Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-05 IIN~ 9;fir) \ 53 \R( I ~ It,~,. BI II !)IXfl 2) 5) 8) 10) ~1) D) Call to Order. Pledge of'Allegiance. .. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Transportation Matters: a) Discussion: Modification of construction plans for the Route 29 North project, re: construction of crossover between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road; and proposed closure of crossovers at Kegler's and Better Living entrances. b) Discussion: West Leigh Drive,- CSX Railroad Crossing. c) Discussion: Greenbrier Drive Extension - UsE of Right-of-way and Reallocation of Secondary Funds. d) Discussion: Participation in VDoT Revenue Sharing Program. e) Other Transportation Matters. 10:00 a.m. - Public Hearing: To receive comments on whether the County should participate in a Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. FY 1998 County Operating Budget Overview. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. Appointments. Adjourn to March 10, 1997, 5:00 p.m., for Joint Meeting with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Charlottesville City Council and Board of County Supervisors. f ()N~I N I .\(;[.N1)A FOR APPROVAL: 5,1 Appropnauon: Education/Grants - $8,647 (Form #96053). 5.2 Authorize County Executive to execute Agreement for the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the County and VDOT, and the corresponding pass-through Agreement between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc., and the County. 5.3 Participate in the developmem and maintenance of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Nature Trail. 5.4 Set a public hearing to abandon Old State Route 631 (the portion that runs between 1-64 and Moores Creek). 5.5 Authorize County Executive to execute Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant. 5.6 Final Draft Statement for Annual Six Year Primary Road Plan Prea]location Hearing. FOR INFORMATION: 5.7 Letter dated February 20, 1997, from H. W. Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: need for speed limit along Route 240 between Route 250 and the Con-Agra Plant. 5.8 Notice from the Department of Transportation of a Location and Design Public Hearing to be held on March 25, 1997, the proposed construction of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) from 0.026 mile south of the intersection of Hydraulic Road (Rt 743) to 0.172 mile north of the intersection of Rt 29, in Albemarle County. 5.9 Notice from the Department of Transportation that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the major design features of Route 614 (replacement of bridge approaches over the Moormans River at 0.39 and 1.35 miles west of Route 674 in Albemarle County). 5.10 Request to the participating counties in the Region Ten Community Services Board to donate a tree to Region Ten's new home facility. 5.11 Copy of Ruling by the State Corporation Commission and notice of public hearing on a request by Earlysville Forest Water Company of its intent to increase rates for water service. 5.12 Copy of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Appalachian Power Company to r~evise its' cogeneration tariff pursuant to PUP, PA Section 210. 5.13 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for January, 1997, 5.14 Juvenile Detention Planning Study Update. 5.15 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for February 11, 1997. 5.16 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for January 16, 1997. 5.17 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for January 27, 1997. 5.18 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for January 27, 1997. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker. Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cleric ~ ~--~ March I0, 1997 Board Actions of March 5. 1997 At its meeting on March 5. 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. I. Call 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. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Ms. Karen Dame thanked the County Planning staff for the detailed schedule and topic listing setting out the completion of the Comprehensive Plan review, rhe information is valuable and allows citizens to keep track of what is going on. She also expressed appreciation for "FYI". particularly the last issue which focused on reversion. Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Education/Grants - $8,647 (Form #96053). Approved. Original forth forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.2. Authorize County Executive to execute Agreement for the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the County and VDOT, and the corresponding pass-through Agreement between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Fotmdation. Inc.. and the County. Approved. Signed agreements forwarded to County Attorney's office to get additional signatures. Item No. 5.3. Participate in the development and maintenance of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Nature TraElo Approved the proposed project as set out in the staff report contingent on similar approval by the City of Charlottesville and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Memo To: Robert W. Tud<er, Jr. Date: March 10, 1997 Page: 2. Item No. 5.4. Set a public hearing to abandon O1d State Route 631 (the portion that runs between 1-64 and Moores Creek). Public hearing set for May 7, 1997, 10:00 a.m. The Clerk wiB prepare the advertisement and notification. Item No. 5.5. Authorize County Executive to execute Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant. Approved. Agreement forwarded to Crozet Park for signature and return to the County. Item No. 5.6. Final Draft Statement for Annual Six Year PrimmT Road Plan Preallocation Hearing. Approved. Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Modification of construction plans for the Route 29 North project, re: construction of crossover between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road; and proposed closure of crossovers at Kegler's and Better Living entrances. Concurred wlth the proposed changes which are: 1) construction of a crossover centered between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road; and 2) closure of the proposed crossovers located at the Kegler's and Better Living entrances. Item No. 6b. Discussion: West Leigh Drive - CSX Railroad Crossing. The Board suggested that Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Frank Whiteley, Mr. Jack Kegley, Mr. Larry Davis and Mrs. Angela Tud(er work together to develop a plan regarding the CSX railroad crossing into West Leigh Subdivision and continue pursuing the issue with CSX. The Board would also like to be kept informed on the status of the project. Item No. 6c. Discussion: Greenbrier Drive Extension - Use of Right-of-way and Reallocation of Secondary Funds. Item No. 6d. Discussion: Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. Consensus of Board to retain the Greenbrier Drive Extended right-of-way for an alternative bicycle/pedestrian link and continue funding in the Capital Improvements Program for its development. Funds in the FY 1997-2003 SLx Year Road Plan to be redistributed as proposed by VDOT, with the understanding that staff will work with VDOT in the coming year to identify possible improvements to the existing Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road for future Secondary Road funding~ Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Date: March 10, 1997 Page: 3. The Board voted to reallocate the $800,000 in Revenue Sharing funds which were earmarked for the Greenbrier Drive Extended project to Meadow Creek Parlcway, Phase II, from Rio Road to Route 29 North, to fund the Environmental Impact Statement. Item No. 6e. Other Transportation Matters. Mrk. Tucker provided an update on the Route 614 bridge improvements. Mrs. Thomas asked if work in the charred will be included in the proiect. Mrs. Tucker said she will confirm that will be part of the reconstruction efforts with the bridge. Mrs. Thomas asked that consideration be given to making the bridge one-lane. Mrs. Thomas also asked if a sign indicating "caution narrow bridge'~ could be installed on the bridge. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider restricting through truck traffic on Georgetown Road at its March meeting. He received a copy of the staff report prepared by VDOT. It is his understanding VDoT staff recommends restricting the truck traffic. The Board decided that it would wait until after talldng to Mr. Roudabush before requesting an opportmzity to make comments at the CTB meeting. Mr. Perkins asked Mrs. Tucker to consider installing additional reflectors at the south end of Millington Bridge. He received some complaints about drivers not being able to see the bridge at night. Mrs. Thomas handed Mrs. Tucker a list of guard rail issues that she will discuss with her later. Mrs. Humphris said she received a call from a citizen about fearing of big trees on a bank on Route 20, approximately one mile from Route 250. The work seems to be destabilizing the bank. Mr. Marshall commented that this is where a day care center is being built near Broadus Memorial Church. Mrs. Humphris asked that staff look into this situation. Mrs. Thomas thanked VDOT for dearing the greenery on Route 250. Drivers can see the road signs and the road is now safer to travel. Mr. Marshall asked that Route 20 South be restriped. He received several calls from citizens who could not see the road during a recent rain because the white line on the right hand side of the road has been obliterated. Mr. Marshall asked for an update next month on the status of the widening of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the Monticello High School. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Date: March 10, 1997 Page: 4. Mr. Marshal/ asked when ~vork on the deceleration lane from 1-64 to PVCC will be completed. Mr. Williams said the project is in its final paving stages, and VDOT anticipates the project will be completed by the end of April. Mr. Bowerman mentioned a request he received from Liz Seabrook at the Senior Center for a crosswalk from the Senior Center to Greenbrier Drive. Agenda Item No. 7. 10:00 a.m. - Public Hearing: To receive comments on whether the County should participate in a Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Motion was by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to draft a resolution for consideration on March 12, 1997, that will dearly state the Board's position on the possibility of the partnership, ways the Board would like to have it shaped to address its constituent concerns, and that the Board intends to move forward on this matter. Non-Agenda. Ms. Nancy O'Brien said Dr. Nick Evans will make a presentation on the Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy groundwater database on Thursday, March 6, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., at TJPDC, in the NationsBard¢ Building on the Downtown Mall. Agenda Item No. 8. FY 1998 County Operating Budget Overview. Received. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas reported on the NACo Annual Conference she recently attended. Agenda Item No. 10. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:49 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider personnel matters relating to appointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees and a prospective employment candidate; and trader Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion. Agenda Item No. 11. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 2:09 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify the executive session. Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Date: March I0, 1997 Page: 5. Appointed Mr. Terrence Y. Sieg to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, with said term to expire on December 13, 1999. Appointed Mr. William I. Mawyer, Jr., as the Director of Engineering and Public Works, effective April 1, 1997. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to March 10, 1997, 5:00 p.m.; for Joint Meeting with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Charlottesville City Council and Board of County Supervisors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adjourn to March I O, 1997, 5:00 p.m. /ewe Attachments pc: V. Wayne Cllimberg Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amdla McCulley Jack Kelsey Brace Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinlde File David P Bowerman Ftio Chado~e Y Humphds Formst R. M~, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMAR~ E Office of Board of Superdsors 401 Mdnfim Road Charlottesville, V~'ginia 22902-4596 (804l 296.-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas March 10. 1997 Mrs. Angela Tud<er Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville. VA 229t 1 Dear Mrs. Tud~er: At its meeting on March 5. 1997. the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Item No. 5.4. Set a public hearing to abandon Old State Route 631 (the po~ion that runs between 1-64 and Moores Creek). Public hearing set for May 7, 1997, 10:00 a.m. Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Modification of construction plans for the Route 29 North project, re: construction of crossover between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road: and proposed closure of crossovers at Kegler's and Better Living entrances. Concurred with the proposed changes which are: 1 ) construction of a crossover centered between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road: and 2) closure of the proposed crossovers located at the Kegler's and Better Living entrances. Item No. 6b. Discussion: West Leigh Drive - CSX Railroad Crossing. The Board suggested that Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Frank Whiteley, Mr. Jack Kegley, Mr. Larry Davis and you work together to develop a plan regarding the CSX railroad crossing into West Leigh Subdivision and continue pursuing the issue gdth CSX. The Board would adso like to be kept informed on the status of the project. Item No. 6c. Discussion: Greenbrier Drive Extension - Use of Right-of-way and Reallocation of Secondary Funds. Printed on recycled paper Mrs. Angela Tucker March [13, 1997 Page 2 Item No. 6d. Discussion: Participation in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. Consensus of Board to retain the Greenbrier Drive Extended fight-of-way for an alternative bicycle/pedestrian link and continue funding in the Capital Improvements Program for its development. Funds in the FY 1997-2003 Six Year Road Plan to be redistributed as proposed by VDOT, with the understanding that staff will work with VDOT in the coming year to identify possible improvements ro the existing Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road for future Secondary Road funding. The Board voted to reallocate the $800,000 in Revenue Sharing funds which were earmarked for the Greenbrier Drive Extended project to Meadow Creek Parkvcay~ Phase II, from Pdo Road ro Route 29 North. to fund the Environmental Impact Statement Item No. 6e. Other Transportation Matters. You provided mi update on the Route 614 bridge improvements. Mrs. Thomas asked if work in the channel will be included in the project. You said you would confirm that will be parr of the reconstruction efforts with the bridge. Mrs. Thomas asked diat consideration be given to making the bridge one-lane. Mrs. Thomas also asked if a sign indicating "caution narrow bridge" could be installed on the bridge. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider restricting through truck traffic on Georgetown Road at its March meeting. He rec(~ved a copy of the staff report prepared by VDOT. It is his understanding VDoT staff recommends restricting the truck traffic, The Board decided that it would wait until after talldng to Mr. Roudabush before requesting an opportunity to make comments at the CTB meeting, Mr. Perkins asked VDoT to consider installing additional reflectors at the south end of Millington Bridge. He received some complaints about drivers not being able to see the bridge ar Mrs. Thomas handed you a list of gnard rail issues that she ~viI1 discuss with her later. Mrs. Humphtis said she received a call from a citizen about clearing of big trees on a bank on Route 20, approximately one mile from Route 250. The work seems to be destabiIizing the bmzk. Mr. Marshall commented that this is where a day care center is being built near Broadus Memorial Church. Mrs, Humphris asked that staff look into this situation. Mrs. Angela Tucker March 1t3, 1997 Page 3 Mrs. Thomas thanked VDOT for clearing the greenery on Route 250. Drivers can see the road signs and the road is now safer to travel Mr. Marshall asked that Route 20 South be restriped. He received several calls from citizens who could not see the road during a recent rain because the white line on the right hand side of the road has been obliterated. Mr. Marshall asked for an update next month on the status of the widening of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the Monticello High School. Mr. Marshall asked when work on the deceleration lane from 1-64 to PVCC will be complete& Mr. Williams said the project is in its final paving stages, and VDOT anticipates the project will be completed by the end of April. Mr. Bowerman mentioned a request he received from Liz Seabrook at the Senior Center for a crosswalk from the Senior Center to Greenbrier Drive. EWC Sincerely, . Carey, CMC. ~lerk~ / cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To,' From: Subject: Date: Pat Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Items Approved by the Board on March 5, 1997 March 10, 1997 At its meeting on March 5, 1997, the Board took the following actions: Item No. 5.3. Participate in the development and maintenance of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Nature Trail. Approved the proposed project as set out in the staffreport contingent on similar approval by the City of Charlottesville and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Item No. 5.5 Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant agreement. Approved. A copy of the agreement will be forwarded to you after all signatures are obtained. I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~. Appropriations Approved on May 5, 1997 March 10, 1997 Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by the Board at its meeting on March 5, 1997: 1) Virginia Commission for the Arts Grants and Donations - Form #96053, $8,64T00. Attachment cc: Roxanne White Richard E. Hufl~ II Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman APPROPRIATION REQUEST · ~ FISCAL YEAR 96/97 ~BER 96053 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND SCHOOL/GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS GRANTS AND DONATIONS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1310460202601300 1310460204601300 1310460211601300 1310460212601300 1310460302601300 1310460601601300 INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS S300.00 297.00 1,200.00 300.50 300.00 200.00 1220561101601300 INSTRUCT. MATERIALS HOLLYMEAD 50.00 12253~1411331100 12251611015B0000 REPAIR/MAINT-EQUIP REPAIR~MAINT-EQUIP JACK JOUETT BURLEY 5,000.00 1,000.00 TOTAL $8~647.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310424000240308 ~P,~MNT 97-1062 S200.00 2310424000240299 2310424000240300 2310424000240302 2315424000240301 2310424000240303 2310424000240304 2310424000240305 2310424000240307 2200018100181109 220C018100181109 2200018100181109 GP3MNT 97-1531 300.00 GRANT 97-0995 300.00 GRANT '97-1036 300.00 GRANT 97-1032 297.00 GRANT 97-1033 300.00 GRANT 97-1034 300.00 GRANT 97-1035 300.00 GP,/kNT 97-1037 300.00 DONATION 50.00 DONATION 5~000.00 DONATION 1,000.00 TOTAL $8,647.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I~NATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Apprepdation - Education / Grants SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #96053 in the amount of $8,647.00 - $2,597.00 in grants from the Virginia Commission for tho Arts and $6,050.00 in donations from various organizations. STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ~ / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on February 10, 1997, the School Board approved the following appropriations: $2,597.00 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts; $50.00 for Hotlymead Elementary School; $5,000.00 for Jack Jouett Middle School; and $1,000.00 for Burley Middle School. DISCUSSION: The V'mginia Commission for the Ads awarded Hollymead Elementary School a Toudng Assistance Grant in the amount of $200.00 and Teacher Incentive Grants in the amount of $300.00 each to Brownsville and Woodbreok Elementary Schools, and Western Albemarle High School. Stony Point Elementary School was awarded four Teacher Incentive Grar~s in the amount of $300.00 each and Greer Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $297.00. The Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of education in and through the arts in elementa~ and secondary schools, [o explore new opportunities [or creativity in the classroom. and to encourage innovative projects which integrate the arts into non-arts curricula. Hollymead Elementary School has received a donation in the amount of $50.00 from the Womans Club of Charlottesville. This donation is to be used to purchase a set of musical videos which will be used to educate, instruct, and model musical presentations for the Hollymead Chorus. Jack Jouett Middle School has received a donation in the amount of $5.000.00 from the Jack Jouett PTO. This $8,000.00 check is a donation from Jack Jouett PTO as a result of the annual magazine sales. This donation will De used to pay for leasing and maintenance of the Sharp copier at Jack Jouett Middle School. Burley M'KJdle School has received a donation in the amount of $1 ~000.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation wilt be useo for miscellaneous purchases for the band, library, chorus and science classes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriations as detailed on form #96053. 97.042 ~E~©A.,D O SUPERVISO~$~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: February 12, 1997 TO: Robert W. T~er,~Jr., County Executive FROM: Kevin Castne~ision Superintendent RE: Request for Appropr!ation At its meeting on February 10, 1997, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Approprmation of S2,597.00 from the Virginia Commissisn for the Arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Hollymead elementary School a Touring Assistance Grant in the amount of $200.00 and Teacher Incentive Grants in the amounm of $300.00 each no Brownsville and Woodbrook Elementary Schools, and Western Albemarle High School. Stony Point Elemensary School was awarded four Teacher Incentive Grants in the amount of $~00.00 each and Greet Elementary School was awarded a gran5 in the amount of S297.00. The Virginza Commission for the. Arts Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality o~ education in and through the arts in elementary and secondary schools, to explore new opportunities for creativity in the classroom, and to encourage innovative projects which integrate the arms into non-arms curricula. Appropriation of $50.00 for Hollymead Elementary School. Ho!lymead Elementary School has received a donation in'the amounn of $50.00 from the Womans Club of Charlo55esville. This donation is mo be used to purchase a se5 of musical videos which will be used ~o educate, instruct, and model musical presentations for the Hollymead Chorus Appropriation o~ $5,000.00 from the Jack Jouett PTO. Jack Jouett Middle School has received a donation in the amount of $5 000.00 from the Jack Jouett PTO. This $5,000.00 check is a donatzon from Jack Jouet~ PTO as a resu~5 o~ the annual magazine sales This donation will be used mo pay for leasing and maintenance of the Sharp copier am Jack Jouett Middle School. Page 2 February 12, 1997 Appropriation of $1,000.00 from Humagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc~ Burley Middle School has received a donation ~n the amount of $1,000.00 from ~umagen Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. This donation will be used for miscellaneous purchases for the band, library, chorus and science classes. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachmenE. /smm Attachment xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey ~Pag~ ~3 ~ FebrUary 12, 1997 Albemarle County Public Schools Virqinia Commission for the Arts Grants 2-3104-24000-240308 2-3104-24000-240299 2-3!04-24000-240300 2-3104-24000-240302 2-3104-24000-240301 2-3104-24000-240303 2-3104-240D0-240304 2-3!04-24000-240305 2-3104-24000-240306 Grant 97-1062 Grant 97-1031 Grant 97-0995 Grant 97-1036 Grant 97-1032 Grant 97-1033 Grant 97-1034 Grant 97-1035 Grant 97-1037 Expenditure 1-3104~60202-601300 1-3104-60204-601300 1-3104-6021i-601300 1-3104-60212-601300 1-3104-60302-601300 1-3104-60601-601300 Instructional Materials Instructional Materials Instructional Materials Instructional Materials InstrUctional Materials Instzuctional Materials 8200.00 $300.00 8300.00 $300.00 8297.00 $300.00 $300.O0 S300.00 $3OO.OO $2,597.00 $300.00 $297,00 $1,200.00 $300.00 8300.00 ..S200.00 $2,597.00 Donation- Hollvmead Elementary School Revenue 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure 1-2205-61101-601300 Donation Instructional Materials S50.00 S50.00 Donation-Jack Jouett Middle School Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure 1-2253-61411-331100 Donation Repair Maint-Equipmen5 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Donation-Butler Middle 3choo] Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure 1-2251-61101-580000 Donation Miscellaneous Expenses $1,000.00 $1,000.00 AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this 2'~-/~ day of N e~,, ,1997, between the THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC., hereinafter called the "Foundation" and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "Department has adopted a S'x Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 for streets and highways, which incluc~es an allocation of funds for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phases I, II and III) identified in the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as Projects EN93-002-V05-PE101,RW201,C501; EN94-002-VO9-PE101 ,RW201, C501 and EN96-002-119-PE101,PE102,C501 and referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $4,625,000 for Phases I, II and I1 , which in eludes $3,000,000 .of Enhancement Program Funds and $1,625,000 in contributions to the Project by the Foundation; and WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct the Project and have entered into an Agreement in which the County agrees to have the Project implemented within 48 months from the date funds are made available for each phase of the Project: and WHEREAS. the Foundation desires to undertake certain responsibilities and duties of the County as an incentive for the County to undertake the Project and to complete it as expeditiously as possible. NOW, THEREFORE. for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Foundation shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the County in performing the preliminary engineering, right-of-way/property acquisition and construction phases of the Project, specifically including the following: a. Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the preliminary engineenng, design and plan development necessary to award a contract for construction: and the administration, su;~ervision and inspection of the construction of the Project through final acceptance, in accordance with Department procedures and policies, including settlement of any claims and disputes arising from the Project. b. If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department, submit each phase of the work to the County or the Department for review and approval as the Project develops; allow County or Department personnel to inspect all phases of the Project at all times. c. Prepare bid documents, plans and specifications for the Project, including such items as general notes, references to specifications 2 f. and standards, typical sections, drainage plans, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control methods, profiles, cross sections, summaries, and the like. Plans and bid documents must meet or exceed Department standards and be approved by the De- partment. Coordinate the Project through the State Environmental Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental document as established by the Federal Highway Administration policy and procedures and carry out the functions necessary to clear the Project environmentally. Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste sites during the survey or early plan development stage. Discuss the presence of these sites and design alternatives with the Department. Once contamination is determined to exist, whether obvious or established through testing, the Foundation shall notify the appropriate regulatory agency. Conduct detailed studies such as site characterization to determine the length of time required for clean-up and potential financial liability for the County and Department. If the purchase of property is anticipated the first option is to pursue remediation by the property owner(s) through the appropriate agencfes. If required by the Department, post a "notice of willingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project so that the County can conduct such a 3 hearing, if necessary, in accordance with Department and Federal Highway Administration requirements ane coordinate the Project with property owners in the Project area. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project. If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition plans or plats for the Project and acquire title to all property needed for the Project in the name of the Foundation by purchase or to pay all costs of the County in acquinng title to property by eminent domain, if necessary. If applicable, abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in the acquisition of rights-of-way/property for this Project and follow the policy and procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the Department's Right of Way Manual, which are incorporated by reference. Provide relocation assistance to those whose property is acquired for the Project in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR Part 24). Deliver all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation assistance files. closing statements, eminent domain records and the like to the County so it can maintain them for a period of three (3) years after final disposition of the Project by the Federal Highway Administration Acceptance of final voucher shall constitute final disposition 4 Coordinate and authorize utility relocations. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, n conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. The Foundation will not award a construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate or is approved by the Department. The Foundation will not award such contract until the Commonwealth Transportatio~ Board has accepted and approved the bid ane the contractor, and until a standard County- State agreement is executed. Submit any change orders to construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer and the Department's Resident Engineer for approval prior to the authorization of the change order. Receive County and Department approval of any claims arising from construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested prior to settlement. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documentation of all expenditures, identifying federally participating, federally non- participating, and in-kind contributions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make Project documentation available for inspection and/or audit by the County, the Department or the Federal government at any time. 5 All project costs shall be paid by the Foundation. The Foundation shall submit to the Department, with a copy to the County, no more frequently than monthly, a statement requesting reimbursement for the Federal share of the Project's costs. The statement must identify and document Project expenditures to date and include a summary in the following categories: · Participating expenditures Non-participating expenditures · In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way or services. Agree to reimburse the County 100% of all expenses incurred by the County in the event that: The project is canceled during any phase of work; · Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration due to the failure to follow proper federal guidelines and/or the expenditures are found to be federally non-participating items: Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program or funds actually available for the Project. Meet all County site plan, zoning, and subdivision ordinance requirements. 6 The County will coordinate with cooperate with, and assist the Foundation in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to: a. Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the Foundation. b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Department. Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate Federal and State agencies; provide assistance and guidance to the Foundation relative to environmental documentation and coordination as is appropriate. c. Process payments to the Foundation of reimbursements received from the Department for Project expenditures. d. Cooperate with the Foundation and the Department in the audit of all project costs and records as required by the federal h ghway administration. e. To take all reasonable actions required to obtain funding for the project pursuant to the Enhancement Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum amount of federal funds available for this project is $3,000.000. All applicable federal, state and local regulations shall apply to all work performed on the project including consultant services contracts and construction contracts. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto. 7 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and upon notification by the County that the Department approvals have been received, the Foundation will be authorized to commence with the Project. This agreement may be modified by written agreement with the mutual consent of the Foundation and the County. The Foundation will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race. color, religion, sex, age, handicap, nationa~ origin or other non-merit factors provided they are qualified and meet physical requirements established for the positions. None of the funds, materials, property or services contributed by the County or the Foundation, under this Agreement, shall be used in the performance of this Agreement for any partisan political activity, or to further the election or defeal of any candidate for public office. No' officer, member, or employee of the Foundation who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this project, shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interest or have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 11. The Foundation shall contribute a minimum of $625.000 to the Project, such contribution to be in a form and made at such time as acceptable to the Department and the County. 12. The Foundation shall maintain any property improved as part of the Project which is not accepted for maintenance by the Department. The m~nimum level of maintenance shall be a reasonable standard of care as determined by the Department. 13. The Foundation shall, after construction of the Project, or any part thereof, not permit any changes or alterations to [he Project. as approved and completed, without the prior written approval of the Department. 14. The Foundation sha] prior to any substantial work on the Project. have appropriate Foundation agents and personnel, as determined by the County and the Department, attend a preliminary coordination meeting with the County and the Department. 15. The Foundation agrees to indemnify the County and hold it. and its officers, agents, representations and employees harmless from any and all claims, damages, costs, including attorney's fees, and liabilities of any kind arising out of or resulting from the Foundation's or its agents' negligent performance of its obligation under this Agreement or any failure by the Foundation to meet any obligation required to complete the Project. 16. The Foundation shall take out and carry during the entire term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and general public liability ~nsurance 9 with adequate limits to protect both the Foundation and the County from liability, such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Foundation will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing the insurance coverage required herein. 17. The Foundation shall provide to the County a performance bond, in a form approved by the County Attorney, in the amount of $3,000,000, to guarantee the Foundation's performance of this Agreement. Such performance bond shall be delivered to the County prior to its execution of the Agreement. 18. This Agreement supersedes the Agreement for Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway By the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation dated December 21 1994, previously entered into by the parties to this Agreement. Any provision of such earlier agreement inconsistent with this Agreement shall be of no further effect upon the execution of this Agreement by all of the parties hereto. IN WlTNE$$ETH WHEREOF. the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. ~ ~TY EXECUT~-VE x~ 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~'U N~ ATTORNEY WITNESS: THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, NC. 94-145.015 11 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Thomas Jefferson Parkway Agreements SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST; Approval of t~reement between County and VDOT and Agreement between County and Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. for construction and funding of Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X STAFF CONTACTISI: Messrs. Tucker, Davis ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: In December of 1994 the Board of Supervisors authorized the County to enter into agreements with VDOT and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. [Foundation) to secure ISTEA enhancement funding for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project. The Project at that time included Phases I and II with the project cost estimated at $3,125,000 of which $2,500,000 was enhancement program funded and the balance funded by the Foundation. In 1996, the Board approved an additional ISTEA Enhancement Program application for Phase III of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project. VDOT has approved this applicatior for enhancement funding for a total project (Phases I, II, and III) cost estimated at$4,625,000 of which $3,000,000 will be Enhancement Program funded and the balance funded by the Foundation. DISCUSSION: The current Project phases I & II) and the proposed Phase III are proceeding with the commitment from the Foundation that it will be responsible for administering the Project. VDOT requires an agreement with the County to satisfy the Enhancement Program requirements necessary for funding eligibility. The County requires an agreement with the Foundation to pass through tothe Foundation the County's obligations and responsibilities for the Project placed on it by the County's agreement with VDOT. The Agreements (located in the Clerk's Office) cover the entire Project (Phases I, Il, & III) and supersede the prior Agreemenls for Phases I & I1. The County/Foundation Agreement makes the Foundation responsible for the Project with little County overnight or involvement The Agreement requires the Foundation to post a $3,000,000 bond with the County to assure that the requirements for the enhancement funding are met by the Foundation, or if not, to provide the funds necessary for the County to reimburse any amount required to be repaid to VDOT for failure to meet the Enhancement Program mandates. RECOMMENDATION: The County Attorney's Office has approved the Agreements as to form and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement i~or the Development and Administratior of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the County and VDOT and the corresponding pass-through agreement between the Foundation and the County. The pass-through agreement will not be executed until the VDOT agreement has been executed by VDOT and the Foundation has posted the requisite $3,000,000 bond. 97.041 AGREEM~ FOR DEVELOPMF~NT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this day of , 1997, between the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the "Department" and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, here'mafter called the "County". WITNESSETH: WltEREAS, the Department has adopted a Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 for streets and highways, which includes an allocation of funds for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phase I, II and IIB identified in the Enhance- ment Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as Projects EN93-002-V05,PE101,RW201,C501; EN94-002-V09-PEt01,RW201,C501 and EN96-002- llg-?E101,PE102,C501 and referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and W/IF. RE, AS, the estimated cost of the project is $4,625,000 for Phases I II and III, which includes $3,000,000 of Enhancement Program Funds and $1,625,000 in contributions to the Project by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, and wm*~REAS, the Department and the County desire to construct the Project as expeditiously as possible and the County agrees to have the Project implemented within 48 months from the date funds are made available for each phase of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The County shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the Department in performing the preliminary engineering, right-of-way/property acquisition and construction phases of the Project, specifically including the following: a. Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the preliminary engineering, design and plan development necessary to award a contract for construction; and the adminis~tration, supervision and inspection of the construction of the Project through final acceptance, in accordance with Department procedures and policies, including settlement of any claims and disputes arising from the Project. b. If deemed appropriate by the Department, submit each phase of the work to the Department for review and approval as the project devel- ops; allow Department personnel to inspect all phases of the project at all times. c. Prepare plans for the Project, including such items as general notes, references to specifications and standards, typical sections, drainage plans, stormwater management, erosion and s~iment control methods, profiles, cross sections, summaries, and the like. Plans may be pre- 2 pared in accordance with County of Albemarle standards and format, provided the standards meet or exceed Department standards or are approved by the Department. Coordinate the project through the State Environmental Review Pro- cess, prepare the appropriate environmental document as established by the Federal Highway Administration policy and procedures and carry out the functions necessary to clear the Project environmentally. Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste sites during the survey or early plan development stage: Discuss the presence of these sites and design alternatives with the Department. Once contamination is determined to exist, whether obvious or established through testing, the County shall notify the appropriate regulatory agency. Conduct detailed studies such as site characterization to determine the length of time required for clean-up and potential financial liability for the County and Department. If the purchase of property is anticipated the first option is to pursue remediation by the property owner(s) through the appropriate agencies. If required, post a "notice of willingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project, conduct such a hearing, if necessary, m accordance with Department and Federal Highway Administration requirements and coordinate the Project with property owners in the Project area. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project. 3 If required; prepare right-of-way/property acquisition plans for the Project and acquire title to all property needed for the Project in the name of the County, the Thoma~ Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc., or such entity that is acceptable to the Department, by purchase or by eminent domain, if necessary. Abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in the acquisition of rights-of-way/property for this Project and follow the policy and procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the Department's Right of Way Manual, which are incorporated by refer- ence. Provide relocation assistance to those whose property is acquired for the Project in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR Part 24). Maintain all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation assistance fries, closing statements, eminent domain records and the like for a period of three (3) years after final disposition of the Project by the Federal Highway Administration. (Acceptance of final voucher.) Coordinate and authorize utility relocations. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. The County agrees not to award a construction contract to any bidder unless 4 no 04 qo its bid is within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate or which is approved by the Department. The County agrees not to award such contract until the Commonwealth Transportation Board has accept- ed and approved the bid and the contractor, and until a standard Coun- ty-State agreement is executed. Submit any change orders to the construction contract to the Depart- ment's Resident Engineer for approval. Receive Department approval of any claims, arising from construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested prior to settlement. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documentation of all expenditures, identifying federally participating, federally non-partici- paring, and in-kind contributions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make project documentation available for inspection and/or audit by the Department or the Federal government ar any time. Submit to the Department's Resident Engineer no more frequently than monthly, a statement requesting reimbursement for the Federal share of the project's costs. The statement must identify and document project expenditures to date and include a summary in the following categories: · Participating expenditures · Non-participating expenditures In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way services. o r. Agree to reimburse the Department 100 To of all expenses incurred by the Department in the event that: · The project is canceled during any phase of work; · Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal High- way Administration due to the County's failure to follow proper federal guidelines and/or the expenditures are found to be feder- ally non-participating items; · ]Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program. The Department will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist the County in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to: a. Review each phase of the Project and respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the County. b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Federal Highway Adminis- tration and other appropriate Federal and State agencies; provide assistance and guidance to the County relative to environmental docu- mentation and coordination as is appropriate. c. Provide reimbursement for Project expenditures for the previous month or for the final billing, within thirty (30) days of receiving an accept- able statement from the County. The reimbursement amount will be based on the Enhancement Project worksheet (example attached). d. Audit all project costs and records as requ'tred by the Federal Highway Administration. e. Provide funding for the project pursuant to the Enhancement Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum amount of federal funds available for this project is $3,000,000. All applicable federal, state and local regulations shall apply to all work performed on the project including consultant services contracts and construc- tion contracts. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and th(n: respective successors and assigns. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the County is hereby authorized to commence with the Project. This agreement may be modified with the mutual consent of the Department and the County. This Agreement supersedes the Agreement for Development and Administra- tion of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway By the County of Albemarle dated December 21, 1994, previously entered into by the parties to this Agreement. Any provision of such earlier agreement inconsistent with this Agreement shall 7 be of no further effect upon the execution of the Agreement by all of the parties hereto. 8 IN WITNESSETI-I WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. ATTEST: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COIINTY CLERK COUNTY SIGNATURE APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: COMMISSIONER 9 AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this day of ,1997. between the THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC., hereinafter called the "Foundation" and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "Department" has adopted a Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 for streets and highways, which includes an allocation of funds for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phase I and 11) identified in the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as Projects EN93-002- V05, PE101,RW201,C501 and EN94-002-VO9.PE101,RW201,C501 and referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $4,625,000 for Phases I, II, and III which includes $3,000,000 of Enhancement Program Funds and $1,625,000 in contributions to the Project by the Foundation: and WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct the Project and have entered into an Agreement in which the County agrees to have the Project implemented within 48 months from the date funds ara made available for each phase of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Foundation desires to undertake certain responsibilities and duties of the County as an incentive for the County to under[ake the Project and to complete it as expeditiously as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Foundation shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the County in performing the preliminary eng~neenng, right-of-way/property acquisition and construction phases of the Project, specifically including the following: a. Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the preliminary engineering, design and plan development necessary to award a contract for construction; and the administration, supervision and inspection of the construction of the Project through final acceptance, in accordance with Department procedures and policies, including settlement of any claims and disputes adsing from the Project. b. If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department, submit each phase of the work to the County or the Department for review and approval as the Project develops; allow County or Department personnel to inspect all phases of the Project at all times. c. Prepare bid documents, plans and specifications for the Project, including such items as general notes, references to specifications 2 and standards, typical sections, drainage plans, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control methods, profiles, cross sections, summaries, and the like. Plans and bid documents must meet or exceed Department standards and be approved by the De- partment. Coordinate the Project through the State Environmental Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental document as established by the Federal Highway Administration policy and procedures and carry out the functions necessary to dear the Project environmentally. Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste sites dudng the survey or early plan development stage. Discuss the presence of these sites and design alternatives with the Department. Once contamination is determined to exist, whether obvious or established through testing, the Foundation shall notify the appropriate regulatory agency. Conduct detailed studies such as site characterization to determine the length of time required for olean-up and potential financial liability for the County and Department. If the purchase of property is anticipated the first option is to pursue remediation by the property owner(s) through the appropriate agencies. If required by the Department, post a "notice of willingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project so that the County can conduct such a 3 hearing, if necessary, in accordance with Department and Federal Highway Administration requirements and coordinate the Project with property owners in the Project area. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project. If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition plans or plats for the Project and acquire title to all property needed for the Project in the name of the Foundation by purchase or to pay all costs of the County in acquiring titleto property by eminent domain, if necessary. tf applicable, abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in the acquisition of rights-of-way/property for this Project and follow the policy and procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the Department's Right of Way Manual. which are incorporated by reference. Provide relocation assistance to those whose property is acquired for the Project in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR Part 24). Deliver alt appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation assistance files, closing statements, eminent domain records and the like to the County so it can maintain them for a period of three (3) years after final disposition of the Project by the Federal Highway Administration. Acceptance of final voucher shall constitute final disposition. 4 Coordinate and authorize utility relocations. Procure a contractor to construct the project, in conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. The Foundation will not award a construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate or is approved by the Department. The Foundation will not award such contract until the Commonwealth Transportation Board has accepted and approved the bid and the contractor, and until a standard County- State agreement is executed. ,Submit any change orders to construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer and the Department's Resident Engineer for approval prior to the authorization of the change order. Receive County and Department approval of any claims arising from construction contracts for which reimbursement is requested prior to settlement. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documentation of att expenditures, identifying federally participating, federally non- participating, and in-kind contributions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make Project documentation available for inspection and/or audit by the County, the Department or the Federal government at any time. 5 All project costs shall be paid by the Foundation. The Foundation shall submit to the Department, with a copy to the County, no more frequently than monthly, a statement requesting reimbursement for the Federal share of the Project's costs. The statement must identify and document Project expenditures to date and include a summary inthe following categories: ,- Participating expenditures Non-participating expenditures · In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way or services, Agree to reimburse the County 100% of all expenses incurred by the County in the event that: · The project is canceled during any phase of work; Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration due to the failure to follow proper federal guidelines and/or the expenditures are found to be federally non-participating items: Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allocated in the Six Year Improvement Program or funds actually available for the Project. Meet all County site plan, zoning, and subdivision ordinance requirements. 6 The County will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist the Foundation in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to: a. Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the Foundation. b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Department, Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate Federal and State agencies; provide assistance and guidance to the Foundation relative to environmental documentation and coordination as is appropriate. c. Process payments to the Foundation of reimbursements received from the Department for Project expenditures. d. Cooperate with the Foundation and the Department in the audit of all project costs and records as required by the federal highway administration. e. To take all reasonable actions required to obtain funding for the project pursuant to the Enhancement Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum amount of federal funds available for this proiect is $3,000,000. All applicable federal, state and local regulations shall apply to all work performed on the project including consultant services contracts and construction contracts. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than the par[les hereto. 7 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and upon notification by the County that the Department approvals have been received, the Foundation will be authorized to commence with the Project. This agreement may be modified by wdtten agreement with the mutual consent of the Foundation and the County. The Foundation will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age. handicap, national origin or other non-merit factors provided they are qualified and meet physical requirements established for the positions. None of the funds, materials, property or services contributed by the County orthe Foundation, under this Agreement, shall be used in the performance of this Agreement for any partisan political activity, or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. No officer, member, or employee of the Foundation who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this project, shall participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his personal interest or have any personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. 8 11. The Foundation shall contribute a minimum of $625,000 to the Project, such contribution to be in a form and made at such time as acceptable to the Department and the County. t2. The Foundation shall maintain any property improved as part of the Project which is not accepted for maintenance by the Department. The minimum level of maintenance shall be a reasonable standard of care as determined by the Department. 13. The Foundation shall, after construction of the Project. or any part thereof, not permit any changes or alterations to the Project. as approved and completed, without the prior wdtten approval of the Department. 14. The Foundation shall, prior to any substantial work on the Project, have appropriate Foundation agents and personnel, as determined by the County and the Department, attend a preliminary coordination meeting with the County and the Department. 15. The Foundation agrees to indemnify the County and hold it, and its officers, agents, representations and employees harmless from any and alt claims, damages, costs, including attorney's fees. and liabilities of any kind arising out of or resulting from the Foundation's or its agents' negligent performance of its obligation under this Agreement or any failure by the Foundation to meet any obligation required to complete the Project. 16. The Foundation shall take out and carry during the entire term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and general public liability insurance 9 with adequate limits to protect both the Foundation and the County from liability, such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Foundation will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing the insurance coverage required herein. 17. The Foundation shall provide to the County a performance bond, in a form approved bythe County Attorney. in the amou~nt of $3,000,000 to guarantee the Foundation's performance of this Agreement. Such performance bond shall be delivered to the County prior to its execution of the Agreement. 18. This Agreement supersedes the Agreement for Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway By the Thomas Jefferson Memodal Foundation dated December 21, 1994, previously entered into by the parties to this Agreement, Any provision of such earlier agreement inconsistent with this Agreement shall be of no further effect upon the execution of this Agreement by all of the par~ies hereto. IN WlTNE$$ETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers. A'FI'EST: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY CLERK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 10 APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: COUNTY A~-rORN EY WITNESS: THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. BY: 94-145.015 11 COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ragged Mountain Reservoir Nature Trail SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request from the Ivy Creek Foundation for County approval and participation in the development and maintenance of a rustic hiking trail and small parking area at Ragged Mountain Reservoir. STAFF CONTACT[S): · Messm. Tucker, Huff, and Mullaney AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~_ REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In March of 1996, the Ivy Creek Foundation began seeking input on a proposal fora very limited development of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir preper[y for hiking and nature observation. In addition to the development, the Ivy Creek Foundation proposal includes that the property be designated as a natural area to be managed by ICF in a similar fashion as ICNA. After receiving favorable comments on the proposal, the Foundation requested the matter be discussed at the July 22, 1996 meeting of the PJvanna Water and Sewer Authority. ICF members left the July 22 meeting with the understanding that the project was approved in concept and that the necessary permission to proceed should be sought from City Council and the Board of Supewisors. OnAugust 30, 1996. a meeting was held at Cib/Hall to get appropriate City and County representatives involved in the discussions. In attendance at that meeting were Kay Slaughter, Leon Churchill, Judy Muehler, Satyendra Huja, and Ran Higgins from the City, Charlotte Humphris and Pat Mullaney from the County, Art Petrini and Gene Potter from RWSA, and Dan Bicker, Dee Dee Smith and Francis Fife from ICF. The discussion of the project was generally favorable. RWSA staff pointed out several potential liability hazards and concerns that would need to be addressed. The group agreed that a staff analyses of the pro's and con's of the project~ including initial and on going costs, review of hazards, and other general concerns, should be provided before presentation of the proposal to the City and County. Enclosed is that staff analyses entitled "Ragged Mountain Reservoir Report". DISCUSSION: The following is a summary of the staff analyses of the ICF proposal in the enclosed Ragged Mountain Reservoir Report: Project Positives: 1. Tremendous opportun'~ to get add,anal public benefit from a 980 acre tract of public land without an adverse impact on it's primary use. 2. Will relieve sOme ofthe heaW usage Ivy Creek receives and offer a truly unique wilderness hiking experience close to town. 3. Wiltingness of Ivy Creek Foundation to build and monitor trails makes this an opportunity that can be provided at a minimal exper~e. 4. Monitoring of area by ICF and increased legal use will discourage current illegal use. Concerns: 1. Initial and ongoing costs. AGENDA TITLE: Ragged Mountain Reservoir Nature Trail March 5, 1997 Page 2 Potential hazards at d'rvemion box covers, upper gate house, and water line tunnel from Sugar Hollow, and potential erosion at upper lake spillwaywhere trail crosses. The impact of-this use on the water resource, and demand for more use. 4. Creating an attraction to encourage more trespassing through Ednam Forest. Discussion of Concerns: The initial costs to be incurred by the City and County are estirnated at $5.000 for trail building materials and mitigation of hazards. Labor for trail construc~on will be provided by ICF. The cost of the parking area is estimated at $15,000 and ICF has secured a grant in that amount. It is advised that the City and County could anticipate an additional cost of up to $5,000 for poten§al cost overruns and for custs asseciated with a land donation for the parking area. Annual operating costs are estimated at $3650 for an employee to open and close the gate and $1200 for porta john service. The Water Resoumes Manager has reviewed this use and believes itcan be done with a very minimal impact. RWSA ~ngineers would review and approve trail plans to make sure concerns for the upper lake spillway are addressed It is anticipated that these improvementswouid allow area residents to better access the property in a legal fashion. The minor improvements are not expected to encourage additional trespassing through Ednam Forest. Due to the stewardship of ICF and the clientele expected to be attracted, illegal uses of the property may actually decrease. Ragged Mountain Reservmr is a beautiful property. It is possible that increased public use may lead to the demand for more improved public access. Designation of this property as a natural area from the onset, as requested by ICF, should be cons'mlered if better future public access is deemed undesirable. City and County staff believe this is a good project with more benefits than costs. The concerns are manageable and not significant enough to prohibit the project. A formal agreement, on the lease or purchase of the private property for the parking lot needs to be reached as the first step, if approval is received by the City, County, and RWSA to proceed. Any City/County expenses should be absorbed to the extent possible from the Towe Park budget w'~h that crew assuming responsibility for general supen/ision and assistance to ICF volunteers. The County Parks and Recreation Director should provide administrative and policy oversight and assistance to ICF, as is currently done with ICNA. Since the property is owned by the City, the City Attorney's Office should do the legal work related to the property acquisition, and City Engineering should provide oversight for the parking lot project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the County Board of Supervisors approve the proposed project and agree to participate in the manner outlinedabove. County approval and participation is contingent on similar approval by the City of Charlottesville and the RE, anna Water and Sewer Authority. 97.040 RAGGED MOUlqTAIN RESERVOIR REPORT On Friday, Augusn 30, 1996, a meeting was held an City Hall to discuss the Ivy Creek Foundation proposal no have the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property designated as a natural area to be managed by ICF in a similar fashion as ICNA. In attendance at that meeting were Kay Slaughter, Leon Churchill, Judy Muehler, Satyendra Hula, and Ron Higgins from the City, Charlotte Humphris and Pat Mullaney from the County, Art Petrini and Gene Potter from RWSA, and Dan Bieker, Dee Dee Smith and Francis Fife from ICF. The initial development being considered for the property includes a small parking area on an adjacent piece of privately owned property and an approximate 3 mile nature trail around the lower reservoir. ICF officials have a letter expressing willingness from the adjacenn property owner no consider making a portion of his land available for the parking area. Most recent discussions indicate the properEy owner favors transfering ownership of the property no the City, County, or ICF. ICF proposes no lay out, construct, post, monitor and maintain the trails, as well as handle public inquiries and distribute information. The City and County would be asked to provide funds for trail construction materials and hazard mitigation. ICF has secured grant funding in the amount of $15,000 for the construction of the parking area. The discussion was generally favorable of this project. There were several potential liability hazards pointed oun by RWSA officials. The group agreed that a staff analyses of the pro's and con's of the project, including initial and on going costs, review of the hazards, and other general concerns, should be provided to the group for further discussion. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Mullaney to prepare such a reporn. Mr. Mullaney said he would prepare a draft report and pass it on to Mr. Churchill, for any deletions or additions, and then the reporn would be finalized and submitted to the group for revzew. On September 13, 1996, Mssrs. Churchill, Fife, Bieker and Mullaney visited nhe site and walked the proposed trail with Richard Defibau~h of RWSA and Bob Crickenberger of Counny Parks and Recreation. Project Positives: 1. Tremendous opportunity to get additional public benefit from a 980 acre tract of publicly owned land mn a way that would not have a significant adverse impact on it's przmary use as a water supply. 2. Will relieve some of the heavy usage that Ivy Creek receives. 3. Large tract of unspoiled, rugged, publicly-accessible land with remote parking area offers a truly unzque wilderness hiking different from that found an Ivy Creek, hiking~fishing, nanure snudy opportunity close to nown. 4. Willingness of Ivy Creek Foundation to build and monitor trails for the City and County makes this an opportunity that be provided am a minimal expense no City and County taxpayers. can 5. Ivy Creek Foundation's outstanding track record with the City and County for land stewardship and educational programming an ICNA. 6. Monitoring of area by ICF and mncreased use of area for legal use will discourage currenn illegal use. Concerns: 1. Initial and ongoing cosns to be incurred by the City and Counny. Three potential hazard areas: a. Diversion box covers b. Access to upper gate house c. Water line Tunnel from Sugar Hollow 3. Potential erosion at upper lake spillway where trail crosses. 4. The impact of the increased use on the water resource. 5. Creating an attraction to encourage additional trespassing through Ednam Forest. 6. Would this create a need mo reconsider the currenn parking permit sysnem for fisherman? 7. Will increased access to this area creame a demand for more and better access by boat fisherman and others? Discussion of Concerns: 1. Initial and on going costs - The initial costs mo be incurred by the City and County are estimated am $5,000 for the materials for trail development and the mitigation of hazards. Initial costs for trail developmenn could easily increase no the $20,000 range if bridging 4 stream crossings was deemed necessary. However, given the length and difficulty of the trail from the parking area no the snream crossings, it was determined during the site visit, that anyone who can make it to the stream crossings can easily negotiate them by means of a few well placed steps. This decision is also well-suited for a more rugged trail that Ragged Mountain could serve. The cost of the parking area was originally estimated at $20,000 by ICF. The plans have been reviewed by City and County Engineering Department staff. Preliminary estimates by the County Engineering Department and a private contractor were in the $15,000 range which is the amounn of the ICF grann for this purpose. If the project is approved, it is advised that the City and County could anticipane potential additional cosns of up no $5,000 for cost overruns and for surveying and appraisal cosns associated with the land donation for the parking area. Ongoing costs would include salary costs of approximately $3650/yr. for an employee to open and close the gane and clean up the parking area each day as needed. A poma john should be provided at the parking area at the cost of $1200/yr. The involvement of ICF greatly reduces annual operating cosns. 2. Hazard mitigation - The field inspecnion revealed nwo diversion box covers that will need to be secured and the need no dismantle the bridge to the upper dam gane house. The waner line tunnel from Sugar Hollow is not easy no find or access from the proposed trail and was non viewed during the site inspecmion. A grate can be fashioned no secure access into the tunnel. Cost of hazard mitigation is estimated at less than s2,000 and is included in the $5,000 start up material expenses. 3. Erosion at upper lake spillway There is concern about erosion where the trail crosses the spillway. RWSA engineers should review the trail plan no make sure this is adequately addressed. Nothing can be placed in the spillway that will raise the current level or impede the flow of waner through it. 4. Impact of increased use on waner resource - The Water Resources Manager has reviewed this use and believes it can be done with a very minimal impact. Due no the stewardship of ICF and the clientele expected to be attracted by this mype of facility, it is anticipated that this use may actually discourage current illegal uses of the proper~y. 5. It is not anticipated that this t!rpe of facility would encourage additional trespassing through Ednam Forest. These improvements would allow area residenns ~o better access the property in a legal fashion. 6. Consideration on revising the current permit parking sysnem - This project would not necessarily create s need to revise the current system. The relatively remote parking area would not lead to additional boat traffic on the lake, unless more fisherman decided to leave their boats at the lake after gettzng one of the current permits. If anything, this practice of allowing boats to be left should be revisited. Even if a boat ms left at the reservoir it zs unlikely that many fishermen would want to carry their gear, battery, and motor from the parking area to the lake. 7. Create demand for better access - This is possible. Ragged Mountain is a beautiful properny. The designation of the property as a natural area from the onseE as requested by Ivy Creek should be done if better future access is deemed undesirable. Recommendation: City and County staff believe this is a good pro3ecn with more benefits than costs. The concerns are manageable and nom significant enough no prohibit the pro]ecn. The parking area ~s a critical aspect of the project. A formal mgreemenn, on the lease or purchase of the private property, needs no be reached as [he firsn step if approval is received by the City, County and RWSA no proceed. The $5,000 for initial trail development and hazard mitigation, along with any operating costs prior no June 30, 1997, should be absorbed no the exmen~ possible by the current Towe Park bud~em. Once the facility is operational the Towe Park crew should assume responsibility for general supervmsmon and assistance no ICF volunteers who will be providing direct supervision. The County Parks and Recreation Direcnor should provide administrative and policy oversight and assistance to ICF as is currently done with ICNA. Any cost associated with the development of the parking lot, which ms beyond the S15~000 ICF funding should be shared from the City and County's currenn Capital Improvements Program. Since the property is owned by the City, the City Attorney Office should do the legal work related ko the property acquisition, and City Engineermng should provide oversight for the parking lot projecn. Bills for direct costs incurred for legal work (survey, title search, appraisal, etc.) should be submitted to the County Parks and Recreation Director for payment from the Towe Park budget. :OU From: Re: Charlottesville City Counc'd and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors The Ivy Creek Foundation Board of Directors Establishment of the Ragged Mountain Natural Area February 21, 1997 The 980-acre Ragged Mountain Reservoir property is a forested, relatively undisturbed tract, situated 2 miles southwest of Charlottesville. With two lakes comprising 65 acres of surface water, the property is owned by the City of Charlottesville and managed by the R.ivanna Water and Sewer Authority as a public water supply. The Ivy Creek Foundation is propoffmg to establish a natural area at this site, similar to the Ivy Creek Natural Area on the Rivarma Reservoir. As such, the property would be open free to the public for hiking, nature observation and study, and fishing, with the intent that it be preserved in a natural state. The Foundation would be willing to participate in a management agreement with the City and County as now exists at Ivy Creek. For more than 17 years this arrangement has provided area residents with a unique recreational resource at minimal expense to the City and County. Under such an agreement at Ragged Mountain, the Ivy Creek Foundation will: · Lay out, construct, post, monitor, and maintain a trail system. Secure title in the City's name to a portion of an adjacent, privately owned field (tax map 75, parcel 47-B) as well as a connect'rog corridor to be contiguous to the 980-acre tract, for the purpose of providing parking space and access to the Natural Area. Design and construct a gravel-based, rustic parking lot for 20 vehicles (with overflow space) and an information kiosk. The Foundation is willing to commit a maximum of $15,000 toward the parking facility. This sum is estimated to be sufficient. · Print maps, handle public inquiries, and distribute information through our office. Conduct occasional public hikes, nature programs, and educational outings for school groups free of charge. Post Office Box 956 / Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 / Telephone (804) 973-7772 Ragged Mountain Natural Area proposal page2 Consistent with the Foundation's goals of conservation, passive recreation, and environmental education, we request: The entire Ragged Mountain tract be deSignated a "natural area" upon which natural processes be permitted to take place undisturbed, except as necessary for operation and maintenance as a public water supply by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and to further the goals and objectives of the Ivy Creek Fpundation. The City (and/or County) remains committed to ownership in perpetuity of the entire 980- acre tract, the intent being that the "natural area" status and water quality not be compromised through sale or lease. The Foundation would welcome the incorporation of additional acreage. No timber cutting be permitted, except as necessary for the maintenance and operation of the reservoir as a public water supply, for human safety, and for proper construction and ma'mtenance of the trail system. No roads be permitted, except as necessary for proper maintenance and operation of the property as a public water supply. Access be designated for foot travel only (with the exception of non-combustion type devices intended to aid the~handicapped), for the purposes ofhik/ng, nature observation and study, and fishing. This would preclude bicycles, all-terrain-vehicles, horses, pets, etc. This is not meant to preclude small fishing boats with non-combustion motors, provided this use does not compromise the objectives of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Ivy Creek Foundation. The burning or trapping of any animal during any season be prohibited. The willful introduction of non-native plants be prohibited. The w'fllful introduction of native and non- native animals be prohibited, except fish stocking under direction of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The City and Count assume responsibility for maintenance and security of the parking lot, trash removal, maintenance materials and other functions as currently performed at the Ivy Creek Natural Area. The Ragged Mountain property has a rich history and would be a wonderful place for quiet hiking and nature study. The Ivy Creek Foundation welcomes the opportunity to expand awareness and preservation of this scenic resource. Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Old State route 531 Abandonment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to schedule a public hearing for Old State Route 631 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg, Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: March 571997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes~ ~ BACKGROUND: Robert T. Smith representing Holiday Inn South, of Bangor, Maine has requested that Albemarle County abandon a public road, Old State Route 631 (see Attachment A). ~,~.jDISCUSSION: Id State Route 631 is approximately 600 feet long in the County and serves only three parcels. The applicant owns all three parcels. This section of Old State 631 was "discontinued" in 1971 as a result of the construction of Interstate 64. A discontinuance pursuant to Code of Virginia 33.1-150 is a determination that a road no longer serves the public convenience warranting its maintenance at public expense. The road remains a public roadway until it is abandoned. The applicant, as well as staff, assumed this section was abandoned by the State of Virginia. In October 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the abandonment of Tebbs Lane-Route 1104 ( see Attachment B). Tebbs Lane intersects with Old State Route 531. The applicant was informed by VDOT in the process of finalizing the Tebbs Lane abandonment that Old State Route 631 had never been abandoned. Old State route 631 does not have any historical significance and its abandonment would not negatively impact any historical property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes this is an acceptable abandonment request and recommends this proceed to public hearing. Staff recommends abandonment using statutory authority under 33.1-156 of the Code of Virginia. 97.045 Robert T. Smith Commercial Real Estate Brokerage 1865 A Seminole ~ail Charlot~svill~ VA 22901 (804) 978-2050 February 10, 1997 Clerk of the Board Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building, 4th Floor 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 ATTAC HM ENT Deasr Madame: I represent Erin, Inc. the owners of the Holiday Inn, South. Erin Inc. ownes Parcels 55A & 55C on tax map #76 and thoy are now the owners of record of Parcel #1 on tax map #76 M1. On October 6, 1996 the Board of Supervisors took action on our previous request to abandon State Route #1104. This action has gone on to VDOT and the Commission has abandon that section of road. However, VDOT has informed me that State Route #631 that runs between I64 and Moores Creek has been "Discontinued" but not abandoned. This inspite of the fact that it is shown on a drawing prepared by VDOT as abandoned. See drawing attached. On behalf of Erin, Inc. I request that the County undertake the necessary first steps to "Abandon" that section of #631. This appears to be a bit of confusion as it relates to the words used on previous action taken by the Board and by VDOT. I appreciate your attention to this matter. cc: Very~ truly yours, Robert T. Smith Erin. Inc. Ms' Angola Tucker (VDOT) ~ayne Cilimberg ~uan Wade Tom Landis (VDOT, Culpeper Dist. Off. Bill Roudabush R/W Department)~ a~uD.n.u~ a:~ o^!.]d ALBEMARLE COUNTY ...... SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTION 76M( RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a public notice was posted as prescribed under § 33.1-151, Code of Virg nia. announcing a public hearing to receive comments concerning abandoning the road described below from the secondary system of state highways; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation was provided the prescribed notice of this Board's intent to abandon the subject road; and WHEREAS after considering all evidence available, this Board is satisfied that no public necessity exists for the continuance of Secondary Route 1104, Tebbs Lane of .06 miles of roadway, and hereby deems that road is no longer necessary as part of the Secondary System of State Highways. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board abandons the above described road and removes it from the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to § 33.1-151 Code of Virginia. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. l, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of ~' to O on October 2, 1996. ~rk, Board of~)u~ Superviso/ / 95-424.007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OFFICIAL O~EIP! ~ ~t~CU~T ~uU~ DEED RECEIPT DAiE: 02/26/~? TI)E: !~:92:22 ACCDL~T: 003CLR07002962 RECEIPT: CAR~iER: R~N RED: AB05 TYPE: OEE~ P~YNE)~: F~LL P~Y~E~ INSTRUMENT : ??00D762 BOOK: S PAGE: RECORDED: 03/26/97 A! GRANTOR NAME: ~AUDIUS ~RDZET PARK. INC EX: ~ LOCALITY: CO 8RANTEE N~: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~'¥i~O!NIA EX: N PERCENT: 100% AND ADDRESS: M/~ RECEIVED DF: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DATE OF DEED: CASR: DEDC~!?T~ON ~ AGREEHENI DE~RIDERATION: .00 ~SDU~FE/UAL: .OD ~AP~ CODE DESCRIPTION PAID CODE DESCRiPT!D~ PAID 30i DEEDS ~8,0~; IA5 VSLF CUANOE AgT ; ,0~3 C~ED~ OF COURT: SHELBY 3, ~ARDUALL Dislrib~ed t~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Cmzet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for authorization for County Executive to execute final agreement with the Crozet Park Board STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: When the Board approved the donation of $200,000 to Crozet Park for the construction of their new pool: staff met with the Crozet Park Board and negotiated an agreement to assure that the Park is forever used for recreational and community related activities. Due to language in the Park's existing by-laws, some time has passed in order to allow them to properly amend their legal documents so that the attached agreement could be signed. DISCUSSION: This new agreement, which was drafted by the County Attorney, eliminates the restrictive covenant which existed on only part of Cmzet Park and places the entire park in a position where it shall be forever used only for park and recreational purposes as outlined in the agreement. This restrictive covenant shall run with the land and shall be enforceable by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. This agreement also articulates that Crozet Park will make land available in the Park for additional recreational fields and facilities to be developed by the County to help meet the recreational needs of the Crozet Community and the citizens of the County as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Further, the Agreement also formalizes the current practice of using the Park and its swimming facilities by the County's Summer Playground Program as well as provides for free or reduced price entry. scholarships for County residents up to 5% of the total value of Park membership fees at a minimum. Lastly, the Agreement spells out that if Crozet Park, Inc. ever ceases to exist as a legal entity, the Park and its improvements would reveal to the County at no cost and that if there is ever an interest to sell Crozet Park, the County would be given first right of refusal to purchase the property and its improvements for $1.00. These two provisions assure that the Park will not be developed into anything other than its intended recreational and entertainment uses and provides the framework for County investment in recreational facilities on this land. The Crozet Park Board has approved the attached restrictive covenant agreement at its February, 1997 meeting and all parties involved seemed excited at)cut this public/private partnership that has produced what appears to be a win/win situation for all involved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute this agreement. 97.044 County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO: FROM: DATE: RE: David Anhold Richard E. Hufl~ II, Deputy County Executive March 6, 1997 Crozet Park Agreement 03-26-97P12:02 RCVD I have enclosed a clean copy of the Crozet Park agreement which needs to be signed and notarized by your President. Once ir is returned, I will forward a completed copy signed by the County for your files. Thanks ~:mJn for all your help! AIbemarle County Executive's Office 401 Melntlre R& Charlo0x-sville. Virginia 22902 CROZET PARK AGREEMENT and RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THIS AGREEMENT made this b{,b day of March, 1997. by and between CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC., a Virginia non-profit corporation (hereafter the "Crozet Park") and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereafter the "County"). WHEREAS Crozet Park is the owner of all those two tracts or parcels of land, with improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto, known as Claudius Crozet Park, (hereafter "Park") designated as Parcel A1 and B1, containing 22.396 acres, as shown on a plat made by Kirk Hughes and Associates, dated March 15, 1996, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1536. page 408. The Park is the same property in all respects previously designated as Parcel A, containing 8.81 acres, more or less, and Parcel B containing 13.62 acres, more or less, as shown on plat of John McNair & Associates, dated August 24, 1958, revised December 4, 1975, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 587, page 55 and is the same property in all respects conveyed to Claudius Crozet Park, Inc.. by deed of Dabney N. Sandridge, et al., dated September 23, 1958 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 343, page 381 Crozet Park presently operates a park on Parcels A1 and B1 for the benefit of the residents of the community of Crozet and the surrounding area of Albemarle County, Virginia: and WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County entered into an Agreement dated November 6, 1985 in which Crozet Park placed a restrictive covenant on what was then designated Parcel B restricting use of said Parcel B to recreational and public purposes and the County agreed to make recreational improvements to the Park and assist in the maintenance of the Park; and WHEREAS, the County has agreed to contribute $200,000 to the construction of a new swimming facility and to further plan for the funding and construction of additional facilities at the Park: and WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County now agree that the entire Park should in perpetuity be used only for park and recreational and community related entertainment activities for the benefit of the citizens of the community of Crozet and Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Crozet Park and the County have reached further agreement for cooperative use and participation in the future of the Park. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above stated premises and for valuable consideration Crozet Park and the County agree as follows: 1. The Park, consisting of both Pamel A1 and Parcel B1 shall in perpetuity be used only for park and recreational purposes which may include any lawful activities such as festivals, carnivals, concerts, celebrations, and other community related entertainment uses that have historically been allowed at the Park and shall be open for public use unless the County and Crozet Park jointly agree otherwise. This restrictive covenant shall run with the land for the benefit ofthe citizens of the community of Crozet and Albemarle County, Virginia, and shall be enforceable on their behalf by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors. 2. The County will contribute a total of $200.000 to Crozet Park to be used solely for the construction of a new swimming facility. 3. The County will assist in the maintenance of the Park and in the mowing and tdmming of the Park grounds. 4. Crozet Park shall make land available in the Park for additional recreational fields and facilities to be developed by the County to help meet the recreational needs of the Crozet Community and the citizens of the County. The development of the fields and facilities shall be determined by the County Parks and Recreation Department ir consultation with the Crozet Park Board and subject to final approval by the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors. The fields and facilities shall be developed in general accord with the plan titled Claudius Crozet Park: Field Study dated May 15, 1996, and attached hereto as Exhibit '%", unless otherwise agreed to by Crozet Park and the County. 5. Crezet Park shall make the Park available free of charge for the County's summer playground program. The program will be allowed to operate for up to an eight week period dudng the months of June. July and August of each year. During such period the program wilt be allowed to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a schedule determined by the County Parks and Recreation Department. Facilities available to the program shall include the main building, identified on Attachment "A", and all outdoor fields and facilities exclusive of the swimming pool. 6. Crozet Park shall make its swimming facilities available for use by the County summer playground program at a reduced entry fee. The pnce per participant in the playground program for group visits shall not exceed 59% of the regular daily admission charge for children ages 6 to t 1. Playground program participants who have a Park season pass to the pool will not be charged an additional entry fee, County summer playground employees and persons acting in a supervisory capacity for the summer playground program will be admitted free of charge. 2 7. Crozet Park shall give free or reduced priced entry scholarships for the swimming facilities to families and individuals certified by the County Department of Social Services using the same criteria used for free and reduced County park passes. Initially, scholarships shall be equal to five percent of the total value of Park membership fees. Crozet Park will consider increasing this percentage in the future as its revenues grow. 8. Crozet Park shall make the swimming facilities available for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department if such use does not conflict with the regular pool hours, programs and maintenance ofthe facilities by Crozet Park. Such use shall be coordinated between the County Parks and Recreation Department and the Crozet Park Board. The charge for such use, if any, shall be limited solely to cover any incurred operating costs that result from the use. Future uses may include, but shall not be limited to, a water aerobics class for senior citizens and a therapeutic recreation class. 9. Crozet Park agrees that it shall assure that prior to or at such time as it ceases to exist as a legal entity all legal interests and fee simple title to the Park, including all improvements thereto, shall be transferred to the County by Crozet Park or its successors in interest at no cost to the County upon the County's request. 10. Crozet Park hereby gives the County a right of first refusal to purchase the Park, or any part thereof, before the Park, or any part thereof, may be offered for sale. Notice of such proposed sale shall be given by certified mail to the County Executive and shall include a copy of this Agreement. The County may purchase the Park. or any part thereof, offered for sale for $1.00. The $1.00 shall constitute full and fair consideration for the purchase in light of the contributions made by the County to the park prior to the exercise of this right of first refusal. Such right of first refusal must be exercised by the County within ninety days of receipt of the notice by the County Executive. 11. All contributions, payments, and obligations of the County shall be subject to and contingent upon the annual appropriation of funds by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 12. This Agreement shall be valid for a period of twenty years from the date of its execution by the parties hereto unless Crozet Park and the County agree otherwise in writing. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed for consecutive periods of twenty years unless the County notifies Crezet Park in writing of its intent to terminate the Agreement at least 90 days prior to the expiration date of the Agreement or any future Agreement as provided herein 13. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, executors, personal representatives, and successors in interest of the parties. 14. This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties and there are no collateral or oral agreements or understandings, and this Agreement shall not be modified unless in writing of equal formality signed by both parties. 15. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above written. CLAUDIUS CROZET PARK, INC. President (Seal) Approved as to form: COUN...~-Y OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ' ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. ~// STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing CrozP_,t ParkAgr.e~men!.,was acknowledged before me this day of March 1997. by ~_~,~,\~,~-~¥-'~ on behalf of Claudius Crozet Park. Inc. My Commission Expires: \ Notaryl~tic 1 4 STATE OF ViRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Crozet Park Agreement was acknowledged before me th day of March, 1997, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., C~ounty Executive, ,County of Albemarle, Virginia. ' ' ' ~//Notary Public<' My Commission Expires: 94-:382.[304 5 TO: FROM': DATE: RE:  0£-28-9'7A10:48 RCVD MEMORANDUM ~ Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, S" February 28, 1997 Final Draft Statement - Primary Road Pre-Allocation Hearing Attached for your review ~s a copy of the final draft statement that Mrs. Humphds plans to presem on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at the upcoming Commonwealth Transportation Board's Pre-Allocation I-Ieafing on Interstate and Primary Systems on March 14th. Should you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWTJr/dbm 97.032 STATEMENT OF ALBEMAgLE S ERWSORS COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING ON INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY SYSTEMS CULPEPER DISTRICT GOOD MORNING, I AM CHARLOTTE HUMPHRIS, CHAIRMAN OF TIlE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AFEW BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT OURPR1M YROAD NEEDS ON BEHALF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY MY COMMENTS FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITIES SUBMITTED TO YOU LAST YEAR. THEY ARE FOUNDED ON THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CATS) AND ON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVIIJ,E, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGARDING THE PHASING OF THESE AND OTHER ROAD PROJECTS. ADHERENCE TO THESE PLANS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. ~.U:.RFA CE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE MORE DEFINITIVELY ADDRESSED iN A REPORT WE WILL LEAVE WITH YOUR STAFF. THEY iNCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) PROJECTS: STANDARD PROJECTS INCLUDE: 1 UNDERTAKING CATS PROJECTS AS OUTLINED iN OUR MUTUAL AGREEMENT, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY. tN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO AIRPORT ROAD, THE PARKWAY IS THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT. WITH THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCHANGES ON ROUTE 29, THE NEED FOR THE PARKWAY WILL BECOME EVEN MORE CRITICAL TO MAiNTAINiNG AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE ONROUTE 29. THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED CONSIDERATION OF THE MEADOW Ci~ F.F.K PARKWAY FOR PRIMARY FUNDiNG FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. THE COUNTY WILL ALSO FOLLOW WITH GREAT INTEREST THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES. IT IS THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD WILL ACT FAVORABLY ON THE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RoLrrE. 29 NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY. IT IS ALSO THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE ROUTE 29 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY WILL INCLUDE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS THE NORTH CORRIDOR DID, AND WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE PUBLIC INPUT IN THE STUDY PKOCESS. UNDERTAKING THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 20 SOUTH FROM 1-64 TO THE PROPOSED ROUTE 742/20 CONNECTOR ROAD THAT WILL SERVE TRAFFIC FROM THE NEW MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL. CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALK AND BIKELANE FACILITIES ON BOTH SIDES OF RT. 29 mOM THE SOUT~ FORK mVANNA RrVER TO RT. 649 (AIRPORT/PROFFIT ROAD). UNDERTAKING PROJECTS PARALLEL TO ROUTE 29 WHICH RELIEVE TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 29, SUCH AS THE GREENBRIER/SEMINOLE SQUARE CONNECTOR. WIDENING ROUTE 250 WEST FROM EMMET STREET TO ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS. THIS SECTION IS COVERED BY A 3OINT CITY, COUNTY, AND UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA APPROVED DESIGN STUDY, THE IVY ROAD DESIGN STUDY. THIS STUDY SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE IN THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. PRESENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 240 FUNCTIONAL STUDY IN CROZET ONCE COMPLETE. 3 DEVELOPING DESIGN PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FONTAINE AVENUE FROM JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE TO THE IMPROVEMENT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT. DESIGN PLANS SHOULD REFLECT RECOMMENDATIONS OF TffE FONTAINE AVENUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BELLAIR/ROUTE 250 WEST INTERSECTION. SAFETY PROJECTS INCLUDE: CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG VARIOUS PRIMARY ROUTES WITHIN THE COUNTY' S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 250 WEST ALONG THE BUSINESS CORR1DOR IN IVY IN ACCORD WITH THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROUTE 240 UNDERPASS AT THE CSX RAILROAD IN CROZET. DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL PLANS FOR ROUTE 20 NORTH AND SOUTH, AND ROUTES 22 AND 231, FOR ALIGNMENT AND SAFETY IlVlI~ROVEMENTS. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 -ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER 22701-3819 February 14, 1997 DONALD R. ASKEW Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: The Culpeper District preallocation hearing will be held on Friday, March 14, at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit input on the allocation of fiscal year 1997-98 funds and on.updating the Six-Year Improvement Program for the~interstate, primary, and urban systems° Speaking order will be as follows: Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Rappahannock, Albemarle, Culpeper. Towns and cities will fall under the appropriate county. The site of the Culpeper hearing is the auditorium in the VDOT District Office complex at 1601 Orange Road in Culpeper. ~arking is available to the left of the forked entrance, in what is called "the pines." The most convenient building access is in the rear, across from the parking area. We look forward to seeing you on March 14. :wit TRANSPORTATI( ~1 ST CENTURY Sincerely, Donald R. Askew District Administrator COUNTY ©? ALBF_M,ARLE EXECUTIVE OFFICE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Primary Road Plan, County Priorities AGENDA DATE: / February 19, 19.~ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Board review of presentation for pre-atiocation hearing./ INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes//~ STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benisl~ . REVIEWED BY: r~'~ BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Transportation will hold its annual pre-allocation public hearing on the interstate and primary system in Culpeper on March 14, 1997. DISCUSSION: Attach is a dralt of the Board's presentation for the pre-allocation public hearing. The presentation reflects the recommended projects reviewed atthe February 5 Board meeting, including modifications identified by the Board. RECOMMENDATION: For Board review and acceptance. Please provide staffwith any corrections as necessary. 97.036 STATEMENT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD PRE-ALLOCATION HEARING ON INTERSTATE _~ND PRIMARY SYSTEMS CULPEPER DISTRICT GOOD MORNING, [ AM CHARLOTTE HUMPHRIS, CHAIRPERSON OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND ON BEHALF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT OUR PRIMARY ROAD NEEDS. MY COMMENTS FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITIES SUBMITTED TO YOU LAST YEAR. THEY ARE STILL FOUNDED ON TWO CRITICAL DECISIONS WHICH WE HAVE ALL REAFFIRMED: FIRST, THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED 1N THE CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CATS) AND SECOND, THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGARDING THE PHASING OF THESE AND OTHER ROAD PROJECTS. ADHERENCE TO THESE TWO DECISIONS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL TO ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE OFFER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THESE ARE MORE DEFINITIVELY ADDRESSED IN A REPORT WE WILL LEAVE WITH YOUR STAFF. THEY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) PROJECTS: STANDARD PR OJECTS INCLUDE: UNDERTAKING CATS PROJECTS AS OUTLINED 1N OUR MUTUAL AGREEMENT, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY. IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 29 FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO AIRPORT ROAD, THE PARKWAY IS THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT. WITH THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO CONSTRUCT THE INTERCHANGES ON ROUTE 29, THE NEED FOR THE PARKWAY WILL BECOME EVEN MORE CRITICAL TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE LEVEl_ OF SERVICE ON ROUTE 29. THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED CONSIDERATION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY FOR PRIMARY FUNDING FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. WITH THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD' DECISION TO ELIMINATE THE INTERCHANGES FINAL, THE COUNTY BELIEVES THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY. 2 THE COUNTY WILL ALSO FOLLOW WITH GREAT INTEREST THE ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES. IT IS THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD WILL ACT FAVORABLY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR STUDY. IT IS ALSO THE BOARD'S HOPE THAT THE ROUTE 29 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY WILL INCLUDE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS THE NORTH CORRIDOR DID, AND WILL CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE PUBLIC INPUT IN THE STUDY PROCESS. UNDERTAKE THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 20 SOUTH FORM 1-64 TO THE PROPOSED ROUTE 742/20 CONNECTOR ROAD THAT WILL SERVE TRAFFIC FROM THE NEW MONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK AND BIKELANE FACILITIES ON BOTH SIDES OF RT. 29 FROM THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO RT. 649 (AIRPORT/PROFFIT ROAD). UNDERTAKE PROJECTS PARALLEL TO ROUTE 29 WHICH RELIEVE TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 29, SUCH AS THE GREENBRIER/SEMINOLE SQUARE CONNECTOR. WIDEN ROUTE 250 WEST FROM EMMET STREET TO ROUTE 29/250 BYPASS. THIS SECTION IS COVERED BY A JOINT CITY, COUNTY, AND UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA APPROVED DESIGN STUDY, THE iVY ROAD DESIGN STUDY. THIS STUDY SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE IN THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. o PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 240 FUNCTIONAL STUDY 1N CROZET ONCE COMPLETE. DEVELOP DESIGN PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FONTAINE AVENUE FROM JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE TO THE IMPROVEMENT ALONO THE FRONTAGE OF THE UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT. DESIGN PLANS SHOULD REFLECT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FONTAINE AVENUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 9. UNDERTAKE IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION, SAFETY PROJECTS INCLUDE: 1. TO THE BELLAIR/ROUTE 250 WEST CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ALONG VARIOUS PRIMARY ROUTES WITHIN THE COUNTY'S URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 250 WEST ALONG THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR IN IVY IN ACCORD WITH THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY CURRENTLY UNDERWAY. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROUTE 240 UNDERPASS AT THE CSX RAILROAD IN CROZET. DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL PLANS FOR ROUTE 20 NORTH AND SOUTH, AND ROUTES 22 AND 231, FOR ALIGNMENT AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS INCLUDE: CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS ALONG SELECTED PRIMARY ROAD SECTIONS. BEAUTIFICATION OF ENTRANCE CORRIDORS, PARTICULARLY ROUTE 20S, ROUTE 29 AND ROUTE 250. CONSTRUCTION OF BIKEWAY FACILITIES AS RECOMMENDED IN THE BICYCLE PLAN FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY. 4. DEVELOPMENT OF PORTIONS OF THE RIVANNA GREENWAY PATH SYSTEM. 5. REMOVAL OF NON-CONFORMING BILLBOARDS. NATIONAL HIGI-IWA Y SYSTEM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE MPO POLICY BOARD APPROVED THE NHS AS PROPOSED BY VDOT IN THIS AREA EXCLUDING THE ROUTE 29 BYPASS. VDOT RECOMlvIENDED TO FHWA A NHS WHICH INCLUDED THE EXISTING ROUTE 29 AND ROUTE 29 BYPASS. THE COUNTY'S HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECT IN THE PROPOSED NHS IS THE WIDENING OF ROUTE 29 NORTH FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TO AIRPORT ROAD. THE COUNTY DESIRES TO CONTINUE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION 1N ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDIES, iNCLUDING THE STUDY OF THE PROGRESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TH E ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR WHICH IS PART OF THE NHS. WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THESE ISSUES AND IF QUESTIONS ARISE, OF IF ADDITIONAL iNFORMATION IS NEEDED REGARDING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT ME OR A MEMBER OF OUR COUNTY STAFF. A:WR1-STAT.96 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1997 SPRING PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following addresses Albemarle County priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP~ Standard Projects: The following projects, listed in priori .ty order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. l) Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority prqiect, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the Cit?'. The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. In an effort to further this project, the County is also receiwng funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. However, it is not possible to construct this project solely with Secondary funding due to the cost and drmnatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important Secondary projects. The County believes the parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road provided it will accelerate the parkway's completion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sources to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern urbanized area which would be funded with other than primary funds, such as the Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass interchange, should also be actively pursued. 2) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Studies. The Rome 29 North Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board last year with the County's endorsement. It is hoped that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will act 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8~ 9) favorably on these recommendations. The new Route 29 South Corridor Study is currently out for consultant proposals. The county presumes a corridor study committee will be established to work on this corridor study. It is desired that high priori .ty once again be established for public input in this study's process, including public sessions in Albemarle County. Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to the proposed Route 20/742 connector road that will serve the traffic from the Monticello High School. Construction of sidewalks and bike lane facilities on both sides of the Route 29 from the south Fork Rivarma River to Airport Road (Route 649). Undertake road projects parallel to Route 29 North Corridor which relieve traffic on Route 29. Widen Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Studv. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portions of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) will be under study by VDOT to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourage public participation and consideration of recommendations. Present the recommendations of the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet (pending completion) to the County and improve Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. Develop design plans for the improvement of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The City improvements are currently being reviewed by a Committee. The County supports the improvements that can handle the anticipated traffic in accord with Committee recommendations. Undertake improvemems to the Bellair/Route 250 intersection. These improvements will be determined with the input from the residents of the Bellair neighborhood. A field inspection of the proposed improvements is tentatively set for mid-February. Safety Improvements: Several projects in the County seem m qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods; in particular, Route 20 south from the City line to the newRoute 20/742 connector road, Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farms Apartments, along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks, and along Route 250 Wesi from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this road). 2) Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Ronte 678) to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these safety improvements. 3) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad in Crozet. 4) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements. 5) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County would like for VDOT to consider truck restrictions on these two roads. Enhancement projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Construction of pedestrian walkways. (see #1, Safety Improvements above). 2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placing of overhead utilities underground. 3) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County_ (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991). 4) Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system. 5) Removal of non-conforming billboards. 3 National Highway System (NHS) The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route29 Bypass. VDOT recommended to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) a NHS which included the existing Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the widening of Route 29 North from the Corporate limits of Charlottesville to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Con'idor studies including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville which is currently out for consultant proposals. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies which are part of the NHS [additional information is provided under Standard Projects #2). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. I:\g\s\prime97.exe 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Albemarle County Priorities for Pre-Allocation Meeting for February 5, 1997 ~ ?. 6/~, ~ Pdmary Roads SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Recommendations to be subm'~ed to VDOT at its 1997 pre- allocation hearing in Culpeper STAFF CONTACTt'S}: Messrs. Tucker,C'dimerg,Benish,Wade ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~~~....~,~// REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On March 14, 1997, the Virginia Deparlment of Transportstion(VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation headng in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. Ail roads with route numbers below 600 ars primary roads(i.e,, Route 29, Route 250). DISCUSSION: The Six Year Pdmary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary roao projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed within all localities of the districl compete for those funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock Counties. The purpose of this review process bythe Board of Supervisors is to recommend which County projects to include in the Pdmary Plan for th ~ District. You will find attached to this report a copy of projects listed for the urban and"primary system for the Culpeper District in the existing Six Year Primary Road Plan. (Attachment A) RECOMMENDATION: The staff comments and recommendations for project requests to be presented at the VDOT public headng are provided in Attachment B. Information regarding the Bellair Entrance project was just received on January 28 and is included as attachment C. Based on project decisions made by the board at its February 5 meeting, staff witi develop a draft presentation for the VDOT Public Hearing. A copy of the 1996 pdodty list is provided in Attachment D for your convenience. 97.029 ........... DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA IDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMONO. 23219-1939 July I, 1996 Final 1996-97 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program City/Town Mayors/Managers County District Commissions ~ornmlssions The Commonwealth Transportation Board, on June 20, gave final approval to the enclosed 1996-97 allocations and updated Six-Year Improvement Program. ~ry truly y~urs, David R. Gehr - Commissioner Enclosures CC: The Honorable Kobert E. lx;lartinez .j I I I I i I ! I I I ! I ! II ! [ i i i i ! I I I ! I I I I I i I I I ! I 11 I I I I I I I i I 1 I I i I I I I I I I ! I ! 4 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1997 SPRING PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATEs PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following addresses Albemarle County priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Pro_iects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. J) Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for/n the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City-, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority project, and is of the utmost importance in order to malnta'm an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urban/zing area north of the City-. The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary prograrm h~ an effort to fm'ther this project, the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for plarming and design for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North~ However, it is not possible to construct this project solely with Secondary funding due to the cost and dran~atic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important Secondary- projects. The County believes the parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the pr'n-nary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate constmction of subsequem phases as a primary road provided it will accelerate the parkway's completion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sources to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern urbanized area which would be funded with other them primary funds, such as the Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass interchange, should also be actively pursued. 2) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Studies. The Route 29 North Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board last year with 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 9) favorably on these recommendations. The new Route 29 South Corridor Study is currently out for consultant proposals. The county presumes a corridor study committee will be established to work on this corridor stady. It is desired that high priority once again be established for public input in this study's process, including public sessions in Albemarle County. Construction of sidewalks and bike lane facilities on both sides of the Route 29 from the south Fork Rivauna River to Airport Road (Route 649). Undertake the wideulng of Route 20 south from 1-64 to the proposed Route 20/742 connector road that will serve the traffic from the Monticello High School. Undertake road projects parallel to Route 29 North Corridor which relieve traffic on Route 29. Widen Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by- the City, County and UniversiW of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portions of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) will be under study by VDOT to determine long teton needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvauna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourage public participation and consideration of recommendations. Present the recommendations of the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet (pending completion) m the County and improve Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. Develop design plans for the improvement of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the rrnprovements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The City improvements are currently being reviewed by a Committee. The County supports the improvements that can handle the anticipated traffic in accord with Committee recommendations. Undertake improvements to the Bellair/Route 250 intersection. These improvements will be determined with the inpm from the residents of the Bellair neighborhood. A field inspection of the proposed improvements is tentatively set for mid-February. 2 Safety Improvements: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods; in particular, Route 20 south from the City line to the new Ronte 20/742 connector road, Route 20 north from Route 250 to Wilton Farms Apartments, along Route 250 East in the Pant,ps area as an extension to existing sidewalks, and along Route 250 West from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this road). 2) Improvements m Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these safety improvements. 3) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad in Crozet. 4) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements. 5) Funcfional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County would like for VDOT to consider truck restrictions on these two roads. Enhancement Projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Construction of pedestrian walkways. (see #1, Safety Improvements above). 2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road cormecfmg Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placing of overhead utilities underground. 3) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County_ (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991 ). 4) Development of portions of the Rivauna River Greenway path system. 5) Removal of non-conforming billboards. 3 National Highway System (NHS) The Charlottesville-Albemarle iMPO Policy Board approved the NItS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. VDOT recommended to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) a NHS which included the exisfmg Route 29 and the Route 29 Bypass, The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the widening of Route 29 North from the Corporate limits of Charlottesville to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville which is currently out for consultant proposals. The County wJJl monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies which are part of the NHS Iadditional information is provided under Standard ProJects #2). Congestion Mitigation and Air Ouality Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County, The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. I:\g\s\pr'mae97.exe 4 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER ECE ¥ED COMMONWEALTH o[ VIR INIA , · DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER January 28, 1997 Route 809 ~ Int. Rte. 250 Bellair Entrance Albemarle County Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Department of Plannlng 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Attached are the latest plans for the entrance to Bellair (Route 809) offofRoute 250. The preliminary estimates for this proposal are approxlmalely $120,000 for preliminary engineering, $140,000 for right of way and $320,000 for construction, a total cost of $580,000. If you have any questions, please advise. /ggu cc: Mr. Robert Tucker Mr. D. 1L Askew Yours Truly, Contract Administrator TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ',.;' / I I 1 I I PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following addresses Albemarle County priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Pro_iects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. They are: l) Bypass tO Route 29 is of first Com~ty's ~eC°n~ program. The County Route 29N Parkway COrdd0r criteria Corridor Study.. Improvement to Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River is still 3) Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to the proposed Route 20/742 connector road that Wili :s~rve the traffic fi0m the new~ ~gh School. -. Undertake road projects parallel to Route 29 which relieve traffic on Route 29, such as the Greenbrier Drive/Seminole Square Connector. 5) Widen Route 250 West from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The renmining portions of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) will be under Study by VDOT to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East from State Farm Blvd. to the Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort. ~ r of Route 240.~ results and recommendations of the VDOT corridor of F0ntaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to SeveralProjects 1) ~ routes within the County's line to the new Route dong sidewalks, along 250 West from City ~o Bypass (as part of the overall improvementsto ~his mad). 3) The closing of the remaining Route 29 North crossovers recommended for closure in a VDOT study adopted by the B6ard of Supervisors on May 10, 1979 and reaffirmed by the Board on November 8, 1989. Improvements to Route 250 West along the business corridor in Ivy (f~om just east 0fthe 2 2rozet. Functional plans for Ronte 20 North and South for alignment improvements. Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. Enhancement Pro_ieets: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Construction of pedestrian walkways along selected primary road sections. (see #1, Safety Improvements above). 2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) - landscaping, sagnage, placing of overhead utilities underground. 3) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the Ci_ty of Charlottesville and Albemarle Cmmty (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991). Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system. Removal of non'conforming National Highway System The Charlottesville~Albemarle MPO Polic~ are. a excluding the Route 29 Bypass. VDOT recommended existing Route 29 and the Route NHS is the wideninl The County desires to continue active Cor/id i aies the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor which is information is provided under Standard Projects #2). · VDOT in this t the the study monitor This does not apply to Albemarle County. The Count~ or carbon monoxide. I:\g\s\pri96ist.wp ~zone 3 02-~7-97P12:51 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER RCVD O COMMONVFEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO]q'ESVILLE 22911 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER February 20, 1997 Route 240 Albemarle County MS. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: This will acknowledge a concern raised by Mr. Perkins at the December 4, 1996 County Board Meeting. Mr. Perkins has asked that we review the need for a speed limit along Route 240 between Route 250 and the Con-Agra Plant. In response to this request, we asked our Traffic Office to review and they have advised us that a 45 mph speed limit will be established from Route 250 East intersec:ion ~o 1.28 miles East of Route 810. Furthermore a section of Route 240 that now has a-40 mph speed limit will be reduced Eo 35 mph between 1.28 miles East of Route 810'to'0.97 miles East of Route 810. We will erec~ s~gns upon approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. ~rs truly, H W. Mills Assistant Resident Engineer EWM/ldw cc:J. H. shiff[ett, Jr. O. L,~uff FEB 2T!997 :. SUPERVISORS TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219 J.T. MILLS D[VISION ADMINISTRATOR February 7, 1997 Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 501 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Route 866 Project: 0866-002-236, C-501 Hydraulic Road Fr: 0.026 Mi. S. Int. (Rte. 743) To: 0.172 Mi. N. Int. Albemarle County Rte. 29 =~ Attached is a Public Notice and Map advising of a proposed highway improvement project. Should you desire additional information or have any questions or comments concerning this highway matter, please refer to the above project number and description when you contact this office. Sincerely, for Location and Design Division WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING BOARD OF SUPERV~ORS i GREENBRIER DRIVE ROUTE 866 Albemarle County and Public Hearing} Hearing: Tuesch~y, March25, 1997 * * Anytimebetween5:00pmandS:00pm To be held at the lack Jouett Middle School located on Lambs Road Route 657), xvest o£ Hydm'ali¢ ,Road (Ro'~e 743), near the At"cxanarB High School. Purpose: To provide you an opportunity, in an open forum, to review ant discuss, withDepartment personnel, pre 'lnninary plans for the pro- posed oonstmction of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) from 0.03 mile south of the intersection of Hydraulic Road [Route 743 ) to 0.17 mile north of the intersection of Route 29 in Albemarle County. Review: Maps, drawings and other data pertaining to the project are availabl~ for your review inthe VDOT Culpeper District office located at 1601 Orange Road (Route 15 Business), just south of Route 3, inthe Town of Culpeper and at the VDOT Charlottesville Residency office located on Route 250, three miles east ofthe City of Charlottesville. Public Comments: Oral comments will be taken at the hearing. Written comments and other exhibits relative to the proposed project may also be submitted at the public hearing or to the Department at any time within. 10 days at~r the hearing. Right of Way: Relocation assistance, right of way ecquisition, together with tentafiw schedules and construction information will be discussed. Special Assistance: If you require special assistance to attend and participate in this meeting or need additional information please contact: vflte Residency: 804-293-0011 Device for the Heating hnpaired (TTY): 1-800-307-4630 Project: 0866-002-236,C-501 1026 / / 676 743 743 /  ORK RIVN~IN~ RESERVOIR 631 659 1027 PROPOSED PROJECT 851 1461 852 631 1405 657 / 743 1455 1460 -- 1320 1521 656 743 1472 656 1406 1407 1430 1411 ~. ..... 654 1495 · 1456 I 852 1499 1452 1453 852 851 1454 -- 1515 866 1452 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 866 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PROJECT: 0866 - 002 - 256, C501 FROM: 0,026 bll. $. INT. HYDRAUUC RD. (RTE. 745) TO~ 0J72 MI. N. INT. RTE. 2cJ LENGTH~ 0~851 ~IILE5 SCA[ I , 0 0.25' lilLE 0.5 ME VlrglnloOel~rtfl~nt of Tronsportoflon DAVID R, GEHR COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST SROAD STREET RICHMOND 23219 J.T. NIILLS DIVISION ADMINISTR^TOR February 20, 1997 Route: 614 Proj.: 0614-7710-B02 0614-7710-C02 Desc.: Replacement of Bridge and Approaches over the Moormans River at 0.39 and 1.35 Miles West of Route 674 Albemarle County Clerk of the Court Albemarle County 501 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 I w .... ould like to take thls opportunity to advise theft the Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia at its me~i~ today approved the major design features of the above p~oje~t ~s proposed and presented at the Wednesday, December 4, 1996, Location and Design Public Hearing with the following exception: building one bridge at the western site, as opposed to the two bridges proposed, and with consideration of minimizing work done ~o the stream channel, and using rustic steel guardrail on the bridges and approaches to the bridges. Sincerely, State Location and Design Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ~:,~'%~0 OF SUPERVISO~ DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONEF COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE 22911 March 18, 1997 03-21-97^10:45 RCVD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 614 - Sugar Hollow Rd. Proj. 0614-7710-B02 Proj. 0614-7710-C02 Btidge Replacements Albemarle Cmmty The Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its February 20, 1997 meeting, approved the major design features of the above project as presented at the December 4, 1996, Location and Design Public Hearing w/th the following exceptions: Building one bridge at the western site. as opposed to two bridges as proposed, and with consideration of minimizing work done in the stream channel and using rustic steel guardrail on the bridges and approaches to the bridges. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contra~t Administrator /ggu cc: Mr. D. S. Askew Mr. 1L H. ConnQck, TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISO~$ AGENDA TITLE: Tree Donation - Region Ten Community Services Board SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to the participating counties in the Region Ten Community Services Board to donate a tree to Region Ten's new homo facility. STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mullaney AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY.: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X / BACKGROUND: Mr. Lloyd E. Barrett, Chairman of the Region Ten Community Service Board has contact the member jurisdictions with a request to donate a tree to Region Ten's new home facility located at 800 Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, VA. These trees will be planted in mid-April and will be identified with a permanent plaque as to the donor. DISCUSSION: Unless there is objection, staff will proceed to provide the requested contribution from existing Parks and Recreation budget. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the Board's review with the understanding that staff wilt move forward to fulfill the request of Region Ten unless there should be some objection from the Board. 97.043 -- r gion communitg s rvicEs board Lloyd E. Ba~ett Ch~irmar Albemarle Lloyd E. Barrett Arthur B. Brown, Jr. Jacquelyn C. Perry Dwight 1~ Col[e;, PsyD Fluvanna Irene S. Rebl~alz M~,P] E. McManus. PhD Febmax7 20, 1997 The Hunomble Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mcinfire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Humphris: As a special one time request, the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvauna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson, and the C'~-j of Charlottesville, are each being asked to donate a tree to Region Ten's new home fac'flity located at 800 Preston Avenue, Charlottesville. The trees will be planted in mid-April by Peter Hallock of the Garden Spot who is generously donating most of the plantings and labor for the landscaping. The six trees requested from the localities will each be ~dentified with a permanem plaque, and will form a welcoming entrance to the grounds of the facility. Each of the participating localities could select any one of three methods to achieve the requested donation: Option Pc Donate an actual tree (a Bradford pear, 3 inch caliper or mom, to be delivered or picked up by Region Ten by mid- April) Option B: Contribute $350.00 to Region Ten, Inc., and Region Ten will purchase the tree on behalf of the locality. Charlottesville VA 22903-4420 Telephone: (804) 972-1800 Administration [804] 970-21Q4 Me,ica[ Records (804) 972-1864 Option C: Contribute $200.00 to Region Ten, Inc:, and The Garden Spot will substitute a 3 inch caliper or larger tree for one of the smaller trees they have already pledged. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Providing Mental Health, Mental Retardat on, and Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services to Charlottesvige. Albemarle, Fluv~nna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson r~gion t~n communitg services 800 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903-4420 (804) 972-1800 EARLYSVILLE FOREST WATER COMPANY, February20,1997 Charlotte Humphris, Chairman Albemarle CountyBoard of Supervisors 40t Mclrttire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mrs. Humphris: Enclosed please find a copy of a Ruling by the State Corporation Commission. As you will see by the Ruling, the Earlysville Forest Water Company is required to serve upon the Board of Supervisors a copy of this Ruling for the Board's information. Respectfully submitted, Samuel D. Craig, IH Manager SC/cp Eric. Post Office Box 6156 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 * (8041 973-3361 ~CC.62 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION - COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, e.~x re.~l. BRADLEY P. GROFF, et al. V. EARLYSVILLE FOREST WATER COMPANY HEARING EXAMINER'S RULING January 22, 1997 CASE NO PUE960128~ '~ By letter dated June 13, !996, EarlysvilIe Forest Water Company ("Earlysville" ar "the Company") notified its customers of its intent to increase rates for water service effective August 1, 1996. Pursuant to Commission order dated September 16, 1996, the matter was scheduled for hearing on February 12, 1997, and a proceduraJ schedule was established. The Company requested a suspension of the procedural schedule stating that it is a small, nonregulated water company, and it had not anticipated that its proposed rate increase would be subject to a hearing before the Commission. In its response. Staff supported the Company's request for additional time; however, Staff expressed concern that the Company had not filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity as required by the Code of Virg;nia. Hearing Examiner's Ruling dated October 17, 1996, suspended the procedural schedule and directed the Company to file an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and an amendment to its articles of incorporation to reflect its operation as a public service company. The Company made the required filing on December 2, 1996. Upon motion by the Commission Staff the Commission consolidated the Application of Eariysvilie Forest Water Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, Case No. PUE960305, with the above-captioned case, by order dated January 10, 1997. That application for a certificate will now be addressed in conjunction with the investigation of the proposed rate increase in this case. I now find that a revised notice must be provided and a new procedural schedule for the consolidated cases should be established. Accordingly, IT I$ DIRECTED: (1) That a public hearing shall be held on April 29, 1997. at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom for the purpose of receiving evidence relevant to the Company's proposed tariff revisions and its proposed application for a certificate; (2) That the Company forthwith make a copy of its proposed rates and accompanying materials available for public inspection during regular business hours at the office of Eadysville Forest Water Company, 338 West Rio Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901; (3) That, on or before March 14, 1997, the Company shall file with the SCC Document Control Center an original and fifteen (15) copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits the Company intends to present at the public hearing, and make a copy of the same available for public inspection as provided in paragraph (21 herein: (4) That, on or before March 2:1, 1997, any person desiring to participate as a Protestant, as defined in Rule 4:6, shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of Protest as provided in Rule 5:16(a) and shall serve a copy on the Company. Service upon the Company shall be made on its counsel, Donald G. Owens, Esquire, Mays & Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218ol 122; (5) That any person desiring to comment in writing on this matter may do so by directing such comments on or before April 3, 1997, to the Clerk of the Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, and refer to Case No. PUE960218. Any person desiring to make a statement at the public hearing need only appear in the Commission's courtroom at 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and identify himself as a public witness to the Commission's bailiff; (6) That within five (5) days of receipt of any Notice of Protest, the Company shall serve on each Protestant a copy of all material now or hereinafter filed with the Commission; (7) That any person who expects to submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise participate in the proceeding as a Protestant, pursuant to Rule 4:6, shall file on or before April 3, 1997, an original and fifteen (15) copies of a Protest with the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218 referring to Case No. PUE960128 and shall simultaneously send a copy thereof to the Company's counsel, Donald G. Owens, Esquire, Mays & Valentine, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218ol 122; (8) That the Protest shall set forth (i) a precise statement of the interest of the Protestant in the proceeding; (ii) a full and clear statement of the facts which the Protestant is prepared to prove by competent evidence; and (iii) a statement of the specific relief sought and the legal basis therefor. Any corporate entity orgovemmental unit that wishes to submit evidence cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise participate as a Protestant must be represented by legal counsel in accordance with the requirements of Rule 4:8; (9) That, on or before April 3, 1997, each Protestant shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an odginal and fifteen I15) copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits the Protestant intends to present at the public hearing, and shall simultaneously mall a copy to the Company's counsel at the address set out above; (10) That, on or before April 3, 1997, the Commission Staff shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits Staff intends to present at the public hearing and shall serve a copy of each upon the Company and each Protestant; (11 ) That the Company shall respond to written interrogatories within ten (10) days after receipt of same, Protestants shall respond tc the written interrogatories of the Company, other Protestants, and Staff within five (5) business days after receipt of same. Protestants shall provide the Company, other Protestants, and Staff with any work papers or documents used in preparation of their filed testimony promptly upon request. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in accordance with Part VI of the Rules; (12) That, on or before April 22. 1997, the Company shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of all testimony it expects to introduce in rebuttal to all direct profiled testimony and exhibits; additional rebuttal evidence may be presented without prefiling, provided it is in response to evidence which was not profiled but elicited at the time of the hearing, and provided further, the need for additional rebuttal evidence is timely addressed by motion during the hearing and leave to present said evidence is granted by the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the profiled rebuttal evidence shall be sent to the Staff and to all other parties to the proceeding; (13) That, on or before March 7, 1997, the Company shall cause a copy of the following notice to be sent to each of its customers by first class mail, postage prepaid (bill inserts are acceptable): NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF A HEARING ON RATE INCREASE OF EARLYSVILLE FOREST WATER COMPANY TAKE NOTICE that, in response to petitions filed by a majority of the Earlysville Forest Water Company's ("Earlysville" or "the Company") customers, the State Corporation Commission has scheduled a hearing to begin at 10:00 a.m. on April 29, 1997, in the Commission's Second Floor Courtroom in the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond. Virginia. to receive evidence relevant to the Company's proposed rate increase. The Company proposes to increase its fixed charge for water service from $35.00 to $42.00 per month for the months of ~3 August and September, payable in advance. The Company intends to install meters, and for service provided on and after October 1, 1996, to initiate billing by water volume at a rate of $7.02 per 1,000 gallons, plus a $10.00 monthly servJce charge. Such bills will be rendered in arrears. The Company estimates that, under metered billing, the average customer's cost for water service will be approximately $42.00 per month. While the total revenue requirement that may be approved is limited to the amount proposed by the Company, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that individual rates a0d charges approved by the Commission may be either higher than or lower than those proposed by the Company. A copy of the Company's proposed rates and accompanying materials are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the office of Earlysville Forest Water Company, 338 West Rio Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 220901. A copy of the proposed rates and materials are also available Monday through Friday, 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Commission's Clerk's Office, Document Control Center, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. On and after March 14, 1997, a copy of the Company's prefiled testimony and exhibits will be available for public inspection at the same locations. Any person desiring to comment in writing on this matter may do so by directing such comments on or before April 3, 1997 to the Clerk of the Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P. O Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218 and refer to Case No. PUE960128. Any person desiring to make a statement at the public hearing need only appear in the Commission's courtroom at 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and identify himself as a public witness to the Commission's bailiff. Individuals with disabilities who require an accommodation to participate in the hearing may contact the Commission at 1-800- 552-7945 (voice) or 1-804-371-9026 (TDD). Individuals requesting accommodations should contact the Commission at either of these numbers at least seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date. On or before March 21, 1997, persons desiring to participate as protestants, as defined in RuJe 4:6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") shall file an odginal and fifteen (15) copies of a Notice of Protest, as provided in Rule 5:16(a), with ~4 the Clerk of the Commission and serve a copy upon the Company. Service upon the Company shall be made on its counsel, Donald G. Owens, Escluire, Mays & Valentine, P. O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1122. Any person who expects to submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise participate in the proceeding as a Protestant, pursuant to Rule 4:6 shall file on or before ApriJ 3, 1997, an odginat and fifteen (15) copies of a Protest with the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218 referring to Case No. PUE960128 and shall simQltaneously send a copy thereof to counsel for the Company at the address set forth above, and to any other Protestant. The Protest shall set forth (i) a precise statement of the interest of the Protestant in the proceeding; (ii) a full and clear statement of the facts which the Protestant is prepared to prove by competent evidence; and (iii) a statement of the specific relief sought and the Jegal basis therefor. Any corporate entity or governmental unit that wishes to submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or otherwise participate as a Protestant must be represented by legal counsel in accordance with the requirements of Rule 4:8. On or before April 3, 1997, each Protestant shall file with the C Jerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of the prepared testimony and exhibits Protestant intends to present at the public hearing, and shall simultaneously mail a copy to counsel for the Company at the address set forth above, and to any other Protestant. All written communications to the Commission regarding this case should be directed to Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, P. O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218 and should refer to Case No. PUE960128. EARLYSVILLE FOREST WATER COMPANY (14) That the Company shall forthwith serve a copy of this Ruling on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each county in which the Company offers service, and/or the Mayor or manager of every city and town [or equivalent officials in counties, cities, and towns having alternate forms of government) in which the ,5 - Company offers service. Service shall be made by first class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or to the residence of the person served; and (15) That at the commencement of the hearing scheduled herein, the Company shall provide the Commission with proof of notice as required by paragraphs (13) and (14). eborah V. EIlenberg Hearing Examiner Document Control Center is requested to mail or deliver a copy of the above Ruling on January 22, 1997 to: Donald G. Owens, Esquire, P.O. Box 1122, Richmond, Virginia 23218~1122; Bradley P. Groff, 4240 Pine Grove, Eariysville, VA 22936; Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219; Marta Curtis. Esquire, Commission counsel: and to the Commission's Divisions of Energy Regulation and Public Utility Accounting. ~6 H. ALLEN GLOVER, 540 983-7636 INTEKNET: glover t~woodsrogers.com WOODS, ROGERS & HAZI EGROVE [ Attorneys at Lazo February 21, 1997 In re: Application of Appalachian Power Company to Revise its Cogencration Tariff Pursuant to PURPA Section 210; Case No. PUE970001 Dear Madam or Sir: On behalf of Appalachian Power Company, and pursuant to paragraph (4) of the Virginia State Corporation Commission's Order entered on February 13, 1997, we serve you with a copy of that Order, Very truly yours, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C. ./ H. Allen Glover, Jr. AG/dks M#380872 823 East Main Street, Suite 1200 / Richmood, Virginia 23219 804 343-5020 Fax 804 343-5021 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 13 , APPLICATION OF APPALACHIAN POWER COMPAI~Y To revise its cogeneration tariff pursuant to PURPA Section 210 On December 20, i996, CASE NO. 9 7 025 O0 8 6 PUE970001 ORDER ESTABLISHING COGENERATION PROCEEDING -~-- --~ Appalachian Power Company ("APCO" or~ ~- "the Company") filed with the Commission an application, written testimony and exhibits to support its proposal to modify its cogeneration and small power production rates under Schedule COGEN/SPP. APCO proposes the following major modifications to Schedule COGEN/SPP: (1) update monthly energy payments; (2) eliminate 30-year energy payment provision; (3) eliminate monthly capacity payments; (4) update metering charges; (5) require a contribution toward the cost of special me=ering for COGEN/SPP customers; (6) require time-of-day (TOD) metering for all COGEN/SPP customers; (7) reduce availability of Schedule COGEN/SPP to qualifying facilities (QFs) with maximum capacities of less than 100 kW; and (8) require a security deposit equal to 25% of the Uotal cost of the interconnection. The Commission having reviewed the filed documents is of tke opinion chat the application should be docketed and that a procedural schedule should be established. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED T~AT: (1) Pursuant to Rule 7:1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (.SCC Rules"), a hearing examiner ~s appointed to conduct all further proceedings in this matter. (2) A hearing before an examiner is scheduled for April 23, 1997, at I0:00 a.m. in the Commission's courtroom on the 2nd Floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia' for the purpose of receiving evidence re!evans to the Company's application. (3) APCO forthwith provide copies of this order and its application and prefiled testimony to any existing cogenerator in the Company's service territory and any small power production or cogeneration developer who has contacted APCO within the las~ year. '(4) On or before February 21, 1997, APCO shall serve a copy of this order on the Chairman of the board of supervisors of each affected county and on the mayor or manager of every affected city of town (or equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate forms of government) in which the Company offers service. Servic~ shall be made by either personal . 2 delivery or by first-class mail to business (5) APCO forthwith make copies of prefiled testimony available for public the customary place of or residence of the person served. its application and inspection during regular business hours at all company offices in Virginia where customer bills may be paid. (6) APCO and Protestant(s) shall respond to all data requests within ten (10) days and objections to all data requests must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of the data request by the party tO whom the data requests are directed. -Any to data requests not timely'raised may be subject to objection waiver. (7) On or before participate as a Protestant, as defined in SCC Rule 4:6, file with the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, an original and twenty se~-e a copy upon APCO. H. March 5, 1997, any person desiring to shall c/o P.L.C., 23219 P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, (20) copies of a notice of protest and Sez~ice upon APCO shall be directed to- Allen Glover, Jr., Esquire, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, 823 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia On or before March 21, t997, each Protestant shall file an original and uwenuy (20) copies of a protest and of the prepared testimony and exhibits Protestant intends to present at 3 the hearing and serve other Protestant. (9) On or before March copies of each on APCO and any 28, 1997, the Commission's Staff shall investigate the file its report or testimony with the Clerk, APCO and each Protestant. (10) On or before April 14, 1997, with the Commission an original and twenty (20) testimony it expects to introduce in rebuttal. serve a copy of its prefiled rebuttal upon all-parties of record. of reasonableness of APCO's application and sending a copy to the Company shall file copies of all The Company shall evidence upon Staff and (11) On or before April 23, 1997, APCO shall provide proof service and notice as required in this order. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to: H. Allen Glover, Jr., Esquire and Anthony Gambardetla, Esquire, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., 823 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219; James R. Baoha, American Electric Power Service Corporation, I Riverside Plaza, Esquire, Counsel, Commission's Divisions of Energy Regulation and Economics Columbus, Ohio 43215; Edward L. Petrini, Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the and 4 ABG * FINANCIAL SEKVICES, INC. February 18, 1997 Ms. Arlene Hemandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 Re: -Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts:) Dear Ms. Hemandez: - Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of January 1997. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Sheila H. Moynihan Project Monitor shm enclosure cc~Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 Effective January 31, 1997 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OP THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. icmbard Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apartments 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 you: 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 Hydraulio 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 16 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied held available for Lower Income Tenants is .- 3) The number of units held available for 50 (1) and (2) is rented and the number of units rental other than as described in 4) The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of units in the Project is 24% . 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correcH 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 February 5. 1997 this Report as of RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership ~U=horized Re~esentative 5u, b~[t4~l Dy; January y~ 1997. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Roa~. Apts.)~: 051-35371 Charlottesville, VA Num~ ~lU~i~% . 66 Loretta Wyatt . February 5, 1997 Effective 1/31/97 To~al Occupied 66 Sond Occupied I6 I. LOW'EI~ INCOME 4 Arbor Crest Dr .Beverly T~ Lane I -- 2~ , 41 ._, 61.., 2 6 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Wilma ~. Atkinson 42 3 7 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Ruth M. Jones 43 ~3., 4 9.Arbor Crest Dr 24 ?~rginia BuTton 44 5 12 Arbor Crest Dr _ 2,~ .~; Robert Stone 4", ~.. 8 14 Arbor Crest Dr ]8 Betty L. Reed ; 18 Arbor Crest Dr :2? .Aqn S. Kemp 47 8?. 8 30 Arbor Crest Dr :28 Mary Cox Allen 48 9 . 44 Arb. or Crest Dr 2g Sam Atherton 4g., 10 _56 Arbor Crest Dr 30.Harlan W. Hooe ~ ' 70. II 76 Arbor Crest Dr 31 Ann G. Saylor ~'), 71. 12, 78 Arbor Crest Dr 32, ,,Ernest M, Nease ~2 '/:2 13 84 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Juanita Boliek.. 53 14 88 Arbor Crest Dr,. ,34 Nancy G. Foley 54 74. , ~5 90 Arbor Crest Dr 35 Betty ,B. Elliott 55 75, 15 9,4 Arbor Crest Dr S6 M. Eileen Knick f~ 76 .... i I 's? 57 77. ~6 _, S8 ,. 58.. ?8- ~ ~ 39 . 20 . 40 60 ~0. A~dltlM.4 t ~1 1 .. 11,, 2 12 , 2 12.. 3 13 .... 3 .... 13 4 T& 4. 14. · -, 15 , , . S 15 6 , , 16 ,,, iS 18. 7 , %7 7 , 17. g 18 , 8 , 18. ~0 20 10. 20. AGENDA,TITLE: Juvenile Deten~on Planning Study Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on the Juvenite Detention Facility Planning Study and Future Project Schedule STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: March 5.1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No/~ REVIEWED BY: ///ff>~ [ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: In September 1995, the Board received and discussed the Secure Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment that documented the increasing need for secure juvenile detention in both Albemarle and Charlottesville and outlined the process for secudng State funding [or a new or expaneed juvenile detention facility. [n October 1996, the Beard appropriated $71,574 for a Juvenile Detention Planning Study by Moseiy/Harris, [he costs of which were shared with the Cib/and the Shenandoah Valley Deten'don Home. An interim report has been received from the consultants, e bdef summary of which is provided below. DISCUSSION: Mosely/Harris's intedm report provided an initial cost anal~is between the two scenarios being considered for a juvenile detention facility; that of expanding the current facility in Staunton or building a new tacility in the Chartottesville/AIbemarle area. These initial costs will be part of the final study, but were prepared at this time to provide an initial review of the projected cep'~al costs for[he two options before proceeding with the full planning study. Expanding the current facil~ in Staunton will cost $7.6 million dollars, which includes $2 million for 40 new bed spaces, $2.2 million for new support areas. $1.1 million to renovate the existing home and site work and other costs of $1.8 million, plus contingencies. Projecting a 50% reimbursement rata of $52,000/bed for 72 beds from the State. the City/County's sham will be $2.12 million or $1.06 million for each jurisdiction. However. it is uncertain at this time that the State will reimbume $52,000/bed for renovated bed space for the current 32 beds. Building a new 40 bed facility expandable to 60 beds, including land costs of approximately $300,000, would cost $6.3 million, $1.5 million for 40 bed spaces, $1.9 million for new secured support areas, $.773 million for non-secure support areas, $706 million for site work and $1 million for land and other costs. Projecting a 35% reimbumement rate (al~ough State reimbumement is 50%, a $52,000/bed cap for 40 beds lowem the State share considerably), the City/County share is $4.1 million or approximately $2 million for each jurisdiction. In the CtP, staff had estimated a $135,000/bed cost based on the most recent estimates for a total project cost of $5.4 million or $1.6 million for each jurisdic{ion. This estimate for a $6.3 million dollar facility puts the the per bed space at $15Q.000. Although [he difference in capital costs is significant, other tactom must be considered. Trensportat~on costs are one factor estimated at $33,0004Jear. Other more intangible factors are access to families and other supportive services that are not available at the Staunten facility. Preliminary operating costs am projected to be $706,000/year for Charlottesville/Albemarle at a new 40 bed fac[lib/. Projected operating costs for Charlottesvitie/AIbemarle at an expanded 72 bed Staunton facility are projected to be $634,000. However, adding approximately $33,000 in annual net transportation costs would bring the Staunton cost up to $667,000/year. AGENDA TITLE: Juvenile Detention Planning Study Update March 5, 1997 Page 2 MoselyJHarfis isin the process of finalizing the planning study, which will also include a program design component, more detailed drawings and a cost comparison of the operalJng costs for both opfions. The completed planning study must be submitted to the Department of Juvenile Justice (D J J) by Apdl 1 for staff review before it is sent to the DJJ State Board in June or July. if approved by the State Board, it will be forwarded on to Planning and Budget for inclusion in the state budget request at the next General Assembly Session. During the month of April, Ere Board and C~ Council will need to review the completed planning study, weigh the benef~s~ as well as future costs of a new facilit,j, and be prepared to mere forward with a final decision for the State Board in May. RECOMMENDATION: This is provided for the Board's information only and does not require any action at this time. 96.047 DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMON'WEALTH o[ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLO~ESVILLE 22911 A. G. TUCKER Februa~ 1~, 1997 Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Projec£: 6029-002-Ft9, C502 Dear Ms. Carey, After careful consideration, the DeparnmenE is modifying the current construction plans for the Route 29 project to reflect the following (please reference attached sketch 1) Construction of a crossover centered between Woodbrook Drive and Hilton Heights Road. This crossover will be signalized during current construction. 2) C~osure o£ the proposed crossovers located at the Kegler's and Better Living entrances. {No signalization was planned for ~hese locations an this time.~ These changes will enhance the safety and efficiency of Route 29 as there will be one signalized crossover in lieu of two {2) unsignalized crossovers serving traffic along this secnlon. There will be no unszgnalized crossovers on Route 29 south Df the South Fork Rivanna River. All signals will be coordinated for optimum traffic flow during peak and non-peak hours. We have discussed these changes with interested homeowner association representatives and business owners. We believe that this proposal addresses all parties' concerns including ~afety of the general public. Of special concern was the assurance that no through traffic would be promoted via Carrsbrook Drive into neighborhoods along this path. Carrsbrook Drive will function as a rlght-in/right-out-only intersection with Route 29. Please share this information with the Board. We will be prepared no discuss details as necessary during the March 5th Board of Supervisors' meeting. AGT/smk attachments Very truly yours, A. G. Tucker- cc: D. R. Askew w/attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY L COUNTY OF ALBEMAR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I AGENDA TITLE: Transportation Matters - Railroad Crossing Over West Leigh Drive SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of alternatives available to accommodate railroad crossing for CSX Railroad Crossing over West Leigh Drive STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Keisey BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes / Residents of West Leigh Homeowners' Association expressed concern to CSX Corporation regarding the safety of the railroad crossing off Route 250 West into West Laigh Subdivision and have received a response from CSX Transportation which requires immediate action to either cover the crossing with a pdvate grade crossing agreement or have the crossing taken into the public road system. The private grade crossing agreement would be between CSX and either the County or the Virginia Department of Transportation for installation and maintenance of an automatic grade crossing warning device. DISCUSSION: Preliminary indication from our local VDOT office is that the section of the road where the grade crossing is located may well qualify as a rural addition. If sc, the cosl of the automatic warning device could be covered by rural addition funds and, once accepted into the system, maintenance responsibility for the gates would fall with CSX. VDOT is confirming this prel~rninary indication and will be prepared to discuss the topic with the Board under Transportation Matters on March 5th. RECOMMENDATION: Staff provides this information for the Board's review in preparation for a discussion on March 5th with VDOT representatives as CSX has indicated they will close the grade crossing by May 15, 1997 if significant movement iS not made toward addressing the issue. 97.046 Mrs, Charlotte Y, Humphris, Chairwoman Albemarle County Board of SUl~rvisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Charlotte. write yon as a representative nfthe West Leigh Property Owners Association(WLPOA). Enclosed is a letter dated February 13, 1997 AND received February 18, 1997 written by Mr. M. E. MuscarL Senior Project Engineer, of CXS Tramt~rtatien. CSX has advised us that the status of ~ railroad crossing over West Leigh Drive cannot remain as it presently is, and Ires offered three alternatives: a. WLPOA can install fully automatic grade crossing warning devices or have the crossing taken into the public road system If neither of the above are acceptable, CSX will close thc crossing. You will read that CSX is quite specific about the type of warning device to be installed. The estimated cost of installation is $100,000, with an annual license fee, crossing maintenance fee and warning device maiui~nanoe fee costing about $ 4,250 yearly, plus the cost of any repairs which may be required and which would be billed per occurrence. Furthermore, we could not be able to comply with the "Private Road Grade Crossing Agreement", a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit B. West Leigh has no enforcement capabilities, not doas it have the personnel or thc knowledge to understand the requirements of the Agreement. It certainly cannot afford to abide ivy the requirements listed in the Agreement. As a Charlottesdlle native, yon will remember when Bill Clover and Emerson Spies purchased junmy Wilde' s dairy farm and developed West Leigh in the1958-60 period. There are about l lO lots A private road system was built to serve all the home sites. The principal road is West Leigh Drive, running in a north-south direction between US 250 West and Old Ballard Road.. Some time ago all the roads were dedicated to public use. I believe it would be accurate to say that the public's perception of West Leigh Drive is that the road is a private mad which it can use to travel from Ballanf Road to US 250, and vice versa. At either end of West Le~Zgh entrances are signs which r~',~d "Prdlva~e Road". Actually, West Leigh Drive does not reach to Old Ballard Road, nor does it cross the railroad tracks. The developers were deeded a right of way from the northern end of a privately built road (West Leigh Drive) to Old Ballard Road, and another right of way from the southern end of West Leigh Drive at or near file point where Little Ivy Creek hms under the mad, to US 250 West. West Leigh residents have only a right of ingress and egress to West Leigh Drive. Thc residents of West Leigl~ have maintained West Leigh Drive and the rights of way to and from it for some 3540 years. This ~ibil~y is included in our Restrictions and Covenants. We have given the public a thoroughfare fi:om one public site (Old Ballard Road) to an other (US 250 West) for 3540 years at our exl:guse. Over the years, increasing public use of this road has caused our maintenance extxmses m increase siginficanfly. This statement is less ora complaint than it is a statement of fact. West Leigh Drive has Ix,'come a major throughway lbr traffic to and from the area west of US 29 North mad north Of US 250 West. Given the fact that this road has been available for public use for these many, many past years, the representatives of all three sections of West Leigh who met with the CSX representative feel that it would not be fair. equitable or reasonable to expect the residents of West Leigh to bear the financial hardship of installing and maintaining this grade crossing warning device. Accordingly, we seek the help of the Board of Supermsors. We do not feel that closing the crossing would be in tile public's best interest, tfwe are forced to use the Old Ballard Road entrance as the only point of access, the consequences of increased traffic, noise, road congestion would likely be significant. Mind you, this increased traffic would be rouled through rural residential neighborhoods. On behaff of residents of West Leigh, I respectfully' ask the Board of Supervisors to take into the public road system that southern right of way leading from US 250 West to that point where the right of wa3 ends and West Leigh Drive(private road) begins, that point being a~ or near the spot where Little I~,7/ Creek crosses under the road. This is not a request that the entire tttroughway from US 250 to Old B',fllard Road be included. I am very. angry to have a 90 day deadline put on tiffs project for something concrete to be accomplished towards accommodating the demands of CSX Transportation. Where has it been for the past 30 years? We would be very. gratcPal to the Board of Supec'v~sors for its help in this matter. Please let me know what can do to assist m receiving a favombte decision Sincerely~ Frank Grice Vvqxi~eley President. West Leigh Property Owners AssocSation. Section 1 2220 Cornwall Road Cha.rloilesville. VA Exi~ibits A. Copy of CSX letter from M E. Mascari dated February 13, 1997 B Private Road Grade Crossing Agreement (CSX Form 7422 revised Dec. 1992~ and Application C. Copy of West Leigh plat showing West Leigh Drive and [tie location of Little IYv Creek cc~RSr. Roally 'lhomas, Board of Supervisors bert Tucker. Cotmty Executive Mr. M. E. Mascan. CSX Transportation Mr. Edward Wayne. Jr. West Leigh Section II Mr DavSd lbbeken. West Leigh Section Mr. Wayne Mart>h),, West Leigh Section I TRANSPORTATION M E. Mascari Senior ProJec[ Engineer Engineering and Mechanical Richmond District Des ~n & ConstrucTion J61E Forest Avenue Suite 120 Richmond VA 23229 FAX [8041 226-7759 Phone '804 226-77't8 F~bruary 13, 1997 Mr. Frank Grice Whiteley 2220 Cornwall Road Charlottesville, Virginza 22901 Re: Ivy, VA - Private Grade Crossing into West Leigh subdivision, DOT 224-686J, CA 187.96~ Dear Mr. Whiteley: I wish to thank you for the hospitality your wife and you to me Tuesday n~ght when we met at your home about the crossing on the southerly roadway leading into West Leigh. extended private As was discussed, with you and the other representatives of the ~-ar~ous sections of West Leigh, the status of the crossing cannot r~main as is. We must began immediate actions to either cover the crossing with a Private Grade Crossing Agreement or have the crossing taken into the public road system. In either case, fully automatic grade crossing warning devices consisting of flashing light signals and gates will be required at the crossing. These are the only options available for the crossing to re~ain in existence for access to the subdivision. To recap the terms of the Private Crossing Agre~-ment; · the agreement would be between CSXT and an organization (Licensee) comprised of the users of the crossing; and, · the agre~rm~nt is a license to use the crossing and in no way grants any rights of title; and, fully automatic grade crossing warning devices would be installed at the crossing at the expense of the Licensee; the cost of which would be in the neighborhood of $100,000.00; and recurring expenses to the Licensee would be the annual license fee, crossing maintenance fee and warning device maintenance fee, the cost of which would be in the neighborhood of $4,250.00. Additionally, the cost of repairs to the warning devices would be billed individually; and DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVrLLE. 22911 March 3, 1997 A. G. TUCKER' RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 250/Albemarle County Private CSX Rail Crossing West Leigh Subdivision Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. 7~cker: This is mn reference to your facsimile dated February 25, 1997, regarding the CSX railroad crossing into West Leigh Subdivision. I have reviewed the attached correspondence from both the railroad and the West Leigh Homeowners Association and understand the concerns of both parties to be upgrading the rail crossing to currenu standards. The railroad Dffers an option of having the crossing Eaken into the public road (sKase) sysnem mn order to be upgraded. It appears that she rural addition program comes closest to remedying this situation; however, the Code of Virginma requires that 5 clear and unencumbered right of way be granted prmor Eo accepEance of any road into the suaEe system. Not only does meec this criteria but the portion of West L. does not appear uo meet the rural additio~ requirements, At such time that the railroad crossing County can pursue a rural addition of West sysEem. The appropriate terminm would need service ms justified. Ultimately, the Board c this uransportation need with all others in t~ Please find enclosed a copy of the Rura Additions, Abandonments, ~nd Discontinuance~ February 1, 1993, for your information. discuss details of this matter. ~he substandard rail crossing fail to ~igh Drive indicated to become "public" service, right of way, and terminm .s brought up Eo curren5 standards, the Leigh Drive into the state secondary :o be discussed mn order that s public Supervisors would need to prioritize County. 1 Addition Policy /Secondary System lease call me at from the Guide for of State Highways, your convenience ~o enclosure cc: D. R. A~kew J~ S; Givens H. C. Rasnick Sincerely, TRANSPORTA-ION FOR THt~1 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE' OFFICE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14(G)] 2. 3. 4. Narne~' Title: Agency: Transaction: Sally H. Thomas Supervisor, Samuel Miller District Albemarle County Board of Supe~Msors Discussion of West Leigh Drive--CSX Raikoad Crossing Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: Ownership o£property accessed by West Leigh Drive. I declare that: I mn a member of the following business, profession, occupation, or group, the members of which are affected by the transaction: West Leigh Area Property Owners (b) I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Dated: March 5, 1997 SHT3597.WPD Signature D3-03-~?~03 ~4~ RCV[ COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY )UNi'. v Oi~ qL~MARLL AGENDA TITLE: Greenbrier Drive Extended SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Use of Right of Way and Reallocation of Secondary Funds AGENDA DATE: Mamh 5, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: ,/¢ ~ STAFF CONTACTfSI: ~// Messrs. Tucker,Cilimber~l,Benish,Wade , REVIEWED BY: ~ ~'" / BACKGROUND: On February 19, 1997, the Board of Supervisors voted to delete the Greenbrier Drive Extended project from the Secondary Road Priod~ List. This project had received $201,000 in previous funding from VDOT. It was earmarked to receive $932,700 in Secondary funds inthe proposed FY1997-2003 Six year Road Plan and $800,000 in Revenue Sharing funds in FY97-98. (information regarding revenue sharing can be found in a separate executive summary.) it was also slated to receive $62,500 in capital funds in the proposed FY1997-2002 Capital Improvements Program for sidewalk constructJon~ DISCUSSION: Substantial ~ght of way has previously been dedicated for the Greenbrier Extended project. In its recommendalion to delete the read project from the Secondary Road Priority List, the Planning Commission atthe same time recommended retaining funds in the ClP (FY1999-2000) for a bicycle/pedestrian path in this right of way. This would provide for alternative connection of urban neighborhoods and the Whitewood Park. (Helen Peere of CTS has also verbally asked whether this right of way could be made available for a future bus only route. Staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate this possibility, but could do that as part of an overall review of future County CTS route with CTS.) The Board of Supervisors has at least two options as to where to place the previous Secondary Road funding for the Greenbrier Drive Extended. These are: 1) Reallocation of funding to Airport Road, Free State Bridge, Jarman Gap Road, and the Meadow Creek Parkway-Phase II (this is the proposal by VDOT); and 2) Improvements to the existing Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive which could include further skJewalk and bike lane development and alignment improvement of the existing sharp curve. Staff and VDOT have not had an opportunity to work out the details for this op~on. The Secondary Pdority List is revised each year and this option could be further developed for funding consideration next year. RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning commission, staff recommends retaining the Greenbrier Drive Extended right of way for an alternative bicycle/pedestrian link and continued funding in the ClP for its development. Staff can also work with CTS to evaluate this corddor for a future bus only route if the Board so desires. Staff further recommends that the funds in the FY1997-2003 Six Year Road Plan be redistributed as proposed by VDOT, but with the understanding that staff will work with VDOT in the coming year to idantif~ possible improvements to the existing Greenbrier D~ve and Whitewood Road for future Secondary Road funding. CC: VDOT Ms. Helen Poora, Charlottesville Transit Service 97.050 David P Rio Ch~lc~e Y. Humphfis Forrest R. Mar,g'~. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMA~I F Office of Bom'd of Supervisors 401 Mclnlire I~oad Charlo~esville, Vk, ginia 22902-4S96 (804) 296-5843 FAX [80~) 296-5800 Char!es S. Mm~dn Walter E perkins Sally H. Thomas March 7. 1997 Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond. VA 23219 Re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Code of Virginia. Section SS. i-75.1 Fiscal Year I997-98 County of Albemarle Dear Mr. Givens: The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its offidal intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program' for FiscalYear 1997-98. The Countywill provide $500.000 for this program. to be matched on a dollar-for dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia, The County will use its revenue sharing for Fiscal Year 1997-98 for the Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II and Georgetown Road. The County worked with the Resident Engineer to develoF these two projects and understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. CYH/ec Attachment: Priority Listing of Projects pc: Angela Tucker V. Wayne Cflimberg Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman Printed on recycled paper AGENDA TITLE: VDOT Revenue Sharing Program COUNTY OF ALBEMARLES NT' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by County to participate in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg ,Benish AGENDA DATE: March 5, 1997 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: ~~'~-~ REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: VDOT's "Revenue Shadng Program" provides the opportunity for the County to received an additional $500,000 for road improvements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment of an additional $1,000,000 toward improvements to the local road system. The County has participated in this Program since 1988. DISCUSSION: The County must formally request participation in this program by March 21, 1997, Attached is a draft letter of intent to participate in the program for FY 97-98. The Board has planned for participation in the Revenue Sharing Program in the proposed FY 1997-2002 Capital Improvement Program, and recently reviewed the proposed FY 97-98 Capital Improvement Budget which included $500,000 in matching funds for the Revenue Sharing Program. Due to the Board's decision to delete Greenbrier Drive Extended from the Secondary Priodty List, the $800, O00 of Revenue Sharing funds that were earmarked for that project in FY 97-98 must now be reatlocated. Funds have to be used on a project in the year they are allocated, in this case dudng the FY97-98 year. VDOT and County staff have identified two possibilities: 1) Unpaved Road Projects; or, 2) Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Rt. 29 North (Phase II). Earmarking the funds for Unpaved Road witl accelerate the construction of some unpaved road projects. Earmarking the funds for Meadow Creek Parkway (Phase II) will provide this project more than $1,000,000 in FY 97-98, which should be sufficient to fund the Environmental Impact study process for this project, and may also enable this project to be more strongly considered for primary road funding. Future revenue shadng projects identified in the Six Year Plan include Georgetown Road (FY 97-98), Old Lynchburg Road (FY 1999-2000), and Jar,man Gap Road (FY 1999-2000). The revenue sharing money from the Greenbrier Ddve Extended project could not be used for these projects because revenue sharing money cannot be used on the same projects either in consecutive years or because these projects are not ready for development. RECOMMENDATION: After decision by the Board regarding which project to designate the $800,000 to. staff recommends participation in the Revenue Shadng Program consistent with the proposed FY 1997-2001 Capital Improvements Program and authorization of the Chairman to notify VDOT of our intent to participate in the program. 97.049 DRAFT o~-o~-gpo4: .~ g RCVD March 5. 1997 Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Depadment of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Code of Virg~i Fiscal Year 199 County of Albm County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Section 33.1-75.1 r-98 narle Dear Mr. Givens: The County of Albemarl~ Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 199798. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a doitar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer. and developed the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if request exceeds available funds. Sincerely, Charlottes Y. Humphris Chairman pc: Ms. Angela G. Tucker TEL: Mar 04 97 16:2} NO.01? P.02 FACT S~EET Proposed Restriction of Through Truck Traffic Route 656 (Georgetown Road) Albemarle County In accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting the Department to restrict through trucks on Route 656 (GeorgetoWn Road) between Route 654 (Barracks Road) and Route 743 (Hydraulic Road). A location map is attached to show the proposed restricted and alternate routes. Table 1 (see attachment) provides a summary of the characteristics associated with the route being considered for restriction and the proposed alternate routes. A revlew of accidents for the period January 1, 1996, indicated the following: Route # Accidents ~OPOSED RESTRICTION 656 (Bet. Rte. $54 & 33 Rte. 743) 1994 to December 31, Truck Related Accidents PROPOSED ALTERNATE 743 (Bet. Rte. 656 189 & Rte. 29) 29 (Bet. Rte. 743 179 & Rte. 250) 250 (Bet. Rte. 29 & 47 Rte. 654) 654 (Bet. Rte. 250 24 & Rte. 656) 9 15 7 1 TEL. Nar O~ ~? 1~:21 No.Ol? ~.03 Driving runs were conducted routes and the following Route ~OP~SED RESTRICTION 656 (Bet. Rte. 654 & Rte. 743) for the proposed results were obtained: Travel Distance , (Mi~es) 0.85 restricted and alternate Travel Time (Min./Sec.) 1 Min, 29 Sec, P~QPOSED ALTERNATE 743 (Bet. Rte. 656 & Rte. 29) 29 (Bet. Rte. 743 & Rte. 250) 250 (Bet. Rte. 29 & Rte. 654} 654 {Bet. Rte. 250 & Rte. 656) 0.74 1.13 0.51 0.86 I Min, 14 Sec. Min. 22 Sec. 3 Min. 03 Sec. 3 Min, 46 Sec. Total Alternate 3,24 Miles 10 Min. 25 See. ALTERNATE PENALTY 2.39 Miles 8 Min, 56 Sec. TEL: Nar 04 97 16:21 No.O17 P.O~ Twelve (12) hour vehicle classification counts were conducted in December 1996, for the proposed restricted and alternate routes: Passenger 2-Axle 3-Axle Cars & 2-Axle- 6-Tire 6-10 Tire Tractor Route 4 Tire Trucks Trucks Trucks Trailers Buses Total ~ROPOSED RESTRICTION 656 11,288 (Bet. Rte. 654 & Rte. 743) 133 33 35 116 11,805 PROPOSED ALTERNATE 743 (Bet. Rte. 656 & Rte. 29) 29 (Bet. Rte. 743 & Rte. 250) 25O {Bet. Rte. 29 & Rte. 654) 654 (Bet. Rte. 250 & Rte. 656) 14,565 145 43 74 74 14,901 50,275 798 145 1648 134 *53,000 35,459 757 297 1426 61 *38,000 232 131 117 104 17,893 17,309 * Twenty-four (24) Hour Volumes (ADT) (1995) TEL: Mar 04 97 16:22 No.O17 ~.05 rr'>- rnO ~0 TEL: Mar 04 97 16:23 No.O17 P.07 CRITERIA SHEET ROUTE (S) 656 Albemarle County CRITERIA YES/NO 1. Reasonable alternate route must be provided 2. Functionally classified as "Local" Or ,'Collector" YES, , Collector 3. Trucks incompatible with remaining traffic . YES o Engineering of roadway and/or accident history indicate route is not suitable for trucks NO Within 150' of roadway center line there ars at least 12 residential dwellings per 1000' NO 7 Res. Dwellings AGENDA ITeM NO. AGENDA I'±'~k~ NAME Form. 3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Regional Competitiveness Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Endorsement of Regional Proposal STAFF CONTACTiS}: Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: February 5, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The-Regional Competitiveness Act waspassed~in, the 1996 General Assembly inresponse to needs*for greater, regional cooperation. (See Attachment A, Background) The purpese~of the Act, is toencou~'agecounties~ citie~andtowns to~ exercise options provided by.law,to worktogether~.for their mutual benefit and benefit or, the state.~ The Act received $3 million to prov~le monetaryincentives for Iocalities~to enter into regional ogreements fur strategic planning and qo0peratio.n. These fundswill be avatiable' Od Jdly 1, 1997~and will be available for a five-year period to eligible regions that contin~ie to function according to the Act's requirements. Regional partnerships intending to apply for funding must be approved by resolution by the local governments of that region, The centerpiece of ongoing regional initiatives under this program ~,~will be a regional economic compe~ivensss strategic plan that identifies cr'~ical competitiveness issues and actions to build ~onsenaus to address these issues. DISCUSSION: The~Thomas Jefferson Plant~ingDisEictCemmission pr:)posesto-have the Sustair~ability Councti~the Thomas Jefferson EconemicDeveloprnentParthershipandthePlanning Dislrict Commission join together as a qualifying regional partner~ship and submita proposal. In discussions with the Department of Housing and Community Development it appeara4hat while the programJs intended to betterenableareas to be economically competitive; how regions appreach~this is fairly open to regional discretion and prJerilJes. Theoretically; the~sttategic plan C(ruld include elements like 'region al~sustaina bill, and quality of.tile-improvements that erfable thb' region.th better position.itself asan attractive ,.liva bio and economicallyvio ble place. It appears that this first year would be an opportune time for the region to make a proposal that can ~ the area's needs and priorities. The Ptanning:Oistfict~Commissior*is requesting the County's support ofthis regional, partnership. RECOMMENDATION: Conside;~adsp~g,dra~t~r eselu'~zion-affa chedo 97.023 (804~ 979-PD10 {7510} + FAX (804) 979-1597 + E-M~;h February 18, 1997 The Honorable Charlotte Humphris Chair, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 109 Falcon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mrs. Humphris: I appreciate the Board's taking time to consider the possibilities for Albemarle County and the region using the Urban Partnership Program. Given appropriate elected official direction, this could be an opportunity to build on some of the common strengths within the region. Since the presentation, the final regulations have come into the office and I thought you and the Board might find them useful in your deliberations. After reading them, the need for a slightly different approach may be clearer to Albemarle staffand the Board. It may not be as easy as I had hope to bring the existing regional entities together, but I hope some way can be found to keep duplication of effort under control. The suggestions the Board made at the meeting will strengthen any strategic plan developed. It was curious to me that the legislation did not call for defined public hearings. I hope to attend the public hearing and would be willing to give any background the Board wishes. Otherwise, it is my intent to be there to listen. Please call me if you need any additional information (979-7310 or voice mail 984-9103). Sincerely, -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Nancv K. O'Brien Executive Director ~ ~{' ~.RD OF SUPERVIS© ce: Board Members. R. Tucker. L. Davis enc:regulataions file:\dd\tjpd\ch2-18.wpd Piedmont Environmental Council Albemarle County's Participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program Statement delivered to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 5, 1997 We oppose the proposal before you for the following reasons: 1) the absence of balanced representation. It appears from the Regional Competitiveness Act that the only authority granted to localities in this regional economic development process is to appoint the individuals who wilt develop the ptan. According to a memo the Board received from the Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the law contains "no requirement for local government approval before [thei plan becomes effective in the locality." That makes doubly important the task of choosing the individuals who will draft this plan. Neither the Economic Development Partnership sor the Planning District Commission appears to satisfy the statutory requirements for eligibility. While the Sustainability Council offers a balance between economic and environmental interests this balance would be undermined in favor of economic development due 7o the participation of the Economic Development Partnership, an organization which the County has not endorsed. It seems odd to us that the County would consider recommending an organization which it refused to join to represent the County's interests in this process. 2) the selection of organizations rather than individuals to develop the plan. The statute does not appear [o a~low a partnership to be made up of a group of organizations. It provides for individual members only. These provisions make sense when one considers the difficulties of having three groups with mree different bylaws and organizational structures develop a alan which may require voting on key decisions. 3) the emphasis placed by the Act on competitiveness and economic development, The Act reouires regions to identify ~mpediments to their ability to compete with regions outside the Commonwealth and devise measures to address these impediments. Analyzing data solely in terms of competitiveness can lead to bizarre conclusions. For example, the Governor and his regional economic development councils recently developed an economic development plan for the Commonwealth, entitled ~Opportunity Virginia. Each region was asked to identify its "competitive advantages" and its "'challenges to future growth." The regional council for this area identified the region's Iow unemployment rates as a ch.~llenge To future growth "because they lim~[ the size of a relocation and sometimes inhibit expansion of existing industry." In other PO. BOX 460 * Warrenton, Virginta · 20188 * 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 Suile one · Charlottesville. virginta· 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804~g77-O306 words, something that is good in and of itself--a Iow unemployment rate--can be considered an impediment if the overall goal s competing with other regions for new industry. We have heard proponents of the proposal argue that regions may chose to focus on something other than economic development, for example education or housing, We remain skeptical that such an outcome can result from a process skewed toward economic develooment and a region's ability to compete with other regions for new business. Handing a big part of this process over to an economic development partnership maKes it even ess likely likely that the result will be anything other than a regional economic development plan focused on marketing the region to new companies. If the Board decides that the intangible benefits of par[icipating outweigh the disadvantages, we would urge you to work with the Ptanmng District and surrounding localities and appoint individuals To a a new regional 3artnersh p, one that satisfies the terms of the statute ana includes representatives of secondary and elementary education and c~v~c groups in addition to the Chamber of Commerce. Dear Members of the Board, I am writing in response to the proposal for Albemarle County to participate in the Regional Competitiveness Program. I will begin by stating that I believe that an issue of this importance should be discussed during an evening meeting of the Board. While I want m believe that putting this item on the daytime agenda was a random assignment, it must be acknowledged that it gives a bad impression to many area residents. This meeting as scheduled, will occur at a time of day when most citizens are unable to leave their jobs unless those jobs are directly connected to those business interests seeking to benefit from the program. This creates a sense of apprehension and can give the appearance that perhaps the decision has already been made to support this proposal. I believe it would be unfair for the Board to make a decision on this proposal without extending the Public Hearing to an evening meeting. The proposal itself is of concern to me for several reasons; the first reason is that county residents and the Board already opposed a similar proposal. This appears to be a vehicle for those business representatives and the counties of the Thomas Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership to try to once again push this county in a direction it does not want to go. The timing of the proposal is disturbing. We are only in the early stages of a Board sanctioned process to hire a consultant to study our county and give advice on the best methods for charting the course of future development. Support of this proposal and the adoption of policies dictated by the Regional Program could prevent or diminish the positive steps this county hopes to implement in response to its development needs. This does not seem to be the time to be signing on with this proposal. My final major concern about the county joining this program is that very little information has been publicized in regards to the program. Will there be a set of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of the program? Will there be criteria for measuring the affects of encouraging more commercial and industrial growth on the region and specific counties? Will the program look at increased residential growth stemming from the increases and the resulting demands put upon the current infrastructure? Will the program measure the affects and offer assistance in dealing with higher taxes, busier roadways, increased refuse generated and the loss of more and more rural lands to support the machinery of economic growth? Does this county, one of the wealthiest in the state, need economic growth or economic sustainability? This Board approved a huge industrial complex just a few months ago when it signed off on UREF. This development was presented as an opportunity to provide an incredible number of jobs for area residents. It was also touted as a means for creating opportunities for people who are under-employed. (although many are by choice), to move up into jobs closer to their qualifications. In that light, is there a pressing need for increased economic growth in our county at this time? Should Albemarle County joining this program at this time? I personally do not think so. Thank you for your time and further consideration of this matter. be 5 ~CKer el,y,~ , . · Harman 2-'~ "2-:_997 $: .T:,a~M etitiveness Pr%o~cam Dr~ft Program Guidelines for the L Regi. o.nal ~2ompetitiveness Program December 1996 i sOAI~D OF~UPERVI$O~S V/rg a Department of Ho~sing mad Community D~v¢topmem ~01 'North. S, cond Street . RJckrnond, Virginia 23219 ,, (~04} 371~7030 2-10-1~7 3:~PM FRQ~ TJPOC 979iS97 P. 3 The K~fonal Competitb compeii~ivcness for all rcgi~ fund to encourage joint Nafion~ research has demo: cooperatively, eoonomic c~ dxspanty betwe~ ime~ct on a ~gion~ level. more econo~cally ~m~ The Kegional Competiti,~e~ stimulate ne.v; behavior-p] activity has akeady been i cooperation in order to q Compctit/vcness Program choose to carry out new. sign~q¢ant increa~, in regi In order for substantive involve all sectors of the leaders to joinin partncrshi new ways of working roger partnerships to sacces~fu] tnthe fall of 1996 C-over provide policy guidance in Committee members.) The is nhargcd wi~ developin~ Aft= its appointment, the approved a process for p~ seri¢~ of five ir~ormafion et these sessions and issues tlq DHCD which is reflected The Program Guidelines Program. Details on applic: package. rogram Guidelines Program Purpose xess Act w~S pass~ in I996 in order re enhance economic ,ns of the Commonwealth. To. do t.Ms, ~he Act establishes an incentive Arias designed to address regmnal ¢conon~Jc competitiveness needs. tstratedthat in .~eas around the country where localities work together mpefit[veness u eiflaanced. Quality of life indicazors such as income , area median income and job creation are more positive in areas that The Regioml' Competitiveness Program (RCP) is intended to support titive Commonwealth and a better quality of life for Virginia's citizens. ~s Programsis intended to both reward existing regional behax4or and ming and acting regionally. Even areas of the state where regional dtiated ~ btended to increase their efforts and reach new levels of ali~ for incentives. It should be carefully no,ed that the Regional ~ nor a mandate. The incentive funds are available to localities which ;vels of' regional cooperation. Regions w'h~eh do not d~monstrate a naI aotivky will not qualify for incentive funding. rage to take place in thc way eonununities interact, it is necess~-s' ~o mrnunity, The Act calls on govermnent, business, education and civic to ~haa a cours~ for improved regional economic competitiveness. The .er that the Act calls for will necessitate forming effective collaborative address economic competitiveness issuc~. atroduction to Program Guidelines · Allen appointed an Advisory Committee, as auth.o, riz.ed, in the Act, to :c developmentof the Program. (Please see Appenfl~x A for a listin~ of ;irgirdaDepartment o£Ylousing o. nd Corm'nunity Development 0DHCD) >rocedures for incentive f'mud distribution and aflminigtering the fund. ,dvi~ry Committee held an initial meeting on October 15, 1996 and lie participation, tn accordance with this process, DHCD conducted a d inp~;t sessiom around the state. Based on comments received during ,t were identified, the Advisory Commiuee provided policy guidance to t these Program Guidelines. e intended to serve ac a framework for the Regional Competitiveness trion procedures for incentive funds will be contained in the application FROM TJPDC 9791B97 P. 4 The 1996q998 biennium t Fmad. Th~s¢ fhnd, are ava,.' 1997 session of the General that will be used r~gardlessl Fuad Allocation System Inten~ In ordcl to b~ cligiblc ~ RequirementZofSubrMssioJ will beuse'dmdistributefu GeneralGuidelines 1. A region's ftmding elig parmerahip and strategi Once eligibility for rum totaled. Each eligible re population tara/, The m for Public Service wilt In the event that a loc~ applications from both be associated with cae segment ora localiF's ] m.~_gional configuration. Funding ige; allocated $3 million for the Regional Competitiveness Incentive ble.on July- 1, 1997. Additional funding ma), be considered during the ~,ssembly. The Program Guidelines outline the fund distributionprocess ~f the amount of funding available. incentive funds, regions must meet several criteria (.please see · Once these erlteria have been met, the following a/location guidelines fility will be b~sed on meeting the guidelines on regional configuration, '~ lolan and receiving at least 20 points ia the scoring sy,tem. iag has been determined, the population of all eligible regions will be ion will receive a proportioaef funding equal to its proportion of that est ~eeent final population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center x~ used. ~y is a member of more thai one region a~d pattneriahip, the faidhag ,~gions must specify the portion of that loea/ity's population that i~ to one (please see Regional Configuration). Tkis will ensure that no opulation is double counted in fund distribution. Please note that ~___y ther th~n ~ pi_arraying ~equ~_es pr/or approw! from DHCD~ Eligible regions will :re, ave annual incentive fund payments for ~_five-ye~r period as long as the regional partnershi' continues to exist and function effectively. Effective ~'~tion/ng is based on the satisfaci ,fy implementaIion of the joint activities outlined in the funding application ¢lease see ] 'erforman~e Accountability). Regions may reapply fr continued funding after the end of the five-year funding period. Once the amount of a .'eg/on's incentive funds has been established, the funds are to be distributed within the eglon according to a formula agreed to by the partnership. Thi~ distribution formula mu ~be eiidor~ed by resolution ofthe governing bodies ofthe participating jurisdictions (please set Cmidelines for Regional Partnership). 2 2-1 ~7 ~: 5.4F:'H ='ROH TJPDC 97@1597 P. 5 7. Funds are incentive p~ Regions have wide fie,' used. 8, Communitieswill be s¢¢ Pcr£ormance Accc There is no reqUireme with~ the regions. Regional Confi~uratiom latent The intent of the KCP is t~ economic comp~itivcnes,, cooperadve working rel~tic inteaded to encourage rog regional competitiveness i Mba/mum Requirement~ A region comprises the eit boundary which indicate of their govcna~g body. D to commit to participatin DHCD will not recogniz contiguous cities, counties jurisdiction. For example, Regional Configuration.~ A region comprising all existing plaraaing dlstfict for the purpo~s of this pn the next Regional Configurafion~ A regtonal configural~on< · e permission of DHCD, ;moms to increase,ec,o2omic competltiYeness ffcough regional efforts. :ibility in both ho~ they distribute thc funds and how the funds will be nonitored on progress in implcmentint strategic plan activities untability). at for matching flmds from the regional parmerships or f~om localities Requirements for Submission provide an incentive to form regional p~rtnershipa which will address issues ~ffccting flaat region and to encourage o~ud support effective nshipsarnong localities. The following guidelines and requirements are .onal configurations of localities that are of vafficient ~:ale to address ues while also reducing or eliminating regional fragmenta~on. ,~, counties and towns above 3,500 population within a planning district ~eir commitment to forming a region! partnershi.p through a resolution ~{CD assumes that participating localities are making a good faith effort for at least a five-year time period. ny regional configurationthat contains a combination of fewer th~ three ~r towns. In addition, ell three of these localities cannot bc part of a single region comprising a county and two towns within that county would not That Do Not Require DHCD Approval .ities, counties and torres of greater than 3,500 population within an oundm-y does no~ require DHCD approval to be recognized as a ~egion ~ram. Any other configuration does require prior approval as outlined ~n Requiring DHCD Approval at is different from the planning dislric~ boundaries can be formed with [n making its determination, DHCD will consider the folloveing: 1. All cities,~ounticsand to participate. No regk a resolution indicating 2. The RCP is intended t influence regional corot of localities within a ph how the ~mallcr region 3. DHCD will not approv, region. 4. A locality that is outsid at the request of the Icc: within the planning df: fragmentation of the re $. It is possiblethat a Iota may be approved prey agreed upon between tl 6. It is ~'ecognized that s Commonwealth. Thes~ rCquiremeats for the mi 7. h is recognized that o~ may. be approved pro c°m'tguration% and r~s: revision of their plans a Guidelines for Regional Intent The RCP in intended to br govenm~ent, the private .~ Representatives ofthese seer can influence the allocation inrergoverrmaental ¢ooperflt: ensurethat these key people in their region. ~wns wkh a populationgreater than 3,500 must be given an opportuni~, ~ configuration Mil be approved that excludes a locality that passes hat it Wishes to be a p~n of the regional parmerflaip. promote regional cooperative efforts of a scale .that will positively etitivene~s. All requests for recognition of regions that contain a subset nning district are required to provide a rationale that explains why and is more appropriate in addn~sing competitiveness issues. a configurationoflocaliticsthat might res~tt in a fragmentation of the the planning district, but contiguous To it, may be added to/he region governing body and with the concurrence of ail participating localities xict it petitions to jo/n, prey/deal that this inclusion does not lead to laining plann/ng clirgrict. .t~ may wish to participate in two dlfferent regional ~. This ted that a etear method of diw'~'~ng tfie"'population of that locality is two partnersh/p$ for the purposes of fund distribution. ~me regional partnerships may include localities from outside the non-Virginia localities vfill not be counted tove~d meeting the armum nUmber of localities. ~r time, regional configurations m~y undergo changes, Such changes vided that m/nimum xequirements ~ met. Changes to regional dting pa~ership membership may require the region to undertake a ~d activities in order to meet other r~uirements of this ~ogram. '~nerships ag together key decision-maker~ in a region which represent local :ct0r, secondary and higher education and civic organizations. groups shou/d be indfv/dualsin a top-level management position that fresources needed to address issues of regional competitiveness and m. The following guidelines and requirements are intended to help re brought together in an organized manner to effect posi6ve change General Guidelines 1. Mu~t have approval, thc provisio~ of the 2. May be an existing or serving the region. 3. May be an existingno: working together to a( Membership Requireme~ 1. To the greatest exten members of the partne The mayor or boa~ Corporate leaders President of each in One or more chaim secondary educatioJ CEOs or board ehai: ~o addressing issues 2. Each parmership shall representation, how me by the orgarazatton. 3- The partnership byl,' competitiveness fittfd$ for ~nd distribution s] Guidelines for Reg/onal I Intent The RCP is intended to ~ competitivenessmud suppo~ method for identifying thos competitiveness su'~tegi¢ p · resolution, from the local governing bodies of the region to carry out ewly-£orme~ regional planning Or economic development organization -incorpor~tcdregional coalitionthat has a demonstrated track record of ross issues of regional competitiveness. practical, the follo'~,~ng sector group representatives shall serve as 'ship: chairman and chief administrative officer of each member locality. thin the .region. ~dtution of hfghe~ education fn the re~ion. en of local school boards or ~uperintendents re~senting prirm~' and of local civic .... assocmUons ~ hose m~smons and programs are relevant affecting regional competitiveness. )repare and adopt a charter and bylaws which will outline sector group tubers will be selected and how decisions will be made and implemented ~ sh~l also specify a process for determining how regional ,viii be distributed to participating localities. Any agreed upon formula ~I1 be endorsed as indicated by resolution from each governing body, rategic Economic Development Plans x:outage regional efforts to identify key issues affecting economic regional, cooperative initiatives designed to afldrcss those issues. The key issues and building consensus for actio~ is ~e regional economic MI. FROM TJPDC 9791S97 P_ 8 It is not the intent of the efforts, But participation regional issues and prioriti: buiIding commitment to to be a collaborative proce.~ issues of regional economic The following guidelines an process and plan content. General G ui&eliae$ 1. Existing local and regi the beginning of its del 2. Members of the Regi( regional informaii?n;. ,~ participate in idcnfifytz identify key actions nee 3. The Regional Partners1 competitiveness needs 4. The Regional Partners~ The regional strat~ic ] m~d formulate a plan ol basis to determine if ad~ take advantage o£new' Specific Requirements t, The plan shall define 2. The plan shall include m at a minimum, a comp competitor regmns out. Medmn family in or Job creation and los to ignore or dupli¢~te recently completed or ongoing strategic plmm[ng the lmrtnership in the process of' conducti~g a critical m~dysi$ of ins potential actions is essential to forging mutual tmder~tanding and Cementa~on ofptan recommendations. The stmegic plan is intended among the various sector groups which focuses attention on critical :ompetitiveness and identifies and px%rifizes actions wlfich should be regulations ~re intended to provide guidance on the $trategic planning rml strategic plan~ ~hould be reviewed by the Regional Partavmhip in berations to provide baseline inforraatiom ~al Partnership shall play an ~etive role in reviewing and analyzing hall participate in complains a eridcal analysis of the region; sMI1 and prioritizing issues affecting regional competitiveness; and shall essm'y to address competitiveness issues. shall ,ohc~t pubhc participation and input to help :denufy reg.onal nd opportunities for cooperation. > mhalt officially ~topt the ~xategic plan. ann/ns process is intended to help the partnership identify strategies ~ction for a five year period, The plan should be revisited on a yearly :stment$ are required to better meet r~gionaI competitiveness needs or pportunities. ;onomic competitiveness for the region and outline a vision for the analysis of key clemographicand econom?e trends which ~all include, ~son of th~ measures ~twe~n the~'---~gion and identified tde the Commonwealth: e changes during the last decade fluting the last decade 2~t2-~,997 3:5~PM F'RQM TJPDC 9791~97 P. 9 Kegional income ali: differences in medi~ ?riv~te sector inves Competitor regions characteristics to The plan shall idcntil c ,urrent stmnSths and 4. The phm shall i dentil A joint activity is a go' contracted for two or i 5. T).e plan shall identi~ prioritize them in ord~ 6. The plan shall outline shall inctudeproposed and improve the com[ 7. The plan shall identi hnplementing plan Clearly identified, .m~ progress tov, ard addr activities. A descdpti which will be used recommenclafior~. The role, if any, of the clearly outlined. Application Intent I_n__orCer to be qligibl~fc p.artnership formed al!.d a · ing~ have be~-~compli parit7 ~rends dtlririg ltle last five )'cars as measured by family income lex el, among the region s localities mcnt trends during thc last decade. mid, as much as possible, have similar demographic and economic of the Partnership region. · current impediments or barriers to r~ionai cooperation as well as :rceived opportunities for change. ,nd describe current joint activitiesrelevamm regional compaitlveness. mmaental fi. ruction which Is csmed ou by, performed on behalf of, or tore localities within the region. gaps in regional cooperation, relative to regional competitiveness, and of impor'amce. prioritized plan of action covering a period o£at least five years and oint activities as ';veil as other activitie~rcquired to address critical gaps ;titive situation of the region. organilations or individuals that have the lead responsibility for ~surable outcomes shall be established which will be used to assess ssing regional competitiveness issues end deliver:' of proposed joint n should be provided of a progress reporting and monitoring system to measure progress ~mnually toward impl,menting strategic plan Regional Partnership in implementing plan recommendations should be 'fi~nc_enaye funds.._~eographj¢ region must be delineated, a regmnal reAonal strate_ic eeonomi¢~'c[&velopment..4~l_a&a~ d~v~~ ~-'~~ shed, ire~ --- ~.- -Yb.-' i: a dica_tion for in_centiw_ fundi_ng. ~ ~2-1~997 3:B7~M F~OM TJPDO ~7~1B97 P. 10 Genera! Guldel~es Ax~y regional configo, r~ DHCD ( please Information on r¢8ion~ m.~y_~ su mtL~ed for r~gional par~ersh/p an, If these items do not m remedial action. This 3, DHCD will pro>4de to, delineating geographic Applications ~-itl inclu r~Iate to the regions' also be needed.. In/tiff applications for will be distributed to e 6. Regions that intend to submit letters of intent the demand for incent 7. In the next l~uding distribut~ in July In futura ftmding round following year. This wii funding in the State's fc Intent Thc RCP is intended W su increased coop~rativeefforts ,system used by DHCD to d mtended to recognize and r issues identified in the regio ion other thaz a plarating district boundary requffes ?flor approval from ional Configuration). partnersh/p suuctureand membership and strategic plan development rqyie~, ~r~ ~o the aj~p~.eation submission. DHCD will xe~iew thc the strategic plan to ensure that they meet th~ guidelines set out above. ~ the guidelkues, DHCD will provide technical assist~mce and suggest vance review ig optiond. hnieal sssistance to regions upon request as they are in the prooes$ of paramemt~, creating partnerships and crafting strategic plans, _ e inforrnaaon on joint aeti~dties, both e×isting and new, end how they 'ategie plans. Information on activity impternentafion milestones will aeentive funding will be due to DHCD on July 1, 199% Incentive funds ~ible regions in September 1997. .bruit applications for thnding in *,he next funding round will need to o apply in September 1997. This w/ti help the Department in gauging ;-funds prior to final budget preparations. ad, applications, will be due on December I, 1997 and fun& ~ be applicationswilI be due on July 1 with fund distribution fn July of the ensure that regions that qualify for funding in the calendar yea~,-eeeive lo~ing fiscal year as requested in the Regional Competitiveness Act. Scoring System :rt actions wh/ch address res/oral competitiveness ~ssu~s and foster unong local govemmentswithin the region. The evaluationanct scoring ,'terrnine if a region qualifies for Regional Competitiveness Funds is ward activities that directly address key economic competitiveness al swategic plan. General Guidelines 1. Regional Partnerships areas outlined in thc ~ "~ least twenty points Fund. 2. No more than ten pein July 1, 1996. 3. A mimmum of ten p~ P~eg~onal Cornl~titiwi 4. No more than ten total 5. Existing joint act~vztm, a new joint activity bu Evaluation Criteria and ~ DHCD w~lt evahmte each e~ five cHt~ashall ~ch have, ~d~ ~h acfi~. ~ The significance of the acI economic competitivenes~ The significance o~ the ac~ workin~ relationships am~ The complexity or diffic~ The m-nount o£fisc~ reso~ The number of localizes The application should <ii sc' of thc criteria identified aN ~nal coll'lOe determination ofallocatin tall make application to DHCD to be scored under thc fourteen issue ional Competitiveness Act (please see Appendix C). ~tal score ~f ; required to~ualify for funding from thc Regional Competitiveness ~all be awarded for joint activities which were in existence prior ;o ars is requh~t from expanded or new joint activities to qualify for Funds. shall be awm'ded for activities within a single issue area. ~hich are expanded in scope or number of loealitie, rrmy be considered shall not receive the full value of points. ~'oring System [sting md proposed joint activity using the following five criteria. These a weight assigned to them that will determine how points ar, awasded et-ia and their weights are: Criteria W iliht iviW as m:asured by its impac, on regiorml-- ivity on improving or ~trengthcning cooperative ng local govemmants ty in ear~g out the activity xces committed to implementing thc activity 5% articipating in the activity ss the relationship &each existing ,-nd proposed joint activity to each ~ve. DHCD will pl~ h~_e~f7 emphaM~ on strategies and actions which itive~ness needs identifled..in the. regional jtrate~~s >ointk - FROM TJPDC 979!597 P. 12 2~12-1g~J7 3~SSP~ Adjusting the lssu~ Ar~a Each of the fourteen issue ~ number of points (ranging within thai camgory. ,4. rtl reflect the relative importar 'oint Totals :ea~ identified in the Kegional Competitiveness Act is a~sign~ a total 5.om a high oft~ to a Iow oftwo), which can b~ ~a_med for a~tivities ion can petition DHCD ~.o adj,st the weight of a category upward to · ,e o£that issue on the region's economic competitiveness. In considering its decision to adju~.t a c~te~ry point total, DHCD w~l determine whether or not the issue area has a dearly defined, vttal linkt economic competifivencssas identified by the regional strategic plan. / Bonus Po~t~ [ A region can petition for ~ property tax burden througl: governmental services. DH to determine the amount of Intent In order for eligible region to exist and fu.uctioneffectlx of the joint aeti~ities outiff parmcmMp. DHCD will m allocation. Progress m achi General Guidelines 1. Eligible regions must reac..hmg Implemonmtx Eligible regions that year's funding allocatio 3. DHCD recognizestl~mt i A region's efforts to res, armual report is revie~v¢ 4. Ehgibleregiorm that has their landing eligibility 5. Eligible regions that in which to "catch up" provide technical assist needed, as long as chart fi.mding eligibility. p to five bonus points by docu,m, enting actions taken to reduce the mtthe region or actions taken to nnprove thc efficiency of delivery of ID will use the five criteria outlined above in evaluating these actions x)nus points that may be awarded. Performance Accountability to receive continued incentive fimding the partnership must continue ely. Effective functioning is based on thc satisfactory implementatlon ~d in the funding application and on the continued existence of thc ~ess implementation of the joint activities outlined in the funding ring identified outcomes and benchmarks is the basis of continued abmit an ~ The annual ret~n shal! identify progress in a milestofi_e~d¢~cribed in the funding application. ow satisfactory implementation will automatically r~¢eive the next :lay, occur m the implementalion of enmplex projects and activities. lye and mitigate such delays will be Iaken into considerationwhen the not been able to implement the joint activities that were the basis of ~11 not automatically receive the next year's funding allocation. ; exl~rienced implementation problems will Mve a six-month period md take remedial action in implementing irs activities. DHCD wilt n~e and work Mth lite region to modify its implementation plan, if ,~s do nat affect the joint ~etivifies ~at formed the basis of the region's 10 2¢ 12-19'~7 3: F.E, SPM FRC,'M TJPDC 9791597 P. 'i ,S 6. Eligible regions thal satisfaatory revisions t receive their funding ~ 7. Funds that are not allo, re eligible regionsin a section ofuhe guidclit $. A region that has b~cau~e of irnplcmca' fund distribution cycl a~ivifi~ ~ bccn der pl~ ~d joint acti~tl, applica~on ro~d, 9. Changes to a region'~ it, joint activities. DH~ on implementation 10. Armual reports will have nor b~en able to resolve implementation problems or make its u:aplemental~onplan w~thin ~ s~x-mOnth ca,ch up period w~h not .location. ~ted to regions because ofimplementationproblems will be redistributed cordance with the funding formula outlined in the Funding Allocation ~ unable to receive its annual incentive payments for a year or more trion problems may request'that payment~ be resumed in a ~ubS~lUant once ~atisfactory perfonuanc, on its ex/sting strategic plan and joint onstratcd. Ifth¢ request to reingate funding is based on a new strategic ;, the region will be required to re. apply for funding elig/biliW in a future ;onfiguration and parmership su-acume may impact implementation of :b will review such changes with the p~uer,hip to d~terminethe impact the region's funding eligibility. due to the Department in May prior to July ~ndin$ dist~bution. 11 2-~ ~, 2-I ~'79'7 3: fix.gPM FRQt'4 TJPDC 9791 597 ia'. 1 & The Honorable Ba President and CEO Hampton Roads Pt 430 Werld Trade ¢ Norfolk, Virginia Mr. Jack Broaddus Executive Vice Pr~ Wampler Foods, h Post Office Box 7~ Broadway, Vkgini Mr. Oene Bailey 49 Woodlawn Ten Fredericksburg, 'Vi The Honorable Lf 2211 Pommel Drb Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Rodger W. Fa 1208 Bla~kstone l~ Lynchbur$, Virgk Mr. Robert F. Hil 9 Lower Tuckshot P. ictunond, Virgin The Honorable Ke 161 Hillside Drix,~ Abingdon, Virgin~ Appendix A Advisory Committee. Members E. DuVa] (Chair) mership t510 75 22815 inia 22405 Eddy ~4018 a 24503 Road, West 23233 The Honorable Elaine MeConn¢ll Springfield Distr/ct Supervisor 6140 Rolling Road Springfield, Virginia 22t 52 Mr. Laue B. Ramsey Coun0 Administrator Chesterfield County Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Ms. T~i¢ tS. Spiro President and CEO Ty~ons National Bank 8200 Greensboro Drive McL~ah Virsinia 22102 Mr. Hugh R. Stallard Presid~at and CEO l~ll-Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. 600 E~t Main Sttcet~ 24th Floor Riclunond, Virginia 23219 Ms. June M. Wilmot Executive Director Winchester-Frederick County EDC 45 East Boseawen Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 leth O. M~thews 24210 12 2~:1.2-j9~97 3:~gPM FRO~,'~ TJPDC 979tB97 P. 1~ Appendix B eafion and Fund Distribution Schedule July 1, 1997 September 19 September tg ~7 December 1, July ] 998 July l, 1998 July 19~ First round applications due First round fund distribution Le~rs of intent for second ~pplication round Second ro~d applications due Second round fund distribution Third round applications due Third round fund distribution 13 Regional Competitiveness Program Commonwealth of Virginia Deparunen~ of Housing and Community Development North Second Street ~ Richmond, Virginia 23219 ~ (804) 371-7030 Preamble The reality of a global market offers an array of opportunities for Virginia's communities. At the same time it increases the competition for investment and job creation. Virginia must now compete with the Pacific Rim, Europe and elsewhere, in addition to neigl~boring states, for new jobs and investment. Inthisenvironment¥irginiaandits communitiesmustenhance all aspects of economic competitiveness if the Commonwealth is to remain a Vibrant place to live, work and do business. The Regional Competitiveness Act was passed to help communities stren~o-then their economic competitiveness through regional cooperation~ The Act provides an incentive for communities to undertake new levels of regional activity to address obstacles to economic competitiveness. Meaningful changes are needed in order for regions m capitalize on new economic opportunitiesand to remove barriers to economic competitiveness. Governor Allen appointed a twelve-member Advisory Committee to provide guidance in designing a program to imptementthe RegionalCompetitivenessAct. The Committee recognized that a high standard of new behavior in regional cooperation is needed to effect positive change in Virginia's economic competitiveness. While recognizing that many regions have made progress on reg/onal cooperation, this initiative is not about business as usual. It is about stimulating new, meaningful responses that take regions to higher levels of cooperation to specifically respond to the concerns and issues that impact economic competitiveness. The attached guidelines for the Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP) provide flexibility for regions to identify opportunities to enhance economic competitiveness and develop strategies to resolve them. The Advisory Committee spent considerable time discussing the kinds of projects and initiatives which should be eligible for considerationunder the RCP. While it is expected that every locality and region could enumerate specific problems which affect their ability to be competitive, and therefore require attention and funding, the Advisory Committee believes that commun/fies and regions will be better served if projects which RCP funds are used for have the potential for generating more immediate economic remm to the region. For example, collective efforts to develop regional industrial parks, including land acquisition, i~ffrastrucmre improvements, tra~.sportation access and shell buildings, will hopefully yield private sector investment and new jobs, and will broaden and enlarge the revenue base for the localities which are part of a regional compact. Other examples of projects which can have the effect of generming new revenues and jobs to the region may be the development of regional tourism attractions or facilities, or regional job training centers specifically tailored to meet the needs of the area's industry base. The Committee appreciates that there are problems which are more endemic or deeply rooted, but it wilt take far more than the new resources available under the RCP to resolve these issues, and addressing them through this initiative may noz be the best and wisest investment for the region as a whole. In the final analysis, the Advisory Committeedecided to leave the criteria open, so that a full range of projects and initiatives can be considered. Nevertheless, the Committee urges regions to submit projects which demonstrate the principles of regional cooperation, leverage available and new resources, and which will result in shared benefits for all participating localities in the near versus the long-term. The flexibility for regions to determine SO!utions to meet their individual Challenges and the need for a high 'standard of n6w: regional behavior set the context for implementing the RegionE Competitiveness Act. ~e Adviso~ Committee encourages each region~of the Commonwealth to view the Regional Competitiveness Act as an opporttmity to substantively improve their ability to meet both economic challenges and oppommities. By addressing the critical needs regions face, as outlined above, we can move Vkginia forward and ensure its continuing prosperity: : Re~onal Competitiveness Program Table of Contents Program Purpose .............................................................. 1 Program Guidelines ............................................................ 3 Funding .................................................................... 3 Requirements for Submission .................................................... 4 Regional Configurations ........................................................ 4 Guidelines for Regional Partnerships .............................................. 6 Guidelines for Regional Strategic Economic Development Plans ......................... 7 Application .................................................................. 9 Scoring System .............................................................. 10 Performance Accountability .................................................... 11 Appendix A - Advisory Committee Members .................................... 13 Appendix B - Application and Fund Distribution Schedule .......................... 15 Appendix C - Issue Areas and Point Weights ..................................... 17 Regional Competitiveness Pro,ram Program Purpose The Regional Competitiveness Act was passed in 1996 in order to enhance economic competitiveness for all regions of the Commonwealth. To do this, the Act establishes an incentive fund to encourage joint activities designed to address regional economic competitiveness needs. National research has demonstratedthat in areas around the country where localities work together cooperatively, economic competitiveness is enhanced. Quality of life indicators such as income disparity between localities, area median income and job creation are more positive in areas that interact on a regional level. The Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP) is intended to support a more economically competitive Commonwealth and a better quality of life for Virginia's citizens. The Regional Competitiveness Program is designed to both reward existing regional behavior and stimulate new behavior-plann'mg and acting regionally. Even areas of the state where regional activity has akeady been initiated are intended to increase their efforts and reach new levels of cooperation in order to qualify for incentives. It should be carefully noted that the Regional Competitiveness Program is not a mandate. The incentive funds are available to localities which choose to carry out new levels of regional cooperation. Regions which do not demonstrate a significant increase in regional activity will not qualify for incentive funding. In order for substantive change to take place in the way communities interacts it is necessary to involve all sectors of the commun/ty. The Act calls on government, business, education and civic leaders to join in parmership to chart a course for improved regional economic competitiveness. The new ways of working together that the Act calls for will necessitate forming effective collaborative partnerships to successfully address economic competitiveness issues. THERE IS NO PAGE 2 (Per DHCD) Regional Competitiveness Pr%oTam 5 Program Guidelines Introduction In the fall of t 996 Governor Allen appointed an Advisory Committee, as authorized in the Act, to providepolicy guidancein the development of the Program. (Please see Appendix A for a listing of Committee members.) The VirginiaDepartrnentofHousing and CommunityDevelopment (DHCD) was charged with developing procedures for incentive fund distribution and admiuistering the fund. After its appointment, the Advisory committee held an initial meeting on October 15, 1996 and approved a process for public participation. In accordance with this process, DHCD conducted a series of five information and input sessions around the state. Based on comments received during these sessions and issues that were identified, the Advisory Committee provided policy guidance to DHCD which is reflected in these Program Guidelines. The Program Guidelines are intended to serve as a framework for the Regional Competitiveness Program. Details on applicationprocedures for incentive funds will be contained in the application package. Funding The 1996-1998 biennium budget allocated $3 million for the Regional Competitiveness Incentive Fund. These funds are available on July i, 1997. Additional funding may be considered during the 1997 sessionofthe General Assembly. The Program Guidelines outline the fund distributionprocess that will be used regardless of the amount of funding available. Fund Allocation System Intent In order ro be eligible for incentive funds, regions must meet several criteria (please see Requirements for Submission). Once these criteria have been met, the following allocation guidelines will be used to distribute funds. General Guidelines A region's funding eligibili'ty wilt be based on meeting the guidelines on regional configuration, partnership and strategic plan, and on receiving at least 20 points in the scoring system. 2. Once eligibitity£or fundinghas been determined, the popula{ionofall eligibI.e regions will be totaled. Each eligible region will receive a proporr}on of fimding equal to irs proportion o£that Regional~Compelitiveness Pro,ram population total. The most recent final population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service will be used. w In the event that a locality is a member of more than one region and partnership, the funding applications from both regions must specify the portion of that locality's population that is m be associated with each one (please see Regional Configurations). This Will ensure that no segment of a locality' s population is double-countedin fund distribution. Please note that any regional configuration other than a planning district requires prior approval from DHCD. Eligible regions will receive annual incentive fund payments for a five-year period as long as the regional parmership continues to exist and function effectively, Effective functioning,is based on the satisfactory implementation of the joint activities outlined in the funding application (please see Performance Accountability). Regions may reapply for continued fur[ding after the end of the five-year funding period. Prior to submission of a region' s application for incentive funds, a formula for distribution of the funds within the region shall be agreed upon by the Partnership. This distribution formula must be endorsed by resolution of the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions (please see Guidelines for Regional Partnerships). Funds are incentive payments to increase economic competitiveness through regional efforts~ Regions have wide flexibility in both how they distribute the funds and how the funds will be used. Communities will be monitored on progress in implement'mg strategic plan activities (please see Performance Accountability). There is no requirement for matching funds from the regional partnerships or from localities within the regions. Requirements for Submission Regional Configurations Intent The intent of the RCP is to provide an incentive to form regignal parmerships which will address economic competitiveness issues affecting that region and to encourage and support effective cooperative working relationships among localities. The following guidelines and requiremems are intended to encourage regional configurations of localities that are of sufficient scale to address regional competitiveness issues while also reducing or eliminating regional fragmentation. Re~onat Competitiveness Program Minimum Requirements A region comprises the cities, towns of greater than 3,500population. and counties within a planning district boundary which indicate their commitment to forming a regionai partnership through a resolution of their governing body. DHCD assumes that participating localities are making a good frith effort to commit to participating for at least a five~year time periocL DHCD will not recogrdze any regional configumtionthat contains a combinationof fewer than three contiguous cities, countiesor towns. In addition, all tkree of these localities carmot be part ora single jurisdiction. For example, a region comprising a coanty and two towns within that county would not qualify. Regional Configurations That Do Not Require DHCD Approval A region comprising all cities, towns of greater than 3,500 population, and counties within an existing planning district boundary does not require DHCD approval to be recognized as a region for the purposes 6fthis program. Any other configurationdoes require prior approval as outlined in the next section. Regional Configurations Requiring DHCD Approval A regionalconfigurationthat is different from the planning district boundaries can be formed with the permission of DHCD. In making its determination, DHCD will consider the following: All cities, towns with a population greater than 3,500, and cotmties within a planning district boundary must be given an opportunity to participate. No regional configuration will be approved that excludes a locality that passes a resolution indicating that it.w/shes to be a part of the regional partnership. The RCP is intended to promote regional cooperative efforts of a sdale that will positively influence regional competitiveness. All requests for recognition o fregions that contain a subset of localities within a planning district are required to provide a rationale that explains why and how the smaller region is more appropriate in addressing competitiveness issues. 3. DHCD wilt not approve a configurationoflocalities that might result in a fragmentationofthe region. A locality that is outside the plann/ng district, but contiguous to it, may be added to the region at the request of the local governing body and with the concurrence of all participating localities within the planning district it petitions to join, provided that this inclusion does not lead to fragmentation of the remaining planning district. It is possible that a locality may wish to participate in two different regional partnerships. This may be approved provided that a clear method of dividing the population of that locality, is agreed upon between the two partnerships for the purposes of fund distribution. 6 t%e¢i~n~t COm~et~th, er, ess Pre'ram 6. It is recognized that some regional parmerships may include localities from outside the Commonwealth. These non-Virginia localities 'Mil not be Counted toward meeting the requirements for the minimum number of localities, ~ It is recognized that over time, regional configurations may undergo changes. Such changes may be approved provided that minimum recku!rements are met. Changes to regional conflgurationsand the resultingpartnership membership may require the region to undertake a revision of their plans and acti:vities in order to meet other requirements of this program. Guidelines for Regional Partnerships Intent The RCP is intended to bring together key decision-makers in .a region which represegt local government, the private sector, secondary and higher education and civic organizations. Representatives ofthese sector groups sho_uld be individualsin a top-levelmanagement position who can influence the allocation of resources needed to address issues of regional competitiveness and intergovernmental cooperation. The following guidelines and requirements are intended to help ensure that these key people are brought together in an organized manner to effect positive change in thek region. General Guidelines 1. Must have approval, by resolution, from the local governing bodies of the region to carry om the provisions of the Act. 2. May be an existing or newly-formed regional planning or economic developmera organization serving the regmn. 3. May be an existing non-incorporated regional coalition that has a demonstrated track record of working together to address issues of regional competitiveness. Membership Requirements 1. To the greatest extent practical, the following sector group representatives shall serve as members of the partnership: The mayor or board chairman and chief administrative officer of each member locality Corporate leaders within the region President of each institution of higher education in the region One or more chairmen of local school boards or superintendents representing primary and secondary education Regional Competitiveness Program CEOs or board chairs of local civic associations whose m~ssions and programs are relevant to addressing issues affecting regional competitiveness. 2. Partnerships are encouraged to add other members as appropriate to ensure adequate representation of economic competitiveness issues for that region. Each partnership shall prepare and adopt a charter or bylaws which will outline sector group representation, how members will be selected and how decisions will be made and implemented by the organization. Guidelines for Regional Strategic Economic Development Plans Intent The RCP is intended to encourage regional efforts to identify key issues affecting economic competitiveness and to support regional, coopemtiveinitiatives designed to address those issues. The method for identifyingthose key issues and build/ng consensus for action is the regional economic competitiveness strategic plan. It is not the intent of the RCP to ignore or duplicate recently completed or ongoing strategic planning efforts. Participation by the partnership in the process of conducting a critical analysis of regional issues and prioritizing potential actions is essential to forging mutual understanding and building commitment to implementation of plan recommendations. The strategic plan is intended to be a coliaborativeprocess among the various sector groups which focuses attention on critical issues of regional economic competitiveness and identifies and prioritizes actions which should be taken. The following guidelines and regulations are intended to provide guidance on the strategic planning process and plan content. General Guidelines 1. Existing local and regional strategic plans should be reviewed by the Regional Partnership in the beginning of its deliberations to provide baseline information. Members of the Regional Partnership shall play an active role in reviewing and analyzing regional information; shall participate in completing a critical analysis of the region; shall participate in identifying and prioritizing issues affecting regional competitiveness; and shall identify key actions necessary to address competitiveness issues. 3. The Regional Parmership shall solicit public participation and input to help identify regional competitiveness needs and opportunities for cooperation. 4. The Regional Partnership shall officially adopt the strategic plan. 5. The regional strategic plarming process is intended to help the partnership identify strategies and formulate a plan of action for a five year period. The plan should be revisited on a yearly 8 l~e~enal Compe~itiveness Pr6gzam basism determine if.adjustmentS are required to better meet regional Competitiveness needs or take advantage of new oppo~anities~ Specific Requirements 1. The plan shall define economic competitiveness for the region and outline a vision for the future. The plan shall include an analysis of key demographic and economic trends which shall include, at a minimum, a comparison of the following measures between the region and identified competitor regions outside the Commonwealth: Median family income changes during the last decade Job creation and loss during the last decade Regional income disparity trends during the last five years as measured by the differences in median family income levels among the region's localities Private sector investment trends during the last decade Competitor regions should, as much as possible, have similar demographic and economic characteristics to those of the Partnership region. 3~ The plan slSall identify current impediments or barriers to regional cooperation as well as current strengths and perceived oppommities for change. The plan shall identify and describe current joint activities relevant to regional competitiveness. A joint activity is a governmental function which is carded out by, performed on behalf of~ or contracted for two or more localities within the region. 5. The plan shall identify gaps in regional cooperation, relative to regional competitiveness, and prioritize them in order of importance. The plan shall outline a prioritized plan of action covering a period of at least five years and shall include proposed joint activities as well as other activities required to address eriticat gaps and improve the competitive situation of the region. 7. The plan shall identify organizations or individuals that have the lead responsibility for implementing plan activities. Clearly-identified, measurable outcomes shall be established which will be ixsed to assess progress toward addressing regional competitiveness issues and delivery of proposed joint activities. A description should be provided of a progress reporting and monitoring system Regional Competitiveness Program which will be used to measure progress annually toward implementing strategic plan recommendations. 9. The role, if any, of the Regional Partnership in implementing plan recommendations should be clearly out/ined~ Application Intent In order to be eligible for incentive funds, a geographic region must be delineated, a regional partnership formed and a regional strate~c economic development plan developed. A formula for distribution of funds within the region must be agreed upon by the partnership. This distribution formula must be endorsed by resolution 0fthe governing body of each participating jurisdiction. Once these items have been accomplished, a region is ready to submit its application for incentive funding. General Guidelines 1 Any regional configuration other than a planning district boundary requires prior approval from DHCD (please see Regional Configurations). Information on regional parmership structure and membership and strategic plan development may be submitted for review prior to the application submission. DHCD will review the regional partnership and the strategic plan to ensure that they meet the guidelines. If these items do not meet the guidelines, DHCD will provide technical assistance and suggest remedial action. This advance review is optional. 3. DHCD will provide technical assistance to regions upon request as they are in the process of delineating geographic parameters, creating paraaerships and crafting strategic plans. Applications will include information on joint ac. tivities, both exist/ng and new, and how they relate to the regions' strategic plans. Information on activity implementation milestones will also be needed. 5. Initial applications for incentive funding will be due to DHCD on July 1, 1997. Incentive funds will be distributed to eligible regions in September 1997. o Regions that intend to submit applications for funding in the next funding round will need to submit letters of intent to apply in September 1997. This will help the Department in gauging the demand for incentive funds prior to final budget preparations. 7. In the next funding round, applications will be due on December I, 1997 and funds will be distributed in July 1998. 10 · l~gionai Competitiveness Pre'ram In future fundingroufids applicati~nswi!t b~ due 6n July 1 with fund disiributionin July of the following year. This will ensure that regions that qualify for funding in the calendar year receive funding in the state's following fiscal year as regluired in the Regional Competitiveness Scoring System Intent The RCP is intended to support actions which address regional competitiveness issues and foster increased cooperati'ceefforts among loca1 governmentswithin the region. The evaluationand scoring system nsed by DHCD to determine if a region qualifies for Regional Comperkiveness Pro,am funding is intendedto recognizeand reward activities that directly address key economic competi- tiveness issues identified in the regional strategic plan. General Guidelines Regional Partnerships shall make application to DHCD to be scored under the fourteen issue areas outlined in ~he Regional C0mpetitivenessAct,(pIease ~ee Appendix G) A total score of at least twenty points is required to qualify for Regional Competitiveness Program funding. 2o No more than ten points shall be awarded for joint activities which were in existence prior to July 1, 1996. 3. A minimum of ten points is required from expanded or new joint activities to qualify for Regional Competitiveness Program funding. 4, No more than ten total points shall be awarded for activities within a single issue area. 5, Existing joint activities which are expanded in scope or number of localities may be considered a new ioint activity but shall not receive the full value of points. Evaluation Criteria and Scoring System DHCD will evaluate each existingand proposedj oint activity using the following five criteria. These five criteria shall each have a weight assigned to them that will determine how points are awarded under each activity. The criteria and their weights are: Regional Competitiveness Pro.am 11 Criteria Weight The significance of the activity as measured by its impact on regional economic competitiveness 50 % The significance of the activity on improving or strengthening 35% cooperative working relationships among local governments The complexity or difficulty in carrying out the activity 5 % The amount of fiscal resources committed to implementing thE activity 5 % The number of localities participating in the activity 5 % The application should discuss the relationship of each existing and proposed joint activity to each of the criteria identified above. DHCD will place heavy emphasis on strategies and actions which impact the regional competitiveness needs identified in the regional strategic plan in making its determination of allocating points. Adjusting the Issue Area Point'Totals Each of the fourteen issue areas identified in the Regional Competitiveness Act is assigned a total number of points (ranging from a high often to a low of two), which can be em'ned for activities within that category. A region can petition DHCD to adjust the weight ora category upward to reflect the relative importance of fl~at issue on the region's economic competitiveness. In considering its decision to adjust a category point total, DHCD will determine whether or not the issue area has a clearly-defined, vital link to economic competitiveness as identified by the regional slrategic plan~ Bonus Points A region can petition for up to five bonus points by domanenting actions taken to reduce the propertytax burden throughout the region or actions taken to improve the efficiency of delivery of governmental services. DHCD will use the five criteria outlined above in evaluating these actions to determine the amount of bonus points that may be awarded. Performance Accountability Intent In order for eligible regions to receive continued incentive funding the partnership must continue to exist and function effectively. Effective functiorfing is based on the satisfactory implementation of the joint activities outlined in the ftmding application and on the continued existence of the partnership. DHCD w/Il assess implementation of the joint activities outlined in the funding allocation. Progress in achieving identified omcomes and benchmarks is the basis of continued funding. 12 Regional Competitiveness Pro,ram General Guidelines I.. Eligible regions must submit an armual report. The armual report shall identify progress in reaching implementation milestones described in the funding application. 2. Eligible regions that Show satisfactory implementation will automatically receive the next year's funding allocation. DHCD recognizes that delays occur in the implementation of complex projects and activities. A region's efforts to resolve and mitigate such delays will be taken imo consideration when the annual report is reviewed, 4 Eligible regions that have not been able to implement the joint activities that were the basis of their funding eligibility will not automatically receive the next year's funding allocation. o Eligible regions that have experienced implementationproblems will have a six-month period in which to "catch up' and take remedial action in implementing its activities. DHCD will provide technical assistance and work with the region to modify ks implementation plan, if needed, as long as changes do not affect the joint activities that formed the basis of the region's funding eligibility~ Eligible regions that have npt been able to resolve implementation problems or make satisfactory revisions to its implementation plan within the six-month "catch up" period will not receive their funding allocation. Funds that are not allocated to regions because of implementation problems will be redistributed to eligible regions in accordance with the funding formula outlined in the Funding Allocation section of the guidelines. A region that has been unable to receive its annual incentive payments for a year or more because of implementation problems may request that payments be resumed in a subsequent fund distribution cycle once satisfactory performance on its existing strategic plan and joint activities has been demonstrated. If the request to reinstate funding is based on a new strategic plan and joint activities, the region will be required to reapply for funding eligibility in a future application round. o Changes to a region's configuration and partnership structure may impact implementation of its joint activities. DHCD will review such changes with the partnership to determine the impact on implementation and the region's funding eligibility. 10. A_nnual reports will be due to the Department in May prior to July finding distribution. -- Regional Competitiveness Program 13 Appendix A Advisory Committee Members The Honorable Barry E. DuVal (Chair) President and CEO Hampton Roads Partnership 430 World Trade Center Norfolk, Virginia 235 I0 Mr. Jack Broaddus (Vice Chair) Executive Vice President Wampler Foods, Inc. Post Office Box 7275 Broadway, Virginia 22815 Mr. Gene Bailey 49 Woodlawn Terrace Fredericksburg, Virginia 22405 The Honorable Lee B. Eddy 2211 Pommel Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mr. Rodger W. Fauber 1208 Blackstone Place Lynchburg, Virginia 24503 Mr. Robert F. Hill 9 Lower Tuckahoe Road, West Pdctmqond, Virginia 23233 The Honorable Elaine McConnell Springfield District Supervisor 6140 Rolling Road Springfield, Virgmia 22152 Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Chesterfield County Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virgima 23832 Ms. Terrie O. Spiro President and CEO Tysons National Bank 8200 Greensboro Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 Mr. Hugh R. Statlard Presidem and CEO Bell-Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 Ms. June M. Wilmot Executive Director Winchester-Frederick County EDC 45 East Boscawen Streel Winchester, Virginia 22601 The Honorable Kenneth G. Mathews 16t Hillside Drive Abingdon, Virginia 242 t 0 Regional Competitiver~ess Program Appendix B Application and Fund Distribution Schedule 15 July 1, 1997 September 1997 September 1997 December 1, 1997 July 1998 July 1, 1998 July 1999 First round applications due First round fund distribution Letters of intent for second application round Second round applications due Second round fund distribution Third round applications due Third round fund distribution Regional Competitiveness .Program Appendix C Issue Areas and Point Weights 17 Issue Area Job Creation or Economic Development Regional Revenue Sharing or Growth Sharing Agreements Education Human Services Local Land Use Housing Transporta. tion Law Enforcement Solid Waste Water and Sewer Services Corrections Fire Services and Emergency Medical Services Libraries Parks and Recreation Weight 10 10 10 8 8 8 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors /~/-----'~ FROM: · Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive DATE: February 10, 1997 / RE: Regional Competitiveness Program Resolution-Revision Attached is a revised draft of the resolution regarding the Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The last paragraph has been amended to reelect those suggested changes offered by the Board at your meeting on February 5. Basically the revision provides for a public hearing of the Strategic Plan for the region under this program as well as emphasising those issues such education, housing, ~nd environmental sustainabilityo I have added this to your consent agenda for approvalr however, should you have any suggested chanqes to this draft prior to our meeting on February 12, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWTjr/bat Attachment DRAFT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS PROGPJ~M IN THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Act, passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1996, establishes an incentive fund to encourage ~ctivities that address regional economic competitiveness needs; and the Regional Competitiveness Department of Housing and WHEREAS, this incentive fund is guided by Program administered by the Virginia Community Development; and WHEREAS, planning and acting regionally supports not only the health and well being of the region but of each locality Within the region; and WHEREAS, a policy of managed growth consistent with an overall vision for the future of the region will enhance the quality of life for citizens throughout the region; and WHEREAS, there exists in the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distriot regional organizations, Such as the Thqmas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and the Thomas geZferson Sustainability Council, dedicated no the overall health of the region consistent with the Regional Competitiveness Act; and WHEREAS, a regional vision that identifies key local and regional issues and prioritizes potential activities will enhance the quality of life and the economic viability of ~he region and each locality within the region; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Albemarle County does support participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program provided q strateq~c plan for the reqion is developed foltow!nq ~ public hearing which would address such issues as education, housing~ and environmental sustainability and authorizes th9 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to act as the lead agency for the purposes of participating in the Regional Competitiveness Program. NOW, t, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on Clerk, County Board Of Supervisors FAX TRANSMITTAL TO Carolyn Fletcher FROM L E Neher CO Daily Progress CO Albemarle County DEPT Retail Display PHONE # 296-5843 FAX # 978-7223 FAX # 296-5800 ALBEMARLE COUNTY RETAIL DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT, P. O. #A-1263 ALBEMARLE COUN rY BOARD OF COUI~'rY SUPERVISORS This is to give notice that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors will take public comments on whether the County should participate in the Regional Competitiveness Project as proposed for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District 10. The public hearing is scheduled for March 5, 1997, at 10:00 A.M., in Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, Requests for information regarding this project should be addressed to the Clerk at 296-5843. Reasonable accommodations at the meeting will be provided to persons with disabilities if requested. Please call 296-5827. By Order of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk Today's Date: February 19, 1997 Dates to run: February 24 and March 3, 1997 Please size: 2 column width Bill to: Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Account Number: 204066 Name of person to contact about advertisement: L. E, Neher Telephone #: 296-5843 Fax #: 296-5800 ']'his is to g;ve notice thru the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors will take public commems on whether the County should participate in the Regional Competitiveness Project as proposed for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District 10. The public hearing is schedulea for March 5. 1997. at 10:00 A.M.. in Room 241. County Office Building, Mclntire Road. Charlottesville. Virginia. Requests for information regarding this project should be addressed to the Clerk at 296-5843. Reasonable accommodations at the meeting will be providod to persons with disabilities it requested. Please call 296-5827. By Order of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle .County. Virginia, Ella Washington Carey. OMC' Clerk 'This is to g~ve notice that the Albemarle Board o! County Supervisors will take public comments on whethe~ the '. County should participate in the Regional Competitiveness. ! Project as proposed for the Thomas Jefferson Planning ! District. 10.. ~'he public' hearing ~s scheduled for March 5.. 199'7. at ,. 10:00 A.M.. in Room 241. County Office Building. Mclntire. Ro~d. Charlottesville. Virginia. Requests for information 'regarding this project should be addressed to the .Clerk at '2965843. 'Reasonable accommodations at the ·,meeting will b~ provided to persons with disabilities if requested. Please call 296-5827. .. j By Order of the Board of County Supervisqrs of Albemarle' County, Virginia. j '.. :"i~"' Ella Washington Carey, CMC.. Clerk _ j rn · o 0 ;o°.9. m__ o o Why do we budget? The major purpose of budgeting is to formally convert the County's long range plans and policies into services and programs. The budget provides detailed financial information on the costs of services and the expected revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. The budget process also provides a forum for a review of progress made in the current year and for a review of the levels of service provided by local government. What is the budget? The budget is divided into three major parts, each with separate documents and public heatings. The Operating Budget is the total and complete budget used to £mance all of the day to day operations of local govemmant and schools. The total operating budget consists of several major sections including general government operations, school operations, school debt service, CIP transfer, and the City-County revenue sharing. Funding for this budget is derived from taxes, fees, licenses, frees, and State and Federal revenue. The School Budget is used to completely describe the operations of the County's schools. The School Budget is prepared the Superintendent's office and is approved by the School Board. The schools have their own budget calendar which is separate from that of other budgets. Funding for the School Budget is derived from transfers from the Operating Budget, fees, and intergovernmental revenue 0.e. State and Federal funding). The Capital Improvements Program {CIP) is used to purchase or finance the construction of capital goods from the binldmg of schools, parks, and roads to the upgrading of computer and phone system equipment. Funding for these projects is obtained rom bond issues (long term debt which is only borrowed for the binldmg of school projects) and from transfers from the Operating Budget. What are the State requirements? The Commonwealth of Virginia reqmres that all localities meet certain budget guidelines. All localities within Virguna must have a fiscal year beginning on July 1 md ending on June 30 and must approve a balanced budget. The School Board must approve the School Budget by May 1 or within 15 days of receiving estimates of State funding, whichever shall later occur. The Board of Supervisors must approve the Operating Budget and set the tax rate by July 1. The adoption of the Operating Budget and the tax rate requires the Board to hold a public heating and to advertise this hearing no less than 7 days in advance. Although these are the minimum State reqmrements, the County traditionally has adopted the budget by April 15 in order to establish teacher contracts and to set the persofiat property tax prior to the tax bill mailing date. The official appropriation of funds generally takes place prior to July 1 When are the budget decisions made and how can I participate in the process? The County each year develops a schedule of events which describe the elates of public and Board participation in the budget process. Each year the Board is asked to approve the schedule of the budget process in order to establish firm dates for meetings and provide the public with as much notice as possible. Listed below is a copy of the tentative budget schedule. Oct. 18 Preliminary Revenue Projecnons Nov. 6 Jan. 8 Budget Guidance from Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on FY 97/98 - FY 01/02 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Mar. 5 Recommended Budget Sent to Board Mar. 12 Public Hearing on Recommended Budget Mar 17, 19,24,26 Board Budget Work Sessions Apr. 9 Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed FY 1997/98 Operating Budget Apr. 16 Board Adopts FY 97/98 Operating & Capital Budgets; Sets FY 97/98 Tax Levy What is the budget process? The County's operating budget schedule began on October 18 with the preliminary projection of revenues for the coming fiscal year~ On November 1, the County Executive's Office sent budget instmchons to all departments. November 6, the Board provided the County Executive with financial guidelines for the development of the budget. In mid-December, all deparnnents submit budgets to the County Executive's Office From the middle of December to the middle of January, the executive staff reviews budget requests and develops budget- related questions. In January through February, all departments are scheduled to meet with the executive budget staff to review and answer all questions relating to their budget requests. From these discussions, the executive staff develops recommendations ranging from the funding of new programs to the reduction of funding for current programs. In mid-February, the School Superintendent submits the School Budget to the County Executive and the executive staff reviews the School Budget. Understanding the Bridget Ps sess At the end of February, the County Executive makes the necessary adjustments to balance the budget and staffprints the County Executive's Recommended Budget. This budget is scheduled to be presented to the Board on March 5, with a public hearing on the County Executive's recommendation on March 12. After the pubhc heating on March 12, the Board begins a detailed review of each area of the budget and recommends specific cuts or additions to the County Executive's Recommended Budget. After all the budget changes have been agreed upon, a public heating on the Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget and the tax rate ts tentatively scheduled for April 9. On April 16. the Board adopts the operating and capital budgets, and sets the tax levy for the coming year. How much is the proposed budget (FY 1997/98)? The County Executive's total proposed budget for Albemarle m FY 97/98 is $126,369,069. This total expenditure is divided into the functional areas listed below: General Govemment School Division Debt Service (Schools) Capital Program Revenue Sharing Other Total With Addtl. State School Division Revenues Total $33,042J59 $76,816.233 $6,845,880 $2,323.000 $5,518,393 $1,823.104 $126,369~69 $220.000 $126.58%069 A visual representation of this funding ts presented in the pie chart at the top of the next column. FY 1997/98 Total County Expenditures $126.369,069 Other 1.4% Debt 5.4% What are the major categories of expenditures for General Government? General Govemmem is broken down into 7 major functional areas: Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Engineering & Public Works, Human Developmem, Parks and Recreation. and Community Development. The Administration functional area oversees overalI county services via the County Executive's Office and the Board of Supervisors and provides the following services: information technology and data processing via the Information Services department; legal advice ftom the County Attorney; pa~oll, tax assessment and collection, accounting, and purchasing for the County from the Finance Department; and the registration of voters by the Registrar. The Judicial area includes all court-related services fi'om the serving of warrants, to prosecmion, to the actual running of the courts themselves. Funding is provided for the each of the local courts: the Circuit Court, the General District Court, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Com. The Clerk of the Court, Commonwealth's Attomey and the Sheriff also are funded in this functional area. Public Safety includes all Police services such as patrol. investigations and ammal control, but it also encompasses other areas as well. Emergency Operataons (E-911), fire prevention services, inspections, supplemental funding for the rescue squads and volunteer fire deparunents, and funding for local agencies such as the SPCA, the regional jail and other related agencies also are included Engineering & Public Works performs the duties of public building maintenance and custodial services, water resources management, erosion control, and engineering oversight of residential and commercial construction within the County. Depamnents include Engnneenng and Public Works and Staff Services FY 1997/98 Total County Revenues $I26,369,069 Local Property Taxes 48.9% The Human Development area includes Social Services, the Health Department, Region Ten Community Services, and funding for many local social service agencies. The services provided include the oversight and implementation of State and Federal social programs, the provision of local health services, the provision of mental health services, outreach services, transportation services, services for the elderly, and funding other local sod~al benefits. Other Local 20.6~ Self-Sustaining 5.3% Carry Over 0.1 Federal 2.4% Parks and Recreation includes the Parks and Recreation department, the regional library, and various local cultural arid recreational agencies. The services provided include park maintenance, the summer swan programs, community cemers, teen programs, athletic programs, and resources for local agencies such as Piedmont Council of the Arts, the Virginia Discovery Museum, and the Literacy Volunteers program. The final functional area is that of Community Development. The departments in this area include plarmmg and Zoning, the Office of Housing, the Soil and Water Conservation office, and' the Cooperative Extension Service. ~[he services provided include zoning enforcement, long term planning for community development, review of development applications, the implementation and development of housing programs, funding for local transit, the provision of extension services, and funding for other services provided by local agencies. Where do the Revenues come from? Most of the revenues come from local taxes such as property taxes, personal property taxes, business licenses, and other fees. More than 69% of the County's budget is paid by local taxpayers. The next oolunm contains an illustration of the revenue s~ream for the County. How have the revenues changed over time? The major way that revenues have changed over time is that the State and Federal funding, as a percentage of the overall budget, have decreased dramatically. The two pie charts on the next page illustrate the relative decline in State revenues and the relative mcrease in the County's dependence upon local revenues since 1988. How have the expenditures changed over time? The total budget of the County has grown over the past several years, however much of this growth is due to two major factors: inflation and population growth. Since 1988, inflation has increased by more that 33%. During that same period, the County experienced more than an 20.5% growth in population. The relative costs of inflation and population growth since 198 t are illustrated in the chart on the next page entitled "Total County Expenditures, FY 1981 - 1998." FY 1987/88 Total County Revenues $63,348,757 Local Proper~ Taxes 39.0% FY 1997/98 Total County Revenues $126,369,069 Local Pro,em//'axes 48.0% Federal 2.0% Federal 4,0% Other Local 25,0% $140.000.000 - $120.000.CXX) $100 000.000 $80.000.000 - $60.000.000 $4o,aoo.ooo $20.000.000 $0 Total County Expenditures, FY 1981-1998 [] cost of Inflation [] Cost of Growth [] Cost of Services March 5, 1997 The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 Dear Madam Chair and Members of the Board: [ am pleased m pmsem to you and the citizens of Albemarle County the proposed fiscal plan for FY 1998. This proposed budget totals $126.4 million and is balanced within proposed revenues. It is a responsible fiscal plan resulting from a careful examination of the service needs of our county and our financial capability m meet those needs. The recommended property tax rates for FY 98 remain the same as this current fiscal year- Real Property $0.72/$100 valuation and Personal Property $4.28/$100 valuation. These rates have remained constant for the past seven (7) years which is the longest they have remained unchanged in recent history, Fiscal Plan Objectives · Develop a fiscal plan that is balanced without affecting property mx rares; · Maintain service levels for citizens that reflect this organization's mission to enhance the quality, of life for our citizens; · Continue to provide for debt servme reserve for financing and funding capital costs for the Monticello H/gh School and other school expansion and renovation needs; and · Maintain Education and Public Safety as priorities in the delivery of services. All of the above objectives have been met within this fiscal plan. Budget Message 1 xe¢.tive' Ove vie o Fiscal Plan Highlights · Local revenues for FY98 increased by approximately $6.4 million over the current year. which includes an additional $585,600 in a proposed increase in the transient/lodging mx. · The fiscal plan increases the local dollars provided to the School Division by $2.9 million over the current year for a total transfer of $45 million. · Debt service of $6.8 million on school construction projects has been funded and an additional $150,000 added to the Debt Reserve Fund to prepare for the increased debt service expected from Monticello High School in FY99. · qYhe Revenue Sharing Agreement provides an additional $347,540 to the City of Charlottesville for atotal FY98 payment of $5.5 million. · Community agencies received an average increase in funding of 3%; departmental operating budgets were held at a 2% increase over the prior year. · General Government and School Division employees will receive aa average 3.5% performance increase and a $746,915 increase in the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) payment, which has fulfilled General Government's obligation to prefimd the Cost of Living Adjustments mandated by the State aadthe first year ora five-year phase-in for the School Division. The following County priorities are addressed in the budget: Administration - 3 lqlS's have been added, 1 to fulfill the Board's commitment for a Fiscal Impact Planner, 1 to provide computer technology support to the Police Department, and partial FTE's in both the Registrar's Office and Human Resources to address growth needs. Additional funds are also planned to assist the Neighborhood Team and to conlmue funding for the new Assistant County Attorney. Judicial - The fiscal plan addresses pay eqm~y issues and provides additional staff in both the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department, and provides a new voice mail system for Juvenile Court. Public Safety - 5.5 FTE's are planned m address public safety issues, 3 officers, 1 records clerk, and a civihan investigative assistant within the Police Department and a 0.5VIE Office Associate in the Fire/Rescue Division. Two of the three planned new officers will be Community Policing Officers, the costs for whom are partially offset by Federal COPS revenues Human Services - Increased revenues of $600,000 for adnfinistration and child care are added to the Social Services budget ~o address the implementation of the welfare reform (VIEW) program on July 1. Additional funding also is provided for a third Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program, additional child care scholarships and increased services from the Children, Youth & Family Services Family Partners program. Parks/Recreation/Culture - Funds are providedto expand the after school Middle School program to all five middle schools, to provide an additional evening of classes at Yancey Elementaw, to offer additional classes, and to provide a summer playground program at Greer F_lementary. To expand public access to the community's Mont-AW program, funds are provided to add an Information Technology Trainer. Development - 4 VI'E's are added to address the growing development needs, 1 Soil/Erosion Control Inspector, 1 Senior Design Planner, an office associate in Building/Zoinng Services and a temporary Addressing Technician to complete the E-911 project 2 Budget Message ( o.nt l .xec.tive's Ove vie o Revenue and Expenditure Summary FY 1997198 Recommended Total Count~ Revenues 23% 21% FY 1997198 Recommended Total County Expenditures Revenue Sharing 4% Sch~ Debt 5% Fiscal Year 1997/98 Revenues FY 96/96 TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES ACTUAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES 70.493756 OTHER LOCAL REVENUE 22.954.056 STATE REVENUE 27.426.399 FEDERAL REVENUE 2.20~.513 SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS 5.791.951 CARRY-OVER/ FUND EALANCE 913.042 TOTAL REVENUES 129,684,717 SPLIT SILLING RESERVE 16.500000 TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES 146,184,717 FY 96~97 FY 96/97 ADOPTED REVISED 58 063,980 56`0~3.980 23416,748 23,480.619 27.612.567 27.678.744 2.598.147 2.598 147 6.337,670 6.544670 609.995 1.175.000 118,639,105 t19,S41,t60 FY 97/98 FY 97198 $ % % REQUEST RECOMM INC '~C TL 51.811,400 61.825.420 3.761 440 6.48% 48.92% 24.893.120 25.070.148 2.653.402 11.33% 20,63% 28,292,722 28.672,405 1,059.838 3.84% 22.69% 2.598,575 2.976.472 378.325 t4.56% 2.38% Total revenues increased by $7.73 million over the current fiscal year. Local revenues are compnsed primarily of real estate and personal property taxes, which account for approximately 48.9% of total County revenues For FY98 The 11.3% increase in other local taxes reflects the proposed increase in the hotel/motel (lodging) tax rate from 2% to 5% in FY98, which is expected to generate an additional $585,600 for tourism-related expenses and projects. The 14.6% increase in Federal funds is due phmaril3 to additional federal revenues for social service programs. The 78.1% decrease in carry-over/fund balance reflects the impact of one-me fund balance monies provided to the School Division in FY97, which do not recur in FY98. Budget Message 3 Fiscal Year 1997/98 Expenditures TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES FY 95/96 ACTUAL GENERAL GOVT. OPERATIONS 26.702.776 SCHOOL DIVISION OPERATIONS 70.070.242 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2.725.080 C[TYICOUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5.049.991 GENERAL GOV'T DEBT SERVICE 116.698 SCHOOL DEBT SERVICE 6.839880 DEBT/CAPITAL RESERVE 250.003 REFUNDS 54.715 JAIL EXPANSION RESERVE 0 CONTINGENCY RESERVE O ~IlSCELLANEOUS 1.483 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 111,819.785 SPLIT BILLING RESERVE 15.500.000 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES 128.310.786 FY 96/97 FY 90/97 ADOPTED REVISED 29,301.483 30.089.435 73.509.852 73.716.852 2686 50(3 2.886.500 5.170853 5.170.853 113.500 113,500 6 845,880 6,845.880 450,000 450.000 53.100 53.'100 200.000 200.000 213,252 110.355 94.685 94.685 118,639.106 119,541,160 FY 97198 FY 97/g8 $ % REQUEST RECOMM NC TL 33.924.639 33,042.459 3.740,976 26.15% 78.229.327 76819.233 3.306.381 60.79% 2 500.000 2.323,000 (363.500) 1 5.518,393 5.518.393 347.540 4.37% 0 0 1113.500~ 0.00% 6.845.880 6.845.880 3 5.42% 600,000 600.000 150.000 0.47% 51,700 51.700 (1.400~ 0.04% 103,000 100.000 100.000- 0.08% 200,000 1.071.404 858,152 0.85% 0 0 194.685 0.00% 127,969.939 12S,369,069 7.729,964 6.52% 100.00% The FY 97/98 recommended budget totals $126,369,069, an increase of 6.5% over FY 96/97. Approximately 67. t% of the budget consists of funding for School Division operations, debt service and major capital projects. General Govemmear operations comprise about 26.2% of the total County budget. The most szgnificant areas of increase on the chart displayed above are the $347,540 increase in revenue sharing payment to the City of Charlottesville, the $150,000 increase in the Debt Service/Capital Reserve, in preparation for the $1.92 million increase in debt service in FY98/99 due to the opening of the new high school, and the $858,152 increase in the Board's contingency reserve. Additionally, General Government operations increased by $3.7 million over last year, due to a $2.1 million increase in obligated funding for FY98, which includes $730,935 m additional Social Service program costs due to Welfare Reform initiatives, $514,560 in additional payment to the ECC (par[ of which funds construction costs of the new ECC facility), and $412.200 in additional VRS payments m prefund Cost of Living Adjustments mandated by the State. ApproXWaately $1.5 million of these additional costs are funded by additional revenues, mainly from the State and Federal governments. Without these obligated expenditures, the total baseline increase for C:neral Government expenditures is 4.47%. Significant decreases in the FY98 budget include: $363,500 in the capital fund transfer, due to additional transient/lodging tax revenues being used to fund several tourism-related capital projects, the $t 13,500 decrease in general govemment debt service, the $100,000 decrease in Jail Expansion Reserve funds, and the $94,685 decrease in miscellaneous funds, which were set aside in FY97 to implement the new County pay plan. School Division As in FY 97, the School Board has recommended an unbalanced budget. The shortfall is $1.41 million over allocated new local revenues of $2.9 million Their request is deemed a maintenance of current effort by the School Board. The major components of this request include funding the projected enrollment growth of 282 new students, providing an overall 3.55% salary adjustment for teachers and a 3.5% merit pool for classified staff; providing a 2% increase for operational budgets in the schools and departmental budgets; funding for most of the school bus replacement costs; and funding essential starmp costs for Monticello High School. The total requested budget from the School Board is $71,538,373, an increase of $4.37 million (6.5%) over FY 97. Budget Message xtec ttl e' Oue oZe o This recommended FY 98 Fiscal Plan contains sufficient msoumes to fund all but $121,690 of the School Board's shortfall, through a combination of Board of Supervisors' reserves, which include local savings due to addkional State revenues and a proposed transient lodging mx increase: and additional unexpected State revenues of $220.000. This proposed funding scenario ts presented with the understanding that all of the Board's available contingency reserves would be used to fund the School's shortfall, and that the School Board would need to cover the remaining shortfall either through use of its reserves, or carry-over funding from FY97. I further recommend that any other school fund savings from FY 97 be held in reserve for FY 99's projected $1.3 million opening costs (recurring expenses) for Monticello High School and the $1.35 cost of meeting projected enrollment growth of 305 new students in FY99. Ihe proposed funding scenario to meet the School Board's recommended budget is presented in the chart below. Proposed Fun ding Seen ario - $chool Division Shortfall TOTAL SHORTFALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES ADDITIONAL SCHOOL REVENUES FROM STATE CURRENT BOARD RESERVE: INITIAL RECOMMENDATION ADDITIONAL REVENUES - JANUARY PROJECTIONS COSTS FUNDED BY TRANSIENT TAX INCREASE LOCAL SAVINGS/ADDITIONAL STATE REVENUES ADDITIONAL - BALANCING ADJUSTMENT REMAINING SHORTFALL 200.000 169,739 298.224 40O.00O 3.441 (220,00O) (1,071.404~ 121.690 The impact of the above scenario on the County's total operating budget is presented below: Proposed Total County Budget r"Y 95/96 TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES ACTUAL GENERAL GOVT. OPERATIONS 26.702~776 SCHOOL DIVISION OPERATIONS 70,070,242 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0 OTHER NON-DEPARTMENTAL 15.037,767 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 111,810,785 FY 96/97 FY 9{i/97 ADOPTED REVISED 29.301.483 39.099.435 73.509,852 73.716 652 213.252 110.355 15.614.518 15.614.518 118,639,105 119,541,160 FY97/98 FY97/98 $ % % REQUEST RECOMM [NC INC TL 33,924.639 33,042,45~ 3.740.976 26.10% 78.229.327 78.107.631 4.597785 61.70% 200.000 (213.252', 0.00% 15.6'~5.973 15.438.973 176.545' 12.20% 127,969,939 126.589,069 7,949,964 6~70% 109,00% TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES FY 95/96 ACTUAL LOCAL REVENUES 93.447812 STATE REVENUE 27.426,399 FEDERAL REVENUE 2.205,513 SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS 5.791,951 CARRY-OVER/FUND BALANCE 813,042 TOTAL REVENUE~ 129,684,717 FY 96/97 FY 96/97 ADOPTED REVISED 81 480.726 81.544.599 27.612.567 271678.744 2.598 147 2.598.147 FY 97/98 FY 97198 S % % REQUEST RECOMM INC NC TL 86.704.520 87,895,568 6414.842 69.43% 28.292.722 28.892,465 1.279.838 22.82% 2.598.575 2.976.472 378 325 2.35% 6.690,954 8690.954 353.284 5.29% 1331670 133.670 f476.3253 0.tt% 118,639,105 119,541.160 124,420,441 12S,689,069 7.946.964 6,70"/, 100.00% Budget Message 5 o.nt¥ .xec.tive' Ove vie Conclusion While avoiding a property tax increase for Fiscal Year 1998, funding the school's shortfall does not come without a tax increase for hotel and motel patrons. This increase ~s warranted in part because of a very fiat real property assessment increase of only 2.26% over the 1995 assessments, the culmination of a trend that began with the 1991 assessment which saw a record average real property assessment of 22%. Two years later (1993), the average assessment dropped to 11%; dropping by half again to 5% in 1995, and finally dropping in half once more to 2 26% in 1997 While this primary source of local revenues for the County has been decreasing, the demands created by population growth and school enrollment growth continue to increase. The critical year for funding school needs, as we have been projecting for some time, is FY 99, when both the opening of the new Monticello High School and a significant projected increase in enrollment of 305 new students entering our school system will occur in a non-reassessment year when we will be unable to rely on reassessmem revenues Albemarle County remains fiscally conservative even in the face of growth pressures, which is reflected in our ability to lower our real property tax in 1991 (from $0.74 to $0.72) and maintain that rate of $0.72 per $100 of assessed value to date (we actually operate on $0.62 since ~;0.10 is automatically transferred to the City under the Revenue Sharing Agreement). During these past six years our County's per capint expemfiture has remained below the stare average for all localities in Virgana in every functional category for services provided, with the exception of the category that includes our revenue sharing agreement with the City of Charlottesville Staffing history shows that general governmem operations have increased by only 1 employee per 1000 residents since 1985, i.e., in 12 years our staffing ratio has increased from 4.25/1000 residents in 1985 to only 5.3/1000 residents in 1997. Again, fl~ese expenditures and ratios have been accomplished as our population has grown over 2% per year. While we have been able to meet our growing demands through effective fiscal managemem and within our existing revenue stream to this point, that revenue stream and other sources ofrevanues are neanng their limit. Use of Board reserves, uncommitted fund balances, debt fman(mg, spending constraints, aggressively purmmg State and Federal grants, and other quick fix methods for balancing our budgets in the past could very well fall short of meeting FY 99's School Board demands for new student enrollments and the opening of Monticello High School. Without additional funding from the State or Federal govemments, which is unlikely, some other revenue source will be needed to mamt~m the same level of effort for our school system andthe same level ofgovemmental servmes. 'Dtis would allow us to conlfinue m provide the quality of life that is so special to our area, a life that Albemarle Cou~ citizens have grown m expect and deserve. Sincerely, County Executive 6 Budget Message FY 1997/98 Recommended General Fund Expenditures Public Safety Public W~'ks Human Dev. Judicial 11% 2% 7% Educafio~ Admin~stra[~on 2% <1% 6% MJecejleneous 4% Parks & Re(: 4% Community Dew 3% School Debt Ser~ca 7% Revenue Shanng 6% Transfer to ,Scbecd Division 48% GENERAL FUND EXPEN~TURES FUNCTIONAL AREAs REQUEST RECOM~.i $ % % ~NC TL INC General Government Expenditures 53 FY 96/97 ~ 96;97 FY 97/98 FY 97/98 $ % % ADOPTED REVISED REQUEST RECOMM INC INC TL 301.916 301.91( 331.079 359.909 495.477 436.877 2.248.616 2,297.336 ~ .364.625 1.364.825 253.323 268.323 160,309 237.066 3.750 3.750 542.964 542,964 82.0.800 620.800 571.282 571.282 398.153 416,452 46,000 45.060 13800 13.800 643,460 643.460 105.316 176,890 38,525 38.525 905.139 948.300 291.465 339.884 938,393 943.503 52.571 52.571 2.187.568 2.282,258 291.052. 291,2~2. (10.664! -3.53% 0.31% 409.597 409,015 77.935 23.54% 0.43% 550.774 585.610 90,133 18,19% 0,62% 2.363,032 2.350491 101,875 4.53% 2.49% 1.470.718 1 518,614 153.989 11.28% 1.61% 273.813 287.402 34.079 13.45% 0,38% 209.4z¢, 184.640 (3,169) -1.69% 0.20% 5,568.428 5.627,024 444,179 8,57% 5.95% 999.156 976,387 71,248 7.87% L03% 189.935 189.935 :101,530~ *34.83% 0.20% 986,966 974.756 36.363 3.88% 1,03% 56.247 58.247 3676 6.99¥~ 0.06% 2.232,304 2.197 325 9,757 0.45% 2.32% 78.810 98.810 118.810 -18.819 40,008 50.75% 0.13% 5.150 5,150 5.506 5 155 0 0.00% 0.01% 25.792 25,792 26.566 26,565 774 3.00% 0.03% 27.865 27.885 47,380 35.035 7,170 25.73% 0.04% 54 General Government Expenditures ~Co/Einued from Previous Page) FY 95/96 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ACTUAL MENTAL HEALTH - REGION TEN 250.1~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT 346.710 BUS SERVICE/ROUTE 29 38200 GYPSY MOTH PROGRAN 24.12' MONTICELLO COMM. ACTION AGENCY 45,790 OFFICE OF HOUSING 304.145 PLANNING 724.611 PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 55.344 SOtL& WATER CONSERVATION 26,055 TJHIC-CHP 0 VPI EXTENSION SERVICE 75,529 ZONING 433.218 SUBTOTAL 2.073 723 NON-DEPARTMENTAL TP~NSFER TO CAPITAL FUNDS 2.725.000 GENERAL GOVq' DEBT SERVICE 116,698 CAPITAL PROJECTS/DEBT RESERVE 250.000 CITY/COUNTY REVENUE SHARING 5.049.991 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 0 JAiL EXPANSION RESERVE 0 SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE 8.839.880 MISCELLANEOUS 1.483 REFUNDS 54715 SUBTOTAL 15.037.767 TOTAL GEN. FUND EXPENDITURES 41,740,543 TP,/~SFER TO SCHOOL OPERATIONS 39.013.874 SCHOOL TRANSFER - ONE TIME 0 SUBTOTAL 39.013.874 SUBTOTAL OPERATING BUDGET 80,7~4,4t8 SPUT BILLING RESERVE 16.500.000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 97.254.418 FY 96/97 FY 96/97 ADOPTED ~EVISED 8.284 8284 107.075 107.075 11/955 11.155 1.621.589 1.621.589 13.000 13.000 1.064.455 1.105,826 8.555 ~.655 0 6 109,685 109685 7.000 7.000 2.942.414 2,983,979 357.110 357,11C 45.200 45.200 25.953 25.953 47.165 58.575 346.793 346.793 842.965 991.992 29.534 29.534 0 0 135.942 135,942 436.735 449.306 2.328.198 2.501967 2.689.590 2.686500 113.500 113,500 450.0[~ .450.go0 5.170.853 5.170.853 213.252 110.355 200.000 200.000 6.845.880 6.845.880 45,129,253 45,824,308 42.110,792 42.110.792 501.495 501,495 42.612.287 42.612.28; 87,74t,840 88,436,59~ FY 97/98 FY 97/B8 REQUEST RECOMM $ % INC % TL 262 742 259.365 7 554 3 00% 0.27% 75,000 75.000 O 0.00% 0.05% 20.190 20.190 8 0.00% 0,02% 8.284 8.284 0 0.01% 113.775 108.990 1.915 1 79% 0.12°/~ 11430 8.855 (2,200) -19.90% 0.01% 1.748.470 1 685.260 63.671 3.93% 1.78% 15750 15.750 2.750 21.15% 0.02% 357.375 357.375 265 0.07% 0.38% 86056 45,555 1.356 3 00% 0.05% 22,483 3 t25.9531 -100.00% 0.00°/~ 6~.938 60.335 13,170 27.92% 0.06% 397.089 378.250 31.457 9.07% 0.40°A 2.50000(3 2.323.000 (363.500~ -13.53% 2.46°A gO0.O00 600.000 150.00£ 33.33% 0.63'~ 5.518,393 5.518.393 347.540 6,72% 5.84°A 200.9~0 1.071.404 858.152 402.41% 1.13"/~ IO0.ODO 100.000 (100.000, -50.00% 0.11% 6.845.080 6.845.889 0 0 00% 7.24% 0 0 (94,685) -100.90% 0.00% 9.80% 49,740,612 49,552,836 4,423,883 52,40% 45.020.032 45.020.032 2.909.240 6.91% 47.60% 0 0 (501.495) -100.0~% 0.00% 45,020,032 45020.032 2.407.745 5.65% 47,60% 6,831,32B 94,760,644 94,5T2,868 7.79% 100.00% General Gov~:nent Expenditures 55 Admininstration Fiscal Imoact Planner Neighborhood College Neighborhood Team Grant Fund Additional Budget Costs Continued Funding for New Assistant County Attorney Research Assistant - Human Resoumes (21% share) Office Associate It - Human Resources I21% share) Systems Analyst - Assigned to Police Decarttnent Needs Part-time Assistant Registrar (0.6 FTE) increased Pay for Election Officials/Programming for Voting Machines Judicial Expanded Education/Training - General District Court Voice Mai[ System - Juvenile Court (50% of the cost) Par[-time to Full-time Office Assistant - Commonwealth's Attorney Office Stipends to Address Pay Inequity - Commonwealth's Attorney Office Additional Costs for New Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Stipends for Sherift's Deouties Part-time to Full-time Bailiffs (Offset 100% by Expanded Scottsville Payment) Public Safety Police Records Clerk Two Community Policing Officers Maintenance on Regional Criminal Information Network Civilian investigative Assistant (Hired in January, 1997) - Poi[ce Department Police Patrol Officer Part-time to Full-time Office Associate I - Fire/Rescue Division Computer Equipment/Phone Lines & Support - Volunteer Fire/Rescue Human Services Two Child Care Scholarships - United Way Third BrightStars Four-Year Old Program Expanded Services from Family Partners - Children. Youth & Family Services Driver Salary Upgrade - JAUNT Parks/Recreation/Culture Expanded Recreational Classes (Offset 100% by Program Revenues) Middle School After School Programs - Burley, Henley, Sutherland Additional night of classes at Yancey Elementary - Parks/Recreation Summer Playground at Greer Elementary Information Technology Trainer - Mont-AW at the Regional Library I50%) Expanded Services for Neighborhoods/Welfaro Reform - Literacy Volunteers Development Engineering Inspector Temporary Addressing Technician - (Offset 100% by E-911 Revenues) Senior Design Planner - Planning Office Associate III - Building Code & Zoning Services Total $44,836 $925 $10.000 $730 $27,072 $8,233 $5.026 $22.473 $12,110 $2.580 $133.985 $1.850 $4.3OO $14.7'72 $15,543 $4,381 $1.327 $0 $42.173 $23.789 $76.178 * $11 200 $17.358 $65.200 $10.023 $8.500 $212 248 $6.240 $40,000 $6.405 $1 279 $53.924 $0 $20.512 $1.380 $3.279 $15.023 $2,360 $42,554 $40 617 $0 $48.736 $24.039 $113.392 $598,276 * Net of Offsetting Revenue Increase Recommended Funded & Unfunded Pnonnes Judicial Salary Supplement for Staff Member - Commonwealth s Attorney Public Safety Additional Community Policing Officer - Police Department (2) New Patrol Officers - Police Department Additional Personnel Testing Funds Expanded Overtime Costs - Police Department (8) Additional Dispatchers - Emergency Communications Center (County Share') Fire/Rescue Education Specialist T.J.E.M.S Supplemental Agency Funding J,C.ER.A. Fleet Fuel & Utility Costs Additional Staff Training - Regional Jail ICounty Share) Theraceutic Community Services - Regional Jail/Region Ten (County Share) Human Development Part-Time Support Staff- Health Department (50%) Part-Time Nurse for Great Beginmngs - Health Department ",50%) Outreach Worker- Healthy Families - Health Department (50%) Parks & Recreation Cellular Phones for Maintenance Workers - Parks & Recreation Technical Services Specialist - Library (County Share) Additional Positions - Library Branches (County Share) Community DeveloDmen[ Office Associate I - Office of Housing Additional Animal Science Agent - Extension Service [Local Share) Salary Compression Adjustment/Travel Costs - Extension Service (County Share) TJHIC-CHP Funding * Net of Offsetting Revenue Increase 3,593 38.089 * 130.400 5.000 55.010 85.534 29131 580 72,000 7.927 41,525 13.000 12.000 12.500 1.980 17.358 13124 18.959 3,486 11.013 50.000 Recommended Funded & Unfunded Priorities ~00 Eas~ Ma~ S~reefi ls~ Fl. M~ Entrance PO Bo~ 1505, Ch~Ao*~,~ VA 22902-]505 {804) 979-PD10 {7510) + F~X {804) 979-1597 + E-Mail: ~rfl~o~o.~.g~,.,.~.,~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Chairman Humphris and Members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Michael Collins, TJPDC Presentation of Groundwater database by Dr. Nick Evans Virginia Division of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 3/5/97 Dr. Nick Evans will present his agency's newly developed groundwater database, this coming Thursday evening, at 7:30 p.m. at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission at the NationsBank building on the Downtown Mall in Charlottesville. The intent of the database is to show areas of the region where groundwater !s and is not plentiful and also show those areas where the static water level has dropped in recent years. MARCH 5, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION (I) TO CONSIDER PERSONNEL MAILERS RELATING TO APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMI"FFEES AND A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYMENT CANDIDATE; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO REVERSION. Charlotte Y. Humphr~ Forrest P~ Marshall. ,Jr. COUNTY OF Al R~MARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40~ Mclntire Road Chm-lottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 F~X (804) 29~-5~0 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins White Haft Sally H. Th~m~s March 1~, 1997 Mr. Terence Y. Sieg 625 Flordon Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 DearMr. Sieg: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on March 5, 1997, you were appointed to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority for a term which will expire on December 13, 1999~ The Board appreciates your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphds Chairman cc: Wayne CiLimberg James L. Camblos IH Pdnted on rec~ctedpaper County of Albemarle Orice of Board o.f Comfy S.upervisors 401 Mcmlire Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMM]] TEE · ~ ..... (picture type or print) Boar~f~C. ommission/Committee. [o __ Appli%:mt~sName Terence Y. Sxeg Home Phone 8.04--977-7011 ........~,*.~,,,-. ~'-~d~e~.- 625 Flordon Drive, Charlottesville. VA 22901 Magi~rial District in which your home residence is located EmplOyer . J. 14. $~-eg & Co., Inc. Phone 80~-296-553,1,. Business Ad&cq Route 29 South @ 1-64, P. O. Box 4000, Charlottesville, VA ' 22903 Dam oeEmploymem 6/1/75 Occupation / Title _ . Presiden¢ Year&~csident in Albemarle County 22 years . Previous Residence ...... Spous~s Name garbara B.._~_i~eg Ntmlber of Children 3 . Educaqon (D¢~ees and Graduation Dates) BA University of Virginia Membershim tn FmI~nd. Business. Church and/or Social Grou4~ Emmanuel !gp. iscopal Church . Public. Civic and_Charitable Office~and/or Other Activities or lnteresI~ Vice President - Soueh~rn EtlviwommeD.~ T.~r^~ ~,~n~w t~ ~'.~ "- q' '-'....~" ?~s Board / Commtss,on / C. omm,tte~ / I am interested in the public recreation facilities. Tht ,nTormatton [~romded on tins apphcadon wall be released to the~m upon requem. R~mm to: C!srk, Board of County Supervisors :' 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 229024 596 County of Albemarle Office of Board of Cour~y Super-visors 401 Mclnfire ~oad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 ^PPLICATION TO SERVE. ON BOARD ! COMMISSION / COMMITTE. E C'} ~(pl~sc type or print) Boat J ? Commrssmn / Committee Applicant's Name Terence Y. Sieg Hom¢6ddre~s __ 625 Flordon Drive, Charlottesville. VA Magist?ial District in which your home remidence is located Empl6~er J.W. Sieg & Co., Inc. Phone 804-296-553I Busin/~ssAddrc~.s Route 29 South @ 1-64, P. O. Box 4000, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Datc oe Employmem 6/1/75 Occupation / Title President Years Resident in Albemarle County 22 years Previous Residence 8pou,:t~,~.;Name_Barbara B. S2.eg Ntm]berofChildren 24 .~¢d~.uoa'ion (Dc~ees and Graduation Dates) BA University of Virginia ltom~ Phone 804-977-7011 22901 Membershiv$ in F~I~m/d,~Buslnes*. Church and/or Sopial Grou~ Emmanuel E.p. iscopal .Church . Public. Civic and Charitable Office ~lllCl / or Other Activities or Interests Vice President - gnuehern Emxz~wonm~n~nl T.nw C.~n~v for Demre to Serve onth~s Board / Commm_~on / Commrttee I am interested in the public recreation facilities~. -- ;~: on this application will be released to the~ic upon request. Thy ',~tfommtion provided ?v~.3.mm to: C!erk, Board of County SupervisorS' Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 BOARD OF SUPERVISOF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~ February 28, 1997 Meeting with PVCC Board of Directors A date has been conf'mued for the joint meeting with PVCC Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors. The date is March 26, 1997. The meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m., followed by a reception and dinner. I will let you know the place at a later date. Please mark your calendars. AMeNDMeNT NO. 3 The follow~g is an Amendment to the End, meeting Set,Sees Agreement. risked August 1, 1995, between Albemm-'le Cou.q~/Service AuthodW and Dewberry.' & Da~Ss. The following sc~ons ourse the s.-ncndment,~ to the ~on:r~ in o;der to provide design sc,'Mee~ and othe~ associated services necessary to pr~p&re plans and spec~caions for the irr, provemems to the Carrst~rook ~,~rnp Station. Ali other portions of the A~'~em~at shall rem, in N effect. Add the follo~Sng to the A_~eement in: SECTION 1 - BASIC SF_~V~CES OF ENGL-'~ER.ENG 1.6 Desigm Phase - Carrsbrook Sewer Proj~t: The Carr~rook sewer pro,/ect includes the replacement of the pump station to the nor, h side of~e $~ream, construction of 100 feet of new sewer, rep!aeemenl of 300 feet ef 8-inch sewer and eonsu'-ac~5on of !,700 f~t of form. The access to the station will be approximately 600 feet of road bom Route 29. Per VDOT, the entrarxc v,51t requke a 30 foot paved entrance and 'a;~ e~end aDproxJ_mately 100 fe~ into fl:e prope.,xy and ir, elude handicap access ¢u~$ for the sidewalk. An additional design ME be provid~ at the req,:esr of the SeN-ice Authority to e~end the sewer sctM~ to lots (Section J, Lots 46 and 47, Sec..ion P, Lots 1 and 2: Section E, Lots 40 and 49, and Section & Lots 23, 24, 25, and 26). The existing sowers will be emended and d~-ifions for ~m'i_uder pumps made as r~uJ~-ed. The ~ricipated additional sc,a-er is about 700 .6.1 M~t-,~,h t_he a~oO:y ;o revi¢:~ =he recorr~ended plan and eoordirmm the proSe~. 1.6.2 Provide topographic survey data for the projec: inctudmg the following elements 1.6.2.1 Field survey m~pping of-*,.he proposed pipe line corridors, not to exceed 50' in ~4.dtk, at a suitable scale ~cluding smwey base llne stationing, lhmits of tree ~na% hedg. ge rows and fence~, major trees (>12" diameter'), ,Asible m~ties, road*ay edge of pavemems, ditch centefline$, properts- limits and references, e!¢vationz basement elevations outbuildings, dr~infields where in proximity to the proposed sewer and appurtmances or improvements on properties wherein proximity to proposed sewer. 1.6.2.2 Keview and estabtign tentative consu'ucfion and permar, ent easement requirements along pipe line corridors. 1.62.3 th-oxide survey in State Plane coordinates. 1.6.2.4 Provide the OWN'EP, with a copy oft.he preliminary survey data. 1.6.3 Detente need for utility locations using ~ther tests pk or other methods. Advise the OW'N~ of the requirements ~th recommended method. 1.6.4 Determ;,~e need for geotechnical investigations. Advise the OWN'ER of the requkements with recornmendations. 1.6.5 Coor,qh~ate with the OWNER, Albemarle County, VDO?, and other re~la~ory authorities reg~rdiug local and regulator~ requiremenss for the Project. 1.6.6 Provide the ~'oliow~n~ design services for the proposed pil~e line proje~s: 1.6.6. l Prepare plans, identify lin-dts and ~l~es of improvements. 1.6.6.2 Prepare pipe l~e and appurtenances design and de~aiLs. 1 6.6.3 Prepare materia~ requireme~s, consC,'aefion details, ~d ir~aIIation specifications. 1 .~.6.4 Provide horizontal a.~ ve~¢~ geometry for ~he project. 1.6.6.5 Pro~4de ~ical sections ~d details. 1".6.6.6 Provide drawls of p!an~ and pro~e sheets in ink on myths on 24"x36" shee~s at 1"=50, hor~zonta~ scale mad 1"=5' verfica/~ale. 1.6.6.7 Provide det~ed quantity rake-off and construction time and cost estimates. 1.6.6.g ~Provide pump de-~gn with .A.rch~teetural, M~harfica]., FJe~:riea~l a~d S~ruc-~ral drawings. 1.6.7 Coordln. ate and aUend two pro~ess meetings as requested by the OVZtN"ER_ 1.6.8 l~rovide 3 copies ofprelimin~'y design (6~%) plans, de~t~s, and specifications to ~e O~NEIL 1.6.9 Prepare and provide necessary plans, and speoifieafions, wetland permits, and consultation as required by regulatory agencies ~ the l:~emfi~ting process. 1.6.10 Coordinate the review proc~s of the OWNER, VDOT, environmen~ regulatory agencies, Albemarle County, and affected Private and public utilities. ~eoeive comments f~om review agencies a~d OWNER and inco~orate required cha~es h2to prefinat ptans and specifications. 1.6.12 l~repare pre. final design (95%) pImas and specifications along wi~ res4sed cost estimates. Provide $.copies of plans mad spe¢ifice~fion$ to the OWNEIL 1.g. tl 1.7 1.5.13 Rece{ve final comments f~om 0WNEK and ~co~orste (t~%) pb~ ~d ~ca~ons r~y for biding. 1.6.14 ~e fi~ de~ plm~ ~d sp~i~c~ ~ong ~ re~s~ cost ~t~. 1.6.15 F~ pl~ f~ M prepm-~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~bte fo~ ~d ~ ~or~ ~h the O~R's Biddin~ ~d Come,ion Ph~e U~ ~ov~ of ~he de~ ph~ se~c~ ~' ~e OV~ ~e Mclu~: i.%1 ~o~e one ~ ofp~ on reproducible myI~ ~d oH~ sp~fi~ons for bid~ F~oses. 1.7.2 Prap~e adve~m~ f~ b~d$ for 0%%~K ~bu~e pl~s sp~on* to ~M blddem. 1.7.3 R~nd to ~dd~f ~o~ r~g proj~ desi~ 1.7.4 ~d a pr~-b~d m~t~g ~d bid o~g m~g. 1.7.5 Ke~%~5 cb~ a~ura~-, ~ ~Mate bids re~v~. 1.7.5 Ck~k r~c~ ~ q-~i~cafions of low bidder ~d to O~ rega~ag ~w~d of ~ntr~ct. 1.7.7 K~ov~ or ~h ;m2~ cobol for ~mion la,ut work ioni t~ pi~ ~ae r~. M~t~ ~ reeg~bllfm~t of consol for co~on ~I1 ~ ~e Con~ofs respons~iti~. 1.7.8 Pro,de r~ord ~a~gs ~o O~K b~ed upon Co~amor pr~Sd~ dra~gi. SECTION 5 - PAY1VIENT$ TO ENGENEER 5.1. Melhods o/'Pa?,-'a~ for Scr~-ices and Ex'p_ enses of ENG~t=.P.. 5.!.1 For ~5a~ic Services. OWN~Zt~. sh~l~ pay ENGI2~TEEK for Basic Set, ices remdered under S~ion 1 ~ foIIows: £808 £~9 ~8 3 5.1.1.9_ Des/~m ,Phase: Carrsbrook Sewe~ ~rov~ts: · ~p ~fio~ for~n ~d ~. A t~p ~ f~ of · ~ of ~ ~e~o~ ~o ~ houses not s~d. A ~p sum fee of $3,958. · Des~ of ~nd~ pumps ~ req~. A l~p ~ f~ oF $1,250 flor one or more Bi. rig ~ Co~c~on P~: By: , Ad~ress for ~g no~s: A~&re~s for ~ PO Box 1~9 ~ J~es Cent~ Ch~I0~e~lle. Vit~nia 22902 105t E~ Ca~ Str~. Suite 600 Fdchmond. Xr~Mni~ 232]9 4