Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-04 FINAl. JUNE& 199Y 9:00 A.M. MEETING ROOM 241. COUNTY ()FFICE BUILI)ING 3~ 4) 6~ 7) 8) 10~ ill 12) 13~ 15l 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 2D Cai1 to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Presentation of Certificate of Appredation. Presentation of Community Profile by Ms. Susan Gardner. Virginia Power. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC, Approval of Minutes: April 9, 1997. Consent Agenda (on next sheet'l. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 29 North. median landscaping. Discussion: Route 20 South improvements. Other Transportation Matters. Presentation: Alliance Report on Proposed Children. Youth and Family Commission. ' t0:00 a,m: Public Hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2. Administration, Arfide I, In General. of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1. Compensation of board of superdsors. This amendment will increase die regtflar salary of each Board member by $328.00, to establish compensation at S9,696.00 per year. Presentation by Nancy, IC O'Brien: VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan. and request adoption of resolution. Request from }ohn Dortidr to set a public heating to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water only to existing srruc~ure(s~ on Tax Map 62. Parcel 24B. Request from Forest Lakes Associates ro set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to Forest Lakes. Tax Map 46, Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcd 1. Request from Irving and Carol Gottesman to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaties of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer to undevdoped lot, Tax Map 60, Parcel 70D. Presentation: Final Report of the Wireless Telecommtmications Task Force. Appointments. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. Adiourn. CONSENT AG.ENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8. I Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY t997-98 Operating Budget. 8.2 Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Budget an&Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds. 8.3 Appropriation: Education. $3.550 (Form #96079). 8.4 Adopt Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative. 8.5 Proclamation Congratulating The Municipal Band on its Seventy-Fifth Anniversary. FOR INFORMATION: 8.6 Household Water Quality Program Final Report. 8.7 Copy of memorandum dated May 22. 1997, from Richard E. Huff, II, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr.. re: Free State Bridge Road. 8.8 Copy of Tentative Construction Fund Allocations for Fiscal Year t 997-98 for Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems. as well as Public Transit_ Ports and Airports, including update of Six Year Improvement Program through Fiscal Year 2002-03. 8.9 Letter dated May 22. 1997. from Joseph J. Rein, III, United States Postal Service, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that the Batesville Post Office will remain in its current location. 8.10 Copy of letter dated May 23. 1997. from Patrick K. Mullaney, Director. Parks and Recreation. ro William L. Woodfin. Jr., Director_ Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. re: planning and development of Priddy Creek property. 8.11 Copy of Orders of Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUE960036. i995 Annual Informational Filing, and Case No. PUE960296, Alternative Regulatory Plan. as filed with the State Corporation Commission. 8.12 Copy of public notice from the Department of Environmental Quality, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0028398. Avionics Specialties. 8.13 Notice from rite Federal Communications Commission in the matter of Adetphia Communications Corporation, Final Resolution of Cable Programming Service Rate Complaints, 8.14 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of April. 1997. 8.15 Letter dated May 30. 1997, from Angela G. Tucker. Resident Highway Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding transportation matters discussed at the May 7th Board meeting. David P. Bowerman CharloRe Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF,~ REMARIL~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, V'mginia 22902-4,596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Matin Walter E perkins Sally H. Tiaomas MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development W. Carey, CMC, Cler~)C/ Ella June 6, 1997 Board Actions of June 4, 1997 At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on May 21, 1997, the following actions were taken: Agenda ItemNo. 1. Call to Order. Meeting called to order at 9:04 a.m. by the ChaL,~nan, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 4. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation. Mrs. Humphris presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Stephen N. Rtmkle who served on the Housing Committee from March 2, 1994 to April 30, 1997. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Community Profile by Ms. Susan Gardner, Virginia Power. Ms. Susan Gardner presented the new publication "Albemarle County Community Profile" to the Board. She will provide the County with 2,000 additional copies. Printed on recycled paper Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 2 Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Steven Stem spoke in support of the Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative. This initiative is an attempt to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Item 8.1. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 Operating Budget. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Item 8.2. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Budget and Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds. ADOPTED the attached Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program and Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures for Various Public Improvements with Proceeds of Bonds. Item 8.3. Appropriation: Education, $3,550 (Form #96079). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item 8.4. Adopt Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative. ADOPTED the attached resolution which has been forwarded to Steven Stem. Item 8.5. Proclan~ation Congratulating The Municipal Band on its Seventy-Fifth Anniversary. ADOPTED the attached resolution which has been forwarded to The Municipal Band. Item 8.10. Copy of letter dated May 23, 1997, from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation, to Mr. William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, re: planning and development of Priddy Creek property. Mr. Perkins suggested forwarding a copy of this letter to the Governor. Board members concurred. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 3 Item 8.12. Copy of public notice from the Department of Environmental Quality, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0028398, Avionics Specialties. David Hirsclxman to provide the Board a copy of his comments for its information. Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters Discussion: Route 29 North Trees. Directed staff to work with Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, Mr. Mitch Van Yahres and Mr. David Tice to take another look at the project and see if there are any species within the realm of VIX)T's standards that can be merged between the large and medium size trees that may work. Staff to also Iook at survivability of the trees. Agenda Item No. 9b. Discussion: Route 20 South improvements: Mr. Tucker suggested that signage and selective enforcement be used to handle traffic on Route 20 South near Monticelio High School: Agenda Item No. 9c: Other Transportation Matters~ Mrs. Thomas said the residents appreciate the maintenance VDOT scheduled for Gillums Ridge Road. They already see an improvement. Mrs. Thomas said she received an E-mail from someone expressing concern about the steep drop offun either side of Route 682, where the new road approaches Route 250. Construction is going on now, but the people who use the road think it looks quite dangerous. She asked VDOT to do whatever is necessary to get guardrails installed as quickly as possible. She commented that there are orange warning cones to let people know about the drop off. Ms. Tucker said the contractor is in the f'mal days of completing the project and a final inspection will be done shortly. She believes the guardrails should be installed as soon as the weather changes. Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on West Leigh Drive. Ms. Tucker said in the next two weeks, VDOT should have a firmer construction estimate by which the Board can base a resolution. VDOT needs a resolution from the Board in order to insert this rural addition into the Six Year Plan during this Fall's revision. She hopes to have the information so that a resolution Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 4 can be adopted at the July 2nd Board meeting. Basically there needs to be a guarantee of public rights-of-way which she believes the property owners are working on. The project then is listed in the Six Year Plan for funding, Mr. Perkins said he appreciates Ms. Tucker looking into the things he requested. Mr. Martin asked if VDOT is looking at the amount of traffic ~:aveling Route 29 North crossing over the southbound lane into GE Fanuc while at the same time people exiting Briarwood are turning right into the southbound lane of Route 29. It is such a commotion every morning and afternoon. There is a caution light at the first entrance, but none at the second entrance. He asked if VDOT is aware of the problem. Ms. Tucker said as a result of catls from citizens, VDOT has scheduled a signal analysis at that location. She added that a problem VDOT has at that location is the southbound lanes of Route 29 just north of its intersection with Route 763, does not allow for the appropriate sight distance or stopping distance that would be needed for a driver coming over that hill. A signal at that location would perhaps trade off some of the security of these side streets for incidences along the Route 29 corridor, if that signal was not visible from a proper distance. Mr. Martin said he is not advocating a signal that would be there all day. He suggested a signal that would be used for a period of an hour in the mornings and the afternoons. He asked that VDOT look at possibilities. Mrs. Thomas referred to the rail transportation program and a recent the a~icle in the newspaper regarding Amtrak. She said it seems that communities in Virginia should get together and apply some pressure to get a car added to Amtrak at the border of North Carolina and Virginia. This could possibly help cut down on traffic on Route 29 North. Ms. Tucker said such requests are also made at the Primary Preallocation Hearing held in Culpeper in the Spring. She has transcripts available ofthe last hearing where people presented their funding requests on behalf of Amtrak and public transit projects. If it would be helpful to review the transcript, along with other information, she would be happy to share those records with the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to do that so that a request can be included in the Board's next preallocation hearing presentation. Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Tucker for the traffic study at Rio Road and Old Brook Road. He noted that the study showed a dramatic change in traffic in the last six months and a signal will be installed. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 5 Mr. Bowerman asked what was the status of the bridge on Free State Road. The maintenance report indicated that bridge is currently at eight tons, but is in poor to fair condition. There were a number of items listed that need to be replaced. He asked what was the course of action if the repairs are not done and the bridge continues to deteriorate. He asked if VDOT will lower the weight ton posted. Ms. Tucker said she has been informed by CSX that the bridge on Route 651, Free State Road, is the next location scheduled for repairs. This will be done after they leave the CSX bridge on Route 633. She thinks it will happen late summer to early fall. At that time, CSX will address generally those concerns outlined on the inspection report. She thinks they will try to stabilize the slopes; replace bridge timbers and strengthen the rail system. She was told they would do the'n: best, within their costs, to maintain the bridge at the eight ton posting. It does allow for school buses, but not emergency vehicles. She believes they are required to mainta'm a posting that ~vill allow vehicular traffic which would not be a school bus, but the intent is to maintain the eight ton posting. These improvements should be sufficient to maintain the eight ton posting until the bridge comes up for replacement inthe Six Year Plan. Mrs. Humphris said she heard a radio report that there was going to be a delay in the widening of the last segment on Route 29 North because of changes to the terminus of the proposed; western bypass. Ms. Tucker said she did not know anything about that and would checkit out: Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT is planning to do anything to the curvy section of Rio Road. Ms. Tucker said due to incidences along that section, VDOT has received approval for use of some safety funds. Unfortunately, the funding is not available until October, 1997. Also, VDOT is having difficulty with the right-of-way, they will be working from minimal plans. VDOT's first task is to do a survey once the safety funds become available. Hopefully the project will be underway in the spring or summer of 1998. Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: Alliance Report on Proposed Children, Youth and Family Commission. APPROVED the Alliance's proposed plan for a stronger and more effective coord/nating body for children, youth and family programs and services. Staff to work with the Alliance to develop the charge, membership and implementation procedures for the new commission for the Board's fmal approval and appointment of members. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V~ Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 6 Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, o£the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary o£each Board member by $328.00, to establish compensation at $9,696.00 per year. ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend the County Code. Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation by Nancy K. O'Brien: VENTURE Regional Strategic Plun, and request adoption of resolution. ADOPTED the attached resolution to approve the VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan. The resolution has been forwarded to Nancy O'Brien. Agenda Item No. 13. Request from John Dorder to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water only to existing structure(s) on Tax Map 62, Parcel 24B. SET public hearing for 10:30 a.m., July 2, 1997. Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Forest Lakes Associates to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer to Forest Lakes, Tax Map 46, Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. SET public hearing for 10:40 a.m., July 2, 1997. The Board included Tax Map 46, Parcel 97B, in the request. Agenda Item No. 15. Request from Irving and Carol Gottesman to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer to undeveloped lot, Tax Map 60, Parcel 70D. DENIED request for public hearing. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 7 Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation: Final Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force. SET a work session on this item for July 2, 1997. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Reappointed Mi-. Paul C. Harris, Sr. and Dr. Maurice H. Lipper to the Children and Youth Commission, with terms to expire on June 30, 2000. Reappointed Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnette and Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr., to the Advisory Council on Aging, with terms to expire on May 31, 1999. Reappointed Mr. Sanford P. Wilcox to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with term to expire on March 31, 1999. Reappointed Mr. Vernon W. Jones to the Industrial Development Authority, with term to expire on January 19, 2001. Appointed Mr. Gregory W. Edwards to the Purchase of Development Rights Committee. Reappointed Mr. Clark C. Jackson to the Community College Board of Directors, with term to expire on June 30, 2001. Recommended the appointment of Mr. Jeffrey W. Soebel to the Community Policy and Management Team. This recommendation has been forwarded to City Council, as it is a joint appointee, Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mi'. Perkins said he received a letter from a constituent expressing concerns about deer and automobiles. He suggests the County implement some form of deer control program, but before anything can be done, there needs to be records from the Police Department on the number of automobile and deer collisions. Mr. Perkins handed Mr. Tucker the letter for reference. Mr. Tucker said he would look into it. The Board agreed to hear ZMA-96-24, N&S, L.L.C., on June 18th. The meeting will be held in Auditorium. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: June 6, 1997 Page: 8 Mr. Marshall said he would be out-of-town beginning July 6th for two weeks, Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session. At 12:30 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to Boards and Commissions and an administrative evaluation and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, probable litigation relating to a claim for attorneys' fees and probable litigation relating to a public safety incident. Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Executive Session At 4:14 p.m. the Board reconvened into open session. Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn At 4:17 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. EC/lbh Attachments: cc: Richard E. Huff, ti Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari File Chmiotte¥. Humph~ Fort~t R. ~h~ll. &. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlottesville. Vrrginia ~29024596 (804) 296584,3 FAX (804) 296-.5800 Chmtes S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas June 9. t997 Mrs. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on June 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 9a. TransportadonMatters: Discussion: Route 29 North. median landscaping Mr. Tucker suggested staff take another look at this project with the help of Peggy VanYahres. Mitch VanYahres and David Tice and any species that are within the realm of VDOT standards to see if there cannot be some merger between the large and medium size tree that maybe we can ~vork out. including the survivability issue. Agenda Item No. 9b. Discussion: Route 20 South improvements. Mr. Tucker suggested some type of signage might help with speeding and selective police enforcement. Agenda Item No. 9c. Other Transportation/Matters. Mrs. Thomas said the residents appreciate the maintenance VDOT scheduled for Gillmns Ridge Road. They already see an improvement. Mrs. Thomas said she received an E-mail from someone expressing concern about the steep drop off on either side of Route 682. where the newroad approaches Route 250. Constructionis going on now, but the people who use the road think it looks quite dangerous. She asked VDOT to do whatever is necessaryro get guardrailsinstalledas quickly as possible. She commented that there are orange warning cones to let people know about the drop off. Mrs. Tucker said the contractor is in the final days of completingthe project and a final inspection w/Il be done shortly. She believes the guardrails should be installed as soon as the weather changes, Printed on recycled paper Angela G. Tucker Iune 9. 1997 Page 2 Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on WestLeigh Drive, Mrs. Tucker said in the next t~vo ~veeks. VDOT should have a firmer construction estimate by which the Board can base a resolution. VDOT needs g resolution from the Board in oraer to insert this rural addition into the Six Year Plan during this Fall's revision. She hopes to have the information so that a resolution can be adopted at the July 2nd Board meeting. Basically there needs to be a guarantee of public rights-of-way which she believes the property owners are working on. The project then is listed in the Six Year Plan for funding. Mr. Perkins said he appreciates Mrs. Tucker looking into the things he requested. Mr. Martin asked if VDOT is looking at the mount of traffic traveling Route 29 North crossing over the southbound lane into GE Fanuc while at the same time people exiting Briarwood are turning right into the southboundlane of Route 29. It is such a commotion every morning and afternoon. There is a caution light at the first entrance, but none at the second entrance. He asked if VDOT is aware of the problem. Mrs. Tucker said as a result of calls from citizens. VDOT has scheduled a signal analysis at that location. She added that a problem VDOT has at that location is the southbound lanes of Route 29 iust north of its intersection with Route 763. does not allow for the appropriate sight distance or stopping distance that would be needed for a driver coming over that hill. A signal at that location would perhaps trade off some of the security of these side s~reers for incidences along the Route 29 corridor, if that signal was not visible from a proper distance. Mr. Martin said he is'not advocating a signal that would be there ali day. He suggested a signal that would be used for a period of an hour in the mornings and the afternoons. He asked that VDOT look at possibilities. Mrs. Thomas referred to the rail transportaF~on program and a recent the article in the newspaper regarding Amtrak. She said it seems that communities in Virginia should get together and apply some pressure to get a car added to Amtrak at the border of North Carolina and Virganla. This could possibly help cut down on traffic on Route 29 North. Mrs. Tucker said such requests are also made at the Primary Preallocation Hearing held in Culpeper in the Spring. She has transcripts available of the last hearing where people presented their funding requests on behalf of Amtrak and public transit projects. If it would be helpful to review the transcript, along with other information, she would be happy to share those records with the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to do that so that a request can be included in the Board's next preallocation hearing presentation. Mr. Bowerman thanked Mrs. Tucker for the traffic study at Rio Road and Old Brook Road. He noted that the study showed a dramatic change in traffic in the last six months and a signal will be installed. Mr. Bowerman asked what was the status of the bridge on Free State Road. The maintenance report indicated that bridge is currently at eight tons. but is m poor to fair condition. There were a number of items l~sted that need to be replaced. He asked what was the course of action if the repairs are not done and the bridge continues to deteriorate. He asked if VDOT will lower the weight ton posted. Mrs. Tucker said she has been informed by CSX that the bridge on Route 651. Free State Road. is the next location scheduled for repairs. This will be done after they leave the CSX bridge on Route 633. She thinks it will happen late summer to early fall. At that time_ CSX will address generally those concerns outlined on the inspection report. She thinks they will try to stabilize the slopes; replace bridge timbers and strengthen the rail system. She was told they would do their best, within their costs, to maintain the bridge at the eight ton posting. It does allow for school buses, but not emergency vehicles. She believes they are required to maintain a posting that will allow vehicular traffic which would not be a school bus, Angela G. Tucker June 9. 1997 Page 3 but the intent is to maintain the eight ton posting. These improvements should be sufficient to maintain the eight ton posting until the bridge come¢ t_~p for replacement in the Six Year Plan. Mrs. Humphris said she heard a radio report that there was going to be a delay in the widening of the last segment on Route 29 North because of changes to the terminus of the proposed western bypass. Mrs. Tucker said she did not know anything about that and would check it out. Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT is planning to do anything to the curvy section of Rio Road. Mrs. Tucker said due to inddences along that section. VDOT has received approval for use of some safety funds, Unfortunately. the fundingis not available until October. 1997. A/so, VDOT is having difficulty with the right-of-way, they will be working from minimal plans. VDOT's first task is to do a survey once the safety funds become available. Hopefully the project will be underway in the spring or summer of 1998. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk / EWC cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~C)~ June 9. 1997 Board Actions of June 4, 1997 At its meeting on June 4, 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item 8.1. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation for FY 1997-98 Operating Budget. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Item 8.2. Adopt Resolution of Appropriation forFY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Budget and Resolu- tion of Official Intent foruse of VPSA Bond Proceeds. ADOPTED the attached Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program and Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures for Various Public Improvements with Proceeds of Bonds Item 8.3. Appropriation: Education. $3,550 (Form #96079), APPROVED. Attached is the s~gned form. Agenda Rem No. I 1. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Admini- stration. Article I, In General. of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by $328.00, to establish compensation at $9,696.00 per year. ADOPTED the attached ordinance to amend the Cotmty Code. /ewe Attachments (5) pc: Richard E. Huff, II _ Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman ~ ISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPRCPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION REQUEST NTJMBER 96079 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X SCHOOL DONATION FROM STONE ROBINSON PTO FOR SCIENCE NIGHT. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1221061101601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES $500.00 1221061101800200 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 350.00 1221061411800100 9LACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 2,700.00 TOTAL S3,550.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000181109 DONATION S3,550.00 TOTAL S3,550.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE · .'TOPOGRAPHY .' .' ". :'- 'AND CLIMATE · ,:Mb6marleCt~unty'~ tppog- rap]V.rangcs kom.mc. '. . .Monntams. ~N]nlq the County expe..riences; fohr ' a gei!erally m6derate.clff~a~e prevails with the.monfhl.(' .menn.forjJantary bcihg 35 degreps, ond the monthly : ,m.'ean fo~.];Ictl.y be!sg :77 .... ·. ' 4egrees.'A:x:erage'at'mual.. : :'-' . pr~cipita'~ion ]'k 46 inches .... .: , :: '. · '. ' ' · . · '".. · .... ' and Uh~ ak:crhge' annual snoWJ To: From: Subject: Date: Members. Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey. CMC. :keading List for June 4. 1997 Hay 30 1997 April 9, 1997 - pages I --9~,L~,,, ~-~ .... Mars~'~atl · k ........ ~)'- cl~d - ~-~l~, .... ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE  :54 RCVD )5-29-~??0! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1997-98 Operating Budget Resolution of Appropriation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Reauest Approval of the Resolution of Appropriation for the Albemarle County FY 1997-98 Operating Budget STAFF CONTACT,S): Messrs. Tucker, White, Breeden AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACH M ENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The FY 1997-98 Operating Budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1997 in the amount of $126,628,365. The attached FY 1997-98 Resolution of Appropriation provides the Board' s authority for the County to spend those funds effective July 1, 1997. DISCUSSION: The only significant changes to the FY 1997-98 budget adopted in Apdl is the reduction in regular School Fund operations in the amount of $39,536, to match total anticipated revenues from the State; and a $303,373 reduction in Self-Sustaining Fund operations, due to double counting an interfund transfer between the School Fund and the Self-Sustaining Funds. With these reductions, the total FY 1997/98 County Operating Budget is $126,285,456, which includes $41,074,848 in general government operations, $71,377,147 in regular school operations, $6,387,581 in self-sustaining school operations, and $7.445,880 for School Division debt service payments and debt service reserve funds. Another change to bring to your attention is the addition of several other funds to the resolution of appropriation this year: the Comprehensive Services Act Fund, the At-Risk 4 Year Old Program ("Bright Stars") Fund, the Toudsm Fund, the Towe Memodal Park Fund and the Emergency Communications Center Fund. These funds, mentioned in the "Other Funds" section of the resolution, have been included for purposes of convenience, so that the Board will not have to take separate action to appropriate these funds at a later date. These other funds, which total $4,157,222, remain outside the County's operating budget and do not increase the County's total budget of $126 million. The FY 1997/98 Resolution of Appropriation appropriates funding in the following major categories of expenditures, as shown on the following page: FY 1997i~)SAPPROP~RiATi0N OF FUNDS General Government TaxRefunds General Management Judicial Public Safety Public Works Hurnan Services Parks. Recrea~on & Cullure Community Development Jail Expansion Reserve Capital Outlays Revenue Sha ring Suba3tal General Government $51,700 $5,627,146 $2,004,859 $10,412,182 $2,195,044 $6,710,384 $3,597,976 $2,534,164 $2,323,000 $5,518,393 $41,074,848 School Division School Fund Olher School Funds School Debt Service School DebtService Reserve Subtotal School Division $71,377,147 $6,387,581 $6,845,880 $600,000 $85,210,608 TOTAL FY 1997/98OPERATING BUDGET 26,285,456 Other Funds Comprehensive Services Act Fund At-R isk 4Year Old ("BrightSlars") Program Tourism Fund To~e Memodal Park Fund E me rge ncy Ope ralJons Ce nte r Fund TOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,487,003 $220,4-16 $585,600 $192,785 $1,671,418 $4,157,222 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Appropriation that allocates a total of $126.285,456 to General Government, the School Division and Debt Service funds, and a total of $4,157.222 among the various County funds for the Fiscal Year 1997-98. 97.108 ANNUAL RESOLUTION OFAPPROPRIA'I]ON OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE RSCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAIN~'n bythe Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OFALBEMARLE VIRGINIA: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT Thatthe following sums of money be and the same hereby am appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein s pecilied for the ~scal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS: 1. Refunds and Abatements $51.700 $51 ,?00 Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENTANDSUPPORT 1. Board of Supervisors $291,252 2. CountyAttorney $409,015 3. County Executive $585,610 4. Elections $184,762 5. Finance $2,350,491 6. Human Resources $287,402 7. Information Services $1,518,614 $5,627,146 $5,627,'146 Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL 1. Cimuit Court $71,880 2. Clerk of the Circuit Court $496,352 3. Commonwealth's Attorney $465,189 4. General Distdct Court ~ $12,830 5. Juvenile Court $78,382 6. Magistrate $17,588 7. Sheriff $862,638 $2,004,859 $2,004,859 Paragraph Four: PUBLICSArr-~¥ 1. CommunityAttention Home 2. CommunityAttention Home - VJCCCA '3. Community Cdminal Justice Board 4. Emergency Communications Center (E-911) 5. Fire Department (City) 6. Fire/Rescue Administration 7. Fire/Rescue Credit 8. Forest Fire Extinction Se[vice 9. Inspections 10. Juvenile Detention Home 11. Offender,~id and Restoration (OAR) 12. Police Department 13. RegionaI Jail Authority 14. SPCAContract 15. Volunteer Fire Departments [JCFRA) 16. Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA) Paragraph Rve: PUBUCWORKS 1. Engineering 2. Solid Waste 3. Staff Services Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES 1. ChMIle/Albemarle Legal ~d Society (GALAS) 2. Charlottesville Free Clinic 3. Children and Youth Commission (CACY) 4. Children, Youth and Family Services ICYFS) 5. District Home 6. FOCUS - Teensight 7. Health Department 8. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (J,~BA) 9. JABA- Adult Health Care Facility 10. JAUNT 11. Madison House 12. Piedmont~rginia CommunityCollege (PVCC) 13. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) 14. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) 15. SociaIServices 16. Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled 17. Region Ten CommunityServices 18. Region Ten Facility Expansion $63,915 $174,268 $3,865 $1,057,524 $641~90 $480,171 $59.020 $13.800 $676,372 $123,905 $39,680 $6,034,737 $236,585 $29,280 $585,275 $192,495 $10 412,182 $1,030,556 $189,935 $974,553 $2,195,044 $16,610 $5,150 $26 566 $35 035 $41 100 $20 205 $668 370 $118 580 $14 4OO $285 875 $4,545 $8,284 $20,190 $61,840 $4,829,269 $220,000 $259,365 $75,000 $6,710,384 $10,412,182 $2,195,044 $6,710,384 Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE 1. Darden Towe Memorial Park 2. Library 3. Literacy Volunteers 4. Parks and Recreation 5. Piedmont Council ofthe Arts 6. Transfer: Tourism 7. Virginia Discovery Museum 8. WVPT Public Television $108,990 $1,685,260 $15,750 $1,177,666 $8,855 $585,600 $8,855 $7,000 $3,597,976 $3,597,976 Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT 1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (,N-lIP) 2. Housing Once 3. Monticello Area Comm unity Action Agency (MACAA) 4. Planning and Community Development 5. Planning Disffict Commission (TJPDC) 6. Route 29 Bus Service 7. Soil and Water Conservation 8. VPI Extension Sen/ice 9. Zoning $357.375 $378,250 $60,335 $973,294 $62,886 $46,556 $30,075 $140,021 $485,572 $2,534,164 $2,534,164 Paragraph Nine: CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND I Jail Expansion Reserve $100,000 $100,D00 Paragraph Ten: CAPITAL OUTLAYS 1 General Govemment Capital Improvement Program 2. School Division Capital Improvement Program 3. Stormwater Fund Paragraph Eleven: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT 1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $1,713,000 $500,D00 $110,900 $2.323,D00 $5,518,393 $2,323,000 $5,518,393 Paragraph Twelve: OTHER USES OFFUNDS 1. School Division Debt Service/Debt Reserve Fund 2. School Fund $7,445,880 $46,091,436 $53,537,316 $53,537,316 SUMMARY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Revenue from General Fund Balance Revenue fi.om the Commonwealth Revenue fi.om the Federal Government $87,382,847 $2,687 $4,932,893 $21293,737 $94,612,164 TotalGENERALFUNDresources available forfiscalyear ending June 30,1998: $94~12,164 $94,612,164 SECTION I1: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND That the following sums of money be and the same herebyare appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND 1. Administration. Attendance & Health $3 ~326,588 2. Debt Service Fund $295,922 3. Facilities Co nsfi.u ction/Modificafion $109,364 4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance $7,101,271 5. Ins~uction $54 885,936 6. Pupil Transportation Services $4,871,850 7. Other Uses of Funds $786~216 $71,377,147 $71,377,147 SUMMARY Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue fi.om Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) Revenue fi.om Local Sources Revenue fi.om School Fund Balance Revenue fi.om the Commonwealth Revenue fi.om the Federal Government $46,091,436 $543,220 $133,670 $23,926,086 $682~735 $71,377,147 To~IREGULARSCHOOLFUNDresources avai~bleforf~calyear ending June 30~1988: $71,377,147 $71,377,147 SECTION II1: OTHERSCHOOL FUNDS 'R~at the following sums ofmoneybe and the same herebyare appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be appo~oned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: FOODSERVICES 1. Maintenance/Operafion of School Cafeterias $2,041,764 $2,041,764 SUMMARY Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government $1,330,677 $45,584 $665,503 $2,041,764 TotalFOOD SERviCES resources availab~forfiscalyear ending June 30,1998: $2,041,764 $2,041,764 Paragraph Two: ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE 1. Food Service $384.760 SUMMARY Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sales) $384,760 Total ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $384,760 $384,760 $384,760 Paragraph Three: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND 1. Special Ed Pre-School Program $73,692 $73,692 SUMMARY Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $73~92 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $73,692 Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCTION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Four: MclNTIRETRUST FUND 1 Payment t0 Count~, Schools $10 000 SUMMARY Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Investments PerTrust $10,000 Total MclNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $73,692 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Paragraph Five: PREP PROGRArvl 1 C.B.I.P. Severe 2 E.D. Program $555.575 $585,266 $1,140,841 SUMMARY Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: :~evenue from Tuition and Fees $1,140,841 Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $1,140,841 $1,140,841 $1,140,841 Paragraph Six: FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1 Adult Education $85 008 2 Carl Perkins $111,911 3 Chapter I $56'~.511 4 Chapter II $3~,892 5 Drug Free Schools $48,908 6. Migrant Education $18~.345 7. Title [] $31~823 $1,065,398 $1,065,398 SUMMARY Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30. 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Commonwearth Revenue from the Federal Government Transfer fTom School FU nd $80.941 $980.390 $4,067 $1,065,398 Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $1,065,398 $1,065,398 Paragraph Seven: COMMUNITYEDUCATION FUND 1. Community Education SUMMARY Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition Revenue from Driver's Education Fees Revenue from the Commonwealth $1,364,060 $1,286,060 $64,000 $14,000 $1,364,060 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $1,364,060 $1,364~60 $1,364,060 Paragraph Eight: SUMMERSCHOOL 1. Summer School SUMMARY Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition ILocal) Miscellaneous Revenues F~evenue from the Commonwealth Transfer from School Func Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $345,376 $177.375 $38,500 $90.258 $39,243 $345.376 $345,376 $345,376 $345,376 Paragraph Nine: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT 1. School Bus Replacement SUMMARY Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of Vehicles) Transfer from School Fund $473,007 $5,600 $468,OO7 $473,007 TotalSCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENTresources available forfiscalyear ending June 30,1998: $473~07 $___~_473~007 $473~07 SECTION IV: DEBT SERVICE That the following sums of money be and the same hembyare appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30. ~ 998: Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Se~ce Payments $6,845,880 2 Debt Se~ce Reserve $600,000 3. VRS Eady Retirement $295,922 $7,741,802 $7,741,802 Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND 1. Debt Ser~ce Payments $129,500 $t29~00 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) Total DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $7,575,380 $2951922 $7,871,302 $7,871,302 __$7,871,302 8 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - IV OFTHIS RESOLUTION FOR THE RSCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 RECAPITULATION: Appropriations: Section I Section I[ Section Ill Section IV General Fund School Fund Other School Funds Debt Sen/ice Funds $94.612.164 $71,377,147 $6,898,898 $7~871,302 $180,759,511 Less Inter-Fund Transfers General Fund to School Fund General Fund to School Debt Service Fund General Fund to General Go~,~rnment Debt Servfce Fund School Fund to Debt Service Fund School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds ($46,091,436) ($7,445,880) ($129.500) ($295.922) ($511,317) ($54,474,055) $180,759,511 ($54,474,055) GRAND TOTAL $126,285,456 SECTION V: OTHER FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER purposes herein specified to be appodioned as follows for the fiscal year endin(~ June 30. 1998. Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SB:tVICES ACT FUND 1. Com orehensive Services Act Expenditures $1,487,003 SUMMARY Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources [Transfer from General Fund) $515.810 Revenue from Local Sources [School Fund) $225.000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $746,193 $1,487,003 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $1,487,003 $1,487,003 $1,487,003 Paragraph Two: AT-RISK 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND 1. Bright Stars Program $220.416 SUMMARY Total AT-RISK 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) Revenue from the Commonwealth $118 810 $101,606 $220.416 Total AT-RISK4 YEAROLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,1998: Paragraph Three: TOURISM FUND 1. Rivenna Greenway Development $167,000 2. Route 250-616 Turn Lane Project $10,000 3. Tourism Projects $287,376 4. Visitor's Bureau $121,224 $585,600 SUMMARY Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Soumes (Transfer from General Fund) $585,600 Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND 1. Darden Tcwe Memorial Park SUMMARY Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Miscellaneous Local Revenue City of Charlottes~lle $192 785 $108,990 $14,725 $69~070 $192,785 TotalTOWE MEMORIAL PARKFUND resources availa~eforf~calyear ending June 30,1998: ]0 $220~16 $220~416 $220A16 $585,600 $585,600 $585~600 $192,785 $192,785 $192~85 Paragraph Rve: EMERGENCYOPBRATIONS CENTER FUND $1,671,418 1 Emergency Communications Center Operations $1.671.418 SUMMARY TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CB'~'rER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue fTc'n Local Sources (General Fund) City of Charlottesville University of Virginia Miscellaneous Local Revenue Federal Revenue $734 716 $772 353 $153 631 $1,800 $8,918 $1,671 418 Total EM~GENCYOPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $1,671,418 $1,671,41~ BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one f~md to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation. SECTION VI All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount nam'ed herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Othemdse. the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supe_nri~ors. Paragraph Two 11 All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate 6f revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three All balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1998, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasuw and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1998. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required;and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head ofthe contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance: The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. An.v obligations incurred contrary, to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County_ Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue an_v warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six 12 All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven All previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the pro- visions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This resolution shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven. ALG/alg 05/29/97 13 ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUAIE 30, 1998 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUi~T¥ OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FLrND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS AND OTHER REFUNDS $ 51,700 1. Refunds and Aba~emenus $ 51,700 Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT $ 5,627,146 2 3 4 5 6 7 Board of Supervisors County Attorney County Executive Elections Finance Human Resources Information Services $ 291 252 %09 015 585 610 184 762 2,350 491 287 402 1,518,~14 $ 5,627,126 Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL $ 2,004,859 1. Circuit Court 2. Clerk of the Circuit Court 3. Commonwealth's Attorney 4. General Districn Court 5. Juvenile Court 6. Magistrate 7. Sheriff Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY Community Attention Home 2. Community Attention Home - VJCCCA 3. Community Criminal Justice Board 4. Emergency Communications Center (E-911) 5. Fire Department (City) Ai~NIJAL RESOLUTIO~ OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 1) $ 71,880 496,352 465,189 12,830 78,382 17,588 862,638 $ 2,004,859 63,915 174,268 3,865 1,057,524 641,290 $10,412,182 6. Fire/Rescue Administration 7. Fire/Rescue Credit 8. Forest Fire Extinction Service 9. Inspections 10. Juvenile Detention Home 11. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) 12. Police Department 13. Regional Jail Authority 14. SPCA Contract 15. Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA) 16. Volunteer Rescue Squads (JCFRA) Paragraph Five: PUBLIC WORKS 1. Engineering 2. Solid Waste 3. Staff Services Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES t. Ch'ville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society {CALAS) 2. Charlottesville Free Clinic 3. Children and Youth Commission (CACY) 4. Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) 5. District Home 6. FOCUS - Teensight 7. Health Department Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JkBA) 9. J~-BA - Adult Health Care Facility JAUNT 11. Madison House 12. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) 13. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) 14. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) 15. Social Services 16. Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled 17. Region Ten Community Services 18. Region Ten Facility Expansion Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE 1. Darden Towe Memorial Park 2. Library 3. Literacy Volunteers 4. Parks and Recreation 5. Piedmont Council of the Arts 6. Transfer: Tourism 480,171 59,020 13,800 676,372 123,905 39,680 6,034,737 236,585 29,280 585,275 192.495 $10,412,182 $ 2,195,044 $ 1,030,556 189,935 974,553 $ 2,195,044 $ 6,710,384 $ 16,610 5,150 26,566 35;035 41,100 20,205 668,370 118,580 14,400 285,875 4,545 8,284 20,190 61,840 4,829,269 220,000 259,365 75,000 $ 6,710,384 $3,597,976 $ 108,990 1,685,260 15,750 1,177,666 8,855 585,600 RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 2) Virginia Discovery Museum WVPT Public Television 8,855 7.000 $ 3,597,976 Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program {A/qIP) $ 357,375 2. Housing Office 378,250 3. Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) 60,335 4. Planning and Community Development 973,294 5. Planning District Commission (TJPDC) 62,686 6. Route 29 Bus Service 46,556 7. Soil and Water Conservation 30~075 8. VPI Extension Service 140,021 9. Zoning 485,572 $ 2,534,164 Paragraph Nine: CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 1. Jail Expansion Reserve $ 100,000 Paragraph Ten: CAPITAL OUTLAYS 1. General Government Capital Improvement Program $ 1,713,000 2. School Division capital Improvement Program 5OO~000 3. Stormwster Fund 110,000 $ 2,323~000 ParagraphEleven: REVENLrESKARING AGREEMENT 1. RevenueSharingAgreement $ 5,5181393 Paragraph Twelve: OTHER USES OF FUNDS 1. School Division Debt Service/Debt Reserve Fund 2. School Fund $ 7,445,880 46,091.436 $53,537,316 SUMMARY Total GENERAL FUND appropriations For the fiscal year ending June 30, To be provided as follows: 1998: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Revenue from General Fund Ralance Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government $87,382,847 2,687 4,932,893 2.293,737 $94,612,164 Total GENEP, AL FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FU1TD Ai~NUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 3) $ 2,534,164 $ 100,000 $ 2,323,000 $ 5,518,393 $53,537,316 ~94,612.164 S94.612.164 That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND $71,377,147 1. Administration, Attendance & Health 2. Debt Service Fund 3. Facilities Construction/Modification 4. Facilities Operation/Maintenance 5. Instruction 6. Pupil Transportation Services 7. Other Uses of Funds $ 3,326,588 295,922 109,364 7,101,271 54,885,936 4,871,850 786.216 $71,377,147 SUMMARY Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending ~une 30, 1998: $71,377,147 To be provided as follows: Hevenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from School Fund Balance Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government $46,09t,436 543,220 133,670 23,926,086 682,735 $71,377,147 Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $71,377,147 SECTION III - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES $ 2,041,764 1. Maintenance/Operation of School Cafeterias $ 2,041,764 SUMMARY Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $ 2,041~764 ANAVJAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 4) To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Total FOOD SERVICES resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Two: ALBEMARLE HIGH S~HOOL FOOD SERVICE 1. Food Service SUMMARY Total ALHEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPEP. ATIONS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sales) Total ALBEMARLE HIGH FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS appropriations available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Three: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND 1. Special Ed Pre-School Program SUMMARY Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Four: McINTIRE TRUST FUND 1. Payment to County Schools SUMMARY Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: 1,330,677 45,584 665,503 2,041,764 $ 384,760 1998: $ 384,760 $ 73,692 $ 73,692 $ 10,000 S 2.041,764 $ 384,760 $ 384,760 384,760 $ 73,692 73,692 73,692 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 5) TO be provided as follows: Revenue from Investments Per Trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30,1998: Paragraph Five: PREP PROGRAM 1. C.B.I.P. Severe 2. E.D. Program SUMMARY Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees Total PREP PROGRAM resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Six: FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1. Adult Education 2. Carl Perkins 3. Chapter I 4. Chapter II 5. Drug Free Schools 6. Migrant Education 7. Title II SUMMARy Total FEDERAL PROGP, AMS appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: TO be provided as follows: Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Transfer from School Fund Total FEDEP~L PROGRAMS resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Seven: COM~/NITY ~DUCATION FUND 1. Community Education $ 10,000 $ 555,575 585,266 $ 1,140,841 $ 1,140,841 85,008 1tl,911 564,511 39,892 48,908 183,345 31.823 1,065,398 $ 80,941 980,390 4,067 $ 1,065,398 $ 1,364,060 S 10,000 $ 1,140,841 1,140,841 1,140,84--1 1,065,398 1,065,398 1,065,398 $ 1,364,060 AiTNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 6) SUMMARY Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided ae follows: Revenue from Tuition Revenue from Driver's Education Fees Revenue from the Commonwealth $ 1,286,060 64,000 14,000 $ 1,364,060 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Hight: SUMMER SCHOOL 1. Summer School Total S~ER SCHOOL appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: TO be provided as follows: SUM~IARY $ 345,376 177,375 38,500 90,258 39~243 345,376 Revenue from Tuiulon (Local) Miscellaneous Revenues Revenue from the Commonwealth Transfer from School Fund $ 1,364,060 $ 1,364,000 $ 345,376 S 345,376 Total SU~ER SCHOOL resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: ~ 345,376 Paragraph Nine: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT $ 473,007 1. School Bus Replacement $ 473,007 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: ~ 473,007 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Sale of vehicles) $ 5,000 Transfer from School Fund 468,007 $ 473,007 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: S 473,007 SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 7) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENEILAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND 1. Debt Service Payments 2. Debt Service Reserve 3. VRS Early Retirement $ 6,845,880 600,000 295,922 $ 7,741,802 $ 7,741,802 Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND 1. Debt Service Payments $ 129,500 129,500 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: 7.871,302 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $ 7,575,380 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) 295.922 $ 7,871,302 Total DEBT SERVICE resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: 7,871,302 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - IV OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 RECAPITULATION: Appropriations: Section I General Fund Section II School Fund Section III Other School Funds Section IV Debt Service Funds $180~759,511 $ 94,612,164 71,377,147 6,898,898 7,871.302 $I80,759,511 Less Inter-Fund T~ansfers ($ 54,474,055) General Fund to School Fund ($ 46,091,436) General Fund to School Debt Service Fund ( 7,445,880) General Fund to General Government Debt Service Fund ( 129,500) ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE $) School Fund to Debt Service Fund School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds GRAND TOTAL SECTION V - OTHER FUNDS 295,922) 511,317) ($ 5%,474,055) $126,285,456 That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending Juno 30, 1998. Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND $ 1,487,003 1. Comprehensive Services Act Expenditures $ 1,487,003 SUMMARY Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: 1,487,003 TO he provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfor from General Fund)$ 515,810 Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund) 225,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth 746.193 $ 1,487,003 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: 1.487,003 Paragraph Two: AT-RISK 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND 1. Bright Stars Program $ SUMMARY Total AT-RISK 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided os follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) Revenue from the Commonwealth Total AT-RISK 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30,1998: Paragraph Three: TOURISM FUND 1. Rivanna Greenway Development 2. Route 250-616 Turn Lane Project 3. Tourism Projects AAINUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 9) $ 220,416 220,416 220,416 $ 118,810 101.606 $ 220,416 $ 220.416 $ 585,600 167,000 10,000 287,376 Visitor's Bureau t21.224 $ 585,600 SUMMARY Total TOURISM FUI~D appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $ Total TOURISM FUND resources available For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND 1. Darden Towe Memorial Park $ SUMMARY Total TOWE M~MORIAL PARK FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: TO be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) Miscellaneous LocalRevenue City of CharlottesviIIe Total TOW~ MEMORI~L PARK FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph Five: EF/ERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND 1. Emergency Communications Center Operations SUMMARY TOTAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations For fiscal year ending June 30,1998: To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund) City of Charlottesville University of Virginia Miscellaneous Local Revenue Federal Revenue Total EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FUND resources Available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: 585,600 $ 192,785 $ 108,990 14,725 69.070 $ 192,785 $ 1,671,418 $ 734,716 772,353 153,631 1,800 8,918 $ 1,671,418 585,600 585,600 192,785 192,785 $ 192.785 $ 1,671,418 S 1,671,418 1,671.41--8 AlqNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 10) BE IT FURTNBR ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this resolution of appropriation. SECTION VI kll of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event ~he aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise. the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proper- tion as the total sum of ail realized revenue of the respective funds is to total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year Board of SuDervisers~ Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1998, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which may be made in the resolution of appropriation for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1998. Any balance available shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of the respective funds for the next fiscal year. Paragraph Four NO obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; an~ provided further that no requisition for ANAUJAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 11) contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished bythe contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obti~ation~ incurred contrary to the Dnrchasin~ procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasin~ Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Seven Ail previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This resolution shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven. ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 12) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held June 4, 1997. J 0 Co~ty~pervisors Alql~JA3~ RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION (PAGE 13) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1997/98 Capital Improvements Program Resolution of Appropriation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of the FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Program Resolution of Appropriation and Resolution of Official Intent for Use of VPSA Bond proceeds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The FY 1997-98 Capital Improvements Budget was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1997 in the amount of $24,771,467: $2 931,000 to the General Government Capital Fund $22,630,467 to the School Division Capital Improvement Fund, and $110,000 to the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund. DISCUSSION: The attached ordinance appropriates a total Capital Improvement Budget of $25,094,275, an increase of $322,808 over the approved budget due to the addition of the County's $322,808 contribution to the new ECC facility approved bythe Board in the FY 1997-98 operating budget. With the additional $322,808, appropriated funds in the FY 1997-98 General Government Capital Fund will total $2,353,808. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Appropriation for the FY 1997~98 Capital Improvements Program and the Resolution of Intent which allows the County to be reimbursed by VPSA bond proceeds for prior school project expenditures incurred over the summer. 97.100 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMI~ITS PROGRAM FOR THE RSCAL YEAR I~JDING JUNE 30, 1998 AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OFALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED bythe Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBF_J,~IARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I o G~ERAL GOVI-3~,NMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND That the following sums ofmoneybe and the same herebyare appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT C/~OlTAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 3n, 1998: Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATIONAND COURTS 1. CountyComputer Upgrade 2. County Facility Improvements 3. Old Crozet School Improvements 4. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement 5. CountyOffice Bldg. Maintenance/Replacement $250,000 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 $130,000 $440,000 $440,000 Paragraph Two: RRE, RESCUEAND SA~-~-i ~' 1. Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund 2. Police Radio Simulcast System/ECC Link 3. Police Firing Range 4. Juvenile Detention Facility 5. Em ergency Communications Center Facility $262 500 $108.000 $40,000 $175 000 $322,808 $908,308 $908,308 Paragraph Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 1. Revenue Sharing Road Program 2. Route 29 North Landscaping 3. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program $500,000 $4,000 $40,000 $544,000 $544,000 Paragraph Four: LIBRARIES 1. Library Computer Upgrade 2. Maintenance/Replacem ent Projects $200,000 $32,500 $232,500 $232,500 Paragraph Rve: PARKSAND RECREATION 1. Cmzet Park Athletic Field Development 2. Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development 3. CountyAthletic Field Study/Development 4. Maintenance/Replacem ent Projects $96,000 $50,000 $50,000 $331000 $229,000 $229,000 SUMMARY Total ~ERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVE~IENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Tmns~rfrom GeneralFund Jail E~ansion Fund Balance ClP Fund Balance $2,035,808 $175,000 $143,000 $2,353,808 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, '1998: $2~353~808 $2,353,808 SECTION I1: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND That the following sums of moneybe and the same herebyare appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAl_ IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30 1998: Paragraph One: EDUCATION(SCHOOL DIVISION) 1 High School TechnologyEducation Labs 2. Stony Point Parking & Playfield 3. Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reco nflguration 4. Al-IS Phase II & III Restorations 5. MurrayHigh Renovation 6. New High School 7. Administrative Technology (Schools) 8. Instructional Technology (Schools) $555,000 $193,000 $294,000 $20,000 $70,000 $17,082,697 $70,000 $605,070 $22,630,467 2 9. WAHS Building Renovations 10. HenleyAddition 11. TechnologyEducation Labs 12. Stone Robinson Addition 13. Walton Renovation 14. Brownsville Addition 15, Stony Point Addition 16. Maintenance/Replacem ent Projects 17. Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement) 18. GreerHVAC Renovations (MainUReplacement) 19. ADAStructuralChanges 20. VMF Underground Storage TankReplacement $185,000 $1,190,000 $325,000 $250 000 $46 000 $212 000 $205 000 $665 700 $35 000 $22 000 $425 000 $180,000 $22,630,467 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 3(], 1998: To be provided as follows: Transfer from General Fund Interest Earned Miscellaneous Local Revenues CIP Fund Balance State Technology Funds VPSA Bo n d s Additional Split Billing Revenues $500,000 $100,000 $136,100 $100,000 $575,000 $20,451,367 $768,000 $22,630,467 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $22,630,46~ $22,630,467 SECTION II1: STORMWATER FUND That the following sums ofmoneybe and the same herebyare appropriated fi-om the STORFvlWATER FUND for stormwater improvement purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: STORMWATI~, IMPROVEMENTS 1 CountyMaster Drainage Plan 2, Transfer to Drainage/Ems ion Correction $60,000 $50,000 $110,000 $110,000 SUMMARY Total STORMWATER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Transfer from the General Fund Total STORMWATER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $110,000 $110,000 $110~000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - III IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE RSCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 RECA PITULA TION: TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Section I Section II Section III General Government Improvements Fund School Division Capital Improvements Fund Stormwater Fund $2,353,808 $22,630,467 211o,ooo $25,094,275 $25,094,275 ~D TOTAL $25,094,275 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. SECTION IV All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, II and 1II are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions here'm before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. 4 Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropnanons payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, eqmpment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval here'm required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County_ Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Five All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Six All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven ALG/alg 05/21/97 6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of t~a COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGR3~M for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent o~ such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE VIRGINIA: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENEP~AL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FI/ND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS $ 440,000 1. County Computer Upgrade 2. County Facility Improvsmenus 3. Old Crozet School Improvemenus 4. J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement 5. County Office Bldg. Maintenance/Replacement $ 250,000 15,000 I5,000 30,000 130,000 $ 440,000 Paragraph Two: FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY $ 908.308 1. Fire/Rescue Building and Equipment Fund 2. Police Radio Simulcast Sysuem/ECC Link 3. Police Firing Range 4. Juvenile DetentIon Facility 5. Emergency Communications Center Facility $ 262,500 108,000 40,000 175,000 322,808 $ 908,308 Paragraph Three: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION $ 544,000 1. Revenue Sharing Road Program 2. Route 29 North Landscaping 3. Neighborhood Plan Implementation Program $ 500,000 4,000 40,000 $ 544,000 Paragraph Four: LIBRARIES $ 232,S00 1. Library Compuuer Upgrade 2. Maintenance/Replacement Projects $ 200,000 32,500 $ 232,500 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (PAGE l) Paragraph Five: PARKS AND RECREATION 1. Crozet Park Athletic Field Development $ 96,000 2. Southern Albemarle Organization Park Development 50,000 3. County Athletic Field Study/Development 50,000 4. Maintenance/Replacement Projects 33,000 $ 229,000 SUMF=~RY Total GENEP~%L GOVERI~MENT CAPITA~ IMPROVEMENTS FLrND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Transfer from General Fund Jail Expansion Fund Balance CIP Fund Balance Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPIT~J~ IMPROVEMENTS FDlqD Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $2,035,808 175,000 143,000 S2,353,808 $ 229,000 $ 2,353,808 ~ 2.353,808 SECTION II - SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND That the following sums of money be and tkesame berebyare appropriated from the SCttOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND foL' the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) $22,630,467 1. High School Technology Education Labs $ 555,000 2. Stony Point Parking & Playfield 193,000 3. Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfigurauion 294,000 4. A~S Phase II & III Restorations 20,000 5. Murray High Renovation 70,000 6. New High School 17,082,697 7~ Administrative Technology (Schools) 70,000 8. Instructional Technology (Schools) 605,070 9. WA2~S Building Renovations 185,000 10. Henley Addition 1,190,000 11. Technology Education Labs 325,000 12. Stone Robinson Addition 250,000 13. Walton Renovation 46,000 14. Brownsville Addition 212,000 15. Stony Point Addition 205,000 16. Maintens//ce/Replacement Projects 665,700 17. Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement) 35,000 18. Greet HVAC Renovations (Maintenance Replacement) 22,000 19. ADA Structural Changes 425,000 20. VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement 180.000 s22,630,467 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (PAGE 2) SUMMARY Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUIFD Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Transfer from General Fund Interest Earned Miscellaneous Local Revenues CIP Fund Balance State Technology Funds VPSA Bonds Additional Split Billing Revenues Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUlqD Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: $ 500,000 t00,000 136,100 100,000 575,000 20,451,367 762,000 $22,630;467 $22,830,467 $22,630,467 SECTION III STORMWATER FI/ND That the following sums of money be and the same hereDy are appropriated from the STORMWATER FLTND for stormwater improvemenE purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: Para~-raph One: STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS $ 110,000 1. County Master Drainage Plan 2. Transfer to Drainage/Erosion Correculon SUMMARY Total STORMWATER FUND Appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: To be provided as follows: Transfer from the General Fund TotaI STORMWATER FUND Resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1998: s 60,000 50~000 s 110,000 $ 110,000 ~ 110,000 110.000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - III IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 RECAPITULATION: TOTAL A~PROPRIATIONS Section I General Government Improvements Fund Section II School Division Capital Improvements Fund S 2,353,808 22,630,467 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (PAGE 3) $25,094,275 Section III Stormwater Fund $25,094,275 GRAI~D TOTAL $25,094,275 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance. SECTION IV Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I, II and III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropria- tions in full. Otherwise the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal veer by th~ Board Qf Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency ua/der the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or conuracuual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition Eot items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required, and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, ~he County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (PAGE 4) competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished bythe contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein req%%ired for such contracts~ said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred Qo~traryto the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasin~ Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County. and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in navment of such obligations. Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on accounn of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like fanes. Paragraph Five Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according un regula- tions prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. ~aragraph Six Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsisten5 with the provisionsof this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and ninety- I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 4, 1997. Clerk, Board of County/upervisors CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (PAGE 5) RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exkibit A attached hereto (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT: (1) The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,451,367 (the "Bonds"). (2) The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds~ (3) The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent" within the mean/rig of Treasury Regulations Section l. 150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. I, Ella W. Carey, due hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on June 4, 1997. PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS Exhibit A Description Amount 1. High School Technology Education Labs 2. Stony Point Parking & Playfield 3. Vehicular Ma'mtenance Facility Reconfiguration 4. AHS Phase II & III Restorations 5. Murray High Renovation 6. New High School 7. WAHS Building Renovations 8. Henley Addition 9. Technology Education Labs 10. Stone Robinson Addition 11. Walton Renovation 12. Brownsville Addition 13. Stony Point Addition 14. Maintenance/Replacement Projects 15. Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacement) 16. Greer HVAC Renovations (Malnt:/Replacement) 17. ADA Structural Changes VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement $ 230,000 20,770 294,000 20,000 70,000 16,946,597 185,000 1,190,000 15,000 250,000 46,000 212,000 205;000 105,000 35,000 22,000 425,000 180;000 TOTAL $20,451,367 RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES ]FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH PROCEEDS OF BONDS wmv. REAS, the Board o£ Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), intends to undertake various improvements to its public school system as described on Exlu'bit A attached hereto (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the County intends to pay costs of the Project prior to the issuance of the Bonds, as here'mafter defined, and to receive reimbursement for such expenditures from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY: (1) The County intends to finance the Project through the issuance of bonds in an amount not to exceed ~20,451,367 (the "Bonds"). (2) The County intends to receive reimbursement from proceeds of the sale of the Bonds for costs of the Project paid by the County prior to the issuance of the Bonds. (3) The County intends that the adoption of this resolution be considered as "official intent" within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of.1986, as amended I, Ella W. Carey, due hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of Supervisors RWW/dbm 97.028 PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED SCHOOL PROJECTS Exhibit A Description 1. High School Technology Education Labs 2. Stony Point Parking & Playfield 3. Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration 4. AHS Phase II & III Restorations 5. Murray High Renovation 6. New High School 7. WAHS Building Renovations 8. Henley Addition 9. Technology Education Labs 10. Stone Robinson Addition 11. Walton Renovation 12. Brownsville Addition 13. Stony Point Addition 14. Maintenance/Replacement Projects 15. Chiller Replacement (Maintenance/Replacamen 16. Greet HVAC Renovations (Maint.lReplacement) 17. ADA Structural Changes 18. VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement Amount $230~ 000 $20,770 $294.000 $2O,00O $70,000 $16,946,597 $185 000 $1,190,000 $15:000 $250,000 $46,000 $212,000 $205,000 $105.000 $35,000 $22.000 $425 000 $180,000 $20,451 367 05/21/9703:36 PM APPORD98.WKzl BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05-29-g?PO' :53 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #96079 in the amount of $3,550.00 for a donation made to Stone Robinson Elementary School STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its meeting on May 12. 1997, the School Board approved the appropriation of $3,550.00 donation for Stone Robinson Elementary School. DISCUSSION: The Stone-Robinson Elementary School received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount of $3,550.00. This donation is to be used to purchase supplies for Science Night, audio-visual equipment and a display board for the lobby. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $3,550.00 as detailed on appropriation #96079. 97.101 ALREMA1~LE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOI.~ Memorandum BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-27-97A10: I5 RCVO DATE: May 21, 1997 TO: Robert W. Tuck/~Jr., County Executive Kevin Oaetn? Dvision Superintendent RE: Request fo~pp~opr iat ion At its meeting on May 12, 1997, the School Board approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of $3,550.00 for Stone-Robinson Elementary School. Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO. This donation is to be used ~o purchase supplies for Science Night, audio-visual equipment and a display board for the lobby. The funds will be received and distributed as follows: 2-2000-18000-181109 Exoenditure: 1-2210-61101-601300 -800200 -61411-800100 Donation $500.00 Inst/Rec Supplies Furniture, Fixtures Machinery/Equzpmen5 $500.00 s350.00 S2,700.00 $3,550.00 It is rec~ested that the Beard of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance nc receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. sm/R xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative WHEREAS, the federal government has allocated one hundred million dollars ($100.0 million) in each of federal fiscal years 1999 through 2002 to be divided among the five states that have the most reduced out-of-wedlock births in the previous two years without an increase in the abortion rate; and WHEREAS,the Commonwealth of Virginia has become the first state in the nation to announce its candidacy for one of these federal awards by supplying incentives to local governments, service agencies, religious institutions, nonprofit organizations and citizens to develop solutions to the out-of-wedlock birth problem; and WHEREAS. the Commonwealth of Virginia will provide technical and other forms of startup assistance to any Virginia locality that officially partner with the state in competition for the federal award, and the state proposes to distribute any federal award Virginia receives direcdy to its Partners in Prevention; and WHEREAS, a locality becomes a Partner in Prevention by adopting a formal resolution of participation in the initiative and by submitting a plan, reflecting the whole community input; and WHEREAS, our locality proposes to address this initiative through parfidpation in the field of redudng teenage pregnancy; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesvillewish to join other localities in the Conunonwealth in this important community objective; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville are authorized by this body to become Partners in Prevention with the Commonwealth of Virginia. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting hdd on June 4, 1997. Clerk, Board of C~unty Su~rvisors COUNTY OF AIREMARLE Office of l~ard of Supen~m 401 Mclntire Road Chadotte.wille. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 2905800 Gharles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas June 9, 1997 Mr. Steven Stem 1632 Keith Valley Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Stern: At its meet'mg on June 4, 1997. the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative. If you need any additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC// /ewc Attachment cc: City Council Roxanne White ~rin~ed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF gUPERVI,qORS 05-29-97P0'~53 RCVD AGENDA TITLE Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Approval of Resolution in Support of the Partners in Prevention Initiative STAFF CONTACT{S) Messrs. Tucker. White AGENDA DATE June 4,1997 ACTIO~ CONSENT AGENDA ACTION~ X ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED BY:. ITEM NUMBER INFORMATION INFORMATION BACKGROUND: Partners in Prevention is a state initiative on out-of-wedlock births that may bring as much as $20 million dollars to Virginia over the next four federal fiscal years FY99 - FY02 as part of the 1966 Personal Respons~ility and Work Opportunity Act. Although only riva states in the country will receive these funds based on their birth rate reduction, the State feels well positioned to receive these funds and is, therefore, making start-up funds available to communities throughout the Commonwealth. Localities may request these start up funds, but must first agree to fulfill all requirements of a Partnership Agreement, one of which is a formal resolution to participate in the initiative and to submit a plan that reflects communityinout. DISCUSSION: Sponsors of the Partners in Prevention Initiative ara the CACY Commission, the Thomas Jefferson Health Department, Martha Jefferson Hospital, both the City and County Departments of Social Selvices the Council on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Steering Committee. A town meeting will be held on Friday May 30th to solicit community input for developing a plan to address teenage pregnancy. This plan will form the basis of the funding application [or ttm Partners in Prevention Initiative funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, which is also being submitted to the Charlottesville City Council for their approval.. 97.107 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville was formed in 1922; and WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville has provided music for celebrations and commemorations in the Charlottesville/Albemarle cormnunity for seventy-five years; and WHEREAS, The Municipal Band of Charlottesville has provided entertainment and has promoted the cultural arts in our commtmity by performing for thousands of citizens and tourists each year; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle congratulates The Municipal Band of Charlottesville on its seventy-fifth anniversary and joins in the pride felt by all for the service they render to our community. % COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-28-9g?03:2¢ RCVD AGENDA ~TLE: Household Wa~rQual~y Pmgmm-FinalRepoM SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the final report for the Cooperative Extension well testing program. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Hlrachrnan AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Evaluation of Household Watff.~QualRy in Albernade County, Virginia REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: During the summer of 1995, Virginia Cooperative Extension and Albemarle County sponsored a volunteer household water quality testing and education program for residents that utilize private, individual wells and spnngs. The program included public meetings, water testing and diagnosis, and follow-up education concerning water test results. Approximately 500 Albemarle County households participated in the program. Follow-up testing for pesticides was conducted for water sources considered to be of "high vulnerability" due to water test results and surrounding land uses. Virginia Tech has recently completed the final report for this project. DISCUSSION: The lessons learned from this project include the following: The most widespread water quality concerns with private water supplies are corrosive (acidic) water and bacteria. Several categories of water quality results show a correlation with the underlying geology. To some extent, water quality can be roughly predicted based on geologic setting. Water source construction determines vulnerability to contamination. For instance, positive E. coli (fecal bacteria) results were 38% for springs, 19% for shallow wells: and 4% for ddlled wells. Pesticide migration to groundwater appears to be tow. Albemarle residents are interested in leaming about wells and groundwater and willing to take action to protect water supplies. RECOMMENDATION: Presentation for informational purposes. No recommendation at this time. 97.099 Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Albemarle Count~ November 1996 Hbuschold VCater Quality Series 23 Dcpamnent of Biologic',fl Systems Engineering Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U,xivcrsi~y Blacksburg. Vk~nia 24061-0303 Virginia [l!lTech %7? County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive May22, 1997 Free State ~ Road As a follow up to the concern raised by the Board of Supervisors regarding emergency access to Free State ~ Road, I received information from Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department that they are very aware oftha weight limitations of the bridge and that they regularly access this area through Dunlora Subdivision with their heavier trucks. I believe that they are very supportive of upgrading the weight limitations of the bridge and are always willing to work cooperatively to provide rapid response to emergencies regardless of physical barriers (fast attack pumpers, etc.). If you need any additional information, pIease do not hesitate to ask DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-22-97P03: 3.t RCVD COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 May 20, 1997 Tentative 1997-98 Construction Allocations and Six-Year improvement Program City/Town Mayors/Managers County Boards of Supervisors County Libraries Planning Distdct Commissions Transit Agencies Transportation District Commissions Concerned Citizens Enclosed is a copy of the tentative construction fund allocations for fiscal year 1997-98 for the Interstate, Primary,Improvement and Urban Program Highway through Systems. 2002-03. as well as Public Transit, Ports. and Airports, including an update of the Six-Year As you are aware, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 30, 1997. Several proposals have surfaced for the next federal transportatk Senator John Warner cited as the ~ISTEA Integrity Restoration Act". In supi patron of this bill, VDOT is developing the fiscal year 1998 utilizing the progr proposed legislation. in addition, Virginia received appreximateiy $135 million in federal ft was not included in the current year budget when itwas adopted. These ad of funds available for distribution. Act (ISTEA) of 1991 will expire September n act including one introduced by Virginia crt of Senator Warners effort as the chief am structure and formula set forth in the rids for the current fiscal year (FY 97) that 'litional funds are reflected in the FY 98 total The Route 58 Corridor Development Program is also included as a -. Transeortation Program. Preliminary approval of these allocations was given by the Common, meeting Final action will be requested after the Board holds public hearings indicated on the enclosed notice. We greatly appreciate the valuable help provided by those of you hearings and contributed to the allocation and planning processes. David R. Gehr Commissioner Enclosures CC: The Honorable Robert E. Ma~nez 2arate section, as is the Rail and Public ;alth Transportation Board at its May 15 in Salem and Richmond in June as aarticipated in our recent preallocation WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Transportation Program Comments During the last two months, you have given Commonwealth Transportation Board members and Virginia Deparument of Transportation officials your priorities for improvements to area interstate and primary highways and urban roads, as well as for public transit. Based on these ideas and the recommen- dations of your elected officials, the Commonwealth Trans- portation Board has adopted a tentative statewide plan of much-needed transportation improvements for the coming fiscal year. Now, we invite you m take a look and tell us what you think...before the plan is finalized at the June meeting of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Thursday, June 5 (2 locations9 Salem 9 a. rra VDOT Salem District Office 731 Harrison Ave. Richmond 2p.m. VDOT Central Office Auditorium 1221 E. Broad Street At these public hearings, we are focusing on needed improvements to interstate, primary and urban roads, and on public transit, rail, bicycle and pedestrian needs. The Board also will receive comments on the Transportation Enhance- ment Program and the Safety Program. If you know of needed improvements on secondary roads -- those routes numbered 600 and above -- make sure you attend the separate meetings scheduled jointly by the county boards of supervi- sors and the deparanent's resident engineers. For assistance or more information, call (540) 387- 5320, ~804) 786-2921, or (804) 786-4410 ~TDD). Written comments can be submitted to the deparument no later than June 15, 1997. You may e-mall comments to: vdotinfo~chmond.infi.net llIT Virginia Department of Transportation 0 I I I I i~t:!.:ii~:i:i:i:i.~:i:i:i:i~-i'! ~iiii:~i:!:: ~t.,.~....,..,...~,, ~.,...., ....... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~....~......~...~, _......, i:!~ :i:i:i:~::}:Z: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . .~22~i::~ .:.:-.~:-::~;'.~:~:::;!-::~: :: ~1::======================================= ~,t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .,'I:::~.. · .:::.,~,:.:~.::-.::.- ~ ¥:::~:;:::~: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ~,t:-.:-~::':.:~:.' -;:~ ::..: ~.:.::.:: :-: ======================================.,~ ::::::::::..'.-..:::::::::::..:::...,: :!::::.:::::~,.-::::.~:: :-.'-:F':.:::~:;:::.: .:~:: .:..~. :::::-:.-':.:::-..:~-:...:::.::l. :.-:...-~-'.:.:-::: ~.i:-:.:-: :.:.:.:.:....-...:.:'i.::::::...] ' ~;~:::'..:::~!:!:!:i: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::.:::::~:::::::::: ~l~:~:~::i:i:~:i:~?~:~::~:~:~:; i:i::-~E?' ' ":~ii:~E~?E:i:: ii~:':::: ==================================== ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2. ~:!5 '~:5~!!::.:;5~,::!-~:~;i::..~':~:~: :~!:i:i:~::i:i:~i:i: :::~i f.i:::~iE'i ,._.~.l~:~i;~i~:i;:'~ii~i,~::!i.:ii!i;:i.~: ~.::-:~.x :r~ :::::~..::~ ~;. '.::-:: ~:.:::~:~:::::~:~:'::~:::::::::::::::::::::::: :~::. ~-:.'¢~:.::~:-:::~.-.-..: ::: ===================================== i:i:;:i:::::::i':':i:E:ii:?ii:::i:i~::ii:i:::!:~:i:i:i:ii:~¢:i:ii.:~-: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :;.:~'::::T:':';~i:i::::~:i:i~::::~::~:;::~:::-' ! i ! 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 ! I I ! I I I i ! I i i I I I I [ I I i I I I I I I I I I i ! I I I :::::::::::::::::::::::: :~ ~: ~:~:.~: :j :~::::~:::::~ ::::~ ::::.;:j:j ::~.:~'~:j~:: :::~ ~:: ::~: ~:.:.: :~: ~:.~j~ ::: ~:~: .?: ~ ~ ::~:.:: :.-~ .:.: :-~ ~-~ j:~.~ :::.~ ~:.~:~ ::: ~:::~ ~:j~:::j .~:~ .::~?~:::;~::~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ I i I I I I I I I i ! i I I I I 1 _-= g~ g O0 oO o c~ ~ DISTRICT rV~ANAGER CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SALES ~ UNITED STJJTES POSTAL SERVICE 05-27-97^1 ~: 1Z RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May 22. 1997 Ms. Ella W. Carey CMC Clerk County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22g02-4579 Dear Ms. Carey: Your letter to the Postmaster. General concerning the BatesvilJe. Virginia Post Office was referred to this office for consideration and response, We are pleased to inform you that the Batesville Post Office will remain at its current location. Thank you for your interest in postal operations. Sincerely, cc: Bobby Abernethy, MPOO Ref:CS$:DLW:lmc-9996(Ratesville) 1801SROOK ROAD RICHMOND VA 23232-9990 804-775-6161 FAX: 804-844~5548 ~UDY UMSCHEID VICE PRESIDENT, FACiLrTIES ~pUNITED STJJTES OST/~L SERVICE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May14,1997 Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk County of Albemarle Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Carey: This is m response to your recent letter and resolution addressed to Mr. Koeber, Secretary, Board of Governor, U.S. Postal Service, concerning a facility project planned for the Batesville Post Office. Since our Richmond Distdct is responsible for the administration of this project, I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to that office so they will be aware of your interest. Please be assured that your concerns will be address when a final decision is made. Thank you for your interest in this project. Sine cc: iVtC_..~gbr, Richmond District David E Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Formst FL IVlmshalL Jr. COUNTY OF ,~! REMARI .E Office of Board of Suers 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville; V'n'cginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S, Martin W~lter E Perkins S~115~ H. Thomas June 9, 1997 The Honorable George Allen Governor's Office State Capitol, Third Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Governor Allen: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I am forwarding to you a copy of a letter sent to Mr. William Woodfin. This letter refers to the planning and development of the Priddy Creek property. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC -/ /ewe Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Departmem County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Chariottesville~ Virginia 229024596 Telephone ~804) 296-5844 BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 05~£8_9~?03;36 RCVD May 23, 1997 Mr. William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director DeparEment of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Woodfin: The County of Albemarle owns a 571 acre property that was purchased in 1969 to allow for a potential waner supply impoundment on Priddy Creek. In the years since, the County has chosen other alternatives to meet its water supply needs and is now trying to determine other potential uses for the Priddy Creek property. There have been several suggested usas of the property. A local environmental protection advocacy group has suggested that it be maintained as a natural area. Our Department plans to investigaEe its potential in addressIng some of our expanding athletic field needs, as well as the opportunity for some popular but less traditional park activities such as mountain biking and horseback riding. It is also possible that the County could choose ~o sell part or all of the property. While the bulk of tke property is in northern Albemarle County, our recent survey indicates that approximately 112 acres extend into Orange and Greene Counties. Obviously any recreation development of this property would serve a regional function. With this in mind, the County would be interested in knowing if any state agency would be interested in partIcipating in the planning and ultimate developmenE of the Priddy Creek property. More specifically, I would like your response to the following 3 questions: 1. Does VDGIF have any funds available to assist localities mn the development of fishing lakes? If the County were to make this property available to the state would VDGIF be interested in developing a state controlled lake similar no Lake Albemarle? 3 o Is there any other source of funds, or any other state department, that you think would be of value for us to consider as we try to determine the ultimate disposition of this property? Finally, let me take this opportunity to compliment our local VDGIF personnel for the great jOb they do in managing our existing fisheries. Price Smith and John Kauffman have been real friends to our Department for nearly 20 years now and a real credit to your agency. Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to these questions. I look forward to,hearing from you. Sincerely, Patrick K. Mullaney/ Director cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Bob Tucker BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-]6-97At0:28 RCVD VIRGINIA POi~ER May 12, t997 VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE960036 1995 ANNUAL INFORMATIONAL FILING VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE960296 ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY PLAN To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to ordering paragraph number 14 of the State Corporation Commission's Order of April 30, 1997, and ordering paragraph number 2 of the State Corprxration Commission's Order of May 8, 1997, Virginia Power is providing you a copy of these Orders. Please take notice of its contents. A complete copy of Virginia Powers Application in Case No. PUE960296 may be obtained from Virginia Power at no cost by written request to Pamela Johnson, Virginia Power, P. O. Box 26666, RichmOnd, Virginia 23261. Counsel Enclosures A~LZCATZON OF COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COIvIMISSION ATR]CHMOND, APRIL 30, 1997 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 1995 Annual Informational Filing ,970450114 SE NO. PUE960036 %. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA At the relation of the STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Ex Parte: Investigation of Electric Utilisy Industry Restructuring -- Virginia Electric and Power Company and APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Alternative Regulatory Plan CASE NO. PUE960296 ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING The Commission has pending before it a number of matters concerning the rates and services of Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "Company") that will be consolidated for hearing by this order, for Alternative Regulatory proceedin~ established including the Company's Application Plan, filed March 24, 1997. The by this Order will be a comprehensive On Case No. its AIF due in March, filed in lieu thereof, investigation into-the rates, terms and conditions of service, and earnings of Virginia Power. February 23, 1996, the Commission entered an order in PUE950031, directing Virginia Power to "file as paru of 1996, or as part of any rate application all of the schedules required by our Rate Case Rules. These schedules shall be adjusted uo reflect all of the accounuing adjustments permitted by the Rate Case Rules for a general rate application."~ The Commission found this step to be required because, in5er alia, of the number and complexity of the issues raised in Case No. PUE950031 and "because it has been some time since a comprehensive of service has occurred. 1995 AIF on June 13, 1996, Commission's granu of the filing included the general investigation of Virginia Power's cos5 ...2 Virginia Power submitted its (Case No. PUE960036) following the Company's requested extension. The rate case schedules as directed. ~ Order. at 5. Case No. pUE950031 was Virginia Power's 1994 Annual Informational Filing ("AIF"), made pursuant to the Commission's Rules Governing Utility Rate Increase Applications and Annual Informational Filings ("Rate Case Rules"). adopted in Case No. PUE850022. Pursuant =o Va. Code § 56-234.2, the Commission reviews the rates of public utilities annually, utilizing the AIF during years when ~he utility does not file s rate applicaulon. Order, at 4. On November 12, 1996, the Commission entered an order that established Case No. PUE960296 and directed Virginia-Power to file, on or before March 31, 1997, a number of studies, reports and recommendations concerning both its cost of service and the possible restructuring of the electric utility industry. Illustrative tariffs reflecting races for unbundled services and class cost of service studies depicting inter-class subsidies were among the information filed pursuant Order in Case No. PUE960296. Virginia Power was also directed that if for alternative to the Commission's it filed any plan regulation, such filing was to include all schedules, adjustments and data required for a general rate case per the Commission's Rate Case Rules, as they apply to general rate cases, using a 1996 calendar year as the cesc period. In addition, the Company was directed co show, to the extent possible, the impacts its proposal would have on each customer class and on the Company during ~he test period. On March 6, 1997, the Commission entered a Consent Order, granting the request of Virginia Power and the Staff that the Company's races currently on file with the Commission should be made interim and subject to refund as of March 1, 1997, pending further orders of the Commission. On March 24, 1997, Virginia Power filed its Application for Approval of Alternative Regulatory Plan ("Plan"). The various other reporss and studies required by the November 12, 1996, Commission order were filed by the Company on March 31, 1997. The proposed Plan includes the following "phased transition to retail competition"- (a) the Company's base rases would be frozen a~ their present level through December 31, 2002; (b) during that period a portion of the Company's earnings would be applied ~o the recovery of regulatory assets and, under certain circumstances, costs associated with purchased power con~rac~s with non-utility generators (NUGs) that would likely be unrecoverable after the transition from regulation to compesition (transition cosss); and (c) after the end of this period, if retail elsctric competition should be authorized, recovery of transition cosss (principally cosss associated with NUG concracss and nuclear decommissioning costs) would continue for specified periods through the use of a Transition Cost Charge.3 Virginia Power requested the Commission To establish a procedural schedule for the consideration of its application and "to gran~ approval for the proposed ra~e freeze and use of earnings ~o recover transition cosss and 5o gran~ approval, Application, a~ 2-3. in principle, 5ransition costs through a Transition Cost Charge,''4 of continued recovery after the rate freeze of as described in the application. On March 28, Report in analyzed, 1997, the Commission Staff filed its Staff Case No. PUE960036. It that report, the Staff reviewed and discussed Virginla~power's 1995~nnual Informational Virginia Power "is clearly in per books earnings test basis and on a The report further stated that Virginia regulatory asse~s recorded on its books large levels of strandable costs in the power contracts."5 Staff observed that Filing. The Staff concluded in its repot5 that an overearnings position on both a fully adjusted basis." Power has significant and "may have potentially form of uneconomic NUG the Commission could decide to "allow the Company ~o maintain its curren5 rate structure in order to mitigate the recovery risk associated with these cosss" or, in the alternative, "order a reduction in rates and use any residual earnings to write-off regulatory assets or ~o establish a reserve for s~randable assets." noEed that the Commission might consider these Finally, Staff issues "in the Application, au 4. Report, at 49. 5 context was ordered in Case No. NOW 'THE COMMISSION, of the continuing investigation of Virginia Power which PUE960296.~,~ having considered the above-referenced filings and the applicable statutes and rules, is of the opinion and finds that these two dockets should be consolidated, under Case No. PUE960296, for consideration of the implications of the above-referenced filings, including the 1995 AIF, the Company's proposed Alternative Re~l~latory Plan, and the Company's test year cost of service, on the rates, of service of Virginia Power. whether the public redesign o~ any of charges, and terms and conditions The Commission will also consider interest requires the restructuring or the Company's rates to, for example, reduce or eliminate any inter-class subsidies that the public interest requires unbundled services. Finally, might exist, and whether the Company to offer rates for the Commission will consider whether the public interest requires the continuation, modification or elimination of the Company's fuel factor7 and other deferred accounting mechanisms. Id. In Case No PUE950044, our S~aff recommended that the "desirability of continuing the current fuel factor methodology should be considered" in this docke~ and we agree that it should. 6 The Commission no~es that Virginia Power's Plan was filed pursuant to Va. Code § 56-235.2.B, which was amended by the 1996 session of ~he General Assembly 5o permit electric utilities to apply for an alternative form of regulation, and to authorize the Commission ~o consider regulatory alternatives upon its own motion. Va. Code § 56-235.2.C requires the Commission, prior 5o approving an alternative form of regulation, whether on application of a utility or on its own motion, to "assure that ~such action (i) pro~ec~s the public interest, (ii) will not unreasonably prejudice or disadvansage any cussomer or class of customers, and (iii) will not jeopardize the continuation of reliable electric service." The Commission may approve or reject the Plan filed by Virginia Power, or it may make such alteration zo the Plan as necessary 5o meet the requirements of the Code, or i5 may adop~ its own plan The Commission is of give nosice of the matters to in this proceeding. the opinion that the be considered in Company should this docket; that the Commission Staff should conduct a full investigasion into such mas~ers, including the reasonableness of the Company's ra~es; its excess earnings, if-any; the Company's proposed Plan; and the further other matters referenced above. The Commission is of the opinion that Staff should present its findings and 7 recommendations to-'the Commission, and that a public hearin9 should be held to receive relevant evidence on the issues of the reasonableness of the Company's rates, including the design and structure of those rates; the reasonableness of the Company's proposed Plan, and any amendments, revisions or alternaElves to the Plan; the appropriate disposition of the Company's excess earnings, if any; and, other matters related to the filing. The matters at issue in this proceeding are complex. The Commission must consider the suave of Virginia Power's current earnings, the reasonableness of its current services, rates, rate designs and rate structures, and the Company's economic position in a more competitive marketplace, toward which the electric utility industry seems to be evolving. Virginia Power's application for approval of its Plan requires the Commission to address the costs and benefits inherent in this evolution. The potential changes in costs and the ramifications of an alternative regulatory plan are significant and of fundamental imporsance; the Commission earnestly solicits, and the procedural schedule see forth below is designed to accommodate, full and meaningful participation by the'broadest range of interested parties. 8 The Commission is also esuablishing in this case for proposed settlemenus and stipulations among the Company, interested parties, and the Staff. a procedure some or all of Given the fundamental nauure and complexity of some of the issues presented by the Commission's inquiries, the Company's application and the changes taking place in the electric industry, the Commission encourages collaborative and creative efforts on the paru of all parulclpants in order uo help achieve resolution of issues where possible. One group of issues that the Commission believes should be explored through negotiation and receive special scrutiny relates ~o the contracts which Virginia Power has entered inuo with nonutitity generators. This issue is directly related to the determination of the Company's currenu cosu of service and to its proposal for approval of a conceptual framework ureaumenL of stranded cosus. Issues such as the conuracus and the appropriaue allocation of risk for future prudence of associated with overall procuremenu policies and individual contracts have been discussed by the Company and are involved in the Commission's inquiry in this case. According to the Company, the magnitude of the cosus assoczated with nonutility purchases will burden Virginia of course, It is Power with uneconomic costs in the future. Ratepayers, are paying some of these costs today in current rates. the responsibility of both Virginla Power and nonutility generators to seek to reduce significantly the magnitude of any uneconomic costs. The Commission encourages the development of proposals uo reduce or eliminate both currenu and potential rate impacus of such costs. We direct the Company and all nonutility generators that have contracts with the Company uo work uogether to develop such proposals. They are encouraged uo include other parties and the Staff in these discussions at an appropriate suage. Where approprlate, the Commission may also consider rene9otiated conuracus or other arrangements which help lower the Company's cost of service and raues. All participanus an the proceeding should consider negotiating and joining in proposals, which may encompass any issues that may be negotiated in this proceeding. Ail proposals,- settlements, and stipulations developed by the participants should be filed with the Commissmon by December 22, 1997. Any such proposed settlements or stipulations will be subject to review uo ensure that the public interest is fully protected. Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED That: (1) On or before May 7, copy of its Application Plan, together with all filed data, available business hours at all 1997, Virginia Power shall make a for Approval of Alternative Regulatory supporting testimony, exhibits, and other for public inspection during regular its regional offices and shall serve a copy of (2) this order on each nonutility generator with which it has a for purchased power; On or before June 2, 1997, Virginia Power shall file an original and twenty (20) copies of any additional testimony and exhibits it wishes the Commission to consider in this matter; (3) On or before September 15, 1997, any person desiring to parslclpate as a Protestant, as defined by SCC Rule 4:6,8 shall file with the Clerk of the Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, an original and twenty (20) copies of a Notice of Protest, as provided in SCC Rule 5:161a), and shall serve a copy upon Pamela Johnson, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666. All filings required in this Order, and any service upon Virginia Power required in this Order, shall be made at the addresses contained in this paragraph; The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("$CC Rules"). 11 (4) file an original and 5wensy (20) copies of compliance with SCC Rule 5:16(b), and (ii) and exhibits the Protestant intends hearing and Protestant, (5) On or before October 15, 1997, all Protestants shall serve a copy of each on and Staff; On or before December 15, (i) their Protest, in all direc5 testimony to presen5 at the public the Company, each other 1997, the Commission Staff shall file an original and twenty (20) copies of all direct testimony and exhibits the Staff intends to present at the public hearing and serve a copy on the Company and on each Protestant; (6) On or before December 22, 1997, Virginia Power, Protestants, and Staff shall file any proposed settlements or stipulations for the Commission's consideration and serve a copy on all patsies and Staff; (7) On or before January 15, 1998, all parties and the Staff shall file an original and zwenty (20) copies of ail 5esslmony and exhibits each intends to present in response ~o any proposed sestlements or ssipulations and in rebuttal ~o all prefiled testimony and exhibits of Staff shall serve a copy on each patsy ~o this (8) On or before February 3, 1998, all Pro~estanss shall and all parties and proceeding and Staff; the Company, Staff and file an original and twenty (20) copies of 12 all testimony and exhibits that each intends to present in reply no the response no any proposed settlements or stipulations and in surrebuttal to the rebuttal testimony and shall serve a copy on the Company, on each Protestant and Staff. Additional rebuttal or surrebuttal testimony may be presented at the hearing in response uo evidence that could non be ~esponded to wiuh prefiled testimony prior ~o the hearing and then only with leave of the Commission; (9) A public hearing is scheduled for February 16, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's courtroom on the second floor of 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, recelvzng evidence relevanu no the matters the Tyler Building, for the purpose of herein; (10) Within five (5) days of receipt of any notice of proues~ the Company shall serve upon each Protestant a copy of all material now or hereafter filed with the CommissIon and upon wrzmnen requesu for a copy of its application, the Company shall promptly mail a copy 5o the requesting parny; (11) Responses or objections ~o discovery requesns shall be made within 5en (10) days of receipt of same; otherwise, the remaining provmsmons of Rule 6:4 shall apply; 13 (12) Any person desiring to comment in writing on the Company's application, or the other matters under consideration here, may do so by directing such comments on or before January 15, 1998, to the Clerk of the Commission at the address set out above, All written comments must refer to Case No. PUE960296. Any person desiring to make a statement a~ the public hearing concerning the application' should appear in the Commission's courtroom at 9:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and identify himself or herself co the Bailiff as a public witness; (13) On or before June 15, 1997, the Company shall complete the publication of the following notice, ~o be published once a week for two consecutive weeks, in newspapers of general circulation in the Company's service territory: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY PLAN FOR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, FOR A GENER3iL REVIEW OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COMPANY'S RATES AND FOR OTHER MATTERS On February 23, 1996, the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") ordered Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or "Company) to file, as parc of its Annual Informational Filing ("AIF") for calendar year 1995, al]_-schedules required by the Commission's Rate Case Rules, adjusted to reflect accounting adjustments permitted in a general rate case. Virginia Power completed that filing on June 13, 1996. On March 28, 1997, the Staff of the 14 Commission filed its Report on Virginia Power's AIF. On November 12, 1996, the Commission entered an order establishing Case No. PUE960296 and directed Virginia Power ~o file a number of reporss, studies and recommendations on its cost of sarvice and the possible ressructuring of the electric utilisy industry. On March 24, 1997, Virginia Power filed its Alternative Regulatory Plan. The other studies, reports and recommendations directed by 5he Commission were filed March 31, 1997. By Commission order entered March 6, 1997, the rases of Virginia Power were made inserim and subject 5o refund. By Commission order entered April 30, 1997, Virginia Power's 1995 AIF and its Alternative Regulatory Plan cases were consolidated for review by the Commission and a public hearing was scheduled for the purpose of considering the reasonableness of Virginia Power's rates, the proper disposition of its excess earnings, if any, les proposed Alternative Regulatory Plan, and a number of other matters more specifically set forth in the Order, including, but not limited to the reasonableness of the Company's rase ssrucsure, rate designs, fuel fastor and other deferral mechanisms. In addition, the Commission may develop and adopt its own alternative regulatory plan in this proceeding. The public hearing will be held on February 16, 1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m. !n the Commission's cour5room on the second floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Although Virginia Power has proposed to freeze its base rates, as par5 of its proposed Alternative Regulatory Plan, the Commission may, following this hearing, order different ra~es in~D effect or a different 15 alternative rate plan. As a result, rates for individual services provided by VirGinia Power may increase, decrease, or remain the same and the Commission may also change VirGinia Power's terms and conditions of service. The Company's application for an Alternative ReGulatory Plan, all material filed pursuant to ~he Commission's orders in Case Nos. PUE960036 and 960296, and the Commission's Order for Notice and HearinG, dated April 30, 1997, are available for inspection during regular business hours at the Commission's Document Control Center on the first floor of the Tyler BuildinG. The Company's application is also available for inspection a~ all Virginia Power regional offices or interested persons may obtain a copy of the Company's application by directing a written request to the Company's counsel, Pamela Johnson, Esquire, VirGinia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, VirGinia 23261. The Commission established, in its April 30, 1997, Order, a comprehensive procedural schedule for consideration of this case. Written comments on the matters under consideration may be directed to the Clerk of the Commission, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, VirGinia 23218, must make reference to Case No. PUt960296, and must be filed on or before January 15, 1998. Any person desiring to make a statement at the public hearing should appear at the Commission's courtroom aT 9:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and identify himself or herself To the Bailiff as a public witness. Individuals with disabilities who require accommodation to participate in the hearinG should call the Commission at least seven (7) days prior to the scheduled 16 hearing, at 1-(800) 552-7945 (voice) or 1- (800) 371-9206 (TDD) I Persons desiring to participate as a Protestant may obtain a copy of the Aprit 30, 1997, Order for Notice and Hearing from the Clerk of the Commission, for more detailed information regarding this proceeding and for a copy of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All written communications to the Commission regarding this case should be directed to the Clerk of the Commission, at (14) On or before a copy of this Order on the address see ouE above. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY May 15, 1997, Virginia Power shall serve the chairman of the board of supervisors of each county and on the mayor or manager of each city or town (or the equivalent official in cities, counties, or ~owns with alternative forms of governmens) in which it provides service. Service shall be made by first-class mail to the customary place of business or residence of each person served; and (15) At the commencement of the hearing, Virginia Power shall file proof of notice and service required by paragraphs (13) and (14) herein. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to Pamela Johnson, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261-6666; Evans B. Brasfield, Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Riverfront Plaza- 17 East Tower, James C. Street, Hazel 22314; 951 Roberts, Esquire, Mays & Valentine, Richmond, Virginia 23219; William G. East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074; 1111 East Main Thomas, Esquire, & Thomas, 500 King Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia Catherine Hammond, Esquire, Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Edward L. Petrini, Esquires. Christian & Barton, 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; and, co the Commission's Office of General Counsel and Divisions of Energy Regulation, Economics and Finance, and Public Ut'ility Accounting. ~e ~oor~on ~omrn~n 18 ~¥.-09' 97{PRII 10:$2 SCC CLERK'S 0FF]C TEL:S04 371 9654 CO1WlVIONWI~ALTI-/OF STATE CORPORATION CO~4I$$~ON LIOCUMF-NT COIT[ P, OI. AT RICHMOND, MAY 8, i997 " 5 ;970 ! 0222 VI~3INIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 1995 Annual Informational Filing CASE NO. PuEg60036 COMMO~ALTH OF VIRG~'NIA A~ the relation of the / STATE. CORPORATION COMFLT$SION ,/ ~ I~ves=igation of Electric "- Ukility Industry Restructuring --~-- ...... Virginia Electric and Power ~ompany CASJ~ NO. L~IB960296 '% and Application for Alternative Regulatory Plan On April 30, 199~, the Commission entered its Or,ar for Notice and Nearing, establish/ng a procedural schedule for the captione~ matter. That schedule included a public hearing =o be held beginning on February 16, lS98. The Commission has since been: advised tha~ t~ha= ~aywill be designated a state holiday and stat9 offices will be closed. Accordingly, IT I$ ORDERED THAT: (!) The public hearing in this mat~er will oot~ence at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998~ MAY. -09' 97(PRI~) lO~fi2 TEL:80~ ~?1 9654 P (2) Virginia Bower shall amen~ the nc=ice prescribed in the Order for No=ice and Hearing to reflect uhe amended date for the Dubltc hearing; and (3) This. matter is continued for further orders of the Commission. A~ ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be senu by the Clerk cf =he Commission :o= Pamela Johnson, Esquire, Vir~tn/a Electric and. Power Company, B.C. ~ox 9-6666, R3.ch~o~d, Virginia 23261; Catherine Hammond, Esquire, Office of Attorney ~enera!, 900 ~as= Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Evans B, ~rasfisld, Esquire, Hunton a Williams, Riverfron: Plaza, East Tower, 951 East Byrd Street, Riuhmond, Viz~inia 2~219-40~4; E~ward L, ~e=rini, ~.squire, Christian & ~arton, 909 E~st Main Street, Suite 1200, R/chmon~, Vi=girh%a 23219-30~; James C. Esquire, Mays & ValeDtine, B.O. Box 1121, Richmond, 23218-1122; William G. Thomas, Esquire, ~azel & Thomas, Virginia the Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22~14; and, =o Commission's Office cf ~eneral Counsel and Divisions of. Energy Rsg~lation, E¢ono~ics and Finance, and Public Utility Accounting. George Allen Gove~or Secre~ of Nstuml R~om'ces BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-21-9?P0':I? RCVD COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrlsonburg, Virginia 2280/ Mailhlg address: P.O. Box 1129, Harrlsonburb Virginia 2280/-1129 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540} 574-7878 hit p://www.deq.s[ ate.va, us Thomas L. Hopkins Director R. Bradley Chewning, Valley Regional Director May 19, 1997 Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman Albemarle County Board o~ Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Relssuance of VPDES Perm_it No. VA0028398, Avionics Specialties Dear Mrs. Humphris: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, am enclosing a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed perml~ action. If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please give me a call at (540)574-7800. Sincerely, C. Kemper hoyd Environmental Engineer Enclosure cc: File An .4gency of the Natural Resources Secretariat PUBLIC NOTICE REISSUANCE OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by newspaper) The State Water Control Board has under consideration reissuance of the following Permit and State Certificate: Permit No.: Name of Permittee: Facility Name: Facility Location: Permittee Address: VA0028398 Aerosonic Corporation Avionics Specialties, Inc. East side of Rte. 743, 0.4 mile north of the Rte. 743/Rte. 606 intersection. P.O. Box 6400, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Discharge Description: Existing discharge resulting from the operation of a sewage treatment plant; Flow: 0.005 MGD; Total Outfalls: 1. Receiving Stream: Naked Creek, U.T.; Stream Mile: 0.68; Basin: James (Middle); Subbasin: N/A; Section: 10j; Class: III; Special Standards: PWS This proposed reissuance is tentative and consists of limiting the following parameters: BOD~ 18 mg/1 maximum; Suspended Solids - 18 mg/1 maximum; pH - 6.0 S.U. minimum and 9.0 S.U. maximum; Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/1 minimum; Total Residual Chlorine - Nondetectable maximum; Ammonia - 2.1 mg/1 maximum. On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to reissue the permit subject to certain conditions. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board. Persons may comment in writing to the Department of Environmental Quality on the proposed permit action within 30 days from the date of the first notice. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer, and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for the comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The DEQ Director may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. Requests for public hearings shall state the reason why a hearing is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. (Public Notice Continued - Page 2) (Permit No. VA0028398) Ail pertinent information is on file and may be ihspected, and arrangements made for copying by contacting C. Kemper Loyd at: Department of Environmental Quality Valley Regional Office 4411 Early Road P.O. Box 1129 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Telephone No. (540) 574-7800 Following the comment period, the Director will make a determination regarding the proposed reissuance. This determination will become effective unless the Director grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Adelphia Communications Corporation Final Resolution of Cable Programming Service Rate Complaints ORDER Adopted: May 1, 1997 Released: May 5, 1997 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it a Resolution submitted by Adelphia Communications Corporation ("Adelphia"), which will resolve 66 cable rate complaints filed against Adelphia by subscribers in 40 communities m eight states for cable programming service offerings from September 1, 1993, through December 31, 1995, including complaints as to which the Cable Services Bureau ("Bureau") has issued orders.~ Together these cases affect service for approximately 320,000 subscribers.2 For the reasons stated below, and based upon our review of the record, we find that the Resolution serves the interests of Adeiphia's subscribers by, among other ~chings, bringing finality and stability ro basic service tier ("BST") and cable programming service tier ("CPST") rates and improving the availability of customer programming choices. Adoption of the Resolution is consistent with the Commission's responsibility under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act")3 to ensure that consun~ers' interests are protected in the receipt of cable services and that regulated CPST rates are not unreasonable. ~The Resolution is attached to this Order as Attachment A. 2See Resolution, Exhibit 1. Complaints were filed in 30 communities covering the period September 1, 1993, through May 15, 1994, and in 10 communities covering the period May 15, 1994, through December 31, 1995. Adelphia responded to both sets of complaints by filing 40 benchmark rate justifications. The Resolution does not apply to complaints concerning rates in eight other communities for which Adelphia submitted cost-of-service rate justifications. Those complaints are being resolved separately. 3pub~ L. No. 102-385. 106 Stat~ 1460 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C3. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 BACKGROUND 2. The 1992 Cable Act gave the Commission and local franchising authorities jurisdiction over the cable programming and equipment rates of cable systems that did not face effective competition, as defined by that Act. Specifically, with respect to cable systems that are not subject to effective competition, the 1992 Cable Act provides that franchising authorities may regulate the rates for BSTs pursuant to guidelines established by the Commission, and the Commission may regulate the rates for CPSTs upon the filing of a complaint.4 The governing standard for resolving CPST complaints is that rates not be tmreasonablefi In enacting the legislation, Congress stated its intent that the 1992 Cable Act be implemented to "ensure that consumer interests are protected in the receipt of cable service."6 3. On September 10, 1996, the Commission adopted an order instructing the Bureau to serve the Resolution as proposed ("Proposed Resolution") on alt local franchising authorities in the benchmark and cost-of-service franchise areas covered by the Proposed Resolution and on any party other than a local franchising authority that filed a valid complaiut.7 The order provided a 30-day period for comments on the proposal and a 15-day period for repliesfi 4. The Resolution resolves complaints regarding CPST rates and pending BST proceedings in the franchise areas listed in Exhibit ! for the period ending December 31, 1995. Although it does not admit that it violated Commission rules. Adetphia agrees to make refunds totaling approximately $2.45 million,9 which includes interest computed through December 31, 1996, plus additional interest computed from January 1, 1997, through the date of payment. Adelphia also will reduce rates in 17 communities. Because the Resolution affects matters within the jurisdiction of local franchising authorities, they may opt out of certain aspects of it. 41992 Cable Act $ 3, 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2) (mending Communications Act of 1934 ("Communications Act") § 623, 47 U.S.C. § 543). Section 301(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. 115 { 1996), mended the CPST complaint process for complaints filed after its effective date. 547 U.S.C. § 543(c). 61992 Cable Act § 2(b)(4), 106 Stat. at 1463; see also H.IL Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. at 34 (19921. 7Adelphia Communicaticttis Corp., 11 FCC Red 11255 (1996). As noted above, the Resolution does not affect any cost-of-service fi'anchise areas. Sln response to a request for additional time filed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Office of Cable Television, the Bureau extended each of these deadlines by 14 days. Public Notice. Cable Services Bureau Announces Extension of Time To File Comments on the Proposed Resolution for Adelphia Communications Corporation (DA 96-1648), 11 FCC Rcd 12303 (Cab. Serv. Bur.. 1996). ~See Resolution, Exhibit 2. Federal Communications Commission FCC 9%151 5. Adelphia's refund liability is due principally to its decision to remove all of its programming from its CPSTs and offer it individually and also in a la carte packages (known as "CableSelect") to subscribers. On November 18, 1994, the Bureau released a Letter Of Inquiry decision ("South Dade County")}° concluding that the CableSelect a la carte package Adeiphia offered in South Dade County, Florida, which included all 32 channels that Adelphia had offered previously on its CPST, constituted an evasion of regulation and must be treated as a regulated CPST. TheCommissiondeniedAdelphia'sApplicationforReviewoftheBureau'sorder.n The Bureau issued similar orders ("Bucyrus Order" and "Charlottesville Order") concluding that Adelphia's a la carre packages in Bucyrus, Ohio, and Charlottesville. Virgin/a, constituted evasions and should be treated as regulated CPSTs? Adelphia filed Applications for Review in both of those cases, which are now pending. Adelphia also had sought court review of the Commission's Going Forward Order~3 with regard to the Commission's regulation of a la carte packages. In the Going Forward Order, the Commission concluded that a la carte packages are CPSTs within the meaning of Section 311)12) of the 1992 Cable Act. On July 23, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colttmbia Circuit upheld the Commission's regulations and denied Adelphia's appeal,TM 6. During the course of the Bureau's discussions with Adelphia, the Bureau and Adetphia proposed to resolve the treatment of the CableSelect channels by agreeing that Adelphia would include all but four of the channels in its benchmark channel counts thereinaf~er referred to as the "minus-four channel count") for the purpose of determining the maximum permitted CPST and BST rates from September 1993 forward. The Bureau has ruled that packages of small numbers of a la carte channels may be exehided from CPSTs for such purposes [n orders involving other cable operators that adjusted their channel offerings on the eve of regulation by moving a small number of channels into such packages? The effect of this aspect of the ~°Adelphia Cable Partneo~s. L.P. rSouth Dade County, Florida), 9 FCC Rcd 7781 /Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994] application for review denied, 11 FCC Rcd 246t (1995), petition for reconsideration pending. nAdelphia Cable Partners. L.P (South Dade County), 11 FCC Rcd 2461 (1995)~ X2Petition of the City of Bucyrus, Ohio (DA 95-662), 1 l FCC Rcd 782 (Cab. Serv. Bur.. 1995) (Bucyrus Orde?l; Multi-Channel T.V. Cable Co. d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications (DA 95-157), 10 FCC Red 2345 (Cab. Sere. Bur.. 1995) [Charlottesville Order). ~3Implernentation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation ("Rate Regulation"), MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, Sixth Order on Reconsideration, Fiffit Report and Order, and Seventh Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Red 1226, 1241 (1994), afl'd, Adelphia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 88 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 1996) C'Adelphia v. FCC"). The regulations that were adopted or modified by the Going Forward Order are referred to hereinafter as the Going Forward Rules. ~4Adelphia v. FCC, supra note 13. tSFor example, in Warner Cable Communications ~Milwaukee, WisconsinL 9 FCC Rcd 7777, 7780 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994), where Warner Cable moved four channels from regulated tiers to an a la carte package, we ruled that it was not clear the realignment constituted an evasion of regulation and allowed Warner Cable to retain the package. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 Resolution is to increase'the per-channel rate Adelphia is entitled to charge under our rules above the rate that would apply if the four channels were included in the benchmark channel count. 7. In addition, with respect to several of Adelphia's Form 393, 1200, and 1210 filings, Adelphia demonstrated thak after giving effect to the removal of four channels, its BST and/or CPST rates were lower than the maxamum permitted rates authorized under the Commission's rules. Under the Resolution, m any community in which BST or CPST rates still exceed maximum permitted levels, the overcharges will be offset, or reduced, by any undercharges in the corresponding CPST or BST rates in that community for purposes of determining refund amounts.16 III. SUMMARY OF RATE RESOLUTION 8. All 320,000 subscribers in the 40 communities that are included in the Resolution will participate in the refunds of $2,45 million that Adelphia will make under the terms of the Resolution. The Resolution provides a minimum $3.00 refund per subscriber, with larger refunds for subscribers in 17 communities. The minimum refund condition will benefit subscribers in the 23 communities in which the Resolution rates produced no refund liability? 9. Refunds will'vary from $3.00 per subscriber to as much as $55.22 per subscriber.TM The per-subscriber refunds are shown in Exhibit 2 of the Resolution. Adelphia will pay the appropriate refund to individuals in each of the communities who are subscribers as of the date of payment. Refunds will be paid hq the form of monthly billing credits of at least $0.50. and payment will start no later than 120 days after the Commission adopts this Order. Refunds will be paid in full within 12 months of the date Adelphia commences refund payments. Interest will See also Nashoba Cable Serv. (Danvers. Massachusetts~. 10 FCC Red 994 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (movement of six channels to a la carte package); U.S. Cable Corporation (City of Lake Forest and Village of Lake Bluff, Illinois). 10 FCC Rcd 533 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (movement of four channels to a la carte package); Comcast Cablevision fMt. Clemens, Michigan), 10 FCC Rcd 103 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (same); MultiVision Cable TV ,~Prince George's County, Maryland), 10 FCC Rcd 91 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994) (same); Comcast Cablevision (TaIlahassee, Florida), 9 FCC Rcd 7773 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1994), afl'd, 11 FCC Rcd 1246 (1995) (same). ~A similar calculation ,w~s approved by the Commission in Continental Cablevision. Inc. Amended Social Contract, 11 FCC Red 11118, 11142 (1996) ("Continental Amended Social Contract"). 17The $3.00 minimum refund increased Adelphia's refund liability by approximately $670,000 above the refund it would have been obligated to pay without this condition. ~aSee Resolution, Exhibit 2. Subscribers residing in Saranac Lake will eligible for the $55.22 refund, which will be paid through a monthly credit of approximately $4.60. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 accrue until refunds are fully paid. Adelphia will not seek to recover approximately $94,000 in overpayments of franchise fees from those communities to which it is making refunds? 10. Adelphia also will reduce current BST and CPST rates in all communities in which existing rates exceed the benchmark rates. The monthly reductions in BST rates range from $0.17 to $5.17 per subscriber. The reductions in CPST rates range from $0.09 to ~2.48 per subscriber. These rate reductions are shown in Exh/bit 3 of the Resolution. Adelphia agrees to cap its BST and CPST rates at current levels (after any applicable reductions are implemented), subject m any inflation and external cost increases Adelphia is entitled to recover, including any Form 1240 increases thgt Adelphia may implement. 11. In certain communities, Adelphia will create a low-cost "Lifeline Rate" for BST service, which is 'calculated by including in the benchmark channel count the four a la carte channels that were excluded in calculating refund liability.2° This will result in a lower per- channel rate and a lower overall rate for the BST. The affected communities are listed in Exhibk 3. Adelphia will implement Lifeline Rates no later than 120 days after the Commission adopts the Resolution. The BST rate reduction necessary to implement Lifeline Rates will vary by community. In those communities where the actual BST rate is low already, little or no reduction will occur.2~ In those communities with relatively high BST rates, current rates will be reduced by as much as $5.17 per month when Adelphia implements the Lifeline Rates.22 Adelphia may increase CPST rates by an mount up to the amount by which the BST rate is reduced from the maximum permitted level (using a minus-four channel count), except that CPST rates will be further capped so that the combined actual BST and CPST rates do not exceed the combined maximum permitted rates for both tiers. As a result, Adelphia will not be able to fully recover the aggregate BST rate reductions through CPST rate increases.23 12. In addition, Adelphia may create a single Migrated Product Tier ('MPT") on each of the systems subject to the Resolution by moving a maxhnum of four regulated services to the MPT. Adelphia may alSO include in the MPT up to two services that Adelphia added to the ~OSections 76.942(0 and 76.961(e) of the Comnfission's rules require local franchising authorities to refund to cable operators any franchise fees paid by the operator with respect to past rate overcotlections that the operator refunds to subscribers. 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.942(0 (BST rotes), 76.961(e) (CPST rates). Because Adelphia, the intended beneficiary of these rules, has agreed not to assert its rights, we are finding them waived. Local franchising authorities and their subscribem will benefit from this aspect of the Resolution. ~°Adelphia will not implement a Lifeline Rate in those communities that are not exercising their right to regulate BST rates. 2~In some communities, the current BST rate is already equal to or less than the Lifeline Rate, end Adelphia therefore will not be required to reduce the BST rate in those communities. 22See Resointion, Exhibit 3. The $5.17 rate reduction will apply to subscribers in Palm Beach Shores, Florida. 2~This is because BST subscribers outnumber CPST subscribers in each of the affected communities, Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 system after September 30, 1994. The migrated channels in each system will be priced at the per-channel rate applicable m the system's regttlated tiers; however, an unlimited number of hdditional new channels can be added to each MPT, and the MPT rate may be increased for each new channel by up to $0.20 plus license fees. Adelphia may also increase the price of an MPT for inflation and external costs as allowed by Section 76.922 of the Commission's rules governing CPST rates? As of January 1, 1998, the MPTs may be treated as New Product Tiers ("NPTs") under the Commission's Going Forward Rules? 13. Adelphia may not require MPT subscribers to take any programming service except basic service, and it may not require CPST subscribers to take the MPT. If it does create an MPT, Adelphia will not have to re-market it to subscribers who previously received the migrated services. Services added to an MPT will not be considered new services for the purpose of the limit on service additions and rate increases under the Commission's Going Forward Rules.26 14. Because we are calculating BST rates and refund liability, the Proposed Resolution includes an "opt-out" provision under which a local franchising authority may decide to opt out of the refund portion of the Resolution and make its own refund calculations. However. even if a local authority does opt out, it will be bound to our minus-four channel count for purposes of calculating refunds a~d establishing revised rates. Adelphia will not be required to create a Lifeline Rate in such communities or forego collection of franchise fee overpayments associated with any refund liability. Regardless of whether they opt out, local franchising authorities will be bound by the Resolution provisions govermng future rate increases (except with respect to CPST offsets related to the creation of Lifeline Rates) and the creation of MPTs and NPTs. 15. The Resolution vacates the Charlottesville Order and the Bucyrus Order. and upon our adoption of this Order, Adelphia will be deemed to have withdrawn its Applications for Review of those orders.27 The Resolution also effectuates Adeiphia's withdrawal of its petition for reconsideration of our order denying its Application for Review in South Dade County? The Resolution resolves all pending CPST rate complaints and BST proceedings filed or initiated as of December 31, 1995, in the affected communities, other than CPST complaints for which Adelphia submitted cost-of-service justifications. 2447 C.F.R~ § 76.922(d)-(f). 25See 47 C.F.R. § 76.986(c). Adelphia may also create other NPTs or single-channel offerings pursuant to the Commission's rules. za47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e); Going, Forward Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1249-55. 27Section 130/of the Resolution erroneously refers to petitions for reconsideration of the Charlottesville Order and Bucyrus Order. Adelphia did not file petitions for reconsideration of these orders, and we are Therefore amending the Resolution, on our own motion, to eliminate the erroneous references. ZSSupra note 10. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 16. The Resolution allows Adelphia to avail itself of existing laws and regulations, including applicable modifications of any laws or regulations governing the CPST. However. notwithstanding such laws and regulations or modifications thereto, Adetphia must provide refunds according to the terms of the Resolution. IV. COMMENTS 1T Eighteen parties submitted comments. Adelphia filed reply commen~s and supplemental reply comments. Thirteen of the commenters, all local franchising authorities. support adoption of the Proposed Resolution? Another local franchising' authority, the New Jersey State Board of Public Utilities ("New Jersey Board" or "Board"), supports adoption of the Proposed Resolution with one modification concerning the distribution of refunds. The remaining four commemers oppose the Proposed Resolution.3° Lee and Judith Borland object generally to the level of the refunds and prospective rate reductions,st Anthony W. Daniel enumerates several concerns and objects generally ~o the "level of compensation, and the manner in which it is proposed .... .32 The Village of Saranac Lake ("Saranac Lake") echoes the sentiments expressed by Mr. Daniel and states that "an appropriate penalty should be added to the repayment plan."33 A group of six local franchising authorities in Southwestern Pennsylvania al'Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities")TM opposes the Resolution and requests that we reject it on the grounds that local franchising authorities were not included in the Bureau's discussions with Adelphia concerning the Proposed Resolution and that the refunds are too low as a result of the channel count used to derive them. In its reply comments, Adelphia addresses the connnents in 2°These are: the Township of Berkeley, New Jersey; the City of Charlottesville, Virginia: the County of Frederick. Virginia: the Township of Haverford, Pennsylvania: the Town of Hilton Head, South Carolina; the City of Hudson, Ohio~ the Borough of Island Heights, New Jersey; the Township of Lacey, New Jersey; the City of Lorain, Ohio; the City of Macedonia, Ohio; the Municipality of Murrys~ille, Pennsylvania: the Township of Ocean_ Ocean County, New Jersey; and the City of Waynesboro. Virginia. The City of Waynesboro, Virginia, states in its comments that "[t]he City believes that the Proposed Resolution is in the best interests of the residents of Waynesboro and supports its final adoption by the FCC." The other comments in support include similar statements. 3°Comments in opposition were filed by: Lee and Judith Borland of Lake Placid, New York; Anthony W. Daniel of Saranac Lake. New York; the Village of Saranac Lake, Inc.: and a group of six local franchising authorities located in Southwestern Pennsylvania outside of the City of Pittsburgh (Peters Township, the Municipality of Bethel Park, the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon, the Township of Upper St. Clair, the Borough of Pleasant Hills, and the Borough of West Mifflin). 3~Conunents of Lee and Judith Borland ("Borland Comments") at 2. 32Commeets of Anthony W. Daniel ("Daniel Comments") at 2 33Comments of the Village of Saranac Lake, Inc. ("Saranac Lake Comments"), at I 54See supra note 30 (listing the six local fi'anchising authorities}. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 opposition to the Resolution and the comments of the New Jersey Boardfi5 Adelphia also submitted a schedule of revised and reduced refunds for three New York communities. In its supplemental reply comments, however, Adelphia reiterates its support for the Resolution even without the revised refund levels. The conunents opposing the Resolution, the comments of the New Jersey Board, and Adelphia's reply comments and supplemental reply comments are discussed more fully below. V. DISCUSSION 18. As an initial matter, we find that the Commission has authority to approve the Resolution. The Communications Act of 1934 provides the Commission with wide discretion to resolve rate cases. Section 40) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to "perform any and.all acts . . . not inconsistent with [thel Act, as may be necessary m the execution of its fi. ltlCtions."36 Section 4(j) provides that "[t]he Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.. ,37 Our action in this case is fully cons~stem with the [992 Cable Act and with Congress's dual objectives of simplifying cable rate regulation and protecting consumers.*~ As we have concluded in other recent proceedings, the Commission has authority to consider the Proposed Resolution and to determine, after review and consideration of comments, that the rates set forth in the Resolution are not unreasonable.39 19. We find that the rates and refunds provided for in the Resolution are not unreasonable within the meaning of section 623(c)(1) of the Communications ACt.4° The Bureau reviewed FCC Form 393s, Form 1200s, and Form 1210s for the 40 community unit identification numbers ("CUIDs") included in the Resolution.4j The Resolution takes into consideration certain offsets and channel count adjusunems claimed by Adelphia aud also the public interest benefit to 3SAdelphia's reply comments do not address the Borland Comments. 3647 U.S.C. § 1540), 3747 U.S.C. § 1540). 3~See 1992 Cable Act § 2(b), 106 Stat. at 1463; 47 U.S.C. § 521(6); see also 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(2)(A). ~VSee TC1 Communications, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 14696. 14699-70 (1996) ("TC/"); Garden State Cablevisior~ L.P., 11 FCC Rcd 7327. 7329-30 (1996) ("Garden State"). ~°47 U.S.C. § 543(c)(1). ~'The Commission has assigned CUIDs to local communities across the country. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 consumers of prompt, certain relief. The major features of the Resolution reflect principles that have been adopted by the Commission in previous rate orders.42 20. Were the Commission to resolve the pending CPST complaints by ordering Adelphia to issue refunds and reduce rates without the offsets and channel count adjustments incorporated in the Resolution, Adeiphia would be able to prolong the ultimate resolution of these matters by filing petitions for reconsideration of each such order and by seeking review of our orders on reconsideration in a federal appeals court. Under the Resolution, Adelphia will nor seek reconsideration or appellate review of the refund levels and rate reductions required by the Resolution, and it will issue its first refUnds and reduce rates within 120 days of our adoption of this Order~ 21. The cburts have long recognized that regulatory agencies have broad discretion to choose among ratemaking methods and procedures in ratemaking determinations, provided that the resulting rates are within a range of reasonableness.4~ The process of adjudicating each of the rate complaints individually and litigating those rulings through the courts -- a process that would likely take several years -- would not be in the public interest, given that the Resolution ensures that subscribers will benefit from reasonable rates and will receive refunds immediately. 22. To the extent that adoption of the Resolution requires waiver of any of our rules, or modifications to the information required on Commission forms, we find that such waiver or modification is in the public interest, because the Resolution will ensure the expeditious resolution of a large number of rate complaints while protect'mg consumers' statutory interest in CPST rates that are not unreasonable. We recognize that our rules contemplate an adjudication of each CPST rate complaint pursuant to specified ratemaking standards.44 To the extent that we have diverged from these rules by adopting this Resolution, we find good cause to waive these rules pursuant 42 TC1. 11 FCC Rcd at 14723_ 14725-26 (global resolution of rate complaints, establishment of MPTs~: Comcast Cable Communications lnc.~. 11 FCC Red 4029. 4032-33 (1995) [global resolution of rate complaints); Social Contract for Time Warner, 11 FCC Rcd 2788, 2854-55, 2858~62 (1995), appeal pending sub nom. Intercommunity Cable Regulatory Corem 'n v. FCC, No. 96-1027 CD.C. Cir., filed Jan. 29.1996) (motion to hold in abeyance granted by order dated June 12, 1996) (global resolution of rate complaints, exclusion of channels from benchmark formula rare calculation, creation of lifeline BST rates, establishment of MPTs, waiver of franchise fee repayment); Social Contract for Continental Cablevision, 11 FCC Red 299, 34345 (1995) (global resolution of CPST rate complaints and BST rate proceedings, creation of lifeline BST rates and MPTs, adoption of local franchising authority "opt out" provision); Continental Amended Social Contract, 11 FCC Red at 11170 (exclusion of channels t~om benchmark formula rate calculation); Garden State, 11 FCC Rcd at 7331, 7334 (global resolution of rate complaints, establishment of MPTs). 4S See Federal Power Comm'n v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 315 U.S. 515, 585-86 (1942); cf FERC v. Pennzoil Producing Co.. 439 U.S. 508, 517 [1979) (construing ratemaking standard under the Natural Gas Act); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797 (1968) (construing ratemaking standard under the Natural Gas Act and aff'aming aggregated ratemal(mg approach). ~4See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.922, 76.950-963. Federal Communications Commission FCC 9%151 to section 1.3 of our rules? Specifically, we find that such a waiver furthers the purpose of the rules and advances the public interest because the Resolution will effectively achieve the objectives of the 1992 Cable Act by ensuring the expeditious resolution of all pending benchmark rate complaints regarding the affected systems while protecting consumers from unreasonable BST and CPST rates through rate reductions and prompt issuance of refunds. We further observe that the Commission's authority to resolve cases in an analogous manner has been affirmed ~n other contexts.46 23. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities object to the Commission's adoption of the Resolution in part because the Bureau did not permit local franchising authorities to participate in discussions with Adelphia about the Proposed Resolution before it was finalized. Instead, the Commission sought, received, and reviewed their positions through the written comment procedure after the Proposed Resolution had been developed. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities state that the exclusion of local franchising authorities from the Commission's rate resolution discussions with operators "permits cable operators m have separate private discussions with a local franchising authority and also with the FCC and permits the operator to then adopt the settlement proposal which is in the best interest of the cable operator. and not the subscribers."47 They aver that the Commission should reform the "rules that are construed to permit such a system."48 24. No party has submitted information indicating that a local franchising authority or other party has been prejudiced by our process. We have sought to balance the need to present a reasonable resolution of a myriad of contested rate complaints with a real oppommity for those interested to present their views. We think we have done so here. The Bureau complied with all applicable rules in conducting its communications with Adelphia, including the requirement that it make additional information provided by Adelphia available to the public? We note that 4SSection 1.3 of the Commission's roles provides: "Any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion.., if good cause therefor is shown." 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. 46See New York State Dep't of Law v. FCC. 984 F.2d 1209, 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (consent decree settling enforcement action upheld). 47"Comments to Proposed Resolution of Adelphia Communications Corporation Complaints Filed On Behalf of: Peters Township - PALS19, Municipality of Bethel Park - PA1344, Municipality of Mt. Lebanon - PA1231, Township of Upper St. Clair - PA1459, Borough of Pleasant Hills - PA1232, and Borough of Wesl Mifflin - PA0666" ("Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments") at 2. 4~/d' 4~See Public Notice. Additional Information Available for Public Inspection on Adelphia Communications Corporation Cable Service Ti?. Rates (DA 96-1519), 11 FCC Rcd 10632 (Cab. Sexy. Bur., 1996); ~ee also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204Co)(7) & note (permitting ex parte presentations in restricted proceedings that have not been set for hearing if such communications are requested by the Commission or its staff in connection with the resolution of issues and requiring that new information be made available to the public). For purposes of this provision, the Commission's review of a CPST rote complaint is a restricted proceeding. Rate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 our standard procedures for the review of CPST rates do not include an opportunity for local franchising authorities, complainants, or other members of the public to participate in our decisionmaking process prior to the issuance of an initial order resolving the complaint that triggered our reviewfi° Here, in contrast, interested parties were given the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Resolution. We find no basis for adopting the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' suggestion that we reform our rules pertaining m public participation in the resolution of CPST rate complaints. In any case, the suggestion that we modify our rules is outside the scope of this adjudicatory proceeding. 25. Local franchising authorities and other interested parties were given a full and fair opportunity to participate in our deliberative process by submitting comments on the Proposed Resolution, which, by its terms, was not binding on any party prior to our adoption of it in this Order as a final Resotuti'0n. We afforded ample time for initial comments. We extended the original 30-day comment period by 14 days in response to a request by the New Jersey Board. Commenters had over six weeks to develop and submit their initial comments. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities have not alleged that the timing of their opportunity to present their views (i. e., after, as opposed to before, the Proposed Resolution was developed) impaired their ability to present their views fully and effectively. All commenters had the opportunity to offer detailed explanations of their concerns and to propose alternative approaches,st 26. Contrary to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' assertion, our procedures do not allow cable operators to negotiate separate arrangements with both the Commission and local franchising authorities and then choose the more favorable agreement, In this instance, the operator's discussions with the Commission included the matter of refunds and rates applicable to BST service. Local franchising authorities are not bound by the operator's choice to resolve BST rate matters through the Commission. They may opt out of the refund aspect of the Resolution and seek to enforce their own rate orders. 27. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities also object to the channel count used in the Resolution. They assert that the "District Court" affirmed the Commission's determination of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5857-58 (1993). See generally ?,few York State Dep't of Law v. FCC. 984 F.2d at 1217-18 /finding settlement discussions permissible under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(b)(7)). ~°See 47 C.F.R. § 76.957 ("The Commission will consider the complaint and the cable operator's response and then determine by written decision whether the rate for the cable programming service or associated equipment ts unreasonable or not"). The complainant and the cable operator participate in the decisiunmaking process before the initial order is issued only by submitting the complaint and any response m the complaint. 5tThe Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' only substantive objection appears to be that the refund levels are "too low," presumably because they are not based on a full channel count. See Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2. They do not provide amore specific critique of the refund levels or identify with any specificity how the perceived deficiency should be rectified. Of the commenters opposing the Proposed Resolution. only the Borlands offered a specific alternative methodology for calculating refunds and revised rates. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 that Adelphia should count all of its CPST channels for purposes of deriving permissible rates;52 that the Resolution would "reverse" the Commission's earlier determination that all of the CabteSelect channels should be regulated as part of the CPST; and that the minus-four channel count "rewards recalcitrant behavior by the cable operator and also constitutes a hardship on local franchising authorities that spent significant mounts of money regulating cable television rates and trying to comply with Commission rules."ss They also point out that each of the six locaI franchising authorities issued rate orders in the summer of 1995 "which adhered to the principles of the South Dade County decision of the Cable Services Bureau and ordered rate rollbacks and refunds.''s4 They note that Adelphia has appealed all of the rate orders and has filed lawsuits in state court and that the BST appeals and CPST complaints for all six communities are pending before the Commission.ss The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities argue that the refunds "do not at all take into account the fact that the refund orders issued by the.. communities have been pending for well over one year, tn addition to the time that the refund orders related back prior to the date of issuance."s6 28 We believe that our calculation of thc benchmark rates using the minus-four charmel count instead of the full channel cotmt is a reasonable means of resolving the dispute regarding Adelphia's removal of all of its CPST channels from the CPSTs in the systems covered by the Resolution. We do not agree that this aspect of the Resolution "rewards recalcitrant behavior." as the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities assert. The Resolution requires Adelphia to offer all bm four of the former CableSelect channels on the CPST for each system. The minus-four per-channel rate will apply to the four excluded channels even though they may be included in an MPT instead of or in addition to the CPST. We are calculating the benchmark rates as if Adelphia initially had moved only four CPST channels, rather than all of those channels, into the CableSelect a la carte package. The Commission has determined in other cases that an operator's movement of four channels out of the CPST did not constitute evasion of our rules and therefore was not prohibited? However, instead of allowing Adelphia to offer those four channels on a market-priced basis, the Resolution ensures that the four channels will continue to be regulated as part of an MPT and subject to the price caps specified in the Resolution until January 1, 1998, when Adelphia may convert the MPT to an NPT. As the Commission concluded in the Going S2Southwestern Peunsylvenia Communities Counnents at 2. The comments do not include a citation or case atone for the referenced District Court decision. ~[lae reference presumably refers to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Adelphia v. FCC, in which the court upheld the Commission's Going Forward Rules as they concern a la carte offerings. S3/d. 54Southwestem Pennsylvania Communities Comments at I. S°ld. at 3. STSee cases cited supra note 15. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 Forward Order, the conditions for offering NPTs will ensure that NPT rates will not be uureasonable? In addition, the Lifeline Rates for BST service will be calculated using a full channel count, and the combined charge for a Lifeline Rate BST and a CPST may nor exceed the charge that could have been imposed on the basis of a minus-four channel count. 29. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities believe the minus-four channel count reverses a prior Commission decision and state that there is "no legal or public policy reason" for the reversal "other than FCC workload. ,,59 We assume the referenced Commission decision is the South Dade County order finding that all of Adelphia's packaged a la carre channels should be treated as regulated CPST charmels.6° While South Dade County wasnot reviewed by any court. the D.C. Circuit subsequently affirmed the Commission's determination in the Going For~vard Order that, with limited exceptions, it would regulate as CPSTs a la carte packages created between April 1, 1993, and September 30, 19947 Adelphia's CableSelect packages were created during this period. 30. The Resolution does not reverse the South Dade County decision. The Resolution does nol include the South Dade County system, and the South Dade County orders are not affected by the Resolution. except that Adelphia withdraws trs petition for reconsideration of our order on review in South Dade County. The conditions imposed on Adelphia by the Resolution do differ from the remedy ordered in South Dade County in that the latter mandated the inclusion of ali a la carte package channels in the computation of maximum permitted rares, whereas the Resolution uses a minus-four channel count. However, the Resolution, unlike the South Dade County order, resolves multiple CPST complaints, as well as BST proceedings, and will ensure prompt payment of refunds and immediate rate reductions. The implementation of these provisions will not be delayed by Adelphia's attempt to modify or reverse them through review procedures because the Resolution includes an agreement by Adeiphia m forego further Commission or appellate review of its terms. 31. Administrative agencies are not precluded from modifying their approach to particular issues when circumstances warrant such action. Agencies may depart from prior decisions so long as they have a rational basis for doing so and explain their reasoning.62 We have explained 5*Going Forward Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1235. SgSouthwestem Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2. ~°It is not dear which decision the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities believe the Resolution woutdreverse, but it is evident that they are concerned that the minus-four channel count deviates from Commission policy with respect to the treatment of a la carte packages. ~tSee Adelphia v. FCC; Going Forward Order. 10 FCC Red at 1241-43; 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.986, 76.987. ¢ZNational Conservative Political Action Comm. v. Federal Election Corem 'n, 626 F.2d 953,959 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("Agencies are under an obligation to follow their own regulations, procedures, and precedents, or provide a rational explanation for their departures"); Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC. 444 F.2d 841,852 (I970), cert. denied, Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 our rationale for departing in the Resolution from the rate calculation methodology we mandated ~n South Dade County. We believe that the resulting refund levels and rate reductions required by the Resolution strike an appropriate balance between, maximizing the compensation due subscribers for past overcharges and minimizing delay and uncertainty in the payment of refunds and the implementation of prospective rate reductions. 32. The resolution of multiple CPST complaints and BST proceedings in a consolidated fashion and by agreement with Adelphia does reduce Commission workload and conserve administrative resources.63 We do not believe this conflicts with our statutory duties to ensure that rates for cable servtces are reasonable.~4 It certainly is not the only goal the Resolution promotes or the most important goal. In furtherance of our duty to protect consumer ~merests, the Resolution also implements reasonable BST and CPST rates and ensures that subscribers will benefit from immediate rate reductions and refunds, which Adelphia will not challenge at the Commission or in court. 33. We do not agree with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities' claim that the Resolution "constitutes a significant hardship on local franchising authorities that spent significant mounts of money regulating cable television rates and trying to comply with Commission rules.''6s Local franchising authorities are free to opt out of the refund aspect of the Resolutionfi6 34. Section 76.986(d) and (f) of the Commission's rules gives local franchising authorities the right to determine initially whether a la carte packages are to be treated as CPST or NPT packages for purposes of determining maximum permitted rates? An operator or subscriber may appeal a local franchising authority's initial determination to the Commission, and 403 U.S. 923 (1971) ("An agency's view of what is in the public interest may change .... But an agency changing tts course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored .... "(foot:notes omitted)). 63In this respect the Resolution furthers the policy goals we established in our policy statement on the use of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in Commission Proceedings and Proceedings in Which the Commission Is a Party, Initial Policy Statement and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669. 5670 ¢ 1991) (stating that the Commission will use ADR "to expedite and improve its administrative processes" and m avoid "the expense and the delay of adversarial proceedings," which will benefit the parties involved and the American public), modified, 7 FCC Rcd 4679 (1992); 47 C.F.R. § 1.18. 64Indeed, in directing the Commission to promulgate regulations governing BST rate review, Congress stated that the Commission "shall seek to reduce the administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators, fi~anchising authorities, and the Commission." 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(2)(A). 6SSee Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities Comments at 2. ~*As noted above, however, local f]ranchising authorities that opt out must use the minus-four channel count when they calculate refunds. ~747 C.F.R. § 76.986(d), (f). Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 the Commission's ruling on appeal will govern the BST rate calculation.6s Our enforcement of the minus-four eharme] count with respect to local franchising authorities that opt out of the Resolution departs from those provisions to the extent it would prevent a local franchising authority from enforcing an initial decision that uses a full channel count m calculate benchmark rates. We believe the combined benefits of the Resolution outweigh the potential adverse effect on local franchising authorities and subscribers that may be caused by our enforcement of the minus-four channel count with respect to BST rates in opt-out communities. Accordingly, we find that waiver of the foregoing provisions is appropriate in this instance. 35. Mr. Dan/et and-Saranac Lake are concerned that Adelphia's restructuring and its resulting service offering above the BST level on an a la carte basis occurred during the Commission's rate freeze and constitute an evasion of rate regulation in violation of the 1992 Cable Act.69 They assert that many subscribers were subjeqt to negative option billing for both service and equipment charges.7° Mi. Daniel and Saranac Lake also question whether Adelphia will offer service above the BST level "except as is currently provided" and ask. "What consideration is given to those subscribers that were upgraded to an expanded and increased cost level of service?''7~ Saranac Lake states that it "does not consider the repayment of overcharges m the consumer (without interest) adequate restitution for the above practices" and contends that "an appropriate penalty should be added to the repaymem plan.''72 Mr. Daniel also believes subscribers should receive "some additional compensation above the proposed level to send the message to Adelphia that this type of action is unacceptable."73 69Daniel Comments at l: Saranac Lake Comments at 1. The rate freeze required operators m freeze the average amount of revanues received per subscriber for regulated cable services at the level in effect on April 5. 1993. The rate freeze became effective on April 5, 1993, and through a series of orders was extended to the earlier of May l 5. 1994. or the date on which an operator's BST became subject to regulation. See Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2921 (1993), clarified. 8 FCC Rcd 2917 (1993), extended, FCC 93-304 (June 15, 1993), erratum. 8 FCC Rcd 4511 [1993), extended. FCC 93494 (Nov. 10, 1993), extended, 9 FCC R_cd 1299 (1994). ?°Danial Comments at 1; Saranac Lake Comments at 1. The Commission's rule against negative option billing prohibits cable operators fi.om charging subscribers for services they did not affirmatively request. 47 C.F.R. § 76.981. However, the rule does not prohibit the addition or deletion of channels to existing tiers, the restructuring or division of tiers, or adjusunents to rates to reflect inflation, external costs, or the addition and deletion of channels_ provided the changes do not constitute a fundamental change in the nature of an existing service and are consistent with other applicable regulations. Id. 7~Daniel Comments at 1-2; Saranac Lake Comments at 1. ?2Saranac Lake Comments at 1. 73Daniel Cormments at 1. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 36. Adelphia disagrees with Mr, Daniel's and Saranac Lake's assertions that Adelphia violated the Commission's rate regulations and subjected subscribers to negative option b illing.7~ Adelphia also objects to the allegation that it upgraded subscribers to a service they were not previously recetving. Adelphia explains that it "simply unbundled an existing tier; no subscribers were forced to receive more service than they were previously receiving.''Ts Adelphia also asserts that it did not violate the rate freeze.7~ 37. The concerns raised by Mr, Daniel and Saranac Lake do not convince us that modification or rejection of the Resolution is warranted. Although Adelphia moved services from a regulated tier to an a la carte package, Adelphia's restructuring of its services did not violate our rules against negative option billing because subscribers were not forced to receive and pay for services that they had not previously requested.?? Any unjustified rate increases that Adelphia implemented as a .result of the restrncmrmg, including any rate increases during the rate freeze and any retiering that could be construed as an evasion of Commission regulations, were considered in the Commission's evaluation of the Proposed Resolution and, in our view. are intended to be remedied by the refunds and proposed rate reductions tlmt wilt be implemented by the Resolution.7s 38. Likewise, we conclude that a penalty per se is not necessary to protect subscribers or deter Adelphia from unlawful conduct. Among other things, the Resolution provides for mimmum $3.00 per-subscriber refunds in communities that would not otherwise receive any refund, Lifeline Rates for BST service, and a cap on the CPST rate increase designed to offset rare reductions associated with the creation of Lifeline Rates. Together with the refunds and rate reductions ordered by the Resolution and the provisions governing Adelphia's creation of an MPT, the Resolution assures that subscribers will receive immediate benefits at a not inconsequential cost to Adelphia. We do not believe Adelphia will interpret the Resolution as a green light to violate our rate regulations. 39. Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake also contend that Adelphia should pay refunds to each subscriber in the form of a lump sum check, rather than as a credit against subscribers' regular *4Adelphia Reply Comments at 14-15. 7sir at 15. 7~Id at 14-15. 7?See Comcast Cablevision ~Tallahassee. Florida1 (LOI-93-2), 10 FCC Rcd 2106.2108 (Cab. Serv. Bur.. 1995) (stating that the purpose of the negative option billing prohibition is to protect subscribers from being billed for services they never ordered and concluding that when the service received is not altered but is merely unbundled a finding of no violation is consistent with this purpose)~ ?~The Resolution provide's~ however, that Adelphia does not concede that it violated Commission rules. Nothing in this Order is intended to constitute a ruling on the merits of that issue. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 monthly charges? In addition, Saranac Lake apparently believes the refunds will not include interest, aa 40. The Commission's regulations allow an operator, at its discretion, to implem~ent a refund in one of two ways -- either through identification of actual subscribers or through a one- time credit that results in a prospective percentage reduction of the rates to current subscribers,al We conclude that Adelphia's payment of refunds through a credit to current subscribers instead of through a lump-sm check is consistent with our rules. The Resolution deviates from our rules only by allowing Adelphia to pay refunds through a series of credits instead of through a one- time credit? We believe waiver of this aspect ofour roles is appropriate under the circumstances because Adelphia's payment of the refund through a series of credits will not adversely affect subscribers and is not unreasonablefi~ Interest will accrue on the unrefunded amount (contrary to Saranac Lake'~ belief) until the full amount of the refund is credited, and the length of the payont period is limited. 41. Mr. Daniel and Saranac Lake state that the Resolution provision allowing Adelphia to create an MPT would confer "an unfair advantage for Adelphia in calculating the rate per channel ,,sa 42. We disagree. The Resolution allows Adelphia to creme MPTs that do not exceed rate-regulated prices on a per-channel basis, until the channels are later converted to NPTs. Furthermore, as Adelphia notes in its reply comments, the creation of an MPT will not affect the calculation of Adelphia's per-channel benchmark rates in the future,ss Channels may be added to MPTs only at the per-charm.el price found acceptable in our Going Forward Rules. The price for the tiers from which services are migrated will decrease to the extent channels are removed from them. so that subscribers will not pay more per channel for the channels remaining in the rate-regulated tiers. 43. The creation of MPTs and NPTs is intended to expand the programming choices available to subscribers. Subscribers need only buy the BST in order' to select service on the 79Daniel Conmaents at 2; Saranac Lake Comments at 1, ~°Saranac Lake Comments at 1. ~t47 C.F.IL §§ 76.942(d) (BST refunds), 76.961(c) (CPST refunds). g2See 47 C,F.R, §§ 76.942(d)(2), 76.961(c)(2). S~In addition, we have previously approved this form of refund crediting. See CabIevision Industries Corp, 11 FCC Rcd 7341, 734647 (1996). '4Daniel Comments at 2; Saranac Lake Comments at 1 *SAdelphia Reply Comments at 14 n.5. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 MPT; they are not required to purchase the CPST in order ~ obtain MPT service. Adelphia has an incentive to maintain the quality of the CPSTs to avoid losing revenue, because subscribers perceiving a decrease in quality in a CPST may discontinue that CPST service. Subscribers will have the choice to continue or discontinue services on any tier, excelx the BST, without affecting the receipt of any other tier of service. Thus, the Resolution does not have the effect of forcing subscribers to receive and pay for unwanted services. The creation of the MPT also has the potential for increasing subscriber choices because where both the CPST and the MPT will be offered, consumers can choose to take either or both. tn addition, new channels can be added to both tiers. For these reasons, we believe that permitting the formation of an MPT and the later movement of those channels to an NPT without requiring Adelphia to re-market the service is in the public interest in the overall context of the Resolution. We therefore find good cause for granting waivers, to the limited extent necessary to effectuate this Resolution, of Section 76.922(e) of the Commission's rulesfi6 which governs changes m the number of channels on a regulated tier, as well as Section 76.987(b)(2) and (b)(3),17 which (i) prohibits operators from dropping channels that were offered on their BSTs or CPSTs on September 30, 1994, and moving them to NPTs unless they wait at least two years from the dates the channels were dropped and (ii) requires them to re-market their BSTs and CPSTs when they create an NPT. 44. The Borlands believe the proposed refunds and rate reductions are "a step in the right direction" but nevertheless are insufficient "to atone for the years of rate hike abuse we have had and continue to experience with Adelphia Cable.''sa The Borlands suggest that the Commission "roll back the cable rates to the 1986 level, add the actual cost of living increases for each of the following years, and add a maximum of 2% additional per year to take into consideration factors such as facility upgrading, channel enhancements, em.''89 45. The Borlands' suggested methodology, while it appears to reflect some of the rate principles we have adopted in our rules, is inconsistent with our regulations.9° Our rules prescribe g647 C.F.R. § 76.922{e). a747 C.F.R. § 76.987(b)(2)-(b)(3). SSBorland Comments at 2. ~°The Borlands' methodology includes both an initial rate reduction and an inflation adjustment to the reduced rates~ Our roles directed certain operators to reduce rates by up to 17% after the 1992 Cable Act was first implemented but also permit operatom to increase rates at regular intervals to incinde external cost changes, changes in the number of channels offered, and an inflation adjuslment. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(b)-(g). In addition, m response to the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Time Warner v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995), we recently amended our rules to permit operators to recover so-called "gap period" external costs, which are external costs thai operators incurred between September 30, 1992, and the date their rates fa'st became regulated. See Rate Regulation, MlVl Docket No. 92-266, Memorandum Opinion and Order. FCC 96- 491, 5'[ 26-28 (Dec. 31, 1996) (amending 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(f)(4)). Although the Borlands' methodology includes a percentage increase designed to compensate Adelphia for external costs, the Borlands' percentage increase is 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 a benchmark formula for determining maximum permitted BST and CPST rote levels in instances in which an operator does not submit a cost-of-service showing.9~ The refund levels are derived from our established rate, methodology and, though they are less than the full refund amount that Adelphia might be liable for in some communities absent the tier offsets and with a full channel count, other communities that had forfeited the right to order BST refards or rate reductions will nevertheless receive minimum refunds of $3.00 per subscriber. 46. The New Jersey Board requests that we modify the Resolution with respect to the BST refunds to be credited to subscribers in the four New Jersey comraunities that are covered by the Resolution by distributing the total refund due these subscribers-among subscribers in all 16 communities served by Adelphia's subsidiary Clear Cablevision, Inc. ("Clear"}.92 The Board. which is the local franchising authority for cable television operators in the State of New Jersey,9~ explains that it regulates BST rates on a system-wide basis, rather than on a CUID basis, and that state law requires it to ensure that regulated rates are uniform for contiguous systems in the same geographic region regardless of CUID boundaries? Stating that the subscribers in the four covered communities represent approximately 33% of all of Cleat's New Jersey subscribers,95 the Board acknowledges that distribution of the total refund to all such subscribers would reduce the per-subscriber refund set forth in the Resolution.96 The Board asserts, however, that its proposed re-distribution of the refund m all of Clear's New Jersey subscribers "would represent an equitable distribution, ~: and would result in consistent treatment of rates within the New Jersey franchise areal97 47. Adelphia replies that it does not oppose the Board's request, based on its understanding that the re-distribution of refunds would not increase AdelpN~a's total refund contras2 to the methodologies prescribed by our external cost roles. See 47 C.F.P~ § 76.922(d)-(f). 9tSee 47 C.F.R. § 76.922Co)(6)(i) (reqmring operators to file FCC Forms 1200, 1205, 1210. and 1215); 47 C.F.R. § 922(h). 92New Jersey Board Comments at 2, 4. The Commissmn did not receive complaints regarding CPST service in the other 12 communities. 93Id. al l. o'*Id at 2-3. 9si& at 2. ~Id. at 4. The Board does not state exactly how much the proposed re-distribution would reduce the refunds to subscribers in the four communities. ~/d. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 liability.9s Adelphia cautions, however, that other communities in which a CPST complaint was not filed should not be included in the Resolution.99 48. We deny the Board's request. The Resolution covers only those cormnunities from which the Commission received a valid CPST complaint. We do not regulate the CPST rates charged by cable operators unless we receive a valid complaint with respect to the operator m question?° 49. Adelphia raises one new issue m its reply comments, which concerns adjustments to the refunds to be paid to subscribers in the New York communities of Lake Placid. Saranac Lake. and Tupper Lake.TM In a supplemental filing, however. Adelphia reiterates its support for the Resolution in all respects, even if the Commission does not adjust the refund levels reflected in the Proposed Resolution.~°2 We adopt the Resolution without changes in the refund amounts for the New York communities. VI. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 50. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is in the public interest to adopt the Resolutton. 51. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Resolution attached to this Order as Attachment A IS ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN. 52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all CPST rate complaints under the jurisdiction of the Commission against Adelphia Communications Corporation as of December 31. 1995, ARE GRANTED to the extent necessary to effectuate the Resolution and ARE DENIED in all other respects. 9aAdelphia Reply Comments at 7. ~°°See 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(b)(7) (defining initial date of regulation for cable programming service as the date on which the first valid complaint is filed with respect to such service); Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation and Buy-Through Prohibition. MM Docket Nos. 92-266 and 92-262. Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4358 (1994). ~°~The CU1Ds for these communities are NY001. NY002. and NY003. respectively. '°2Letter from Randall D. Fisher. Vice President and General Counsel. Adelphia. to Meredith Jones, Chief. Cable Services Bureau (Jan. 9, 1997). The issue raised by Adalphia in its reply comments relates to the period of time used to calculate the refund levels for the three communities. Adalphia stated that the BST refunds shown in Exhibit 2 to the Proposed Resolution should be reduced to reflect a shorter refund period. Adelphia Reply Comments at 8. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 9%151 53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending BST appeals filed by Adelphia concerning rare orders that were issued by the communities listed in Exhibit 1 to the Resolution and that address rates subject to the Resolution ARE ltEREBY DISMISSED as moot. 54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Bucyrus Order (DA 95-662) and Charlottesville Order (DA 95-157) ARE HEREBY VACATED. 55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Adelphia's Applications for Review of the £oregoing orders and its petition for reconsideration of our order in South Dade County (FCC 95- 378) ARE DEEMED WITHDRAWN. 56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that waivers of 47 C.F.R. §~ 76.942(d)(2), 76.961(c)(2), 76.942(f'), 76.961(e), 76.922(e), 76.987(b)(2)-(b)(3), and 76.986(d) and (f), as discussed herein, ARE GRANTED. 57. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that waivers of 47 C.F.R. §~ 76.922 and 76.950-963. to the extent individual adjudication of CPST rate complaints is required thereby, ARE GRANTED. 58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for modification and the request for rejection of the Resolution ARE DENIED. 59. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cable Services Bureau IS GIVEN delegated authori .ty to oversee implementation of this Resolution. as adopted. 60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order IS EFFECTIVE upon adoption. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 ATTACHMENT A TER~MS OF RESOLUTION I. INTRODUCTION. 1. These terms constitute a resolution of cable programming services tier CCPST") complaints in certain cable communities in which cable systems owned and operated by Adelphia Communications Corporation and its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively "Adelphia") created packages of a la carte channels. Cable programming services tier CCPST"~ rate complaints are pending with respect to each of these communities (herein referred to and defined as the "Resolution Communities"). H. BACKGROUND. 2. In each of the Resolution Communities. Adelphia began offering one or more packages of a la carte channels (the "CableSelect" offerings) between April 1. 1993 and September 30, 1994. In general, the CableSelect offerings were created by unbundling all of the channels from the Resolution Communities' CPSTs and making those channels available for purchase individually as well as in a package. 3. The Bureau has issued Orders finding that CableSelect offerings should be treated as regulated CPSTs in Bucyrus, Ohio CDA 95-662, rel. March 31, 1995) and Charlottesville, Virginia (DA 95-157, rel. Feb. 7, 1995). Adelphia has filed Applications for Review of each of these Orders. 4. relating to the rare complaints and the Bucyrus and Charlottesville decisions. 22 l'hereafter, the Bureau staff met with Adelphia to discuss resolution of issues Adelphia Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 represented m the Commission that its initial decision to use the Commission's benchmark formula to establish its rates was premised upon its good-faith assumption that its CableSelect package was a lawful a la carte offering. Adelphia further represented that, in light of the Bucyrus and Charlottesxrille decisions, application of the b~nchmark formula produced different rates in the affected communities than the rates actually charged by Adelphia and. in some instances, produced rates under which Adelphia would not be able to recover its costs. As parr of this process, Adelphia submitted revised benchmark rate filings for the Resolution Communities premised on the treatment of four of the CableSelect chatmels as unregulated channels. For several additional communities, Adelphia submitted cost-of-service showings which will be reviewed pursuant to our cost-of-service rate review process and which are not encompassed within the terms of this Resolution 5. Adelphia and the Commission desire to resolve the pending CPST benchmark rate cases involving the ReSOlution Communities and the varmus issues regarding the CableSelect offerings described above. III. DEFINITIONS. As used herein, the following definitions will apply: (a) "Resolution Communities" means the communities served by cable systems owned and operated by Adelphia listed in Exhibit 1. (b) "Resolution Community Eligible Subscribers" means all non-bulk, residential subscribers of record in the Adelphia systems listed in Exhibit 2 as of the date bills are issued reflecting Refunds. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 (c) "Effective Date" means the date on which the Commission adopts the Resolution Order. (d) "Going Forward Rules" means the Commission's rules adopted in the Sixth Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket No. 92-266, 76 RR 2d 859 11994). including all subsequent clarifications and amendments. (e) "Implementation Deadline" means the date occurring 120 days after the Effective Date. (f) "Interest" means the Internal Revenue Service rate of interest for mx paymems. (g) "Lifeline BST Rate" means a maximum permitted rate for the basic service tier calculated by counting all of the CableSelect channels offered on September 1, 1993 as regulated channels. (h) "Migrated Product Tier" or "MPT" means a tier consisting of up to four (4) services packaged together as described below in paragraph 13(g) and any services added to such package in accordance with said paragraph 13(g). (i) "Refunds" means credits on subscriber bills. (j) "Resolution Order" means an order issued by the Commission approving the terms of this Resolution. " IV. TERMS. 7. Adelphia accepts the jurisdiction of the Commission over it and the subject matter of these rate resolutions for purposes of the Resolution Order. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 8. All of Adetphia's CPST rate cases for the Resolution Communities for the period through December 31, 1995 are finally resolved under the terms provided herein. 9. Adelphia agrees that the terms contained in this Resolution shall be incorporated by reference in the Resolution Order. Assuming the adoption of these terms in the Resolution Order, Adelphia and the'Commission will each actively defend the Resolution Order against any appeal of, or other legal challenge m, the Resolution Order by any third party. Adelphia and the Commission will reasonably cooperate tn any such defense of these terms. 10. Assuming the adoption of these terms in the Resolution Order. Adetphia agrees that any violation of the Resolution Order shall constitute a violation of a Commission order, entitling the Commission to exercise any rights and remedies attendant to the enforcement of a Commission order. 11. These terms are for purposes of resolving outstanding CPS~I complaints in the Resolution Communities and the various issues regarding the CableSelect offerings and do not constitute an admission by Adelphia of any violation of, or failure to conform to, the 1992 Cable Act, Commission Rules. or any other applicable law, rule, or policy, nor constitute an admission by the Commission of any error in the implementation of its a Ia carte regulations. 12~ The Commission will not institute, on its own motion, any proceedings agmnst Adelphia based upon the information obtained during consideration of the Resolution. In addition, in the absence of additional facts, any allegations and other circumstances involved in consideration of this Resolution will not be used by any party against Adelphia with respect to any future proceeding. Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 13 In settlement ofAdetphia's CPST rate cases for the period through December 31. 1995 in the Resolution Communities and the various issues regarding the CableSelect offerings offered by its cable systems, Adelphia hereby agrees to the following terms, conditions, and procedures which will facilitate a fair and expeditious resolution of those matters in a manner that serves the public interest: (al The Bureau has reviewed Adelphia's revised benchmark rate submissions and has determined a maximum permitted per channel rate in each Resolution Community reflecting the exclusion of four of the CableSelect channels from the count of regulated channels for purposes of applying the Commission's benchmark rate rules. (b) Subject to the right of local franchising authorities ("LFAs") to opt om under this subparagraph, Adelphia shall issue Refunds to Resolution Community Eligible Subscribers as set forth in Exhibit 2. Such Refunds already include applicable Interest through December 31, 1996. An LFA of an Resolution Community listed in Exhibit 1 may elect to opt out of the Refunds established under this subparagraph by providing notice to the Commission and Adelphia no later titan 30 days following the Effective Date~ Such notice shall: (al be in writing; (b) be addressed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy by certified mail to Adetphia Coramanications Corp., 5 West Third Street, Couderspbrt, PA 16915, attention: Randall D. Fisher, Esq., Vice President and General Cotmsel; (el identify the local franchising authority and community unit identification number for the franchise area: and (d) reflect the clear intent to opt out of the Refund provision of this subparagraph. However, such notice need not meet any other 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 requirements and may be in letter form. An election by an LFA in a particular Resolution Community to opt out of the Refunds under this subparagraph will not otherwise affect the applicability of the remaining provisions of this Resolution in such community, including but not limited m subparagraphs (d), (e), and (f) hereof. (c) Adelpkia will begin providing refunds to Resolution Community Eligible Subscribers no later than the Implementation Deadline, Refunds will be reflected on subscriber bills as equal monthly credits of at least $0.50 until full payment is made_ except that the last payment may be credited in an amount of less than $0.50. In all cases, the Refund payment period shall not exceed 12 months. In the evem the Refund amoums are not fully paid by the date through which Interest has been calculated ~as noted in subparagraph (b)), Adelphia shall be required to calculate and pay additional Interest through the date on which all Refunds are fully paid. (d) Subject to the right of LFAs to opt out under subparagraph (b), the Refunds issued to the Res61ution Communities pursuant m that subparagraph shall account for and finally resolve (i) all BST and CPST rate cases filed in the Resolution Communities prior to December 31, 1995 and (ii) the reasonableness of the BST and CPST rates in the Resolution Communities on that date. In the event that an LFA of an Resolution Community exercises its right m opt out of the Refunds under subparagraph (b), any rate order adopted by said LFA or by the Commission with respect to Adelphia's Form 393 and Form 1200 series maximum permitted rates will reflect the exclusion of four of the CableSelect channels from the count of regulated channels for purposes of applying the Commission's benchmark rate rules. The maximum permitted rate for those four 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 9%151 channels, on a per channel basis, will be exlual to the maxrrnum permitted rate. on a per channel basis, for the other CPST channels in such community. (e) Adelphia will not seek repayment from any LFA of any Resolution Community of franchise fee overpayments otherwise due Adelphia as a result of the payment of the Refunds specified in Exhibit 2. This provision wilt not apply in any Resolution Community as to which the LFA exercises ~ts opt out election as described in subparagraph (b)~ (f) Adelphia agrees to cap its combined regulated BST and CPST rates in the Resolution Comxnunities so that they do not increase on an overall basis as a result of this Resolution; provided, however, that Adelphia may include ~n any BST and CPST rates established pursuant m this resolution, or thereafter, such inflation and external costs as Adelphia is entitled to recover pursuant to the Commission's rules, including any Form 1240 increases which Adelphia has previously implemented or becomes entitled to implement. Subject m the foregoing, Adelphia, no later than the Implementation Deadline, will make such adjustments m the regulated BST and CPST rates in the Resolution Communities as are necessary (i) to reduce the BST rate so that it reflects the calculation of a Lifeline BST Rate and (ii) to increase CPST rates by un amount per subscriber no greater than the per subscriber reduction in the BST rate from the maximum permitted rate, b~u3 such CPST rate, as adjusted, shall be capped so as to not exceed the maximum permitted rate calculated using the channel count described in subparagraph (d). See Exhibit 3. In the event the LFA of an Resolution Community exercises its right to opt out under subparagraph (b), Adeiphia will not be requ'rred to make the adjustments 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 described in this subparagraph and will be permitted to establish BST and CPST rates equal to the maximum permitted rates calculated using the channel count described in subparagraph (d). (g) At any time at its discretion~ Adelphia may package four of the services that were available as CableSelect offerings on September 1, 1993, together with up to two new services (i.e., services first added to the system after September 30, 1994), as a single "M/grated Product Tier" in any Resolution Community. Adelphia may not require the subscription to any other tier, other than the BST, as a condition for subscribing m any MPT created pursuant to this subparagraph and may not require subscription to any such MPT as a condition for subscription to any other tier. The retiering of these services is permitted under Section 76.981(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.981(b~: does not constitute a negative option under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; and, when the MPT is offered, Adelphia will not be required to re-market the MPT to existing subscribers who previously received all of the migrated services contained in the MPT. These actions can be taken without regard to any state or local law which may be inconsistent with the terms of this subparagraph. (h) In any community in which Adelphia creates an MPT pursuant to subparagraph (g), Adelphia will set the initial rate for said IV[PT, (i) with respect to the four services that were available as Cable Select offerings on September 1, 1993, on a per channel basis, at a level equal to the rate then being charged for any CPST offered in such community, calculated consistent with this resolution, and (ii) with respect to the two new services referred to in subparagraph (g), at $0.20 per channel plus the amount of 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 program license fees for each of such services. Adelphia may thereafter add any number of new services to its MPT and may increase the price for the MPT up to $0.20 plus the amount of the program license fee for each new service added. Adelphia may increase the price of an MPT for inflation and external costs and new services consistent with the Commission's rate regulations governing CPSTs, and these new services shall not be considered new services added for purposes of the limit on service additions and rate increases pursuant to the Going Forward Rules. (i) On or after January 1, 1998, Adelphia may reclassify any MPT created pursuant to subparagraphs (g) and (h) as a New Product Tier ["NPT"), as defined in Section 76.987 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 76.987, including subsequem clarifications or amendments thereto. These NPTs ,vill be treated as alt other NPTs under the Commission's rules. The reclassification is permitted under Section 76.981 (b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.981(b); does not constitute a negative option under the 1992 Cable Act; and does not require Adelphia to re-market the reclassified NPT to existing MPT subscribers. Nothing ~n the Resolution shall be construed to prevent Adelphia from creating other NPTs and/or offering a la carte channels pursuant to the Commission's rules. These actions can be taken without regard to any state or local law which may be inconsistent with the terms of this subparagraph. (j) The Commission, consistent with the terms set forth herein, hereby reconsiders on it~ own Motion, the Bucyms. Ohio and Charlottesville, Virginia Orders, and Adelphia hereby petitions to withdraw its pending applications for rewew of said Orders and such petitions to withdraw are hereby granted by the Commission. The 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 decision that four CableSelect channels will not be counted as regulated channels for benchmark rate calculation purposes will be deemed incorporated in such reconsidered Orders and shall be binding on any decision relating to Adelphia's BST or CPST rares. As of the Effective Date, the Resolution Order will vacate and supersede the Bucyrus, Ohio and Charlottesville, Virginia Orders. Upon the vacating of these rulings, Adelphia's pending applicat[6ns for review concerning said rulings will be deemed to be withdrawn. In addition, Adelphia's pending petition for reconsideration of the Commission's decision (FCC 95-378) denying Adelphia's application for review of the Bureau's South Dade County Letter-of-Inquiry ruling (DA 94-1277) also will be deemed to be withdrawn. (k) A copy of this Resolution shall be provided for comment to all LFAs in the Resolution Communities and to each additional party that filed a valid complaint on FCC Form 329, pursuant to Section 76.950 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 76.950. (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (m) hereof, the terms of this Resolution may not be terminated or modified without the mutual written consent of Adelphia and the Commission. The Commission's consent to any such modification or termination shall be demonstrated by an order of the Commission. (m) Notwithstanding the terms hereof, Adelphia may avail itself of any applicable modifications of any taw or regulation governing the rates charged in any community that it serves, including the adoption by the Commission of any regulation governing rates as applied to the cable industry generally. If Adelphia exercises this election, the terms contained herein shall be superseded upon the effective date of such 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 law or regulation,' except that Adelphia shall provide Refunds to Resolution Community Eligible Subscribers pursuant to the terms of this Resolution~ (n) Nothing herein shall restrict the ability of Adeiphia to adjust its rates of any commtmity that it serves in the event such rates are not regulated for any reason. including changes from the 1996 Telecommunications Act or relevant Commission rules. 14. The Resolution Order shall affirmatively state that any and all waivers of Commission Rules, and any modifications to Commission forms, necessary to effectuate these terms are deemed to be granted. The Commission will not assert in any proceeding that Adelphia's compliance with the terms of the Resolution violates any Commission rule or order. and, in any proceeding before the Commission brought by a third party, a showing by Adelphia that it has complied w/th these terms shall constitute a defense to any claim that Adelphia's actions in meeting the terms constitute a violation of any applicable Commission rule or order. 15. Assuming the adoption of these terms, these terms shall become effective when the Commission issues the Resolution Order. 16. If any provision, clause, or part of this Resolution as embodied in the Resolution Order is invalidated by a court, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in effect; provided, however, that if such invalidation is material to this Resolution, Adelphia and the Commission shall attempt in good faith to reconstitute the Resolution in a form that is, to the maxamum extent possible, consistent with the original intent of the Resolution. If any such good faith effort to reconstitute the Resolution is.not successful, neither Adelphia nor the Commission wil/be bound by its terms. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 EXHIBIT 1 ADELPHIA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITIES SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION COMMUNITY CUll) SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBERS BST CPST Syracuse NY0728 40,217 30,807 West Seneca NY0320 14,803 14,117 Amherst NY0353 32,149 30,346 i Cheektowaga NY0319 27,111 25,847 Colden NY1341 668 645 Lake Placid NY0001 1,106 1,022 Saranac Lake NY0002 2,118 1,935 Tupper Lake NY0003 1,744 1,691 Berkeley NJ0086 18,442 17,649 Ocean NJ0216 2,139 2,046 Lacey NJ0153 9,114 8,773 Island Heights NJ0198 697 675 Lorain OH0202 18,210 17,863 Hudson OH0923 5,408 5,269 Macedonia OH0926 2,187 2,139 Hiram OH1288 136 131 Bucyrus OH0054 5,012 4,883 Haverford PA1140 12,479 12,284 Marple PA1131 6,371 6,221 Peters PA 1519 4,948 4,760 Upper St. Clair PA1459 5,885 5,725 Pleasant Hills PA1232 2,924 2,813 West Mifflin PA0666 .7,573 7,327 Mt. Oliver ~' PA1245 1,229 1,t96 Mt. Lebanon PA1231 11,160 t0,611 Bethel Park PA1344 11,187 10,763 Suterville PA1355 292 292 Murrysville PA0153 5,676 5,676 Charlottesville VA0039 12,353 11,639/8,920* Crozet VA0202 847 801/705' Waynesboro VA0040 7,075 6,600 Frederick VA0121 6,8l 5 6,474 Hilton Head SC0058 17,688 16,379 Palm Beach Shores FL0088 556 480 Greenacres FL0481 3,427 3,312 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 COMMUNITY CUID Greenacres Delray Beach Wellington Palm Beach Gardens Williamstown Total FL0522 FL0749 FL0420 FL0087 MA0005 SUBSCRIBERS BST 481 1,707 7,950 9.354 2,511 321,749 SUBSCRIBERS CPST 464 1,644 7.640 8,901 2.368/612' 300,208 * denotes existence of more than one CPST. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 EXHIBIT 2 - REFUNDS CUll) BST CPST REFUND [ REFUND REFUND SUBS SUBS* PER CUID PER BST PER CPST I SUB* SUB* NY0728 ~ 40,217 $120,651 $3.00 NY0320 14,803 44,409 3.00 NY0353 32,149 96,447 3.00 NY0319 27,111 819333 3~00 NY1341 66'8 2,004 3.00 NY0001 1,106 33,854 30.61 NY0002 2,118 116,958 55.22 NY0003 1,744 86,224 49.44 NJ0086 18,442 17,649 311,855 3.00 17.54 NJ0216 2,139 2,046 42,045 3.00 20.41 NJ0t53 9,114 8,773 149,006 3.00 [ 16.87 NJ0198 697 675 2,091 3.00 [ OH0202 18,210 462,499 25.40 OH0923 5,408 5,269 151,467 3.00 28.67 OH0926 2,187 2,139 30,943 3.00 14.40 OH1288 t36 131 896 3.00 6.72 OH0054 5,012 15,036 3.00 PA1140 12,479 37,437 3.00 PAll31 6,371 19,113 3.00 PAI519 4,948 22,934 4.63 PA1459 5,885 17,655 3.00 PA1232 2,924 2,813 41,064 5.91 9.08 PA0666 7,573 7,327 101,053 4.78 8.85 PA1245 1,229 3,687 3.00 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 9%151 CUID BST CPST ] REFUND REFUND REFUND SUBS SUBS* PER CUll) PER BST PER CPST ~ SUB* SUB* PA1231 11,160 33,480 3.00 PA1344 11,187 33,561 3.00 l PA1355 292 292 2,730 3~00 9.35 PA0153 5,676 17,028 3.00 VA0039 12,353 177,798 14.39 VA0202 847 2,541 3.00 VA0040 7,075 6,600 42,107 3.00 6.16 VA0121 6,815 20,445 3.00 SC0058 17,688 53,064 3.00 FL0088 556 ] 1,668 3.00 FL0481 3~427 10,281 3.00 FL0522 48} 1,443 3.00 FL0749 1,707 5,121 3.00 FL0420 7,950 23,850 3.00 FL0087 9,354 28,062 3.00 MA0005 1,899 612 9,132 3.00 5.61 TOTAL $2,452,957 * Refunds per subscriber may be higher or lower than mounts indicated, depending on final subscriber count prior to payment date and on final interest calculations; provided, however, that all subscribers will receive at least $3.00 in refunds. In the case of CPST subscribers, the $3.00 minimum refund is incorporated in the Refund Per CPST Subscriber amounts listed above. The number of CPST subscribers is omitted in those communities where CPST subscribers are not due any additional refunds beyond the $3.00 minimum refund. 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 EXHIBIT 3 REDUCTIONS IN BST RATES TO LIFELINE BASIC MAXIMUM PERMITTED LEVELS* COMMUNITY CUID BST REDUCTION Lake Placid, NY NY0001 $4.13 Saranac Lake, NY NY0002 $4.44 Tupper Lake, NY NY0003 $4.44 Berkeley, NJ [rebuild] NJ0086 $1.17 Ocean, NJ NJ0216 $1.17 Lacey, NJ NJ0153 $1.17 Hudson, OH OH0923 $1.26 Pleasant Hills, PA PA1232 $0.17 Palm Beach Shores, FL FL0088 $5.17 Greenacres, FL FL0481 $4.32 Greenacres, FL FL0522 $2.57 * Not all communities receive reductions because BST rate is already at or below Liibline calculation or because BST rate is not regulated at the local level. REDUCTIONS IN CPST RATES TO MAXIMUM PERMITTED LEVELS* CO~Yt ~ ~..~ CUID CPST REDUCTION Berkeley (nonrebmla) NJ0086 $2.48 Hiram, QH?~,- ...... , OH1,288 $0.73 Suterville, PP~ PA1355 $0.98 Charlotte~dle, VA V~0039 $0.17 [CPST 1] 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-151 Waynesboro, VA VA0040 $0.73 Palm Beach Shores, FL FL0088 $0.09 Willimnsto~vn, MA MA0005 $1.21 [CPST 2] Only communities wl~ose CPST rates, as o 1995, e~ permitted levels are affected, FILED DATE ,., ~4 ,/t/? TIME CIRCU/: C~URT CLERK'S OFFICE AL2 ~' E COUNTY ' ~,LL, CLERK · DEP. CLERK ABG - FINANCIAL 5EKVICES, INC. May 22, 1997 ~0. gox ~ CHURCHVILLE. MARYLAND 21028 410-879-9918 FAX 410-838-5360 RD OF SUPERVISORS Ms. Arlene Hernandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 10i Barclay Street,~ 21W New York. New York 10286 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hernandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the abo~ e referenced project for the month of April 1997. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cai1 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 05-27-97J~0:~2 RCVD Effective April 30, 1997 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION ?(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. Lombard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE.- Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest 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 l, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority'), and your 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 ~oject occupied by lower income tenants is · 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 in (1) and (2) is 51 . 4) The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitut~_3f the total number of units in the Project isz~.. The information contained in this report is =rue~ 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 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has siqned this Report as of May 6. 1997 RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership A~tborized Rep%esen=ative I,~onll~. April y~1997 P~o~y: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic ~?~ Apts. ) P~o~t ~: ~t~on: Ch~rlottes.ville, VA S~m,~d Dy: -~°.~ett~ Wyatt .. 051-35371 Num~lrofUnits , 66 ~ay 6, 1997 Effective ~/30/97 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 15 6 Arbor Crest Dr - Arbor Crest Dr 9 Arbor Crest Dr 14 Arbor Crest Dr 6 18 Arbor Crest Dr 7 30 Arbor Crest Dr. _4~ Arbor Crest Dr 9 56 Arbor Crest Dr 76 Arbor Crest Dr 78 Arbor Crest Dr Arbor Crest ~_ ~1 Beverly T. Lane 84 Arbor Crest Dr 12. . 88 Arbor Crest Dr 90-Arbor Crest Dr_ ~5 94 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Wilma M. Atkinson 42 23 Ruth M. Jones 43 ~4 Virginia Burton 4~ 25 Betty'L. Ree~ ~5 26 .Ann S. K~mp 4~ 27 .Mary Cox Allen 47 2~ Sam Atherton ~$ ~9_ Harlan Hooe 49 . 30 Ann G, Saylor 50 Ernest M. Nease 32 Juanita Boliek 33 Nancy G, Foley . 53 34 Betty B, Elliott 35 M. Eileen Knick 55 37 ,., 57 . 39 . 59 $I. 64. ~7, 70, 72 73. 75~ 76. 77. ?~. 7~, % 13 14 16- 17 ..... 18 = 20 I1 12 .... 13. 14,__ 15. 16 1~. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~-03-97AI0: 40 COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE 22911 May 30, 1997 RCVD ~ G. TUCKER R~IDENT ENGINEER Board Df Supervisors' Meeting May 7, 1997 Ms. Ella W. Carey, C.M.C, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear MS Carey: We offer the following comments regarding nransportation mauEers uhat were discussed at the May 7th Board meeting: Please find enclosed a copy Df the regular inspection bridge report for the Norfolk Southern Railway bridge on Route 651 Pree State Road We are awaiting details of the railroad's malnuenance schedule and will share this schedule with the Board upon receipE. The plans for the Avon Street 'Route 20 Connector Road include standard right and left Eurn lanes on Route 20 onno the connector road. These lmprovemenns are included zn the currenn projecn. O We have scheduled the necessary maintenance for Route 707 off Jarman's Gap Road. This work will include patching potholes, machining the road and trimming brush. The Department is currently establishing a written policy to include standards by which roads may be improved under the Pave in Place legislation. We anticipaue this information no be available for public discussion by July 1, 1997. At this nlme it ls premanure no generane a list of eligible roads. O The Department is revmewing 5 requesE Eo lower the speed limit Cris Greene Lake Road. We Will share the results of this study upon completion. The Deparnmenn zs finalizing the construction cosn estimate for improvements ec West Leigh Drive and the CSX Railroad crosszng. These figures should be available in the nexu two to three weeks. We have scheduled mazntenance for Route 787 Gillums Ridge Road prohibit trucks from uszng this road, however, we will monitor this necessary malnEenance. road for TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Ms Ella W. Carey Page 2 May 30, 1997 The Departmen5 will be signalizing Old Brook Road an Rio Road. We anticipace the addition of a signal ac this location no later than early spring 1998. Please share this information with the Board members. If there are any questions regarding the above issues, I will be prepared co discuss ~hem an the June 4th Board meeting. SSnce~ely~ A G. Tucker AGT smk enclosure cc: Lee Huff Bill Mawyer ~ - 6 VDOT Struct- Id : 718 - SUPPLEMENTARY BRIDGE REPORT Regular Inspection Page 1 01/16/97 Cnty/City : ALBEMARLE Feat/Iht: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY Structure : 002 6124 Facl/Car: FREESTATE ROAD Main Route: 00651 Milep~: 0.000 Location: 0.08 MI. EAST ROUTE 1428 Iht.Marker: 0.O00 Lead Inspector: L. A. EPPARD JR. Bridge Safety Inspector(s): J. F. WILLS CREW MEMBER] WORK DONE: (1)Replaced five 5"x10" timbers on deck. REVISED DIMENSIONS: None MISCELLANEOUS: 8 Ton Field Posting (Railroad Milepost 108.95 +/-) Object markers in place, one w/ slight damage on west approach. CO1VDITION OF STRUCTURE: FAIR-POOR (ll~eterioration of timber cribbing under 3rd bent from east & 2nd bent from west with approx. 50% loss in section. (21Deterioration on the easu face of two center verticals under mid-sill on 4th bent from east end w/ approx. 25% loss in section.(See Photo Page (3)Areas of deterioration in the uops of beams, deck & bracin9. (4)Areas of erosion in front of East Abutment & in front of cribbing each approach. (5)Previous erosion & undermining in censer of Bent #6 was backfilled 6/93 was first reported on Revised Report 6-7-93, area of backfill remains stable 8-17-95 w/ only slight erosion. (See Photo Page #6) REVISED STRESS ANALYSIS: RECOMMENDATIONS~ (1)Timber cribbing should be replaced under 3rd bent from east & 2nd benu from west, also in fronu of 1st bent from west. (2)Loose & deteriorated timber railing should be replaced. (3Embankment erosion should be backfilled on each approach. (4)Build-up of gravel should be cleaned from top of deck in curbline. (5)Loose & deteriorated bracing on bents & between timber beams should be repaired and/or replaced. (6)Two verticals under mid-sill 4th Bent from the easu should be scheduled for replacement. Note:Excessive overhang on deck in span over railroad tracks. Date Printed: 01/21/97 8-7 Struct-Id : 718 VDOT - BRID.GE Cnty/City : ALBEMARLE Structure : 002 6124 Main Route: 00651 Mi!ept: Iht,Marker: 0.000 Bridge Safety Inspector(s): Regular Inspection Feat/Iht: Fac!/Car: 0.000 Location: Lead Inspector: Jo INSPECTION REPORT .~ Page 01/16/9' NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY FREESTATE ROAD 0.08 MI. EAST ROUTE 1428 L. A. EPPARD JR. F. WILLS CREW MEMBER] SPECIAL COAIDITIONS OR REQUIREMENTS 1.Fracture Critical IN] 3.Scour Critical _.[N] 2.Underwater Inspect IN] 4.Moveable Bridge_[N] 7.Fatigue Prone Detail_[N] 5.Segmental Con. [NJ 6.Pin & Hanger IN] 36 TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES 1.Bridge Railing [0] 2.Transitions [0] REMARKS: Direction of Route 0.08 Mi From Route 1428 & 3.Approach Guardrail [0] 4.Approach Guardrail Terminal [0] West to East 0.45 Mi. To Dead End 58 DECK GENERAL CONDITION RATING [4] 1.Wearing Surface 2.Deck-Structural Condition 3.Curbs 4.Median 5.Sidewalks 6.Parapet. REMARKS: [-] [PI IF] [-] [-] [~] See Attachment 7.Railing [PI 8.Drains [-] 9.Lighting [-] 10.Utilities il.Expansion Joints or Devices [-] Sheet #i 59 SUPERSTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITION RATING [5] 1.Bearing Devices [-] 2.Stringers [-] 3.Girders, Beams, or Slab Spans A. General IF] B, Diaphragms or Cross Frames IF] C. Bracing [-] 4.Floor Beams [-] REMARKS: 5.Trusses A. General [-] B. Portals [-] C. Bracing [-] 6.Paint [FI Year Painted [ 0] 7.Machinery(Movable Span) [-] See Attachment Sheet #1 Date Printed: 01/21/97 · B - 7 VDOT County/City: ALBEMARLE - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Page 3 Structure: 002 6124 Inspected:4 01/16/97 60 SUBSTRUCTURE GENERAL CONDITIONRATING [4] i.Abutments A. Wings [-] 2. C.Column, Stem, Wall_[P] B. Backwall [-] D. Footing [PI C. Bearing Seats IF] E. Piles [-] D. Breast Wall [F] F. Bracing. E. Weep Holes [-] G. Erosion/Scour.. [FI F. Footin9 [F] H.' Settlement [G~ G. Piles [-] A.Caps [-] H. Erosion/Scout [PI B. Bearing Seats [-] I. Settlement. IF] C. Piles [-3 A. Caps IF] Bracing. [-] B. Bearing Seats 2 Pier/Bent REM_ARKS: See Attachment 3.Pile Bent D. * Not Visible Sheet #! & #2 61 CHANNEL:CHANNEL/SLOPE PROTECTION GENERAL CONDITION RATING [PI 1.Channel Scour [-] 5.Fender System 2.Embankment Erosion ~ [P] 6.Spur Dikes/Jetties [-] 3.Drift [-] 7.Rip Rap/Slope Protection 4.Vegetation [G] 8.Adequacy of Opening [-] REMARKS: (2&7)Areas of erosion to embankment & rip-rap in front of timber cribbing on west approach & in fronE of cribbing between 3rd & 4th benes from east. 66 POSTED LOADING 1.Posted Loading (R12-1) [ 8] 2.Legibility (R12-5) - Type 3 [NA] 3.Visibility (R12-5) - Type 3S2 [NA] REM3kRKS: 8 Ton Field Posting Date Printed: 01/21/97 B-7 VDOT BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT ~age: 4 County/City: ALBEMARLE Structure: 002 6124 Inspected: ~1/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Attachment Sheet #! 58 DECK (2)Weathering & cracking on the top of timber deck with areas of deterioration up to 3" depth, heaviest in approx. 10 deck timbers. Excessive overhang on the south side of Span #4.(Span over railroad) Build-up of gravel on the top of deck along curbline, heavy on east end. Approx. 30% deck timbers loose. Note:Excessive overhang on timber deck in steel beam span.(Over tracks) (3)Weatherin~ & cracking on curb w/ deterioration up to 2" depth on both curb & curb blocks. (7)Approx. 8 10 sections of rail loose with areas of heavy deterioration on approx. 6 7 sections. 59 SUPERSTRUCTURE (3A)Deterioration in the top of timber beams approx. (3B)Random sections of timber X-braces between beams (6)Areas of light 1"-2" depth. loose or missing. to medium corrosion on beams over railroad. 60 SUBSTRUCTURE (lC)Build-up of dirt in bearing areasl (iD)Heavy corrosion with light scale on steel cap, East Abutment w/ less than 1/16" loss in section. (IF)Deterioration of cribbing under abutments with approx. 10%-15% loss in section. (IH)Erosion in front of East Abutment, with slight underraining to the face of transverse steel cap under one section of timber cribbing. (II)Slight settlement in timber cribbing on north side of Ease Abutment approx. 1 1/2" 2". Date Printed: 01/21/97 B-7 VDOT - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Page: 5 County/City: ALBEMARLE Structure: 002 6124 Inspectedi ~01/!6/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: (Con't) Attachment Sheet #2 60 SUBSTRUCTURE (Con't) (2A)Areas of heavy corrosion with light scale on steel caps w/ less than 1/16" loss in section. (2B)Build-up of dirt & debris in bearing areas. (2C)Heavy deterioration in cwo center verticals under the mid-sill adjacent to the groundline 4th Bent from the east end w/ approx. 25% loss in section.(See Photo Pages #7 & #8). Cracking & weathering on timber columns with areas of splintering along the edges to a depth of up to 1 1/2", cracking up co 3/8" open. (2D)Heavy erosion & undermining under the center portion of Bent ~6 (3rd bent from east). Area approx. 12' wide & 4'-5' below bottom of sill. The above mentioned area of undermining was repaired 6-2-93 to 6-7-93 by backfilling eroded area with a mixture of crusher run & dry cement. Bent was raised by jacking, material compacted & bent lowered to compacted material. (This was first reported on Revised Report dated 6-7-93, area remains stable 8-17-95 w/ only light erosion.(See Photo Page #6) Heavy deterioration of cribbing under 3rd bent from East & 2nd from West, also in front of tst bent from west with approx. 50% loss in section. (2F)Areas of cracking & deterioration on bracing with areas loose & approx 10 sections broken. (2G]Eroslon in front of cribbing both east & west embankmenn. Note:Cribbing under 2nd bent from west & 3rd bent from east no longer accessible because of stone rip-rap & crusher run. Date Printed: 01/21/97 BRIDGE B-7 VDOT INSPECTION REPORT ~Page: 6 ALBEMARLE Structure: 002 6124 Inspected: ~01/16/97 County/City: ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note area of heavy erosion & undermining under ~ in front of sill 3rd bent from east end, backfilled with a mixture of crusher run & cement 6-7-93, area shows only light erosion on 2-3-95, exposing approx. 4" of bottom transverse timber in the sill. Date Printed: 01/21/97 B-7 VDOT - BRIDGE County/City: ALBEMARLE INSPECTION REPORT ~Page: 7 Structure: 002 6124 Inspected: U1/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note two center verticals under mid-sill on 4th Bent from east end with deterioration adjacent to groundline. Date Printed: 01/21/97 B- 7 VDOT - County/City: ALBEMARLE BRID~E INSPECTION REPORT ~Page: Structure: 002 6124 Inspected: ~01/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note areas of deterioration in the east face of ~wo center verticals under mid-sill adjacent ~o groundline 4th Bent from east end w/ approx. 25% loss in section. Da~e Printed: 01/21/97 County/City: VDOT - ALBEMARLE BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Page: 9 Structure: 002 6124 Inspected-?01/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note areas of heavy deterioration on timber railing with 8 10 sections loose. Date Prin~ed: 01/21/97 B-? VDOT - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT . ~Page: 10 County/City: ALBEMARLE Structure: 002 6124 Inspected:~O1/16/9? ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note area of erosion in fronu of East Abutment, with slight seuulement in timber cribbing on north side of abutment to the face of transverse steel cap under one section of timber cribbing. Date Printed: 01/21/97 B - 7 VDOT County/City: ALBEMARLE - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT Structure: 002 i ~Page: !! 6124 Inspected: ~t/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note approx. 10 sections of bracing broken on bents. Date Printed: 01/21/97 ~- 7 VDOT - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT ?a~e: 12 County/City: ALBEMARLE Structure: 002 6124 Inspected:' ~01/16/97 ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Note heavy build-up of gravel on top of deck in curbIine at east end of structure. Date Printed: 01/21/97 B- 7 VDOT - County/City: ALBEMARLE BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT -~Page: 13 Structure: 002 6124 Inspected:%01~16~97 ADDITION~_L REMARKS: Work Done:Five deck timbers replaced. Date Printed: 01/21/97 05-29-g-P02:0~ RCV9 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Plarming & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 2I 8 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax [804) 972 - 4035 TO: FROM: DATE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Susan Thomas, Senior Planner f,)f-~ May 27, 1997 Trees for 29: Project History Planning efforts for Trees for 29 began in late 1993, when Chuck Lebo proposed landscaping Route 29 North as a North Charlottesville Business Council (NCBC, the Council) community project. The other Council directors were enthusiastic: the median trees had been removed during the widening work, and public reaction to their absence was s~rong. NCBC had been committed to transforming 29 into an "urban boulevard" for some time, and the median landscaping was seen as a first step. Elisabeth Lardner of Lardner/Klein Landscape Architects was invited to speak at NCBC's April 1994 meeting, describing how Midlothian had successfully managed a similar project. An advisory committee was formed to select tree varieties and manage the project. Regular members were: Chuck Lebo, Henry Weinschenk, Frank Stoner and Susan Thomas from NCBC; Bill Watson, VDOT roadside landscaping program manager, Culpeper District; Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, Charlottesville Residency; Marcia Joseph, design planner, Albemarle County; Burt Joseph, Virginia Power, utility liaison; Lee Qnillen, commercial landscaping conu:actor; Mary Bryant, community liaison. Individuals from various local organizations also attended periodically. A1 Bryant, VDOT Environmental Division, Richmond, joined the group in mid-1995. Although NCBC was (and is) still committed to raising a portion of the funding privately, the major portion of the budget was secured when VDOT agreed to redirect money from the former Route 29 North interchange project to sidewalks and landscaping. NCBC also applied to Louisiana Pacific's Home Town Proud program at the suggestion of Bonnie Guiton Hill from UVa. Although that application was not funded, Albemarle County included the project in its CIP program and the committee felt it could proceed with an adequate budget. After months of discussion, the committee narrowed its selections to the following large shade tree varieties: Zelcova "Green Vase," Willow Oak, American Elm "Delaware," Red Oak, and Red Maple "Red Sunset." VDOT standards allow planting of large varieties where the median measures at least 18 feet in width. Where the median is less than 18 feet, VDOT will allow medium size trees, and the committee selected the following varieties: Winter King Hawthorn, Golden Rain Tree, Tree Lilac, and American Hornbeam. Although large ~rees were emphasized, the median is discont'muous and varies in width throughout the approximately three mile extent of the project, so some medium size trees were included in the original design. Other criteria for tree selection included: disease resistance, high branching habit, no fruit, hardiness, upright shape, availability and affordability. The project was structured so that the contractor supplying plant material also would provide three years of maintenance (watering, pr[ming, spraying, replacement, etc.) to encourage a higher rate of tree survival. In 1995, we were contacted by the utility companies who had installed new facilities in the median in an early phase ofthe widening work, before the Trees for 29 launch. Charlottesville Gas, Sprint/Centel, and to a lesser extent the Albemarle County Service Authority all voiced strong objections to planting trees of any type over their lines. VDOT, as owner of the median, found itself mediating among parties. Finally, Henry Weinschenk met with each of the utilities in an attempt to develop a planting scheme which avoided the buried lines. The utilities reluctantly agreed to drop their objections to trees if small and/or medium size varieties were substituted for large. Consequently, the commiuee spent several more months expanding the plant list to include additional medium size varieties. In this endeavor we relied extensively on tree lists obtained from the Virginia Department of Forestry and Pennsylvania's Municipal Tree Restoration Program. Trees for 29 faced its final hurdle in getting the three party agreement governing project funding and administration written and approved. After VDOT and Albemarle County had signed the document, the Chamber of Commerce (representing its affiliate, NCBC) objected to language designating the Council as the parry responsible for on-going maintenance after termination of the three year contract maintenance term. The language was accordingly revised, stating that the parties "agree to enter into good faith negotiations concerning the ongoing maintenance of all plantings within the scope and limits of the project." Approximately six months Iater, the revised agreement was signed by all three parties. Subsequent staff changes in County Planning, designated as the project manager, created additional delay and necessitated reassi?dting management responsibility. Lisa Glass in Engineering and Public Works nowis project manager, Susan Thomas is information contact. Installation of Phases I and II plant material is scheduled for the fall of 1997; Phase IH ~rees will be installed at completion of that component, currently estimated for fall 2000. Al Bryant of VDOT has advised us that the project must move forward if its funding is to remain. Attachments: A - Original project information sheet B - April 10, I995 memorandum from Henry Weinschenk regarding utility ~ssues C - Planting schematic CCi Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris Ms. Sally Thomas Mr. David Tice I:\GENERAL\SHARE\THOMASWREES.WHY DRAFT Plant Material and Design The Trees for 29 advisory committee spent several months selecting tree varieties for planting within the new, narrower median. Our criteria were several: hardy, disease resistant species which require minimal feeding, watering, spraying little or no pruning necessary branching habit which starts at 15 feet or above if possible, avoiding varieties with branches and/or fruit which droop, break, or shed excessively upright shape which does not screen or obscure properties along the highway stately effect, good fall color, long-lived availability and affordability VDOT design standards call for planting of large tree varieties where the median measures 18 feet or wider, at 40 foot intervals. In areas of less than 18 feet in width, medium size trees may be planted at intervals of 25 feet. Key players during this phase of project planning were: Bill Watson, Transportation Roadside Development Manager for VDOT's Culpeper District; Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, VDOT; Marcia Joseph, Landscape Planner, Albemarle County; and, Lee Quillen, President, Waynesboro Landscape and Garden Center. After many hours of deliberation, the Trees for 29 advisory committee has developed the following tree list: Large Zelchova "Green Vase" Willow Oak American Elm "Delaware" Red Oak Red Maple "Red Sunset" Medium Winter King Hawthorn Golden Rain Tree Lilac Hornbeam VDOT standards are not the only constraint to replanting the median. Utility rights-of-way, water and sewer crossings, turning lanes, and other design elements influence the landscaping plan, so that neither the median or the trees will not be continuous throughout the entire length of the project. We do intend, however, to plant each varie,ty by variety in a contiguous stretch of median, thereby promoting a sense of harmony and uniformity. We feel strongly that Route 29 North can be beautified and humanized despite its many problems, achieving a true urban boulevard effect. DATE:April 10, ~995 MEMORANDUM ~ C'vil!e Planning Dep. Frederic R.Harris,Inc. TO: Trees for 29 Committee FROM:Henry Weinschenk CC: Kent McElheny - Gas Division Bucky Palmer - Centel Satyendra Hu3a - Howard Kal/man SUBJECT: Coordination With Utilities, .......... ng between the various utility companies and some members of our committee, concerns were expressed regarding interference between some utility lines and the planting of trees. I have since contacted each affected utility and asked them to state their specific requirements. They are as follows: Telephone According to Bucky. Palmer from Centel, to maintain their conduit bank they require a 10 feet wide clear strip to allow repair work done by a backhoe. ~a~ According to Kent McElheny from the Charlottesville Gas Division, they also need the 10 ft.clearance for e backhoe; but their main concern is the interference of roots with their pipes, since tree roots may cause pipes to fail. Therefore, the spread of trees (also sometimes referred to as the "drip-line circle") shall not-overlap with the gas line. In addition, there is a VDOT requirement that all tree trunks must be at least 8 ft.back from the edge of the roadway. Attached you will find a sketch that I was able to prepare with'information provided by Howard Kallman,P.E., Resident Engineer with Frederic R.Harris, Inc. The sketch shows a typical cross-section of the 26 ftowide median addressing the different requirements and indicating that there is still room to plant trees, as long as that at maturity they reach a spread not exceeding 20 ft. You will notice that to do this the tree planting line has been offset by 3 feet from the center-line of the median, however this should not be very noticeable in a 26 ft.wide median. After reviewing the list of trees that we originally had for consideration, I was able to identify the following as having a spread of no more than 20 ft.at maturity and still reach 20 to 30 ft in height: Golden Rain Tree (Koelieuteria paniculata) American Hornbeem CCarpinus carolinians) In addition, I like to submit for consideration the Sourwood tree (0xylendrum arboreum). This tree is listed as recommended by the Green Virginia Foundation, Inc. It reaches a height of 20 to S0 ft. but only spreads 10 to l§ feet. It is suited for growing in the sun, with medium to low moisture. It is described as an "handsome tree, erect with a slender trunk and upright branches, with white flowers in the summer and brilliant red foliage in the fall". In the same listing indicated above, I found the Golden Rain Tree to be described as "weak wooded and short lived". We may went to consider removing~it from consideration. In the other hand, the American Hornbeam is described as s "good street or shade tree with refined character, light informal horizontal branching, green flowers in the spring and reddish foliage in the fall". I hope that with the above information we can proceed with our original plan to plant trees in the median. Please let me know if you find any discrepancies, have any concerns or suggestions. VDOT £1z~r 2ood Fim'Mqe4 £R035 ~ECTIOAI PT. Zg' k4. ~ for the "Trees for 29 Not&' project and asked me what I ~ought of the proposed tree species. Not to mince words, the chosen trees are absolutely wrong. The trees for that road should be large, hardy, urban street trees - such as s~-carnore, white ash or oaks. The proposed trees are small, ornamental species. They are wrong for the following rea$orls: 1. Appropriate Scale The road is huge, To be in keeping with the la:ale of the road, the trees need to have a large canopy. If this road wants to look like a boulevard, the trees need to be boulerard crees, 2, Harsh exmdition$ The trees need to he able to thrive with poor soil, heat and car exhaust, Look at 250 East where one of the proposed trees ($ourwood) was planted in the median. They are almost all dead~ $. Long Life Spnn (Return on Investment} Although no tree will live as long on 29 as it would in a better environment, you want to plant trees with the best chance to live ~e longest. Small ornamental trees wili not live as long as large canopy t~ees. I was told that small trees were chosen because of the possible conflict with underground utilities. Large, tlrban street trees are almost always planted with those conditions in mind. You may remember that I w~om to you before this process st&fred suggesting that the committee not repeat the mistakes in the planting that were made along 250 East. I ~strongly believe that mistakes are being made. Although I know this project is out m bid, I urge you to recor~ider! I would be glad to talk with you or the committee to, explain my concerns. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cc: Dave Tice, Charlotte Humph~s and Sally Thomas ~ 25-97, u3:33 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-30-97~0:3] RCVD TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Rick Huff - Assistant County Executive Bill Mawyer ~ Director of Engineering & Public Wor~ K~ 28 May 1997 Route 20 Improvements As requested by the Board of Supervisors. we have reviewed and evaluated the approved plans for the Route 20/Avon Street Connector Road to see if the ~mprovements may be upgraded to accommodate the proposed widening of Route 20 to a 4 lane divided roadway. A summary of our evaluation is provided below for discussion at next months meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Existing Conditions: In the vicinity of the Route 20/Connector Road intersection, the existing Route 20 consists of two lanes. Each is approximately 10'± wide for a total width of approximately 20'_+ wide. Route 20 also makes a relatively sharp curve just north of its intersection with the Connector Road (currently under construction), The existing sight distance in the area of this curve is poor. ,Current Improvements: As part of the Connector Road construction, physical improvements will be made to the portion of Route 20 at its intersection with the Connector Road. These improvements are briefly summarized as follows: A. At the Connector Road intersection, Route 20 will be widened to provide four lanes, each approximately 12' wide, These improvements include construction of: · Wider pavement along the existing north bound and south bound lanes. 200' right mm lane with a 150' right mm taper in the southbound direction. 200' left mm lane with a 200' left turn taper in the north bound direction. · Pavement transitions, approximately 400' in length, from the widened portion of Route 20 to the ex/sting roadway. Extension of drainage culverts and provisions for drainage easements at the outlets. Wider (4 lane) cross section with a dividing concrete median for the Connector Road ar the intersection with Route 20. Three lanes provide for east and west bound traffic and a left rum lane. The fourth lane will be consu-ucted and reserved as a future additional left mm lane. B. Connector Road intersection sight distance (to the north along Route 20) was improved by moving the intersection as far south from the existing curve as site constraints would allow. In addition, a sight distance easement was obtained across the parcel on the northwest side of the intersection. Left turn lanes Right turn lane 200' Left turn lane Connector Road 200' Right turn lane Route 20 Future Improvements: VDOT is currently looking into widening Route 20 to a four lane divided road. At the Connector Road intersection, this improvement will require widening Route 20 to six lanes to accommodate the necessary turn lanes. Reconstruction of the Connector Road radial curbs and portion of the raised median may also be necessary at this intersection along with the installation of a traffic signal. The widening of Route 20 may be accommodated by adding to the width constructed as part of the Connector Road project. However, the extent of the modifications to this intersection cannot be evaluated until VDOT has made decisions on some critical factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1. Geometry and dimensions of the 4 lane divided typical cross section. 2. Proposed changes in the horizontal and vertical alignment of Route 20. 3. Determination of the need to acquire and the availability of additional road right-of-way. (existing r/ght-of-way is 80' wide, a 4 lane divided road may need up to 120'~. 4. Deterrrfination whether to widen the Route 20/Connector Road intersection on both sides or only on one side. 5. Physical obstructions to the widening (ex. presence of bedrock on the east side of Route 20, utility pole and wire relocations, etc. ). Conclusion: The Connector Road, its intersections at Avon Street and at Route 20, and the entrances ro the Monticello High School have all been designed to assure the safe movement of school buses ro and from the school. We feel that we have done the best we could, with the information that has been available during the design and review of the Connector Road. to accommodate or ar least not interfere with the potential for Route 20 to be improved to a four lane divided roadway. Please contact myself or Jack Ketsey should you have any questions or should desire to view and discuss the improvements shown on the approved Connector Road ptans. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS 05-29-97P01:59 RCVD AGENDA TITLE Proposed Children, Youth and Family Commission SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of proposed Children, Youth and Family Commission for Albemarle and Charlottesville. STAFF CONTACT{S) Messm. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE June 4, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: ATTACHMENT-~ REVIEWED B~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION iNFORMATION BACKGROUND: From the 1988 Children and Youth Task Force through the Albemarle County Human Services Plan, the lack of a comprehensive system for assessing the need for and provision of children, youth and family services in the Albemarle/Charlottesville has been recognized. The Albemarle County Human Services Plan concluded with a recommendation to "charge an appointed group to oversee the assessment and provision of human services and implementation of the human services plan". A recent group, composed of CACY members, Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) members. City and County government representatives and other interested individuals has, after a year of looking at service coordination issues, come together to recommend "an overall commission or oversight body '. reorganized to provide a stronger organization and a more streamlined and uniform process for assessing and delivering services to children, youth and families. The attached report prepared by the "Alliance', the coalition of these various representatives, proposes restructuring the CPMT and the CACY commission to form an umbrella group for Albemarle and Charlottesville called the Children, Youth and Family Commission. DISCUSSION: The Alliance report proposes a newly formed Children, Youth and Family Commission empowered by the local governing bodies and combining both the membership and the current responsibilities of the CACY Commission and the CPMT. As you may remember, the CACY commission was charged in 1990 by both the County and City to serve as a comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and youth services. Shortly after its inception, the State mandated that each community set up a Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT} to serve the needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families and to maximize the use of state and community resources. The State mandated CPMT members include agency heads from both City and County Social Services and School Divisions, the Health Department, Region Ten, and Juvenile Court Services, as well as a private set. ce provider and a parent representative, The Alliance feels that by combining the broader citizen input from CACY with the knowledge base and the ability to implement programs from the County and City's major human service agencies, including the school divisions: a stronger, more balanced and more effective organizing and implementation body will be in place for children, youth and family services. Similar to CACY, the proposed new commission would be appointed by the County and City and would consist of 18 members representing public and pdvate agencies, local units of govemment and interested citizens. In addition to appointed citizens, all major participants in the delivery of children, youth and family semces, including each school division would be ~ncluded. The University of Virginia and United Way would also be represented on the Commission. AGENDA TITLE Prooosed Children, Youth and Fam,y Commission June 4, 1997 Page 2 The new Commission's charge would be to provide a more comprehensive focus for planning, recommending, coordinating, delivering and evaluating children, youth and family ser~ces in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community, including the mandated CPMT responsibitities. More detailed functions and responsibilities of the proposed commission are described on page 3 of the attached report. Three sub-committees will perform the work of the commission: Planning and Evaluation, Finance and Administration and Communication. The Planning and Evaluation sub-committee will assess needs, collect data, establish outcome standards and community benchmarks for services and programs, and evaluate programs against those measures. This sub-committee will also assume the current functions of the County/City budget review team. The Finance and Administration sub-committee will can'y out the state mandated respnns~Jtitios of the CPMT, as well as provide oversight and coordination for local, state and grant funding for community wide children, youth and family services. The Communication sub-committee will be responsible t'or developing an integrated information sharing system for the community, including an electronically connected interagency network, on children, youth and family needs and services. Futura commission proJects could focus on streamlining and improving the juvenile justice system and developing a comprehensive Healthy Families program. A detaffed listing of the sub-functions and membership for each subcommittee is on page 5 of the report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approv"al of the Alliance's proposed plan for a stronger and more effective coordinating body for chitdren, youth and family programs and services. If both the Board and City Council approve this initial proposal, staff will work with the Alliance {o develop the charge, membership and implementation procedures for the new commission for the Board's final approval and appointment of members. Members of the CACY Commission and the CPMT will be at Wednesday's meeting to address any questions you may have on the proposed reorganization. 97.106 THE ALLIANCE REPORT MAY 27, 1997 The Alliance Planning Group: Ken Ackerman, Monticello Area Community Action Agency Lois Brown, Albemarle County Schools Rory Carpenter, CACY Commission Martha Carroll, 16th District Juvenile Court Service Unit Buz Cox, Charlottesville Department of Social Services Madison Cummings, Albemarle County School Board Jack Gallagher, Community Attention Marianne Kosiewicz, Charlottesville City Schools Lisa McConnell, CACY Commission Linda Peacock, Charlottesville City Manager's Office John Pezzoli, Region Ten Community Services Board Cindy Stratton, CACY Commission Cathy Train, United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area Roxanne White, Albemarle County Executive's Office Prepared by Rory Carpenter, CACY Director "To design, implement and maintain a community wide system of all children and family agencies which will result in improved children, youth and fcanity services that are accountable for the efficient use of lmblic/private resources and are responsive to the changing needs of the community." Vision Statement of the Alliance BACKGROUND: On May 15rig 1996, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission (CACY), the Community Policy Management Teem (CPMT), Charlottesville City Government, Albemarle County Government and other interested individuals convened to discuss the development of a stronger and more unified process for delivering services to children, youth and families in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. The May 15th meeting was initiated by a group of agency, government and community representatives called the "Alliance" that had been working together since July, 1995, to enhance interagency coordination and meet the increasing needs of children, youth and families. The meeting focused on the resolution of the following problems or barriers identified by the "Alliance:" · Current efforts to coordinate and share resources are often scattered, time consuming and often do not result in improved services. · Families in need of service have difficulty understanding and accessing the system. · The Charlottesville/Albemarle community does not have a conmmn vision for children, youth and family serwces. · Three separate groups plan, coordinate, evaluate, recommend and implement children and youth services, i.e. CACY, CPMT and the City/County Budget Review Teem · Competing priorities and limited resources are not able to meet the increasing needs of children, youth and families. · Improvements are needed in the way we assess, plan, access, deliver, coordinate and evaluate our services to children, youth and families. · The community is not aware of the needs of children and youth. 2 The initial strategy suggested by the "Alliance" at the May 15th meeting was to reorganize the current system by bringing together CACY and the CPMT ~ (the two groups mandated to plan and coordinate the delivery of local human services), age, nc/es and local governments to form a new planning, coordinating, evaluating and implementing body. All those who attended the May 15th meeting agreed to explore the reorganization process by designating a core group to work out the details and report back to the full group in the Fall of 1996. THE ALLIANCE PLANNING GROUP PROCESS: The Alliance planning group met six times between June 12th and September 3rd, 1996 to design a structure for the reorganization of CACY, the CPMT, agencies and local government as requested. The planning group reviewed five different design proposals generated by group members to determine coramonalties and essential elements. The following essential elements were agreed upon: · There should be an overall Commission or oversight body empowered by the local governing bodies. · This Commission should have representation from agencies, citizens, business and local government. · There should be standing subcommittees that report to the Commission. · There should be appropriate staff support at the Commission level. · Working committees should be developed as needed by the Commission with time limited mandates. The Alliance planning group developed a design proposal of a coordinated community-wide system of children, youth and family services and presented it to the larger group on October 30th, 1996 (see the Attachment Section, page g-3, for a list of the names of those individuals who attended the meeting. The consensus at the October 30th meeting was to expand the planning group and to request that this group modify and develop in more detail the proposed design (see the cover page for a complete list of the planning group members). The expanded planning group met between December 5th, 1996 and February 27th, 1997, to complete the design utilizing the subcommittee structure as outlined in the draft report "The Alliance Planning Group Report, September 18, 1996." The planning group completed the design of a unified system for recommending, delivering, coordinating and evaluating services for Charlottesville/Albemarle children and families in April, 1997 for presentation to CACY, the CPM'r, Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. See the Attachment Secaon. page ~4-t, for detailed descripHons of these two groups. 3 RECOMMENDED DESIGN: SUGGESTED NAME: The Children, Youth and Fami~ Commission (18 Members): Seven Citizen Representatives (one must be a parent): · 3 County Citizen Representatives (2 year terms with the oppommity for reappointment) · 3 City Citizen Representatives ( 2 year terms with the the opportunity for reappointmen)t) · 1 Prime Agency Service Provider ( 2 year term with no opportunity for reappointment) Seven Public Agency Administrators: · 2 School Superintendents (1City, 1 County) · 2 Department of Social Service Directors (1 City, 1 County) · 1 Juvenile Com-t Director · 1 Health Department Director · 1 Community Service Board Director One University of Virginia Representative Three Ex-Officio (non-voting) Representatives: · 1 County Government Representative · 1 City Government Representative · 1 United Way Representative rJ--]21.1~ COMMISSION -- STAFF STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES PLANNING/EVALUATION OFFICE ON YOUTI~ COMMUNICATION FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION I 1 CASE AUTHORIZATION & REVllgW WORK GROUP SUMMARY: The suggested composition of the Commission would provide a balance between citizens and professionals with: seven citizens tSom the City and the County (to include a parent and a private provider), seven public agency adminstrators, one University of Virginia administrator and three ex-officio representatives (to include City government, County government and the United Way ). In order to maintain the functions of the CACY Office on Youth and the CPMT Case Authorization and Review Work Group, they should be subgroups of the Planning/Evaluation Subcommittee and the Finance/Administration Subcommittee. 4 THE CH/LDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILY COMMISSION: GOAL: To create a community vision and establish community benchmarks for the delivery of services to children, youth and families by providing a comprehensive focus for planning, recommending coordinating, delivering and evaluating children, youth and fami!y services in the Charlottesville~Albemarle community. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS: The Commission would be appointed and empowered by the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors. It would consist of 18 members representing public and private agencies, local units of government and our diverse community (see the Design Structure for more details on membership). The Commission would meet bimonthly to: oversee the activities and recommendations of the three standing subcommittees (Plarming/Evaluation, Communication and Finance/Administration); oversee the Office on Youth and perform the functions of the Community Policy Management Team (CPMT) under the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA); and, make prograrmnatie and funding recommendations to the County Board and the City Council regarding children, youth and family services. TASKS: · Provide a comprehensive focus for the planning, recommending, coordinating, evaluating, and delivery of services to local children, youth and families. Ensure the most effective allocation and delivery of services and community resources to local children, youth and fart/dies and make programmatic and funding recommendations accordingly to the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council. · Maximize community resources among the providers of services to local youth and families. · Provide a mechanism for community involvement in the planning and recommending of children, youth and family services, · Assist the County Executive and the City Manager in the supervision and administration of the Commission staff (adequate staff support will be essential to the Commission's success). · Commission members should serve as members of one of the three subcommittees. · Develop task forces or committees, if needed, with a ~'task" directive on a time limited basis. · Recommend any additions, deletions or changes in laws, policies or procedures that will improve community conditions for children and youth development. Alliance Presentation To CACY And CPMT Contrasts/Comparisions CACY MISSION The purpose is to serve as a compre- hensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and youth services for the City and the County. MANDATED MEMBERSHIP Local: Eleven to thirteen members, six appointed by the City and six by the County, ana one member of the Interagency Council. A majority of the members shall be citizen reps; at least one member from each jurisdiction shall be below the age of eighteen. State: Must be established By an ordinance of local governing bodies and be administered by local governing bodies. In order to receive State funds the majority of the members shall be appointed by a local governing body and the majority shall be citizens who are not employed by government or service agencies and who are not elected government officials. No title, position, or agency shall be appointed to the Youth Services Citizen Board. At least one member shall be below the age of 18(Changes ir Minimum Standards effective 87/1/97 will allow the localities to determine the makeup of the Commission). FINANCIAL SUPPORT 1996-97 State Funding minus SOAR: $ 21,500 City Funding: $24,800 County Funding: $24,800 Project SOAR: DYFS: 19,500; City 10,500. CURRENT MEMBERS Cindy Stratton (Ch), Chair; Maurice Lipper (Al), Vice-Chair; Lisa McConnell (Ch), Secretary; Ruthann Brown (Al); Derek Jones (Al); Thelma Whiting (Al); Deverett Cummings (Ch); Virginia McKee (Ch); Deborah Pomerantz (Ch); Paul Harris (Al); Madison Cummings (AIb. School Board); Linda Bowen (Ch. School Board). A-1 5/5/97 CPMT MISSION The Community Policy Management Team(CPMT) wilt manage the cooperative effort in each community to better serve the needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families and to maximize the use of state and community resources. MANDATED MEMBERSHIP City Schools. County Schools, Court Service Unit. Community Services Board, Health Department. City Department Social Services. County Department Social Services. Private Provider Rep., parent rep. from each jurisdiction All above agencies are required appointments to the CPMT. The local governing bodies MAY appoint others such as. but not limited to: local government official, local law enforcement official, a representative from other public agencies. Parent reps must not be an employee of any public or private program which serves children and families. The governing bodies shall also designate one fiscal officer and shall arrange for the provision of le,oal services to the team. FINANCIAL SUPPORT City Funding: $ 2.860.00 County Funding: 4.236.00 State Funding: 11.825.00 Trust Fund Grants not applicable Region Ten towards coordinator?: CURRENT MEMBERS Marianne Kosiewicz (Ch Sch); Tom Nash (AIb Sch); Martha Carroll (Court); Jim Peterson (CSB); Df. Susan McLeod. (Health Dpt); Kathy Ralston (ACDSS); Buz Cox (CDSS); Jonathan Earl (Parent rep.). Compiled by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth (CACY) Commission Staff Alliance Presentation To CACY And CPMT Contrasts/Comparisions CACY, continued CPMT, continued A-2 5/5/97 MANDATED ACTIVITIES Evaluate current service delivery systems and make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing bodies, within the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by MANDATED ACTIVITIES Develop interagency policies and procedures to govern prevision of services to the community's Ichildren and families. Develop interagency fiscal policies to access state pool of funds for shelter care and emergency services, Coordinate each jurisdiction. Set goals and objectives fer the Office of Children and Youth, develop long range initiatives and five year plans, to include comprehensive planning for children and youth services, and act as an advocate for the ~mprovement of children and youth services. Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development and additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs. Create and proyide leadership for an interagency council. New for 1996-97 State guidelines now mandate 50% of Office on Youth activities are involved in the juvenile justice field. BIRTH OF THE COMMISSION State Agency Oversight: Department of Juvenile Justice September 1990 Albemarle County December 1990 City of Charlottesville amended their 1984 resolution. First meeting of the CACY Commission. 12/90. Recommendation was made by the C/A Children and Youth Task Force in 1989 that the most important charge given to the two jurisdictions was to support and fund the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Children and Youth Commission. It was intended that the CACY Commission would answer the following concerns: central coordination and leadership, greater community involvement, more support to families: and more long-range community planning which ensures the development of resources and services needed by children and families: has authority to submit grant proposals for community. Newfor 1996-97 Restructured to form three standing workgroups: Administration & Finance, Case Authorization and Review. and Planning & Resource Development; membership in these groups will expand beyond CPMT structure. BIRTH OF THE COMMUNITY POLICY MANAGEMENT TEAM State Agency Oversight: Came into existence as la "voluntary" advisory team in 1989, as aart of the CHAIN alliance for foster care and for court and speciat services children. In 1993 with the CSA(Comprehensive Services Act) formally legalized the CPMT's role in administering services for at-risk children,youth & their families. Intent of the CSA is to establish a comprehensive policy direction designed to: preserve and strengthen families; provide services in the least restrictive environment while protecting the welfare of children and youth and the public's safety; identify and intervene as early as possible; create services to meet the needs of individual youths and families: increase involvement of the family and child-serving agencies: encourage a public/private partner- ship; and provide more community control and prevention programs. Many of the specific I greater flexibility in the use of funds. Schools will recommendations of the Task Force Report were Iwork with child welfare, health, mental health and determined to be dependent upon the I juvenile justice systems to plan and provide establishment of CACY. services according to the needs of the youth and their famil es. Compiled by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth (CACY) Commission Staff To: TO WHOM ADDRESSED From: Ella Washington Carey, Clerk~ CM~ Subject: Ordinance Adopted by Board on June 4, 1977 Date: June 9, 1997 Attached for your use is a Copy of a2~ ordinance which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on Jtme 4, 1997: An ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, ArZicle I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2. I, Compensation of board of supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by $328.00, to establish compensation at $9,696.00 per year. qEWC Attachments fl) The Honorable James L. Camblos. III Rolisa Smith Melvin A. Bre~den Robert Waiters Municipal Code Corporation File DRAFT: March 12, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, 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 2, Administration, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors: as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Nine thousand .......... ~ ....... ~-~5, LL six hundred ninety-six dollars and no cents ~o or_o ~ ($9,696.00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall recewe a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). This ordinance shall be effective on and after lulv 1, 1997. 2-1.197 To: BTUCKEE {Bob Tucker) Cc: Ella Carey, Roxanne White From: Larry Davis Subject: Re: BOARD MEMBER SALARy INCREASE Date: 3/1~/97 Time: 8:58A~ Originated by: BTUCKER @ ACVA on 3/11/97 ~0:51A~ Replied by: LDAVIS @ ACVA on 3/12/97 8:58AM with the last ad being a week before the public h~arin@. Because Board salaries already exceed the maximum set forth in VA Code 14.1-46.1 ($9,000), any increase is limited =o an inflation factor not to Albemarle County Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 97-2(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, 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 2, Administration, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors, as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Nine thousand six hundred ninety-six dollars and no cents ($9,696.00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 1997. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of slx to zero, at a regular meeting held on June 4, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supennsors David P. Bowemmn ~o Charlotte Y. Humphris Fr~mst R. Marshall, ~ COUN'I~ OF Al REMARLE Offic~ of Board of SuPeW~sors 401 McIntire Road Charlotte.wille. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sal]9 H. Thomas June 9, 1997 Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville. VA 22902-1505 Dear Ms. O'Brien: At its meeting on Jtme 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached Resolution to Approve the VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan. For your informa- tion, during its review of the Strategic Plan. the Board noted several typographical errors. Sincerely. Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~%WC Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Ir. Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VENTURE REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN WItEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors agreed to join with the localities of the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson to work toward meeting the requirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act; and WHEREAS, the group appointed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, named the VENTURE, has written By Laws to guide the operation of the VENTURE; and VOtEREAS, the VENTURE has also developed and held hearings on a Regional Strategic Plan; and VOtEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is interested in a continuing working relationship with the other localities in the region to build on the strengths and diminish the weaknesses of the region; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle approves the VENTURE Regional Strategic Plan. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to at a regular meeting held on June 4, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supe~ors 5-29-1997 I :28PM P~ ' FROM TJPDC 9791597 05-2g-gfP03: 0/4 RCV~' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C~lo~e, VA 22902-1~0fi 18~)9~-PDtO {~10) - F~ (804) 979-~97 COMMBI~rS: Number of pages in fax (including cover sheet): FROM: Nancy IC O'Bricn, Exccuti'¢* DkeCr~r William Warmer~ Senior Planner ... Bruce Carve. h, Criminal JusficoPtanner ,Tobm Pot*er, Planning Technician Borme Fronfelter, l~g/slative Liaison Rcac¢ Hoover, Fim~l Officer Hannah Twadde!l, Senior Mi:~a¢l CoEins, Senior Plainer Tina Sherman, RideShare Coord, Rochelle Oarwood. Support Teak R0vcEe Brown, Welfare Planner Debi Demmoro, Ex~utiv* .amy problems regarding roc,~pt of this fax, pleae call (804) 979-7310. Think you,~ 6-29-1997 ~:28P~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VEN ~JRE REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLAN WI-IER.EAS, theAlbemarle County Board of Supervisors agreed to join wSth the localities of the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Lou/sa, and Nelson to work toward meeting the requirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act, and WHEREAS, the group appointed by the Thomas Sefferson Plarm'mg District Commission, named the VENTL~,.E, has written By Laws to guide the operation of the VENTURE, and WHEREAS, the VENTLFR.E has also developed and held hearings on a Regional Strategic Plan, WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Super-~Ssors is interested in a continu!,ng working relationship with the other localities in the region to build on hhe strengths and dimlxfish the weaknesses of the region, NOg' THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approves the VENTURE Regional Strategio Plan. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 06-06-97A0-2:.38 RCVD Citizens for Albemarle Statement Regarding Request for Approval of Venture Strategic Plan 4 June. 1997 Citizens for Albemarle believes long term planning is crucial to a good future to our region. We have a long history of suppoding careful comprehensive planning and adherence to the adopted plan. We believe that good plans emerge from processes in which there is extended interaction between elected and appointed officials, staff membem and residents. We are fully aware of the economic disparities between Albemarle County and adjoining localities. We think it is likely that a good strategic plan for economic development in our region can be developed. Members of our organization have been willing to work toward development of a regional strategic plan. We also have _cl~r~wn ~**~-"' ' to areas in our region that beg for inter-jurisdictional cooperation in ~con Our county's developme, ¢~¢¢'"~'~ ~/'~-'-"~-' mment and revision process. Not coincJdentalt~ contrast, development ofth /~,?~,~ a compressed effort designed to meet an applic~ (~-_~5.¢,~) , / ~ ~,~ ' improvement have been limited. .~ _~..~..~.~.~-Y ,/~ Has the Venture Strategic ,-.~-~z~-~' ~-/~'"~ ,~-~ ~ patibility with our Comprehensive Plan? Does ~ ~ / . ~,~ ~ ~issionem put into Albemarle County's economic .... //~ ' ,,~ ~ ~ 'ocal proje~s that might be added to the strategic ~ ~ ~ ho~? You need not act hurriedly, z,~ 9gions to make submissions later this year and ,~ ~ ~_ ' '~. , hich we develop regionat policies match the rigor Citizens for A bemarle asks that ,. ~n. Rather. we ask that you suppo~ submission t ~ later this year or ne~, a~er a ~rategic plan has been pro ~at development process. THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN DRAFT (MAY 31, 1997) Developed for the VENTURE by The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505, 300 East Main Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310; fax 979-1597; e-mail: thomasjpdc~aol.com website: http://avenue.org/Gov/TJPDC TABLE OF CONTF_NTS Background Vision Statement Strengths and Weaknesses of Region Definition of Competitiveness Areas of Current Cooperation Comparison Community: Chapel Hill, NC Strategic Directions Beauty Education Sprawl Econonfic Disparities Affordable Hous'mg Race Relations Bylaws Funding Formula 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 21 THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN DRAFT Background Jointly appointed by the local governing bodies of the City of Charlottesville, the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvarma, Louisa, and Nelson, and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the group assembled, developed a work plan, defined competitiveness for the region, created a vision statement, decided upon a name, identified strengths and weaknesses of the region, set priority topics for focus, and developed strategies and actions to bolster the s~rengths and address the weaknesses. In addition, the VENTURE agreed to use Chapel Hill, North Carolina as a comparison community. The results of these endeavors is compiled in this Strategic Plan. The VENTURE sought public opimon at a public hearing, May 29, 1997. The VENTURE came about under the Regional Competitiveness Act enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1996. The state program developed and became open to participation by regions in 1997. Led by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the localities agreed to Work together to qualify as a region under the Act. At this writing, the County of Greene has not reached a conclusion about joining the VENTURE. This decision is expected in early June. Vision Statement. In the Future, we envision our region as one that value history, cnlture, community diversity, nature and the health and welfare of its citizens; where effective, cooperative regional planning takes place to provide for orderly growth linking vibrant urban and village cemers with growth management practices thru pro~ecr and enhance natural, rural, agricultural, and historic resources while promoting urban sustainability desired economic growth takes place in accordance with community needs as articulated in comprehensive plans, providing better opportunities for all the regions" citizens through a diversity of good paying jobs and varied educational opportunities; affordable housing choices are available throughout the region, altemative modes of transportation are encouraged and provided; · the region learns tSom the mistakes of the past or other region's experience; and · the negative effects of local actions on adjacent localities are minimized. DRAFT VENTURE 8trategqc Plan (5/29/97) Page 1 Strengths and Weaknesses (rev/sed 5/15/97; underlined are additions from 5/8/97; numbers are priority votes; priority votes were 4 per person; 2 each for one category in both strengths and weaknesses; 2 for a sub-topic in both strengths and weaknesses) The region, like all regions, has particular strengths and weaknesses. The VENTURE group developed the lists in a brainstorming activity. The consensus is that this area is rich in natural beauty, historic resources, character, culture, and educational resources. The location and size of the region are important factors in assessing the strengths of the area. The strengths of the area are weakened by provincialism, sprawl, and uneven infrastructure. Some areas have a weakening infrastructure, some none, and others find it a costly investment. Several of the weaknesses identified did not fit neatly into,larger categories, such as-race relations, differing positions on business growth, and dependence on the automobile. However, several groupings which did fit together under the title "Economic Underelass" were wages, cost of living, particularly the cost of housing. Following are lists of strengths and weaknesses in alphabetic order by group heading. STRENGTHS: Beauty (8): Natural beauty, rural environment (5), untapped resources (nataral, human), natural resources (4), great natural environment, historic sites, rural character, sustainable economic growth and development, and historic resources (1), small town atmosphere (1) Character: Diversity, beginnings of regional cooperation (5), spirit, civility, public/private partnerships (1), responsible government (1) Culture: University of Virginia. Piedmont Virginia Community College provide medical cultural, sports, and education opportunities, cosmopolitan urban center, higher education (1), diverse population, the University, and culture in general. Education (6): Strong educational focus, education in general (1), low unemployment, education for the college-bound, library Location (6?: Healthy environment, climate, good transportation, accessibility, location, east/west transportation, several large, stable employers.(1). Size: The size of the region is manageable (1) DRAFT VENTURE SUrategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 2 WEAKNESSES: Communication Inability to articulate needs to local legislators ( interpreted as both local and state) Differing positions on business growth Economic Underclass (22: Disparity in jobs, wages, opportunity, and mobility (1) Lack of upwardly mobile job opportunities (2), underemployment, disparity between income, employment and educational opportunity, disparity of education opportunities, regional disparity of education, no inventory of' skills, gap between cost of living and lowest incomes, future for young residents, workforce training, preparation for 21st Century jobs, public transportation patterns re-enforce economic and race segregation, uneven demographics, Cost of Housing (6) Lack of affordable housing, cost of housing/cost of living, distribution of affordable housing (3) Infrastructure Lack of infrastructure, water resources, waste resources without shared vision (2), tourism could be better Provincialism (1) Turf guarding, inability to agree within region, divided government, lack of coordination of a/ms and endeavors (5) Race Relations (1) Sprawl (15) Lack of regional land use plan (1), development sprawl, poor growth management (4), lack of historic resource preservation, missing protection for natural beauty Substance Abuse (1) Alcohol, drug Transportation: Dependence on the automobile (1), north/south transportation DRAFT VENTLrRE Strateg/c Plan (5/29/97) Page 3 Definition of Competitiveness Competitiveness, noun: 1. mindset that is committed, motivated to improving conditions; 2. a set of activities that take place within a context of values including balance and diversity wherein there are winners and losers who are sometimes cooperative, sometimes contentious, but who seek to moderate differences or has certain qualities related to the quality of life and attractiveness; 3. position that indicates readiness to be pro-active and strategic, self-aware, educated about strengths, able to exchange ideas and resources in comparison to other similar areas; 4. sees results or creates the image ora vibrant, pacesetter, with qualities of excellence contributing to the external recognition as a standout, a winner with strengths, making progress and realizing lower costs; 5. combination: seeking to achieve quality and best use of resources; 6. a condition where one has reservations about the complexity and experiences some fear about the risk involved; 7. experiencing a challenge involving partnering, retaining talented people and achieving a balanced cooperative effort. Areas of current cooperation Background. The Regional Competitiveness Act identifies 14 Issues Areas to be used in determining the eligibility of the Region for participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program. Each issue area is assigned "weights" in the Act by which eligibility is measured. Each issue area and the weight assigned to each issue area are listed below. The weights range from 2 to 10 points. A threshold of 10 points must be met using existing regional activities to score the needed 10 (or more) points. In addition, a threshold of 10 points must be met by proposed regional activities, which are described in the Strategic Plan. Thus, a total of 20 points must be received to be eligible. Points are assigned using five criteria: 1. The significance of the activity on regional economic competitiveness (50%), 2. The significance of the activity on improving cooperative relationships (35%), 3. The complexity or difficulty of the activity (5%), 4. The amoum of fiscal resources committed (5%), and 5. The number of localities participating (5%). Existing Regional Activities. The following table identifies existing regional activities that fall under the Issue Areas and for which the Thomas Jefferson Venture could be measured for meeting the eligibility requirement for existing programs. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/9T~ Page 4 Issue Area Weight Existing Regional Activities Assigned Job Creation, I0 1. Sustainability Council - Regionwide - Crosses_l. ssue Areas Economic 2. Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development Development (5 PD 10 localities; 2 PD9 localities)* 3. Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce 4. Virginia Economic Development Corporation - Regionwide SBA 504 Loan Program and MicroLoan Program 5. Small Business Development Center - Regionwide 6. TJPDC - data center, planning and mapping* 7. Regional Tourism Council* ' 8. Charlottesville-Albemarle Visitor's Center* 9. Job Training Partnership Act* 10. Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center* I 11. Drewary Brown Job Training Center* 12. Piedmont Virginia Community College - workforce I training, one stop job center, dislocated homemakers 13. FOCUS dislocated homemakers, TeenSigh~ Education 10 1. Joint Programs of U.Va. And Piedmont Virginia ,Community College 2. Piedmont PREP* Human Services 8 1. Welfare Reform Planning* 2. United Way 3. Independence Resource Center 4. Region Ten Community Services Board* 5. Jefferson Area Disability Se~cices Board* 6. Monticello Area Community Action Agency* 7. Jefferson Area Board for Aging* 8. Children, Youth and Family Services 9. Hospice of the Piedmont 10. CACY Commission (Charlottesville/Albemarle)* Local Land Use 8 1. Charlottesville, Albemarle, U.Va. Planning and Coordination Council* 2. Albemarle Development Area Initiatives, With City of I Charlottesville Housing 8 1. HOME Consortium - Regionwide* 2. Regional Non-Profit: Piedmont Housing Alliance DRAFT VEN~ITJRE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 5 Transportation 5 1. Metropolitan Planning Organization - Urban Area Planning in Charlottesville and Albemarle* I 2. Rural Areas Transportation Study - Regionwide · 3. JAUNT* I 4. Coordinated Transfers with JAUNT, Charlottesville Transit Service and U.Va. Transit Service 5. RideShare* ~ 6. Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport* ! Law Enforcement 5 1. Regional Community Criminal Justice Board- 9 Localities* . 2. Criminal Justice Advisow Committee - Charlottesville and Albemarle at Present ' 3. Interlocal mutual aid agreements* 4. E-911 (Charlottesville/Albemarle)* Solid Waste 4 1. Rivauna Solid Waste Authority - Charlottesville and I Albemarle* Water and Sewer ] 4 1. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Charlottesville and Services i Albemarle) 2. Rapidan Service Authority (Greene plus 2 PD9 localities) Corrections 3 1. Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex* 2. Central Virginia Regional Jail - 5 localities, 3 From PD10* 3. Offender Aid and Restoration - Pre-trial services, transitional services, regional I Fire Services and 3 1. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad Emergency 2. Regional Emergency Medical Services Council Medical 3. Fire Services Contract (Charlottesville/Albemarle)* Libraries I 2 1. Jeffersun-Madisun Regional Library - 5 Localities* 2. Monticello Avenue - Regional Public Imtemet Access* Parks and 2 1. Charlottesville - Albemarle Joint Sponsorship of Ivy Recreation Creek Natural Area and Darden Towe Park* 2. Greenbelt Trial system (Charlottesville/Albemarle/Rivarma Trails Foundation)* * Indicates local govermmem contract or joint exercise of powers agreemem. Those without * are private, non-profit programs funded by the localities in the planning district. DP. AFT VENvrI~ Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page Chapel Hill and Orange County, North Carolina Chapel Hill/Orange Co. Charlottesville/Albemarle Population: 44,470 / 103,478 40,558 / 68,385 Population Density: 2,619 / 398 3,938 / 95 Race Distribution: Caucasian: 81.9% / same I 77% / 89% African-American: 18.1% / same 21% / 10% Med. Family Income: $50,217 / $40,685 $33,729 / $42,661 Median Housing Costs: Median Value: $140,000 / $141,000 $85,600 / $111,200 Average Rent: $489 / $659 $469 / $530 Home to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, you will find Chapel Hilt and Carrboro nestled in the rolling, wooded hills of North Carolina. The cities are ideally situated in the state, three hours fi.om the coast and four hours fi.om the mountains, allowing residents to enjoy a variety of recreational activities. The University of North Carolina is one of the main attractions in ~hapel Hill for visitors and residents alike. The University (known as the "Tar Heels") is the oldesfstate University i!Lthe (17.22.5) and offers residents of our community many amenities ~s, p-~ays, libraries, the planetarium, an art museum and sporting events (UNC-CH won 12 conference championships last year!). But the 'village core' that grew up around the University has grown into quite a community, while still maintaining that village feeling. The conmaunity has received numerous accolades from various national publications including Money magazine's selection of the Triangle as the "#1 Best Place to Live in America," Fortune magazine's rating of the Triangle as #1 for "The Best Cities For Knowledge Workers," and Sports Illustrated's nod as the "number one college town in the United States." The community is affiliated with the well-known "Triangle", as so labeled by the locals. Completing the "Triangle" w/th Chapel Hill are the cities of Raleigh and Durham. Together these cities host a total of sixteen, two anfffour year colleges/universities (including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University and North Carolina State University), and two technical community colleges. Located at two of the major universities, both Duke University Medical Center and UNC Hospitals have top-notch medical facilities and are easily accessible from any part of the Triangle. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 7 Finally, located just twenty minutes from the Chapel Hill- Carrboro area is the Research Triangle Park (RTP). Founded in 1959, The Research Triangle Park is the fourth-oldest research park in the U.S., covers about 6,800 acres and is located centrally between the three cities. RTP is home to over 70 companies employing 38,000 individuals. Helping to promote growth and stability of the economy, the Triangle cities and RTP are working together for a better tomorrow. Property Tax Chapel Hill ............ $.59/$100 valuation Carrboro ............... $.70/$100 valuation County .................. $.94/$100 valuation Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District Tax ................. $.15/$100 valuation Local state tax .................................. 6% Sales tax exemptions - prescription drugs, eyeglasses, some medical supplies and most services. State income tax ...................... 6 - 7.75% Issues Fat'.rog Chapel.Hill Are. a: . . · Busing to AchieVe Racial MLX ~n Public Schools · Growth, Growth, Growth STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS BEAUTY Priority T~ie_Addressed. Preservation of the BEAUTY of the region is essential to maintaining and enhancing the economic viability of the region, as increased tourism activities are a key component of the region's economic competitiveness. The region is beautiful now and a program must be put in place to maintain this irreplaceable resource. Descrigfion olActivity, Develop a regional agreement regarding preservation of the beauty of the area by identifying and describing the areas to be protected and the mechanisms to preserve them, using local policies and ordinances within an interjurisdictional framework. This would be accomplished through a committee of local elected officials, planning commissioners, and other interested parties including but not limited to historic preservation, agriculture and forestry groups, and business leaders. 3~ork Program/Time l,iltel Year 1: Charge to committee developed, approved by localities; committee assembled; identification of key natural and/or human made assets within the region that influence the overall character and quality of life within the regton, with emphasis on those assets of natural and historic nam.re which contribute to the economic vitality of the regzon through their appeal and attraction as a tourist destination. DRAFT VENTU1LE Strate¢c Plan (5/29/97) Page Year 2: Identify areas which would qualify as 'Heritage Areas"; review local land use planning and zoning potentials for preservation of identified historic, rural, mountain tops, and open areas; identify major entrance corridors and major tourism routes and evaluate how they convey our vision of ourselves as a place of beauty to visitors; educate the public about the findings and seek input regarding areas identified and possible actions; consider the applicability of programs or ordinances which would ensure protection of identified areas such as such as the use of historic overlay districts, local historic preservation ordinances, and mountain top protection ordinances; develop a set of recommendations for local implementation consistent with the regional commitment to preservation of the beauty of the area. Year 3: Review potential for streamlining approval processes in agricultural areas for uses compatible with the rural character such as bike trails or farm produce stands; recommend processes developed to localities. Year 4 HoM public meetings throughout the district to educate the public, seek additional input, and finalize a program for adoption by localities. Year 5: Integrated program in place to preserve area's beauty; Heritage areas agreed to by localities and in place for tourism and local pleasure. Area's share of tour/sm dollars increased. ED UCA TION Priority. Topic Addresse~ A key component to continued economic competitiveness and viabihty is a sound education system that provides excellent primary and secondary schooling, but also recognizes the importance 0fcontinued adult education through workforce development and training. The education system in the region, while considered to be a strength, could benefit by increasing the accessibility and spreading educational resources such as specialized learning and workforce training throughout the region. Deserlplion of A etlon. Distance learning utilizes television technology to deliver instruction and in some cases includes infrastructure to allow interactive television classrooms. Such a distance learning program will be put in place throughout the region using agreements between localities, school boards, businesses, vocational-technical boards, the State Departmem of Education, Piedmont Virginia Community College, and the University o£ Virginia. Work Year 1: Representatives from the key players identified above will be convened by the DR~FT VENTUKE Strategic Plan (5/29/97' Page 9 VENTURE and local governments to develop the program and seek agreements for signature by local governments, school board~, business, and institutions of higher learning to implement an interactive remote learning program; initial focus agreed upon; the private sector will assist in defining both necessary, learning experiences and define its role in providing or assisting in providing classroom connectivity. Year 2: Television infrastructure and technology put in place in school systems through a public/private partnership; scholarship program developed to match area students with internships both in the private and public sector to provide "first job experience." Year 3: Curricula defined, confirmed, agreed upon; scholarship funding sought. Year 4: Distance learning system up and running, technical education incorporated; scholarship program offered to high school students. Year 5: Summer institute created; scholarship program expanded to include summer institute participants and college bound studentS. SPRAWL PA:~:~oclDllit~k~essetL Sprawl is evident in all localities in the region. It is the antithesis of a vital, healthy region. It threatens the continued existence of rural lands, both natural and agricultural and forestall acreage, which are an essential part of the character and beauty. 0fthe reg,[on and serve as a primary draw for tonrism. Sprawl also threatens the vitality of urban areas such as villages, towns, and cities, also a draw for tourism. Sprawl decreases regional efficiency of expensixre infrastmctare and destroys the region's diverse identities of place, thus causing loss of economic vitality in existing urban areas, vehicular congestion, increased air pollution, loss of community identity, diminished rural character, and leads to the need for excessive local government financing of expanded infrastructure. Description o£Action. Establish a regional committee designated by the local governing bodies to seek regional consensus on strategies for controlling sprawl. The committee will first identify lands or areas which are threatened regional assets and obstacles m efficient use of existing infrastructure, particularly roads. Committee discussion of the strategies should include but not be limited to: ( 1 ) support for in_fill development in existing designated growth and existing urban areas; (2) support of vibrant urban areas; (3) concen~ation, rather than elongation, of commercial development along roads so that buildings are clustered and form a sense of place; (4) increased housing densities and affordable housing in well-planned and designed identifiable neighborhoods in designated growth and urban areas where jobs and services DtL&FT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page I0 are conveniently accessed by all transportation modes; (5) greater flexibility of by-right, low impact uses of rural land such as mountain bike trails, affordable housing rentals, produce sales, athletic activities, camps, composting and produce sales to protect such lands by making them economically viable businesses while maintaining their use in agriculture; (6) land use strategies which support efficient infrastructure; (7) establishing and funding a PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) Fund for use throughout the region; (8) review Traffic Reduction Strategy developed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for applicability to region; review how strategy is currently implemented. The Committee will then develop and make recommendations to localities regarding growth management and transportation policies which will provide incentives to maintain agricultural, forestall, or other appropriate low impact uses, and continued vitality of urban areas, and increase the efficiency of existing infrastructure. Work Program/Time Line: Year 1 and Year 2: Charge m committee adopted; regional committee assembled; Committee outlines and seeks agreement on regional land use goals and priorities; develops a ranking system to identify lands which are regional assets (urban and rural), assesses possible deterioration of those assets due to sprawl, and sets priorities of candidates for protection. Committee evaluates role of protection of rural assets and support of vibrant urban areas in controlling sprawl. Committee identifies possible regional strategies for controlling sprawl and traffic congestion as outlined in description of work task. Committee reviews local Comprehensive Plans and policies use of tools to control sprawl. Begin developing recommendations to protect regional rural and scenic assets and maintain vibrant urban areas. Committee considers impacts on affordable housing of initiatives considered. Educate public concerning the benefits ora PDR program; initiate it for use by localities; begin allocating available funds for purchase of development rights by localities where the localities are prepared to do so. Seek public input throughout process. Year 3: Identify planning tools available to meet or implement regional land use goals and priorities; identify those which could be available with enabling legislation; seek local governing body agreement on use of tools. Review PDR pro~wn; set new priorities as existing ones are met. Continue funding of PDR program. Review Traffic Reduction strategies effectiveness in reducing congestion. Year 4: Prepare and present growth and congestion management strategies and suggested recormnendations of comprehensive plan amendments and zoning changes, as needed to realize regional goals, for discussion at local planning commissions and governing bodies. Omgoing review of PDR and traffic reduction programs. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page i 1 Year 5: Continue to work with local/ties on growth management strategies, comprehensive plan review and possible amendments, zoning ordinances or any other local initiatives which are consistent with realizing regional goals. Continue to monitor success of PDR and traffic reduction programs and reassess priorities as required. Continue funding of PDR program. ECONOMIC DISPARITIES PxioriW Topic Addressed~ To correct economic disparities among the localities due to a need for jobs and a diversified tax base in each locality and to build a solid regional economic base, we propose to create a partnership among the interested localities to develop employment centers that include mixed uses of residential, industrial, and commercial activities to be lOCated in accordance with local land use plans. Such employment centers would be located in jurisdictions in need of a more diversified tax base and seek to employ residents from jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates and the highest concentration of residents affected by welfare reform. Workforce training and transportation will be included in the planning and development of each center, With a primary focus on the employment and training of residents from the region. '- _-i :'..: - - - ' _ Initial partners will include the City of Charlottesville and Louisa County, possibly Fluvanna County. The initial project is targeted to Zion Cross Roads, the intersection ofi-64 and US Route 15. Workforce training will be offered through Piedmont Virginia Community College programs and/or local high schools and technical schools. Key planners in the development of the project will include local elected officials, school board members, prospective private sector partners, Piedmont Virginia Community College, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, and local Industrial Development Authorities. Work Program/Time Line Year 1 and beginning year 2: Planning Committee organized, staffing team in place, agreements developed between local governments and IDAs, private partners obtained, preliminary budget prepared. Year 2, second half, to mid-year 3: Property located, secured; infrastructure plans completed, budget prepared, potential funding sources identified, potential key tenants identified. Years 3 and 4: Infrastructure financing secured, construction begun, workforce training needs identified, transportation system planning initiated, key tenant identified. Year 5: Workforce training initiated, transportation system plans complete, financing secured, first employer opens; key tenant committed. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 12 Year 6: One hundred new jobs in place; out-commute system running, Louisa and Charlbttesville employment statistics improved. Pti -i -. - ..,' ', ~ · The pro-active key to increasing economic viability and competitiveness in the region is to provide all of our citizens with opportunities to increase their education levels, job and life skills, wages, earning potential, and quality of life. Improving opportunities for all citizens will address economic disparity over the long term. Educational and economic disparity begins in formative years, fi:om 0-3 years of age. Issues related to such disparity become increasingly costly for communities in out years. Description of Action. Expand the structure for "Healthy Families" program utilizing Children, Youth and Family Services, ARC, the Thomas Jefferson Health Deparunent and Monticello Area Commtmity Action Agency to create the vision and formulate a plan that builds on existing components in place in Charlottesville, Albemarle and Fluvanna and report back to Venture members; In this program, all newborns and their parents would receive visits from a community team consisting of a nurse, community ~vorker, and parenting professional during the first year of the child's life. If problems or needs arise during the first year, the team connects the parents with the appropriate services. This program, with over ten years experience in Hawaii, has been shown to increase school readiness, increase at-grade achievement levels, decrease delinquency, decrease preventable physical and developmental problems, and level the playing field for all children. Work Pro~ram/Time l,ine: Year 1: Convene family service providers; identify programs in place; identify funding sources, grants written, publicity campaign developed, localities educated regarding program components, potential, anticipated outcomes, community support developed. Year 2: Newborn identification program in place, visiting teams identified, publicity campaign initiated, long term evaluation program outlined, program initiated in first community. Year 3: Program initiated in three additional communities Year 4: Program initiated in three final communities Year 5: Evaluation program in place. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Priority. Topic Addressed. Affordable housing is becoming more difficult for many area residents to find. Recognizing the effect on the regional economy, the-region desires to reverse this trend to increase the possibilities for more citizens to find housing where they want to live. Ilescription ~f Action. Review existing housing plan for Regional Consortium HOME program; Commit funds to the regional housing trust fund managed by the Piedmont Housing Alliance with increased leveraging potential by limiting strings attached to the fund. Make these funds available to local non-profit housing organizations for first time home buyers and other housing activities. ~5~ork Program/Time Line Years 1-5: Twenty families in Year 1 become first time home buyers; number of first time home buyers increases by five families in Years 2-5 bringing the number in Year 5 to 40 families; one project initiated by a local or regional housing organization by leveraging Trust Fund loans. Priority Topic Addressed. Opportunities for purchase of affordable housing throughom the region are uneven. The region desires to reverse this trend to increase the possibilities for more citizens to find housing where they want to live. Description of Actloa. To improve opportunities for affordable housing ~hroughout the region, a search will be made for ways that local governments, in ordinances and land use decisions, can create, enable, require, or provide incentives for more such housing, including incentives to allow affordable housing on farms. Efforts to decrease concentrations of low- income housing in the region will also be identified and pursued. _Work Program/Time Lin~ Year 1: Create an interjurisdictional committee including some members of local planning commissions, the existing group of housing providers on the Regional Housing Council, local housing comrmttees and organizations, and clients; draft a charge to the committee; seek agreement from local governments. Year 2: Review Virginia enabling legislation, model ordinances, effective ordinances from elsewhere, and existing local ordinances. Make recommendations ofrelevan~ options to local govemmenrs, emphasizing the regional nature of the problem. Year 3: Local planning commission reviews, makes suggestions and recommendations to DRAFT VENTURE Strategic plan (5/29/97) Page 14 respective local governing body. Year 4: Local governing body review and take action. Year 5: All localities have adopted affordable housing policies, programs, and/or ordinances which make such homing available on a more equal basis throughout the region. RACE RELATIONS Prjorlty_Tolfic~dd~tes~L Race relations are an underlying area of concern as the relationships between people of different ethuic, racial, and origins groups affect the ability of area residents to play on a level playing field and reach their potential. Deseription~)f Action. A representative group of citizens will be appointed to identify issues and set priorities and strategies for community action. Work Program/Time Line: Year 1: Charge to Committee developed by TJPDC, approved by localities; Committee appointed by participating localities; work plan developed, one forum held to begin issue identification and resources within the community to address issue. Year 2: Community meetings held in every locality; plan to address inequities written; public comment sought; discussions held with local governing bodies and other participating groups. Year 3: Increased number of inter-racial, inter-ethnic groups in communities as outcome of committee's work. DRAFT VENTUKE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 15 Thomas Jefferson Venture P.O. Box 1505 300 East Main Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone: (804) 979-7310 Fax: (804) 979-1597 Email: thomasjpdc~aol, com BYLAWS Adopted June , 1997 AKTICLE I Namma~tDfYme The name of this organization shall be Thomas Jefferson Venture, hereinafter referred to as the Organization. The principal office of the Organization shall be located in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission office at 300 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1505, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. ARTICLE II Member .luff sdicti ons The Organization shall comprise the representatives, as stipulated below, of the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson. ARTICLE III PJ~ose The Organization will work to qualify, as a "regional parmerstfip" as defined in the Code of Virginia Chapter 26.3 § 15.1-1227, the Regional Competitiveness Act, specifically as defined by any jurisdiction represented in this Organization, provided that the jurisdictiunal definitions of the Organization's purpose are understood by all other jurisdictions represented in the Organization. Each jurisdictional definition shall be operable for any TJ Venture actions taken within that jurisdictiun. The Organization shall develop a regional strategic plan, consistent with local comprehensive plans, assess the area's strengths and weaknesses, including but not limited to issues related to education, housing, transportation and the environment. Further, the Organization will auempt to secure state funding pursuant to the Regional Competitiveness Program to address any such weaknesses enumerated in the regional strategic plan, and to implement plans to enhance the quality of life and continued econormc vitality and competitiveness through regional cooperation. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 16 ARTICLE IV Members Section 1. Mea:obership Members of the Organization, hereinafter referred to as the Members, shall be appointed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission from candidates put forward to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission by the local governing bodies of the City of Charlottesville or the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, or Nelson. Members shall be chosen from area leaders representing business and industry, neighborhood associations, affordable housing, transportation, tourism, agriculture and forestry, historic preservation, environmental concerns, primary and secondary education, and local civic associations. Each Member shall hold office for the term of 2 years or until his or her successor is named. Section 2 .... ' -. Ex-Officio Members shall include (i) the mayor or board chair of each member locality; (ii) the chief administrative officer of each member locality; (iii) commissioners of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; (iv) President of each institution for higher education in the region. Each Ex-Officio Member shall serve for so long as he or she shall remain in his or her respective office. Section 3. Powers The affairs and business of the Organization shall be managed by the Members and Ex-Officio Members. Except as other, vise expressly provided by law, or these Bylaws, all the powers of the Organization shall be vested in such members. Section4 .... -- _ - -_ '_ Any Member may be removed from the Organization by an affirmative vote of the majority of the local governing body that appointed the Member, by a simple majority of the Members and Ex-Officio Members whenever in their judgement the best interests of the Organization will be served thereby, or by being absent from three consecutive meetings with no advance notice to Thomas Jefferson Venture staff, chair or vice-chair. Any vacancy created by such removal will be filled by appointment as described above in Article IV, Section 1 of these bylaws. ARTICLE V Section 1. KegularMee, tings Dates and times of the meetings will be set by the voting members. Reasonable notice of meetings will be sent to the media in the region. Section 2. ~ The Chair or Vice-Chair of the Organization may call special meetings of the Organization DRAFT VENTURE Strateg/c Plan (5/29/97) Page 17 provided written notice is provided to all voting members and is postmarked at least 7 days in advance of such meeting. Section 3. Quorum One-third of the voting members of the Organization shall constitute a quorum for all meetings of the Organization. A quorum, once established, shall rule until a meeting is adjourned. Section 4. Voting Each Member and Ex-Officio Member of the Organization shall be entitled to one vote. To the extent possible, the Organization will use consensus-building methods to reach conclusions. When voting is necessary, all actions taken by the Organization shall require a majority vote of those members present and voting. A vote may be requested at any meeting by any Member or Ex-Officio Member for any issue. Section 5. Committee in I.ieu ora Quorum In the evenl of a lack of a quorum, the members present may constitute themselves as a Committee and make recommendations for consideration at the next regular meeting or special meeting. ARTICLE VI ! .i - ~t -~ ' Section 1. Officers The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Organization shall be elected by the members of the Organization following nomination of individuals to those offices. Terms of office shall be for 1 year or until a successor be elected or qualify. The Secreta~ of the Organ/zation may be a staff person and not a Member or Ex-Officio Member of the Organization. The Chair of the Organization shall preside at all meetings of the Orgardzation when present. The Chair shall supervise all business and affairs of the Organization; shall execute all legal instruments in the name of the Organization when authorized by the voting members; and shall perform such duties incident to the office and as may from time to time be assigned bythe voting members. The Chair of the Organization shall be an ex-officio non-voting member of all committees of the Organization. Section 3. Duties_of the Vice-Chah:~Elkeg~g,~l~at~ The Vice-Chair shall, in the absence of the Chair for whatever reason, perform such duties and possess such powers as are conferred upon the Chair and shall from time to time perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Chair or the voting members. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan (5/29/97) Page 18 Section 4. Vacancies A vacancy in either office shall be filled for the unexpired portion of the term in the manner as described above in Article VI, Section 1 of these bylaws. ARTICLE VII Committees The voting members may establish such committees as it shall deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this Organization. When establishing such committees, the Organization shall in writing articulate the charge, scope of work, and any delegated authority to such committees. Activities beyond the scope of work outlined in the original charge of a committee shall be approved by the full membership of the Organization prior to execution of such activities. ARTICLE VIII Section 1. Minutes of Meetings The Organization shall keep as permanent records minutes of all meetings. Section 2. ~ The Organization shall keep a copy of the following records: (a) The Organization's Bylaws or restated Bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect; (b) A list of the names and addresses of the Orgarfization's current members and officers; (c) Resohitions passed by each member locality. ARTICLE IX Finances Section 1. Eanding_Eorm~ The funding formula for the Organization shall be approved armually by resolution by all member, localities. Section 2. Fiscal_Year The fiscal year of the Organization shall begin on July 1 and end on June 30 of each year. Section 3. Accounting Rexzords Appropriate accounting records will be maintained by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Such records shall be audited annually. DRAFT VENTURE Strategic Plan ~5129/97) Page 19 ARTICLE X These Bylaws may be amended or altered at any meeting of the Organization by a resolution adopted by at least a simple majority of the voting members present and voting. Notice of all amendments must be mailed or delivered to Members and Ex-Officio Members of the Organization at least ten (10) days prior to such meeting. ARTICLE Procedures In all matters of parliamentary procedure not specifically governed by these bylaws, Roberts' Rules of Order shall apply. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FUNDING FORMULA FOR ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN THE REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS PROGRAM KNOWN IN THE THOMS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT AS THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE WHEREAS, the local governments of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvauna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson have joined together under the Regional Competitiveness Act to form the Venture, and WHEREAS the funding formula agreed upon for the first year is to place ail funds received under the Regional Competitiveness Act program into a Strategic Plan Fund to fund the priority activities and/or projects identified in the Plan and approved by the member locaiities as thrthedng the economic vitality, as defined by the VENTURE, of the region and the localities within the region in a manner consistent with their local comprehensive planning and policies, and WHEREAS the formula is subject to annual review by the Venture and the local governing bodies, and WHEREAS approval of said formula is, under the By Laws of the VENTURE, by local government resolution, and WHEREAS, said formula directs the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to act as fiscal agent for regional grants and activities on behaif of the member localities, and WHEREAS the Venture has submitted said funding formula for approval by the local governing bodies, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the approves the following: of 1. All funds coming to the localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District under the Regional Competitiveness Act shall be placed in a "Strategic Plan Fund" for use in implementing the priorities identified in the Strategic Plan developed by the Venture and approved by the localities; 2. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, a legal unit of government under the Code of Virginia (15.1 Ch 34), shall act as Fiscal Agent for the localities in use of the Fund; 3. Unless the local government is directly contracting for a program, the Thomas Jefferson Planrdng District will have the authority to sign contracts to implement approved projects; 4. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District will monitor the use of funds and report quarterly to the localities and the Venture regarding the status of the funds. 5. In all cases, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will act with direction f~om the locai governments and the Venture in carrying out the Strategic Plan. This resolution Was approved by the _ on the day of ,1 ~ ~ ~ -DRAF~T~(¥EN~!~JRE,~tmtegic Plan (5/29/97', Page 21 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VENTUR] REGIONAL STRATI WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County S ;GIC PLAN apervisors agreed to join with the localities of the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson to work toward meeting the requirements of the Regional Competitiveness Act; and WHEREAS, the group appo/_nted by the Thomas Jefferson Plarming District Commission, named the VENTURE, has written By Laws to guide ~e operation of the VENTURE; and WHEREAS, the VENTURE has also develope ~d and held hearings on a Regional Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors is interested in a continuing ~n to bmld on the strengths and dimlmsh the working relatmnship w~th the other locaht~es in the regl weaknesses of the region; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that of Albemarle approves the VENTURE Regional Strate :he Albemarle Board of County Supervisors ic Plan. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the for~going resolution adopted by the Albemarle Board of County S~pervisors of Albemarle byavoteof ~;~ to ~o-o at a regular meetin~ held on June 4, 1997. writing is a true, correct copy of a CoUnty, Virginia, Clerk, Board of Co~ppervisors Form. S 7125186 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A.A.G ENDA TITLE: John Dorder - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide Water On y to Tax Map 62, Parcel 24B. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The applicant, John Dorrier. requests Jurisdictional Area designation for Water Only, The request is for serviceto a 2.7 acre parcel located on TaxMap 62~24B. This parcel is located between Dorrier Drive and Route 20, just south of the Key West Subdivision. A 7-unit apartment, a pole barn and an attendant's shed are located on this parcel. The property is located within the Neighborhood Three Development Area (See Attachments A, B and C). DISCUSSION The subject property for this request is within the Neighborhood Three Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning water se~ce to a Development Area. General Principle: Urban Areas. Communities and Villages are to be sen/ed by public water. The property would be served by the new Key West water line which is planned to be located along Route 20. The Albemarle County Se~ce Authority has indicated that there will be adequate capaci~J in this new water line to serve this properb/. RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utilities capacities should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public heating to consider Water Only to Tax Map 62-24B. cc: John Dottier Art Petrini Bill Brent David Hirschman 97.105 !Al-tACH ~'E'NT _ AJ , i, SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS I~oa~mt of' Pt~i~g a~d Community '.., ', Z" .... "':: ","Y'~..,./' . ...~'-.~' ' ./.;,,,,/.,,'..,-', ! "' "' ,, : ::: .......... ~ ./~.,.~,*_,¢,~..c~,,.-~.~. :, ,~. v...~..v./. : ... ...,.,. 3.I · .. . ;. '( ' ,.'. . .. · : . ~.' . ... : . . . ".'......... . :.. .. , CO,APPLIC.~.NT Name (or agent. ~fany): , · .... '. '. ' ' . ,'"' signafiiie:': '/ '· · ' phone:' .... : . "; ' ' ': '^~;es;'~.,. o," ' 'JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED:.: ', ' ' .' ': [] ~rat~/'and SeWkr . ' ' ' , ')~ Water Only' ". ': .:.. ee'(D i~, J ~i;i ~....[' ~ Watpr Only to Existing Structure(s) ~ Limited Semi e~fibe' u cation ' ~low) .~ .. ....... '; . 5' ."~ROP~RTy~O6~T{bN.(~ddreSs) .. -~5~ ~O ~. '¢t¢ :~,31('--'', ~eg.o&: ~ !~fi~:".' ~ Waier'~d Sewer. ,'. ' ' .. ~'ater Only -. .. : : " ~ .Water Only tq Existing Stm~m~s ~ Limited Semite : , . ;.. ~ }';' ','.. .' ..., : , . · '~ , . ALBEMARLE L;UUN I Y JOtA~R. DORRIER REQUEST FOR WATER~LY TO EXISTING STRUCTUR]ZS TM-62 P24B SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER AND ,gEWER 63 78 CHARLOTTESVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 62 John and Pauline Dorrier 365 Dottier Drive Charlottesville, VA 229 1 (8o4) 293-9339 May l6, 1997 Attn: Commissioners Wayne Cilimberg, Director Albemarle County Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Commissioners: We have seven apartments located on Route 20, Stoney Point Road which were built in 1965. Currently the water supply for these apartments is supplied by two wells. One well is 537 feet deep providing one and one half gallons, and the other well is 250 feet deep providing one and one half gallons totaling three gallons per minute. These wells present many problems due to the tow water flow. The problems seem to multiply during the evening and night hours as this is when most of the tenants are home and using the water supply (taking showers, flushing toilets and washing dishes). In addition_ the tenants are not allowed to have dish washers or washing machines. We have further had to prohibit the washing of cars due to the water situation. There is insufficient land to drill another well. It is important to note that two County maintained roads are located on either side of this property. This parcel of land is within 500 feet of the growth area and the water line will come within 25 feet of our Apartment units. We are respectfully requesting that you include our Apartment building in the service authority and Jurisdictional area and allow us to connect to the water tine. We appreciate you help. Sincerely, ., - .~' Jolm K. Dorrier Pauline C. Dorrier AGt~DA Iq~M hD. _~_ Form. 3 7125186 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area- Forest Lakes Associates. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide Water and Sewer to Forest Lakes Associates located on Tax Map 46, Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The applicant, Forest Lakes Associates, requests Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer se~ce to 126 acres located on Tax Map 46, Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. This property is part of the Forest Lakes South development and is located east of Powell Creek, north of Route 643, and west of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and south of the Hollymead Subdivision. The Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on December 14, 1994, amended the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and included these parcels into the Hollymead Community. The property is currently zoned PUD and is proposed for the development of 185 homes (See Attachments A & B). ~CUSSION I he subject properbj for this request is within the Hollymead Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning water ami sewer service to a Development Area. General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities and ~flltages are to be served by public water and sewer. This prope~ would be served by the Powell Creek Interceptor and the Forest Lake South water line. The Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that capacity exists in both of these lines to serve this property. RECOMMENDATION: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utilities capacities should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public headng to consider water and sewer service for the property located on Tax Map 46, Parcel 97A1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. cc: Steven Runkle Art Petrini Bill Brent David Hirechman 97.104 '~ P PL ICATION TO AM END TI I E · E AUTHORITY '.i :.: ",,.SERVIC · . . . · '" .. 'JU RISDI(~TIONAL :AREAS I~TTACHMENT Ai · ' ;' · '.':', · Cotmty of AIt,~ui3rl~ · '"'"':" ' '":" J..3¢pa~.nl._c~ll of ihanain.~ umt C¢,mmLmily 1'3e',','lop~cnt .~ Charlotl. esvil!e, VA. 22902~Y.~6 : , .. , ,.. ~ (,..[..H~,,~. ..c.~ ~.~ Z..90). .. ,., . . ~. ..... . . .,,. : . , ' ~ DESIONATIO~ REQUES ' ' '"'" JURISDICTIONAL AREA' TED: .: ' ' ' . · ..'..:...: ~ .water and Sewer ~ water Only ' . ' ~ ~' ~ ~ ' ~ t imited Service {D~scrib~ hi J¢~iification ' ' ' ' 10~ ' '- ' ' ' "' ' , ':, : ', ..,, :]'.. ;; . . , : ' ],.. : ',).. CURRENT SERVICE ARE,[ DESfGNATION (if any): . . ~ '. :. ~ Wa'ret and Sewer ' · . ~ Water'Only . ~ Water Only to Ex~stin~ Structures ~ Limited S~mice [',:.'.. : :::.:.'' '.~.'....: ..::'" .._or Staff Use.Only .. .' . ." '.' ...:... ,'T.':'';I :.'=: ='"' '~ ,'.:'' '!'"i. ~?::;.;'.._'.,~,-i.' · ,.":::,, ,. '" ':: ',~:.' . ':::' "g":L > :~" :::".'~'. . . ":" .,. p.~l.-.,.S.U~,~!,~.eD:~_~ ,;g//. X~/"? ... ' O~ ~'S t3~ ~EE ~'Am:...7 ~:.::: .". ~ ,'.'. ~ .~ ... ':~o~,S. c,.?~'~.~,,~.~.~.~,~r~;~):: ~.:., :' r~'..~..'. ,. ~' ~ ':. ::. ?:' :':,,:=~.;~.:~..:?,,:.?:~'1.:...::,' ' D Insiile. :~¢ mC)u~ a Water-Su~pN"Wat~he~?. ~ .Adjacent [0 a'Gm~tll' ~'re~?:' .~ ;.,' :~' :[' :.'. . Location'and diatance ofwatin'~ewer line p¢oposed t0 provide ~e'r~ic[ ' ' '.'. 7 "~:: '~ . .':/:;:. .~' . '~' :. "1 ' ~ ' "'...'.'.....:. ' ,... REVISION DA~IIE~ ~S: ALBEMARLE COUNTY tATTACHMENT Bt FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES REQUEST FOR WATER AND S~ER TM 46-P97A1; TM46B5-Pl(Port) SERVICE AUTHORITY OHARLOTTESV! LLE WATER AND SEWER SECTION STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT ~5{ANSACTIONALDISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E)] 2. 3. 4. 5. Transaction: ~/~we~ ~m ~9.~? ~/ ~r Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: 6. I declare that: I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction and request that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of five years. Dated: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-29-97P0' :59 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Irving and Carol Gottesman - Request to amend the Albemarle Couniy Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holcrmg a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide Sewer to an undeveloped lot described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 70D. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION:X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Ye~.,~.~~ REVIEWED BY: REQL EST: The al ~plicants, Irving and Carol Gottesman, request Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer service to an undeveloped lot, de scribed as Tax Map 60 Parcel 70D ( Lot 5) of Terrell Subdivision. The lot, consisting of 2.03 acres, is located at 245 T ;rrell Road West (Attachment A), off Georgetown Road. The applicants have stated that the request for sewer sewic{ is based on a desire to protect ground water and the nearby creek, and to preserve the wooded envkonment on the su )ject proper[,/. Because of the required 100 foot front and 50 foot side building setbacks required by the subdivision covenants, along with the 100 foot sepl~c setback f~om the stream at the rear of the lot. the applicants have indicated that they have little latitude in house location. HISTD At its n Authofi constn of the J an eric d~ed in crosse RY: ~eeting of October 3. 1984 the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Albemarle County Service y jurisdictional area to provide sewer service to Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Terrell Subdivision, where homes were under ction. The Board cited the fact that the 29 lots in this subdivision had been in existence atthe time of adoption ,Ibemade County Zoning Ordinance on December 10, 1980, and therefore extension of sewer would not constitute )uragement of growth within the rural area. because such growth in this case had already occurred. Other factors support of the approval were preservation of trees and other vegetation on--site, and the fact that the sewer line the lots in question. DISCUSSION: Subsequent to that 1984 approval, Albemarle County instituted a new policy in its 1989 Comprehensive Plan regarding extension of water and sewer to properties outside of the growth area. That policy stated: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered. The Utilities section of the current Plan reiterates the 1989 policy cited above, and provides the following additional guidance concerning sewer service in the Rural Area: General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in case~ where public health and safely are at issue. The subject property is not located w'~in a designated Development Area. The sewer line serving Old Forge Road runs along the southem property line of Lot 5 and does have adequate capacity to serve this lot. A septic permit application has been submitted to the Thomas Jefferson Health District, and District staff have stated that it will be approved. Adequate area exists [or both new septic and reserve fields. AGENDATITLE: Irving and Card Go~esman- Requestto amend theAIbemade CountyServiceAuthority (ACSA)JuriedictienalArea June4,1997 Page 2 Although a sewer line lies adjacent to Lot 5 Ithe first criteda related to extension of service), the applicants have not provided any informa~on to this office that demonstrated a health er safety cencem currently exists Ithe second criteria). They have expressed a desire to preserve existing trees, which were originally par[ of a nursery established on the properly. Although 3 of the 29 lots with'm the Terrell Subdivision have been approved for sewer service, County policy on amendment of the jurisdictional area has changed since that approval and this request does not meet the current policy. Approval of the request would not be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and thus is not recommended. RECOMMENDATION: In cons'~era~Jon of the above-cited factors, staff does not recommend that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authedty jurisdictional area to provide sewer service to Lot 5 of Terreti Subdivision. CC: Irving and Carol Gottesman Ar[ Petrini Bill Brent David Hirschman William Craun ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Subdivision ~la~ D - Application 97.103 GIBSON MOUNTAIN c ALBEMARLE OOUNTY AT~ACH MENT RJ 3 68 59 76 SAMUEL MILL ER, ~JACK dOUETT AND GHARLOTTESVIL L E DISTRICTS ' .SE~;TION 60 I A?TACHI'IENT C I e~ ®~ ®~ e~ e~ e~ e~ [ATTACHMENT APPLICATION TO AMEND TIlE SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS County of Albemarle Department of Platmiag and Community Development 401 Mclntke Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 804 296-5823 Signature: Address: ~ Phone: JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: /~Water and Sewer [] Water Only [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) [] Limited Service (Describe in Justification below) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) ~ '7-~C.~£ZL /~ /W/. Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): -f~ P ~5 -70 ~ CURRENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION (If any): [] Water and Sewer ~ Water Only [] Water Only to Existing Structures [] Limited Service For Staff Use Only DATE SUBMITTED: ~ ~ - ~'~ DATE $130 FEE PAID: L~,o. o© PROPERTY IS LOCATED (Check Appropriate): [] Inside or [] Outside a Growth Area? [] Adjacem to SAJA? [] Inside or [] Outside a Water-Supply Watershed? [] Adjacent to a Growth Area? Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service REQUEST FOR AIdENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action Form. 3 7125[86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff. Cilimberg, Fritz ITEM NUMBER: AGENDA DATE: June 4, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~j/~ REVIEWED BY: //~ BACKGROUND: At the request of the Board of Supervisors staff created a W';reless Telecommunications Task force for the purpose of recommended potential policies on the siting of wireless communication facilities. The Task Force consists ofthe following individuals: Ben Btanldnship - ARB Representative Bill Finley- Planning Commission Representative Dick Gibson - 360 Communications ,,-~Charlotte Humphris - Board of Supervisors representative Greg Kamptner - Assistant County Attorney Jack Keisey - Chief of Engineering David Klumb - US Cellular Tom Loach - Citizen Representative Richard Martin - County Police Don Mary ~ Dan Cell Steve Muscarella - American Personal Communications Steve Yancey - CFW Wireless Also attending has been Fred Boger, Director of Planning for Nelson County DISCUSSION: Attached is the report of the Task Force recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendations are contained in the Task Force report. 97.109 Proposal for development oflocational criteria for wireless communication facilities. The purpose of this document is to provide to the public a focal point for discussion in the formulation of a policy to address the location of wireless communication facilities. The document is divided into several sections. History of Telecommunication Facilities - This section identifies the need for the establishment of the Telecommunications Policy. Comprehensive Plan - This section contains the existing provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to Wireless communication. Zoning Ordinance - This section contains the existing zoning ordinance provisions. Characteristics of Cellular Telephone and PCS (Personal Communications ~System) Technology - This section provides a brief primer on the technologY of cellular communication systems. Recommendations and Comments of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force - This section includes the Task Fome information as well as staff comment~ History of TelecommuniCation Facilities The cellular telecommunication industry has experienced rapid growth in recent years and a new technology for digital service, PCS, is expanding across the country. This growth has resulted in an increased demand for service, which in turn, has resulted in cellular phone users' demand for a broader geographic service area. In those areas with high volumes of usage, an increased number of facilities is required to accommodate the number of calls which are made or attempted. The response to this has led to the location or proposed location of fac'flities in scattered stand-alone sites within the County. Currently the Zoning Ordinance requires that applications obtain a special use permit for towers. The Ordinance contains criteria for the review of all special use permits in Section 31.2.4.1. Based on comments by the public, ARB, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, these criteria have proven generally inadequate to address the particular issues of wireless communication facilities. In order 5o provide consistent review of all tower requests and address the provisions of Section 31.2.4. I, staff is attempting to establish Criteria which may be agreed upon as valid for the review of all towers. As an aid to this review, staff has obtained two FCC Fact Sheets providing new national wireless tower siting policies, attached. (Copies of the FCC Fact Sheet are available on the Intemet at www. fcc.gov/state&local/. Other useful information may be found at www.fcc.g0v/.) To date the County has processed a total of 14 requests for towers intended to provide cellular phone service. Not all of these requests have been heard by the Board of Supervisors. A total of eight towers have been approved. The review of these tower requests has resulted in substantial public comment and requests for a policy addressing the location of towers. Staff has worked with the two cellular providers and two proposed PCS providers to determ/ne the future needs for towers. While the total number of towers that vdll be required to provide the level of service desired by the service providers is unknown, continued expansion of the networks is anticipated which will result in more tower requests. PCS, which is not currently available in this area, will need to establish a network. This document is intended only as a start to the discussion of these issues and is not to be considered final. Staffhas included as possible locational criteria processes used in other localities which have included the restriction of the new towers to public land. (The 1996 Telecommunications Act requ'tres Federal land to be made available and a recent resolution by the Virginia Generally Assembly makes a similar reqfftrement for State land.) Comprehensive Plan The current provisions of the Comprehensive Plan do not address the locational needs for wireless communication facilities. The Comprehensive Plan contains, as a design standard, "design public utility corridors to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines should be placed underground." While the plan is speaking to "corridors" the intent of this statement has resulted in an attempt to consolidate tower locations (the "tower farm" approach) and make the facility as compatible with the surrounding environment as possible. However, this standard was developed prior to the 1980's with television and radio towers in mind and not wireless communication towers. R is very difficult for wireless communication towers to meet this criteria and still adequately serve the area due to the nature of the technology and the area's topography. Zoning Ordinance The currem provisions of the Zoning Ordinance allow for the construction of new telecommunication towers only by special use permit. (All zomng districts permit telecommunication towers by special use permit.) Attachment to an existing structure that does not require an increase in height has been permitted without a special use permit. Criteria for review of towers is limited to that contained in Section 31.2.4.1 and 5.12 of the Zoning Ordinance (see attached). Characteristics of Cellular Telephone and PCS Technology The technology of cellular phones and PCS results in a demand for facility locations unlike the demands of other users of the airwaves. The public has general familiarity, with commercial broadcast, such as A.M,, F.M. and television, including wireless cable. A.M. stations generally require a cluster of towers in low, often wet, locations. Tb2s is due to the fact that this type of broadcast relies in part on ground modulation for the transmission of the signal. F.M., television, and wireless cable broadcast utilize single towers for traansmission. Towers for this type of use are generally found at the highest available location. These broadcasts are generally only receivable in a line of sight with the tower. However, with the use of large wattage for the transmission (in this area up to 5,000,000 watts) small obstructions will not block the signal. This characteristic allows a single broadcast location to serve a broad area. All of the commercial broadcasts listed above are received in a s'mgle direction. That is, the broadcast is made from the tower and received by the individual with no return of information. Cellular and PCS use differs from standard commercial broadcasts in several ways which results in a different demand for facility locations. (Two-way radios are sim/lar in their operation. However, staff has not noted an increased demand for towers to accommodate two-way radio. Any future request for a new two-way radio tower shottld be reviewed under the same criteria as cellular and PCS~) Like F.M., television and wireless cable broadcasts, Cellular and PCS broadcasts rely on line-of- sight for the transmission and reception of signals. This results generally in the need to locate facilities at higher elevations. The broadcast power at the cellular facility is generally limited by FCC regulations. Generally broadcast power is less than 100 watts per channel in order to allow frequency reuse and to min/mize interference. As a system matures the power output is reduced to prevent interference with other facilities within the system. At this low power, small obstructions, such as foliage, can block signals. Even if the transmission power could be increased (the signal strength is limited by the FCC), transmission range is limited by the power of the hand-held or car phone unit. The power of the personal phone anits ranges fi:om approximately 0.6 to 3 watts. New phones are appearing on the market with lower power output. This Iow power limits the broadcast range and increases the potential of interruption of the signal from small obstructions. These transmission power limitations result in the need for multiple facility locations. Another factor resulting in increased demand for facility locations is the limitation on the number of calls which can be processed at each facility location at a given time. Currently, one local cellular provider has indicated that in one given peak hour, up to 4,000 blocked calls were recorded. (Blocked calls occur when an individual attempts to make a call and is unable to due to the lack of available channels,) These blocked calls are due in part to the limitation on the handling capacity of the existing cellular facilities. Increases in technology may enable each facility location to accommodate more calls at one time. However, the limiting factor wilt be the number of charmels available for use. Using multiple facilities effectively increases the number of available channels in the system. This is due to "handing off' of calls which occurs automatically within-a "cellular" system. That is, when an individual places a call. the nearest facility receives that call and utilizes a channel to complete the call. As an individual moves away from the original facility, another facility takes over the call. The fewer the number of facilities within the system the fewer number of calls which can be handed off. As the system matures the coverage area for each facility is reduced due to the placement of new facilities. These new facilities, by virtue of their reduced coverage area, may be constructed at lower elevations. Cellular and PCS systems require uninterrupted service, particularly for data transmission, such as faxes and computer cormections. This sets a high staridard ofreliability and quality. Technology to reduce the need for multiple facilities, such as satellite technology, currently is unavailable. The use of monopole, gnyed or flee standing lattice towers is possible as are "stealth sites" which are becoming more prevalent. Stealth sites are those which are situated in such a manner as to render them vimmlly undetectable. Examples of stealth sites would include church steeples, or attachment on existing buildings which allow the antennae to be blended into the architectural design of the building. Camouflage sites are also possible. Camouflage sites include "tree towers", flag poles or light poles. The use of existing structures for the provision of cellular coverage is preferred by the 3 County as it removes the need for the establishment of a new tower, and the service providers due to reduced cost. New sites are only necessary m provide coverage to areas with inadequate service. Inadequate service'can be due to lack of signal strength or need for additional handling capacity. Inadequate service may be verified by the following methods: 1) Field verification by County staff to determine availability of signal (currently staff does not have the equipment or training to conduct comprehensive field verification); 2) Submission ora ~enified engineer's report which contains a propagation study of the existing system; or 3) Submission of data indicating the number of blocked calls recorded during peak hour. Staff is unaware of any license requirements that establish a maximum number of blocked calls. In order for a facility to be located and become operational, the following is needed: (1) A willing property owner [the various service providers do not have the power of eminent domain); (2) Vehicular access; (3) Electrical power; (4) Line-of-sight m other facility(s) within the system, (land line connection can replace line of sight in some instances); 5) approval from the FCC and FAA; and 6) County approval. All towers are reviewed for potential intrusion into the Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AIA). No intrusion into the AIA is permitted. Recommendations and Comments of the Wireless Communications Task Force The following task force recommendations include County staff comments that address technical and procedural aspects. At this time the County staffhas not proposed any specific language, except where noted to address technical and procedural matters. It is anticipated that with additional review additional comments and recommendations will be generated. Imem A telecommunications policy provides a framework for the review and analysis of individual requests to locate telecommunication facilities and is intended to aid in the selection of sites which will have minimal negative impact on the resources of the County. A telecommunications policy will enable the provision of adequate telecommunication services in the County which is consistent with the needs of the community. A telecommunication policy should balance the desire of the County to minimize the number of separate tower sites with the need to provide adequate telecommunication services based on current and anticipated technology. The demand for telecommunication services is increasing and federal law (1996 Telecommunications Act) insures that the provision of telecommunication services will not be unduly regulated and cannot be prohibited. The need for new facility sites continues m increase due to increased demand for services and a lack of existing sites that can provide the needed service. The components of this proposed telecommunication policy which are intended to result in the telecommunication plan are: 1. Goals; 2. Objectives; 3. Recommendations. Goal: To provide adequate sites for the provision of telecommanication services that have minimal negative impact un the resources of the County. Objective: Determine areas of need for service providers and identify existing facilities which provide or are capable of providing the necessary service. Recommendations: Map areas where improved service is desired; Map existing structures which provide or are capable of providing the necessary service; Map areas identified in the Open Space Plan which may be inappropriate for the siting of facilities such as mountains and historic sites; Adopt policy making County owned land available for the siting of facilities; Provide prepared maps of potential facilities to all services providers to encourage cooperation in the site selection process. Provide for mobile sites to serve special events or disasters. STAFF COMMENT In order to identify the areas where service is inadequate the County should retain the services of a private engineering firm. Many localities are experiencing the same issues as Albemarle County and independent engineering firms do exist which specialize in working with localities. An independent study would identify areas of inadequate service, areas that facilities should not be located due to the presence of one or more resources considered significant to the County, review of existing structures for co-location opportunities and review of new towers/structures to allow them to be designed to accommodate other users. This study may identify either areas which may be appropriate for the location of new towers or may identify those areas of the County in which towers would be inappropriate. Industry representatives are concerned that if the study is to spec'fflc in locating sites for towers the property cost will increase substantially and that if appropriate areas for towers is to limited it will have the effect Of prohibiting service. The Open Space Plan has identified various resources which the County has designated as warranting protection. It may be possible to utilize the existing Open SpaCe Plan as the map which identifies those resources which are most affected by wireless communication. A policy making County-owned land available for the siting of facilities would provide the service providers witha list of potential sites that are available for siting. (The service providers have difficulty in obtaining sites in some instances due to unwilling landownerS. The service providers do not have the power of eminent domain.) Location of facilities on County land could allow the County to insure the availability of structures for combined use. As a secondary benefit, location on County land may have the effect of increasing the County's communication resources by locating County transmitters on new towers. Before the adoption of any policy to make County land available, criteria for siting must be established. These siting criteria should provide for methods of locating facilities in such a way as to minimize impact on current and future use of the property. In addition the siting criteria for the use of public land should be consistent with the criteria applied to private property. Mobile sites involve the use of trailers equipped with a telescoping mast, appropriate electronics and a generator. The sites are set up several days prior to the event to allow for testing of the system and modification of the transmitters on existing sites to avoid interference. Following the event mobile sites can qnickiy be removed. Mobile sites may be needed to serve special events where large numbers of people are concentrated in a relatively small area. Examples of special events which may necessitate the need for a mobile site are: UVA graduation, sports events, County Fair and Fox Field. Mobile sites can be-approved currently by the Zoning Administrator with a zoning clearance, However, no guidance is currently available for the Zoning Administrator to use regarding siting of these mobile units. Prohibition of mobile units in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District would appear to be appropriate. It is during special events that these mobile units would be needed and it is at these times that the most traffic could be expected on the Entrance Corridors. Objective: Encourage the use of existing facilities for the provision of service. Recommendations: Provide map of known facilitie~ to service providers; Allow by-right increase in height of existing sumcmres (structures include but are not limited m: buildings, towers, electrical transmission lines, flagpoles, light poles, and signage) unless the increase in height causes the tower to be lit or results in a change in the lighting status. STAFF COMMENT Require the applicant to submit evidence that suitable existing facilities are not available within proximity of any proposed new facility site. This may require the use of outside engineering resources to determine the accuracy of the information submitted by the service providers. Require new facilities, including public facilities, to be designed to accommodate additional users. This will make capacity for co-location available. However, requiring a facility owner to allow a competitor access to the available capacity may not be enforceable. The service providers have stated that no submission of information on existing facilities should be required. They have stated that, due to the high cost of conslracfing a new facility, a service provider will exhaust efforts to locate on existing structures before making application for a new site. 6 Objective: Minimize impact of facilities on County resources. Recommendations: Identify and map all resources in the County which could be adversely affected by the construction of telecommunication facilities; Establish 40 feet or 25%, above the existing treeline, whichever is greater, as a standard for the construction of new towers in the Rural Areas. Towers above this standard may only be permitted with adequate justification for the need for increased height; Permit the "by-right" construction of towers in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts which are also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The height of"by-right" towers would be limited to 150 feet. Towers of greater height will require a special use perrmt; Encourage the use of"stealth sites" and camotfflage technology. STAFF COMMENT As stated previously, the Open Space Plan may provide the necessary mapping of resources which may be adversely affected by the construction of new facilities. Providing a standard for facility siting in the Rural Areas allows staff to improve the quali.ty of review of special use permit applications and to insure that all applications are treated equally. While a standard does not insure approval of applications which meet the standard, it does provide for a target of design for the service providers. By-right construction in certain districts will likely have the result of reducing requests in Residential or Rural Areas Districts. Ifa service provider can locate by-right in a Commercial or Industrial District it is unlikely tbat it will choose instead to locate in an area which will require a special use permit. Staff opinion is that towers located in Commercial and Industrial Districts should be set back from Residential or Rural Area property lines a distance equal to or greater than the height Of the tower. Some members of the Wireless Telecommunication Task Force have recommended that the setback for towers be the same as for the primary structure in a Commercial of Industrial District. The use of stealth sites can serve to greatly reduce the visibility of wireless facilities. Stealth technology can allow a facility to be incorp0mted into a build'mg design (such as a church steeple or the cupola of a building). Camouflage technology can also allow facilities to appear as flag poles or light poles. "Tree Towers" have been used in some localities in an effort to disguise the tower. Stealth and camouflage technology can greatly increase the cost ora site. Objective: Insure County compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of special use permits. Recommendations: 7 Treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally equivalent service providers; Act on all applications for new facilities within the adopted review schedule; Establish a standard review format for staff reports and Board of Supervisors motions for action to insure that a written record is established for all actions; Determine the "detriments" caused by telecommunication facilities and establish criteria to determine when these detriments a~e substantial; Establish a method for determining the existing "character" of the district in which a facility is proposed and establish criteria to determine when the "character" of the district will be changed. STAFF COMMENT Staffhas treated all two-way communication providers as functionally equivalent service providers. Currently staffhas a standard report format for the review of all special use permit applications. Staff may need to modify the special use permit report format to insure that all of the provisions of the Telecommunicatiun~s Act are addressed in all reviews. Staff has considered recommending amendment of the review schedule for wireless communication facilities to establish once a year review of applications for towers~ This would require all service providers to submit information at the same time. This will afford the County the opportunity to work with the various providers to maximize co4ocation. In addition, once-a-year submittal will allow staff to review the requests as a network as opp6sed to individual sites. At this time staff is unable to determine if once-a-year review are permitted under existing state and federal law. Industry representatives do not support once-a-year review of applications. In order for the Board to review applications the various service providers would have to identify the property on which to make the application and get the pennission of the property owner. The time involved in identifying a site, obtaining the owners permission and then obtaining the necessary approval from the County would in the opinion of the industry representatives be an undue burden. The time from starting the search to construction of the tower could be 18 months. This would limit the service providers in the build out of their systems. Those service providers that have less developed, or in the case of PCS non-existent, systems would be more severely impacted by this limited review opportunity. The service providers have generally agreed to providing information once or twice a year to the Board of Superwsors. This information would identify general search areas which are being investigated for the construction of new facilities. This would also allow identification of sites which are operated by each service provider and those facilities which had been established by-fight, as recommended in other pordons of this report. This submittal of information would allow the staff to work with the service providers to identify co-location opportunities and to identify areas which may be inappropriate due to one or more resource identified by the County. I:\GENERAL\SHARE\FRITZ~TOWER\COMP2A.D .RF The following information was obtained from FACT SHEET #1 prepared by the F.C.C. SUMMARY OF SECTION 704 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 The following is a summary of key provisions. The text of Section 704 is reproduced in its entirety as an attachment to this summary. 1. Local Zoning, Authorit'v Preserved Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act amends Section 332(C) of the Communications Act ("Mobile Services") by adding a new paragraph (7). It preserves the authori .ty of state and local governments over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities, except as provided in the new paragraph (7). 2. Exceptions States and Localities May Not Take Discriminatory_ or Prohibitine Actions Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act states that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i). Review: Any person that is adversely affected by a state or local government's action or failure to act that is inconsistent with Section 332(c)(7) may seek expedited review in the courts. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). b. Procedures for Ruling on Requests to Place, Consmact or Modify Personal Wireless Service Facilities Section 704(a) also requires a State or local government to act upon a request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable time. Any decision to deny a request must be made in wrifmg and be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. ~332(c)(7)(B)(ii), (ill). c. Regulations Based On Environmental Effects of RF Emissions Preempted Section 704(a) of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio ~equency emissions tO the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Review: Parties may seek relief from the FCC if they are adversely affected by a state or local government's final action or failure to act that is inconsistent with this provision. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 3. Federal Guidelines Concerning KF Emissions Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and make effective new rules regard'rog the environmental effects of radio t~equency emissions, which are under consideration in ET Docket 93-62, within 180 days of enactment of the 1996 Act. NOTE: The pendency of this proceeding before the FCC does not affect the rules which currently are in effect governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Section 704(b) gives preemptive effect to these existing rules. See related attachments to the Fact Sheet. 4. Use of Federal or State Government Property a. Federal Property. Section 704(C) of the 1996 Act requires the President (or his designee) to prescribe procedures by which the federal government may make available on a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way and easements under their control, for the placement of new spectrum-based telecommunications services. b. State Property_ With respect to facilities siting on state property, Section 704(C) of the 1996 Act requires the FCC to provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way and easements under their jurisdiction available for the placement of new spectrum-based telecommunications services. NOTE: Information concerning technical support for tower siting which the FCC is making available to state and local governments is attached to the Fact Sheet. 5. Definitions "Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carder wireless exchange access services, 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(I). "Commercial mobile services" are defined in Section 332 of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, and include cellular telephone services regulated under Part 22 of the FCC's rules, SIVlR services regulated under Part 90 of the FCC's rules, and PCS regulated under Part 24 of the FCC's roles. 47 C.F.R. §20.9. "Unlicensed wireless services" are defined as the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses; direct-to-home satelYxte services are excluded from tlfis definition. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(iii). COMPLETE TEXT OF SEC. 704 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding ar the end the following new paragraph: (7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority ora State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) LIMITATIONS- 0) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or insmmaentality thereof-- (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent sermces; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking ihto account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instmmemality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wiraless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, consmaction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. (C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- (i) the term 'personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carder wireless exchange access services; (ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).': (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of tiffs Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (C) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shail prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the ~ransmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict'with the depanment or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. I:\GENERAL\SHAREkFRITZ\TOWER\704.SUM I:~0 P.M. (I:ajune 2.a~) ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 MCINTIRE ROAD MEETING ROOM #241 TENTATIVE AGENDA MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1997 II, Ilk Call to Order Establish a Quormn Certificates of Appropriateness A. ARB-F(SDP)-96~I0 Old Ivy' Connnons Contact Person: Peter Sheeran, Sheerun Arclfitects B ARB-F(SDP)-97-06 Pantops Texaco Contact Person: David Sutton Preliminary Conference A. ARB-P(SDP)-97-06 Atlantic Coast Afldetic Club Contact Person: Tamara Lacy, Project Manager Old Business A. SDP-96-052 Lewis Mountain Apartments/Skyline Court Site Plan Contact Person: Ray Gaines New Biisiness VII. Adjourmnent David R Chaflolle Y. Humph~i~ Fon'e~ R. Mm~hall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superv,-SOrs 401 McInfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 F~I (804) 296-5800 Charles S. M~dn Wa~ter E Perl~m Sally H. Thomas June 9, 1997 Mr. Edward L. Strickler. Jr. P. O. Box 5 Scottsville. VA 24590 Dear Mr. Strickler: At the Board of Supervisors meeting on June 4, 1997, you were reappointed to serve on the Advisory Council on Aging, said term to expire on May 31, 1999. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the Comity in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Yc'l~umphris Chairman CYH:lbh cc: Gordon Walker James Camblos. III Printed on recycled paper Charlo~ Y. Humphfis Forres~ R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF AI_REMARLE Office o{ Board of Supervisms 401 Mcln~im Road Charlom~,,'ille, V'n'~inia 22902--4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 W~er E Perkins Sall'~ H. April 30, 1997 Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr. 8232:_S cOttsvi2!e~R0ad Scottsville; VA 24590 Dear Mr. Strickler: Your term on the Advisow Council on Aging for JABA expires on May 31, 1997. *The Board's policy for appointment to boards and commissions requires appointments to vacancies January 1 through June 30, 1997, be made ar this time. Since you are eligible for reappointment to the Advisory Council on Aging for JABA, please let this office know by May 15, 1997. if that is your desire. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC COL~NTY OF Al.BF..MARl E Office of Bo~d of Supercom 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, Vh'ginia 22902-4,596 (804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 2905800 Chades S. Marlin Walter E Perkins S~N H. Th. omens June 9, 1997 Ms. Jeanne Cox Clerk, City Council PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dem' Jeanne: At its meeting on June 4, 1997, the Board of Supervisors recommended the appointment of Mr. Jeffrey W. Sobel to the Community Policy and Management Team. It is my understanding that this is a joint appointment with City Council. Please forward this information to City Council to confirm the appointment. I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Sobel's application for your information. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, / /ewc Attachment cc: Rory Carpenter Kathy Ralston Roxarme Wltite Printed on recycled paper County of Albema ( ov SUPERWSORS Office of Board of County Superv/sors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/CommLssion/Committee C~,~°"~¥B Q°~ e.~_~.~ ~.~-~n"F Applicant's Name ..~ e.~ ~ £~-~. 03, %~ ~e_~ Home Phone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located $ ~ ~'a,--, e.. 1 M'~} \ Employer C¼~r~e~c {~¥~o~v~'~x. [~¥¥'~ ~-~Ovc~ ~¢ ©hY~-~ho~nneu3-aa- ~- Business Address ~ ~c~{~'~}qL~h, ~[v~ ~-[o~l-3cc%oil~ v'~5 ~3. qo3 Date of Employmen! ~t~q~ Occupation/Title C~mmo'~'~+~ Years Resident in Albemarle County ~ ~ Previous Residence C. ¼ c~r I o ~e Spouse'sNarne ~%&o. L-- ~,c)c~,~ Number of Children Education ~Degrees and Gmduafion Dates) ~,Py. x]a\e~r lq-/}; ~.?~&, O'(c% Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups ?u~lic. civio =~ c~=~]e omce =~ / or ~er aotiviti~s or R~on(s/for Desire ~ Se~e o~ ~ls Bo~d / Commissmn / Comm~ee The mformataon provided on ~s application w~l ~ ~l~ed to ~e public u~n R~ to: Clerk, Boa~ of Co~W Supe~isom Albm~le ~1 Mc~ Road C~lo~esville, VA 229~-4596 COUNTY OF Al ~EMAR! ,F, Office of Board of Supervisor~ ~1 Mclnfire Road ~lo~e, V~mia ~2~ Charles S. Martin Walter E Per~n~ Sally H. Thomas June 9. 1997 Ms. Nancy Whiting Bamette P.O. Box 492 Crozet. VA 22932 Dear Ms..Bamette: At the Board of Super~4sors meeting on June 4, 1997, you were reappointed to serve on the Advisory Council on Aging, said term to expire on May 31, 1999. 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. Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH:lbh cc: Gordon Walker James Camblos. III Printed on rec~,cled paper