HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-02 FINAL
JUI.Y2, 1997
9:0(3 A.M.
MEETING ROOM' 241, COL.-NTY OFFICE BL"ILDIN(7;
1) Call to Order.
2) Pledge of Allegiance.
3) Moment of Silence.
4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
5) Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
6) Approval of Minutes: October 11, I995, October 9, 1996 and Iune 11, 1997.
7) Transportation Matters:
a) Discussion: Powell Creek Connector Road.
b) Other Transportation Matters.
8) 10:00 a.m. - Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) re: ARB-F (Sight)-97-3
Pantops and 97-4 (Berl<mar).
9) 10:30 a.m. - Public Hearing: Request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for water service only to 2.7 ac parcel on TM62, P24B.
Property located between Dorrier Dr & Rt 20, just S of Key West Subdivision.
10~ 10:40 a.m. - Public Hearing: Request ro amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for water & sewer se, ~rf~ce Lo Forest Lakes South, on TM46
P97A1. TM46B5. PI & TM46, P97B. Property locatfid E of Powell Creek. N of Rt 643
Sc W o£ Norfolk Southern Railroad Sc S of Hollymead Subdivision.
11 Request to set public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water service only to parcels in Key West Subdivision
12) Report: JAUNT's Proposal for Route 29 Commuter Route.
13 Presentation: Welfare Reform.
14) Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting for July 16. 1997.
I5 WORK SESSION: Wireless Telecommunications Task Force Report.
16} Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
17 Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
18 Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
19 Appointments.
20 ~ Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1
Adopt Resolution for the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to include the upgrade of the CSX
Railroad crossing.
5.2
Adopt Resolution to take roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision SUB 12.380', into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
5.3
Adopt Resolution to take Dunlora Df~ve in Dunlora Subdivision. Phase 2C. SUB 12.354A', into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
5.4
Authorize County Executive to execute Purchase of Power Agreement with Appalachian Power
Company including Settlement Rates. and authorize Cotmty Executive to execute such agreements
administratively in the future.
5.5
Request to set public a hearing for approval of Deed of Easement for proposed natural gas lines to be
installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High School.
5.5 a Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc.. advancing $175.000 to purchase new tanker truck.
5.5b Proclamation in support of Peter T. Way for his service to Albemarle County and his
outstanding achievements.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.6
Copy of letter dated ltme 12, 1997, from Jimmy T. M~s, State Location and Design Engineer.
Department of Transportation. to Arthur D. Pettini. Executive Director. Rivanna Water St Sewer
Authority. re~ Route 29 Bypass construction impact on the South Fork Riva~ma River.
5.7
Letter dated lune 25, 1997, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Millicent Holbert, Acting Maintenance
Operations Manager, Department of Transportation. providing notice that beginning Monday, July 7,
1997_ Route 708, immediatdy west of Route 29 will be dosed to through traffic for approximately five
days, to allow bridge repairs.
5.8 Staff's Analysis of VDOT's Noise Abatement Policy.
5.9
Copy of notice of Reisst~ance of a new VPDES permit to discharge to State waters m~d State
certification under the State Water Control IPernfit No. VA0027065, Cooper Industries, Inc.,
Earlysville, Albemarle County/.
5.10 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts3 monthly bond and program report for the month of
May, 1997.
5.11
Copy of notice from the State Corporation Commission of an application of VYVX of Virginia, Inc.,
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide interexchange telecommunications
services and to have its rates determined competitively.
5.12 Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water St Sewer Authority Board of Directors for May 27, 1997.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker. Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Deve2opment
Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk.,~
July I0. 1997
Board Actions of July 2, 1997
At its meeting on July 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Agenda Item No. 1. Cai/to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.. by the
Chairman. (All Board members were present.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Warren Vandell. a resident of 737-C Mountainwood Road. asked for the Board's
opinion of the City of Charlottesville reverting to a town. and the Board's position on a special
assessment district that would require people within the current boundaries of the City to pay
for their current debts. He thinks the County has the tight to ask them to do that. He asked
that the Board discuss this issue open sessmn.
Mrs. Humphtis commented that the Board's position on reversion has previously been
stated in public and remains unchanged. There will be no new statements until the legal issues
have been resolved.
Item No. 5.1 Adopt Resolution for the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to include
the upgrade of the CSX Railroad crossing. ADOPTED the attached resolution which has been
forwarded to Engineering.
Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution to take roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision (SUB
12.380) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution
which has been forwarded to Engineering.
Mrs. Humphris said she had a constituent call her about these roads. Late yesterday
afternoon she got in touch with Mark Henry, and by 8:00 a.m., he had met out there with the
developer and looked at the road, and called her back to tell her what he had found out. She
appreciated what he did; it was above and beyond what she had expected.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, 1997
(Page 2)
Item No. 5.3. Adopt Resolution to take Dm~tora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase
2C (SUB 12.354A) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached
resolution which has been forwarded to Engineering.
Item No. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Purchase of Power Agreement
with Appalachian Power Company including Settlement Rates, and authorize County Executive
to execute such agreements administratively in the future. AUTHORIZED the County
Executive to execute the Agreement and AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute such
agreements administratively in the future (Note: The agreement has been forwarded to
Appalachian Power for the appropriate signature.)
Item No. 5.5. Request to set public a heating for approval of Deed of Easement for
proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High
School. PUBLIC HEARING set for luly 9, 1997.
Item No. 5.5a. Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with Stony Point
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., advancing $175,000 to purchase new tartker truck.
AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the Agreement.
Item No. 5.5b. Proclamation in support of Peter T. Way for his service to Albemarle
County and his outstanding achievements. ADOPTED the proclamation.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Powell Creek Connector
Road.
SUPPORTED staff's recommendation to leave the connection between Forest Lakes
South and Hollymead open. Staff and VDOT to pursue traffic cut-through and traffic calming
techniques to address the impacts of traffic.
The Board asked VDOT to take a look at the speed limit and traffic calming measures
on Hollymead Drive.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
With regard to Hollymead Drive, Mrs. Tucker said VDOT is looking at the speed limit
for a possible reduction to 25 mph. VDOT recently installed a crosswalk near the pool area.
Regarding the Route 29 North widening project, Mrs. Tucker said the barrels should be
completely out of the road by the holiday weekend. VDOT is waiting for the final touches to
the signal at the Schewds' crossover. The signal should be functioning and on flash by late
this afternoon.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, 1997
(Page 3)
Mrs. Tucker said the Route 682 project is complete. The guardrail has been installed.
Mrs. Tucker said she will indude information on the Route 29 North widening from
the South Fork Rivanna River north to Airport Road in her August update to the Board. The
project is due for advertisement in August, 1999. Generally VDOT will go to construction two
to three months after the ad date. VDOT is looking to start construction late 1999 or early
2000.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that staffwas asked to participate in a first meeting on that
project and has provided a follow-up comment.
Mr. Martin asked Mrs. Tucker to speak to closing of the bridge and the bridge work.
Mrs. Tucker said construction is due to start on the bridges over the South Fork Rivanna River
in the Fall of 1998; the advertisement date is July 9, 1998. The project is currently on
schedule. At this time, VDOT tentatively plans to detour traffic by using the southbound
bridge while the northbound bridge is widened. VDOT will notify the public as to the major
detour while that bridge work occurs. There will be two lanes of traffic in each direction.
Mrs, Tucker said with respect to the potential connection to the Meadow Creek
Parkway, VDOT is looking at sufficient width on the proposed northbound bridge and likewise
with the bypass. Currently, they are trying to coordinate the widening of the bridges, the
widening of the corridor, the Route 29 bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway to intersect in
the corridor just north of these bridges. That is quite a bit of coordination to do between now
and next year.
Mr. Perkins said he had a citizen call him about Rio Mills Road (Route 643): It is
being used as a short cut by a lot of people. The road is poorly maintained, washboarding and
being used as a trash dump. He suggested that VDOT look at upgrading the road because it
will probably be used even more as a short cut.
Mrs. Tucker referred to VDOT's newly adopted traffic policy regarding "watch for
children" signs. The policy requires that interested citizens work through their Board of
Supervisors to request this sign from VDOT. VDOT will then review the request and respond
within 30 days upon receiving a resolution of support from the Board. The resolution is
basically requested so that VDOT is sure the request is speaking on behalf of the public need.
A Board resolution will ensure that VDOT is addressing this consistently and on behalf of the
public need. Mrs. Tucker said she would forward the Board a copy of the policy.
Board members questioned the rationale for doing this.
Mrs. Tucker said VDOT does not yet have a policy for the "Pave in Place Program".
The policy that is being developed will apply to the entire State. She will provide the Board a
copy when it becomes available.
Mr. ~ober~ W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Jtay io, 1997
(Page 4)
Mr. Perkins commented on the letter to Art Petrini about the impact of the Route 29
bypass (Item No. 5.6). He thinks there needs to be clarification that VDOT will at least use
standard BMP measures to protect water that runs east, which is outside of the watershed.
Mrs. Thomas said she is glad Route 682 is completed. She asked that before VDOT
post the speed limit signs it determine the speed limit agreed upon by the people involved in
the process.
The Board adopted the attached resolution requesting a public hearing on the proposed
improvement to Route 809 at the intersection of Route 250. The Board suggested that the
road name also be included in the advertisement notice with the route number.
Mr. Bowerman asked that a privacy fence be installed along the west side of Rio Road,
near the Rock Store, to shield the mobile home park from the roadway. This could be done
next year as part of the improvements to Rio Road. Mrs~ Tucker said she will provide the
Board a cost estimate, and then the Board can decide if the expenditure is worthwhile.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mrs. Tucker to schedule another meeting of the Georgetown
Road Task Force to discuss the three remaining requests that need to be accomplished (four of
the seven have been accomplished). Mrs. Tucker said she would set up the meeting.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a complaint from someone about the Ronte 29/Rio
Road intersection. The furthermost left lane traveling southbound does not have a light, nor
striping. It makes the drivers unsure about which direction they are supposed to go. Mrs.
Tucker said she is aware of that problem and VDOT is looldng at installing another signal or
making adjustments to the signals that are already there.
Mrs. Tucker said VDOT plans to turn the signal at Barracks Road and the Route 250
Bypass on flash by July 18; the signal will flash through the weekend and then be in full
operation on July 21st. Both off ramps is technically one signal. They will be coordinated
such that when a driver turns left off the ramp and heads in either direction he should be able
to proceed with a green light at the next signal.
At 10:20 a.m., the Board had a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:31 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 8. 10:00 a.m. - Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) re: ARB-F (Sign)-97-3 Pantops and 97-4 (Berlcmar).
(Mr. Bowerman abstained from hearing this item.) DEFERRED until August 6, 1997.
Staff to verify whether the signs mentioned by the applicant are pre-ARB or post-ARB, and
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, I997
(Page 5)
whether the signs are in violation of the Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 9. 10:30 a.m. - Public Hearing: Request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to 2.7 ac parcel
on TM62, P24B. Property located between Dottier Dr & Rt 20, just S of Key West
Subdivision.
APPROVED the request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle Connty
Service Authority for water service only to 2.7 ac parcel on TM62, P24B.
Agenda Item No. 10. 10:40 a.m. - Public Hearing: Request to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water & sewer service to Forest
Lakes South, on TM46, P97A1&97B, & TM46B5, Pl. Property located E of Po~vell Creek, N
of Rt 643 & W of Norfolk Southern Railroad & S of Hollymead Subdivision.
(Mr. Bowerman abstained from hearing on this item.) APPROVED the reqnest to
amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authurity for water
sewer service to Forest Lakes South, on TM46, P97Al&97B, & TM46BS, PI.
Agenda Item No. 1 I. Request to set public hearing to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to parcels in Key
West Subdivision.
SET the public hearing for August 6, 1997, to consider a request to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to TM62, Ps
35A,37&49K and water only to existing structures on TM62, P37A in Key West Subdivision.
Agenda Item No. 12. Report: JAUNT's Proposal for Route 29 Commuter Route.
APPROVED JAUNT'S proposed use of FY 1995-96 carry-over funds for the proposed
pilot commuter route.
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Welfare Reform.
RECEIVED.
Agenda Item No. 14. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting for July 16, 1997.
CANCELED the Board of Supervisors' meeting for July 16, 1997.
Agenda Item No. 15. WORK SESSION: Wireless Telecommunications Task Force
Report.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, 1997
(Page 6)
DISCUSSED the recommendations outlined in the report and asked for an update on
August 6, 1997. Directed staff to separate out the recommendations into technical issues and
planning issues. The Board discussed retaining a consultant to undertake a study, but did not
reach a consensus. There was extensive discussion on the method of determining level of
service.
In discussing the recommendations in the report, the Board decided the following:
Page 5
· Map areas where improved service is desired - Consensus to support, but
decided may need a consultant;
Map existing structures which provide or are capable of providing the necessary
service - Expressed no opposition, but need to decide how to do and may need a consultant;
· Map areas identified in the Open Space Plan which may be inapproptiate for the
siting of facilities such as mountains and historic sites - Expressed no opposition, but need to
decide how to do and may need consultant;
Adopt policy making County owned land available for the siting of facilities -
Staff to provide information on other counties' policies for further discussion;
Provide prepared maps of potential facilities to all services providers to
encourage cooperation in the site selection process - Everyone agreed that once the maps are
done they should go to anyone who wants them;
Provide for mobile sites to serve special events or disasters - Everyone agreed to
the concept and further discussion needed as to whether staff can do or need consultant;
Page 6
Provide map of known facilities to service providers - How to identify those
facilities is unknown; need to decide whether that should be done through consultant or
registration process;
· Allow by-fight increase in height of existing structures (structures include, but
are not limited to: 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 - Do not support by-fight;
Page 7
· Identify and map all resources in the County which could be adversely affected
by the construction of telecommunication facilities - Need to determine whether staff can do
this or need a consultant;
Establish 40 feet or 25%, above the existing tree line, 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 - Need
further discussion;
· Permit the "by-tight" construction of towers in Commercial and Industrial
Zoning Districts which are also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The height of
"by-tight" towers would be limited to 150 feet. Towers of greater height will require a special
use permit - Do not support;
Encourage the use of "stealth sites" and camouflage technology - Support;
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, 1997
(Page 7)
Page 8
Treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally
equivalent service providers - Support;
· Act on all applications for new facilities within the adopted review schedule -
Support, but may need to work on scheduling and have a separate schedule;
Establish a standard review format for staff reports and Board of Supervisors
motions for action to ensure that a written record is established for all actions - Support;
Determine the "detriments" caused by telecommunication facilities and
establish criteria to determine when these detriments are substantial - Need more discussion;
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 - Need more discussion.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said he, along with David Bowerman and John Miller have been meeting to
discuss traffic and violations on Route 29 North. The Chief has worked out a proposal which
the Departanent will start to initiate on Tuesday, July 8, 1997. They will saturate Route 29
North ~vith some traffic enforcement, i.e., looldng at traffic light violations, speeding, etc.
They will repeat this on Friday, July 11, 1997, and probably from time to time.
Mrs. Thomas said when the Board approved the loan to GE Fanuc, they agreed to
provide the Board with a report: She would like to receive a copy of the report.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the Acme Visible reports which the Board has not been
receiving.
Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on the Environmental Technology Leadership
Challenge that had to do with Monticello High School.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the status of the Noise Ordinance.
Mrs. Thomas commented on the success of the large item pidcup recently hdd last
Saturday at the North Garden Fire Department.
Mr. Bowerman said as far as he is concerned, any individual who has large goods like
that, and wants to dispose of them should do so free of charge. This is less expensive than
having to pick them out of a ravine.
Mr. Tucker said staff knows the expense and plans to continue the program, possibly on
a quarterly basis. They need to work out all of the ldnks and make sure there are no problems
with the locations.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July I0, 1997
(Page 8)
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the registration information has been received for
LGOC scheduled for August 10 - 12, 1997, at the Omni Hotel. She also mentioned the
information has been received for VACo's annual conference at the Homestead for
November 7 - 12, 1997. She asked Board members to get their information to the Clerk.
Mr. Marshall offered motion that the Board donate the fees for the special use permit
to rezone a piece of property known as the Hudson property in Esmont for use as a recreational
facility, providing it qualifies as a nonprofit organization. Mr. Perldns seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:10 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go 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, Committees, Commissions and a staff
position; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal matters relating to reversion. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. The motion
passed unanimously.
Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session~
At 2:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the Executive
Session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
APPOINTED Ms. Leslie M. Durr to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency
(MACAA) Board of Directors.
APPOINTED Mr. Peter L. Sheras to the Community Services Board, with said term to
expire on June 30, 2000.
Executive Session: Legal Matters. (CONTINUED)
At 4:06 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go into Executive
Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Martin. The motion passed unanimously.
Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
July 10, I997
(Page 9)
At 5:05 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the Executive
Session.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. The meeting was immediately adjourned.
/EWC
Attachments
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Kevin C, Casmer
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Richard Wood
Jan Sprinlde
Yadira Amari
File
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportationhas provided notice of the proposed
intersection improvements on Route 250 from 0.07 mile west of the intersection of Route 809 to
0.12 mile east of the intersection of Route 809 west of the City of Charlottesville in Albemarle
County (Project #0250-002-112,C501); and
WHEREAS, the VirginiaDepartment of Transportationhas posted notice of its willingness
to hold a Combined Location and Design Public Hearing on the proposed improvements;
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request the Virginia Department of Transportation to hold a public
hearing on such proposed improvements and forward a copy of the comments to the Board.
I, Ella W. Carey, do 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 July 2, 1997.
County Supe~ors
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular
meeting on the 2nd day of July, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
W/qEREAS, the street described below was established in 1957, currently
serves at least three families per mile and serves from 600 to 700 cars per day
from residences with no viable alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's
current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify
this county to recommend additions to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia~ and
WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this
street, this Board finds that speculative interest does not exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Super-
visors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the following
street to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code
of Virginia:
Name of Street:
From:
To:
West Leiqh Drive
State Route 250 - I~z Road
Leiqh Way
Length: 0.7 miles
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards,
funding said improvements pursuant to §33.1-72.1(D), Code of Virginia; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mr. Marshall.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas:
Nays:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
A Copy Teste:
BEol!ardW;fC~or~i~oCrs
06-26-9?P,91:33 RCV[
COUNTY OF ALBF:MAg oFs jp RwsoRs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Route 29 Commuter Route
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval to al locate unused FY95/96 JAUNT
funds for a proposed commuter route
STAFF CONTACT(Si:
Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
July2,1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
.?
JAUNT has $77,565 in FY95/96 carry-over funding and is.proposing that the funding be used for a
commuter route along route 29 North (Attachment Al This funding will cover the first year of operation.
DISCUSSION:
There have been requests to extend public transit service further north on Route 29 in the past recent
years. The proposed route would basically run during morning and evening rush hour between the
Greene County line and CTS stops in the urban part of the Albemarle County. The routes will link up
with CTS routes to avoid duplication of services. Staff has also been working with JAUNT to develop this
commuter route along Route 29 North. Staff has also been working with JAUNT, CTS, and RideShare
to establish park and ride location that would connect with proposed JAUNT stops. This proposed route
will also provide a transportation resource to the Welfare Reform program, as well as aid in reducing
commuter traffic congestion. JAUNT estimates that 56 riders will use the service.
Funding: In the past, JAUNT has either returned carry-over funds to the County or requested the use
of those funds to initiate other projects, such as the Crozet and Scottsville fixed routes. The JAUNT
Board has fully endorsed the use of these funds to initiate this pilot project. If this route is continued,
the County's projected on-going annual cost for this service is estimated to be approximately $23,000.
The proposed cost is $1.00 each way. The pilot route is intended to run through June of 1998, and. if
successful, will be included in the FY99 budget for on-going implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of JAUNT's proposed use of FY95/96 carry-over funds for the proposed
pilot commuter route.
pc: Donna Shaunesey
Roxanne White
97,117
PROPOSED 29 NORTH ROUTE
In order to assist in traffic reduction efforts, as well as provide additional
resources to help in the Welfare Reform effort. JAUNT proposes to establish a
rush hour commuter shuttle between the Greene County line and CTS stops in
urban Albemarle. The routes will link up with CTS routes to avoid duplication of
services, and will ultimately become a CTS route when ridership and revenues
make this a possibility. The route is intended to run through June of 1998, and if
successful, will be included in the FY99 budget so that it can be continued.
Funding: No new funds are needed from Albemarle County for this route for the
first year. JAUNT has $77.565 in funding from Albemarle County that was not
needed for FY95/96. and with the County's permission, these funds can be
applied to pay for this service. If the service is successful, it can be included in
JAUNT's regular budget so that state and federal matching funds are available.
In subsequent years the on-going costs to the County of this service are
estimated to be $23.000 per year. The proposed fare is $1.00 each way, and we
we anticioate a ridershi ~ of at least seven people each direction.
Route Design: The proposed rou[e is based on the shift times of major
employers, as well as efficient transfers between CTS routes. It is intended to be
efficient and serve as many potential customers as possible. Although some
details remain to be worked out, [ne route is currently planned with stops at
Seminole Square and Albemarle Square. and continues on 29 North to the
Greene County line where there has been a Park and Ride tot in the past.
Interim stops include three mobile nome parks as well as major employers and
subdivisions (see the attached draft schedule). Juandiego Wade has been
working with JAUNT. CTS, and TJPDC staff to help set up informal Park and
Ride lots at many of the designated stops, as well as to work with employers to
ensure their cooperation. The schedule will be finalized once the stops are
established. We intend to utilize some drivers who live in northern Albemarle to
m~nimize deadheading (driving with an empty vehicle). Passengers will be able to
transfer to and from CTS easily, and CTS has agreed to supply some fareboxes
as well as radios to ensure efficient transfers between the t~vo systems.
Proposed Budget: A significant amount of funding is budgeted for promotional
efforts to let the public know about the availability of the routes.
Operations Cost: 12.5 hrs/day $69,575
Promotions: Radio, TV, newspaper,
neighborhood flyers $13,215
Less Projected Fare Revenue -$5,225
TOTALBUDGET
$77,565
6/17/97
DRAFT ROUTE 29 NORTH ROUTES
MORNING North #1 Stop? North #2
Van A Van B
Downtown 5:55 AM
Preston Plaza 6:00 AM
Seminole Square 6:07 AM 7 12 AM
Sperry [- 6:09 AMI 7:14 AM
Comdial 6:10 AM No 715AM
Albemarle Square 6:15 AM 7:20 AM
Sam's Club/Sheraton F' 6:19AMI 7:24 AM
Walmart 6:21 AM 7:26 AM
F Lakes S./Ridgewood MHP 6:24 AM 7:29 AM
Hollymead 6:27 AM 7:32 AM
F Lakes North 6:33 AM ' 7:38 AM
Northwood MHP 6:37 AM 7:42 AM
Cedar Hill MHP 6:42 AM 7:47 AM
Camelot 6:44 AM ? 7:49 AM
Badger b_. 6:46AM] [ ~
Briarwood 6:50 AM ? 755 AM
GE ~ 7:57 AM
Lake Saponi 6:57 AM 8:02 AM
Stop? South #1 Stop? South #2
Van B Van NC
6:50 AM 7:50 AM
No [ 6.4 A J [
No 6:47 AM 7.47
6:42 AM 7:42 AM
[ 6:38 AMi 7:38 AM
6:36 AM 7:36 AM
6:33 AM 7:33 AM
6:30 AM 7:30 AM
6:24 AM 7:24 AM
6:20 AM 7:20 AM
6:t5AM 7:15 AM
? 6:13 AM 7:13 AM
6:11 AM 7:11 AM
? 6:07 AM 7:07 AM
6:05 AM ? 7:05 AM
6:00 AM 7:00 AM
Stop?
EVENING North #! Stop? NoAh #'2 Stop? South f¢1 South ¢Y2
Van A Van B Van C Van B
Downtown
Preston Plaza
Seminole Square 4:30 PM 3:05 PM 4:10 PM 5:10 PM
[ 3:07 PM] 4:08 PM 5:08 PM
Sperry
4:32
PM
I 4:33 PM! 3:08 PM 4:07 PM 5:07 PM
Comdial
Albemarle Square 4:38 PM 3:13 PM 4:02 PM 5:02 PM
Sam's Club/Sheraton 4:42 PM [ 3:17 P-~
3:58
PM
4:58
PM
Walmart 4:44 PM 3:19 PM 3:56 PM 4:56 PM
F Lakes S./Ridgewood MHP 4:47 PM 3:22 PM 3:53 PM 4:53 PM
Hollymead 4:50 PM 3:25 PM 3:50 PM 4:50 PM
F. Lakes North 4:56 PM 3:31 PM 3:44 PM 4:44 PM
Northwoad MHP 5:00 PM 3:35 PM 3:40 PM ? 4:40 PM
Cedar Hill MHP 5:05 PM 3:40 PM 3:35 PM ? 4:35 PM
Camelot 5:07 PM 3:42 PM 3:33 PM ? 4:33 PM
Badger 5:09 PM 3:44 PM ~ [ 4:31 P~
Briarwood 5:13 PM 3:48 PM 3:27 PM ? 4:27 PM
GE 5:15 PM 3:50 PM ! 3:25 PMI 4:25 PM
Lake Saponi 5:20 PM 3:55 PM 3:20 PM ? 4:20 PM
NOTES: Route times will need some adjustments in rush hour traffic
Boxed times indicate the arrival/departure times are compatibie with shifts
6/17/97~
JRUNT
JAUNT, INC.
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
Planning Dept,
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
RoxanneWhite and JuandiegoWade
Donna Shaunesey ~
June 17, 1997
Proposed 29 North Route
Here is a draft of our proposal to the Albemarle Board of Su ~ervisors. It's mighty
short - are there other things t should include?
Enclosures
cc: Helen Poore
Tina Sherman
Phone: (804) 296 3184, (800) 36JAUNT · Operations (804) 296~6174 (Voice & TDD · Fax: (804} 296-4269
Charlotte Y. Humpnns
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
804,296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Char[es S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
S~1¥ H. Thomas
july 11, 1997
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
Resident Engineer
701 VDoT Way
Charlottesville. VA 22911
Dear Mrs. Tucker:
Ar its meeting on July 2. 1997, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments
regarding transportation matters:
Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution for the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to indude the
upgrade of the CSX Railroad crossing. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Item No. 5.2. Adopt Resolution to take roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision 'SUB 12.380 into
the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Item No, 5.3, Adopt Resolution to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision. Phase 2C
(SUB 12.354AI into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Powell Creek Connector Road.
SUPPORTED staff's recommendation to leave the connection between Forest Lakes South and
Hollymead open. Staff and VDOT to pursue traffic cut-through and traffic miming techniques to
address the impacts of traffic.
The Board asked VDOT to take a look at the speed limit and traffic calming measures on
Hollymead Drive.
Printed on recycled paper
Mr.s Angela G. Tucker
July Ii, 1997
(Page 2/
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
With regard to Hollymead Drive, you said VDOT is looking ar the speed limit for a possible
reduction to 25 mph. VDOT recently installed a crosswalk near the pool area.
Regarding the Route 29 North widening project, you said the barmls should be completely our
of the road by the holiday weekend. VDOT is waiting for the final touches to the signal at the
Schewels' crossover. The signal should be functioning and on flash by late this afternoon.
You said the Route 682 project is complete. The guardrail has been installed.
You said you will indude information on the Route 29 North widening from the South Fork
Rivanna River north to Airport Road in her August update to the Board. The project is due for
advertisement in August. 1999. Generally VDOT wilt go to construction two to three months after the
ad date. VDOT is looking to sram construction late 1999 or early 2000.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that staffwas asked to participate in a first meetixqg on that project
and has provided a follow-up comment
Mr. Martin asked about the dosing of the bridge and the bridge work. You said construction
is due to start on the bridges over the South Fork Rivanna River in the Fall of 1998: the advertisement
date is Jtfiy 9, 1998. The project is currently on schedule. At this time. VDOT tentatively plans to
detour traffic by using the southbound bridge while the northbound bridge is widened. VDOT will
notify the public as to the major detour while that bridge work occurs. There wili be two lanes of
traffic in each direction.
You said with respect to the potential connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway, VDOT is
looking at sufficient width on the proposed northbound bridge and likewise with the bypass.
Currenfly, they are trying to coordinate the widening of the bridges, the widening of the corridor, the
Route 29 bypass and the Meadow Creek Parkway to intersect in the corridor just north of these
bridges. That is quite a bit of coordination to do between now and next year.
Mr. Perkins said he had a eitizen call him about Rio Mills Road 'Route 643), It is being used
as a short cut by a tot of people. The road is poorly maintained, washboarding and being used as a
trash dump. He suggested that VDOT look at upgrading the road because it uti/1 probably be used
even more as a short cut.
You referred to VDOT's newly adopted traffic policy regarding "watch for children" signs, l'he
policy requires that interested citizens work through their Board of Supervisors to request this sign
Mr.s Angela G. Tucker
July 11. 1997
(Page 33
from VDOT. VDOT will then review the request and respond within 30 days upon receiwng a
resolution of support from the Board. The resolution is basically requested so that VDOT is sure the
request is speaking on behalf of the pubIic need. A Board resolution will ensure that VDOT is
addressing fi-ds consistendy and on behalf of the public need. You will forward the Board a copy of the
policy.
Board members questioned the rationale for doing this,
You said VDOT does not yet have a policy for the "Pave in Place Program". The policy that is
being developed will apply to the entire Stare. You will provide the Board a copy when it becomes
available.
Mr. Perkins commented on the letter to Art Petrird about the impact of the Route 29 bypass
~ Item No. 5.6). He thinks there needs to be clarification that VDOT will ar least use standard BMP
measures to protect water that runs east. ~vhich is outside of the watershed.
Mrs. Thomas said she is glad Route 682 is completed. She asked that before VDOT post the
speed limit signs it determine the speed limit agreed upon by the people involved in the process.
The Board adopted the attached resolution requesting a public hearing on the proposed
improvement to Route 809 at the intersection of Route 250. The Board suggested that the road name
also be included in the advertisement notice with the route number.
Mr. Bowerman asked that a privacy fence be installed along the west side of Rio Road. near the
Rock Store. to shield the mobile home park from the roadway. This could be done next year as part of
the improvements to Rio Road. You will provide the Board a cost estimate, and then the Board can
decide if the expenditure is ~vorthwhile.
Mrs. Humphris asked you to schedule another meeting of the Georgetown Road Task Force to
discuss the three remaining requests that need to be accomplished (four of the seven have been
accomplished).
Mrs. Humphris said she received a complaint from someone about the Route 29/Rio Road
intersection. The fuithermost left lane traveling southbound does not have a light, nor striping. It
makes the drivers unsure about which direction they are supposed to go. You are aware of that
problem and VDOT is looking at installing another signal or making adjustments to the signals that
are already there.
Mr.s Angela G. Tucker
July I 1. 1997
(Page 4/
You said VDOT plans to turn the signal at Barracks Road and the Route 250 Bypass on flash
by July 18; the signal will flash through the weekend and then be in full operation on July 21 st. Both
off ramps is technically one signal. They will be coordinated such that when a df~ver turns left off the
ramp and heads in either direction he/she should be able to proceed with a green light at the next
signal.
Sincerely,
Ella x~V. Carey, CMC. Clerk~
/EWC
Attachments
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC-~~
July 11 1997
Board Actions of July 2. 1997
At its meeting on July 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Item No. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Purchase of Power Agreement with
Appalachian Power Company including Settlement Rates and authorize County Executive to execute
such agreements administratively in the future. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the
Agreement and AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute such agreements administratively in
the future, Note: The agreement has been forwarded to Appalachian Power for the appropriate
signature. ~
Item No. 5.5. Request to set public a hearing for approval of Deed of Easement for proposed
natural gas lines to be installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High School. PUBLIC
HEARING set for JuN 9. 1997.
Item No. 5.5a. Authorize County Executive to sign service agreement with Stony Point
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., advancing $175.000 to purchase new tanker truck. AUTHORIZED
the County Executive to execute the Agreement.
Agenda Item No. 12. Report JAUNT's Proposal for Route 29 Commuter Route.
APPROVED JAUNT'S proposed use of FY 1995-96 carry-over funds for the proposed pilot
commuter route.
Agenda Item No. 14. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting for July 16, 1997.
CANCELED the Board of Supervisors' meeting for July t 6. 1997.
/ewc
Attachment
cc: Robert Walters
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Ella Washington Carey. Clerk. CMC
West Leigh Drive - Rural Addition
July 1 i, 1997
At its meeting on July 2. 1997. the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached
resolution for the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to indude the upgrade of the CSX
Railroad crossing.
~WC
Attachments ( I
cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg
Bill Mawyer
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia in regular
meeting on the 2nd day of July, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WPIEREAS, the street described below was established in 1957. currently
serves au least three families per mile and serves from 600 ~o 700 cars per day
from residences with no viable alternative; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's
current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements ~o qualify
~his counuy to recommend additions to the secondary system of szate highways,
pursuant uo ~33.1-72-1, Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS. after examining the ownership of all property abutting this
$ureet, this Board finds that speculative interesu does nou exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the Albemarle Board of County Super-
visors requests the Virginia Department of Transporuation co add the following
street ~o the secondary system of suate highways, pursuanu ~o §33.1-72.1'D~, Code
of Virginia:
Name of Street:
From:
To:
West LezJh Drive
State Route 250 - Iw Road
Leiqh Way
Length: 0.7 miles
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees s clear and unresurlcted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, uhat the Hoard requesus the Virgznia Department of
Transportation ~o improve said ssreeu to the prescribed minimum standards,
funding said improvements pursuant ~o ~33.1-72.1[D), Code of Virginza; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for ~he Virginia Deparument of Transportation.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mr. Marshall.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
and Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Marshall, Mr.
Martin, Mr. Perkins
A Copy Teste:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
July 11, 1997
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. Grice Whiteley
2220 Cornwall Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Dear Mr. Whiteley:
At its meeting on July 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution for
the rural addition of West Leigh Drive to include the upgrade of the CSX Railroad
crossing. Attached is a copy of the resolution.
Sincerely,
/ewc
Attachment
Printed on rec_vcled paper
05-24-9~?03:4F oCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Jack M. Kelsey, PE, Chief of Engineering~./
24 June 1997
West Leigh Drive - Rural Addition
Attached to this memo is a letter from Angela Tucker - VDOT, dated 23 June 1997, requesting the
Board of Supervisors to support by resolution the inclusion of the West Leigh Drive upgrade into the
Secondary Six Year Plan.
A copy of a sample resolution was included with the letter but I believe you have already prepared
the resolution. I would appreciate it if this item could be included in the agenda for the 2 July 1997
Board meeting.
Please call me at x-3376 if you have any questions or need additional information.
JMK\ss
Attachment
Copy: Bill Mawyer
June 23, 1997
Routes 250'677
Albemarle County
West Leigh Drive
Rural Addition
Mr. Jack Kelsey
Chief of Engzneerzng
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville VA 22902
Dear Mr. Kelsey:
We have Eompleted our COnStruction COS5 estimate for the rural addition of West
Leigh Drive to include the upgrade of the CSX Railroad crossing,
An estimate of $361,000 includes construcnion and engineering cosns only.
Costs for providing a clear, unencumbered right of way, relocations of utilities,
mail boxes, eec. are non eligible expenses covered by rural addition funds
administered by the Department. Ineligible cosns mush be born by others and assured
by the County. At this time, there appears to be no impact to utilities.
Funding zn fiscal year 97-98 la available for this pro3ect and will not affect
the existing priority list. By 2opy of this letter, we ask that the Board of
Supervisors support by resolution [sample anEached the inclusion of this pro]ecE
znmo the Secondary Six Year Plan.
I
office.
will be available an the July 2 Board of Supervisors' meeting no discuss the
of this pro3ecE ss needed. If you have any questions, please contact this
Sincerely,
AGT smk
enclosure
cc: V~ W. Cilir~erg
Ella Carey w/attachment
A. G. Tucker
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, mn regular meeting on the
day of 19 , adopted the following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the smree5 described below was established
currently serves a5 least 3 families per mile, and
1957 and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Departmen5 of Transportation has deemed this county's
currenn subdivision control ordinance meens all necessary requirements 5o qualify
this county 5o recommend additions no the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to Section 33.1-72-1, Code of Virgznla, and
WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street
this Board finds that speculative interest does not exzst,
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be
added Eo the secondary sysnem of stane highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.t(D)~
Code of Virginia:
Name of Street: West Leiqh Drzve
From: State Route 250 - Ivy Road
To: Leiqh Way
Length: 0.7 miles
BE I5 FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarannees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia De~srtment of
Transportation 5o improve said street no the prescribed minimum standards, funding
said ~mprovemenEs pursuant no Section 33.1-72.1 D , Code of Virginia, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that m certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
nc the Resident Engineer of the Virgznia Departmen5 of Transportation.
Recorded Vote A Copy Teste:
Moved By:
Seconded By:
Yeas:
Nays: (Name), Title)
From:
Subject:
Oate:
Mark B. Henry, Senior Planner
Department of Engineer
Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, CMC
Road Resolutions
July I1. 1997
At its meeting on July 2. 1997. the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
resolutions:
to take roads in Roslyn Ridge Subdivision tSUB 12.380/ into the State
Secondary System of Highways
2~
to take Dunlora Drive in Dunlora Subdivision. Phase 2C SUB 12.354~ into
the State Secondmy System of Highways
Attached are the original and four copies of the adopted resolution.
EWC
Attachments (10)
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular
meeting on the 2nd day of July, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
W}{EREAS, the ssreeEs in RoslynRidge Subdivision (SUB 12.380) described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5 IA) dated July 2, 1997, fully incorporated herein
by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Af[bemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer ~or the Virginia Department of Transporsa-
tion has advised the Board that the streets meet the regulrements established by
the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia DeparEmenE of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requesns the Virgmnia Deparmmenn of Transportation mo add the roads
in Rosly~Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated July 2, 1997, ~o the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
229. Code of Virgznia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Recruirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenns for cu5s, fills and
drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transporma~ion.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mr. Marshall
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
and Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Martin, Mr Perkins
A Copy Testa:
Ella ~. -~arey, Clerk/CMC
Board of County Suptrvisors
0
0
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A are:
1)
Roslyn Ridge Road from Station 10+54.56, left edge of pavement of
relgcated State Route 743 5o Station 37+82.35, rear of cul-de-sac,
2727.79 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
Deed Book 938, pages 49~58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet.
with additional plats recorded 3 31/88 in Deed Book 985, pages 634-
644; 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 334-5, 337-8. 340-2 and 344-5;
5/7 97 in Deed Book 1610, pages 314-5 and 320-1: and 6/2/97 in Deed
Book 1616, pages 691-2. for a length of 0.52 mile.
Roslyn Ridge Court from Station 10+10, left edge of pavement of
Roslyn Ridge Road, Station 12+55, rear of cul-de-sac, 245 lineal
feen as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 938,
pages 49-58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional
plats recorded 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 340-2; 5/7/97 in
Deed Book 1610, pages 323-4 and 326-7: and 5/23/97 in Deed Book
1613, pages 553-4. for a length of 0.05 mile.
3)
Roslyn Forest Lane from Station 9+39.65. left edge of pavement of
Roslyn Ridge Road ~o Station 18+35, rear of cul-de-sac, 895.35
lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 5/15/87 in the Office of the
Clerk of the Clrcuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed
Book 938, pages 49-58 with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with
additional plats recorded 12/13/94 in Deed Book 1445 pages 325-6,
328-9 and 331-2; 10/17/95 in Deed Book 1498, pages 441-3; and 5/7/97
in Deed Book 1610, pages 314-5 and 317-8 for a length of 0.17 mile.
Total len9tk - 0.74 mile.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
06-~4-97P03-4~
BOARD OF SUPERV.,'..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer l~
June 24, 1997
Roslyn Ridge Subdivision (SUB 12.380)
The roads serving the referenced subdivision are substantially complete and ready for
VDOT acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a resolution forthe roads speci£1ed in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) form. After the
adoption of the resolution, please provide me with the onginal and four copies of the
signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. in regular meeting
on the 2nd day of July, 1997, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
W~EREAS, the streess in Dunlora Phase 2C (SUB 12.354A) described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, fully incorporated herein by
reference, are showm on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivisicn
Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation 5o add Dunlora Drive in Dunlora
Phase 2C ~s described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 2, 1997, co the
secondary system of stase highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Re~u~remenss; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted righE-
of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuss, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Moved by: Mr. Marshall.
Seconded by: Mr. Bowerman.
Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs.
and Mrs. Thomas.
Nays: None.
Humphris,
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins
A Copy Teste:
~'5~a W. Carey, Clery, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Dunlora Drive from Station 55+50. end of State Route 1177, 2413.64 lineal
feet, Eo Station 79+63+64. edge of pavemenE of Dunl~ra Drive, with a
right-of-way width of 50 feet as shown on plat recorded 5/28/96 in the
office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1539,
pages 539-47, with additional plats recorded on 6/11/97 in Deed Book 1618~
page~ 103-4 and pages 106-7, for a length of 0.46 mile.
Total Mileage - C.~6 mile_
06-26-97A09:28 RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
® I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Su/~ervisors
Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineer
June 24, 1997
Dun/ora SubdivisioN, Phase 2C (SUB 12.354A)
The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for
VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, I request the Board of Supervisors to adopt
a resolution for the road specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) form. Afferthe
adoption of the resolution, please provide me with the original and four copies of the
signed and dated resolution and SR-5A.
Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions.
MBH/ctj
Attachment
PO FJo× 100~
Lyn~bburg, ~/A 24505-1000
804. :~22-~200
AMERICAN
ELECTRIC
POWER
luty 28, 1997
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Enclosed is one fully executed original copy of the "Agreement for the Purchase of
Electricity from Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)" for
your file.
Thank you for letting American Electric Power serve you. Please do not hesitate to
call me at 1-800-927-1113 or 804-522-4837 should you have any further questions or
when I can be of'assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Major Account Executive
Enclosure
VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba American Electric Power')
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this i6g dayof q~Y~ ,19?9 ~by
and between APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba Ame~ica~n Electric Power),
hereinafter called "Company," and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereinafter
called "Customer."
WITNESSETH:
For and in consideration of the mutual convenants mad agreements hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree with each other as follows:
FIRST:
The Company agrees to furnish to the Customer, and the Customer agrees to
take from the Company, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, all the electric energy of the character specified herein that shall
be purchased by the Customer on the premises at installations shown on
"Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
SECOND:
The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of thirty-six (36)
months beginning July 1, 1996. Unless terminated as hereinafter provided,
this Agreement shall continue in effect thereafter for successive periods of
one year at rates to be mutually agreed upon by the Company and the
Customer.
Either party shall give the other not less than 90 days' notice in writing of its
election to terminate this Agreement at the expiration of any period. Any
such notice given by the Customer to the Company shall be properly
delivered if mailed by first class mall to, or received by, the Director,
Regulatory Affairs, VA, American Electric Power, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke
Virginia 24022. Further, any such notice may be given by the Customer or
on the Customer's behalf by the Executive Director of the Virginia Municipal
League or the Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Counties.
The electric energy delivered hereunder shall be alternating current and it
shall be delivered at the voltage and other electrical characteristics as set forth
on "Exhibit A," which shall constitute the points of delivery under this
Agreement. The said electric energy shall be delivered at reasonably close
maintenance to constant potential and frequency, and it shall be measured by
a meter or meters owned and installed by the Company and located as set
forth on "Exhibit A.'~
FOURTH:
Normally, the Company will provide one service from its distribution system
and all of the electricity supplied to an installation will be measured by one
meter, but Company may, at its option, provide as many services and meters-
FIFTH:
as it may deem practicable.
When such multiple services and meters are so used, separate bills will be
rendered for each metered installation. The electricity will be delivered to
such point as may be designated by the Company on the premises occupied
by the Customer and shall be used only by the Customer and upon the
premises occupied by the Customer.
For the purpose of this Agreement, an ~'instaltation" means a delivery point,
building, pan ora building, or group of buildings located in such close
proximity to' each other as to constitute one operating unit occupied by the
Customer. Those installations to be served by the Company as of the
effective date of this Agreement are set forth on attached "Exhibit A."
The Company will supply the electricity required by the Customer at such
additional installations beyond those being served by the Company as of the
effective date of this Agreement as may, i~om time to time, be requested in
writing by an authorized representative of the Customer. Ail services
furnished to such additional installations shall be governed by the terms of
this Agreement as if such additional installations were being served as of the
effective date of this Agreement. Service will be supplied at a single voltage
considered by the Company to be standard for the area in which electricity is
requested and will be available for general service to municipal corporations
and state govemmenta~ entities and their agencies, excluding Public Housing
Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in
§§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Extension of Service - Overhead
The Company will make extensions or expansions of its overhead
facilities in accordance with the following provisions:
The Company will supply and meter service at one delivery point
through overhead facilities of a kind and type of transmission or distribution
line or substation equipment normally used by the Company. Whenever a
customer requests the Company to supply electricity in a manner which
requires equipment or facilities other than that which the Company would
normally provide, the customer will pay.the Company a Contribution in Aid-
of-Construction equal to the additional cost of all such special equipment or
facilities. This contribution will be in addition m any Contribution in Aid-of-
Construction or other obligation of the customer required under the remaining
provisions of this section.
The Company will, for single phase service for new loads up to and
including 25 KW estimated demand, extend service not more than 150 feet
2
from existing secondary facilities of 300 volts or less having adequate
capacity, at no charge to the customer. Extensions of facilities for service
which do not meet. each of the above criteria will be provided pursuant to the
remaining provisions of this section.
For service delivered to estimated new loads above 25 KW or for
extensions for loads 25 KW or less not meeting all of the criteria covered in
the previous paragraph, the Company may require a Contribution in Aid-of-
Construction prior to the extension or expansion of its facilities based upon
an analysis of the economic justification of making such extensions or
expansions. Economic justification will,be based ~apon a comparison of the
annual cost to the Company and the increase'in armual base rote non-fuel
revenue. Annual cost to the Company equals the additional investment in
local facilities to serve the new load times the Company's annual canying
charge rote of 27.25%; and the increase in annual base rate revenue equals the
annual revenue from the estimated increase in the customer's power
consumption, exclusive of the fuel component of rates. If the estimated
increase in annual base rate revenue is less than the annual cost to the
Company of the extended or expanded facilities, the customer will be
required to pay the Company a Contribution in Aid-of-Construction equal to
the annual cost to the Company less the increase in annual base rote revenue
from the extension, divided by the Company's annual carrying charge rate. If
the increase in annual base rate revenue is equal to or greater than the 'annual
cost to the Company, the extension or expansion of facilities will be provided
at no charge to the customer.
If the Company has reason to question the financial stability of the
customer requesting an extension or expansion of service or the duration of
the customer's electric service requirements, or if the customer's service
requirements are seasonal or temporary, or if the customer requires special
facilities to meet the customer's service requirements, the Company may, at
its option, in addition to imposing a Contribution in Aid-of-Construction as
determined under the provisions of this section, (a) require the customer to
execute the Advance and Refund Line Extension Agreement (b) require a
long-term contract; and/or (c) require a special minimum charge or definite
and written guarantee from the customer in addition to any minimum
payment required by this Agreement.
If, at any time, the fmanciai condition of the Company is such that it
cannot issue debt securities necessary tO pay for the construction of new
facilities, the Company may require fi'om the customer a Contribution in Aid-
of-Construction and/or execution by the customer of the Advance and Refund
Line Extension Agreement to cover the total cost of tapping existing
transmission or distribution lines and increasing existing station capacity and
new facilities required to serve new or increased loads. The Company shall
advise the State Corporation Commission when this condition exists.
3
SIXTH: Extension of Service - Under~ound
Underground service and facilities will be provided by the Company upon
payment to the Company of an amount equal to the sum of (1) the difference
between the estimated cost of the underground facilities and the estimated
cost of overhead facilities that otherwise would have been required, and (2)
the amount as determined by the FIFTH Section above using the cost of
equivalent overhead facilities. Should the estimated cost of underground
facilities be less than the estimated cost ofoverhead facilities that would
otherwise be required, then the terms of this Agreement relating to overhead
extension of service will apply.
SEVENTH: Extension of Service- Temporary
The Company will supply electricity, Wifhin areas normally served by the
Company, to loads ora temporary nature upon payment by the Customer of a
temporary service charge equal to the nonrecoverable estimated cost of
temporary facilities required to serve the Customer plus the cost of removing
the facilities.
EIGHTH:
(1)
The rates at which the Company shall furnish the electricity herein
provided shall be set forth in "Exhibit B" entitled "Public Authority
TafiffNo~, Schedule P.Ax," attached hereto and made a part hereof.
All customers electing to take service under the "Optional Rate" section
of the Tariff shall establish a contract capacity for each account. The
contract capacity should equal the normal maximum demand
experienced by the customer for that account.
Outdoor lighting service will be furnished in accordance with Schedule
O.L. as contained in the then current tariff on file with the State
Corporation Commission of Virginia. A copy ofpresant Schedule O.L.
is attached as "Exhibit C."
NINTH: (t) Payment
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the main or branch
offices of the Company. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of t-
1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by
the Company bythe next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills
promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended
accordingly. The Customer may designate its billing address.
(2) Inspecu.o..r~
It is in the interest of the Customer to properly install and maintain his
wiring and electrical eqm'pmem, and he shall at all times be responsible
for the character and condition thereof. The Company makes no
inspection thereof and in no event shall be responsible therefor.
The Company may require the delivery by the Customer to the
Company of an agreement duly signed by the Customer authorizing the
connection to the wiring system of the Customer and assuming
responsibility therefor.- No responsibility shall attach to the Company
becafise of any waiver of this requirement.
(3) Service Connections
The Company will, when requested to furnish service, designate the
location of the service connection. The Customer's wiring must, for an
overhead secondary service, be brought outside the building wall
nearest the Company's service wires so as to be readily accessible
thereto. In this case, the Customer's wiring must extend at least 18
inches beyond the building. I~ all other cases, the Company and the
Customer will mutually designate a point of delivery best suited to the
Customer's and Company's facilities.
When a Customer desires that energy be delivered at a point or in a
manner other than that designated by the Company, the Customer shall
pay the additional cost of same.
(4) Relocation of Company's Facilities at Customer's Request
Whenever at Customer's request, Company's facilities located on
Customer's premises are relocated to suit the convehience of Customer,
the Customer shall reimburse the Company for the entire cost incurred
in making such change.
(5) Company's Liability_
The Company will use reasonable diligence in furnishing a regular and
uninterrupted supply of energy, but does not guarantee uninterrupted
service. The Company shall not be liable for damages for injury to
person or property in case such supply should be interrupted or fail by
reason of an act of God, the public enemy, accidents, labor 'disputes,
orders or acts ofcivil or military authority, breakdowns or injury to the
-machinery, transmission lines, distribution lines, or other facilities of
the Company, extraordinary repairs, or any other occurrence beyond the
Company's control, or any act of the Company to interrupt service to
any customer whenever in the judgment of the Company such
interruption is necessary to prevent or limit any instability, or
disturbance on the eleclric system of the Company or any electric
system interconnected with the Company.
Unless otherwise provided in a contract between Company and
Customer, the point at which service is delivered by Company to
Customer, m be known as "delivery point," shall be the point at which
the Customer's facilities are connected to the Company's facilities. The
Company shall not be liable for any loss, injury, or damage resulting
from the Customer's use of his equipment or his use of the energy
furnished by the Company beyond the delivery point.
The Customer shall provide and maintain suitable protective devices on
his equipment to prevent any loss, injury or damage that might result
from singl~ phasing conditions or any other fluctuation or irregularity
in the supply of ~nergy. The Company shall not be liable for any loss,
injury or damage resulting from a single phase condition or any other
fluctuation or irregularity in the supply of energy which could have
been prevented by the. use of such protective devices.
The Company will provide and maintain the necessary line or service
connections, transformers, meters and other apparatus which may be
required for the proper measurement of and protection of its service.
All such apparatus shall be and remain the property of the Company.
(6) Customer's Liability_
In the event of loss or injury to the property of the Company thro~agh
misuse by, or the negligence of, the Customer, or the employees of the
same, the cost of the necessary repairs or replacement thereof shall be
paid to the Company by the Customer.
The Customer will be responsible for tampering with, interfering with,
or breaking of seals of meters, or other equipment of the Company
installed on the Customer's premises. Ihe Customer hereby agrees that
no one except the employees of the Company shall be allowed to make
- any internal or external adjustments of any meter or any other piece of
apparatus which shall be the property of the Company.
The Company shall have the right at all reasonable hours to enter the
-premises of the Customer for the purpose of installing, reading, remov-
ing, testing, replacing or otherwise disposing of its apparatus and
property, and the fight of entire removal of the Company's property, in
the event of the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
(7) Location and Maintenance of Company's Eo_u[nmem
The Company shall have the right to construct its poles, lines and
circuits on the property and to place its transformers and other
apparatus on the property or within the buildings of the Customer, ar a
point or points convenient for such purpose, as required to serve such
Customer, and the Customer shall provide suitable space for the
installation of necessary measuring instnunents so that the latter may be
protected from injury by the elements or through the inadvertent acts of
the Customer or of any employee of the same.
(8) Use of Energy by Customer
The service connections, transformers, meters and appliances supplied
by the Company for each Customer have a definite capacity and no
additions to the equipment, or load connected thereto, will be allowed
except by consent of the Company.
The Customer shall-install only motors, apparatus or appliances which
are suitable for operation with the character of the service supplied by
the Company, which shall not be detrimental to same, and the electric
power must not Be used in such a manner as to cause unprovided for
voltage fluctuations or disturbances in the Company's transmission or
distribution system. The Company shall be the sole judge as to the
suitability of apparatus or appliances, and also as to whether the
operation of such apparatus or appliances is or will be detrimental to its
general service.
No attachment of any kind whatsoever may be made to the Company's
lines, poles, cross arms, sumctures or other facilities without the express
written consent of the Company.
All apparatus used by the Customer shall be of such type as to secure
the highest practicable commercial efficiency, power factor and the
proper balancing of phases. Motors which are frequently started or
motors arranged for automatic control must be of a type to give
maximum starting torque with m/nimum current flow, and must be of a
type and equipped with controlling devices approved by the Company.
The Customer agrees to give reasonable notification to the ComPany of
proposed increases or decreases in his connected load to prevem
7
TENTH:
operating problems with the Company's facilities.
The Company will not supply service to Customers who have other
sources of electric energy supply except with the special consent of the
Company.
The Customer shall not be permitted to operate his own generating
equipment in parallel with the Company's service except with the
written permission of the Company.
Resale of energy will not be permitted.
This Agreement is made upon the following conditions:
(1)
That in no event shall any officer or agent of the Customer executing or
authorizing the execution of this Agreement be held personally liable
on account of such authorization or execution.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the Company only when
accepted by it and approved by its proper official, and shall not be
modified by any promise, agreemem, or representation of any agent or
employee o?the Company unless incorporated in writing in this
Agreement before such accepmnce.
(3)
The obligations Of the Company and the Customer for service under
this Agreement are subject to appropriations by Customers' governing
body to pay for such service.
(4) The following sheets, as amended or revised from time to time, are
attached hereto and mede a part hereof:
Exhibit A - Present Listing of Accounts
Exhibit B - Schedule P.A.
Exhibit C - Present Schedule O.L.
Exhibit D - Refund Rates
In the first and third quarter of each calendar year, the Company will
perfoma an analysis based on the previous twelve months of the effects
of the optional demand charge rates for each Customer. The results of
this analysis will be provided to all customers who appear to benefit
from a change in rates. Any change in rates selected must be initiated
by the Customer.
8
ELEVENTH:
TWELFTH:
There are no unwritten understandings or agreements relating to the
service hereinabove provided.
This Agreement cancels and supersedes ali previous agreements
relating to the purchase by the Customer and sale by the Company of
electric energy at the Customer's premises as referred to above.
CUSTOMER:
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
Albev, ara~e County 137ard of.Supervisors
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
(dba American Electr~ Power) ~t
TITLE:
9
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
May 30, "997
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 1
Account Number
Service Location and Adaress
Delivery
Voltage
and Phase
Delivery Point and Meter Location
281111938100
281113932840
TotierCreekPark
St. Rt. 845, Sco~sviile
Scottsville Recreation Center
Page St.. Scottsville
120/240 v
l phase
208/120 v
3 phase
Private meter pole/n park adjacent to
lake
Meter on north wall of gym'building
(pad 816-350)
281113933670
Jefferson/MadisonLibrary
BkdSt.,Sco~svil~
208/120 v
3 phase
North extefiorwallofbuilding(u/g
816-76)
281116940820 M~mS~eet
Sco~sville
2 dusk-to-dawn lights
281119916630
Walnut Creek Park - Concession
North Garden
120/240 v
1 phase
Private meter pedestal adjacent to
pavilion
281119916890
Walnut Creek Park - Info
North Garden
120/240 v
1 phase
Exterior wall of information building
281120910870
Communications Tower
Fan Mtn. Rd., Covesville
120/240 v
1 phase
East exterior wail of building
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
RATE SCHEDULE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
GOVERNING
SALE OF ELECTRICITY
TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
ISSUED: FEBRUARY 25, 1997 EFFECTIVE: JULY 1, 1996
APPALACHIAN Pov*rER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 1 of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities_ excluding Public Housing
Authorities and the Commonwealth ofVirgima, a~ those terms are used in §§56-232 end 234 of the Code of Virginia
and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
MONTHLY RATE iTariffCodes 804, 805. and 806~
CUSTOMER CHARGE
per service connection
SCHOOLS [804)
per KWH consumed
ALL OTHER (805)
per KW2-I consumed
WATER PUMPING. SEWAGE PUMPING. AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (806'~
per KWH consumed
Effective
7/1/96 - 6/30/99
$8.27
4.797¢
4.477¢
3.913¢
OPTIONAL RATE (TariffCodes 809, 812, and 8t3)
Available m any Public Authority customer with normal maximum electric demands of 100 KW or more. A contract
capacity will be established which is equal to the customers estimated normal maximum electxical capacity requirements.
SCHOOLS (809) $20.00
Customer Charge
Demand Charge $4.75
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 3.000¢
All KWh Metered KWH
ALL OTHER (812) $20.00
Customer Charge
Demand Charge $7.50
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 2.000¢
All KWH Metered KWH
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
· 'APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 4
PUBEIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
WATER PUMPING. SEWAGE PUMPING AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (813)
Customer Charge $20.00
Demand Charge $7.00
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 2.000¢
Ail KWH Metered KWH
Reactive Demand Charge 29¢
All KVAR of Lagging Reactive
Demand
OPTIONAL ICE STORAGE RATE (Tariff Code
Avallai~le to any Public Authority customer who installs Company approved energy storage equipment·
Customer Charge $10.80
Energy Charge
All metered kwh during on-peak billing period
All meteered kWh during off-peak billing period
5.584¢ per kWh
2.745¢ per kWh
For the purpose of this contract, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time, for all weekdays,
Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. for all weekdays and all hours of
Saturday and Sunday and the following legally observed holidays:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration ora 15-minute demand meter or
indicator.
Monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the customer's established contract
capocity.
For those accounts who are designated to have a Reactive Demand Charge, the reactive demand in KVAR shall be
taken each month as the highest single 15-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month by a KVAR meter or
Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest whole KV and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedute is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the sum of the customer charge, demand charge,
energy charge, fuel adjustment clause and reactive demand charge of the monthly rate.
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1,1996
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 3 of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supplied hereunder will be delivered through not more than one single phase and/or one polyphase meter for
each service connection.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
Bills computed according tothe rates set forth herein will be increased or decreased by a Fnet Adjustment Factor per
KWH calculated in compliance with the Fuel Adjasunent CLause at~ached hereto.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the main or branch offices of the Company. On all accounts not so
paid, a charge of 1-1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next
bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly.
The Customer may dasig~ate its billing address.
SPECIAL TERMS
This schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service entered into
between the Company and each city, county and town governmental authority.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
When the estimated unit cost of fuel (Fro/Sm) used to meet Appalachian Power Company's Net Energy Requirement
less losses (Sm) is above or below the base unit cost of 12.8000 mills per kilowatthour (Fb/Sb), an additional charge
or credit equal to the product of the actual kilowatthours used and a fuel clause adjustmant factor (A) shall be made;
where (A), calculated to the nearest 0.0001 mill per kilowat'thour, isas defined below:
Ad.[ustment Factor (A) =Fro - Fb'
Sm Sb
Any difference between the estimated cost of fuel used to meet Appalachian Power Company's Net Energy
Requirement and the actual cost ofsach fuel will be reflected in the calculation of the Fuel Adjustment Factor in the
second succeeding month.
In the above formuLa (F) is the expense of fossil and nuclear fuel in the base (b) and current (m) periods; and (S) is the
KWH sales in the base and currem periods, all as defined below:
Fuel Costs CF) shall be the cost of:
(a) fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in Appalachian Power Company's plants, and Appalachian Power Company's
share of fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in jointly owned or leased plants;
Co) the actual idanlffiable fossil and nuclear fuel costs associated with energy pumhased for reasons other than
identified in Co) below;
(c)
the net energy cost of energy purchases, exclusive of capacity or demand charges (irrespective of the
designation assigned to such h-ansaction~ when such energy is purchased on an economic dispatch basis
(included therein ahall be such costs as the charges for economy energy purchases and the charges as a result of
scheduled outage, ail such kinds of energy being purchased by Appalachian Power Company to substitute for its
own higher cos~ energy), and less;
(d) the cost of fossil and nuclear fuel recovered through inter-system sales including the fuel costs related to
economy energy sales and other energy sold on ~ econoraic dispatch basis.
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
· 'APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE PA.
Sales fSI shall be equated to the sum of(a) generation, (b) pumhases, (c) interchange-in, less (d) energy associated
with pumped storage operations, less (c) inter-system sa[es referred to in (d) above, less (f) total system losses.
Sales (S) shall be modified to reflect losses of t0.51% associated with Appalachian Power Company's deliveries to
customers served under this schedule.
The adjustment factor developed according to the preceding paragraphs may be further modified to allow the recovery.
of gross receipts or other similar revenue based tax charges~occasioned by.the fuel adjusunent revenues.
The cost of fossil fuel shall include no items other than those listed in Account 151 of the Commission's Uniform
System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees. The cost of nuclear fuel shall be that as shown in Account 518,
except that if Account 518 also contains any expense for fossil fuel wkieh has already been included in the cost of
fossil fuel, it shall be deducted from this account. All references to the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for
Public Utilities and Licensees shall be to such Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees as ~s m
effect as of December 1, 1975.
Issued: February 2$, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
- - ExNN~ C
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
First Revision of
Sheet No. 18-1
VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 16
SCHEDULE O.L
(Outdoor Lighting)
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for outdoor lighting .to individual customers loca~d outside ares~ covered by municipal
MONTHLY RATE
A. Overhead Lighting Service
For eah of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-ek~:lric relay con_U'ol equipment, luminalr~ and
upsw~p arm not over 6 f~et in length, and shall mount same on an existing wood distributign pole or on a new wood
distribution pole W be installed by the Company which can be coonect~d to existing secondary facilities by one span of
not over 150 ~
~ate Per Month
Approx, Base Levelized Tariff'
Waita~e Lumens ~ Rate Fuel Code
$ .$
100 9,500 High Pressure Sodium 8.00 plus .60 094
200 22,000 High Pressure Sodium 9.36 plus 1.25 097
400 50,000 High Pressure Sodium 10.65 plus 1.98 098
175 7,000 Mercury Vapor - 6.58 plus 1.07 ' 093
250* 11,000' Mercury Vapor 8.59 · plus 1.49 096
400 21,000 M e,-r, ury Vapor 10.13 ' plus 2.34 095
400 32,000 Metal Halide 8.45 plus 1.98 102
Bo
Effective August 28, 1990. the 250 walt l 1.000 lumen mcreury vapor lamp will no longer be available for new
installations orfor ~pair or replacement of existing units.
When new faniliti~,in addition to ~hose specified'above are ~o be installed by the Company, the customer will, in additio=
to the above monthly charge, pay in advance the installation cost of such additional facilities.
Post-Top Lighting Service
For each of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-cleric relay c. onlrol, post-top luminalm, post a~/
installation (:he ~pe and height of which will be consistenl with the Company's constm~on standards), including
underground wiring for a distance of 30 fee~ from the Company's existing secondary facilities.
Approx. Base Levelized Tariff
War. ge Lumens ~..Yff,.ilfJ.agllt~ Rate Fuel Code
$
175 7.000 Mercury Vapor 7.80 plus 1.07 099
70 5,800 High Pressure. Sodium I 1.62 .plus .42 106
100 9,500 High Pressure Sodium I 1.62 plus .60 111
250 27,000 High Pressure Sodium 10.72 plus 1.24 103
400 50,000 High Pr~sur~ Sodium I 1.61 plus 1.98 ] 04
400 32,000 Metal Halide 11.6t plus 1.98 105
Issued: Februry 3, 1997
Pursuant to Bench Order, January 30, 1997
Ca.~ No. PUE96036~
Effective: February I, 1997
Sheet No. Ig-2
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 16
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighting)
(continued)
MONTHLY RATE cont.
When the customer's service recluires an underground circuit longer than 30 f~et from existing secondary facilities for
post-top lighting service, the customer will pay to the Company, in advance, a charge of $0.90 per foot for the length
ofund~rgrunnd circuit in excess of 30 leo
The customer will, where applicable, be subject m the following conditions in addition to paying the monthly charges
set forth above:
1. Customers r~luiring service where rock or other adverse soil conditions are encountered will b~ furnished service
provided the excess cost of trenching and backfilling (cost in excess of~0.90 per foot of the total trench length) is paid
to the Company by the Customer.
2. In tho event tho customer ~cluires ~ an underground circuit bo located ban~tth a driveway or other pavemanr,
the Company may re~tuire the customer to install protective conduit in the paved areas.
PAYMENT
For all Residential custome~ with outdoor lights, bills are duo.pon presentation and payable at the main or branch offices.
or authorized collection agencies, ofthe Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date. A charge of 1 1/2% per
month will be applied to any account balances, excluding local consumer utility taxes, not received by the Company by the next
bill preparation date.
For all other customers with outdoor lights, bills ~e du~ upon presentalion. Any amount due and not received at the main '
or branch offices, or authorized collection agencies of the Company within l'wenty (20) days of the bill preparation date shall
be subject to al delayed payment charge o£1 ½%. This charge shall not bo applicable to local consumer utility taxes.
HOURS OF LIGHTING
All lamps shall bum from one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise, every night and all nigh~, burning
approximately 4,000 hours per annum.
OWNEP~HIP OF FACILITIES
All facilities ne~sary for service, including fixtures, controls, poles, transformers, secondaries, lamps and other
appurtenances, shall be owned and maintained by tho Company; Al1 service and nece~s~y maintenance will be performed only
during the regular scheduled working hours ofit~ Company. The Company shall be allowed 48 hours after notification by thc
customer to replace all bumnd-oot lamps.
· TERM OF CONTRACT
Conlreats shall be for an initial period not tess than one (I) year and shall remain in effect until either party gives the other
60 days vairten notice of their intention to terminate the service.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
Issued: June 13,1996
Pursuant to Final Order
Rate Case No. PUE940063, May 24,1996
Effeative: November 15, 1994
APP~LACHIA~ POWER COMPANY
VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 1~
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighliag)
(continued)
Sheet No. 18-3
ii
Issued: June 13, 1996
Purxuant to Final Order
Rate Case No. PUE940063, May 24, !996
Effective: November IS, 1994
EXHIBIT D
ADDENDUM TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SETTLEMENT RATES FOR REFUND PURPOSES
On February 25, 1997, Appalachian and the negotiating team for the Virgir/ia Municipal
League and Virginia Association of Counties reached an agreement in their contract negotiation.
This settlement included a $3_,000,000 annual reduction to rates and a refund back to the effective
date of July 1, 1996.
The $3,000,000 reduction was derived from an overall reduction to every customer plus
an additional decrease to customers electing to move to the optional demand, energy, and
customer rate. For the purposes of the refund, no customers were moved to the demand, energy,
customer rates. To ensure that the customers are adequately refunded, the refunds will be based
on the following rotes:
MONTttLY RATE (Tariff Codas 804, 805, 806)
STO: ;IR' H RGE_
per service connection
SCHOOLS (804)
per KWH consumed
~ (805)
per KWH consumed
WATER PUMPr~G~ SEWAGE PUMPING, AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (806)
per KWH consumed
Effective 7/1/96 to the
effective date of rate chan~e
$7.43
4~578¢
4.291g
3.797~
These rates are only for the purposes of the refund and will not remain in effect under any
condition after the refund is complete.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
Power Agreement Authorization
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Pumhase of Power Agreement with Appalachian Power
Company Including Settlement Rates
STAFF CONTACT{S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION: ×
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
./
DISCUSSION:
This agreement for the purchase of electricity from Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)
contains the negotiated new rates for Albemarle County. The agreement covers a thirty-six month period beginning
July 1, 1996 and includes the terms of the negotiated set'dement refund rate agreed upon by our negotiating
committee of Virginia Municipal League (VML) and Virginia Association of Counties (VACO). A full copy of the
agreement is available in the Board office should you wish to review it.
Attached, please tind the explanatory cover lettsr submitted by Appalachian Power Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation is for the responsible authority (County Executive) to sign the pumhase agreement. It is also
suggested the Board authorize the County Executive to execute such agreements administratively in the future.
97.1'14
Appaa~anPowerCempaay
PO Box 1000
Lynchburg, VA 24505-1000
804 522 4200
June 2, 1997
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
U, ACHIAN
ER
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Enclosed are two copies of the "Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from
Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)" containing the new
rates and terms agreed upon by your negotiating committe~ and American Electric
Power. The agreement covers a thirty-six month period begiuning July 1, 1996.
Please :have: the respo!~s.~b!e ~au~o, fi~ s~g~ botk .c~p~es :0~7_this~agreemen~-.on-pag~9
and r~e~:bo~th ~:o~s~tg~my attention, for processing. Your.~!e.eopy.~lt be:returned
to you after acSeP~e byour company.
The new ~ates were impleme, gte&~ February 2-8~ 199g. ,: The refund period runs from
July 1, 1996 through the revenue month of February 1997. The Public Authority
Settlement Rates for refund purposes are indicated in Exhibit D of the agreement.
Refunds were posted to all accounts in April and appeared as a credit on customer's
bills starting in May.
Newly incorporated into the rate structure are provisions for optional demand rates for
accounts with a normal maximum demand greater than 100 kw and optional ice
storage rates for those accounts with AEP approved energy storage equipment. A
review of the accounts that axe eligible for the optional demand rate will be conducted
semi-annually.
If you have any questions about the new agreement, please contact me at
1-800-927-Ii13 or 804-522-4837. Your prompt attention to returning the signed
agreements is appreciated.
Sincerely,
ennis Hill, P.E.
Major Account Executive
Enclosures
David P. l~werman
Charlotte Y. Humphr~s
Forrest R. Marshall. Or.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesvi}le, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804,972-4060
July 11, 1997
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Mr. J. Dennis Hill
Major Account Executive
Appalachian Power Company
PO Box 1000
Lynchburg, VA 24505-1000
Dear Mr. Hill:
At its meeting on July 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County
Executive to execute the "Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian
Power Company (dba American Electric Power)". Enclosed please find both copies of
the signed agreement which are being forwarded to Appalachian Power for the
appropriate signature. Please return one copy to this office after the Agreement has
been signed by Appalachian Power.
Sincerely,
Ella W. ~arey, CM~; Cler~/
/
/ewc
Attachments (2)
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Richard E. Huff, II
PHnted on recycled paper
VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba American Electric Power)
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this day of ~ 19 , by
and between APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (dba American Electric Power),
hereinafter called "Company," and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, hereinafter
called "Customer."
:'--I 'NE :ET-
For and in consideration of the mutual convenants and agreements hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree with each other as follows:
FIRST:
The Company agrees to furnish to the Customer, and the Customer agrees to
rake from the Company, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, all the electric energy of the character specified herein that shall
be purchased by the Customer on the premises at installations shown on
"Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
SECOND:
The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of th/rty-six (36)
months beginning July 1, 1996. Uniess terminated as hereinafter provided,
this Agreemem shall continue in effect thereafter for successive periods of
one year at rates to be mutually agreed upon by the Company and the
Customer.
Either party shall give the other not less than 90 days' notice in writing of its
election to terminate this Agreement at the expiration of any period. Any
such notice given by the Customer to the Company shall be properly
delivered if mailed by first class mail to, or received by, the Director,
Regulatory Affairs, VA, American Electric Power, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke
Virginia 24022, Further, any such notice may be given by the Customer or
on the Customer's behalf by the Executive Director of the Virginia Municipal
League or the Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Counties.
THIRD:
The electric energy delivered hereunder shall be altemating current and it
shall be delivered at the voltage and other electrical characteristics as set forth
on "Exhibit A," which shall constitute the points of delivery under this
Agreement. The said electric energy shall be delivered at reasonably close
maintenance to constant potential and frequency, and it shall be measured by
a meter or meters owned and installed by the Company and located as set
forth on "Exhibit A."
FOURTH:
Normally, the Company will provide one service from its distribution system
and all of the electricity supplied to an installation will be measured by one
meter, but Company may, at its option, provide as many services and meters
as it may deem practicable.
When such multiple services and meters are so used. separate bills will be
rendered for each metered installation. The electricity will be delivered to
such point as may be designated by the Company on the premises occupied
by the Customer and shall be used only by the Customer and upon the
premises occupied by the Customer.
For the purpose of this Agreement, au "installation" means a delivery point,
building, pan ora building, or group of buildings toeated in such close
proximity to each other as to constitute one operating un/t occupied by the
Customer. Those installations to be served by the Company as of the
effective date of this Agreement are set forth on attached "Exhibit A."
The Company will supply the electricity required by the Customer at such
additional installations beyond those being served by the Company as of the
effective date of this Agreement as may, from time to time, be requested in
writing by an authorized representative of the Customer. All services
furnished to such additional installations shall be governed by the terms of
this Agreement as if such additional installations were being served as of the
effective date of this Agreement. Service will be supplied at a single voltage
considered by the Company to be standard for the area in which electricity is
requested and will be a~ailable for general service to municipal corporations
and state governmental entities and their agencies, excluding Public Housing
Authorities and the commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in
~§56-232 and 234 of/he Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of/he
Supreme Court of Virginia.
FIFTH: Extension of Service - Overhead
The Company will make extensions or expansions of its overhead
facilities in accordance with/he following provisions:
The Company will supply and meter service at one delivery point
through overhead facilities of a kind and type of transmission or distribution
line or substation equipment normally used by the Company. Whenever a
customer requests the Company to supply electricity m a manner which
requires equipment or facilities other than that which the Company would
normally provide, the customer will pay.the Company a Contribution in Aid-
of-Construction equal to the additional cost of all such special equipment or
facilities. This contribution will be in addition to any Contribution in Aid-of-
Construction or other obligation of the customer required under the remaining
provisions of this section.
The Company will, for single phase service for new loads up tO and
including 25 KW estimated demand, extend service not more than 150 feet
from existing secondary facilities of 300 volts or less having adequate
capacity, at no charge to the customer. Extensions of facilities for service
which do not meet each of the above criteria will be provided pursuant to the
remaining provisions of this section.
For service delivered to estimated new loads above 25 KW or for
extensions for loads 25 KW or less not meeting all of the criteria covered in
the previous paragraph, the Company may require a Contribution in Aid-of-
Construction prior to the extension or expansion of its facilities based upon
an analysis of the economic justification of making such extensions or
expansions. Economic justification will be based upon a comparison of the
annual cost to the Company and the increase in annual base rate non-fuel
revenue. Annual cost to the Company equals the additional investment in
local facilities to serve the new load times the Company's annual carrying
charge rate of 27.25%; and the increase in annual base rate revenue equals the
annual revenue from the estimated increase in the customer's power
consumption, exclusive of the fuel component of rates. If the estimated
increase in annual base rate revenue is less than the annual cost to the
Company of the extended or expanded facilities, the customer will be
required to pay the Company a Contribution in Aid-of-Construction equal to
the annual cost to the Company less the increase in annual base rate revenue
from the extension, divided by the Company's annual carrying charge rate. If
the increase in annual base rate revenue is equal to or greater than the 'annual
cost to the Company, the extension or expansion of facilities will be provided
at no charge to the customer.
If the Company has reason to question the financial stability of the
customer requesting an extension or expansion of service or the duration of
the customer's electric service requirements, or if the customer's service
requirements are seasonal or temporary, or if the customer requires special
facilities to meet the customer's service reqmrements, the Company may, at
its option, in addition to imposing a Contribution in Aid-of-Construction as
determined under the provisions of this section, (a) require the customer to
execute the Advance and Refund Line Extension Agreement Co) require a
long-term contract; and/or (c) require a special minimum charge or definite
and written guarantee from the customer in addition to any minimum
payment required by this Agreement.
If, at any time, the financial condition of the Company is such that it
cannot issue debt securities necessary t.o pay for the construction of new
facilities, the Company may require from the customer a Contribution in Aid-
of-Construction and/or execution by the customer of the Advance and Refund
Line Extension Agreement to cover the total cost of tapping existing
transmission or distribution lines and increasing existing station capacity and
new facilities required to serve new or increased loads. The Company shall
advise the State Corporation Commission when this condition exists.
3
SEVENTH:
EIGHTH:
Extension of Service - Underground
Underground service and facilities will be provided by the Company upon
payment to the Company of an amount equal to the sum of (1) the difference
between the estimated cost of the underground facilities and the estimated
cost of overhead facilities that otherwise would have been required, and (2)
the amount as determined by the FIFTH Section above using the cost of
equivalent overhead facilities. Should the estimated cost of underground
facilities be less than the estimated cost ofoverhead.facilities that would
otherwise be required, then the terms of this Agreement relating to overhead
extension of service will apply.
Extension of Service - Temporary_
The Company wilt supply electricity, within areas normally served by the
Company, to loads of a temporary nature upon payment by the Customer of a
temporary service charge equal to the nonrecoverable estimated cost of
temporary facilities required to serve the Customer plus the cost of removing
the facilities.
(1)
The rotes at which the Company shall furnish the electricity herein
provided shall be set forth in "Exhibit B" entitled "Public Authority
TariffNo~'~, Schedule P.A.," attached hereto and made a part hereof.
All customers electing to take service under the "Optional Rate" section
of the Tariff shall establish a contract capacity for each account. The
contract capacity should equal the normal maximum demand
experienced by the customer for that account.
(2)
Outdoor lighting service will be furnished in accordance with Schedule
O.L. as contained in the then current tariff on file with the State
Corporation Commission ofVirginia~ A copy of present Schedule O.L.
is attached as "Exhibit C."
(1) Pt[vment
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the main or branch
offices of the Company. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of 1-
1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by
the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills
promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended
accordingly. The Customer may designate its billing address.
4
(2)
Insoection
It is in the interest of the Customer m properly install and maintain his
wiring and electrical equipment, and he shall at all times be responsible
for the character and condition thereof. The Company makes no
inspection thereof and in no event shall be responsible therefor.
The Company may require the delivery by the Customer to the
Company of an agreement duly signed by the Customer authorizing the
connection to the wiring system of the Customer and assuming
responsibility therefor. No responsibility shall attach to the Company
because of any waiver of this requirement.
(3) Service Connections
The Company will, when requested to furnish service, designate the
location of the service connection. The Customer's wiring must, foran
overhead secondary service, be brought outside the build'rog walt
nearest the Company's service wires so as to be readily accessible
thereto. In this case, the Customer's wiring must extend at least 18
inches beyond the building. In all other cases, the Company and the
Customer will mutually designate a point of delivery best suited to the
Customer's and Company's facilities.
When a Customer'desires that energy be delivered at a point or in a
manner other than that designated by the Company, the Customer shall
pay the additional cost of same.
(4) Relocation of Company's Facilities at Customer's Request
Whenever at Customer's request, Companfs facilities located on
Customer's prermses are relocated to suit the convenience of Customer,
the Customer shall reimburse the Company for the entire cost incurred
in making such change.
(5) Company's Liability_
The Company will use reasonable diligence in furnishing a regular and
uninterrupted supply of energy, but does not guarantee uninterrupted
service. The Company shall not be liable for damages for injury to
person or property in case such supply should be interrupted or fall by
reason of an act of God, the public enemy, accidents, labor'disputes,
orders or acts of civil or milita~ authority, breakdowns or injury to the
-machinery, transmission lines, distribution lines, or other facilities of
5
the Company, extraordinary repairs, or any other occurrence beyond the
Company's control, or any act of the Company to interrupt service to
any customer whenever in the jud~muent of the Company such
interruption is necessary to prevent or limit any instability or
disturbance on the electric system of the Company or any electric
system interconnected with the Company.
Unless otherwise provided in a contract between Company and
Customer, the point at which service is delivered by Company to
Customer, to be known as "delivery point," shall be the point at which
the Customer's facilities are connected to the Company's facilities. The
Company shall not be liable for any loss, injury, or damage resulting
from the Customer's use of his equipment or his use of the energy
furnished by the Company beyond the delivery point.
The Customer shall provide and maintain suitable protective devices on
his equipment to prevent any loss, injury or damage that might result
from single ph~ing conditions or any other fluctuation or irregularity
in the supply of~nergy. The Company shall not be liable for any loss,
inju~ or damage resulting from a imgle phase condition or any other
fluctuation or irregularity in the supply of energy which could have
been prevented by the use of such protective devices.
The Company will provide and maintain the necessary line or service
connections, transformers, meters and other apparatus which may be
required for the proper measurement of and protection of its service.
All such apparatus shall be and remain the property of the Company.
(6) Customer's Liability
In the event of loss or injury to the property of the Company through
misuse by, or the negligence of, the Customer, or the employees of the
same, the cost of the necessary repairs or replacement thereof shall be
paid to the Company by the Customer.
The Customer will be responsible for tampering with, interfering with,
or breaking of seals of meters, or other equipment of the Company
installed on the Customer's premises. The Customer hereby agrees that
no one except the employees of the Company shall be allowed to make
- any internal or external adjustments of any meter or any other piece of
apparatus which shall be the property of the Company.
The Company shall have the right at all reasonable hours to enter the
premises of the Customer for the purpose of installing, reading, remov-
6
ing, testing, replacing or otherwise disposing of its apparatus and
property, and the right of entire removal of the Company's property in
the event of the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
(7) Location and Maintenance of Company's Eampmem
The Company shall have the tight to construct its poles, lines and
circuits on the property and to place its transformers and other
apparatus on the property or within the buildings of the Customer. at a
point or points convenient for such purpose, as required to serve such
Customer, and the Customer shall provide suitable space for the
installation of necessary measuring insmmaents so that the latter may be
protected fxom inju~ by the elements or through the inadvertent acts of
the Customer or of any employee of the same.
(8) Use of Energy by Customer
The service connections, transformers, meters and appliances supplied
by the Company for each Customer have a definite capacity and no
additions to the equipment, or load connected thereto, will be allowed
except by consent of the Company.
The Customer shall-install only motors, apparatus or appliances which
are suitable for operation with the character of the service supplied by
the Company, which shall not be detrimental to same, and the electric
power must not Be used in such a manner as to cause unprovided for
voltage fluctuations or disturbances in the Company's transmission or
distribution system. The Company shall be the sole judge as to the
suitability of apparatus or appliances, and also as to whether the
operation of such apparatus or appliances is or will be detrimental to its
general service.
No attachment of any kind whatsoever may be made to the Company's
Fmcs, poles, cross arms, sumcmres or other facilities without the express
written consent oftbe Company.
Ail apparatus used by the Customer shall be of such type as to secure
the highest practicable commercial efficiency, power factor and the
proper balancing of phases. Motors which are fz~quently started or
motors arranged for automatic control must be of a type to give
maximum starting torque with min/mum current flow, and must be ora
type and equipped with controlling devices approved by the Company.
The Customer agrees to give reasonable notification to the Company of
proposed increases or decreases in his connect~l load to prevent
operating problems with the Company's facilities.
The Company will not supply service to Customers who have other
sources of electric energy supply except with the special consent of the
Company.
The Customer shall not be permitted to operate b_is own generating
equipment in parallel with the Company's service except with the
written permission of the Company.
Resale of energy will not be permitted.
TENTH: This Agreement is made upon the following conditions:
(1)
That in no event shall any officer or agent of the Customer executing or
authori~ng the execution of this Agreement be held personally liable
on account of such authorization or execution.
(2)
This Agreement shall be binding upon the Company only when
accepted by it and approved by its proper official, and shall not be
modified by any promise, agreement, or representation of any agent or
employee o?the Company unless incorporated in writing in this
Agreement before such acceptance.
(3)
The obligations of the Company and the Customer for service under
this Agreement axe subject m appropriations by Customers' governing
body to pay for such service.
(4) The following sheets, as amended or revised from time to time, are
attached hereto and made a part hereof:
Exhibit A - Present Listing of Accounts
Exhibit B - Schedule P~A.
Exhibit C - Present Schedule O.L.
Exhibit D - Refund Rates
(5)
In the first and third quarter of each calendar year, the Company will
perform an analysis based on the previous twelve months of the effects
of the optional demand charge rotes for each Customer. The results of
this analysis will be provided to all customers who appear to benefit
from a change in rates. Any change in rams selected must be initiated
by the Customer.
8
ELEVENTH:
TWELFTH:
There are no unwritten understandings or agreements relating to the
service hereinabove provided.
This Agreement cancels and supersedes all previous agreements
relating to the purchase by the Customer and sale by the Company of
electric energy at the Customer's premises as referred to above.
CUSTOMER:
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
A1/~f/,fe//,~.~County Board of.Supervisors
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
(dba American Electric Power)
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
9
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
May 30, 1997
Account Number
281111938100
281113932840
281113933670
Service Location and Address
Totier Creek Park
St. Rt. 845, Scottsvilie
Scottsville Recreation Center
Page St., Sco~tsville
Exhibit A
Page 1 of I
Delivery
Jefferson/Madison L~rary
Bird St., Scottsville
Voltage
and Phase Delivery Point and Meter Location
281116940820 Main S~e~
Sco~sville
120/240 v
l phase
Private meter pole in park adjacem to
lake
281119916630
208/I20 v
3 phase
Meter on north wall of gym'building
(padS16-350)
281119916890
208/120 v
3 phase
North ex~rior wall ofbuilding (u/g
816-76)
2 dusk-to-dawn lights
Walnut Creek Park - Concession
North Garden
Walnut Creek Park - Info
North Garden
120/240 v
1 phase
120/240 v
1 phase
Private meter pedestal adjacent to
pavilion
Exterior wall of information building
281120910870 Communications Tower I20/240 v East exterior wall of building
Fen Mtn. Rd., Covesville 1 phase
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
APPALACtHAN POWER COMP~IY
RATE SCI~F~DULE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
GOVERNING
SALE OF ELECTRICITY
TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
ISSUED: FEBRUARY 25, 1997 EFFECTIVE: JULY I, 1996
A~PALACi-IIAN P~)WER COMPANY EXmBIT B
Page I of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing
Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Vi~inia
and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
MONTHLY RATE (TariffCodes 804. 805, and 806)
CUSTOMER CHARGE
SCHOOLS (804)
per KWH consumed
ALL OTHER (805)
per KWH consumed
WATER PUMPING. SEWAGE PUMPING~ AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (806)
per KWH consumed
Effective
7/1/96 - 6/30/99
$8.27
4.797¢
4.477¢
3.913¢
OPTIONAL RATE (TafiffCodas 809, 812, and 8t3)
Available to any Public Authority customer with normal maximum electric demands of 100 KW or more. A contract
capacity will be established which is equal to the customers estimated normal maximum electrical capacity requirements.
SCHOOLS (809) $20.00
Customer Charge
Demand Charge $4.75
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 3.000¢
All KWh Metered KVfrI
ALL OTHER (812) $20.00
Customer Charge
Demand Charge $7.50
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 2.000¢
All KWH Metered KWH
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 2 of 4
PUBEIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
WATER PUMPING, SEWAGE PUMPING AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (813)
Customer Charge $20.00
Demand Charge $7.00
All KW of Billing Demand
Energy Charge 2.000~
All KWH Metered KWH
Reactive Demand Charge 29¢
All KVAR of Lagging Reactive
Demand
OPTIONAL ICE STORAGE RATE (TariffCode )
Availafile to any Public Authority customer who installs Company approved energy storage equipment.
Customer Charge $10.80
Energy Charge
All metered kWh during on-peak billing peri&l
All meteered kWh during off-peak billing period
5.584~ per kWh
2.745~ per kWh
For the purpose of this contract, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time~ for all weekdays,
Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. for all weekdays and all hours of
Saturday and Sunday and the following legally observed holidays:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration ora 15-minute demand meter or
indicator.
Monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be lass than 60% of the customer's established contract
capacity.
For those accounts who are designated to have a Reactive Demand Charge, the reactive demand in KVAR shall be
taken each month as the highest single 15-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month by a KVAR meter or
indicator.
Billing demands shall be mundod to the nearest whole KV and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the sum of the customer charge, demand charge,
energy charge, fuel adjustment clause and reactive demand charge of the monthly rate.
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
APPALAC~IIAN POWER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 3 of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY
Energy supplied hereunder will be delivered through not more than one single phase and/or one polyphase meter for
each service conneetion.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
Bills computed according to*.he rates set forth herein will be increased or decreased by a Fuel Adjustment Factor per
KWH calculated in compliance with the Fuel Adjustment Clause an, achad hereto.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at tho main or branch offices of the Company. On all accounts not so
paid, a charge of 1-1/2% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next
bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly aiter the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly.
The Customer may designate its billing address.
SPECIAL TERMS
This schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electro service entered into
between the Company and each city, county and town governmental authority.
FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE
When the estimated unit cost of fuel (Fro/Sm} used to meet Appalachian Power Company's Net Energy Reqmremem
less losses (Sm) is above or below the base unit cost 9f 12.8000 mills per kilowatthour (Fb/Sb), an additional charge
or credit equal to the product of the actual kilowatthoers used and a fuel clause adjusauent factor (A) shall be made;
where (A), calculated te the nearest 0.0001 mill per kilowatthour, is as defined below:
Adjustment Factor (A) = Fm - Fb'
Sm Sb
Any difference between the estimated cost of fuel used to meet Appalachian Power Company's Net Energy
Requirement and the actual cost of such fuel will be reflected in the calculation of the Fuel Adjustment Factor in the
second succeeding month.
In the above formula (F) is the expense of fossit and nuclear fuel in the base Co) and current Ira) periods; and (S) is the
KWH sales in the base and current periods, all as defined below:
Fuel Costs (F] shall be the cost of.'
(a) fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in Appalachiun Power Company's plants, and Appalachian Po~ver Company's
share ~f fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in jointly owned or leased plants;
(b) the actual identifiable fossil and nuclear fuel costs associated with energy purchased for reasons other than
idantified in Co) below;
(c)
the net energy cost of energy purchases, exclusive of capacity or demand charges (irrespective of the
designation assigned to such transaction) when such energy is purchased on an economic dispalch basis
(included therein ~all I~ such costs as the charges for economy energy purchases and the charges ~ a result of
scheduled outage, all such kinds of energy being purchased by Appalachian Power Company to slthstitute for its
own higher cost energy), and less;
(d) the cost of fossil and nuclear fuel recovered through inter-system sales including the fuel costs related to
economy energy sales and other energy sold on an economic dispatch basis.
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
APPALACHIAN P~)WER COMPANY EXHIBIT B
Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SCHEDULE P.A.
Sales (S) shall be equated to the sum of(a) generation, (b) purchases, (c) interchange-in, less (d) energy associated
with pumped storage operations, less (o) inter-system sales referred to in (d) above, less (f~ to~al system losses.
Sales (S) shall be modified to reflect losses of 10.51% associated with Appalachian Power Company's deliveries m
customers served under this schedule.
The adjustment factor developed according to the preceding paragraphs may be further modified to allow the recovery.
of gross receipts or other similar revenue based tax charges~occasioned by It~e fuel adjustment revenues.
The cost of fossil fuel shall include no items other than those listed in Account 151 of the Commission's Uniform
System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees. The cost of nuclear fuel shall be that as shown in Account 518.
except that if Account 518 also contains any expense for fossil fuel which has already been included in the cost of
fossil fuel, it shall be deducted from this account All references to the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts for
Public'Utilitias end Licensees shall be to such Uniform System of Accounts for Public Utilities and Licensees as is in
effect as of December 1, 1975.
Issued: February 25, 1997 Effective: July 1, 1996
APPALACFIIAN POWER COMPANY
First Revision of
Sheet No. 1~-1
VA. S.C.C, TARIFF NO. 16
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighting)
AVA ~r.~BILITY OF SERVICE
Available for outdoor lighting? individual custom~'s locagd outside argus covered by municipal street lighting sysmms.
MONTHLY RATE
A. Overhead Lighting Service
For e.a~h of the following, the Company will pwvidu lamp, photo-electric relay ~omrol equipment, ltaninalr~ and
upsweep arm not over 6 feet in lungth, and shall mount same on an existing wood dis~ibutign pole or on a new wood
distn'bufion pole to Ig installed by the Company which ~an be connected to existing secondary facilities by one span of
not over 150 fe~t.
Approx.
100 9,500
200 22,000
400 50,000
High Pressure Sodium
High Pressure Sodium
High Pressure Sodium
175 7,000 Mercury Vapor
250* 11,000' Mercury Vapor
400 21,000 Mercu~ Vapor
Ba~e " L~velized Tariff
Rate Fuel Code
g.00 pins .60 094
9.36 pins 1~.5 097
10.65 plus 1.98 098
- 6.58 plus 1.07 - 093
8.59 pins 1.49 096
10.13 - plus 2.34 09.5
400 32,000 Metal Halide 8.45 pins 1.98 102
* EffuSive August 2g, 1990, the .250 watt 11,000 lumen m~rcury vapor lamp will no longer be available for new
installafioan or for r~pair or mpla~'mant of~xisfing units.
Whan n~w facilities .in addition to those sp~ified'above are to be installed by the Company, thc customer will. in additiou
to the above monfld¥ charge, pay in advance the iastaltation cost of such additional facilities.
Post-Top Lighting $~rvice
For each ofthu following, tim Company will provide lamp, photo~le~'tri¢ rday control, post. top luminaim, post und
installation (the tylm and height of which will be consistent with the Company's consU~-fion sUmdards), including
underground wiring for a distane~ of 30 fent from the Company's existing secondary facilities.
Rate P~ Month
Approx. Base Levalizad Tariff
Watta~ Lumens ~ Rate- Fuel Code
$ $
175 7,000 Merma'y VapOr 7.80 pins 1.07 099
70 ~,800 High Pressure. Sodium I 1.62 -pins .42 106
100 9,500 High Pressure Sodium 11.62 plus .60 111
250 27,000 High Pressure Sodium 10.72- pins 1.24 103
400 50,000 High Pressur~ Sodium I 1.61 plus 1.98 104
400 32,000 Metal Halide I 1.61 plus 1.98 105
Issued: February 3, 1997
Pnrsulmt to Bench Order, January 30, 19~7
Case No. PUE960365
Effective: February I, 1997
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 16
Sheet No. 18-2
SCHEDULE
(Outdoor Lighting)
(continued)
MONTHLY RATE conL
When ',he customer's service requires an underground circuit longer than 30 f~ from existing secondary facilities for
post-top lighting ~rvico, the cnstom~r will pay to the Company, in advance, a charge of $0.90 per foot for the langth
of underground circuit in excess of 30 f~t.
'i'ne costomer will, where applicable, be subjec~ to the following conditions in edditi~n to paying the monthly charges
sat forth above:
1. Cu~omerS requiring sendce where rock or otber adverse soil conditions are encountered wilt be furnished service
provided the excess cost of~renching and backfilling (cnst in excess of $0.90 per foot of the tolal lxench length) is paid
to the Company by the Customer.
2. In the event the customer requires ~ an underground circuit be lc~?d b~neath a driveway or other pavement,
the Company may require the customer to install protective conduit in the paved areas.
PAYMENT
For all Residential custome~ wi~ outdoor light, bills am due upon ~on and payable at the main or branch offices,
or authorized collechon agencies, oftbe Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date. A charge of I 1/2% per
month will be applied to any account balances, ~xcluding local consumer utility taxes, not received by the Company by the next
bill preparation date.
For ali other cu~me~ wi~ outdoor llgh~ bills am du~ upon pr~,i,~inn. Any amount due and not r~eived at the main '
or branch offices, or an~orizad collection agencies of the Company within tw~'y (20) days of the bill preparation date shall
be subject to al delayed payment charge of 1 ½%. This.charge shall not be applicable to local consumer utility rexes.
HOURS OF LIGHTING
All lamps shall bum from une-halfhour ai~ sunsat until une-halfhour before sunrise, every night and all night, burning
approximately 4,000 hours per annum.
OV¢7~ERSHIP OF FACILITIES
All facilities necessary for service, including fixtures, anmrols, poles, ~msformers, secondaries, lamps and other
appurtenances, shall be owned and maintained by the Company' All service and necessary maimanunce will be performed only
during the regular scheduled working hours of thc Company. The Company shall be allowed 48 hours after notification by the
customer to replace all burned-out lamps.
TERM OF CONTRACT
Contran~ shall be for an initial period not less than one [I) year and shall remain in effect until either paw/gives thc other
60 days written notice of their int~otiun to terminate the service.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Condllions of Sendce,
Issued: June 13,1996
Pursutn$ to l~mal Order
Rate Case No. PUE940063, M~y 24,1996
Effective: November 15, 1994
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPA. NY
VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 16
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighiiag)
(continued)
Sh~tNo. l~3
Issued: June 13, 1996
PurSUmlt to F'mzl Order
Rate C~se No. PUE940063, Muy 24, [996
Effective: November 15, 1994
EXHIBIT D
ADDENDUM TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 7
SETTLEMENT RATES FOR REFUND PURPOSES
On February 25, 1997, Appalachian and the negotiating team for the Virginia Municipal
League and Virgin/a Association of Counties reached an agreement in their contract negotiation.
This settlement included a $3,000,000 annual reduction to rates and a refund back to the effective
date of July 1, 1996.
The $3,000,000 reduction was derived f~om an overall reduction to every customer plus
an additional decrease to customers electing to move to the optional demand, energy, and
customer rate. For the purposes of the refund, no customers were moved to the demand, energy,
customer rotes. To ensure that the customers are adequately refunded, the refunds will be based
on the following rates:
MONTHLY RATE (TariffCodes 804, 1105, 806)
SCHOOLS (804)
pdt KWH consumed
ALLOTHE~(805)
per KWH consumed
WATER PUMPING. SEWAGE PUMPING. AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE (806)
per KWH consumed
Effective T/I/96tothe
effective date ofmte chan~e
$7.43
4.578¢
4.291¢
3.797¢
These rotes are only for the purposes of the refund and will not remain in effect under any
condition after the refund is complete.
DATE
AGENDA I'~'~M NO.
AGENDA I'£~m~ NAME
DEFEP~ UNTIL
~orm. 3
7/2.5/86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARk 'o? SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Consent Agenda: Request to Advertise for Public
Headng for Approval of Gas Line Easement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to advertise for a public headng for approval of
Deed of Easement for proposed natural gas lines to be
installed in the new roadway accessing Monticello High
School.
STAFF CONTACTi'S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Davis, Trank
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Section 15.1-262 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing prior to conveying any interest in
County-owned property, including easements. The City of ChatiottesviIle's Gas Division has requested an easement
~'~ for the proposed natural gas lines to be installed in the new connector road accessing Monticello High School. The
Engineenng and Public Works Department has reviewed the Deed of Easement.provided by the City and has
approved the location of-the gas lines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a public heating be set to consider grenting the requested easement to the City Gas Division.
97.123
DEED OF EASEMENT
TI:lIS DEED OF EASEMENT~ made and entered into on this __ day of
, 1997, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILI,E, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby GRANT and CONVEY
with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the GRANTEE, subject to the reservations hereinafter set forth,
the permanent easement of fight of way to construct, maintain, operate, alter, repmr, inspect,
protect, remove, and replace certain natural gas line improvements, upon and across the public
right-of-way between Route 20 and Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public fight-of-way running from
Route 20 to Route 742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the attached
plat of the City of Charlottesville Gas Division, dated April 2, 1997, and
identified as "A Fifteen-Foot Wide Easement for 4" PE and 2" PE Gas Lines".
The GRANTEE reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the aforementioned
rights until such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation has issued a permit to the
GRANTEE subject to the following two conditions which shall also be covenants running with
the land:
1. That the above-described improvements of the GRANTEE may continue to occupy
such street or highway in the exist'mg condition and location.
Prepared by Charlottesville City Attorney's Office
April 7. 1997
2. The GRANTEE shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the County of
Albemarle, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim, whatsoever arising from
GRANTEE'S exercise of rights or privileges stated heroin.
3. In the event GRANTOR shall hereafter require, for its purposes, that GRANTEE
alter, change, adjust, or relocate the above-mentioned improvements, across or under such street
or highway, the nonbetterment cost only of such alteration, change, adjustment, or relocation
will be the responsibility of the GRANTEE.
This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §§ 5'8.1-801
and 58.1-802, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(3).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed hereto and
its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after due authorization, on the
day and year first above written.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BY:
Title
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid City and State, by , on behalf of the County of
Albemarle. Virginia, on this day of , 1997.
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
2
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT. made this ~ad~ day of July, 1997. by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, Ithe "County"),
aud the STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC.. I the "Fire
Department" L
WHEREAS. the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire
protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on
the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency, Communications Center ("Service
Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute One
Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars I $175,000 ~ for the purchase of a tanker
truck: and
WHEREAS. the Fire Department desires to enter into an agreement
consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, for an~l in consideration of the above stated premises
the County and Fire Department agree, as follows:
1. The County previously had entered into a service agreement with the Fire
Department dated May 10, 1994. providing for the withholding of certain sums each
year by the County from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Deparunent.
as set forth in said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As a
result of said agreement, the outstanding indebtedness now totals One Hundred
Sixty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents
~$166,937.50L
2 The County shall contribute to the Fire Department One~ Hundred
Seventy-Five ThousandDollars fsi 75,000~ to be used for the purchase of a tanker
truck. These funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall
be delivered upon demand when needed after July 1, 1997.
3. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Forty-Two
Thousand Seven Htmdred Forty-Two Dollars ($42.742.001 from the County's annual
appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget for seven (7) years
beginning July i. 1998, and ending July I. 2004, with a final withholding of Forty-
Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Fifty Cents 1542,743.50)
from the County's July 1, 2005 annual appropriation to the Fire Department's
. operating budget and that such withholding may be used by the County to replenish
the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund This
withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior
service agreements with the Fire Department dated October I, 1986. May 1. 1989,
and May 10. 1994.
4 The Fire Department agrees that the One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand
Dollars { $175,000 ~ contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the tanker
truck. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the tanker truck
or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior
~vrirten consent.
5. The Fire Department agrees that at such time as it no longer provides
volunteer fire department services in Albemarle County while operating under the
jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehide
described in paragraph 2 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the
County's request.
6. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in thmr
prior agreements dated October 10. 1986. May 1. 1989. and May 10, 1994, to the
extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement. shall remain in full force and
effect.
2
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional
appropriations by the County to the Fire Department. at the discretion of the
County Board of Supervisors. to support, enhance, or augment the services to be
provided by the Fire Department.
Witness the following signatures and seals:
Date
Date
BY: c. Alan Norford,~ief
STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY. INC.
~'ounty ~ttom~y
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
The foregoing instrument was signed, sworn to and aclmowledged before me
this ~,¢d day of-J~u~. 1997. by Rob,,ert W. Tucke~ Jr.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: C~~ ~ -~,~, ~'~ 7
COMM. ON'WEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
this
The foregoing ~nstmxnent was signed, sworn to and aclmowledged before me
10th day of June, 1997, by c. Alan Norford
My Commission Expires: March 31, 2001
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 36-27-9'7A'~ o: o? ,~CVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Service Agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To authorize the County Executive to sign the service
agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc., advancing $175,000 to pumhase a new tanker
truck.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Y~~ I
REVIEWED BY: ,~/~ ~
/
BACKGROUND:
Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue
companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars, provides the volunteer companies a
means of acquiring needed a fire-fighting and rescue squad equipment and buildings, interest fee, with repayments
being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund ara monitored
and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA).
DISCUSSION:
The current amount available for loan in the revolving fund is $333,330.55. Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc.,has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $175,000 to be used for the purchase ora tanker truck. This
advance will be paid upon request after the execution of this agreement. Repayment of the loan will be over an
eight year pedod beginning in FY 98/99.
JCFRA has approved this request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the service agreement.
97.124
Proclatnation for Peter T. Way
Whereas, the Fourth of duly is a holiday to recognize and honor patriotism and service to
country on federal, state and local levels; and
Whereas, Peter T. Way has served the Albemarle County community faithfully and well
during a long and variedpolitical career encompassing service on the School Boabd, the Board of
.gupervisors and most recently as representative of the ........
Fifty-etghth Dtstr~ct to the Virgima House
of Delegates; and
Whereas, Mr. Way has also contributed to the well-being of our area through his.
involvement in many community organizations and boards and as a private citizen performing
valuable services for his fellow Albemarle County residents: and
Whereas, our community is a stronger, safer and more vital place to live and work thanks
to the many efforts of Mr. Way on its behalf;
NOW, THEREFORE, I Charlotte Z. Humphris, Chairman, on beha~ of the Albemarle.
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby express the Board's' gratitude and appreciation to
Peter T. Way
for his outstanding achievements and wish him well as he retires from the Virginia House of;
Delegates.
Chairman
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
~his is not pare of the
Boar~ packet, Thzs is for
your information only.
DAVID R. GEHR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.....~-~ n v,:! !'.-~ !t-'
COMMO~EALTH of VIRQINIA~i~2--,-;" ~
D~AR~E~ OF T~NSPORTA~ON
1~1 ~T BROAD S~ ~- - '
RICHMOND. ~19 ~ . ~-- - J.T. MI~
J~e 12, 1997
Route 29
Project 6029-002-F22,C-501
Albemarle County
Mr. Arthur D~ Petrini
Executive Director
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
P.O. Box 18
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-0018
Dear Mr. Petrini:
I am writing to update you on our progress on addressing
your concerns for possible impacts to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir as a result of the construction of the Route 29
ByPass Project.
Your letter of December 16,..1996 requested us to consider
several alternatives for providing additional water quality
protection for the reservoir. After an extensive study of this
matter we make the following proposals and comments concerning
specific areas along the project:
1. From Woodburn Road to Rivanna River
Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is
naturally directed to the east, away from the reservoir.
From Hydraulic Road to Woodburn Road
Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is
naturally directed to the reservoir through several small
streams. It is not feasible to direct this flow to a point
downstream of the reservoir.due to the large differential
in elevations of' the existing topography.
· . ~ .3.. ? ,-.' u,~,2.x-::Ci'Tt,- - , -.
....... - - * "'-~'~-_:r-~,,,= ,._..; :5-' " -
.~j~ ! 6 L99~
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Page 2
To protect the reservoir during the construction phase of
the project~ VDOT will prepare and implement an erosion
and sediment control plan in compliance with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment control Law and Regulations and VDOT's
annual erosion and sediment control standards and
specifications as approved by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Additionally, we will provide
off-site controls in the main drainage channels between the
project and the reservoir. These controls will consists of
appropriate sediment control devices along the length of
the channels and turbidity curtains where the channels
outlet into the reservoir.
For protection of the reservoir after construction, VDOT
will provide retention (wet) basins for both water quality
and quantity control. These basins will not only capture
and "treat'! the water from within the project right of way,
but will also capture and "treat" 10 acres of off-site area
(between Rio Road and the project) which now flows to the
reservoir "untreated". Each proposed basin will have a
sediment forebay. The design and capacity of these forebays
will be such that they could be utilized to temporarily
retain runoff from a hazardous spill (should one occur),
thereby providing additional mobilization and response time
for emergency and clean-up crews.
3. From Stillhouse Mountain Area to Hydraulic Road
Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is
naturally directed to Ivy Creek which flows into the reservoir
at Route 676.
To protect the reservoir during the construction phase of
the project, VDOT will prepare and implement an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations and VDOT's
annual erosion and sediment control standards and
specifications as approved by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation.
For protection of the reservoir after construction, VDOT
will provide retention (wet) basins for both water quality
and quantity control. Each proposed basin will have a sediment
forebey. The design and capacity of these forebays will be
such that they could be utilized to temporarily retain runoff
from a hazardous spill (should one occur), thereby providing
additional mobilization and response time for emergency and
clean-up crews.
4. From Route 250 to Stillhouse Mountain Area
Stormwater runoff from the project between these points is
naturally directed to the east, away from the reservoir.
Page 3
5. Water Quality Monitoring
.VDOT will provide a water quality monitoring program for
those areas of the project which pose the greatest potential
for impacts to the reservoir. This monitoring program will
commence prior to the beginning of construction for the
project in order to establish a base line. Monitoring will
continue through the construction phase of the project and
for two years following completion of the project.
6. Maintenance
Ail stormwater management facilities constructed on this
project will be maintained by VDOT. The Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations require that, at a minimum, the
facilities .to be inspected on a semi-annual basis and
after any storm event that exceeds the facilities' capacity.
We have contracted with Dr. Shaw Yu, professor at the
University of Virginia and member of the Transportation
Research Council, to review the designs for our stormwater
management facilities. He will make suggestions as to where
the opportunity exists to provide enhancements to the designs
in order to provide for additional pollutant removal efficiencies.
It is hoped that the "revised" stormwater management
plan for this project satisfactorily addresses your concerns.
Final designs of the basins are not yet complete. However, we
would be glad to meet with you at this time, or once final
details are complete, in order to discuss this matter further
or address additional issues.
~erely,
~ills
State Location and Design
Engineer
RTM/
cc: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Albemarle County
Planning/Community Development Director
Mr. Satyendra Huja, Charlottesville Community
Development Director
Ms. Hannah Twadell, Senior Planner
Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO
Mr. J.G. Browder, Jr.
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTI'ESVILLE. 22911
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 25, 1997
Route 708
Albemarle County
Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902.
Dear Ms Carey:
Beginning Monday, July 7, 1997 Route 708 immediately West of Route 29 in
Albemarle County will be closed to through traffic for approximately 5 days.
This closing ~s due to replacement of the steel beam, cimber deck bridge
with a prefabricated concrete slab bridge deck.
Detours are ~n place. Detour is Route 710.
Weather and other conditions that are beyond the control of VDOT can affect
the schedule for this work.
Sincerely,
M. Holbert
Acting Maint. Oper. Mgr.
MH/ldw
Attachments
cc:
Mr. D. R. Askew, Keene HQ
Mr. Robert W. Tucker; Bd. of Super.
Sch. Trans. Depn., North Garden Fire Dept.
Albemarle CO. Schools; Ch'ville Fire Dept.
County Police, State Police. S. C. Dean
Ch'ville. Pose Office; Ch'ville. Rescue Sqd.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
06-26-9~P31:33 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOARD OF SU?ERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT's Noise Abatement Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Affects of New Policy
STAFF CONTACT,S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: No INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS_: ~ ~
REVIEWED BY: ~ //v I_
I
BACKGROUND:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a new Noise Abatement Policy on November 21, 1996 It
replaced the previous policy that went into effect on January 1, 1989. The Board of Supervisors requested staff to
provide an analysis of the policy. Staff has prepared this executive summary that outlines the major differences in
the new policy and the policy it replaced.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the Noise Abatement Policy is to employ the attached (Attachment A) criteria and procedures in
determining the need and feasibility of noise abatement measures on all highway projects in the Commonwealth.
Staff has identified the following changes from the previous policy to the current policy:
The new policy lists Type I and Type II projects. These terms are not used in the previous policy. A Type I
project involves the construction of a highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing
highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through
lanes and where noise abatement criteria is met and noise abatement measures are utilized. A Type I1 or
retrofit project involves the construction of noise abatement along an existing highway when not in
conjunction with an improvement for that highway. VDOT does not participate in construction or funding of
Type II or retrofit noise abatement. The new policy definitively separates Type I and Type II projects.
A noise abatement measure will be considered cost effective if the cost of the measure per protected
residential property does not exceed $30,000. This is cost of the abatement measure divided by the number
of impacted receptors receiving noise protection. Under the previous policy, a noise abatement measure
would be considered not cost effective if the cost of the measure per receptor protected exceeded $20,000.
The cost-effectiveness determination for non-residential properties will be handled on a case by case basis.
VDOT doesnot have a monetary threshheld for cost-effectiveness for non-residential properties.
The policy has a new section called Third Party Funding which can be used to fund noise abatement
measures that exceed ceiling cost. The previous policy only allowed the "local jurisdiction" to pay for these
measures. Under the new policy, a third party-could be a neighborhood association that raises money to
pay cost that exceeds VDOT's ceiling. The 'third party" must also satisfy other VDOT's criteria other than
cost as an option to be eligible. The criteria include, but are not limited to, 1) paying for preliminary
engineering, construction, and maintenance, and 2) VDOT's construction material, design, and construction
specifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information rs provided to the Board of Supervisors for information only.
97.116
STATE -NOISE
ABATEMENT POLICY
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Approved November 21, 1996
Effective January 1, 1997
STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY
It is the policy, of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to employ
the following criterm and procedures in detenmning the need for and the
reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement measures along Virginids
highways. The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772) will be
the guiding document for the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise.
TYPE I PROJECTS
A Type I project involves the construction of a highway on new location or the
physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes the
horizontal or vertical align ment or increases the number of through traffic lanes.
When the abatement criteria contained in this policy are satisfied in conjunction
with a Type I project, noise abatement must be provided.
TYPE II PROJECTS (RETROFIT)
A Type II or retrofit project involves the construction of noise abatement along an
existing highway when not in conjunction with an improvement for that highway.
VDOT does not participate in Type II or retrofit noise abatement.
NOISE IMPACTS
A. Noise impacts occur when the projected highway noise levels:
[. Approach (reach one decibel less than) or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772, or
2. Exceed existing noise levels by a substantial amount (10 decibels or more).
B. Noise impacts beyond i000 feet (305 meters) from the roadway will not be
considered in determining the need for noise abatement.
ABATEMENT CRITERIA
A. A noise abatement measure will be considered cost effective if the cost of the
measm'e per protected residential property does not exceed $30,000. Each
residential fdwelling) unit will be considered as a single residential property.
B. The cost-effectiveness determination lbr non-residential properties will be
handled on a case by case basis and will include, in addition to the abatement
cost, the type and duration of the activity taking place, the size of the affected
area, the severity of the impact, and the amount of noise reduction to be
provided.
C. To be protected, a property must be impacted and receive a minimum of 5
decibels of noise reduction.
D. Extenuating circumstances will be considered on a case by case basis.
THIRD PARTY FUNDING
A. When the cost of a noise abatement measure exceeds VDOT's cost-
effectiveness ceiling but the measure otherwise satisfies the criteria contained
in this pol!cy, the measure can still be constructed, provided
1. A third party funds the amount above the cost ceiling and,
2. VDOT receives the third party share prior to the date of submittal of the
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (P,S&E).
B. If a third party requests the use of VDOT right of way for the construction o f a
noise abatement measure deemed unnecessary by VDOT, the request can be
granted, provided:
l. The third party assumes 100% of the abatement co~t including, but not limited
to, preliminary engineering, construction, and maintenance and,
2. VDOT's material, design, and construction specifications are met.
STATE FUNDED NOISE ABATEMENT
For state funded projects that meet the FI-1WA Type I project definition, VDOT
will consider and, if reasonable and feasible, construct and maintain noise
abatement measures, provided the local jurisdiction through which the project
traverses:
1. Agrees to assume 50% of the abatement cost and,
2. Has an ordinance requiring developers to include noise abatement in their plans
for residential and other noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing
highways and future highway alignments previously adopted by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
The abatement measures constructed by developers will ensure compliance with
the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria, where these criteria can be reasonably
achieved, but will at the minimum provide 5 decibels of noise reduction for each
property to be protected. The abatement measure can be located in total or
partially on VDOT right of way, provided:
a. The developer complies with VDOT's design, construction, and materials
specifications and,
b. The local jurisdiction is responsible for maimaimng the abatement measure.
UNDEVI5 LOPED LAND
In assessing the noise ~mpacts and evaluating noise abatement measures associated
with a highway project, undeveloped lands will be treated as developed lands, if
and only ifa proposed land use development plan has been approved by the local
jurisdiction prior to the date of approval of the project alignment by the
Commonvzealth Transportation Board. The final decision concerning noise
abatement for a proposed development will be conditioned on two points:
1. The noise barrier will not be constructed until the portion of the development
to be protected by the barrier is completed to the satisfaction of~VDOT, and
2. When there is a substantial time lapse between the final decision and the date
the development is completed, the no~se barrier analysis will be updated and
the decision will be reconsidered.
DECISION AUTHORiTY
A. For [-ederal aid projects, the joint FHWA-VI)OT Noise Abatement Committee
will have the responsibility for assembling all relevant information and
developing noise abatement related recommendations. On non-federal aid
projects, the Committee's function will be carried out by its VDOT members.
B. The Chief Engineer, on behalf of the Commonwealth Transportation Board,
will make the final determination on all noise abatement related issues.
AUTHORIZATION
The state noi se abatement policy is adopted pursuant to the authority of
Section 3 3.1- ! 2 of the Code of Virginia.
Moved By: Mr. White
Seconded By: Mr. Cogbill
that
WHEREAS, the State Noise Abatement Policy was adopted by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, effective January 1, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of policy was to establish criteria for providing
noise protection in conjunction with proposed highway projects in Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the policy has been applied statewide for more than seven
years and has aided in the construction of more than 100 sound barriers; and
WHEt~EAS, the policy has been a source of considerable experience and
valuable feedback from citizens and elected officials; and
WHEREAS, on the strength of this experience and feedback, the
Commonwealth Transportation Board decided to evaluate the poli6y and
determine whether changes are warranted; and
WHEREAS, the evaluation has indicated the need for revisions to the
policy, and proposed char~ges have been incorporated in a revised policy; and
WHEREAS, careful consideration has been given to the proposed changes
to the policy;
NOW, TIIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the revised State Noise
Abatement Policy be approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and
that such policy be effective on January 1, 1997.
Motion: Carried
11-21-96
George A~len
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
06-15-97A09:3~ RCVf
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGiNiA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Valley Regional Office
Thom~ L. Hopkins
Director
Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrlsonburg, Virginia 22801
Mailing address: P.O. Box 1129, Harri$onburg, Virginia 228014129
Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax [540) 574-7878
h t tp://www.deq.stat ~ va.u s
R. Bradley Chewning. EE.
Valley Regional Director
lune 12, 1997
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0027065, Cooper Industries, Inc.
Earlysville, Albemarle County
Dear Mrs. Humphris:
In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.15:01, I am enclosing a copy of
the public notice for the proposed reissuance of the referemced permit.
If you have any questions regarding ti'ds proposed permit, please give me a call at
(540)574-7807.
Sincerely, ,
DWight M. Sours
Environmental Engineer Semor
Enclosure
cc: Permit Processing File
An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat
PUBLIC NOTICE
REISSUANCE OF A NEW VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS
AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW
First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied bynewspaper)
The State Water Control Board has under consideration the relssuance of the following
Permit and State Certificate:
Permit No.: VA0027065
Name of Permittee: Cooper Industries, Inc.
Facility Name: Cooper Industries WWTP
Facility Location: Adjacent to State Route 660, South of Earlysville, Va.
Permittee Address: P.O. Box 193, Earlysvitte, VA 22936
Discharge Description: Existing industrial discharge resulting from the operation of 8
groundwater recovery wells.
IYischarge Flow: 0.027 MGD; 10utfall ( Outfall NO. 001)
Receiving Stream: South Fork Rivanna River, U.T.; Stream Mile: 1.25; Basin: James (Middle);
subbasin: N/A; Sectiou: 10j; Class: III; Special Standards: PWS
This proposed permit action is tentative and consists of minor modification of a new VPDES
permit to discharge treated industrial wastewater. 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. The following parameters are limited:
6.0 min, 9.0 max. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the
Board.
Persons may comment in writing uo the DEQ on the proposed permit action within 30 days from
the date of the first notice. Only those comments received within this period will be
considered. Address comments to the contact person listed below. Comments shall include
the name, address, and telephone number~of the writer, and sP~ll contain a c~ple~e, concise
statement of the factual basis for comments. Requests for a public hearing 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. The Director of the DEQ may decide to
hold a public hearing if public response ~s significant.
Ail pertinent information is on file and may be inspected or copied by contacting Dwight M.
Sours at Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Valley Regional Office, P.O. Box
11~9, 4411 Early Road, Harrisorlburg, VA 22801-1129, Telephone No. (540) 574-7800.
Following the commen= period, the Board will make a determination regarding the
proposed action. This determination will become effective, unless the Director grants
a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given.
ABG ' FINANCIAL SERVICES. 1NC.
June 10, 1997
CHURCH~/[LLE MARYLAND 21028
410-879-9918
FAX410'838'536006- ~ 3-9 7),09: 3 3 RCVD
Ms. Arlene Hernandez
AssistanI Treasurer
The Bank of New York
i01 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 above referenced project for the
month of May 1997.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Sheila H. Moynihan
Project Monitor
/shin
enclosure
cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Effective May 31, 1997
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
AHG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lcmk~rdStreet
Baltimore, Maryland
21202
RE:
Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apa~h.~.nts
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the 'Deed
Restrictions=), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority'), and 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 Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 ·
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is
3)
The number of units rented
held available for rental
(1) and (.2) is 51 .
and the number of units
other than as described in
4)
The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) he~eof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23~% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
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 signed this Report as of
3une 5. 1997
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited pa=tnership
A6thorized Representative
~t~ May 1997
Arbor Crest Apa=tmen~s (Hydraulic Road Apts.)~ ~:
Charlottesville, VA
Lore~a Wya~
I. LOW~I~ INC:OME
051-35371
66
Numl~rofUmt~ -
June 5, 1997 Effective 5/3]/97
Total Occupied 66
Bond Occupied 15
I a Arbor Crest Dr ., 21 . Beverly T. Lane 41 .
6 Arbor Crest Dr Wilma M. Atkinson 42
2 22 .
7 Arbor Crest Dr 23 Ruth M. Jones 43
9 Arbor Crest Dr Virginia Burton
4__ 24 44 ,
~ 14 Arbor Crest Dr 2~, ..Betty L. Reed 45
18 Arbor Crest Dr 26__Ann S. Kemp ~ , ,
7 30 Arbor Crest Dr 27 Mary Cox Allen 47
Aa Arbor Crest Dr Sam Atherton
8 ,.. 2~ 48
9 56 Ar~_o_r Crest Dr 29. Harlan W. Hooe 49
10 76 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Ann G. Saylor ~O
11 78 Arbor Crest Dr `11 · ,Ernes~ M. Nease 51
12 84 Arbor Crest Dr 32 Juanita Boliek 52
13 88 Arbor Crest Dr,.. ~3 Nancy G. Foley 53
la 90 Arbor Crest Dr_, 34 Betty B. Elliott ~4
15 ~ Arbor Crest Dr 35 M. Eileen Knick 55
17 37 ,
~8 . . 38
t9 . . ~g
20 40
~8
~O
62.
83.
64.
67.
72
1"1
74.
76.
77.
,11
12
1`1
~7
6,
7
B .
9
'10..,
II.
12.
13.
14.
15,
18_
_ 17
19,
20.
z
d
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cler~/J~
Subject: Reading Listforju~y 2, 997
Date: June 26. 1997
October f. 995-
O~ober9 1996-
Pages I - 29 ( tern #7) - Mr. Marshall
Pages 29 ~l~em #7~ - 43 'Item # 10) - Mr. Perkins
Pages 43 (Item # I 0) - end - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 5 (Item #9) - Mrs, Thomas
Pages 15 ~ltem #9) - 26 (Item # l 0) - Firs. Humohris
Pages 26 ~lzem # 0) - eno - Mr. Martir
.une . 997- Firs. Thomas
COUNTY OF ALBEMARt . I<3 OF SUPI!RVI$O 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR¥o - 5- -
AGENDA TITLE:
Powell Creek Connector
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report requested by Board of Supervisors on public
request to close Powell Creek Drive between Hollymead
and Forest Lakes South_.
STAFF CONTACT(S}:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimber~l, Benish, Wade
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
!
BACKGROUND:
Powell Creek Ddve (Route 15211 is located in the Forest Lakes South and Holiymead subdivisions. Forest Lakes
South was originally approved as a PUD by the Board of Supervisors on October 16, 1991, for up to 800 residential
units. To date, approximately 300 homes have been built. The road system approved for the PUD included a
connection to the existing Powell Creek Ddve in the Hollymead subdivision. As part of the approval process, a traffic
study was required which included this connection of Hollymead and Forest Lakes South via Powell Creek Drive,
The connection was made to provide a direct access between South Forest Lakes and the Holiymead subdivisions,
particularly to and from the Hollymead/Suthedand School complex, thereby reducing the traffic utilizing Route 29
and Hollyreead Drive. This type of connection is consistent with past and current Comprehensive Plan policies.
The portion of Powell Creek Drive in Holiymead was established with the development of the Hollymead subdivision.
The portion in Forest Lakes South was opened in 1994. Both sections of Powell Creek Ddve have homes fronting
on them with driveways accessing directly to the road. The Forest Lakes South section has seventeen homes on
Powell Creek Drive.
Since the connection has been made the residents on Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South have experienced
increasing traffic. As a result of the increased traffic and concerns about speed the residents circulated a petition
(Attachment A) to request the road be dosed. Staff responded to the residents (Attachment B) by indicating that
the applicant (The Kessler Groupl reust initiate the road closing through a zoning map amendment. The Kessler
Group met with the citizens and indicated that they would consider taking the steps necessary to initiate road
closing if the County Board of Supervisors would support their rezoning request. This was presented to the Board
at their May 21, 1997 meeting by the petitioners. The connector road is in the process of being accepted into the
VDOT system. Staff estireates the connector road should be in the state system within sixty days.
DISCUSSION:
The residents contacted the Planning Department on several occasions to complain about speeding and volume
of traffic. As a result, staff contacted the Police Department to operate the "Smart Sign" on Powell Creek Drive for
24-hour period. The sign was placed on Powell Creek Drive between Poe's Lanes and Pepperidge Road on April
10-11, 1997, with the speed indicator operational. The "Smart Sign" is able to record information such as the
maximum and minimum vehicle speed during a 24-hour period, as well as the average speed and a breakdown of
vehicle~trips to specific hours. According to the "Sreart Sign" data, speeding on Powell Creek Drive was not
generally indicated. The posted speed is 25 mph. The average speed was 22.8 reph. The eighty-fifth percentile
average speed was 27 mph. Dudng a 24-hour pedoct 1,264 cars used the connection between Hollymead and
Forest Lakes South. The road was designed to carry 1,500 vehicle trips per day.
The "Sreart Sign" results indicate that Powell Creek Ddve is experiencing more of a cut-through traffic situaticn, than
a speeding situation. Some through traffic was anticipated when the decision was made to connect the two
communities. This traffic would otherwise be on Route 29 and Hollymead Ddve, which also has residences fronting
on it.
AGENDA TITLE:
Powell Creek Connector
July 2, 1997
Page 2
Staff has been working with VDOT and the developer in an effort to identify some traffic control and calming
techniques which would discourage cut-through traffic (and any speeding that may occur). VDOT has an
established policy for addressing the issue of cut-through traffic, and has developed a draft policy for addressing
traffic calming issues. Staff would like to pursue use of these techniques in Forest Lakes South and Hollymead.
Other Aaencv. DePartment Comments
Staff has contacted the School Transportation Department, County Police, County Fire and Rescue, and VDOT for
their comments on the dosing of this road. The School Department responded that closing this stretch of road would
present an inconvenience, but would not present any real problem [Attachment C). Comments received from the
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company strongly oppose the closing of the connection (Attachment D). Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) opinion on the closing can be found in Attachment E. VDOT supports
keeping the connection open between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South with consideration of traffic calming and
traffic cut-through measures. The County Police Department has verbally commented that they do not support
closing of existing street connections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports leaving the connection between Forest Lakes South and Hollymead open and allowing staff and
VDOT to pursue traffic cut-through and traffic calming techniques to address the impacts of traffic. Staff reasoning
is based on the following:
This type of connection is supported by the Land Use Plan.
The connection keeps additional traffic off of Route 29 and Holtymead Ddve. If Powell Creek Drive is closed,
traffic utilizing that connection will have to use these roads to circulate between Hollymead/Sutherland
School complex and Forest Lakes South.
The connection is supported by public safety agencies
Staff understands that, under this approach, residents along Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South and
Hollymead (from Hollymead Drive to Poe's Lane) will continue to experience the impacts of the traffic on this road.
Staff strongly supports investigating traffic management methods (cut-through traffic and traffic calming) to mitigate
impacts from traffic. This can address negative impacts (volume, conflicts with pedestrian activities, speed
concams) while maintaining the road connection. The planning and implementation of this method will be done in
conjunction with the residents, developer, and VDOT.
97.120
RECEIVED
!997
P annmg Dept.
IATTACHMENT Al
March 11, 1997
Mr. Cilimberg:
Enclosed is a petition, with attachments, that was circulated last week.
is significant to note that every house in the Powell Creek Neighborhood of
Forest Lakes South signed this petition.
It
We wish to pursue this tssue and would appreciate your letting us know
how to proceed with directing this through the proper channels.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Jo Anne Ebersold
2688 Powell Creek Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(804) 973-1889
cc: FLA
FLCA
Charles Martin
Hilda Washington
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Residents of Powell Creek
PETITION ~0i~ ~DE-SAC
WE, THE RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF POWELL CREEK IN FOREST
LAKES SOUTH, ARE SIGNING THIS PETITION TO APPLY FOR A CUL-DE-SAC AND
CURBING, AS PROMOTED AND AS EVIDENCED IN EVERY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
IN BOTH FOREST LAKES SOUTH AND FOREST LAKES NORTH. WE FEEL A CUL-DE-
SAC IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND ENSURE THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SINCE IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE OR
ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ROAD, COPIES OF THIS PETITION WILL BE SENT TO
SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS (PLANNING BOARD, FLCA, FLA ) AMONG OTHERS.
NAME STREET #
PHONE
PETITION F01~. ~UL-DE-SAC
WE, THE RESIDENTS OF 'DIE NEIGHBORHOOD OF POWELL CREEK IN FOREST
LAKES SOUTH, ARE SIGNING TillS PETITION TO APPLY FOR A CUL-DE-SAC AND
CURBING, AS PROMOTED AND AS EVIDENCED IN EVERY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
IN BOTH FOREST LAKES SOUTH AND FOREST LAKES NORTH. WE FEEL A CUL-DE-
SAC IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND ENSURE THE SAFETY AND INTEGRITY OF
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SINCE IT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHO IS RESPONSIBLE OR
ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ROAD , COPIES OF THIS PETITION WILL BE SENT TO
SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS (PLANNING BOARD, FLCA, FLA ) AMONG OTHERS.
STREET #
PHONE
FOREST LAKES
Albemarle County's First Master Planned Community
featuring:
General Amenities
*Approximately 715 Acres
· Twenty-six Individual and Distinctive
Neighborhoods
Lakes throughout Community
*Neighborhood Shopping: Grocer~,
Pharmacy and Convenience Stores
Community Day Care Center
ed
erground
r, and
Cable TV
· Natural Gas Available
· Highly iLated Albemarle Counw School
System. Hollymead Elementary-within
walking distance. Woodbrook Elementary,
Jack Jouett Middle School and Albemarle
High School are a short bus ride away
· Five of the Area's Finest Builders
Minutes from Fashion Square Mall,
Downtown Charlottesville, the
University of Virginia, and the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
· 2 Private Swim and Tennis Clubs
· 2 Spectacular Swimming Pools with separate
areas for lap swimming, dMng and family
fun
· Ninety Foot Water Slide
· Miles of Jogging/q3iking/Walking Paths
throughout community and along lakes
· 2 Fitness Centers with state-of-the-art
equipmene Life Cycle, Stairmaster,
Nordic Track, Universal Weights - 24 hr.
access
*Aerobic Fadlities
*Ten Championship Tennis Courts (Eight
Lighted)
Playing Fields fur Soccer, Lacrosse,
Football
Clubhouses available for party functions
Playgrounds for small children
· Basketball and Volleyball Courts
IATTACHMENT BI
March 27, 1997
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville Virginia 22902~4596
(804~ 296-5823
Ms. Jo Anne Ebersotd
2688 Powell Creek Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Ms. Ebersold:
As 1 indicated to you over the telephone last week, I would also be writing you to reiterate the process under which
your petition for cul-de-sac of Powell Creek would have to proceed. Road connection of Forest Lakes South to
Hollymead via Powell Creek Drive was proffered by the developer as part of the rezoning of Forest Lakes South
and shown in the development's application plan. Therefore. closure of the connection would first require a zoning
mal~ amendment which only the developer has legal standin~ to initiate. (The Board of Supervisors cannot initiate
such an action.) I have talked with Steve Runkle of the Kessler Group to make him aware of the petition and your
possible communication with him on this matter.
I want to agmn re~nind you of the County's efforts in coordination u ith the Virginia Depamnent of Transportation
and the developer to evaluate traffic calming measures on the existing street systems in Forest Lakes
South/Hollymead/Forest Lakes. We are hopeful measures can be identified which will reduce speeds and traffic
volumes in high impact areas. For this to be successfully pursued will necessitate the involvement of the
neighborhoods in that area. I look forward to the participation of you and others in the area with us in this pursuit.
1 appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you on this matter. Please feel free to contact me should you want
to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
· yn~ ¢tlimberg, ~ctor /,J c.
cc: Steve Runkl , FL~(,.~..~' -
FLCA
Charles Martin
Hilda Lee Washington
Bob Tucker, County Executive
Larry Davis, County Attorney
~/Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner (Transportation)
~ATTACHI'qENT CJ
To: JWADE (Juandiego Wade)
From: Willie Smith
Subject: Re: Fwd: Powell Creek Drive
Date: 5/23/97 Time: 4:12PM
Originated by: JWADE ~ ACVA on 5/23/97 1:42PM
Forwarded by: JWADE ~ ACVA on 5/23/97 1:46PM (UNCHANGED)
Replied by: SMITH ~ ACVA on 5/23/97 4:12PM
Juan, as I indictade I have discussed the impact of closing the Powell Creek Drive witih
our routing section. I have been informed that closing this stretch of road while slightly
inconvenient would not present any real problem for school bus routing.
Willie.
INCORPORATED
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mr. Bruce Crow
Fire/Rescue Office
John T. Sweeney
Chief
Closure of Powell Creek Drive
Monday, June 9, 1997
ECE VE
JU~,~ 1'0 t997
In reply to your E-Mail dated 5/27/97, the Line Officers of Eadysville Volunteer
Fire Company met on the above subject and reached the following conclusions:
A. Have those who propose the closure of Powell Creek Drive been exposed
to representatives of emergency services for an explaination on the value of this
connection between Forest Lake South and Hollymead?
B. Members of our department are available to meet with the Planning
Department and home owner's groups on this subject.
C. There have been several occasions when emergency services (Station 4)
have Jtilized Powell Creek Drive for quicker responses between the two
subdivisions.
D. The following facts are offered as compelling reasons for leaving Powell
Creek Drive open:
1. The proposed section for closure is only .2 tenths of a mile, a small
section of highway for such an important use by emergency services.
PHONE (804) 973-8862 · P.O. BOX 104 · EARLYSVILLE VIRGINIA 22936
Page Two
Mr. Bruce Crow
Monday, June 9, 1997
2. The distance from the traffic lights at the entrance to Hollymead as
well as Forest lakes South onto Powell Creek Drive is .7 tenths of a mile
respectively.
3. It is also .7 tenths of a mile between the entrances of these
subdivisions using 29 North as a means of travel.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the event multiple emergency calls occurred, the Powell Creek Drive
connector would serve to reduce the response time by eliminating the need for
emergency vehicles to leave either subdivison and travel Route 29.
2. ConSidering the amount of vehicle traffic presently using Route 29 North and
South and the increase in our calls for motor vehicle accidents at Forest Lakes
North and South, as well as the entrance to Hollymead, create another situation.
If a major incident on Route 29 in the vicinity of either Forest lakes South
or Hollymead resulted in the need to shut the highway down, the Powell Creek
Drive could be used to re-direct traffic.
Why not learn from past experiences?
The closure of many cross overs on Route 29 have increased our
response time. If we continue to restrict the shortest and most direct routes for
emergency responses, our services to the public is definitely affected.
Respectfully Yours,
The Line Officers of
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company
JTS:mkc
cc: File
Line Officers
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CH^RLOTq'ESVILLE. 22911
June 23, 1997
IATTAcH.EN'r EI
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Powell Creek Connector
Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Wade:
The Department supports the Powell Creek Connector concept as a much needed
Eransportation link between Forest Lakes South and Hollymead Subdivisions.
Unfortunately, the character of Powell Creek Drive has been impacted by residential
lots frontin~ directly on the roadway.
Durin~ our review of road plans for the Powe]l Creek Connector, no concern was
raised about specific lot designations other than those which would generate more
traffic than accounted for in the approved traffic analysis. It is important to
note that a closure of Powell Creek Connector ~s not in keeping with the proposed
transportation network for this area. School and neighborhood traffic should not be
required Eo travel exclusively by way of Route 29.
Traffic volumes for the Powell Creek Connector Road lend themselves to
consideration of traffic calming and traffic cut through measures now being proposed
by the Department. The Department strongly recommends that the developer be
responsible for design and installation of these devices either prior to acceptance
of the road into the state system or after acceptance as a public road under permit
to the Department.
Please let us know if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
A. G. Tucker
AGT/smk
JUfl 2.7 1997
Planning Dept.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Robert Walters. ! am a resident and homeowner in
Hollymead. I would like to take a few moments to express my opinion
that the Powell Creek Connector Road should remain open.
I agree that a lot of traffic uses Powell Creek. I believe the majority of
this traffic uses the road to access both Sutherland and HoHymead
Schools. The schools are used for both educational and recreational
uses. ! believe the majority of the users of Powell Creek are residents of
Forest Lakes accessing the schools. If Powell Creek was closed,
Hollymead Drive would bear the burden of carrying most of this traffic.
I believe very little traffic accesses 29N via combined Powell Creek and
Hollymead Drive.
The additional traffic on Hollymead Drive accessing the schools presents
a significant traffic hazard. IT'S AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO
HAPPEN. Hollymead Drive is a curvy road with very limited visibility,
less than 50 feet at times. It is very difficult for children walking to
school to safely cross the road. I have had several close calls during on
to Hollymead Drive in my car. There is only 1 walking path and that is
not on the side with the worst visibility problems. The speed limit on
Hollymead Drive is 35 miles per hour, the same as 29N in places, and 10
miles/hour greater than Powell Creek. Both 29N and Powell Creek are
straight roads with good visibility.
There are additional safety issues for emergency services. John
Sweeney, Chief of the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department, addressed
many of these issues in his letter to the editor published in the Observer.
I believe Powell Creek should remain open. The speed limit on
Hollymead Drive should be reduced to 25 miles/hour and speed bumps
installed. Speed bumps on Powell Creek, particularly at the intersection
with Poes Lane, should help as well as speed bumps interspersed along
Hollymead Drive. Sidewalks should be installed on both sides of
HoHymead Drive and Powell Creek.
DAVID R. GEHR
COMM 3STONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIAExac -:vs
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
June 26, 1997
Route 250 / Route 809
0250-002-112,C501
Albemarle County
Mr. Robert Tucker
County Executive
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Enclosed ~s a copy ot~tlie l~6tice of Willingness to hold a Combined EocaUun anit:Design
Public-,H-~g oath~pr~t~.ose~:m~lgrovom~nt to KOUteB09 at,he int~se'cfi0/f:dfl~dute 2:507 The
deadline for requests to hold a hearing is July 7, 1997.
A copy of this notice has been forwarded to Ms. Carey for distribution to the Board of
Supervisors membexs and a copy has been sent Mr. Wayne Cillmberg for his information.
Yours Truly,
Contract Administrator.
/ggu
Enclosure
cc: Mr. D. 1~ Askew Ms. Patsy Napier
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
' i~ O.U T E 250
Albemarle County
Proposed Proie~:
~ion ~mve~nm ~ ~u~ 250 ~m 0.07 ~e w~ of~e
~e~on of Rou~ 809 m 0.12 ~e ~ of~e ~rs~on of
R~ 809 ~ of~e Ci~ ofC~o~e ~ ~b~e Co~.
~ Renew:
Maps, ~ ~d
av~able for ~u m s~ ~ bo~ ~e Cuipe~r ~OT Di~ office
I~ at 1601 O~ge R~
~OT ~lo~He ~ o~ l~ at 701 ~OT
Way, ~ ~ ~ of~ CiW of C~lo~lle.
By ~s no~ ~e Dep~ass~t sho~
h~g, if your qu~om ~or ~n~ ~ot be
To sch~ute a ~nve~ent
Residen~ a 804-293-001
W6~en Request:
r~ ~m~m~ A.G. Tu~, ~e V~
Depa~ent of T~po~fio~ 701 ~OT Way, C~to~lle,
Fu~her Notice:
Ifa ~u~ for a pubic h~gis r~iv~ no6~ of~e ~dptace
of~e h~g ~11 ~ po~.
~,~w~ Virginia Department of Transportation
De,,dcfffor the Hearing Impaired (TI'Y): 1-800-307-4630
Project: 0250-002-112~'E- t0 i,RW-201, C-501
r-$x
t Location
/
/
/
/
/
Albemarle County
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 25O
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PROJECT: 0250-002-112, PE101, RW201, C501
· FROM: 0.07 MI. WEST OF INT. RTE. 809
TO: 0.12 MI. EAST OF INT. RTE. 809
Sc. ale
L',~,,,~, ~ ~ 0 ~-~0'- .L~ '.~ '26,~0'
AGENDA I'l'~ NO. Z
AGENDA IT~M NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form. 3
7t25/86
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY · ".". ..._u
AGENDA TITLE:
Appeal, Decision of the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) re: ARB-F (Sign)-97-3 Pantops and 97-4
(Berkmar)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of ARB decision to restrict illumination of signs
and buildings.
STAFF CONTACT{Si:
Ms. McCulley, Mr. Blankinship
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Two Jiffy Lube businesses, represented by David Frantzen, applied for certificates of appropriateness to install new
signs in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applications included internally-lighted signs with bright red
backgrounds. Some of the signs advertised Pennzoil products and contained other information not necessary to the
identification of the building. The signs would also allow light from the bottom of the sign cabinet to shine down onto
the building wall, an effect known as a wall-wash. After two meetings and extensive discussion, the ARB approved
the signs with three conditions: (1) signs that state the name of the business shall be masked with an opaque
material so that the red background would not be illuminated, (2) signs bearing other content shall not be
illuminated, and (3) the cabinets shall be closed at the bottom to prevent the wall-wash. The applicant has appealed
their decision.
DISCUSSION:
The ARB is charged with enforcing the prevision of the Entrance Corridor Oveday District, specifically for reviewing
building permit and site plan applications for conformance with the regulations of that zoning district and the
Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. The purpose of their review is to ensure that new structures are compatible
with the historic architecture of the County. Both of the buildings in question front on Route 29 North (Seminole
Trail), and the signs would be clearly visible from that entrance corridor.
There is no historical precedent for internally-lighted signs. The ARB has made some provision for signs to be
lighted, to help the traveling public find their destination and get off the highway safely. The preferred solution is to
light signs indirectly;, that is, to shine a light on the sign. Since this solution does not fit every case, the ARB has also
allowed individual channel letters as a type of internally-lighted sign that has minimal impact on the visual clutter
in the entrance corridor. As a last resor!., they have also allowed internally-lighted cabinet signs, but they have
consistently required that the background of such signs be masked with an opaque material such that, when the
sign is lighted, the name of the business appears but the background does not. For that reason, the ARB required
that the Jiffy Lube signs be masked with an opaque matedal such that, when they ara lighted, only the name of the
business would be illuminated.
The Design Guidelines discourage the use of trademark features in buildings. The ARB has consistently applied
this guideline to mean that signs should not contain trademark elements as a means of advertising. The purpose
AGENDA ~TLE:
Appeal, De,sion ~ the Archite~uralReview Boa~(ARB)re:ARB-F(Sign)-9%3 Pa~opsand 9%4(Be~ma~
July2,1997
Page 2
of a sign on a building should be to identify the businesses in that building, not to prOvide generic advertising space
in the manner of a billboard. For that reason, the ARB required that those signs bearing content other than the name
"Jiffy Lube~ not be lighted.
The guidelines also discourage glare and unnecessa~j lighting. There is no historical precedent for buildings walls
to be washed with light. The effect of wall-wash lighting would increase the visual clutter in the entrance corridor,
increase glare, increase lighting levels in the night sky, and distract passing motorists. For those reasons, the ARB
required that the lighted sign cabinets be closed at the bottom to prevent light from washing down the wails.
At the ARB meeting, the applicant's attorney argued that the Design Guidelines only specify that glare should be
avoided, and that any lighted sign that does not produce glare should be approved. However, according to the
Design Guidelines, "State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve only those proposals which
reflect designs which are Compatible with the historically significant architecture of the County of Albemarle and City
of Charlottesville' (page 6, emphasis in original). Any architectural feature that is not consistent with the historic
architecture of the County is presumed to be incompatible, and the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that
it should be approved. In this caSe the ARB agreed with the applicant that the signs should be allowed, but not that
they should be illuminated as requested. Finally, this is not a question of regulating the content of the signs, but only
the manner of lighting them.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft minutes of ARB meeting (includes staff reports)
Manufacturer's brochure
Addendum to staff report
97.115
RALPH L. FEIL
DAVID H, PETTIT
I. PAGE WILLIAMS
CATHERINE J. WOMACK
RICHARD HOWARD-SMITH
FEED G. WOOD, JR.
07~
FEIL, PETTIT ~ WILLIAMS, P.L.G
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
530 EAST MAIN STI~ET
E O. BOX 2057
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRG1NL~k 22902-2057
July 10, 1997
(804) 979-1400
(804) 977-5109
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road - 4th Floor
Charlottesville. VA 22902
Re.'
Appeal of Architectural Review Board Determination;
ARB-F(Sian)-97-3(Pantops~ and 97-4(Berkmar)
Dear Ms. Carey:
On behalf of the appellants in the above referenced matter, we hereby request a copy
of the minutes of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting from July 2, 1997.
Please call our office when the minutes are ready for distribution. Thank you for
your assistance.
DBF:~
Very truly yours,
FEIL, PETTIT & WILLIAMS, P.L.C.
David B. Franz6n ' ? ~
BOARD 0'? 3v?ERVISORS
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFr.ICT O~ INTERESTS ACT
~qANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
for Officers and Employees of
Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14 (E) ]
RCVD'
Title: {~NO
3. Agency: Iq~. ~',~,,';F** F
4. Transaction:
5. Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction:
6. I declare that:
I am disqualifying myself from participating in this transaction end request
that this fact be recorded in the appropriate public records for a period of
five years.
Dated:
- RALPH L. FElL
DAVID H. PETTIT
J. PAGE WILLIAMS
CATHERINE J. WOMAGK
MARK E LEEP
FEIL, PETTIT ~ WILLIAMS, P. LC.
ATTORNEYS AT I.AW
June 24. 1997
TELEPHONE
(804] 979-1400
TELECOPIER
(804) 977-5109
VIA HAND DELI'VERY
Ella Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road--4th Floor
Charlottesville. VA 22902
Re:
Appeal from Architectural Review Board; ARB-F(Sign)-97-3(Pantops) and 97-
4(BerkmaD
Dear Ms. Carey:
As you know the referenced appeals are scheduled to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on July 2, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. In accordance with your letter to me dated May
28, 1997 I am enclosing the following materials to accompany my July 2 presentation:
1. 8 1/2"x 10" photographs of the following:
ao
AMOCO sign
Hostess Sign
Grand Furniture Sign
Sherwin-Williams Paints Sign
Blockbuster Video Sign
%11 Sign
Taco Bell Sign
McDonald's Sign
2. AWNEX Brochure showing proposed signage
Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions. I
will assume that these photographs and the brochure will be available for me to refer to ar
the July 2 hearing.
Very truly yours,
FEIL, P, ETTIT & WILLIAMS. P.L.C.
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Pam Arnerte (w/encl)
Franz6n
100% T.I.G. welded aluminum extrusions. All exposed Frame members to be
coated with white vinyl. Light difl-users to be '¥s" white egg grating v~tl, stainless
steel hold-down clips.
~A~F~C
Sign'llech's Flex~,ce with Super Glasskote (tedlar) top coating. Staple-in
attachment with PVG seam covers to be used. Fabric wm'ramty provided by
Sig~fFech.
Stm~dm:d graphic p~els oFminimum quantities to tree a silk screening
process. Special graphic layouts to t~se a heat mmsfbr system. All graphic applica-
tions to have the super Gl~tsskote top coating.
High output, -20° ballast, fluorescent fixtures. All lights induded in cost of
f[tsckts or awning. Lights are shipped to ztrrive bet~.)re frzune materials, and must
be installed on-site by a qualified local electrician prior to fi'ame inst:fllation.
~COPE OF
Awnex, once given the order fbr a particular location, will conduct a Field
Survey on emy ctmtom order. Jif}~ Lube will conduct a Field Survey on any stan-
dard order. A proposal will be written as to our recommendations for that loca-
tion. Once Awnex amd d~e buyer agrees to dm extent of what Awnex is to pro-
vide, a signed contract or purchase order wSll be issued. Awnex then max~ufac~
tufts, delivers and installs the order. All lights will be shipped to each location,
and the buyer must have the lights in place and the electrical connected before
Awnex installs. This will be coordinated with the buyer before Awnex schedules
the installation. The buyer is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits;
Awnex will assist in providing drawing and specifications fbr that permitting.
Fabric warranted hy SignTech U.S.A., San Antonio, TX. Screenprinted or
heat transfer panels on vertical sign fkces warranted for 1 1 years; all others 8
years. All warranties subject to terms and compensations by SigffI'ech U.S.A.
Complete information available upon request.
Frame, installation and se.Tm warranties by Awnex, inc.
Awnex, incorporated Corporate HQ- 296 Bell Park Drive · Woodstock, GA 30188 · 404~928-2800 -FAX 404-591-5335 · 800-3-AWNEX-3
Awnex West, 1741 GardeniaAvenue. Glendale, CA 91204,818~552-5170. FAX 818~552~5173
MINUTES OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DATE:
May 19, 1997
LOCATION:
Room# 241, Second Floor
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia
BOARD MEMBERS:
Rudolph Beverly - Chairman
Tim Michel - Vice-Chairman
Timothy Lindstrom
Steve. Runkle
Bethany Puopolo
COUNTY REPRESENTATION:
Benjamin W. Blankinship, Acting Design Planner
(Ant A after a name indicates their absence from the meeting.)
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ESTABLISH A QUORUM
A quorum was established, the meeting was convened at 1:30 p.m
Mr. Beverly apologized for the inconvenience caused by the cm¥-ellation of the May 5th meeting.
IH. Certificate of Appropriateness
A. ARB-F(SIGN)-97-3 Pantops Jiffy Lube (Deferred from April 21st)
Contact Person: Para Arnette
Staffpresented photographs for the Board's review.
Page 1
Albemarle County Architectural
Minutes of May 19, 1997
Review Board
PANTOPS JIFFY I_ UBE
SIGN REVIEW
STAFF CONTACT Ben Blankinship
DATE April 11, 1997
PROJECT ARB-(SIGN)-97-03
LOCATION Pantops Shopping Center
PARCEL Tax map 78 parcel 17D5, zoned Commercial (C-I) and Entrance Corridor
IDENTIFICATION (EC), Rivanna Magisterial District.
HISTORY The building was built before the Entrance Corridor Overlay District was
adopted, and has been occupied continuously since.
BACKGROUND
The applicant oxvns a Jiffy Lube that is nonconforming with respect to the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. He intends to replace the sign with a new one. The site is clearly visible from
Route 29. and falls within the Entrance'Corridor.
The proposal conforms with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of size. height, and number of signs.
It could not be approved administratively because it is illuminated from within, rather than
indirectly.
This application is almost identical to Berkmar 29 Jiffy Lube (ARB (SIGN) 97-04) also before
you today.
PdgALYSIS
The sign consists of translucent panels in an aluminum frame, lighted internally by fluorescent
tubes. The colors of the sign are limited to red and white The design and colors are consistent
with the building, as required by the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines The existing signs are
of similar colors and materials_ and are also internally lighted
In similar cases the Board has required that the background of the sign (in this case. the red
portion) be masked with an opaque bacldng, so that when the sign is illmninated only the logo
Page 2
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
Minutes of May 19, 1997
and the letters show up. This would reduce the amount of glare produced by the sign, and reduce
the visual clutter along the highway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with the condition that the background portions of the sign (otner
than the logo and letters) shall be masked with an opaque backing, such that. when the sign
lighted, only the logo and letters are illuminated.
Mr. Blankinship stated that there were two very similar situations for Jiffy Lube businegses at
Pantops and Berkmar. In each case they intend to take down the existing signage and replace it
with new signs. The new signs are cabinets lighted from the inside with largely a red background
st.afing Jiffy Lube with the logo in white. The Board had discussed this in the last meeting when
he reported that in previous cases the Board had very often required the applicant to mask the
inside of the sign so that. when it was lighted, only the letters and perhaps the logo showed
through, nor the red background. The other question still open in terms of this application is that
the bottom of these cabinets will allow the light to shine down and wash down the wall. This was
the other issue that the Board asked staffto give some more thought to in whether there have
been any omer cases where the Board bas approved signs where the lighting would :reate a wall
wash. He stated that in six years of minutes he did not find any cases that directly addressed that
question. The case of Blockbuster is the closest case, wherethe canopy was apparently not
allowed to be lighted, but was really a different question from this There is nor a lot of precedent
to guide the Board.
Mr. Runkle stated that he had ridden by Blockbusrers and it appeared to be lighted.
Mr. Blankinship stated that it was not referred to in the review of that case. but there was a note
in the minutes of another meeting where it was stated that Blockbuster was not allowed to light
the canopy.
Mr. Runkle stated that Blockbuster did not serve the sarne purpose because the canopy was so
wide and the lights appeared to be on the perunerer of the canopy.
Mr. Blankinship stated that if you look at other Blockbuster locations, the entire blue canopy is
illuminated, and that was what had not been allowed.
Mr. Runkle stated that there was sonte light coming down.
Mr. Blankinship agreed that there was some down lighting for the sidewalk
SPEAKER FOR REQUEST:
David Frantzen. attorney representing both Jiffy Lube businesses, stated that as staffhas indicated
Page 3
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
Minutes of May 19, 1997
these applications are for all intent and purposes identical but at different locations. He presented
a brochure from Awnex, the manufacturer of the backlit fascia awning system The Board will
recall that action was deferred from April 21st in order for staff to research essentially the
concepts of the internalIy lit backlit signs with light shining through the box. Mr. Blankinship
prepared the report which the Boarc has. He stated that the report reflects the fact that the
Board prefers indirect lighting, but that there have been a number of actions taken by the Board
with respect to back lit or internally lit signs. He pointed out that this application was not
inconsistent with either the conduct or the decisions by the Board in the past or with the County
Ordinance or the Design Guidelines. The sign ordinance basically sets out a category of
prohibited signs, and this kind of light is not within the prohibited signs. He started the analysis
from that perspective. This is not a prohilpited sign and the Guidelines language is that lighting
should be shielded, recessed or flush mounted to eliminate the glare. There is no specific
defihition of glare, but it was evident that was the issue to be addressed. The sign section of the
Design Guidelines deals with the same issue in that lighting should be shielded and not create any
glare. Clearly in the past the Architectural Review Board has addressed issues of illumination
from the standpoint of does it create a glare.. The ARB has dealt in some length on illumination
issues. He referred to the minutes from a previous meeting dealing with the Exxon application
where Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the concern was how the lighting impacted the public
driving by and not the intensity underneath the canopy. He stated that ifa recessed fixture would
do so. then he felt that the ARB needed to set a uniform standard to apply to everybody.
And then staff stated that it had no problem with the intensity but felt that the lighting source
location had the greatest impact on the site ~n terms of driving by the site itself. He stated that
Webster's dictionary defines glare as to shine with a harsh, uncomfortably brilliant light to stand
out offensively. Liken glare to the notion of an unfrosted [ightbulb where you can actually see the
illumination source within the bulb itsel£ The frosted bulb produces significantly less _~lare
because of the frost because it ~vas designed to reduce and disperse the light. Clearly what is
intended by the Design Guidelines is to reduce that bright glare and what the Board has
previously done in the terms of encouragin~ indirect lighting so that people driving by don't s.ee
the' actual source of the light That is preferable because it does not produce glare. This
application seeks a backlit or internall} illuminated sign, and you cannot see the source of the
light and is equivalent to the fi'osted bulb as opposed to the bright bulb where the actnal filament
is visible This brochure well illustrates this notion that it does not produce glare. Glare was the
only obstacle or hurdle that the ARB has to overcome in this application So that is the best
possible way m analyze this application with that issue_ This is consistent with a number of
applications wl~ere there have been approved internally lit signs, and most of these signs are
freestanding and are not attached to the building But from the standpoint of glare, they are not
different in any way. He referred to Stgp In. ARB-P(SIGN)-95-11 in which it was reported that
the sign was internally lit and does not create a glare and for that reason the application was
approved. Similarly in application ARB-F95-26_ the sign was internally lit and does not produce
a glare, and a certificate of appropriateness was approved for a McDonald's sign in Forest Lakes.
There are a number of other applications that were granted which include the Trading Post sign
(ARB-90-5) and the diseusslon was that the sign although it was not internally lit was backlit and
Page 4
Albemarle County Architectural Review
Minutes of May 19, 1997
Board
did not produce glare, and was approved. SimilaHy, the Zande's Deli application [ARB-91-01 )
the applicant ihdicated that the light was a fluorescent light from inside the sign. was internally lit,
did not produce a glare, and was therefore approved. In First Virginia Bank (ARB-F- 91-23),
staffindicated that indirect lighting was encouraged, but internal illumination was allowed. The
purpose of the Design Guidelines regarding glare has been addressed at length by the Board and
internally illuminated or baeklit lights don't fall afoul of that given by virtue of the lighting scheme
alone. It is when you have a light source which is detectable is when the Board has found that to
be in conflict with Design Guidelines prohibiting glare. There has been some discussion, and staff
was asked to address the issue of channel lighting and opaque backing. Channel lighting is no
where mandated either by the Ordinance or Guidelines. Channel lighting is frequently called for
when the Board has reviewed it in the context ora shopping center or where the business is
among a group of businesses in a cohesive architectural location where there is an attempt to
have a similarity of business facades or lighting concept. The channel lighting has been utilized in
that scenario. The Pantops and Berkmar locations is not one of those situations being within a
group of buildings. Therefore. it is not important to have that type of channel lighting nor is ir
mandated in the Ordinance or by the Design Guidelines. He pointed out that the Design
Guidelines and the Ordinance are designed to set out margins beyond which the applicants should
not go. It does not attempt to establish a narrow sort of laser tike passage for applicams to fall
into. and if it is not in that narrow channel then ir is nor permissible. These applications are clearly
~vkhin the confines of the larger discretionary area that is sought to be defined by the Ordinance
and Design Guidelines
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the comments that were attributed to himself really relate to site
lighting and not sign lighting of which there was a huge difference. He pointed out that he always
viewed the Board's efforts with respect to signs to get the information across without creating an
aura beyond the conveyance of the information, w}tich was what they always tried to do in the
past.
Mr. Michel stated that his recollection was that they had tried xvith some success to eliminate
internally lit s~gns, and was disturbed if it was not being consistently applied. He suggested that
the ARB go back and address the issue. He stated that the applicant had a number of things to
put on the signs and the Board had three issues on whether to allow them to internally light the
sign, how much information can go on the sign, and whether to allow the wall wash. He stated
that they might be faced with allowing an internally lit sign unless we change our guidelines. He
asked the other members about allowing the other information on the sign.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the ihternally lit signs that they have allowed have been lirnited to the
lettering itself, and was not the whole sign. He pointed out that they have established a
precedence in that regard, but they certainly have not allowed the whole sign to be lit.
Mr. Blankinship stated that wall signs, where the alternative would frequently be channel letters,
had been done consistently. As the attorney pointed out that there have been freestanding signs
Page 5
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
Minutes of May 19, 1997
approved that were intemally lighted where there is no mention in the review of the opaque
backing. He pointed out that you would not pktr up channel lettering for a freestanding sign.
Mr. Michel asked if they had been consistent on wall mounted signs.
Staff stated that he could not say ttmt there have not been any cases where wall mounted signs
have been approved that were cabinet signs that did not include the opaque backing, since there
might have been. He stated that there has been a consistent effort by the Board to control that.
Mr. Beverly asked if these sites have freestanding signs.
Stziff pointed out that the freestanding signs at the sites were nor reviewed by the ARB since they
were pm up prior to the Entrance Corridor guidelines.
Mr. Runkle preferred broad guidelines.
Staff stated that the Ordinance clearly determines what is allowed or not. The Design Guidelines
set a stmtdard or goal to what they want people to strive for
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the problem was that they had all these piecemeal decisions which come
before the board He stated that the sense of what they had tried to do was to limit the signage
that they have reviewed to conveying the information about the site. what it was used for and
nor gobeyond that He felt that the wall wash does not have anything to dc with visibility as far
as pedestrian safety He moved to accept staffs recominendation on these two signs
Due to the lack ora second, the motion died.
Mr. Beverly stated that each location had a different approach to the signage. He asked staffto
clarify the signage request for each locauon.
Mr. Blankinship stated that for the Berkmar site the signage would be f. c and f. and the existing
awning would be replaced with e. and on the rear would be a c. He stated that on Pantops the
front xvould be e (facing theparking lot), and the sides would be f(nor sure if both sides). He
referred to the brochure from Awnex
Mr. Michel asked if these signs were in compliance with the sign ordinance, and staff stated that
they were.
Mr. Blankinship stated that the side facing Route 250_ which he would call the front, would be
either a c or a c and 2 f's. He assumed that f. c. f~vould be the pattern of that
Ms. Puopolo asked if the backlighting had been addressed
Page 6
Albemarle County Architectural Revlew
Minuses of May 19, 1997
Board
Mr. Blankinship stated that he had not s~en it addressed anywhere else. and therefore wanted to
bring the issue to the Board for discussion.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he thought that was implicit in the statement that when the sign was
lighted that only the logo and letters would be illuminated, which would leave the building our.
He asked if that was not intended.
Mr. Blankinship asked that the Board be explicit on that point.
Mr. Beverly stated that since he had been on the Board_ he felt that their intentions had been to
limit the information that was on buildings to create arnore aesthetic approach to development ~n
the community. He stated that this goes far beyond what our intentions have been. He stated that
the lighting of buildings certainly was an ,ssue of security of which they have had discussions. He
pointed out that the photo=m'aphs and the brochure submitted does not seem ro provide security,
but just another way to advertise the business. He pointed Out that was not what our intentions
have been. The Board has tried with the internally lit signs to go with the opaque background of
just the lettering or name of the business lit. He felt that this has been the right move and hopes
that they would want to continue in that pattern.
MOTION: Mr. Michel made a motion to allow an internally lit sign to solely state Jiffy Lube
on the front or side based on the signage meeting County requirements_ and that there be no
washing of the building with down Iighting
Mr. Lindstrorn asked if only the words JilT5, Lube would be illuminated, and Mr. Michel agreed
Mr. Blankinshi p stated that on one of the other cases that he had asked the County Attorney's
opinion regarding when regulating the design ora logo or the design of the'sign becomes
regulating the content of the sign. He stated that it was clearly not allowed to regulate the
content of the sign. He l~ointed out that they could regulate the time, place and manner of
communication, but the content of communication was generally beyond the County's right to
restrict
Mr. Lindstrom stated that they could say tbat only the words Jiffy Lube would be illuminated.
Mr. Blankinship recommended that all of the background be opaque except whatever message
they chose to put on tile sign.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would like to hear more from the County Attorney about that. but
he was not sure that every 5.000 ,niles or Penzoil, etc. was protected by the First Amendment
Therefore, he did not think that they should be internally lit
Mr. Michel pointed out that if the signs were not internally lit that they would be administratively
Page 7
Albemarle County Architectural
Minutes of May 19, 1997
Review Board
approved. He pointed out that previously when they heard an application for a country store that
they had limited the wording they could put up.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that Mr Michel's motion was that the sign would be limited to c. and
be internally lit with an opaque background so that only the letters shows up.
Mr. Michel stated that his motion was that the entire sign could be internally lit including the red.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that they had never done that on a wall mounted s~gn.
Ms. Puopolo stated that only c has the language below
Mr. Michel stated that he could live with c.
Mr. Blankinship stated that the Board had been consistent on wall mounted signs, but not 100
percent. He stated that he had not read any minutes where it was discussed and the decision was
made not to bother with opaque backing.
MOTION: Mr. Michel withdrew his ntotion.
Mr. Blankinship pointed out that they were not dealing with the freestanding sign.
Mr. Lindstrom stated they would take the two cases one at a time He stated that the signage
would not be the same as the applicant has requested in terms o£the information conveyed. He
stated that the options was for all the varieties that the applicant has suggested or as Mr. Michel
indicated for sign 7c.
Mr. Beverly stared that on Pantops the fi-ontage would be f. c_ f facing Route 250. the side would
be f, and the rear would be e. The frontage for Berkmar would be the same £ c f. the awning
would be e, and the rear would be c. He stated that there was no awning proposed for Pantops.
Mr. Blankinship stated that it does not say so in the application. The Berkmar location shows
replacing the awning with b.
Mr. Beverly stated that the Pantops location was not an issue of the back being illuminated
Mr. Blankinship stated that ail three of the proposed c. e and fwould all be on a cabinet that
would create the wall wash.
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to allow the information that the applicant requested
assuming that it fits the County ordinance and guidelines, to not limit the wording of Penzoil. etc.
Page 8
Albemarle County Architectural
Minutes of May 19, 1997
Review Board
He stated that they would not add to or subtract from what the applicant was proposing to
display.
SECONDED: Mr. Runkle seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that they would go along with the County Attorney's opinion.
Mr. Blankinship stated that Ms. Arnette stated that the hours of operation would be 9 - 6 Monday
through Friday, 9 - 5 on Saturday and the hours of lighting would be from dusk to midnight.
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom stated that the second motion was that only the sign portion of c
tha{ says Jiffy Lube would De lit and the sign would be masked so that only the letters would
appear lit and the other items would not be lit. He stated that the motion was predicated upon
there being one sign that is c. that only c is lit. and the only part ofc that you will see is Jiffy
Lube.
SECONDED: Ms. Puopolo seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom stated that on the third issue about the wash on the wall. he moved
that not be allowed.
SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which' was unanilnously approved
Mr. Beverly stated that Pantops Jiffy Lube had been taken care of.
B. ARB-F(SIGN)-97-4 Berkmar JirTy Lube (Deferred fi-om April 21st)
Contact Person: Pmn Arnette
BERKMAR 29 J1FFY LUBE
SIGN REVIEW
STAFF CONTACT Ben Blankinship
DATE April 11, 1997
PROJECT ARB-(SIGN)-97-04
LOCATION Corner of Route 29 and Berkmar Drive
PARCEL Tax map 61U section I parcel 1, zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and
IDENTIFICATION Entrance Corridor (EC), Rio Magisterial District.
HISTORY The building was built before the Entrance Corridor Overlay District was
adopted, and has been occupied continuously since.
Page 9
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
Minutes of May 19, 1997
BACKGROUND
The applicant owns a Jiff~ Lube that is nonconforming with respect to the Entrance Corridor
OverIay District He intends to repIace the sign with a new one. The site is clearly visible from
Route 29. and falls within the Entrance Corridor.
The proposal conforms wkh the Zoning Ordinance in terms of size. height, and number of signs.
It could not be approved administratively because ir is illuminated from within, rather than
indirectly.
Th] s application is almost identical to Pantops Jiffy Lube (ARB (SIGN) 97-03) also before you
today.
ANALYSIS
The sign consists of translucent panels in an aluminum frame_ lighted internally by fluorescent
tubes. The colors of the sign are limited to red and white. The design and colors are consistent
with the building, as required by the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. The existing signs are
of similar colors and materials, and are also internally lighted.
In similar cases the Board has required that the background of the sign (in this case. the red
portion) be masked with an opaque backing_ so that when the sign is illuminated only the logo
and the letters show up. This would reduce the amount 6f glare produced by the sign. and reduce
the visual clutter along the highway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends approval with the condition that the background portions of the sign (other
than the logo and letters~ shall be masked with an opaque backing, such that. when the sign is
lighted, only the logo and letters are illuminated.
Mr. Beverly stated that the frontage was f: c fwith Penzoil. Jiffy Lube and Penzoi] and then e to
replace an awning with every 3.000 miles. He stated that the building fronts on Route 29.
Mr. Blankinship stated that c would be on the rear
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom moved that the sign requested without respect to the lighting and the
wall washing be allowed.
SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom moved that sign c facing Route 29 be illuminated in the same
manner as the previous application with only the lettering being illuminated and the red would be
opaque.
Page 10
Albemarle County Architectural
Minu~es of May 19, 1997
Review Board
SECONDED: Mr. Beverly seconded the motion.
Mr. Runkle opposed the motion since he did not see the rationale
The motion was approved 4: I: (Mr. Runkle opposed)
MOTION: Mr Lindstrom moved to not allow the lighting to wash the wails.
SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which was unanimously (5:0) approved.
C. ARB-F(SIGN)-97-05 Old Country BufI'et
Contact Person; Neal Lobban, Manager
OLD COUNTRY BUFFET
SIGN REVIEW
STAFF CONTACT Ben Bkankinship
A il
DATE pr 30, 1997
PROJECT ARB-(sIGN)-97-05 ·
LOCATION Nort ~east quadrant of Rot te 29 North and Branchlands Boulevard in
front of Toys-R-Us
PARCEL Tax map 61Z, section 3, parcel }2A; zoned Planned Unit Development
IDENTIFICATION (PUD) ~nd Entrance Corridor (EC), Rio Magisterial District.
HISTORY August 15, t 989: Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for wall
signs at Branchlands. November 7, 1994: ARB granted a certificate of
appropriateness for Old Country Buffet with one wall sign. December 5,
· 1994: applied for amendment to the variance to allow two wall signs.
December 19, 1994: ARB expressed no objection to a variance.
BACKGROUND
In 1989 the BZA granted a variance for wall signs at Branchlands. At that time the subject parcel
was parr of the Branchlands tract. The variance included the condition that each "tenant" was
restricted to one wall sign. When Old Country Buffet applied for their certificate of
appropriateness, they were told of the condition. They applied for an amendment of the variance.
but when additional information was requested, they allowed the application to lapse. At about
the same time, the ARB decided that it had no objection to the variance. The applicant has
activated the variance amendment, and requests a certificate of appropriateness for a second sign.
Page 11
Albemarle County Architectural
Minutes of May 19, 1997
Review Board
QUICKEST WAYS TO DEVELOP
· Approved by Jiffy Lube International
· Increased Visibility
· Comes Complete With Lights
· Fabric Warranted For 11 Years
· National Support Assures Satisfaction
· Use Worksheet To Figure Costs
EXAMPLE*
Frame Style ~1 ~ 10VF-10 $960
Frawne Style #1 @ 44'/A graphics 4224
Frame Style #1 @ 7'-6"/solid red G 570
Frame Installation 61'-6" @ $7 per fr, 430.50
(All s~yles come complete with liffhts, which
must be installed b) local electricimn/ approx. 1200
~;hlpping (Example: AtL to Nashville:
220 miles @ $2 per/ ~40
Total $
FASCIA SPECIFIER ffa[l in cross-section)
Fruane Style itl
Fascia with Top
Frame Style #4
Bay Beam
N1W~th Top
Fwa. me Style #5
FRONT ELEVATION
Frame Stele #4
Bay Beam/Under Soffit
Fx-ame SnSe it3
Fascia'/Under Soffit
Frame Style it6
Fascia gvc-~th Top
C~qe~v Store Design)
Match these j~ame
cross-sections with graphics
displayed at right to figure
totm{ cos~.
Awnex, Incorporated is the approved vendor for
backlit fascia, signage and awning systems for Jiffy
Lube International. The graphics in this brochure are
approved by Jiffy Lube and are considered to be the
company standards. Any graphic not listed here will
be considered custom and will be priced upon request.
Awnex is a narionwlde supplier for corporate fran-
chise enterprises, including McDonald's, Bojangles,
and Wendy's. For more information or to place an
order, call 800-3-AWNEX-3.
FRONT ELEVATION
JIFFY LUBE GRAPHIC OPTIONS
EXAMPLE*
Frame Style #3 @ 5'-4"/D-5 $480
Frame Style #4 @ 34'/solid red G 1768
Frame Style #3 @ 22'/C-22 1980
Frame Installation 61'-4" @ $7 per ft. 430
(Ail s{yles come compleve with lights, which
mustbeinstalledbylocalelect~qcian/approx. 900
Shipping (Example: ~lt~ to B'ham, AL:
170 mil~s @ $2 per~ +340
Total $
STANT)ARD FRONW Panel Stze 44 -0 (61 sq. fi:. ofcopy
STANDARD SIDE Panel Size 33'-0" (44 sq. fi:. of copy)
SIZES: 5' or 10' (9 sq. fi:. ofcopy)
SIZES: 5' or 10' (9 sq. fi:. of copy)
SIZES: 19'-0"'or 22'-6" (34 sq. ft. of copy)
~IZES: 5' or 10' (10 sq. fi:. of copy) SOLID tLED Ino copy)
FRAME
100% T.I.G. welded altLminum extrusions. All exposed frame members to be
coated with white vinyl. Light diffusers to be 3/8" white egg grating with stainless
steel hold-down clips.
FABRIC
SignTech's Flexfac. e with Super Glasskote (tediar) top coating. Staple-in
attachment with P-V'C seam covers to be used. Fabric warranty provided by
SignTech.
(~RAPHICS
Standard graphic panels of minimum quantities to use a silk screening
process. Special graphic layouts to use a heat transfer system. AIl graphic applica-
tions to have the super Glasskote top coating.
LIGHTS
High output, -20' b,Ilast, fluorescent fixttttes. All lights indu&d in cost of
fascias or awning. Lights are shipped to arrive before frame materials, and must
be installed on-site by a qualified local electrician prior to frame installation.
SCOPE OF WORK
Awnex, once given the order for a particular location, will conduct a Field
Sm-vey on any custom order. Jiffy Lube will conduct a Field Surveyon any stan-
dard order. A proposal wi]l be written as to our recommendations for that loca-
tion. Once Awnex and the buyer agrees to the extent of what Awnex is to pro-
vide, a signed contract or purchase order will be issued. Awnex theax manttfac-
etmea, delivers and installs the order. Ali lights will be shipper to each toc~don,
and the buyer must have the lights in place and the electrical connected before
Awnex installs. This w't[t be coordinated with the buyer before Awnex schedules
the installation. The buyer is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits:
Awnex will assist in providing drawing and specifications for that permitring.
WARRANTIES Fabric warranted by SignTech U.S~k., San Antonio, T)C Screenprinted or
heat transfer panels on vertical sign faces warranted for 11 yeats; all others 8
years. All warranties subject to terms and compensations by SignTech U.SJU
Complete information available upon request. ~
Frame, installation and seam warranties by Awnex, inc.
Avmex, Incorporated Corporate HQ · 296 Bet[ Park Drive - Woodstock. QA 30188 · 404-928-2800 · FAX 404-591-5335 o 800-3-AWNEX-3
Awnex West · 1741 Gardenia Avenue- Glendale, CA 91204 · 818-552-5170 · FAX 818-552-5173
JIFFY LUBE SIGN REVIEWS
Berkmar 29 Jiffy Lube. ARB-(Sign)-97~03
Pantops Jiffy Lube, ARB-(Sign)-97-04
At the April 7 meeting the Board instructed staff to research whether the Board had consistently
restricted the lighted portion of a sign to the name ora business, and whether any signs had been
approved that would result in light washing do~vn the wall of a building.
Staffreviewed the minutes since the Board's creation, and discussed the question among staff
members who have served the Board since its creation. The minutes show a clear preference for
unlighted signs. Among lighted signs, there is a clear preference for indirect lighting and channel
letters. In three cases (94-07, 94-11, 95-02), the board required opaque backing on cabinet signs
so ~hey would resemble channel letters when lighted. In one of these cases (95~02) the Board
specified that the logo would also be alIowed to shine through.
The minutes do not reflect any discussion of allowing lighted signs from which the light xvould
wash down the walls. The decision with the closest relationship to this case was the denial of the
request by Blockbuster to light their canopy. There is little difference in impact between allowing
the light from the sign to wash down the wall, and allowing floodlights to illuminate a wall.
The proposed signs conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding number.
height, and area (assuming the existing signs are removed when the new ones are installed). The
hours of operation will be 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Saturday. The signs will be lighted from dusk to midnight.
Staffr~commends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the red
portion of each lighted sign be masked with an opaque backing so that, when the sign is lighted,
only the name of the business and the logo appear illuminated.
I:\GENERAL\SHAREkBLD&ZOI'gBEN~arbsigns.wpd
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
John Dorrier - Request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to
provide Water Only to Tax Map 62. Parcel 24B.
STAFF CONTACT{Si:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE: I~:
July 2, 1997
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, John Dorder, requests Jurisdictional Area designation for Water Only. The request is for service to a 2.7
acre parcel located on Tax Map 62-24B. This pamel is located between Dorrier Drive and Route 20, just south of the Key
West Subd'Msion. 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 service to a Development Area.
General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities and ~lllages are to be served 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 Authoribj has indicated that there will be adequate capacity in this new water line 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 amending the jurisdictional area for Water Only to Tax Map 62-24B.
cc: John Dorrier
Art Petrini
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
97.121
- QJPERVISORS '
]8-07-97AI 0:22 RCVD
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT
~t~%NSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
for officers and Employees of
Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(E) ]
2.
3.
4.
5.
e
Agency: ~ t$~.-,m,~ /- ,~o,,-'r'I ~o',,~r~.,O o,= ~U/,~ /t~/ t Jra .e
Transaction: 0o(~,~, c=~ ~&mm ~¢~ 'i~w ,-~w
Nature of Personal Interest Affected b!~ Transaction:
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:
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE
SERVICE ,AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
APPLICANT Name:
Signature:
CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any):
Signature:
Address:
Phone:
Water Only to Existing Structure(s)
below)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Addrcss) ~7~ f~-O /V' '~'~
Tax Map(s)/Parcel Number(s): ~ ~. -- '~/¥ ~
[] Water Only-to Existing Structures
~*~Vater Only -
[] Limited Service
ALBEiViARLE L;OUN iY
JOHN R. DORRIER
REQUEST FOR WATER ONLY TO EXISTING
STRUCTURES
T~-62 P24B
A~TACHMENT
SERVICE AUTHORITY
WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUC]URES
CHARLOTTESVILLE
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SECTION
62
John and Pauline Dottier
365 Dorrier Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(8o4) 293-9339
IATTACHMENT C I
May 16, 1997
Attn: Commissioners
Wayne Cilimberg, Director
Aihemade 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 suppliedby 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 hatf 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
~urther 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
mmntalned roads are located on either side of this property.
This parcel oftand 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 line.
We appreciate you help.
Sincerely,
John R. Dottier
Pauline C. Dorrier
Planning Dept
06-26-92 ?0~.~9 N
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area-
Forest Lakes Associates.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public bearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to
provide Water and Sewer to Forest Lakes Associates
located on Tax Map 46, Parcels 97A1 and 97B, andTax
Map 46B5, Parcel 1.
STAFF CONTACTtSI:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
ACTION: X
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Forest Lakes Associates, requests Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer sewice 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 Holiymead 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).
DISCUSSION
The subject property for this request is within the Hollymead Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the
following concerning water and sewer service to a Development Area.
General Principle: Urban Areas. Communities and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer.
This property would be served by tbe Powell Creek Interceptor and the Forest Lake South water line. The Albemarle
County Servk:e 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 amending the jurisdictional area for water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 97A1
and 97B. and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1.
cc: Steven runkle
Art Petrini
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
97.122
AS
County of Albemarle ~ '
Department of Pla,m~ng ~nd C ommlmity Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
804 296-5823
Address: ' poar offfo~ A,~-z ~?07 -
Charlottesville, VA 22905
,(8043,,979-9~00
'any): ~hg K~essler Group, Don Eranco
Phone: (804) 979~9500
Cha 22095
JURISDICTIONAL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED.'
~] Water;and sewer
[] Water Only
- · · [] Water Only to Existing Structure(s) [] Limited Service (Describe ia Justificatinn
below)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address) No=e (Forest Lakes South) .
~a~ ~o~/~m~.2l ~xTaa~l~.~. ~ 46, Paree{ 97A1 and TMP 46B5, Parcel
Sm XnON
: ~ ~Wmer ~ Se~er _ ~ Water~ Only
~ Wmer onlYto Exist~g Stmc~es ~ L~ited Se~ice
~JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST: - The property is identified as a growth a~ea inthe
~ chr~enC' Comprehensible Plan. The prb~erty is carrentty designated ~PUD i& is 'proposed
Check Appropriate):
t Area?
Location and distance of water/sewer lira
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes [] No Date of Action
REVISION DATJ3S:
2/12/92
'1'
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
IATTACHMENT Bl
"1
'%,
',J-,'~, C.. ,'".U ;'l'JOril'l"Y
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS' MAP KEY
WATER ON[-Y
.....J
GHARLO~ESVILLE
AND RIVANN~ Dtf::;TPlaTc:
SECTION 46
DATE
AGENDA ITF~M NO.
AGENDA I'£~M NAME
DEFERRED UNTIL
Form.3
7/25/86
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Key Commemial, Inc./Albemarle County Service Authorit~j
(ACSA)-Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECTtPROPOSAUREQUEST:
Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area to provide "water only" to serve parcels
located on TM 62, Pamels 35A, 37.37A and 49K. These
parcels are located outside the Key West and Cedar Hills
subdivision, but are currently served by the Key West
community well. These parcels were inadvertently
omitted from the Key West and Cedar Hitls amendment
request.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION: X
~EMNUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
RE~EWEDBY:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
The applicants, Key Commercial, Inc, and the Albemarle County Service Authority, are requesting jurisdictional area
designation for "water only" for four lots located on Tax Map 62, Parcels 35A (2.5 acres), 37 (2.001 acres), 37A (5.956
acres), and 49K (2.092 acres) (See Attachments A and B). All the lots contain homes. These parcels are located
adjacent to the Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions, but are served by the Key West community water system. The
lots are located in the Rural Area (PA) (See Attachment C).
The AJbemarle County Board of Supewisers. at its mee§ng on May 7, 1997, approved amending the ACSA jurisdictional
map to provide "water only" to all lots located in the Key West and Cedar Hitl subdivisions. This action was necessitated
by the contamination of the primary wells serving the subdMsions. On June 6, 1997, a letter was received from Bill Brent,
ACSA Executive Director, that indicated that the ACSA engineers had inspected the Key West water system with water
company representa~ves and discovered that some pmpeKies outside Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions are served
by the community water system (See Attachment D). As such, these parcels were not advertised as part of the Key West
and Cedar Hills ACSAjurisdictional map amendment request. The Board of Supervisors is now being requested to hold
a public hearing to consider "water only" designation to include these parcels that were inadvertently omitted from the
original application.
DISCUSSION:
The subject properties for this request are not within a Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the
following concerning water 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 cases where public health and safety are at issue.
Recommendation: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in
cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered.
The subject property is not located adjacent to an existing water line, but will be within close proximity of the new line
solving Key West. The nearest existing line (Panteps water line) is located approximately 6,000 feet south of these
parcels (Pantops water line). The new line will run along Route 20 North, then follow Key West Drive into the subd'n/ision.
Endangerment to public health and safety was verified as a part of the original Key West/Cedar Hill jurisdictional area
consideration.
AGENDA TITLE:
Key Commercial. Inc./Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)~Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area
July 2, 1997
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
The Virginia Department of Health-Office of Water Programs confirmed ground water contamination of the Key West
community wells and indicated that the best alternative to serve the homes on the water system is a connection to the
Pantops water line. Because these homes are currently provided service by the Key West water system, staff believes
that it would be reasonable to provide these properties the same jurisdictional area designation for public water as has
been provided to Key West and Cedar Hills. Three of the four lots (TM 62, Parcels 35A, 37 and 49K) requesting an
amendment do not have any division rights. Therefore, staff believes that the effect on the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan of designating these parcets for "water only" is minimal since no additional lots can be created. Therefore, staff
recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for ~water only"
designation for the lots located on Tax Map 62, Pamels 35A, 37. and 49K.
The lot located on TM 62, Pame137A does have dMsion rights (for one additional lot). By designating this parcel for"
water only" may more easily allow for additional development of this pamel that may otherwise not be possible if public
water was not available. Typically, when public water has been granted in the rural area, it has been limited to existing
si~uctumsonly. Because this parcel is outside of the Key West subdivision and has a div'~lon right, to be consistent with
other rural parcels it is recommended that this parcel proceed to public hearing for "water only to existing structures."
cc: Key Commercial
Art Petdni
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
Gary Rice
97.119
'~?UUi'] I I IATTACHMENT AJ
KEY COMMERCIAL
Request for water only
TM 62: P 35A, 37, 37A, 49K
CHARLOTTESVILLE
AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY
] WATER ONLY
] WATER AND 9EWER
SECTION 62
. ... .,. ., .,~. , ........ / ....... I , .,
,i,-ool lt',,i,"l"tf~l~:~l"~i',~.~..tlT.,q'l~T[tJ:'..., .. ~'"~ Co~o~Al~. ,.' ~.~ .~*' ~..,. ~.'~, ~ : .
· .. ' ' ....·" ':'. "" ~:' .' ' '~ ': '?2, ~~".: u~'J~g.~.Vomm~ty ~elop~t
,.. :: SERVICE AUTHORITY' '. ' {~). n0~'M~,~.~a~a.~¢:.' '.~.7 ~ .:':..'.:"., ......' '.;
' ' ' ..... .... ." .'
: 'JURISDICTIONAL A~S:" s~l~sstS,~'.:...:. ~'.:.¢:,;:.:..s.::' :":.
, · . . . ., ....'.. . [., .... ; ...,3 '. . .
· ,. . ,: .......,.
' ' .,Address: ~o. ~bx. Io~5 ' ' ' '. ':"' ' ' ·
CO-APPLICANT Name (or agent, if any): .
' Phone:
Sigmture: . . .
~aa,~,,. . .... '. · '. '
.. '.JURISDICTIO; AL AREA DESIGNATION REQUESTED: ' . .: . ' ~: ,' : ''.:
2. [] Water and Sew.e~ . ":~ '. 2 '.,. ' '.' '[~, .water'Only":" : .: i: ~i. '' ': ?." ' '"
'.... FI. Water Only to Existing Structure(s)' ." : .F'] Limitedse~ice'(Describe.in JustifiCation · ':'
. '. . .. ... :. .. ~... .:.. .below) '~. .... .' ':C. ',..'..'
. - · . mt~.t~.~..~' ..'. .... ' ..... .n-" ,"". ' ".
i ~eiN b' "' '
CUR.R. ENT SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION.(Ifany):"'"'." i,.'i.'.. ',..' ": . ' · ,
i" '::: ii r:'l/ ier 6,qi .""' ....'~'" ':'.'
I ~ , ' .7. , ~., ~ . I , , · .. '
:: ' ~,. ' ~.~'z~ '" '"" ' ," ·
... . ,, . ~ . .. ,~..' . , ,: ,:~' ,.?: · .: .. ~.~ .'
': ' ' "For Staff Use onl,. ', · ', .:
PROPERTY IS ~OCATED(Check Appropmt~) ..... ......... . . ,'
.7 ~.lnsi(te i)r ~O6tside aGr~wth~roa?" :'' ~ '. ~ 'Adj~nt~s~A?~. '.~.. '..': :" '
: ~ Inside' or ~Outsde aWater-SuCplyWatemhed? ~ AdjacOntt6aGr0~h~ea'~ :% ' .
. ' .... · ,. ~' .' . . . ,. ' ,. .... ~ "":'~','.' ~,: ';'J ..,., ,, .,'~ '.. 2 ,.
'. ' ' ....... ~ ;'", "' '~' ~ '" '2' '
F.. 64
MONTIC LOOP
FRANKLIN
-MAP C ,~,
URBAN
NE I GBORHOOD o ~
220(i
NT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Route 29 Commuter Route
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval to allocate unused FY95/96 JAUNT
funds for a proposed commuter route
STAFF CONTACT~S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
JAUNT has $77,565 in FY95/96 carry-over funding and is proposing that the funding be used for a
commuter route along route 29 North (Attachment A). This funding will cover the first year of operation.
DISCUSSION:
There have been requests to extend public transit service further north on Route 29 in the past recent
years. The proposed route would basically run during morning and evening rush hour between the
Greene County line and CTS stops in the urban part of the Albemarle County. The routes will link up
with CTS routes to avoid duplication of services. Staff has also been working with JAUNT to develop this
commuter route along Route 29 North. Staff has also been working with JAUNT, CTS, and RideShare
to establish park and ride location that would connect with proposed JAUNT stops. This proposed route
will also provide a transportation resource to the Welfare Reform program, as well as aid in reducing
commuter traffic congestion. JAUNT estimates that 56 riders will use the service.
Funding: In the past, JAUNT has either returned carry-over funds to the County or requested the use
of those funds to initiate other projects, such as the Crozet and Scottsville fixed routes. The JAUNT
Board has fully endorsed the use of these funds to initiate this pilot project. If this route is continued,
the County's projected onogolng annual cost for this sei'vice is estimated to be approximately $23,000.
The proposed cost is $1.00 each way. The pilot route is intended to run through June of 1998, and, if
successful, will be included in the FY99 budget for on-going implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of JAUNT's proposed use of FY95/96 carry-over funds for the proposed
pilot commuter route.
pc: Donna Shaunesey
Roxanne White
97.117
[ATTACHMEN~ A
PROPOSED29NORTH ROUTE
In order to assist in traffic reduction efforts as well as provide additional
resources to help in the Welfare Reform effort. JAUNT proposes to establish a
rush hour commuter shuttle between the Greene County line and CTS stops in
urban Albemarle. The routes will link up with CTS routes to avoid duplication of
services, and will ultimately become a CTS route when ridership and revenues
make this a possibility. The route is intended to run through June of 1998. and if
successful, will be included in the FY99 budget so that it can be continued.
Funding: No new funas are needed from Albemarle Couhty' for this route for the
first year. JAUNT has $77.565 in funding from Albemarle County that was not
needed for FY95/96. and with the County's cermission, these funds can be
applied to pay for this service. If the service is successful it can be included in
JAUNT's regular budget so that state and federal matching funds are available.
In subsequent years the on-going costs to the County of this service are
estimated to be $23.000 per year. The proposed fare is $1.00 each way, and we
we anticipate a ridershio of at least seven people each direction.
Route Design: The proposed route is based on the shift times of major
employers, as well as efficient transfers between CTS routes. It is intended to be
efficient ana serve as many potential customers as possible. Although some
details remain to be worked out, the route is currently ~)lanned with stops at
Seminole Square and Albemarle Square. and continues on 29 North to the
Greene County line where there has been a Park and Ride lot in the past.
Interim stops include three mobile nome parks as well as major employers and
subdivistons (see the attached draft schedule). Juandiego Wade has been
working with JAUNT. CTS. and TJPDC staff to help set u~ informal Park and
Ride tots at many of the designated stops, as well as to work with em ployers to
ensure their cooperation. The schedule will De finalized once the stops are
established. We intend to utilize some drivers who live in northern Albemarle to
minimize deadheading (driving with an empty vehicle ~. Passengers will be able to
transfer To and from CTS easily, and CTS has agreea to supply some fareboxes
as well as radios to ensure efficient transfers between the two systems.
Proposed Budget: A significant amount of funding ~s budgeted for promotional
efforts to let the public know about the availability of the routes,
Operations Cost: 12.5 hrs/day $69.575
Promotions: Radio. TV newspaper.
neighborhood flyers $13,215
Less Projected Fare Revenue -$5 225
TQTAL BUDGET
$77 565
6117/97
DRAFT ROUTE 29 NORTH ROUTES
MORNING
Downtown
Preston Plaza
Seminc4e Souare
Sperry [
Comd~al
Albemarle Square
Sam's Club/Sheraton
Walmad
F Lakes SJRidgewooe MHP
-lollymead
-" LaKes North
Northwood MHP
Cedar Hil! MHP
Camelot
Badger
Briarwood
GE
_ake Saoon~
North #1 Stop'~ Norli~ #2 Stop? South #1 Stop? South #2
Van ,~ Van B Van B Van A/C
5:55 AM
6:00 AM
6'07 AM 7 12 AM 6'50 AM 7 50 AM
6:09 AM] 7 ~4 AM No I 6 48 AMJ t 748 AM
6'10AM No 715AM No 6:47AM I 747AM
6'15 AM 7'20 AM 6'42 AM 7:42 AM
6:19 AM] 7:24 AM r 6:38 AM---] 7:38 AM
6:21 AM 7:26 AM 6:36 AM 7'36 AM
6.24 AM 7.29 AM 6.33 AM 7:33 AM
6'27 AM 7:32 AM 6:30 AM 7:30 AM
6:33 AM 7.38 AM 6:24 AM 7:24 AM
637 AM = 42 AM 6.20 AM 7:20 AM
6:42 AM 7:47 AM 6.15 AM 7:15 AM
6:44 AM '~ 7:49 AM '~ 6'13 AM 7:13 AM
AM]. ~ 6:11 AM 7:11 AM
6:46
6:50 AM ~ 7.55 AM o 6.07 AM 7:07 AM
6:52 AM] 7.57 AM 6.05 AM '~ 7.05 AM
6:57 AM 8.02 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM
StOD?
EVENING North #1 Stop? Nodh ¢F2 StoP? South #1 South #2
Van A Van B Va~ C Van B
Downtown
Preston Plaza
Seminole Square 4:30 PM 3:0~ PM
Sperry 4:32 PM I 3:07 PMt
Comdial 1 4:33 PM1 3:08 PM
Albemarle Square 4:38 PM 3:13 PM
Sam's Club/Sheraton 4:42 PM ~. 3:17 PMI
Walmad 4:44 PM 3:19 PM
F Lakes S./Rfdgewood MHP 4'47 PM 3:22 PM
HoJlymead 4:50 PM 3.25 PM
F. Lakes North 4:56 PM 3.31 PM
Northwood MHP 5:00 PM 3 35 PM
Cedar Hi MHP 5:05 PM 3:40 PM
Camelot 5:07 PM 3:42 PM
Badger 5:09 PM 344 PM
Briarwood 5:13 PM 3'48 PM
GE 5:15 PM 3:50 PM
Lake Saoon~ 5:20 PM 3:55 PM
NOTES. Route times will neea some adjustments in rush hour trafflo
Boxed times indicate the ardval/deoar~ure times are compatible with shifts
4;i0 PM 5:10 PM
.~.08 PM 5:08 PM
4:07 PM 5:07 PM
4:02 PM 5:02 bM
3:58 PM 4:58 PM
3:56 PM 4:56 PM
3 53 PM 4:53 PM
3:50 PM 4:50 PM
3.44 PM 4:44 PM
3:40 PM '~ 4:40 PM
3:35 PM ~ 4:35 PM
3:33 PM '~ 4:33 PM
3:31 P~ [ 4:31 PMI
3 2.7 PM '~ 4:27 PM
3:25 PMt 4:25 PM
3:20 PM ? 4.20 PM
6/17'97
JAUNT
JAUNT, INC.
~ 04 KeysTone Place
Cica tottesvilie, VA 22902-6200
Planning Dept,
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
RoxanneWhite and JuandiegoWade
Donna Shaunesey ~
June 17.1997
Proposed 29 North Route
Here is a draft of our proposal to the Albemarle Board of Supervisors.
short - are there other things I should include?
It's mighty
Enclosures
cc: Helen Poore
Tina Sherman
~no e (bu-.] ,:~;6-3 ~ 4 (800) 36JAUN'f - Ooerahons (804) 296-6174 (\ oice & 7DD) . Fax: ~.804~ ~o,~ lo,~e
PROPOSED 29 NORTH ROU1
PROPOSED 29 NORTH ROUTE
P~OPOSED STOPS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Poi :49
EXECUTIVE SUMMAI ' A j
AGENDA TITLE:
Welfare Reform Presentation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of welfare reform, its impact on the community and
local efforts to address the July I implementation.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White, Ralston
AGENDA DATE:
July 2, 1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: yes ~"~_ ~.----~'~
REVIEWED BY: :' -:-, '/_
BACKGROUND:
The 1995 Virginia General Assembly passed the Virginia Independence Program (VIP) and Virginia Initiative for Employment
Not Welfare (VIEW). This program affected the population of Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). Certain
components of ViP were implemented statawide on July 1995, however VIEW is being phased in over a two year period.
Plarming District Ten is scheduled to implement VIEW, the work component of the program, on July 1, 1997. The Department
has been preparing for welfare reform since 1992, but has intensified their efforts to accommodate VIEW over the past two
years. In 1996, the Social Service Departments in Planning District Ten formed a Regional Steering Committee staffed by the
Thomas Jefferaon Planning District Commission, m order to receive $50,000 ih planning money frem the state. Members of
that Steering Committee also include representatives from Boards of Supervisors and City Council, as well as the non-pref~
community.
The federal government passed their version of welfare raferm in August 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity RecOnciliation Acl (PRWORA) requires add~onal changes beyond VIPVIEW that impact not only AFDC customers,
but also Food Stamp, Medicaid and SSI customers. Both state and federal changes ara numerous and complex. This issue
is being brought to you now to provide an update on VIEW implementation and the impact of VIEW and PRWORA on the
department, the customers and the community.
DISCUSSION:
Both VIPNIEW and PRWORA require time limited assistance and because PRWORA was passed to the state in a blockgranl
form, AFDC (now known as Temporary,Assistance to Needy Families or TANF) is no longer an en~tlement. Although education
and training are allowed in limited ways, both laws are heavily focused on work requirements. Both also allow for childcare and
Medicaid for those transitJoning from welfare to work for one year. In Albemarle, the population required to participate in a work
program is currently about 100 families. However, the department approves approximately 35 new applications each month
and we anticipate roughly half of those being required to participate in the work program. That will bring an estimated 180
additional people into the system over the next year.
The most pressing concerns of most localities in implementing VIEW is the availability of quality child care and transportation
and job retention. The Regional Steering Committee has committess working on all three ofthese issues. Ofthese three issues
the CACY Welfare Reform Child Care Sub-Committee's report (copy of report is attached) has identified six barriers to
successful implementation of welfare reform: 1) Availability and cost of nontraditional care; 2) Lack of providers in the rural
areas; 3) Assurance of quality care; 4) Funding; 5) Community and Customer education; and 6) Private Sector InvolvemenL The
Transportation report is still in draft format, but includes options ranging from working at home to using a private car. The job
retention committee will hold their first meeting with the business community on June 27 to identify problems with employee
turnover.
Other challenges facing the community are providing wages that_meet the local cost of living, evaluation of program results.
education and training opportunities, the impact of dealing with families that are confronted with no job at the end of the time
limit and finally prevention of dependence on welfare assistance.
REC,OM. MENDATION:
This information is provided for the Board's information and does not require any action.
97.118
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Subsequent to the publication of the CACY Child Care Subcommittee report on child care and welfare
reform: "Child Care Issues and the Success of Welfare Reform: A National and Local Perspective" in
February 1997; a small group of interested persons continued to meet to discuss the impact of welfare
reform implementation on our community's children and families.
In an effort to present as succinct a picture as possible of the more comprehensive document(enclosed),
we have met to outline/paraphrase the full report contents in this Executive Summary.
The subcommittee participants are a micro-representation of service providers, child and family
advocates and early childhood professionals.
The full report has been condensed into three categories:
ISSUES: What are they?
· POTENTIAL SOLUI~ONS: How can the issues be addressed?
· RESPONSIBLE PERSONS: Who nfight be the key contributors to the implementation of stated
solutions?
The subcommittee ~s committed to the successful implementation of welfare reform in our community
and the promotion and preservation of adequate and appropriate quality services for the children and
~¢amilies of the area.
In order ro facilitate the process the subcommittee established some initial "Guiding Philosophies". They
are:
· Work First should not be implemented to the detriment of children, or when potentially
placing children at risk or in jeopardy.
· VIEW workers should not encourage clients to take jobs during non-traditional hours when
child care is not adequate.
· Non-traditional child care, without deliberate monitoring, is not acceptable. Considerations
should be given to the development of a different standard for monitoring those providers
who provide non-traditional care.
· Prevention efforts need to be renewed and re-emphasized.
· Evaluation of the long term pact of welfhre reform and el-did care changes on children and
families should be conducted. United Wa3' or the University of Virginia could play a role in
facilitating such an effort.
CONCLUSIONS
The success of welfare reform in our community hinges on the involvement and commitment of the
service provider and private sector community participants. The need for adequate, quality child care is
not only a welfare reform implementation issue. All children are in need of services.
The need for provisions, monitoring and evaluation of services is implicit in the work of the subcommittee
members of this work group.
Child Care Issues &
the Success of
Welfare Reform
A National and Local
Perspective
Child Care Issues and the Success of
Welfare Reform:
A National and Local Perspective
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission
Child Care Team Report to the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District VIEW Steering Committee
February 1997
Contents
Introduction
Par[ One: The National Child Care Crisis
Poverty and Child Care Expense
The Devaluation of Children
The Reality of the Working Poor
The Cost to Society
Conclusioq: Implications'for Welfare Reform
Part Two: Local Child Care Issues
The Current State of Child care in the
Planning District
Local Child Care Problems and
Possible Solutions
Conclusion
Par[ Three: Child Care and the Business Community
How Child Care Problems Affect the Bottom
Line
The Benefits of Family-Friendly Policies
Types of Family-Friendly Policy
Page I
Pages 1 - 8
1
2
4
5
7
Pages 9 - 18
12
18
Pages 19-23
19
19
2O
End Notes Pages 24 - 25
Acknowledgements
The rflembers of the CACY Child Care Team, representing all segments of the child
care community, contributed their views, experience, and recommended sossible
solutions. Special thanks to those members who served on sub-committees and were
involved in compiling local information: Jon Nafziger (United Way Child Care
Scholarship); Ilene Railton (Children, Youth. and Family Services); Cindy Camirand
(Albemarle County Department of Social Services); Cindy Stratton (Barrett Day Care
Center); Barbara Brown (YMCA Child Care Center); Rory Carpenter (CACY
Commission); Fern Seiden and Rovetle Brown (Thomas Jefferson Planning District).
Child Care Issues and the Success of Welfare Reform:
A National and Local Perspective
A report by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission Child Care
Team to the Welfare Reform Steering Committee of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District; written by Tracey DeGregory.
Introduction
Child care in the United States is largely seen as a personal or family issue.
Those without young children are often unaware of the ~roblems oarents face. and
even those with young children generally accept that they are solely responsible for
solving all of their child care-related problems. Occasionally, .~owever, a new crisis.
change, or trend appears which highlights child care issues, anQ we are reminded that
millions of parents in every par~ of our nation are dealing with this "private" problem.
Current events and trends such as welfare reform, support for "family values", and
starUing discoveries in brain research have led to renewed discussions about child care
on both a local and national level. While each locality has specific resources and
deficits when it comes to child care, many local effor[s are helped or hindered by the
ooliticai ideologies, policies, and funding levels of the macrocosm. For this reason, it is
important to understand the larger picture before attempting to identify and address
problems at the local level.
This report will: present research and statistics that demonstrate that a national
child care crisis exists: explain why child care issues are key to welfare reform
implementation: describe the current child care situation in the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District; identify child care problems in this locality and offer possible solutions:
and present additional research and information which could be used to draw the
pdvate sector into future child care debate.
Part One: The National Child Care Crisis
I. Poverty and Child Care Expense
Anyone who reads the newspaper or watches a news program knows that
children in America are suffering a variety of ills, but few realize how widespread the
sufferring has become. Children are more likely to be poor than any other group in our
country: as of 1992 the child poverty rate for all children was 22 percent and for children
under six the rate was 26 percent.' Child poverty is more common ~n America than in
any other industrialized country; compared with these other countries. American
children are also much more likely to die before age one. to be abandoned by their
fathers, and to be killed before the age of twenty-five. In fact, though America has one
of the highest rates of income per capita. "this country does not even make it into the
top ten on any significant indicator of child welfare.''2
The majority of poor children have mothers who work. In fact. mothers in ail of
the socio-economic classes are entedng the workforce in increasingly high numbers.
Forty years ago, only t2 percent of preschool children had mothers who worked. By
1991 this number had increased to 57 percent and is expected to increase to over 70
percent by the year 2000.3 Currently in Virginia. 63.7 percent of women with children
under age six are in the labor force, and 77'.9 percent of women with school age
children are working.'
Greater numbers of workinc, women mean an increased need for child care:
howe,Jer, the high poverty rates point to the fact that a significant number of families
cannot afford it. In 1991, the average cost of full-time child care for one child was
$3.300 per year, making "chitd care the fourth largest expense beyond shelter, food.
and taxes? Obviously, the "affordability" of child care depends largely on the parent's
income_ and the impact of child care costs on a Iow-income family ~s severe. In 1990.
families with an average annual income of less than $15,000 spent 23 percent of their
total income on child care expense, while those families earning $25,000 per year or
higher only spent 6 - 8 percent of their earnings on child care2 And while low-income
families are eligible for federal and/or state child care subsidies not available to those
with higher incomes, due to funding shortages only one-sixth of etic~ ible children actually
receive subsidized care?
II. The Devaluation of Children
We think of America as a child-centered nation. We like to
boast that our children are cherished, protected, nurtured,
and offered a field of opportunity unmatched elsewhere 'n
the world....CIose inspection reveals a much less comforting
reality. Over the past twenty-five years, slowly but relent-
lessly, American society has been tilting in an ominous new
direction-toward the devaluation of children.~
This devaluation of children is most glaringly apparent when our public policy is
compared to that of other [nustdalized nations. For example, Sweden has determ [ned
that it benefits society to give mothers [he option to stay at home until their children are
eighteen months old. During this time, the mother receives 80 percent of her regular
pay for the first year off, followed by three months paid sick leave, followed by another
three months of unpaid leave. Once back at work, subsidized child care is available
and parents generally pay only 12 percent of the total cost of care. Additionally,
parents are allowed To leave work for as many as 60 days per year to take care of a
seriously ill child. In Germany, 80 percent of all mothers are eligible for cash assistance
for up to two years while they stay at home with an infant; German women are also
entitted to six weeks off at full pay prior to childbirth and eight weeks off at full pay after
the child is bom? Similar policies are in place in France, Italy, and the Scandinavian
countries. America's hard-won fatuity leave policy of 12 weeks of unpaid maternity
leave pales in comparison. Similarily, over one hundred nations have approved the
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. a treaty proctamed by the United Nations in
1989; America's refusal to sign puts this country in the company of Iran, Iraq, Libya, and
South Africa?
As Professors Weick and Saleebey of the University of Kansas School of Social
Work note:
...political interest in and concern for family is reflected more
in rhetoric than in substantative policy initiatives. The values
of individualism and economic self-sufficiency form the sinew
of the American belief structure; these values interact with,
shape, and constrain the expression of other values and policies
that promote allegiance to and support of the family unit.
American culture dictates that personal worth is equivalent to
work and to the income it generams. In contrast to the views of
most other cultures, the American family is perceived as an
isolated economic unit that survives or fails by its own handJ~
America has not only been behind other nations in approving family-friendly policies.
but the American concept of "family" lags thirty or more years behind current reality. In
the American consciousness, "family" equates to a two-parent household with a mother
as homemaker and a father as sole bread-winner raising happy, productive children.
Yet in the 1980s, only 7 percent of all Amedcan families could actually be described this
way (and the families of the working poor have never conformed to this pat[em as two
or more incomes have been required). Yet "the fact that this family composition has
aever been normative in our culture has not prevented it from serving as a template for
policies and programs that purport to help families.''~2 The current policies of welfare
reform which promote the goal of complete self-sufficiency are an example; for a family
consisting of multiple children headed by a single mother with minimal skills "the
presumed self-sufficiency and autonomy of [the family] dissolve[s] in the face of child
care and medical costs.'"~
Our record of spending on children is not good. Richard Krop, of the
Congressional Budget Office, noted that in 1987 less than 5 percent of the federal
budget was devoted to programs that benefit children, While five times that amount was
spent on the elderly? And the priorities of our states and cities reflect our national
priorities. Weick and Saleebey sadly note that today, "most cities spend far more time
dealing with the pmbtems of physical plannin9 [han with the quality of the social
environment?~ The solution they offer is one that the nation and localities ignore
their own risk. They suggest that:
in order to move away from these technical, narrow concerns,
we need to reenvision community by asking a critical question:
How can our communities and neighborhoods support family
life and how can families enrich our communities? ...The
primary purpose of a community must be to provide the best
possible environment for promoting the well-being of its
members,is
it would be very difficult to argue that Americans are providing children with an optima]
environment for well-being in regard to child care or otherwise.
III. The Reality of the Working Poor
Politicians and ~olicy makers are often most concerned with the present
-nomem. the current solitical ciimate, the front-page story that will lead to re-election.
Planning for the future is not advantageous; when the future arrives, another will be in
office and reap the rewards. Thus the questions about what will happen to the poor
when "welfare as we know it" ends have largely gone unanswered. However, it does
not take years of social work experience to see that children may be the greatest
victims when a parent's lifetime limit is exhausted or even earlier as the parent tries to
remain "self-sufficient". Arranging child care can be a complex and anxiety-ridden
2rocess for any sarent, but for the working poor the obstacles can be qearly
~nsurmountable.
Many Iow-income working mothers have a Iow education and/or skill level which
consigns them to jobs in the service industry, positions such as nurse's aides,
qousekeepers, and store clerks. These jobs tend to be Iow_paying, lacking in benefits,
and typically require work shifts that include evenings, early mornings, and weekends.
A recent study on preschool children of employed welfare recipients found that nearly
30 percent needed child care dudng these non-traditional hours? Most of these jobs
are entry-level, thus they are more prone to lay-offs or reduction of hours when
business is slow. This'may mean that the child will be abruptly pulled from a child care
arrangement, which is often immediately filled by another child. When the parent is
called back to work or finds new employment, often a new child care arrangement must
be found, causing stress to both the parent and the child.
The Iack of resources for the care of sick children is another major barrier to
employment success for the working poor. Virginia currently has only two centers
state-wide which specialize in care for sick children, and those are excessively priced. A
middle-class, nuclear family often has the option of juggling work schedules so that the
parents can take turns cadng for a sick child. One or both of these parents may work
for a company which provides benefits such as flex-time or family sick leave. These are
not options for a single parent working in an entry level job; a single mother with three
children is almost certain to lose her job if her children get a successive case of the
chicken pox and no extended family is nearby or willing to offer assistance. A recent
study of employed welfare mothers revealed that during an eight month period, mothers
using center care missed six days of work to care for a sick chitd?8
As welfare reform is being implemented. "success stories" are prevalent in the
media. This declaration of success is based on the decrease in wetfare caseloads and
the numbers of welfare recipients entering the work force. Decreased numbers are one
way to measure success, but until more information is gathered on the quality of life of
the children of these newly working parents, the "success" label may be premature. It
is true that many low-income parents who are on waiting lists for child care assistance
manage to "make do" as do many working welfare recipients who do not ~qow that
they are eligible for child care assistance. However "making do" usually means p~ecing
together a child care "package" which consists of a combination of their own time.
neighbors' time. relatives' time. and paid help to get their children through the day.
Research has shown that "aporoximatety a third of ail children under three with working
parents are cared for in such a package?s In another survey, it was found that "more
than half of all preschool children [in the survey] experienced two or more types of care
each week. and half of these were exposed to three or four types of care in a routine
week?°
For the more isolated working poor families, those lacking friends, neighbors, or
relatives that are willing or able to lend a hand. there are other ways to "make do". The
most common method is letting children care for themselves. Recent statistics indicate
that "as many as 10 million schoolchildren ages six to thirteen are latchkey kids....A
recent survey ~n Los Angeles found nearly one-quarter of seven-to-nine year-o~ds in
self-care after school. The other option is to purchase the cheapest care that is
available, usually care by other low-income individuals who are unregulated and
untrained. While the quality of child care in America ~n general has often come under
fire for its Iow-to-mediocre quatity, the quality of care received by poor children is often
significantly worse than average. For example, the National Research Council's
Institute of Medicine "cites a 1994 study...of 226 family care providers for families with
income of less than $20,000 [in which] the quality of these arrangements were found to
be quite deficient: 74 oercent of children were observed to be in unsafe, unsanitary, and
unresponsive child care.TM
IV. The Cost to Society
As a society we have decided that it is too expensive to provide child care
assistance for all Iow-income families, but evidence is mounting that the social costs of
not funding programs for children are significantly higher. New insights into brain
develo[~ment show that a baby's brain is not fully developed at bir~h, as was once
thought, but is profoundly affected by its environment. A recent Time magazine cover
story described these new discoveries:
At birth a baby's brain contains t00 billion neurons....But while
the brain contains virtually all the nerve cells it will ever have,
the pattern of wiring between them has yet to stablize ....
[it] is up to the neural activity - no longer spontaneous, but
driven by a flood of sensory experiences -to take this rough
blueprint and progressively refine it. During the first year of
life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes.
Starting shortly after birth, a baby's brain, in a display of
biological exuberance, produces trillions more connections
between neurons than it can possibly use. Then, through a
process that resembles a Darwinian competition, the brain
eliminates connections, or synapses, .that are seldom or never
used. The excess synapses in a child's brain undergo a draconian
pruning, starting aroung the age of ten or earlier, leaving behind a
mind whose patterns of emotion and thought are: for better
or worse, umque.~
As the article goes on to describe these new discoveries are not merely abstract
science, but rather messages with "profound implications for parents and
policymakers." For example, "esearchers at the Baytor College of Medicine have
"found that children who don't play much or are rarely touched devetc p brains 20% to
30% smaller than normal for their age....Rich experiences, in other words, really do
produce dch brains".2~
While these findings on brain development are fairly new. social scientists and
business leaders have been documenting for years the problems that are re!ated to
America's failure to invest in our children. J. Ronaid Latly, director of the Center for
Child and Family Studies. commented that children:
are perceived by many parents, politicians, and policy-
makers as not capable of much and needing only safe
'babysitting' while their parents go about their business.
From this point of view, careful caregiver selection, training,
and management policies are unnecessary, and warnings
from the field about the dangers to society of not upgrading
the quality of care go unheeded....=4
The warnings have been both numerous and dire. Business Week has warne¢
that "corporate America is starting to be 'haunted' by society's underinvestment in
children and the deteriorating quality of our human resources."2s The Carnegie
Corporation of New York launched a major initiative in 1994 to "bring public awareness
to what they call the 'quiet crisis' of infant neglecf',z~ In the mid-1980s, a research
organization comprised of more than ~vo hundred high-level business executives
Known as the Committee for Economic Development (CED), published studies which
included calculations of the cost to society. According to the CED's corporate
executives, for every $1 spent on preschool education, $4.75 is saved in remedial
education, welfare_ and crime control? Additionally, the CED notes that high school
dropouts "cost the nation more than $240 billion a year in lost earnings and forgone
taxes.''28 it is suggested that the reason many children fail to complete school is that no
school system can effectively counteract the ~roblems poor children face in early
childhood. Owen Butler. 'etired chairman of Proctor and Gamble explained that the
research the CED conducted indicates that "the seeds of educational failure are planted
early. Children who are born into poverty or overly stressful family circumstances often
suffer from a wide variety of physical and emotional probtems...that impair their ability to
function effectively in the typical public school setting.''~ This led the CED to
recommend that as a nation we must give "the highest priority to early and sustained
intervention in the lives of disadvantaged children.''3" And in a 1987 survey of over one
thousand teachers, isolation and lack of su oervision after school was cited as one of
the ma. or reasons for children having difficulty in school?'
V. Conclusion: Implications for Welfare Reform
All of these warnings and the accompanying research take on heightened
significance in light of the welfare reform that is sweeping the nation. In the past, many
poor women provided their own child care by staying out of the workforce and living off
of monthly welfare payments. This option will be become obsolete if welfare reform is
"here to stay" as the nation's leaders have promised. But thus far, welfare reform has
heightened awareness levels without significantly heightening funding levels. Time
magazine writer Madeleine Nash comments on the danger of this:
The new insights have begun to infuse new passion into
the political debate over early education and day care.
There is an urgent need, say child-development experts,
for preschool programs designed to boost the brain power
of youngsters born into impoverished rural and inner-city
households. Without such programs, they warn, the
current drive to curtail welfare costs by pushing mothers
with infants and toddlers into the workforce may well
backfire?
A wealth of evidence demonstrates that "good, affordable day care is not a
luxury or a fringe benefit for welfare mothers and working parents but essential brain
food for the next generation.''~ Thus. the nation, states, and communities must ask
hard questions of themselves as they begin to implement welfare reform. When
state-initiated waivers were the only structures keeping welfare reform in place, there
was time to ouestion the entire concept of welfare reform and to challenge its very
existence. Now that welfare reform legislation has been enacted on a federal level, it
appears futile To question the existence of welfare reform; the question now becomes:
How will it be implemented? The philosophy guiding each state may be different, thus
the way reform ~s implemented may be different: some states see welfare reform as
strictly a cost-saving measure; others primarily view welfare reform as a way of
returning "responsibility" to families and promoting the work ethic and/or "family values":
and others support the idea of a safety net for the poor. but believe the current safety
net has failed its. purpose and now perpetuates poverty. These philosophies trickle
down to localities in the form of policy and funding (or lack thereo~, but while state
philosophy may pose constraints, it does not prevent individual localities from
developing their own philosophy, and working to correct what the locality perceives to
be mistakes made on the state level.
Wade Hem director of the National Fatherhood Initiative and former
Commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families under the Bush
Administration, argues that we must be conscious of our beliefs about the purpose of
welfare, and that our ar[iculation of these beliefs may be useful in guiding our
~mplementation of welfare reform Horn writes:
The historic, and I believe most appropriate, purpose of
welfare is neither to increase the job participation rates
of single mothers nor to decrease out-of-wedlock child-
bearing. Rather, the purpose of welfare is to ensure the
well-being of children residing in Iow-income families ....
[The historical] shift in emphasis to encouraging single
mothers to join the paid labor force was out of concern that
the children in such homes lacked an everyday model of
work, which led to intergenerational poverty. Even the
current em phasis by some on reducing illegitimacy is
less a function of moral objections than a concern ever
the deleterious effects of growing up in a single-parent
household?
Communities which believe that the well-being of iow-income children is the central
purpose of welfare will also use this measure when implementing welfare reform. Such
communities will recognize that if "we are successful in moving large numbers of single
mothers into the paid labor force (and their children into...daycare), we will not have
accomplished very much if the well-being of their children does not substantially
improve.'~ It is the hope of the CACY Child Care Team that the well-being of children
remains a central concern of the planning district as welfare reform is implemented in
our area this coming July.
Part Two: Local Child Care Issues
I. The Current State of Child Care in the Planning District
The CACY Child Care Team was specifically asked by the VIEW Steering
Committee to research the current availability of child care in the Planning District,
including the number of slots, costs, types of care available and average vacancy rate
and to project the increased demand that will result with the implementation of wetfare
reform. The following data were gathered through the state Department of Social
Services database, provider statistics kept in the Children. Youth and Family Services
(CYFS) database, mail surveys sent to providers by CYFS and the Charlottesville
Department of Social Services (CDSS), and a telephone survey of selected providers.
Number of Child Care Slots ~,vailable
Locality
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Louisa
Greene
Number & Type of Provider
47 Voluntarily Registered Homes
19 State Licensed Homes
10 Child Care Centers
City After-School Proqrem
Total
49 Voluntarily Registered Homes
10 State Licensed Homes
14 Child Care Canters
County After-School Proorem
Total
14 Voluntarily Registered Homes
4 State Licensed Homes
0 Centers
Total
4 Voluntarily Registered Homes
4 State Licensed Homes
1 Child Care Center
Total
17 Voluntarily Registered Homes
2 State Licensed Homes
2 Child Care Centers
Total
Potential Capacity
235
152
854
3OO
1541
245
80
1123
1500
2948
70
32
0
102
2O
32
114
166
85
16
144
245
Nelson
2 Voluntarily Registered Homes
1 State Licensed Home
1 Child Care Center
Total
10
8
30
48
[0
Types of Care Available
Traditional Care:
Centers - The majority of centers open at 7:30 or 8:00 A.M. and
close by 5:30 or 8:00 P.M. Approximately half of the centers in the
Charlottesville~Albemarle area offer infant care while the other centers
begin care at age two. The majority of centers in the other counties of the
planning district do not offer care for children under two years of age. Vacancy
rates in centers vary significantly from center to center based on location,
reputation, cost and other factors. For example, two of the centers surveyed in
Charlottesville currently have long waiting lists for several or all age groups.
while two other City centers are troubled by a high number of vacancies. In
general, center care for infants can be difficult to find, but generally there is no
current shortage of available slots other children. Whether future shortages
occur depends largely on the number of welfare clients seeking center-based
child care.
Family Home Providers - Voluntarily Registered or State Licensed family child
care homes generally operate during these traditional hours, but even
those who are limited to traditional hours of operation are usually able to offer
some flexibility in drop-off and pick-up times. The majority of family home
providers accept the full age range of children: however, some will temporarily
limit acceptance of different age groups based on the particular group of
children they have at a given time. Vacancies with home providers for all age
groups are common (and many providers have a difficult time staying in
business due to high vacancy rates), though some well-known providers are
regularly full.
Non-Traditional Care:
Centers - Non-traditional care is defined as care during non-traditional hours
such as evenings, nights, and weekends, or care for sick children, and
emergency or drop-in care. Currently, none of the centers offer these types of
care regularly (two centers in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area have recently
experimented with Saturday and limited evening care, but are no longer open for
extended hours). Centers are more limited in regard to pro.viding sick care due
to health regulations.
Familv Home Providers - Family child care homes have oegun offering more
non-traditional care out of necessity, but some providers onty offer it during the
school year or every other weekend. Surveys returned by family home providers
in Charlottesville and Albemarle indicate that the following non-traditional care ~s
currently available:
Type of Care
Number of Providers
Evening 30
Night 29
Weekend 29
Drop-lnlEmergency 27
Mildly Il 11
Increased Demand for Child Care Services
It is assumed that a number of AFDC/TANF recipients will need child care
assistance in order to compty with the work requirements of welfare reform. The
actual percentage of recipients requesting chila care assistance, however, is
difficult to project. The state estimates that 50 percent of VIEW-mandatory
clients will need child care assistance, yet. localities which have already
implemented VIEW report that only 25 percent of their VIEW-mandatory
population has requested assistance, if this holds true in this region, the Child
Care Team feels that it is important to give further consideration to the types of
care arrangements that exist for the remaining 75 percent. Additionally. there
exists a large population of working poor families (not receiving public
assistance) who have been "making do" with an informal arrangemment of
providers which include fdends, neighbors, and fan: ily. If funding becomes
available to assist these families with more formal arrangements, increased
demand could result: likewise, if the informal arrangements of these families
include friends or relatives who will now be required to find work due to welfare
reform. As of December 1996, 641 families receiving AFDC/TANF assistance in
this planning district contained a VIEW-mandatory member:
Locality
Number of VIEW-Mandatory Families
Charlottesville 359
Albemarle 128
Louisa 72
Greene 35
Fluvanna 20
Nelson 27
These families contained a total of 1,135 children under 18 years of age. The
children who would be eligible for child care assistance are those under age
thirteen The number of children in each age group is as follows:
Locality <18 months 18mos. - 4 yrs. 5 yrs - 12 yrs
Charlottesville 2 201 360
Albemarle 4 70 108
Louisa 0 43 59
Greene 0 9 37
Fluvanna 0 11 24
Nelson 0 19 12
I!. Local Child Care Problems and Possible Solutions
[] Lack of Non-traditional Care
Problems:
· In 1990. the service industry was this region's top industry, employing 41 percent
of the population. Service jobs are not only the most available positions in the
region, but they are also the positions for which welfare clients are most likely to
be eligible. As was noted in Part One, service positions such as nurse's aides,
retail clerks, and food handlers typically require employees to work a variety of
shifts, including evenings, mghts, and weekends. As was indicated in the
previous section, no centers in the planning district offer this type of care.
Increasing numbers of family home providers are offerring this type of care, but
many parents are uncomfortable leaving their children in private homes at night.
Additionally, many of the family providers only offer this type of care during
certain times of year or every other weekend, causing parents to rely on a
"package" of several different providers. The increased demand for this type of
care is already apparent: during the first quarter of 1996, CYFS received only 7
calls requesting information on non-traditional care: by the last quarter of 1996
the number of calls had increased to 22 per quarter.
· Sick care is virtually non-existent in this area. Parents working in entry-level jobs
which do not offer benefits must rely on relatives or friends, and when these
supports are not available, must miss work and risk being fired.
· Current market rates set by the state do not take the higher cost of
non-traditional hours into consideration. Most providers who do provide this hype
of care charge more for it due to the added expenses of providing it. Local socia
service agencies providing child care assistance thus canno[ pay the full price of
care, and clients end up shouldering this expense.
Even when non-traditional care is available, it is difficult for many families to use
it because public transportation is limited on evenings and weekend s.
Possible Solutions:
· Centers report that the reasons they do not offer non-traditional care are varied
Considerations include the following: due to state regulations, care after 7:00
P.M. involves additional food preparation (a hot dinner and an evening snack),
additional bathing requirements, sleeping facilities with a one mattress at least
one inch thick, and different age-appropriate activities, all of which can mean
additional staff, equipment, and expense: children arriving in the late afternoon
tend to disrupt the children who have been at the center all day, and separating
the two groups for separate naps can be difficult: and demand for non-traditional
care has historically been sporadic, which means that it is often not cost-
effective. Despite these obstacles, several centers and/or programs (such as
Barrett Day Care Center, the YMCA Child Care Center, and MACAA Head Start)
have expressed a willingness to pursue providing this type of care if additional
funding were made available: in fact. YMCA and Barrett are willing to discuss a
coooerative effort in which their shared staff would work together out of one
location; and Head Start has suggested that their unused space which could be
utilized for non-traditional care. Funding could come from local DSS agencies
contracting with such centers to provide care specifically for welfare reform
clients, community grants, businesses or donations from community
organizations.
· There are many ways for businesses to become involved in community child
care issues (see Part Three for a complete outline), but it seems that
non-traditional care is an issue that is especially suited to involvement of the
private sector. In most communities, there are several businesses that employ
large numbers of employees working non-traditional hours, such as hospitals.
nursing homes, and manufacturing plants. The Steering Committee may want to
identify these businesses and provide them with information on the benefits of
family-friendly policies, such as subsidized child care for employees. Media
articles and community speakers may also heighten the awareness of the
business community to the challenges that Iow-income working parents face. A
group of employers could combine resources to fund a center specializing in sick
care to be used by their emoloyees at reduced cost, as well as Iow-income
clients on a sliding scale, and the general public at full cost.
· Ask civic organizations or churches if they are willing to develop a fund for family
home providers to purchase the cribs and cots which could allow them to provide
evening care.
· Revise the CYFS Directory of Child Care Providers to highlight providers who
offer non-traditional care, making it easier for parents to locate such providers.
Local DSS Directors can let the state know that they feet that the market rates
are insufficient and need to be revised to account for non-traditional hours.
One city bus could cover the entire City on evenings and weekends.
Businesses which require employees to work these shifts could join together to
fund a shuttle to transport employees.
[] Lack of Providers
Problems:
Lack of providers is a greater problem in the outlying counties than it is in
Charlottesville or Albemarle County. This problem is exacerbated by tack of
public transportation in these counties. In Charlottesville/Albemarle, the only
providers which seem to be lacking are centers 9roviding infant care.
Possible Solutions:
· increased outreach to potential rural family home providers by Children, Youth
and Family Services and [he local Department of Social Services in these
counties.
· Social Service agencies could contract with centers to guarantee a number of
infant slots.
· Agencies could contract with the school system, Jaunt. or area businesses which
have shuttles to transport children to their child care providers in areas without
public transpotation.
Lack of Quality Care
Problems:
· Quality becomes more difficult to monitor in family child care homes during
non-traditional hours. Potential problems include: lack of site visits since
monitoring staff are generally not available after business hours; an increased
likelihood of additional people in the household (such as boyfriends and adult
children); school age children in evening care needing assistance with homework
but not getting it; and sleeping and bathing arrangements of questionable quality.
· Children of the working poor who have been put on a waiting list due to tack of
funding (or children of welfare recipients who do not know they are eligibile for
child care assistance) may be left alone or with untrained or dangerous adults
because the parent feels they have no other choice.
· The maximum amounts local social service agencies are allowed to pay
providers are based on outdated market rates. Many high-quality centers are
not an option for those receiving child care assistance because the state will not
allow agencies to pay their full rate.
Possible Solutions:
· Children Youth and Family services could work with a certain number of family
home providers who are willing to get additional training and monitoring in order
to become homes which specialize in this type of care.
· Local Social Service agencies can increase client and community education
about available child care services to make sure that all clients who are eligible
for assistance know they are eligible. Local agencies car, also be proactive in
finding out more about the child care arrangements of those who do not request
child care assistance; if 75 percent of VIEW-mandatory clients are not requesting
assistance, agencies should ask clients for details about the type of
arrangements they have made on their own to ensure that children aren't being
left alone or in substandard care.
· involve volunteers through United Way or Madison House to provide tutoring
and/or homework assistance for children who go directly from school into lengthy
evening care.
· Local DSS Directors can let the state know that the current outdated market
rates set by the state are unacceptable and in some cases limit parental choice
and the quality of child care available to parents complying with welfare reform.
O Lack of Funding
Problems:
· Funding for tow-income families has never been sufficient to meet the demand:
currently the number of families on waiting lists across Virginia is over 9,000. In
the planning district, some agencies have waiting lists of up to 100 families, and
the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program waiting list for the entire region
totaled 143 families as of December 1996.
· The current state budget has nearly doubled funding for child care assistance (if
all federal funds are able to be pulled down), but the most recent information
from the state office is that the funds will be divided into two categones (Public
Assistance and Non-Public Assistance) and localities will not have the authority
to transfer funds from one budget line to another. The most recent report is that
the majority of funding will be set aside for those receiving Public Assistance; this
could leave money in this budget line unspent while the working poor who are
not receiving Public Assistance go unaided.
· Due to child care funds being streamlined into one Child Care Development
Fund (CCDF) and block-granted to the state, the United Way Child Care
Scholarship (CCS) Program is not assured in the future of the approximately
$160.000 in child care funds that it currently receives for Charlottesville.
Albemarle, and Greene County working families. About 40 percent of local
United Way child care scholarships, the equivalent of full-time scholarships for
50 preschool children, are paid for by these funds. It is expected that the
Virginia Department of Social Services may not have new policies and
regulations in place for :he CCDF until the Fall of 1997. Without policy and
provisions for the current partnership between Charlottesville. Albemarle, and the
United Way to continue, the CCS Program may need to begin terminating
scholarships in June 1997.
Possible Solutions:
· Businesses can be encouraged to develop family-friendly policies, including
subsidizing child care costs for their employees, which would assist some of
those currently on waiting lists.
· Churches and civic groups can be encouraged to sponsor child care for a
families on waiting lists for funds: centers can be encouraged to provide
scholarships to a small number of needy children who are on waiting lists for
assistance.
· Social Service Directors can let the Commissioner of VDSS know that they
would like to be g~ven local discretion with day care funds. They can also lobby
for provisions which encourage public-private partnerships such as the local
United Way Parnership. If all federal child care funds are not matched by the
state, local government may need to consider contributing local funds to assist
the working poor.
Lack of Education and Awareness
Problems:
· The community is not aware of most child care issues and cannot rise to the
occasion to solve the oroblems if they do not know the problems exist.
· Communication within social service agencies can be limited, and workers in one
part of the agency can be completely unaware of the services provided by
another part. Not all social service workers are familiar with the types of child
care assistance offered and not all workers are educating their clients about
these available resources.
· Child care assistance administered through social service departments is based
on state aolicy that is often vague and confusing. Due to the level of discretion
involved and the likelihood that only one worker is in charge of operating the
agency's day care assistance program, there is the risk that the program is being
run inconsistently with the agency's overall welfare reform philosophy.
Possible Solutions:
The members of the Steering Committee and local social services staff can
incorporate child care issues into future welfare reform discussions. As the
17
Planning District Commission organizes a speaker's bureau, information an(:
speakers on child care issues can be included. Coordination with the Chamber
of Commerce can be organized to educate local businesses about family-friendly
policies.
Local DSS agencies can conduct in-service training for agency staff on child care
issues and resources. Local agencies can develop fliers and fact sheets which
educate clients about the child care services available to them. Local agencies
can articulate their welfare reform philosophies and make sure workers
implement this reform consistently. DSS workers can receive training on the
Earned Income Tax Credit and encourage clients to take advantage of it as a
way of defraying child care costs.
Lack of Private Sector Involvement
Problems:
· Government is not adequately funding child care assistance for the working poor
and employers have the resources to assist with these costs.
· Women are entering the work force in increasing numbers, but the business
community has traditionally failed to update policies and benefits accordingly.
Possible Solutions:
· Provide information for local business leaders and owners through personal
contacts, forums, or a symposium. Use contacts to develop or ascertain interest.
Possible avenues for contacts include business and trade groups, United Way,
the Chamber of Commerce, Private Industry Council. human resource
professionals, etc.
· Develop a professional quality presentation and information packet or brochure
for business leaders on the benefits of child care assistance for companies and
employees.
· Find a CEO or other corporate leader to champton a campaign to encourage
businesses to offer family-friendly benefits.
· Provide technical assistance to interested companies in identifying employee
and company needs.
· Offer companies seminars for their employees on topics such as choosing
quatity child care, parenting, etc.
III. Conclusion
In implementing welfare reform, the Thomas JeffersOn Planning District will not
face insurmountable obstacles as will some inner-city communities. This is an area rich
in resources and we are fortunate to have a comprehensive child care Information and
Referral agency such as Children. Youth and Family Services. and a unique
public-private partnership with the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program, in
addition to government agencies. However, our local problems mirror the national child
care "crisis" in many ways. Based on statistics from the Virginia Council on Child Day
Care and Early Childhood Programs and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, in 1990 the number of children ages 0 through 5 living in poverty in
Charlottesville was 24 percent. VVhile funding for child care assistance for welfare
recipients appears sufficient, hundreds of eligible working poor families languish on
waiting lists. The hard work involved in transitioning welfare clients off of assistance
and into paying jobs will be for naught if these clients then lose their jobs due to
unstable or nonexistent child care arrangements. A major goal of welfare reform is to
break the cycle of dependency for future generations: ensudng the availability of
affordable, quality child care is essential in achieving that goal.
Part Three: Child Care and The Business Community
I. How Child Care Problems Affect the Bottom Line
As the number of women in the work rome have increased, employers have
noticed that child care and other family problems have been difficult to ignore. Child
care difficulties can distract parents from their work, cause absences, and lead to
turnover. Employees are the first to admit that child care issues are not being left at
home. One study found that "employees recognize that their child care problems
negatively affect their effectiveness as workers...[and] almost equal percentages of
women (43%) and men (42%) believe that their work and family responsibilities
interfered with each other a great deal.''36 And in a study conducted by Kathryn Senn
Perry, 53 percent of the participants studied "wasted time or made mistakes, or their
quality of work suffered, because they were worried about their children."37
Research has consistently shown that employers have sound financial reasons
to be concerned about the child care of their employees. In a 1988 study on
two-income families by Dr. Gayle Kimball, supervisors listed numerous problems
relating to child care: tardiness (83%); absenteeism (78%); scheduling problems (66%);
and poor on-the-job performance (62%). Additionally, 16 percent of the parents studied
reported that the severity of their child care problems caused them to consider quitting
their jobs? And a Fortune Magazine study reported that of the organizations studied,
over $4 million in salary and benefits were paid to employees who were absent due to .
child care problems?
I1. The Benefits of Family-Friendly Policies
Some employers may implement family-friendly policies because they feel it is
"the right thing to do" or because, having small children of their own, they personally
understand how much these benefits are needed. But the vast majority of employers
develop such policies because they are convinced that family-friendly policies are good
for business. Additionally, the changing face of the workforce is becoming impossible
to ignore: "Increasingly, employers must look to women and minorities - workers who
are often either overburdened or ilPprepared....Indeed, over the next decade only 12
percent of net new entrants to the labor force will be white males,''4° And these new
female entrants to the workforce will eventually force even the most reluctant employers
to begin considering child care issues; over the next decade, "80 percent of all women
in the work force will be of childbearing age,., and 90 percent of them will get
pregnant.''~
The benefits resulting from family-friendly policies as listed by employers are
many. In a 1984 study of 178 companies: 90 percent of managers "felt that their child
care programs had improved morale"; 85 percent "pointed to the programs recruitment
advantages"; 85 percent "said that the program had a positive effect on public
2O
relations"; 65 percent believed child care reduced turnover"; 49 percent "reported
'reproved productivity": 53 percent "reported decreased absenteeism"; and 39 percent
"said tardiness decreased.''42 These impressions are backed up by numerous
examples and success stories. In a 1989 cost-benefit analysis. Ransom and Burud
"found that reduced absenteeism and turnover, and shortened maternity leaves, saved
the employer an estimated $98.000 to $192,000 in one year.''43 Another company
estimated that lower recruitment and training costs led to estimated savings of $6 for
every $1 spent on their child care program.44 And the lntermedics Company, which
built and opened a day care center for its employees, "was rewarded with a 60 percent
decrease in job turnover in the first two years of the center's operation. Dud ng the first
year, reduced absenteeism saved fifteen thousand work hours. The combined savings
for Intermedics totaled more than $2 million in the first two years of operation."4~
III. Types of Family-Friendly Policy.
Policies and programs which support families particularly in the area of child
care. range from those which cost the employer little or nothing, to those which involve
significant financial investment. The least expensive options include offering
employees flexible hours, job-sharing opportunities, or unpaid parental leave. More
expensive options include contracting with an information and referral service.
subsidizing employee child care, purchasing child care slots in existing centers, and
building an on-site child care facility. Employers often defray costs by forming a
consortia with other employers in the community to provide needed child care services.
It is recommended that employers interested in developing family friendly policies begin
by conducting a needs assessment to determine the particular problems faced by the
company's employees. Examples of family-friendly policies are listed below.
gl Flex-Time
Although employees continue to work a full-time schedule in flex-time, they have
a choice in determining the start and end of that time. Advantages include:
· Low cost to employers and generally easy to implement
· This type of flexibility can be useful to all employees, not just those with children
· Has been proven to be good for employee morale and work performance
· Commuting patterns are eased
· Employees do not have to "miss" work to attend parent conferences or take a
child to the doctors, so employers benefit from forty work hours
gl Half-Day Vacations
Earned vacations may be taken in smaller increments to allow employees to deal
with family problems. Advantages:
Employees are much less likely to call in sick when there is an option to use
vacation time
· The incidence of tardiness, losing work early, and other related losses of
productive time are reduced
[] Compressed Work Weeks
In a compressed work week, the number of work days is fewer, but the hours per
day are longer.
Also useful to employees that do not have children
· Low cost to employer
· Allows parents and extra day at home with children and may reduce child care
costs since child is in care fewer days per week
[] Work At Home
Employees who do not need a traditional work-site base are atlowed to work
some hours out of their home. This option is best suited for information based
jobs. Advantages:
· Recruitment and retention of those in outlying areas is improved
· Studies show that productivity is improved for many because employees can
then schedule their work at preferred times, and studies show that they work
longer hours
· The cost of office space is postentially reduced
· Famify-care costs, commuting costs, and stress are greatly reduced
· Employees gain discretion in scheduling their work hours which enables them to
more effectively balance work and family responsibilities
[] Job Sharing
In job sharing, two people share the work and responsibilities of one full-time
position. Salary and benefits are usually pro-rated ~etween the two.
Advantages:
· It makes available two part-time positions which appeal to many mothers with
young children
A wider breadth of skills and experience can be provided in the job that is shared
· It can help retain experienced employees who wish to reduce their hours due to
family reasons
· Continuity of coverage is allowed: if one person leaves, someone knowledgeable
is still available
~ Low cost to employer and additional costs may be saved on office space
[] Resource and Referral
Resource and referral agencies counsel families on choosing appropriate child
care to meet their needs. Some of these agencies charge for these services, so
an employer may purchase these services for employees. Advantages:
· The amount of time parents take off from work to locate child care is reduced
· Employee needs can be identified, while planning data for future company
initiatives are provided
· Employees stand a better chance of making stable, long-tasting child care
arrangements which means less problems in the future
[] Corporate Discount
n a corporate discount, the corporation negotiates an employee discount ~vith a
child care facility. Typically, a vendor lowers its fee by a certain percentage, and
the employer contributes a matching percentage. Advantages:
· The cost of implementation is relatively low
· Little administration is required after initial start-up
· Liability is limited
· Good public relations for the employer
· Employees are better able to afford high-quality care
Q Employee Tax Benefits
Flexible benefits allow em ployees to make individual choices from a menu of
taxable an(; non-taxable benefits beyond the core benefit protection provided by
employers. These may include flexible spending accounts which allow
employees to make pre-tax contributions of up to $5,000 to the spending
account, which can then be used to pay for child care. Advantages:
· The only cost to the employer is that related to the administration of the accounts
· Employee salaries are stretched to allow parents to better afford child care
[~ Child Care Consortia
A child-care consortium is a group of employers who jointly share the costs.
risks, and benefits of establishing and operating a child care center. Each
employer is guaranteed a certain number of slots for its employees. For
example sick-care center would be one which many employers could utilize, but
which a s~ngle employer could not keep full. Advantages:
· The resoumes, liability, and cost for which any one company is responsible are
limited
· Employers with small workforces may participate
· The center is protected from underenrollment because of the large size of the
combined labor pool
· A strengthened sense of community may result
On- or Near- Site Child Care Centers
An employer can develop a child care center on or near the worksite under a
variety of financial and management arrangements. The program can be
established as a wholly or partially owned subsidiary or as a new department of
the company. The center might also be created as a separate, private,
non-profit entity, or as an employee-owned and -operated agency with credit
backing from the company. Finally, the center can be contracted out to a
non-profit or profit-making agency to run for the company. Advantages:
· Employees miss fewer work days due to the sudden loss of a provider
· High-quality standards are assured, which reduces parental stress
· Employee turnover rates are reduced
· Less productivity is lost due to child emergencies, since the employee can
handle problems without having to commute
· The company can tailor the center's hours to match work schedules
· Labor recruitment and retention are enhanced
· Parents have more time with their children during lunches and breaks
· The workplace is humanized for all employees, leading to greater morale
· High visibility can improve public and community relations
(Information in the previous section was paraphrased from: The Politics and Reatitv of
Family Care In Corporate America by John Fernandez, 1990)
IV. Conclusion
Involving the private sector in child care issues is not only increasingly important,
it is also beneficial to many. Employer reap rewards that range from increased
employee morale and 13roductivity to improved public relations to increased profits.
Employees benefit from the morale boost that accompanies a more humanized
workplace and the peace of mind that accompanies affordable, stable, quality child care
arrangements. Lastly. the community as a whole benefits by ensuring that its children
are growing up in as healthy an environment as possible, and that all of the parents in
the community, have the option to be contributing members of the workforce.
24
Notes
William T. Gormley, Everybody's Children: Child Care as a Public Problem
07v'ashin~on D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1995), p. 4
Sylvia Ann Hewlert, PIrhen the Bough Breaks: The cost of,Neglecting Our Children (New
York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991)p. 12
Hewlerr, p.50
Ckild Care Brie£mg Book, Ch/Idren's Defense Fund. 1996
Gormley, p: 24
Gormley, p. 25
Gormley, p. 183
Hewtert, p. 14
Gormtey, p.20
Donald Brietand. Barry J. Fallon, and Wyse S. Korr, "Act Now for Children's, Righ.,ts"
in Social PVork, Volume 39, Number 1, January 1994. p. 132-133
Ann Weick and Dennis Saleebey, "Supporting Family Siren,s: Orienting Policy and
Practice Toward the 21st Century" in the March 1995 issue of The ,lournal of
Contemporary Human Setw'ices. p. 142
Ibid, p 142-143
Ibid, p. 143
Hewlert. p. 14
Weick and Sateebey, p. 146
Weick and Saleebey, p. 146
Wade F. Horn. "Assessing the Effects of the *Devolution Revolution' on Ckildren and
Faro/lies" in the Summer 1996 National Center for Children in Poverty Newsletter, p. 21
Ibid, p. 22
Hewlert, p. 50
Ibid, p. 51
Amy Tucci, "Child Care Initiatives in the States" in the Fall 1995 issue of Public
~effare, p. 50
Madeteine Nash. "Fertile ~Minds" in the February 3, 1997 issue of Time, p. 50
Ibid, pS1
J. Ronald LaD. y, '~The Impact of Child Care Policies and Practices on infant/Toddler
Identi~ Formation" in the November 1995 issue of Young Children, p. 59
Hewlett, p. 15
Lally, p. 59
Hewlett, p. 29
Ibid, p. 24
Ibid, p. 219
Ibid, 219
ibid, p. 5a
Nash. p.51
Ibid, p.56
Horn, NCCP, p. 2
2~
Ibid, p.2
John Feroandez. The Politics and Reality of Famil? Care in Corporate America
(Lexin~on, Massachusetts: Lexiu~on Books, 1990), p. 39
[bid, p.39
Ibid, p 16
[bid, p. 16
Hewlett, p.16
[bid. 224
Dayle M. Smith. Kin Care and the American Corporation: Solving the Work/Family
Dilemma (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991 ), p. 23
Jules Marquant, "How Does the Employer Benefit from Child Care?" in Parental Leave
and Child Care: Setting a Research and Policy Agenda edited by Janet shibley Hyde and
Marilyn J. Essex (Philadelphia: Temple Universir] Press, 1991), p.233
[bid, p.233
Fernandez. p. 17
Welfare Reform in
Albemarle County
A Report Compiled by Albemarle
County Department of Social Services
July 2nd 1997
What is "Welfare Reform"?
A Major Shift in American Social Policy:
· Pre-1935: Welfare dealt with on a local level (Business
and Industry, Churches, Charities, and Localities)
· 1935: The Social Security Act
· 1960's: The war on Poverty
· 1974: WIN - Work Incentive Program
· [984: ESP-VAProgram
1988: The Family Support Act
· [995: VIP / VIEW - Virginia Program
· 1996: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
Prior to 1935...
Limited Government Involvement in Social
Welfare
· Benefits for Civil War Veterans and the
Freedman's Bureau.
· By 1935, many captains of industry are
offer/ng pension benefits and viewing
themselves as responsible for the welfare of
workers.
Social Security Act
The Great Depression Reveals the
Economic Vulnerability of every Citizen
· Poverty is viewed as a result of ecenomic
problems.
· SSA creates pemion insurance for workers
(Social Security).
· SSA creates income assistance to widows to
enable them to take care of children at home
(Aid to Dependent children).
The War on Poverty
Expansion of the Welfare State
· Social issues become linked with economic
issues.
· Expansion of civil rights is seen as goal of
welfare state.
· Housing and employment become focus of
welfare state expansion.
1988: Family Support Act
Welfare Receipt Becomes Contingent on
Behavior
· Focus on Job training and education
programs (JOBS)
· Work requirements introduced
· Child care and transportation funding made
available
A Time Line Of Welfare Reform
In Virginia
· July 1995: VIP passed by General Assembly,
federal waiver granted and implemented
statewide. VIEW is implemented regionally on a
quarterly basis over a two year period.
· August 22, 1996: PRWORA signed into law by
President Clinton
· February 1, 1997: PRWORA goes into effect in
Virginia
· July 1, 1997: VIEW takes effect inthe TJPDC.
3
Statewide Implementation of VIP
July 1995:
, Family Cap - no increase in cash assistance
for child bom 10 months after first TANF
check is received
· Minor Parent Residency
· Compulsory School attendance ages 5-18
· Immunizations verification
· Patemit~ establishment
· Expanded two-parent assistance
Statewide Implementation of VIP
July 1995:
· Diversion Assistance - up to 120 days worth
of assistance for a one time emergency;
ineligible for 160 days; once in 5 years
· Business Account - up to $5,000
Planning District Implementation
of VIEW July 1, 1997
· Time limits - 24 months; plus 12 months of
transitional: then off for two years before
eligible again (except for 5 year lifetime)
· Community Work Experience Program
· Increased Income Disregards
· Wage subsidyprogram
· Fair market value of a vehicle up to $7500
· Personal Responsibility contract
Supportive and Transitional
Services for VIEW
· Child care
· Transportation
· Medical Assistance
· Job CounseYmg
4
PRWORA Implemented Feb. 1, 1997 in Virginia
Federal PRWORA Requirements
· AFDC- Aid to Families with Dependent
ChiMren becomes TANF... Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families
· Food Stamps - Able-bodied recipients age
18-50 (excluding pregnant womenj with no
dependents mast work after 3 months of
receipt. An individual can only receive
stamps for 3 months in any 3 year period.
Federal Requ/rements contd.
· Fiveyenr lifetime limit- only applies to
assistance units with an adult. Applies
nationwide
· Individual convicted ora felony for
possession, use or distribution ora
controlled substance is permanently
ineligible for TANF and Food Stamps.
· Legal non-citizens are barred from SSI and
Food Stamps until citizenship
Federal Requirements contd.
· Local agency must provide upon request to
a federal, state, or local law enforcement
officer the address ora cra'rent TANF
recipient who is a convicted felon fleeing
prosecution
· Ifa person is convicted of fraudulently
misrepresenting an address to receive
TANF, Medicaid, or Food Stamps in 2 or
more states becomes ineligible for 10 years
Federal Requirements contd.
· Adults receiwng TANFare requiredto work
after they have been on TANF for two years.
Funding Changes:
· The federal bill ended welfare as an
entitlement by creating capped block grams.
The block grants replace what was an open-
ended.funding stream.
· PRWORA gives states the opportunity to
create their own individual programs.
~IFDC was primarily a federal program
while TANF is primarily a state program.
5
Albemarle County - Customer Characteristics
AFDC Program*
Caseload Siz
250 (181 adults; 384
243 (154 adults; 356
children)
children)
Average children per family 1.54 1.47
Female headed famihes 223.00 214.00
Male headed families 15.00
20.00
34.00
Grandparent headed 33.00
families
Families headed by mothers 21.00 13.00
under 21
Families headed by mothers 1.00 1.00
under 18
Education Status (adults) -<HS diploma: 42% -<HS diploma: 41%
-I-IS diploma: 41% -HS diploma: 42%
-some college: 7% -some college: 10%
-comp. College: 1% -comp. College: 0%
-roe. Training: 1% -voc. Training: 1%
Race -white: 70% -white: 62%
-black: 28% -black: 37%
-other: 2% -other: l%
44% 40%
36.00
Paternity (means if married
at birth of child - does not
have to be father of child)
Average applications per
month
Average cases closed per 30-40 25.00
month
Average cost per month of $71,000 ($852,050/yr) $52,994 ($655,926/yr)
benefits
Age of recipmnts
0-4 137
5-17 246
18-20 22
21-44 148
45-64 12
65< 0
0-4 125
5-17 231
18-20 12
21-44 132
45-64 l0
65< 0
Families with no non- 232.00 226.00
assistance income
17.00
Families with non-
assistance income
18,00
* AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children
1'.8' moS~ ?3). yrs,
· . ~ years
5.'~y~s,-...:l.2 .~y~s.
Child Age Group Analysis of the
102 Mandatory VIEW Cases
(Data as of April 1997)
41
21.
81
17
Employment Opportunities in
Albemarle and Charlottesville
Top Five Occupations with Largest
Number of Total Openings:
(Source: VEC, May 1994 Report)
Retail Sales: 2,025
Cashiers: 1,575
General Managers / Execs.: 1,365
Secretaries: 1,170
Registered Nurses: 1,155
Examples of Jobs with a
Projected increase in Openings:
· Food Prep. Fast Food: 945
· Nuring Aides: 615
· Track Drivers, light and heavy: 825
· Cashiers and Retail Sales: 3,600
· Maids and Housekeeping: 435
· Guards: 330
· Office Clerks: 1.125
Average Wages for jobs
Requiring a High School
Diploma or Less:
Receptionist / Secretary: $ 6.40Par.
Light track Driver: $ 6.70/hr.
Data Entry: $ 6.35/hr.
Stock Clerk.' ~ 6.08/hr.
Food Prep: $ 4.33/hr.
Child Care Worker: $ 4.80/hr.
* Federal Poverty for family of 3 -- $ 6.24/hr.
Unemployment Information:
Unemployment Rates:
Charlottesville - 2.9%
Albemarle - 2.8%
Fluvarma - 4.5%
Greene - 3.8%
Louisa - 7.9%
Nelson - 4.6%
Local Efforts Undertaken to Address Welfare Reform
Local Efforts 1992-1994
· 1992.' Development of Family Self-
sufficiency unit (FSS) with ESP and Child
Care worker.
· 1993: Added Aide to the FSS unit
· 1994.' Added HUD FSS position to unit and
developed action plans through:
- Meetings with Benefit Pmgrsm Staff/clients
- HUD FSS and ESP newsletters for clients
Local Efforts 1995:
· Community TABE pre GED testing in math
and reading
· Conversion of Benefit Program cases m
generic format for Program ADAPT
· Development of Local Directors group
· Development of over 100 worksites for
work experience component
· lob readiness workshop for II clients
Local Efforts 1996:
· Community-wide job readiness workshops
- Developed a local brochure for clients
explaining Program changes
· First joint training session in the state for
Benefit and DCSE workers - fatherhood
· Car donation program with MACAA
· Home Buyers Club
· Generic Intake and self-sufficiency message
Local Efforts 1996: (contd.)
· DCSE to flag all AFDC reviews not active
in APEX
· Elhninated waiting list for JOBS program
· Seennd job readiness workshop
· Welcome packet developed
· Worked with Salvation Army to develop a
suit closet for office attire.
Local Efforts 1997:
· vIEWlT Team to huplement VIEW
· Group job search- 3 hfs/3 wks
· Customer Service feedback card developed
· Cross trained Employment Resource and
Support Team members
· Added 2 Benefit Program staff to ERST
· Developed packet of eligibility
· Re-worked assessment form
Developing Ideas:
· Self-esteem, job readiness and conflict
msolutiun groups for all applicants
· Include non - AFDC Food Stamp clients
· Recidivism Project
· Greater focus on fathers of the children
· Greater focus on children's programs w/th
emphasis on primary prevention for
children of AFDC clients
9
Community Preparation:
· Establishment of Regional Steering
Committee
· Held Community Education forums
· Developed contract with local firm to work
with business community
· Establishment of seven committees within
Steering Committee
10
Goals of Child Care:
· Affordability: While on VIEW and after
lransitional year is over
· Accessibility: Nun-traditional hours_ sick
child care, and geo~aphic convenience
· Quality: Regulated and developmentally
appropriate
Local Child Care Needs:
Non-traditioual care
Lack of providers in rural areas
Assurance of quality care
Funding
Community and customer education
Lack of private sector hivolverr~ent
Child Care Issues:
Number of Children in VIEW
Mandatory Cases:
'Ctlarlotte~ville 201
Potential Capacity:
Voluntary registered, state licensed, centers,
and after school
· Charlottesville- I541
· Albemarle - 2948
Challenges for the Future
· Child Care
· Transportation
· Education and Training
· Job Retention
· Evaluation and coordination
· Local wages and poverty
· Safety net
· Prevention
12
JULY 2, 1997
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO 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, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND A
STAFF POSITION; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS
RELATING TO REVERSION.
TO: Members. Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC. Clerk"~
Subiect: Appointments to various Boardg'Commissions
Committees Updated
Date: lune 26. I997
Following is an updated list of appointments to Boards/Commission:
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON AGING (IABA): One vacancyj Nancy, Whiting Barnette has
resignec~. This is a two year appointment,~vith terms to expire on May 3 I. [999. The Clerk has'
advemsed for applications
ARCH1TECTURALREVIEW BOARD: One vacancy) Stephen N. Runkte resigned as of April
30. 1997. His unexpired term is through November 14. i998. Interviews scheduled for }uly 2..-
1997.
MONTICELLO AR2F~ COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY (MACAA} BOARD OF
DIRECTORS: 'One vacancy Robert Hodge resigned as of April 30. I997. There is no term
limit. Interviews scheduled for luly 2. I997.
COMMUNITYCOLLEGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: One vacancy William A. Finlev. Jr.,
has resigned, His unexpired term is through lune 30. 2000 ]'he Clerk has advertised for
applications.
COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD JEFFERSON AREA: One vacancy) J. Michael
McMahan has resigned, There is no term limit. The Clerk has advertised for applications.
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: (One vacancyI Llovd E. Barrett term expires on lune 30
1997. He is not eligible for reappointment This is a three year term. with term to expire on lune
30, 2000. Interviews scheduled for July 2, 1997.
HOUSING COMMITTEE: Three vacancies, (Representatives from the follo~ving areas of
expertise are needed: consumer of low'moderate income/housing, construction/development and
property management./ Beverly TerreI1 resigned as of March 23. i997. Her unexpired term is
through December 31, 1998. Stephen N. Runlde resigned as of April 30. 1997. His unexpired
term is through December31. 1999. There is currenflyno representativeof property management
on the Committee The term for this appointmentwould expire December 3 I. 1998. Th~.Clerk.
ha~r~mdvertised~for applications.
LIBRARY BOARD: (One vacancy) Marian Schwartz resigned. Her unexpired tem~ is through
June 30. 1999 l'he, Clerk~.bas advertised for applications.
Attachment
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
July 15,1997
Charles S, Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sa}19 H. Thomas
Dr. Peter L. Sheras
340 Cedar Bluff Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Dear ]1~. Sheras:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 2, 1997, you were appointed to the
Commtmity Services Board, with said term to expire on June 30, 2000.
On behalf o£the Board, I would tike to take this opportunity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
7'/ r
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Chairman
CYH/ewc
CCi
The Honorable James L. Camblos. III
James 1L Peterson, Executive Director
Printed on recycled paper
County ofAlbema! F ,4 rt
Office of Board ofCounW Supervisors
401 Melnfire Rbad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COM/VIISSION / COMM/~E ~-- ~please type or grint) .
Applicant's Name ~T6/~ /~' ~_r_~ff,~.~q. t P~ ~ Home Phone
Home Address 3~O &d~ ~/~ ~,
Magiaer~ D~ct ~ which yom home ~siden~ ~ 1~ ~ - , '
DateofEmpl~ment ¢/I/7~ O~upafion/Tifle
Yem~esidentb~m~lem~ ~/~m P~vio~siden~ ~r ~76, [Vq, ff~ ..
Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church ~nd/or Social Groups
ublio. Civic and OharRable Office and I or Other Aefivitie~ or Interests
Re~on(s~ for D~ire to Se~e on ~is Bo~ / Commis~ion / ~mmiA~
~e ~omafion pmvid~ on ~s appli~ll ~ rcl~ ~ tim public u~n
Date
~ ~ to: Cle~ Bo~ of~unW Su~i~
~bem~le Co~W
401 McIn~e Road
C~lo~e~ille, VA 229024596
David P. Howerman
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Forrest R. Marshall Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902~4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
July 15, 1997
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sall~ H. Thomas
Ms. Leslie M. Dun'
3074 Doctor's Crossing
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Ms. Durr:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 2, 1997, you were appointed to the
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) Board of Directors.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity To express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Y. HumpbMs
Chairman
CYH/ewc
CC:
The Honorable James L. Camblos, III
Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director, MACAA
Z~inted on recycled paper
County of Albemarle qO^RD OF SUPERWS
05-14-97A10:0.8 RCVD
Office of Board of Coun~ Supervisors
401 McIntire Rbad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE
Board / C.,ommission/,Committee ~A e d/~please B'pe °r print)
Applicant s Name ]--~S/*~% /4~, burr'-' Home Phone
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located t'~ l l/M A/A/~
Employer tO/e-~/Otzrrt'P [95Vdfft, t~.lt'~l~ oOr"o.~qlr~,.~, ' Phone
DateofEmployment ¢5b/~ Occupation/Title ~ff-~J~ AJLMA.E
Name -- Number of Children c~..
Spouse's
~ucation (Degrees and Omduation Dates) / ~ ~ - ~q'ov./a~ e~-~.,q-< /d" - ~3'~fM/~
Meml~rships in Fraternal. Business. Church ~nd/or Social Grouns
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee ,
~e ~fo~afion provided on ~is application ~11 ~ rel~ed m ~e public u~n ~ue~. ~
Silage Date
~ to: Cle~ Bo~ of Co~ Su~isors
Albem~le Co~
401 Mclntk, Road
C~lo~svil[e, VA 229024596
Da-Ad 12. Bowerman
CharIotl~ Y. Humphfis
Forrest R. Mmshall. &.
COUNTY OF Al REMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdnfire Road
Charlottesville, V'n'girda 229024596
(804) 296-584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
June 9, 1997
Mr. Michael R. Matthews, Jr.
1387 Gristmill Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Matthews,
This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 12:45 p.m.,
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Architectural Review Board. Your interview will
last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the 4th floor conference room o£the
Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Chafloi~e Y. Humphr~
~ ~ M~. Jr.
COUNTY OF Al REMARI F
Office of Board of SupenA~ors
401 Mdntire Ro~d
Charlo~esvflle. 'v'rrginia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
S~]ly H. Thomas
June 9, 1997
Mr. Robert L. Tobey
1654 Shady Grove Court
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Tobey,
This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 1:30 p.m.,
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Architectural Review Board. Your interview will
last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the 4th floor conference room of the
Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel fi'ee to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on rec~cled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR! F
Office of Board of Supm-.'isors
401 McInfire Road
Charlottesville. Va'ginia 22902-4S96
(804] 296-S843 FAX [80~) 296-5800
Charles S. Mardn
Walt~r E Perkins
Sall~ H. Thomas
June 9, 1997
Ms. Sylvia S. Davi's
1512 Old Brook Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Davis,
This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 12:55 p.m.,
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Board of Directors. Your interview will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the
4th floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on rec.ucled paper
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perk/ns
Sally H. Thom~
June 9, 1997
Mr. Donal Day
151 Buckingham Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Day,
This letter will confn'm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 1:05 p.m.,
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Board of Directors. Your interview will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the
4th floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 2'96-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bo~verm~
Ch~rlolte Y. Humphr~
Formst R. Marsh~fll, Jr.
COUNTY OF A! .REMARLE
Office of Board of SuI:~rvisors
401 McInfim Road
Charlottes~e. V'~inia 22902-4~596
(804~ 296-$8~3 FAX (804) 296~5800
Charles S. Marlin
W~lter E Perkins
Soilv FI. Ti~orn~
June 9. 1997
Ms. Leslie M. Dun'
3074 Doctor's Crossing
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Ms. Durr,
This letter will conf'ncm your interview with the Board of Supervisors ar 1:50 p.m..
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Monticello Area Community Action Agency
Board of Directors. ',/our interview will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the
4th floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowen-na~
Chado~ ~ Humph~is
Form~ ~ Ma~haL ~
COU1NYrY OF A[_.B~[ .E
Office of Board of Supenasors
401 Mdntim Road
Charlottes~e. Vu'~inia 229024596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Pekins
,Sally H. Thomas
June 9. 1997
Mr. Peter L. Sheras
340 Cedar Bluff Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Sheras,
This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 1:15 p.m..
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Community Services Board. Your interview will
last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the 4th floor conference room of the
Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel See to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Printed on rec.vcled paper
Dasd P. ~s~r~n
Charlotte Y. Humphris
COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclnfire Road
Cha~o~ V~ 22902-4596
(804] ~96-$~ ~AX [804) ~96-5800
Walter E Perkins
SalI'~ H. Thomas
June 9, 1997
Ms. Michelle Sirch-Stasko
5709 Green Creek Road
Schuyler, VA 22969
Dear Ms. Sirch-Stasko,
This letter will confirm your interview w/th the Board of Supervisors at 1:40 p.m.,
Wednesday, July 2, 1997, for a position on the Community Services Board.' Your interview will
last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the 4th floor conference room of the
Albemarle County Office Building.
Please feel free to contact me at 296-5843 should you have any questions. Thank you.
S/ncerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Pdnted on recycled paper
A-16
Sent to All Board of
Supervisors Individually
06-27-g-AO?:19 RCVD
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
omce of me Schoa ~o~a BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
401 McIntlre Road
Charlotresville~ Virginia 22902-4596
June 26. 1997
Mrs. Charlotte Humphris
109 Falcon Drive Colthurst
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Charlotte.
As you know, a number of construction projects are underway through the Capital
Improvements Program. The support of the Board of Supervisors for such proiects has
enabled the school division to both accommodate enrollment growth and ro have
outstanding educational facilities. I want to invite you to visit the display that has been
established in Room 331 of the County Office Building to show the progress on the
current capital projects. I would also like to invite you to the School Board's August I i
meeting, where a presentation will be made on the progress of construction of Monticello
High School. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office
Building and the Monticello High School presentation ~vill take place early in the
agenda.
· I hope you will be able to visit the display and attend the August I 1 meeting.
Members of the school division staff would certainly be pleased to answer any quesuons
you might have about the capital projects. Please know that the School Board is deeply
appreciative of your support of the school division.
Sincerdy,
Iqaren L. Powell. Chairman
Albemarle County School Board
KLP/ab
1-970625
cc- R. Tucker
"We Expect Success"
RENEE'S aUtO P~EPAIE SHOP
T/A
AND E GARAGE
SO. 12TS STREET
NEWARK, NJ 071 07
(20~) 483~8t6~
FAX
F~AX M~ ESSAGE~ TRANSMITTAL
DATE
T0~
COMPANY ~AMEi
ATTENTION~
FAX
NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED (iNQU3DING COVER)~ ~
T~{E INfORMATiON CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS CONFIDEN-
TAIL INFORMATION LNTENDED ONLY FOE T~qE PERSON (/H ENTITY NAMED A-
BOVE. IF YOU ~_~E NOT THE INTENDED ~ECIPIENT (OR SOMEONE RESPONS-
IBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT). PLEASE BE AW-
A~E THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OH COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY P2OHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED ~HIS COMMUNICATION IN
E~OB, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY AND RE-
TURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US .&T THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
THA~,~K YOU.
County of Application for Sp #: C~
Albemarle Date Submitted
SPECIAL USE Fee Paid /,/~erJ
PE~IT Receipt Number
In.kc Staff ~)~,
Department of Zoning
401 Mclntire Road :g Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 =g 804 296-5875 phone ~ 804 972-4035 fax
ZNEW SP (see Zoning Ordinance Section 35.0 for Appropriate Fee)
[] AMENDMENT OF A VALD SP: SP # ($85.00)
[] EXTENSION OF A VALID SP: SP# ($55.00)
~:axMapa'area: )~,g - O0-0o-oo500
Location:
PROJECT NAME: "--~/~/77,/'--/ ~-</c~.
/
Existing Zoning:
PRm'OSED rO'/-,¢/e
°'~ 1 5-,~ ~ ITh ' /q I.,~r~L'
Phone/Fax'. Day Time Phone:
APPLICANT Name (it' different fromowner): ~/0 m ~'b % I;A ) h' W'~/'~'~- d'"-
CONTAC'or Name (if different from above);
Phone/lJ~: ~t[0 ~lO~ Day Time Phone:
I hereby disclose that the owner or owners of the subject property also have an ownership interest in the
following tax map and parcel numbers, which abut or are immediateIy across the street or road from the
subject property:
If ownership of the subject properly is in the name of at~y type of legal entity or organization including, but
not limited to, the na~e of a corporation, partnership, or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a
fictitious name, the apt~licant must sumit with this application a document acceptable to the County which
cerfifies that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contmct purchaser
of the subject property, the applicant must submit a document acceptable to the County containing the
owneFs written consent to the application. If the applicant is the ar,3ant of the -owner, the appficant must
sa,Omit a document acceptable to the County that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is
accm'ate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Special Use Permit Apphcauon
DESCp, IPTION OF REQUEST: (Please attach additional information as needed)
~. II ~ , .~ .~ .
JUSTIFICATION: (Please attach additional information as needed)
OFFICE USE ONLY
;7.
5. 6.
g. 9.
ZONED: '[~-- ~ MAG DIST:
REQIJESTED 'UNDEK ORDINANCE .SECTION:
:.EXISTING:USE:
:PROPOSED'USE:
HI 501 :
[]';:'St~s:
~ ZMAs and Proffers:
[] Letter of Authorizauon
SPECIAI, USE PERMIT CI-W, CKLIST
PRIOR TO TI][E SUBMITTAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, A
PRt~'.I,IMINARY CONFERENCE SHOULD BE HELD WITI-I TI-IE PLANNING STAFF.
The current application form must be completed by the applicant in its entirety (the request
should be clear).
TWO COPIF. S OF THE FOLI.OWING INFORMATION SFIAI.L BE SUBMITTED WITH
THE APPLICATION AND IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT:
( ) Completed ap~c/licafion signed by the current owner of the property or a separate
statement signed by the current owner authorizing the application.
Letter of proffers, if applicable.
Most recent approved and recorded plat. If none exists, then a copy of the deed
description for the property or properties involved in the request. If the proposed
rezoning involves only a portion of a parcel, it shall be adequately indentified, to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
( b)-'" Description of Request (on back of application or attach own sheets).
(v)/ Justification of Request (on back of application or attach own sheets).
( ) ,.~Appropriate fee made payable to the County of Albemarle.
THE ZONING DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE THE FOLI.QWING INFORMATION TO
( ) One public notice sign for each roadway and/or road frontage.
( ) Instructions for posting s,gns.
( ) Copy of review schedule.
(Perso~ a~cepiing application)
Revised 4/30196
I:\GENERALkSHARE~ZONING\STAC'~ ~SPU SECFIK.FRM
Plat o,f a s a/ct of land o~'~d by F. L. Barris situate
· , Va. 1/2 mile north
in Charlottesville Nagisterfal D~trict Albemarl
Of Charlottesville City limits/n Meadow Brook Hefgh~s.~ Dec. 1945
IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF A~E~ARLE CIRCUIT COURT, &PRIL ~7, 194&.
ibis deed wa! presented *~ mB in said office and with cer~ificate a~lnexed
admitted to record at 2~O P. M. ~ $1.65 Stamp Affixed & P~at ttached.
Teste:
, Clerk
THIS DEED, made and entered into this 21st dey of
January, 1943, by and between WillieArthur Hudson and ~nie Hudson, his
~ife, parties of the first part, and Roy Fountain, party of the second part,
WI TN E S SETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of ~5.OO and
qther valuable consideration in hand paid by the party of the second part to
the parties of the first part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,
{he said pa~ties of the first part hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY~
With GENEHAD~ WARRANTY OF TITLE, unto the said Roy Fountain, all that certain
lot of land containing approximately one-half acre of land and lying in the
~icinity of Porters Precinct, Albemarle County, Virginia, between the old.
r~er's Precinct road and the present Porter,s Precinct road Just north of
R6ute Six~ being in all respects a portion of that tract of land conveyed to
Willie A. Hudson
&c
To ~S
~y Fo~tain
Fee $1.50
Tax .12
~ Tran ~.00
Pd._ $2.62
M. MeCauley &c
To Trust
vid J. Wood &c
Fee $2.50
Tax ~3.60
Pd. $6.!O~
Willie Arthur Hudson by Henry Johnson and wife by deed dated September 14,
1942, and recorded in the~ Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in D. B. 255, p. 493, to which deed reference is here made for a more
~articular description of the property hereby conveyed.
The said parties of the first part covenant with the
~arty of the second p~rt that they are seised in fee simple of the real pro~
~erty hereby conveyed; that they have a right td convey the same; that they
have done no act to encumber the same; that the party of the second part
shall have quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the said property; and that they
will execute such other and further assnrances as may be requisite to a comp]
and merchantable title to said property.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
his
Willie Arthur x Hudson (SEAL)
mark
Annie Hudson (SEAL
STATE OF VIRGINIA,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, TO-WIT:
I, Helen V. Beal, a Notary Public in and for the Connty
aforesaid· State of Va., do hereby certify that Willie Arthur Hudson and
Annie Hudson, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing, bea~
lng ~ate the 21st day of January, 1943, have and each has acknowledged the
same before me in my County aforesaid.
~y commission expires June 21, 1948.
Given under my hand this 6th day of April· 1946.
Helen V. Beal, Notary Public
VIRGINIA,
IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF ALBEMARLE CIRCUIT COURT, APRIL 17, 1946.
This deed was presented to me in said office and with certificate annexed
admitted to'record at 4:00 P. M.
Teste:
· Clerk.
i ~THIS DEED, Made this 16t~of April in the year Nine-
tee~ hundred Fort.y, Si~tween D. M. ~cCa~ an/Jane B. McCauley, his wife
~art~Aes of the filst par~kand David J. ~-~fed, C./W. Watts and W.
~rust~es of the CHARL?TTESV~ PERP~AL BUI~ING AND LOAN COMPANY, parties
of the second Dart, whereas sai~ties of/the first part have executed unto
the said Company their bond, of//even~E~e, with this deed, in the penal sum o!
SIX ITHousAN~ AND OO~/1OO DOLL~ with condition that said parties of the~ first]
part shall well and truly,/in the manner prescribed by its charter~ constitu
/
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BOAt ) OF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S5~30-97A09:40 ~CVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Fritz
AGENDA DATE:
June 4. 1997
ACTION: X
CQNSENTAGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
RE.VIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION: Yes
Yes
BACKGROUND:
At the request of the Board of Supervisors staff created a Wireless Telecommunications Task force for the purpose of
recommended potential policies onthe s~ng of wireless communication facilities. The Task Force consists of the following
individuals:
Ben Blankinship- ARB Representative
Bill Finley - Planning Commission Representative
Dick Gibson - 360 Communications
Charlotte Humphris - Board of Supervisors representative
Greg Kamptner - Assistant County Attorney
Jack Kelsey - Chief of Engineering
David Klumb - LIS Cellular
Tom Loach - Citizen Representative
Richard Martin - County Police
Don Maty - Dan Cell
Steve Muscarella - Amedcan 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 of iocational criteria for wireless communication facilities.
The purpose of this document is to provide to the public a focal poinl for discussion in the
formulation of a policy m address the location of wireless communication facilities. The document
is divided into several sections.
1
2.
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
commtmication systems.
Recommendations and Comments of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force - This
section includes the Task Force information as well as staffcomment.
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 mm, 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 facilities in scattered stand-alone sites
within the County.
Currently the Zoning Ordinance requ'tres 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 to provide consistent review of all tower requests and address the provisions of
Section 31.2.4.1, staff is attempfmg to establish criteria which may be agreed upon as valid for the
review of all towers. As an aid to this review, stuff has obtained two FCC Fact Sheets providing
new national wireless tower siting policies, attached. (Copies of the FCC Fact Sheet are available
on the Internet at www. fcc.gov/state&local/. Other useful information may be found at
www.fcc.gov/.)
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 Supermsors. 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. Staffhas worked with the two
cellular providers and two proposed PCS providers to determine the furore needs for towers. While
the total number of towers that will 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
fi~ml. Staff has 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
requires Federal land to be made available and a recent resolution by the Virginia Generally
Assembly makes a similar requirement 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 enyironment as possible.
However, this standard was developed prior to the 1980's with television and radio towers in mind
and not wireless communication towers. It 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.
Zonine Ordinance
The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance allow for the construction of new
telecommtmication towers only by special use permit. (All zoning districts permit
telecommunication towers by special use penuit.) Attachment to an existing st~tcture 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. This 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 transmission. 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 sisal. This characteristic allows
a single broadcast location to serve a broad area.
All of the commercial broadcasts listed above are received in a single 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
2
a different demand for facility locations. (Two-way radios are similar in their operation. However,
staff has not noted an increased demand for towers m accommodate two~way radio. Any future
request for a new two-way radio tower should 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 minimize 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 units ranges from approximately 0.6 to 3 watts. New
phones are appeanng on the market with lower power output. This low 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 cham~els.) 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 will be the number of chaunels
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 connections. This sets a high standard of reliability and quality. Technology
to reduce the need for multiple facilities, such as satellite technology, currently is unavailable. The
use of monopole, guyed or free 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 m render
them virtually 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
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 to provide coverage m 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 detennine
availability of signal (currently staff does not have the equipment or training to conduct
comprehensive field verification); 2) Submission ora ~erfified 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 bfblocked 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 to 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 staff has 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.
Intent
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 telecommunicatiun services will
not be unduly regulated and cannot be prohibited. The need for new facility sites continues to
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:
4
1. Goals;
2. Objectives;
3. Recommendations.
Goal: To provide adequate sites for the provision of telecommunication services that have miulmal
negative impact on the resources of the County.
O.b_iective: 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 ora
private engineering firm. Many localities are experiencing the same issues as Albemarle County
and independent engineering fmus do exist which specialize in working with localities. An
independent stud)' 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, hidustry representatives are concerned that ifthe study ~s to specific
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 with a 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
5
do not have the power of eminent domain.) Location of facilities on Comrty 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, cn'teria 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
modiflcatiun of the transmitters on existing sites to avoid interference. Following the event mobile
sites can quickly be removed. Mobile sites may be needed to serve special events where large
numbers o£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 gould be expected on the Entrance Corridors.
Objective: Encourage the use of existing facilities for the provision of service.
Recommendations:
Provide map of known facilitieg to service providers;
Allow by-right increase in height o f existing structures (slructures include but
are not limited to: buildings, towers, electrical transmission lines, flagpoles,
light poles, and signagel 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 constructing 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 uceeline, 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 permit;
Encourage the use of"stealth si~es" and camouflage technology.
STAFF COMMENT
As stated previously, the Open Space Plan may provide the necessary mapping of resourees which
may be adversely affected by the construction of new facilities.
Providing a standard for facility siting in the Rural Areas allows staff to ~mprove the quality 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&sign for the service providers. By-right construction in certain districts will likely
have the result of reducing requests in Residential or Rural Areas Districts. If a service provider can
locate by-right in a Commercial or Industrial District it is unlikely that it will choose instead m
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 incorporated into a building 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 of a site.
Ob_iective: Insure Comaty compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of special u~se permits.
Recommendations:
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 are 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
Telecommunications Act are addressed in all rexaews.
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 co-location. 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
tmable 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 servme providers would have to identify the property on which
to make the application and get the permission 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 bu'fld out of their systems. Those service providers that have less developed, or in
the case of PCS non-existent, systems would be more severely ~mpacted by this limited review
opportunity. The service providers have generally agreed to providing information once or twice a
year to the Board of Supervisors. This information would identify general search areas which are
being investigated for the coustmction 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-right,
as recommended in other portions of this report. This submittal of informatiun would allow the staff
to work with the service providers to identify co-location oppommities and to identify areas which
may be inappropriate due to one or more resource identified by the County.
I:\GENERAL\SHARE\FRITZ\TOWER\COMP2A.DRF
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 Authori _ty 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 authority of state and local
governments over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities, except as provided in the n/w paragraph (7).
2. Exceofions
a. States and Localities May Not Take Discriminatory_ or Prohibiting 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 govemmem
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)03)(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)03)(v).
b. Procedures for Ruling on Requests to Place, Construct or Modify Personal Wireless
Service Facilities
Section 704(a) also requires a State or local govemmem m act upon arequest for
authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a
reasonable t'mae. Any decision to deny a request must be made in writing and be
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(ii), (iii).
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 frequency 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 fmal action or failure to act that is inconsistent with this provision. 47
U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
3. Federal Guidelines Concerning RF Emissions
Section 704(b) requires the FCC to prescribe and make effective new roles regarding the
envirom-nental effects of radio frequency emissmns, which are under consideration in ET Docket
93-62, within 180 days of enac~nent 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)
gtves 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
specmun-based telecommunications services.
NOTE: Information concerning technical support for tower siting which the FCC is
making available to sra~e and local governments is atrached to the Fact Sheet.
5. Definitions
"Personal wireless services" include commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services,
and common carrier 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,
SMR services regulated under Part 90 of the FCC's rules, and PCS regulated under Part 24 of the
FCC's rules. 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 satellite
services are excluded from this 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 at 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 of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof
over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities.
(B) LIMITATIONS-
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality
thereof--
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services; and
(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local governmem 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 into account the nature and scope of such
request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to
deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities
shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record.
(iv) No State or local govemmem or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, 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 govemmem 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 Mreless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access
services;
(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision
of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the tmon 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of
telecommunications services using duly authorized devices wlfich do not require
individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite
services (as defined in section 303(v)).':
00) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS-
Within 180 days after the enactment ofth/s 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 shall 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
transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presunxption 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 depamuent 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\SHARE\FRITZ\TOWER\704.SUM
COUNTY OF AI,BEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney
June 17, 1997
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
This outline is an overview of the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
which apply to applications for special use permits for wireless telecommunications
facilities. This outline focuses primarily on the most controversial of the wireless
telecommunications facilities -- cellular towers. For purposes of this outline, the term
cellular towers refers to the antenna towers that may be required for either cellular
wireless or personal communications services.
1. Introduction~
Historically, the telephone, cable, and broadcast industries operated under
separate, and quite different, regulatory structures. Regulations vaded, and
each industry was regulated in a manner that was based on the assumption that
each was unrelated to the other, and that each had monopolistic characteristics.
As the technology in each of the several industries evolved, it became apparent
that what were once distinct technologies were converging to a common
technology using digital formats for content and fiber optics and wireless
technologies for transmission. These technologies have raised the possibility
~ The following sources were used in preparing the background information for this outline: The National
League of Cities. "The Telecommumcations Act of 1996: What It Means to Local Governments." and the Virginm
Association of Counties, "The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Issues for Virginia's Counties."
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, Dim~orofPlanning and Community Development
June 17,1997
Page 2
that each of these industries can compete with one another, and that new
entrants can compete as well.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempts to respond to this changing
technological reality. The Act allows telephone companies, wireless services,
cable operators and broadcasters to enter each other's markets, and makes way
for others, such as electric utilities, Internet providers, personal communications
services ("PCS"), movie and television studios, computer companies and
publishers to begin to offer bundles of services to the consuming public.
The impetus behind the Act is competition. Its mode for achieving its goal is
deregulation.
2. Wireless Telecommunications and Local Zoninq Authority
The Act contains two important, sometimes competing, provisions related to
wireless telecommunications. The first is a "barriers to entry" provision; the
second is the preservation of local zoning authority.
2.1 Barriers to entry
The Act preempts all state and local laws that prohibit, or have the effect
of prohibiting, a business from providing adequate services. The Act does
not describe what types of state or local laws or requirements might be
considered as prohibiting or having the effect of prohibiting adequate
telecommunications services. The best answer can only be made on a
case-by-case basis, looking at the facts in each particular case. However,
a zoning ordinance that prohibits alt wireless facilities, or which as applied
has the effect of prohibiting all wireless facilities, would likely be
considered to be a barrier to entry.
The Act provides two exceptions to the barrier to entry provision. The first
exception allows state laws that are necessary to promote universal
service; protect public safety and welfare; ensure continued quality of
telecommunications services; and protect the dghts of consumers. Any of
these laws must be competitively rteutral. The second exception allows
state and local laws concerning compensation for, and management of,
local streets and rights-of-way. Thus, wireless providers must pay fair and
reasonable compensation for using rights-of-way.
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, DirectorofPtanning and Community Development
June 17, 1997
Page 3
Even if a state or local requirement does not fall under one of these
exceptions, it is not a prohibited barrier to entry unless it actually prohibits
or has the effect of prohibiting entry.
2.2 Zoninq
Localities have long exercised zoning authority over development to
ensure that the appearance and integrity of neighborhoods are not marred
by the cluttering of unsightly facilities or the intrusion of commercial
facilities into residential areas.
The Act generally preserves a localJty's zoning authority over wireless
telecommunications facilities, provided that the zoning requirements are
nondiscriminatory, do not have the effect of prohibiting entry (and thereby
being an impermissible barrier to entry), and are not based on the health
effects of radio frequency emissions. Section 704 of the Act establishes,
among other things, a comprehensive framework for the exercise of
jurisdiction by local zoning authorities over the construction modification
and placement of wireless telecommunications facilities. Following are
the five conditions that must be satisfied in order for the County to
exercise its zoning authority over a proposed wireless telecommunications
land use:
2.2.1
The zoning ordinance may not unreasonably discriminate amonq
wireless telecommunications providers of functionally equivalent
services.
The industry representatives on the County's Wireless
Telecommunications Task Force have said that cellular telephone
service and PCS are functionally equivalent. Therefore. the County
may not treat one service differently from the other. This condition
is not surprising since, as noted earlier, one of the mare purposes
of the Act is to promote competition,
This condition does not require the County to treat competing
service providers exactly the same, The Act only prohibits
unreasonable discrimination Clearly, if the County authorizes a
100-foot cellular tower for Cellular Company A. it is not necessarily
required to do the same for PCS Company B. Congress intended
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, Dim~orofPlanning and Community Development
June 17.1997
Page 4
to give localities some flexibility in this area. and it is reasonable,
for example, to consider a proposed 100-foot cellular tower in a
residential zone differently than a similarly sized tower in an
industrial zone.
There may be other circumstances where the County may need to
treat cellular services and PCS differently. Under the language of
the Act. this appears to be permissible if there is an articulated
reasonable basis to do so.
2.2.2 The zoning ordinance may not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless telecommunications service.
This condition is intended to prevent localities from imposing
outright bans on wireless telecommunications facilities. The
County's zoning ordinance does not ban wireless
telecommunications facilities. Cellular towers are allowed in all
zoning districts with a special use permit. To date, the County has
processed fourteen applications for cellular towers, and eight of the
applications have been approved. Through the special use permit
process, the County has the ability to limit the number and
placement of cellular towers as long as the denial of an application
does not have the effect of precluding a service provider's ability to
provide service. Thus, a critical question to consider when acting
on an application is whether the denial of an application has the
effect of prohibiting the provision of the service.
It appears that the industry uses two criteria for determining
whether an area is without service: inadequate signal strength and
inadequate capacity to handle the volume of calls (resulting in calls
being blocked). The applicant must provide information as part of
its application which provides evidence that, either because of
inadequate signal strength or inadequate capacity, the approval of
the special use permit is required in order for the service to be
provided. Unfortunately, .there are presently no objective standards
to apply to either signal strength or percentage of blocked calls to
determine whether service is being provided.
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, DirectorofPlanning and Community Development
June 17,1997
Page 5
2.2.3
The County must act on a request for permission to place or
construct a wireless telecommunications facility_ within a reasonable
period of time.
The County processes applications for special use permits for
cellular towers within the same time period it does all other
applications for special use permits (recommendation from the
commission within 90 days, action by the board within a reasonable
period not to exceed twelve months). Therefore, the County
satisfies this condition.
2.2.4 A decision denyinq a request must be in writing and must be based
on evidence in a written record before the board.
The board's decision, not the commission's recommendation must
satisfy this condition.
If the board denies an application, its decision will now have to be
in writing, most likely in the form of a resolution adopted after the
public hearing. The resolution witl state the board's decision, then
list each of the findings made to support its decision. Each finding
will be followed by a statement of the evidence which supports the
finding.
To be certain that the commission's review and the board's action
are conducted in a proper framework, it is important that the staff
reports and information provided by the applicant identify and
address all of the findings that the board will have to make to
support its decision, particularly if the decision is to deny the
application.
2.2.5
The County may not base any decision denying a request to
construct a wireless telecommunications facility on health or
environmental effects as long as the facility meets the standards
set by the FCC.
The County may not adopt its own health or environmental
standards for wireless telecommunications facilities.
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, DirectorofPlanning and Community Development
June 17,1997
Page 6
Applicants for wireless telecommunications facilities should provide
evidence acceptable to the County that a proposed facility meets
the standards set by the FCC. If a facility satisfies the FCC's
standards, the County may not deny the application for health or
environmental reasons.
3. The Cdteria for the Granting of Special Use Permits
This section provides a review of the findings that must be made in order for a
special use permit to be granted under section 31.2.4.1 of the zoning ordinance.
The applicant has the burden to pro~;ide sufficient information to the County to
allow the findings to be made.
3.1. The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
There are at least fTve "detriments" related to cellular towers: visual,
economic, environmental, health and safety. The latter three should be
addressed by applicable (FCC and local) standards. Thus, the two most
important impacts for the commission to consider are the visual and
economic impacts of cellular towers to adjacent properties.
If a detriment is identified, the commission must determine whether the
detriment is substantial. Typically, this issue is raised by adjacent
property owners assert that the proposed cellular tower will be visible from
their property. The commission needs to consider, and the applicant
needs to address, whether the visual detriment is substantial.
If a detriment is determined to be substantial, the commission should
consider whether there are conditions that could be imposed to address
the impacts to adjacent properties in order to reduce the detriment to a
level below substantial. If the detriment cannot be reduced to a level
below substantial, the commission may recommend denial of the
application unless a denial would have the effect of prohibiting service.
3.2. The character of the district will not be changed thereby.
The character of a district differs from district to district. The commission
must consider whether a cellular tower changes the character of the
district in which it would be located.
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, DirectorofPlanning and Community Development
June 17,1997
Page 7
It may be useful to have existing conditions identified in the district, such
as the existence of any other single towers or multiple towers (whether
related to wireless telecommunications or not) and other manmade
structures of any type, such as utility poles and railroads, that could
influence whether a change of the character of the district would be
caused by a cellular tower.
If it is determined that the granting of the special use permit would change
the character of the district, the commission should consider whether
there are conditions that could be imposed to address the impacts to the
district in order to preserve its character. If there are no conditions that
could be imposed, the commission may recommend denial of the
application unless a denial would have the effect of prohibiting service.
3.3 The use wili be in harmony with various relevant factors.
The commission must consider whether a proposed cellular tower is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and other
regulations of the zoning ordinance; in harmony with the uses permitted
by right in the applicable zoning district; and in harmony with the public
health, safety and general welfare.
Although this finding touches on several issues, the key issue will likely be
whether a proposed cellular tower is consistent with the goal of facilitating
"the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community."
Wireless telecommunications provide an additional means of
communication and, therefore, promote convenience. However, the
commission will likely encounter testimony at the public hearing that a
proposed tower will be unattractive. Acknowledging that manmade
structures are permitted as a matter of right throughout the County, the
commission needs to focus on the particular features of a cellular tower
that may be considered to be unattractive, such as its height, when
considered in relation to other structures within the zoning district and, in
particular, in the vicinity of the proposed tower site.
As with the other findings, the commission should consider whether there
are conditions that could be imposed to reduce the impacts of the
proposed cellular tower so that this finding can be made. If there are no
conditions that could be imposed to address the impacts, the commission
Planning Commission
Wayne Cilimbe~, DirectorofPlanning and Community Development
June 17.1997
Page 8
may recommend denial of the application unless a denial would have the
effect of prohibiting service.
4. Conclusion
Cellular towers present difficult zoning issues. The Telecommunications Act has
added another level of complexity by requiring, among other things, that the
County may not take an action that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting,
wireless telecommunications services.
If the commission is inclined to recommend approval of an application, it may
also recommend reasonable conditions to address any impacts caused by the
facility.
If the commission is inclined to recommend denial, it must be assured that a
denial does not have the effect of prohibiting service. Whether a denial has the
effect of prohibiting service is a difficult determination for several reasons. It is
unclear what constitutes the "prohibition of service" from a technological
standpoint. There are no objective standards for signal strength and capacity to
apply. It also is unclear whether the denial of an application for a special use
permit for a sing!e piece of property has the effect of prohibiting service, s~nce
there may be other properties in the vicinity that are more appropriate for the
use. It would appear to be reasonable for the commission to require that a
service provider demonstrate that all possibilities for the area in need of service
have been considered and exhausted in order to establish that a denial of the
application would have the effect of prohibiting service.
I hope that this memorandum is of asSistance to you. If you have any questions,
please let me know.
GK:rcs
YVFRELESS.DOC