pmjedis $213,500 $231,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,00C $570.00~ $(3 $4,200,000 $4,255,633 $4,815,550 $6,381,405 $7,965.~81 $27,617,682 Recommended School Projects $~,5~E,3_~0 ...... ,, g~ ....... _ ..... , ....... $0 S{ormwaier Prejec~ $110,000 $0 $110.006 $0 $; $220,00~ $0 Gen Govt. Debt Service $~6~,408 ~437~403 $437,405 $479,406 $524,76~ $2,142,40(3 $~ $10,~06,309 $8,ti;}3,409 $7,385,964 $9,269~935 $tt,07E,08'~ $45,84~,6~ ~ummary of Total Available Revenues by Type of Revenue: ~evenues (by Tvi3e): F~. 98/09 FY 99/00 FY 0010t FY 01/02 FY 02/0~ TL 99-0~ ~3UT YEARS $2,323,500 $2,581,938 $2,860,409 $3,165,39~ $3,555,20.< $~4,486,95~ $10,00~,30~ $igt~3,406 $7A85,964 $9.289,936 $t ~,078,082 $45,845,6~; $7,~,..._· ......... ~ ......... ~ Shortfall/Excess Revenue $0 $0 $0 $5 $C~ $( -$9,686~90( Cumulative Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Summa;y of TOtal Available Revenues by Fund: ~eneral Govemme~tt Revenues: ~:.~ 98/09 FY S9/00 FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02/03 TL 99-0; OUT YEARS Borrowed Funds - Juvenile DeL $290,066 $1,254,726 $0 $0 $0 $1,644,79~ $0 Borrowed Funds - 800MHz Radio $2,094,668 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,094,66~ $0 E-911 Funds- One-Time $737,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $737,625 $0 Courthouse Ma~ntenanc~ Funds $31,730 $32,525 $33,335 $34,620 $35,95: $168,163 $0 City Reimbursemerffs $0 $0 $14,500 $91,200 $9,200 $114,90{ CIP Fund Balance $365,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $765.00~ $1,;~02,312 $1,741,617 $1,550~161 $2,153,299 $2,418,080 $9,770,46~ $5~221,4~1 $~,t26,8~ $%957,~ $2,384,tt9 $2,563,233 $I5,295,517 $5,22~,401 S3,12~,868 $t,997,995 $2,384,t19 $2,563,233 $15,295,6t7 Sh~ll/Excess Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$9,686,980 CUmulative Shortfall $0 $0 $0 $0 $~) Page I Attachment B: Proposed Revenue Summary Reverlue Summary -Toudsm Fund Capital Projects Tourism Fund Resources: FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/0~ TL 99-0 OUT YEARS DeYeloper Contll~Uon $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $I0,00($0 StYe Reimbursements $0 $25,000 $0 $0 ~0 $25,00( $0 Proffer Funds (Wai. Mart) $29,200 $0 $0 :SO $0 $29,20{ $0 Tourism Fund Revenues $174,300 $255,5~00 ~,25,000 ~25,,000 $25.000 $505.80( Subtotal Revenues $213,500 $281,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $670,000 $0 Recommended Capital Projects $2t3,500 $28t,500 $25,000 $25,000 $25,~00 $670,000j $6 ShorffalllE~,c~ Revenue $6 $6 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cumulative Shortfall $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue Summary - School Di~istan Capital Improvement Fend School Division CIP Fend Revenues: FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/~2 FY 0~/03 TL 99-03 OUT YEARS $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $5,5~,000 $7,000,0012 $23,000,000 VPSA Bonds Interest Eamed $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $t00,000 $500,000 $0 Proffer Funds (Gls~rnore) $500,800 $0 $0 $0 $12 $500,000 $0 OtP Fund Baiance $100,800 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,0012 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $555,833 $615,580 $681,4~8 $765,081 $3,117,682 Shortfall/Excess Revenue $0 $0 $0 $~335,380 -$t,341,933 $5,729,42t -$~,791,994 $7,052,53~ $t3,SS3,4~i~ Unfunded Requested Projects {evenue Summary. Stormwatar Fund Capital Improvement PrOjects ISto;mweter Revenues: FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/02 TL 99-03 OUT yEARS Genera[ Fund Transfer to CIP $110,000 ~ $110,000 Subtotal Revenues $1'10,000 $0 $115,000 $6 ~eeommended Projects $t10,000 $0 $t 10,000 $0 ~horttalllExcess Revenue $0 $0 $0 $6 $¢ ;urnutstive Shortfall $0 $0 $0 Page 2 Attachment B: Proposed Revenue Summary ~evenue & ExpendEure Summary. Debt Service Fund ~ebt Service Revenuen: FY 98399 FY 99/00 FY 0Of01 FY 01102 FY 0210: TL 99.03 $8,569,547 $8,653,603 $5,520,795 $8,778,194 $8,730,05,' 543~250,47~ kpproved Debt Service Payment $~?-~,~ $0,5~$,?-7 $9,150,931 $!0,-n~,995 $9,7'~2,73( $47,37~.,30! 3ngoing E-911 Funds (600MHz) $152,720 8152,720 $152,720 5152,720 8152,72( 8763,60( Fransfer fi'om Gen. Go'vi. ClP $110,688 $284.688 $284,688 $32.6,688 $372,041 $.'[ 378 80( $8,832,960 $9,091~91 $8,608,203 89J60,802 $9,254,82~ $45~92,874 $~32,960 $8,09t,291 $8,968,203 $9,256,602 $9,25~82~ $45~382,87~ 5hortfalVExcess Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ Page 3 _o .o o~ 8 "" '8o8 o ~ 8 ° ~ q ~ § o ~ 8 ~ o Attachment E Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Proposed FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at 7:00 p.m. on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1998 in Room #241 of the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Rd., Charlottesville, Virginia, on the FY 1998/1999 - FY 2002/2003 Capital Improvements Program. TWO ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SCENARIOS WILL BE DISCUSSED: a proposed capital improvements program requiring a LEVEL contribution of LOCAL TAX REVENUES: and an expanded capital improvements program that may require ADDITIONAL LOCAL TAX REVENUES. These alternative scenarios are presented below: Proposed CIP9.56619 E~xpanded CIP Expenditures FY it8/99 FY 98.03 FY it8/99 FY it9-03 Adrrin~tra5on & Courls 471.977 4 303,057 3,823,637 525,008 Fublic Safety 3.594.189 6.492,747 5,987,624 3.594.189 Highways & Transportation 531.750 2,493,720 672,827 3.227.752 JDrar~es 113,000 113.000 199.500 Par~s & Recreation 510,485 2.424,587 ] 743,385 2.830.355 Tourism Projects 213.500 I 213.500 VPSA Bonds - School Division 3,00C 000 23,000,060 7 185,380 28.498475 Other Borrow ed Funds - General Gov't. 2.484.734 3,739,46C 2 484,734 3,739,4~0 E-911 Surcharge Revenues 890345 1,60' 225 890,345 1.501.225 GeneralFun~ Transfer to CIP 2,32~ 000 14,~86.951 2.900,000 18.00£ 000 O~her Local Revenues 1,135,930 2,612,263 ' 135.930 2.612263 Tourisrn Fund Revenues 174,300 505,800 174~300 505~800 Summary information on the alternative Capital Improvements Program scenarios may be obtained from the County Executive's Office at the above address, or by calling: 296-5841. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. Re-live the tempo of earlier times by visiting the James River at the HATTON FERRY WrATERWAYS WERE THE AVENUES that brought the European settlers to the American shoreSl and the continental bays with their main rivers and their tributaries continued to be the highways on which travelers moved inland. The picture in 1607 of th~ mixed bag of adventurers aboard the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery as they moved upstream on the James River looking for a suitable spot on which to settle, is a familiar one. Though avenues of communication and commerce, the bays and rivers also constituted barriers which had to be crossed in order to maintain communication. So, at those points where the crossings were frequent, enterprisers established ferry service, more or less regular, and sanc- tioned by the colonial government. The first ferry to be established in what was to become Albemarle County was at Point of Fork (present-day Col- umbia) at the confluence of the Rivanna and James Rivers. This was in 1729. From then until 1777, with the American Revolution in progress, eighteen separate fer- ries were established on the James and Rivanna Rivers. Ferries continued to serve until the age of the steel truss bridge dawned in mid-nineteenth century, gradually dis- placing the ferries. However,~steOl bridges did not mean the immediate end of ferries; the Hatton Ferry which still operates on a reduced but fixed schedule six months of the year, water levels permitting, was begun at its present location in southern Albemarle over one hundred years ago. When the Virginia Department of Highways determined that traffic at Hatton did not warrant continuation of the free' public service, the Albemarle County Historical Society united With the County Government to maintain the ferry, on a reduced schedule, as a significant historical artifact. A nationwide survey conducted in 1985 indicated that the Hatton Ferry was one of two still operating poled ferries in the continental United States, and a ride on it evokes a true sentiment of times past. Take State Route 20 to State Route 726, turn right, follow 726 to 625 and turn ~ H right turn ~/~cottsville .~,~~z) J~rnes River The Hatton Ferry operates from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, from mid-April to mid-October. Operation of the ferry is contingent upon sufficient water in the James River. It is always rewarding to visit the historic site on the river, but if your goal is to ride the ferry, be sure to call the Visitors' Center (977-1783 or 296-7677) or the Albemarle County Historical Society (296-1492) to learn if the ferry is in operation. -Scott-WoodyfCharlie Adcock, rig. ht, prepare for reopening of Hatton Ferry as one of only two poled ferries left in U.S. r,: nd and 'Alleghsny railroad and soon after !::~hllc read and a post office. '!'hem.was already a post office in Brown's The Historical Society convinced the~ Albemarle Board of Supervisors to continue operating r allocates $10,000 iromits seenn- F for upkeep and operatiom ""'I wouldn't call it an important fir& in our tran~ ~stem," said Daniel Roosevelt, the high- resident cng/near for Albemarle Countyf polntlmg out that nearby bridgce will get commnters over the James much faster. ~ Roosevelt smd the ferry averages abOUt 14 trips per" day d~ug its ope~V-[..se?.. ~t m~ the, lo?ay J across ~the james on _~'ridey through .~un~ay ~rom April te?)~obe~, unless the water is too high or too low. I::,wever. so the na~ne of the spot was changed toHat- 'He said the county spent only about half of the !:, in 1883. .' !imoney allocated to the fe .njy last year becanse :'he Albemarle County IUstoricai Sociekv dug up ~;~ droughtkspt the rivei;'too dry ~ make tbe crossing to ffort to save :': Buckingham County. - the public ;' : However, the "Election Day Flood" of 1985 de- ~' ' ? stro~ ..d the old ferry and damaged the landing. Roose. transporthtiou that iust dce~ not reit said he expects federal emergency fund money to a ~ cover about 40 percent of the $50.000 damage. Hatton Ferry ~ A new ferry, a 20-ten steel beat that can aceome- ~ date two cars, was brought up from Suffolk last sum- going out ul exis- ruer so ferry rides at the site can continue. e .state. highway department ' Joe Je.ldns, chairman of the Hattan Ferry commit- ~de~dded it perstion of the ferry after Ned ~ tee, said the only 6ther public ~anually powered ferry llecker, who piloted t, he craig for 50 years, annOUnced '!~ in the Unite~. States is on the Ri~ Grande in Texas. ~ q .Jenkins smd th~ first license to operate a ferry was ~tis retirement. issued in Virginia in 1744, and ferries were a major H~a:ker, born in Buckinghmn Count,.~ in 191.3 and a form of transportation until steel bridges led to their ferr.'man~ since he was a, ~,nag~w,, died, rcm. nil., , v at tho demise early in this can~tury. ~ age of 74. Lt. " ~ a ~" -- ~ .~ ~-~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY97/98 Budget Reductions SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed FY97/98 Operating and Capital Budget reductions to meet revenue shortfall. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The updated November revenues from the Department of Finance projected a shortfall in personal property revenues in the current year of approximately $1.9 million. Based on the 1997 June and December collections, the anticipated revenue is approximately $18.7 compared to last April s projection of $20.6 million. Combined with several other minor revenue increases, the total county revenue shortfall for the current year is $1.797 million. To meet this potential $1.8 million dollar shortfall, general government must reduce its FY97/98 budget by approximately $719,164 (40%). DISCUSSION: To offset the projected $719,164 revenue shortfall, general government has reduced the capital budget by $499,329, the operating budget by $114,453 and secured additional revenues of $121,483. The attached sheet shows the deferred capital projects: $40,000 in public safety, $215,329 in parks/recreation, $214,000 in planning and $30,000 in library ~3rojects. Government operations were reduced by $114,453, which reflects a 2% holdback on baseline departmental operations. Baseline operations do not include personnel costs, nor do they reflect any holdback on outside agency funding. Additional revenues in the amount of $121,483 came from FY96/97 carry-over surpluses from Jaunt and the Gypsy Moth program and a Department of Criminal Justice grant that offsets the County's local shara of the COPS program. The proposed reductions total $735.265, which is $16,101 over the amount needed to offset the projected revenue shortfall. RECOMMENDATION: This information is brought to the Board to demonstrate how staff planned to reduce the FY98 capital and operating budgets based on the $1.8 million shortfall projected in November. Since Finance's January projection, which the Board will review at the February 4 meeting, shows additional FY98 revenues in the amount of $325,704, the overall FY98 county shortfall will be reduced from $1.797 million to $1.472 million. With our 40% share of the additional revenues, lhe revised general government FY98 shortfall will be $588,882, not $719,164 as projected in November. The additional $130,282 will be applied back to some of the deferred capital projects, although pdority order for project reinstatement has not been determined at this time. The 2% reduction in department baseline operations will be maintained. 98.003 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FY97/98 Budget Reductions tCounty Shortfall General Govt Share ~0% 719,164 Capital Projects Public Safety projects Firing Range 40,000 Parkslrec projects Security Systems ADA schools Playground Equipment Cate BasketbaJl Whitewood Road Greer Recreation Imp Warren Ferry Walnut Creek (total $75~000) Recreation Facilities Towe buildings Sub-total parks/rec projects Planning Balance Rio/Hydraulic Bike Lanes Balance * Old Brook Sidewalk Revenue Shadng (FY98 allocation $329,877) Sub-total planning cip projects 8,196 79,295 6,222 2,359 30,000 3,512 20.000 35,000 12.410 18,335 215,329 43,000 1,000 170,000 214,000 Library Projects Computer system ISub-total capital project reductions Operational Reductions Dept Operations (2% of baseline operations- excludes personnel) ISubtotal operational reductions IGrand Total Expenditure Reductions Additional Revenues Jaunt FY96/97 operations carry-over Gypsy Moth FY96/97 carry-over DCJS grant/local share of COPS IGrend Total R~tenues 30,000 499,329t 114,453 114 453~ 613,7821' 40.924 23.320 57,239 121,483t I Total Funds Available for Shortfall Over/Under Target 735,2651 16,101t 1/21/98 Budred~l L: -~JAUNT, INC. ,; - ~ J T04 Keys~'0r~ Place ~ Chaf~otteswlle, V~A ~2,90~-~2'g0 Rol~ert W(. Tucker, Jr. ¢ 40 [~vtglmi~e Koad . - ~ , ~ ¢ u,We ~e~lga~ed to. pro~e you ~th ~e ~econ4 qumer repo.{or JA~T s~mes ~ Seconal'Queer_ EsUmated Trips, , Bcm~T~tps ~ ~Ee~CV- ' ',. *' k ~o - Utb~ ~ > ~ ~458 gm~ - ~ ~x . . 5391 ~ 6;036' ~, 2}549 ~ ( 2~No~h ., ..,~ ', 180~ ~ ~Total'~ .J( ~, i6,027 , 16,559 79~5 .4 '~ ~At ~is t~esw9 db not ~ficip~e~y budg~ ba~d on.,~e ~e~ces ~vlde_d ~n ~e first queer: ease find enclosed a'gopy most recem~ass~ger s~vey. - cont~ me ~ith quesnons ~ concerns abo~JA~T s~ml~, , si~y ~ Executtye ~n~cto~. ~ SUMMARY OF FALL 1997 RIDER SURVEY The twelfth annual survey of rider satisfaction was taken during the third week of October. As in past years, the drivers distr/buted survey forms to all passengers who rode during that week. Three hundred thirty-one forms were completed and returned to JAUNT, in most cases by simply handing them back to the driver in the envelope provided. The return rate was slightly lower than the previous survey conducted in the fall of 1996, and no surveys from cab drivers could be obtained. R~u~ General: Once again, the respondents gave JAUNT high marks for quality and safe service. Overall resul _t.5 remalnremarkably consistent with previous years. The average respondent continues to be female, low income, over 65 years old, and living with family in Charlottesville. As in the past, most respondents found JAUNT service to be'safe, timely and affordable. Safety-related: JAUNT drivers were reported to drive safely-by 95% of respondents (compared with 92% in 1996), while another 4% said the driver usually drove safely. No respondents said thexlriver did not drive safely, and 1% said they didn't know). Ninety- three percent reported that the driver insisted they wear their seatbelt, which is down from 94% in 1996. Finally, 86% of those respondents who required help on and offthe vehicles were provided that assistance, which is down from 93% in 1996. Service Quality: Seventy-nine pement of respondents reported that that they are picked up on time (down from 84% on the last survey), and 90% reported that the vehicles are clean and comfortable. Seventy-two pement said they receive prompt and courteous service when they call for a ride, which is doxm from 77% in 1996. Another 15% said they usually receive such service, which is down from 18% in 1996. Staffwill concentrate on improving this record. Eighty percent of those who pay for their trips believe that the price is reasonable, which is down from last year's 86%. Many of those who complained about the fares are from Nelson and Amherst Counties, where fares were recently increased. Ridership Characteristics: Fifteen percent of respondents live in retirement, nursing or group homes. Thirty-six pement of those respondents who have been riding JAUNT for a year or less began doing so because they recently found out about JAUNT, 16% because they recently became unable to drive, 20% just moved to the area, 9% reported that their usual driver can no longer drive them, and 18% because an agency is paying their way. Forty-eight pement of respondents considered themselves disabled, with 25% of those using a wheelchair. Thirty-five pement of respondents live alone. Long-Range Changes: Companng the results of this survey with those of the previous ten reveals that them is remarkably little significant change. The only long-range changes seem to be that increasing percentages of respondents ride every day, and a higher percentage have some transportation alternatives. We are again quite pleased with the survey results, especially in the areas of service quality and safety. All drivers and operations personnel should be proud of the jobs they do and eoramendexl for the excellent service tbey provide to the community. 1,1/4/97 FARES: ~ Daily fare cost is too h gh = ~: . . ~ : Car Pools charge $:15~00 wk~ I pay $22,50on Jaunt. Abo~$5~00 too high: I nde every day to Ch'ville for work. Have no parking after I get there; Have to nde Jaunt or in car pool. Jaunt is more convenient for me. I think the fare is too high for such a short distance. Was not notified of rate increase for approx~ 2 months. The price to ride is too much. While I feel the price per 1 way trip - $1.50 - is reasonable in contrast to cabs, if Medicaid or insurance did not pay for my medical trips, I wouldn't be able to afford it. Deeper subsidy could provide more graded fee scale. '1 live on a fixed income. 'Car pools pay $15.00 weekly. When riding the Jaunt bus, it's $22.50 weekly. I think anything higher than $20 on a pass is too much. I think the Jaunt bus fare should not keep going up. Some people don,t have that kind of money to pay. This service was intended to encourage car pooling. It has gotten way too _ expensivel Nelson/Amherst fares: Round trip is $27.50 per week. Nelson has a lot of citizens making minimum wage which is $206.00 before taxes. Life is hard for a lot of Nelson citizens Amherst: I thing the pdce is too high~ It should be lower. very limited income Amherst The price of bus fare is a little expensive. The price rate is too high for a week's dale I think $7.00 is too much so people can not afford it because you take all your money and give to the Jaunt. MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINTS: Scheduling dept. is scheduling pick-ups too close together (expecially across town pick-ups) then we are all late arriving at our destinations; The ddvers are Jaunt's BEST feature. . .. so helpful, courteous, professional. Their hours are TOO long. Lives with brother and sister-in-law. Brother works/cannot provide transportation at the time it's needed. Sister-in-law works also and cannot provide transportation. Reservations and office staff are often very busy; almost too busy roi attend to person on telephone. Drivers are overscheduled and have a hard time keeping on schedule. Scheduling, in my opinion, needs work. Always for returns pick time increases which is not a happy time if you've got an uncooperative patient (yelling & fighting) Sometimes you don't know 24-hours ahead of time that you need to see the doctor Schedulers don't have an open mind to suggestions about arrang!ng schedules° Ddvers sent oUt in to county then expected to be able to get pick up in city within 15 minutes. Doesn't WOrk. Excellent service except for occasional delays in pick-up making me late for class. When a pick-up is 20 minutes late, it's difficult to make a medical appt. on time; 30 minutes late, impossible. fY20 1 have waited up to 1-1/2 hours for return trips home. COMPLIMENTS: Want to say Chades is great because 53 upsets my stomach sometimes. He has a plastic bag in a trash can for me that is great. Not that he ddves bed; just "53" does it to me. Jaunt to me is wonderful. All the ddvers are very ... Mr. Chadie Bates is the best ddver. He is the greatest. Every dder says so. t don't know what we would do without you all. _ think people do a fine job at Jaunt. You all do a fine job getting people where they want to go and come back for. Ail people at Jaunt are the best to everyone. Don't know what I'd do without Jaunt. They have always provided good service I think it has great services. I like the scheduled time pick up because I know I'll never be late for work or appts. Jaunt helps me out a tot. Please keep the service it provides senior citizens many ways. Services and ddvers are superb Seatbelts: Joyce won~ leave until she hearS a click. The ddvers are always cheerful and .courteous. Your service is excellent! I have Nothing but praise for your personnel. Think everyone is very courteous ahd helpful My kids love their bus driver and I thank I~er for keeping my kids safe. They have always been very satisfactory in all of their duties and very polite and courteous. Just fine service. Can get off the bus by yourself. They do ,~ery well So far the service has been great both from the office and the ddvers. Everything is great. Pretty gOOd service! Appreciate being picked up at my apartment instead of waiting at a bus stop. I'm 90 years old. Very Saris,fi. ed · I thi~k you re'doing a w°nderfbl SuggestiOns More substitute ddvers. Wi~h the Ser~ice was ayailable On~kends and holidays Billing Would be ~Ve~y helpful. Coming in once a month to pay for service is ~nconvenient. . Ddvers should bernuch more I~elpful and courteous to the elderly people. I think this survey, should be more about the driver, not.the passenger. JuSt keep being ~my friend. Stop sending two buses~ to the same place at exactly the same time. More staff or stagg~red scheduling. Ddvers work schedules cove~'ing busy times. Some drivers doing nothing but "will calls" may help. Need to get their acts together ahd pick me up on time. Be more on time (per Zachary) Reduce the pdce to ride on JAUNT. Reduce the cost of fares to dde. You COuld have more buses running on Ridge Street I would like to be able to dde Jaunt on those days you go mainly in, the city I am not fay from'the city I ne & close to Jaunt. Acquire more funding for more-drivers & extend service hours, say to 8pm and Sat.'s and/or Sunday's. Have people in office be more polite. Be here on time. Wish I could get ddes without so much advance notice Make JAUNT's services known to more people. I would like Jaunt to run on weekends Cut cost of ddes. Need to stagger schedule of drivers cover busy times by having shifts. Lower pdce in the county Later scheduled mute from Charlottesville to N29. Many businesses open at 10a.m. How about $10, $20. or $15 on a pass? Run Big Blue more frequently in the mornings. Every 1/2 hour would be good. Make sure ddvers respect client Have evening/weekend hours. My ability to find and keep a job is directly related to not being able to get home from work in the evening"and not being available to wo~ on Weekends. ~Listen carefully't0 the-infOrmation giVeri (when we call Dispatcher) Take Sonny off of phones. He does not know what he's doing half of the time. More routes in Louisa dudng day to C'ville for medical appts, and return Please have the ddvers tc pick us up on time from V.I.B. in the afternoon. We have to wait every day. More thorough training ~s needed for new drivers, particularly in safety regarding wheelchair tiedowns, etc. Otherwise I feel comfortable in the care of Jaunt ddvei's. More drivers on vans You n¢cd to get more organized and be more polite over the phone. Saturday and Sunday schedules, even if limited, and some night schedules until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. 1 or 2 reservationists need more computer training. No suggestions, but I enjoy dding the bus. Reduce the pay for a week worth or make it for two week's. Pay the driver more money~ Try to be on time to pick up patient That all drivers assist through the door and out the door. I think there should be lower fares. I would like to have our shopping trips back (Nelson). Rides to town for shopping and groceries° Jaunt picks me up on time.or ahead of time going to a doctor's office; but~ as indicated in ~20 above, sometimes is quite late picking me up for the return trip home. I think if you ran Big Blue later in morning like to about 10a. m, you would have more riders because from 8-10 is when traffic is really bad on 29 Have more than 2 buses (Louisa) 1997 JAUNT RIDERSHIP SURVEY Driver's Name Date JAUNT wants to knowhow you like (or dislike) riding with us and how we may ~mprove oar service to you. Parents or guardians should help in completing this Survey if needed. First we'd like to know · little more about you: 1. Are you male? ~Z'~ orfemale? To what age group do you belong? ~/o 14 years or under Z 15-19 years ~ 20-24 years ~3~'~/4, 65 years or older What is your race? / - "ff,~'-~ African American ' '-' Hispanic ~' Asian American ~ Native American ~;~ ,"/o' Caqcasian Other (ptease describe Which city or county do you Jive in? Charlottesville Albemarle Fluvanna Louisa -Nelson Other (please fill in~..,,_) Where do you live? alone (in owned or rented apartment, house or trailer) with my family or spouse (ov~ed or rented apartment, house or trailer) in a retirement or nursing facility in a group home for special groups other (please describe 6. How many people live in your household? __ 7. What is the combined yearly income of alt persons in your household? g /0 under $10.000 ~g~ $15.000 to $19,999 $10. O00 to $14.999 ~ $20.000 or over ~ a wheelchair?~'? yes __ 8, Are you disabled? ~'~No ~ ~'es If yes, do you use no How often do you ride JAUNT? .~/'¥o 4 to 5 days a week ~ 2 to 3 days a week _5"% once a week '7~'~ 1 to 3 times a month ~ once every month to two months / "/~ less than 4 times a year 11. How tong have you ridden JAUNT? less than I month 1 to 6 months 6 months to I year /7¢/~ lto2years ~2~ 2 to 5 years /¢--"~ 5 to 10 years ~ more than 10 years 13 If you started riding JAUNT th~s year, what.made you oec~oe to start using our service? 3(~t/~ reCently found out about JAUNT //~ recently became unable to dr~ve recently moved to the area ~/0 my usual driver can't take me anymore /~'~, an agency pays my way on JAUNT other (please describe) _ 14. What is the main purpose of this trip? work (including volunteer) ,~qt/~' :loctoi~/dent~t/dialysis/hospital shopping (groceries, stores, etc.) ~ "/~ person;al buslness,.pay bills, etc. schoolldaycare ~a/~ meal site social/recreation other (please describe) adult day care Now we'd like to know how you feel about JAUNT's services: 15. When you call for a ride. do you receive prompt, courteous service? '7 7y~s /~'~usually 3e/~ no ~.~/~ don:t-know 16. Dothe drivers drive sefel .y"~5"~yes ~e/~usually ~_ no__/~ don't know 17. Do the drivers insist that you wear your seatbelt? ~'/y~es "~'~ usually /~ no ,~ ~ don't know 18. Do the drivers help you when you need ass stance getting on and off the van? '~?/~ yes ~ usually ~.~ no ~ don t know 19. Are the vehicles clean and comfortable? ~ yes ~ usually/~ no don't know 20. Does the JAUNT vehicle pick you up on time? *7?q~ Generally within 15 minutes of the scheduled time /¢ "/~ Generally within 15 to 30 minutes of the scheduled time ~ Generally more than 30 minutes late 21. If you pay for your trips, do you feel the service is reasonably priced? ~'~/o yes/¢~/~ no /~"/~dorYt know 22. If you ride only on regularly scheduled routes (tike to activities programs or meat sites) please skip this next ouestion: IS JAUNT generally able to get you where you need to go? yes ~no don't know 26. If you answere~ no to any of the questions about JAUNT's services, please explain why in the space oeiow 27. Do you have any suggestions for ways to improve JAUNT's services? Would it be heioful to use a charge card or debit card to pay fares? Check one box Not helpful at a~ 1 Very helpful Thank you fo,~ taking the time to complete this survey. If you. have any questions regarding this survey or JAUNT service, please call Donna Shaunesey at (804)296-3184. LONG-RANGE SURVEY RESPONSES .T_O_TAL_$~ R_ _~__E_YS _ 1__ ~31_9~L~.~71 _ 2_9..9- ........... l~'--'-;'~' ..... ~--'"1 -M~le-- ~7'I ~ 27 -J:-e~ I --~ 73 72 71 '69 '- 71 77. ' 76~ 461 38 ' ,- 42 42~, 45 Charlottesville 42 40 35 52 43 i -~Jbemade [ :i8 18 16 14 14 111 12 [ 23 23 28. 23/ 29 261_ 31 33 29! 21 Nelson Fluvanna t 9 ' 151 9 3 :4 91 Other i' .! ! '6 4 ~ 7J 2 3 r ! 2 WHERELIVE ; I , Homealone i , -I [ ! - i , 351 34 35 Home ', ' : I .j ~ r 86 89 Hor. e/fa I i J 8S 4 50 ' ' 5 2 3i 3 6~ 8 GroUPRetirement/NursingHOme i'i ~i i i ' I 7 10: 101 11 S, 7 Ot~er i i i 1' 1 1 11 2 3= . HOW LONG RODE - One month I 9 13~ ~ 18. 19[ 12 9 12; ~111 8 5- 4 1to 6 rm~n~ I 211 25i 17 131 171 14 20 13!' 13! 15 14 13 6 mos to year , 26 19 29f 31 23 29 26 32 26 15 10 12 1 to 2 years i ~' i ', I i " i 271 18i 17 2 to5years i ,20: 25 24 21: 34 36 37 35 46 14 26~ 26 5 to 10 ears , ~ , 14 19 Y ~ i / 19 10+ years 16:22 15 16 7 9i 7 9! 5 8 HOW OFTEN RIDE 46! 48i 631 45i 45] 45i 43 Every day ' 34 ! 391 411 42 ', 51 ' 331 2-3 days/week 38 53 44{ 41i 37] 24~ . 361 331 31i 41': 33 10: 81 5, 5 1 clay/week 10, 3! 7 6 7' 5i 1 11~ 1 day/month ! 5! 3! 5 4J 8' 4i 4; 8' 13i 10:: 7 4-6 days/year i 4! 2i ,2i 31 - 2l 3: 2[ 3'r' 3J 51 3 3 TRIP PURPOSE / ! I I i i ~ Work ~ 34', ,171 42 . 29 .36i 51 36 31 33 .25 33 33 Shopping ! 2 2 4' 1 4 41 6 3 6 9 ' 31 5 Schoo , 19 17, 10 181 12 16 15 16 91 8 . 6~ 6 Soc/Recr 201 17 7 5~ 7, 5 5 8 61 9 12~ 13 Doctor/dentist 21 11 10 16 16 .16 22I -26, 24 29 Personal busme, i 3[ 4 2 I ; 2 4 3! 5 9~ 2 Meals. , :, 22! 17J 261 ~7{ 18{ 2[ 9 81 141.62i 3' 5 Adultdayc, e~ { ~2 7]~ . 5! 21 .._ 5' _-_ 3 4[ 7 OTHER TRANSP t J T r ~ ~ T Yes 33 32 33 1T 18' 221 24 2 24L 15:' .... 17 Page I LONG-RANGE SURVEY RESPONSES Sometime~ ............... + -~ .............. ;I-8 .... 22~ 2~ ..... 2~1f ..... 26 .... 30- 33 .... 43~ .... ;48 ........................... No 60t 68~- ......................................................................... 6~ 65 59~ 57 52 48 47 42 341 28 ........ ~-~ ......................................... - [ J WHY STARTED . ~ Just found out i 11 19 17 16 19 2~I~ 36 ?.¢a~-':t- d dye I i 48 25 23 1;1-- 15 20 16~ Lost driver ; 8 9] 10 10 10 8 9 Agency ~ I 7 25 39 22 19 17 18 Other j t i 231 ~ 2' 2! ' 3 18 COURTEOUS SVC [ I ; ' ' -- Yes i. t , 82 841 83i 84i ?7' 77 Usually I i I 151 14i~'~ 13' 13[ 18J 16 . ' 2, 3 NO ! i [ ' 21 1] 1] Don't know i i i I~ ~ 1~I 4 3i 2~ 1! 2[ 3 DEPENDABLE SVC } , i I :,! i ! I Yes 94,, 99! 94 83i ~ Don'tNo Know 11, 5111 241~, 2il 1; i~l~! tli' 'i .~i' : ' ! 'i~l ON-TIME i W/in 15 min. ~ ~ , , 82 ! 88i ' 79 15-30 min. ; , ~ 13 12! 14! 161 111i 151 19 30+ min. ~ I ; ~ i 1 r ~ 2; 1 2 SAFE DRIVERS ' ~ i i I , i '. ~ ! 93 921 95 Yes 94! 100i 97 93 95' 93 91: 941 91, Usually , ~ 4 2' 4i 81 41 91 5! 71 4 No ! 1i ; ~, 1 1, , NA NA · li 0, 0 2i ' 2 1 Don't know ' 4!, 2:[ ', 2 2 ,, 2, 3 1 SEATBELT i i ~ , Yes 361 72 i 89', 961 95 97, 96' 97' 98 991 94, 93 Usually ~ i i ; ; , 4; 4 NO 491 201 7 21 2 1 ~ 2 1 [ 1~_' li 0 Don't know i 12i 4 2i 3 2[ 2, 2, li 11 1', 2 ASSISTED? ] ' I 79 ~ L Yes 72! 911 76! 841 75 76 78, 79 8~ 93~, 86 No 31 6~ ~1 15 25 23, 19~_ 19 - Don't know i [ ', , 2i 4 COMFORTABLE ! .... t ................... i 'r;~'S........................... .............. 9-~ ........ 97 ........ 9~, ..... 97~ ......... 96.,.. 8o;"" ............ '8~" 87, . . 87; 88i .... 891- 90 I t 9 Usua v 15, 13 13 12, 10 NO . 2'T 4' 2" 2 2 2 2~ , I 1 1 Don't'know ...... t - 41- 3! 1~ 2 1: 1 ' 1! 1' 01 Page 2 LONG-RANGESURVEYRESPONSES , 86 ' 86 · 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 i 96 96 97 · J / Yes ~ 75[ 48 43 58~ 66] 73~ 69 67i 721 _.6~.~ 861 80 .....................No i~ ................... 9~- 12' 5 7~f ...................... 6~ 2~ 7 4~+ .......... 3~ ........ ~ ~ ......... 5~4---~ 10 ~es ~ 51 62' 9 - 97 ~ 100~ 98; ~ ~o ~ 2: 2,2~ 1~ 2 1 ~ 1 ~n't~ . ] 4 ~ 1~ 2 ] ~ 1' 1~ 1 ~14 13~ 10 14 7~ 10~ 8 8; 2~ 4 1 [ 2 15;19 ~ 2 2 3' 2: 2 2 1' 2~ l 3' 2 20-24. 6~ 5 7 4; 6. 9~ 8 6~ 8[ 4 5' 6 25~ 29~ 13 ~ 18~ 31: 33[ 29 25~ 23~ 25 28~ 24 45~ 14) 17 15~ 17] 15 19~ 19 21~ 20: ~ 17~ 26 65+ 30 ~ ~ 39 ~ ~ ~; 28 33 38 ~ 45 ~ ~ 45, INCOME · I ~ ~ ~ ~ : >$10,~ 43~ ~ 61~ 69i ~, 58~[ 61 60: - 58 ~ 491 $10,~1-14,999 10~ I0 15~ 14~ 17 14, 15 14: 15, 14 19, 4 9, 7 S20,~ 12[ 8 16~ -9j 15 20{. 17 14~ 17[ 20 19:~ D~SABLED . ~ ; ~. . ~ " : NO ' ' 57' 60 55 55~ ~ 49 48 Yes ~ ; ~ 43; 40 45 45j ~ 51 . 52 ~eeJ~air ,: [ , 13~ 24 13r 15j 27 24 25 Page 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: BIG BLUE Update February 4, 1998 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A status report on BIG BLUE STAFF CONTACTI'S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,Wade,White ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: · REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors requested an update on JAUNT's BIG BLUE bus service at its January 7, 1998 meeting. DISCUSSION: Commuter service on Rt. 29 North began on August 28th. During September there were 114 two-way trips. The number of riders per day ranged from 2 to 5. Ridership per day grew 7% in October and 4% in November. The holidays and cold weather reduced ridership during December and early January, But BIG BLUE was still successful in adding a new rider each week. On January 12th BIG BLUE added stops at UVA to serve those who work until 5:00 p.m., and hoped that advertising this new service will help to build increased ridership. BIG BLUE has been flexible in providing service, so that daily there are small detours to benefit riders (for example BIG BLUE would pick up a passenger on Airport Road and take them to work at Sperry - neither of these are official stops). JAUNT is currently working with a professional advertising agency to find new ways to promote the service. RECOMMENDATION: Provided for your information. cc: Donna Shaunesey 98.006 S IO8IA SFI8 dO (I}tVO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & CommuniW Development 401 Mclnt~re Road Charto~esvil}e. Virginia 229024696 1804) 296-5823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Couuty Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development January 23, 1998 Ivy Landfill Recreational Use - Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on Janu~y 20, 1998, unanimously found the recreational use at the lvy Landfill to be iu compliauce with the Comprcheusive PIm~ with the understanding that "the recreational use will be a part of a Board-approved Master Plan tbat includes the extent of grading, storm water management plan and mitigation measures for the entire property and addresses future uses for the entire property." Attached please find a staffreport which outlines this proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. VWC/jcf ATTACHMENT STAFF PERSON: RON KEELER PLANNING COMMISSION: JANUARY 20, 1998 (SDP-97-110} IVY LANDFILL END USE FINAL SITE PLAN Proposal: Proposal for improvemems to existing landfill to effectuate "end use" plan including establishment of municipal solid waste (MSW) transfer station, waste-to-compost facility, active and passive gas venting systems and improvements to recycling/reuse facilities. Construction and demolition debris (CDD) would continue to be disposed on-site. In addition, grading and other improvements for conversion of a portion of the site to public recreational use is depicted on the plan. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 28, consists of 297.2 acres zoned RA Rural Areas and EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, is situated on the northwest side of Dick Woods Road (Rte. 637) about one mile east of Taylor's Gap Road (Rte. 708) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The site is also adjacent to 1-64, an EC roadway, however the area subject to site plan review will not be visible from 1-64 and therefore, approval of the ARB is not required. This site is located in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. This site is not located in a designated development area (See Attachments A & B for location and parcel maps). Reason for Planning Commission Review: This site plan has been referred to the Planning Commission as a public project of significant public interest. Approval of the plan also requires review of the recreation area for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Foreword: Due to opposition to continued usage of the Ivy landfill, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority developed various alternatives for phased discontinuance of the site as a landfill. In Spring, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council endorsed "Option 7A," which calls for transfer of municipal solid waste (MSW) to another landfill and continued on-site disposal of construction and demolition debris (CDD). The Board of Supervisors again discussed Option 7A as it relates to on-site disposal of CDD on November 7, 1997 and reaffirmed its prior commitment to Option 7A. The Board has reserved the right to revisit the issue following completion of Cell 4 in about 2 ½ years. Recreational development of a portion of the site would be a cooperative effort between the RSWA and the Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation. Both changes to the landfill oPeration and the recreational development are presented on one site plan, however, the proposals should be viewed as independent (For more detail on "End Use" plan, see Attachment D). STAFF COMMENT Due to public concern regarding this proposal, the "staff comment" section of the report will address each applicable section of 32.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that not all concerns can be addressed through the site plan regulations. The Zoning Administrator has determined that no site plan approval is required for the CDD fill activity; compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance as well as DEQ regulation is required. This is consistent with prior decision regarding site plan review of the Cove Creek Park under which the building, parking, and like improvements were subjected to site plan regulation while baseball field development was subject to erosion and stormwater regulations of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (Attachment E). 32.7.1 Comprehensive Plan: Section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia requires that public projects be reviewed for consistency with the local Comprehensive Plan. Establishment of recreational uses at the landfill constitutes a change of use which requires the Planning Commission determination of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This project received prior Planning Commission review as a project in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 1998/99- 2002/03 and the CIP is currently under consideration by the Board of Supervisors In assessing this project for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, staffhas utilized the: --- Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-20013, --- CIP funding request (Attachment F), and --- November 18, 1997 memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation (Attachment G) The Community Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, provides a framework for review and planning of governmental services including police, fire and rescue, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, general governmental administration/services and solid waste facilities. The plan contains nine overall facility objectives of which sraffbelieves six to be relevant to this review (Starred items on Attachment H). Staff recommends that the proposal in consistent with Objectives 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Objective 2 recommends that new facilities be confined to designated development areas. While recreational use of this site would constitute a new use, the property has been in public ownership for many years and there is no site acquisition cost involved in the conversion (See Objective 9, Attachment H). Also, much of the site could be devoted to a natural area/nature trail usage in the future. As to the specifics of this site, there are two factors that warrant consideration. Firstly, access to the site from 1-64 is good since Route 637 has been improved between the interstate highway and the site. However, access from the Ivy area is by Route 637, which north ofi-64 has not been improved. Route 637 south of the site is currently a gravel road which is scheduled for improvement in fall, 1998 Secondly, a portion of the site has been subjected to fill operation. Section 5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that "no improvements shall be constructed in or upon any landfill for a period of twenty (20) years after the termination of the landfill operation without prior approval of the board of supervisors" and provides context for Board review (Attachment I). At this time, the gas capture/venting system(s) has not been approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and staff is unable to recommend that the proposed recreational use is consistent with the requirements of section 5.1.14. Staff recommends that allocation be made but that no County expenditure occur until the Board has made positive finding under section 5.1.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Field sports generally require relatively large sites for the intensity of use and adequate sites within designated development areas are difficult to achieve due to land costs and proximity of surrounding residential development (Opposition was experienced to Darden Towe Park, recreational improvements at Albemarle High School and establishment of recreational areas at Monticello High School). The immediate need for additional sports fields has been identified by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Staff recommends that the proposed conversion from discominued landfill to recreational use represents: a) an opportunity for cost-effective use/reuse of public land b) with no site acquisition costs and c) which helps meet an identified need for field sports. Staff recommends that the proposed recreational use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 32.7.2 Safe and Convenient Access~ Parking~ Pedestrian Ways~ 32.7.3 Streets and Roads: For the new entrance to the recreational area, VDOT will require a taper and turn lane for right turns into the site. As to the existing entrance serving the landfill, the right turn lane is in place. VDT has recommended that: A left turn lane should be provided to serve the site. With improvements scheduled to begin in the fall of 1998 for Route 637 west of this site to Route 635, traffic volumes are certain to increase with improved access to the western part of the County. A left turn lane will provide a much safer access to the site. The County Department of Engineering has commented that: This item need not be addressed for site plan approval. While alett turn lane serving both entrances to the landfill would certainly improve safety, and we support the recommendation from VDT, most traffic entering the recreation area entrance is anticipated to come from 1-64, and a left turn lane does not appear to be warranted. Staff agrees that 'new' traffic would be generated by the recreational area, but does not believe that improvement to Rte. 637 would appreciably increase traffic to the landfill. Given doubts about traffic, staff would recommend that left turn lanes not be required at this time. The Board has reserved review of the landfill operation in about 2 ½ years and further evaluation of access to the landfill could be provided ar that time. A left turn lane into the recreation area could be provided by the County at any time, if warranted, however a right turn lane into the recreational area should be provided with initial development. Roadways to the transfer facility and other areas accessed by the general public will be paved. A wheel washing facility has recently been installed between dirt road areas and the paved roadway. 32.7.4 Drainage; Stormwater Management; Soil Erosion: Staff would emphasize that this site is subject to regulation by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. While the landfilting operations are not subject ro site plan review, the Engineering Department provides review and regulation through the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance on an on- going basis. The Engineering Department is reviewing the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed by RSWA consultants and required by DEQ Engineering has previously provided comments to the consultant (Attachment J). 32.7.5 Water, Sewer and Other Utilities: This property is within a jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority for public sewer (Attachment K) Public sewer has been considered as a method of transporting leachate, which is currently disposed of through pump- and-haul method. The consultant for RSWA has estimated the cost of extension of public sewer to the site to be significantly higher than on-site methods of disposal (Attachment L). Staff recommends that, based on zoning ordinance criteria, public sewer is not 'reasonably available' (Attachment M). The MSW transfer facility will be designed for leachate containment. Conditions of approval will require Engineering Department approval of leachate containment as well as transfer method to ensure that transfer operations will be enclosed. 32.7.6 Fire Protection: The gas management/venting system(s) will require permitting by DEQ, which includes fire safety measures. Staffhas already recommended that no expenditure occur for recreational development until the gas venting system has been approved by DEQ and evaluation of safety issues has been provided to the Board of Supervisors (RSWA anticipates DEQ permitting in March, 1998). 32.7.8 Signs and Lighting: Signage must comply with zoning regulations. RSWA has agreed to posting ora 'reminder' sign that haul vehicles are to have covered loads. Lighting will be situated around buildings but will no~ be used under normal operations. A note reflecting zoning ordinance requirements for lighting has been added to the site plan. 32.7.9 Landscaning and Screening: Since parking areas are internally located, no landscaping measures will be required for the recreational facility. The RSWA has voluntarily submitted landscaping proposals for the discontinued cells. Due to DEQ restrictions related to cap maintenance, extensive landscaping cannot be provided on-site. The RSWA has offered $15,000 of landscaping stock to adjoining property owners for landscaping on their properties. RSWA does not believe that new improvements will be visible from immediately adjoining properties Site section drawings will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff will require effective landscaping/bufefing from Rte. 637 for landfill improvements. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, while staff`has been mindful of public concerns in development of recommended conditions of approval of the site plan, not all issues of concern can be addressed through site plan review. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the County Department of Engineering have been and will continue to be involved review of the landfill for some matters not addressable by the site plan regulations. The issue of continuance of various activities of the landfill have been discussed by the RSWA Board, City Council and the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors reaffirmed its commitment to "Option 7A" in early November, 1997. The following addresses various items requiring Planning Commission action: Comprehensive Plan: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the recreational use to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Curvilinear parking for recreational area: Curvilinear parking in the recreation area is responsive to topography and grading limitations related to cell cap preservation. Staff recommends that the Commission authorize curvilinear parking in accord with section 32.12.6.5 (c) of the zoning ordinance Recreation Area Site Plan: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as it pertains to recreational use subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall not be submitted for signature nor accepted for signature until the following conditions have been met: a) Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan; b) VDOT issuance of a commercial entrance permit to include a taper and fight turn Lane; c) VDOT approval of a planting agreement for any landscape materials within the public road right-of-way; d) Note on the plan that no outdoor lighting will be installed without Planning Commission approval 2. Construction shall not be begun until approval has been obtained by the Board of Supervisors as required by section 5 1.14 of the zoning ordinance. Ivy Landfill End Use Plan: The CDD and other fill cells do not require site plan approval. These conditions of approval are applicable to the landfill entrance and circulation, encore center, improvements, compsting area, and MSW transfer station. Staffrecommends approval of the site plan as it pertains to the RSWA landfill operation subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall not be submitted for signature nor accepted for signature until the following conditions have been met: a) Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan; b) Engineering Department approval of the location, design and operation of the tire wash facility to prevent off-site tracking of mud from unpaved roadways; c) Engineering Department approval of leachate containment measures for MSW transfer station; d) Engineering Department approval of method of MSW transfer to ensure that tranSfer activity is enclosed so as to reduce wind-blown debris and exposure to precipitation, thereby minimizing the volume of leachate; e) Planning staffapproval ora "reminder" sign regarding state law applicable to load covering of vehicles. The sign shall be approved as to location and wording by the Planning staff and shall be considered as a sign as required by the Planning Commission under section 32 7.8.1 of the zoning ordinance; Planning staffapproval of landscaping/buffering measures of landfill improvements from Rte. 637~ g) VDOT approval of a planting agreement for any landscape materials within the public road right-of-way; h) Demonstration to the County Attorney of compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia as related to cemeteries and places of burial of the dead. The Board of Supervisors has reserved reconsideration of the transfer of CDD after 2 ½ years. The Board may require installation of a left turn lane to serve the site at that time or at earlier date upon determination by VDOT that warrants have been satisfied. ATTACHMENTS A- Location Map B- Parcel Map C- no attachment D- RSWA "Narrative for the Ivy Landfill" E- Zoning Administrator Official Determination of Use, March 24, 1997 RSWA Description of Use, March 17, 1997 F- CIP- Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development G- Memorandum from Director of Parks and Recreation, November 18, 1997 H- Excerpts from Community Facilities Plan I- Section 5.1.14- Zoning Ordninance J- Letter from Engineering Department to RSWA, January 8, 1998 K- Letter from Planning to RSWA, December 13, 1995 M- Section 32.7.5.1- Zoning Ordinance N- Letters received from public COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Rick Huff, Deputy County Executive Bill Mawyer, Director ~ff January 20, 1998 Engineering & Public Works FY 97/98 Project Report Attached for your information is an updated FY 97/98 Project Report. Please call if you have any questions. BM/ps Attachment OOUNTY OF,AL~ARLE ~ · ~'~ .~F'~ I~XEOUTIVE OFFIG~ SCHOOLS WANS Renovations Brownsville Addition Woodbrook Addition Stony Point Addition WAHS Tennis Courts Crozet School Level Spreaaer Monticello High School. Stony Point Kitchen/Cafeteria High School Technology Ed. Labs Murray High School Renovations WAHS/CATEC Roofs Stony Point Parking and Playfielc WAHS Site Imcrovemen[s VMF Facility Chiller Repl. AHS/Hollymeao Greet HVAC Renovations Henley Middle School Addition Stone Robinson Addition PREP Facility AHS Phase Ill Renovations Subtotal ADMINISTRATION & COURTS Cour~ Square Painting TJ Visitor's Center Roof Painting Project Courts Space Needs Study Keene Landfill Remediation County ~acilities 5-Year Maintenance Study Old Crozet School Roof Roof Study, County Facilities COB Maintenance Program: Roo~ace Roof. COB Misc. SuildJng Renovations Seal Pad(lng Lot COB HVAC Contro{ Sysrem UST Replacement @ COB COS Additional Parking Subtotal HIGHWAYS & T_RA~PO_RTATION COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS FY 97/98 PROJECT REPORT Scheduled ~,u d~q~t. Co~ % Complete 2.700.000 12/15/97 1.773,470 01/15/96 2.245,550 01/15/9fi 1.204.667 01/30/98 90,000 02/21/98 10,000 06/30/98 2g.743.000 07/01/98 65.000 08/01/98 230.000 09/01/96 920.000 09/15/96 1.022.500 09/18/98 193,000 10130/98 270,000 11130/95 437.000 11/30/98 668.000 05/31/99 306.000 05/31/99 2.385.500 06/15/99 2.664.000 06115/99 2,900,000 07/01/99 650.000 08/01/99 550.497.687 Updated 01/20/93 74.254 10/30/97 10,000 12/15/97 50.000 06/30/98 170.600 06/30/98 20.000 06/30/98 135.000 08131196 5.000 06/30/98 100%C Warranty Pedod Near Expiration 99% C 99% C Final Change Order Forthcoming 98% C 90% C Re-seed in Spring 95% D Hold for Spnng Construction 67% C Time Extension Negotiations 80% D 05% P 20% D Schedule Being Reconsidered 10% D 80% D 70% g 60% D 20% D 10% D On Hold by Building Services 70% D 60% D 25% D Financ[cg Needed 05% P 100.000 12/30/97 81.000 01130196 30.000 01/30/98 30.000 06/30~8 120,000 10/30/96 100.000 10/'30/98 $925.854 Aimort Access Funds Agreement 900,000 12/30/97 Hydraulic Rd Sidewalk 65,000 04/0"//98 Adams Count 3,800 05/01/98 Rt 20 Connector Road 2.528.300 05/01/98 Trees for29 180,000 05/30/98 Trees for 250 10,000 05/30/98 West Leigh Ddve Rural Addition 300.000 06/30/93 Bed(mar Dr. North Extension (Close out) 1.000,000 06/30/98 GE Fanuc Ind. Access Prejecl 267.000 06130198 Barracks Road Sidewall( 61.000 06/30/98 Wilton Farm/20 Sidewalk. Lights, Landscaoo 140.000 10/30/g8 Street Lighting: Airport Acres t .500 04/30/98 Rio/Old Brook Road 0 04/30/98 Commonwealth Ddve 16,000 06130/98 Hydraulic Road (Inglewood to Georgetown) 18.000 06/30/98 Hydraulic Road (Georgetown to AHS) 10,000 06/30/98 Hydraulic Road (AHS to Whitewood) 12,000 06130196 Whitewood Road Area 40,000 06130198 Marshall Manor 1.000 06/30/98 Subtotal $5,551.600 100% C 100% C 100% P 50% P 90% P 95% P 05% P 99% C 99% C 05% C 90% C 20% P 05% P Fee Negotiation Stage Lawn Restoration in Spring 95% P Agreement Being Signed 85% D Easements Pending 90% D 90% C Final Paving Delayed 75% C Final Installation in Spring '98 75% P 95% D Obtaining Plat Signatures 100% C 10% O 05% P 05% P 80% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power 80% S Confirming Ccetw/Va. Power 80%B Coofirming Cest w/Va, Power 80% B Confirming Cost w/Va. Power 80% B Cootirming Cost w/Va. Power 60% B Confirming Costw/Va. Power 80% P Under design by Va. Power 50% P Under design by Va. Power LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B -- Bid C = Construction STOR~MWATER CONT~ P~ECTS Woodbreok Channel Phase I Lickinghole Basin (Close out) ~anclflands Wetland Dedication Rio Hills Basin Dedication Moores & Meadow Creek Studies Design Standards Manual - Needs Assmt. Design Standards Manual - Final Design Woodbreok Channel Phase II Windham/Jarman Gap Channel Peyton Basin RJcky Road Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer Four Seasons Channel Four Seasons Basins Sirnam Basin Master Drainage Study SW/Eresion Correction Projects: Krepf Drainage Improvements Hasko Drainage improvements Braokrnere Rd. Drainage improvements Eastbrook Dr. Drainage improvements Patrick Drainage Improvements Weatrnoreland Ct, Drainage improvements Minor Ridge Drainage improvements Subtotal PUBLIC SAF~ UST Removal @ Regional Jail Reg*onal Jail Addition Juvenile Detention Facility Police Academy Training Facility Subtotal PARKS & RECR~ 20,265 1.972,880 21,000 4,700 184,600 11,980 38.000 28,035 62.000 156.500 39,900 t7.500 23.100 96.100 98,485 205,400 1.550 4.870 4.250 9.012 2.500 30,000 30.000 $3.082.627 50,000 14.978.792 7.200.000 6,250 000 $28,478,792 08/30/97 09/01/97 62/26/98 12/30/97 02/28/98 02/28/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/68 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30/98 06/30198 08/30/97 08/30/97 08/30/97 10/30/97 06/30/98 06/30/96 06/30/98 01/30/98 10/01/99 04101/00 05/15100 100% C 100% C 90% D Finalizing Deeds 95% D Deed Revisions w/C, Attorney 95% D 50% P 4 Meetings w/Focus Grp. 0% P 50% D Base Macs Comoleted 05% D 95% D 05% D 05% D 10% D 10% D 10% D 00% P Funds for Next Watersl~ec 100% C 100% C 100% C 100% C Replacing Trees 25% O 10% D 05% P Pending RHH Fina~ Site Plan 90% D 98% B Negotiating w/Low Bidder 60% c, 70% P Consultant Fee Prnoosal Received Crozet Field Restoration 50.000 02/16/98 95% B Chris Greene Fountain 10,000 02/28/98 t00% D Dorder Park SheJter/Restroorn 56.000 04/01/98 20% C Chds Green Lake Pier 80.000 10/30/98 25% D Crozet Park Fields 640.000 06/30/02 25% D Master Plan Only Subtotal $836,000 TOTAL $89,372,660 LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C -- Cons~uctioa DATE: January 16, 1998 ~ua~D OF SUPERVISoRS C~-27-9875'1:45 TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia FROM: Charles J. Gross Albemarle County Representative, Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors SUBJECT: Periodic Report on PVCC Affairs, September - December 1997 This is my first report to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors since my appointment last fall. The PVCC board is now operating with all board positions filled. Since that time. I have been involving myself with learning the multi-faceted functions of the College. Two regularly scheduled Board meetings have occurred (Sept &Nov/. In addition, I had the pleasure of attending the yearly Virginia Community College State (VCCS) meeting in Williamsburg~where much interchange with other Community . College Boards, staff, and state officials helped increase my understanding of the Community College system. Recently, Dr. DiCroce asked me to participate on a special working committee to advise the college on how to best address area business- community educational needs. More on this below. In short the PVCC is doing fine, but many changes are in progress to address challenges that come from a continually evolving society. PVCC 25th Anniversary 1997 marked twenty-five years of PVCC operation. In honor of the event, PVCC and the University of Virginia held a substantial celebration and awards recognition in November on UVA grounds. President Casteen and President DiCroce recognized charter members of PVCC along with much reminiscing. Of special note, PVCC transfers more students to UVA than all other state institutions combined. These PVCC transfer students have demonstrated that over the years they are very capable scholars. They graduate at the same rate, or slightly better, as compared with a four year UVA student and have slightly better GPAs. V. Earl Dickinson Buildin~ for Humanities and Social Sciences PVCC is nearing completion on its first major construction project. This new facility is unique in that it represents a new willingness by the state to provide a substantial resource for a community college beyond what has occurred to date. This building is impressive. It rivals facilities at any other state university. I would encourage Board members to see this building (if you haven't already) at your earliest convenience. Special tours should be possible. It has many surprising features including a full state-of- the-art drama theater. Special comment: since this is a new building with special meaning to PVCC and the community, an opportunity exists for the political governing agencies (i.e. Albemarle County) to mark the event by considering a special contribution. in their name, for finishing-off the interior of the building. This could be statues, wall coverings, desks, furniture, etc. PVCC would certainly appreciate the gesture. The building will be dedicated this summer for full use by September. PVCC Addresses Local Business Needs Over the years. PVCC has strived to address community business needs. In my opinion, they have done well. The Center for Work Force Development (on River Road) has met many aspects of £undamental training. Since 1996, 4214 students have used this Center. The ever-changing demands by businesses have stimulated renewed focus of PVCC's role. PVCC recognizes that its role must evolve. To that end, it has engaged to serve several local businesses to meet their unique skill requirements with special programs. Also, PVCC is about to engage broader discussions with the business community in order to ascertain if any employment segments are not being met. High-tech jobs may fall in this category. I have been a part of this undertaking. Distance Learning The world of higher education is witnessing a revolution, to a degree, as to how students receive instruction - Distance Learning. Many existing private and public colleges are responding to the growing threat from upstart business enterprises that deliver degree programs via satellite. Internet, and video. Ma~y of these stanups are very good, some are not. But the point, really, is that college can be achieved from home. PVCC will not be immune from the competition. The college is taking the situation seriously and may even begin to offer Distance Learning in some fashion. They currently are a part of a statewide distance program where-by PVCC offers classrooms and TV links to other universities for a wide variety of courses broadcast from those sources. We will continue to hear much on Distance Learning in the future. Bulldin~Refurbishing After PVCC occupies the new Humanities and Social Sciences Building, it hopes to undertake a total refurbishing of the current main building. This building is due for a serious update, particularly after many classrooms and functions move. The Governor has included a 1.8 million-dollar item in his budget for this project. It must yet make it through the General Assembly intact. HOPE Scholarships The federal government has recently created a new ~10e of student financial aid assistance called the Hope Grant. This is a major new action and it is surprising how little news attention it has received. It permits community college students to receive up to $1500 for the first year and about ~;1200 the second year. This is a grant not a loan. Most students ~vill qualify. Parental income limits kick in near $75.000. This could significantly boost community college enrollments. Observations I would like to close with several observations and comments. PVCC is well run. Dr. DiCroce is a very capable individual and her staff appears to be as well. Innovation is not a new idea at PVCC, which is most encouraging since the world is changing quickly. The new sratewide high-speed computer connection is one example. Distance learning another. Transfer student quality is generally very good. Continuing education is good. One issue which bears monitoring is the fact that several Community College jurisdictions (e.g. Northern VA, Norfolkl have been supplementing the salaries of their Presidents because they feel the state salary, is not adequate. I have no opinion as yet whether this is a concern. Competent Presidents are in demand. Summary The last few- months have been very stimulating, and I look forward to engaging more fully, ple~tse feel free to contact me for any need or question to follow up on: I expect to report 2-4 times a year or as necessary-. If the County Board of Supervisors expects something other than this, please advise. Respectfully Submitt%[, Charles J. (Moss 3867 Loftlands Dr. Earlysville, Va. 22936 978-2865 (e) 978-2537 (d) ABG -FINANCIAL SERVICES. INC. January l9, 1998 RO. ~ox 8 (~i4URCH¥'ILL~, MARYLAND 21028 A 410.879-9918 FAX410-838-5360 ~ ,,, ~ ~'[ ~o~ ~ ~PERVISOR~ Ms. Arlene Hernandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York New York 10286 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments 0tydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hemandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of December I997. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Sheila H Moynihan '~ Project Monitor /shin enclosure cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Effective December 31, 1997 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AEG Associates, Inc. 300 E. L~d Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest A~ts Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority'), and y~ur bank, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the 'Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project'), that as of the date shown below: 1) The number of units in the Project occupied by lower income tenants is 15 · 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0- 3) The number of units rented and the number of units held available for rental other than as described (1) and (2) is 51 . 4) The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of units in the Project is 23% . 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof. 6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April l, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of 3anuary 5, 1998 RICNMOND-ALBEMA~RLE LIMITED P~RTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership Au%horized ~epresentative December ¥~t 1997 Arbor Crest A. pa, rtments (Hy,d. raulic Ro.ad.. Apts.)p~O~ I1: 051-35371.. t. LOWI~R ~I'4~OM~ Numl~* of Units 66 January 5, 1998 Effective 12/31/97 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 15 4 Arbor Crest Dr Beverly T. Lane I 21 . , 6 Arbor Crest Dr Wilma M. Atkinson 2 22 . 7 Arbor Crest Dr Ruth M. Jones ~ ,_ 23. -. 9 Arbor Crest Dr ~ Virginia Burton S 14 Ar~or Crest Dr_ 25 .B~tty L.. Reed 18 Arbor Crest Dr Ann S. Kemp ~ . 26 7 30 ArBor Crest Dr 27 Mary Cox Allen 8 44 Arbor Crest Dr 28 Sam Atherton 9 56 Arbor_ Crest Dr 29 Harlan W, Hooe 10 70 Arbor Crest Dr ~0 Ernest M, Nease_ 76 Arbor Crest Dr Ann G, Sayl°r' ' 72. 84, Arbor Crest Dr ~ Juanita Boliek ~3~8 Arbor Crest D? 33 ~ancy G, Foley ~4 90 Arbor Crest Dr ~4 Betty B. Etliott 9~ Arbor Crest Dr M. Eileen Knick ~5 -- 3~ .. ~9 ~9 .. 20 40 , 41 42 _ 43-- 4.4 , 45.. 47 49 - 5.4 ~9, 71. 72 73. 77._ 79., t 12. 13 14. 15, 17. 19. 2O January 29, 1998 Route 250, Albemarle County Ms. Diana M. Saunders 455 Lego Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Saunders: Your letter of January 9, 1998, with concerns of traffic in and near the Route 64 interchange has been forwarded no me for response. We have a tentative February 1998 date for mnstallation of traffic smgnals a~ the intersection of the 1-64 ramps with Route 250. In addition, we plan mo install e traffic smgnai am the intersection of Routes 25[ ~729 in March 1998. Hopefully, these signal locations will create some gaps in traffic that will allow the motorisn from Hansem Mountain Road mc enter into Route 250. In a long range view of Route 25f there will mosn likely be several more szgnals installed on the Route 250 Corridor as developmenn intensifies between 1-64 and Rolkin Drive. We thank you for your concerns and if you have any further commenns or questions, you may 2onEacn me by phone an 804 293-0024. Yours truly, HWM/smk CC: J. S. Hores Albemarle County Board of Supervisors K. W. Staton H. W~ Mills Assistant Resident Engineer BOARD To: Members, Board of Supervisors From: Etla Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~ Subject: Reading List for February 4, 1998 Date: January 30. 1998 February 7, 1996: Pages I - 23 - Mrs, Humphris Pages ~_4 - end - Mr. Bowerman January 5 1997: All - Mr, Martin April 2. 1997: All - Mrs. Thomas Augus~ 3. 1997: All - Mr. Perkins August 20, 1997: All - Mr. Marshall COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road improvement Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of recommendation to be submitted to VDOT at its 1998 Primary Road Plan Pre~Allocation Public Hearing in Culpeper STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: / ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On April 2, 1998, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and pd~ary system for the Culpeper District. Ail roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e., Route 29, Route 250). DISCUSSION: The Six Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in allocated for each construction district, and all primar~ compete for those funds. The Culpeper district incK Madison, Orange and Rappahannock Counties. The purpose of this review process by the Board of Sup, in the Primary Plan for the District. Attachment A is ~ pdmary system for the Culpeper District. This draft is proposed by staff indicated with italicized and strike-ti Changes proposed by staff include: 1 )General updati~ priority of the sidewalk project on Route 20 North to V installation of a traffic signal at various locations alon Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific amount [he County, whereas funds for primary road projects are road projects proposed within ail localities of the distdct des Albemarle, Culpeper, FauquJer, Fluvanna, Greene, rvisors is to recommend which County projects to include ~ draft copy of the County's improvement priorities for the 3ased on the County's 1997 priority list with modifications rough (deletion) and italicized print (new wording). ~g of status of previously prioritized projects; 2)raising the /ilton farm Apts.; 3)adding a recommendation supporting Rt. 250 East and 1-64 interchanges. RECOMMENDATION: For discussion. Staff will modi~ this draft based on the E~oard's comments and can provide a final draft for review and approve at the March day meeting. 98.008 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1997 SPRING PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS. AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following raddresses Albemarle County priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface ~lYansportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Projects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. 1) Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed m by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 nnprovements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority project, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 andto improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design for the MeadoW Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. However, it is not possible to construct this project solely with Secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important Secondary projects. The County believes the parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staffto evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road provided it will accelerate the parkway's completion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sources to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern urbanized area which would be funded with other than primary funds, such as the Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass interchange, should also be actively pursued. 2) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Studies. The Route 29 North Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board last year with the County% endorsement. It is hoped that the Commonwealth Transpor[ation Board will acl 3~ 4) 5) 6) 7~ g) 9) favorably on these recommendations and implement the recommendations of this study is developing plans for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South fork Rivanna to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. The new Route 29 South Corridor Study ......... ~ ............... t,~,,v .... ~s m the early stages w~th a consultant now on hired and a citizen advisory committee is now being appointed. Tl~c,~,,~,~ ........................ v~,.~.~o ,. ~,,~.,~,,~:a~' .... ~ ...... : ...... ':' ~ ..... ~':~ ....... ' .... ~:~ corridor a~ady It is desired that high priority once again be established for public input in this study's process, including public sessions in Albemarle County. Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to the proposed Route 20/742 connector road that will serve the traffic from the Monticello High School. Construction of sidewalks and bike lane facilities on both sides of the Route 29 from the south Fork Rivarma River to Airport Road (Route 649L Undertake road projects parallel to Route 29 North Corridor which relieve traffic on Route 29. Widen Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remairdng portions of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) will bc is now under study by VDOT to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Finvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourage public participation and consideration of recommendations. Present the recommendations of the VDOT corridor study of Rome 240 in Crozet (pending completion) to the County and nnprove Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. ...... v .... r~ v .... for thc Undertake improvements of Funtaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Fo n development ........ : ~,~ .................... ~ ..... ~ ......... b~ , Undertake improvements to the Bellair/Route 250 intersection. ~¢ac ,~*,v ........ n ....... .... ~ ........... ~.~ ....... ~ ........................ z ...........- ......2 as generally proposed at the location and design Public Hearing. Safety Improvements: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods; in particular, Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farms Apartments and Darden Towe Park, Route 20 south from the City line to the new Route 20/742 connector road,, along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks, and along Route 250 West from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this road). 2~ Installation o traffic signals' at 1-64 interchange of Route 250 east; at Route 22 and Route 250; Route 729 and Route 250 East: and, the I~64 interchange at Fifth Street. 3) Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these safety improvements. 4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad in Crozet. 5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements. 6) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County would like for VDOT to consider truck restrictions on these two roads. Enhancement Proiects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: l/ Construction of pedestrian walkways. [see #1, Safety Improvements above). 2~ Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road cormeeting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, sxgnage, placing of overhead utilities underground. 3) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of 4) 5) Charlottesville and Albemarle County_ (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 19911 Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system. Removal of non-conforming billboards. National Highway System INHS~ The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. VDOT rcca~rnucndcd to The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS which includes the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the Corporate limits of Charlottesville to Airport Road. The Counly desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville which is currently out for consultant proposals. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies which are part of the NHS l additional information is provided under Standard Projects #2/. Congestion Mitigation and Air Ouality Improvement Program This does nofapply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. 4 ' '-' z RD OF SUPERVISORS E. A. R. L. Community Association Eaxl¥~vtlle Area Residents' League P.O. Box 684 December 28, 1997 Eadysville. VA 22936 Chairman Forrest Marshall Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Members of the Board: The transportation committee of E. A. R. L. has been investigating a problem in Earlysville that now needs your attention. The location is the a driveway, giving access to a family division of the Ayres property, now owned by Tom Kane and Susan Hawkins. This driveway is immediately south of the Jacob's Run Bridge, 1 mile north of the Earlysville General Store on Rt. 743. Even though there is little southbound site distance, YT)OT gave an entrance permit. Rt. 743 northbound is a downgrade in this area, and the driveway is rendered invisible by a right curve just before the bridge. Approximately eight feet of the bridge's g~aard rail, which protected drivers from sliding off into the stream, were permanently removed to allow this road to be cut into the hill. At the suggestion of Ass't Cotmty Attorney Greg Kampner, General Kidd of E. A. R. L. contacted Mir. Baber at VDOT, who reported that there was no action planned concerning this driveway. As you are well aware, Rt. 743 or Advance Nliils Road has become a heavily travelled road. Many neighbors are concerned for the owners' safety entering and le~vin~' the property and the safety of the public passing by. Can the County regulators take a more pro-active role to solve this problem? Can VDOT be directed to cut back the bank to the south of the driveway to improve the site distance as they have recently done at the next bridge, just 50 yards to the north? I look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter. I fear that the current owners and the driving public including children in school buses are at risic Thank you. Sincerely, Ann H. Mallek President 'I CURTIN R. COLEMAN Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 : RD OF SUPERVISORS 17 November 1997 Re: Route 605 (Durrett Ridge Road) Dear Supervisors: I am in receipt of copy of Walter L. Eades letter of 28 October on this subject and concur with his views and his requests. My residence is at 6343 Red Bird Lane, a private road off Route 605 which abuts the Eades property on one boundary. In addition to the comments voiced by Mr. Eades, I have other objections to the continuation of Route 605 as a dirt road. My house is located in excess of 500 feet from Route 605 and clouds of dirt (not just dust) reach my house from passing vehicles. I do not have air conditioning and when my windows are open it is impossible to keep the interior free from heavy brown dust. Just imagine how much trouble we have hanging laundry on outside clothes lines. Each time the tax appraisers from your real estate department pay me a visit I remind them that the value of my residence should be adjusted downward because of its location on a heavily traveled dirt road such as Route 605. My objections fall on deaf ears. Police protection on Route 605 is nil. The speed of most vehicles using thi~ road as ~ short cut is far above the posted limit. Most residents of Route 605 are considerate enough to maintain low speeds. I realize that littering is commonplace along rural roads but the raw dirt condition of 605 seems to make littering more justified in the minds of some people using the road. My wife, Helga, and I would very much appreciate your prompt attention to the matter of paving Route 605. ~n R. coleman CRC/rjl cc: VDOT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS November 14, 1997 Route 605 Albemarle County Mr. Walter L Eades 1073 Durrett Ridge Road Earlyswille. VA. 22936 Dear Mr. Eades: This is in response to your letter of October 26, 1997, concerning the status of Route 605 in Albemarle Cmmty. As stated in yoar letter, we have the right of way on a portion of Route 605 for approximately 0.8 miles ~om Route 604. Our records do not indicate Route 605 was placed in the Six Year Plan in 1987. According to a Gravel Road policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1988, projects with available right of way were placed on a priority list compiled by the County and roads on this list are placed in the Six Year Plan as funding .becomes available. The deeds for the fight of way were recorded in October 1988. In any case, Durrett Ridge Road is in the proposed upcoming 1998-99 through 2003-04 Six Year Plan with an advertisement date of February 1999. This will include only the section of road as described above (0.8 miles)that has donated right of way available. The proposed construction will probably utilize a 18-20 foot surface treated roadway with 2 foot shoulders. The projected cost is still estimated in the $300,000 range. rllte method of improvemem you described in your letter appears to be the "pave in place" policy recently passed by the General Assembly, We have found after reviewing the g~avel roads that this policy will not apply to most roads in Albemarle County, In order to meet the minimum 18 foot pavement. 2 foot shoulder, and 3 foot ditch width, the 30' right ofwayis not sufficient. We have found that very minimal grading will extend beyond the existin~ 30 foot easement. Also, the existing curves on the remaining section of Route 605 will not meet curve requirements without considerable realignment. This will eleminate the ''pave in place" policy for the remainder of Route 605. Page 2 November 14, 1997 We realize that the maintenance on gravel roads is more costly than on paved roads, but Albemarle County has over 200 miles of gravel roads and very limited funds for gravel, road improvemems. We will continue m maintain Route 605, and hopefully the proposed construction in early 1999 will eliminate some of*he problems you are nov,' eacountering. Your interest in transportation matters is appreciated and if you have further questions, please let us know, Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator /ggu ce: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg w/attachments Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Pec_embg.r 1 h 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. o! .Plar~nin~] & Community Devetopmem 401 lViclnt~re Road Chadot~esville, Viroinia 22902-~59fi (8O4) 296-5823 BOARD OF SUPERVIgiOR$ Roker~ Mcg~e~e .. 0~a~lo~esville~, ¥^ 22902 1[~; , 8P,97,53 Taad¢ol Friends School Math/Science Building ' 8DP-97-129 T~dcm Friends School Math/Science Building Preliminary Site Plan Ta>~ Map 91, Par~fls 2A and 2B The Alh¢~arle~ Co~n[y Pla. rating Commission, at its meeting on December 9, 1997 took the fol!o~!og 8P,97~-53 Tlmd~.nl Friends School Math/Science Building- Unanimously recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subje~ct tO the following conditions: The new £aciljty will be located approximately as shown on the attached site layou~ (Attachment 12); Total school enrollment and on-site staffing shall be limited to 260 persons; and, Adclifional bqil0ings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a. tae~) sp..ecial use permit. The new ~acili,ty shall connect to public water and sewer. P0g0 2 DeCember 1 t~ 1997 Please bo advised tl~t the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review thispetifionand reeejye publi0 comment at their meeting on ~ Any new or additional [nfor~otion regarding yom application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of SUp013'iSOr~ ~t 10~s$ seV~n days prior to your scheduled hearing date. 8DP~9?q]9 Tandem Friends School Math/Science Building Preliminary Site Plan Uu~nimously approved subject to the following ~nditions Subntittal of the final site p an for final s~gnamre unul tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the f0'l ' c I.OWlnJ~ ~ onol~orb~ ore met; PlitllnMg Depaltlllent approval of: 1, L~*ls;~p~ Plan, Elqgi!l~t~ring D~por[ment approvfl m Melud~: 1, ~ PI~ ~{ ~ signed, s~ed, ~d dated; ~, App~oYM of ~djog ~d ~nago plus ~d computations Provide 0o~ation ~t ~ weighed ~'C" value (0,70), ~s~ed M ~e *~S~o~wat~r M~0gement Repo~' for the Gy~i~iel~ouse, is still a wlid ~ssmption bas~ on ~e proposed development; :- 3~ Virg~ia Dep~ent of T~s~tion approval of pl~s ~d ~i~ge; 4, Approval of~ Erosion ~d Sediment Con~ol PI~. ~bem~lo County Se~ie~ Au~ority approval of: 1, '~ ' FMal w~er line cons~etion pl~s, Buil~g Cod~ ~d Zo~g Se~iees approval to ~clMe: l, ProvjO~ ~ll ~b ~uts ~d prepped wflkways &at ~e neeess~ for ~ ge~e~sible route ~o ~e proposed building; ~d, 2, . . Approv$l ofS~ 97-0~3 Fire ~ Reseoe approvgl to include: l, ~e r~inforced t~f fire veMcle access ~avelway wid~ must be a "~. mi~i~ of 18 feetl 2, ~0 ~aYe!way ~st be m~k~ ~ong its entire leng~ in a m~er ~at will " ~$sig~[e its locofion so ~t obs~ction Mll not be placed Mthin the ~ea. The o~er shall m~n~n ~s ~ea ~ee of snow ~d ice at fll times; 3. The eO~ce to ~e .avelway flong ~e e~sting paved rom shill be signed ~O PA~G E~RGENCY ACCESS". De.c~mbcr | 1~ 19~7 The Planning Collmliss|oll also granted a waiver Section .4,2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Th~ ~pproval ofth~ prolinli~ ~ite plan is valid for on~ y~ M OCco~d~ce ~Ih Zoning Or~J~9~ B~fi0~ ~,q,~,], ~ow~wr, ~ ~ site pl~ must b~ s~bmmed to ~e Dep~ent of pl~n~ ~ Co~ ~v~lop~n~ ~n six momhs to b~ approved a~inis~tively If ~o pr~limin~ ~it~ pl~ approval ~pir~s, a new appli~tion m~t bo filed ~d pro~ss~d, ¥o14 tlr~ gspo~sjble for oontooti,g all ~ppli0able deportments and agencies, and satisfying the ~0rlcliti0!!s for. i!pprov~l of tho final sit~ plan. When the final site plan. meets all requiremems and-- O0Miti0nS~ ~.d ~ontativo opprowl has b~on granted by each department or agency, a final ~l~bltlitt~l llluS[ be llaM0 ~0 tho lD~p~n~rs[ of Planning and Community Development in order to s~ho~lul~ ~he plea to b~ ~ign~ a~ [h~ next Site Review Committee meeting. If yoll ~hol~ld h,~yo ilny q[lostio~ or comments regarding the above noted action, please do no[ ll~sJt~;~ ;o ~o~t~ me, Plam~er Amelia McCulI¢~; Don Powers Jack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ERIC L. MORRISETTE DECEMBER 09, 1997 JANUARY 14, 1998 SP 97-53 TANDEM FRIENDS SCHOOL MATH/SCIENCE BUILDING and SDP 97-1-29 TANDEM FRIENDS SCHOOL MATH/SCIENCE BUILDING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: To construct a new math/science build'rog to support the facility needs for present and projected enrollment at this private school. The applicant additionally requests an increase in total school enrollment, including students and on-site faculty and staff, to 260, from the current 200. The proposed facility is approximately 14,000 gross square feet and would be used as classroom, science lab, and computer lab. PETITION'._ SP 97-53 Tandem Friends School Math/Science Building Tandem Friends School petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit to allow for an expansion of the private school facilities in the R-l, Residential zoning district and to allow for increased total school enrollment from the current 200to 260 [Section 13.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance]. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A and 2B, comprised of approximately 21.8 acres, is located on Tandem Lane, accessed from the new Monticello High School connector road, approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 64 (Attachments A & B). This property, located within the Scottsville Magisterial District, is located within Urban Area Neighborhood 4 and is designated for institutional use. A general campus layout and site plan showing the proposed building location is included as Attachment C. The applicant's justification for this request is included as Attachment D. SDP 97.129 Tandem Friends School Math/Science Building Preliminary Site Plan Applicant seeks Planning Commission approval of a site plan to:conslntct a math/science building of approximately 14,000 square feet as described above. CHARACTER OF AREA: This site is largely wooded and unnoticeable from public roads. The area around this property contains a variety of uses, includ'mg an elementary school, industrial facilities, and residemial developments including Mill Creek and WillowLake. The newMomicello High Schoolis currently under construction just north of the subject property, and the new Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road is currently under construction to serve the new high school and will also provide a new entrance for the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This area is recommended for Institutional Use. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. OPEN SPACE AND CRITICAL RESOURCES PLAN: This area is identified as a Growth Area in the Open Space Plan. No resources are identified on this property. This proposal is consistent with the Open Space Plan. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Per SP 96-025, "additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit" (Condition #2 of Attachment E). In accord with Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant requests a waiver to build on critical slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. -TAFF COMMENT: -~.~ Staff will comment on the special use permit and site plan separately. SP 97-53 TANDEM FRIENDS SCHOOL MATH/SCIENCE BUILDING Recommendation: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Staff Analysis: The school has been in place since 1972 and the additional facility is represented to be necessary to support the present enrollment as well as 60 additional students and staff. Regarding the criteria for the issuance of a special use permit, staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itselftbe right to issue all spec'ml use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued u_pon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial 2 detriment to adjacent properS_ The use will remain the same as has been in place since 1972. Given the physical characteristics of the property, with substantial wooded area around the campus buildings, the addition of 60 persons, as well as the new facility, should hardly be noticeable to adjacent properties. The school does not have outdoor activities involving lighting or noise at night. While some increase in traffic mat occur in association with the increased enrollment, its impact should be minimal as it will be accommodated by th~ school's new entrance and the Monticello High School Connector Road [See below]. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. Ag,fin, the use will remain the same as has been in place since 1972 and the new facility is not expected to detrimentally affect the character of the residential district in this area. Given the physical characteristics of the property, the additional enrollment is not expected to change the character of the residential district in this area. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The private school can serve the steadily developing residential uses in the area which are called for by the Comprehensive Plan. This use is complementary to other schools in the area, including Cale Elementary School, Piedmont of Virginia Community College, and Monticello High School expected to be in operation by fall of 1998. with the uses permitted by right in the district. This request will not affect uses permitted by right on any adjacent property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance. No additional regulations are provided. and with the public health, safety_ and general welfare. There is nothing unusually hazardous or objectionable about the proposed use. The new Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road has been built to serve the new Monticello High School and a new f~ont entrance for the Tandem Friends School property offthe Connector Road is planned for the Fall of 1998. SDP 97-085 is currently nnder review to allow for the new entrance as well as supporting parking for the new facility and additional persons. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Engineering Department have no major concerns with this proposal (Attachment F) The applicant has indicated that the building will be connected to public water and sewer. The Health Deparunent and the Service Authority have no major concerns with this proposal (Attachment G) 3 SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: 1. The propo~ed use does not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; 3. The use will not adversely affect the Residential District; and, 4. The new facility will be connected to public water and sewer. Staff has not identified any negative factors resulting from this request. The proposed facility and the enrollmem expansion are not expected to have any delximental affect on the surrounding area. However, since there are issues related to the ultimate future expansion of the school that would need further review, such as an increase in buildings, enrollment, noise, and traffic; and since the applicant has expressed an understanding of this, staffbelieves that the limitations on the enrollment for the school are appropriate at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of SP 97-053 with conditions. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The new facility will be located approximately as shown on the attached site layout (Attachment C); 2. Total school enrollment and on-site staffing shall be limited to 260 persons; and, 3. Additional bulld'mgs or increase m total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit. 4. The new facility shall connect to pubY~c water and sewer. SDP 97-129 TANDEM FRIENDS SCHOOL MATH/SCIENCE BUILDING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN The Site Review Committee has reviewed this site plan and may granr approval subject to the Planning Commission waiver of Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to grade and construct on critical slopes. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for construction on slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth disturbing activity on critical slopes and Section 4.2.5.2 allows for Planning Commission modification of this restriction upon finding that strict application of the restriction would not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's request and justification is attached (Attachment H). The applicant has indicated that the critical slopes comprise 0.10 acre in size and were man-made as a result of"previous development of terraces andthe former entrance road to the site." The applicant has also indicated that "development in this area would not result in rapid and/ or large-scale movement of soil and rock, excessive storm-water runoff, siltation of natural or man-made bodies of water or loss of an aesthetic resource". The Engineering Department has addressed the provisions of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Attachment I). Engineering Department review has revealed no major conflict, fi:om an engineering perspective, with the proposed grading on critical slopes and recommends approval. Planning staff has also additionally reviewed this request and f'mds no major cOnflict with aesthetic issues. Therefore, the Planning Department recommends approval to allow for grading on the critical slopes depicted on the site plan. Recommended Action: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the prelim/nary site plan, with the critical slope waiver [Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance], subject to the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for final signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Plamfing Department approval of: 1. Landscape Plan. b. Engineering Department approval to include: 1. The plan must be signed, sealed, and dated; 2. Approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. Provide confirmation that the weighed "C" value (0.70), assumed in the "Stormwater Management Report" for the Gymnasium/Fieldhouse, is still a valid assumption based on the proposed development; 3.Virginia Department of Transportation approval of plans and drainage; and, 4.Approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. c. Albemarle County Sereice Authority approval of: I. Final water line construction plans. d. Building Codes and Zoning Services approval to include: 1. Provide all curb cuts and prepared walkways that are necessary for an accessible route to the proposed bulldingi and, 2.Approval of SP 97-053 5 Fire and Rescue approval to include: 1. The reinforced tuff fire vehicle access travelway width must be a minimum of 18 feet; 2. The travelway must be marked along its enftre length in a manner that will designate its location so that obstruction will not be placed within the area. The owner shall maintain this area free of snow and ice at all times; and, 3. The entrance to the travelway along the existing paved road shall be signed "NO PARKING EMERGENCY ACCESS". ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Location Map C - Site Plan D - Special Use Permit Request and Justification E - Special Use Permit 96-025 Approval Letter F - VDOT and Engineering Comments G - Health Department and Service Authority Comments H - Request and Justification for Critical Slope Waiver I - Engineering Review of Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ord'mance ALBEMARLE 7? COUNTY SOP 97-129 &O A SGOTTSVILLE DISTRIGT SECTION C 0 IATTACHMENT BI U 6 5 ATTAC I-iI~ll~NT C: [ I,, i!~lll ~ .. I County of Albem,,rle OFFIC~ I.ISE ONLY t-' 9q- 5.5 Department of Buila,ag Code an Zb-fi 'g-$tqqq s Application for Special Use Permit ProjectName(~wmo~w~ma,pp~a~,~ Tandem FrJendm School Math/Science Building_ *E~ng~e Private School ~op~edUse Private School ]*Zoffing District R- 1 *Zoning Ordinance Section number requested. (*staff will assist you with these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit tit a ~ it mt~t ~a~ ~liatmt~l on plat) IS this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit? r~ YesCl No I~ Yes[~ No Are you submitting a site development plan with this application? 13.2.2.5 24.508 acres ContactPerson(Whomshouldw~cal~/wmecoacerniagthmproject?): Rohere R_ Mcgoo Address 301 East High Street City Charlottesville IDaytimePhone( 804 ) 979-7522 Fax# 804-977-1194 State VA. Zip 22902 E-mailrmckee@mckeeear son Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): Address 279 Tandem Lane ~aytimePhone ( 806 ) 296-1303 Tandem Friends School c/o Mr. Don Powers City Charlottesvill~tate VA Zip 2_~_~_ Fax # ,, E-mail Applicant(Whoisth¢coamctp~rsonrepresemiag?Whoisrequestiagthcspe~ialuse?): Tandem Friends School c/o Hr. Don Powers Address 279 Tandem Lane City~$tate VA Zip3.2.9_Q2_ Daytime Phone ( 804 )' 296-1303 Fax# E-mail. Taxmapandpa~cel -TM 91 narcel 2A Phy~calAddress(if~sgn~d) :'~ · '~- CharlotCesv$11e, VA 22902 Loeafionofprope~y(landmar~.imersoc(in~.~othcr) Located between Route 20 and Avon Street Extended south of Charlotteswille, accessed via Route 20 approx. 1 mile south of 1-64. Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yel; please list those tax map and parcel numbers no OFFICR USE ONLY /~'? 0,,~'~-~ ~ ,f;/O,~l~ " ~e amoum $ / ~Dam Paid Q S~cial Use ~ts:'-- ~ V~ces: Conan~ent review of Si~ Developmest PI~? Check # Receipt # By; ZMAs and Proffers: ~ Letter of Authorization v_lYes EINo 401 Mclntire Road o:- Chr~rlnrle~vil e V~ ooqrlo .'. X~nivo-oO6_';Rqo -'- r~.,.-- n'~'~ ,,~ Attachment to Tandem Friend? School Special Use Permit Ap~iication J ATTACHMENT D I What is the Comprehensive Plan desiqnation for this property: PublicfSemi-Public: Institutional 2) How will the proposed special-use affect adjacent property: The proposed use will not substantially affect adjacent properties. The use of the site for a private school wilI remain the same as has been in place since 1972. Given the physical characteristics of the property, with substantial wooded area around the campus buildings, the new Math/Science building should hardly be noticeable to adjacent properties. With the construction of the new Albemarle County Monticello High School on the property immediately to the north of the site, the use of the Tandem Friends school site for a school site now blends more with the use of surrounding properties. The new Math/Science building will not substantially alter the scale of Tandem Friends School. In any case, the scale of entire Tandem Friends School .campus is dwarfed by the adjacent Monticello High School. 3) How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surroundinq the property: The character of the district surrounding the site will not be substantially affected. The use will remain the same as has been in place since 1972 and the new Tandem Friends' School Math/Science building will not substantially alter the scale of the School. In any case, the effect of the new Tandem Friends School Math/Science building is insignificant when compared to the effect on the district of the new Monticello High School. 4) How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoninq Ordinance: The use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and with the other uses in the area. The private school use should complement the existing residential uses and the use of the adjacent property for the new Monticello High School. Other schools in the area include Cale Elementary School and PiedmontVirginia Community College. 5) How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by riqht in the district: The use as a school is already in harmony with the uses permitted by right under Section 13.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Math/Science building addition to the Tandem Friends School campus allows the School to update and expand its Math, Science and Computer offerings to its students, improving the quality of education offere~ by the School. 6) .Wh. at additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of th~ Zoning Ordinance apply to this use: No additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance will apply to this use. 7) How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community: The use will promote the public welfare by offering improved educational opportunities to the young people of the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. The use will be consistent with public health and safety. The new Math/Science building will be connected to public water and sewer. From a traffic standpoint, the new Avon Street/Route 20 Connector Road has been built to serve the new MOnticello High School and a new front entrance for the Tandem Friends School property off the Connector Road is planned for the fall of 1998. Additional parking will be provided to serve the expanded student/faculty population as required for site plan approval. There is nothing hazardous or objectionabl~ about the proposed use. 8) Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: This application requests a Special Use Permit for the construction of a new Math/Science building at the Tandem Friends School and the increase in total students and on site faculty and staff to 260 from the current 200. The Math/Science building will house at least three technologically state of the art science labs, three math classrooms and a computer lab. The request also includes creating additional parking (60 spaces)adjacent to the Community Hall building to allow for convenient access to the Community Hall and a better handicap access route to the academic buildings. The operating hours will be normal school hours, 8:00 A.M to 3:15 P.M. Monday through Friday, with normal sports and other after school activities until 5:30-6:00 P.M. After hours and weekendevents will occur intermittently. Tandem Friends. School IATTACHMENT D I Special Use Permit for New Math/Science Building Amendment to SP 96-06, SP 96-25 and SP 96-49 About Tandem-Friends School -Tandem Friends School is a private primary/secondary school founded in Albemarle County in 1970. The school moved to a 21.77 acre site (Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A/2B) on Route 20, just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College, in 1972. In 1996, the School acquired an additional 2.738 acres of land from the County of Albemarle, enlarging its site to 24.508 acres. The school currently serves 169 students in grades 5-1'2, with 30 faculty and staff members. Tandem Friends School was founded upon the principle that students thrive and learning flourishes when students and -teachers work together, hence the name "tandem". Tandem Friends School prides itself on its strong college preparatory program as well as its commitment to the development of its students' ethical values and social responsibility, The school recently affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Friends Council on Education. This affiliation is intended to reinforce the values ~f academic rigor, individual responsibility and community service that always have been fundamental to the School. Previous SDecial Use Permit Requests The Tandem Friends School property is currently zoned Residential (R-i) and is recommended for Institutional Use under the Albemarle County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Section 13.2.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provides that a private school may be operated in an R-1 zone by Special Use Permit. Since the Tandem School was in operation at its present site prior to the December 10, 1980 adoption date of the Zoning Ordinance, no Special Use Permit had been required or applied for by the School until January 29, 1996, at which time the School applied for a Special Use Permit (SP 96-06) for the construction of a lO,O00~square foot Community Hall building. On March 20, 1996 the Board of Supervisors approved~SP 96-06 allowing construction of the Tandem Friends School Community Hall with the following conditions: 1. The community Hall was to be located in general accordance with the site layout as submitted. 2. Total school enrollment and on-site staffing was to be limited'to 177 persons. 3. Additional buildings or increases in enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit. IATTACHF~ENT D~ The Co.mmunity Hall Building was completed in December 1996 and is now in use. In May 1996, Tandem Friends School filed an application to amend SP 96-06 to increase the allowable total schoolenrollment and on-site staffing from 177 persons to 200 persons. This amendment (SP-96-25) was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 14, 1996. on October 28, 1996, Tandem Friends School filed an application to amend Special Use Permits 96-06 and 96-25to allow the construction of a Field House/Gymnasium,:approximately 15,000 square feet in size, immediately adjacent to3 the existing school field hockey field. That Special Use Permit (SP 96-49) was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 1997, with the following conditions: 1. The Field House/Gymnasium was to be located approximately as shown on the site plan submitted. 2. The Field House/Gymnasium was to be connected to public water and sewer when reasonably available to the property. 3. Total school enrollment and on-site staffing was to be limited to 200 persons. 4. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment or staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit. The Field House Building construction was commenced in August 1997 and is scheduled to be completed in December 1997. Justification for Current Special Use Permit Amendment t In order to construct another building on the Tandem Friends School property, a special use permit is necessary pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and as a condition of SP 96-49. In order to fulfill Tandem Friends School~'s commitment to top quality education for its students, it must provide state of the art learning facilities, particularly in the critical areas of science and computers. The current science laboratories were constructed almost 20 years ago and are technologically out of date. With the increased enrollment of the School, the labs are also too small to accommodate the new larger class sizes of 17-20 students. The computer lab is housed in a cramped classroom, which was designed and outfitted before the computer "revolution" of the last ten years. IATTACHMENT D I In March 1997, the School commissioned Russell Skinner, AIA, to prepare plans for the renovation of the existing Math/Science building to accommodate the School's expanded needs. The study concluded that due to a number of building code and structural constraints, renovation and/or expansion of the current facility was cost prohibitive. As such, plans for a new building were undertaken. The Special Use Permit also requests an increase in total school enrollment, including students and on-site faculty and staff, to 260, from the current 200. In order to provide a broad range of oourse offerings, the School needs to have a certain critical mass in each grade. The School would ideally like to have two sections of 16 students each, or 32 students total, in each grade from 7th to 12th, and one section of 16 students each in grades 5th and 6th. The School thus projects full enrollment at 224 students with 36 on-site faculty and staff. As noted in previous special use permit applications, the Tandem Friends School site is an ideal one for the location of a school. The property is large enough to accommodate the construction of the Math/Science Building and the expanded enrollment. It is convenient to major transportation corridors, 1-64 and Route 20. Public water and sewer are now available to Tandem Friends School by reason or-the construction of the new Monticello High School located on the ~adjacent property, and the School is presently constructing water and sewer connections. August 23, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community DevelopmeDt 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229~-4596 (80~) 2%.5~3 TTACHMENT EJ Robert B. McKee McKee/Carson 256 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE'- SP-96~25 The Tandem School, Tax Map 91, Parcels 2A and 2B Dear Mr. McKee: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors~ at its meeting on August 14, 1996, unanimously approved the above-noted request to amend SP-96-06 to increase allowance of total school enrollment and on-site staffing from t 77 persons to 200 persons. Total school enrollment [nd on-site staffing shall be limited to 200 persons. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing must be authorized by a new special use permit. In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and thc authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate, For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such perm it within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year. Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to Sincerely, V~'.~/ayn e hmberg VWC/jcf Development cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Tandem School IATTACHMENT FI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARIMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Eric Morrisette, Planner Andr6 S. Williams, Senior Engineer ~-3~__ 26 November 1997 Tandem School Math/Scianee Building - Preliminary Site Plan (SDP-97-129) The Preliminary Site Plan received 17 November 1997 has been reviewed. Albemarle County Engineering will recommend approval of the preliminary site plan when the following item has been addressed: [Each item ispreceded by the applicable reference to the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise specified.] The attached cover letter states the previously proposed parking lot has been deleted from this plan. Sheet 3 shows the parking ct in a new area on the s re. P 'ior to preliminary approval, either remove the parking lot from alt plan sheets of this submittal or provide all the necessary information for rewew. Final Site Plun will be subject to Albemarle County Engineeriug review of all relevant final site plan requiremems and fl~e following conditions: [32. 6.1.] The plan must be sealed, signed, and dated. [32.6.6. d.] Albemarle County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and computations Provide confirmation that file weighted "C7 value (0.70), assumed in the "Stormwater Management Report" for the Gymnasium/Fieldhouse, is still a valid assumption based on the proposed development C. VDOT approval ofptans and drainage. D. [32. 7. 4.3.] Albanmrle Connly Engir~ccring approval of au Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or ~ne at 296-5861. ASW/ss RECEIVED NOV 2 6 1991 Planning Dept. DAVID R. GEHR COMMtSSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQ[NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLQ~-CESVILLE 22911 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER October 29. 1997 Mr. Jack Kelsey Dept. of Engineering 401 McIntire Road CharlotZesville. VA. 22902 Site Plan Review Meeting November 6, 1997 Dear Mr. Kelsey: The following are our comments: .~,SDP-97-129 Tandem Friends School Math/Science Buildinq Preliminary Site Plan~ ~te 20/Connector Road Site is currently served by an adequaue entrance from the new Connector Road. It would be helpful if the access was shown on the site plan. SDP-97-124 The Gardens (The Hamrick Buildinq; Major Site Plan, Route 29 SDP-97-130 Riverbend Golf Center, Route 1116/250 The plans will need to indicate how this site will have. access to a State Route. A signal is planned for the Riverbend (Route 1116) and South Pantops Drive (Route 1140) intersection. If access ts proposed ac this location from the private road. the entrance should meet all necessary traffic marking and adjustments for signal heads, if necessary, ac developer cost. SDP-97-95 Snow's Business Park Preliminary Site Plan, Route 742 > The existing entrance proposed as joint use access will be adequate as sho~rn. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY In Cooperation with the State Depart[nent of Health Office el EnvironmentaJ Health Phone (804) 972:6259 FAX (804) 972-4310 MEMORANDUM COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Thomas Jefferson Health District 1138 Rose Hilt Drive P. O. Box 7546 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 I ATTACHI 4ENT G I ALBEMARLE- CHARLo]'rESVILLE FLUVANNA CO4JNTY (PALMYRAJ GREENE COUN'Pt (STANARnSVILLE} TO: William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Elaine K, Echols, Senior Planner Susan L. Thoma% Senior Planner Eric L. Morrisette, Planner Maynard L. Sipe, Planner FROM: William A. Craun O Environmental Health Specialist Senior DATE: November 3, 1997 Site Review Committee Meeting: November 6, 1997, 10:00 a.m. Meeting Room #235, County office Building CONTACT PERSON: ERIC MORRISETTE SDP-129 Tandem Friends School MatlVScienco Building Preliminary Site Plan - Public sewer and water. No health dept. comments. 8DP-97-124 The Gardens (The Hamrick Buildinu~ Meier Site Plan Amendment - Public sewer and water. No health dept. comments. CONTACT PERSON: SUSAN THOMAS SDP-97- ~ 30 Riverbend Golf Center - Pub i¢ sewer and water No health dept. comment& CONTACT PERSON: BILL FRITZ SDP-97-95 Snow's Business Park Preliminary Site Plan - Public sewer and water. No health dept. comments. To: EMORRISE @ ACVA ("Eric Morrisette") From: Pete Gorham Subject: Tandem Math/Science Building SDP-97-129 Date: 11/24/97 Time: 4:40PM IATTACHHEN¥ G I The Service Authority hereby grants preliminary approval to the site plan for the Tandem School Math/Science Building. We will not grant tentative approval until the following item is completed: (1). Final approval of water line construction plans. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Pete McKEE CARSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND PLANNERS IATTACHMENT HI RECF..IvEO ple. nning Dept. 17November1997 IVY. Eric Morrisette County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mcl_ntire Roact, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Tandem Friends School Math/Science Building Dear Mr. Morrisette, We would like to request a waiver that would allow for building and grading on critical slopes for the above listed project. The building's siting in this particular location is pivotal to the design of the quad of academic buildings for the school. The critical slopes impacted by the proposed site development are minimal (0.10 acre) and appear to be man-made having been created by the previous development of terraces and the former entrance road to the site. Development in this area would not result in rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock, excessive storm-water runoff, siltation of natural or manmade bodies of water or loss of an aesthetic resource; nor would it affect an active septic system. Proper erosion and sediment control measures will maintain the site's integrity during construction, and plantings of grass and other vegetation wilt stabilize slopes after construction. The development of this portion of the Tandem Friends School site would serve to enhance the public's health, safety and welfare Isee special use permit applicationl. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Eliot R. Fendig, E.I.T. McKee/Carson cc: Ethan A. Miller, Esq.; Tandem Friends School encl: Preliminary Site Development Plan with revisions Affdiated with Reid Seert Concects. 301 East High Street · Ghadottesw,e. V~rg~nla 22902 * 804-979-7522 · Fax: 804-977-1194 ,, mc@mckeecarson.com ,. www. mcKeecarson.com COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS IATTACH MENT ~11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Eric Morrisette, Planner Andr6 S. Williams, Senior Engineer 2 December 1997 Tandem School Math/Science Building - Critical Slope Waiver (SDP-97-129) The request for modification of Section 4.2, to develop on critical slopes received 20 November 199'/, has been reviewed. Below, each of the concerns specified in Section 4.2 is addressed: R~pid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock The critical slopes impacted by the proposed improvements are located in an area southeast of the existing school buildings and south of the newly constructed Community Hall. These slopes, which are adjacent to the existing entrance road and spread in three distinct areas throughout the improvements, consist of several large or moderate trees and low vegetative cover. The critical slopes which total approximately 8500 SF (0.2 Acre) appear to be manmade. The slope adjacent the emrance road appears to have been graded during the road construction and the other areas appear to be part of an past effort To provide terraced areas for gardening or septic. Grading for the proposed improvements, construction of the building, sidewalk, sewer lateral, and fire access travelway, will effect approximately 5000 SF (60%) of the existing critical slopes. Engineering will require the installation of erosion control measures to prevent excessive soil loss. Excessive stormwater run-off The effected areas of critical slope to be developed should not generate run-off volumes beyond what is reasonably expected from comparable improvements. The runoffwill increase due to the added impervious area, but the proposed improvement and subsequent run-off will be handled by the adjacem vegetative areas and an adequate road side ditch. MEMORANDUM Tandem School Math/Science Building - Critical Slope Waiver fSDP-97-129) 2 December 1997 Page Two [ATTACHMENT Siltation of natur.al .~r~d man-made bodies of water Although there are no water courses or bodies of water located on-site, siltation will be controlled through an erosion and sediment control plan for the development. As a condition to this erosion control plan, the site will be permanently stabilized prior to completion. Loss of aesthetic resource The existing conditions consist ora area of several large or moderate trees and low vegetative cover. The existing school buildings and Community Hall are located to the northwest and north respectively. The existing access road is located to the South. Greater travel' distance of septic effluent The site is proposed to be served by public sewer. Therefore there will be no septic facilities. Based on the review presented above, Albemarle County Engineering supports the request to develop on critical slopes as shown on the preliminary site plan received 20 November 1997. If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or me at 296-5861. ASW/ File: Andre\TANMATH.WAV David P. 13owerman C~arlotte Y. Humpl'~is Forre~ ~ Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ,~ REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Vn~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-58,~3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin l~ranna Sally H, ~om~ Janua~ 8,1998 Mr. Robert B. McKee Mckee/Carson 301 East Htgh Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP 97-53 Tandem Friends School Math/Science Building Dear Mr. McKee: This letter is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on January 7, 1998, deferred the above-referenced petition until February 4, 1998. The public hearing has been scheduled for '!0:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road. Charlottesville, Virginia. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. If you should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk / /ewc CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Eric Morrisette Amelia McCulley Don Powers Ethan Miller Jack Kelsey Printed on recnjcled paper David P. Bowerman Charlo~ Y. Huraphris Forrest R. IVla~hall, & COUNTY OF/~! REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charloti~,~le, Virginia 2~{Y2-4596 (804) 296-58~ FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas January 8,1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE HARTMAN FAMILY CORPORATION HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY KIMCO, L C Re: SP-97-53 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to notify you, as an adjacent property owner, that the Board of Supervisors, has deferred the above-referenced petition until FEBRUARY 4, '1998. The petition is described as: SP-97-53. Tandem Friends School Math/Science Bid; fSi;ns # 90&9'/). Request to allow an institutional math/science bJdg of apprex 14,000 gross sq ft to be constructed on 24.5 acs. Znd R-I, PA. Request seeks to expand permit enrellment of students & staff from 200 to 260. TM91,Pc12A. Loc on NW corner of Monticello High School Connector Rd & Rt 20 S, on existing Tandem School campus. (Properb/recommended for Institutional Use in Neighborhood 4.) Scettsville Dist. The petition is, therefore, scheduled for discussion by the Board on February 4, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., in Meeting Room ¢241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville,Virginia. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. /ewe CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Eric Morrisette Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk// / Printed on recycled paper AFFIDAVIT DATE - JANUARY 8, 1998 I, Ella W. Carey, hereby certify that the attached notice(s) was sent on the above date to all persons listed on said notice. Ella W, Carey, Clerk Board of County Supervisors Given under my hand in the County of Albemarle, State of Virginia this 8th. day of January, 1998, Notary Pu~c My commission expires MR ROBERT B MCKEE MCKEE/CARSON 301 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 MR. DON POWERS TANDEM FRIENDS SCHOOL 279 TANDEM LANE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 HARTMAN FAMILY CORPORATION C/O J. L. HARTMAN 2264 RICHMOND ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22911 HURT INVESTMENT COMPANY P.O BOX 8147 CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22906 KIMCO. L C 1510 EAST HIGH ST CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22901 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Albemarle County Communications Plan February 4, 1998 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of communications planning strategies for Calendar Year 1998 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, HUff, Ms. Catlin ACTION.: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Commun?~tion Plan Goals and . Obj~sff, P~ln forma~:m .Manual REVIEWED BY: .,~ BACKGROUND: As the programs, services and issues of county government have become more complex and county officials have focused efforts on beffer conveying critical information to citizens, the need for a comprehensive and broad-reaching commun'mations plan has been iden~ed. Responsible government and responsive service delivery are based on ongoing dialogue with citizens and these strategies can helpinsum that we am maintaining open, effective and accurate communications wlth the community. DISCUSSION: A vigorous and proactive communications plan promotes the county's mission of provid'mg quality public service and supports organization-wide quality improvement efforts dealing with customer service and continuous improvement. While the county has always provided numerous avenues of communication with citizens, the efforts have not always been well-coordinated or focused on specific c'rfizen needs and/or interests. Because citizans are very interested in participating in local government processes and because many of the critical decisions facing the county depend on iaformed citizens working in partnership with county staff and elected officials, a well-managed approach to communications seems very appropdata. The Communica§ons Plan has several elements to help it sen/e as a "road map~ for the upcoming year: 1998 Goals and Objectives which outline four areas of concentration and strategies to accomplish these broad objectives (attached) ~Communicating for Rasui~~, a public information handbook which outlines roles, responsibilities, procedures and media relaUons guidelines (attached) 1998 Commun'matiens Calender and Critical Themes developed by the Community Resources Office in consultation with individual Department Heads Training for county staff ceordinated by the Albemarle Resource Center that focuses on communication topics like Media Relations. Presentation Skills, Running Successful Meetings, and Writing for Success An annual Department Head Meeting to discuss/train for communications issues including a panel discussion and question and answer period with local media representatives The Community Resources Office is scheduling a meeting to review the plan and discuss its strategies with invited citizens to provide an opportun'~ for their input and suggestions. These mse~ngs will become a regular part of the overall communications effort. RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that Board members review the attached items and forward any suggestions about them or about the communications pJan in general to the Community Resources Coordinator so that their thoughts can be reflected in the final version of the attached documents. Also, any suggestions for citizens who might be helpful on the focus groups would be welcome. 8 BOARD OF Albemarle County Communications Plan - 1998 Overa, Goal of Communications Effort: Create within Albemarle County an informed citizenry that understands critical issues and participates in decision-making when appropriate, that uses government programs and services effectively to better their lives, and that views county government as professional and trustworthy in its efforts. Specific Goals for 1998: To increase citizens' awareness of programs and services offered by county government, both those services that are available to the general tax-paying public and those fee-generating/self-sustaining services that rely on consumer demand for their funding Strategtes include: Announcing new services and programs when implemented Announcing grants and other funding received in support of programs and services Spotlight people helped, problems resolved by programs/services Announce when programs/services reach important milestones or achieve goals Relate existing and new programs/services to community issues/values To enhance the county's image as progressive, responsible, and professional in a way that creates trust and credibility on the part of county residents and businesspeople Strategies include: } Announcing hiring of new employees } Spotlight employees who win award, publish articles, secure grants, and receive professional recognition } Be aware of contributions of employees outside of work when appropriate ~ Focus on new technology, innovative work processes, streamlined efforts, etc. } Focus on training with employees as both students or instructors } Announce any model or pilot programs/services li~ Highlight county partnerships with businesses, citizen groups, community organizations, etc. To promote the county's accessibility to citizens and create an atmosphere of partnership, inclusiveness and appreciation in the county's dealings with the public Strategies include: ~' Publicize meeting agendas, public hearings, board vacancies, task force openings, etc. > Focus on any county/citizen partnerships, citizen initiated efforts > Publicize opportunities for citizen feedback, comments, suggestions > Conduct citizen focus groups on county's communication efforts Provide regular information and education about issues of concern to assist citizens in improving their quality of life and to create informed decision-making partners on critical community decisions. Strategies include: Create and maintain a regular calendar of events, seasonal topics, etc. to guide news releases and public service announcements Issue public information on topics of interest as they arise Preduce specialized publications, brochures, etc. to prov/de information on timely topics Conduct specials events, speaking engagements, em. to focus on topics of interest Issue releases to the media during major events that affect the public COMMUNICATING FOR RESULTS PUBLIC INFORMATION MANUAL ALBEMARLE COUNTY "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail, without it nothing can succeed," Abraham Lincoln COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM: Community Development Block Grant =ublic Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Required meeting to solicit public input regarding potential projects to be funded through.a Virginia Community Development Block Grant. STAFF CONTACT,S): Messrs. Tucker & Banish AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Housing.and Community Development (VDHCD) administers the federally-funded Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). These funds are available to localities, on a competitive basis, to implement a wide variety of housing and community improvement projects. Prior to subm~.~on of an application for CDBG funding, a public hearing must be held to solicit public input on community development and housing needs in the County. DISCUSSION: The attached staff report provides some potential projects which could be funded through the CDBG program. Also provided is a description of the past use of funds, information on the amount of funds available, the requirements on benefit to iow- and moderate-income persons, eligible activities and plans to minimize displacement. RECOMMENDATION: After receiving public comment, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors indicate which project(s), if any, will be submitted to the virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for CDBG funding. Staff will provide a recommendation to the Board after the public headng has been closed. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 98.016 ~Alternntlve Albemarle County Pro_iects For Consideration of Virginia Community. Development Block Grant Funding The goal of the Virginia Community Block Grant Program (VCDBG) is to improve the economic and physical environment in Virginia's conmaunifies and neighborhoods, benefiting persons of low and moderate income, preventing and eliminating slums and blight, and meeting urgent community development needs posing a serious and immediate threat to the health, safety and welfare of Virginia citizens. There are fourteen (14) broad project types which may be considered for grant application in the VCDBG program. Two types of grants will be ftmded: Community Improvement Grants (construction grants) - An amount up to eighty-seven (87) percent of available CDBG money ($19,868,980) is available for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, relocation, installation, and development of economic development, housing, community facility or community service facilities projects. An additional nine (9) percent of the FY 98 atlocation will be used to fund prior commitments. o Planning Grants - An amount up to two (2) percent of available CDBG money ($262,500) is reserved for Planning Grants. These grants allow localities to develop needs assessments and effective strategies for solving local community development problems with emphasis on the needs of low and moderate income persons. Virtually all CDBG applications must demonstrate that the project provides primary benefit to low and moderate income persons. Low-and-moderate persons are defined as individuals whose family income is tess than 80% of the median family income for like size families within the same area. Such CDBG proposal must demonstrate that: (I} 51% or more of project beneficiaries are low and moderate income residents, or, (2) the project serves an area where 51% or more of residents are Iow and moderate income, or, (3) 51% or more of the jobs created are available to low and moderate income residents. Documentation of benefit ta low and moderate income persons must be provided by one of four methodologies: (1) participation in the project is limited to low and moderate income persons based on eligibility criteria, or (2) the project facility is designed for use by protected groups, or, (3) the project service area eligibility is based on low/moderate income data from the 1990 U.S. Census, or (4) an income survey for the project service area. The County last received a CDBG grant of $500,000 in 1991. That grant was used by AHIP for its housing rehabilitation program. A total of 36 homes were improved. The following is a list of CDBG eligible projects that have been identified for Albemarle County by the Planning staff. Two requests for County sponsorship have been received to date: 1) fi.om the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) for a Community Improvement Grant; and, 2) from the County Housing Office for a Planning Grant. Pro_ieet 1: Housing Rehabilitation/Comprehensive Community Development Pro_iect-Albemarle Housing _/n3provement Program (AltlP]. ~Pro_iect Description: This project will be focused in the Esmont area and would include, at a minimum, upgrading substandard owner occupied and rental homes (35 units). The project could also include production of new housing units, and other community improvements identified through the County Neighborhood Team process such as the elimination of d'flapidated, uninhabited structures, development of community center and/or recreafmnat facilities, and other eligibte community improvements Depending on the ultimate scope of the proposal, the grant mount requested would be up to $1.25 million to be used over a three O) year period. Low/Moderate Income Benefit: All ~ projects recipients must be low and moderate income persons. AHIP maintains a waiting list of qualified individuals and families in need of housing rehabilit~ion. The current waiting list exceeds 336 applicants (County-wide). Relative Priorities: Repair and maintenance of the County's housing stock is a high priority as evidenced in the Comprehensive Plan, the County's Housing Strategy, past CDBG projects, the social program review funding allocations. The County has also indicated its support of housing rehabilitation programs through the regional Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Housing Rehabilitation is listed in the highest priority group for the region CDBG priorities developed by the Planning District Commission. The community improvements component of the project would address other critical needs identified by the Esmont citizens through the '~Teighborhood Team" process, a coordinated citizen/County government partnership to identify and address community issues and needs in this area. Additional Project Funding Sources: 1. County administrative funding for AHIP. 2. Piedmont Housing Alliance Iow-interest loan program for housing rehabilitation. 3. HOME funds through the regional HOME consortium. Grant and loan funds will be sought through tbe Rural Development Service, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Virginia Housing Partnership, the V'trginia Housing Development Authority, and other public/private sources. Other Information: AHIP has a comprehensive program of housing rehabilitation for qualified County residents. ~ has received Community Improvement Grants in 1987 and 1991 but has not been successfulin obtaining funding in subsequent rounds. These funds represent the largest source of housing rehabilitation monies available to the County and additional awards will be necessary to com'mue this housing program. AHIP applied for funding in 1996 for this project. Although not funded last time, the Department of housing and Community Development has indicated that this is a competitive proposal, and has encouraged re-submittai. Pro_iect 2: Crozet Community. Improvements. Project Description: This improvement project for the Community of Crozet could be designed as multi-purpose grant for: Hougmg Rehab'flitation (51% - 80% of total grant) Sewer Yme and lateral extension · Community facility improvements (sidewalk, flood and storm drainage facilities.) Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would need to be performed to deterrmne qualifying target areas for such a project. Rell~tive Priorities: Residential improvement projects would rank in the highest priority group according to last year's state and regional priorities. Other Information: Crozet is designated as a growth area in the County Comprehensive Plan. /t is important to not only encourage growth there, but also maintain the quality of the existing coranmrfity for the benefit of its residents. Such improvements could encourage further investment and growth in the community, A needs assessment would have to been conducted to determine spec'tfic improvement needs and benefits to low and moderate income families. The limited fane frame for application submittal at this time may be prohibitive. This project does hold promise for future requests. The Planning staffhas completed a draft neighborhood plan for Crozet. This Plan is now under review by the Board of Supervisors. Implementing recommendations of this plan could be addressed through a CDBG project. These include recommendations to (1) improve hous'mg conditions to Crozet area, (2) upgrade sidewalk facilities including currency hazardous situation o£pedestrians and of'railroad crossings downtown; (3) stream design problems and street scap'mg improvements. A Planning Grant could be pursuedfor project analysis and development in lieu ora Community Improvement Grant (CIG). This would improve the oppommity for making application for a construction grant next year. Project 3: Agricultural Center/Farmer's Market Pro`ject Description: Purchase and develop a facility to serve as an agricultural center including use as a farmer's market to accommodate local farmers to market their goods to the public. Other uses of this facility may include the option of allowing farmers to sell wholesale to local retail businesses, and/or incorporating a produce packing area for commercial distribution. An agricultural center would serve to support and encourage agricultural related activities as well as to draw other economic/tourist activities to the County. Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would likely need to be conducted to document a 51% benefit to low/moderate income persons, It is widely known that the cost of land and farm production expenses are generally not recovered f~om the sales of agricultural products. This cost-benefit disparity is especially great for cropland farmers. The enhancement ora marketplace for local products may encourage: A diversification of the agricultural economy and related industries New jobs in the sector Retention of existing .jobs and farm operations Wages paid in Albemarle County in the agricultural sector (as reported by Virginia Employment Commission) are 84.5% of the average for Virginia. However, it may be d'fft~icult to verify primary benefit to low/moderate income persons with this project. Relative Priorities: "Other economic activities" would rank in the lowest priority group of state priorities and next to highest priority group for regional priorities based on last years ranking. Other Information: Due to difficulty in identifying benefit to low and moderate income individuals and its ranking based on state an local priorities, this project holds a marginal opportunity for funding at this time. The Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee has recommended the County support farmer's markets as a direct marketing strategy for local farmers and suggested that providing additional farmer's markets could better serve the public and farmers. This project may hold promise for future requests. Project 4: Community Center - Whitewood Road/Commonwealth Drive area. ~ Development of a community center to provide indoor recreational and multi-purpose rooms for educational/tr 'aming/outreach programs. The area within the Rio/ttyudraulic Road loop (Neighborhood l ) is the highest density residential area of the County consisting of numerous apartment and townhouse developments which provide a significant portion of the County's hoasing opportunities for low and moderate income households. This project could be oriented most directly to serve Whitewood Road. Low/Moderate IncomeBenefit: An income survey would need to be performed to determine if the target area qualifies under the CDBG requirements. Relative Pdorities:..Community Center/recreation project would rank in the second highest priority group according to last year's regional priorities. Other Information: The County Department of Parks and Recreation currently operates two community facilities in Greenwood and in Scottsville. There is no community center operated in the Urban Area. While school facilities generally are available for meeting purposes and limited indoor recreation opportunities, they do not allow the flexibility and range of recreation mad service opportunities which can be provided in a separate facility. Leased space, renovation or new construction are feasible alternatives in this area, This project is a good candidate for a planning grant. Staffundertook a preliminary evaluation of this project's ability to meet Grant requirements and determined that, at this time it may not be competitive with other projects due relatively low scoring on benefit to low/moderate income persons. Project 5: Planning Grant Application - Community Organizing Grant, Whitewood Village Pro_iect Description: The Whitewood Village Community Organizing Grant would be used to (a) develop a base of information and (b) foster resident participation toward the identification and prioritizing of community needs that will be used to create community improvement strategies, including access to existing resources as a application for Community Development Block Grant funding in the future. Project activities will include the (1) completion of comprehensive individual family needs assessments that will be compiled and analyzed to determine the range and scope of problems among the Whitewood Village residents, and (2) expand development of the Whitewood Village Tenant Association to address neighborhood needs and concerns. These activities will include coordination with surrounding condominium and homeowner associations. In 2002, the Section 8 rental assistance will expire at the Whitewood Village Apartments, and there is the potential of losing 98 affordable rental units. The purpose of the grant begin planning and organizing efforts necessary to ultimately allow for the residents to play a role, and have substantive input, in the efforts to retain and rehabilitate these rental housing units. Low/Moderate Income Benefit: All residents within the Whitewood Village Apartment would meet/ow and moderate income cn'teria~ Relative Priorities: Residential improvement projects rank in the highest priority group in the in the stat and regional priorities. This project is consistent with the County's Housing Strategy. The provision of affordable rental units is a high priority of the Housing Strategy. This proposal would also compliment the work of the County's "Neighborhood Team" process. Other Information: The County applied for funding in 1996 for this project. The project was not funded, but appears to be a competitive proposal with good potential for future funding. VDHCD has encouraged the County to resubmit the proposal. This community organizing and assessment effort is an important first step to planning for improvements to both the physical and social environment of the development and surrounding neighborhood, and will allow residents to play a role in the efforts to retain and improve this development/neighborhood. Planning grant applications are on a different time line from the Community Improvement Grant applications for submittal and review by VDHCD. Planning grants are not competitive withthe community improvement grants SUMMARY: It is not anticipated, at this point, that any of the projects listed above wifl necessitate displacement of County residents. The County's use of CDBG funds over the last five years has been dedicated to housing rehabilitation projects either through the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation or AHIP, and to the development of the new affordable housing construction. The CDBG citizen participation process requires that the Board of Supervisors, at this public hearing, receive comments from the public before making a decision on which project, if any, it wishes to pursue for funding. Staffis prepare to ~ovide its priorities and recommendations following the close of the public hearing. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Presentation: Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Deer Herd Management and Hunting Regulations STAFF CONTACT(S~I: Messrs. Tucker, Huff AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 .ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: Yes The issue of hunting regulations which are under local control and their ability to balance hunters' rights vs. homeowner safety is one which the Board asked for further information. Mr. Matt Knox, Deer Program Supervisor with the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries Department (VGIF) will present to the Board so~ne background information o~ deer herd biology and managemenlt. SecondlY,, Lt. Jim Moore, Supervisor for this region fo~: VGIF is prepared to speak to huntin~ accident data for both rifle and shotgun in Virginia. Internally Capt. Scoff Hambrick of the Albemarle County Police Department, has noted that approximately 7.4% of all reported vehicular accidents in Albemarle County involve deer. Attached is his preliminary overview of some of the issues. DISCUSSION: The presentation by VGIF personnel is for information only. A copy of the current hunting regulations is provided which show the myriad of local option hunting laws on the books today. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board discuss what, if any, additional research be done by staff on various proposals before moving forward to consider any one recommendation. BOARD OF 8UPERV~S©Pe 98.013 Deer Control and Management Issues In Albemarle County, Virginia August, 1997 BACKGROUND The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has the legislative mandate (29.1- 103) for the conservation and protection offish and wildlife of the Commonwealth including the managemem of the whitetail deer Urban / suburban deer conflicts are one of the fastest growing deer management issues m Virginia. Urban deer management circumstances typically involve nonhunted residential areas where deer populations have exhibited significant population increases leading to high levels of damage to ornamentals and property. Commonly associated with these localities are ordinances prohibiting the discharge of fiream~s (i.e., hunting), lands that are not open to hunting by the landowners, citizen concerns for the protection of wildlife, and areas that are residential in character but provide a large abundance of feeding opportunities. Albemarle County has experienced a significant increase in citizen complaints associated with damage caused by deer population in suburban areas. A strong measure of this problem is the increase in the number of kill permits that are issued by Game Wardens. Anytime a landowner has identifiable damage to their property, the Game Warden must issue a kill permit if requested by the landowner. The issuance of such a permit does not provide any authority to use weapons that are banned by taw or ordinance. For example, if an area is zoned residential and the discharge of firearm is illegal, then himting could be done with a bow, but NOT a firearm. Attachment A shows the rapid growth in kill permits issued in Albemarle County from 1989 to 1996 (460% increase). Citizen concerns from deer related damage follows a predictable series of steps. At the first sign of deer in the area, most people are intrigued by their presence. Quickly this mtrigue moves to concern as damage to property begms to occur. Finally residents become significantly concerned about the problem and demand proactive steps to correct lt. There are several areas of Albemarle County that have experienced problems with deer related damage. They include Ashcroft, Ednam Forest and the White Hall / Garth Road areas in Western Albemarle County. A significant safety problem associated with overpopulation of deer in high traffic areas is motor vehicle crashes involving deer. In Albemarle County, the following motor vehicle deer crashes were reported by county police (note - these numbers reflect only those accidents reported to county police that were reportable as a result of damage or Deer Management Issues in Albemarle County Page 2 of 5 personal injury. The data does not include those accidents that were not reportable to DMV or those accidents investigated by the Virginia State Police): Deer - Related Crashes in Albemarle County Year !: 'i?...'.. T0tal':Number Number of Crashes' . % of Deer Related : g : .:: : Crashes' Reported.. ': !nvolvin ..Deer :: Crashes /Total 1988 1630 122 7.48 1989 1724 141 8.18 1990 1574 140 9.05 1991 1817 165 9.08 1992 2257 197 8.73 1993 2235 166 7.43 1994 2135 167 7.82 1995 2142 154 7.19 1996 2304 170 7.38 Source: Albemarle County Police Department Deer - Related Crashes with INJURY in Albemarle County Year Number of Accidchts Involving lnju~- Deer-'Rcla[ed Crashes 1988 6 1989 1990 1991 11 [5 1992 4 1993 5 1994 12 1995 ll 1996 6 Source: Albem~e Coun~ Police Department The data suggests that during the past several years, the number of deer - related accidents has maintained fairly constant as a percentage. However, many communities have taken proactive steps to deal with deer populations when the percentage of deer vs. vehicles accidents reached 5% (City of Lynchburg). When consider'rog the accident data in conjunction with the request for kill permits, there appears to be a significant problem with the over population of deer in specific areas of Albemarle County. Deer Management Issues in Albemarle County Page 3 of 5 Deer Management Options When looking at the problem of deer overpopulation, the first solution that is often suggested is to increase overall hunting limits with/n the county to help alleviate the problem. The Deparument of Game and Inland Fisheries evaluates the county as a whole to determine hunting regulations (i.e. harvest limits). In 1995 there were 4,589 deer harvested on a county-wide basis. The following chart shows the number of deer harvested from 1986 in Albemarle County. (also see attachment B) Total Annual Deer Harvest in Albemarle County 1986 1987 t.808 2,059 t988 1,598 1989 2,517 1990 3,115 1991 3,537 1992 4,315 1993 4,177 1994 4,383 1995 ~589 Source: Virginia Deparanent of Game and Inland Fisheries - 1995 Viminia Deer Harvest Summary - Wildlife Bulletin -June 1996 Even with a 154% increase over ten years in the number of deer harvested from Albemarle County, the communities in the county are still experiencing significant problems. Deer are opportunities animals, and can feed on a large variety of vegetation. In many areas, subdivisions and lands that are NOT open to hunting (due to wishes of landowners or restrictions on use of firearms) become refuges for deer population. Increasing hunting limits on a county wide basis would not deal directly with these particular problem areas. The deer managemem options report (attachment C) outlines a number of methods that can be used to control some of the problems associated with deer overpopulation. They include; v' Use regulated hunting as a deer management tool. · / Allow nature to take its course. ,,/ Trap and transfer excess deer to other locations ,/ Use fencing and repellents to manage conflicts with deer population. · / Use fertility control agents to regulate deer populations ,/ Provide supplemental food to alleviate conflicts with BCC and CCC, Deer Management Issues in Albemarle County Page 4 of 5 '/ Control deer herds with sharpshooters v' Reintroduce predators to control deer populations Methods that can be utilized where large number of deer - related motor vehicle crashes occur include; · / Aggressive traffic crash analysis to pin point and map locations where deer related crashes occur v' Public information campaign. When motorists are familiar with problem areas the number of crashes is reduced. v' Increased use of"deer crossing" waming signs. ,/ Use of barrier fencing to limit deer crossing the roadways. Many of these options are costly / labor intensive and the directed hunting options normally create community interest and concern. Programs in Other Virginia Jurisdictions Several Virginia cities currently have urban deer management programs in place (e.g., Colonial Heights, Danville, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, and Williamsburg) and several more are being contemplated. Urban deer management issues and their unique deer management situations are expected to increase significantly in the Northern Piedmont and Tidewater regions as human populations increase. The primary focus of local deer control programs is directed hunting. Many areas are residential or developed areas so opemng them to regular hunting carries certain risks. Police Departments are using police personnel to hunt in targeted areas and then donating the carcass to charity. Other jurisdictions are issuing special hunting permits after the hunter meets certain minimum qualifications (See attachment D - E- F - G ) Jurisdictions that have implemented deer control programs have done so ONLY AFTER a long process of building communky consensus. The issue of deer management quickly becomes a "political" hot potato if all stake holders are not part of the decision making process. (See attachment H) Enabling legislation and / or a memorandum of understanding the with Game Commission is needed before many of these programs can be implemented locally. Suggested Approach To address suburban/urban deer problems a local citizen's task force is suggested. The CTF's responsibility is to recommend a deer population objective and the management objectives required to achieve the population objective. Additionally, the CTF should Deer Management Issues in Albemarle County Page 5 of 5 develop a time line for implementation of any recommended management action and identifies the responsible party's implementation. Developing, administering, and funding the CTF will be the obligation of the local governing body. A trained facilitator who is independent should administer CTF meetings All community stakeholders should be included with selected representatives representing large stakeholder groups. In many cases, it may be desirable and/or necessary [o i~itiate a random survey to determine the local public's knowledge of deer ecology~d the community's perception of the currer~t deer population~and attitudes towards different deer management options. (see attachment I ) Other 0 ptions The implementation ora community wide task force to evaluate the problem and recommend a course of action is a major undertaking. If it is determined that the over population of deer issue has not reached that level of community concern, there are other options that can be considered: Community education about the deer control problem and options that landowners have to help reduce deer related damage. These educational programs are offered by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and can be provided to specific communities that are experiencing problems. Evaluation of local zoning ordinances. Discharge of a firearm in a residential area is illegal under current county ordinance. When game officials issue a "kill permit" they have no authority to grant citizens permission to use firearms if they are prohibited by law. Consideration of allowing a variance / special p~rmit to hunt with a firearm may be considered in SOME residential areas. Careful coi~sideration and assessment of where a variance is appropriate would be needed due ~o safety concerns, as well as potential liability concerns. Summary The county will continue [o be faced with the issue of deer population conflicting with human populations. A well designed local management plan will take time to develop and the commitment of resources to manage. A formal management plan must have the support of the community at large and be developed with citizen participation in order for it to be accepted by the community at large. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000~ 6661. 966L · '66 L 96E I. c~66 L t*66L ;:66L L66L 066L 6961. 9961. £96 I, 996 L t,96 I. ~961, Lg6L 0961- 6/-6 L 9Z6l. 9;6 L SZ. 6 L t'Z6 L CZ. 6 L LZ. 6L 696t 996 t /.96 L 996t 996L P96 L ;:96L ~96t 6G61. gS6 I. I9S6L P~6L It~6t 6P6 t COMMONWEALTH of V2[RQ N A George Allen Governor Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Becky Norton Dunlop Secretary of Natural Resources Rt. 6, Box 410 Forest, VA 24551 (804) 525-7522 July 12, 1996 Danville Police Department Colonel T. Neal Morris Chief of Police P. O. Box 3300 Danville, VA 24543 Dear Colonel Morris: William L. Woodfin, Jr. Director In Response to your request to establish a deer population control program in the city of Danville, I met with representatives from your department on July 11, 1996. Present at this meeting bom my Department were Matt Knox, Deer Project Manager, and Jim Bowman, Wildlife Division Region Manager. Also, Commander C. T. Carter from Lynchburg Police Department attended to provide insight from the deer population control program Lynchburg has been conducting for five years. As a result of this meeting, a Memorandum of Understanding was'established. Danville Police Deparnment is authorized to issue Deer Kill Permits under the authority of Section 29.1-529 of the Code of Virginia_ Effective this date Kill Permits may be issued in accordance with the following conditions: All Kill Perm/ts shall be issued on the Official Kill Permit Form provided by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and reports of these permits shall be submitted to the Department's Deer Project Manager at the above address. Immediately after the permit is issued, the green copy shall be forwarded to the Deer Project Manager, and the original shall be submitted with the number of deer killed upon expiration of the permit. o There shall be no restrictions on the sex of the deer killed, but emphasis is to be placed on the killing ofantlerless deer. An Agency of the Natural Resources Secte~arittt 4010 WEST BROAI~ STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-I104 367-I 000 (VFFDD} Equal Opportuni(g Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 TO QUALIFY FOR A SHOOTING PERMIT, '~'~s FOLLOWIN~ CRI'~'~KIA ~(UST BE MET: the applicant must qualify as a landowner in an approved area (land registered with the Commissioner of Revenue under the special Land Use Tax"; this means 5 or more acres if qualified, the assigned officer (Wilfong, Claytor, Sites or Roy) will then contact a member of the Virginia Game Commission to visit the site with him if the site has verifiable deer damage and a safe shooting area, the Virginia Game Commission representative will issue a kill perrait to the landowner; the permit is usually good for about 7 days and allows the harvesting of 5 deer; another permit can be issued, if justified the landowner will then be advised that the person who will shoot the deer (the landowner or a (one) designee) must come to the HPD to complete a bac.~=.o~nd investigation a criminal history check will be run on the shooting applicant; if no disqualifying information is found, a shooting ~mit will be issued by the HPD to coincide with the dates ~f the kill permit SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TItOSE WHO RECEIVE SHOOTING PEI~IITS: must use a 12 gauge shotgun, buckshot or slug ~%~%~unition only antlerless deer can be harvested, unless kill permit states otherwise spotlighting is legal, however, no shooting after 10:00pm and until 5:00am the weapon can only be fired on the listed property; if a deer is wounded and leaves the property, contact the HPD to assist all deer that are killed mast ~= ~ ~*~ _~ .... p ..... ~-' ~Jay cf a check card (contact HPD, we will send an officer to check the deer) those who do not wish to make use of the deer should take them to Valley Meat Processors to be donated to Hunters for the Hungry must abide by all provisions of the kill permit any violation of these instructions will revoke the shooting permit (NAME) (DATE) F!LE OP¥ Department o/Game and Inland £isheries May 26. 1992 Chief Joseph M. Seif£ert Lynchburg Police Department Pest Office Box 199 Lynchburg, Virg£nia 24505 Dear Chief Seiffert: In response to your letter of May 11. 1992. it is my opinion thaC police officers are not routinely allowed to issue kill permits. My interpretation of section 29.1-202 in the Code of Virginia. refers no the authority of all sheriffs, poiice o~ficers, and other peace officers of the Commonwealth of VirginiaLto enforce the g~me. inland fish. and boating law statutes. I do not feet that it applies go the administration and permit issuing responsibilities of the Virginia Game Warden. I reaiize that the City of Lynchburg has an emergency situation due no the large number of deer. With that in mind. I am proposing the following: 1. I will authorize one offiaer, designated by you. go issue kill permits for deer only for a period of one year starting today. 2. This officer will make all necessary inspections prior to the issuance of such permit. Of each kill permit issued, one copy will be sent to this deparnmenn and a second copy will be sent to Officer Joh~ Puckett. Campbell County Game Warden. Post Office Box 686. Rustburg, Virginia 24588. If I may be of further assitance, please feel free to contact me. BB/JKC:lb cc: Larry Hart Colonel J.T. Lynch 4010 WE~ST BROAD STREET. P.O. BOX 11104. RICHMON D, VA 23230-1104 (804) :367-1000 (V/TDD) Et;ual Qpportunity Employment Programs & Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 COMMONVZH LTH sf V!R tNI Department o/G~me ~rtd Inland Fi~herie~ Chief Joseph M. Se/f/err Lynchburg Police Department Post Office Box 199 Lynchburg, Virginza 24505 June 30, 1993 Dear Chief Se/f/err: On May 20, 1993, I responded to your request to ~ssue kill permits for deer doing damage in the City of Lynchburg. This Iettsr included several restrictions as to the methods and procedures to be used. As a result of some concerns expressed by Commander Ronald Coleman concerning these restrictions, a meeting was scheduled between members of your agency and our law enforcement staff. On June 2, 1993 a meeting was attended by Commanders Coleman and Shockley of the Lynchburg Police and Major Joe Cooke and Captain John Heslep of our agency. As a result of this meeling the recommendation was made to authorize the issuance of kilt permits with the following conditions: 1. Thmra shall be no restriction on the sex of the deer killed, but emphasis should be placed on killing antlerless deer. 2. All deer damage complaints shall be investigated by ~h~~h~ Commander of Special Enfornement, and this CommanderCshall issue necessary kill permits. The Commander issuing the permit shall not participate in the killing of any deer. 3. Kill permits issued shall designate the city's Wildlife ManagemenE Specialist, along with anyone requested by the landowner to kill the deer~ No part of any deer killed under authority of permit shall utilized by the issuing Commandmr of the city's Wildlife Management Specialist. be 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104 RICHMONC. VA 23230-1104 8041 367-I 000 (V/TODI EouaJ Opl3or~uaity EFnc/oyment Programs & Fac~lit~es FAX f804) 367-9147 ttunte,: JVolvgs]t o-Rescue?. Suburbs Battle GrOwing D~ ~d re.hxrrod~ctioa o~ such as wolves aad TU~DAY. DE~ER 3. 1996 g/ith ~Suburban Deer Herds Swelling, Control Population Public opinion: obstacle or aid to sotmd deer management? Deborah Green, Glen R. Askins, and Phillip D. West ,ks urban deer problems escalate in much of the United States, natural resource managem increasingly encounter public debate about white-tuiied deer (Odocoileus virgtnta~uO management. Concerns about bunter behavior, public safety, and animal rights are typical issues raised by residents. When such concerns are expressed through ordinances that prohibit hunting and firearms discharge, they generally result in increases in both deer popMatinns and negative deer-human interactions (e.g., the rise M deer roadidlis ia Princeton. N.J.; Kuser and \Vol- gast I983). Similariy, vocal animal-fights advocates a~so create conflicts by impeding kuplementatinn of deer management plans (Girard et al. 1993). Wildlife managers experienced in addressing biolog- ical aspects of deer management may approach human dimensions aspects, such as cultural caroung capacity in urban en¥it~nments, with trepidation. General con- rems:about public involYement in naroraJ resource management include: (I) reaching representative com- munity ~%mples; (2) producing, rather than resdixSng, caDfticc; (3) diminishing the status of the professional manager in derision-making; and (4) doubting that citi- zens are informed enough to m;kke good dec, ions Muliln and Nielsen 1991a). Wildlife managers need t~ols to overcome these concerns, partioalazlyin urban ~ettings where traditional congruency groups such as humets are in the mlnoritT. Public meetings, surveys, and advLsoty groups are the most common rechnJque~ for assessing public opinion about issues concerning narunfl resources (Mc~fullin and 1Xqelsen 1991D). Surveys of citizens' experience with deer problems and attitudes toward deer management have been useful in asses.~ing pub- lic opinion, shaping public education efforts, and de- Yeloping recommendations for future management (Kuser et at. 1983, Comicelli et al. 1993. Stout et aL 1994). Random surveys tend to be more represensa- five of public opinion than either public meeting~ or advSsoty g~ups. Johnson et al. (1995) suggested that open meetings for public input on mule deer (Odocotle~s hemionus) management may not have attracted representative samples of those affected by management decisions: those unending public meet- ings were morelikely to have a more negative opinion o£current management than representative samples. Our objective was to use a public opinion sur~ey to deveiop a deer management plan for Chin- cureague, ¥isgkfiz Study area Chinanreague is a 1,500-ha coastal island that is heavily developed as a residential and tourist com- munity. The developed areas are intetsper~d with loblolly pine (Ptnus taeda), conunon reed (Phrag. mites aastralls), marsh elder (Ira fnutescens), and other emergent vegetation characteristic of mid-At- lantic tidal salt marshes. The cover afforded by ex- tent ~N,e wedanda, combined with ornamental shrubs, fruit and vegetable plants, manicured lawns, and rive forage species (e.g., greenbrier [Smilax spp.], wa.myrtle [My~/ca cemfera] and poison i;3' de~dro~z radlcam]), provide excellent deer hablmt Assareague Channel separates the island from the Clthtcoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Citizens obserged an increase kl the island's deer population following the incorporation of the town in July 1~89 and the subsequent passage o£a no-firearms discharge ordinance in 1990 frown of Chincoreague 1996. Section 13-2). In 1994 thc Chincoteague chief of police conmsaed the Virginia Deparkment of Game Address for Deborah Green: Deparm~nt of Psychology, College of William and fi'mW Williamsbur~ VA ~lfi7 USA. Address for Glen R. Askins and Ph II p O. We~t: Virgin a Oepaeaa~ent of Game and Inland Fisheries, 5806 Mooretown Rd., Williarmbur§, VA 22188, USA. DW08 LP-Wildlife Green_0013 Emp#314 E'.:';:;,:::' ,'~. * ; "" · : . ": "'; · ' .' . "%:;'.... . :. :. .... ' ' '-'.:.¢' and Inland Fishe~es ~G~ conc~ing ~c~a~g ~g 252 numbe~ ~ed, 1~ w~ ~t ~, 67 :'- ." ~ d~-ve~deac~den~. M~Depa~entofG~e w~not~ce 21 ~d~ed~gma~17 . ~/- md I~d Fish.et ~ met ~ ~e To~ ~un~ ~ ~ ma~es. 11 w~e b~ num~, 10 d~g ~e ~ummer of 1~6 md mmmmeeded ~e were bu~, 2 w~e number~ that had ~rm~ been formation of an adv~sor7 group; subsequently the mayor, appointed 10 citizens m a Deer Management Task Force. After 2 meeimgsia which the isane of sur- veying the community was diseussed, the Task Force agreed that x, rDG~ should conduct a public opinion survey of Chincoteague Methods We used census dam from t990 and input from local officSals to estimate the adult population of Chin- cureag~e at about 3,000. Tee m~get sample size of 100 represented 5% of the adult commuaiq, and 6% of households. We used computer-generazed, random- diet telephone numbers ~er eliminating known bu*i- nets numbers and not-La-service sectors of the tele* phone exchange. Ti~ee town employees were ccaZned ia ~stedng the survey iastramem. Each interview took about 5-I0 minutet; all interviews were com- pleted during 2 we~day-ex'ening oiling sesCons. *ion of the Survey was mailed to Task Force members approved durLqg a singte Task t:orce meeting..&copy Following the LatetMews, dam were tabulated ing a simple darabase and spreadsheet in Minroso;~ Works. In detigning the Froject we estimared that su~ey development, ge~emtinn df the sample, ~mer- viewer training and xapervisfon, dam coding, entry tions would rake 285-380wo~ hours. Results md discussion Three hundred fifty, four telephone ca.~s were made; of 102 cit~eus contacted, 88 (86%) agreedro piLrticipate and 87 (85%) completed the mtvey. R~.~ns given for refusal re pardelpare included G) having reennti¥ moved m the area, (23 xSCuLag only, O) not Being a resi- dent, (4) not knmviuganything about deer.:md (5) not beinginrerested, in pmviousrete~roh ¢rcy 19891 tele- phonoanrvey m expedenced a mediaz refusal mm of 28%. Our 14% refcsal rate was q~e iow. Prior Lave~ti~dons (Frey 19892 also emblished that there was no significmt ~crc~so in partidpaden with follow'- up calls C~rey 1989); therefore, no further attempts were made to assms nonreeponse bi~. Of the rema~ called, and l rmched a text telephone Most O5%) participants were female. 43% were male, and the sex of 2% w~ not recordec[ Self-re ported experience with hunting was as follo~m 52% of participants had some hunting background 09.5% as former hunte~, 11.5% a~ correa~ btm t e_*~, and 1. as former huntem who were anfi-hxmtLag at the time of the su~,ey); 56.5% were uoahmate.~, 10.3% were anti-hunters; and 1.1% were anim~l-rights activi~$. l?xpertence with deer and deer problems Most 05.5%') individuals contacted had seen a deer in the ~ 'j, eai;, 65.5% had seen deer in the ueighbor- hoods where they Idved. Most ~69.3%) knew about deer problems in the Cltineoteague area. A few par- ticipants (5.7%) reported knowing only in general about problemf with deer (such as overpopulation). Many (42%) were aware of only 1 problem with deer;, 26.2% were aware of 2 problem*: and 3.4% were aware of >5 problems with deer. Garden damage was the most irequentiy cited problem, familiar to 54.5% of the patticipant~; 23,9% reporied x, ehicular damage Or other problems with deer on roadways; and 10.2% knew of problems with Lyme disease. Most (69.350 citizens enjoyed havi~g deer in the area; 29.5% did not enioy deeI;, and 1.1% expressed ambivalence. Those aware of deer problems were less likely to tepee enjoying deer th~q those unaware df problems (Z:= 4.81, 1 df, P< 0.05). Management issues Most respondents C/0.I%) thought deer required management; 25.3% did not think management required; and 4.6% were unsur~ lnteret~agly, 82% of those who thought deer required management were aware of problems with deer. Only 41% of those belicviag deer did not require management, -.--:::'}{... Z" and 50~ of those tmsure about deer needing manage- . .: -. merit, were aware of problems wi~ deer. We per- f~rmed chi-squareffanalyses to determLae if knowb -: ..?. edge of deer problems was related to opinions about those aware of deer problems were more likely to - .': thir~ deer needed management than those unaware _. of problems (.Z= = 14.01,'2 df, ? < 0.005)...-. We a~ked a ~Ses of que~ons about specitie deer .... voted by a majority of survey participants: trapping- and-relocating k77%), use of birth-centre! me.utes (67.8%3, repellents (60.9%), controlled hunts (58.6%3, and fencing (55 The opinions of the community were almost evenly divided about 3 techniques: lengthening the hunting seasons for bo~s and does, and for does only, was favored (52.3% and 51.1%, respec~vely); and t~apping-and-euthanizingwas rejected by a slight majority (50.6%). Six techniques were unpopular with those sur- veyed: providing additional food for deer was re- jected by 56.3%, use of sharpshoorer~ to reduce herd size by 58.6%, modifying the ordinance against ~earms discharge by 59.1%, requiring hunters to k~ a doe before they'~ a buck by 56.3%, doing nothing by 78.2%. and reintroducing animals that prey on deer by 82.8%. Experience with hunting affected ntanagement preferences, with repelieats the only method favored by >50% of all subgroups: hunters (50%), former hunters (64.7%), nonhunters (59.2%), anti-hunters O7.8%), former hunter now anti-hunters (I00%), and animal.rights activists O00~O. Controiled hunts were accepmble to all butthe anfi-hunLLqg subgroup (100% of ilnti-huntets rejected thfa approach). Only the hunting subgroup rejected fencing (70%) and trap. ping-and-reincadng (60%) as acceptable management techniques. Hunters (50%), nonhunrers 677.6%9, and anti-hunre~ L77.8%) accepted birth-control mes~ures. Management recom rn endations survey results were used in several ways to facifi- me sound deer management. released, there were no further media reports of con- troversy concerning deer management on Chin- cmeague. Our experience suggests that when inac- curate and sensational press coverage creates an stacle to deer management, the use of a public opinion survey may provide wildlife professionals ~th a useful tool for managing media artemion. Developing the management plan Survey results also were useful to the Task Force in developing the management plan. The survey dam es- tablished the community's recognition<~fthe need £or deer management and identified 5 management reci~ nlques favored by the citizens. Addltiona/ly, the ~udy established that lethal con~rol was a viable manage- merit option£or Cl'Ancotea~e. Ti~ informatinnwas used by the Task Force as a starting point for develop- ing ~eir rocommendadons to the Town Council. The Task Force members subsequently developed and unanimously endorsed a proposal to recommend managed hunts (the only lethal control favored by a majority of residents) to reduce the deer population. Public education efforts Because the Task Force wa~ aware of the disadvar~ rages (costs, in particular) of the methods most fa- voted by the cgmmunlty, they asked that 2 inferma- tional meetings be held to educate the public about the specifin management tech~que$ under considera- tion. Representm/ves of the Task Force, the p~chnl- og~st conducting the opinion survey, and the VDGI~ wildlife biologist and reginr~ manager were present for both meeting~. At each meeting we presemed an overview of urban deer problems with a video %V~te-mfls at the crossroads' (Northeast Deer Tech- nicul Commi~ee I996; entreaty available from Com- mittee Chair Steve Weber. New FIampshke Fish and Game, 2 FIazen Drive, Concord, ]Wc103301). This w~ folinwed by a discussion of bidlog~cal factors involved in deer ecology and management techniques by the wildlife hiningisr, a summzaT of the public opinion survey results by the psychdlogist, and a question-and- answer se~ion faullimted by the regional manager. Participants were provided with infor~afinrml mare,- als including a meeting agenda, a brief Synopsis of the survey results, and a summary of some adsmutages and disadvantages of the 5 ~lanagemenr techniques fa- x~red by a majority of those interviewed. The diK'ussion dur~g the que~dol~-and-an~wer peri- ods focused on the p~cess used to produce the agement plan and the details of the plan itrelf. Panic9 pants were informed that the Task Force would make its recommendations ro the To~m Councg and that the council would determine the final managemem plan. Diffusing media reports Media attention played a key role throughout the development of the deer management plan, ~th the local press in attendance atall meetings of the Task Foroe. National media became involved at the time the survey was conducted. An article appem-Lug in the Washingto~z Post OVer 1996:3) after the survey was completed but before the results were available stared that ckizens were 'sharply divided' on the need for management The distribution oftl~$ article through the Azsociated Press was acuompanled by In- cai television coverage and a National Public Radio broadcast. The survey results dearly contradicted the mec~ coverage with the finding that the majority (70.1%) of the community agreed that deer management was required. Similarly. the finding that 59% of the com- munity favored coutsofind hunts coutradlmed the pronouncement that the community would reject tethal co~trols. After the results of the survey were DW08 LP-Wildlife Green_OOlg Emp#314 Many questions were answered conceaming the logistics of controlled hunts and the use of stmrpshooters, as well as the consequences of taking no actlom Some individ- mls shifted their ~ews as a re~k of the discussion. Conclusions Public involvement is necessary in natural resource management, and e~rly input from interested parties is the most effeedve way to resolve conflicts ~ic- Muffin and Nielsen 1991a), The case of~nincoteague demons~ates how public opinion can san, e to sup- port rather than obstruct sound deer management The ~se ora public opinion survey allowed assess- mens of the views of a representative sample of the local commnniq,. The dam gathered front the ma~-ey were instrumental in resolving conflles$ about deer management generated by the media, The mmvey ~Iso enhanced wildlife managers' credibility with a nontradlfional constituency gzoup. Finally, the sur- vey re..~its pz'ovided a focus for educational efforts so the public could make informed decisions about lo- cal deer management. With the dramafie gfov~h ofwhke-talled deer pop- ula?.ions in the last 20 years, deer management in many locales bas sh~ed frum managemens of a game species to management ora nuisance a_qim al. AS deer problems increase, local communities are likely to want fewer deer and become more interested ia deer management. The shLMng constiraency oi w~Idlife agencies to include groups s~ch as homeowners af- fected by nuisance deer has §e ne~-~t ed the need for ~a marketing approach to wildlife planning' OV~ght et al. 1991:39). As the need to manage people becomes an impormns aspect of managing deer (Decker and Richmond I995), the effective use of public oph~on will become vital to sound deer management Acknowledgmc~t$. We thank the Chincoteague Deer Management Task Force chaired by J. Taylor, Chincoteagun Town Manager, S. Bake~, our inter- viewers, tC Fox, E. Wi~iams and E. Lewis; and Vir. g~nia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries oroG~~') ~taff members, IL Duncan mad M. Knox. The Wildlife Division ofVDGlle provided financial support for this pzoject. Literature cited · , ~ , ,'..." ~< ~ . ., DW08 LP-Wildlife Creen_O013 Emp#314 JOHN COLLIER MARTIN 5~15 CATTERTON ROAO FREE UNION, VIRGINIA 22~4~ (804) ~8-zg~ January 9, 1998 The Honorable Walter Perkins Albemarle County Supervisor 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Control Of Discharqe Of Firearms And Huntin~ With Firearms In Albemarle County Dear Mr. Perkins: The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention certain additional information relating to the matters discussed in my letter to you dated December 31, 1997. Please find attached an article which appeared in the December 6, 1997, edition of The Washington Post, "Hunting Accidents Causing Concern, Falls From Trees, Errant Shots Result in Injuries and Deaths." (Attachment 1). As you will note, the article contains statistics concerning hunting injuries and deaths in Virginia and some limited descriptions of how hu~nting accidents occur. Please also note, that the article references the death of Ms. Janice F. Garrison in Albemarle County on November 29, 1997, in an apparent hu~ting accident. Please also find attached, a letter to the Editor of The Daily Progress, published on January 8, 1998, concerning the need to control the deer population in Albemarle County. (Attachment 2). Since my December 31 letter did not address this lssue~ I would like to offer additional comment for your consideration. First, I agree entirely with the author of the above referenced letter concerning the potential danger, primarily to motorists, posed by an excessively large deer population. I also agree with the author, that one method for controlling a burgeoning deer population would be to increase the deer hunting "bag limit," if required. As suggested by the author, this could provide an opportunity for donation of de~r meat to a food bank for the needy, while at the same time expanding hunting opportunities. I am concerned, however, that those resistant to hunting and firearms reform in Albemarle County might cite the need for deer population control as a reason why hunting and firearms reforms should not be enacted. I see no competition between these issues, however, and if such an argument is advanced, I think it should be carefully scrutinized. In this regard, the reforms suggested in my December 31 letter do not ban hunting. These reforms would simply make hunting safer for the general public and for hunters themselves. Although deer and bear hunting would be restricted to the use of shotguns loaded with multiple ball shot, and geographical areas where hunting can be safely conducted would be clearly identified for everyone's benefit, I do not believe that these sensible controls'would lead to an increase in the deer population. If thedeer population nevertheless continues to grow, however, other measures could be taken to address the problem. These might include increasing the "bag limit" for deer as the author of the above referenced Letter to the Editor has suggested; extending the hunting season; or, organizing controlled and supervised deer hunts in particular problem areas. Firearms and hunting ~reforms clearly need not, and should not, be sacrificed, however, upon an unsubstantiated belief that they would lead to an increase in the deer population. Firearms and hunting reforms and control of the deer population both effect the public safety, and both these public safety considerations can be addressed in conjunction with one another, and not at the exclusion of one or the other. Finally, with respect to the reforms instituted in Fairfax County, I have learned that the principle elements of those reforms were in fact enacted in the late 1970's, much earlier than I had believed. These elements include the ban on the hunting use of high powered rifles, and the registration of tracts of land for hunting purposes. Accordingly, Fairfax County has had considerably more experience operating under its hunting control scheme than I previously realized, and this shOuld facilitate this County's ability to examine and consider that experience in the consideration of reforms here. The other key provision of the Fairfax County ordinance, that dealing with the identification of the geographical areas within the County where hunting is permitted, were enacted shortly after the incident involving the Fairfax County Animal Control Warden referenced in my December 31 letter. Your consideration is appreciated. CC: The Hon. Charlotte Humphris The Hon. Sally Thomas The Hon. David Bowerman The Hon. Forrest Marshall, Jr. The Hon. Charles Martin Chief John Miller Sheriff J.W. Rittenhouse Warden Kenneth Dove Warden Michael Lucas Hunting ' Falls From Trees, Errant Shots Result in Injuries and Deaths ByJustinBlum and Peter S. Goorlma~. As dusk fell and Jason Fogleman was ready to gi~ up hhia quest to bag a deer, he stumbled onto a small, excited erd. Fogleman raised his 12-gange shotgun, squeezing" the trigger as a deer moved late his sight. But the buckshot whizzed past its tari~-~'t'' Instead. Fogleman hit his brother, who had been wa~i.g on the other side of the deer, out of sight.,,.. , . -' ~I didn't even know I had shot him,' asid Fogleman. 36, of Alexandria, '~l-Ie's like, 'I thlnlr you ~ot me.' I ' '"'-Con6ern . .... -,% thought he was just joking around.' But it was no joke: Javen l;'ooteman afl O~ I'~ale ~ltv h~ horn ri,I- ~fw~Ir ~:.q:~:C~4; ~ ~;~;~¢;2~'.~.~'~e; for ~e hst ~ ~ka n~ a ~. m;nfid lo~ ~*L' ~ ~eman, H~, ~fd~ ~ hi b~er p~t of a ~m ~ ~nt h~ ~d~m m ~e ,;~'~,~:~ .... '~ ""t,' ..... ~ .." Was~an re~an a a~r ~on ~em ~a~ m ~:~on~ Hun~r Edu~Uon Asm~oa ~s~ ~ek ~.~d n~ C~o~ ~H~ ~ ~.~me. o~ m~ mm~ ~s~a ~e shoo~g ~ ~ of a ~Id ~ ~o ~ s~u& ~ ~e ~e ~en ~e s~pp~ ~ o~ ~ens, many 'of ~s se~'s ~ ~ studs, p~ ~at h~ bffid ~ ~e b~es ~ ~ ~ a ~ spot ~d a ~od ~ ~ · ~ ~ for d~ H~ o~ ~ ~r 1o~ On Tues., a 41-~1d ~er of ~ ~ ~ s~pp~ off a ~d er ~ he ~s c~ ~ ~ ~e smd ~ ~fo~ Co~ On Mon~ B~ Siso~ 41, of "~ ~ But J~n Fo~ ~'t .me ~s ~s Peabo., ~ss.,--~ B~o~ Co~ ~en ~'~o~e~t~d~'t~0whe~.~.g, ~s loM~ ~o~ ~t off~e a f~ h~.~ ' ~ J~on o~ ~ ~ . 1~ ~ ~ by ~ ~m a~ s~ ~ce ~ · ~o~fian, ~d fear ~ple ~ 1~,~ ~ ~ h~ than p~d~ ~ m~ s~r~, ~lu~i~ h~, b~ke~ ~foo~ She . .. s~rbme~ s~ow a~e, m~ 1~ h~ ~ so ~er m b~ ~ "hospi~i~d for a ~me~st~reflou~e~e .~ of ~e~e. ~ W~ ha ~, ~ ~ ' 'He ~s close, ~ly'" h~trsho~g~o~er~ ~ ~ bo 17 h~ ~ ~emse~. ~ ~fio~ ~ ~le · ~ of~ot~ds.~ M~d~st~ 11 ~ple ~ or b~, ~d fo~ h~ ~ ~e~; ~' :~' ~ horn? ~n~' ~.. .. . ~. ~ . ~ ,~ple ~d · ~so~e~shoo~ ~ . ~ .... ~. ~, ~e moa co--on ~' ent o~m~g ~o~h i~ ; ~:de Mo-'~~; ..... ~.' ' ~d ~c~d J~oa a spo~ br ~e W~ .v~0~ ~o~'~ o~ · ~ ~g~' ~o~'t &oot ~a do~ Da~d.M. ~o~, ~e ~ce president of ~e ~st~o~yc~,~.' DEPARTMENT OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIES REPORT OF HUNTING CASUALTIES SECTION 1: *AGENCY INFORMATION*. ,. State: VIRGINIA REPORT PERIOD: 11/.17/97 TO TOTAL CLASS "A" Casualties: 30 Reporte~d By: Captain T. C. TWO PARTY ACCIDENTS Fatal Nonfatal Subtotal 01/03/98 BRADBERY SELF INFLICTED ACCIDENTS Fatal Nonfatal Subto5a SECTION 2: *EQUIPMENT USED* Shotgun 1 19 20 0 4 4 Rifle i 1 2 0 3 ~ Handgun 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muzzleloader 0 1 1 0 0 0 Bow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crossbow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 Define other: TOTAL 2 21 23 0 7 SECTION 3: ~ANIMAL HUNTED* Antelope 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bear 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bobcat 0 0 0 0 0 0 iottontail Rabbit 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coyone 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crow 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deer 1 19 20 0 7 Duck/Goose 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dove/Pigeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elk 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fox 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grouse 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hares 0 1 1 0 0 0 Javelina 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moose 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nongame Bird/Mammal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pheasant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quail 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raccoon/Opossum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Squirrel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turkey 1 1 2 0 0 0 Wild Boar 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Upland Bird 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Small Game 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodchuck 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER EXOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 NGAME BIRD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 21 23 0 SECTION 4: TWO PARTY ACCIDENTS SELF INFLICTED ACCIDEX'_-. *S~OOTERS AGE~ Fatal Nonfatal Total Fatal Nonfatal Total 1-9 0 0 0 0 1 t 10-19 0 2 2 0 1 1 20-29 1 2 3 0 0 0 30-39 1 5 6 0 1 1 40-49 0 4 4 0 3 3 50-59 0 3 3 0 1 t 60 AND OVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNKNOWN 0 5 5 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 21 23 0 7 SECTION 5: *CONTRIBUTING FACTORS* *HUNTER'S JUDGEMENT Victim into line o~ fire 0 0 0 Victim covered by shooter t 9 10 Victim out of sight of shooter 0 5 5 Victim mistaken for game 1 3 ~ Sub-total 2 17 19 *SKILL AND APTITUDE Trigger caught on object 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loading Firearm 0 0 0 0 t 1 Unloadinc Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improper crossing of obstacle 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dropped Firearm 0 0 0 0 1 1 Careless handling of firearm 0 0 0 0 2 2 Shooter stumbled and fell 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 0 0 0 0 4 4 *BASIC SAFETY OR LAW VIOLATION Run/walk with loaded firearm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remove/place firearm in vehicle 0 0 0 0 2 2 Using firearm as a club 0 0 0 0 0 0 Discharge firearm in/on vehicle 0 t 1 0 0 0 Firearm fell from insecure res~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shooting from/across road 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 Horseplay while hunting 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 0 1 1 0 2 2 *ARCHERY RELATED Arrow non matched ~o bow Careless handling of bow or arrow Carrying nocked arrow Defective bow or arrow Stringing bow Sub-total S~CTION 5 (cont): TWO PARTY ACCIDENTS SELF INFLICTED ACCIDENi Fatal Nonfatal Total Fatal Nonfatal Total *MISCELLANEOUS Improper powder substitution 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed ammo, incorrect aramo 0 0 0 0 0 0 Faulty Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ricochet 0 0 0 0 0 0 Obstruction in barrel 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alcohol/Drugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~TOTAL Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 OF ALL FACTORS~ 2 18 20 0 6 6 SECTION 6: Game law violation t 2 3 0 0 0 SECTION 7: SECTION prior no 1992 bright color rather than blaze Drange Yes, blaze orange 1 6 No, blaze orange 1 1 2 2 7 9 8:prior to 1992 TREESTANDS Other hype B Treestands accidents info was nor collected 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTION 9: Ail type c SECTION 10: USE OF ALCOHOL/DRUGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~rYPE B ACCIDENTS: Any accident while hunting non involving the discharge c- a firearm or bow which causes the injury or death of any person{s). -?YPE C ACCIDENTS: Any accident resulting from the discharge of or bow which causes the injury or death Df any person s), other hunting. a firearm o~ than while 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: BATH FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 10/11107 SELF INFLICTED: Y WEAPON: SH0~BUN ANIMAL HUNTED: SQUIRREL DISTANCE: 0-10 YARDS SHOOTERS AGE: 07 VICTIMS AGE: SHOOTER H E CERT: N VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER REACHED TO PUT HIS HAND IN FRONT OF THE TRIGGER GUARD & HIT THE TRIGGER. STRIKING HIMSELF iN THE LEFT FOOT. COUNTY: BATH DATE: 11115197 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: 0-10 YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 13 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: SUBJECT SHOT A BIRD &IT FELL TO THE GROUND. THE VICTIM WAS STOMPING ON THE BIRD TO KILL IT. THE SHOOTER FIRED AT IT AGAIN STRIKING VICTIM IN THE RIGHT BiG TOE. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: SQUIRREL SHOOTERS AGE: 0 SHOOTER H E CERT: N COUNTY: BATH FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 112/08 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: MUZZLELDADER ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER DISTANCE: SHOOTERS AGE: 24 VICTIMS AGE: 23 SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SUBJECTS DRIVING VEHICLE DOWN ROAD. DRIVER ASKED PASSENGER TO POINT GUN TO THE FLOOR. WHILE MOVING THE GUN, IT DISCHARGED. STRIKING VICTIM IN LEFT FEMUR & HAND, COUNTY: 8EBFORD DATE: 1112R/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: 101 + YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 33 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIREB AT BEER, STRIKING VICTIM IN LOWER LEFT LEG WITH ONE PELLET, FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 55 SHOOTER H E CERT: N COUNTY: CHARLES CITY DATE: 12t31197 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 47 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 0 SHOOTER H E CERT: UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. VICTIM STRUCK IN RIGHT FOREARM WITH 1 PELLET. STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. 1/5/98 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: CRAIG DATE: 12113/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTAN CE: VICTIMS AGE: 47 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: TURKEY SHOOTERS AGE: 36 SHOOTER H E CERT: SHOOTER WOUNDED A TURKEY & HE & VICTIM WENT TO FLUSH TURKEY. SHOOTER MISTOOK VICTIM FOR TURKEY. HE WAS STRUCK IN THE LEFT SHOULDER. COUNTY: ESSEX DATE: 12l 8/97 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: Y ANIMAL HUNTED: BEER SHOOTERS AGE: 16 SHOOTER H E CERT: WHEN SUBJECT PUT LOADED RIFLE INTO VEHICLE, IT DISCHARGEC, STRIKING HIM IN THE UPPER LEFT ABDOMEN. COUNTY: FRANKLIN DATE: 10/6/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: UNKNOWN VICTIMS AGE: 31 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FELL & FIREARM DISCHARGEC, STRIKING VICTIM IN RIGHT ARM & CHEST. FATAL/NON-FATAL: ~ SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: SQUIRREL SHOOTERS AGE: 25 SHOOTER H E CERT: ~ COUNTY: HALIFAX DATE: 112/98 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 46 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: DEER RAN BETWEEN HUNTERS. SHOOTER FIRED. STRIKING VICTIM IN RIGHT CHEST. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 15 SHOOTER H E CERT: COUNTY: HENRY DATE: 11123/97 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: 101 + YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 15 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: ~ SHOOTER H E CERT: N SHOOTER SAW MOVEMENT & FIRED AT WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A DEER. STRIKING VICTIM IN LEFT FOREARM & ABDOMEN. 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: HIGHLAND DATE: 11119/97 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: o.la YARDS VICTIMS AGE: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: VICTIM LOWERED RIFLE FROM TREESTAND WITH CORD AROUND PJSTOL GRIP. WHILE REMOVING THE CORD, THE GUN DISCHARGED. STRIKING NlM IN THE RIGHT FOOT. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: Y ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 37 SHOOTER H E CERT: ¥ COUNTY: ISLE OF WIGHT DATE: 12127/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 25 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIRED AT DEER. STRIKING VICTIM IN CHEST S THIGH. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 27 SHOOTER H E CERT: COUNTY: JAMES CITY DATE: 1/3/98 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 34 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 51 SHOOTER H E CERT: DEER RAN OETI/VEEN HUNTERS. SHOOTER FIRED, STRIKING VICTIM WITH ONE PELLET IN LOWER LEFT ABDOMEN. COUNTY: JAMES CiTY DATE: 1/3/98 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 82 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: O SHOOTER H E CERT: AS DOGS APPROACHED. SOMEONE SHOT & VICTIM WAS STRUCK IN RIGHT KNEE WITH ONE PELLET. COUNTY: KING & QUEEN DATE: 11/17/97 WEAPON: SHGTGUN DISTANCE: VICTINIS AGE: 24 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: SHOOTER H E CERT: SHOOTER FIRED 3 TIMES AT DEER, STRIKING VICTIM lOUT DF SIGHT OF SHOOTER) WITH ONE PELLET IN UPPER LEFT SHOULDER ON FIRST SHOT. 1/5/98 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: KING GEORGE FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 11/28197 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: RARES DISTANCE: 11-50 YARDS SHOOTERS AGE: 42 VICTIMS AGE: 47 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y VICTIM H E CERT: ~ SYNOPSIS: RABB]T BETWEEN SHOOTER & VICTIM. SHOOTER FIRED, STRIKING VICTIM WITH NUMEROUS #9 PELLETSTO FACE, STOMACH. BOTH LEGS & BOTH ARMS, COUNTY: LANCASTER FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 11/20197 SELF INFLICTED: Y WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER DISTANCE: SHOOTERS AGE: 4D VICTIMS AGE: SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: VICTIM POTTING HIS GUN INTO TRUCK. THE GUN DISCHARGE~, STRIKING THE STEERING COLOMN. FRAGMENTS HIT THE VICTIM IN THE LEFT KNEE. COUNTY: LEE FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 9/6/97 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: SQUIRREL DISTANCE: UNKNOWN SHOOTERS AGE: 0 VICTIMS AGE: 42 SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM H E CERT: N SYNOPSIS: VICTIM WAS INSIDE HIS HOUSE WHEN HE HEARD A SHOT. HE WENT OUT DF A SIDE DOOR & WAS STRUCK WITH ONE PELLET IN HIS LOWER RIGHT SIDE, COUNTY: LEE DATE: 11128197 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: 101 + YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 25 VICTIM H E CERT: U SYNOPSIS: VICTIM MISTAKEN FOR TURKEY BY SHOOTER IN UNRELATED PARTY. VICTIM SUFFERED FATAL SHOT. ENTERING UFPER LEFT SIDE. NEAR SHOULDER, & EXITING LOWER RIGHT SIDE NEAR BELT LINE. FATAL/NON-FATAL: F SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: TURKEY SHOOTERS AGE: 30 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y COUNTY: LOUDOUN FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 10/9197 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: DUCK DISTANCE: 50-80 YARDS SHOOTERS AGE: 15 VICTIMS AGE: 47 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: FATHER & SON WERE DUCK HUNTING. SON FIRED TWICE KILLING TWO DUCKS. ON SECOND SHOT. TWO PELLETS STRUCK FATHER. UNE IN THE RIGHT ARM & ONE IN THE THROAT. INJURIES ARE NOT LIFE THREATENING. 1/5/98 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: LBUDOUN DATE: 11117/97 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: Y ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 40 SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM PICKED UP HIS GUN & IT GISCRARGED. STRIKING HiM IN THE TOP OF RIS RIGHT FOOT. COUNTY; LOUISA DATE: 11/18/97 WEAPON: SH0TGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 71 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: DEER PASSE0 BETWEEN SHOOTER & VICTIM. MORE INF0 TO FOLLOW, IF SHOOTER FOUND. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 8 SHOOTER H E CERT: COUNTY: LOUISA FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 11/27/97 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER DISTANCE: 10t+ YARDS SHOOTERS AGE: 18 VICTIMS AGE: 45 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y VICTIM H E CERT: N SYNOPSIS: DEER RAN BETWEEN 2 STANDERS. SHOOTER FIRED IN VICTIMS DIRECTION. VICTIMS LEFT RING FINGER WAS BROKEN BY PELLET. COUNTY: LOUJGA FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 12/26/97 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER DISTANCE: SHOOTERS AGE: 59 VICTIMS AGE: 39 SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIRED AT DEER THAT PASSED BETWEEN HE & THE VICTIM. PELLET PENETRATED CHEST CAVITY. COUNTY: LUNENBURG FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: II/8/97 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: TURKEY DISTANCE: 0-10YARDS SHOOTERS AGE: 25 VICTIMS AGE: 15 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: SHOOTERS GUN JAMMED AFTER HE SHOT. HE THREV~ THE GUN ON THE GROUND & WHEN HE PICKED IT UP HE SAW MUD ON THE END OF THE BARREL. HE FIRED AGAIN HOPING TO SHORT THE MUD OUT OF THE BARREL. THE BARREL EXPLODED WITH A 3" X 1" A PIECE OF IT STRIKING THE VICTIM IN THE UPPER RIGHT ARM. 1/5/98 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: LUNENBURG FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 11117197 SELF INFLICTED: y WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: BEFR DISTANCE: o.la YARNS SHOOTERS AGE: 8 VICTIMS AGE: SHOOTER H E CERT: N VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: VICTIM DROPPED .410 SHOTGUN. WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND, IT DISCHARGED STRIKING HIM UNDER THE LEFT ARM. COUNTY: LUNENBURO DATE: 1 l/2D/D7 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: 51-180 YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 38 VICTIM H E CERT: O SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIRED ~ HIT DEER. HE FOLLOWED DEER TO BOTTOM OF HILL & SAW A BLAZE ORANGE HAT. WENT TO THAT AREA & FQUND VICTIM LYING ON THE GROUND. BLEEDING. HE HAD BEEN STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH ? PELLET. VICTIM HAD MOVED FROM URIGINAL POSITION. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 38 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y COUNTY: PITTSYLVANIA DATE: II/17J97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: OdD YARDS VICTIMS AGE: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SUBJECT HUNG SHOTGUN ON A NAIL, IT DISCI~ARGEB. STRIKING HIM IN THE RIGHT CALF. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: Y ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 41 SHOOTER H E CERT: N COUNTY: POWHATAN DATE: 1/2/98 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTAN CE: VICTIMS AGE: 35 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 43 SHOOTER H E CERT: UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. VICTIM STRUCK BY 6 PELLETS [#4 BUCKSROTL STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. COUNTY: PRINCE WILLIAM DATE: 11119/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: ll-50 YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 40 VICTIM H E CERT: N SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL:. I~ SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 38 SHOOTER H E CERT: N SHOOTER FIRED AT DEER & SAW SOMETHING FALL. WENT TO SEE & FOUND VICTIM (DROTHER), WHO SUFFERED 12 PELLET WGUNDS TO RIGHT LEG & PELVIC AREA. 1/5/98 1997-9S ACCIDENTS COUNTY: RAPPAHANNOCK DATE: 113198 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 49 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIRED AT DEER A SECOND TIME, STRIKING THE VICTIM IN THE STOMACH. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 32 SHOOTER H E CERT: COUNTY: SOUTHAMPTON FATAL/NON-FATAL: N DATE: 11122197 SELF INFLICTED: N WEAPON: SHOTGUN ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER DISTANCE: SHOOTERS AGE: 0 VICTIMS AGE: 2(3 SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: DEER MOVED BETWEEN SHOOTER & VICTIM. SHOOTER RRED, STRIKING VICTIM IN RIGHT HAND BETWEEN RING & LFFTLE FINGER. COUNTY: IURRY DATE: 12/6/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: 11-Be YAROS VICTIMS AGE: 14 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: SH00TEB IFATHER) HEARD WALKING & SAW WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN ANTLER MOVING IBELIEVED TO BE BARREL OF VICTIMS GUN). BE FIRED, STRIKING VICTIM ISDN) IN THE BACK WITH 1 ] PELLETS. VICTIM SUFFERED INJURY TO SPINE & SEVERE LUNG DAMAGE. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: BEER SHOOTERS AGE: 37 SHOOTER H E CERT: N COUNTY: SURRY DATE: 12/t3/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: Y ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 54 SHOOTER H E CERT: SUBJECT LOADED SHOTGUN. UPON CLOSING ACTION, THE GUN DISCHARGED. STRIKING BIM IN THE RIGHT FOOT, AT THE BASE OF SECOND TOE (PARTIAL AMPUTATION). COUNTY: SUSSEX DATE: 111~197 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: 51-I DO YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 17 VICTIM H E BERT: Y SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: F SELF INFLICTED: ~ ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 27 SHOOTER H E BERT: Y VICTIM FIRED AT DEER & DEER EXITED WOODS INTO FIELD WHERE THE SHOOTER FIRED AT 1T 4 TIMES, STRIKING VICTIM IN THE NECK, SEVERING HIS CAROTID ARTERY. VICTIM BLED TO DEATH WITHIN MINUTES. 1/5198 1997-98 ACCIDENTS COUNTY: SORSEX DATE: 12120197 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 37 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: BEES SHOOTERS AGE: O SHOOTER H E CERT: VICTIM SITTING DN GROUND. DEER JUMPED & SHOOTER FIRED, STRIKING VICTIM WITH ONE PELLET IN BRIDGE OF NOSE. COUNTY: VIRGINIA DEACH DATE: 1114/97 WEAPON: SHOTGUN DISTANCE: VICTIMS AGE: 41 VICTIM H E CERT: SYNOPSIS: SHOOTER FIRED AT A DEER, STRIKING VICTIM IN FOREHEAD & UPPER LEFT ARM. FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: DEER SHOOTERS AGE: 13 SHOOTER H E CERT: COUNTY: WASHINGTON DATE: 11/4197 WEAPON: RIFLE DISTANCE: 51-100 YARDS VICTIMS AGE: 17 VICTIM H E CERT: Y SYNOPSIS: FATAL/NON-FATAL: N SELF INFLICTED: N ANIMAL HUNTED: TURKEY SHOOTERS AGE: 17 SHOOTER H E CERT: Y SHOOTER FIRED AT WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A TURKEY, STRIKING VICTIM IN TOP LEFT SHOULDER. CROSSING HIS CHEST & LODGING IN RIGHT SHOULDER. TOTAL ACCIDENTS: 3_8 JOHN COLLIER 1V~A]RTIN 5115 C~TTERTON ROAD FREE UNION. VIRGINIA 22940 ~) ~2~2 December 31, 1997 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0t-C6-9~PC2:45 RCVD The Honorable Walter Perkins Albemarle County Supervisor Albemarle County Office Building 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Control of Discharae Of Firearms And Hunting With Firearms In Albemarle County Dear Mr. Perkins: I am writing as a resident of your District to request that the Board of Supervisors take action to amend the Albemarle County Code to impose controls over the discharge of firearms and hunting with firearms within the County. I include in this letter some specific recommendations toward this end which are largely based upon reforms recently instituted in Fairfax County. I am Droceeding in this matter in the firm belief that reform in Albemarle County is critical to the safety and well being of all County residents, and that this will materially advance the quality of life in this County. Albemarle County will be well served by your assistance in this matter. The urgent need for hunting and firearms reform was demonstratedmost recently by the tragic death of Mrs. Janice F. Garrison, on November 29, 1997, in an apparent hunting accident in the Northeastern part of the County. According to articles appearing in The Daily Progress, Mrs. Garrison was shot in the back of her head by a high powered rifle. At the time, she w~s standing on her own property in the company of her husband. See The Daily Progress, "Woman Killed By Rifle Fire," November 30; "Area of Shooting Searched," December 1; and "Probe of Slaying Continues," December 2, 1997, Attachment 1. See also, Letters to the Editor, "Albemarle Needs Curbs on Hunting,_" December 9, 1997; "Albemarle Residents Are At Risk From Stray Bullets," December 19, 1997, Attachment 2. Although I understand that an investigation by law enforcement officials of .this matter is continuing, the person who fired the fatal bullet may never be identified. Indeed, the person responsible for this death may not even know that he was responsible given the extreme distances that high powered projectiles can travel. As shocking as this death is to civic conscience, no one living in the County can credibly claim that it came with no forewarning. During hunting season in particular, gunfire from high powered rifles, shotguns and other firearms is common. Although some gunfire often seems to be at distance, at other times it is so close that it causes a person to spontaneously jump and cringe. Mothers tend to keep children indoors during these times, pets are confined and pursuant to all local wisdom, it is foolhardy to venture into wooded areas, even on one's own property. Every bullet fired from a gun, especially a high- powered rifle, finds a mark someplace. Clearly, it was only a matter of time in this County before such a mark was human. Given the lax firearms controls presently in place, no citizen, nor anyone in the County government, can be particularly surprised that this happened. Nevertheless, there seems to be an illogical perception within the County that there is really nothing that can be done. There seems to be a sense that regardless of how disturbing and dangerous gunfire may be, particularly during hunting season, this is Just a part of "country life" and that it must be accepted. Typically, law enforcement officials cannot or will not respond to complaints about gunfire unless an injury occurs, or there is evidence of trespassing. See, e.g., The Daily Progress, Letters to the Editor, "Albemarle Residents Are At Risk From Stray Bullets," December 19, 1997, Attachment 2. People learn to live with their fear and they make adjustments in their personal lives to deal with clearly perceived danger. Disturbingly, others become hardened to this bizarre aspect of their lives and adopt feelings of invulnerability to supplant unpleasant and debilitating fear. Ironically, those individuals are in even greater danger than those who try to take precautions and who cringe and cower at every close-by volley. Clearly, however, a concerned citizenry is far from impotent, and it does have the'power to make changes as may be necessary to protect the public safety and to free itself from fear. Although the current County Code inexplicably contains virtually no regulation of hunting and the discharge of firearms, this County has the power to adopt County-specific regulations to supplement State law and regulation. There is no rational reason why any person in this County should face .the prospect of death in his or her own backyard. Nor is there any rational reason as to why a comparative handful of men in the woods, with all manner of lethality at their disposal, should be allowed, in pursuit of mere recreational pleasure, to create even one moment of fear for others. It is time for people in this County to come forward and say, "enough is enough." 2 I commend to you for study and consideration, therefore, the sensible, workable and enlightened approach adopted by Fairfax County to control the discharge of firearms and hunting with firearms in that County. A copy of this portion of the Fairfax County Code is attached hereto as Attachment 3. These reforms were implemented in Fairfax County after a hunter with a high powered rifle nearly killed an Animal Control Warden in that County. Although specifically motivated by that incident, the Fairfax reforms also clearly were implemented in recognition of the fact that the rural character of that County had materially changed, and that then existing laws and regulations no longer provided sufficient protection. Although Albemarle County clearly is not as urbanized as Fairfax, the character of Albemarle County has changed as well, and it is clear that laws and regulations suitable for a rural landscape as it existed 50 or 100 years ago, are no longer adequate. Despite differences between the Counties, I believe that the Fairfax scheme is suitable for adoption by Albemarle County. Indeed, if this scheme, or one similar to it, had been in place in Albemarle County in November, the life of a resident of this County might have been spared. One of the most important protections contained in the Fairfax County Code is a ban upon the hunting use of high-powered rifles and shotguns loaded with slugs. See, Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia [hereinafter, "Fairfax Code"], Sec. 6-1-2 (d)-(e), (f)(1). A "high-powered rifle" is "...any rifle with a gun and ammunition combination having a muzzle energy greater than a .22 caliber rimfire cartridge." See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6- 1-2 (e). Since it is presently illegal under State regulations to hunt bear and deer with a .22 caliber rifle (See, Hunting & Trapping In Virginia, 1997-1998 Regulations, p. 19), only shotguns loaded with multiple ball shot can be used to hunt bear and deer. Since the destructive range of shotguns loaded with multiple ball shot is much less than that of high-powered rifles and shotgun slugs, the implications for public safety are clear and obvious. High-powered rifles may continue to be used in Fairfax County, however, for non-hunting, recreational purposes, but only on ranges approved for this purpose. S~ Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-2 (f)(2)-(3). The second most important protection offered by the Fairfax Code is contained in interrelated provisions dealing with the designation of areas where hunting and the discharge of firearms is permitted and where it is prohibited. In this regard, the Fairfax Ordinance is premised upon the rule that hunting and the discharge of firearms is prohibited in all areas of the County unless this activity is specifically permitted. See Fairfax Code, Section 6-1-2 (a). This differs from the present rule in Albemarle County which seems to be that hunting and the discharge of firearms is permitted in all areas of the County unless it is prohibited. Acc. ordingly, in Fairfax County, the onus is upon the hunter to make certain that hunting is permitted in the area selected. In Albemarle County, in actual practice, however, the onus seems to be more on the land owners to make certain that their land is posted to prohibit hunting. The better rule, I believe, is that selected by Fairfax. The assumption of anyone who wishes to discharge a firearm should be that it is prohibited unless that person can identify specific authority for hunting or the discharge of a firearm. In Fairfax County, therefore, the areas of the County where hunting and the discharge of firearms is permitted, subject to compliance with other regulatory requirements, is published in the Ordinance itself. See Fairfax Code, Appendix J. Hunting and the discharge of firearms is prohibited in all other areas. A similar approach could easily be adopted by Albemarle County, although this necessarily would require study by civic planners to define those areas of the County where hunting and the discharge of firearms could be safely conducted, assuming that other regulatory requirements are met. At present, such important safety considerations seem to be largely left to the discretion of hunters and land owners. This does not afford the citizens of this County with sufficient protection. In areas of Fairfax County where hunting and the discharge of firearms is not prohibited altogether, it is permitted by a process which requires prior approval of such activity on specific tracts of land. Under these provisions of the Fairfax Code, land owners must apply to the Director of Animal Control for authorization for hunting or the discharge of firearms on a specific tract of land. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-3. A copy Of Fairfax County's filing instructions and applicable forms are attached hereto as Attachment 4. The parcel of land for which application is made must exceed 20 acres. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-2 (2). Once a registration statement is issued by the Director of Animal Control, the subject parcel of land must be clearly posted with notices indicating that firearms are in use on that parcel. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-2 {a)(3). Also, hunters on approved parcels of land must carry with them the written permission of the land'owner to hunt on that parcel. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-3 (b). The registration process in Fairfax County has numerous advantages. It allows the Director of Animal Control to examine the land for which application is made to determine whether hunting and the discharge of firearms can be safely conducted, and if so, whether any special conditions are required. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-3 (b). For example, it might be determined that hunting on a particular segment of the land should no~ be allowed because of the close proximity of residential areas. Similarly, Animal Control officials might determine that in Darticular areas hunting should be restricted to tree stands to insure that gunfire is aimed toward the ground. This process therefore allows for careful examination of the site for firearms use, and it places land owners, hunters and the public on full notice as to geographical limits and special conditions for this activity. Moreover, the requirement that hunters have in their possession while hunting the written permission of the landowner helps to insure that hunters know the limits of the hunting area. Additionally, this requirement serves to ease the task of law enforcement to identify trespassers and unlawful poachers. Importantly, the Fairfax County regulatory scheme also appears to give adjacent landowners a voice in the process of determining where firearms may be used. In Albemarle County at present, a land owner can post his own land to prohibit hunting, but he has virtually no ability to complain about dangerous conditions on neighboring property, even when his own safety is put at risk. Under the Fairfax County scheme, however, a concerned adjacent landowner learning of a pending request for a registration statement can state safety related objections to hunting or the discharge of firearms on neighboring property. Once a registration statement is issued, neighboring landowners also have right to complain, and request that a registration statement be revoked, if changed circumstances create safety related problems, or if there is not full compliance with the terms of the registration statement issued. See Fairfax Code, Sec. 6-1-3 (d). Also, any aggrieved person may appeal a decision by the Director of Animal Control to the Board of Supervisors thus assuring full protection of all interests. The right and ability of citizens to be able to voice concerns and have them considered on matters effecting public safety is elementally consistent with all principles of democratic processes. The present inability of Albemarle County residents to complain, even when their own safety is in jeopardy, is anathema to all principles governing democratic and civilized societies. This is not a close question. The right to be secure in one's own home is fundamental and inalienable, and the citizens of this County are entitled to a process which allows them to voice serious concerns'and obtain relief when necessary and appropriate. I believe, therefore, that adoption of the Fairfax County reforms by this County would do a great service to all its citizens. While serving to protect the fundamental and inalienable right to be safe and secure in one's own home, these reforms do not unnecessarily infringe upon the recreational interests of firearms and hunting enthusiasts. Indeed, these reforms, while providing 'substantial protection to the general public, also provide hunters and firearms enthusiasts with greater personal protection. 5 Accordingly, I believe that a great service would be done by presentation to the Board of Supervisors of a proposed amendment to the Albemarle County Code to reform the hunting and firearms laws of this County. I would be willing to serve on any committee that may be formed to consider this matter; I would be willing to help draft specific legislation; or to help in any other way as may be requested. Although I suspect that a matter such as this might engender controversy, I am hopeful for enlightened and studious consideration in a process that can accommodate the interests of all County residents. Failure to address directly that which has become an obvious problem in this County, however, would, at best, be a shame. Sincerely, CC: The Hon. Charlotte Humphris The Hon. Sally Thomas · he Hon. David Bowerman The Hon. Forrest Marshall, Jr. The Hon. Charles Martin Chief John Miller Sheriff J.W. Rittenhouse Warden Kenneth Dove Warden Michael Lucas 6 Woman killed by rifle fire Police suspect hunting accident By CHRISTOPHER I~ELLE$ Dairy Progress staff writer An Albemarle County woman was shot and -killed in her back- yard Saturday a~ernoon in what counw po[ice said may have been a hunting accident. The 59-year~old woman was standing on her hack perch when she heard several shots fired from a tree line near a utility right of way behind her house, said Lt. John Teixeira. The woman, whose name was being withheld by police pending family notiflcat~or~, lived on Lone- some Mountain Road off Routs 20 in the northeastern section of the county. After the woman heard the shots, she and her husband walked to the tree line to investigate, Teix- eisa said, The woman was shot and killed shortly therea~r as she was walk- ing, Teixeira said Police reports said the weman was shot in the back of the head. Teixeira sad the bullet appeared to have been fired from a high-pewered Mile. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Police were still investigating the incident last night, Teixeira said, but evidence pointed to the woman's death being the result of a hunting acd~dent. "It could have been a hunting accident, but who knows," Teixeira said- "Neighbors said they heard several shots fired throughout the On Saturday night, police were stopping and checking vehicles as they entered and ex/tod Rou~es 610 and 612 on to Route 20. Offi- cers confiscated two firearms from two men dressed in hunting fatigues and wearing orange caps, but made no arrests, Shooting Continued from A1 A Virginia State Police heli- copter began scanmng the area with a searchlight at abeut 6 while police officers with K-9 units searched on foot for possible sus- The rugged terrain made the search difficult, Four-wheel drive vehicle~, including one provided by the State Poliee, were used to search the utility right of way. Gary Hoerman, who lives on Route 610 with his wife and throe sons, said hunting is common in the area, which is rural and cov- ered with a combination of trees and fields amid some homes. A hunting lodge sits on a nearby ridge, Hoerman said, surrounded by trails used by hunters operating all-terrain vehicles. There seemed to be a lot of hunters in the nearby woods on Saturday, Hoarman said. General firearms deer season' began Nov. 17. "My wife wouldn't even let the 'kids out of the house today, there was so much noise,' he said. Deer are a frequent sight in the neighborhood, l-Ioerman said. "From there over to the next ridge is a sdperhighway for deer,' Hoerman said, pointing to a Mdge behind his home. ~I have some apple trees and the deer wilI eat there constantly." Teixeira said anyone w/th tafor- mation about the shooting should call the Albemarl~ County Police Department at 296-5807, Staff writer McDavid Sfflwell contributed to this story. Votes in Congress · Congress is out of ses- sion until January. Area-of shooting searched Police talk to dozens in apparent accident By MARIA SANMINIATELLI Daily Progress staff writer Albemarle County police are still searching for the person who shot and killed a woman in her back yard in an apparent hunting accident, a detective said Sunday. Meanwhile, police have identi- fied the v/ctim of the Saturday agcernoon shooting as Jaaice F. Garrison, 50, of 3259 Lonesome Mountain Road, offRoute 20 in the northeastern end of the county. Garrison was standing on her back porch about 4:30 p.m. when she heard several shots fired from a tree line near a utili~ right of way behind her house, police said. Garrison and her husband were walking toward the wooded area to investiga;e the shots when she was hit. Police reports said she was shot in the back of the head, apparently by a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle. Invest/~gators have spoken ~o about 50 to 60 people and searched the area where the shooting occurred for evidence such as shell casing and bullet fragments. The searchers, using metal detectors and police dogs, have combed the area for the past two days, Detec- tive Sgt. Duane Karr said. He said the search, which stopped Sunday morning at about 12:30 a.m. and resumed at 9 a.m. until about 4 p.m., was not likely to continue today. Karr declined to say whether police had identified any suspects Sunday evening. "I would rather not say," he said. Wtre have some names and I would hate to label them as sus- po~s" bofors they are interviewed agam. Whomever shot Garrison could be charged with murder, depend- ing on the circumqtances, Karr said. Karr also declined to say whether police had found any evi- dence Saturday or Sunday. While stopping and searching Shooting Continued from A1 vehicles Saturday evening, police ofllcer~ confiscated two firearms from two men dressed in hunting fatigues and wearing orange caps. There were many hunters in the woods over the weekenc~ Kart explained, because deer hunting season star~l in mid-November. Hunting is traditionally heavy over the Thankagiving weekend, and the mild weather likely drew more hunters into the woods. He said the county police will continue to investigate the inci- dent in cooperation with the V/r- ginia Depax~uent of Game and Inland Fisheries. C-xarrison's relatives, who were at home with her husband Sunday, ds~flined to speak to the press. Probe of slaying,continues From staff repons Albemarle County police contin- ue to interview people m connec- tion with the kining of a 50-year- old woman over the weekend. Janice F. Garrison, of 3259 Lonesome Mountain Road, was shot in the head Saturday after- noon while investigating the sound of gunfire behiixd her home. Virginia Lotter~ number~ dr~n Monday, Oe¢. L N~mbe~ not offi- cial until veri~ed by Ioffery agent. Pick 3: 7-9~3, 9-4-9 Pick 4: 2-5-8-1, 2-9-1-5 Cash 5:1-5-23-27-28 INFOLINE; See the Info#ne directo. ry for exoanded lottery coverage. Detective Sgx. Duane Kart said Monday that police are continuing their investigation into Garrison's death. ~Ve've got some other people we want to interview,~ he said. Garrison was standing on her back porch about 4:30 p.m. Satur- day when she heard shots fired from a tree line near a utility right of way beh'md her home. Garrison and her husband were walking toward the wpeded area to investigate the gunfire when she was hit. She was strucl~ in the back of the hca& apparently by a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle, according to police reporgs. . Kart said it was still too early to judge whether the shoot/ng was accidental. 'Once we gar all the fac~s together, weql get a much bet- ~er picture of it," he said. THE D~ILY PROGRESS~ Chadottesville~ Va. Tuesday~9~.,ember 9 1997. ,-,3.__ w~s killed.the p~ed6cliag:'.clay i '. litiz{finlii accideht~ She was high-powered rifle whileFs'f,a~ff~?Wif~ ~e'~ husband on thezr own Rrope~. H~r fatal m the area, a f~omll ters ......... ftmdamental right to be-secure;ill"oUr'homes · and on Our propers. The.s~d fact that nlo~st~ of tls live death axe feel, and be, sei:ttre :to engag~ follow the rigorou~ co~.trbls - Reforms in ': How m~n,,, :., ':'h. "::~.~." d:e '::t h;.,1;:'u; acci- dents before ~.. :.,.k.. ~:.-,~'?i~, tect ~ur~el~t!~ :..' ::'a::.~.:: ,~::,: from ~ir'r.H~ r This cottony 1': ........... ; ...... allow.this itu i. ' .... · :l:~ '. -' ' -'" "'ii- "' Albemarle residents are ....................................... at risk from stray bullets Earlier this fall, I called the police for help- ........................................... lng in dealing with hunters very near my home in Albemarle County. Ours is a rural but ........................................... heavily populated area of the county, and hunting is proMbited in the subdivision. But .................................. hunters are legally permitted outside the sub- division, regardless of how close they come to impuleted areas. The police said there was. ............................... nothing they could do unless someone were injured or the hunters trespassed. There are many children, pets and elderly people in our neighborhood who are at risk from stray bullets. It is frightening tn he~ gunshot close to One's home, for hours ac a s~retsh. Like it or not, Albemarle County is becom-: lng too densely populated for hunting to be' allowed so close to development. Must' our yards be off limits to us' for the duration of hunting season? It's time to consider amend- ing the laws that permit hunting of any kind, so close to people's homes and yards. JUDR'H TOWNSEND Albemarle County 39-96-6 ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT REGARDING CIJA~TER 6 (WEAPONS) OF Tlqq*, 1976 CODE OF ~ COUNTY OF FAIRFAX~ VIRGINIA At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium of the Government Center at Fairfax, Virginia, on Monday, September 9, 1996, the Board after having first given notice of its intention so to do, in the man'er prescribed by law, adopted an amendment regarding Chapter 6 (Weapons) of the 1976 Code of the County of Fairfax, ¥irglnia, said amendment s0~adopted b;ing in the words and figures following, to-wit: BE IT ORDAINED BY TltF. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA: pt~ 6 (W ), as'follo,~ ' 'Amend Cha r eapons : - 1 39-96-6 AN ORDINANCE to amend the FairfaX County Code by amending and reenacting Sections 6-1-1, 6-1-2, 6-1-2.I and 6-1-3, relating generally to hunting and to the possession and disctmrge of guns. Be it ordshxed by the Board of Super~0B of Fairfax County: I. That Sections 6-1-1, 6-I-2, 6-1-2.1 and 6-1-3 of the Fairfax County Code are amended and reenacted as follows: Section 6.1-1. Definitions. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary co~talned in Sections 6-2-I and 6-3-I of this Chapter, the words ~nd phrases defined in this ~eefion when used in thi~q Chapter shall have the following meartings, ,mless a ~Iiffereat.meanlng is clearly required by the context: Chief of ?olice means the Chief of the Fair~ County Police Department or the designated agent of the Chief. Dtrector of.Amm~l Control means the Director of Anlm,l ConSol ofFalrfax - County or the designated agent of the Director. Firearm means any gun which will, or is designed to, or my be readily converted to, expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of any explosive; provided, ~ stud roiling gu~, rivet g~m~ and similar constmefiun equipment neither designed nor intended as weapons, stroll not be deemed firearms. Gun means a rifle, shotgun, pistol, air pistol, air.rifle, BB-Dm, pellet gun or other similar device designed and intended to expel a projectile through a ban-el of a~y length by means of explosive, expansion or release of compressed gas or compressed air or action of a spring mechanism. Parcel of land means any lot or lots, or other contiguous areas of land constituting a combined area of not less than twenty acres where all of the landowners, tenants in possession or agents of such landowners and tenants have joined in a written acknowledgment of 2 39-96-6 the rights of persons to shoot on all of such land. However, for the purposes of Section 6-1-2.1: a parcel of land may include contiguous areas which constitate a combined area of not less titan one acre, Recreational shooting me-qns the discharge of firearms or other gmnq at fixed or movable artificial targets. Rifle means a g-tm designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed and made to use the energy of an explosive or compressed gas or compressed air or the action of a spring mechanism to expel a single projectile through a rifled or smooth bore barrel for each pull of the trigger. Shotgun means a firearm designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed and made to use the energy of an explosive in a shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore barrel one or more ball shot fo.r each pull of the trigger.. .... 8tm-tiag pistol mean~ any device which is designed or functions to simulate the fuSng of a weapon by means of a primer or other explosive charge, but..w, hich ~e.~nnot be converted for use as a firean~ as defined ia thi~ Section. ~-::' '" _ ;~;::',fO~q ~7 ':.~ . ~ ':' :':;. ,:: , ~.:~:;.. ~ ~ ..... :,,':: ~c- Section 6-I-2. Hunting or discharge of firearms ia certain places prohibited; (a) It shall be tmlawful for any person to shoot any gun in .,any. areas of the Cotmty which are so heavily populated as to make such conduct dangerous.. Except as otherwise provided herein, it shall be unlawful to di.'schar, ge any gun: , . ;.,- . 5..... (1) In all areas of the County except those areas ,wNch a~e e~empted in ' accordance with Appendix J.to the F aLt fax County Code; ~.~: v .-.-, ..... (2) On any lot of real property containing less than tWenty acres; and[ ..... (3) Onany parcel of land which is not posted with. si,g~.q giving reasonable notice that guns are in use on that parcel of land and that no ~espassing is alI~wed: Such signs shall be placed where they can reasonably be seen. However, if fi. rearms are in use on only a portion of any parcel of land which meets the acreage and other requirements of the term "parcel of land," as defined by Section 6-1-1, then only tlmt portion of that parcel of land on which firearms are used shall be posted with signs. 3 39~96-6 (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with a gun any bird or game ,uimaJ on or within 100 yards from any primary or secondary highway. A violation of this Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or hunt with a gun on any public school ground or any public park or on any area within 100 yards of any public school ground or public park. It shall be unlawful for any person who is hunting with a loaded gun to waverse any public school ground or public park or to be within 100 yards from any such school ground or park. A violation of this Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor. This Subsection shall not prohibit either (i) the lawful possession of a firearm when such firearm is carried for purposes of personal safety or (ii) the lawful possession of a firearm on a public highway within 100 yards of any public school ground or public pm'lc Nothing in this Subsection shall apply to: (i) recreational shooting on gun ranges at any public school operated by or with the approval of that school; (ii) recreational shooting on gun ranges at any public park operitted by or with the approval of the owner of the park; ('fii) shooting of a ~tarting pistol at an athletic event on-any public school grounds or public park and which ~s'conducted With the approval granted by the owner of that school or park property; or (iv) lands within a national or ~tate or re ,nagement ;:'~:: ' ...... (d) It shall be unIawfui for any person to hunt with a ihotgun loaded With slugs. A violation of this Subsection shall be punishable as a Class 3'm~s~emeunor. ' ' (e) Except for those perso~ who are on a pa/cci oPland that xs registered m and who hunt with shot~ lg~ded ~ ii/ultiple ball shot, it sh~l! be unlawful for any person to hunt with a firearm Which has-abafreI ~ah'b~r~ larger than a nomln,l 0.224 inches or to hunt with a gun and ~rnmllnition combifia~ion'having a m,~zle energy a Class 3 misdemeanor. (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsections (a) through (e) of this Section, the following acts shall not be violations of this Section: (1) Hunting with a shotgun, when such shotgun is loaded enti/ely with .( .-j 4 39-96-6 ammunition consisting of multiple ball shot on a parcel of land for which thc landowners, tenants in possession or agents of such landowners and tenants have been issued an approved registration pursuant to Section'6-1-3 and when such hunting is carried out in accordance with thc terms and conditions of such rcgistradun and this Chapter; provided, however, that such parcel of land complies with the requirement to post appropriate sisn-~ in accordance with SubseCtion'(a)(3) of this Section. '~2) ~ekei~gh~ sh'ooUn~ with'~y ~un by any p~on who h~ ~n registration from thc D/re~t0~ o~Anlmal' Control and who is sEooting on a parcel of' land iu accordance with tha~ registrauom (3) Sho~ting oi discharge of any gun upon a lawful tarEet, trap or skeet or hun~ng preserve, whc~'~Uct~'~hooting is in accordanc6 ~Vith'th6'provisions of any approved regzstratzon. ' (4) Shooting ~r'd~s&ha~ge of'any ~un by any la~; 6nforCement offic~ acting'~n' in the performance ofth~'~u~es of a law enforcement a~ncy. For th~ purposes thi~ section the term"'lg~ inforcement officer" incl6des any person defm~d as.a 1~ enforcement officer purs~a,~t tO Ym Code § 9-t69 or any'animal wa~den acting i~. (5) Discharg~ of.my gun in ~ entirely indoor t/rget range> provided thai adequate provisions ar~ made'to re~aln within the structure ~ ~Ojecl/les disctmrge~!i (~ D~sc~ge'o~'~iy m~ for the p~ose of~rOt~ai~g =y p~=on ~om or great bodily harm. - "- ,, ; ..... (7) Discharge of any firearm or starting pzstol loaded v~th ablank cartndgei-:-; or other ammunition, not resulting in the expulsion of a projectile or projectiles. (8) Discharge of any gun pursuant (i) to an ai~proCed registration issued lJy the Director of Animal Control or (ii) pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with Va. Code § 29.1-529 by a State Game Warden and with an approved regis~ation issued by the Director of Animal Control. · · 39-96-6 (9) Shooting or discharge of a gun bY anY representative of the ~rirginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in the performance of duty for scientific collection or wildlife management purposes. Section 6-1-2;1. Discharge of BB guns, air pistols, air rifles and pellet guns in certain places pmhi~bited; exceptions.` · Notwithstanding the provisions of Seotion~ 6~1~2, a person my discharge a traditional BB gun, air pistol, air rifle or pellet gun,. which propels a projectile by means of energy released by compressed air, compressed g~s, mechanical spring or a combination thereof; on a parcel of land containing a.t.least one acre of land in an area desi~nated for the discharge of firearms or other guns in accordance, with Appendix J to the Fairfax County Code. Provided, however, no person shall discharge any such BB gun, air pistol, air.rifle or pellet gun within 100 yards of a public park, whi[,e ~ pg. ssession of a BB gtm, air pistol, air rifle or pellet gum Violation of this Section shall be punishable as a Class 4 m~demeaaor. This Section shall not prohibit any act described in subsections (f)0), (f)(4), (f)(5), (f)(oD, (f)(7), (f)(8), or (0(9) of 8ection' -l-2, and th~ Section shall not prohibit: (i) the lawful possession of a gun of the type descn' .~. herein when such gun is carried for purposes of personal safety, (ii) the law~ possession of a gun of the type described herein on a public highway within I00 yards of any public School ground or public park, or (iii) recreational shooting on gun ranges at any pub .lic school grounds operated by ' or with the approval of that school or recreational shooting on gun ranges at any public park operated by or with the approval of the owner of the park. Section 6-1-3. Registration statement authori~ng the discharge of a gun. (a) The Director of Animal Control shall issue a registration statement author~ng the discharge ora gun on a parcel of land for a period of one year fi:om the date of iss~nce to the landowners, tenants in possession or agents of such landowners or tenants of such parcel of land who submit a written request for such registration and who is in compliance with rids Chapter. However, if the landowners, tenants in possession or agents of such landowners or tenants of a 7 39-96-6 ( 3. That the Emergency Ordln~uce adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 22. 1996, to amend Sections 6-1-1 and 6-1-3 of the Faiffax County Code is repealed. 4. That any permits and registration statements isSUed in accordance with Section 6:1-3 of the Fairfax Coun~ Code and ~ich were valid and in effect on June 29, 1996, shall remain in force.and effect under the terms under.which they were issued until October ~? D96, unless revoked prior to the effective date Of~l~ ordinance by the DirectOr of A~imal Control purmant S ~o 6 1-3(d) ' tO ec I1 - . . . :.' -: ~ ~.- ~,.- ~- :'.'::~ ' - '-' ,. ""~ s. That any permits and/ tibn *im=ts issued h'acc°r ; dth S oi'2-" 2 ':of the Faiffax County Code, as ~mended by the Emergency Orai,~uee adopted on Ju~y 22,1996, shall remain in force and effect unde6 the terms under which they were issued unless revoked prior to the effective date of this ord~'n2nce by the Director of Animal Control pu~,~t to .,Section 6-1-3(d). ;: .. ;. ,. 6. That the promslons of this ordinance are severable, and if any pmws~on or application of th~ ormua~ee is held in%'alid,-that invalidity shall not'~tffec~ the other provisions or ~plications of this ora~auce which can be giyen effect without the invalid provision or ~r~plication-'.: . . .,,~ ". ...-' ~. :. , .. , .. ~.. .. :. . ' - GIVEN under my hand th~ 9th day of SePtembeff !i996. of Faiffax County, _V. irgiuia " " 6 39-96-6 parcel of land submit a wriuen request to renew a registration statement that has been issued and is in effect, then the renewed registration statement shall extend for a period of two years from the Late of issuance of the renewed registration statemem. Co) No registration statement shall be issued unless in the judgment of the Director of Animal (Jon~rol the discharge of a gun on any such parcel shall be in compliance with the restrictions provided by this Chapter and by Appendix J to the Falr~ County Code. Any registration statement issued shall describe any provisions deemed necessary by the Director of Animal Control to assure the same. (c) Any person who discharges a gun or who hunts Widt a gun on a parcel of land for which a registration statement has been issued and is in effect shall have on his or her person, ,while shooting or hunting, the written permission of the la$~ downer or tenant holder of the regis- :'tration statement to do such shooting or hunting. ~ Subsection shall not apply to a registration provided solely for the activities describe~t in Subsecd°ns (f)(2) and (f)O) of 8ecti0r~: 6-I-2. -" (d) Any such registration statement shall be revocable by the Director of Animal Control upon a finding by the Director that the holder thereot~ or a person authorized to discharge a gun by such holder has not acted in accorrt~nce '&ith this Chapter or Appendix 3 to the Fairfax County Code, or upon a finding that changed cir~nm~ces n~essitate revocation in the interests of the safety of persons or prop~rty'in the area_ (e) Each landowner or tenant to whom a registration statement has been granted shall post his property with signs in accordance with Section 6-1-2(a)(3). (f) Any action taken hereunder by the Director of Animal Control in granting, refusing to grant, or revoking a registration statement may be appealed by any person aggrieved to the Board of Supervisors. In the event of any such appeal, the Board shall consider the written statements of such aggrieved person, the registration holder, and the Director of gnlmal Control, and the Board shall make a final determination of whether to grant, refuse to grant or to revoke a regis~afion statement. That this ordinance shall become effective on adoption. 44-93-J ODINANCE TO DESIGNATE AtEAS WHERE FIRD3 S NOT BE SHOT As adopted on September 27, I993 At a regular meeting of the Hoard of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Auditorium of the Government Center Building, 12000 GovernmenE Center Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia, on Monday, September 27, 1993, the Board, after first having given notice of its intention to do so, in the manner prescribed by law, adopted the following ordinance to designate those areas of Fairfax County in which shooting of firearms, other guns or air or gas-operated weapons is prohibited. Be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County: 1. That Appendix J to the Fairfax County Code is enacted as follows: Except as otherwise provided herein, no person shall shoot a firearm or an air or gas-operated weapon in Fairfax County. If a person has registered to do so in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Fairfax County Code, and if that person is in full compliance with Chapter 6 of the Fairfax County Code,. a person may shoot a firearm or an air or gas- operated weapon in the following areas: (A) That portion of Fairfax County bounded by a line beginaing where the boundar~between Fairfax Couaty and Loudoun County meet at the Potomac River, then southeast following the Potomac River boundary between Fairfax County, Virginia, and the State of Maryland until where Difficult Run enters the Potomac River, then from the confluence of the Potomac River and Difficult Run southwest to the northwest corner of property identified by Fairfax County TaX Map No. 14-3, 001, Parcel 10, then southwest along the northwestern boundary of properties identified by Fairfax County Tax Map No. 14-3, 001, Parcels 9 and i0, and Tax Map No. 20-1, 001, Parcels 6 and 6A to Georgetown Pike (Route 193), then from the intersection o~ Georgetown Pike and Towlston Road (State Route 676) southwest 2 44-93-J along Towlston Road to the intersection of Towlston Road and Leesburg Pike (State Route 7), then northwest along Leesburg Pike to the Loudoun County boundary, then ncrtheast along the Loudoun County boundary to the beglrnning point at the Potomac River. (B) That portion of Fairfax County bounded by ~ line beginning at a point where Sully Road (State Route 28) crosses the boundary between Fairfax County and Loudoun County, then southwest following the Loudoun County boundary to the point where it meets the boundary between Fairfax County and Prince William County, then southeast along the Prince William boundary to the Potomac River, then generally north following the eastern border to Fairfax County to Accotink Creek, then north along Accotink Creek to Richmond Highway (U. S. Route 1), then west along Richmond Highway To Lorton Road (State Route 642), then west along Lorton Road to Silverbrook Road (State Route 600), then north and then west along Silverbrook Road to the intersection with Ox Road (State Route 123), then northwest along Ox Road to the intersection of Braddock Road (State Route 620), then west along Braddock Road to New Braddock Road, Chen west along New Braddock Road to the intersection with Centreville Road (State Route 28), then north along Centreville Road and Sully Road to the beginning point at the Loudonn County boundary. 2. That this'-ordinance shall become effective on and after October 15, 1993. GIVEN %mder my hand this 2l th day of September, 1993 NANCY t overt h Clerk e Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia i 24-95-6 Article 4. Bows. Section 6-4-1. Shooting of bows, It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot au arrow from a bow in a manner that can be reasonably expected to result in the impact of the arrow upOn the property of another without permission from the owner, fee holder or ten~nt of the property on which the arrow is expected to impact. For the purposes of this section, "bow" includes al/compound bows, crossbows, longbows and recurve bows having a peak draw weight of tea pounds or more. The term "bow" does not include bows wb/¢h have a peak &aw of [ess than ten pounds or v/n/ch are designed or intended to be used prhxcipally as toys. The term "arrow" means a shaft-like projectile h~tended to be shot from a bow. This amendment shall become effective upon adoption. GIVEN under my hand this 7th day of Augus% 1995. Clerk to the Board of Supervisors FILING INSTRUCTIONS FOR HUNTING REGISTRATION APPLICATION 1. Please print or type all information. o Please send photocopies (not originals) of all pertinent documents. These will become part of a permanent ~e and will not be returned. Even though your registration application may include a combination of properties or parcels owned by more than one person or corporation, it is our policy to issue only one registration rather than one to each owner. Therefore, it is advisable to have one of the property owners act as agent for all of the owners involved. If that is not acceptable, all owners must execute an application form and assign one owner as the registrant. Please submit the appropriate inspection fee: $50.00 for a new registration; $25.00 for a renewal. **Note: A first time or new registration fee will be charged for any registration that has expired. ***Note: The inspection fee rs non-refundable if permit application is denied or withdrawn. APPLICANT INFORMATION *Provide full name, complete mailing address and telephone numbers. *Applicant must be owner, owner's agent or lessee of the property. *If applicant is agent, please furnish an executed copy of power of attorney or a signed affidavit from the owner designating you as agent. *If applicant is lessee of property, please furnish copy of current lease or other proof that you are leasing the property. *If applicant is other than owner, provide complete name, address and telephone numbers of the owner m spaces provided. PROPERTY INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION *Please include one of the following: 1. Copy of current plat or survey. 2. Copy of tax map. 3. A sketch (to scale) of property, including geographical boundaries.. 4. Identification and description of property by using, legal description, tax map description, or full street address. ****Permit will not be processed if all required information is not provided or if application is incomplete. The Falrfax County Department of Animal Control encourages safe hunting and handling of firearms. **NOTE: County of Fairfax Department of Animal Control 4500 West Ox Road - Faiffax, Virginia 22030 HUNTING REGISTRATION APPLICATION Inspection Fee: New - $50.00/Renewal ~ $25.00 Inspection fee is non-refundable if permit is denied or withdrawn. Please print or type all information and return Applicant's name: Mailing address: Last First MI Number and Street City State Telephone: Home: Fax: Are you the: Property owner Office: Other: ( ) Owner's agent. Lessee Name and address of owner (If other than applicanO: Zip Code Corporate Officer Last First MI Number and Street City, State, and Zip Code Telephone: Home:( ) Office:( Fax: ( ) Other: ( Property Information & Description: Have you- included a: Plat Tax map copy Sketch of property? I hereby make application for issuance of a firearms discharge registration for the property described above. l understand that a willfully false, inaccurate, or misleading statement is grounds for rejection of this application, or in the event the same is discovered subsequent to issuance of a registration, such false, inaccurate, or misleading statement is grounds for revocation or suspension of any registration in force. ]For office use only Date rec'd Case# Date approved Permihq. Examiner Signature of applicant Date County of Fairfax Department of Animal Control 4500 West Ox Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS DISCHARGE APPLICATION Please print or type all information and return Applicant's name: Mailing address: Last First MI Number and Street Telephone: City State Home: ( t Office: Fax: ( ) Other: Are you the: Property owner Owner's agen[ Lessee Name and address of owner (If other than applicanO: Z~p Code ( ~ ( ) Corporate Officer Last First MI Number and Street City, State, and Zip Code Telephone: Home:( ) Office:( ) Fax: ( ) Other: ( Reason for Request and type of Firearms to be used: Property Information & Description: Have you included a: Plat Tax map copy.__ Sketch of property? I hereby make application for issuance of a firearms discharge registration for the property described above. 1 understand that a willfully false, inaccurate, or misleading statement is grounds for rejection of this application, or in the ev. ent the same is discovered subsequent to issuance ora registration, such false, inaccurate, or misleading statement ts grounds for revocation or suspension of any registralion in force. For oTlice use only Date rec' d Case// Date approved Permilg Examiner Signature of applican! Date County of Fairfax Department of Animal Control 4500 West Ox Road Faiffax, Virginia 22030 RECREATIONAL SHOOTING REGISTRATION APPLICATION lnspection Fee: New - $$0.00/Renewal - $25.00 **NOTE: Inspection fee is non-refundable if permit is denied or withdrawn. Please print or type all information and return Check ~ype of shooting: Skeet, trap Fixed target If fixed target, check type of firearms to be used Rifle Pistol Shotgun Applicant's name: Last First MI Mailing address: Number an6 Street City State Telephone: Home: ( } Office: Fax: ( ) Other: Are you the: Property owner Owner's agen[__ Name and address of owner (If other than appticanO: Lessee Zip Code Corporate Officer Last First MI Number and Street City, State, and Zip Code Telephone: Home:( ) Office: ( Fax: ( ) Other: ( ) Property Information & Description.' Have you included a: Plat Tax map copy Sketch of property? £ hereby make appllca~t'on for issuance of a firearms discharge registration for the property described above. understand that a willfully false, inaccurate, or misleading statement is grounds for rejection of this applicaaon. or in the event the same is discovered subsequent to issuance ora registration, such false, inaccurate, ormisleading statement ts grounds for revocation or suspension of any registration in force. For office use only Date rec'd Case~t. Date approved Permitg. Examiner Signature of applicant Date Hunting & Trapping in virginia 1997-1998 ~Regulations This pampldet is for general information, Specific laws are found in the Code of Virginia or the Game Department Regulation Manual. For answers ro specific questions about hunting contact the Deparunent of Game and Iuland Fisheries, See page 11 for the office nearest you. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Housing Committee: 1997 Report to the Board of Supervisors SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Housing Committee: 1997 Report to the Board of Supervisors STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms White, Ms McDonald AG E_.~__N_~A DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: This is the first annual report to the Board of Supervisors by the Housing Committee. The Committee has adopted an annual work plan which calls for an annual report to the Board of Supervisors in February of each year. The last report to the Board by the Committee was in September, 1996. DISCUSSION: This report highlights certain work of the Committee over the past year, particularly the adoption of the Comm~ee's detinilion of affordable housing and three targeted family income ranges, the work of the Housing Trust Fund subcommittee and the Public Incentives subcommittee, particularly the concept of inclusionary zoning for affordable housing. It also presents some summary information on housing needs in the County such as rental availability and assistance, housing rehabilitation and repairs, and cost to purchasers of forsale housing. The preparation of this report surfaced the difficulty in obtaining current and definitive need information, especially with the ranges of household income and other 1990 census data. This report compliments the Albemarle County Housing AcUon Plan presented to the Board in March 1995 by the Housing Commi[tee and A Housing Strategy for~lbemarle County prepared in April 1992 by the Albemarle County Housing Advisory Committee. The A Housing Strategy forAIbemade County be updated as part of the County's comprehensive strtegic plaaning this year. RECOMMENDATION: This report is presented to the Board for information and does not require any a~on at this time. The Chair of the Housing Committee, Karen Litleleht, and the Housing Chief, Ginnie McDonald will be at the Board meeting to present the information and to receive questions and comments. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :17 98.012 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE HOUSING COMMITTEE 1997 REPORT TO THeE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JANUARY 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Purpose Defmition of Affordable Housing and Strategic Objectives 1 Targeted-income Groups 2 Summary Highlights of Affordable Housing Needs as Identified by Providers 3 Regional Income Ranges 6 Current Housing Stock and Affordability Information 10 Report of the Housing Committee Work Plan 17 A. Local Housing Trust Fund Subcommittee B. Public Incentives Subcommittee Housing Committee Membership Listing Housing Committee Subcommittees Membership Listing 21 23 County of Albemarle Housing Committee 1997 Report to the Board of Supervisors The propose of this report is 1.) to provide a summary update on affordable housing needs and available stock and 2.) to report the highlights of the past year's work of the Housing Committee. This report supplements A Housing Strategy For Albemarle County, April 1992 and the Albemarle CoUnty Housing Committee Housing Action Plan, March 1995. Both of these documents continue to be used by the Housing Committee in their work. The report will begin with the Committee's adopted definition of affordable housing, strategic objectives and targeted-income groups; then describe the potential need and the existing housing stock; and close with this year's Housing Committee work which suggests possible solutions on which the full committee continues to work. DEF/NITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES After more than a year's discussion the Committee adopted the definition generally accepted nationally: Affordable housing is decent and safe housing at a cost that does not exceed 30% of monthly family household income. The need for the adoption of a definition was identified to the Board in the Housing Action Plan, submitted in March, 1995. In addition to the definition the Housing Committee adopted two strategic objectives to implement the Committee's goal of" reducing the cost of affordable housing in Albemarle County": 1. Reduce the cost and increase the supply of housing for very low and moderate income families by adopting local affordable housing ordinances which address housing needs, promote a full range of housing choices, and encourage the construction and continued existence of the affordable housing stock, and 2. Develop specific programmatic solutions addressing identified needs with'm each targeted income group (1) TARGETED INCOME GROUPS The Committee further adopted targeted-income groups where it recommends that the policy, financial, and regulatory resources of local government should be first prioritized in assisting needy households. The following two charts show the three targeted-income ranges. Thc first chart utilizes the 1990 census median household income, monthly income available for homing costs, and the number of households in the three targeted-income ranges. CHART L 1990 Census Median Household Income: $36,886 Targeted-Income Ranges (Defined as percentages) $36,886 Annual Monthly Income Number of Income Available Households for Housing 1990 Range I: 0 - 35 % $ 0 - 12,910 $ 0 - 323 3169 Range H: 35 - 50% 12,910 - 18,443 322 - 461 1977 Range IH: 50 - 80% 18,443 -29,509 461 - 738 4169 Total Households: 9315 The second chart utilizes the April 1, 1997 HUD median household income and updates all of the data in Chart I, except for the number of households. That number is unavailable. CHART II. April 1, 1997 HUD Median Household Income: $49,300 Targeted-Income Ranges (Def'med as percentages) $49,300 Annual Monthly Income Number of Income Available Households for Housing 1997 Range h 0 - 35 % $ 0 - 17,255 $ 0 - 431 not available Range H: 35-50% 17,255 - 24,650 431 - 616 Range HI: 50-80% 24,650 - 39,440 616 - 986 Chart II reflects the income in the currently adopted three targeted ranges. The incomes in the three targeted ranges changes annually on the publication date ofHUD's Annual Income Charts. (2) Chart Notes: For focus, a minimum wage, full-time job at $ 5.15 per hour pays $10,712 annually and can "afford" $268 per month in homing cost. These targeted-income groups, especially Range I, have the greatest need in obtaining rental housing or purchasing a home, and it is financially difficult for the private sector alone m serve the housing needs of these income groups. The adoption of these three ranges does not exclude the fact that families above these targeted ranges need affordable opportunities. However, the Housing Committee recommends that the Board prioritize allocation oflocaI resources beginning with families in Range # I. For focus, to the extent that funds are available, AHIP's Emergency Repair Program serves families with average incomes of $14,543 or 29.5% of median. Their Homeowners' Rehabilitation Program serves families with average incomes at $16,663 or 33.8 % of median. The program guidelines allow them to serve families up to $39,440 or 80% of median income. SUMMARY HIGI-ILIGHTS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS AS IDENTIFIED BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS I. The Albemarle Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificate and Voucher program is fully-leased, serving 438 families in the month of May, 1997. In I996, an average of 5 families left the program per month; in 1997, an average of 2 families are leaving the program per month. Congress is not funding additional Section 8 Rental Assistance Certiftcates and Vouchers except for Public Housing demolition replacement un/ts and certain other specialized-population programs. 2. All Section 8 Rental Assistance participating families have incomes at or below $24,650 or 50% of the 1997 HUD median income. 3. The average income of Section 8 Rental Assistance families is $8624 ( 17% of median) The average Housing Assistance payment for families is $385/month ($4620/yr) The average rent at 30% of income paid by the families is $186/month ($2232/yr) Of participating families, 44% have income from wages and 37% from TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Families may have incomes from both. Other sources of income include Social Security Disability and Retirement payments. (3) 4. The Office of Housing maintains an open Section 8 Rental Assistance Waiting List in order to measure need although there is very little turnover among the current Section 8 recipients. To be eligible to be on the Waiting List, the family income must be below 50% of median. 5. There are currently (December) 1100 families on the County's Section 8 Waiting List. In 1996, sixty percent of the applicants were fi:om the City of Charlottesville. In 1997, fifty percent of the applicants are fi:om the City of Charlottesville. During 1996, an average of 52 families applied per month. During 1997, an average of 74 families are applying per month. The average income of Waiting List families is ~5887. Of the Waiting List families, 92% have one m four members. 6. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program's Waiting List as of May 1997: Emergency Home Repair: 202 families, average income $9824 or 22% of median for a family of 3. Of these 107, (42%) are elderly families and 77 (38%) are disabled families. These families are in Targeted-income Range I. Rehabilitation: 296 families, average income $11,511 or 26% of median for a family of 3. Of these, 135 (46%) are elderly families and 103 ( 35% ) are disabled families. These families are in. Targeted-income Range I. Itomeowncr Purchase Assistance: 96 families, average income $18,523 or 42 % of median for family of 3. Of these, one is an elderly family, and 9 are disabled families These families are in Targeted-income Range II. The graph (AHIP Waiting List Needs) on the following page illustrates the impact that an organization ~AHIP) can have in serving families in the lowest of the targeted-income ranges when operational / adm'mistrative costs are underwritten by local government. 7. Monticello Area Community Action Agency: MACAA is a HUD Certified Housing Counseling Agency and is responsible for counseling families facing foreclosure fi:om the Federal Housing Administration. In 1996, 7 families facing FHA mortgage foreclosure were counseled In 1997, 26 families were in default as of June, a 271% increase. (4) REGIONAL Ih-COME RANGES The Piedmont Housing Alliance, an active "ex-officio" member of the Housing Committee, adopted the Committee's concept of the three targeted- income ranges and added two additional ranges: Range IV Population: incomes between 81 - t00% of the Area Median Income Range V Population: incomes greater than 100% of the Area Median Income The following three charts were developed by the Piedmont Housing Alliance to demonstrate the five ranges of actual incomes in their service region. The household numbers were based on the 1990 census and the 1997Area Median Income. CHART A: Area Median Income analysis ($49,300) for the Charlottesville area which includes Albemarle, Fluvarma and Greene Counties, and the City of Charlottesville. CHART B: Area Median Income analysis ($37,900) for Louisa County CHART C: Area Median Income analysis ($34,800) for Nelson County As the Piedmont Housing Alliance works with the regional housing nonprofits and local governments, they will use the ranges to help demoustmte the need to work together to help provide affordable housing opportunities for those families in the lower income ranges. (6) CHART Development of housing in relationship to Range I - V populations based on Area Median Household Income (AMI) for the Charlottesville Area: Including; Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene Counties and the CiE' of Charlottesville. (AM[ is for 1997 - Number of Households ~s based t~om 1990 Census Data). 20,2 ,~.:Totai ,hOuSeholdS earning greater than .the AMI of $49,300 · '. 20,24? ,Households nStli Midian i.nc0~e' p~int' ~'$g9i300 (100%~~" Households with Median Income pOint of $39,440 (80% of AMI)} point of S25,143 (51%'='o~ A~Xll)) ' :.; .}i =' H 0useh01dS ' With '.M~di/~h lncome.:". point of $!7,748:(36% Of AM1)) Please Note: Annual income ~ $5.25 per hour = $10.920 Based on a 40 hour work Range V population earning greater than 100% of AMI Range IV Population Earning 81-100% of AMI Range III Population Earning 51-80% of AMI Range I1 Population Earning 36-50% of AMI Range I Population Earning 0-35% of AMI Private Sector De- velopment Fair Market for Profit Public Sector De- velopment BELOW Fair Market Non-profit for Profit Agencies (7) CHART Development of housing in relationship to Range I - V populations based on Area Median Household Income (AMI) for Louisa County, Va. (AMI is for 1997 - Number of Households is based from 1990 Census Data). 44.70 Total Householdsin LOUisaCounty 2,235:.Total householdS... earning greater .~.: than the AMI"of $37,900 2~235 H.{iuseholds With lVIedian lncbme point of $37.900 (!.00%) · Households with Median Income 'point of $30..,320'(80% of AMI)): '. 'Households With Mediau Incon~e point of $~9,~? HoUseholds .,w/th. Median:Income · point 'af $13,644 (36% of ~MI}) Please Note: Annual income ~ $5.25 per hour = $10,920 Based on a 40 hour work week Range V population earning greater than 100% of AMI IRange IV Population Earning 81-100% of AMI Earning 51-80% of AMI Range II Population Earning 36-50% of AMI Range 1 Population Earning 0-35% of AMI Private Sector De- lvelopmenl Public Sector De- velopment BELOW Faii Market Non-profit for Profit Agencies (8) CHART c Development of housing in relationslfip to Range I - V populations based on Area Median Household Income (AMI) for Nelson County, Va. (AMI is for 1997 - Number of Households is based from 1990 Census Dam). 2.922. Total. HoUseholds in Nels°n cdUfity t A6'l..Total hOuseholds earnin'g greater- than the: ~Ml"of $34',800 '. · 1,46! Households With Medihn Inc6~fie ,p0ift 6[$34'~00 (1:00%)" Households with Median Income point of $27~840 (80% of AMI)) Households with Median.income: pgint of $I 7,'?~8. , (51%. , of :~M1)).' ·H0usehoid~'with'Medlan..l'n~6me .p6lnt, of $!2,5281 (36% of AM0) Ill Please Note: Annual income ~ $5.25 per hour = $10.920 Based on a 40 hour work week. Range V population earning greater than 100% of AMI Range IV Population [ Earning 81-100% of AMI [ Private Sector De- velopmem Fair Market for Profit Range III Population [ Public Earning 51-80% of AMI [ sector De- l ~elopment I Ra.ageIIPopulatio. I Earning 36-50% of AMI Market Non-profit Range I Population Agencies Earning 0-35% of AMI (9) CURRENT HOUSING STOCK AND AFFORDABILITY INFORMATION Chart IH attempted to show by descending income order the number and percentage of households (from the 1990 census), the monthly household income available for monthly housing cost using the Housing Committee's definition of affordabflity, the housing stock available by income range, and the availability or deficit of affordable units by income range. CHART HL 1990 Census Income and Household Distribution Income Number of Monthly Income Housing Stock 0990 Census) Households / Available 1997 Assessment % for Housing Surplus/deficit $75,000 - or more 3269 / 13.4% $1875 - plus 50,000- 74,999 4685 19.2 1250 - 1875 40,000 - 49,999 3213 13.2 1000 - 1250 30,000 - 39,999 3715 15.2 750 - 1000 20,000- 29,999 3789 15.5 500- 750 15,000- 19,999 1897 7.8 375- 500 10,000- 14,999 1623 6.7 250- 375 5,000- 9,999 1253 5.1 125- 250 4,999- 0 943 3.9 0- 125 Cannot calculate the Surplus/deficit See following Charts Total 24,387 households 21,635 units The allocation of income ranges, number of households, monthly income available for housing costs assumes that all households "buy" housing at 30% of income, not housing costing more or less.) However, the only hous'mg stock values and numbers of units available are from the County's 1997 assessment. Current 1997 household income by number of households in increments of $5000 or $10,000 is unavailable. And an attempt ro count number of units by assessed value as it relates to income affordability falls as the available assessed values are in either $5000 or $I0,000 increments. And affordability income ranges do not "Irack" in $5000 and $10,000 increments. The following charts do, however, show the current assessed values of ail units in $5000 (Chart III A ) and $10,000 (Chart III B ) increments in value from $20,000 to $400,000, the number of units in each increment, the range of monthly housing cost by each increment, and the range of armual income required by each increment. What is unavailable is the number of 1997 households by annual income in each incremenT. CHART III C shows the number and percentages of units in $50,000 ranges from 1997 assessed values. (10) According to local Realtors, many families in the $20,000-30,000 income range may qualify for a mortgage for a condominium or townhouse, but the association fees disqualify many fi'om loan approval. AHIP's Homeownership families average 60 % of the HUD median income. The current FHA mortgage limit for Albemarle County was raised in the Spring to $142,453. The Virginia Housing Development Authority Single Family First Mortgage Program sales Iimit for Albemarle County is $113,200. The Board of Realtors reports a 1996 median sales price of $149,900 for all home sales in the County, and a median of $98,400 for the City of Charlottesville. (11) .~ ~,g §oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o ~ oooooooooooo~ooooooooooooooooooooo ~(~0 O0 0000000 @~E~oo ooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo MULT~FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND AVAILABLLITY INFORMATION Chart IV reports the results of a June 1997 telephone survey of ail of the Albemarle County multifamity rentai complexes listed in the yellow pages of the telephone d/rectory. Current rental and vacancy information was gathered on 4540 units. Chart IV: Survey of Multifamily Rental Housing Stock, June 1997 Targeted Monthly Income Number of Number of Unit Surplus/ Income Available for rent Households Units surveyed (Deficit) (1990 census) Affordable to Relative # Ranges I -IH Households Range I $ 0 - 323 3169 0 (3169) 0 - 35% Range H 323 - 461 1977 40 (1937) 35 - 50% Range III 461 - 738 4169 4139 (30) 50 - 80% TOTAL 9315 4179 (5136) The 4540 multifamily rental units are 52 % of the totai of 8772 for all rental units in the County as identified irt the 1990 census. Of the 4540 rental units surveyed, 106 were available for rent, for a vacancy rate of 2.33%. It is generally believed that June histbrically has the highest vacancy rate of any month due to the University academic year. The survey includes the two Low IncomelHousing Tax Credit Properties of Wilton Farms (144 units) and Rio Hills (139 units) where resldants' income generally cannot exceed 60% of the HUD median income. It excludes the 2 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation properties of Whitewood Village (96 units) and The Scottswlle School (34 un,ts). All ms,dents at these nvo properttes pay 30 ~A of their mcome for rent. Some of the surveyed amts may be affordable with tenants utilizing Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers. This survey excludes market-rate retirement communities, condominium communities, and single family rental properties. (16) REPORT OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE WORK PLAN L Local Housing Trust Fund Subcommittee: Under the leadership of Chair Leigh Middleditch, this subcommittee during the past year studied the role of a local housing trust fund in assisting in meeting the affordable housing needs ora locality. This study initiative meets one of the seven (7) Objectives presented by the Housing Committee to the Board of Supervisors in the March 1995 Action Plan, "Increase financial resources for affordable housing" and "Establish Housing Trust Fund which will provide a consistent, dedicated source of revenue to address the housing needs of Iow and very-low income County residents." This subcommittee and the full Housing Committee adopted the recommendation to propose, through the County budget process, the creation and the capitalization ora local ALBEMARLE COUNTY HOUSING INITIATIVES TRUST FUND. The Housing Committee proposes that this fund be iulfially capitalized at $50,000, from 50% of the annual roll-back tax revenue received by the County, for a minimum of 5 years. (The Housing Committee has identified a potential dedicated source of revenue for regular, annual funding, the County's collection of Roll-back taxes. Fifty percent of the County's annual collection of roll- back taxes which for the past 3 years at 100% has averaged $100,000.) At the end of this 5-year period the Committee proposes an evaluation of the accomplishments and future funding needs of this fund. The establishment and the capitalization of a trust fund utilizing the revenue from the annual roll-back taxes, will provide a consistent, dedicated source of revenue to assist the County and other housing providers such as ~ to meet the housing needs of low and very-low income County residents. This trust fund is intended to perform principally as secondary or tertiary financing in the leveraging of other private, state or federal funding available for affordable housing programs. Frequently, the availability or the lack of such secondary/tertiary or working capital financing is the critical link in the success or failure of an affordable hous'mg in/tiafive, especially for nonprofits. This Housing Initiatives Trust Fund proposes to scrve the 3 areas of need as identified by local providers over the last year of meetings: 1. Flexible rehabilitation funds To supplement the diminish/ng and increasingly regulated funds from the state, This is critical if AHIP is m continue its current scope of rehabilitation, especially emergency repairs for low-income elderly homeowners. 2. Support for homeownership financing for first-time purchasers. Although the primary financing might be available at below market interest rates, frequently a family fails to have adequate funds for the down payment and closing costs. The high cost of renting has prevented the ability to save. Often the monthly mortgage is less than the rental payment a fam/ly has been (17) making. The Committee recommends a priority for use of this fund be given to participants or graduates of the County's HOMEBUYERS CLUBs. It is proposed that down payment assistance money be repaid according to ability or deferred to recapture at the rune ofresale. 3. Assistance for the increase of affordable rental opportunities for low-income families. An example might be the provision of equity funding or temporary acquisition funding for a nonprofit to purchase several housing units to serve needy families. This money could be repaid when permanent financing is ach/eve& The Housing Committee proposes that this fund target initiatives that will serve families in the Committee's adopted targeted income ranges: RANGE l: Income between 0 - 35 % of median $ 0 - 17,255 RANGE II: Income between 35 - 50 % 17,255 - 24.650 RANOEIII: Income between 50 - 80% 24,650- 39,440 Disbursements from the fund will be a combination of loans, deferred loans and where necessary As Federal and State funds diminish and disappear, this kind of local funding becomes increasingly necessary in order to leverage and maximize other funds, especially from the private sector, that affordable housing providers are able ~o secure. Failure to create and to capitalize this fund will prevent providers from being able to leverage additional primary private, state, or federal funds or support for affordable housing initiatives in FY98/99. The Housing Committee has met with the members of the Crozet Crossing Trust Fund for the purpose of having this existing trust fund serve as the mechanism for administration ofth/s new trust fund. The members of the Crozet Crossing Board agreed, and voted to change the name to the Albemarle Housing Initiatives Trust Fund, pending State and Board of Supervisors approval. However, there is only $26,000 currently in the fund, and furore capitalization is dependent on the resale of Crozet Crossing units to non-LMI households. To date, there has been one sale which recaptured $19,000. The potential recapture once all 30 homes have sold is $600,000 Albemarle's funding may serve [o encourage the City of Charlottesville and other jurisdictions within Planning District 10 to contribute to the capitalization of this fund and make it regional. (18) H Public Incentives Subcommittee: The purpose of this subcommittee is to study local regulatory barriers and local public incentives which would assist in making affordable housing available to all targeted-income groups, spread among all designated growth area communities. In addition to the work of this subcommittee, two Housing Committee members, Chair Karen Lilleleht and Eric Struco, have been active members of the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee. The primary focus of this year's work has been the study of the tool ofinclusionary zoning to achieve mixed-income housing. The work began with a review of the County's current "grandfathered" Bonus Density program for affordable housing which has never been utilized by a developer (description and comments below.) This led to a review of the possibility of adopt'rog the state's Affo~xtable Dwelling Unit Ordinance to replace the County's ordinance. The state ordinance is an affordable housing program established under section 15.1-491.9 of the Code of Virginia may include the following key features: (I) allow an increase in the developable density of a site in exchange for the developer providing a fixed percentage of the total dwelling units approved as affordable housing (e.g., an increase in the developable density of 20 percent in exchange for 12 ½ percent of the dwellings being affordable housing, or similar density to housing ratio); (ii) allow the reqmrements of the program to apply to developments of 50 or more dwelling units which are at an equivalent density greater than one unit per acre and wiflfin an approved sewer area; (iii) establish County-wide affordable housing sales and rental prices; (iv) grant to the County or its designee the exclusive right to purchase or lease a percentage of the for-sale or rental affordable housing during a limited period after their completion; (v) control the prices of resales and rerentals for a period of 50 years; (vi) establish an affordable housing advisory board; and (vii) offer incentives other than density increases, such as reductions or waiver of permit, development, and infrastructure fees. The review of the state ordinance is suspended until the County Attorney's Office receives an opinion from the State Attorney General's Office as to whether or not the provisions of the state program are mandatory or voluntary if adopted by the County. The County's low and moderate income housing program, contained in the residential zoning district regulations, preceded the adoption of section 15.1-491.9 and is grandfathered in. Its key features are as follows: fl) a density bonus of 30 percent (as compared to the maximum of 20 percent under the authority of section 15.1-491.9) is allowed in exchange for at least 30 percent of the number of units achievable under the gross-density standard level being developed as low or moderate cost housing; there is a cap on the density bonus which varies depending on the zoning district (e.g., in R-10, the cap is 50 percent; in R-15 the cap is 33 percent); (ii) for a period of five years, the initial sales price or rental rate of the low or moderate cost units must quali~ as low or moderate cost housing under certain state and federal housing programs; and (iii) rental (191 rates of low or moderate cost housing are "restricted" for the first five years, or until the tm/ts are sold as low or moderate cost housing, whichever comes first. The subcommittee believes there are several areas of weakness in the County's ordinance: 1.) The ordinance is voluntary. 2.) Although this ordinance allows a higher maximum bonus density increase (30% as compared to the state's 20%) the local ordinance has never been used. 2.) Only the rental milts are restricted as to affordable rent levels for five years. The "for sale" units have no time restrictions or price resale limits. 3.) Currently there is a $30,000 difference between the sales price of the Virginia Housing Development Authority purchase price limitation and the former Farmer's Home Administration loan limit. Also, the ordinance is silent as to who selects the sales limits, the County or the developer. 4.) There are no household income qualifications for potential renters or purchasers. Therefore, any affordable units produced would be available to anyone of any income. During 1998 the subcommittee proposes to draft an alternative ordinance which specifically meets local needs and conditions for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Areas of Continued Concern and study: Alternative water and waste water systems The Housing committee requests that the County stay abreast of new technologies, with the expectation that in the future we may identify quality, alternative systems tlmt meet all concerns. Preservation of crossroads communities in rural areas The Housing Committee will prepare a statement in general support of efforts to preserve the rural areas, and asks the Board to support efforts in preserving and improving the housing of the existing crossroads communities. Waived/funded utility tap fees for low-income housing units The Housing Committee supports waived or funded utility tap fees as a meamngful tool in the overall efforts to reduce the cost of producing affordable housing. If local funding becomes available for the purpose of reducing connection fees, the local housing trust fnnd could manage the allocation and disbursements to qualified builders/developers. (20) HOUSING COMMITTEE NAMES AND ADDRESS APPOINTED TERM EXPIRES REPRESENTS Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr. 0-3- 02 94 ~J2 21-94 Legal Community McGuh-e Woods Battle & Boothe ,~ n~ ,~ ~.~ ~ o-, P O Box 1288 01-01-98 12/31/00 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (ti) 293-5337 (W) 977-2543 Jenny Greenwood 0-3-0-2--94 ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,n~ Real Estate P.O. Box 7332 12/04/96 12/31/99 Charlottesville, VA 22906 (H) 985-7515 (W) 973-9555 Karen V. Lilleleht 0ao_0g_94 ~ o ~ ~ ~.,n~ Charlottesville 2984 Mechum Banks Drive 09-06-95 12-31-98 Housing Foundation Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) 296-8291 (W) 979-0937 Peter G. Hallock n,~ n~, a~.. ~ .,~' n~,, Citizen P. O. Box 138 12/04/96 12/31/99 Keswick, VA 22947 (H) 293-6704 (W) 9734402 Howard Allen ~ 4--2-e~ -94 Citizen 100 Wakefield Court 06-01-94 12-31-97 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) 973-7556 Frances Lee-Vandell 09-06-95 12-31-98 Citizen 2622 Free Union Road (Eft 1-1-96) Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) 293-9893 Eric J. Stmcko 02-05-97 12-31-99 Citizen 1620 Garden Court Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) 973-3815 (W) 924-5199 Ronald N. Whitener 02-05-97 12-31-99 Financial/Banking 1620 Poe's Lane Community Charlottesville, VA 22911 (H) (W) 972-1310 Elva Holland n.~,,, ~,,., ~,n~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~,a" University of University of Virginia 01-01-98 12-31-00 Virginia Gov't & Comm. Relations, Booker House Charlottesville, VA 22906-9012 (H) 293-9160 (W) 924-1018 ALBEMARLE HOUSING OFFICE - TELEPHONE NUMBER: 296-5839 (2t) REVISED 1/98 HOUSING COMMITTEE (Page 2) NAMES AND ADDRESS APPOINTED TERM EXPIRES REPRESENTS Karen Waters 09/03/97 12/31/98 Consumers 499 Seymour Road, Apt 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 (H) 293-3389 Michael Gaffney 09/03/97 12/31/99 Builders Gaffney & Assoc., Inc Custom Builders 2788 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) 978-3159 (W) 978-1884 Betty Via 01-01-98 12-31-98 Property Whitewood Village Apartments Management 211-10 Whitewood Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 (It)978-3749 (W)9734770 Nick Munger, President 12/31/97 12/31/00 A H I P AHIP 700 Harris Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 (H) (W)293-5708 ALBEMARLE HOUSING OFFICE - TELEP11ONE NUMBER: 296-5839 (22) REVISED 1/98 HOUSING TRUST FUND Meeting Schedule: Second Friday of Each Month Room 131, Mint Springs Room 8:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Meeting Dates: February 13, 1998 March 13, 1998 April 10, 1998 May 8, 1998 June 12, 1998 Members Leigh Middleditch, Chair Stuart Armstrong Claudette Grant Jenny Greenwood Peter Hallock Satyendra Huja Frances Lee Vandell Karen Lilleleht Ginnie McDonald Nick Munger Theresa Tapscott Roxanne White Run Whitener January 27, 1998 (~3) PUBLIC INCENTIVES Meeting Schedule: Second Wednesday of each month Room 131, Mira Springs Room 4:00-6:00pm Meeting Dates: February ll, 1998 March 11,1998 April8,1998 May 13, 1998 June 10, 1998 Members Karen Lilleleht, Acting Chair Howard Allen David Benish Michael Gaffney Peter Hallock Karen Hobbs Oreg Kamptner Frances Lee Vandell Ginnie McDonald Nick Munger Eric Strucko Theresa Tapscott Ronald Whitener Karen Waters January 27, 1998 (24) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revenue Projection Update SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Updated FY 1998/99 Revenue Projections STAFF CONTACTIS): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: A~T'rACHMENTS: · REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No X Fiscal Year 1998/99 revenues projected in October 1997 at $96,786,300= have been revised to $99,947,207, an increase of $3,160,907. This amount includes the new meals tax revenue projected to be $2.3 million which has already been allocated on a 60/40 basis between the School Division and Local Government, and $450,391 in State/Federal: revenues which are related primarily to required Social Services programs, leaving $410,516 in additional funding for FY 98/99. This increase is summarized as follows: Local Tax Revenue Other Local Revenue State/Federal Revenues Meals Tax Revenue October 1997 ,January 1998 Variance $ 84,681,600 $ 85,111,000 $ 42g,400 4,788,000 4,769,116 ( 18,884) 7,316,700 7,767,091 450,391 0 2,300,000 2.300.000 Total $ 96,786,300 _$ 99,947.207 $ 3,160,90'~ The only significant change was an increased projection of the real estate tax resulting from new construction and the anticipated reassessment results Based on the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional $257,640 of the $429,400 (60%) leaving $171,760 (40%) for general government. 98.015 OARD OF SU7 5 FEBRUARY 4, 1998 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO CHARLOTTESVILLE'S TRANSITION TO TOWN STATUS AND RELATING TO PROBABLE LITIGATION REGARDING a BUILDING CODE ISSUE. RESOLUTTON WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is the owner of record of certain property identified as the Keene Landfill, Tax Hap 129-2A, located in Southern Albemarle County; WHEREAS, the County has determined that a need exists to acquire certain real property adjacent to the Keene landfill; WHEREAS, the County intends to utilize the acquired property for buffer and related purposes in connection with the closure of the Keene landfill; WHEREAS, the County has conveyed an offer, conditioned upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, to purchase approximately 15 acres of privately-owned property adjacent to the Keene landfill for the per-acre assessed value; and WHEREAS, the property owners have accepted the County's conditional offer. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the purchase of the above-described property according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement and Deed attached hereto, I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to on February 4, 1998. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors David P. Bowerman Rio Charlotte ¥. Humphfis Jack Jouet~ COUNT~ OF ALBEMARLE Office of Beard of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Chaflotl~e, V~rginia 22902 (~)4) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Pefl~ins Sally H. ~om~ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~'~-~ DATE: January 30, 1998 RE: Boards and Commissions The following is a list of vacancies on boards and commissions. Applications for advertised vacancies are attached. BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW, EXPIRE DATE INCUMBENT IF SCHEDULED **COMML~Y,¥10.:V ON CHiI. DREN & 6;30/~001. .. Four citizen members Mere~r ~ga4~la J. G~ . Ruth-~ Pn'nted on recycled paper One youth member Bryson Grover Jeffrey W. Sobel** [MII..,4~.TI'i'ORITI" 4, aO,_O0~. Palric[a L: Smith , /LBH Attachments Note: Applications were also received from Rosemary Bmen; Mary Anna Dann, Lilliari J Morris, Debra S. Abbott, Mark D. Ratzlaff, Miriam Rushfirm, Michelle, Sirch-Stasko and JoAnn Perkins. These individuals are all employed by the government or service agencies. The applications cannot be considered because a requirement of the Department 9f Juvenile Justice is that "A majority of the board shall be citizens who are nor employed by government or service agencies and who are not elected governmental officials." It was staff's understanding that the DJJ was going to change these requirements, but we recently received notice that they did not. If we do not adhere to these requirements, we lose the 550,000 in DJJ funds. Ms. White will contact the individuals who applied and inform them of the requirements, l'n addition, staff is contacting the University of Virginia to recommend that Eric Stmcko be appointed hs their representative. ** Staffalso recommends that Jeffrey Sobel's name be forwarded to the City as the joint private provider appointee. NJH RDNINISTI~TION Fax:804-982-7524 ~ec 5C '97 12,'14 P, O2 County of Albemar~)SARO oF SUPERVISORS County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERV[$OR~ Office of Board of Cottony Supervisors 40l Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION -TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commissien/Committee ~0rnm'tssil~n a~ O,hi AoDlicant's Name ~ll~/h ~f~ ~)~.hm Home Phone q qq ~Jl gLO Magisterial District in which your home residenee is located Mc Employer Phone Business Address Date of Employment Occupation/Title , Years Resident in Albemarle Cotmty iq Previous Residence Spouse's Name. ~.. ~i4f Namber of Children Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) g~ Membershins in Fraternal. B~in~s. Church and/or Social Gren? Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Intere~s Retm to: Clerk, Bo~ ofCo~w Su~so~ Albem~le 401 Melntke Rind C~lo~esvitle, VA 229024596 ~LBEM~RLE COUNTY Fax:804-296-5800 Jan 5 '98 11:t? P.04 County of Albemarle BC ARD OF SUPERVISORS BoardlCummissionlCommit~ Commission on childre~ and Families , Applicant'$ Name Melissa Shields Homo Pheu© 295-3008 Ho~eAddmss 231 C. olonnade Drive #27 Charlottesville, VA. 22903 Magisterial District {n which your hom~ residence is located Employer Multimedia Medical S_vs~ems Phone 295-,,~008 Bu$~¢ssAddres$ 400 Ray C. Hunt Drive, Suite 380 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dat~ofEmploymcnt 10/1/97. Occupation/Title Inside Sale. s Y¢~ Resident in Albcm~Ie County 6 months Sp0~o's Name John Shields Education (l~grfms and Graduation Dat~) B. A., P~vi0usResi~n~ 25~ Cogqins hr. a~10; Pleasant Numb~0fChildmn none Hill, CA English .(1993]; CA Professional Clear Teaching Credential (1994) Memhemhi~inF~temaLBus~ess. Chureh and~r$ocialOmupz National Council Teacher's of E~.qlish Publie. C~,~andCharltablcOfficeand/orOth~A~ivki~orlntc~t~ ~ce Skatinq Re~aann(sl for D~siro to $~rve on this Bosrd / Commission / Cgmmi~ I have a strono inCa,oaf ~n ~h~ committee. First, my backoround..aa . an educator demonstrates my stronq commitment ,~o youth and famil~a~ .I miss havin~ an impaee in this field_ And of ~OllrRgl b~m~llq~ T plan ~ ~o~ pm~ ~ ~s ~pli~oa ~11 ~ ~1~ ~ ~ public ~n ~u~ ~ ~: CI~ ~ ofC~ S.p~i~ C~Io~H~ VA 229024~96 my own family someday, I have an interest as well. I [I MELISSA L SHI~LDS CotonnadeDrive ~e2; Chariot, VA 2290~ (~04) 295- ~g ~~~ * Partigipat~i,~ variet~ of~se~'s~ i~a~aing~ fa~tio~skiils, cous~mu~s~ 23! Co~.rradc Drive g2 C~e~ VA 229O3 Coumy of A~bemar/e Office of Bo~rd of S~rviso~s 40t Me.ire Road Cha~ VA 2~902-4596 To V¢~ It tViay Co~ I te~ve enclosed aa appt~eatioa to serve on ~he Con-auissio~ ou Child~u ~_~d Flmu'tie~ At, hough I am- new t~ the eomm~ty, l~viug moved to Albemarle County. ia ~uly, t feel ~ woukl be a~ asse~ ~ th~ commitZee. Cun~ty I am working il~ Inside Sales m Ivl-~ Medical Systems CMMS) here in C2~lor~-~w31~, bm was previously emplo~ed as ~ higla school English ~eaeher. 1 am ~. xio~ to beeom~ involved in, my new community and think that th~ eo~'s goals a~veryimponanL t Imve alot ofe~ergyto dedical~ to aeausethat I cam about, hw~e a ~am~y iu the f~a~e ~11 would IB~ to help develop and creaie resom~sthat you for you~ ~ mad ~m t hop~ to Imuar tixuu you BOARD OF SU?ERV S©RS County of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun_ty S.upervisors 401 Mclntim Koaa Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 - 5-98P 2:Sa ~ APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMM1 rrEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee. Coarnission on Children and Families Applicant's Name Ruth H. Parsons Home Phone Home Address 15 Lake Forest Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901-1313 804/974-6462 : Magisterlal District in which your home residence is located Rio Employer United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area Phone 804/972-1705 Business Address 2560-D Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4615 DateofEmployment 9/96 Occapation/Tifle Director, Volunteer Cenner Years Residen~ in Albemarle Cotmty 3-1/2 Previous Residence Kerry Lane~ Charlottesville, VA Spouse's Name J. Donald Parsons Number of Children 2 Education (Degrees and Graduatioa Dates). Associates Degree ~n Business, 1965 Membership~ in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Church of the Incarnation {former Pastoral Council Vice Chair) Blue Ridge Corvette Club Public. Civic and CharimbleOffieeand/orOtherAcfivifiesorlnterests State Delegare to the Presidents' Sumnit for America's Future -.. Ronald McDonald House Executive Committee/Board Member NationAl Council of Volunteer Centers B~ard Member Washington Park Renovation Committee; Camp Albemarle Bo'ard Member; JABA RSVP Advisory Council Re~on(~)forDesireto Serveon ~isBoard/Commisslon/Commi~0 My participation at the PresidentS' Sunnit ignited my commitment to provide the five basics all youth in our ~oawamity: a healthy sram, a mentor/role model, safe places to grow and learn, marketable skills through effective education and an opportunity to give back through · t service.. ~ ~ ~atton iir~v, kled on this application Will be released to the public upon request. January 13. 1998 ~ 8ign..,rc Date Retum to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors I am seeking this appointment as a private Albemarle County citizen. Thank you for your consideration. 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 David R Bowerman Charlot~e Y. Humphfis ~ ~. J~. COUNTY OF AI-BEMARI F Office of Board of Supennsors 401 Mcln~h'e Road Charlottesvi]l~ V~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Feburary10,1998 Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr. 540 Manor Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Mr. Brown: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were appointed to the Board of Social Services as the representative from the Rio Magisterial District, with term to expire on December 31,2001. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM.Jr/ewc cc: James L. Camblos, II1 Larry Davis Kathy Ralston c:\wpdo cs\bds&comm\appoin! Printed on recycled paper County of Albemart m D Office of Board of Coun_ty Supervisors 401 McIntiro Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION (please type or prin0 Board/Commission/Committe~ ~oe~c~ o4~ ~oc~{ ~e~c~$ Magisterial District in which your home residence is located /~; o Employer Oo~ ~],'a I Oo~fl>or'a-'Jjoto Phone Date of Employment q/, J9-7 Occupation / Title ~o~$e~ Years Resident in Albemarle County [ ~ Previous Residence Spouse's Name ~dJ%et,~ ~r4ow r3 Number of Chitdmn Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates). ~ g ~>~s?~,,ss Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Group~ Public. Civic and Char/table Office and / or Other Activities or Intere.~'q Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Commillq~ The information provided on this application will b~ released to the public upon reques~ / Signature Return to: Clerk, Board of County Superv/sors Albemarle County 401 Mchtim Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 David ~ l~:)werman Charlotte Y. Humphris COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottes~lle, Vkg'mia 229024596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 2965800 Charles S. M~u~/n W,~ter E Perkins Sally H. Thomm December 16, 1997 Mr. Arthur B. Brown, Jr. 540 Manor Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Mr. Brown: Your completed application form has been received. We appreciate your interest in serving on the Board of Social Services, After the closing date, your application will be distributed to the Board members for their review; for a magisterial district appoinrmem, your application will be forwarded only m the supervisor of your district. Depending on the position and the number of applicants, the Board will decide whether to interview candidates. If you are selected for an interview, you will be notified approximately one month after the application closing date. Although it is not always possible, due to the Board's meeting schedules, or the schedule of individual members, the Board attempts to schedule interviews within 60 days and to make the actual appointment with 90 days of the application deadline. If you have any questions on the status of your application during that time period, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Sen/or Deputy Clerk c:/wpdocs\bds&cotnm\recdapp Printed on recycled paper Da'~d g gowerrnan Charlotie Y.. Humphds Form~ R. Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supep,~sors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, kr~jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804] 296-5800 Charles S. Marlin Ri~nna Walter E Perkins Sally H, Thomm February 10, 1998 Mr. Donald J. Wagner 525 Arrowhead Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Mr. Wagner: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappointed to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board as the representative from the Rio Magisterial District, with term to expire on April 16, 2002. 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 capamry. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chaimaan FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis J. W. Brent Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMAFJ_E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, Vkg4nia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Ri*anna Waiter E Perki~ Sally H. Thomas February 10, t998 Mr. Frank Rice 135 Indian Springs Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Rice: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappointed to the Equalization Board as the representative from the Rio Magisterial District, with term to expireon December 31, 1998. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos. III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell Printed on recycled paper Da~dd ~ Bowerrnan Ch~rloil~ Y Humphtis Fortezt R. Mamha!l. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI .E Office of Board of Sul:~rvmors 401 Mclnlire Road Charlottm-,.,ille, Vh~in'm ,~9.909-4,596 (804) 296--5842 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Marun Walter E Perkim Sall~ H. Thereto Febmary10,1998 Mr. Thomas A. McQueeney 121 Indian Spring Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. McQueeney: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappointed to the Industrial Development Authority as the representative from the Rio Magisterial District, with term to expire on January 19, 2002. On behalf of the Board. I would like to take this opporttmity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Shelby J. Marshall James B. Murray, Jr. Printed on recycled paper David R Bo~erman Cha~o~e Y. Humph~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARI ,E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, 'v'm2inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584~ FAX (804] 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Walter E Perkin~ Whlte H~ Sally H. Thomm February 10, 1998 Mrs. Martha S. G. Orton 603 Big Oak Road' Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mrs. Orton: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were appointed to the Board of Social Services as the representative from the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, wSth term ro expire on December 31,2001. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM,Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Kathy Ralston c: ~wpdocs\b ds&comm\app oint Printed on recycled paper BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Albemarle !2-16-97g~:5'5 Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Koad Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or pr;mO Applicant's Name [v~o.~'~¥~o-.5, Fo-. Ov-T~ HomePhone Magisterial DisUSct in which your home residence is located j o~ ~,~_ Employer ,,~¢-'[-~e-r-ao~ A,r~.~_ ¢o~.~-& ~ow A '~, DateofEmployment Joia. 1, Iq q~7 Occupation/Title Years Resident in Albemarle County ?_~ Previous Residence Spouse'$Nam¢ go~¢}-T N, 0','"'~o~ NumberofChildren Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) lg, A,/ I~C(,/ ~, Memberships in Fraternal Business. Church and/or Social Group;~ ~btie. Civic ~d Ch~mble Office ~d / or ~er Activities or Intem~8 B~ok Cg~ ~ Reason(s} for Desire to Serve on thi~ Board ~Ccmrn..!na~cn / D~ Cle~ B~d of Com~ ~1~ Co~ 401 Mch~ RoN C~lo~ill~, VA 229024596 David P. Bowerman Rio Charlolle Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshali. Jr. COUNTY OF Al I~EMA~I.R Offic~ of Board of Sup~m, isom 401 McIntire Road Charlottezvilh, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804} 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas December 16, 1997 Ms. Martha S. G. Orton 603 Big Oak Road Charlottesville. VA 22903 Dear Ms. Orton: Your completed application form has been received. We appreciate your interest in serving on the Board of Social Services. After the closing date, your application will be distributed to the Board members for their review; for a magisterial district appointment, your application will be forwarded only to the supervisor of your district. Depending on the position and the number of applicants, the Board will decide whether to interview candidates. If you are selected for an interview, you will be notified approximately one month after the application closing date. Although it is not always possible, due to the Board's meeting schedules, or the schedule of individual members, the Board attempts to schedule interviews within 60 days and to make the actual appointment with 90 days of the application deadline. If you have any questions on the status of your application during that time period, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk c:\wp docs\bds &commkr ecdapp PHnted on recycled paper Charlol~ Y. Humphfis COUNTY OF Al REMAR! F Office of Board of Supendsors 401 Mclntire Ro~d (804) 296584.3 FAX I804) 296-5800 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perkir~ Febmary10,1998 Mr. James E. Clark, Jr. 1130 Oak Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Clark: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappoimed to the Equalization Board as the representative from the Scottsville Magisterial District, with tema to expire on December 31, t998. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opponurdry ro express ~e Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Brace Woodzell Printed on recycled paper Da'Md P. Bowerman Charlotie X Humphris Formst I~ Marshall. Jr. COUNI'Y OF ALBEMARLE Offic~ of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdniire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804] 296-5800 Chades S. Martin Walter E Perkins S~ H. Thomm February 10, 1998 Mr. Robert R. Humphris 109 Falcon Drive, Colthurst Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Humphris: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappoimed to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board as the representative from the Jack Iouett Magisterial District, with term to expire on April 16, 2002. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this oppommity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis J. W. Brent Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Cha~lot~ Y, Humph~s COUNTY OF ,~! I%EMARI _E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottem~e, V'agin~a 22902-4,596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX [804) 296-.5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perk/r~q Sall~ H. Thomes Samuel M;Uer February 10, 1998 Mr. James E. Clark, Jr. 1130 Oak Hill Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Clark: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappointed to the Equalization Board as the representative from the Scottsville Magisterial District, with tem~ to expire on December 31, 1998. 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, Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewc cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Brace Woodzell Printed on recycled paper Charlott, Y. Humph-is Formst R, Ma.-shalL ,Ir. COUNTY OF Al REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlotm-qville. Vng4nia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Maran Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thoma~ February 10, 1998 Mr. Robert R. Humphris 109 Falcon Drive, Colthurst Charlottesville. VA 22901 Dear Mr. Humphris: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were reappoimed to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board as the representative from the Jack Jouett Magisterial District, with term to expire on April 16, 2002. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM, Jr./ewe cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis J. W. Brent Printed on recycled paper CharJol~e Y. Humphfis Forrea R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville. Vhginia 22.902--4596 {804) 296-5843 FAX t8041 296-5800 {2hatles S. Mmiin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Febmary10,1998 Mr. Bryson Grover 1362 Sandown Lane Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Mr, Grover: . At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were appointed to the Commission on Children and Families, as the youth representative, for a one-year term. For your information, attached is a copy of the duties/functions and proposed makeup of the Committee. Someone from the County Executive's office will be contacfmg you in the near future to schedule the first meeting. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take tiffs opportun/ty to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM,Jr/ec cc: Roxarme White Larry W. Davis James L. Camblos, III Printed on recycled paper January 6, 1998 &lbemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va 22902 Attn: Roxanne White, Commission on Youth and Children I would like to recommend Bryson Grover as a volunteer for the Commission on Youth and Children. Bryson is a sophomore at Albemarle High School, a member of the Key Club, a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, an Honor Roll student, and is active in his church youth group. Please feel free to call me and discuss my recommendation of fine young student. Sincerely, ~or°nne Brown ~ Albemarle High School this YJB:jbt "A School For Everyone: Nothing Less Than The Best" David R Bowerman Charlotte Z Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF AT BEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisms 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Vkginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles $. Mar~n Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Febmary10,1998 Mrs. Martha S. G. Orton 603 Big Oak Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Mrs. Orton: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 4, 1998, you were appointed to the Board of Social Services as the representative from the Samuel Miller Magisterial District, with term ro expire on December 31, 2001. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness ro serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM,Jrdewc cc: James L. Camblos. III Larry Davis Kathy Ralston c:\wp docs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County of Albemarle ~2-16-97a~' :56 RCVD Office of Board of Coumy Supervisors 401Mclntiro Road Charlottesville. VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Applicant'sN~me ~4~a,w~[~o.-..~, (J-, Ow"~o~ HomePhone '2-qS-q3q3 Magisterial Dislrict in which your home residence is located5 Employer O~-J~}-Jo~. A~- ¢oO.~-,~ {2o~-A3, ,3 Phone Dat~ofEmployment 5~-~. l, iq q7 Occupation/Tit/e D[re~'ow o~7 Cov~,,C,~f¥ Years Resident in Albemarle County '2_ Previous Residence lrl~-v~- Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) lg, A, / I q ~' ~/ H, A, I q (~ 7/ Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Group~ ~blic. Civi~ ~d Ch~bl~ O~e~ ~d / or ~er A~vities or In~s Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Boarcl¢Ecm,.m{gg{cn / Co~..r.~c,~ The information provided on this application will be relea~xt to the public upon request. Signature Dat~ Remm to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902459~ David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forres~ R. MamhalL Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMAR! F Office of Board of Supmvimm 401 Mclnfim Road Charlottesville, Vtrflinia 2290'24596 (8041 296-5843 FP~X I804) 296-5800 Charles S. Mm~n Walt~r E Perkins Sally H. Thomas December 16, 1997 Ms. Martha S G. Orton 603 Big Oak Road Charlottesville. VA 22903 Dear Ms. Orton: Your completed application form has been received. We appreciate your interest in serving on the Board of Social Services. After the closing date, your application will be distributed to the Board members for their review; for a magisterial district appointment, your application will be forwarded only to the supervisor of your district. Depending on the position and the number of apphcants, the Board will decide whether to interview candidates. If yon are selected for an interview, you will be notified approximately one month after the application closing date. Although it is not always possible, due to the Board's meeting schedules, or the schedule of individual members, the Board attempts to schedule interviews within 60 days and to make the actual appointment with 90 days of the application deadline. If you have any questions on the status of your application during that time period, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk c:xwpdocs\bds&commkrecdapp Pdnted on recycled paper Bill Tracking - 1998 session Page 1 of 1 987000667 SENATE BILL NO. 605 Offered January 26, 1998 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered I0.1-1424~Z relating to vehicles carrying solid waste. Patrons-- Hawkins, Trumbo and Woods Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is mended by adding a section numbered 10.1-1424.2 as follows: ~'10.1-1424.2. Vehicles carrying solidwaste. Any truck or trailer ased for the purpose of hauling municipal solid waste, as defined in the Board's regulations, to a solid waste disposal facility for disposal shall be designed and constructed for the sole purpose of transporting municipal solid waste. The provisions of this section shall not apply to an individual hauling any municipal solid waste generated from his own residence or commercial establishment. ~..~ Go to (General Assembly Home) http://legl .state.va.us/cgi-birdlegp504798 l+ful+SB605 2/5/98