Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-07 FINAL MAY 7, 1997 9:00 A.M. MEETING ROOM 241. COUNTY OFFICE BL iLl)lNG 2} 3~ 4} 6l 7) 8) 9) 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 18, I9) 20) 2D 22~ COUNTY GOVERNMENT OPEN HOUSE Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Special Recognition of Donald Lyons. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheetL Transportation Matters: al Discussion: Free Bridge Replacement. located on Free State Road. b) Other Transportation Matters. I0:00 a.m: - Public Hearing on a request to abandon Old Route 631 located between 1-64 &_ Moores Creek~ The proposed abandonment is approx 600 fi long. It is separated by TM76M~ I1 Pl. 10:15 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 11. Licenses. of the Albemarle County Code. to change the requirement for determining gross receipts by real estate brokers and agents relating to real estate commissions. 10:30 a.m. - Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water only to Key West Subdivision located on TM62. Sec62BI 1 ,. 62B(2) & 62B(3) & Cedar Hills Subdivision located on TM62_ Sec62C. 10:45 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 6. Elections Section 6-6- Same--Scottsvllle Magisterial District to create a new voting precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District by dividing the existing Monticello Precinct to create a new precinct to be called the Cale Precinct. Adopt Resolution designating the polling place for the Monticello Precinct as Piedmont Virginia Contmunity College and the polling place for the new Cale Precinct will be located at the Cale Elementary School, 11:00 a.m. - Public Hearing on a request, pursuant to Section 15.1-262 of the'Code of Virginia. to consider the sale of approx 1.494 acs of County property consisting of a 75 ft strip of land adjacent to Tandem Friends School. such property being a part of an 8.1 ac parcel designated as TM9 I. P2. Presentation of Book: Hallowed Ground: Preserving America's Heritage. by Piedmont Environmental Council. Discussion: Juvenile Detention Planning Study Needs and Adopt resolution requesting capital funding for construction of a Juvenile Detention Facility for Albemarle/Charlottesville. Adopt Resolution: Meals Tax Referendum. Appointments. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 11:30 A.M, - Recognition of Boards and Commissions on the Front Lawn. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENI)A FOR:APPROVAL: 7.1 Appropriation: Communit~ Oriented Policing Services (COPS I Grant. $19.826 Form #96070 i. 7.2 Appropriation: Debt Service Fund. $500.000 (Form #96071 ,. 7.3 Appropriation: Debt Service Fund. $I29.294.40 IForm #960721. 7.4 Appropriation: Education, $2.400 Form #96073, 7.5 Appropriation: United Way Scholarship Program. $342,828 (Form #96074L 7.6 Adopt resolution adjusting 1996-97 Revenue Sharing funding request. 7.7 Approve two Board members to the Jefferson Area Commtmiry Criminal Justice board (CCJB ~. 7.8 Prodamation proclaiming May 4 through May 1 I, 1997. as Municipal Clerks Week. 7,9 Proclamation proclaiming May 11 through May 17, 1997. as National Police Memorial Week. 7.10 Proclamation proclaiming May 18 through May 25. 1997, as Industry Appreciation Week. FOR INFORMATION: 7.11 Letter dated April 29. 1997. from Angela G. Tucker. Resident Engineer, VDoT_ to Ella W. Carey, Clerk re: comments regarding transportation matters discussed at rite April 2nd Board meeting. 7.12 Letter dated April 24, 1997. from Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, to Charlotte Y. Hmnphris, Chairman. re: Route 29 Bypass. 7.13 Copy of letter dated April 23. 1997. from Donald 1L Askew. District A&ninistrator. VDoT. to Robert W. Tucker, Jr.. Cotmty Executive. re: Advisory Committee to the Commission Studying the Furore of Transportation. to review the needs of the Commonwealth. 7.14 Notice from I. T. Mills, State Location and Design Engineer, VDoT. that the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the location and majordesign features of the Route 29 Bypass, from 1.12 km (0.7 mil N of Route 29/250 interchange to 0.8 km fO.5 mi/N of Rivarma River. 7.15 Notice of application filed by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative with the State Corporation Commission for approval of exjperimental demand-side management programs and residential and general servicexate experiments, 7.16 Draft Report of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force. 7.17 Report on the Cost of Living in Albemarle County prepared for the Welfare Reform Steering Committee. 7.18 Copy of public notice from the Department of Environmental Quality, re: Reissuance of a VPDES permit to discharge to State waters and State certification under the State Water Control Law - Cove Creek Industries Covesville. Virginia. 7.19 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of March, 1997. 7.20 Copy of ABG Financial Services Inc., Monitoring Report, Section 1031 b)(4)(A), for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.i. 7.21 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 22, 1997. 7.22 March 1997 Financial Report. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER 34-08-9??03:2'7 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219-1939 April 7, 1997 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RCVD JAMES S. GIVENS S'~ATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER Boards of Supervisors of Ali Counties and the Council of'the City of Suffolk Revised State Noise Abatement Policy Ladies and Gentlemen: The Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its meeting of November 21, 1996, adopted a new State Noise Abatement Policy which became effective on January 1, 1997. This policy outlines the criteria for the construction of sound barriers to reduce highway traffic noise impact on adjacent properties. The new policy incorporates several changes that help clarify the previous policy. The most significant change raises the cost from $20,000 to $30,000 per protected residential property. I would emphasize that the new policy continues the requirements of the previous policy for non-federal-aid projects. These requirements are: The local jurisdiction through which the pro~ect traverses will pay 50% of the noise abatement cost, and The local jurisdiction must have an ordinance requiring developers to include noise abatement meas- ures in their plans for residential and other noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing highway and future highway alignments previously adopted by the Con~nonwealth Transportation Board. For your convenience, we are attaching a copy of the new State Noise Abatement Policy and a cover sheet showing a list of changes from the previous policy. Please call me at (804) 786- 2746 if you have questions concerning the contents of the document or need assIstance. State Secondary Roads Engineer Enclosure TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY INTRODUCTION The State Noise Abatement Policy was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), effective January 1, 1989. The purpose of the policy was to establish criteria for providing noise protection in conjunction with proposed highway projects in Virginia. The policy has been applied statewide for nearly eight years and has aided in the construction or construction approval of more than 100 sound barriers. It has been a source of considerable experience and valuable feedback from citizens and elected officials. On the strength ofthis experience and feedback, the CTB decided to evaluate the policy and determine whether changes are warranted. The evaluation indicated the need for revisions to the policy, and as a result, a number of changes were made and incorporated in a revised policy. The revised State Noise Abatement Policy was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on November 21, 1996 and became effective on January 1, 1997. The major source of information utilized inthe evaluation was a survey of 15 state DOTs. The states surveyed were cunnectieut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. This group includes states in this FHWA region, neighboring states, and states along the Atlantic Seaboard. The evaluation was perfonued by VDOT's Environmental Division with assistance from the Transportation Research Council as well as the Transportation Planning, Policy Analysis, and Urban divisions. CHANGES TO THE STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY 1. Change format to make the policy more user-i~iendly. 2, Add a section on Type II (Retrofit) defining Type II noise abatement and stating specifically that VDOT does not participate in Retrofit noise abatement, page 1 *This change is actually only a clarification, since VDOT has never participated in Type II noise abatement. 3. Revise one definition of noise impact reflecting a E_IqWA mandate. Change from "equal or exceed the NAC" to "approach (reach one decibel less than) or exceed the NAC". page 2 *This change has been in affect since December 1993. 4. Change cost-effectiveness ceiling from $20,000 per protected re.ceptor to $30,000 per protected residential property. The proposed change results from a survey of 15 states in the eastern part of the country. Only one of the states has a lower ceiling than VDOT, and the average is $32,000. VDOT's ceiling has not changed since 1987. page 2 *The new ceiling will apply to any project for which the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (P,S&E) assembly had not been submitted to the FHWA by January 1, 1997. 5. Add procedure for making cost-effeedveness determination for noise abatement for non-residential properties, page 2 *This procedure is currently in use but was not spelled out in the original policy. 6. Add third party funding element, including the cut-off date for receipt by VDOT of third party share of cost (prior to submittal ofP, S&E assembly). page 3 *This policy element is already in effect but was not addressed specifically in the original policy. STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Approved November 21, 1996 Effective January 1, 1997 AUTHORIZATION The state noise abatemem policy is adopted pursuant to the authority of Section 33.1-12 of the Code of Virginia. Moved By: Mr. White Seconded By: Mr. Co~;bill WHEREAS, the State Noise Abatement Policy was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, effective January 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the purpose of policy was to establish criteria for providing noise protection in conjunction with proposed highway projects in Virginia; and WHEREAS, the policY has been applied statewide for more than seven years and has aided in the construction of more than I00 sound barriers; and WHEREAS, the policy has been a source of considerable experience and valuable feedback fxom citizens and elected officials; and WHEREAS, on the strength of this experience and feedback, the Commonwealth Transportation Board decided to evaluate the policy and determine whether changes are warranted; and WHEREAS, the evaluation has indicated the need for revisions to the policy, and proposed.changes have been incorporated in a revised policy; and WHEREAS, careful consideration has been given to the proposed changes to the policy; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that'the revised State Noise Abatement'Policy be approved by theCommonweaith Transportation Board, and that such policy be effective on January 1, 1997. Motion: Carried 11-21-96 STATE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY It is the policy of the Virginia Departmem of Transportation (VDOT) to employ the following criteria and procedures in determining the need for and the reasonableness and feasibility of noise abatement measures along Virgin!a's highways. The U. S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772) will be the guiding document for the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise. TYPE I PROJECTS A Type I project involves the construction of a highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through traffic lanes. When the abatement criteria contained in this policy are satisfied in conjunction with a Type I project, noise abatement must be provided. TYPE II PROJECTS (RETROFIT) A Type H or retrofit project involves the construction of noise abatement along an existing highway when not in conjunction with an improvement for that highway. VDOT does not participate in Type II or retrofit noise abatement. NOISE IMPACTS A. Noise impacts occur when the projected highway noise levels: 1. Approach (reach one decibel less than) or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) contained in 23 CFR 772, or 2. Exceed existing noise levels by a substantial mount (10 decibels or more). B. Noise impacts beyond 1000 feet (305 meters) from the roadway will not be considered in determining the need for noise abatement. 'ABATEMENT CRITERIA A. A noise abatement measure will be considered cost effective if the cost of the measure per protected residential 'property does not exceed $30,000. Each residential (dwelling) unk will be considered as a single residential property. B. The cost-effectiveness determination for non-residential properties will be handled on a case by case basis and will include, in addition to the abatement cost, the type and duration of the activity taking place, the size of the affected area, the severity of the impact, and the mount of noise reduction to be provided. 2 C. To be protected, a property must be impli~ted and receive a minimum of 5 decibels of noise reduction. D. Extenuating circumstances will be considered on a case by case basis. TH/RD PARTY FUNDING A. When the cost ora noise abatement measure exceeds VDOT's cost- effectiveness ceiling but the measure otherwise satisfies the criteria contained in this policy, the measure can still be constructed, provided 1. A third party funds the amount above the cost ceiling and, 2. VDOT receives the third party share prior to the date of submittal of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (P,S&E). B. Ifa third party requests the use of VDOT right of way for the construction ora noise abatement measure deemed unnecessary by VDOT, the request can be granted, provided: 1. The third party assumes 100% of the abatement cos~ including, but not limited to, preliminary engineering, construction, and maintenance and, 2. VDOT's material, design, and construction specifications are met. 3 STATE FUNDED NOISE ABATEMENT For state funded projects that meet the FI--IWA Type I project definition, VDOT will consider and, if reasonable and feasible, construct and maintain noise abatement measures, provided the local jurisdiction through which the project traverses: 1. Agrees to assume 50% of the abatement cost and, 2. Has an ordinance requiring developers to include noise abatement in their plans for residential an~t other noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing highways and' future highway alignments previously adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The abatement measures constructed by developers will ensure compliance with the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria, where these criteria can be reasonably achieved, but will at the minimum provide 5 decibels ofnoise reduction for each property to be protected. The abatement measure can be located in total or partially on VDOT right of way, provided: a. Tl~e developer complies with VDOT~s design, construction, and materials specifications and, b. The local jurisdiction is responsible for maintaining the abatement measure. 4 UNDEVELOPED LAND In assessing the noise impacts and evaluating noise abatement measures associated with a highway project, undeveloped lands will be treated as developed lands, if and only if a proposed land use development plan has been approved by the local jurisdiction prior to the date of approval of the project alignment by the Commonv~ealth Transportation Board. The final decision concerning noise abatement for a proposed development will be conditioned oa/wo points: 1. The noise barrier will not be constructed until the portion of the development to be protected by the barrier is completed to the satisfaction of. VDOT, and 2. When there is a substantial time lapse between the final decision and the date the development is completed, the noise barrier analysis will be updated and the decision will be reconsidered. DECISION AUTHORITY A. For federal aid projects, the join~ FHWA-VDOT Noise Abatement Committee will have the responsibility for assembling all relevant information and ' developing noise abatement related recommendations; On non-federal -aid projects, the Committee's function will be carried out by its VDOT members. B. The Chief Engineer, on behalf of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, will make the final determination on all noise abatement related issues. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~ May 12, 1997 Board Actions of May 7, 1997 At its meeting on May 7. 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 am., by the Chairman. (All Board members were present.) Agenda Item No. 4. Special Recognition of Donald Lyon. Mr. Lyon was recognized for assisting police officers in subduing a man and getting him into custody. Mrs. Humphris congratulated Officers Timothy Aylor and Greg Jenkins whom were recently recognized at a ceremony by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program for their successes in keeping drunk drivers off the road. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Certificates of Appreciationwere presentedto Lettie E. Neher for service to the County of Albemarle and the Board of Supervisors; Andrew Middleditch for service on the Public RecreationalFacilitiesAuthority; Jerry}ones for service on the Library Board; Robert J. Walters for service on the Advisory Council on Aging; George Stovall for service on the Social Services Board; and John Dawson for service on the Children and Youth Commission. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Ms. Karen Dame expressed concerns about the process in progress for establishment of the Regional Competitiveness Program. (A copy of her statement is attached.) Consensus of Board to discuss and talce action on the bylaws of the Thomas Jefferson Venture at its May 21st raeetlng. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. May 12, 1997 Page 2 Item No. 7.1. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $19,826 (Form #96070). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 7.2. Appropriation: Debt Service Fund, $500;000 (Form #96071). Approved, Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 7.3. Appropriation: Debt ServiceFund, $129,294~40 (Form #96072). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 7,4. Appropriation: Education. $2.400 (Form #96073). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Mrs. Thomas asked if this cooperative agreement between PVCC and the County school system was a standard process in that the County pays the instructors, but they are totally supervised by PVCC staff. Item No. 7.5. Appropriation: United Way Scholarship Program. $342.828 (Form #96074). Approved. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No, 7.6. Adopt resolution adjusting 1996-97 Revenue Sharing funding request. Adopted the attached resolution which has bee~ forwarded to Wayne Cilimberg. Item No. 7.7. Approve two Board members to the lefferson Area Community Criminal lustice board (CCJB). Approvedthe appointment of Mel Sheridan (Fluvanna County) and Clyde M. B. Hat Clerks W~ Ire Memorial Ire Appreciat/ crader (Louisa County). aa No. 7.8. Proclamation proclaiming May 4 through May I 1. 1997. as Municipal ek. Adopted. n No. 7.9. ProclamationproclaimingMay 11 through May 17, 1997, as National Police Week. Adopted. m No. 7.10. Prodamation proclaiming May 18 through May 25, 1997. as Industry on Week. Adopted. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. May 12, 1997 Page 3 Agenda Item No. Sa. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Free Bridge Replacement, located on Free State Road. Mrs. Tucker said she would provide the Board a copy of the bridge inspection report and railroad maintenance schedule. Mrs. Tucker noted that fire trucks cannot use the bridge. She added that there is a private access through Dtmlora Subdivision, from where Route 651 leaves Huntington through the uld Dunlora Estate along the backside of the Subdivision. It is a well- worn driveway, but it does not have a stabilized surface and it is not landlocked. Mr. Martin asked that emergency personnel be made aware of that road. Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Marshall discussed the four lauing of Route 20 South and emphasized the necessity of moving that project fonvard as quicldy as possible, Ms. Tucker said VDOT's planning and funding process are approximately three to four years at best with any project. The process has begun by funding the survey and designing the plans. At next year's preallocationhearing, the Board needs to continue to pursue the additional ftmdlng needed, Even if VDOT had all the necessa _ry binding this year. she does not know that the process could move any quicker. They have to schedule the survey, develop a process which involves a lot of people in checking the design at various stages along the way, schedule the public hearing with the proper notification, etc. Mr. Tucker suggested focusing on the construction of the intersection improvements at the new connector road for the high school and maybe see if those improvements cma be upgraded some. Staff to look at that for discussion next month. Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker to take a look at Route 707 which is located off Jarmans Gap Road. The Board approved a special use permit for a home occupancy which has caused an increase in traffic on the road, He asked if she could see if thexe are some maintenance things that can be done to the road to improve its condition. Mr. Perkins said he would like to see a list of all the roads in the County that would qualify for the "Pave in Place Program". Mr. Perkins said he received a request to lower the speed limit on Chris Greene Lake Road. Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on the West Leigh railroad crossing. Also, the homeowners would like to receive a copy of the letter from CSX in which they said May 15th is no longer the deadline for dosing the road. Ms. Tucker said her request for a resolutionwas in lieu of this agreement from the railroad that the May 15th deadline was no longer pending. She will provide the Board with a copy of the Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. May 12, 1997 Page 4 letter for CSX. She has been told that the construction cost may be $300,000 instead of $200;000. She suggests holding off with adoption of the resolution until the first month of the fiscal year when VDOT wonld k_now for certain what funding is available and the impact of this project impact on the rest of the Six Year Plan. She does not think a resolution is as necessary at this time as she once did. Mrs. Thomas said Gillums Ridge Road is being severely impacted by road construction on Broad Axe Road. Truck loads of gravel are using Gillnms Ridge Road because they cannot go over the dry bridge due to insufficientweight limit. This use is creating a dangerous situation such as severe washboarding. Chemicals are put down, but then the road is scraped m~d the problem reappears. The two issues of concern are the condition of the road and the route traveled by the trucks inters 1Ocat~ separ conse L~cens~ bound Subdi, TM62 Map ~ Depot Mr. Bowerman asked that consideration be given to installing a traffic light at the ction of Old Brook Road and Rio Road. Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 a.m: - Public Hearing on a request to abandon Old Route 631 t between 1-64 & Moores Creek. The proposed abandonment is approx 600 ft long. It is ted by TM76M(1) PI. Approved the request to abandon old Route 631. (The resolution to go on the BOard's t agenda of May 21 st for adoption.) Agenda Item No. 10. 10:15 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to ametxd Chapter 11, of the Albemarle Cotmty Code, to change the requirement for determining gross receipts estate brokers and agents relating to real estate commissions. Adopted the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No, 11. 10:30 a.m. - Public Heating on a request to amend the service area tries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water only to Key West [sion located on TM62, Sec62B(1), 62B(2) & 62B(3) & Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Sec62C. Approved the request to amend the Service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Authority to provide water only to Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivisions located on Tax 2, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2), 62B(3) and 62C. All communication from the Virginia ment of Health is to be included in the record for justification of approval of the request. The Board recessed at 10:44 and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. May 12. 1997 Page 5 Agenda Item No. 12. 10:45 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 6, Elections, Section 6-6. Same--ScottsvilleMagisterial District to create a new voting precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District by dividing the existing Monticdlo Precinct to create a new precinct to be called the Cale Precinct. Adopt Resolution designating the polling place for the Monticello Precinct as Piedmont Virginia Community College and the polling place for the new Cale Precinct will be located at the Cale Elementary School Adopted the attached Ordinance. Adopted the attached Resolution to designate polling places in the Monticello and Cale voting precincts. Agenda Item No. t 3. 11:00 a.m. - Public Heating on a request, pursuant to Section 15.1- 262 of the Code of Virginia. to consider the sale of approx 1.494 acs of County property consisting of a 75 ft strip of land adjacent to Tandem Friends School_ such property being a part of an 8.1 ac parcel designated as TM91. P2. Approved the recommendation from the Building and Grounds Committee to dispose of this property once agreement is reached by staff on the scheduling, maintenance and easement issues to be signed off on by the County Executive. Agenda Item No. 14. Presentation of Book: Heritage. by Piedmont Environmental Council. Presented by Peter Hallock. Hallowed Ground: Preserving America's Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Juvenile Detention Planning Study Needs and Adopt resolution requesting capital funding for construction of a Juvenile Detention Facility for Albemarle/Charlottesxdlle. Adopted the attached Resolution requesting capital funding for the construction of a juvenile detention facility for Albemarle/Charlottesville. Agenda Item No. 16~ Adopt Resolution: Meals Tax Referendum. Adopted the attached Resolution supporting a Meals Tax Referendum. Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:41 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, to move that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection ( I ) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to Boards, Committees and Commissions and an administrative evaluation; under Subsection (3) to discuss disposition of an interest in County Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Ir. May 12. 1997 Page 6 property; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specificlegal matters relating to reversion and probable litigation concerning the landfill. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. ~Mr. Martin left during the executive session at 3:20 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 21. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 4:10 p.m.. motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizingthe executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. Reappointed Ms. Gene E. Smith and Mr. Edward J. Jones to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with terms to expire on March 31, 1999. Appointedthe followingpersons to the Route 250 West Corridor Study Committee: Mr. George W. Carter; Mrs; Pat Kennedy; Ms. Diana H. Strickler, Mr. Willie Smith, Mr. Carroll Conley, Ms. Marion G. Rothman, Ms. Nancy Barnette, Mr. David W. Carr, Jr., Mr. Charles M. Toms, Jr., Mr. John Cmicksharfle, Mr. Pete Anderson, Mr. Thomas Payne, Jr., Mr. PhiLlip W. Unger and Mr. Thomas J. Goodrich. Appointedthe following persons to the Thomas JeffersonVenture: Mr. David Bowerman, Mr. Kevin Castner, Ms. Vicki Crews, Mr. John Cutlip, Ms. Karen Dame, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Ms. Jewel Mason, Mr. Steve Murray, Mr. Walter Perkins, Mr. Sally Thomas, Ms. Angela Tucker, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Ms. Jodie Webber, Mr. James Eddins, Mr. Peter Hallock, Mr. Don Borwhat and Ms. Ann Taylor. Mrs. Thomas noted that she and Mr. Perkins are representativesbecause they are members of the Planning District Commission, Mrs. Humphris as Chairman and Mr. Bowerman as a member of the Sustainability Council. Agenda Item No. 19. 11:30 A.M. - Recognition of Boards m~d Commissions on the Front Held. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. May I2, 1997 Page 7 Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said on Tuesday, May 13th, at 7:00 p.m, there will be a meeting at Murray Elementary School cafeteria regarding a tower that is tentatively being proposed in the Ivy area. This is an attempt to meet with the residents ahead of time. The applicant has not £ded a petition yeL Mr. Davis suggested the Board announce the meeting dates of the Thomas Jefferson Venture as additional meeting dates of the Board of Supervisors and by agreement the Board members would limit the business they partake to being simply attending that meeting for that puxpose. He noted that four Supervisors at a meeting constitutes a quorum. The lcnown meeting dates of the Venture are: May 8. 15 22 and 29. June 26 and September 4. For the purpose of minutes, they need to indicate who from the Board was in attendance, what was discussed, and 5vhat time the meeting started and ended. Mrs. Humphris said she received a note from Theresa Tapscott expressing AHIP's thanks to Board for ongoing support of AHIP and its programs. Mr. Bowerman offered motion to add the additional meetings dates of the Thomas Jefferson Venture to the Board of Supervisors meeting schedule for the pnrpose of having Board members attend such meetings. Mr. Perldns seconded the motion. Agenda Item No. 22. Adiourn. The meeting was adiourned at 4:20 p.m. /ewc Attachments pc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Rid~ard Wood Jan Sprinkle Yadira Amari File May 7, 1997 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: Karen Dame Re: Participation in the Regional Competitiveness Program The process in progress for establishment of a partnership for regional strategic planning is. in my view, out of complieance with the Albemarle resolution for participation and out of compliance with any rules familiar to me for the establishment of a new organization. Decisions have been made that I would have thought were for the partnership, once formed, to make. With all due respect for the efforts of those who have endeavored to organize this parmership thnsfar, I request that this Board review the activities to date and those planned for the immediate future. I ask that you determine whether the process is consistent with Albemarle's resolution and the community's intent for a regional strategic planning effort. I fmlher request that you gather the group of persons you have approached for participation in this endeavor and provide them with two things. 1. Official guidance regarding this jurisdiction's intentions toward this program, with an opportunity for discussion, and 2. An opportunity for a presentation by and Q & A session with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community development, which is charged with conducting this program at the state level. I have a concern that Albemarle should suspend its participation in the endeavor until these things have been accomplished. Briefly, I will describe some of the bases for my concern. On April 28, I received packet of materials sent under the letterhead, Thomas Jefferson Venture, a name of unknown origin, containing a meeting schedule stating that "the participating localities have set the goal of meeting the July 1, 1997 deadline for submission of the area's request for qualification for the Regional Competitiveness Act." I know of no such decision by the localities. When I questioned this at the first gathering of potential participants in this partnership, I was told that indeed the localities had made this decision and that meeting this deadline is def'mitely the agenda. Upon further inquiry later, I learned that a July 1 time frame was set at the PDC on 4/3/97; however, the Greene and Nelson BoDs had not decided by then whether to participate, so it isn't clear to me what standing that PDC decision has. It is also not clear from the PDC minutes of that meeting whether^decision was by a vote. At the second oriemation gathering last night, participants were told, This will be easy. We'll meet weekly in May, once in June, get the money in September, meet once that will be it, except for deciding whether and when to meet in the future. This scenario does not jive with my understanding of Albemarle's interest in a regional planning endeavor, nor with my own notion of any sort of effort toward 5-year planning on a regional scale, nor in my opinion does it come close to meeting the aims and guidelines of the Regional Competitiveness Program. R is my experience thusfar that this unquestiouned, absolute dedication to a July 1 application to the state is dictating the whole process around fonmfion of this planning body. Seventy-four individuals were put forward by the localities for participation. Those attending the first orientation meeting were informed that some people had declined participation because of the intensity of the meeting schedule. It is not yet clear who or how many were lost. There were 25 attendees at the first orientation, 9 at the second. That latter group was told last night that "Yeses and nos are still coming in." Nevertheless, committees have been established by proclamation of the convener of the first meeting, and have been pressed for action before there exists a list of the people agreeing to participate in ttds endeavor. As one of four people at the fkst meeting who agreed to join a bylaws subcommittee, I received e-mall from the Planning District staff un Monday of this week stating that if I had any changes to recommend for the bylaws that I should get them to the planning district staff by 9AM Tuesday morning, so that they could be submitted to Albemarle County for approval TODAY. So, in effect, an organization that doesn't know who its members are yet, that has never formally convened to consider what its bylaws might be, was somehow planning to seek your approval of its bylaws. Perhaps all this concern about bylaws seems off the point to some of you, in relation to going for the money from-the state. However, there are different ways this partnership can be constructed and the choice will affect who can receive and disburse those funds. I was told by PDC staff yesterday that "It was decided that" this group would not be formed as a legal partnership; thus, the original draft bylaws distributed without evidence of authorship to those invited to participate in the partnership for govern an organization with no legal standing. The "decision" has not been described to the groups convened thusfar, nor a statement given of who made the decision, or why, or what implications it has for the future functioning of the partnership. I daresay few ff any of the participants to date have any idea of these nuances of the program. And why would they? Two of Albemarle County's representatives told me that they expected to be introduced to the whole project, and that they arrived and left from the orientation meeting without knowing the purpose of this program. Nevertheless, the agenda stands at this time for public hearings 22 days from now on a 5-year, prioritized, strategic plan for addressing the regions barriers to economic competitiveness. 2 If the approach to regional planning described briefly above was the intent of this Board's March i9, 1997 resolution to support the formation of a regional parmership in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, I need to have that affirmed, so that I can stop fighting to have voice in this group that I was never actually meant to have. I had had the understanding that the group appointees to this group would be formally convened, educate themselves to the ins and outs of the program and would determine whether it was feasible to approach the state for July 1, 97 versus December 1, versus July 1, 1998. I thought all the decisions affecting the operation of the group and the strategic planning would be made by the group: I have additional concerns, that the time constraints of this presentation prevent having aired. I would welcome the opporttmity for further discussion of this matter. Thank you. Respecffofly submitted, APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96070 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TPJ~NSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT ( S ) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES.(COPS) EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152131010120000 OVERTIME WAGES $I8,417~00 1152131010210000 FICA 1,409.00 TOTi~L $19,826.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 2152133000330001 FEDEPJ~L GRANT $14,869.00 2152151000510110 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 4,957.00 TOTAL $19,826.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIiRECTOR OF FINANCE BOAteD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE · APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96071 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3~NSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REALLOCATION OF DEBT RESERVE FUNDS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1990068000999980 DEBT RESERVE $450,000.00 1990068000999980 DEBT RESERVE 250,000.00 1901093010930003 1901095000999979 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DEBT RESERVE DEBT RESERVE 250,000.00 (450.000.00) TOTAL $500,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2990051000512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F $450,000.00 2990051000512000 TRANSFER FROM G/F CIP 250,000.00 2901051000512030 TRANFER FROM G/F (4501000.00) 2901051000510100 APP. FROM FUND BALANCE 250,000.00 TOTAL $500,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96072 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TP~ANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO CORRECT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION FOR INFORMATION SERVICES DEBT SERVICE. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1991068000800815 MAINFRAME LEASE PAYMENT $116,655.25 1991068000800825 INTEREST EXPENSE 12,639.15 TOTAL $129,294.40 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2991051000512010 TRANSFER FROM G/F-INFOo SERVICES $129,294.40 TOTAL $129,29~.40 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NI3MBER 96073 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH PIEDMONT COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO PROVIDE COLLEGE COMPOSITION I & II. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 12303611013012100 CONTRACT SERVICES $2,400.00 TOTAL $2,400.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000181109 MISC REVENUE $2,400.00 TOTAL $2,400.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BO~%RD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUlqD PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER 96074 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GRANT FUNDING FOR FY 96/97 UNITED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM~ EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155053110390055 ADM. FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY $6,857.00 1155053110390056 ADM. FEE-UNITED WAY 44,57~.00 1155053110567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGtLAM 291,42t.00 TOTAL $342,848.0~ REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155033501160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $80,879.00 2155033501160503 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 50,545.00 2155033501160525 UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS 40,000.00 2155033000330014 HHS PASS THRU GRANT 171,424.00 TOTAL S342,848.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the "Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of primary and secondary highways in the county; and WHEREAS, since 1988 the County of Albemarle has worked with its Resident Engineer to identify a list of improvement projects to be undertaken with these funds; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 7, 1996, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors elected to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 and identified a road project which was forwarded to VDOT; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board subsequently approved the allocation of funds for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Program"as requested by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, it was recently brought to the Board of Supervisors attention that the road project forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Funds', was incorrectly identified as the "Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase I, from Route 250 to Rio Road"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the road project identified for Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Funds" be corrected to reflect the approved project in its Six Year Secondary Construction Plan. The funds should be directed to the road project identified as "Rio Road, from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive" (Project #0631-002-185-C501). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wr/ting is a hme, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero on May 7, 1997. Clerk, County Board of Supe/visors / ~D MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of local government, exists throughout the world; WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants: and WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels: and WHEREAS, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and WHEREAS. the Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community,. WHEREAS. Municipal Clerks continuall~ strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of the Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, semmars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charlotte Y.. Humphris. Chairman. on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors. do hereby recognize the week of May 4 through May 10, 1997, as MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK and further extend appreciation ro our Municipal Clerks ]*or the vital services they perform. Dated this 7th day of May_, 1997. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK WHEREAS, May 15 of each year was proclaimed "Police Officer's Memorial Da)'" by President John F. Kennedy on October I, J962, in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or become disabled in the performance of duty; and WHEREAS, the calendar week in which it falls was proclaimed "Police Week" in recognition of the service gtven by the men and women who night and day protect the citizens through enforcement of our laws; and WHEREAS, in these days of increasing fear, rising crime, reckless acts of violence, recall to our minds President Kennedy's words of praise for these officers as "truly men and women of courage, judgment, integrity and dedication;" and WHEREAS, we share his sentiments and agree that it is time to remind the public of the day-by-day heroism of our officers, both those on active duty and those who have gtven their lives in the line of duty; NOW, THEREFORE, L Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby declare and set aside the week of May 11 through May 17, 1997, as NATIONAL POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK and call upon all citizens to recognize the significant efforts and accomplishments of these officers. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Agenda l~em No, INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is blessed with a strong base of large employers; and WHEREAS, these employers provide much needed jobs for the citizens of the County of Albemarle: and WHEREAS, these same employers provide local taxes from which the entire local citizenry benefit: and WHEREAS, our community also benefits greatly from the many volunteer activities and charitable contributions so generously provided by these employers; and WHEREAS, we recognize and appreciate these important facts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman on behalf of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby salutes its existing employment base and gives notice to the citizens that Virginia industries are building a better Commonwealth: AND, FURTHER, recognizes the week of May 18 through May 25, 1997, as INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ORDINANCE NO. 97-11(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, AND ARTICLE II, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, and Article II, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 11-18(b)(9), Same- Exclusions and deductions of gross receipts, and repealing section I 1-65(c), Financial, real estate and professional services, as follows: Article I. In General Sec, 11-18. Same--Exdusions and deductions of gross receipts. (a) General Rule. Gross receipts for license tax purposes shall not include any amount not derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business in the ordinary course of such business. (b) The following shah be excluded from gross receipts: ( I ) Amounts received and paid to the United States, the Commonwealth or any county, city or town for the Virginia retail sales or use tax, or for any local sales tax or any local excise tax on cigarettes, or for any federal or state excise taxes on motor fuels. (2) Any amom~t representing the liquidation of a debt or conversion of another asset to the extent that the amount is attributable to a transaction previously taxed (e:g., the factoring of accounts receivable created by sales which have been included in taxable receipts even though the creation of such debt and factoring are a regular part of its business). (3) Any amount representing returns or trade-in allowances granted by the business to its customer. (4) Receipts which are the proceeds of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the obligor. (5) Receipts representing the retttm of principal of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the creditor, or the return of principal'or basis upon the sale of a capital asset. (6) Rebates and discounts taken or received on account of purchases by the licensee. A rebate or other incentive offered to induce the recipient to purchase certain goods or services from a person other than the offeror, and which the recipient assigns to the licensee in consideration of the sale of goods and services shall not be considered a rebate or discount to the licensee, but shall be induded in the licensee's gross receipts together with any handling or other fees rdated to the incentive. (7) Withdrawals from inventory for which no consideration is received and the occasional sale or exchange of assets other than inventory, whether or not a gain or loss is recognized for federal income tax purposes. (8) Investment income not directly related to the privilege exercised by a. licensable business not classified as rendering finandal services. This exdlusion shall apply to interest on bank accounts of the business and to interest, dividends and other income derived from the investment of its own funds in securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall not apply to interest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale or other transaction that occurred in the regular course of business. (9) Amounts paid by real estate brokers to real estate agents as a commission on any real estate transaction shall be excluded from real estate brokers' gross receipts. Each real estate broker claiming the exclusion shall identify on its license application each agent to whom the excluded receipts have been paid, the amount of the receipts paid to each such agent, and the jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is subject to business license taxes. (c) The following shall be deducted from gross receipts or gross expenditures: (1) The goss receipts or gross expenditures attributable to any definite places of business of the person in any other locality. (2) If otherwise taxable, any amount paid for computer hardware and software that are sold to a United States federal or state government entity provided that such property was purchased within two (2) years of the sale to said entity by the original purchaser who shall have been contractually obligated at the time of purchase to resell such property to a state or federal government entity. This deduction shall not occur tmtil the time of resale and shall apply to only the original cost of the property and not to its resale price, and the deduction shall not apply to any of the tangible personal property which was the subject of the original resale contract if it is not resold to a state or federal government entity in accordance with the original contract obligation: 2 (3) If otherwise taxable, any receipts attributable to business conducted in another state or foreign country if the person is liable for an income or other tax based upon income in such other state or foreign country. (d) With the exception of license requirements under section 11-49, all sodal organizations, fraternities, benevolent order, religious, education, dvic and military organizations, charter clubs, rescue squads or volunteer fire companies which conduct business or perform services in which compensation in any manner is received shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter so long as the compensation or receipts in excess of the actual expenses are devoted to and used for charitable purposes. All such organizations seeking exemption under this section shall apply, and provide proof if necessary, to the director of finance or his appointed deputy for an exemption certificate. (3-15-83, § 65; 6-13-73; 5-15-75; 4-21-76; 3-10-82) Artide II. Schedule of Taxes Division 5. Personal, Professional, Business or Repair Service Businesses, Occupations or Professions. Sec. 11~65. Financial, real estate and professional services. (a) Generally. Each person engaged in a finandal, real estate or professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty-eight cents ($0.58) per one hundred dollars of gross receipts. (b) Enumerated. A person engaged in a financial service, real estate service, personal service or professional service includes, but is not limited to, the following: ..Financial services. The service for compensation by a credit agency, an investment company, a broker or dealer in securities and commodities or a security or commodity exchange, unless such service is otherwise provided for in this chapter. "Broker'~ shall mean an agent of a buyer or a sdler who buys or sells stocks, bonds, commodities, or services, usually on a commission basis. "Commodity" shall mean staples such as wool and cotton which are traded on a commodity exchange and on which there is trading in futures. "Dealer" for purposes of this chapter shall mean any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for his own account, but does not include a bank, or any person insofar as he buys or sells securities for his own account, either individually or in some fiduciary capacity, but not as part of a regular business. "Security" for purposes of this chapter shall have the same meaning as in the 3 Securities Act (sections I3.1-$01 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, or in similar laws of the United States regulating the sale of securities. Those engaged in rendering financial services indude, but without limitation, the following: Buying installment receivables Chattel mortgage financing Consumer financing Credit card services Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment financing Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services stockbroker Working capital financing Real estate services. Rendering a service for compensation as lessor, buyer, sdler, agent or broker and providing a real estate service, unless the service is otherwise specifically provided for in this ordinance, and such services include, but are not limited to, the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries, real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate sdling agents Rental agents for real estate Professional services. Rendering any service specifically enumerated bdow or engaging in any occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The words "profession" and ';professional" imply attainments in professional knowledge as distinguished from mere skill, and the application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation, and including, but without l~mitation, such attainments attributed to the following: Architects Attorneys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists Engineers Land surveyors Practitioners of the healing arts (the art or science or group of arts or sciences dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure or alleviation of human physical or mental ailments, conditions, diseases, pain or infirmities) Surgeons Veterinarians I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. Clerk, Board of County S~lServisors / 5 ORDINANCE NO~ 97-6(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 6, Elections, Section 6-6, Same--Scottsvilte Magisterial District, is hereby amended and reordained by amending subsection 6-6(b), Monticello Precinct and by adding new subsection 6-6(e), Cale Prednct, as follows: Sec. 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District. The Scottsville Magisterial District shall be divided into four (4) voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (b) Monticello Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Scottsville Road (State Route 20) and the southern city limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Rivanna River; then meandering southeast ~vith the Rivanna River to the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Rolling Road (State Route 620); then northwest on Rolling Road to its intersection with Secretarys Road (State Route 708); then west on Secretarys Road to its intersection with Carters Mountain Road (State Route 627) then south on Carters Mountain Road to its intersection with Scottsville Road; then north on Scottsville Road to its intersection ~vith the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. (e) Cale Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781) and the southern city limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with Scottsville Road (State Route 20); then south with Scottsville Road to its intersection with Red Hill Road (State Route 708); then northwest ~vith Red Hill Road to its intersection with Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 63t); then north with Old Lynchburg Road to its intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781); then north with Sunset Avenue Extended to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. Clerk, Board of County ~t~pervisors A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CAPITAL FUNDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY FOR ALBEMARLE/CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, the ShenandoahValley Juvenile DetentionHome has been experiencing overcrowding for several years; and WHEREAS, an assessment of juvenile detention needs for the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesvilleconcluded that there was an immediate need for 40 pre-dispositional and post-dispositional beds to serve the growing number of delinquent youth; and WHEREAS, a program design and planning study has concluded that construction of a new facility is the most desirable alternative for Albemarle/Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, established procedures require the adoption of a formal resolution from the governing body to indicate local interest to seek capital funding participation by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Deparmaent of Juvenile Justice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia that it does hereby express its intent to proceed with the construction of a juvenile detention facility as part of a multi-use assessment and post-dispositionalcenter, and to seek the maximum amount of capital funding reimbursement from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice~ I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy ora resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 7, I997: ~rl~, County Boar~ors RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT-MEALS TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, population growth in Albemarle County has and will continue to have a significant fiscal impact on the quality and availability of essential government services, including education, public safety, recreation, libraries, and capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the fall 1998 opening of Monticello High School will require $1.3 million dollars in recurring costs, in addition to $1.4 million dollars in projected enrollment costs for over 300 new- pupils; and WHEREAS, the County's projected revenues are inadequate to meet either maintenance of effort expenses or needed school initiatives and essential services; and WHEREAS, the rate of increase in real estate assessments has decreased steadily since 1991; and WHEREAS, Virginia State Code limits the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's ability to establish new revenue sources, including impact fees on new real estate development; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must remain fiscally responsible when balancing annual revenue sources and expenditure needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in its desire ro postpone, reduce the need for or eliminate the need for a property tax rate increase, hereby supports a citizen initiated petition to advance a referendum to authorize a County meals tax levy of no more than 4%, the revenue from which would be deposited in the County's General Fund. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. ~ ~Cler'r'r~, Cotinty B-oard ~'fi~upervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cler~ May 12. 1997 Board Actions of May 7, 1997 At its meeting on May 7, 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 7.1. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $19,826 (Form #96070)~ Approve& Attached is the signed form. Item No. 7.2. Appropriation: Debt Service Fund, $500,000 (Form #96071). Approved. Attached is the signed form. [temNo. 7.3. Appropriation: Debt Service Fund, $129,294.40 (Form #960721. Approved. Attached is the signed form. Rem No. 7A Appropriation: Education, $2,400 (Form #96073). Approved. Attached is the signed form. Mrs. Thomas asked if this cooperative agreement between PVCC and the County school system was a standard process m thal the County pays the instructors, but they are totally supervised by PVCC staff. Item No. 7.5. Appropriation: United Way Scholarship Program, $342.828 (Form #96074). Approved. Attached is the signed form° Agenda Item No. 10. 10:t5 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 1 I, Licenses, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the requirement for determining gross receipts by real estate brokers and agents relating to real estate commissions. Adopted the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 12. 10:45 a.m. - Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 6, Elections. Section 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District to create a new voting precinct in the ScottsvilleMagisteriaIDistrict by dividing the existing Monticello Precinct to create a new precinct to be called the Memo To: Melvin A. Breeden May 12. 1997 Page 2 Cale Precinct. Adopt Resolution designating the polling place for the Monticello Precinct as Piedmont Virginia Community College and the polling place for the new Cale Precinct will be located at the Cale Elementary School. Adopted the attached Ordinance. Adoptedthe attachedResolutionto designatepolling places in the Monticello and Cale voting precincts. Agenda Item No. 13. lI:00a.m.-PublicItearingonarequest, pumuant to Section 15.1-262 ofthe Codeof Virginia, to consider the sale of approx 1.494 acs of County property consisting of a 75 ff strip of land adjacent to Tandem Friends School, such property being a part of an 8. l ac parcel designated as TM91, P2. Approved the recommendation from the Building and Grounds Committee to dispose of this property once agreement is reached by staff on the scheduling, maintenance and easement issues to be signed off on by the County Executive. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Juvenile Detention Planning Study Needs and Adopt resolution requesting capital funding for cons~action of a Juvenile Detention Facility for Albemarle/Charlottesville. Adopted the attachedResolutionrequestingcapitai funding for the constructionofajuvenile detention facility for Albemarle/Charlottesville. Agenda Item No. 16. Adopt Resolution: Meals Tax Referendum. Adopted the attached Resolution supporting a Meals Tax Referendum. ewe Attachments (I O) pc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Robert Walters John Miller Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Kathy Ralston APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 N-0MBER 96070 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X GRANT ( S ) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES.(COPS) EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152131010120000 OVERTIME WAGES $18,417.00 1152131010210000 FICA 1,409.00 TOTAL S19,826.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 2152133000330001 FEDERAL GRANT $14,869.00 2152151000510110 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 4,957.00 TOTAL $19,826.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATLTRE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YE~R 96/97 NUMBER 96071 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3LNSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF AI~PROPRIATION: REALLOCATION OF DEBT RESERVE FUNDS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1990068000999980 DEBT RESERVE $450,000.00 1990068000999980 DEBT RESERVE 250,000.00 1901093010930003 1901095000999979 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL DEBT RESERVE DEBT RESERVE 250,000.00 (450,000°00) TOTAL $500,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2990051000512004 TR~LNSFER FROM G/F $450,000.00 2990051000512000 TR~dNSFER FROM G/F CIP 250,000.00 2901051000512030 TR_A_NFER FROM G/F (450,000.00) 2901051000510100 APP. FROM FUND BAL~NCE 250,000.00 TOTAL $500,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96072 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TP3%NSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FI/ND DEBT SERVICE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO CORRECT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION FOR INFORMATION SERVICES DEBT SERVICE~ EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1991068000800815 MAINFRAME LEASE PAYMENT $116,655.25 1991068000800825 INTEREST EXPENSE 12,639.15 TOTAL $129,294.40 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2991051000512010 TRANSFER FROM G/F-INFO. SERVICES S129,294.40 TOTAL $129,294.4o ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE 7 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96073 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH PIEDMONT COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO PROVIDE COLLEGE COMPOSITION I & II. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 12303611013012100 CONTRACT SERVICES $2,400.00 TOTAL $2,400.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018000181109 MISC REVENUE $2,400.00 TOTAL $2,400.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE 3--/2 ? APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96074 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 96/97 UNIFED WAY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1155053110390055 ADM. FEE-ALBEMARLE COUNTY $6~857.00 1155053110390056 ADM. FEE-UNITED WAY 44,570.00 1155053110567910 UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM 291.421.00 TOTAL $342,848.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155033501160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $80,879.00 2155033501160503 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 50,545.00 2155033501160525 UNITED WAY MATCHING FUNDS 40,000.00 2155033000330014 HHS PASS THRU GRANT 171,424.00 TOTAL $342,848.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE DATE Charlotte Y. Humphris .Jack ~ou~a COUNTY OF ALBEMARI F Of/ice of Board of S~rs 401 Mcln~re Road CharloResville, 'C~rginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charl~ S.'M~fin Walte~ E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Saraoel Mi~r May 12, 1997 Mrs. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on May 7, 1997, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 7,6. Adopt resolution adjusting 1996-97 Revenue Sharing funding request. Adopted the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. Sa. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Free Bridge Replacement, located on Free State Road. You indicated that you would provide the Board a copy of the bridge inspection report and railroad maintenance schedule. You noted that fire trucks cmmot use the bridge. You added that there is a private access through Dunlora Subdivision, from where Route 651 leaves Huntington through the old Dunlora Estate along the backside of the Subdivision. It is a well-worn driveway, but it does not have a stabilized surface and it is not landlod~ed. Mr. Martin asked that emergency personnel be made aware of that road. Agenda Item No. 8b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Marshall dikcussed the four laning of Route 20 South and emphasized the necessity of moving that project forward as quiddy as possible. You said VDOT's planning and funding process takes approximately three to four years at best w/th any project. The process has begun by funding the survey and designing the plans. At next year's preailocation hearing, the Board needs to continue to pursue the additional funding needed. Even if VDOT had all the necessary funding this year, you did not believe the process could move any quicker. They have to schedule the survey, develop a process Printed on recycled paper Ms. Angela Tucker May 12, 1997 Page 2 which involves a lot of people in checking the design at various stages along the way, schedule the public hearing with the proper notification, etc. Mr. Tucker suggested focusing on the construction of the intersection improvements at the new connector road for the high school and maybe see if those improvements can be upgraded some. Staff to look at that for discussion next month. Mr. Perkins asked you to take a look at Route 707 which is located off [armans Gap Road, The Board approved a special use permit for a home occupancy which has caused an increase in traffic on the road. He asked if she could see if there are some maintenance things that can be done to the road to improve its condition. Mr, Perkins said he would like to see a list of all the roads in the County that would qualify for the "Pave in' Place Program". Mr. Perkins said he received a request to lower the speed limit on Chris Greene Lake Roa& Mrs. Thomas asked for an update on the West Leigh railroad crossing. Also, the homeowners would like to receive a copy of the letter from CSX in which they said May 15th is no longer the deadline for closing the road. You indicated that your request for a resolution was in lieu of this agreement from the railroad that the May 15th deadline was no longer pending. You will provide the Board with a copy of the letter for CSX. You were told that the construction cost may be $300,000 instead of $200.000. You suggested holding off with adoption of the resolution until the first month of the fiscal year when VDOT would know for certain what funding is available and the impact of this project impact on the rest of the Six Year Plan. You did not think a resolution is necessary at this time. Mrs. Thomas said GilIums Ridge Road is being severely impacted by road construction on Broad Axe Road. Truck loads of gravel are using Gillums Ridge Road because they cannot go over the dry bridge due to insufficient weight limit. This use is creating a dangerous situation such as severe washboarding. Chemicals are put down, but then the road is scraped and the problem reappears The two issues of concern are the condition of the road and the route traveled by the trucks. Mr. Bowerman asked that consideration be given to installing a traffic light at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road. Ms. Angela Tucker May t2, 1997 Page 3 Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 a.m: - Public Hearing on a request to abandon Old Route 631 located between 1-64 & Moores Creek. The proposed abandonment is approx 600 ft long. It is separated by TM76MI 1) Pi. Approved the request to abandon old Route 631. fThe resolution to go on the Board's consent agenda of May 21 st for adoption3 EWC Sincerely, c y, b 'c. Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. RECOGNITION OF DONALD LYON, BOS MEETING, MAY 7 ONE OF MY MOST PLEASANT DUTIES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS TO RECOGNIZE TIIE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS OF COUNTY CiTIZENS IN MAKING THIS COMMUNITY SUCH A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE. TODAY I AM HAPPY TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HONOR SUCH A PERSON. ON MARCH 7, SEVERAL POLICE OFFICERS WENT ON A CALL FOR A TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON ROUTE 29 IN THE AREA OF THE WOODBROOK SUBDIVISION. AS TI-IE OFFICERS WERE TRYING TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, ONE OF THE DRIVERS INVOLVED BECAME VERY AGITATED TO THE POINT WHERE THE OFFICERS HAD TO ARREST HIM FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THE DRIVER CONTINUED TO RESIST ATTEMPTS TO TAKE HIM INTO CUSTODY. AT TI-tIS TIME, MR. DONALD LYON PULLED UP IN HIS CAR AND GOT OUT AND ASSISTED THE OFFICERS IN SUBDUING THE MAN AND GETTING HIM INTO CUSTODY. AT A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO GET INVOLVED IN SITUATIONS THAT DON'T IMMEDIATELY INVOLVE THEM, MR. LYON WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO HELP THESE OFFICERS IN HANDLING WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A VERY THREATENING EVENT. ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I WANT TO THANK lVIR. LYON FOR STEPPING FORWARD TO ASSIST OUR COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS YOUR ACTIONS EXEMPLIFIED THE TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT MAKES THIS COMMUNITY A SAFER PLACE FOR ALL OF US. MK. LYON HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE AND INVOLVED RESIDENT IN COUNTY ISSUES FOR SOME TIME - THIS LATEST EVENT IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF HIS CONCERN FOR ALBEMARLE. ON A PERSONAL NOTE I WANT TO THANK YOU AS ONE CITIZEN TO ANOTHER. IT FEELS VERY REASSURING TO KNOW THAT WE LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE NEIGHBORS WILL STILL GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO HELP EACH OTHER IN T1MES OF NEED. MR. LYON, WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD. Estelle Neher - for service to the County of Albemarle and the Board of Supervisors Estelle began working for the County of Albemarle on September 1, 1957 as a Clerk typist for the County Executive and Purchasing Agent. In 1968 she was promoted to the position of bookkeeper and in 1972 was appointed the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. We on the Board especially want to offer om' thanks and support to Estelle for her outstanding and extensive service to the Board over the past 25 years. Estelle has worked for numerous boards and personalities and managed to retain her sanity through it all. Andrew Middleditch - for service on the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. During his tenure, the Authority signed two rural preservation easements totaling 316 acres and they agreed to accept a conservation easement of ten acres from PEC on West Leigh Drive. Jerry Jones - for service on Library Board. Jerry Jones was thought of by his co-board members on the Library Board as their own resident authority on Robert's Rules of Order. His knowledge of them led to many lively discussions--light-hearted and not--- at meetings. Robert Walters - for service on the Advisory Council on Aging. Robert Walters routinely provided the Board of Supervisors with copious notes updating them on JABA's activities. These reports served as a template in other jurisdictions as well. There were many times the Council called upon him for his incredible recollection of the details of Robert's Rules of Order to help to keep the Council of up to 25 members in order. George Stovall - for service on the Social Services Board George Stovall served on the Social Services Board for two terms beginning in October 1991 and ending in October 1996. He served as Vice Chair from June 1993 through October 1996. During this time he was diligent in his review of departmental policies, cases and f'mancials and provided responsible stewardship of taxpayers' money. While George served in this capacity, the Board increased the rate of payment for Compardon providers to $4.50 per hour. Additionally, the Board provided child care assistance as a priority service to Section 8 Housing Self-Sufficiency clients to enable them to obtain employment and/or education and training. We appreciate the time and effort George provided not only to the Department of Social Services, but to the clients and taxpayers, in service to the community. John Dawson - for service on the Children and Youth Comrmssion John Dawson was one of the original members of the CACY Commission and served for s~x years. John has always been an active and dedicated member of the Commission, missing only three meetings in six years {.out of a total of 80 meetings). John served as Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary of the Commission during his tenure. He was instrumental in the development of the Comprehensive Plan for Children and Youth, the Teen Center, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Coalition and the aunual agency assessments. His wisdom, political "savvy" and love of children provided inspiration and energy to the Commission and its staff'for six years. John's presence on the Commission will be missed, but his legacy of true volunteer spirit and dedication to children and youth will remain. In this time ora national commitment to volunteerism and community service, John Dawson's participation on the CACY Commission is a good example of true volunteer spirit on behalf of Albemarle County's children and youth. 04-24-977(2:28 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D~m~ To ~o~,~*~s AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Additional Community Oriented Policing Se~ices (COPS) Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 96070 in the amount of $19,826.00. STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Miller, Breeden, Walters:Ms. White AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: ~EM NUMBER: INFORMA~ON: CONSENT AGEND~ ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Ye/~ ~ REVIEWED BY: ~ { BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Justice has approved an additional grant to increase community oriented policing through increased overiJme. The County of Albemarle proposes to pay for 1,000 hours of overtime under the COPS MORE program to increase the presence of existing sworn ofticers in community policing actMties. DISCUSSION: The COPS MORE grant will be funded by a $14,869.00 U.S. Department of Justice COPS grant and a $4,957.00 local match. The local match is funded by the police operating budget. Additional funds arenot required, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 96070 in the amount of $19.826.00, 97.080 05-01-97A09:58 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Debt Service SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request reallocation of debt reserve funds as detailed on form #96071. STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, White= Breeden AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~EM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ~FORMATION: DISCUSSION.: In FY 95/96, the Board approved a recommendation to put aside $250,000 in reserve for future capital or debt service costs associated with the new high school. An additional $450,000 was approved as a reserve in the current FY 96/97 fiscal year. Both of these reserves were officially appropriated into the Capital Improvement Fund because, at that time it was uncertain whether the reserves would be needed for debt or other high school capital needs. Since these reserve funds will be used solely for debt service purposes, not capital expenses, to properly account for these funds, transfers need to be made to the School Debt Service Fund (9900) rather than the School ClP Fund (9010). Added to 1995/90 and 1996/97 debt service fund balance monies, the transfer of the above amounts will result in a total reserve balance of $1,968,700 for future high school debt service. Debt service will increase in FY 98/99 from $8.7 million to $8.6 million, a $1.9 million increase, to be funded by the debt service reserve account. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the transfers as detailed on attached form #96071. 97.082 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Debt Service SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appropriation to correct budgeted appropriation for information Services debt service. STAFF CONTACT~S}: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~ ! DISCUSSION: The FY 1996/97 budget included $129,294.40, appropriated in Information Services, to cover the lease pumhase agreement for the last upgrade to the County's mainframe computer. Accounting guidelines require the expense to be recorded in the Debt Service Fund, This request is for your approval to transfer the funds and appropriation from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund. No additional local funds are required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request as detailed on attached appropriation #96072. 97.083 COUNTY OF ALBEM 'E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ]4-29-P?A09:44 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation-Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #96073 in the amount of $2,400.00 to receive funds from Piedmont Virginia Community College for a cooperative agreement between Albemarle County Schools and Piedmont Virginia Community College to provide College Composition I and II classes. STAFF CONTACT~S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: At its meeting on April 7, 1997, the School Board approved the appropriation of $2,400 from Piedmont Community College. DISCUSSION: Piedmont Virginia Community College and Albemarle County Schools entered into a cooperative agreement to provide instruction forstudents enrolled in dual enrollment courses in College Composition I and Il. Instruction will take place at Murray High School. The instructor(s) will be approved by the college and all academic aspects of the courses will remain under the sole and direct control of the college. Albemarle County Schools will employ the instructors. Piedmont Community College agrees to pay $2,400.00 as reimbursement to the County for their instructional services. The courses will be open to all qualified students who have been accepted for admission to Piedmont Virginia Community College~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation in the amount of $2,400.00 as detailed on appropriation #96073. 97.084 BOARD OF SUPER¥IS ' ALBEMAIILF- COUNTY PUBLIC SCHO~8-97P02: 26 RCVD Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 8, 1997  W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ~a~erA~p~o~Uperintendent At its meeting on April 7, 1977, the School Board approved the following appropriation: Appropriation of $2,400.00 from'Piedmont Community College. Piedmont Virgin!a Community College and Albemarle County Schools entered into a cooperative agreement to provide instruction for students enrolled in dual enrollment courses in College Composition I and II. Instruction will take place at Murray High School. The instructor(s) will be approved by the college and all academic aspects of the courses will remain under the sole and direct control of the college. A~bemarle County Schools will employ the instructors. Piedmont Co~aunity College agrees to pay $2,400.00 as reinxbursement to the County for their instructional services. The courses will be open to all q~alified students who have ~en accepted for admission to Piedmont Virginia Community College. The funds will be received and distributed as follows: Revenue: 2-2000-18000-181109 Expenditure: 1-2303-61101-3012100 Miscellaneous Revenue Contract Services $2,400.00 S2,400.00 It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. smm Attachment xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - United Way Scholarship Program SU BJ ECT/PROPOSALJREQU EST: Request approval of Appropriation 96074 in the amount of $342,848.00. STAFF CONTACT(S}: Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; · Ms. White, Ralston AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Ye,~.~-~ - REViEW£D BY: T~~/~/ / BACKGROUND: The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program helps Iow and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality child cars for children, especially "at-risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost. DISCUSSION: A 1992 agreement between the Albemarle, Charlottesville, and Virginia Departments of Sociat Services approved the United Way to administer the pool of funds. The 1996/97 program will expend $291,421 for scholarships, $44,570 for United Way administrative fees, and $6,857 for Albemarle County administrative fees. The pool is funded by $171,424 in Federal funds. $80,879 by the City of Charlottesville, $50~545 by the County of Albemarle, and $40,000 by the United Way. The Albemarle local match was approved in the 1996/97 operating budget. No additional funds ara required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 96074 in the amount of $342,848. 97.087 COUNTY OF ALBEM r ,,sup soR EXECUTIVE AGENDA TITLE: '1996-97 Revenue Sharing Adjustment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Revenue Sharing for 1996-97 ISTAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, C~mberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: It has been brought to staff's attention that the Revenue Sharing Resolution for the FY 96-97 adopted by the Board incorrectly listed the Mclntire Road Extended project (Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase I), from Route 250 to Rio Road The intended revenue sharing project for FY 96-97 identified in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan is Rio Road, from Hydraulic Road to I~erkmar Ddve. This was an error on VDOT's part in providing the County the project number. DISCUSSION: Since this oversight was caught by VDOT staff after the Commonwealth Transportation Board had already approved the funding for the Mclntire Road Extended project, VDOT will need a resolution from the Board of Supervisors requesting that the funds be removed from Mclntire Road Extended and placed on the Rio Road project. This result of this action will have no impact on the total funding of either project, or on the overall funding of the Six Year Secondary Plan. The purpose of this corrective action is to insure the appropriate source of funds for projects is utilized. Revenue sharing funds and secondary funds will be essentially be switched with each other for these two projects in the Six Year Secondary Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution recommending that Revenue Sharing funds be moved from Mclntire Road Extended to Rio Road. 97.085 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the "Revenue Sharing Program," allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of primary and secondary highways in the county; and WHEREAS, since 1988 the County of Albemarle has worked with its Resident Engineer to identify a list of improvement projects to be undertaken with these lands; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 7, 1996, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors elected to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 and identified a road project wh/ch was forwarded to VDOT; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board subsequently approved the allocation of funds for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Program" as requested by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, it was recently brought to the Board of Supervisors attention that the road project forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for FY 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Funds" was incorrectly identified as the "Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase I, f~om Route 250 to Rio Road"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the road project identified for FY 1996-97 "Revenue Sharing Funds" be corrected the reflect tbe approved project in its Six Year Secondary Construction Plan. The funds should be directed to the road project identified as "Rio Road, from Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive". (0631-002-185-c501) Clerk, County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~ 04-29-97P0!:29 RCVP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Jeffemon Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of two board members to the CCJB from Fluvanna and Louisa Counties. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: May 7, 1997 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: ~ [~.......~ REVIEWED BY: ~/]/V J / In 1995, the County joined with eight other ju~sdiclions to form the Jefferson Area Community Cr'm~inal Corrections Board (CCJB) to undeKake regional criminal juslice planning and in secudng prebial services and community corrections options for the criminal justice system in our area. The board consists of 20 members, some who represent specitic constituencies such as judges, sheriffs departments, commonwealth attorneys, etc as well as one representative from each of the jurisdictions. Currently, Ihere are two cacanc~es on the board, one from Fluvanna County and one from Louisa County. All members of the Board must be approved by all the localities. DISCUSSION: The CCJB has requested that Albemarle County approve the following nominees to filltwo vacancies on the Board: NAME Mel Sheridan Clyde M. B. Harkrader ADDRESS Route ~r2, Box 2268, Kents Store. VA 23084 P. O. Box 856, Louisa. VA 23093 REPRESENTING Fluvanna County Louisa County RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the above nominees. cc: Ms. Downing Miller, Chair, Thomas Jefferson Area CCJB Mr. Bruce Carveth 97.081 THOMAS JEFFERSON AREA COMMUNITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD April 15, 1997 Mr. Robert W Tucker, Jr County Executive. Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesv'flle, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker, As you are aware, your jurisdiction joins with eight others through the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board in undertaking regional criminal justice planning and in secunng pretrial services and commumty corrections options for the criminal justice system in our area. Pursuant to Virginia State Code § 53.1-183, we are advising you of nominations to fill vacancies on the Board and asking for approval of these nominees to become full voting members of the Board. Kindly advise Bruce G. Carveth (at the address given above) of the decision of your governing body. The list of current normnees is as follows: Name Address Representing Mel Sheridan Rt. 2, Box 2268, Kents Store, VA 23084 Clyde M.BHarkrader P.O. Box 856, Louisa, VA 23093 Fluvanna County Louisa County Many thanks for your assistance Downing Mille/*' Chair, Thomas Jefferson Area CCJB COUNT'/C7: EXECUTIVE OFFICE COUNTY Of ALBEMA~ F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnlire Road Charlottesville, V'n'flinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804] 296-5800 Charles S. Marffn Walter E Perkins ,Sally H. Thoram June 6, 1997 Mr. Bruce G. Carceth Thomas Jefferson Area CCJB PO Box 1505 Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Mr. Carveth: At its meeting on May 7, I997, the Board of Supervisors approved the recommended nominees (Mel Sheridan and Clyde Harkraderl to become full voting members of the Thomas Jefferson Area CCIB. Sincerely, ,rEWC CC: Downing Miller Printed on recycled paper DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY (;:BARLOTTESVILLE. 22911 April 29, 1997 05-01-97A09:~2 RCVD BOARD SUPERVISORS A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Board of Supervisors Meeting April 2, ~997 Ms Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: We offer the following commenus reganding uransportation mauuers that were discussed au the April 2nd Board meeulng. o The DeparumenE is tentatively providing for preliminary engineering money in the primary slx year plan for the four laning~of Route 20 south Eo the Route 742 Avon Street Connector Road. This funding should be approved for fiscal year 97-98. The Department anticipates additional funding for fiscal year 97-98 in the secondary six year plan 5hat will cover the estimated cosn of $180,000 Eo $200,000 for the West Leigh Drive rural addition/railroad crossing upgrade. We are requesting that a resolution which supports the addition of this rural addition pro3ecE be forwarded to this office immediately. A sample resolution is attached and has also been forwarded ~o the County Engineer's Office. For your information please find attached recent correspondence no Senator Emily Couric regarding clearing work along Route 2£ north and Route 29 north. o Thru truck restriction signs on Georgerown Road Route 656 have been instalIed. By copy Df this letter we are advising the County Police of same. o The Department is proposing a thru truck restriction based upon safety concerns for Rio Road Route 631 from the City Limits 5o Hillsdale Drive. A resolution supporn~ng this restriction would be appreciated. A sample resolution ms attached. Please share this information ~estions regarding the above issues, 7th Board meeting. AGT,'smk cc: Chief John Miller /elf S. Heres 3ack Kelsey with the board members. If there are any I will be prepared to discuss them au the May TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY HITOHELL VAN YAHRES COMMON'Wi~ CF VIRGINIA. SE Tho Hot, arable, Robert E, Ma~L';ez 1401 Emt Broad ~t~{, Room ~hmo.~, Vi~g~a 23219 1 ~a~p~t~on B o~l'~ lm~ndmg declston t~'d m ~bem~lo ~e~, Wa ~I that ill* ¢rec~ ~r re~ich.ing such a de~is~o~ has ~c~ a flawed one, unde~ing of ~i$ ~galmde, dtae, losed ~g~ ~rhapa'mo$t impomnt of all, of lt~ol~llo~x lmprovem¢nt~ !11 our ~ w~$,VlOLted by the present board, 2 he board a.~red for i~ de~i$~on oaly ~fler ~l~e orig" al agreeme:~t had ' ~ ~J~ L, roken. nad our g~'am nllS$ivhlg,~ about the effort you n~w Dele. ga~; ~7th Di$trlet 06/02/1997 i0:44 f'4ZTCHELL VAN 'Y'AHRES P~=r_. 03 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Office ol the April a4, The Honorable E~ily Courto Post Office Box 5462 charlottesville, virginia 22905 The Honorable Mitcl%all Van Ya~res 223 ~ast ~aih Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Deer Sene=or Ccuric and Delegate Van Yahree: Thank you for your recent letter. On April 17 the Commonweal~ Transportation Board (OTB) approved the major design features for ~/~e Route 29 Bypass in Alb~aerle County. This decision to move this project forward came after many hours of deliberation e~d discussion by ~he CTB. transportation nstworR for central Virginia. The decision ko proceed will benefit those who depend on this corridor for the transports%ion of goods and services through this very congested area. In your letter of April 1~, you ex, reseed concern about the process ~y w~1c41 this decision was reached, as well as the information which w~s use~ by the CTB to make its decision. This pro~ect has followe~ ~e sams procedures as ~y federally gunded proJeo~ would follow. A draf~ Env~ro~ental Impact S~atemen~ was prepared and addr%ssed all of the enviro~en~al con=ems for og ~e co~idor alterna2ives which were presented a~ ~e 1990 ~atlon P~lic Hearing. ~is dccumen~ was complete amd avatXable for public review ~i~y days prior ~o ~he Location Public Hearing. ~oll~wi~ ~he Loca2ion Corridor decision, a Final ~viro~en~al X~pac~ Statamem~ was a~roved for the selected corridor (Al~ernative The next step ~n the process was to move forward with the design. The virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT} undertook a very honest and open approach in ~sveloping this project. The Desiq~ Team met wl~h every neighborhood effected b~ the project, ei~Aer as a group or individual representatives~ during ~he design ~o ensure their concerns were being addressed. There were ~wo Citizen Zngormetion MeetingS, as well as two Drop-. in M~e~lngs sponsored ~y the Charlottesville/Albemarle Planning Organization (~PO). The design was under constan= scrutiny by P.O, 'B~x 1473 85/02/1997 !0:44 8042965338 MiTC'~ELL t/AN YAHRES PAGE 04 The Honorable Nttohell Van Yahrea April 24, 1~97 the Damage1 Advisory Committee established ~ the ]~PO. This open I~ also opm~md ~hm pro~mmm ~o mu~ ~i~ic~m ~rom ~nd~duals who o~me~ ~ls ~project and o~lr hi~hwa~ improv~ent projmotm. off~c~alm, ~e~iOn~ng the valid~Uy Of ~he, ~v~ro~en~al d~nta~on, and ~est~on~ng ~hm p~'oem ~ need f~ ~s ~tioular pro~mct. ~ has attempted ~o an~mr all of ~e e~lana~lon ha~ ~en accep~abl~. Z fully and completely accept that reasonable p~ople, yourselves inoluded, can differ on important matter~ euoh es th~s. However, the aoc~tsation that VDOT,e e~d ~ha CT~'s sotionm wore based on: ·misleading informatio~ and inadequate disclosure of facts" Xe absolutely inaccurate and unfair. There were several events that led to the OTB taking action on the original a~reem&n~ conoerning the eaque~cing of ~anaportation improveme~te in this area. The City of Charlottesville withdrew its support for an interchange at Hydraulic Road on existing ROUte 29. TI~£S la£C only the two looat~ose, ~roenb~ier Drive and Rio Road, es opt~o~e for interchanges. Cone~ruotion of ~n~archanqom at these streets would result ~n the reconstruction of t~e improvements to e~leting ~oute 29, which have been co~pleted. These interchanges would ales severely impact many of the businesses alor~j ex~et£ng Route 29. The CTB'e w~thdrawal of support for the interchanges was subsequent only to withdrawal of support for th~ Hydraulic ~ntarohanqe by t~e C~ty and only after =we very lengthy reviews at OTB Vorkshop sessions, t~he first one a couple of ~on~hs prior to ~ha actual action. Aa with ell OTB agenda, these workshop aemeion~ end agenda we~o put in the pUbliO ~ot£oe and the Nany of the $~provementa ~denti£ied in T4he 'three party agreement- currently are underwey~ · ~identng of existing Route 29 North currently iS underway · The design of ~he Nort~ Grounds Connector was approved on April 17, an~ VDOT is working with the University ~o develo~ theme plmnel 8~/02~1997 Z~:44 804¢%5~=8 ~;TCHELL V~N YAHRES P&SE 05 The Honorable Emily Couric A~ri~ 24, 1997 N~adowcreak Parkway Phase I currently is under design. This project will run fro~ ~h9 intersection of Route 250 and McIntira Road co Rio Roa~, Jtm~ north of the VoTeo~. ~'s Six Year I~rov~e~= P=~ra~rouqh ~he use of ~econdary and U~n f~as. VDOTWishes Co continue to work with the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County on these projects and the z appreciate your continued interest in this project and other tran~portation improve~ent projects in your areas. Sincerely, ~/ow David R, Gehr DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRCflNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 671 CULPEPER. 22701 April 18, 1997 The Honorable Emily Couric Post Office Box 5462 Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 Dear Senator Couric: DONALD R. ASKEW Tim Lindstrom's letter to you concerning our clearing work covered several different routes. Let me address these separately by route: Route 20 north of Charlottesville has become overgrown with a weed tree called Tree-of-Heaven or Paradise Tree (Ailanthus altissima). This is an invasive species of no ornamental or other value. It overtakes large stretches of right-of-way and crowds out all other vegetation including ground covers which help control erosion. (The bare patches of ground were caused by the tree itselfcrowding out groundcovers, not by the clearing.) An aggressive spreader, Tree-of-Heaven will march right up to the edge of the pavement if left unchecked. We have been cutting this tree down and seeding the slopes on route 20 with grass. Our purpose is ro prevent erosion and to create a more visually pleasing and easy to manage roadside. The median of route 29 north of Charlottesville has been selectively cleared for both safety and aesthetic reasons. Sunlight could nor get through the dense growth, which often made snow and ice removal difficult. Vegetation was crowding and overhanging the roadway resulting in an impression that the road was more narrow than it actually is. We felt that this caused drivers to hug the centerline, an unsafe situation on this narrow high-speed road. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 2 The dense brush, vines, and trees on route 29 created an unattractive jungle which collected trash. We could see the potential for beautiful specimen trees and a cleaner, more park-like appearance, and we decided to pursue that potential. It is true that we took out some large trees. Some were dead or had serious structural flaws. Others were healthy but were simply crowding better specimens. We selectively thinned, limbed up, and correctively pruned the trees, leaving a number of excellent specimens. Then we removed the brush and the trash. Grass seed, clover, and crown vetch have been heavily sown and we have plans for wildflowers, dogwoods, redbuds and other aesthetic improvements. Interstate 81 is in the Staunton District, but I do haYe some information on their clearing program. Staunton vegetation managers have developed a poli~y of maintaining a clear zone thirty feet from the edge of the pavement. They believe this is essential to the public safety: it provides drivers a safe area in which to recover control of their vehicles. Some small flowering trees and shrubs are left within this zone, but major trees are removed. Although this course of action is based on long-standing Federal Highway Administration guidelines, it is primarily a district program and is not a response to any new FHWA program. There have been no changes or new programs from FHWA dealing with vegetation control on federal aid highways. Clear zones have always been in effect; these call for keeping immovable obstacles (trees) out of the vehicle recovery zone. but this is nothing new. These regulations have nothing to do with the recent work on routes 20 and 29, and are only a basis for the work on 1-81. I believe Mr. Lindstrom has gotten some inaccurate information which mixes several parts of unrelated programs. "Daylighting" refers to Outdoor Advertising regulations which govern the clearing of vegetation by sign companies in front ofbillboarc~s. Current law permits vegetation up to two inches in diameter to be cut. There was a recent proposal in the Virginia General Assembly to increase this limit to four inches, but it was killed in committee. All of this is applicable only to Outdoor Advertising and has nothing to do with the clearing we are discussing here. 3 I hope this answers your and Mr. Lindstrom's questions and concerns. I cordially invite either of you to call me if you would like to discuss this further. Sincerely, R. Askew, District Administrator DRA/www cc: C.D. Garver, Jr. A. G. Tucker c/ D. S. Bywarers W. W. Watson COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA SENATE Donald R. Askew, P.E., District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Dear Don: April 8, 1997 Recently I received the enclosed letter from a constituent, Tim Lindstrom, who is also a staff attorney with the Piedmont Environmental Council. Are you familiar with the areas of roadway he described in his letter? Can you shed more light on the rationale for clearing along roadways? I am unfamiliar with our state policies on this topic. Thanks for any assistance you can offer on this matter. Sincerely, Senator, 25th District Enclosures cc: Tim Lindstrom _ DEPt. OF Piedmont Environmental Council April 4, 1997 The Honorable Emily Couric 300 Preston Ave. Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Senator Couric: In a '~mall section of roadside along Route 20 North just beyond the Franklin subdivision VDoT has stripped most of the grotmd-cover off from some very steep, eroding banks on the east side of the road and removed a number of fairly large trees leaving an unsightly stubble of stumps and bare ground. On Route 29 North just south of the Greene County line VDoT crews have been busy clearing bushes, trimming trees, and removing some fairly substantial trees which appear to be sycamore and oak. When questioned about this work at a recent Board of Supervisors' meeting the VDoT representative said (as it has been related to me, I was not personally present) that it was being done as part of two programs being initiated. One was called "daylighting"' which is the removal of vegetation including trees up to 4 inches in caliper (I guess) where this vegetation is shading the roads in the winter preventing the sun to catalyze chemicals spread for snow removal. This is the explanation for the work along Route 20 North, although many of the trees cut were clearly bigger than 4 inches. The work on Route 29 North was reported to be part of a project to make 'the roadside along Route 29 more "park-like" in appearance. When asked how this fit with the removal of the large trees the response was fha t those trees were "leaving the County." I guess this is another way of acknowledging that they were beiffg cut down. Ironically, just a short distance to the south VDoT is plapning, along with Albemarle County, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars tO plant trees in the median of Route 29 to improve the aesthetics of that part of the road. '..... I also uaderstand that substantial tree clearing is taking place on Interstate 81o I have heard that the Federal Highway Administration has recently established new guidelines for federal aid system highways (which would include both Route 29 and Route 20) calling upon states to clear trees within a certain distance of the centertine P.O. BOX 460 ' Warrenton, Virginia · 20188 ,, 540-347-2334 · Fax 5~349-~3 Hill D~ve · Sui/~ One · Charlottesville. Virginia · 22903 * 804-977-2033 * Fax 8~-~77~306 RESOLUT ION WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors- of AlbemarLe County, Virginia, received a request from the G~orgetown Road Task Force co consider t~e prohibition of through truck traffic on Georgetown Road (Route 656) as a means to address various traffic design concerns; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a legally advertised public hearing on August 10, 1994, to receive comments from citizens on this request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby requesn the Commonwealth Transportation Board no prohibit the use of through truck traffic oil Georgetown Road (Route 656). Further ghat this prohibition apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, excepu a pickup truck or panel truck; and FURTHER RESOLVES, that combinations of Hydraulic Road, Route 29-Emmett Street and/or Route 29-250 Bypass and Barracks Road are reasonable alternatives to trucks now travelling Georgeuown Road no Hydraulic Road or Barracks Road. The Board also states its intent that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed prohibition by the appropriate local law enforcement agency. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginma, a~ a regular meeting held on August 10, 1994. C~erk, Board of Coun~ Supervisors Resolution #94.0810(12) The Board of Supervisors of day of , 19 , adopted the following: County, in regular meeting Dn the RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the sEreeE described below was established , and currently serves aE least 3 families per mile, and ~EREAS, the Virgmnia Department of Transportation has deemed this county's current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requlremenms to qualify chis county to recommend additions co the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72-1. Code of Virgmnia, and WHERE3LS, after examining the ~wnership of all properey abutting this sEree5. this Board finds that speculative interest does nog exist, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. this Board added to the secondary system of skate highways, Code Df Virgznza: requests the following street be pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 Name of Street: Length: miles From: To: Guaranteed Right-of-Way width: Plat Recorded, Date: Deed Book: Page: BE IT PURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. this Board requeses the Virginia Department of Transportation 5o improve said street ~o the prescribed minimum standards, funding said improvements pursuant cc Section 33.1-72.1(D). Code of Virginia, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Resident Engineer of the Virginia DeparEmenc Df Transportatmon. Recorded Vote A Copy Teste: Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: (Name , (Title George Alien BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-28-97POI:37 RCVD COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA Office of the Governor Robert E. Mar tinez Secretly of Transportation April 24, 1997 The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mrs. Humphris: Thank you for your recent letter. On April 17 the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the major design features for the Route 29 Bypass in Albemarle County. This decision to move this project forward came after many hours of discussion and debate by the CTB. This project represents an important link in the transportation network for central Virginia. The decision to proceed will benefit those who depend on this corridor for the transportation'of goods and services through this very congested area. VDOT is very aware of the concerns regarding the sequencing of the Bypass project with other projects in Albemarle County. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reiterated this in their resolution of April 9. The action taken by the CTB approved the Bypass design, and has no impact on the sequencing of this or other projects in Albemarle County. In fact, several of the projects mentioned in the county's resolution are already underway: · Widening of existing Route 29 North currently is underway and in some sections complete; The design of the North Grounds Connector was approved on April 17, and VDOT will continue to work with the University to develop these plans in a manner that is acceptable to the Darden Business School and the Law School, with UVa itself confirming its final position; The study for~the three grade-separated interchanges at Rio, Greenbrier and Hydraulic Road has been dropped by VDOT; P.O. Box 1475 · Richmond, %r~rgi~ia 23218 · (804) 786-8032 · TDD (804) 786-7765 The Honorable Charlotte Y. April 24, 1997 Page Two Humphris Meadowcreek Parkway Phase I currently is under design. This project will run from the intersection of Route 250 and McIntire Road to Rio Road, just north of the VoTech Center. A Design Public Hearing will be held for this project later this year. There is funding in VDOT's Six Year Improvement Program for right-of-way and construction of this project. It is funded through the use of urban and secondary funds. VDOT wishes to continue to work with Albemarle County on these projects as well as the Route 29 Bypass. I appreciate your continued interest in this project. I regret this outcome must be a disappointment to you, but the CTB deliberated long and hard before deciding what it felt was the best co~se. Your dedicated work for the citizens of Albemarle County in the area of transportation has paved the way for many improvements and contributed to several positive refinements on this specific project. I have instructed staff to begin dialog with the County to work toward a mutual agreement for completing the Bypass. Please feel free to contact this office with any suggestions you may have, as we work together for the citizens of the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Robert E. Martine~ REM/ow cc: Mr. David R. Ge~hr DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601~ORANGE ROAD CULPEPER, 22701-3819 April 23, 1997 OARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-28-97P~2:59 RCVD DONALD R. ASKEW DIS~ICT ADMiNiSTRATOR Mr. Robert W. Tucker. Jr. County Executive County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Tucker: This is in response to your letter regarding the Albemarle County's involvement in the efforts of aaa Advisory Committee to the Commission Studying the Future of Transportation to review the needs of the Commonwealth. Ms. Nancy O'Brian from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is a member of the Advisory Committee, and information has been forwarded to her for review and comments. It is my andersmuding that the MPO staff is currently doing the review. An assumption was made that the Albemarle County staff is working together with the MPO staff in order to provide comments for the Depanmant. If this assumption is incorrect, please advise. The Virginia Deparunent of Transpurtation's Transportation Planning Division, in cooperation with FHWA, has scheduled the 1997 IV[PO/PDC Conference. The meeting will be held on May 6, 1997 starting at I0:00 a.m. at the Research Council in Charlottesville, and May 8, 1997 at the Fredericksburg District auditorium. A copy of the agenda is attached for your information. Should you have any questions or require fur~er information, please feel free to contact me at (540) 829- 7511: and I would be glad to discuss it further. Sincerely, Donald R. Askew. P.E. Attachment DP, A/IvK:wk pc: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Mr. David B. Beuish Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COUNTY OF AL~E~LE Agenda Virginia MPOIPOC Meeting May 6, 1997 - Charlottesville, VA May 8, 1997 - Fredericksburg, VA 10:00- 10:15 Introduction Ken Lantz. VDOT Scott Carson, FHWANA 10:'15 - 10:45 Commission on the Futureof Transportation in Virginia. Dwight Farmer, Hampton Roads PDC 10;45 - 11:15 Futura of Rural Planning Funds Ksn. Lantz, VDOT 11:15- 11:45 Panel Discussion Making Better Use of Data Scott Carson, FHWA/VA Coordinating G1S Applications Brad Johnson, VDOT Procurement of Professional Services Jer~ Sears, VDOT 11:45 - 12:00 BREAK 12:00- 1:00 LUNCH - Focus Group - "Customer Service"'" May 6th - Ken Robertaon, VDOT May 8th - Steve Barman, VDOT 1:00- 1:15 BREAK 1:15 - 1:45 IS, TEA Reauthorization Scott Carson, FHWA/VA 1:45 - 2:45 Proposed Changes in Air Quality Mario Jorquera, FHWA/Region 3 Illinois COT Court Decision Scott Carson, FHWA/VA Breakout Groups - Proposed Changes in MiS Process tn VA Ken Lantz. VDOT 2:45 - 3:00 Closing Remarks Ken Lantz, VDOT Scott Carson. FHWNVA *Lunch will be provided by VDO T at the meeting site. The Charlottesville meeting will be held at tne Virginia Transportation Research Council's building on the UVA campus. The Fmdetfcksburcj meeting will be held in the auditorium of the VDO T Fmdericksbun:j D/strict office.* M~i~$ are attached giving directions to both locations. Please let Cindy Tetlis at VDO T (804-786-4722) know by Apn'/ 2'~, 1997 how many people will oe attending from yourMPO/PDC. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14Dl EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND.. 23219 J.T. MILLS DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR April 17, 1997 Route 29 Bypass Proj: 6029-002-F22, PE-101, RW-201, C-501 Federal Proj: AC-ATE-037-2 (130) Proj: RUVA-002-101, PE-101 Fr: 1.12 km (0.7 mile) North of Route 29/250 Interchange To: 0.8 km (0.5 mile) North of Rivanna River Albemarle County Design Public Hearing Approval Clerk"~f't'h~ C~urc Albem~ -CoUnty' -r:~~= 501 E~: '~Sff'ers0n.St~eeff CharlottesVille, VA 22'901 I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the Commonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia ac its meeting today approved the location and major design features of the above project as proposed and presented at the February 25, 1997, public hearing with: Modification mn the final design phase co modify the interchange at the northern termini co eliminate impacts to the Brook Hill propercy which is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; Modification mn the final design phase to reduce the Hydraulic Road bridge to reflect a cwo lane design; ~_Appr6val 'of the selection of the "Central Design ~- .... Alt~rnat%ve"~s:~esignated on the attached map) that ~ift~:P~h~Stillhouse Mountain alignment out of the mount~a~n~.szde. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Clerk of the Court Albemarle County Page 2 April 17, 1997 A shift in the alignment of Lambs Road to the east to lessen impact to the west side of the proposed roadway in the final design phase; An evaluation of ramp "D" on the south end of the project to see if the existing south bound Route 29 Bypass can be utilized in lieu of constructing a whole new ramp "D"; Modification to the North Grounds Connector road, which shall be no wider than 33'-0" curb to curb, and its right of way no wider than would be appropriate for a roadway of that width; The northbound access ramps "E" and "F" to the Route 250 Bypass revised to be relocated northward as close as is physically possible to the new alignment of the Route 250 Bypass, i.e., as far distant as is possible from the new Darden School of Business and Law School; Every possible aesthetic measure taken to preserve and enhance the University's considerable investment in the setting and appearance of its new Darden School of Business and the Law School, including visual buffering using plant materials of appropriate size and scale, and density of coverage, as well as acoustic buffering using sound walls faced with materials compatible with those historically in use at the University. In addition, any stormwater detention ponds which may be required in the vicinity of the University as a result of the new Bypass or the North Grounds Connector road shall be designed in conformance with the principles of the University's Water Resources Management plan. Concurrence from the Board of Visitors, of Virginia, before July of the University with the proposed design modifications on or 15, 1997. State Location and Design Engineer CENTRAL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE April Certified Mail - Return Receipt 16, 1997 OARD TO THE CHAIRMILN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES IN WHICH CENTRAL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OFFERS SERVICE, AND TO THE MAYOR OF THE BELOW LISTED TOWNS IN WHICH IT OFFERS SERVICE. Albemarle County Amherst County Appomattox County Augusta County Buckingham County Campbell County Cumberland County Fluvanna County Goochland County Greene County Louisa County Nelson County Orange County Prince Edward County Town of Appomattox Town of Gordonsville Town of Scottsville Enclosed is a copy of the ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING in Case No. PUE970083 which was issued by the State Corporation Commission as a result of our application for approval of Experimental Demand- Side Management Programs and Residential and General Service Rate Experiments. Howard L. Scarboro General Manager HLS/ah Enclosure Post Office Box 247 - Lovingston, VA 22949 · Telephone: 804/263-8336 · Fax: 804/263-8339 COMMOnWeALTH OF VIRGI'NIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AT RIC.MMOND, M~Q{CH 2!, 9 7034 4 i997 APPLICATION OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE For approval of experimental demand-side mana~emen5 programs and residential and 9eneral service rate experiments On February 21, CASE NO. PUE970083 1997, Central VirGinia Electric Cooperative (,CVEC. or "the Cooperative") filed mn thau the State Corporation Commission application requestinG "Commission") approve two experimental demand-side management ("DSM") programs, one pertaining ~o the direct load control of air conditioners and a seoond program relating co the direct load control of resistance space heatinG. CVEC also requested authorization to initiaue experimental time-of-use rate schedules available to res!dential and general service custom, rs. In its application. CVEC requests approval of'~he air conditioning and resistance space heatin~ DSM programs for three years. Under the Cooperative's proposal, participation two experimental load control programs would be limited mn the consumers selected by the Cooperagive from an applicant pool limited heater control program. air conditioning is uo to those already participating in CVEC's electric water The expected procedures for con=rolling int~rrup~ power to the air conditioner compressors for varying time in~erva!s on a rotating basis by using switches with individual addresses. The proposed incentive payment for the air conditioning program will vary with the percentage of time the air conditioner is controlled, as agreed to by the participanu. The incentive payments are as follows: for control during 25 percent of each control payment half hour, the incentive payment will be $12.00 annually; for 50 percent of each half hour of control $24.00 annually; for during 75 percenu of each half hour, the incentive will be $36.00 annually and for control during !00 percenu of each half hour, $48.00 annually. According uo Cooperative, this paymen5 will be recorded as a credit on the CVEC's customer's October ~iectric bill. For the e!ec~ric resistance space heating D~M pilot, the Cooperative proposes an annual credit of $50.00 to"be applied the consumer's April bill. which is equivalent to monthly payments of S2.00 per kW applied to a minimum of 5 kW for five months. Incentive payments given during the first year will be 2 prorated so reflect the number of months the consumer,s resistance space heating load wa~ subject to direct control. CVEC almo requests approval of an experimental time-of-use pilot which it proposes to begin in May 1997, to remaln in effect for 24 months. The Coopera~ive'~ proposed time-of-use schedules for the pilot program are Schedules A-T and R-T, applicable to residential and general use consumers respectively. The Cooperative's application notes that there are certain overall restrictions regarding the availability of the rate schedules. Only consumers served from Virginia Power delivery poin=s will be e!i~ib!e ~o participate in the pilot program. Other restrictions on the proposed rate schedules' availability include, but are not limited to, the requirement for participating consumers to have year round (non-seasonal) electric service with a minimum energy usage of 500 kWh per month. than schedule B-T has a $%5.00 customer charge, which iS'$5.00 higher than the customer charge in the standard qeneral service rate schedute~ Consumers will incur a charge of S60.00 should they decide zo revert back to the standard taus within one yssr after initial billing under the time-of-use rate. The customer charge for Schedule A-T is $14.00, S5.00 hiqher the customer charge in CVEC's standard Schedule A0 NOW, that C~C's application should be docketed and No. PU~970083; that the Cooperative's proposed B-T should be suspended for a period of one hundred fifty days from the date the application was filed with the Commission and through July 21, !997, ~o allow for further examination the charges and restrictions associated with these Schedules; that the cooperative should provide no~ice to the public of TEE cOMMISSION, having considered the maz~er~ finds assigned Case Schedules A-? and application; that the Commission Staff should investigate the reasonableness of CVEC's proposals and file a reporu thereon; that a period of time wherein interested persons might upon or request a hearing on the application should be established. No · Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED TEAT: (I) CVEC's application shall be docketed and assigned Case PUE970053. (2) CVEC'e proposed Rate Schedules A-T and B-T shall be and suspended for the Cooperative's application was and through July 21, 1997. (3) CVEC shall forthwith make copie~ of supporting information available for public period of one hundred fifty days from the date filed with ~he Commission to its application and inspection during 4 regular business hours a~ all of its offices where customer bills may be paid. A copy of the application shall also be made ava~lab!e for public review at the Commission's Document Control Center, located on the first floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, regular business hours Friday. (4) Within five a copy of its application, making any such request, a Richmond, Virginia 23219 during its of 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday througk (5) business days of a written request CVEC shall serve upon any person copy of the application and all ~or relevant ma:eriais now or hereafter filed with the Commission in support thereof. Requests for copies of the application shall be served upon the Cooperative through its counsel, John A. Pirko, Esquire, and James P. Guy, ii, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. (5) On or before May 16, 1997, CVEC shall complete the publication of the following notice by display advertising, made on one occasion in newspapers of general circulation throughout the Cooperative's service territory: 5 NOTICE TO THE Pb~LIC OP AN APPLiCATiON BY CENTP. AL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE POE APPROVAL OF EXPERI.MENTAL DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND RESiD~NT!ALAND GENERAL SERVICE RATE EXPERIMENTS CASE NO. PU~970083 On February 21, 1997, Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (.CVEC,, or "the Cooperative") filed an application with the State Corporation Commission requesting approval of two demand-side management ("DSM") pro,rams. One DSM program pertains To the direct load control of air conditioners, and the second program relates to the direct load control of resistance space heating. CVEC requests approval of the air conditioning and resistance space heating DSM pilot programs for three years. The Cooperative also seeks authority to implement Rats Schedules A-T and B-T on an exp_erimental basis. These schedules are sims-of-use rates which allow residential and general service customers meeting the Schedules, eligibility requirements to pay a lesser energy charge for usage of electricity during designated off-peak hours. The maximum number of participants in the pilot program is limited to !00 residential consumers and 100 general service consumers, served from Virginia Power's delivery poin:s. CVEC proposes that these Schedules remain in effect for 24 months. The Cooperative's_. application describes other overall restrictions re~arding the availability of these rates. The Commission has suspended proposed Schedules A-T and B-T through July 21, 1997. The details of CVEC's proposals are set out in the Cooperative's application. The public is invited to review the application, coples of which may be requested mn writing 6 from CVEC,s counsel, John A, Pirko, Esquire, and James P. Guy, II, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, P.C., Innsbrook Corporate Cen~er, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. The application may aisc be reviewed at any of the Cooperatives' offices where customer bills may be paid, and, from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday, az the State Corporation Commission's Document Control Center located at 1300 East Main Street, Tyler Building, First Floor, Richmond, Virginia. Any interested person who wishes to comment upon or reTaast a hearing on the proposals shall fils'an original and fifteen (15) copies of such comments or requests to William J. Bridge, Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Can:er, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1197 on or before June 16, 1997, referring to Case No. PUE970083, and shall on the same day serve one (1) copy on the Cooperative through its counsel at the address set forth above. Requests for hearing should state The specific grounds on which the Commission should grant a hearing. In the event no request for hearing is received, the Commission may act on the papers filed in the proceeding without convening a hearing at which live testimony is received. All written communications to the Commission regarding this proceeding shall refer to Case No. PUE970083 and shall directed no the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above. CENTRAL VIRGINIA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (6) On or before May 16, 1997, CVEC shall serve a copy of this Order on the chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each 7 county and the mayor or manager (or equivalent official) of each city and county in which the Cooperative provides service. Service shall be made by first-class mail at the customary place of business or residence of the person served. (?) On or before June 16, 1997, any person desiring to comment or request a hearing on the Cooperative's application shall file with the Clerk of the Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of such comments or requests and shall serve a copy on CVEC through its counsel, John A. Pirko, Emquire, and James P, Guy, ii, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, P.C,, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060. RMques=s for hearing should state tbs specific grounds upon which the Commission should grant a hearing. (8) If properly requested as provided in Ordering Paragraph (7) above, this matter may be see for hearing and a procedural schedule established by subsequent order. If no requests for hearing are received, a formal hearing with oral uestimony may noz be held. (9) On or before July 31, 1997, Commission with proof Paragraphs (5) and (6) CVEC shall provide of the notice required in Ordering above. the The Commission Staff shall investigate the shall be governed (10) reasonableness of the proposed application, file a report evaluating the proposals therein on or before July 15, 1997, shall send a copy of the report uo counsel for the Cooperative and all other parties of record. (11) Discovery in this matter of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the the production of documents, or data requests, calendar days of the receipt of the same. AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Cooperative shall respond to in~errogatorzes, requests within ten and by Part VI except that for Commmssion to: John A. Pirko, Esquire, and James P. Guy, II, Esquire, LeC!air Ryan, P,C., 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060; Gaii D. Jsspen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219; and the Commission's Divisions of Economics and Finance and Energy Regu!ation~ 9 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARYo _ ._ . AGENDA TITLE: Draft Report of the W~reless Telecommunications Task Force SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREQUES~. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Fritz AGENDA DATE: May 7. 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: Yes ATFACHMENTS: Ye~~.~---- REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At the request of the Board of Supervisors staff created a Wireless Telecommunications Task force for the purpose of recommended potential policies on the siting of wireless communication facilRies. The Task Force consists of the following individuals: Ben Blanldnship - ARB Representative Bill Finley - Planning Commission Representative Dick Gibson - 360 Communications Charlotte Humphris - Board of Supervisors representative Greg Kamptner - Assistant County Attorney Jack Kelsey - Chief of Engineering David Klumb - US Cellular Tom Loach - Citizen Representative Richard Martin - County Police Don Maty - Dan Celt Steve Muscarella - Amedcan Personal Cemmunica/Jons Steve Yancey- CFW Wireless Also attending has been Fred Bnger, Director of Planning for Nelson County DISCUSSION: Attached for your information is the final dralt report of the Task Force recommendations. It is anticipated that the final report will be presented to the Board at it meeting on June 4, 1997. The Task Force will hold a meeting prior to the June 4.1997 meeting of the Board for the purpose of finalizing the report. RECOMMENDATION: The draft report is submitted for information only at this time. 97.086 Proposal for development oflocational criteria for wireless communication facilities. The purpose of this document is to provide to the public a focal point for discussion in the formulation of a policy to address the location of wireless communication facilities. The document is divided into several sections. 2. 3. 4. 5. History of Telecommunication Facilities - This section identifies the need for the establishment of the Telecommunications Policy. Comprehensive Plan - This section contains the existing prov~ions of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to wireless communication. Zoning Ord'mance - This section contains the exist'rog zoning ordinance provisions. Characteristics of Cellular Telephone and PCS Technology - This section provides a brief primer on the technology of cellular communication systems. Recommendations and Comments of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force - This sect'mn includes the Task Force information as well as staff comment. History of Telecommunication Facilities The cellular telecommunication industry has experienced rapid growth in recent years and new technology for digital service, PCS, is expand'mg across the country. This growth has resulted in an increased demand for service, which in turn, has resulted in cellular phone users demand for a broader geographic sendce area. In those areas with high volumes of usage, an increased number of fac'dities are required to accommodate the number of calls which are made or attempted. The response to this has led to the location or proposed location of facilities in scattered stand-alone sites within the County. Currently the Zoning Ord'manee requires that towers obtain a special use permit. The Ordinance contains criteria for the review of all special use permits in Section 31.2.4.1. Based on comments by the public, ARB, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, these criteria have proven generally inadequate to address the particular issues of wireless communication facilities In order to provide consistent review of all tower requests and address the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1, staff is attempting to establish criteria which may be agreed upon as valid for the review of all towers. As an aid to this review, staff has obtained a limited number of an FCC Fact Sheet providing new national wireless tower sifmg policies. (Copies of the FCC Fact Sheet are available on the Internet at www.fcc, gov/state&local/. Other useful information may be found at www.fcc.gov/.) To date the County has processed a total of 14 requests for towers intended to provide cellular phone service. Not all of these requests have been heard by the Board of Supervisors. A total of 8 towers have been approved. The review of these tower requests has resulted in substantial public comment and requests for a policy addressing the location of towers. Staffhas worked with the two cellular providers and the two proposed Personal Communication System (PCS) providers to determine the fiature needs for towers. While the total number of towers that w'flt be required to provide the level of service desired by the service providers is unknown, continued expansion of the networks is anticipated which will result in more tower requests. PCS, which is not currently in this area, will need to establish a network. This document is intended only as a start to the discussion of these issues and is not to be considered finat. Staff has included as possible locational criteria processes used in other localities which have included the restriction of the new towers to public land. (The 1996 Telecommunications Act requires Federal land to be made available and a recent resolution by the Xrtrginla Generally Assembly makes a similar requirement for State land.) Comprehensive Plan The current provisions of the Comprehensive Plan do not address the locational needs for wireless communication facilities. The Comprehensive Plan contains as a design standard, "design public utility corridors to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines should he placed underground." While the plan is speaking to "corridors" the intent of this statement has resulted in an attempt to consolidate tower locations (the "tower farm" approach) and make the facility as compatible with the surrounding environment as possible. However, this standard was developed prior to the 1980's with television and radio towers in mind and not wireless communication towers. It is very difficult for wireless communication towers to meet this criteria and still adequately serve the area due to the nature of the technology and the area's topography. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance allows for the construction of new telecommunication towers only by special use permit. (All zoning districts permit telecommunication towers by special use permit.) Attachment to existing structures which does not require an increase in height has been permitted without a special use permit. Criteria for review of towers is limited to that contained in Section 31.2.4.1 and 5.12 of the Zoning Ordinance ~see attached). Characteristics of Cellular Telephone and PCS Technology The technology of cellular phones and PCS results in a demand for facility locations unlike the demands of other users of the airwaves. The public has general familiarity with commercial broadcast such as A.M., F.M. and TeIevision, including wireless cable. A.M. stations generally require a cluster of towers in low, often wet, locations. This is due to the fact that this type of broadcast relies in part on ground modulation for the transmission of the signal. F.M., television, and wireless cable broadcast utilize single towers for transmission. Towers for this type of use are generally found at the highest available location. These broadcasts are generally only receivable in a line of sight with the tower. However, with the use of large wattage for the transmission (in this area up to 5,000,000 watts) small obstructions will not block the signal. This characteristic allows a s'mgle broadcast location to serve a broad area. All of the commercial broadcasts listed above are received in a finagle direction. That is, the broadcast is made from the tower and received by the individual with no return of information. Cellular and PCS use differs from standard commercial broadcasts in several ways which results in a different demand for facility locations. (Two-way radios are s'mailar in their operation. However, staff has not noted an increased demand for towers to accommodate two-way radio. Any future request for a new two-way radio tower should be reviewed under the same criteria as cellular and PCS.) Like F.M. television and wireless cable broadcasts, Cellular and PCS broadcasts rely on line of sight for the transmission and reception of signals. This results generally in the need to locate facilities at higher elevations. The broadcast power at the cellular facility is generally limited to 500 watts per channel effective radiating power. Generally broadcast power is limited to 100 watts per channel in order to allow frequency reuse and to minimize interference. As a system matures the power output is reduced to prevent interference with other facilities within the system. At this low power, small obstructions, such as foliage, can block signals. Even if the transmission power could be increased (the signal strength is limited by the FCC), transmission range is limited by the power of the hand held or car phone unit. The power of the personal phone units ranges from approximately 0.6 to 3 watts. New phones are appearing on the market with lower power_output. This low power limits the broadcast range and increases the potential of interruption of the signal from small obstructions. These transmission power limitations result in the need for multiple facility locations. Another factor resulting in increased demand for facility locations is the limitation on the number of calls which can be processed at each facility location at a given time. Currently, one local cellular provider has indicated that in one given peak hour, up to 4,000 blocked calls were recorded. (Blocked calls occur when an individual attempts to make a call and is unable to get a dial tone.) These blocked calls are due in part to the limitation on the handling capacity of the existing cellular facilities. Increases in technology may enable each facility location to accommodate more calls at one time. However, the limiting factor will be the number of channels available for use. Using multiple facilities effectively increases the number of available channels in the system. This is due to "handing off" of calls which occurs automatically within a "cellular" system. That is, when an individual places a call, the nearest facility receives that call and utilizes a channel to complete the call. As an individual moves away from the original facility, another facility takes over the call. The fewer the number of facilities within the system the fewer number of calls which can be handed off. As the system matures the coverage area for each facility is reduced due to the placement of new facilities. These new facilities, by virtue of their reduced coverage area, may be constructed at lower elevations. Cellular and PCS use requires,unimermpted service, particularly for data transmission, such as faxes and computer connections. This sets a high standard of reliability and quality. Technology to reduce the need for multiple facilities, such as satellite technology, currently is unavailable. The use of monopole, guyed or free standing lattice towers is possible as are "stealth sites" which are becoming more prevalent. The use of existing structures for the provision of cellular coverage is preferred by the County and the service providers due to reduced cost. New sites are only necessary to provide coverage to areas with inadequate service. Inadequate service can be due to lack of signal strength or need for additional handling capacity. Inadequate service may be verified by the following methods: l) Field verification by County staffto determine availability of signal (currently staff does not have the equipment or trmning to conduct comprehensive field verification); 2) Submission of a certified engineer's report which shall contain a propagation study of the existing system; or 3) Submission of data indicating the number of blocked calls recorded during peak hour Staff is unaware of any license requirements which establish a maximum number of blocked calls. In order for a facility to be located and become operational, the following is needed: (1) A willing property owner (the various service providers do not have the power of eminent domain); (2) Vehicular access; (3) Electrical power; (4) Line of sight to other facility(s) within the system, (Land line connection can replace line of sight in some instances); 5) approval fxom the FCC and FAA; and 6) County approval. All towers are reviewed for potential intrusion into the Airpol~ Impact Area Overlay District (AIA). No intrusion into the AIA is permitted. Recommendations and Comments of the Wireless Communications Task Force The following task force recommendations include County staff comment which addresses technical aad procedural aspects. At this time the County staff has not proposed any specific language, except where noted to address technical and procedural matters. It is anticipated that with additional review that additional comments and recommendations will be generated. Intent Any decision resulting in a Telecommunications Policy should insure the availability of adequate telecommunication services in the County which will promote the economic development of the community and the safety and convenience of the citizens in a manner which is compatible with the goals, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. A Telecommunications Policy will provide a fi'amework for the review and analysis of individual requests to locate telecommunication facilities and is intended to aid in the selection of sites which will have minimal negative impact on the resources of the County. A Telecommunication Policy should balance the desire of the County to minimize the number of separate tower sites with the need to provide adequate telecommunication services based on current and anticipated technology. The demand for telecommunication services is increasing and federal law (1996 Telecommunications Act) insures that the provision of telecommunication services will not be unduly regulated and cannot be prohibited. The need for new facility sites continues to increase due to increased demand for services and a lack of existing sites which can provide the needed service. The components of this proposed Telecommunication Policy which are intended to result in a Telecommunication Plan are: 1. Goals; 2. Objectives; 3. Recommendations. Goal: To provide adequate sites for the provision oftelecommunication services which have minimal negative impact on the resources of the County. 4 Ob.iective: Determine areas of need for service providers and identify existing facilities which provide or are capable of providing the necessary service. Recommendations: Map areas where improved service is desired; Map existing structures which provide or are capable of providing the necessary service; Map areas identified in the Open Space Plan which may be inappropriate for the siting of facilities such as mountains and historic sites; Adopt policy making County owned land available for the siting of facilities; Provide prepared maps of potential facilities to all services providers to encourage cooperation in the site selection process. STAFF COMMENT In order to identify the areas where service is inadequate the County may need to retain the services ora private engineering firm. Many localities are experiencing the same issues as Albemarle County and independent ~gineering firms do exist which specialize in working with loc21ities in identifying areas of inadequate service, review of existing structures for co-location opportunities and review of new towers/structures to allow them to be designed to accommodate other users. The Open Space Plan has identified various resources which the County has designated as warranting protection. It may be possible to utilize the existing Open Space Plan as the map which identifies those resources which are most impacted by wireless communication. A policy making County-owned land available for the siting of facilities would provide the service providers with a list of potential sites that are available for siting. [The service providers have difficulty in obtaining sites in some instances due to unwilling landowners. The service providers do not have the power of eminent domain.] Location of facilities on County land could allow the County to insure the availability of structures for combined use. As a secondary benefit, location on County land may have the effect of increasing the County's communication resources by locating County transmitters on new towers. Before the adoption of any policy to make County land available criteria for siting must be established. This siting criteria should provide for methods of locating facilities in such a way as to minimize impact on current and future use of the property. In addition the siting criteria for the use of public land should be consistent with the criteria applied to private property. Ob_iective: Encourage the use of existing facilities for the provision of service. Recommendations: · Provide map of known facilities to service providers; · Allow by-right increase in height of existing structures (structures include but are not limited to: buildings, towers, electrical transmission lines, flagpoles, light poles, and signage.) unless the increase in height causes the tower to be lit or results in a change in the lighfmg status. STAFF COMMENT Require the applicant to submit evidence that suitable existing facilities are not ava'table within two miles of any proposed new facility site. (Two miles was selected as the cut off point due to the operational characteristics of cellular systems.) This may require the use of outside engineering resources to determine the accuracy of the information submitted by the service providers, Require new fac'dities, including public facilities, to be designed to accommodate additional users. This will make capacity for co-location available. However, requiring a fac'dity owner to allow a competitor access to the available capacity may not be enforceable. The service providers have stated that no requiremem for submission of information on existing fac'flities should be required. They have stated that due to the high cost of constructing a new fac'dity a service provider will exhaust efforts to locate on existing structures before making application for a new site. Ob_iective: Minimize impact of facilities on County resources. Recommendations: Identify and map all resources in the County which could be adversely impacted by the constraction of telecommunication facilities; Establish 40 feet or 25%, above the exisfmg treeline, whichever is greater as a standard for the constmction of new towers in the Rural Areas. Towers above this standard may only be permitted with adequate justification for the need for increased height; Permit the "by-right" construction of towers in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts which are also designated as such in the Comprehensive Plan. The height of "by-right" towers would be limited to 150 feet~ Towers of greater height will require a special use permit; Encourage the use of"stealth sites". STAFF COIViMENT As stated previously, the Open Space Plan may provide the necessary mapping of resources which may be adversely impacted by the construction of new facilities. Providing a standard for fac'flity siting in the Rural Areas allow_ s staff to improve the quality of review of special use permit applications and to insure that all applications are treated equally. While a standard does not insure approval of applications which meet the standard, it does provide for a target of design for the service providers. By-fight construction in certain districts will likely have the result of reducing requests in Residential or Rural Areas Districts. If a service provider can locate by-right 6 in a Commercial or Industrial District it is unlikely that it will choose instead to locate in an area which will require a sp~ial use permit. Staff opinion is towers located in Commercial and Industrial Districts should be set back from Residential or Rural Area property lines a distance equal to or greater than the height of the tower. Some member of the Wireless Telecommunication Task Force have recommended that the setback for towers be the same as for the primary structure in a Commercial of Industrial District. The use of stealth sites can serve to greatly reduce the visibility of wireless facilities. Stealth technology can allow a facility to be incorporated into a building design (such as a church steeple or the cupola ora building). Stealth technology can also allow facilities to appear as flag poles or light poles. "Tree Towers" have been used in some localities in an effort to disguise the tower. Stealth technology can greatly increase the cost of a site. Objective: Insure County compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing the issuance of special use permits. Recommendations: Treat all providers of two-way wireless communication as functionally equivalent service providers; Act on all applications for new facilities within the adopted review schedule; Establish a standard review format for staff reports and Board of Supervisors motions for action to insure that a written record is established for all actions; Determine the "detriments" caused by telecommunication facilities and establish criteria to determine when these detriments are substantial; Establish a method for determining the existing "character" of the district in which a facility is proposed and establish criteria to determine when the "character" of the district will be changed. STAFF COMMENT Stall'Ms treated all two-way communication providers as functionally equivalent service providers. Currently staffhas a standard report format for the review of all special use permit applications. Staff may need to modify the special use Permit report format. Staff has also considered recommending amendment of the review schedule for wireless communication facilities to require submittal of requests once a year. This will require all service providers to submit information at the same time. This will afford the County the opportunity to work with the various providers to maximize co-location. In addition, once a year submittal will allow staffto review the request as a network as opposed to individual sites. At this time staffis unable to determine if once a year submittal are permitted under existing state and federal law. 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 05-01-97P03:09 RCVD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~,m~u~e To ~oA~D~,,~,Rs AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Cost of Living Report I AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: May 7, 1997 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on the Cost of Living in Albemarle County prepared for the Welfare Reform Steedng Committee. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS.: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: With the July I implementation of welfare reform in Albemarle County, the attached report was developed for the Welfare Reform Steering Committee to provide information on the estimated cost of living in Albemarle County and an understanding of the minimum income levels required for different family configurations, particularly the single parent household with children DISCUSSION: The report first analyzes the estimated cost of living for a single parent and one child based on 1995 cost data for basic household costs, including housing, child care, medical and dental, food, telephone and transportation. Costs are based on documented sources, such as HUD Fair Market Rents, DSS child care costs and USDA food estimates. The analysis is also based on several assumptions, i.e. the family does not have employer paid health insurance, has a preschool child requiring child care, and owns and operates a vehicle, rather than having access to public transportation. in attempting to determine a community standard of need, the analysis does net preclude the fact that many families in Albemarle County currently live on incomes well below those cited in the report However, they may be doing so because they have no health insurance, do not own or operate a vehicle, pay less rent. rely upon a relative or friend for child care or have an additional soume of income, such as child support. This analysis assumes no other sources of income for a single parent other than employment. Based on 1995 costs, the analysis concludes that a single parent with one child must earn almost $11.50 an hour to meet the minimum income level to live in Albemarle County. an hourly wage that is far beyond the average $6.00 hourly wage women earn leaving welfare for employment. By comparison, a family of three with two adults worldng full-time can survive on a ti[tie under $7.00 an hour each, making the costs of living in Albemarle significantly more attainable. One of the intentions of this report isto point out the difficulty single parents working at minimum wage levels will have in attaining long-term self-sufficiency without some form of assistance in the areas of child care~ medical/dental care and/or housing and the neec to look at the long-term impact of welfare reform on working families. RECOMMENDATION: This report is provided for the Board's information only and requires no action 97.093 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COST OF LIVING PROJECTIONS 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Part 1: Cost of Living Explanations & Household .............................................. 2 Configurations Part 2: Analysis of Cost of Living ........................................................................ 4 Part 3: Albemarle Cost of Living Compared ....................................................... 5 to Other Income Measures Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 10 Appendix ......................................................................................................... 11 * Comp'fled by the Albemarle County Executive's Office 1995 Albemarle County Cost of Living Projections EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It would require a single mother with one pre-school child to earn almost $I 1.50 an hour in order to obtain a minimum level of living by community standards in Albemarle County, Virginia. Typical entry-level jobs for persons without a college education are usually not sufficient to pay for all the necessary family 1Mng expenses, and often some important expenditures are forgone to make ends meet. By comparison, a family of three with two adults working full-time can survive on little under $7.00 an hour each, making the cost of living in Albemarle significantly more attainable, These are some of the findings in a study of the cost of living in Albemarle County. Detailed estimates were compiled on the minimum incomes needed to live in Albemarle at a level consistent with commnnity standards. By using a community standard oflivlng, staffincluded items such as health insurance and child care which are frequently excluded from the budgets of persons with low incomes. The Albemarle cost ofliv'mg does not, however, provide for expenses common to middle-class households: vacation, cable television, entertainment beyond $5.00 per week, savings for personal expenditures such as a house, or retirement funds. Also, the cost of living does not include any extraordinary medical costs. The following are important conclusions from this analysis: 1) The income necessary for a single parent to maintain a household for more thafi one child in Albemarle County is virtually unattainable for someone without an advanced professional degree, or some form of subsidized housing, medical care and/or child care. 2) Child care for pre-school children is the second largest expenditure for most low-income families and critically impacts their ability to meet other household expenses. 3) Most low-income Albemarle families with young children do not have the option of one- parent remaining home to ranse the children 4) Using % of median income as a means test for state and federal assistance programs, leaves many families well below the income level required to maintain a household. March 25, 1997 I. ~ ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING Table 1 shows the Albemarle cost of living for a single parent with one child. This calculation reveals that the cost of living for this household is 67% &the Virginia median income. Incomes required at this level are greater than double the newly authorized minimum wage of $5 15 TABLE 1 COST OF LIVING: SINGLE PARENT, ONE CHILD 1995 COST DATA ESTIMATES PER MONTH ITEM OF EXPENDITURE HOUSING CHILD CARE MEDICAL INSURANCE MEDICAL EXPENSES DENTAL FOOD TELEPHONE TRANSPORTATION MISC. TOTAL (AVERAGE) APPROXIMATE TAXES GROSS SALARY REQUIRED HOURLY WAGE REQUIRED ANNUAL INCOME NEEDED VIRGINIA MEDIAN INCOME COST/MONTH $521 (Average ofl-2bedroom) $293 $147 $36 $19 $230 $25 $241 $161 $1673 $311 $1984 $11.45 $23,808 $35,811 A. HOUSING. The most expensive item in Albemarle County is housing, which accounts for about 20%-25% of the hypothetical family budgets. Housing costs are shown as a range from 0 bedroom to 4 bedroom apartments in the Charlottesville MSA. These figures were collected fi-om "Schedule B - 40th Percentile Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing" published for states in the Federal Register Vol. 60. No. 157, Tuesday, August 15, 1995 (Attachment A). B. CHILD CARE. Child care for preschool children constitutes the second largest area of expenditure, contributing significantly to the difference in economic well-being between families with and without children. As provided by the Albemarle County Department of Social Services, the weekly costs for child care are an averaged figure of the most costly unregulated/informal child care ($60) and the lowest licensed institutional child care ($75). C. HEALTH COSTS. Monthly health insurance for major medical coverage (non-group) for adults and minors was averaged to be $147 & $63, respectively. Health insurance varied depending on the sex and age of the adult as welt as the amount of the deductible (ranging from $300-$500). Health care costs were estimated using the lowest quotes provided by local health care providers and do not include annual physical and preventative maintenance programs. Prescription medicine and doctor co-payments were updated from HMO estimates and Medicaid Expenditures for VA D. FOOD. Food expenditures were obtained from the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion food cost chart (11/95) for 4-person families. The monthly average child and adult require an additional $100 and $130, respectively. USDA calculates four levels of food expenditure: thrifty, low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal food plans. The "low cost plan" was used for Albemarle food cost requirements (Attachment B). E. OTHER LIVING EXPENSES Utility cost. Generally gas, water/sewer and electricity are included in the Fair Market rent allocations. Therefore, no utility costs were included in the cost estimations. Telephone Costs were determined as Sprint Centel's lowest monthly rate and do not include long distance or any special features. Also, the closer the connection is to the Central office the cheaper the service. Transportation expenses were calculated as the monthly cost of purchasing and operating a second-hand vehicle, $241. The expense was based on revised computations provided by the Complete Car Cost Guide. Miscellaneous costs included clothing, housekeeping supplies, house furnishings, and personal needs were updated computations from Ernst & Whinney for the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services. The Personal Need category includes minimal mental health needs (recreation) as well as physical needs Federal and State taxes. Taxes for each family type (accounting for appropriate deductions) were calculated by the County Finance Department ustng the cost of living estimates as income. It should be noted that low income households pay a disproportionate amount of sales tax and other consumer taxes compared to higher income households. F. Expenses Omitted. The minimum budgets do not include a number of common items for households in the County. Among these are the following: 1) unusual medical, such as costs for chrorric diseases or injuries; (2) savings for a new car. home purchase, or college education; (3) vacations; (4) recreation (including eating out). 3 OTHER HOUSEHOLD CONFIGURATIONS In addition to a s'mgle parent with one child, the cost of living was calculated for eight other household configurations The incomes necessary to support those types are listed below. When two adults are listed in a household it is assumed that both work full-time. TABLE 2 COST OF LIVING: VARIOUS HOUSE HOUSEHOLD CONFIGURATIONS BASED ON 199~ COST DATA ESTIMATES HOUSEHOLD* COST** HOURLY WAGE REQUIRED TO MEET COST OF LIVING 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD I ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN l ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 14,472 6.96 20,160 4.85 23,808 11.45 29,028 6.98 31,476 15.13 39,696 9.54 39,780 19.13 45,336 10.90 44,556 21.42 * assumes child care expenses for all children, except last household type where three are factored ** see appendix for estimated costs per household II ANALYSIS OF COST OF LIVING DATA A In every one of the above cases, the annual income to meet the Albemarle cost of living is below the Virginia median income. B. The income necessary for a single parent to maintain a household for more than one child is virtually unattainable for someone without an advanced professional degree. As noted, child care costs drive these budgets up and can, for two preschool age children, cost between $40-$60 per week for informal day care and $75-$125 per week for licensed/formal day care. Since many of Albemarle families use unregulated day care, we averaged both unregulated and licensed day care facility figures into our estimates. Since licensed day care costs are clearly beyond the reach of most single parents, there is a significant risk that without assistance, children will be exposed to substandard child care. C. Maintaining a traditional family with two working parents makes living in Albemarle much more possible. Two adults with two children need to earn about $I0.00 an hour each, working full-time, to meet the cost of living. A single adult with two children would need to obtain an income of $15.13 an hour to provide the same standard of living. The option of one parent staying home to raise children is effectively precluded for a low income househol6 D The most difficult time tO provide adequately for children is when they are pre-school age, and require full-time quality day care. The high cost for licensed day care makes it difficult if not impossible for low income families to obtain the services they need. A single parent with two children earning a realistic income of $8.00 an hour is only earning 53% of the cost of living. III[ ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO OTHER INCOME MEASURES A. MEDIAN INCOME. At the Albemarle County cost of living of $23,808 for a single parent and child, the family would be earning 67% of the Virginia median income. This is illustrated in Table 3 for each household configuration. The 1995 Virginia median family incomes were updated estimates from 1990 Census data and do not differentiate for family configuration. The Weldon Cooper Center at UVA estimated median family incomes increased 16.8% during the past five years. TABLE3 Cost of Living COMPARED TO MEDIAN INCOMES: ALBEMARLE & VIRGINIA COST OF HOUSEHOLD LIVING 1 ADULT 14,472 2 ADULTS 20,160 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 23,808 2 ADULTS, t CHII.D 29,028 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 31,476 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 39,696 I ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 39,780 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 45,336 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 44,556 VA MEDIAN COST OF LIVING (COL) INCOME AS % OF MED. INCOME 27,387 53% 35,811 56% 35,811 67% 44,234 66% 44,234 71% 52,672 75% 52,672 76% 61,096 74% 61,096 73% The above analysis reveals problems in using a percent of median income as the means test for access to public assistance The first is that the cost of living is highly dependent on the size and configuration of the household. It is not related to a percentage of median income; for example, a single adult needs a minimum of 53% of the VA area median income compared to a household of one adult and two children, which needs 71% of the Virginia median income. Thus. there is a fundamental flaw in using percentage of median income as a needs or means test for public 5 tts~istance. A single person without extraordinary medical expenses would need an income of $t4,472 per year to live in Albemarle, while a single adult with two pre-school children needs $3 t,476. This would put the two family types at 53% and 71% of the VA median income, respectively, and ineligible for most services. The difference in median incomes is important because the Virginia State median income is used to determine eligibility for state assistance programs, such as Section 8 rental assistance and Department of Social Services prograrns. In most cases, citizens are not eligible for state assistance if they are over 50% of the State median income. As shown in Table 4, all households in Albemarle, require an income substantially higher than 50% of the Virginia median income. For example, the State eligibility standard is only 53% &the Albemarle cost of living for a single person, but 67% for a single parent with one child. This illustrates the substantial gap between the point where people in Albemarle need help and when they are eligible to receive it. TABLE4 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ELIGIBII~ITY STANDARDS (50% STATE MEDIAN INCOME) AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FAMILY TYPE COL as % COST OF OF VA MED. LIVING STATE ELIGIBLE INCOME (S0%) 1 ADULT 53% 2 ADULTS 56% 1 ADULT, 1 CIqlI.D 67% 2 ADULTS, 1 Ct-gI,D 66% 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 71% 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILD~ 75% 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 76% 2 ADULT, 3 CH/LDREN 74% 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 73% 14,472 13,694 20,160 17,906 23,808 17,906 29,028 22,117 31,476 22,117 39,696 26,336 39,780 26,336 45,336 30,548 44,556 30,548 Table 5 illustrates the County's eligibility standards for food stamps and ADC benefits, and compares those numbers with the cost of living in Albemarle. The ADC figures are used as threshold amounts to screen income in order to determine if the County will continue with the computation process. TABLE5 ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ELIGHIILITY STANDARDS FOR FOOD STAMPS & ADC AS % OF ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FOOD STAMP FAMILY TYPE ELIG. INCOME* 1 ADULT 9,720 2 ADULTS 13,044 I ADULT, 1 ClqlI.D 13,044 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 16,368 1 ADULT, 2 C/qlI.DREN 16,368 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 19,704 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 19,704 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 23,028 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 23,028 % OF COST ADC ELIG. % OF COST OF LIVING* INCOME OF LIVING 67% 3,864 27% 65% 5,700 28% 55% 5,700 24% 56% 7. 152 25% 52% 7,152 23 % 50% 8,568 22% 50% 8,568 22% 51% 10,140 22% 52% 1 O, 140 23% * Income is only one determinant of eligibility A second problem is that median incomes are calculated by household size. not household configuration Thus, the median incomes for a household of three is as follows: Virginia $44,234 The actual income needed varies substantially for a household of three depending on whether it consists of two adults and one child or one adult and two children due mostly to child care costs. Costs of Living - 3 person household 2 Adults, 1 Child $29,028 l Adult, 2 Children $31,476 As a percent of median income, two adults and one child need 66% of the Virginia median income, while one adult and two children need 71% of the Virginia median. A third problem with the current methodology is that the Virginia median income does not take regional and local differences into accoum. The costs of housing and child care can differ substantially based on location, but State regulations do not always take these increased costs into account in calculating eligibility for assistance. B. FEDERAL INCOME MEASURES. The following table compares the cost of living required for Albemarle with the Department of Health and Human Services CHHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) poverty income guidelines for program eligibility (see attachment C). TABLE COST OF LIVING COMPARED TO FEDERAL POVERTY MEASURES FAMILY TYPE 1 AI)ULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 1 ADULT, 2 CItILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 Ci~LDREN I ADULT, 4 CHILDREN ALBEMARLE HItS HUD 14,472 7,462 16,800 20,160 10,005 19,200 23,808 10,005 19.200 29,028 12,654 21.600 31,476 12,654 21,600 39, 696 l 5,091 24. 000 39,780 15,091 24,000 45,336 17,634 25,900 44,556 17,364 25,900 The most striking point is the wide gap between the HHS definition of poverty and the standard required to live in Albemarle. Some of this discrepancy is due to the fact that HI-IS figures present costs for the 48 contiguous states and do not adequately reflect the County's substantially higher cost of living. The second factor contributing to these low I-K-IS poverty levels is that the HI-IS poverty guidelines were derived basically from census poverty thresholds. CWith some adjustments for income differentials between families of different sizes). The basic assumption for Census poverty thresholds has increasingly come under challenge from economists and policy-makers. The Census definition of poverty is based on the assumption that families of three or more spend approximately a third of thin- income on food. This assumption is considered by many to be unrealistic given the pattern of inflation in non-food items. The HUD income guidelines for HUD programs are based on predetermined percentages of geographically-based median income, in this case the Charlottesville MSA. These are more realistic, but even these figures do not reflect adequately the high cost of living for Albemarle families (especially as family size increases). Table 7 summarizes the HI-IS and HUD income levels as percentages of the Albemarle cost of living. 8 TABLE 7 FEDERAL POVERTY MEASURES AS PERCENTAGE OF ALBEMARLE COST OF LIVING FAMILY TYPE HHS HUD 1 ADULT 520/0 2 ADULTS 50% 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 42°/0 2 ADULTS, 1 CI4ql~D 44% 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDKEN 40% 2 ADULTS, 2 CHII,DREN 38% 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 38% 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 39% 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 40% 116°/o 95% 81% 74% 69% 61% 60% 57% 58% Since many recognize that the ItHS poverty standards are unrealistically low, they will sometimes be increased by fixed percentages for eligibility purposes. For example, calculations may be made based on 100%, 150% or 200% of poverty. If the Albemarle cost of living is compared to I-IHS poverty levels in this way, one finds that a single parent with one child would need to earn 238% of poverty to meet the cost of living in Albemarle. All federal programs, such as Head Start, Medicaid, General Relief, Auxiliary Grants and ADC use the I-IHS guidelines as a basis, although they are upgraded with cost of living adjustments for regions throughout the state. TABLE 8 COST OF LIVING AS PERCENT OF IIIIS POVERTY LEVEL FAMILY TYPE 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, I C~I-11.D 2 ADULTS, 1 CHILD 1 ADULT, 2 CIqlLDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CIqTr.DREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHII,DREN ttttS 194% 201% 238% 229% 249% 263% 264% 257% 253% COL in ALBEMARLE 14,472 20,160 23,808 29,028 31,476 39,696 39,780 45,336 44,556 9 CONCLUSION: This report is intended as an initiai effort to create an information base on which to develop rational public policy for low income citizens in Albemarle County. It has identified the major costs categories for living in Albemarle and made explicit assumptions about each. From this information, an Albemarle cost ofliv'mg was developed by household configuration and size. The cost data can be adjusted, based on public policy debate, to reflect commumty standards more accurately. The cost of living in Albemarle raises serious questions about the validity of other standards used as measures of need, especially in their failure to account for different household configurations as well as size. The next step is to analyze federal, State, and local assistance programs to assess their effectiveness in bridging the gap for households with incomes below the Albemarle cost of living. From this second level of anaiysis, one would have a basis for assessing and developing a rational policy to meet the needs of low income persons. 10 0 0 C Z 0 0 < m co m 0 0 C Z 0 © 7 --t m $8{ny pe~sodO-~cl / g66~ 'SI lsn§n%f t(aps~n.L / Zg~ 'ON '09 '[OA / .z~$!S~}{ F~-~p~j r~ UnRed States Dep~rt~ent of Agriculture 208 Z321 Cenie~ ~o~ Nutr~on PoliC~ and Promotion USD~ FCS CNPP 1120 20th Steeot, tlW SuEe 200, North Lobby Wa~hlngt0n, DG 20036 ~oo~ Cost of Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Four Cost Levels, October 1995, U.S. Averagex r CO~' FOR 1 ~ COST FOR I MONiH SEX'AGE GROUPS pl~ pl~ co~pl~ p~ pl~ p~ FAMILIES: F~Y OF 4: c~ 12-14 y~ 23.~ 32.i0 39.~ ~.~ 99.80 139.10 172.80 203.~ 20-50 y~ ~.70 32.~ 41~ 50.~ [ll~O 14230 178.~ 2~6.50 5t ~ ~dov~ ] ~.~ 28.~ ~.~ 4L70 98.~ 121.~ 150,80 180.50 Assumes that food for MI me~ds and snacks Is pu[chascd at thc stor~ and prepared at homc. Esthnate~ f~r thc thrif~ food pL-.n ,,yom computed from quantiti~ of foods publ~hed ki Family Econamlc~ Review. 1984, No, I. Estlma~ for ~he other plant ware computed from q~andt~ o~ foods publi~h~l i~ Family Econamics R~vtew. 1983, NO. ~l. Tile co~ of fl~c food ptmxs ~e ~t Lraai~ by updating Friars paid b~ households surv%vcd ia 1977-78 in USDA's Nat[auw{d~ Food C.~z~urapllon S~'vcy. USDAupdatca thcsc smmzcy pfice~ using Lnformat{oa front th~ Bun:au of Labor Stat~tlcs: "CPI Do~ailed Rcfo~*", tabIe 4, tn ~;timat~ th~ costs for the food plans, 2Ten percent ~l~c[cd fro' family s[z~ ~djustmcot Scc footnot~ ~. , 3Thc ~ g[,~. er: for mdlvlduals ut 4-p~rsoa farr~, l~or imdlv[c~a]~ ~ och~- $-Lze fa~e~, tke foilow~g adju;tracnta are suggested; 1 -p~so~--ad~ 20 ~ 2-pe~cx-~--m~d 10 perc~n~ 3-~ack[ 5 p~ 5- ~ 6-lmm"~m---s~btract 5 p~rm:nt; 7- (or moi~) person~ mlbt~act 10 p~rc~t. Issued November 1995 ATTACHMENT C HUD Median Income Guidelines for Charlottesville MSA (12/95) FAMILY TYPE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 1 ADULT 2 ADULTS 1 ADULT, 1 CHILD 2 ADULTS, 1 CItlLD 1 ADULT, 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS, 2 CHILDREN I ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 2 ADULT, 3 CHILDREN 1 ADULT, 4 CHILDREN 16,800 19,200 19,200 21,600 21,600 24,000 24,000 25,900 25,900 SOURCE: HUD * We would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Arlington County Department of Human Services in providing format input for this report Geo~e Al~eu Becky Norton Dunlop Secreta~ of N~tu.-al Resom. ccs 5OAreD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Ot~ce Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 1129, Harrlsonburg, Virginia 22801-1129 Telephone (540} 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 h tt p;//www.deq.s[ate.va, us April 21, 1997 Thomas L. Hopkins Director IL Bradley Chewning, Valley Regional Director The Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chairman County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0073059 - Cove Creek Industries - Covesville, Virginia - Albemarle County Dear M~s. Humphris: In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 62.1- 44.15:01, I am enclosing a copy of a public notice regarding the referenced proposed permit action. If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please give me a call at (540]574-7800. Sincerely, William L. Kregloe Environmental Engineer Senior Enclosure cc: File An Agency of the NatUral Resources Secretariat PUBLIC NOTICE REISSUANCE OF A VPDES PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW First Public Notice Issue Date: (to be supplied by newspaper) The State Water Control Board has under consideration relssuance of the following Permit and State Certificate: Permit No.: VAO073059 Name of Permittee: Cove Creek Industries Facility Name: Cove Creek Plant Facility L'ocation: Covesville Discharge Description: Existing industrial discharge resulting from runoff from the permittee's woodyard. Receiving Stream: North Fork Hardware River,U.T. - River Mile: ~ot~Out~al~s: I ~iow: O.1 Est. MGD Basin: James (Middle) Subbasin: N/A Section: 10 Class: III Special Standards: None This proposed reissuance is tentative. On the basis of preliminary review and application of lawful Standards and regulations, the State Water Control Board proposes to reissue the permit subject to certain conditions. This permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards adopted by the Board. The proposed reissuance consists of limiting the parameters: Flow - No Limit, pH - 6.0 to 9.0 S.U. Recoverable Copper - 69.5 ug/1. following and Total Persons may comment in writing to the Department of Environmental Quality on the proposed reissuance of the permit within 30 days from the date of the first notice. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer, and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for the comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The Director of the Department of Environmental Quality may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. ~, ~o~ ~.~=uests _ _ public hearings shall state the reason why a hearing is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. -(PUblic Notice Continued - Page (Permit No. VA0073059) ~11 pertinent information is on file and may be inspected, and arrangements made for copyzng by contacting William Kregloe at: Department of Environmental Quality Valley Regional Office 4411 Early Road P.O. Box 1129 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Telephone No, (540) 574-7800 Following the comment period, the Director will make a determination regarding the proposed reissuance. This determination will become effective unless the Director grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. ABG, FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. April 9. 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 March 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 22902-4596 Effective March 31, 1997 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. icmbard s~-eet Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RB: Hydraulic Road Apartments -Ar~orCres=Apa~u,-ents Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a} of the Deed Restrictions (the 'Deed Restriotions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virgiaia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date shown below: I) The number of units in the Pro,eot occupied by lower income tenants is 15 . 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0- 3) The number of units rented and the number of units held available for rental other than as described (1) and (2) is 51 . in 4) The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitut~ of the total number of units in the Project is 23% The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof. 6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions Or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of April 4, 1997 RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership Authorized ~epresenta=lve March 1997 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Charlottesville, VA Subm,tle~ ~Y. ,Loretta Wyatt I. LO'W~A INCOME I%'oje¢l It: , , 051-35371 Number of Units 66 .April 4, 1997 Effective 3/31/97 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 15 4 Arbor Crest Dr 6 Arbor Crest Dr 7 Arbor Crest Dr a 9 .Arbor Crest Dr 5 14 Arbor Crest Dr 6 18 Arbor Crest Dr 7 30 Arbor Crest Dr B 44 Arbor Crest Dr 9 56 Arbor Crest Dr 10 76 Arbor Crest Dr 78 Arbor Crest Dr 12.84 Arbor Crest Dr 13 88 Arbor Crest Dr ~4 90 Arbor C~e_s% Dr ~$ ~4_Arbor Crest Dr 17 ~9 2O ~1. Beverly T. Lane 22 Wilma M. Atkinson Ruth M. Jones 24 Virginia Burton 25 _~etty L. Reed Ann S. Kemp 27 Mary Cox Allen 25. Sam Atherton 29 Harlan W. Hooe 30 ,.Ann G. Saylor Ernes~ M. Nease 32 Juanita Boliek Nancy G. Foley Betty B. Elliott 35 M. Eiteen Knick 39 _. 40 41 42 43 44 4~ 4? 48 50, 53 55 53' 5~ 5~ 67... M. 70. 71.., 72 73.. 74. 75.. 76.. 77. ~0. t 12 Arbor Crest Dr G. Robert Stone II 1 __ 11. ~ 12 2 12 3 13 3., 13 4 . 14 4.__ 14., 5 15 5 tS. 6 t6 , 6 18. 7 T7 ? 17. 6 t8., a. 6 lg g 1~. 'tO 20 10. 20. ,~BG · FINANCIAL SERVICES. INC. April 9, 1997 410-879-9918 F^x 4~o-s3s.~)ARD OF SUPERVISORS Ms. Arlene Hernandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 04-~5-97a~0:45 RCVD Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Dear Ms. Hemandez: Enclosed, please find a copy of ABG Financial Services, Inc., Monitoring Report, which concludes my site visit to Arbor Crest Apartments. ABG has examined the records of Arbor Crest Apartments. Based on our review of the records and other information provided to us by the agent, we conclude that the Project bas been operated in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Deed of Restrictive Covenants and the requirements of Section 103 of the 1954 Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me Sincerely, Pro.~ect Monitor /shin enclosures cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnt'tre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ABG MONITORING REPORT SECTION 103(b)(4)(A) DATE: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOW INCOME UNITS REQUIRED: REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF LOW/MODERATE UNITS: TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED: ' TOTAL NUMBER OF LOW INCOME UNITS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED: PERCENTAGE OF LOW/MODERATE UNITS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED: MANAGEMENT AGENT: COMMENTS: March 27, 1997 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road) 101 Arbor Crest Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 66 14 2O% 66 (as of 2/28/97) 16 (as of 2/28/97) 24% (as of 2/28/97) Summit Realty Group, Inc. 4801 Radford Avenue, Suite 104 Richmond, VA 23230-3541 Sixteen lease files were reviewed and found to be in good order except for Stone, listed in unit 12 Arbor Crest Drive. Mr. Stone added an occupant, Margaret Stone to this unit July 9, 1993. These tenants will be removed from the March 1997 bond report, pending recert'rfication. Arbor Crest is required to maintain 20% (14 units) available for low/moderate income tenants. The property averaged 26% (17 units) since July 1993, therefore, the above discrepancy does not jeopardize the compFmnce of this project in any way. The property is correctly certifying qualified tenants for the bond program and is currently satisfying the 20% requirement. REVIEWED BY: Sheila H. Moynihan BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05-02-97A07:18 RC/D AGENDA TITLE: March 1997 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: March 1997 Financial Report for the General, School. and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT~SI: Ms. White. Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes RENEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Attached is the March 31, 1997 Monthly Financial Report for the General, School and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue projections were last revised in December 1996 £o exceed budget by $467,513 0.54%. General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. School Revenue projections were revised to exceed budget by $123,718, 0.18%. School expenditures reflect a 6.0% holdback pelicy. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the March 1997 Financial Report. 97.094 ~UJLU Oz Z LU --~ Z ILl UJ Z Z mO~ mm oo~~~ Z ~ W ~ 0 0 ~ z ~ o o~ z ~ ~ < z ~ mwO a 0~ LU Z LU X LU o LU o Z o o o o o o o o o c ~1 LLi >'0 .W .%<0 EEo~ ~ ~ O~Z gz--~:z~ z~O ~ ~ ~o~o ~ ~<~ To: ELLA CAREY Cc: CHARLOTTE HUMPHRIS,CHARLES MARTIN~DAVID BOWERMAiq, SALLY THOMAS,WAYNE CILIMBERG,BILL MAWYER From: Bob Tucker Subject: Fwd: Bridge over RR tracks on Free Stame Road Date: 4/25/9? Time: 8:4BAM Originated by: BOWERMAN @ ACVA on 4/24/97 9:45PM Forwarded by: BTUCKER @ ACVA on 4/25/97 8:45AM (CHANGED) ELLA: PLEASE D~D DISCUSSION OF FREE BRIDGE UNDER TRANSPORTATION MATTERS FOR MAY 7TH. THANKS, BOB *****ORIGINAL MESSAGE FOLLOWS***** I have been asked mo discuss possible bridge replacements options by Jim Hill. The bridge is mn bad shape but Jim's interest ms obvious as Dr. Hurt can't develop his land without either the Meadow Creek Pky or mmprovements ~o the bridge. Tham fact aside, I would like to discuss and determine options, who pays, priority with other projects, enc. The swim club and residents use the road and depending on traffic counm and condition of the bridge, it makes sense from a safety view( I don'E believe that fire trucks can use the bridge) Go take a look at it. Would you put on agenda and alert A .Tucker for discussion on May 7th. Charles, I expect Jim no call you too as I believe that one end of the Bridge zs in Rio District and the other end is in the Rivanna District David, To: Ella Carey From: Juandiego Wade Subjecn: 01d Route 631 Abandonment Date: 3/18/97 Time: 3:55PM I will forward you the names cf the adjacent properEy owners zna few days. The public hearing will take place on May 9, 1997. Road Description: Old Route 631 is located between Inters~a~e 64 and Moores Creek. The proposed abandonment is approximately 600 feet long. It is separated by Tax Map 76M 1) Parcel 1 Please call if you have any questions. To: TO WHOM ADDRESSED '1~ f-f/ [:rom: Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, CMC~'G,r~ Subject: Ordinance Adopted by Board on May 7, 1997 Date: May 12; 1997 Attached for your use is a copy of an ordinance which was adopted by the Board of Superv/sors on May 7, 1997: (1) An ordinance to amend Chapter 1 1, Licenses, of the Albemarle County Code, to change the requirement for determining gross receipts by real estate brokers and agents relating to real estate commissions. (2) An ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Code by amending Chapter 6, Elections, Section 6-6, Same--Scottsville Magisterial District to create a new voting precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District by dividing the existing Monticello Precinct to create a new precinct to be called the Cale Precinct. /EWC Attachment (2) CC: The Honorable James L. Camblos, III Rolisa Smith Melvin A~ Breeden Robert Walters Municipal Code Corporation File ORDINANCE NO. 97-11(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER I I, LICENSES. ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, AND ARTICLE II, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses. Article I, In General, and Article II, Schedule of Taxes. is hereby mended and reordained by amending section 11-18(b)(9), Same-- Exclusions and deductions of gross receipts, and repealing section 11-65(c), Financial. real estate and professional services, as follows: Artide I. In General Sec. 1 i-i 8. Same--Exdusions and deductions of gross receipts. (a) General Rule. Gross receipts for license tax purposes shall not include any amount not derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business in the ordinary course of such business. (b) The following shall be excluded from gross receipts: (1) Amounts received and paid to the United States, the Commonwealth or any county, city or town for the Virginia retail sales or use tax. or for any local sales tax or any local excise tax on cigarettes, or for any federal or state excise taxes on motor fuels. (2) Any amount representing the liquidation of a debt or conversion of another asset to the extent that the amount is attributable to a transaction previously taxed (e.g., the factoring of accounts receivable created by sales which have been included in taxable receipts even though the creation of such debt and factoring are a regular part of its business). (3) Any amount representing returns or trade-in allowances granted by the business to its customer. (4) Receipts which are the proceeds of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the obligor. (5) Receipts representing the return of principal of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the creditor, or the return of principal or basis upon the sale ora capital asset. (6) Rebates and discounts taken or received on account of purchases by the licensee. A rebate or other incentive offered to induce the recipient to purchase certain goods or services from a person other than the offeror, and which the recipient assigns to the licensee in consideration of the sale of goods and sercices shall not be considered a rebate or discount to the licensee, but shall be included in the licensee's gross receipts together with any handling or other fees related to the incentive. (7) Withdrawals from inventory for which no consideration is received and the occasional sale or exchange of assets other than inventow, whether or not a gain or loss is recognized for federal income tax purposes. (8) Investment income not directly related to the privilege exercised by a licensable business not classified as rendering financial services. This exelusion shall apply to interest on bank accounts of the business and to interest, dividends and other income derived from the investment of its own funds in securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall not apply to ~nterest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale or other transaction that occurred in the regular course of business. (9) Amounts paid by real estate brokers to real estate agents as a commission on any real estate transaction shall be excluded from real estate brokers' gross receipts. Each real estate broker claiming the exclusion shall identify on its license application each agent to whom the excluded receipts have been paid, the amount of the receipts paid to each such agent, and the jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is subject to business license taxes. (c) The following shall be deducted from gross receipts or gross expenditures: ( I ) The gross receipts or gross expenditures attributable to any definite places of business of the person in any other locality. (2) If otherwise taxable, any amount paid for computer hardware and software that are sold to a United States federal or state government entity provided that such property was purchased within two (2) years of the sale to said entity by the original purchaser who shall have been contractually obligated at the time of purchase to resdl such property to a state or federal government entity. This deduction shall not occur until the time of resale and shall apply to only the original cost of the property and not to its resale price, and the deduction shall not apply to any of the tangible personal property which was the subiect of the original resale contract if it is not resold to a state or federal government entity in accordance with the original contract obligation. (3) If otherwise taxable, any receipts attributable to business conducted in another state or foreign country if the person is liable for an income or other tax based upon income in such other state or foreign country. (d) With the exception of license requirements under section 11-49, all social organizations, fraternities, benevolent order, rdigious, education, civic and military organizations, charter dubs, rescue squads or volunteer fire companies which conduct business or perform services in which compensation in any manner is received shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter so long as the compensation or receipts in excess of the actual expenses are devoted to and used for charitable purposes. All such organizations seeking exemption under this section shall apply, and provide proof if necessary, to the director of finance or his appointed deputy for an exemption certificate. (3-15-83, § 65; 6-13-73; 5-15-75; 4-21-76; 3-10-82) Article II. Schedule of Taxes Division 5. Personal, Professional. Business or Repair Service Businesses, Occupations or Professions. Sec. 11-65. Financial, real estate and professional services. (a) Generally. Each person engaged in a financial, real estate or professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty-eight cents ($0.58) per one hundred dollars of gross receipts. (b) Enumerated. A person engaged in a financial service, real estate service, personal service or professional service includes, but is not limited to, the following: Financial services. The service for compensation by a credit agency, an investment company, a broker or dealer in securities and commodities or a security or commodity exchange, unless such service is otherwise provided for in this chapter. "Broker" shall mean an agent of a buyer or a sdler who buys or sells stocks, bonds, commodities, or services, usually on a commission basis. "Commodity" shah mean staples such as wool and cotton which are traded on a commodity exchange and on which there is trading in futures. "Dealer" for purposes of this chapter shall mean any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for his own account, but does not include a bank, or any person insofar as he buys or sells securities for his own account, either individually or in some fidudary capacity, but not as part of a regnlar business. "Security" for purposes of this chapter shall have the same meaning as in the 3 Securities Act (sections 13.1-501 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, or in similar laws of the United States regulating the sale of securities. Those engaged in rendering financial services include but without limitation, the foItowing: Bu~ng installment receivables Chattel mortgage financing Consumer financing Credit card services Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment financing Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services stockbroker Working capital financing Real estate ~e_rvices. Rendering a service for compensation as lessor, buyer, seller. agent or broker and providing a real estate service, unless the service is otherwise specifically provided for in this ordinance, and such services include, but are not limited to. the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries. real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real estate Professional services. Rendering any service spedfically enumerated below or engaging in any occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or [earning, gained by a prolonged course of spedatized instruction and study is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The words "profession" and "professional" imply attainments in professional knowledge as distinguished from mere skill, and the application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation, and including, but without limitation, such attainments attributed to the following: Architects Attorneys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists Engineers Land surveyors Practitioners of the healing arts (the art or science or group of arts or sciences dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure or alleviation of human physical or mental ailments, conditions, diseases, pain or infirmities) Surgeons Veterinarians t, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero. at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 97-6(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 6, Elections, Section 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District is hereby amended and reordained by amending subsection 6-6(b). Monticello Precinct and by adding new subsection 6-6(e), Cale Precinct, as follows: Sec. 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District. The Scottsville Magisterial District shall be divided into four (4) voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (b) Monticello Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Scottsville Road ~State Route 20) and the southern dry limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Rivanna River: then meandering southeast with the Rivanna River to the AlbemarlcTluvanna Countv line: then southwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Rolling Road (State Route 620'); then northwest on Rolling Road to its intersection with Secretarys Road iState Route 708); then west on Secretarys Road to its intersection with Carters Mountmn Road IState Route 627' then south on Carters Mountain Road to its intersection with Scottsville Road: then north on Scottsville Road to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. (e) Cale Precinct: Beg2nning at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781 ) and the southern city limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with Scottsville Road (State Route 20); then south with Scottsville Road to its intersection with Red Hill Road ~State Route 708): then northwest with Red Hill Road to its intersection with Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 63t ); then north with Old Lynchburg Road to its intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781 ); then north with Sunset Avenue Extended to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. 1. Ella W. Carev. do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, at a regular meeting held on May 7. 1997. Clerk, Board of County S~vervisors -/. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Code amendment - Chapter 11, Licenses SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request amendment to the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 11, Licenses, Sec. 11-18 (b)(9) and Sec. 11-65 (c) STAFF CONTACTI$1: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDADATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: A'I T.a CHME N'I S: Yes//~_ REVIEWED BY: ~J BACKGROUND: Several months ago the Albemarle County Business License Ordinance was amended to bring it in compliance with State Code. Staff recommended that real estate agents be exempted from the license ordinance and that the real estate broker's license basis be the total gross commissions of the firm with no deductions. DISCUSSION: This amendment caused some controversy with the real estate agents and brokers who believed a number of inequities would result. Agents generally felt the amendment was not within the intent of the state legislation to reduce the tax burden of small businesses. Brokers objected to their additional administrative work since they intended to pass the license fee on to the agents. On April 2, 1997 the Board agreed to set a public hearing with the intent to change the license ordinance as requested by this group. The proposed amendment would basically revert back to the previous ordinance requirements. Agents with gross commissions in excess of $5,000 will pay a license fee of $50.00 plus a tax on commissions in excess of $100,000. Brokers will pay a license fee and tax on gross commissions less commissions paid to agents. Brokers will also be required to provide a listing of the agents to whom commissions were paid and the amount paid. RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the attached amendments to the Business License Ordinance and recommends approval. 97.090 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 03-28-g?AO8:3g RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Business and Professional License Tax Amendment for Real Estate Brokers/Agents SUBJ ECT/P ROPOSA[JREQU EST.: Discussion of an amendment to the BPOL tax in Albemarle County for real estate brokers and agents which would require a license application fee of $50 for agents. STAFF CONTACT,S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: April 2. 1997 9"7, ~)~4~>~. c~ '~, ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: The County Ordinance for the Business & Professional Licenses was recentty amended to comply with State Code. The change in our Ordinance regarding the licensing of real estate brokers and agents was substantially different than in previous years. DISCUSSION: In previous years, real estate brokers reported their total gross receipts but were allowed to deduct the commissions paid to each agent. This resulted in a license tax based on the net amount retained by the broker; each agent was then required to obtain a license on their gross commissions. The net result of this was 100% of gross receipts was subject to the County's Business Ucense Tax to either ~he broker or the agent. Changes in State law mandated that businesses with less than $100,000 in gross receipts be exempted from the license tax but provided for the imposition of a license fee which was set at $50.00 by the recent amendments to the County's Ordinance. Specific changes related to real estate brokers and agents were recommended by staff.which required the brokers to pay on 100% of gross receipts with no deductions and exempted agents from a license tax: Staff's basic intent was to keep the total license revenue from this occupation relatively revenue neutral and reduce the administration cost by exempting apprm~mately 240 agents from the license tax. Since the County's Ordinance was amended we have been contacted by the real estate brokers and have met several times to discuss their concerns about the current license requirements. Generally their concern is based on the fact that the County's amendments basically doubled their tax obligation while exempting the agents. They feel that this was not the intent of the changes in the state code and not in the spirit of the general assembly's intent to reduce the business license tax for small businesses. Currently they seem inclined to pass this tax on to the agents as a fee but feel strongly that this is going to impose an undue burden on them and create a bad working relationship wffh their agents. We have also heard from a number of agents concerned wilh this approach since most of them would have been paying only a $50 fee had we continued to license the agents whereas they will be paying considerably more if the broker charges them a fee based on the expense he incurs for the additional business license tax. Attached is a proposal from the broker's association requesting that the County's ordinance be amended to return basically to the waythe license was enforced prior to the amendments. This would mean that the broker's would be able to deduct the commissions paid to all agents no matter whether the agentwas subject to the license tax. Since the majority of the agents will only be subjectto a $50 fee this change would result in approximately a $25,000 loss of revenue from the business license tax. This change would also require that the ordinance reimpose the license tax on the agents requiring the filing and processing of approximately 240 applications with a $50 fee to collect $12,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staffs intent to retain the current level of revenue and reduce the numbers of application to process was basically accomplished with the previous amendments, however, we do acknowledge that this has resulted in substantial reallocation of this tax burden. If the Board is receptive to the amendmen! proposed by the brokers, any revenue loss for FY 98 could be provided from the County Fund Balance, if necessaly. It will also be likely that some extension of the June 15th payment deadline will have to be granted for agents if the license tax is reimposed on the agents. A public hearing could be set for May 7. 1997. 97.072 CHARLOTFESVILLE AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS The Voice for Real EstateTM in the Charlottesville Area REALTOR® CHARLOI-['ESVILLE AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS" 2321 Commonwealth Drive Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 TeJeohone 804-973-2254 March 24. 1997 Mr. Robert Tucker County Executive County of Albemarle 401 Mclmire Road Charlotteswille. VA 229024596 Dear Mr. Tucker: The teademhip of the Charlottesville Area Aasoc/afion Of REALTORS®. pursuant to your request, would like to propose the followingmeasures with regard to collection of the BPOL tax in Albemarle County. As you know. our concerns revolve around what was intended to be relief in the 1996 mended BPOL legislation, the amended ordinances of the County with regard to assessing and collecting BPOL taxes, as well as issues revolving ammad the independent Comxacter states of real estate professionale #1: We request that Albemarle County change its ordinan~ to reqlliI~ indJvidllal rca[ estate ~igents to apply fur and 1~ a license application fee of 550 and be subject to the Gross Receipts Tax if they earn upwards of $100,000. RA TION..4aLE: Tliis request is in keeping with the intent of the amended legislation as well as the independent court-actor stares of mai estate agents. This will allow brokers to deduct gross receipts of these i'nrlividtlal agents from the brokerage firm's gross receipts. #2: We request that the 1997 tax be based upon the Gross Receipts earned in 1996 by agents mall with the firm as of 111197. RA TION/I£E: This will ~ some relief to brokers in 1997 ~ora having to pay Gross Receipts Tax on commissions paid out to agents no longer with the from in 1997. #3: We request that brokers of real estate farms in Albemarle County be asked to assist t~e County ra acting as a collection agent for both the License Fee and Gross Receipts Tax fi.ora individual real estate agents within their firms. RA TION,4 I.E'__. This will eliminate the need for the County to pursue hundreds of agants for minimal revenue& ~4: In 1996, Albemarle County. collected $103.820 in Gross Receipts Taxes from real estate agents and brokerage firms based on 1995 Gross Reo~ptm 41 Brokers~Firms Taxes.$51Paid.$20Fees Paid:s0 Gross'Commissions$8,900,000 13 Agents - Over $100K $15.080 $6 $2.600.000 22.9 Agents - Under $100K $37. t20 $0 $6.400.000 TOTAL $103.820 $0 $17,900,000 ha 1997. Albemarle County.' assumed 1996 ~°idd 6~-~'profi~!¢ a~ 1995 and projected Gross Receipts Tax in the same moUnt ($103~820~ b? coileL'ting did tax ~61ely from the rea/estate brokers based ut~on 1996 Gross Rece/pts. I Taxes Paid Fees Paid Gross Commissions 41 Brokem/Firms $103,820 $2,050 $17,900.000 ~13 Agents - Over $100K $0 $0 $0 ~229 Agents - Under $100K $0 $0 $0 ITOTAL S103,820 $2,050 $17,900,000 We propose the followSng: the CoUn .ty would collect $66.700 fi'om real estate brokers and real e~ato agents earning moro than $1oo,0o0 AND 511.450 flora agents earning less than $100.000 from License Fees - for a total of $78,150. Approximately $25,000 less than projected. RATIONAZE: This is once again in keeping with the intended relief ~mall businesses were to have received as a result of the amended BPOL legislation. 41 Brokers/Firms Taxes$51Paid,620Fees Paid$0 Gross Commissions$8,900,000 13 Agents - Over $10OK $15,080 $0 $2,600,000 229 Agents - Under $100K $0 $11.450 $6,400,000 TOTAL $66,700 $11,450 S17,900,000 As business leaders, wc believe in fiscal respona~llity and do want work with the County, in an effort to - cometo a reasonable solution for both the real estate industry and the County. We woutd appreciato your thoughfftd consideration of our concerns and recommendations. We remain prepared to aaamss these concerna to the frill Board of Sul~rv~SOrs whan nacessary. Plesse lot ns know what the naxt step will be. Very s~xely, Det~orah van Eersel Executive Vice President Carol F. Clarke. CRB. CRS. GR.[ President William P. May, Prosident-Elect Charley ~ng Charlotte Dammann file ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 11. LICENSES. ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, AND ARTICLE II, SCHEDULE OF TAXES. OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virgima, that Chapter 11. Licenses. Article I. In General. and Article II, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 11-18(b)(9), Same-- Exclusions and deductions of gross receipts: and repealing section 11-65(c), Financial, real estate and professional services, as follows: Artide I. In General Sec. 11-18. Same--Exclusions and deductions of gross receipts. (al General Rule. Gross receipts for license tax purposes shall not include any amount not derived from the exercise of the licensed privilege to engage in a business in the ordinary course of such business. (b) l'he following shall be excluded from gross receipts: ( 1 ) Amounts received and paid to the United States. the Commonwealth or any county, city or town for the Virginia retail sales or use tax. or for any local sales tax or any local excise tax on c~garettes, or for any federal or state excise taxes on motor fuels. (2l Any amount representing the liquidation of a debt or conversion of another asset to the extent that the amount is attributable to a transaction previously taxed (e.g., the factoring of accounts receivable created by sales which have been included in taxable receipts even though the creation of such debt and factoring are a regular part of its business). (3) Any amount representing returns or trade-in allowances granted by the business to its customer, (4) Receipts which are the proceeds of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the obligor. (5) Receipts representing the return of principal of a loan transaction in which the licensee is the creditor, or the return of principal or basis upon the sale of a capital asset. (6) Rebates and discounts taken or received on account of purchases by the licensee. A rebate or other incentive offered to induce the recipient to purchase certain goods or services from a person other than the offeror, and which the recipient assigns to the licensee in consideration of the sale of goods and services shall not be considered a rebate or discount to the licensee, but shall be included in the licensee's gross receipts together with any handling or other fees related to the incentive. (7) Withdrawals from inventory for which no consideration is received and the occasional sale or exchange of assets other than inventory, whether or not a gain or loss is recognized for federal income tax purposes. (8) Investment income not directly related to the privilege exercised by a licensable business not classified as rendering financial sermces. This exclusion shall apply to interest on bank accounts of the business and to interest, dividends and other income derived from the investment of its own funds in securities and other types of investments unrelated to the licensed privilege. This exclusion shall nor apply to interest, late fees and similar income attributable to an installment sale or other transaction that occurred in the regular course of business. Amounts ......... y ........... s .............. prod ........ s ..... by real estate brokers to real estate agents as a commission on any real estate transaction shall be excluded from real estate agents' brokers' gross receipts. Each real estate broker dalmine the exclusion shall identify on its license acDlication each a~ent to whom the excluded receims have been ual& the amount of the recmpts paid to each such aqent, and the Jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is subject to business license taxes. (c) The following shall be deducted from gross receipts or gross expenditures: ( 1 t The gross receipts or gross expenditures attributable to any definite places of business of the person in any other locality. (2) If otherwise taxable, any amount paid for computer hardware and soft~vare that are sold to a United States federal or state government entity provided that such property was purchased within two (2) years of the sale to said entity by the original purchaser who shall have been contractually obligated at the time of purchase to resell such property to a state or federal government entity. This deduction shall not occur until the time of resale and shall apply to only the original cost of the property and not to its resale price, and the deduction shah not apply to any of the tangible personal property which was the subject of the original resale contract if it is not resold to a state or federal government entity in accordance with the original contract obligation. (3) If otherwise taxable, any receipts attributable to business conducted in another state or foreign country if the person is liable for an income or other tax based upon income in such other state or foreign country. (d) With the exception of license requirements under section 11-49. all social organizations, fraternities, benevolent order, religious, education_ cavic and military organizations, charter dubs, rescue squads or volunteer fire companies which conduct business or perform services in which compensation in any manner is received shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter so long as the compensation or receipts in excess of the actual expenses are devoted to and used for charitable purposes. All such organizations seeking exemption under this section shall apply, and provide proof if necessary, to the director of finance or his appointed deputy for an exemption certificate. (3-15-83. § 65; 6-13-73; 5-I5-75: 4-21-76: 3-10-82) Artide II. Schedule of Taxes Division 5. Personal, Professional, Business or Repair Service Businesses, Occupations or Professions. Sec. 11-65. Financial, real estate and professional services. (a) Generally. Each person engaged in a financial, real estate or professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of fifty-eight cents ($0.58) per one hundred dollars of gross recmpts. (b) Enumerated. A person engaged in a financial service, real estate service, personal service or professional service includes, but is not limited to. the following: Finandal services. The service for compensation by a credit agency, an investment company, a broker or dealer in securities and commodities or a security or 3 commodity exchange, unless such service is otherwise provided for in this chapter. "Broker" shall mean an agent of a buyer or a seller who buys or sells stocks, bonds. commodities, or services, usually on a commission basis. "Commodity" shall mean staples such as wool and cotton which are traded on a commodity exchange and on which there is trading in futures. "Dealer" for purposes of this chapter shall mean any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities for his own account, but does not include a banlc or any person insofar as he buys or sells securities for his own account, either individually or in some fiduciary capacity, but not as part of a regular business. "Security" for purposes of this chapter shall have the same meaning as in the Securities Act (sections 13.1-501 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia. or in sim'ilar laws of the United States regtflating the sale of securities. Those engaged in rendering finandal services include, but without limitation, the following: Buying installment receivables Chattel mortgage finandng Consumer financing Credit card servmes Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment finandng Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services stockbroker Worldng capital financing Real estate services. Rendering a service for compensation as lessor_ buyer. seller, agent or broker and providing a real estate service, unless the service is otherwise spedfically provided for in this ordinance, and such services include, but are not limited to, the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agents, real estate Fiduciaries. real estate Lessors of real property Real estate agents, brokers and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real estate Professional services. Rendering any service specifically enumerated below or engaging in any occupation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare m the practice of an art or science founded on it. The words "profession" and "professional" imply attainments in professional lmowledge as distinguished from mere sldll_ and the application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation, and including, but without limitation, such attainments attributed to the following: Architects Atrorueys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists Engineers Land smrveyors Practitioners of the healing arts (the art or science or group of arts or sciences dealing ~vith the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure or alleviation of human physical or mental ailments, conditions, diseases, pain or infirmities) Surgeons Veterinarians BPOL2.01/JD 5 ~5-01-97^09:58 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARL£ BOARD OF S ERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '- AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area- Key Commemial, Inc. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide Water Only to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2), and 62B(3) and Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: May7, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ~EM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The Albemarle County Board of Supewisors considered this request on Apdl 2, 1997 (See April 2, 1997 staff, report and attachments-Attachment A) and agreed to set this public headng. The applicant, Key Commercial, Inc. requests jurisdictional area designation for water only for service to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1 ), 62B(2) and 62B(3) and Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C. These two subdivisions are located off Route 20 (Stony Point Road) just north of the Neighborhood Three Development Area. The applicant has stated that the request for the water only designation is due to the primary well serving the subdivisions being contaminated with a gasoline add'~dve called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). The applicant has attempted to drill additional wells but they did not produce the water quantity needed to serve the neighborhoods. DISCUSSION: At its April 2, 1997 meeting, the 'Board of Supen/isors requested that the Virginia Department of Health provide more specific informstion concerning its methodology of assigning design capacity for public water supply wells. The Virginia Department of Health has responded with a memo and a copy of the Waterworks Regulations (See Attachment B). This memo quantifies the inadequacy of the uncontaminated wells' capacity to meet the needs of Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions. In addition, the applicant has provided a list of the pamels in the Key West and Cedar Hills SubdMs~ons to be served by public water {See Attachment C-To be handed out at meeting). RECOMMENDATION: Based on the comments in the staff's April 2, 1997 report, verification of a public health and safety issue and information since provided by.the Virginia Department of Health, staff recommends amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for water only des'[Inalion for the Key West and Cedar Hills subdMsions located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2), 62B(3) and 62C (specific parcels to be provided at the meeting). cc: Key Commercial, Inc. Art Petrini E~ill Brent David Hirschman James W. Moore Ill 97.091 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLF 0ARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Key Commercial, Inc. - Request to amend the Albemarle Count~ Service Authority Jurisdictional Area. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider holding a public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to provide Water Only to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1 ), 62B(2), and 62B(3) and Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C. STAFF CONTACT(Si: Messm. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE April 2, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: AC~ON: ATTACHMENTS: RENEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ! The applicant, Key Commercial, Inc. requests jurisdictional area designation for water only for service to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2) and 62B(3) and Cedar Hill Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C (See Attachment A). These two subdivisions are located off Route 20 {Stony Point Road) just north of the Neighborhood Three Development Area and consist of a total of 228 lots (See Attachment B). The applicant has stated thatthe request for the water only designation is due to the primary well sen~ing the subdivisions being contaminated with a gasoline additive called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). Also, the applicant added that the Depadment of Environmental Quality [DEQ) has not been able to determine the source of the M-I'BE and that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)-Office of Water Programs recommends that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) furnish water to these subdivisions as a solution (See VDH report- Attachment C). According to a lettsr dated March 7, 1997 from Bill Brant, ACSA Executive Director, the applicant has attempted, to drill additional wells but they did not produce the water quanffiy needed to serve the neighborhoods. Also, Mr. Brant edde~l that puffing a treatment system on the contaminated well will be costly project and its long term effectiveness is uncertain (Attachment DISCUSSION: The subject property for this request is not within a Development Area. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning water service in the Rural Area: General P~nciple: UBlization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue. Recommendation: Only allow changes ~n jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in cases where the property is: ( f) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered. The subject properly is not located adjacent to a water line. The nearest line is a 12 inch water line (Pantops water line) located approximately 6.000 feet south of the subdivisions that runs along Route 1421 (Elk Drive), just south of Darden Towe Park. Verification of endangerment to public health and safety is provided in the attachments. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has actively sought alternative solutions to provide a replacement system by attempting to find a new well(s) to serve the neighborhoods. The Virginia Department of Health-Office of Water Programs has confirmed ground water contamination and has indicated that the best alternative to serve the subdivisions is a connection to the Pantops water line. Staff believes that the effect on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of an amendment is minimal in that the jurisdictional area for public water will only be designated for those parcels in the Key West and Cedar Hill subdivisions currently sewed by the Key West Water Company. For these reasons: staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for water only designation for the Key West and Cedar Hills subdivisions located on Tax Map 62, Sections 62B(1), 62B(2), 62B(3) and 62C. cc: Key Commercial, Inc. Art Petrini Bill Brent David Hirschman James W. Moore III 97.071 FHE AREAS Co~mty 804296-5823 CO-~PLICANT Name (or agent, if any): Signature: Address: / ' Phone: PROPERTY %OCATION i(Address) Tax MaP(s)/Parcel Number(s) X~ ~ · DATE SUBMITTED: ~ O~ 9 7 ~ DATE: PROPERTy IS LOCATED (Check ApprOPriate): . [] Inside or [2~OutSid~ alGrowth'Ama? ' ~djacent to SAJA? ' [] inside or [~utside awater-supplywatershed? [~Adjacentte a Growth Area? , Location and distance of water/sewer line proposed to provide service REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT ADOPTED: [] Yes[] No Date of Action ~ Key Commercial Inc.: tm62-p62Bt;62B~;~l~ Water only to Exist. Str.62B3;62C 46 53 SERVlCE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83 Please see "List of Existinc. Structures OR Development Rights" for specific sti'LrCtLires and. dates. LIMITED SERVICE Please see 'List of ExisHng Strmbtr~res OR Development Rights" tot specific limitafiorts. 78 CHARLOTTESVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS .... -- ' ' ' "' SECTION 62 KEY WEST SUBDIVISION ASSOCIATION MEETING March 17, 1997 lames W. M0o~e III. P.E. Virginia Department of Health - Office of Water Programs 131 Walker Street Lexington. Virginia 24450 (540) 463-7136 KEY WEST SUBDIVISION ASSOCIATION MEETING March 17, 1997 James W. Moore III, P.E. Virginia Department of Health - Office of Water Programs 131 Walker Street Lexington, Virginia 24450 (540) 463~7136 KEY WEST SUBDIVISION MTBE EVENT SUMMARY 1. VDH receives odor complaint from Key West resident on October 29, 1996 VDH Inspector responds to complaint on October 30, 1996 and collected two distribution system water samples for Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC) analysis based upon detected odors. Initial opinion is that the odors are confmed to portions of rite distribution system and may be the result of a cross connection, spill, etc. Note that all previous VOC analysis from wells (conducted on an annual frequency) indicated no detects. Instructed owners to flush portions of the distribution system. A follow-up site visit is made to Key West on November 6, 1996 after indications of odor from well number 1. We now suspect that the problem is with the source water and not a distribution system problem. Water samples are collected for VOC analysis from wells I and 2. Sample resuks received on or about November 19, 1996 confmu Methyl I'ertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) in well number 1. The results for well number 2 indicated non detectable Well number 1 is taken out of serwce. Because groundwater contamination was confirmed, the Department of Environmental Quality was notified. DEQ is currently conducting an investigation to attempt to discover the soume of the contamination. 5 Additional samples are collected from wells 1, 2, and 3 on December 2, 1996 6. Meeting with VDH, DEQ and waterworks owners held on December 3, 1996 to discuss contamination event, determ'me corrective strategy, and investigation into possible cause. Initiated design of activated carbon units for wells at wells 1 & 2. 7. Additional samples are collected from wells 1, 2, and 3 on December 17, 1996 8. January 14, 1997 - DEQ "Release Investigation" final report is completed. Results of the investigation indicate no known source of the contamination. 9. Additiorml samples are collected from wells 1, 2, and 3 on January 15, 1997. 10. Meeting of Key West Owners Association on January 21, 1997 to summarize events, discuss all monitoring results, explain corrective strategy and answer questions. 11. Well number 4 being developed & pump tested. Samples collected on January 21, 1997. 12. Additional samples are collected from wells 1, 2, and 3 on February 5, 1997. KEY WEST EVENT SUMMARY CONT. 13. 14. 15. 16. Meeting with VDH, DEQ and waterworks owners held on February 12, 1997 to re-evaluate contamination event and corrective strategy. Initiated action to formally approach ACSA for water service to Key West. Additional samples are collected from wells 1 and 2 February 12, 1997. Design of carbon units is completed. Engineering plans and specifications are received by Department of Health on March 6, 1997. The project is currently under technical review by VDH and a construction permit wilt be issued in the near future. March 6, 1997 meeting is held with DEQ, VDH, Key West and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Initial discussion on extending water service from the Pantops area to Key West. This option is currently being pursued. See Attached Summary of Monitoring Results Historical VOC Monitoring at Key West: August 11, 1993 ND July 26,1994 ND August 3,1995 ND Reduced Monitoring m 1996 to once every 3 years KEY WEST SUBDIVISION - MTBE MONITORING SU]VI2VIARY Sample Date 10/30/96 ........ 14.2 11/6/96 11.4 ND ...... 12/2/96 81.3 13.2 ND .... 12/17/96 47 7.1 ND .... 1/15/97 23.3 3.7 ND .... 1/21/97 ..... ND -- 2/5/97 12.6 1,22 ND -- ND 2, 12/97 17 3.3 .... Notes: All Results are in ug/L or PPB The 2/5 sample analysis (wells 1 & 2 ) was performed by Toxikon Corporation, West Palm Beach. Fl Ethylbenzene, Total Xylenes, diisopropylether. & C3 Benzenes detected in the 12/2 sample from well #i& 2 diisopropylether detected in the 12/17,01/15, and 02/12 samples from well #1 only KEY WEST SUBDIVISION CORRECTIVE ACTION OPTIONS Option 1 Develop and place into operation additional groundwater sources. Discontinue wells 1 and 2 as long as water quality analyses indicate the presence of unregulated VOC's. Currently well number 3 produces approximately 15 gpm. The pump test for existing well number 4 indicated a reliable yield of 19 gpm. Wells number 3 and 4 will only produce approximately 27.000 gpd and can not supply adequate water to the Key West Subdivision (average water demand of 50.000 to 60.000 gpd). As such this option will require the development of additional source(s/. Option 2 Design and install treatment facilities for wells 1 and 2. The treatment needed would be a combination of activated carbon comacmrs and disinfection. The Department of Environmental Quality is providing assistance with this option. While properly designed and operated activated carbon treatment is capable of removing MTBE and other organic compounds, VDH does not consider this to be the best option. Some of our concerns include: 13 The concentrations of contaminants could increase, either gradually over time or very suddenly. Should this occur, the activated carbon comacmrs may have to be redesigned or the carbon exchanged on a freqnenr basis; 2) Long term costs of operation and maintenance; and 3) Difficulty in performing routine monitoring of contaminants. This option should be implemented only if there are no other viable options. Option 3 Connection ro the Albemarle County Service Authority. This option would involve extending a water main from the Pantops area along Route 20 to serve Key West. There are many administrative and economic problems associated with this option. Some of these include: Key West is NOT in the current ACSA service area. Extending water service into this area would require concurrence from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 2. The existing distribution system m the Key West subdivision does not meet currem mmnnum construction standards of the ACSA Preliminary cost esthnares to just extend a 12 inch water line from Pantops to Key West are in the range of $400,000 to $450.000. Additional costs would include connection fees for each service connection ($1533) plus the cost of any distribution system improvements (if required]. PUBLIC I-1F ALTH IMPLICATIONS OF MTBE IN DRINKING WATER MTBE is currently NOT regulated in drinking water. There is no primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) established for MTBE. The majority of health related studies of MTBE has been related te air pollution and the potential health effects of inhalation. The main concern of these studies is related to workers in petroleum refineries where MTBE is utilized in the formulation of gasoline. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a draft health advisory for MTBE in drinking water. The adult lifetime exposure concentration in the draft is 70 parrs per billion or 0.070 mg/1. The highest measured MTBE concentration in well number 2 was 13.2 parts per billion ~0.013 mg/1) on December 2, 1996. The MTBE concentration has been less than 5 parts per billion (0.005 rog/l) in the last three samples. Baser upon the currently available information VDH believes that there is tittle cause for concern with the current revel of MTBE in the distribution system (i.e. less than 5 parrs per billion) in the Key West drinking water. VDH is working with EPA and other sources to get as much information as possible related to the health effects of MTBE in drinking water. If there is any indication that the current thinking is incorrect, the treatment units will be installed. Interim Recommendations to Consumers Please be assured that the waterworks owners and VDH are working to resolve this situation as quickly as possible. From a regulatory sumdpoint the water meets all current standards; however, we realize that firm answers regarding the health impacts of MTBE are not available. If you have concerns you may want to consider using bottled water for drinking and cooking or install a point of use activated carbon treatment unit in your home. You can call the VDH - Office of Water Programs at (540~ 463-7136 if you have questions about treatment UnitS. KEY WEST SUBDIVISION PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION 1. Complete work on well number 4 and place into operation ASAP 2. Operate waterworks using wells 3 and 4 supplemented by well 2 as needed 3. Keep well number 1 off line 4. VDH will review plans and specifications and issue a Construction Permit for [he Activated Carbon treatment units for wells 1 and 2 5. Continue to monitor VOC's in all wells on a monthly frequency 6. If connection to Albemarle County Service Authority becomes a viable alternative proceed with that option as a permanent solution 7. If connections ro Albemarle County Service Authority becomes not viable - proceed with search and development of additional groundwater sources as the permanent solution 8. Should monitoring results show a significant increase in the concentrations of contaminants proceed immediately with the installation and operation of the Activated Carbon treaunent units file:h:\keyl .doc Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Toxic Substances P.O. Box 2448. 1500 East Main Street. Room 124 Richmond. Virginia 23218 (804)786-1763 I FACT SHEET ON M[ETHYL TERTL4RY BUTYL ETI:fER ¢I'TBE) GENERAL Eh-FO R_MATION Motor vekicle exI~ust in the U. S. is the largest individual source of carbon monoxid~ (CO) and ~ound level ozone (O0 emissions. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that motor vehicle em. assions account for 75 % to 90% of the CO pollution ~.nd roughly 50% of the 0~ pollution in various regions of uhe U:'~red States. In the 1990 amendments to ,..he Clean Ak Act (C,-M4.), Congress manda?~d that EPA issue regx~larions would require gasoline ro be reformulated with specified a.motmts of oxygermtes. Oxygenates a,-e substances provide oxygen to gasoline ~ereby reducing tailpipe emissions of CO and O~ Rom vekicles. The re_~ulations were subsequently developed ttxough negonanons with industry, federal and state governments, and envkonmenta.l Ed consumer groups. These regulations resulted in two new formulations of gasoline wire increased oxygen content. One. caJled "oxygenamrl fuel" or "oxyfuel'. conm/.~ a mm~muln of 2.7% additional oxygen by weight. :md is designed to control emission of CO during winter montJas only. The second, called 'reformulated gasoline' or "P,_FG". contai~q a rr2N.mum of an ~cktitional 2 % of oxygen by weight, a maximum berkvzne content of 1% by vol,a~e. and a maximu.m of 25 % of aromatic hydrocarbons by volume, and is designed to control O~ pollution and other a,.r toxics. Oxyflael Nas been mandated by thc EPA for normtminment areas and is now being used in 59 cities in 21 states dmtzg winter mont!~ only (since November 1, 1992). In Virgnma~ ox)q%el was ~ in northern Virginia during winter months only between November 1. 1992 and March 31, 1994. Its use ended bec,,anse northern Vkrgirda had reduced its CO to attainment levels. RFG has also been mandated by the EPA for nonamamment areas and is now being used year-round in the n/ne metropolitan areas in thc country with ~e worst O~ pollution (since Ja~nuary i. 1995). In addition, several states, including Virginia. voluntarily opted into the program. RFG has been used Richmond. Northern Vir~nia. and Hampton Roads areas since January 1. 1995. The ,'mo major oxygenates currenLly in use are methyl ~'err/aO, butyl e~cr (MTBE) with 65% market slate, and ethanol (grain alcohol) with 35% rr~-ket share. Oxygenates help fuels burn cie;mcr a.rd more completely, thereby reducing levels of CO and O2- form]rg compouni:is via the tailpipe emissions. Thc EPA has estimated ttmt thc use of oxyfuel will reduce emissions of CO by 95% and thc use of RFG.will reduce emissionq of O~ precursors by t5%. OxyPdel conminq 15% MTBE or 7.7% ethanol, and RFG conrain~ 11% MTBE or 5.7% ethanol. MTBE is a colorless, flammable liquid with a terpene-Iike odor, It has an odor threshold of 0.06 pa.r-,s per rrAIlion (ppm) or 0.2 milllgral~ per cubic meter (mg/m~) in air. tt is miscible in gasoline and soluble in water, alcohol. and ether. It l:ms relatively high vapor pressua~ and a Iow octanol/water partition coefficient. USES MTBE is an additive used in oxyfuel or RFG. It h2x been in use in pr~mauna gasoline in the U.S. since the late 1970's at Iow levels to replar.~ lead adckitives and aromatic compounds. M'I'BE has other special uses in chemical laboratories and in medicine. It is also used to dissolve gallstones. I-[E.4.LTI-I EFFECTS The general public can be exposed to low concentrations of MTBE while pumping gasoline ~nd wot -kL:g as attendants or mecha_,-dcs '),'here gasoline is sold. MTBE appears to be rapidly and completely absorbed ."rom me ~ 77B ~a~e 42 respiratory and gastrointestinal =acts m humans and ammals. Following oral. inhalation, dermal, or intravenour exposure in experimental an/reals, much of the MTBE is rapidly eliminated as unchanged MTBE in the expired ab Unchanged MTBE and its metabolite, ,,ern'ary butanol (TBA) are the main resp=atory excretion products. MTBE and TBA have been detected in the blood, urine, fatty-tissue, md mother's milk of patients undergoing gallstone treaument using MTBE. The annual MTBE exposure concentration estimated by the EPA for maximally-exposed people in areas wire oxyfuel had RFG ranged between 0.03 and 0.05 mg/rn~ of air. Acute Effects Complaints of possible health effects as a result of exposure to MTBE contairmqg gasoline were first repot-md in 1992 by the residents of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Alaska. The most frequent symptoms reported were headache, dizziness, rm~ea, eye irritation, and a burning sensation in the nose and throat. Similar complaints were also repor~d in New Jersey. Montana. Connect/cut. New York. Maine. and Wisconsin a~er these states began using oxySael a..~dor RFG. In response to these health complaints, several epidemiological studies' have been conducted La different parrs of the country. These studies were ua.able to relate either oxyfi~el or RFG use to increased prevalence of reported symptoms. In controlled human experiments, subjects ex?ased to 5 mg/m~ (1.4 ppm) to 6 mD'm= (1.7 ppm) MT'BE in the air for one hour did not report any symptoms of he~a=che, eye irritation, nose irritation, or behavioral changes. No correlation was found between blood concenmarious of MTBE and the reported symptoms. Based on the available i.m'ormat/on to date. there is no conclusive epidemJological or clinical evidence to link the use of oxyfuel or R.FG with serious acute health effects. The reported inddvidual symptoms and symptom patterns perceived to be associated with exposure to oxyfuel or RFG are generally non-specific az,"". similar to those experiencexl with common acute azd chronic illnesses such as cold5, flu and allergies. T~5-:' reported symptoms can also be expected to occur from exposure to convent/onal gasoline wt:dch does not coDtain MTBE as an ad,qrive to improve oxygen content. The acute toxicity in experimental animals of MTBE is low following i~halafion, oral. or dermal exposure. Acute inhalation 4-houx LC~o (the calculated concentration that kills 50% of the test organisms) values in rats ranged from 33.370 ppm to 39.395 ppm. The oral LD~o (the calculated dose wh/ch causes death in 50% of a defined experimental animal population) in ram is 38.000 mitlig~amq per kilogram (rog/kg). The acute dermal LDs0 for rabbit is greater th~n 10,000 rog/kg, in dermal sensitization tests in guinea pigs, local irritation resulted after injection of 0.5 mi of 1% MTBE under the skth. Chronic Effects In a 24-month, inhala, t/on study, increased mortality and decreaso:l mean survival t~rue occurred in male rats expose,t interminemly to 3.000 ppm and 8.000 ppm MTBE. In these animals, the pr/rn~ry cause of death was progressive nep~opathy 0cictney disease). It was speculated that ~e mechanism of renal toxicity observed in tl~ study may be specific for the male rat and may not be relevant to h~,m~n~, In mice exposed to the same concentration of MTBE for 18 month~, increased mortality and decreased mean ,survival ,tame occurred in males at 8.000 ppm due to uropathy (ur/rmry tract disorder). No in.format/on is available regarding long-rem health effects in hurn~n~ following inhalation exposure to MTBE at Iow contract/om. No reproductive, teratogemc, or mutagenic effects have been observed m test animals a.o'~er i.hal~tion exposures. Carcinogenlcity No studies were lncated regarding cancer La bumanq exposed to MTBE by any route or in a-mm, als exposed orally or derm~y. Chronic inhalation exposu, re of rats to 400, 3.000. or 8,003 pprn MTBE. resulted in increased incidence of renal mbul~ adenorr,~ and c~'cinorna in rn~e rats at 3.000 ppm and 8.000 ppm. C~'o~c i_~ahdon exposure of rmce exposed ro 400.3.000; or 8.000 ppm MTB£. resulted in an Lncre~sed i.ncidence of hepatocet]ula,r adenon~ in ferrule n~ce a~ 8,000 ppm. Based on ~he available studies, the EPA has tentatively classified MTBE as a Group C "possible hu.~;~ c~cinogen" (]h'~ted evidence of ca. rcinogerdciry in ~nim~s and h~dequa~ or lack of hurnm~ dau). E N"vTR 0 N2MZNT.-LL EFFECTS Concentrations of MTBE in pound-level air at r.~ refme~es in the Un/ted States were detected at less ~an 0.03 mg /m~. The Im'gest environmental releases are likely to occur as Pdgkive ern/ssiens ,~rcm chen-~c~ manufacturing plants, gasoline ~erminals. so,ice stations, and spills. The ha/f-life of MTBE in air has been esfmmted to range between 20.7 hours and 265 hour~. The ha. If-life of MTBE in water ~ been esd_mared to be 28 days ro 150 days in surface waters, and 112 days ro 720 days in deep water or groundwater. MTBE has a Iow toxici .fy to fish. A 96-hour LCd0 of 672 milligrams per liter (rog/0 in Lhe fa~ead ,minnow and a 96-hour LC~o of ~eater ~an 10,000 m~[ in a co,pod have been demrm, ir, ed. No toxicity dau ~re available for birds, terres~Sal plants, or soil biota. STA. ND.M1DS AND GL'I2DEL~N'ES At 'akis time. Core are ao federal sta.~dards for MTBE in water or azr. The Ti~eshold L;zm.it Valug (TLV), established by the American Conference of Goverm:nen~2d l~dus~al Hygienists (ACGIH') for occupafiomd exposure to MTBE is 40 ppm (1"-~. mg/m~) during an ei~ht to ten hour work sh~R. The EPA has developed a reference concentration (RFC) for MTBE of 3 mg/m* (0.8 ppm). RfC ~.s de~-med as an inhsled concentration, with unceruJ~ry sp~nnmg ~m order of magnitude, that car~ be inhaled conr. inuousiy over a 1}retiree by people (including sensk~ve popular/ohs) without any appreciable deletehous noncancer h~rd. The lifetime he~.l~ advisow for MTBE ;~'~ drkfldng water v~uSes ~om 70 ~,g/! to 200 -g/t in differe=t sums. S%~'ONTMS Methyl t-butyl ether (Cherrfical Abstract Regis~'y #13344M d), serf-butyl methyl er,her, 2-methoxy-2- methylpropa~e, MTBE. PREP.AR.ED BY: Ram K. Tripathi, Ph.D. Toxicologist December 18, 1995 ALBEMArAE OOUNTY SEt, VICE ,A, UTHOBI-i-Y BOX 1QO9 168 $, OTNAP F~D. OHABLOLES~/L E. VA 2290? · (804 o77 451~ F,a,'~ (804} 97r9 O698 l~arch 7, 1997 IATTACHMENT OI Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development ECE VED ~'~ 7 Re: Key West Subdivision P,anmng Dept Dear Wayne: Yesterday we met with representatives of Virginia Department of Health~ Department of Environmental Quality, ACSA's water system. I previously notified you that the primary well serving this subdivision had become contaminated with Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). Additional wells have bee~ drilled but theydo not produce the quantity of water needed, although there is no indication of,MTBE in the new wells. Puttinq a treatment system on the contaminated well will be costly and its long term effectiveness uncertain. Much work has to be done to determine terms under which the ACSAwould take over the distribution system, how the connection to the ACSA system Would be made, and funding. The first question to be answered is whether the County would incorporate Key West into ACSA's jurisdictional area. Since ACSA expand its ser~ce areas, who should apply for the jurisdictional boundary amendment? The water company? The customers? DEQ? VDH? I wouldappreciate some direction from you as to how to proceed in this matter. JWB:dmg cc: Board of Directors Mr. Charles Martin Paul Shoop Bob Tucker Ver~yours,. . ~. W. Brent Executive Director IATTACHMENT BI COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjI NIA RANDOLPH L. GORDON. M.D.. M.RH. Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER COMMISSIONER EnviOrof~/mOeen~~ EnW~ ~e; rl~OFgie~r~f i ce L E Xi N G T O N~,OHV1 ioRWN~Ei!!5~i)~46~R.~l~E~ · g- 'g · . : ) - FAX: (540) 463-3892 April 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Albemarle County Water * Key West Subdivision Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development County of Albemarle 410 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: During the Albemarle County Board of Superwsors meeting held on April 2, 1997 you requested that I provide more specific information concerning the Virginia Department of Health's methodology or assigning a design capacity for public water supply wells. Specifically there were questions concerning the available source capacity in well~ number 3 and number 4 serving Key West Subdivision. The Commonwealth of Virginia Waterworks Regulations requires that a waterworks utilizing wells as the sole source of supply shall provide source capacity of a minimum of 0.5 gallons per minute per equivalent residential connection (12 VAC 5-590-6~0D). The gallons per minute rating of a specific well is the stabilized yield as determined by a yield and drawdown test of a minimum 48 hour duration (12 VAC 5-590-840B6). An equivalent residential connection (ERC) is defined as a volume of water used equal to a residential connection which is 400 gallons per day (12 VAC 5-590-10). The referenced sections of the Waterworks RegulatiOns are attached for your information. In the specific case at Key West Subdivision, the available reliable source capacity of wells 3 and 4 ~s calculated to be 27,200 gallons per day as follow~ Well 3 Pump Test 15 gpm Well 4 Pump Test 19 gpm Total Yield 34 gpm 34 gpm x 2 ERCs per gpm = 68 ERCs 68 ERCs x 400 gpd per ERC = 27,200 gpd l'he current average water usage at Key West Subdi such, wells number 3 and number 4 will supply app~ ision is 50,000 to 60,000 gallons per day, As oximatety one half of the needed demand Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 SUBJECT: Albemarle County Water - Key West Subdivision If you should have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office at 540/463-7136. ~-~-~Tery truly yours, re , P.E. District Engineer JWM/mep cc Key Commercial Inc. -Attm Mr. Jack Schwab Albemarle County Service Authority ~ Attn: Mr. Bill Brent Albemarle County Health Department - Attn: Dr. Susan McLeod VDH - Richmond Central W TERWORKS REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE DATE Norember 1~, THiS COPY OF THE REGULATIONS IS IN WORD 6.0. THIS VERSION HAS THE NEW PHASE II. IE3, AND V REGULATIONS AND THE LEAD AND COPPER REGULATIONS (WHICH WERE BOTH EFFECTIVE 11115/95). ALSO. THE VAC NUMBERS ARE [NCLUDED~ Copies of these Regulations can be obtained from: Virginia Department of Health. Division of Water Supply Engineering. 1500 East Main Street, Room 109. Rici-cnom:l, Virginia 23219 -- Telephone Number (804) 786-5566 Fax Number (804) 756-5567. a~ flus~g toileu (~ee A~cle 2 of Chapmr I of Ti~e 32.1 of ~e C~e of Virg~a). 12 VAC 5.599-66Q PAGE 95 The water~vorl~ shall be readily accesslble in all seasons. C. Comideration should be given m ibc conveulence of tr~nspor, atlon [acilitles to the plant site and also to the availability of electric power from more than one source of outside pox. er. 12 VAC 5-590-670. Site size. 590-840. The area resel~od around a well or spring site shall cord'om with 12 VAC 5-590-$20. 12 VAC 5-5.00-830. and 12 VAC 5- B. The treatment plant silo shall be of ample size IO accoramodate expansion, and ample space shall be provided at the trealxnent site for adequate dispos~t of tream~ent plant wastes. C. 'l'ne disposal of water Irea~rnent plant wastes shall coaform to the State Water Control Law. Chapter g.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code ,f Virgm{a. 12 VAC 5-590~680. Treatment process selection. The follov.'ing shall be considered when selecting processes to achieve trea~nent goals: The qualiP~ and variability of the source w~ter. Possible furore changes in the quali~y of the source. XVhen removal of contaminam~ for which BAT has been specified is necessary, processes classified as BAT shall be E. x~en shall be employed. POE or POU devices shall not be utilized for long-term compliance with PMCLs. Such devices may be cor~sidered for 12~C5-590-690: Capacity of walerworks. ~ c~acilv or the wate~~Watem, orks shall normally be desi~ned'-~n_the following basis ofwate~~]l'l-}o~engineeiSng knowledge substantiated in the designer's report and approved by the commissioner. Daily water consumption rates (annual daily water d~mand/: High schools with showers~ per person Trailer cour[s at three persons per trailer, per trailer Shopping centers, per 1.000 sq.fl, of ultlmale floor space Virginia Department of Health 2 VAC 5-590-690 PAGE 9~ Theaters. drive-in type. per car Picnic areas, per person Camps. resoix, day and night with lhnitnd plumbing, per camp site Picnic areas, per permn Luxury Camps with flush toile~s, per camp sile 5 gpd 5o gpd loo Bo Mimmum acceptable effective finished water storage for domestic purposes shall not be less than 200 gallons per C. All waterworks shall provide at least a minimum working (under flow) pressure of 20 psi at the service connection based on the greater of mamrnum hoar or maximum day plus applicable fire flov.,s. Applicable fire flows .shall be selected by coordination bem, een the water supply owner, design comuham, local officials and local fire marshall. When the number of residential uniu is less than 1.000. the formula Q = I 1.4 * N o ~-:.~: is acceptable for estimating maximum hour domestic demand flow. where Q=tmal galhir~ per mJnute and Ne[oral number of residential unit& The commissioner can require it higher design pressure if indicated by site condition. D. _~ waterworks uril,izing ~. ells as the sole source of suppl_y shall provide so~ty ufa minimum~of O-q gallons per rn~l ~$ id_~n[ial connection. E. Water',vt[ks serving 50 or more residential connections with wells as the source of supply shall provide at least [wu waler [o be ufa minimum yield so iu reliability is realistic, The secondary well should be rated at 20% of the waterworks capaci~ as a minimum. 12 VAC 5-590-700. Meterin~ toll wat*r production. D. Waterworks providing ch/orinafion ortiy shall meter the water prior IO treatment. Waierwork~ providing softening by ion exchange shall meter all water treated and totM water delivered to the distribution Waterworks providing turbidity removal or softening by precipintion, or both, shall meter the water prior to and subsequent to treatment. E. Ali water~,orks shall provide metenng of total water production. 12 VAC 5-590-?10. Site layout. A, Functional aspec~ of site layout shall be considered, B. Site grading shall 'o¢ provided. C. Adequale site drainage shall b~ provided. D. Walks shall be provided. E. Access roads shall be provided. F. Driveways shall be provided. 12 VAC 5-590-720. Building layout. A. Adequate ventilation shall be provided. B. Adequalc lighting shall be provided Virginia Deparmaent of Health B2c. I2 VAC 5-590-840 PAGE '~03 Heavy weight casing p~pe may be required under certain geologic and hydrostntic condition*: and casings or linings subject to approval by the commissioner. bacterial contamination to the water in the well. No lead is to be used in packers, flux. piping. B4. B4a. B4b. Screens. where required, shall: Be constructed of material w}fich will not be damaged by chemical action of ground'a, aler or ~mre cie:ming operations: Have size of opemngs m be based on sieve analys~s and should be adequate t~,l~a~s flows at a velocity of 0.1 root per B4c. B5. BSa. BSb, Bt. Be installed so that exposure above the pumping level '~,ill not occur, A water well completion repor~ shall: Provide all dam requested on the most recent well completion form. l~c yield ~nd dra,x.down lest data over a 48-hour mirdmum period shall be provided: ho~,cvcr, in those areas where gcologtc conditions ' '~rrant. thc required test period m y be B '7. Chemical eondidonlng shall be included in specifications as to method, equipment, chemicals, testing for residual chemicals, disposal of waste, and inhibhor$ used. B 8. Grouting reqmremenu. B 8 a. Neat cement grout is normally required and shall consist of cement (APl Spec. 10. Class G cement or Class B similar to ASTM C150 TYPE llI and water with not more than six gallons of water per 94-pound s~ck of cement, and shall be in place wilt'fin 48 hours of '~,ell constroctinn A maximum of 6.0,%. By weight, bontoni~e and 2.0 %. by weight, calcium chloride, may be added. NOTE: When exceptional conditio~ require the use of a less fluid grout to bridge vmd$~ a mixture of cement {ASTM C150 TYPE IB. sand and waIer in the proportion of not more than two pans by weight of sand to one par~ of cement with not more than stx gallon~ of clean '~'ater pet 94 pound sack of cement may be used if approved by :he cornrniss:Qnerl B 8 b. Application, B 8 b (J.). Grout shall be installed by means of continuous pressure grouting from the bottom of the annular opening upward in one commuous operation until the annular opening is filled. 13 8 b (2). Sufficient annular ope:ting ~hall be provided to permit a mirfimum of I 1/2 inches of grout aroun~ the protective casing. including couplings, if used. B 8 b (3). Prior to grouting. ~nton~te. Aquagel. or similar approved materials may be tdded Io the annular opemng, in the manner indicated for grouting: and B 8 ¢. Protective casing shall be provided with sufficient centralizers ari~cbed to thc casing to peFrnit unobstructed flow *.nd uniform thick.ness of the grout. B9. B9a. Bgb. B9c. Plumbness and ~Iignmem: Eve~ well shall be tested for plumbness and alignment; The test method shall be clearly stated in specifications: and Excessive kinks and bends shall nol be acceptable. ~PR 0~ '97 09:57¢~ FEDERAL EXEC. INSTIT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-01-9gkI0 :~4 RCVD 103/uniper Lane Charlottesville, VA 22911 April 1, 1997 Chairman &'Members~ Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Dear Chairman and Members, I road in today's newspaper that you will be takin$ up the issue of bringing County water to the Kg West development at a meeting to be held tomorrow. I am taking mi~ opporV, mity to express the concerns of my wife and me regarding the condition of the well water here in Key West. You will note that sever~l months ago, the records indicate that there was no problem with the w~t~r, In no time whatioewr, evidence aiapeared of very high contamination levels, Since that time, the contaminated well has bee~ closed off(we undmtand)'aud the level of contamination has subsided somewhat, We ~e still very. concerned about this problem and the real pos$ibilily that contamination levels could iacroase sbruptly as. ~ey did bdor~. We are not,~.reas,sur~l by the so.calliM "experts" hecaus~ there are so any tmknown variables inv~ tn thts critical problera -- can we afford any risk ~o the health of the ehildreu living in this area?? A few weeks ago we alIendad a meeting of the residant~ of Key W~st; I would estimate that' there were 200 to 300 individuals in attendance ~. all but one of whom voted for the option of having County water brought into Key West, My wife and I mov~l to Key Wesl in 1989, At that time, our children ~re aRen~ ~iv~siti~ ~ ~ n~ ~d ~z op~ ~ s~d ~ w Alb~Ie ~ sch~h, We m~e~ f~s~of~e~es, Undrape a~u~ ~d~I~ve~tlin~ ~e, I do ~ ~nk 2 unre~o~le f~ us to ~t ~ ~ve cle~% h~l~y ~i~i~ w~. My w~e ~ I (~mg ~ ~ost ail of ~e ~ 200 plus frailly) in K~ Wst~ tMt you ap~ve ~vi~ C~W wa~ ~ded ~ K~ W~t ~ ~ifi~ly ~ pebble. (go4)~79-at66 Thank you for your efforts on our behalf, ara A Pay BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-0~-97~39:29 RCVD lli Bollingbrook Drive Charlottesvilla, Va. 22911 April 29, 1997 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia To our Representatives: As you consider including Key West/Cedar Hills in your water service district, I would like to submit the enclosed pictures for your study. I took these pictures over a 3-day period, beginning Frida5% April 18, 1997. During this time, we were unable to wash dishes, clothes or bathe. Finally, by Monday the water cleared up but even as I write this today, our water has again a slight discoloration. While contamination of our water supply is the main reason for our request to hook up to County water service, this has surely been an inconvenience, along with the odor of the water. To explain the pictures, each toilet in the house was filled with brown silt (?) for the entire period. I also drew just enough water in a bathtub to show the condition of the water and the remains mn the tub after draining. After speaking with many of your constituents in Key West/Cedar Hills, I can safely say that we are as one in our request to hook up to the County Water Supply. Thanks very much to Albemarle County Service Authority for making drinking water available in the interim. Hope to see you May 7th and hear that our request has been approved! Sincerely, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Apr~ll, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296-5823 Key Commercial Inc 707 East Jefferson St Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Request to Amend Albemarle CounTy Service Authority Boundaries - Key West Subdivision Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on April 2, 1997, set a public hearing for May T 1997 to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water only to Key West Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62B(1), 62B(2), and 62B(3), and Cedar Hills Subdivision located on Tax Map 62, Section 62C. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne etilimberg ~ Director of Planning & ~ty Development vwc/jcf cc: B~rent v~la Care)' ,QUERY ON FiLE C~SPLAN BY COZ USING KEYWEST2 TAXr, IAP/PARCE L ....... SUBDIV NANE ....... 06281000800~00 KEY WES} 06281000800400 KEY WEST 062S1000800500 KEY WEST 062S1000800600 KEY WESl 06281000800700 KEY WEST 06281000000800 KEY WEST 06201000800~00 KEY WEST 06281000S01000 KEY WEST 06201000001100 KEY WEST 06201000001200 KEY WESl 06201000801300 KEY WEST 06281000001400 KEY WEST 062010~0001500 KEY WEST 062E'000C00200 KEY WEST 06281000000300 KEY WEST 06281000C00400 KEY WES1 06281000C00500 KEY WEST 06281000C00600 KEY WEST 06281000G00700 KEY WEST 06281000000800 KEY WEST 06201000000900 KEY WEST 06281000001000 KEY WEST 06281000C01100 KEY WEST 06201000001200 KEY WEST 0620t000001300 KEY WEST 06201000001400 KEY WESI 06281000001500 KEY WEST 06281000001600 KEY WES} 06201000001700 KEY WEST '-~62010~-O0~KEY WEST 062B1000D00200 KEY WEST 06201000D00300 KEY WEEI 06281000DOO4AO KEY WEST 062S1000D00400 KEY WES} 06201000D00500 KEY WEST 06281000DOOGAO KEY WEST 062B1000D00?A0 KEY WEST 06201000D00700 KEY WEST 06201000DOOSAO KEY WEST 062S1000DOO9AO KEY WEST 06281000D01000 KEY WEST 062BIQOOD01100 KEY WEST 062B1QOOD07800 j~y'~/~ 06281000E00100 KEY WEST 06281000E00200 KEY WEST 06281000E00300 KEY WEST 06281000E00400 KEY WEST 06281000E00500 KEY WEST 062S1000E00600 KEY WEST 06201000E00700 KEY WEST 06281000E00800 KEY WEST 04/07/97 PAGE 2 ~QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY COZ USING KEYWEST2 TAXMAF/PARCEL ....... SUBD IV NAME ....... 062B1000EO0900 KEY WEST 062B1000E01000 KEY WEST 062BlOOOE01100 KEY WEST 062BlOOOE01200 KEY WEST 062BlOOOE01300 KEY WEST 062B1OO~OEO~01~O0~ KEY WEST 062BlOOOFOO1AO KEY WEST 062SlO00FOO1BO KEY WEST 062B1000FOO6AO KEY WEST 06281000FO0700 KEY WEST 06281000FO0800 KEY WEST 062BlOOOFO0900 KEY WEST 062B10OOF01000 KEY WEST 062BlOOOF01100 KEY WEST 062R1000F01200 KEY WEST 062BlOOOF01300 KEY WEST ~AO g~::~ ~VcJ4- 062S1000000100 KEY WEST SUR-TOTALS FOR -TAXMAp 062G1 COUNT 69 04/07/¢7 PAGE 3 ~UERY ON FILE TAXHAF/PAREEL CISPLAN BY COZ USING KEYNEST2 ....... SUBDIV NAME ....... 06282000A00100 KEY WEST O$2B2000AO0200 KEY WEST O~282000AO0300 KEY WEST Ob2B2000AO0400 KEY WEST O&282000AO0500 KEY NEST 06~600 KEY WEST 062S2000B00100 KEY WEST 062B2000SO0200 KEY WEST 06282000801600 KEY WEST 062B2000B01700 KEY WEST 06202000001800 KEY NEST 062--6~2000C00100 KEY WEST 062B2000DOO1AO KEY WEST 06202000FOO1AO KEY WEST 06282000F00100 KEY WEST 062B2000FO0200 KEY WEST 062S2000FOO3A~ KEY WEST 062B2000FOO4AO KEY WEST 062B2000FOOSAO KEY WEST 062B2000F01400 KEY WEST 06282000F01500 KEY NEST 062B2000FO16AO KEY WEST 062S2000F01700 KEY WEST 06282000GO0100 KEY NEST 062B2000GO0200 KEy WEST 06282000G00300 KEY NEST 062B2000GO0400 KEY WEST 062BEOOOGO0500 KEY NEST 062B2000GO0600 KEY NEST 062B2000GO0700 KEY NEST 062B2000GO0800 KEY WEST 06282000G00900 KEY NEST 062B2000G01000 KEY WEST 06~2000G01100 KEY NEST 06202000G01200 KEY WEST 062S2000G01300 KEY WEST 06202000G01400 KEY WEST 06202000G01500 KEY NEST 06202000G01600 KEY WEST 06202000G01700 KEY WEST 06282000H00100 KEY WEST 06202000H00200 KEY WEST 06282000H00300 KEY WEST 06202000H00400 KEY WEST 06282000H00500 KEY WEST 06282000H00600 KEY WEST 06202000H00700 KEY NEST 06282000HOOSAO KEY WEST 06202000HOOgAO KEY WEST 062S2000HO10AO KEY NEST 062B2000H01100 KEY WEST 04/07/97 PAGE 4 ~QUERY ON FTLE CISPLAN BY COZ USING KEYWEST? TAXHAP/PARCEL ....... SUBD IV NAHE ....... 06282000H01200 KEY WEST 06292000H01300 KEY JEST 06282000H01400 KEY WEST 06282000H01500 KEY WEST 06282000H01600 KEY WEST 062BZOOOH01700 KEY WEST 06282000801800 KEY WEST 06282000H01900 KEY WEST 06282000H02000 KEY WEST 06282000J00100 KEY WEST 06282000J00200 KEY WEST 06282000J00500 KEY WEST 06282000J00400 KEY WEST 06282000J00500 KEY WEST 06282000J00600 KEY WEST 06292000J00700 KEY WEST 06282000J00800 KEY WEST 06282000J00900 KEY WEST 06282000J0~000 KEY WEST 06282000J01100 KEY WEST 06282000J01200 KEY WEST 06282000J01300 KEY WEST 06282000J01400 KEY WEST 06282000J01500 KEY WEST 062B2000J01600 KEY WEST 06292000J01700 KEY WEST 06282000J01800 KEY WEST 06282000J01900 KEY WEST 062B2000J02000 KEY WEST 06282000KE0100 KEY WEST 06282000K00200 KEY WEST 06282000K00300 KEY WEST 06282000K00400 KEY WEST 06282000K00500 KEY WEST 06282000K00600 KEY WEST 06282000K00700 KEY WEST 06282000L01100 KEY WEST 062B2000L012A0 KEY WEST 06282000L01200 KEY WEST 06282000L01300 KEY WEST 06282000L01400 KEY WEST 06282000L01500 KEY WEST 06282000L01600 KEY WEST 06282000MQ0100 KEY WEST 06282000M00200 KEY WEST ObZB2000MO0300 KEY WEST 06282000M00400 KEY WEST 06282000M00500 KEY WEST 062820000001A0 KEY JEST 06282000000180 KEY WEST 06282000000181 KEY JEST 04/07/97 PAGE 5 e~UERY ON FILE CJSPLAN DY COZ US[NG KEYWEST2 'TAXMAp/PARCEL ....... SUBBIV NAME ....... 06282000000182 KEY WEST 062820000001C0 KEY ~ES1 06282000000100 K~Y ~EST 062820000001B1 KEY ~EST 06282050000100 KEY WEST 06282060000200 KEY WEST 06282060000300 KEY WEST 06282060000400 KEY WES1 06282060000500 KEY WEST 06282060000600 KEY ~ES1 06282060000700 KEY WEST 06282060000800 KEY ~EST 06282060000900 KEY WEST 06282060001000 KEY WEST 06282060001100 KEY ~ES1 06282060001200 KEY WEST 06282060002100 KEY WEST SUB-TOTALS FOR -TAXMAP 06282 COUNT 119 04/07/97 PAGE 6 ~QUEEY ON FILE CISPLAN 8Y 00Z USING KEYWEST2 ~TAXMAP/PARCEL ....... SUBDIV NAME ....... 06283000L00100 KEY WEST 06283000L00200 KEY WEST 06283000L00300 KEY WEST 06283000L00400 KEY WEST 06283000L00500 KEY WEST 06283000L00600 KEY WEST 06283000L00700 KEY WEST 06283000L00800 KEY WEST 06283000L00900 KEY WEST 06283000L01000 KEY WEST 06283060001300 KEY WEST 06283060001400 KEY WEST 06283060001500 KEY WEST 06283060001600 KEY WEST 06283060001700 KEY WEST 06283060001800 KEY WEST 062830600019A0 KEY WEST 06283060001900 KEY WEST 06283060002000 KEY WEST SUB-TOTALS FOR -TAXMAP 06283 COUNT 19 04/07/97 PAGE 7 ~DUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY COZ USING KEYWEST2 ~AXMAP/PAHCE[ ....... SUBDIV NAME ....... 062CO000AOO1DO CEDAR HILLS 062C0000A00200 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000A00300 CEDAR HILLS O$~COODOAO0400 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000A00500 CEDAR HILLS 052C0000A00600 CEDAR BILLS Q62COOOOAO0700 CEDAR HILLS 062CO000AOOSDO CEDAR HILLS 062C0000B00100 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000B00200 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000B00300 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000B00400 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C001A0 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C002A0 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00300 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00400 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00500 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00600 CEDAR HILLS 062EOOOOCOO?OD CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00800 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C00~00 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C01000 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000C01100 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000CD1200 CEDAR HILLS 062C00000000A0 CEDAR HILLS 062C0000000200 CEDAR HILLS SUB-TOTALS FOR -TAXMAP 062C0 COURT 26 0~/07/97 PAGE ....... NAME ............... TOTAL ............... AVERAGE COUNT 233 ....... NAME .............. MAXIMA ............... MINIMA ........ COUNT 1 NUMBER OF PRIMARY RECORDS RETRIEVED FROM THE FILE: 233 NUMBER WHICH MET THE SELECTION CONDITIONS: 233 (100%) END OF QUERY ON FILE CISPLAN BY COZ USING KEYWEST2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Creation of New Voting Precinct/Polling Place SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create a new precinct by splitting the Monticello precinct of the Scottsville District° STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker. Heilman AGENDA DATE: Apdl 9, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Population growth in the Monticello precinct has increased the voter rolls so that significant overcrowding occurs at the current polling place, Piedmont Virginia Community College, on election day. DISCUSSION: ~J~Vhile some of the overcrowding results from temporary problems with the physical space at PVCC, in the opinion of the lectoral Board the best solution is to split the precinct roughly in half and establish a new polling place at Cale Elementary School. To do this requires Board at'don to modify Sec§on 6-6 (b) of the County Code, which delineates the boundaries of the Monticello precinct and adds a Section 6-6 (e), delineating the boundaries of the new precinct. The recommendation ofthe Electoral Board has met with approval from Supervisor Marshall, Gerald Terrell, Principal of Cale, and Dr. Castner. The proposed precinct would be bounded by: the southern city limits, Scottsvflle Road, Red Hill Road, Old Lynchburg Road, and Sunset Avenue Extended. Estimated cost in addition to staff time: Mailing of new voter cards Copy supplies Purchase/pregramming voting machine (already requested in budget) Total $640 5O $5,200 $5,890 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for May 7th to amend the County Code to modify Section 6-6 (b) and add Section 6-6 (e) to create the Cale precinct at Cale Elementary School. 97.074 DRAFT: APRIL 16, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supermsors of the Comity of Albemarle. Virginia. that Chapter 6. Elections. Section 6-6, Same--Scottsville Magisterial District, is hereby amended and reordained by amending subsection 6-6(b), Monticdlo Precinct and by adding new subsection 6-6{e), C01e Precicnt. as follows: Sec. 6-6. Same--Scottsville Magisterial District. The Scottsville Magisterial District shall be divided into four (4) voting pre- cincts, bounded as hereafter set out. and named as follows: (b) Monticello Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Scottsville Road (State Route 20 Statc ..v,.~~' ..... -~o,, u~ and the southern dty limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Rivanna River: then meandering southeast with the Rivanna River to the Albemarle,iXluvanna County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Roiling Road (State Route 6201; then northwest on Roiling Road Statc Routc 620 to its intersection with Secretarvs Road (State Route 708~; then west on Secretarvs Roa~ Statc ....u~ ..... ~o, vu to its intersection with Carters Mountain Road (State Route 627) Statc Routc ~_o ~ ..... ~. .... then south ........... on Carters Mountain Road..~e .... ~.~n ..... ~.,.z° ~ to its intersection with Scottsville Road · e .... ~, ..... , ,~. to its intersection ~ ..... ,o,. then north on Scottswlle Road ........... with the southern dty limits of Charlottesville. the point of beginning. Section.6-6 (e) Cole Precinct: Beeinnin~ at the intersection of Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781/and the southern dtv limits of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with Scottsville Road (State Route 20); then south with Scottsville Road to its intersection with Red Hill Road (State Route 708'}; then northwest with Red Hill Road to its intersection with Old Lvnchbur~ Road (State Route 631 ): then north with Old Lvnchbur~ Road to its intersection with Sunset Avenue Extended (State Route 781): then north with Stmset Avenue Extended to its intersection with the southern city limits of Charlottesville. the ooint of beginnine. 6~6.WPD 2 80ARD OF SUPERVIS ORS 04-~0-97712:18 RCVD RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE Distributed ~ ~ard: __ POLLING PLACES IN THE ~ 1~ ~o. __ MONTICELLO AND CALE VOTING PRECINCTS WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has established by ordinance dated May 7, 1997 new voting predncts designated as the Monticello Prednct and the Cale Precinct in the Scottsville Magisterial District; and WHEREAS. the Albemarle County Electoral Board has recommended the location of polling places for the newly designated precincts; and WHEREAS, the recommended polling places meet all the requirements for polling places set forth in § 24.2-310 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the recommended polling places provide safe, convenient, and accessible locations for all voters at public buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors designates that the polling place for the Monticdlo Prednct be located at Piedmont Virginia Community College and that the polling place for the Cale Precinct be located at Cale Elememary School. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree. correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Cotmty by vote of to on May , 1997. Cleric, Board of County Supervisors CALEVOTE.WPD 05-01-97A09:58 ~TrC ? £ BOARD OF SUPE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Disposal of Public Property - Public Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by Tandem Friends School to acquire 1.494 acres of property on the south side of the new connector road at Monticello High School AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACTt'S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~^/.~l · REVIEWED BY: /~---'<' [/v , / BACKGROUND: Mr. Ethan Miller, on behaff of Tandem Fdends School has submitted a request to the County to purchase a 75 foot strip of land constituting 1.494 acres aajoining the Tandem Fdends School property for the purpose of expanding the Tandem soccer field so as to accommodate a regulation sized facility. Staff has reviewed this request and determined that the parcel that the strip is being acquired from will consist of approximately 8.1 acres which will leave 6.6 acres should the Board approve the acquisition of land. Staff believes that, as long as utility easements over this 75 foot strip are preserved, this sale would not adversely impact the master plan associated with development of this parcel. The Building Grounds Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommended to the Board that a public hearing be held to dispose of this 1.494 acres to Tandem School at a price of $20,000 ~3er acre which approximates the County's investment in this property to date. Additionally, the Building and Grounds Committee has recommended that a stipulation of this sale include availability for use of this soccer field by the public at times not used by Tandem School in exchange for some assistance with trash pickup and portable toilet facilities. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation believes that this field would be a great benefit to have available to lfle community and is wilting to work through the issues on trash cleanup and toilet facilities while working with the scheduling issues. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that, following the public hearing, the Board accept the Building and Grounds Committee's recommendation to dispose of this property once agreement is reached by staff on the scheduling, maintenance, and easement issues to be signed off on by the County Executive. 97.088 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-01-PTPo3:08 RCVo AGENDA TITLE: Juvenile Detention Planning Study and Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on Needs Assessment Update, Program Design and Planning Study for Juvenile Detention Facility Alternatives for Albemarle and Charlottesville; Request for approval of resolution requesting state capital funding for construction. STAFF CONTACT~'SI: Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: May 7, 1997 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: In September, 1995, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council received a report that assessed the needs for secure juvenile detention for both Charlottesville and Albemarle youth and outlined the process for securing state funding for a new or expanded juvenile detention facility. In November, 1996, the Board appropriated $33,545 as the County's share of a juvenile detention planning study to be conducted by Mosely, Harris and McCilntock in association with Carter Goble Associates. Also funded by the City of Charlottesville and the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home, the study and the report were to provide a detailed analysis of projected capital and operational costs based on facility location, size, design, programs, etc. DISCUSSION: The Mosely Harris report includes a needs assessment update, a program design and a planning study addressing secure juvenile deten~on. It analyzes the costs and alternatives available to Charlottesville-Albemarle for creating new secure bedspace by either expanding at the current detention facility in Staunton or by building a new facility locally. The needs assessment confirmed that 40 new beds, with expansion potential of 60 beds, were needed to serve Charlottesville and Albemarle youth under either alternative. Renovation of the Staunton facility (current capacity of 32 beds) and expansion to 72 beds is estimated to cost $7,770,658. The Charlottesville-Albemarle share of that cost would be $5,062,718, or 56% of the total. The cost to build a new facility locally is estimated at $6,287,162, a difference of $1,224,444, The per bed capital cost under both of these scenarios is approximately $150,000. Currently, the State reimbursement rate is 50% with a ma~dmure of up to $52,000 per bed for capItal costs and 50% reimbursement on operating costs. In a scenado where the State reimbursed expansion and renovation at the Staunton facility based on 72 beds, the City/County share at56% of usage would be $2,175,784. In a scenario where the State reimburses for only a 40 bed expansion at the Staunton facility, the City/County share (at 56% of usage) would be $3,119,568. Construction of a new facility in Charlottesville/Albemarle will cost the City and County $4,087,162 after the state reimbursements are deducted. Based on a 50%/50% split of local costs, Albemarle's share of capital costs under each scenario would be: Expand/renovate Staunton facility (72 beds) Expand/renovate Staunton facility (40 beds) Construct new facility locally (40 beds) $1,087,892 $1,559,784 $2,043,581 The FY 97/98-FY 01/02 Capital Improvement Program included approximately $5.4 million for a new detention facility based on an estimated cost of $135 per bed with the County's projected share of the local project at $1.6 million. AGENDAT~LE: Juve~leDetentionPlanni~ Stu~ andResolution May7,1997 P~e2 Unless the state revises its reimbursement rates to reflect 50% of actual construction costs ($75,000 vs $52,000), an additional $400,900 in local borrowed funds would need to be added to the CIP project costs. Charlottesville's and Albemade's share of the annual operating costs are projected to be $741,200 atthe Staunton facility and $800,000 at a new local facility. Depending on which formula is used (currently based on number of detention days), the County's share of operating costs under each scenario would be; Staunton Facility Local Facirtb/ Increase(Local over Current~ At 50%/50% split $373,100 $400,000 $276,000 As percent of 1996 $279,601 $299,760 $175,760 detention days (37%) As percent of total $481,523 $516,240 $392,240 population (65%) *see attached spreadsheet IPg. 3) for detail The addition of projected annual transportaacn costs of $41,063 to the Staunton facility and $8,103 to a local facility results in annual operating costs that are much the same: Staunton Local Annual operating cost Transportation costs $741,200 $800,000 41,063 8,103 $782,263 $808.103 Annual operating costs for a local Albemarle/Charlottesville juvenile facility might be somewhat reduced by per diem charges to other localities (provided space ~s available) or by bdnging in another jurisdiction to form a Juvenile Commission. Fluvanna County is interested in pursuing either ofthesa options and discussions with them will continue if the Board and City Council agree to move forward on a new local facility. Though difficult to quaniigy, access to community based youth programs and to post-dispositional programs that a local factiity would provide (and which do not currently exist atthe Staunton facility) must be factored into decision-making. A local facility would allow community based services to be delivered and would also serve to increase family participation in coUnseling services. These services are not available to Albemarle and Charlottesville youth at the Staunton facility. Bud,qetary Imoacts: Whichever alternative the Board selects must be approved by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Juice. If raimburaement funds are committed during the I997 session of the General Assembly, amhitectural and engineering services would commence in July 1, 1998 (FY 1998-99). Construction would begin in July, 1999 (FY 1999-2000), with completion scheduled for the Summer of 2000. The additional $400,000 in capital costs for the local facility would need to be programmed into the five-year capital improvement budget. In addition, funds for increased annual operating costs would need to be programmed into the FY t 999-2000 budget.. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution requesting capital funding from the State for construc'don of a juvenile detention facility in the Charlcttssville/Albemade area. The Board of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice will take action on the resolution in June. Attachments: Spreadsheet of capital and operating costs, resolution requesting State caoital funds, the Planniog Study introduction, executive summary, and project schedule and project costs for the Shenandoah expansion and an Albemarle/Charlottesville factity. 98.092 JuvENILE DETENTION HOME FACILITY COST SUMMARY OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND PLANNING STUDY REPORT Expansion at Shenadoah Facility Construction Locally qew Housing Units ~lew Supped Areas qew Non-Secure Support ~enovation of Existing Site Work/Othar Costs Land/Other Costs Contingency ;ity/County Share (assuming Sta{e reimbursement on all) Capital Breakdown 2.089.260 2.227,200 Capital Breakdown 1,535,360 1.972,200 729,680 1,156,096 902,901 699,144 1,063,747 1,138,916 331,434 211.862 $2,175,784 $4,087,162 .;ity/County Share (assuming $3,119,568 State reimbursement of 40 new beds only) Per bed cost @ $150,000 Annual Operating Costs Annual Operating Costs Projected Transport Costs/Year $41,063 $8.103 Annual Increase $249.100 $276.000 ~-oun[7 Share as Percent of 1996 Detention Days (37%) Annual Increase ;ounty Share as Percent of Total Population (65%) Annual Increase S279.601 S299.760 $155,601 $175,760 S481.523 S516.240 $357,523 $392,240 :Y 1998 County Funding Net Projected Transport Costs/Year $124,000 $41,063 04/30/97 3 JUVDET2.WK4 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CAPITAL FUNDING FOR TITE CONSTRUCTION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY FOR ALBEMARLE/CHARLOTTESVILLE WltEREAS, the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home has been experiencing overcrowding for several years; and WgIEREAS, an assessment of juvenile detention needs for the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesv'dte concluded that there was an immediate need for 40 pre-dispositional and post-dispositional beds to serve the growing number of delinquent youth; and WIIEREAS, a program design and planning study has concluded that construction ora new facility is the most desirable alternative for Albemarle/Charlottesville; and WItEREAS, established procedures require the adoption of a formal resolution from the governing body to indicate local interest to seek capital funding participation by the Commonwealth through the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia that it does hereby express irs intent to proceed with the construction of a juvenile detention facility, and to seek the maximum amount of capital funding rehnbursement from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy of a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. Clerk, County Board of Supervisors RWW 97.025 Albe rmarle-C harlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Program Design and Planning Study INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The Program Design and Planning Study presented in this report follow the latest edition of Procedures for Receiving State Reimbursement as set forth by the Virginia Department of Juven~e Justice. In order to receive state reimbursement for juvenile detention services, the following study process must be followed: Prepare Needs Assessment Study: in order to demonstrate the need for a particular service, program or facility. 2. Develop a Pro, ram Desiqn: which must explain why a specific response to a demonstrated need is the most appropriate and cost effective. Prepare a Plannin~ Study: in order to descdbe the renovation or construction necessary to meet a specific need. A previous report ent'rtled "Secure Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment for the City of Charlottesville aod County of Albemarle of the 16t~ Judicial District" which is attached to this report, documented the need for a 40 bed detention facility with future expansion capability. The Needs Assessment was approved by the Virginia Department of Youth and Family Services on December 13, 1995. Because the Needs Assessment included data only through 1994, it was requested that the Needs Assessment be updated so as to more accurately project bed space needs. A "Needs Assessment Update" has therefore been prepared that includes 1995 and 1996 data and is included as Part 1 of this document. This report presents the Needs Assessment Update, Program Design and Planning Study for the County's identified needs, including a description of programs and services, a proposed design, schedule, and project costs. A Project Advisopj Committee was formed to oversee all three phases of the Juvenile Detention Home Study. Members ofthe Project Advisory Comm~ee included: Proiect Advisory Committee Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, Albemarle County Ms. Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager, City of Charlottesville Ms. Lisa Glass, Project Manager, Department of Engineering, County of Albemarle Mr. Jack Gallagher, Social Services/Community Attention, City of Charlottesville Mr. Rory Carpenter, Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission Ms. Martha D. Carroll, Court Services Unit Director Moseley Harris & McClintock in association with CGA Consulting Services Albe treacle-Charlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Needs Assessment Update, Program Design and Planning Study Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report includes a Needs Assessment Update, Program Design, and Planning Study addressing secure juveniie detention for the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. A need for additional bedspace has been documented in a Needs Assessment Study approved by the Virginia Department of Juveifile Justice on December 13, 1995. Both localities are considering as of the date of this report, adding a third locality and forming a commission. If such becomes the case, all resolutions and agreements pertaining to such action shall be forwarded to the Department. This report, in its three parts, analyzes the costs and alternatives available to AIbemade-Chartottesvitle for creating new secure bedspace and using alternate programs to serve the citizens of Albemarle- Charlottesville in the most appropriate manner. A summary of the three parts of this report follows. BACKGROUND Currently the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle are par~ of the Commission that make up the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home in Staunton, Virginia. Other localities that make up the commission are the Cities of Lexington, Waynesboro, Staunton, and Harrisonburg, and the Counties of Augusta and Rockingham. The focus of this Program Design and Planning Study is the construction of a new 40-bed facility in the Albemarle-Charlottesville area, owned, operated, and used by the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle (not as a part of the Commission). PART 1 ~ NEEDS ASSESSMENT UPDATE: The previous study titled "Secure Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment for the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle of the 16th Judicial District" included data through the year 1994 and concluded that a 65 bed secure detention facility would be needed to address the growing number of delinquent youth in Albemarle and Charlottesville through the year 2015 with an immediate need for 40 beds. At the time this Planning Study was being considered, it was requested by the Department of Juvenile Justice that a Needs Assessment Update can be prepared to include data through the year 1996 and re- assess the conclusions of the original study. The Update verified a continuing upward trend in the number of juveniles from Albemarle and Charlottesville being held at the Shenandoah Detention Facility. In 1996, their combined ADP at Shenandoah accounted for 41% of the total population. Forecast models were prepared in the Update to provide a high-low range of bedspace needs through the year 2015. These forecasts take intolacCoun~ classification and peaking factors which are recommended in determining bedspace, but Were not done in the original Needs Assessment Study. The Update confirmed 40 beds is the immediate need of Albemarle-Charlottesville. Through the year 2015 however, forecast models suggest a need/ in the range of 57.4 to 87.1 beds. To that end, a medium count of 72 is recommended, which is 7 bedsl higher than the odginal Needs Assessment had recommended. PART2-PROGRAM DESIGN The Program Design identified the programs, services and objectives for a new facility. A post- dispositional program for youth at the new facility iS proposed, and is considered a substantial benet-rt of building a new facility in the local area. A nev~ fac lity will allow Albemarle-Charlottesville to provide a continuum cf care to youth by utilizing many Ioca programs already in place that are not used because of the proximity of Shenandoah. The progra~ as designed will permit the Iocalfty to provide certain offenders who appear amenable to local treatment, an opportunity for rehabilitatio~ This will reduce commitments to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Mosetey Harris & McClintock in association w~th CGA Consulting Services Albermarle-Charlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Needs Assessment Update, Program Design and Planning Study Executive Summary PART 3 - PLANNING STUDY The Planning Study consists of the development of a new 40 bed facility at the 15% schematic design stage. As required by the Department of Juvenile Justice, the alternative of Albemarle-Charlottesville remaining in the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home Commission and expanding that facility by 40 beds was analyzed. To do this analysis, a preliminary plan was prepared for the Shenandoah facility to determine the square footage requirements and site impact of expanding the existing facility by 40 beds. The capacity of Shenandoah with this addition would be 72 beds. The Total Project Cost for this expansion is estimated at $7,770,658.00 compared to $6.287,162.00 for building a new facility in Albemarle-Charlottesville. The figure for Shenandoah, however, assumes that the other commission members would participate in expansion. Such an expansion would provide additional core and program space per current ~andards for all member jurisdictions, tt is noted that the other localities have not prepared a Needs Assessment to confirm their needs. A chart was prepared to determine Atbemarle-CharlottesviIle's anticipated share of cost, which totaled $5,062,718.00 of the total $7,770,658.00. This represents a cost difference for Albemarle-Charlottesville between building a new facility and adding on to Shenandoah of approximately $1,224,000.00. While this difference is considerable, several factors are not taken into account by just looking at the total cost. These factors include: The large transportation costs Albemade-Chadoftesville can expect to save if a local facility is built. · Access to youth programs and the benefit of post-dispositional Dregrams that currently do no[ exist. Additional time to implement a solution should Albemarle-Charlottesville stay at Shenandoah (needs Assessment and financial commitment of other commission members). Considering that building of a new facility is the most desirable alternative for Albemarle-Charlottesville, the Planning Study develops this option in the following ways: · Site: a genedc site is used for the Study. · Program: architectural program for40 beds describing [unctions and space needs is written, and totals 27, 528 sq. ft. Operational Costs, Staffing Analysis: a preliminary staffing estimate of 42.2 total positions was determined to be required based on the design, and this number is used to determine annual operating costs. Annual operating costs are estimated at $1,600~ 000.00 in 1996/97 dollars. At the end of the Planning Study are the amhitectural drawings and site plan showing me building design in schematic phase. The gross square footage is 27.956. MoseleylHarris in association with CGA Consulting Services i i i Albermarle-Charlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Planning Study Project Costs PROJECT BUDGET - NEW ALBEMARLE/CHARLOTTESVILLE FACILITY (GENERIC SITE) CONSTRUCTION COSTS TABLE 3G.1 AREA COST PER S.F. S.F. of AREA COST New Housing Units 160.00 9,596 1,535,360.00 New Support Areas (Secure) 150.00 13,148 1,972,200.00 New Support Areas (Non 140.00 5,212 729,680.00 secure) and Circulation Corridor Subtotal Building Construction 4,237,240.00 Contingency (5%) 211,862.00 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION $4,449,102.00 SITE WORK AND OTHER COSTS Add: · Site Work & Site Utilities (15% of Subtotal Building Construction) 635,566.00 · Site Contingency (10%) 63,558.00 TOTAL SITE WORK 699,144.00 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK 5,148,246.00 OTHER COSTS Add: · Land Acquisition 350,000.00 · Survey Tests, Borings, etc. 22,000.00 · AJE Fees (including interiors) 430,066.00 · Furnishings, Fixtures, & Equipment (Non-Fixed) 198,500.00 · Telecommunications and computer equipment 80,850.00 · Construction Testing, Inspection 37,500.00 · Printing, Plotting, Misc. 20,000.00 TOTAL OTHER COSTS 1,138,916.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST 6,287,162.00 Notes: 1. Fixed equipment is included in Building Construction Costs (i.e. kitchen equipment, laundry equipment). 2, Underground utilities, telephone and data wiring costs, and underground work are included in Building Construction & Site Work Costs. Moseley Harris & McClintock in association with CGA Consu/ting Services 3G- 2 Albe rrnaHe-Cl~arlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Planning Study Anticipated Reimbursement ANTICIPATED REIMBURSEMENT - NEW ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE Table31."l (GENERIC SITE) Total Project Cost (excluding Furnishings, Telecommunications, & Equipment) 6,007,812.00 Less: State Reimbursement - (50% up to $52,000 per bed) 2,080,000,00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 3,927,812.00 Furnishings, Telecommunications and Equipment 279,350.00 Less: State Shara ($3,000 x 40 Beds) 120,000.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 159,360.00 Annual Operating Costs 1,600,000.00 Less: State Sham (50%) 800,000.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 800,000.00 In addition, the State will provide one time start-up funding: t 33,333.00 Summary of Local Share Costs Add: Project Costs 3,927,812.00 Fumishings 159,350.00 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4,087,162.00. Albemarle - Charlottesville's percentage shars of Capital Costs at 0% ................... $4,087,162.00 Moseley Harris & McClinfock in association with CGA Consulting Services 31-2 Albermarte-Charlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Planning Study Project Costs PROJECT BUDGET - EXPAND EXISTING SHENANDOAH FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COSTS TABLE 3G.2 AREA COST PER S.F. S.F. of AREA COST New Housing Unfts 160.00 13,058 2,089,280.00 New Support Areas 150.00 14,848 2,227,200.00 Subtotal New Construction 4,316,480.00 Contingency (5%) 215,824.00 Renovation of Existing 100.00 7,597 759,700.00 Detention Home Existing Area to Remain Same 51.50 7,697 396,396.00 Use (Minor Renovation) Subtotal Renovation 1,156,096.00 Contingency (10%) t 15,610.00 Subtotal Building Construction 5,472,576.00 Contingencies (from above) 331,434.00_ TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION $5,804,010.00 SITE WORK AND OTHER COSTS Add: · Site Work & Site Utilities (15 ~ of Subtotal Building 820,901 Construction) 82,000.00 · Site Contingency (10%) TOTAL SITE WORK 902,901.0_0 TOTAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK 6,706,911.00 OTHER COSTS Add: - Land Acquisition N/A · Survey Tests, Borings, etc. 15,000.00 · AJE Fees (including interiors) 679,347.00 · Furnishings, Fixtures, & Equipment (Non-Fixed) 210,500.00 · Telecommunications and computer equipment 101,400.00 · Construction Testing, Inspection 37,500.00 · Printing, Plotting, Misc. 20,000.00 TOTAL OTHER COSTS 1,063,747.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST 7,7711,658.00 Notes: 1. Fixed equipment is included in Building Construction Costs (i.e. kitchen equipment, laundry equipment). 2. Underground utilities, telephone and data wiring costs, and underground work are included in Building Construction & Site Work Costs. Moseley Harris & McClintock in association with CGA Consulting Services 3G- 4 Albermade-Charlottesville. Juvenile Detention Center Planning Study Anticipated Reimbursement ANTICIPATED REIMBURSEMENT - EXPANDED SHENANDOAH FACILITY Table 3L2 (72 ~ED SCENARIO) Total Project Cost (excluding Furnishings, Telecommunications, & Equipment) 7,458,758.00 Less: State Reimbursement- (50% upto $52,000 per bed 3,729,379.00 using 72 beds) REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 3,729,379.00 Furnishings, Telecommunications and Equipment 311,900.00 Less: State Sham (50%) 155,950.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 155,950.00 Annual Operating Costs 2,665,000.00 Less: State Sham (50%) 1,332,500.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 1,332,500.00 In addition, the State will provide one time start-up funding: 222,083.00 Summary of Local Sham Costs Add: Project Costs 3,729,379.00 Furnishings . 155,950.00 TOTAL CAPITAL COST 3,885,329.00 i i i i i Assume Albemarle - Charlottesvitle's percentage share of Capital Costs at approx. 56% ........................................................................................................... $2,175,784.00 Moseley Harris & McClintock in association with CGA Consulting Services 31-3 ! I ! i i Albermarle-Charlottesville Juvenile Detention Center Planning Study Anticipated Reimbursement ANTICIPATED REIMBURSEMENT - EXPANDED SHENANDOAH FACILITY Table 31.3 (40 BED SCENARIO) Total Project Cost (excluding Furnishings, 7,458,758.00 Telecommunications, & Equipment) 2,080,000.00 Less: State Reimbursement - (50% up to $52,000 per bed using 40 beds) 5,378,758.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE Fumishfngs, Telecommunications and Equipment 311,900.00 Less: State Share ($3,000 x 40 Beds) 120,000.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 191,600.00 AnnuaJ Operating Costs 2,665,000.00 Less: State Share (50%) 1,332.500.00 REMAINING LOCAL SHARE 1,332,500.00 In addition, the State will provide one time start-up funding: 222,083.00 Summary of Local Share Costs ~ ! 5,378,758.00 Add: Project Costs 191,900.00 Furnishings I 5,570.658.00 TOTAL CAPITAL COST Assume Albemarle - Chadottesville's percentage share of Capital Costs at approx. 56% ........................................................................................................... $3.119,568.00 Moseley Harris & McClintock in association with CGA Consulting Services 3I-4 Jannene L. Shanno¢, Judge Edward DeJ Berry, Judge Frank W. Somerville, Judge mmont altl) ALBEMARLE43HARLOTTESVILLE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC REL&TIONS DISTRICT COURT 4ll E. HIGH STREET C, HARLOTFESV1LLE, VIRGINIA 22902-5192 TELEPHONE 804~979-?165 Anne F. Patton Clerk TDD Users Call: 1-800-828-1120 To the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris Dear Chairman: I am aware that plans to construct a juvenile detention center for Charlottesville and Albemarle will soon be presented for your consideration. This plan has been developed jointly by the two localities with assistance from the Department of Juvenile Justice. Although 1[ cannot speak specifically about the plan, I do believe it is now crucial for our community ro move forward with such a project. Our courts presently face a juvenile detention crisis. The Shenandoah Valley facility is routinely overcrowded and there is no space available to sentence juveniles post- dispositionally. (Juveniles sentenced to the detention home as a consequence for their delinquent behavior would be refused admission by detention staff). Transportauon of the detained youths regularly present a dangerous situation for both the juveniles and our law enforcement officials. If you require further information, I will be glad to cooperate fully. The Court Service Unit wSll also be available if there should be such a need. Sincerely, Jarmene L. Shannon Judge COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 05-02-97AOg:06 RCvD AGENDATITLE: MealsTaxR~erendum Resol~on SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Resolution of Support for a Meals Tax Resolution STAFF CONTACT(SI: Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: May 7, 1997 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: A AC.MENTS: / BACKGROUND: As you know, the Vote Yes Campaign has been circulating a petition among Albemarle County residents for the past several months to support a Meals Tax Referendum. The proposed referendum would authorize a lew of a County meals tax of no more than 4%. If the petitioners are successful in raising a little under 4,000 votes by August, the referendum will be ~)laced on the November election ballot. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution of support acknowledges the financial needs facing the County in the next several years, endorsesthe citizen generated referendum and encourages registered voters to vote yes on a referendum. The School Board approved a similar resolution in January. RECOMMENDATION: If Board members support a community generated meals tax referendum, approve the attached resolution of support. Representatives of the Vote Yes Campaign will be atthe meeting to make a brief presentation and answer questions from the Board. 97.095-A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT-MEALS TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, population growth in Albemarle County has and will continue to have a significant fiscal impact on the quality and availab'dity of essential government services, including education, public safety, recreation, libraries, and capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the fall 1998 opening of Monticello High School will require $1.3 million dollars in recurring costs, in addition to $1.4 million dollars in projected enrollment costs for over 300 new pupils; and WHEREAS, the County's projected revenues are inadequate to meet either maintenance of effort expenses or needed school initiatives and essential services; and WREREAS, the rate oflncrease in real estate assessments has decreased steadily since 1991; and WHEREAS, Virgin/a State Code limits the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's ability to establish new revenue sources, including impact fees on new real estate development; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must remain fiscally responsible when balancing annual revenue sources and expenditure needs; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED TItAT, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in its desire to postpone, reduce the need for or eliminate the need for a property tax rate increase, hereby endorses a referendum to authorize a County meals tax levy of no more than 4%, the revenue from which would be deposited in the County's General Fund, and encourages registered voters of Albemarle County to vote yes on such a referendum, I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing 1s a true correct copy ora resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. Clerk, County Board of Supervisors 97.095-B RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT-MEALS TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, population growth in Albemarle County has and will continue to have a significant fiscal impact on the quality and availability of essential government smMces, including education, public safety, recreation, libraries, and capital improvements; and VOtF~REAS, the fall 1998 opening of Monticello High School will require $1.3 million dollars in recnrring costs, in addition to $1.4 million dollars in projected enrollment costs for over 300 new pupils; and WHEREAS, the County's projected revenues are inadequate to meet either maintenance of effort expenses or needed school initiatives and essential services; and WHEREAS, the rate of increase in real estate assessments has decreased steadily since 1991; and WHEREAS, Virginia State Code limits the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's ability to establish new revenue sources, including impact fees on new real estate development; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must remain fiscally responsible when balancing aunual revenue sources and expend/ture needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in its desire to postpone, reduce the need for or eliminate the need for a property tax rate increase, hereby supports a citizen initiated petition to advance a referendum to authorize a County meals tax levy of no more than 4%, the revenue from which would be deposited in the County's General Fund. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a ~rue correct copy ora resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ar a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. Clerk, County Board of Supervisors David E Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humph~ COUNTY OF A! REMARLE Office of Board of Supervi~r~ 401 Mcln~'e R~ad Charlottesville, V'n~j'mia 22902~1596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Char]~ S. Martin Walter F. Darkins S~lly H. Thomi~s June 6,1997 Mr. Gordon Walker Chief Executive Officer Jefferson Area Board for Aging 2300 Commonwealth Drive. Suite B-1 Charlottesville. VA 22901 Dear Mr. Walker: At its meeting on May 7, 1997. the Board of Super~sors adopted the attached Resolution of Support for a Meals Tax Referendum. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk// ,~WC cc: Robert W. Tucker. Jr. Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT-MEALS TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, population growth in Albemarle County has and will continue to have a significant fiscal impact on the quality and availability of essential government services, including education, public safety, recreation, libraries, and capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the fall 1998 opening of Monticello High School will require $1.3 million dollars in recurring costs, in addition to $1.4 million dollars in projected enrollment costs for over 300 new pupils; and WHEREAS, the County's projected revenues are inadequate to meet either maintenance of effort expenses or needed school initiatives and essential services; and WHEREAS, the rate of increase in real estate assessments has decreased steadily since 1991; and WHEREAS, Virginia State Code limits the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor's ability, to establish new revenue sources, including impact fees on new real estate development: and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must remain fiscally responsible when balancing annual revenue sources and expenditure needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in its desire to postpone, reduce the need for or eliminate the need for a property tax rate increase, hereby supports a citizen initiated petition to advance a referendum to authorize a County meals tax levy of no more than 4%, the revenue from which would be deposited in the County's General Fund. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true correct copy ora resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgihia at a regular meeting held on May 7, 1997. '-~Cler~ Cotinty l~oard of/~upervisors / COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEBOARD OF SUPERVISORS  04-07-97~0:30 RCYD MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Supervisors Lee P. Catlin, Community Resource Coordinator ~Q-,/ April 7, 1997 County Government Open ltouse As you may remember from last year at this tune, NationalCounty Government Week is approaching. We would again like to sponsor an Open House/Outdoor Display to celebrate the week on Wednesday, May 7 from approximately 10:30 a.m.-l:00 p.m. We will be inviting local schools, day care centers and interested citizens to come by to risk the County Office Building, see our equipment and vehicles and meet County employees. Also, again this year we will be taking an opportunity to recognize those County citizens who serve on our many Boards and Commissions with a brief ceremony during that morning We will be displaying County government vehicles, equipment and other items of interest in the upper parking lot and the building will be open for people to take a look around if they are interested. We are also inviting all departments to set up a display or table on the front lawn area during the Open House to hand out materials, talk to visitors and enjoy what we hope will be a nice spring day. We are ve~ anxious to take this opportunity to "bring government to the citizens" in keeping with the theme of National County Government Week. Thank you for your support of this program. LPC/bt 97-7 CELEBRATE NATIONAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK WITH ALBEMARLE COUNTY t':'"' '/L,..,/,~o,,,,,,,,.,~.t..,Lm,,d, o,, ' Itl,, ~/,.-,~,-va.~ ,.".. . .., ,~:.~ ..... . commu,ilf]. ' '".,..,,, ,, " .,..'"" DATE: Wednesd~ 7 TIME: ] ]- '-'"'"' ' '-~.30 a~)~'''~'''':'' [O~ATION: Albemarle ~ount~ ~gice Buildin9 lawn MAY 7, 1997 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION P. I -344(A) Of The Code Of ViRGINIa UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MAl~ERS REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMIIIEES AND COMMISSIONS AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION: UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO DISCUSS DISPOSITION OF AN NTEREST IN COUNTY PROPERTY; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MAi i ERS RELATING TO REVERSION AND PROBABLE LITIGATION CONCERNING THE LANDFILL. To: Members, Board of Supervisors ,q~,,/q / [:rom: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk Subiect: Appointments to various Boards/Commissions/ Committees Updated) Date: April 30. 1997 Following xs an updated list of appointments to Boards/Commission: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: One vacancy) Stephen N. Ru~kle resigned as of April 30. 1997. His unexpired term is through November 14. t998. Clerk has advertised for applications. MONTICELLO AREA COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY fMACAA/ BOARD OF DIRECTORS: tOne vacancy) Robert Hodge resigned as of April 30. 1997. There is no term limit. Clerk has advertised for applications. COMMUNITYSERVICESBOARD: , One vacancy) LloydE. BarretttermexpiresonJune30, 1997 He is not elig/ble for reappoinunenr. Clerk has advertised for applications. COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM (CPMT): (One vacancy) The appointment is for a two year tenn. A private social provider that represents the interests of private providers who serve at risk youth and their families is preferred to fill this vacancy. This vacancy is to be filled by either a City or County resident. Applications are attached. HOUSING COMMITTEE: (Three vacancies, (Representatives from the following areas of expertise are needed: consumer of lou4moderate income/housing, construction/development and property management, i Beverly Terrell resigned as of March 23. 1997. Her unexpired term is through December 31. 1998. Stephen N. Ruulde resigned as of April 30. 1997. His unexpired termis through December 31. 1999. There is currentlyno representativeof propertymanagement on the Committee. The term for this appoinrmenr would expire December 31, 1998. Clerk has advertised for applications. |EFFERSON AREA BOARD ON AGING: The terms of Gene E. Smith and Ed~vard J. Jones expired on March 31.1997. Both wish to be reappointed. This is a two year appointment, with terms to expire-on March 31. 1999. ROUTE 250 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY CITIZEN S ADVISORY BOARD: Board membezs have received applications. Attachments BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert and Sandy Hodge WYNDEFIELDS 2764 Browns Gap Tpk Charlottesville VA 22901 Phone/Fax 804-823-4001 o4-02-97P0!':3~ RCYD March 28, 1997 Walter F. Perkins, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Perkins: I am writing to resign my appointment to the Board of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency effective April 30, 1997. I will be relocating temporarily and thus will not be able to serve. It has been a great experience and honor to serve on the MACAA Board and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Sincerely, / Robert Hodge MD C: Mark Lorenzoni Kenneth Ackerman THE KESSLER GROUP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-! ~-'~ 'e ~ A-~8.57 RCVP~ Stephen N. Runkle President April 9, 1997 IVh, s. Charlotte Humphries ChaimToman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Charlotte: I'm writing m confirm my resignation from the Albemarle County Housing Committee and Architectural Review Board because of my decision to move to the City of Charlottesville hi May. Since I will no longer be a resident of Albemarle County, I assume I will no longer be eligible for committee membership. I appreciate the opportunity to serve on these two committees and continue to be willing to assist them in any way possible. Ste 4 . £O. Box 5207. Charlottesville Va. 22905 (80~ 979-9500 FAX [804] 979-8055 APR.-OS' §?(TUE)' 12:27 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AOINO 0 4 - 0 B - 9 7 P 0 3: 0 2 R C ¥ ~ 2300 Cemmomv~alth Drive:. Suite B- 1 Charlotle.~v~ll~, Wirgmi~ ~2901 804-97~-36~ F~ ~04-~8-3~3 Four Agency on Aging Serving th~ Citizens of O,.ar!ottesville Albemarle~ Fluvanna. Greene, Lo~i~a and Nelson Apfilg, 1997 ~lta Carey Albemarle Court%' Board of Supervisors 401 McIntireRoad Charlottesville~ VA 22902 D,ar Ms. Carey: In keeping with our recent telephone conversation, please be advi~xt that I am interested/n being reappointed to the Board of Directors for JABA. I look forward to hearing back from you regarding my reappointment. If any action on my part is required, please call me. Co/~y?r~,i ida Cdebrating 20 Years of Comrnuntu Service t4* the Elderly and Thetr t"am~lies · A&h He. altgca~ 4 Ca~ Managar~nt * (i~iatfi~ Consult, a~on ', I. tom~l:o, am~ Me~& · Hom~ Car~, Hom~ Saf~y/R~Irair, lnlormatioa aad llz~f~'at · L~gal ,, ~,~dsm~n COUNTY OF ALBE~E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~L,)C~'" May 1! 1997 Applications for Boards and Commissions (Updated) Following is a list of applications received for vacancies on Boards and Commissions: COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM: Eugene Confi Tam Singh lef&eyW. Sobel /ewc County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 04-2A-97702:08 RCVP APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee Applicant's Name Home Address #/O~ Home Phone Ma~steri~ Disffict M which yo~ home residen~ is located Employer ~ ~4~ ~v~ ~ySZ~ Phone (~O~O ~77-1I~ Bus~essAd~ess .l l ~O ~RLi/~6 ~ ~b,e DamofEmplo~ent ~//~/96 Occupation/Title ~3 ~tq~7 Y~s Resident ~ Alembic Co~ ~ ~5 Previom Resid~ee ~Lo V~A Spouse's Nme ~[~tq ~ N~berofC~l~n mueafion~es~d~duatbnDa~s) g~e[o~ ~ ~%~03~) Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s/for Desire to Serve on this Board/Commission / Committ~ ~ Afo~on pr~id~ on ~s application ~1 ~ rel~d ~ ~e public ~n r~. Remm ~: Clerk, Bo~d ofCounW Supemimm Albem~le Co~W 401 Mch~e Rind C~loRes~tte, VA 229~-4596 Date County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 04-75-97A10:37 RC D Office orB, card of County Supervisors 401 Melntire Rbad Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) ~96-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COIVRvlISSION / CONflVIITTEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee CPMT Applieant'sName Tarn Sinqh LCSW HomeAddress 234 Oakland Farm Lane Shipman Home Phone 2 6 3 - 4 9 2 1 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer People Places of Charlottesville Phone 979-0335 BusinessAddress 1002 East Jefferson St. C'ville 22902 DateofEmployment 11/94 Occupation/Title Director Years Resident in Albemarle County Previous Residence Spouse's Name Priscilla Fr iedber .g Number of Childr6n Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) MS W/89 Membe~hips in Fraternal. Business. Church and/6r S~ial Groups Foster Family Treatment Association, Virginia Coalition of Pr.~vateProviders National Association of Social Workers Ptlblie. CivJ¢ ~dCharimbleOffiee ~d/orOtherAetivifiesorlnte~ Long time supporter and founder of Crossroads Waldorf School in Crozet Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee People Places ~s currently serving 35 children from Charlottesville/Albemarle. Many are children requiring %he highest degree of specSalized services significant amounts of CSA money. I would like to bring my daily experience i~ dav~l~pin~ ~nd GupcrvS~fn~ ~crvlcc~ to the CP~T p!~nning proce~_ The information..._ provided on this application/_~7~ ' 2will be released~.7> 4//~t° the public up?n req~... 17//~/5,. 7/~'~ ./~-.. .'7 Signature Date Clerk, Board of County. Supervisors Albemarle County 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 County of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun_ty S.upervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOAI~D / COIvlIvlISSION / COMM1TIEE (please type or prinO Board / Commission / Committee CPMT Applicant'sName Tarn Sinqh LCSW Home Phone 263-4921 HomeAd~ess 234 Oakland Farm Lane Shipman Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~ -~ ~-~ +~ Employer People Places of Charlottesville Phone 979-0335 BttsinessAddress 1002 East Jefferson St. C'ville 22902 DateofEmployment 11/94 Occupation/Titlo Director Years Resident in Albemarle County Previous Residence Spouse's Name Priscilla Friedberg Numbex of Chitdren Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) MSW/89 Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Foster Family Treatment Association, Virginia Coalition of PrivateProviders National Association of Social Workers Public. Civic andChmimbleOffice ~d/orOtherAcfi~fiesorln~sts Long time supporter and founder of Crossroads Waldorf School in Crozet Reason(s~rDesire~ Se~eonthisBo~d/Commission/Commi~ People Places is currently serving 35 children from Charlottesville/Albemarle. Many are children requiring the highest degree of specialized services and significant amounts of CSA money. I would like to bring my daily experience The/nfonnat/on provided on this application wi~ be released to the public upon request. / / Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Melntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 ~4ay 13, 1997 Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Office of the Board of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Ms. Carey, Thank you for your letter of April 30, 1997. In February, I called you about the procedure for applying for a second term on the Board of Directors of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging. You assured me that a second term was generally given if the person expressed a desire to continue, and if you and the Board of SuDervisors were aware of that desire. I told you that I wished to continue for a second term if the Board of Supervisors would permit that. I called you again after receiving your letter, and you gave me the same assurance. In the short time I have been on the Board of Directors of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, I am serving as the Chair of the Program Evaluation Committee, Board Liason to the JABA Ethics Committee, member of the Board of Directors of Jefferson Elder Care, member of the JABA-Senior Center committee to improve relations between the two bodies, and the nominee for the Board of Directors of the Virginia Coalition for the Aging as the representative of JABA. Please lnform the members of the Board of Supervisors of my activities as one of their representatives to the Board of Directors of the Jeflferson Area Board for Aging. Please give thSm my appreciation for the opportunity to serve my county and my community. Sincerely, Gene Ecton Smith David E Bo~erman Forrest 1~ Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Off, ce of Board of Supemgsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VL~cJinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (8041 296-5800 Charles S. M,~tin Walter E Peddns Sal~ H. Tr~omas April 30, 1997 Ms. Gene E. Smith 306 Westminster Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Smith: Your term on the Jefferson Area Board on Aging expiled on March 3 l, 1997. ! The Board's policy for appointment to boards and commissions requires appointments vacancies through June 30, 1997, be made at this time. [O Since you are eligible for reappoinunem to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, please let this office know by May 15, 1997, if that is your desire. /ewc Sincerel~ El~la .~ey, Cler~k, C ~'x Printed on recycled paper