The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-07-04 FINAL 9:00 A.M. July 3, 1996 Room 241, County Office Building ~) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) I0) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 165 Callto Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Approval of Minutes: April 5, 1995; March 13 a~d June 5, 1996. Transportation Matters: a) Discussion: Route 631 widening from Route 743 to Route 29 to include sidewalks on the west side (deferred f~om May 1, 1996.) b) Other Transportation Matters. Route 250 West Scenic Highway, Presentation by staff. ChildCare Report Presentation by Charles Gleason. Discussion: Barking Dogs. 11:00 a.m. - Public Hearing: Agreement between County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.~ for property to be used by East Rivanna for parking purposes. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board members. Executive Session: PersouneI'and Legal Matters. Certify Executive Session. Appointments. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPRO¥ iL: 5.1 Appropriation: Contribution Fund, $11,558.35 5.2 5.3 5,4 5.5 5.6 (Form #95010). Appropriation: Sheriffs Department, $35,000 (Form #95078). Appropriation: General Fund, $292,406.06 (Form #95080). Appropriation: Federal Drug Seized Assets, $48,769.69 (Form #95081). Appropriation: State Drug Seized Assets, $4,317.16 (Form #95082). Appropriations: Education: a) b) c) 5.7 Appropriation: 5.8 Appropriation: 5.9 Appropriation: 5.10 Appropriation: 1995 Summer School Program, $95,235.28 (Form #95083). Grants, $94,648.56 (Form #95084). Grant Fund, $11,913.93 (Form #95086). Department of Cffuninal Justice Services Grant Refund, $40.00 (Form #95085). Additional Bailiff- Juvenile Court, $45,657 (Form #96001). Cascades Subdivision - Road/Subdivision Performance Bond, $14,800 (Form #96002). Beating the Odds, $11,410 (Form #96003). 5.11 Police Contractual Overt'uric Rate Increase, Request Board of Supervisors to authorize the increase of the overtime rate from $20 to $23 per hour. 5.12 Adopt resolution authorizing a request to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for funding assistance for a segment of the Rivanna Greenway along the South Fork Rivauna Reservoir. 5.13 Appointment of Building Official for Albemarle County. 5.14 Amended Service Agreement for Law Enforcement in the Town of Scottsville. FOR INFORMATION.-. 5.15 Analysis of Volunteer Fire Companies and Rescue Sq~uads, Property and Liahility Insurance. 5.16 Report on Audit for the Yem' Ended June 30, I995, for Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, from the Auditor of Public Accounts (on file in the Clerk's Office). 5,17 Memorandum dated June 12, 1996. addressed to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, re: City Parks and Recreation Cost of Service Study (report on file in Clerk's office). 5.18 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Smvice Authority for May 16, 1996. 5.19 Copy of minutes of the Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah National Park Relations for April 25, 1996. 5.20 March~ 1996, Financial Report. 5.21 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) monthly Bond and Program Report for the months of April and May, 1996. 5.22 Copy of letter dated June 28, 1996, addressed to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, from Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, regarding transportation matters discussed at the June 5, 1996, Board meeting. David P. Bo~erman Charlotte Y. Humphrls Forrest R. Marshall. Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ¢804) 296-5843 FAX 1804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sail9 H Thomas TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr., County Executive July 9, 1996 Board Actions of July 3. 1996 At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on July 3, 1996. the following actions were taken: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.. by the Chairman. Mr. Martin was absent. ~ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Scott Peyton asked for an opportunity to have public comments on the Route 250 West Scenic Highway discussion. Mr. George Larie said he would like to speak about the Squirrel Ridge issue. Item No.5.1. Appropriation: Contribution Fund, $11,558.35 (Form #95010). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Mdvin Breeden. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Sherif£s Deparanenr, $35,000 (Form #95078). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.3 Appropriation: General Fund, $292.406.06 Form #95080). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Printed on recycled paper Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9. 1996 Page 2 Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Federal Drag Seized Assets, $48,769.69 (Form #95081). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: State Drag Seized Assets, $4,317.16 (Form #95082). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.6a. Appropriation: Education - 1995 Summer School Program, $95,235.28 (Form #95083). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Mrs. Thomas asked if the $29,007 for Remedial Summer School is from tuition paid or cormng out of the General Fund. Item No. 5.6b. Appropriation: Education - Grants, $94,648.56 (Form #95084). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Mdvin Breeden. Item No. 5.6c. Appropriation: Education - Grant Fund, $11,913.93 (Form #95086). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Mrs. Thomas asked for a progress report on the Murray Electronics employees. Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant Refund, $40.00 (Form #95085). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.8. Appropriation: Additional Bailiff - Juvenile Court, $45,657 (Form #96001). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.9. Appropriation: Cascades Subdivision - Road/Subdivision Performance Bond, $14,800 (Form #96002). APPROVED. Original fonxt forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.10. Appropriation: Beating the Odds, $11,410 (Form #96003 ). APPROVED. Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.11. Po/ice Contractual Overtime Rate Increase, Request Board of Supervisors to authorize the increase of the overtime rate from $20 to $23 per hour. AUTHORIZED the increase of the police officers' contractual overtime rate to $23 per hour effective July 1, 1997. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 3 Item No. 5.12. Adopt resolution authorizing a request to the Virginia Department of Conserva- tion and Recreation for funding assistance for a segment of the Rivanna Greenway along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. ADOPTED the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program grant. Item No. 5.13. AppoinUnent of Building Offidal for Albemarle County. APPOINTED Jay Schlothauer as Building Official for Albemarle County effective July 13, 1996. Item No. 5.14. Amended Service Agreement for Law Enforcement in the Town of Scottsville. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to execute the attached Amended Service Agreement. Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 631 widening from Route 743 to Route 29 to include sidewalks on the west side (deferred from May i, 1996.) ADOPTED the attached resolution endorsing VDoT's recommended improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive), with the addition of sidewalks on the east side of this segment of Route 631 only. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Tucker gave a brief update on tire Route 29 project. The segment from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road is complete and was accepted under a partial final acceptance on July 1, 1996. There will be a few barrels left as a transition between the projects. The segment from Rio Road, north to the River should be complete by May, 1997. The side streets, the accelerated piece of Rio Road and some minor utility ptmchlist items will be going on between now and August. Mrs. Tucker discussed the effect tire proposed Western Route 29 Bypass will have on Old Ivy Road and the options VDoT is considering. One consideration is dosing one or both of the northern- most set of on and off ramps. Another consideration is providing two at-grade rail crossings onto 250 Business where the loop ramps meet. The design consultants are currendy preparing cost estimates and feasibility studies. This information is supposed to be presented at VDoT's informational meeting. After Board members expressed their concerns today, Mrs. Tudcer said she would share them vAN YT)oT officials. She will then bring bads to the Board comments from the public informational meeting, at which time this Board can reinforce its opinion. The public information meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 1996, from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel on Route 29 North~ Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 4 Mrs. Humphtis said the Board would appreciate if Mrs. Tudcer would tell the design people that this Board is very discouraged to hear that an at-grade crossing is being considered although the Board does not lmow what is the best solution. Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT has decided not to pursue the relocation of Route 743 from the Rock Store to the Reservoir that was being considered as part of the bypass project. Mrs. Humphris said she never lmew this relocation was being considered. She does not lmow how the Board was left out the loop on something so major. Mrs. Tucker said it was lack of communication on her part. After a lot of Board discussion on VDoT's proposal to purchase right-of-way in Squirrel Ridge Subdivision for the purpose of future construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Western Bypass, the Board adopted the attached resolution in opposition. It was noted that VDoT had withdrawn its plans for this interchange, as well as purchase of the right-of-way in Squirrel Ridge. Mrs. Thomas said she will be attending a meeting on July 17 with the people concerned about the dosing of Route 782. The meeting will be held at UKEF offices, at 4:00 p.m. UREF offices are located on Old Ivy Road near University Village. Mrs. Thomas said she read in some minutes recently that Routes 22/231 have been opened to the extra large tractor trailers through action taken by the CTB. She got Juan Wade to check this out and found it to not be true Mr. Tucker said he received notice from Don Askew of the Culpeper office that VDoT is planning to do some short and long-range planning on the Route 250 east and west corridor. VDoT staff will do the planning for the eastern portion from the City limits to Fluvanna County, but a consulting firm will be used for the western portion. Mrs. Thomas asked if it is possible to get a citizens advisory committee working with the consulting firm. Mrs. Tucker said the RFP has not gone out. VDoT does anticipate using a citizens advisory committee, but they want to hire the consukant first. Mrs. Thomas said the consultants should be chosen with the idea that they will be worldng with a committee. Mr. Perldns thanked VDoT for fixing Park Road in Crozet and the repairs to the railroad underpass. Mr. Perldns mentioned that there are numerous locations around the County where the heavy rains have washed gravel away from the black top, in some places there is a slx or eight inch drop off, which he thi~xks VDoT should focus on getting repaired because it creates dangerous situations. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9. 1996 Page 5 Mr. Marshall said he has received several phone calls from people traveling on Route 53 and other roads in southern Albemarle where foliage is growing over the roads and obstructing visibility, even hitting the sides of cars as they travel down the road. Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the four-laning of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the entrance ro the new high school. Mrs. Tucker said that project is currently not in any funding plans, however, she has been asked to come up with a general estimate on the cost. She will be forwarding that information to the Board soon. She reminded the Board that the project needs to be included as a high priority for the preallocation hearing next spring. Mrs. Humphris said there is a drainage problem in front of Mr. Booth's house located at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. During a recent heavy thunderstoma, the water was overflowing and not getting into the storm drain. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board had received a response to Mr. Tuclcer's letter to Carter Myers about primary road funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway. In response to Mr. Tudcer's "no", Mrs. Humphris asked that a follow up be done. Agenda Item No. 8. Route 250 West Scenic Highway, Presentation by staff. The Board asked staff to pull together the comments made today and continue the discussion on July 10. One suggestion made by Scott Peyton was to incorporate the Scenic Highway designation as an ordinance provision instead of an ARB guideline which would not mal~e it appeal- able. Marcia loseph indicated that the ARB was not receptive to that idea, and Mrs. Thomas asked why they would not be. Recessed at 11:19 a.m.. and reconvened at 11:29 a.m. Agenda Item No. 9. Child Care Report Presentation by Charles Gleason. Mrs. Thomas said she wants a report back to mal~e sure that tltis is not a report that gets put on the shelf. It was the consensus that Dr. Gleason maize a presentation to the Welfare Reform Planning group. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Barking Dogs. it was the consensus of the Board that the County Attorney draft language for a county- wide ordinance similar to the one in Charlottesville, for discussion on August 7th. Although Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 6 nor very receptive to the idea, the Board will discuss including other animals. The Board also asked that conununication be received from the Commonwealth Attorney's office since he will be involved. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Agreement between County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the East Rivarma Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., for property to be used by East Rivanna for patldng purposes. AUTHORIZED the Cotmty Executive to sign the agreement. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board members. Mr. Tucker said on July 15th City Cotmcil will discuss whether the Dogwood Festival should remain at Mclntire Park or move to Towe Park, to add little league fields at Mclntire Park. Mr. Tucker said the County could not support the use of Towe Park for the Dogwood Festival but would consider the additional little league fields. Mr. Bowerman said the Towe Park Cormnirtee needs to mal<e a recommendation to the Board and City Council. Consensus of the Board that Mr. Tucker communicate with City Council that the Board does not support moving the Dogwood Festival to Towe Park. Mr. Tucker mentioned a letter he sent to Don Sours of R. E. Lee and Sons, concerning the installation of sewer in conjunction with the widening of Hydraulic Road. He informed Mr. Soars of the Board's policy to nor provide sewer service in the area of the South Fork Rivanna watershed. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Tucker send a follow-up letter to Mr. Sours reaffliming his comments. SET a public hearing for August 7, 1996, at i0:00 a.m., to amend the service area botmdaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for one connection of water service to TM60-3. located adiacent to Colthttrst. Mrs. Humphtis asked whether this action would set a precedent, and where it leaves the County in terms of protecting the watershed. Mrs. Thomas said there will be a meeting on July 11, 1996, from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon, of the VACo Finance Steering Committee in Koom 246. At 11:00 a.m., Mitch VanYahres will discuss his proposal to have a piggyback income mx in place of some portion of the rea/estate tax. Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter received from Ken Pedersen requesting the E-911 address assigned to the residents of "Timber Point" be changed. She asked if this has been talqen care of by Maynard Sipe. Mr. Tucker responded "yes". Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 7 Mrs. Humphris reported on a meeting she attended of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. The discussion revolved around marketing the area, creating new invest- merits, etc. It was announced that interest was shown from 20 companies and there had been seven site visits. The Committee also presented its financial statement as of June 15. Mrs. Humphris expressed thanks for the well-written resolution about the Route 29 Corridor Study that was prepared from the June 5th meeting. Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone attended the luncheon meeting of the Transportation subcom- mittee of the Senate Finance Committee that came through Charlottesville on the train. Mr. Tucker said Roxanne White and Juan Wade attended the meeting, but nothing came of it. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the City's ranking in Money Magazine as one of the best places to live in America. She commented that the ranldng is not on just the City of Charlottesville, but the entire metropolitan statistical area in which the City resides. Albemarle County is a large part of the whole metropolitan area. Mrs. Humphris said she appreciated being allowed to represent the Board at the Olympic torch ceremony. She commented that the Torch should be kept in some sort of case visible and safe. Itwas suggested that the schools be allowed to use the Torch during the presidential fitness activities and other field day activities. Mrs. Thomas also suggested it be tal<en around and shown to the kids who are in summer school. Mrs. Humphtis mentioned a letter Mr. Tucker received from the Deputy City Manager of the City of Lynchburg, who is President of the Virginia Local Government Management Association. This person said Roxarme White had been an asset serving as a member of the Young Professionals Task Force. Mrs. Humphris mentioned an artide in the International Dark Sky News Assodadon newslet- ters which offered suggestions for improving outdoor lighting to help the night sky. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is currently working on putting together some options in response to an earlier Board request. Hopefully something will come to the Board in the next month or so. Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter received from Gordon Walker about the Tax Work Off Program for retired citizens 60 or older to earn credit toward their real estate tax bill. Mr. Tucker said V~rginia does not have enabling legislation that would allow this. He thinks this needs to be sent to the local legislators to let them decide whether they think it is a good idea, to figure out how it might Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 8 be done and how it is being done in North Carolina. Mrs. Humphris asked that a response to that effect be sent to JABA. Mrs. Thomas asked ff anyone was attending the Housing Conference on July 8 in Farmville. She is considering attending and will contact Ginny McDonald. Mrs. Humphtis mentioned a telephone message the Board had received from Ron Keeney, President of the Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood Association, stating that the residents were outraged that the Board adopted a resolution without allowing public comments. Mrs. Humphtis said she can understand these people being upset, however this is not new business. The resolution is a continuous restatement of the Board's past position. This is not a situation in which the Board had any intention of holding a public hearing. Mr. Bowerman also said rids was a bankrupt concept that was brought up by VDoT through the back door with the neighborhood association which did not involve him or anybody else. The proposed concept would have put 30 percent more traffic on Hydraulic Road and Rio Road which was against the best interests of the community. There was no way he will change his position or his feelings about an interchange at that location. Mrs. Thomas said VDoT has now gone back to the concept of taking just those southern houses which is what the residents of Squirrel Ridge thought all along. She thinks there has been an improvement in their situation. Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:16 p.m., the Board went into executive session. Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session. At 3:04 p.m., the Board reconvened in open session and certified the executive session. Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. APPOINTED Dwight Colley to the Community Services Board with term to expire on June 30. 1999. REAPPOINTED Jacquelyn Perry to the Community Services Board with term to expire on tune 30, I999. APPOINTED Sherry Buttrick to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with term to expire on December 13, 1998. Memo To: Rober~ W. Tudcer, Jr. July 9, 1996 Page 9 APPOINTED Ridrard Piccolo to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, to fill out the unexpired term of Ricardo Preve, with term to expire on December 13, 1997. REAPPOINTED Cathy Bodkin to the Community Policy Management Team (CPMT) with term to expire on June 30, 1997. REAPPOINTED Mitchell Neuman to the Jail Authority with term to expire on May 22, 1999. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. rewc Attachments (t 7) cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Pmaelia McCulley Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell Larry W. Davis Kevin Castner Richard Wood Jan Sprinlde File A ,TTEST: / C!erk / / Approved as to Form: Town A~torney 6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Charlotte Y.~phris, Chairman ATTEST: Approved as to Form: County Attorney SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Terry W. 'Hawkins, Sheriff OF 94-107.008 AMENDEDSERVICEAGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this TI ~ day of December, 1994, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-time police orotection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-'~31.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County entered into a tripartite Service Agreement dated January 31, 1994, .for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS, the Town, the sheriff, and the County now wish to amend the Service Agreement to recognize a funding opportunity t(~ provide law enforcement services in the Towr~, N OW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby agree as follows: The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff, and the County dated January 31, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended by replacing paragcaph 5 therein with a new paragraph 5 fully set out below:' Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State includingl but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. Notwithstanding the above, the County shall a ow. one locally County funded deputy position to be assigned for !aw enforcement services in the Town until _July 1, 1996, provided that the State Compensation Board.has not funded a law enforcement position for the Town. Thereafter, no locally County funded deputy positions shall be _ass qned for law enforcement serwces in the Town All other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain unchanged and shall continue in fu force and effect. tN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of whicl~ shall constitute an original. 2 Clerk TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA A~ Ra~ ~ed as to Form: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Walter F. Perkins, Chairman ATTEST: Approved as to Form: ~5~Sunt¥~oraey SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE', VIRGINIA Terry W. HaWkins, Sheriff 94-107.002 3 SERVICE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ day of January, 1994, by and between the Town of S~6ttsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WITNES SETH: WHERE~S the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (t950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WI{EREAS the Town has agreed with the County to provide full- time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjust/nent becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS t~e Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides under Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 %hat the Town, the Sheriff, and the County may enter into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS the Town now desires to enter into such an agreement for law enforcement services with the Sheriff and the County pursuant to Section 15.1-131.3, NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby agree as follows: The Sheriff shall provide two (2) full time deputies for the purpose of providing law enforcement services in ~he Town. A reduced n,~mher of deputies may be provided upon the consent or request of the To~n. The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff's Office and wear Sheriff's Office uniforms. The deputies shall be specifically assigned to the Town and may, iht he discretion oft he Sheriff, assist deputies outside the Town when called upon to do so. The deputies shall be selected by the sheriff with the full advice and consent of the Town. Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the Cottnty. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely bythe State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff serving as a Town law enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the ordinances of the Town. 74 The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff, while serving as law enforcement officers of the Town, shall have the same powers, rights, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of regular Town police officers.' Under this Agreement, the Sheriff shall be the Chief of Police of the Town. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties at any time, or by any party for good cause after providing six months written notice to the other parties of the intent to terminate the Agreement on a date certain. 10. 11. The Town shall pay its pro-rata share of dispatch costs of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Emergency Operations Center based on the same formula used for other law enforcement agencies that are dispatched by the Center. These costs shall be assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is collected. The Town and the County shall enter into a reciprocal agreement for mutual assistance between the Sheriff and the County's Police Department prior to any services being provided to the Town under this Agreement. This reciprocal agreement shall determine which agency shall have primary responsibility for responding to calls for service, for handling criminal investigations, and for any other matters. In addition, the reciprocal agreement shall determine the procedure for Federal and State crime reporting requirements so that there will be no duplicate reporting of crime statistics. 12. Notwithstanding paragraph 9, above, upon any final determination by the County that the amount of State aid received by the County for its Police Department pursuant to Chapter 1, ArticLe 10 of Title 14.1 (Sections 14.1-84 through 14.1-84.7) of the Code of Virginia, also known as "599" funds, is diminished or reduced as a result of this Agreement, the County may void this Agreement at any such time so as to restore that funding for that fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3 ATTEST TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA Approved as to Form: Town Attorney COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA W~lt~r F. Perkins, Chairman ATTEST: , Clerk Approved as to Form: unty Attorney SHEt{IFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Hawkins, Sheriff REH,II/dbm 94.008 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntlre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 29902-4596 f804~ 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 July II. 1996 Charles S, Martin Walter F. Perkins Sall9 H. Thomas Mrs. iAngela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDoT Way Charlottesville. VA 22911 Dear Mrs. Tucker: At its meeting on July 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Agenda Item No. 7a. Discussion: Route 631 widening from Route 743 to Route 29 to include side~valks on the west side fdeferred from May 1, 1996.) ADOPTED the attached resolution endorsing VDoT's recommended improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Roadl and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive), with the addition of sidewalks on the east side of this segment of Route 631 only. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Tucker gave a brief update on the Route 29 project. The segment from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road is complete and was accepted under a partial final acceptance on July I, 1996. There will be a few barrels left as a transition between the projects. ]The segment from Rio Road, north to the River should be complete by May, 1997. The side ~treets, the accelerated piece of Rio Road and some minor utility punchlist items will be gnmg on between now and August. Mrs. Tucker discussed the effect the proposed Western Route 29 Bypass will have on Old Ivy Road alnd the options VDoT is considering. One consideration is closing one or both of the northern- most set of on and off ramps. Another consideration is providing two at-grade rail crossings onto 250 Business where the loop ran~ps meet. The design consultants are current/y preparing cost estimates and feasibility studies. This information is supposed to be presented at VDoT's informational meeting. After Board members expressed their concerns today, Mrs'. Tucker said she would share them with .V?oT officials. She will then bring back to the Board comments from the public informational meetin~ at ~vhich time this Board can reinforce its opinion. The public information meeting will be held or~ Tuesday, Jtdy 30, 1996, from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Hotel on Route 29 North. Printed on recycled paper Mrs. Angela Tucker July 11 1996 Page 2, Mrs. Humphris said the Board would appreciate if Mrs. Tucker would tell the design people that this Board is very discouraged to hear that an at-grade crossing is being considered although the Board does not know what is the best solution. Mr. Cilimberg said VDoT has decided not to pursue the relocation of Route 743 from the Rock Store to the Reservoir that was being considered as part of the bypass project Mrs. Humphfis said she never knew this relocation was being considered. She does not know how the Board was left out the loop on something so major. Mrs. Tudcer said it was lack of communication on her part. After a Iot of Board discussion on VDoT's proposal to purchase right-of-way in Squirrel Ridge Subdivision for the purpose of future construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Western Bypass, the Board adopted the attached resolution in opposition. It was noted that VDoT had withdrawn its plans for this interchange, as well as purchase of the fight-of-way in Squirrel Ridge. Mrs. Thomas said she will be attending a meeting on July 17 with the people concerned about the dosing of Route 782. The meeting will be held at UREF offices, at 4:00 p.m. UREF offices are located on Old Ivy Road near University Village. Mrs. Thomas said she read in some minutes recently that Routes 22/231 have been opened to the extra large tractor trailers through action taken by the CTB. She got Juan Wade to check this out and found it to not be true. Mr. Tucker said he received notice from Don Askew of the Culpeper office that VDoT is planning to do some short and long-range planning on the Route 250 east and west corridor, VDoT staff will do the planning for the eastern portion from the City limits to Fluvanna County, but a consulting firm will be used for the western portion. Mrs. Thomas asked if it is possible to get a dfizens advisory committee working with the consultLng firm. Mrs. Tucker said the RFP has not gone out, VDoT does anticipare using a citizens advisory committee, but they want to hire the consultant first. Mrs. Thomas said the consultants should be chosen with the idea that they will be working with a committee. Mr. Perkins thanked VDoT for fixing Park Road in Crozet and the repairs to the railroad underpass. Mrs. Angela Tud(er July 11, 1996 Page 3. Mr. Perldns mentioned that there are numerous locations around the County where the heavy rains have washed gravel away from the black top, in some places there is a slx or eight inch drop off. which he thinks VDoT should focus on getting repaired because it creates dangerous situations. Mr. Marshall said he has received sever~/phone calls from people traveling on Route 53 and other roads in southern Albemarle where foliage is growing over the roads and obstructing visibility, even hitting the sides of cars as they travel down the road. Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the four-laning of Route 20 South from Route 53 to the entrance to the new high school. Mrs. Tucker said that proiect is currently not in any funding plans, however, she has been asked to come up with a general estimate on the cost. She will be forwarding that information to the Board soon. She reminded the Board that the proiect needs to be included as a high pdoriW for the preallocation hearing next spring. Mrs. Humphris said there is a drainage problem in front of Mr. Booth's house located at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. During a recent heavy thunderstorm, the water was overflowing and not getting into the storm drain. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board had received a response to Mr. Tucker's letter to Carter Myers about primary road funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway. In response to Mr. Tucker's "no", Mrs. Humphris asked that a follow up be done. i~EWC Sincerely, / Attachments (2) cc: Robert W. Tud<er, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~ July 11, 1996 Board Actions of July 3, 1996 At its meeting on July 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.1. Appropriation: Contribution Fund, $11,558.35 (Form #95010). APPROVED, Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Sheriffs Department, $35,000 (Form #95078). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: General Fund, $292,406.06 (Form #95080). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: Federal Drug Seized Assets. $48,769.69 (Form #95081). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.5. Appropriation: State Drug Seized Assets, $4,317.16 (F. orm #95082). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.6a. Appropriation: Education - 1995 Summer School Program, $95,235.28 (Form #9508~3). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Mrs, Thomas asked if the $29,007 for Remedial Summer School is from tuition paid or coming out of the General Ftmd. Item No. 5.6b. Appropriation: Education - Grants. $94.648.56 (Form #95084). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Memo To: Melvin A. Breeden July 11, 1996 Page 2. Item No~ 5.6c. Appropriation: Education - Grant Fund. $11,913.93 (Form #95086). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Mrs. Thomas asked for a progress report on the Murray Electronics employees. Item No. 5.7. Appropriation: Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant Refund. $40.00 (Form #95085). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.8 Appropriation: Additional Bailiff - Juveuile Court, $45,657 (Form #96001L APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.9. Appropriation: Cascades Subdivision - RoacLtSubdivision Performance Bond. $14,800 (Form #96002). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.10. Appropriation: Beating the Odds, $I 1.4t0 (Form #96003). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.11. Police Contractual Overtime Rate Increase; Request Board of Supervisors to authorize the increase of the overtime rate from $20 to $23 per hour. AUTHORIZED the increase of the police officers' contractual overtime rated to $23 per hour effective July 1, 1997. Item No. 5.12. Adopt resolution authorizing a request to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for funding assistance for a segment of the Rivanna Greenway along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. ADOPTED the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program grant. Item No. 5.13. Appointment of Building Official for Albemarle County. APPOINTED Iay Schlothauer as Building Official for Albemarle County effective July 13, 1996. Item No. 5.14. Amended Service Agreement for Law Enforcement in the Town of Scottsville. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to execute the attached Amended Service Agreement. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Barking Dogs. It was the consensus of the Board that the County Attorney draft language for a county- wide ordinance similar to the one in Charlottesville, for discussion on August 7th. Memo To: Melvin A. Breeden July i 1, t996 Page 3. Agenda Item No. i 1. Public Heating: Agreement between County of Albemarle, Virginia. and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co.. Inc.. for property to be used by East Rivanna for parking purposes. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the agreement. Agenda Item No. t2. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board members. Mrs. Thomas said there will be a meeting on July 11. t996, from I0:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon, of the VACo Finance Steering Committee in Room 246. At t I:00 a.m., Mitch VanYahres -Mil discuss his proposal to have a piggyback income tax in place of some portion of the real estate tax. Mrs. Humphris mentioned a letter received from Gordon Walker about the Tax Work Off Program for retired citizens 60 or older to earn credit toward their real estate tax bill. Mr. Tucker said Virginia does not have enabling legislation that would allow this. He thinks this needs to be sent to the local legislators to let them decide whether they think it is a good idea, to figure out how it might be done and how it is being done in North Carolina. Mrs. Humphris asked that a response to that effect be sent to JABA. /ewe Attachments (15) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman John Miller Robert Waiters Terry Hawkins Jo Higgins APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NI~MBER 95010 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND CONTRIBUTION PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 95/96 FUNDING Ai~D REAPPROPRIATION FROM FY 94/95 EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1840590910999804 1840590910999803 1840590910999810 1840590910999806 1840590910999801 1840590910999807 1840590910999808 1840590910999809 1840590910999805 1840590910999811 ALB. ROTARY CLUB JNB-HOUSING MISC CONTRIBUTIONS POLICE-SMART SIGN PVCC-RT. 20 MAINT. POLICE-COLOR GUARD POLICE-MISC POLICE-NEWSLETTER YANCY COMMUNITY FUND FIRE/RESCUE $500.00 5,000.00 28.00 775.00 500.00 35.00 100.00 2,032.35 2,495.00 93.00 TOTAL $11,558.35 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2840518110181109 CONTRIBUTIONS $3,535.35 2840551000510100 FUND BALANCE 5,528.00 2840518110181111 YANCEY FUND 2,495.00 TOTAL $11,558.35 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95078 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITION FUNDING DUE TO INCREASE IN SHERIFF'S DEPT. REIMBURSABLE OVERTIME. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100031020129900 OVERTIME-REIMBURSABLE $35,000.00 TOTAL $35,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 2100016000160304 SHERIFF'S DEPT. SERVICE FEES $35,000.00 TOTAL $35,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SHERIFF APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE / / FISCAL YEAR 95/96 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X X 95080 FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO SET UP ACCOUNTS FOR TAX RELIEF-AND FIRE/RESCUE CREDITS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1100059000579100 TAX RELIEF-ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED $249,215.76 1100C39000561405 FIRE/RESCUE TAX CREDITS 43,190.30 TOTAL $292,406.06 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100011000110195 REAL ESTATE TAX-95 $160,753.53 2100011000110196 REAL ESTATE TAX-96 88,462.23 2100011000110395 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX-95 21,576.44 2100011000110396 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX-96 21,613.86 TOTAL $292,406.06 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95081 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FLrND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL SEIZED DRUG ASSETS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1123539000580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $48,769.69 TOTAL $48,769.69 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2123515000150101 INTEREST $1,000.00 2123533000330205 EQUITABLE SF~A_RE 18,000.00 2123551000510100 FUND BALANCE 29,769.69 TOTAL $48,769.69 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / ? DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 95082 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZE EXPEAIDITURE OF STATE SEIZED DRUG ASSETS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1123639000580905 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $4,317.16 TOTAL $4,317.16 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2123624000240403 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $3,000.00 2123651000510100 FUND BALANCE 1,317.16 TOTAL $4,317.16 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICE S I GNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER 95083 ADDITIONAL TR~kNSFER NEW X YES NO X SUMMER SCHOOL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1331061120132100 1331D61120134100 1331061120135000 1331~61120152100 1331061120210000 1331D61120350000 1331061120420100 1331061120420110 1331061120520100 1331061120520302 1331061120550100 1331~61120580000 1331061120580305 1331061120600100 1331061120600200 1331061120601200 1331061120601300 133t961120601700 1331061124112100 1331061124132100 1331061124152100 133106t124210000 1331061124520100 1331~61124520301 1331061124600200 1331061124601300 1331061124601700 1331061126119400 1331061126210000 1331061126601300 1331061127119400 1331061127210000 1331061127601300 1331061128601300 1331060210601300 1331061101601300 1331061125111400 1331061125112100 1331061125114100 1331Q61125115000 1331061125132100 P/T Wages - Teacher P/T Wages - Teacher Aide P/T Wages - Office Clerical Sub/Wages - Teacher FICA Printing & Binding Field Trip Mileage School Transportatzon Postal Services Telephone - Long Distance Travel-Mileage Misc. Exp. Excess Fees Office Supplies Food Supplies Books & Subscriptions Educ & Recreation Supplies Copy Supplies Salaries - Teacher P/T Wages - Teacher Sub Wages - Teacher FICA Postal Services Telephone - Local Food Supplies Ed. & Rec. Supplies Copy Supplies Salaries - FICA Ed. & Rec. Salaries - FICA Ed. & Rec. Ed. & Rec. Ed. & Rec. Ed. & Rec. Salaries - Salaries - Salaries Salaries - P/T Wages After School Supplies After School Supplies Supplies Supplies Supplies Other Management Teacher Teacher Aide Office Clerical - Teacher $47,763.54 10,320.34 1,003.13 464.05 4,555.54 107.70 (357.04) 1,017.03 167.20 (150.00) (73.98) 134.18 (220.00) (257.30) 8,416.28 146.74 (18,189.48) (453.00) 4,346.50 18,969.70 37.35 1,786.55 22.08 49.00 155.00 257.29 202.53 10,181.00 778.83 127.49 8,055.61 616.26 19.69 6.71 30.00 16.36 (1,500.00) 50,034.29 2,101.48 1,029.95 (51,185.35) 1331061125135000 1331061125210000 1331061125221000 1331061125241000 1331061125420100 1331061125520100 1331061125520302 1331061125540100 1331061125550100 1331061125580000 1331061125600100 1331061125601300 1331061125601700 1331061125601200 P/T - Office Clerical (1,007.45) FICA (40.48) VRS (571.00) Life (18.00) Field Trip Mileage (5,000.14) Postage 20.99 Telephone (26.32) Lease/Rent 1.526.47 Mileage {52.72) Misc. 3,940.37 Supplies (300.00) Ed. Supplies (8,317.21) Copy Supplies (1,088.52) Books 5,636.04 TOTAL $95,235.28 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2331016000161221 2331016000161222 2331016000161228 2331016000161230 2331016000189900 2331018000189900 2331024000240282 Tuition Elem. Summer Scho Tuimion - H.S.. Summer Scho Tuition - Middle Summer Sch Tuition Sum/ASEP Misc. Revenues Misc. Remedial - Summer School S32,969.86 2,400.00 2,225.00 27,864.53 9,471.89 (8,703.00) 29,007.00 TOTAL $95,235.28 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATURE / / / DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAK 95/96 NUMBER 95084 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3~NSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND SCHOOL/GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: BUDGET ADJTJSTMENTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1320861311312700 1320861311312701 1320861311380100 1320861311420100 1320861311550100 1320861311580500 1320861311601300 1320861311800710 PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANT DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANT SUMMER-TUITION STUDENT TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL-MILEAGE STAFF DEVELOPMENT INST/REC SUPPLIES COMPUTER SOFTWARE $10,629 800 3,600 1,675 1,000 4,225 4,500 200 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 1221561101601600 DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES 1,500.00 1310760000312700 PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANTS 16,880.56 1210261103701200 CATEC STATE FLOW-THRU 49,639.00 TOTAL $94,648.56 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320833000330108 COMM. BASED VOC. ED GRANT $26,629.00 2200018000181141 V L MURRAY PTO DONATION 1,500.00 2310724000240233 DRUG FREE SCHOOLS GRA_NT 16,880.56 2200024000240229 CATEC-STATE FLOW-T~RU 49,639.00 TOTAL $94,648.56 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE / DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 95/96 NUMBER 950~5 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3~NSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF Ai~PROPRIATION: CLOSE OUT OF DCJS GRANT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION A/MOUNT 1152029402312700 OVERPAYMENT REFUND S40.00 TOTAL $4O.O0 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2LMOUNT 2152051000510100 FUND BALANCE S40.00 TOTAL $40.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: JUVENILE COURT APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S I GNATI/RE / DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEi~R 95/96 NUMBER 95086 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ECONOMIC DISLOCATION FUNDS. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1311663348132100 SALARY-TEACHER $10,989.52 1311663348210000 FICA 840.70 1311663348601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 83.71 TOTAL $11,913.93 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2311633020330019 PJTA/EDWA3~ REVENUE $9,956.89 2311616000161206 MURRAY ELECTRONICS 1,957.04 TOTAL $11,913.93 REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EDUCATION SIGNATURE DATE 7-? APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96001 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TR3kNSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COST OF EXPANDING PART-TIME DEPUTY TO FULL-TIME. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100031020110000 1190031020210000 1100031020231000 1100031020232000 1100031020221000 1100031020270000 1100031020370000 1100031020530900 1100031020600854 1100031020800500 SALARIES FI CA HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE VRS WORKERS COMP. LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING AUTOMOTIVE I NSUPJkNCE VEHICLE OPERATION MOTOR VEHICLES $16, 1, 1, 120 00 233 00 480 00 93 00 3,826 00 402 00 157 00 406 00 2,040 00 19,900 00 1100095000999990 BOARD RESERVE (45,657.00) TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $0.00 TOTAL S0.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR APPROPRIATION REQUEST 96/97 NUMBER 96002 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: MAINTENANCE FEE AND PERFORMANCE BOND FOR CASCADES SUBDIVISION. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100041000950101 CASCADES ROAD BOND S15,300.00 TOTAL $15,30C.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100~14000140120 ROAD BOND FORFEITURES $15,300.00 TOTAL $15,300.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE ? DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND PI/RPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE BEATING THE ODDS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY NUMBER 9~6003 ADDITIONAL TPJ~NSFER NEW X YES NO X GENERAL PROGRAM. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100059000560155 BEATING THE ODDS. $11,410~00 1100095000999990 BO~-RDS RESERVE (11,410.00) TOTAL $0.00 REVENX3E DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SO.O0 TOTAL S0.00 COUNTY EXECUTIVE SIGNATURE REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FIN~NCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE COUNTY OF AGENDA TITLE:. Appropriation - Contribution Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95010 in the amount of $11,558.35 to record FY 95/96 Punding and reappmpriate balances form FY 94/95. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED B,Y: Z 5 1996 ITEM NUMBERv INFORMATION: INFORMATION: jr BACKGROUND: (~F In FY 1994/95, the Board of Supei~sors authorized the establishment of a Contributi und to encourage and provide a means for residents and businesses to donate funds to various activities. The contributions could be designated for a specific prpject/program or, if not specified, the contribution could be used for any County expense with the approval of the Coun[y Executive. DISCUSSION: During FY 1994/95, the following contributions were received: Contributor T.J. Memodal Foundation Virginia Power Albemarle Rotary Club Sam Kaplan Jeffemon National Bank Purpose Route 20 Maintenance Rescue Squad After School Enrichment Program Undesignated~ , FY 1995/96 Housing Program Amount $ 2,000.00 400.00 500.00 28.00 5,000.00 Total The $2,000 contribution to maintain the Route 20 median strip was used by Parks and Recreation to offset a portion of their expense of this project. The $400 contribution for rescue squads was distributed equally to the three squads, The remaining contributions will be disbumed in FY 1995/96. During FY 1995/96, the following contributions have been received: Contributor The Police Foundation Piedmont Virginia Community College Virginia Mun~pal Clerks Association Anonymous The Police Foundation Forrest Marshalr/Bil/Nitchmann/County United Way of Montgomery Co. & Radford Purpose Amount Police - SMART Sign $ 775.00 Route 20 Maintenance 500.00 Police - Color Guard 35.00 Police - Miscellaneous 100.00 Police - Newsletter 2.032.35 Yancey Community Fund 2,495,00 Fire/Rescue 93.00 Total $ 6.930.35 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the reappmpr~tion of the unexpended FY 1994~95 contributions in the amount of $5,528.00 and appropriation of the FY 1995/96 contributions in the amount of $6,030.35 as detailed on Appropriation #95010. 96.110 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Sheriff's Department SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #95078 in the amount of $35,000 to cover an overexpenditure in the Sheriff's Department's reimbursable overtime line item. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden DISCUSSION: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMI~ER:~ July 3, 1996 q~ .Oq ~)~.~. "~"~ ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: //,~/~ REVIEWED BY: ,7"' /'t/ I, I / Due,to the increase in providing private security, the Sheriffs Department will overexpend its appropriation for this sen/ice, The FY 1995/96 budget projected an expense and offsetting revenue of $25,000. As of June 14, 1996, expenses have totaled $53,965.54 and revenues collected equal $57,910.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the budgeted appropriation be increased by $35,000 to a total of $60,000 to cover activities through June 30, 1996. Appropriation form #95078 is attached. 95078 96.105 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUM MARYo AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - General Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #95080 in the amount of $292,406.06 to set up accounts for Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped and the Fire/Rescue Tax Credit. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED B: DISCUSSION: ITEM NUMBER: ~'~'~ / INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Based on the FY 1994/95 Audit recommendations, the Finance Department is attempting to reduce the year-end adjustments normally performed by the audit staff. For a number of years, the County's budget has been prepared with the tax revenue accounts being recorded net of the Tax Relief for the Eldedy and Handicapped and the Volunteer Fire/Rescue Tax Credit. Since numerous reports require the actual amount of the programs an(~ ~n some cases, they are considered expenditures, the auditors have requested that they be budgeted items and recorded in the County's financial records. The amounts detailed on the attached appropriation form reflecl the amounts from December 1995 and June 1996. Due to 1995 being the first year of split billing, the FY 1995/96 real estate tax relief exemption includes the full 1995 exemption amount and one-half of the 1996 exemption. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation as detailed on Appropriation #95080. 96.109 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Federal Drug Seized Assets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 95081 in the amount of $48,769.69. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters. Miller, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER;, 1 INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES j REVIEWED BY://~,~/~ BACKGROUND: Periodically, theCounty receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional law enforcement activities. DISCUSSION: This appmprialion requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for federal drug seized assets for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1:996. This appropriation requests approval of the expenditure of the unrestricted July 1, 1995 fund balance inthe amount of $29,769.69. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 95081 in the amount of $48,769.69. DRUG_FED.APP 96.114 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - State Drug Seized Assets SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval ~f Appropriation 95082 in the amount of $4,317.16. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker Breeden, Walters, Miller Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBERy % I~FORMATION: ACTION: X NFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: Periodically, ff~e County receives revenues for assets seized in federal and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional drug enforcement activi~s. DISCUSSION: This appropr;tation requests approval of the receipts and expenditures for state drug seized assets for the period July 1, 1995 t~rough June 30, 1996. This appropriation requests approval of the expenditure of the unrestricted July 1, 1995 fund balance in the amount of $1,317.16. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 95082 in the amount of $4,317.16. DRUG_VA.APP 96.115 COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPER¥,~SORS TITLE: Appropriation- Education SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95083 in the amount of $95,235.28 for the 1995 Summer School Pmgram STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tuckei', Huff, Castner. Breeden AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes _ ~ / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation. DISCUSSION: Appropriation of $95,235.28 for the ~ 995 Summer School Budget, The 1995 Summer School appropriated budget was in the amount of $182,069.00. Several programmatic changes were implemented prior to the opening of summer school, following the 1995-96 budget process, which caused an increase in expenditures of $95,235.28. These additional summer programs included Elementary Summer ASEP, Summer Middle Schoot, and RemediaJ Summer School at additional locations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95083 in the amount of $95,235.28. 96.111 ALBEMARLE COI, TNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 11, 1996 Robert W. Tuc~r., County Executive Ill/ Kevin Castne~ision Superintendent Request for Ap~fopriation At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $26,629.99 for the Improving Vocational Education Through Community Based Organizations Grant. These funds will be used for the Summer Vocational Work Experience Project. The projecn will provide pre-vocational, basic skills development, and work-based learning experiences no selected.project youth co facilitate their completion of vocational education programs or their entrance into the local work force. Collaborative partners for this grant are MACAA, CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools. Appropriation of $95~235.28 for the 1995 Summer School Budget. The 1995 summer School appropriated budget was in the amount of $i82,069.00. Several programmatic changes were implemented przor to the opening of summer school, following the 1995-96 budget process, which caused an increase i~ expenditures of $95,235.28. These additional summer programs included Elementary Summer ASEP, Summer Middle School, and Remedial Summer School at additional locations. Appropriation of $1,500.00 from the Virginia L. Murray Elementary School PTO. These funds will be used to purchase computer software and other related materials to enhance computer technology education an Murray Elementary School. Reappropriation of the 1994-95 Drug Free Schools/Communities Act Grant Balance in the amounn of $16,880.56. These funds will be used no provide education and staff training for the prevention of substance abuse. Request for Appropriation Ju~e 11, 1996 Page 2 Appropriation of $49,639.00 for CATEC State Flow-Thru Funds. CATEC receives State Flow-Thru funding for equipment purchases. Albemarle County Schools serves as the fiscal agent in receiving these funds and forwards them directly to CATEC. State reimbursement for equipment has been substantially higher than budgeted for FY95-96 and therefore results in higher outlays. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment. /smm Melvin Breeden Ells Carey ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ImDrovin~ Vocational Education Grant 2-3208-33000-330108 Expenditure: 1-3208-6131t-312700 1-3208-6!311-312701 1-3208-6!311-380100 1-3208-61311-420100 1-3208-61311-550100 1-3208-61311-580500 1-3208-6i311-601300 1-3208-61311-800710 Com. Based Voc. Ed. Grant Prof. Svc. Consultant Data Processing Consultant Summer-Tuition Student~Transportation Travel-Mileage Staff Development Inst/Rec Supplies Computer Software PTO Donation-Murray Elementary School Revenue: 2-2000-18000-181141 Expenditure: 1-22!5-61101-601600 V.L.Murray PTO Donation Data Processing Supplies $26~629.00 $10~629.00 $800.00 $3,600.00 $1~675.00 $1,000.00 S4~225.00 $4,500.00 $200.00 $26,629.00 $!, 500.00 $1,500.00 ReaDDroDr±ation - Dru~ Free Schools/Communities Act Grant Revenue: 2-3107-24000-240233 Expenditure: 1-3107-60000-312700 Drug Free Schools Grant Prof. Svc. Consul~angs $16,880.56 $16,880.56 2-2000-24000-240229 Expenditure: 1-2192-61103-701200 CATEC State Flow-Thru Funds CATEC-State Flow-Thru CATEC State Flow-Thru $49,639.00 $49,639.00 2331016000161221 2331016060161222 2~$1016000161228 2361016000161230 2331016000169900 2331016000189900 2331024000240252 1331061120132100 13310611201341~ 1331081120135000 1331061120152106 1331061120210600 1331061120350000 1331081120420100 t33106112~420110 133!061120520100 1331061120520361 1331081120550100 1331051120560000 1331051120560305 1331061120800100 ~$31051120600200 1331061120601200 1331061120801300 1351061120601700 1331081124112100 1331061124132100 1331051124152100 1331081124210000- 1331061124520100 1331061124520301 1331051124600200 133106~1246013OD 1331061124601700 1331061126119400 1631061126210000 1331061126601300 1331061127116400 1331051127210000 1331061127601300 1331061128119406 1331061128210000 1331061125601500 1331050210601300 1331061101501300 1351061125111400 1331061125112100 1361061125114100 1351061125115000 1331081125132'00 1331061125135000 1331061125210000 133'06112522!000 1331061125241033 1331061125420133 1331061125523302 1331061125540103 1331081125550103 1331061125553333 1331061125600100 133106~12550~300 1331051~256g~3~ 133108112560*230 t995 Summer School Bud~Ter Tu~tbn -Eiem Summer School Tuit,on - H.S.. Summer School Tuition. Middle Summer School Tuition - SumtASEP Misc. Revenues '4;sc. Remedial -' Summer School $32,969.86 $2,400.00 $2,225.00 $27.8~4.53 $9,471.89 ($5,703.00~ SZg,007.00 $95,235.28 P~]' Wages - Teacher P,'T ?!e~es - Teacher Aide P,q' Wages - OffSce Clerical Subh'Vages - Teacher FiCA Printing & Binding Field Trip Mtleage School Transpo~etion Postal Services Telephone - Long Distence TravekMileage Misc. Exp. Excess Fees Offlca Supplies Food Supplies Boaka & Subscriptions Educ & P, ec~eetion Supplies Copy Supp!ies S~iarles - Teacher Pfr Wages - Teac.her Sub Wages - Teacher FICA Postal Services Telephone - Local Food Supplies Ed, & Rec. Suppiles Copy Supplies Safades - After Schoot FICA Ed. &Rec. Supplies Saiaries- After School FiCA Ed. & Rec. Supplies Saiaries - Afler School FiCA Ed. & Rec. Suppiies Ed &Rec, Supplies Ed. & Rec. Su;~p]ies Salaries - Other Management Salaries - Teacher Salaries - Teacher Aide Salaries - O,55ce Clerical pF[' Wages - Teacher P/T - Offqca Clerical FICA /RS L~fe $47,763.54 $10,320.34 $1,003.13 $464.05 $4,555.54 $107.70 ($357.04) $1.017.03 $187.20 ($150.00) ($73.98) $134.18 ($220.00) ($257.3O) . $8,416.28 $146.74 ($18,189.46) ($453.00) $18,969.70 $37.35 $1,786.55 $22,08 $49,00 $155.00 S257.29 $202.53 $10,181.00 $778.83 $127.49 $8,055.51 $616.26 $19.69 $0,00 $0.00 $5.71 $30.00 516.36 ($1,500.00) $50 034.29 $2,101.48 61.02g.95 ¢51.185.35) ($1 ($40.48) ($571.00) ($18.00) (S5,000.14~ $20.99 ($26.32) S1 52&47 ($52.72~ 63.940.37 ($300.00) ($8,317.21' ($1,088 52' 65.635.04 $95.235.28 COUNTY OF ALBEMaRLE AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education/Grants SUBJECT/PROpOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95084 in the amount of $94,648.56 to reflect budget adjustments. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriations. DISCUSSION: · Appropriation of $26,629.99 for the Improving Vocational Education Through Community Based Organizations Grant. These funds will be used for the Summer Vocational Work Experience Project. The project will provide pre-vocational, basic skills development and work-based .learning experiences to selected project youth to facilitate their completion of vocational education programs or their entrance into the local work force. Collaborative partners for this grant are MACAA, CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools. Reappropdation of the 1994-95 Drug Free Schools/Communities Act Grant Balance in the amount of $16,880.56. These funds will be used to provide educatien and staff training for the prevention of substance abuse. Appropriation of $1,500.00 from the Virginia L. Murray Elementary School PTO. These funds will be used to purchase computer software and other related materials to enhance computer technology education at Murray Elementary School. Appropriation of $49,639.00 for CATEC State Flow-Thru Funds. CATEC receives State Flow-Thru funding for equipment purchases. Albemarle County Schools serves as the fiscal agent in receiving these funds and forwards them directly to CATEC. State reimbursement for equipment has been substantially higher than budgeted for FY 95-96 and therefore results in higher outlays. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriations as detailed on Appropriation #95084. 96.112 AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Grant Fund EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95086 to receive and disburse Economic Dislocation Funds in the amount of $11,913.93 AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBE~[: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ISTAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden BACKGROUND: At its meeting on June 10~ 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation. DISCUSSION: The Piedmont Job Training Administration (PJTA) has requested that Albemarle County Public Schools act as a vendorlserwce provider to provide instruction to Murray Electronics employees in reading, writing and mathematics. The overall goal will be to help the employees meet education and career goals. The need for this service is a result of Murray Electronics recent decision to close the plant located in Earlysville. At its June 12, 1995 meeting, the School Board granted approval to enter into this agreement with PJTA to allow Albemarle County Schools to act as the service provider to administer the EDWAA funds. The funding will come through PJTA to Albemarle County in the 100% federally funded Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act (EDWAA) program. When EDWAA funds have been spent, Murray Electronics will pay for the remainder of the classes themselves. RECOM M ENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95086 in the amount of $11,913.93. 96.113 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 19, 1996 Robert W. Tue~Jr. , county Executive At its meet!ng on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriation: o Appropriation of S11,913.93 for Workplace Education. The Piedmont Job Training Administration (PJTA) has requested that Albemarle County Pu~olic Schools act as vendor/service provider to provide instruction to Murray Electronics employees in reading, writing and mathematics. The overall goal will be to help the employees meet education and career goals. The need for this service is a result of Murray Electronics recent decision to clqse the plant located in Earlysville. At its June 12, 1995 meeting, the School Board granted approved to enter into this agreement with PJTA to allow Albemarle County Schools to act as the service provider to administer the EDWAA funds. The funding will come through PJTA to Albemarle County in the 100% federally funded Economic Dislocauion and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act (EDWAA) program. When EDWAA funds have been spent, Murray Electronics will pay for the remainder of the classes themselves. The funds will be received and disbursed as follows: Revenue: 2-3i16-33020-330019 2-3116-!6000-161206 PJTA/EDWAA Reven~e Murray Electronics Tuition $9,956.89 S1,957.04 $11,913.93 Expenditures: 1-3116-63348-132100 1-3116-63348-210000 !-3116-63348-601300 Salary-Teacher $10,989.52 FICA s840.70 Ed/Rec Supplies $83.71 $11,913.93 It is rec/uested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance ~o receive and disburse these funds as displayed above. Melvin Breeden Ella Carey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - DCJS Grant Refund SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropria~on 95085 in the amount of AGENDA DATE: July 3. 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER:~ INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: A'I-FACHMENTS: Yes/ STAFF CONTACT(S): .... /C) ~X~' ~ Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Mses. White, Carroll ~ REVIEWED BY: ~4[ ~- ' BACKGROUND: The County of Albemarle received $3.500.00 for a Department of Crimfnal Justice Services grant in the 1993/94 fiscal year. The County spent $3,460.00. The excess was refunded to the Department of Criminal Justice Services. DISCUSSION: This appropriation requests approval of the $40.00 refund. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 95085 in the amount of $40.00. 93a8041j_app 96.116 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Additional Bailiff, Juvenile Court SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropda§on #96001 to transfer $45,657 from the Board's Reserve to the Sheriffs Office to fund an additional Juvenile Court Bailiff on a temporary basis for one year. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker. Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: RENEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: / BACKGROUND: On Apn'110, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the FY 1996/97 Operating Budget, which provided a total of $51,500 in funding for an additional bailiff (1 FTE) in the Juvenile Court, contingent upon demonstrated need by the Sheriff's Office, and which extended the contract with Scottsviile for one additional year, through June 3(3, 1997. That same day, the Board requested that staff report back to the Board on the Sheriffs staffing needs prior to July. DISCUSSION: At the Board's request, staff conducted a review of staffing needs in the Sheriff's Office, based on an analysis of the historical, ourront and projecte~d werldoad ofthe Sheriffs deputies. Based on its rewew of this information, staff has determined that ifthe locally-funded depu~ty serving in Scetls~'ile were returned to County service, that the existing number of state and locally-funded deputy positions would be adequate to meet current and projected staffing needs in the areas of courtroom security, prisoner/patient transport, civil process, and service in the D.A.R.E. program. However, while the County deputy ~s assigned to law eqforcement duty in Scoitsville, there exists a temporary shortage of staff to provide courtroom security. Staff considered the following factorsin reaching this conclusion. Over the past few years, the number of civil papers served and transports completed have not increased significantly, although an increase in number of courtroom hours, particularly in the Juvenile Court: has increased the number of bailiffs needed to provide Courtroom security. Further. the current number of funded FTE's in the Sheriff's Office are sufficient to meet the increased workload in the Courts, although the assignment of the County dsputy to Scottsville has requiredthat civil process servers be used as temporary bailiffs, when the need arises. As a result, the Sheritfindicates: that a backlog of civil papers exists, and that his deputies are unable to serve all papers in a timely manner. Currently, there are 3.63 bailiffs assigned to the Juvenile Court, one of whom is a 'floater", who provides courtroom security as needed, in addition to moving juveniles between the holding cells and the judge's chambers and transporting juveniles back and forth to the detention home. Judges Shannon and Berry have indicated that an average of 3-4 bailiffs are needed daily to work in the Juvenile Court, with the exception of Tuesdays, when an average of 6 bailiffs are needed. Using the floater deputy, the Sheriff typicaliy has been able to pro¥ide the required number of bailiffs on Mondays, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. (When additional bailiffs are needed, civil process servers are used as temporary bailiffs to make up the difference.) On Tuesdays, however, the Sheriff must utilize additional staff to provide court security, pulling the 1.63 FTE bailiffs assigned to the General District Court (which is not in session on Tuesdays), and using a part time civil process server. The cost of providing an addi§onal full-time bailiff in the Juvenile Court is $51.500. Should the Board decide to approve this additional position, it could use the $51,500 in additional funding that has been set aside for this purpose in the Board's budgeted contingency rsserve far FY 96/97. However, the Sheriff indicates that if an addilional staff person were to be approved, that he would prefer to increase two part-time deputy positions to full-time at a cost of $45,657 instead of an adding another full-time position. (One of these part-time positions serves the Juvenile Court. and one serves the General District Court. This would increase the number of aesigned FTE's in Juvenile Court by .37, for a total of 4 FTE (2 comp board, 2 local), and increase the number of deputies assigned to General District Court by .37, for a total of 2 FTE I1 comp board, I local). Judge Helvin has indicated that the need for additional bailiff staff in General Diatdct Court has increased substantially in the past ~'ew yea~s, particularly in the criminal cases. This full-time General District bailiff would be available to provide security and additional transports to and from the Joint Security Complex, as well as assist the Juvenile Court on Tuesdays. RECOMMENDATION: Based on this information, staff recommends the following: that the Board provide temporary funding to increase two part-time court security positions to futi-time at a coat of $45,657 to adequately meet court securti~ needs while the tripartite agreement with Scottsville is in effect (from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997); that these staffing ratios of local and comp beard funded positions be maintained for both Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and General District Court; that any staffing changes or reassignments that would affect locally funded positions or service levels at either court be reviewed by County staff prior to implementation; that the Board re-examine this issue dudng the next budget cycle, to determine what impact the return of the deputy from Scotisville will have on staffing needs in the Sheriff's Office and whether temporary funding for the sheriffs deputies should continue; and thatthe Board approve Appropriation #96001 in the amount of $45~57 to temporarily increase two part-time deputies to full-time for FY 1996-97. 96.120 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Cascades Subdivision - Road/Subdivision Performance Bond SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #96002 in the amount of $14,800 for funds to be placed in an expenditure account. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs Tucker, Huff, and Ms. I-liggins AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: .. INFORMATION: In June 1995, the ~ount~ demanded payment on a letter of credit from Jefferson Nat{onal Bank that secured the Cascades Subdivision road~ubdivision bond. This bond was called due to failure of the developer, Richard Walden Jr., to take action on written requests to complete the project. These fundswere placed in the County's per[ormance bond account. DISCUSSION: Mr. Walden has now completed construction of the road in Cascades Subdivision. Two (2) items are preventing the State's acceptance of the road maintenpnce: VDOT performance bond and VDOT maintenance fee. Mr. Walden has agreed to allow the bond proceeds held by[the Coun[y to be used to pay the required VDOT maintenance fee and ensure the one year performance bond. The maintenance fee is $687.50 and the performance bond is $7,500. Funds in excess of this amount will be returned to Jeffemon National Bank. RECOMMENDATION: Request approval of Appropriati]on #96002 in the amount of $14,800 for funds to be placed into an expenditure account to be used for the VDOT maintenance fee and performance bond at Cascades Subdivision. Any accrued interest should also be placed in the expenditure adcount so that it may be returned to Jefferson National Bank. CASCADES.EXE 96.118 COUNTY OF ALBE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Beating the Odds SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation # 96003 to transfer $11,410 from the Board's Reserve Fund to Beating the Odds, a prevention program for teenage pregnancy. STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X !NFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS:) yes /~~ REVIEWED BY: /~I BACKGROUND: At the June 12 meeting, the Board received and reviewed a June 3 memo from Cynthia Stratton, Chair of the CACY Commission in response to questions about "Beating the Odds", a proposed program for teenage pregnancy. The questions submitted to CACY addressed some concerns raised by the Board and staff during budget work sessions about the collaborative nature of the program, further demographic analysis and a review of the proposed project costs. DISCUSSION: The letter addressed the majority of the concerns raised during budget work sessions. Service costs for the project have been lowered by increasing the number of children served from 8 to 16. The Commission's letter also proposes that Beating the Odds he a pilot project with careful monitoring of the program benefits and results. Staff will work with CACY and MACAA as the program begins to ensure that evaluation criteria and performance standards are developed and put into place. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation #96004, which will authorize the transfer of $11,410 from the Board's Reserve Fund to the Beating the Odds Program operated by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency. 96.124 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Miller, Chief of Police Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk ~'~(-~ July 11, 1996 Police Contractual Overtime Rate Increase At its meeting on July 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors authorized the increase of the police officers' contractual overtime rate to $23 per hour effective July 1, 1997. /ewe cc: Richard E. Huff, II Terry Hawkins COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Police Contractual Overtime Rate Increase Request SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request the Board of Supervisors authorize the increase of the Police Contractual Overtime Rate from $20 to $23 per hour STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Chief Miller AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGEND~ ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER~ INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Currently, County policy dictates a charge for persons who contract for police services at a rate of $20 per hour. From this, we pay the officer a fiat rate of $17 per hour and $3 per hour is taken by the County for matching F.I.C.A. and other administrative overhead. With the implementation of the new compensation plan in July, the police officers' average pay rate will become approximately $13 per hour which will raise the average time-and-a-half rate to almost $20 per hour. DISCUSSION: Raising the contractual rate to $23 per hour would effectively cover the officers' average pay increases and still allow $3 per hour for administrative overhead. Implementing the new overtime rate on July 1, 1997 would give the pdvate sector contractors time to make the necessary budgetary adjustments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the increase of the police officers' contractual overtime rate to $23 per hour effective July 1, 1997. 96.100 TO: FROM: DATE: Richard E. Huff, II Chief John F. Miller~& April 29, 1996 Contractual Overtime I have reviewed the off-duty hiring practices survey and agree with you that there is no need to change our present system. However, I do recommend that we raise the contractual overtime fee to $ 23.00 per hour effective July 1, 1997. This increase is based on the fact that the police officer's average pay rare will be approximately $13.00 per hour after the new plan is implemented. The officer's would be given a flat rate ors 20.00 per hour and the administrative overhead would remain at $ 3.00 per hour. Implementing the new overtime pay rate on July 1, 1997. will give the private sector contractors time to make the necessary budgetary adjustments. By implementing this new rate we may also price ourselves out of some of the contractual overtime, which I believe will be beneficial by providing more opportunities for private security firms to be competitive. We can discuss at you earliest convenience. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk--~~ ~ July 11, 1996 Resolution Requesting Funding Assistance for Recreational Trails and Trails-Related Facilities in the County of Albemarle At its meeting on Jtfly 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program grant. /ewc cc: Richard E. Huff, II COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o~ ~L~ AGENDA TITLE: VRTFP Grant for Rivanna Reservoir Segment of PJvanna Greenway. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for a resolution authorizing a request to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for funding assistance for a segment of the Rivanna Greenway along the Rivanna Reserveir. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, & Mullaney AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMAT ON: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is a grant program established for the purpose of providing and maintaining recreational trails and trail-related facilities. It is funded by the National Recreational Trails Ac{, which establishes a program for allocating funds to the States for recreational trails and trail-related projects. The program is administered by the U. S. Depadment of Transportation. FederslFtighway Administration [FHWA), in consultation with the Department of the Interior The state agency which is responsible for administering the program in Virginia is the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). This project, the PJvanna Reservoir Segment of the Rivanna Greenway, is currently approved for funding in the 1996/97 Capital Improvements Program in the amount of $75,000. A previous appropriation of $25.000 in 95/96 makes total i"unding available for this project of $100,000. In January, 1995 the Board passed a resolution in support of this project as part of an unsuccessful Virginia Transportation Enhancement Program grant request. DISCUSSION: This project includes the purchase of 4 acres of property to be used in conjunction with land proffers to develop an accessible parking area and a 2400 ff section of paved pathway adjacent to the existing boat launch site near the water treatment plant. The estimated project cost is $100,000. The grant program will provide successful applicants with reimbursement of 50% up to a limit of $50,000. This particular application is for the maximum reimbursement amount of $50,000. The application package requires a resolution of support from the governing body. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rscommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the enclosed resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary mstedals and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant. trailgra 96.104 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jay Schlothauer Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~L/ July 11, 1996 Appointment of Building Official At the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 3, 1996, you were appointed as Building Official for Albemarle County, effective July 13, 1996. /ewe cc: Richard E. Huff, II Amelia McCulley Juliet Jenning~ COUNTY OF ALBE COUNTY OF ALBEMARI_r Ec¢ - * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appointment of Building Official SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for appointment of new Albemarle County Building Official STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff BOARD OF SUPERViSORS AGENDA DATE: July3,1996 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: As you will remember, Mr. Jesse R. Hurt will be retiring from his position of Albemarle County Building Official on June 30, 1996. Because of a scheduling conflict, we have continued Mr. Hurt's employment as Building Official on an hourly basis through July 12, 1996 at which time the County Executive is recommending that Mr. Jay Schlothauer be appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as Building Official for Albemarle County. Under the proposed merger of the County Zoning and Building inspections Departments into a new department titled Building Code and Zoning Services, the Building Official will report, for administrative purposes, directly to Amelia McCulley, Director/Zoning Administrator. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board officially appoint Mr. Jay Schlothauer as Building Official for Albemarle County effective July 13, 1996. 96.108 AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ t day of-,~, 1996, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemade, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Cimuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County entered into a tripartite Service Agreement dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994, for the purpose of having the Shedff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS, the Town the Sheriff, and the County now wish to amend the Service Agreement to recognize the County's willingness to temporarily continue to contribute to funding for law enforcement services in the -(own until July 1, 1997, and to further recognize that, thereafter, the County will no longer fund any deputy positions assigned for law enforcement services in the Town. NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Shedff, and the County hereby agree as follows: The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff, and the County dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended by replacing paragraph 5 therein with a new paragraph 5 fully set out below: Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited tc, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town~ Notwithstanding the above, the County shall allow one locally County funded deputy position to be assigned for law enforcement services in the Town until July 1, 1997, provided that the State Compensation Board has not funded a law enforcement position for tl~e Town. Thereafter, no locally County funded deputy positions shall be ass,gned for law enforcement services in the Town. All other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. TOWN OF SCOTTSVlLLE, VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~ d_~ July 11, 1996 Amended Service Agreement for Town of Scottsville At the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 3, 1996, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute the Amended Service Agreement for the Town of Scottsville. Attached are the three original agreements forwarded to you for approval as to form. Upon distribution of the agreement, please return one of the originals to this office for our files. /ewc cc: Richard E. Huff. II ? COUNTY OF ALBEMARI; EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~.D NTY OF ALBE,~At~Lj~ J~OA~tD OF ,~bPEf~¥~q Amended. Service Agreement for Town of Scottsville SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Tripartite Agreement for Law Enforcement in Scottsville STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER:- INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Y~~ REVIEWED BY: / ,4~ ( BACKGROUND: In January of 1994, the County, the Sheriff, and the Town of Scottsville entered into a tripartite agreement which authorized the Sheriff to act as chief of police for the Town of Scottsville and to provide law enforcement services in the Town. That Service Agreement specifically provided that the funding for such law enforcement services would be.prcvided entirely by sources other than the County. In December of 1994, the Service Agreement was amended so that one locally funded County deputy position could be assigned for law enforcement services until July 1, 1996. During this year's budget discussions, the Board authorized the Service Agreement to be further amended to extend the use of the County deputy position until July 1, 1997. DISCUSSION: Approval of the Amended Service Agreement is necessary for the Sheriff to continue to use a county funded deputy in Scottsville. The Sheriff and Mayor Thacker have executed the proposed Amended Service Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: To carry out the decision of the Board to permit the Shedff to extend the use of the County funded deputy in Scottsville until July 1, 1997, the Chairman should be authorized to execute the Amended Service Agreement (attached). 96.117 ASASCOTT LARRY W. DAVIS MARK A. TRANg GREG KAMPTNER COUNTY OF ALBEMAR[ Office of Coun~ Attorney 40I McIntlre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 July 15, 1996 PHONE [804) 972-4067 FAX (804) 972-4068 Sheriff Terry Hawkins Albemarle County Sheriffs Office P.O. Box 203 410 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Amended Service A~reement for Town of Scottsville Dear Sheriff Hawkins: Enclosed please find a fully executed Amended Service Agreement regarding law enforcement for the Town of Scottsville. If you have any questions, please contact me. With best regards, I am Sincerely, LWD:rcs cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (w/o encl.) Ella W. Carey (w/encl.) LARRY W. DAVIS MARK A. TRANK GREG KAMPTNER COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Coun~ Attorney 401 Mclntlre Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 July 15, 1996 PHONE (804] 9724067 FAX (804} 9724068 Kimberly W. Colley Town Administrator Town of Scottsville P.O. Box 395 Scottsville, Virginia 24590 Re: Amended Service Agreement for Town of Scottsville Dear Ms. Colley: Enclosed please find a fully executed Amended Service Agreement regarding law enforcement for the Town of Scottsville. If you have any questions, please contact me. With best regards, t am Sincerely, d555~arr'~. Davis Coffnty Attorney LWD:rcs cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (w/o enct.) Ella W. Carey (w/encl.) 94-107.013 AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this c~ $-"-~ day of-~, 1996,"~"-A by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "ToWn"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle". pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993: and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County entered into a tripartite Service Agreement dated January 3I, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994, for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law er~forcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS, the Town, the Shedff, and the County now wish to amend the Service Agreement to recognize the County's willingness to temporarily continue to contribute to funding for law enforcement services in the Town until July 1, 1997, and to further recognize that, thereafter, the County will no longer fund any deputy positions assigned for law enforcement services in the Town. NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff. and the County hereby agree as follows: The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff, and the County dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended by replacing paragraph 5 therein with a new paragraph 5 fully set out below: Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shaJ be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town Notwithstanding the above, the County shall allow one locally County funded deputy position to be assigned for law enforcement services in the Town until July 1, 1997, provided that the State Compensation Board has not funded a law enforcement position for the Town. Thereafter, no locally County funded deputy positions shall be assigned for law enforcement services in the Town. All other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain unchanged and shall continue ~n full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 2 TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA APProved as to Form: -["own At~torney (/ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Charlotte Y.~.~phris, ChaPman ATTEST: Approved as to Form: ,~"ty~ m ey SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Terry W. 'Hawkins, Sheriff OF 94-107.008 3 -- ~hibit A -- AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ._~/~ day of December, 1994, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff'), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", 9ursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.I-70 and 15.1-1.31.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County entered into a tripartite Senvice Agreement dated January 31, 1994, for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS, the Town, the sheriff and the County now wish to amend the Service Agreement to recognize a funding opportunity to provide law enforcement services in the Town, NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Shedff, and the County hereby agree as follows: The Service Agreement between the Town. the Sheriff and the County dated January 31, 1994, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended by replacing paragraph 5 therein with a new paragraph 5 fully set out below: Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance FICA retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. Notwithstandinq the above, the County shall allow one locally County funded deputy position to be assigned for law enforcement services in the Town until Jutv 1, 1996, provided that the State Compensation Board has not funded a law enforcement position for th_e_e Town. Thereafter, no locally County funded deputy positions shall be assigned for law enforcement services in the Town. All other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations of the Service Agreement: referenced above, shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shal[ constitute an original. 2 ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA Appro. ved as to Form: Town AttoCney COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGIN IA Waiter F. Perkins, Chairman ATTEST: / Approved as to Form: .~_.,J~ou y~¢o ey SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Terry W. HaWkins, Sheriff 94-107.002 3 SERVICE AGREEHENT k~/IBIT A THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ day of January, 1994, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter "County"), WI TNESS ETH: WHEREAS the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and, WHEREAS the Town has agreed with the County to provide full- time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment becomes effective on or at midnight of December 31, 1993; and, WHEREAS the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides under Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 that the Town, the Sheriff, and the County may enter into a tripartite agreement for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and, WHEREAS the Town now desires to enter into such an agreement for law enforcement services with the Sheriff and the County pursuant to Section 15.1-131.3, NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby agree as follows: The Sheriff shall provide two (2) full time deputies for the purpose of providing law enforcement services iht he Town. A reduced number of deputies may be provided upon the consent or request of the Town. The said deputies shall be deputies of the Sheriff,s Office and wear Sheriff's office uniforms. The deputies shall be specifically assigned to the Town and may, in the discretion of the Sheriff, assist deputies outside the To~n when called upon to do so. The deputies shall be selected by the Sheriff with the full advice and consent of the Town. Se Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid solely by the State Compensation Board, and all other costs not covered by the State including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, Supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by the Town. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff serving as a Town law enforcement officer shall have authority to enforce the ordinances of the Town. The Sheriff and any deputy sheriff, while serving as law enforcement officers of the Town, shall have the same powers, rights, benefits, privileges and immunities as those of regular Town police officers. Under this Agreement~ the Sheriff shall be the Chief of Police of the Town. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties at any time, or by any party for good cause after providing six months written notice to the other parties of the intent to terminate the Agreement on a date certain. 10. The Town shall pay its pro-rata share of dispatch costs of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Emergency Operations Center based on the same formula used for other law enforcement agencies that are dispatched by the Center. These costs shall be assessed after a full year of data for calls for service is collected. 11. The Town and the County shall enter into a reciprocal agreement for mutual assistance between the Sheriff and the County's Police Department prior to any services being provided to the Town under this Agreement. This reciprocal agreement shall determine which agency shall have primary responsibility for responding to calls for service, for handling criminal investigations, and for any other matters. In addition, the reciprocal agreemenn shall determine the procedure for Federal and State crime reporting requirements so that there will be no duplicate reporting of crime statistics. 12. Notwithstanding paragraph 9, above, upon any final determination by the County that the amounn of State aid received by the County for its Police Department pursuant to Chapter 1, Article l0 of Title 14.1 (Sections 14.1-84 through 14.1-84.7) of the Code of Virginia, also known as "599'~ funds, is diminished or reduced as a result of this Agreemens, the County may void this Agreement at any such 51me so as to restore that funding for tha5 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in several counterparns, each of which shall constitute an original. ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Town Attorney COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA W~lter F. Perkins, Chaizmlan ATTEST: Clerk Approved as to Form: unty Attorney SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Hawkins, Sheriff REH, II/dbm 94. 008 AGENDA TITLE: Volunteer Fire Companies and Rescue Squads Property and Liability Insurance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Analysis of the County's effort to procure a consolidated insurance package for the County's seven volunteer fire companies and three rescuesquads. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, & Breeden AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA.' ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBEPc INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X In the current FY 1995-96 budget, the Board approved a $100,000 appropriation as an initiative for coordinating property and liability insurance coverage under a master policy for all volunteer fire and rescue organization§? It was intended that such a policy would cover all building, vehicle liability and umbrella coverages currently in place and paid for by the individual volunteer agencies. ,: DISCUSSION: County Finance staff, in conjunction with the County's property and liability insurance consultant, issued a Request for Proposals end reviewed four separate proposals submitted in response. After extensive review, Lee Insurance Agency of Charlottesville was selected to provide the coverage for the Master Policy. The new policy resulted in coverages equal to and, in most cases, better tha~ previously available to the individual organizafiops. The end result Of procuring insurance on a Master Policy resulted in a savings of $38, t51 from what the organizations had paid individually the previous year for substantially less coverage in some cases. Savings by individual departments ranged from 21% to 57% with the average savings by going to the Master Policy being 42%. The true savings to the individual organizations, however, was $104,725 collectively in that they are no longer responsible for paying for their own insurance coverage now provided by the County. This savings resulted in $7,000 to $18,000 annua.[iy per agency, which they will no longer be forced to fundraise in order to provide insurance on an on-going basis. Generally, the organizations seem extremely pleased with the coverage and the services received under the County's Master Policy and have expressed their appreciation for the County's assistance and funding which has enabled them to either redirect those resources previously spent on insurance or to avoid having to fundraise that amount in future years. fireJns 96.1.06 pc: Mr. Carl J. Pumphrey -TABLE OF CONTENTS- Independent Auditor's Repo~ Statement of Cash Receipts mad Disbursements Notes to the F:mancial Statement Pmee 1 2 4 Waiter J. Kucharski, Auditor Aud'ttor of Public Accounts P.O. Box 1295 Richmond, Vir~nia 23210 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT June 5. 1996 To the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virgin/a We have audited the accompanying statement of cash receipts and disbursements of Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk o£the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle for the year ended June 30, i995. All records supporting the amounts presented in this financial statement are the responsibihw of the Clerk. Our responsibil/ry is to express an opinion on th. is financial statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance wqth generally accepted auditing standards. ~aose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the fin.ncial sraremen~ is flee of mater/al misstatement. An audit includes examivJng, on a test basis, evidence supporting the mounts and disclosures in the financial statement..nm audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant est/mates made by managemenr~ as well as evaluating the overall financial smmmenr presentation. We beheve that our audit promdes a reasonable basis for our opiaion. As described in Note 1, this financial statement has been prepared on the basis of cash receipts and disbursements, wk/ch is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generakiy accepted accounting principles. This basis of accounting is prescribed by the State Comptroller and approved by the Auditor of Public Accounts as ~r ~s deemed the appropriate method of reporting by Clerks of the Circuit Courts. In our o~)m~ou_ the fmanciai sraremenz referred to above presents fairly, /r_ ail mater/al respects, the cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle for the vear ended June 30. 1995. onzhe basis of accounting described in Note I PJVv-:jck jck:13 COUNTY OF ALBE~.fkRLE ~ OF TI~ C1RCLrlT COURT STATEMENT OF CASH RECE~TS AND DISBURSEIVIENTS For the Year Ended lune 30. 1995 Page Balance Balance July I, Disburse- June 30, 1 9 9 4 Receipts ments 1 9 9 5 Commonwealth of V/rgnua: General Fund collections: Tax on: Recording deeds, conlzacts and wills Court stats Marriage licenses Processing fees and other costs Clerk's fees and commismons: (Note 2) Recording deeds and contracts Wills and administrations Chancery canses Actioas at law Criminal cases Qual/fying notaries Issuing marriage lic~ses Comrmssians on: Local recordation taxes Deeds. of conveyance DockmSng, Lude,-dng and issuing abs~acts Making copies Filing financing staremems Miscellaneous Special Fund collections: Cr/mlnnl injuries compensation fund penalties Drug eaforcement jurisdiction fees Legal Aid filing fees Virginia State Library fees Literary Fund collections: FLues, forfeitures and interest Dislrict Court collections Total 88,965 $1,138,613 $1,199,800 $ 27,778 55 5,595 5,645 5 180 tl.800 11,960 20 t78 44,902 44.833 247 2.636 162,751 163.707 1,680 87 13,833 13,762 158 140 21,704 21.844 165 30,431 30,511 85 85 6,937 6.864 158 50 3,800 3,830 20 90 5,900 5.980 i0 3,057 16,565 17,810 1,812 1,784 7,263 8,063 984 3,112 3,112 180 34288 34,334 134 390 9,800 10,050 I40 759 21,678 21,328 1.109 70 4,511 4,365 216 4 440 440 4 22 1,948 1,966 4 197 13,556 13,622 I31 33O 26.361 26,414 277 566_028 554.761 tl,267 99.424 2,151_816 2,205.001 46,239 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CLERK OF ~ CIRCUIT COURT STATE~MENT OF CASH RECE]I°TS BANI) DISBURSEMENTS For the Year Ended June 30, 1995 Page 2 Balance Balance J~ly i, Disburse- Jnne 30, 1 9 9 4 ReceipTs menus 1 9 9 5 $ 91,973 $ 452,984 $ 491,826 $ 53,131 136 2,715 2,699 I52 10,997 128,346 123,683 15.660 45I 3,757 3,789 419 County of .~lbemarte: Taxes on r~arding deeds, contracts ~ wills Fines, costs and interest Local Distr/ct Court Collecl/ons Attoraey and other fees Special fired collections: Courthouse maintenance fees 237 2.269 2,311 195 103.794 590,071 624,308 69.557 Total Town of Scottswille Collections for others Condemnation funds Restimtions Depository bonds (Net of amounts allocated to Commonwealth and local revenue accounts) Moneys under the control of the Court Bond costs Salaries and office expense (Note 2) Unspecified receipts 2 5,019 2,994 2,027 72,547 t,263,667 1.320.898 15,316 621,029 253,561 388,088 486,502 5,522 1,897 6,919 500 252,297 99,971 268,6t5 83,653 286,631 405,360 273,773 418,218 222 222 2,123 2.123 374 1,588 1.578 384 1,44I_842 $ 4775.073 $ 5,094_519 $I,122,396 Tonal The accoml~anymg notes ro the finnncial ~-raremanr are an integral part of this smtemanr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COLrRT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The Clerk of the Circuit Court is an elected constitutional officer who admin/sters the County of AlbemarIe's court of record. The Circuit Court is where individuals file documents requn-ing formal recording by law to inchide deeds, wills, marriage licenses and various other documenrs The Circuit Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in all felony criminal cases, in civil chancery and civil eases where the mount exceeds $10,000 and hears appeals bom districz courts. Basis of Accountin~ The financial statement is prepared using the cash basis of accounting which requires recording cash receipts when received and disbursements when made. CLERK'S FEES, COMMISSIONS AND EXPENSES The Clerk receives statutory fees and commissions for services performed and deposits them ro the General Fund of the Commonwealth. The Count5,' pays alt salaries and office expenses, except for postage which the clerk pays. The Compensation Board reimburses the County directly for irs expenses and the County reimburses the clerk for postage. When the fees and commissions deposited exceed the mounts reimbursed by the Compensation Board, the County receives two-thirds of the excess. The financial statement does nor include any salaries or office expenses, other thnn the postage expense paid directly by the Clerk. Aisc, the financial statement does not include the Compensation Board re'unbursement. Clerk fees and comrmssions and salaries and office expenses used m calculate excess fees are as follows: Clerk's fees and comrmssions Salaries and office expenses Clerk's fees ~nd commissions in excess of expenses [excess fees) 1995 $395,892 296.716 $99_!76 SURETY BOND In accordance 'oAth Sections 2.1-526.9 and 2.1-526.9:1. Code of Virmnia, the Clerk was bonded under a Public Officials Position Schedule Bond in the amoun* of $500,000 with the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and through a self-insurance plan adm/nistered by the Department of General Services. Division of R/sk Management as sureties. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Depar~men~ County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804l 296.5844 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TO: Bob Tucker, County Executive FROM: Pat Mullaney, Parks and Recreation Director/~ DATE: June 13, 1996 R~: City Parks and Recreation Cost of Service Study I have reviewed the City'of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Cost of Service Study performed by David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD (DMG). One of the major findings in the study is that the City is spending S472,136 subsidizing recreation services for Albemarle County residents, while there is no doubt that Albemarle residents make use of City programs and facilities, it appears this study was performed in such a way as :o maximize the cosg that the City attributes go this use. First, it should be understood that the cosns stated in this reporn are not just direct cosns associated with providing the services. Costs include direct labor and materials expense, the cost of departmental administrative support and supervision of activities and services, depreciation on equipment used no provide service and indirect costs incurred within central service deparsments. Central services include deparnmenns of city government such as personnel, city administration and finance departments. This report gives no indication of how much of the cosn for each activity is related no these indirect expenses. The majority of the expenses, direct and indirect, would be incurred whether County residents participated in the programs or nog. Secondly, there are some other things about seem to indicate that the results are skewed in City. For instance: the report which favor of the There is no recognition of the County's participation in providing space for the Adult Volleyball program. There is no recognitzon of the County's participation in providing space for the Adult Softball program am Towe Park. Particularly interesting is the fact that the County actually recemves small profit checks for the percentage of the program held at Towe Park, which means the activity itself turns a profit. Yet $121,710 of the subsidy attributed to County residents is from Adult Softball. There is no recognition that the County provides the Adult Basketball program for the City and County. 4 o There is no recognition of the County's managemenm of the Ivy Creek Natural area. There is no recognition of the County's 95-96 payment of $17,615 for direcn expenses based on County resident participation in the Therapeutic Recreation Program. There are no profits credited against the subsidy for activities which make money. For instance youth swim lessons make $13,452 profit. Shouldn't the portion attributed to County participation reduce the subsidy amount? In the calculation of subsidies for everything but special interest classes, all non City use is being attributed to Albemarle County residents. For instance, in Adult Softball 33.30% is shown as City use and 66.70% is shown as Albemarle County use. Looking at the sticker counts for 1995 at Towe Park on days when the softball league was the only activity shows that non- city use can not be attributed to Albemarle County residents alone. Specifically, the figures show 32% City, 50% County, and 18% from other jurisdictions. This more accurate accountmng reduces the stated Albemarle County subsidy for this one activity by 25% or $21,646. ¸8. Individual league field use accounts for $149,982 of the subsidy due to the fact that 66% of the participation in these leagues is by County residents. These leagues play on County fields also. In fact 72% of the soccer game sites and 76% of the soccer practice sites are County fields. Likewise, 68% of the fields for the various youth and adult baseball leagues serving City and County residents are County fields. I think we provide our fair share of the fields. Finally, a report like this tends to suggesE that the County should feel some financial responsibility to the City for use of City programs by County residents. What this does no5 take into account is the difference in philosophies between previous County Boards and City Councils as they relate to recreation services. The City has made a conscious decision to spend the highest per capita in the state for Parks and Recreation services. Many years ago the City decided to build two indoor swimming pools. City officials knew when they built the pools thaE County residents would use them. If the City hadn't built the pools, perhaps the YMCA would be helping to provide that servic~i The City has decided not to charge u~er fees for many of their programs. Even the proposed user fee of $12 for sports like youth basketball is relatively low. There are programs like Aerobic Boxing that are being subsidized which only have 2 participants. Finally the differential being charged to County residents in many classes is not that great, leading me to believe that it is desirable to have County participation so classes will have enough enrollment to be held. The County on the other hand has always taken a conservative and practical approach to providing recreation ssrvices. The Board has made conscious decisions in the past to stay out of the swimming pool business and instead to provide swlmming at the County lakes. It should be noted that City residents use the County parks for beach swimming and fishing as they have no similar facilities. We have always searched for partnerships in providing services. Our schools serve as our district and community parks~ We run our basketball program which has 2200 participants (three to four times the slze of the City program) in cooperation with the YMCA. Each participant pays $30 for the program. The County offers a wide range of fee-based classes but not all through Parks and Recreation. Those responsibilities are shared by the Department of Community Education. We generally will not hold a class unless we can pay the direct expenses and therefore, would not subsidize a class for ~wo participants. To what degree should the County feel responsible for decisions based on the philosophies of the current or past City Councils? Enclosed is a copy of the Cost of Service Study. You may want someone else to go through it and draw their own conclusions. I think that if the City really feels that County residents are costing them $472,136, then they need to decide how to remedy that. Higher user fees or limiting participation are options they need to look at. If those actions create a demand in the County, then we need to decide if and how we try to satisfy that demand~ STUD COST OF SERVICE STUDY City of Charlottesville Virginia Parks and Recreation Department April 26, 1996 DMG DAVID M. GRIFFYI~I & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 5102 West Village Green Drive, Suita 109 Midlothian, Virginia 23112-4801 (804) 744-2390 FAX (804) 744-4511 © 1996, David M. Griffi. th & Associates, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY ...................................................................... 3 SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES .................................................. 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 9 SPECIFIC SERVICE AREAS ................................................................... 13 Recommended Fee Structure for Recreation Services ................................. 13 Non-Resident Fees ........................................................................................... 15 Administrative Services ................................................................................... Aquatics ............................................................................................................. 19 Athletics ............................................................................................................. 26 Special Interest Classes ................................................................................... 31 Recreation Center Programs ........................................................................... 38 City Market ........................................................................................................ 43 Therapeutic Programs ...................................................................................... 44 Park Services .................................................................................................... 47 Subsidization Analysis ..................................................................................... 49 FASTRWORKSHEETS David M. Gdffith & Associates, LTD (DMG) was engaged by the City of Charlottesville's Department of Parks and Recreation to provide a comprehensive cost of service study. The purpose of the study was to identify the full cost of providing parks and recreation services and to recommend strategies for recovering a reasonable amount of costs. A summary of the major findings ih the study is presented below. Detailed documentation for the full cost analysis is provided in Volume II of the Report. It is important to note that in order to fully understand the cost structure, Volume II should be reviewed in detail. The following key points emerged from the study: If the City were to develop a policy of recovering the cost of recreation services consistent with fee recommendations advanced in the report, an additional $187,401 in annual revenues would be realized. This represents a 37% increase in total revenues over those projected under the current fee structure. For the portion of recreation services for which it is reasonable to charge fees, DMG recommends the City establish general policy guidelines designed to recover 50% of the full cost of recreation services provided to adults, 25% of the full cost of most services provided to youth and senior citizens, and 100% of costs associated with daily facility rentals. Study results indicate the City is spending over $496,254 per year in subsidized recreation services (i.e., full costs of service less revenues from fees) which is attributable to non-residents of Charlottesville. A substantial majority of these individuals reside in Albemarle County. The City should examine alternatives for recovering a higher percentage of the costs of recreation and park services it provides to non-residents. A surcharge could be established for non-residents based on a fiat additional fee, as a percentage markup over resident fees, or through a membership card. In conjunction with charging higher non-resident fees, the City should also explore the opportunity to further reduce the subsidy associated with non-resident recreation services through cost sharing arrangements with Albemarle County for services not covered under current joint funding arrangements. In support of potential cost sharing, the City should begin tracking non- resident usage of parks and recreation services on a more formal basis. The Parks and Recreation Department for the City of Charlottesville provides a wide array of leisure services to its residents, numbering approximately 40,000, to the area school system through a joint facility use agreement, and to the residents of surrounding Albemarle County. Under the agreement with the school system, each organization makes use of the facilities of the other to support specific programs. The City also makes public transportation available to all students in the school system at.no charge during the summer to facilitate their access to parks and recreation programs. Like most cities, Charlottesville is faced with escalating demands for funding governmental services, including both mandatory and discretionary activities which compete for funding and impact the City's limited fiscal resources. At the same time, there is the prospect of diminished revenue sources with which to meet ongoIng funding needs. The City.has initiated efforts to streamline operations, to downsize government, and to reduce costs on a number of fronts. The Parks and Recreation Department has undergone significant restructuring ~n recent years associated with the downsizing of the work force, and fundamental changes have occurred in organization and responsibilities of management staff. At the same time, there has been a commitment to continued provision of a high level of recreation services to Charlottesville and the surrounding community, where recreation programs and park amenities are considered ~mportant aspects of the quality of life. Significant efforts have been exerted to reduce the costs of recreation and park services. A further concomitant to reducing costs is to identify other potential funding sources for valued services. Governments routinely subsidize recreation services, as it would be cost prohibitive for many participants if they were required to pay the true cost incurred in providing the services in which they participate. While the practice of subsidizing such services is commonplace, it is seldom done on an informed basis. Governmental accounting practices do not routinely provide information on the true cost of services, particularly within the sphere of public recreation, where the provision of services relies upon a constellation of service components within the organization and outside of it. Yet, policy makers generally concur that fees for recreation, as for other governmental fee~based services, should be meaningfully related to the costs of providing them. In order to make informed choices about subsidy levels to the various consumers of recreation services, it is necessary to first determine the actual cost of these services. Full costs include direct labor and materials expense, the cost of departmental administrative support and supervision of activities and services, depreciation on equipment used to provide service and indirect costs incurred within central service departments. Central services include departments of city government such as personnel, city administration and finance departments. The City of Charlottesville selected DMG to conduct a detailed service cost evaluation and subsidization analysis for its leisure programs provided through Parks and Recreation. DMG is recognized as a leader in the field of governmental service cost analysis and revenue enhancement. The scope of service for the engagement covered the full range of park and recreation services provided by the City, exclusive of the cemetery and municipal golf course operations. ~rr[hin pa'rks and recreation, the study examines all recreation services provided by the City, including these for which participation fees may be assessed, as well as services for which it is impractical or inappropriate to collect fees. The City recognizes the value of recreation services for the health and well being of citizens in the region. While these services enhance the quality of life and are an asset to the entire region, they must also be viewed in a larger context of what constitutes a reasonable fee to pay for recreation services and how the costs should be apportioned among everyone who benefits from the services. There were multiple purposes for commissioning the study. It was to document the full cost of providing recreation services; to identify who uses the services so that an equitable fee structure can be designed and implemented, to permit a detailed comparison of service costs versus fees, to provide management with detailed information on the flow of resources to programs and activities, and to provide a better understanding of the cost structure of departmental services. Specific objectives of the study were: Reducing subsidies for areas where fees are currently being charged; Establishing new fees where justified; and Documenting with an acceptable methodology the City's cost structure. This section of the report documents the methodology employed for the service cost analysis, discusses the components of governmental service costs, provides explanatory information on the derivation of program costs, and discloses the basis for specific fee recommendations made within the report. Indirect and Administrative Overhead Indirect costs for City supplied services were developed through the Citywide indirect cost allocation plan. The fiscal year 1995 cost plan uses departmental expenditures as shown in the City's audited financial records. Departmental overhead costs were identified within the plan and were also allocated to the subordinate divisions on the basis of salaries and wages within each subordinate division. The rationale for this-type of allocation is that the larger the salary base, the more administrative effort is required of the department director and support staff. Projected Units of Service As part of this report, it was necessary to project the number of units of service that will be performed in the upcoming year. To accomplish this, historical participation data was gathered to provide the basis for the annual projections. All units of service projected in this report are premised on actual experience for the prior year. Subsidization Policy The principle of user fees dictates that those who use a service should pay for the cost of providing it. Although this principle is firmly established in private enterprise, there are City activities for which is it regarded as inappropriate. The ramifications should be understood. It may be preferable to set fees ~elow full cost for some services, depending upon the cimumstances. Subsidies are provided for two basic purposes: (1) to permit an identified group to participate in services which they cannot otherwise afford; and (2) to provide benefits for a larger sector of the population, beyond the immediate recipients of a service. Assudng access to important services to the public without regard to ability to pay is a legitimate function of government. While such subsidies could be granted based solely upon economic status, .administrative ease and concern for dignity suggest subsidies to particular groups. These groups (senior citizens, children, citizens whose income is below the Federal poverb/standard) may include those able to afford the full cost of a service. Subsidies may be achieved either through rate structures which exempt economically disadvantaged users from paying fees, or through a reduction of fees for services provided to particular groups. The other type of subsidy is based upon the premise that a service may provide benefits for those not qualifying as immediate recipients. For example, fees for youth recreation services are often discounted 'in recognition of the fact that the community as a whole tends to benefit from providing wholesome, structured, adult supervised activities as an alternative to having youth roam the streets finding their own diversions. It may be regarded as appropriate to spread the cost of certain services over the large base of potential beneficiaries through General Fund subsidies. Explanation of FASTR System The activity-based costs developed in this study were generated through a DMG proprietary computer model called the FASTR (Fee And Service Technical Review) system. The system consists of integrated spreadsheets, each designed to assist in the process of determining the true cost of governmental services. In any service cost evaluation there are typically four levels of analysis. First, central service costs of the staff operation (City manager, finance, personnel, building costs, etc.) have to be allocated to the operating (fee for service) departments. Next, each of the service areas must be identified. Labor typically represents the single largest cost component of services provided. By examining how much time is spent providing service, one can begin to identify costs. The accuracy of the analysis depends upon the availability of information and the nature of the services provided. This is a critical stage because information developed here is the basis for determining final service costs. To assist in this phase, the consultant and departmental representatives develop either the Direct Labor Distribution (DLD) cost analysis or the Salary Summary spreadsheet (when detailed time records are not available). This provides an identification of direct service (labor) costs to each fee or service area. Once the direct labor costs are known the next level involves identifying service and supply costs associated with each service, along with departmental and City-wide overhead. This is accomplished through the use of the Departmental Cost Distribution (DCD) spreadsheet. The DLD labor cost spreadsheet is then integrated into cost development with the DCD. The fourth stage consists of a detailed examination of each service area, comparing costs to current fees in order to calculate subsidies. The Detailed Revenue and Cost (DRC) spreadsheet provides a separate page of information for each fee for service area. Each DRC information sheet contains integrated cost data from the DLD and DCD spreadsheets along with manually entered information on existing fees, and may contain additional relevant information unique to each activity examined. The DRC also provides a bar chart for each fee area contrasting cost and revenue data The FASTR system-generated output which corresponds to service costs for each Division provides an individual summary for each service area. Percentage calculations of the Direct Labor Cost percentage and the Full Cost minus Indirect Cost percentage are provided as well. In summary, the FASTR system provides a flexible, detailed analysis of the full cost of each service area. The system allows departmental management to examine programs from a new perspective, see the financial impact of altemative actions, and predict staffing requirements due to volume increases or decreases. The system, of course, is only as valid as the information it processes. The final results incorporate multiple iterations of data. We believe the analysis and conclusions to be the best obtainable, representing the cooperative efforts of DMG's professional consulting team and departmental staff. Analysis of services provided by the Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department indicates the City is spending $3,154,038 to provide parks and recreation services. The full cost of services for which there is some potential to recover fees is $2,663,144 or 84% of total services. This figure includes $492,182 in park maintenance performed on school grounds and the state highway right of way for which the opportunity to recover additional revenues is very limited. The remaining 16% of services costs represents activities such as passive park maintenance and holiday- centered special events for which it is impractical or inappropriate to charge fees. Within the categories of fee-related services, there is only partial opportunity for funding public parks and recreation through fees assessed to these users of services. The study identifies the opportunity to enhance revenues through cost-based increases in fees paid by users of recreation services. Revenue for the fee-related portion of services equate to $508,864 under the current fee structure, or approximately 19% of total. If fees are implemented under recommendations summarized in the table which follows the City should recover an additional $187,401 in annual revenues, representing a 37% increase in current fee-based revenues. Under the recommended fee structure, the City would increase overall cosz recovery levels through fees for recreation to 26% of total costs. Additional revenue opportunity is also identified within the scope of programmed activities which have been provided at no charge in the City's recreation centers. However, the realization of fee-based revenues for these services will be a more difficult process due to the historical precedent of not charging fees. For this reason, specific revenue projections for most center-based services are not factored into the projection for increase shown in the summary table which follows. In addition to fees charged to users of recreation services, the study encourages fee sharing negotiations with Albemarle County for subsidized services provided by the City of Charlottesville to a substantial number of county residents. Cost documentation and available data on utilization of specific services by residents versus non-residents is provided at the end of the report for management information and as support for potential cost-sharing discussions with Albemarle County. $10,138 $0 $10,t38 64 $0.00 $158AI $200.00 $12.800 10,6(I2 21~314 (10.712/ 325 65.58 32.62 65.58 0 20,740 21,314 (574) 12.800 SZN61qRO ~ 30/00 18.821 11379 ~ 35.51 $6,98 29.00 (3,451) ,~J.T,S~'/MLESSONS 953_ 1,584 (~31) 6~ 24.00 14.4~ .~.00 0_ irOTAL A~Z47/~ 601,935 233.644 368,292 46,486 i'lDU~ 34,668 0 34,~68 720 0.fl0 48. I5 600 4320 YOUTH T/SVN/S 4,904 0 4,904 100 0.~ 49.04 6.00 600 /~'£ G~O~/VAST/~ 12~0 18,4<36 (5,906) 340 54.40 37.03 54_40 0 YGC_¢I 4,117 2270 1.847 80 28.38 51.46 2838 _0 IO~IL ~o/~'T ( J.A x~/~ 78,457 34,913 43~4 9.081 1t PL4IG~;S~DpJ~o~M.M' $245,9~6 ~ $248,:296 645 $1.09 $386.04 2~25.~0 $16,625 b"fA~ J~ P/~O~/~/M' 15.(~05 0 15,(:~5 2,089 0.(]0 7.47 0.00 0 ~$g/HC/R~ 66,307 1 ~3C6 1 1.00 66~7.00 Lff) 0 B/RT~fl]4Y~OMR~VE~a~ 1,771 8~0 ~71 50 15.75 35.42 35.00 950 8,700 $,6~ ] 8,700.00 I7.3~.00 8,700.00 ~ ON T/-~BLt 5CK 7,958 0 7~g 2,655 0.C0 3.C0 0.00 0 T/~.R4P pLAYG~E~VD 41,11I 0 41.111 45 0.00 913.58 25.00 LI25 12 This section of the report details the costs of specific recreation services, grouped by general service area, and includes recommendations for fee increases to achieve targeted levels of cost recovery. Outlined in the explanation which follows is the basis for fee recommendations. Recommended Fee Structure for Recreation Services In the provision of a majority of services which are administered by public recreation and parks operations throughout the country, the central issue to be determined in setting fees is not whether to subsidize or charge full costs, but, rather, how much it is reasonable and fiscally responsible to subsidize the users of recreation serwces. Fees and subsidy levels will typically vary according to the age and socioeconomic status of participants, youth and senior citizens virtually always being more highly subsidized. Fees also vary with the level of active sup0ort by staff in providing services. Independent sports leagues operating on facilities where the department is primarily a facilitator of services are nearly always more heavily subsidized than participants in city-operated leagues. Fees also vary significantly based on charges which have been assessed historically in a given locality, whether or not there is a reasonable correlation between current costs of providing services and the fees charged. For example, it is usually difficult to implement fees for services which have been "free" for many years. In cases where very low fees have been charged, it may also be difficult to move to a more appropriate level of cost recovery. Fees also vary according to differences in philosophies on how they should be determined and who should pay. Many times fees are based on comparison of fee practices of neighboring localities which provide similar serv,ces, even though there may be substantial differences in the level of services offered. Finally, levels of fee recovery vary because there is no articulated policy on what to charge. Even within the same system, DMG has observed numerous variations in prior studies from one recreation center to the next for identical services. Often these differences reflect staff perceptions about the ability of patrons to pay for services. Sometimes the differences merely indicate a lack of coherent policy. For most adult recreation activities DMG recommends 50% of full cost recovery through user fees, rounded to whole dollar amounts for administrative ease. For most youth activities and many of the services provided to senior citizens, the cost recovery target is usually 25% of full costs. Full costs discussed in this report include indirect costs, facility maintenance and administrative supervision and support. For certain activities, the level of demand is high enough to warrant full cost recovery. An example is specialized youth camps, which often have intensive demand [evels and long waiting lists. On the other hand, public swimming fees for outdoor pools are services which must be more heavily subsidized in most localities. Departments should, however, typically be able te recover full costs on swimming pool rentals, building rentals and picnic shelter reservations. Occasionally the difference in historical charges and departmental philosophy on what fees should be charged will be far apart. The difference between desired and actual subsidy levels may be greater than the department feels is prudent to eliminate at once. When this is the case, it is appropriate to consider more creative options for achieving the department's revenue needs, while moving closer to departmental fee recovery goals. One approach may be to restructure the fee. For example, with team sports, it may be eas~er to recover the targeted level of costs by resorting to an individual participation fee, whether in place of, or in conjunction with adjustments in team fees. In various studies DMG has recommended increases to team fees, abolishing team fees in favor of individual fees, or reduced team fees in combination with establishing individual participation fees. It is not always practical to restructure a fee. If this is the case, the better approach may be to identify the desirable fee, and announce a 2-3 year phase-in which implements higher fees in incremental amounts. Within the current engagement, a phased approach to implementing higher fees for swimming would be in order to better equate fees to the value of services provided. The recommended fees for this service should be a first-year step toward effecting an enhanced level of recovery, with additional increases programmed for implementation over the next few years. Another issue related to fees is the equity of memberships and discount passes, such as the 25-swim cards sold at the City's pools, versus daily fees for the use of facilities. DMG believes that memberships should be offered as a convenience to patrons, and as a vehicle for encouraging high levels of utilization, particularly where it is feasible to offer discounted rates for iow demand pedods of the day or week in comparison to fees for pdme demand periods. However, the level of discount afforded in this manner should not be excessive. As a general bench mark, DMG recommends discounts not exceed 25% of the eq uivalent daily fees. Recommendations presented in the remainder of this section of the report are the result of applying the general guidelines discussed herein. Should City policy makers desire to implement a more aggressive or a less aggressive approach to recovering the cost of specific recreation services, the data provided will furnish a framework for making such decisions. In whatever course of action deemed appropriate concerning fees and subsidy levels for recreation services, management will be afforded the tools with which to make informed choices on the issues, and will know the fiscal implications of these decisions. In some cases, the increase in fees which would be necessary to attain the targeted levels of cost recovery would be substantial enough that it may be preferable to consider restructuring high cost services, reducing the length or number of sessions covered by the registration fee, and offering a class more often in order to achieve a more reasonable level of subsidy. The suitability of this approach is in part contingent upon the nature of the service itself. For the most part, it is a matter which must ultimately be addressed through policy decisions on what constitutes the most effective use of the City's resources, and what is an acceptable level of subsidy for the City to provide to the various groups using its services. Non-resident Fees Where higher non-resident fees are charged for recreation servIces, DMG's recommendations have retained the existing differential from fee amounts charged to residents, provided that the recommended fees for service remain less than full costs. Where it is anticipated that full costs will be recovered through fees for service as with facility rentals, there would be no financial justification for continuing to charge non- residents higher fees, as the ceiling on'charges for governmental services should generally be full costs. The majodty of recreation services will continue to De subsidized. In most localities it is customary and clearly reasonable to assess higher fees for non-resident participation in recreation services when the cost of services is being subsidized by residents through the City's ad valorem receipts. The City of Charlottesville observes the convention of charging higher fees to non-residents, but the pementage level II .'",? .' ,,' ".".': '.' , difference appea~ to va~ from one sewice to the ne~. From an administrative standpoint it is advantageous to have a unifo~ policy for dete~ining non-resident surcharge~ for subsidiZed recreation activities, although a number of factors may potentially supewene to effect depaAures from the general ~le. For example, there .may be services in demand by residents which the department would like to offer, but for which there is too little resident participation to make it a cost effective use of resources. Sometimes, as in newly established programs there may be too few resident participants to offer a viable service without bringing in additional non-resident participants. In the case of discounted pass-through fees for admission to a facility, or volume discount rates for a sightseeing trip package, additional non-residents may be needed in order to supply the required minimum quota of participants to qualify for group discounts. In other situations, the participation of non-residents may serve to reduce per capita service costs for all users of a service and improve overall revenues without having a significant impact on the costs of service. DMG has observed many different conventions for structuring non-resident fees. In some localities, fees are automatically doubled for non-residents. In others, there may be a fiat rate surcharge, such as a $15.00 per player fee for each non-resident on a softball team. Other variations include a standard percentage markup, such as charging non-residents 25% more than the established resident fees. A further option would be to require non-residents to purchase a participatio~ card which is renewable on an annual basis as a precondition to allowing them to register for participation in departmental services. The fee for such a card could be an arbitrary amount, or could be cost-based using the average per capita subsidy for recreation paid by residents. In the latter case, those who have purchased such a card would pay the same fees as residents for each activity in which they participate. The recreation card can ~e mandatory, or may be offered as an option in conjunction with charging higher registration fees for other non-residents who elect not to purchase it. Another option which could be applied to areas such as ball field use by independent athletic leagues where a department is not charging team or participant fees is to rent the fields and/or charge field lighting fees to teams which exceed an established threshold of non-resident players. DMG has presented these options for management information as alternatives for developing non-resident fee policies. Because of the variable circumstances which may apply to different activities, it may not be advantageous in every circumstance to apply the same approach. Within general policy guidelines developed for structuring non-resident fees, there should be sufficient flexibility to permit the department tc make exceptions when it is deemed advantageous from a service level or fiscal consideration. The City of Charlottesville provides a wide variety of recreation and leisure service opportunities designed to improve the quality of life for its citizens. The department is divided into operating divisions with responsibilities for various services, including many fee-based activities, as well as a host of services for which it is impractical or inappropriate to asses fees. Within the administrative management unit of the department, there are two activities for which fees are deemed appropriate. SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATIONS The department routinely processes and coordinates response by other departments of City government to requests for approval of special events initiated by outside groups. Each request is directed to the Parks and Recreation manager and is coordinated with various other departments of City government. The manager's time investment in processing these requests averages two to three hours per application. The full cost of this service is projected at $10,138, based on 64 events per year. The average cost per request for the manager's time is $158.41. This excludes the cost of review by staff in other City departments. DMG recommends charging an administrative processing fee of $200.00 per special event application, which will fully offset the cost of the manager's time and partially recover the cost of other staff involvement. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce additional annual revenues of $12,800. PICNIC SHELTER RESERVATION Picnic shelters are reserved through the administrative office of the Parks and Recreation Department. The full cost of this service is projected at $10,602 per annum, with 325 anticipated requests. The average cost per reservation is $32.62, including I ~~C~gO E~C HA REO .~ESVI ~ U E.~:., ~~-.-~./ the time required for administrative staff to reserve the shelter and collect and process fees, plus one hour of labor for park maintenance staff spent in site preparation and cleanup of the shelter and rest rooms to assure readiness for use. Current resident f fees of $50.00 for weekday and $75.00 for weekend use are adequate to fully offset costs. No increase in fees is recommended. The City of Charlottesville has an extensive array of aquatic services designed to meet the recreation preferences of citizens of all ages. Program offerings include a large number of instructional classes for youth and adults, in addition to regularly programmed times for lap swimming and free (or, "recreational") swim periods. The City hosts a competitive swim team which utilizes the pool on a year round basis, and is augmented seasonally by a summer swim team. Masters swimming, and a girls' synchronized swim team are also based at the City's aquatic facilib'es. Other offerings include therapeutic swim and exercise activities, special interest aquatic classes such as aquadynamics, various certification courses for professional lifesaving, and pool rentals. Two indoor pools are operated on a year round basis, two additional outdoor paid admission pools and two wading pools are operated during the summer. No admission fees are charged for the wading pools. During day time programming, the school system has priority use of indoor pool space at Crow from 8:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. on weekdays, and makes seasonal use of the facility for the CHS swim team during the 4:00-6:00 p.m time slot. No fees are charged for school use of the City's aquatic facilities, however, the school system pays for water supplied to the two indoor pools. The Charlottesville YMCA makes extensive use of Smith pool during mornings and evenings for the CYAC swim team, and comprises the most significant source of rental income. Time periods are also designated for free pool admission to accommo- date the financially underprivileged, and participants in the summer playground program are admitted at no charge on a daily basis dudng the eight week period in which the playground program is operated. Current revenues from fees offsetapproximately 38% of the full cost of aquatic services. DMG believes there is the reasonable potential to increase cost recoveries to approximately 50% through modest cost-based fee increases. Implementation of the fee recommendations which follow would raise the overall level of cost recovery to approximately 47% in the next fiscal year. It is believed that further phased increases in recreational swimming and lap fees could accomplish a 50% level of recovery within two years. RECREATIONAL AND LAP SWIMMING The City of Charlottesville provides two indoor pools on a year round basis and operates four additional outdoor pools dudng the summer. Two of the four seasonally operated pools are wading pools, for which lifeguard coverage is provided, but for which no admission fees are charged. The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing recreational and lap swimming at the four other pool sites is $382 908. The annual cost of operating the two outdoor wading pools is $4~1,124. With anticipated participation at the four paid admission pools of 66,020 during recreational and lap swimming periods, the average cost per swimmer Is $5.80. Among the 66,020 projected pool usages, 3,200 are by summer playground participants who pay no fees, and an additional 1,800 are by individuals using the pools during a period designated for free admission. Current fees from daily admissions and the sale of swim passes generate $54,797 in annual revenues, offsetting approximately 14% of full costs. Current fees for residents are $2.00 for adults, $1.50 for senior citizens and handicapped adults, and $.25 for children. Non-resident fees are $3.00 for adults, $2.00 for senior citizens and handicapped adults, and $1.25 for children. Swim cards good for 25 admissions are sold at a fee of $35.00 for resident adults, discounted to $25.00 for senior citizens and handicapped patrons, and $50.00 for non-resident adults, discounted to $35.00 for non-resident senior citizens and handicapped patrons. DMG recommends a fee increase of $1.00 for adult and senior citizen/ handicapped pool admissions, a $.25 increase for child swimming fees, and a 50% increase in the rates for swim cards. DMG further recommends implementing a charge of $.50 per day for summer playground participants, who are currently admitted at no charge during the eight weeks of operation of the playground program, implementation of the recommended fees will produce $31,743 in additional annual revenues, and will offset approximately 22% of the cost of recreational swimming. In subsequent years DMG believes it would be appropriate to effect an additional increase in youth swimming fees, which are unusually Iow, and in the revenues derived from swim cards. Swim cards for resident adults currently provide a 53% discount over daily admission fees. DMG believes discount rates should generally not exceed a 25%. reduction from equivalent daily fees. A more desirable rate structure could be achieved by further increasing the fee for swim cards, or by reducing the number of admissions per swim pass. YOUTH SWIMMING CLASSES The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing youth swimming classes is $25,058, Most swim lessons offered during the year are provided in a series of 8 sessions, ranging in duration from 20 minutes for the youngest swimmers, up to 45 minutes for more advanced swimmers. Summer lessons are provided ina sedes of 10 sessions. With anticipated participation of 1,182, the average cost is $21.20 per participant. Current fees generate $38,510 in annual revenues, fully offsetting the costs of service. DMG recommends no increase in swim lesson fees. BASIC DIVING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing oool space and instruction for diving classes $1,815. With anticipated participation of 30, and average class size of 5, the equivalent cost per participant is $60.50. Current fees are $26.00 per resident and $34.00 per non-resident, generating $948 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $30.00 for residents and $38.00 for non-residents. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $120 in additional annual revenues, COMPETITIVE STROKE CLINIC The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing this service is $2,476. With anticipated participation of 120, the average cost is $20.63 per participant. Current fees of $26.00-34.00 (resident/non-resident) generate $3,792 in annual revenues, fully offsetting costs. DMG recommends no increase in fees. WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR AIDE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the WSI Aide course ~s $153. With anticipated participation of 5, the average cost is $30.60 per participant. Current fees of $20.00-25.00 generate $100 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no increase in fees. CITY SWIMMING TEAMS The full cost incurred by the City of' Charlottesville in the sw~m team program is $35,094.~ Two components of competitive swim team costs are identified in the analysis. The cost of the summer swim team, which averages 125 participants, is $17~ 890. The average cost per swimmer is $143.12. Fees of $10.00 generate $1,250 in annual revenues, covering 7% of costs. DMG recommends a fee of $36.00; implementation of the recommended fees will produce $3,250 in additional annual revenues, and Will offset 25% of costs. During the remainder of the year, the department offers periodic practice sessions for summer swim team members, for which the cost of service is $938. Fees of $5.00 per swimmer generate revenues of $600 annually, while costs average $7.82 per swimmer. DMG recommends no increase in fees for practice sessions. AQUADYNAMICS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $33.394. With anticipatec participation of 19,760, the average cost is $1.69 per participant. Current fees generate $42,286 in annual revenues, fully covering the costs of this service. DMG recommends no increase in fees. MASTERS SWIMMING Masters swimming is offered during the summer at Washington Park to interested adult participants in two sessions, ranging approximately from January until mid-June, and mid-June until mid-August. The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing coaching and pool access for Masters swimming is $3,696. With anticipated participation of 12 swimmers, the average annual cost is $308.00 per participant. Currently, fees are assessed by requiring purchase of a $30.00 25-swim card for residents, or $40.00 swim card for non-residents. At their expected level of usage and proportionate composition of residents and nonresidents, swim card fees will generate approximately $1,818 in annual revenues offsetting 49% of the costs of service. DMG recommends a fee of $77.00 per session for residents and $87.00 per session for non-residents to increase recovery levels to 50% Alternatively, the recommended increase in swim card fees may be used in lieu of a specific fee increase for masters swimming. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $30 in additional annual revenues. THERAPEUTIC WATER EXERCISE/SWIM The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $2,249. With anticipated participation of 50, the average cost is $44.98 per participant. Current fees generate $1,295 in annual revenues, offsetting 57.6% of costs. DMG recommends no increase in fees. CYAC POOL USE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing Smith pool for rental use by the Charlottesville YMCA is $42.444. Annual rental fees produce $30,000 in revenues offsetting just under 71% of costs. DMG believes the City should pursue full cost recovery for pool rentals. DMG recommends an annual fee of $42.444.00 based on current scheduled utilization. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $12,444 in additional annual revenues. LIFEGUARDING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing lifeguard training is $11,850. With anticipated participation of 120 (i.e., 12 classes of 10 participants), the average cost per participant is $98.75. Current fees of $95.00 for residents and $105.00 for non-residents generate $12,240 in annual revenues, recovering full costs. DMG recommends no increase in current fees. WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above certification course is $1,119. With anticipated participation of 12, the average cost is $93.25 per participant. Current fees of $65.00 for residents and $75.00 for non- ;.'-~.?,~,,. l' ~.;~_'~ ~1~. ?~.~:i,~,.XI'~I~,'j~AIMI~ :~',~1-1',1'~ I='~lk'..I I( II~I ~, '. '.,.-'6'..,'. ;~.. '-'~.'~t. ~,,,v. ~. · reSidents generate $864 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $93.00 to offset full costs. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $252 in additional annual revenues. LIFEGUARD INSTRUCTOR COURSE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above course is $618. With anticipated participation of 10, the average cost is $61.80 per participant. Current fees of $40-50.00 (resident/non-resident) generate $470 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $62.00 to recover full costs. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $150 in additional annual revenues. COMMUNITY FIRST AID AND SAFETY The full cos[ incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $5,132. With anticipated participation of 128, the average cost is $40.09 per participant. Current fees generate $6,016 in annual revenues, recovenng full costs. DMG recommends no increase in fees. POOL RENTAL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the public pools for rental usage is $20,493 per annum. With rental use projected at 450 hours, current fees of $42.00 (resident rate, or $54.00 non-resident rate) generate $18,900 in annual revenues. The full cost per hour of pool use averages $45.54. DMG recommends a full cost fee of $46.00 to offset full costs of rental usage, rounding for administrative convenience. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $4,800 in additional annual revenues. SCHOOL USE Fifth and sixth grade classes utilize Crow pool for a portion of their physical education curriculum. The full cost of staff involvement and operating expense for use of Crow Pool by the school system is $18,549 per annum. Pursuant to joint use agreement, no fees are charged by the City for use of the pool by physical education classes or by the high school swim team. As noted in the introduction to this section, the school shares in the costs of pool operation by paying for the cost of water used at the indoor pool sites. The foregoing information ~s presented for management information only. No fee recommendations are offered for this service because of the existing agreement. SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING TEAMS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in operating the synchronized swimming teams is $30,200. With anticipated participation of 30 swimmers on the show team and 29 on the competitive team payIng fees of $29.00 per month, revenues of $18,821 are projected. DMG recommends no increase in current fees. ADULT SWIMMING CLASSES The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing adult swimming lessons is $953. With anticipated participation of 66, the average cost is $14.44 per participant. Current fees generate $1,584 In annual revenues, fully offsetting costs. DMG recommends no increase in fees. The City of Charlottesville provides organized youth and adult athletic league play, utilizing city facilities and school sites to address the high demand for services. Participants in the City-operated youth basketball league and tennis program pay no fees for participation. In addition to the leagues which it administers, the City also maintains ball fields to support a high level of use by independent sports leagues' in the area, who pay no fees to offset the costs of grounds maintenance services provided on their behalf. The independent leagues furnish parental volunteers to operate their leagues, and this affords a substantial cost savings to the City which it would otherwise incur if operating all league play. City and school-owned fields maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department are also used on a rental basis to support practices and tournament play on a fee basis. In addition to athletic league play and ball field rental, also included within this section of the report is a discussion of service costs and fees for the City's gymnastics program. YOUTH BASKETBALL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in operating the youth basketball program is $34,669. With anticipated participation of 720 players, the average cost is $49.04 each. No fees are charged for this service. Rather than waive all fees for participation, it may serve the City's better interests to base fees on ability to pay. Consistent with recommended fee levels for most youth services, DMG recommends a fee of $12.00 per player to offset approximately 25% of the cost of service, with a provision for waiving fees for participants who receive public assistance or subsidized lunches. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $4,320 in additional annual revenues, projecting 50% of participants will be eligible for fee waiver. YOUTH TENNIS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the youth tennis program is $4,904. With anticipated participation of 100 players, the average cost is $49.04 per participant. There are no fees for this service, for which DMG recommends a fee of $12.00 per player, consistent with the recommendations for cost recovery and fee waiver made for youth basketball. At a 50% level of fee waiver, implementation of the recommended fees will produce $600 in additional annual revenues. BASKETBALL FREE PLAY The full cost of staffing and gymnasium space devoted tc basketball free play is $34,204. With 25,150 expected participants, the average cost per player is $1.36 per night. No fees are currently charged for this service, which DMG has frequently observed to be a fee-based activity in other localities studied. DMG recommends a fee of $1.00 per player per night for access to the gym during free play periods. It is frequently beneficial to charge a nominal fee for access to the gymnasium during free play pedods as a deterrent to undesirable behavior. The observation of staff in several other studies performed by DMG is that youth and young adults charged a small fee for admission to a facility tend to be more interested in playing basketball than in disruptive activities. Facilities which had experienced security and crowd control problems have reported significant improvements after implementing a small admission fee, with no reduction in the number of participants playing ball. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce additional annual revenues of $25,150. SOFTBALL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville, inclusive of ball field maintenance expense, ~n providing organized adult softball leagues operating in the spring and summer is $174,617. With anticipated participation of 150 teams, the average cost per team is $1,'164.11. Current fees of $300.00 generate $45,000 in annual revenues. DMG recommends restructuring adult softball participation as a $40.00 per participant fee. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $45,000 in additional annual revenues, and will offset just over 51% of costs incurred in providing this service, while maintaining a nominal equivalent fee of $2.50 per player per game for the 16-game season. FALL SOFTBALL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the fall adult softball program is $75,359. With anticipated participation of 100 teams, the average cost per team is $753.59. Current fees of $225.00 per team generate $22,500 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $25.00 per player in lieu of the traditional team fees. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $15,000 in additional annual revenues, offsetting approximately 50% of the expense which the city incurs for this activity. VOLLEYBALL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing adult volleyball league play, which operates on a year round basis, is $77,824. With anticipated participation of 100 teams per season, the average cost is $194.56 per team. Current fees of $145.00 generate $58,000 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no change in current fees, which offset nearly 75% of the cost of play. BALL FIELD RENTAL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing athletic fields for rental usage is projected at $7,539. With 300 anticipated hours of use, the average cost per hour of use is $25.13, exclusive of field lighting. Current fees of $10.00 per field use generate $1,500 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $25.00 per two-hour use of ball fields with a two-hour minimum. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $2,250 in additional annual revenues. The cost of field marking to support non-league play is projected at $943 per year, projecting 54 requests. Current fees of $15.00 produce revenues of $810, versus average costs of $17.46. DMG recommends charging a fee of $17.50 to fully offset the cost of this service, which is typically associated with fee-based tournament play. INDEPENDENTLEAGUEPLAY The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing athletic fields for youth and adult independent league practices and seasonal game usage is projected at $224,862. No fees are collected to defray the cost of this service, although it is believed to be reasonable to partially offset the costs incurred by the City in providing this service, whether through a nominal fiat rate charge per player per season, or through implementing a discounted rental fee. DMG typically recommends local governments require submission of a roster of players along with a fee of $10.00 per adult player, and $5.00 per youth participant. This fee level rarely constitutes a hardship for players, and typically allows the local jurisdiction to offset 5-10% of its service costs in providing field space. Alternatively, the department could offer field space on a rental basis at 50% of the standard hourly field rental fee for independent athletic leagues, in recognition of the value of services provided by the City to the independent leagues, as well as the value of volunteer services donated by the leagues in running their own activities. This information is presented for management consideration. No specific revenue projections are offered in conjunction with the recommendation. DEVELOPMENTAL GYMNASTICS CLASSES The City of Charlottesville offers a developmental gymnastics program for youth on a year round basis at the Downtown Recreation Center. Classes are divided into a series of skill levels beginning with one-year-old children. The length of classes vary according to age and the attained competence level of participants. Class length also varies during the year, as do the fees charged to participants. The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the developmental gymnastics program is $12,590. With anticipated participation of 340 children, the average cost is $37.03 per participant. Current fees generate $18,496 in annual revenues, fully offsetting the costs of service. DMG recommends no increase in fees. 'C' LEVEL GYMNASTICS TEAM For youth gymnasts who desire to pursue competitive gymnastics, the City of Charlottesville offers a more intensive level of gymnastics programming. Participants practice two hours each week and perform in two annual events. The full cost incurred in providing this service is $3,165. With anticipated participation of 6 gymnasts, the average cost is $527.50 per participant. Current fees of $20.00 per month generate $1,440 in annual revenues, offsetting 45% of costs. DMG recommends no change in current fees, as they are believed to be effecting an adequate level of cost recovery. Parks and Recreation staff offer numerous special interest classes and fee- based activities to appeal to the leisure preferences of area citizens. Most of these activities are provided within recreation centers, with the department hiring part-time staff to provide specialized instruction. Classes include performing arts, fitness, arts and craft instruction, self defense and a variety of other miscellaneous special interest activities. YOUTH ART CLASSES The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville ~n providing youth art classes is $2,735. With anticipated participation of 108 children, the average cost is $25.32 per participant. Current fees generate $3,240 in annual revenues fully recovering the cost of these services. DMG recommends no increase in fees. YOUTH ARTCAMP The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing art camp is $2,742, Two groups of 20 youth attend a one-week camp session. The average cost is $68.55 per participant. Current fees of $55.00 for residents and 65.00 for non-residents generate $2,480 in annual revenues. DMG recommends charging a fee of $69.00, fully recovering the cost of these services. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce additional annual revenues of $280. BALLET CLASSES The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing ballet instruction is $3,615. With anticipated participation of 128, the average cost is $28.24 per participant. Current fees generate $3,968 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no increase in fees. 3! AEROBIC BOXING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service ~s $156. With anticipated participation of 2, the average cost is $78 per participant. Currant fees of $20.00 generate $40 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no increase in fees. AEROBICS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing aerobics instruction is $2,817. W'[th anticipated participation of 51, the average cost is $51.31 per participant. Current fees of $35.00 and $45.00 generate $1,779 in annual revenues. DMG recommends retention of current fees. BALLROOM DANCE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing instruction in ballroom dance is $1,571. With anticipated participation of 34, the average cost is $46.21 per participant. Current fees generate $1,027 in annual revenues, recovering 65% of costs. DMG recommends no increase in fees. DOG OBEDIENCE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $5,367. With anticipated participation of 23, the average cost is $233.35 per participant. Current fees of $70.00-80.00 for the six week program generate $1,640 in annual revenues. DMG recommends increasing resident fees to $117.00 and $127.00 for non-residents to effect 50% cost recovery. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $1,081 in additional annual revenues. FENCING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $10,267. With anticipated participation of 73, the average cost is $140.64 per participant. Current fees of $35.00-45.00 generate $3,066 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no change in current fees. GOLF The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing group lessons in golf is $6,248. With anticipated participation of 118, the average cost is $52.95 per participant. Current fees of $25.00 for residents and $35.00 for non-residents generate $3,236 in annual revenues. Current fees offset approximately 50% of the cost of services. DMG recommends no increase in fees. HANDBUILDINGIPOTTER'S WHEEL The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $9,759. With anticipated participation of 38, the average cost is $256.82 per participant. Fees of $65.00-75.00 advertised in the winter Parks and Recreation program guide for the 8 week classes which run for 2.5 to 2.75 hours per session generate $2,805 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $126.00 for residents and $136.00 for nomresidents. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $2,318 in additional annual revenues. Because of the magnitude of increase required to attain this level of cost recovery, this service is an example of an activity which it may be advantageous to restructure into shorter, more frequent classes. KARATE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $746. With anticipated participation of 16, the average cost is $46,63 per participant. Current fees of $20.00-30.00 generate $656 in annual revenues, DMG recommends no fee increase. LINE DANCING WORKSHOP The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $518. With anticipated participation of 31, the average cost is $16.71 per participant. Current fees of $8.00-10.00 generate $272 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no change in current fees. RIDING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $4,797. With anticipated participation of 13, the average cost is $369.00 per participant. Current fees of $80.00-90.00 generate $1,108 in annual revenues. Sessions run for 45 minutes each, with six meetings per class, and 3-5 participants. DMG recommends a fee of $185.00 per session for residents, and $195.00 for non- residents. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $1,365 in additional annual revenues. CAROLINA SHAG DANCE The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $3,982. With anticipated participation of 43, the average cost is $92.60 per participant. Current fees of $35.00-45.00 generate $1,831 in annual revenues. DMG recommends retention of current fees. SWING DANCING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $4,065. W'lth anticipated participation of 55, the average cost is $73.91 per participant. Current fees of $30.00-40.00 generate $1,734 in annual revenues. DMG recommends retention of current fees. TAE KWON DO The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $373. With anticipated participation of 8, the average cost is $46.63 per participant. Current fees of $20.00-30.00 generate $150 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no change in current fees. ADULT TENNIS LESSONS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing classes in adult tennis instruction is $3,982. ~ith anticipated participation of 47, the average cost is $8;4.72 per participant. Current fees of $20.00~30.00 generate $1,020 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $42.00 for residents and $52.00 for non- residents. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $1 034 in additional annual revenues. AUTO MECHANIC WORKSHOP The full cost incurred bylthe City of Charlottesville in providing the above service ~s $129. With ant cipated participation of 6, the average cost is $21 50 per participant f Current fees o $8.00-10.00 generate $56 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $12.00-$14.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $24 in additional annual revenues. BASKETRY The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $1,507. With anticipated participation of 23, the average cost is $65.52 per participant. Current fees of $15.00-20.00 generate $401 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $33.00 for residents, and $38.00 for non-residents. Implementa- tion of the recommended fees will produce $414 in additional annual revenues. CAKE DECORATING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $259. With anticipated participation of 15, the average cost is $17.27 per participant. Current fees of $5.00-7.00 generate $78 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $9.00-11.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $60 in additional annual revenues. DREAM CATCHER CRAFT The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $508, With anticipated participation of 6, the average cost is $84.67 per participant. Current fees of $15.00-25.00 generate $105 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $42.00-52.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $162 in additional annual revenues. INTERIOR DECORATING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $259. With anticipated participation of 9, the average cost is $28.78 per participant. Current fees of $10.00-18.00 generate $100 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $15.00-23.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $45 in additional annual revenues. NATURE WALKS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in prowding the above service is $10. With anticipated participation of 2 individuals, the average cost is $3.33 per participant. Current fees generate $16 in annual revenues, DMG recommends no increase in fees. PAINTING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $7,466. With anticipated participation of 36, the average cost is $207.39 per participant. Current fees of $45.00-55.00 generate $1,710 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $104.00 for residents and $114.00 for non-residents. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $2,124 in additional annual revenues. WREATH MAKING The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $502. With anticipated participation of 6, the average cost is $83.67 per participant. Current fees of $13.00-18.00 generate $t25 in annual revenues. DMG recommends a fee of $42.00-47.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $174 in additional annual revenues. YOGA The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the yoga classes is $4,117. With anticipated participation of 80, the average cost is $51.46 per participant. Currant fees generate $2,270 in annual revenues. DMG recommends no increase in fees. ~? Most services provided within the recreation centers are activities for which no fees are being charged, although the scope and variety of activities being offered include some services for which fees are routinely charged in other localities studied by DMG. Whether it is feasible or worthwhile to assess activity fees hinges largely on the socioeconomic status of the population base which is being served. The perception of staff assigned supervisory responsibilities over this area of programming is that there is little or no opportunity to generate meaningful revenues because of the low socioeconomic status of participants. At the same time, other staff are routinely programming activities into the same facilities which are fee-based, generate signitTcant revenues, and presumably serve the same community population base. The typical distinction in these services is the use of staff hired as temporary employees for tee-based services, versus the use of permanent full-time and part. time employees for services offered at no charge. In addition, participants in the summer playground program, which is also offered at no charge, are required to pay fees on trips to facilities which charge admission. Whether the perceived ability to pay for services is based on untested opinion or on verified experience, the lack of a fee structure for services which have been offered historically would tend to create significant resistance to implementing fees for many of these services. It is DMG's impression that there is probably little meaningful opportunity for generating revenues from the range of services offered at no charge within the centers, however, the City may wish to further explore this issue. If the City elects to implement a more aggressive charge structure within the recreation centers, it could issue qualifying participants desiring fee waivers an ID card, utilizing the same technology employed for the summer I.D./fres ride program. For participants who present proof of receipt of public assistance, or who are approved for the free or reduced lunch program, a recreation ID card could be issued as a pre-condition to participating in services at no charge. The typical cost of issuing a laminated photo ID card is approximately $3.00; and it could be renewed annually using a color-coded self-adhesive label to save time and materials expense in the future. The requirement for a recreation ID card could also be used as a vehicle for introducing modest charges for center-based activities, as discussed hereafter under the summer ID program. Whatever decision the city elects to pursue regarding the issue of ability to pay for center, based recreation services, there is some value in charging a nominal fee even for services being offered to the poor. There is a tendency to perceive a "free" service as having no value. By charging a small fee, it is often observed that attendance improves, furthering the aim of providing a constructive, adult-supervised alternative recreation experience to youth. As a tool for decision making on what fees might be implemented for services provided by staff in the City's recreation centers, DMG's analysis shows the average cost of recreation center operations in the three primary facilities, exclusive of consumable supplies and materials for specific classes, is $36.88 per hour. As noted in the introduction to this section, DMG's standard recommendations for adult classes target a 50% level of cost recovery through fees. Recommendations for youth classes target a 25% level of cost recovery. Rates for rental use of facilities, or revenue producing activities performed by outside groups in City facilities should be set at full cost recovery. SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the 8-week summer playground program is $248,996, exclusive of admission fees, which are paid by participants, and a USDA grant in the amount of $34,296.13 covering food-related costs. With anticipated participation of 645 youth, the average cost per participant is $386.04. No fees are charged for this service. DMG recommends a fee of $25.00, analogous to the fee being charged by Albemarle County for its summer program. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $16,025 in additional annual revenues. SUMMER ID PROGRAM The City of Charlottesville offers ID cards to all youth in area schools, regardless of socioeconomic status and residence, which entitles them to use the City transit system at no charge. The pdmary intent of the program is to facilitate youth participation in various recreation programs during the summer. The annual cost of this program is $15,605, including CTS costs of $10,899, representing an average cost of $.52 per tdp for each use of the transit system. A total of 2,089 youth were issued cards, and accounted for nearly 21,000 uses of the transit system, just over ten trips per card issued. This information is presented for management information only. No fees are recommended for this service. The City may wish to review the summer ID program to determine its effIcacy as a conduit to public recreation for area youth. The observation of staff members is that a large number of the youth who are given ID cards do not participate in the department's recreation programs, although they do utilize the public transit system to go to area malls and other locations. If the program is continued, it may be .more effective to issue a free bus pass at the schools whereby youth may secure a ride to a recreation center, there to receive a laminated photo ID card which must be "activated" from year to year by having- a color-coded adhesive label applied to its back. Under this approach the label and ID card would be furnished only at recreation centers when one comes in to register for programs. This should produce some savings in staff time and materials expense from year to year in cards which would not have to be replicated, and it is likely that fewer cards would be made, as students who do not involve themselves in departmental activities would not receive cards. It would also encourage some additional use of recreation services, supporting the fundamental intent of the prog ram. As the department considers implementing fees for center-based services which have been provided without charge in the past, one of the vehicles for introducing a nominal measure of cost recovery, particularly for droo-in programming for youth, is to require a recreation card as a precondition to participation. The recreation card can be offered at a nominal fee to youth who are able to pay for it, with the fee waived for hardship cases. Customary administrative procedures for determining who qualifies for a waiver include requiring proof of receipt of any form of public assistance, or finding participants' names on school lists of those receiving free or subsidized lunches. As an alternative, the City could require an ID card for non-resident participation in recreation services, including programmed activities as well as the right to reserve picnic shelters and building space. The fee for a non-resident card could be based on the average per capita subsidy paid by residents for that portion of the cost of parks and recreation services not covered by current fees. CABARETS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing the above service is $20,311. With 35 cabarets projected based on pdor year experience, the average cost is $580.31 per event. Current fees of $450.00 generate $15,750 in annual revenues, offsetting 77.5% of costs. DMG recommends a fee of $580.00. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $4,550 in additional annual revenues, approximating 100% recovery of the costs of service. Review of this recommendation with staff discloses that at the time of the last fee increase there was apparently a verbal commitment to prior renters of recreation centers (not reflected in written policy guidelines) to hold the fees for cabarets level for a three year period. If this is the case, fee increases for this specific group of patrons may need to be postponed until the three year period ends. In the interim, it is the department's understanding that contractual cleaning fees paid by the department after each rental use are going to be increased, further justifying an ~ncrease in fees charged. NON FEE-BASED DROP-IN CENTER PROGRAMS The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing a wide vadety of youth and family-oriented activities within the recreation centers for which no fees are charged is $274,418. This information is presented for management information only. No specific fee recommendations are offered, beyond comments in the introduction to this section, and the recommendations discussed under the summer ID program. SMITH CENTER MAINTENANCE The City of Charlottesville provides the Smith Recreation Center to the Boys and Girls Club for $1 per year. City staff maintain the facility and cover utility costs. Full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville annually for this facility is $66,307. This information is presented for management information only. No fee recommendations are offered. BIRTHDAY PARTIES The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in providing room space at the Crow recreation center for birthday parties is $1,771. With use projected at 50 rentals per year, the cost per use is $35.42. Current fees of $15.00 for resident usage and $20.00 for nonresident usage generate $800 in annual revenues. DUG recommends a fee of $35.00 per two-hour rental of the room reserved for birthday parties. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce $950 in additional annual revenues. The City of Charlottesville runs a city market, now in its 22nd year of operation, where local farmers, craft=persons and others may sell fresh produce and other wares. The market is open from mid-April until the end of October, reopens from mid-November until mid-December, and is staffed by a seasonal employee. The full cost incurred by the City of Charlottesville in operating the City Market is $17,329. The City charges occupants 6% of gross sales in lieu of more conventional rate structures based on varying fees for space rental, contingent upon the desirability of location and the size of the space. Gross sales for the current year are projected to range between $140.00-150,000 per annum. Fees at 6% will generate approximately $8,700 in annual revenues, offsetting approximately 50% of costs. DMG recommends retention of the current fee structure. The City of Charlottesville provides an extensive program of recreation services geared toward the needs of area citizens with special needs. Services are provided through a combination of City and Albemarle County funds, private donations, participant fees, and grant assistance through the Region 10 Community Services Board. Most programs are provided free of charge to participants, and records are maintained to track participation by residents and non-residents in order to support joint funding requests. In addition to programs offered without charge, there are a number of fee.based services in which participants pay the direct costs of supplies and materials. Apart from services provided to citizens who are physically, mentally, emotionally or otherwise developmentally challenged, a further adjunct to therapeutic recreation is services provided to the area's indigent senior citizen population. There are few activities budgeted under therapeutic senior recreation for which fees are charged, and participation levels in activities such as purchasing a meal on a departmental outing disclose significantly lower participation than in other departmental offerings where no fees are involved for the participants. Citizens served by these programs are clearly a different socioeconomic group than senior adults who routinely participate in other forms of fee-based recreation and special interest activities .offered in the mainstream of daily recreation programming. DMG believes there is little opportunity to enhance revenues within these categories of service. The following information documents the cost and revenues associated with the two program areas. THERAPEUTIC PROGRAMS A wide variety of therapeutic programs are offered during the year, spanning all phases and aspects of departmental recreation offerings. Services provided in the preceding fiscal year include the activities shown in the following table. Also noted are the costs and associated revenues for these activities. Costs cited in the table represent direct expenses incurred for consumable materials and supplies, which departmental staff routinely track, and the cost of staff time and operating expenses, which is generally excluded from the deparb'nent's documentation of expenditures for cost sharing requests to Albemarle County. Program Cost Fees Subsidy Kids on the Block $7,958 $0 $7,958 Therapeutic Programs 41,111 0 4i ,111 Camp Challenge 3,712 130 3,582 Trip Program 17,530 2,645 14,885 Sr Citizens Sp Events 6,036 01 6,036 Wheelchair Basketball ' 1,200 0 1,200 Individ ReC. Progs 19,481 i 0 19,481 Supper Club 8,624 0 8,624 Hearing Imp Progs 1,208 0 1,208 Therap Dances/Picnics 2,052 300 1,752 Therap Mo Calendar 1,166 0 1,166 Therap Swim/Exercise* 2,249 648 1,602 Fee-based Therap Prgs 11,570 4,461 7,109 Total $123,897 $8,184 $115,713 Therapeutic swim costs are already documeeted under aquatic services. While there is limited ability to pay for services within a large sector of the department's therapeutic population base, it is reasonable to consider implementing modest fees to be paid by those who can afford them. Not all participants in therapeutic programs are indigent. In the Cost/Revenue Summary Table, DMG has recommended $25.00 camp registration fees for therapeutic programs, consistent with those recommended for summer playground participants. Registration fees of $5.00 are recommended for wheelchair basketball, individual recreation programs and the therapeutic supper club. Three dollar fees are recommended for programs for the headng impaired, representing a 25% level of cost recovery for these services, and two dollar fees are recommended for therapeutic dances and picnics. It is believed that these fees should not pose a hardship for most patrons, however, it ,s important to be sensitive to fees for services where the number of participants is small enough that any further reductions '~n participation may jeopardize the ability to offer a viable service. Full implementation of the fee recommendations listed herein would generate $2,295 on an annual basis. SENIOR RECREATION SERVICES The collective cost of the various services and activities provided under this heading is $47,317. No participation fees are charged to offset the cost of services, and DMG believes there is very limited ability for participants within this group to pay fees. There are a few activities involving out of pocket costs for participants which are in addition to the service costs documented herein and which do not appear as departmental expenditures because they are paid directly by the participants. Review of participation levels for the latter activities indicate lower than average participation for other services, and may be indicative of the general lack of financial resources available to these citizens. DMG recommends no additional service fees for senior therapeutic recreation programs. The cost of a majority of park services is not recoverable through fees, and must be subsidized by ad valorem taxes or other receipts. There are two services provided to area citizens primarily by park maintenance staff for which it is reasonable to charge fees, and two other areas of service provided to outside governmental entities. GARDEN PLOTS Parks staff prepare the soil, mow and provide access maintenance to two areas designated for garden plots. Full cost of providing this service is $4,738 per annum for park maintenance and an estimated $2,811 for administrative staff involvement at 15 minutes per plot~- With 357 garden plots per annum the average cost per plot 'is $21.15. No fees are charged for this service. DMG recommends charging a fee of $21.00 per plot to offset the cost of service. Implementation of the recommended fees will produce additional annual revenues of $7,497. EXPLORATORY LECTURE Departmental program offedngs occas;onally list an exploratory program in which one of the supervisory positions ~n Parks would provided instruction, such as a lecture on planting annuals. The full cost of this service ~s projected based on a three hour commitment of staff time to the service, representing two hours for the lecture and one hour for preparation and follow up. At this commitment of staff time, the cost to provide the service would equate to $160. DMG found no examples of this service having been performed in the preceding year, however, this information is provided for management information in structuring fees for future programming. MAINTENANCE OFSCHOOLGROUNDS The full cost of park maintenance services provided at school sites is $292,661. This includes maintenance of athletic fields to support city athletic programs and 'independent league play, as well as maintenance of playgrounds, plant beds, shrubbery and other school amenities. The City's financial records indicate anticipated payment of $35,000 per annum toward the cost of grounds maintenance. In addition to the monetary contribution from the school system, the department makes use of gymnasium and playground space at various school sites to support its programs, and the schools pay for water consumption at the indoor pools. This information is presented for management information only. No fee recommendations are offered. VDOT HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE Parks staff provide mowing, horticultural servIces and litter removal along the state highway right of way. The annual cost of this service is $199,521. A total of 7,892 labor hours is projected annually based on scheduled hours of maintenance. This information is presented for management information, and for possible negotiation purposes between the City of Charlottesville and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The table on the following pages summarizes the net subsidy associated with all services identified in the study for which fees are deemed appropriate. The subsidy represents the costs of each recreation service net of fees paid by the users of these services. In the table the subsidy is distributed among the three broad user groups for recreation services in direct proportion to their respective participation levels. The three groups consist of residents of the City of Charlottesville, residents of Albemarle County, and residents of other jurisdictions. Participation levels were developed employing best available data from departmental records. It should be noted that the information provided is a conservative estimate of the subsidy attributable to non-residents who benefit from departmental services. For example, no information was available on which to base a reliable estimate of the use of the City's passive parks by individuals who reside outside of the corporate limits of Charlottesville. Clearly, non-residents utilize and benefit from park services on a routine, recurrent basis. However, in the absence of usage data, DMG has allocated no portion of passive park maintenance to non-residents. It is DMG's understanding that a survey has been initiated recently to better track the use of City parks by all citizens, opening up the potential for allocating passive park costs among user groups in the future, when reliable data has been compiled. Within the portion of departmental services where data was available to support the allocation of service costs to user groups, the analysis discloses that use of recreation services by City residents accounts for just over 71% of the subsidy. The subsidy assigned to Albemarle County residents based on their proportionate use of recreation services is roughly 28% of the total; and the subsidy attributable to residents of other jurisdictions is less than 1%. On the basis of DMG's observations in over fifty similar studies, it appears likely that the percentage of subsidy attributable to non- residents will continue to escalate in the future, given that the rate of population growth tends to be higher in counties than in cities, and that city residents are older, on average, than county residents. In most localities, recreation services receive higher use by younger participants, especially in high subsidy areas, such as athletics. CITY OF CHARLO 1 fESVILLE, VIRGINIA RECREATION SERVICES ~.. ..... (PROFIT) ....... Res AibemarleCo. ~..Ott/er~.~-~A~-~Subs~dy ~ ,~.~-[$ubsdy. r_~-.~Substdy~ REC ADM1N SERVICES SPF, CIAZ EVENT~.4PPLICT~ $10,135 SHEI. TER PJ~ERV, t~ION$ (10,712) TOT.4L REC ADM~V SVC$ (574) .~9t/AT~CS RECSWIMMING 328,111 81.00% 19.~% 0.~% $265,770 ~2~41 $0.~ YO~S~M~SONS (13,452) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 BdSICDmNG 867 30.00% 70.~% 0.00% 260.10 606.90 0.~ co~ ~o~ c~c (~ o.~ o.~% o.o~A o.oo o.oo o.oo WSIA~E 53 50.00% 50.00% 0.~% 26.50 26.50 0.00 ~U~S~M~M 16,640 I00.00% 0.00% 0.0~A 16,~0.00 0.00 0.00 ~T~MP~CES 338 ~00.00% 0.0~fi 0.00% 338.00 0.00 0.00 AQUAD~CS (8,892) 0.0~A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.~ 0.00 ~SW~G [,878 50.00% 50.0~/0 0.0~fi 939.00 939.00 0.~ ~P X~RC~E 1,602 66.00% 34.00% 0.~% 1~056.~ 5~.51 0.00 CYACPOOL USE 12,~ 20.~% 80.00% 0.00% ~488.80 9,955,20 0.00 HF~UA~ T~G 4,410 30.00% 70.00% 0.00% 1~.00 3.087.00 0.00 WAT~FE~ 255 30.00% 70.00% 0.00% 76.50 178.50 0.00 ~EGUA~ 148 30.00% 70.0~ 0.00% ~.40 103.60 0.00 COMMFI~AID & ~E~ (884) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 POOL ~2L 1.593 50.00% 50.~% 0.00% 796.50 796.50 0.00 SCHOOL USE 18,549 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.549.00 0.00 0.00 S~CHRO T~MS 14~92 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% .7,146.00 7,146.00 0.00 2DULTS~LE~SONS (63I) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOT~ AQUATI~ 376,005 315,4~.70 ~5,~4.80 A THLET1CY YOUTHB.,ISKETB.4ZL 34,668 66.70% 33.30% 0.00% 23,123.56 11.544.44 0.00 YOUTHTENNI$ 4,904 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4,904.00 0.00 0.00 BASKETB/ILLFREEPI~Y 34,204 85.00% 15.00% 0.00% 29.073.40 5,130.60 0.00 ADULT$OFTBALL 129,617 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 43,162.46 86.454.54 0.00 F,,tLL SOFIN,,ILL 52,859 33.30% 66.70% 0.00% 17,602.05 35,256.95 0.00 VOLLEI'B,4LL 19,824 37.50% 62.50% 0.00% 7,434.00 12390.00 0.00 CIT~ OF ~ l ~ VIRGlNIA F/F/~ .~,,T.4/. $6,039 33,~ ~7~ 0.~ ~010.~ ~,~01 ~.~ ~D~G 133 33.3~ ~7~ 0.~A ~ 88.71 0.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4,~ 333~ ~.7~ 0.~A 74,~.~ 149,9~.95 0,~ D~~ (5,~ 45.~A 55.~A O.~A 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ C~~ 1,~ 45.~A 55.~A 0.~A ~6~ ~.75 0.~ ~~ 5~ 2~.010.~ 305,~4.~ SPEt~4,L 1NTERE~' CT~.~SES YOUTttART~ (505) 0.000A 0.0~A 0.00~A 0.00 0.00 0.00 d. RTC. d3~ 262 30.00% 70.00% 0.0~/0 78.60 l~3AO 0.00 B~4t~'r;7'C~ 053) 0.000/0 0.0~A 0,~(PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~-ROBICBO,~ONG 116 53.6~A 39.80% 6.60% 62.18 46.17 7.66 dEROBICS 838 53.60% 39.80% 6,60% 449.17 333.52 55.31 BALLROOMDANCE 544 53.60°/0 39.800/0 6,60% 291.58 216.5] 35.9(} I~OGOBEDIENCE 3,727 53.60% 39.80% 6,60°/0 1,997.67 1,483.35 245.98 b'EYvUZVG 7~201 53.60% 39.80°/0 6.60°/0 3.859.74 Z866.00 475.27 GOLF 3,012 53.60°A 39.800/0 6.60°/0 1,614.43 1,198,78 198.79 HANDBLDG~OTTERSFFI~ 6,954 53.60°A 39.800A 6.60°/0 3,727.34 Z767.69 458.96 K/RATE 90 53.6(P/0 39.80°/0 6.60% 48.24 35.82 5.94 L/NE DANCE 246 53.6~/0 39.g0% 6.60°/0 131.86 97.9! 16D.4 R/D/3,G 3,689 53.60% 39.800/0 6.60% 1,977.30 1,468D.2 243.47 SI~GD/aVCE 2,151 53.6~A 39.80°/0 6.6~Y'/0 1,15Z94 856.10 141.97 SY~/GDANCE 2331 53.60% 39.800A 6.6IY'/0 1,249.42 927.74 153.85 Td, EIOYONDO 223 53.60°/0 39.80°/0 6.60% 119.53 88.75 14.72 TEZW/S 2962 53.6~A 39.80°/0 6.60°/0 1,587.63 1,178.88 195.49 AU1DNIECZiI, I'ORR3~OP 73 53.60°/0 39.80% 6.6~A 39.13 29.05 4.82 BASKETRY 1,106 53.60% 39.80°/0 6.60°/0 592.82 440.19 73.00 C/d~DECORdT3VG 181 53.6~/0 39.80% 6.600A 97.02 72.04 11.95 DREdM CA TC//ER 403 53,6(P/0 39,800/0 6.60°/0 216.0I 160.39 26.60 ~TER[ORDECOt~TiNG 159 53,60% 39.80% 6.60°/0 85.22 63.28 10.49 N, ~JRE gtALK (6) 0,0(}% 0.00% 0.00°/0 0.00 0.00 0.00 EY~LOP, ATORYLi~'7~RE [60 pdllVTING 5.756 53.60°/0 39.g0% 6.60°/0 3,08522 2.Z90.89 379.90 F~?,d~ 377 53.60% 39.80% 6.60°/0 202.07 150.05 24.88 YOGA 1347 53.6(PA 39.80% 6.60°/0 989.99 735.11 121.90 TOTAL Sp/3'T E/.AeqK~ 43,,544 23,655.10 17,689.83 2,903.08 51 RECRE41'ION CENTI~ pROGRAMS pL4 YG/~)UND p/~GR.z/M $2A8,296 99.22% 0.78% 0.00% $246.371.22 $1,924.78 $0.00 SUMI,IER/D PRGG~IM 15,605 94.30°4 5.7~ 0.00% 14,71606 888.94 0.00 C.4B/IRa'~ 4,561 85.00% 15.0~A 0.00% 3~/6.85 684.15 DRI~P-INP~DGRA3~ 274,418 95.00% 5.00% 0.0(PA 260,697.10 13,720.90 0.O0 ~3,11TH ~ ~E 66,306 95.00% 5.00% O.O0~A 62,9~0, 70 3.315.30 0.00 Bff~c~E~y.rOOMRENTX~ 97.~1 85.00~A 15.0~A O.O0~A 825.35 145.65 0.00 IEITXL REC CTR PROG'R.4M~ 610,157 3~I CE [.i'~IGE 8,629 25.00% 50.00% 25.~0% 2,157~5 4,314.50 2,157.25 KTDSON2Y-~BIXFC~ 7,958 55.18% 44.82% 0.00% 4~91.14 3,~.86 0.~ ~p~ 41,I11 ~.45% ~2.55% O.~A ~,616.~ 17,4~.~ 0.~ ~GE 3,5~ ~.~A 50.~A O.~A 1,791.~ I,~1.~ 0.~ ~PPR~ 14,8~ ~.71% 14.2~A 0.~A 1~758.57 ~1~.43 ~0~~ 6,0~ ~.~A ~.~A 0.~A 3,018.~ 3.018.~ 0.~ ~R~ 1~ 71.43% 28.~A 0.~A 857.14 ~Z~ 0.~ ~PR~S 19,481 ~.I~A 47.~% 14.~A 7,421.33 9~76.67 ~7~.~ PR~R~ 1~08 ~.~A ~.~A 0.~fi ~.~ ~.~ 0.~ ~ D~I~ 1,7~ 75.~A ~.~A O.~A 1,314.~ 438.~ ~~ 1,1~ 0.~A [~.~A 0.~A 0.~ 1,I~.~ 0.~ ~~PR~ 7,1~ ~.~A I9.~A 4.~A 5.4~.93 13~.71 ~OR~d~ 47~317 ~.I~A 31.~% 0.~A ~1.59 15.055A1 0.~ ~ ~PR~ 161,429 ~,~9.~ 5&581.98 3,~7.36 pAP, K~'~.~RF/CES SCHOOL GROUNDS M/iINI' 257,661 YZ~OT~E 199,521 G4FD~EYp/xT/'3 2~693 TOTAL p. dRKSSI~FIt~S 459,875 TOTAL PARI~ &REC SVC5 $~ I61,993 $472.136 $8,128 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: March 1996 Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: March 1996 Financial Report for the General and School Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White Messrs. Tucker Breeden, Waiters AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Attached is the March 31, 1996 Monthly Financial Report for the General and School Funds, Projected General Fund revenues were revised as of December 31, 1995. Total General Fund revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by $2,080,650. The projected increase is primarily due to higher than anticipated real estate tax, personal property tax, and interest revenue collections. Projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. The March 1996 School Financial Report was presented to the School Board on June 10, 1996. Projected School expenditures were revised in October to reflect the School Board 7.5% holdback policy. The holdback was released by the School Board April 22, 1996 and will be reflected on the April report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance of the March 1996 Financial Report. 96.107 0 Hi 0 0 I-- O000000000tOi iii Z ABG -FINANCIAL SERVICES, IN . · ~ ~0,0"~C~'?'1 ~o.~×8 ~,. A 410 879-9918 [i June 19. 1996 ~X410-838-5361L Ms. Arlene Hernandez 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. Hernandez: Enclosed please find copies of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the months of April and May 1996, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Project Monitor /shm enclosure cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Effective April 30, 1996 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AHG Associates, Inc. 300 E. Lc~dStree: Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE'. Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arbor Crest Apa~TentS Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983,- between the Industrial Development Authority o~ Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virgiala Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date shown below: 1) The number of units in the ?[oject occupied by lower income tenants is 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0- 3) The number of units rented and the number of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 50 · 4; The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof consti%u~e of the total number of units in the Project isZ~7o.. · 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof. 6} AS of the date hereof, the Purchaser is no~ in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions or in aa Agreement of Sale dated as cf April l, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of May 6, 1996 RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited pa£tne=ship Authorized Re'presentat~.ve EOl*ID' PfiOG~T FIF..POFIT Month April YM~ 1996 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road A~ts. ) Charlottesville, VA ~Ubm~ttd~ $¥; . Loretta ~yatt , , t LOWER The [oIlOw,n~[ u~Jt$ f%&',~ I;e~n de$*gnal4d &$ 'iow1; ~hcDme' und$ Pfo~t I: 051-35371 Numar O! Unit~ 66 ,M.a¥ 6, 1996 Effective 4/30/96 D4Te Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 16 1 a Arbor Crest Dr. 21 .Beverly T, Lane 41 2 6 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Wilma M. Atkinson 42 . 3 7 Arbor Crest Dr. 23 Florence Lee Carey 43 4 9 Arbor Crest Dr. ~4 Virginia Burton 4.4 5 12 Arbor Crest Dr, 2~ G. Robert Stone 6 14 Arbor Crest Dr 26_Betty L. Reed 7 18 Arbor Crest Dr 27 ~velyn Mandeville 47 6 30 Arbor Crest Dr 26.Mary Cox Allen 46 ' 9 44 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Sam Atherton 49. .. 10 56 Arbor Crest Dr 30 ~arlan W. Hooe 11 76 Arbor Crest Dr 31 ~nn G. Saylor 12. 78 Arbor Crest Dr 32 Ernest M. Nease ~ , 13 84 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Juanita Boliek. 14 90 Arbor Crest Dr 34 Betty B. Elliott I$ 94 Arbor Crest Dr 35 ~' Eileen Knick 55 ~ 106 Arbor Crest Dr 36 Katherine T, Nowlen f~ , , ~1 .... 37 ,, ~1. ~6 38 ,. ~9 -- 39 $9 20 ,, 40 60 M. 67... 71, 72 , t'3., 75. 76- 7;'. 3 . 13 7 . 17 8 $8 = 6 19 . 10 20 ,5 6 ?. 10, ,, II. 12.., 13., 14. 15. 16. 17. 16. 10. Effective May 31, 1996 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. Lc~d Saree= Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments -ArhorCres=Apartz~-n~s Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed Res=tic=ions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"}, and your bank, as trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarl~ Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"}, hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlot=esvllle, Virginia (the "Project"], =ha= as of =he date shown below: 1) The number of units in =he Pro,eot occupied by lower income tenants is 16 . The numDer of units in the Project unoccupied_%gd held available for Lower Income Tenants is . The number of units rented and-the number of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 50 4} The percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof oonstit~t~, of the total number of units in the Project isz~ . The information contained in =his report is true, accurate and cotter= as of the date hereof. 6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser Ks not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restric~ions or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the undersigned has signed 3une 6, 1996 this Repor~ as of RICHMOND-ALBEHARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited ~a~ne£shi~ A~horized Re~resenta~ive Monl~ May ¥~ 1996 Arbor Crest Apa?tments (Hydraulic Moa,cT, Apts. ) P~O~'*I #: Char~gttesville ' VA $~m~t~e~ ~y: Loretta Wyatt , 051-35371 66 N~mbe~ofOn~l.. June 6, 1996 Effective 5/31/96 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 16 I 4 Arbor Crest Dr_ 21 ~everly T. Lane 41 ,~. 2 6 Arbor Crest Dr_ 22 Wilma M. Atkinson 42., 3 7 A~bor Crest Dr_ 2:3 Florence L.Carey 4:3 . 4 _ 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton .. 5 _12 Arbor Crest Dr. 25 G. Robert;tone 6 14 Arbor Crest Dr ~6 Betty L. ~ed, ?/ 18 Arbor Crest DJ,. ~y Evelyn Mandeville $ ~30 Arbor Crest Dr 2$.~ry Cox Allen 45., 944 Ar~or Crest Dr 59 Sam Atherton ~056 Arbor Crest Dr ~0 Harlan W. Hooe I! 76 Arbor Crest Dr :3~ knn G. Saylor 12._ 78 Arbor Crest Dr :3~ Ernest M. Nease 1:3 _84 Arbor Crest Dr ~3 ,Juanita Bol~ek 14 90 Arbor Crest Dr- ~4 Betty B, Elliott ~$ 94 Arbor Crest,~r 35 M. Eileen Knick ~ 106 Arbor Crest D~ 35 Katherine T. Nowlen ~$ ? '37 ~7. ~ ,=, ~9 2-0 , 40 60 , 67, /'1 7:2 . ;'4. 76. 77. I ~1 , 1.. ~ 12 . :3 1:3 . , 4 .... 14, 4.. 6 . 16 , .. 6 17 18 8 9 lg %0 20 ~0..,. ,. 11, 12. ., 1:3. 14 ,. TS. 18 17. 1~. 20, J DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO~ESVILLE. ~911 ~ G. TUCKER June 28, 1996 REmDENTENGINEER Board of Supervisors Meeting June 5, 1996 MS. Ella W Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: We offer the following commenEs regarding Eransportation mat5ers that were discussed aE the June 5, [996, Board meeting. o We have reiterated to Mr. D. R. Askew, Cuipeper '~[strict Administrator, the Board's :desi-re~Lo.~lnclude~he four.~l~nisg ,~f.~oute-~ ~ ~m~m the~I-64 ~nte~change to the proposed Route 20/7~2 Connector Road Monticello High School road) in the Primary Six.Year Plan. Please present ~his~, ~Dj.ec5 as a priority at the annual preallocation hearing which involves urban, przmary and interstate projects. o The potholes along Route 240 a5 Ehe railroad underpass in Crozet have been patched. The pavemenn along this section of Route 240 will be paved this summer. o The low shoulder on Park Road Route 1204 has been repaired. o The following is a list of new guardrail locations planned for installation in fiscal year 96-97: Route Length Location Route 29 NBL 225' 0.1 miles north Route 643 ~Polo Grounds Road Route 29 SBL 675' Rt 643 Polo Grounds Road) Route 29 SBL 4500' from Rt 250 bus to Route 29 bus Route 29 NBL 525' 0.1 mile north Route 29 bus Routers250 W~ 1050~ Route 29~overpa~ R~ute;250< W "~: ~ ~:525' :'.3hz 0~6 mi~e~wes~oui~e 8D.9 (Deer Path ~Q~) Route 250 W 250' 0.2 miles west Route 682 ~Broad Axe Road TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY MS. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Meeting June 5, 1996 Page 2 June 28, 1996 Route Length Route 29/250 2125' Route 29 SBL 550' Route 29 SBL 750' Route 250 E 1675' Route 250 W 3015' Route 250 W 765' Route 810 1275' Whitehall Road Route 810 4500' Whitehall Road Route 854 425' Location Ramps 0.2~miles south Greene County line Route 763 ,Dickerson Lane; Route 731 Keswick Road Route 738 (Morgannown Road, Route 676 ,Owensville Road) 0.25 miles south Route 674 (Sugar Ridge Road) Route 674 (Sugar Ridge Road) 0.3 miles south Route 29 'Carrsbrook Drive o Resident on Roune 20 has been contacted regarding installation of right of way no allow grazing, fencing on o Pavement markings ("puppy tracks~' will be placed for turning movemenns an the Route 29/649 intersection this summer. o Trees/brush along the edge of pavemen5 on Burnley Station Road iRoute 641) are being reviewed for removal, priority given no safety. o Route 676 Owensville Road will be paved this season between Routes 743 and 660 (2.44 miles. If you have any questions regarding the above zssues, discuss these an the July 3rd Board meeting. Sincerely, I will be available no AGY/smk COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804 296-5~3 FAX (8041 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~ DATE: June 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Reading List for July 3, 1996 April 5, 1995 - pages 1 - 12(Item ~ll) - Mr. Martin June 5, 1996~em $7a) - Mr. Sdwer~ ~ ~7a) - 29 - Mrs. Humphris~ EWC: mms Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296-5843 FAX (804,296-5800 July 9, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F, Perkins $a1¥ H. Thomas Ms. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VdoT Way Charlottesville, VA 229}1 Dear Ms. Tucker: At ks meeting on luly 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution endorsing VdoT's recommended improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive). This endorsement includes the construction of sidewalks on the east side of Route 631. Attached is a copy of the adopted resolution. /EWC Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk Attachment cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg David Benish Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLF_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Rio Road (Route 631) Widening, From Berkmar Drive to Hydraulic Road -- Sidewalk Construction AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: X BOARD CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Request by VDOT for Board action on proposed plans for the Widening ef Rio Road West (Route 631), including the consideration of constructing sidewalks on both sides of the Rio Road. . ATTACHMENTS. Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Citimberg, Benish . __REVIEWED BY BACKGROUND: / On May 1, 1996, the Board discussed public comments from the March 14~ 1996 Public Hearing ~n this project, and the comments and recommendations of VDOT and County staff (see Attachment A). At that meeting the Board deferred action on the proposed construction plans until further information regarding the need for, and feasibility of, constructing a sidewalk on the west side of road could be provided. VDOT has provided cost estimates for constructing an additional sidewalk enthe west/north side of Rio Road and the Hydraulic Road project (see Attachment BI. VDOT has indicated that the additional sidewalk will be expensive to construct and that there would be some damages to existing developments (loss of parldng) in order to build the sidewalk. The project would also be delayed by 3 to 6 months. DISCUSSION: Thestandards for road cor~ffuddon in the Land Use Plan recommend that walkways be provided on all arterial, collector, and local through reads in Development Areas, and that reads of four or more lanes have walkways on beth sides of the road to more safely accommodate pedestrians. Rio Road is proposed as a five-lane road. Based on this standard, staff recommended that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the mad. The proposed construction plan already includes sidewalks on the east/south side of the project (Urban Area side), as well as bike lanes on both sides of the road. In terms of other walkway improvements along Rio and Hydraulic Road: Rio Road, from Route 29 to Berkmar Drive, will have sidewalks on both sides of the road. Hydraulic Road, from Lambs Road to Rio Road. will have a sidewalk on the east side (Urban Area side). Itwas reviewed under previous road design standards of the Land Use Plan. This section of Rio Road establishes the boundary for the Urban Area. The area west of Rio from Woodburn to Hydraulic Road (the area adjacent to the proposed sidewalk) is recommended as Rural Area; therefore, no significant new development is anticipated. Existing development in this area consists of three businesses (Centel. Craig Builders, and Loew's Mechanical), one store (the Rock Store), five s'mgle-family detached homes and a mobile home park (14 units). While them exists some development which may generate pedestrian demands, staff does not see that construction of a sidewalk in this location as significant need, particularly given the cost considerations and impacts. The area from Woodburn Road to Berkmar Drive lies completely within the Urban Area. The side of the road in question consists of three office buildings/businesses, and three single family detached units which front the Road. Because it is located in a more intensively developed area that ceuEI also be subject to further development/redevelopment, this posen of Rio Road is seen as having a higher priority for sidewalk development. However, given the cost and impacts to existing uses from sidewalk development on the north side of Rio Read between Woodbum and Berkmar, staff opinion is that construction of sidewalks in this location are not essential at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisom endome VDOT's recommended improvements, which include the construction of sidewalks on the on the east side of Rio Road only, cc: Angela Tucker 96.122 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Route 631 Widening - From Route 743 to Route 29 suBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by VDOT for Board action on the proposed plans for the widening of Rio Road West (Route 631). AGENDA DATE: May 1,1996 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Benish, Cilimber~l . REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: VDOT held a public heanng on March 14, 1996 for the widening of Route 631 between Routes 743 and 29. This project is in the County's Six Year Secondary Plan as a major reconstruction and is scheduled to be completed March 1999. DISCUSSION: Attachment A lists the written public comments received at the public hearing. VDOT has responded to each public comment. Staff will categorically reply to each public and VDOT COmment. -(a),(c) Request for Signal and Turn lane at Four Seasons-Staff supports VDOt response to review this intersection to determine if signals are warranted. VDOT has particular guidelines that must be met to install signals. Bike Lanes-Staff supports VDOT's plan to install bike lanes. Both Rio Road west and Hydraulic Road are recommended for bike facilities in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bike Plan. Cross-Section-The original plans for Route 631 widening recommended a four-lane facility. However, VDOT's traffic projections indicate that a five-lane facility is needed to accommodate the number of turning movements anticipated due the existing development along the road. While staff recognizes that a five-lane roadway creates a very wide road corridor which is less attractive and more difficult for pedestrians to cross, in this particular case a fifth lane appears to be warranted due to the existing development in the area. (d) Request for Noise Barriers and Trees-Staff opinion is that this is more of a visual issue than a noise issue. Staff recommends that landscaping be provided where possible along the entire project corridor. Replacement of existing vegetation lost is encouraged..There is some quest[on as to how feasible and effective noise barriers would be along the road given the character of the proposed improvements. Additionally, staff recommends sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the road. This recommendation is consistent with the new standards for reads in the Proposed Land Use Plan which states that %valkways should be provided along all arterial, collector, and through local reads in the Urban Area. ," and that "for reads of four or more lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the road shall be provided to more safely accommodate pedestrians." RECOMMENDATION: _Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse VDOT's recommended improvements with the addition of sidewalks on the west side of the project. 96.081 cc: Angela Tucker, VDOT Report to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors April 15, 1996 Route 631 (Rio Road) Project 0631-002-185,C501 A location and design public hearing was held on March 14, 1996, for improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive), The hearing was attended by approximately 35 people. We received written comments from 12 people and there were no comments recorded by the court reporter. Of the 12 who commented, two agreed with the proposal as presented and one stated that no improvement was needed. Other comments we received are as follows: (a) I request for a tight mm lane into Four geasons {Route 1456) (b) 2 requests to build a 4-lane faoility with no bike lanes (c) 4 requests for a traffic signal at Four Seasons {Route 1456) (d) 5 requests for consideration of noise barriers or trees along portions of Rio Road VDOT has reviewed the above requests and offer the following: (a), (c) VDOT will review this intersection to determine if signals are warranted. This will also address the need for a right mm lane. (b) Projected traffic counts warrant a 5-lane ~oss section~ The bike lanes are recommended in the County's approved plan and qualify for construction. (d) There are no requirements in the environmental review for noise barriers, however the property owners will have the option of discussing screening and landscaping dining right of way negotiations, At~er reviewing the comments and recommendations~ VDOT is requesting a resolution from the Board adopting the location and design of Route 631 as presented at the public hearing. A. G. Tuoker Resident Engineer $~a?,h Fm"k Rtvanrm / HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT R/O ROAD (ROUTE 631) ALBE~IARLE COUIfTY PROJECT= 0651-00~-185.C-,501 tJI.$.INT. HYDRAUUC RD. [RTE. 745) TO=O.3ZI t. tl. N. INT. RTE. 29 LENGTH: 0,7~9 MILES S¢~E I , 0 1.0 Mile 2.0 Miles Vlr~oDepartme~tofTran~e,-;~ LOC~TION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATION The existing facility is a rolling two-lane paved road with approximately twenty two-feet or two eleven-foot lanes of existing pavement and two-foot shoulders. The entire length of this project is approximately 0.729 miles. The proposed improvements will provide five eleven-foot lanes and four-foot shared bike facility with curb and gutter and five-foot sidewalk with three-foot landing. A minimum width of 79 feet'of right of way along with construction easements will be acquired to accommodate the slopes where they exceed the proposed right of way. The height of fills or depth of cuts will dictate whether this easement is permanent or temporary. Ttb%FFIC In 1991, this section of Rio Road carried approximately 14,600 vehicles = per day. Five percent of the vehicles were trucks. Traffic is expected to increase to 27,200 vehicles per day by the year 2006. RIGHT OF NAY OR RELOCATION ~SSIST~NCE There are no buildings located within the construction limits of this project. However, construction features may require the relocation of two tenant occupant families. Any questions concerning right of way or relocation assistance should be directed to: Mr. J. W. Jenkins Culpeper District Right Of Way Manager Virginia Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 WRITTEN COMMENTS Maps, drawings, and other information are available for public review in the Department of Transportationts District office located'on Route 15 at 1601 Orange Road iBusiness) south of Route 3 in culpeper and in its Residency office located on Rte. 250 East at 701 VDOT WAY, Charlottesville VA. 22902. Pre-addressed comment sheets for written comments are available at this meeting. Written Comments to be made a Dart of the public hearing must be received within 10 days after the public hearing. Ms. Angela Tucker Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT WAY Charlottesville Virginia 22911 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER JUN 2,5 1996 COMMONWEALTH o[ VI r'- tNCA., (; ;,*,¢, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO~ESVILLE 22911 A.G. TUCKER June 25, 1996 RESIDENT ENGINEER Addition of Sidewalk 0631-002-185, C501 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: This is in reference to the Board of Supervisors' request for information regarding additional sidewalk alon~ the west side of Rio Road (section from the Rock Store to Berkmar to be widened under the above referenced project). Total cost for design changes, additional ri§hE of way and easements, plus construction is approximately $546~000. Impact to the Lerner proper~y, approximately 300' west of the intersection with Berkmar Drive, would involve damages no all parkin~ alon§ Rio Road an a COSt of approximately $200,000. We can terminate sidewalk construction at the western property line and therefore eliminate this impact/cost for a new total of $346,000. The county would be responsible for the construction costs of approximately $50,000. The advertisement date would be delayed approximately three no six months in order to revise plans and adjust fundinw. The following information is in reference to the Hydraulic Road project (0743-002-153, C502) currently under construction. Total cost for the design changes, additional right of way and easements, plus construction is approximately $571,000. Impact to the Rock Store would involve damages nc parkln~ and site circulation at a COSE of approximately 8176,000. We can terminate sidewalk construction about 200' east of the Hydraulic/Rio intersection end eliminate this impact~cost for a new total of $395,000. The counny would be responsible for the construction costs of approximately $58,000. Utilities would need to be readjusted at a cost of approximately $80,000. The time needed to revise plans and appraise and secure additional right of way and easements would not coordinate well with the current project pro~ress. Addition of sidewalk alon~ Hydraulic Road would occur under separate contract and should, therefore, be set up as a project within the Secondary Six Year Plan so that fundin~ can be allocated. TRANSPORTATION ROR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg 0631-002-185, C501 Addition of Sidewalk Page 2 June 25, 1996 I will be prepared to discuss these details at the Board meeting July 3. It is requested that a resolution be issued regarding the Board's support for ths Rio Road (0631-002-185, C501) project. AGT/smk Sincerely, cc: J. DePasquale r * OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ,~o '~,' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Route 631 W~denJng - From Route 743 to Route 29 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by VDOT for Board action on the proposed plans for the widening of Rio Road West (Route 631 ). STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker, Benish, Cilimber~l AGENDA DATE: May 1. 199§ ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: 9o. ofol,3gq INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes · REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ~ VDOT held a public hearing on March 14, 1996 for the widening of Route 631 between Routes 743 and 29. This project is in the County's Six Year Secondary Plan as a major reconstruction and is scheduled to be completed March 1999. DISCUSSION: Attachment A lists the wdtten public comments received at the public hearing. VDOT has responded to each public comment. Staff will categorically reply to each public and VDOT comment. (a),(c) Request for Signal and Turn lane at Four Seasons-Staff supports VDOt response to review this intersection to determine if signals are warranted. VDOT has particular guidelines that must be met to install signals. (b) Bike Lanes-Staff supports VDOT's plan to install bike lanes. Both Rio Road west and Hydraulic Road are recommended for bike facilities in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bike Plan. Cross-Section-The odginal plans for Route 631 widening recommended a four-lane facility· However, VDOT's traffic projections indicate that a five-lane facility is needed to accommodate the number of turning movements anticipated due the existing development along the road. While staff recognizes that a five-lane roadway creates a very wide read corridor which is less attractive and more difficult for pedestrians to cross, in this particular case a fifth lane appears to be warranted due to the existing development in the area. (d) Request for Noise Barriers and Trees-Staff opinion is that this is more of a visual issue than a noise issue. Staff recommends that landscaping be provided where possible along the entire prO.~ect corridor. Replacement of existing vegetation lost is encouraged There is some question as to how feasible and effective noise barriers would be along the mad given the character of the proposed improvements. Additionally, staff recommends sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the roao. This recommendation is consistent with the new standards for roads in the Proposed Land Use Plan which states that "wall(ways should be provided along all arterial, collector, and through local roads in the Urban Area...," and that "for roads of four or more lanes, sidewalks on both sides of the road shall be provided to more safely accommodate pedestrians." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors endorse VDOT's recommended improvements with the addition of sidewalks on the west side of the project. 96.081 cc: Angela Tucker, VDOT DAVID R, GEHR COMMISSIONER O RECEIVED APR 2 ~ 1996 COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRC4IN P ann[n9 Dept. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO~ESVILLE. 22911 ~ G. TUCKER RESIDENT ~INEER ~ 18, 1996 Mx-. V. Wayne Cilimberg Albemarle County planning 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Route 631 Project 0631-002-185,C501 Albemarle county Dear Mr. Cilimberg: Attached is a copy of our report to the Boazd of Supervisors outlining the details of the March 14, 1996, public hearing for the above project. We are requesting that this information be provided to the Board and that action be taken on this matter at the May meeting, ifposm'ble. Should you need additional information, please contact our office. Yours Truly, Gerald G. Utz Contract Administrator cc: Mr. IL I-[ Connock. Jr. w/attachment Mr. J. A. DePasquale w/attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT 'OF 'TRANSPORTATION .. LOCATION AND DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING RIO ROAD (ROUTE 631) ALBERMARLE COUNTY · FROM: 0.093 MI. S. INT. HYDRAULIC RD: (RTE. 743)~: TO: 0.321 MI. N. INT. RTE. 29 DATE MARCH 1996 : 14, TIME: 4:30 P.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M. PLACE: ,JACK ,JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATED ON ROUTE 657, WEST OF ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL -PROJECT NUMBER: 0631" 002 ~ 185, C-501 PROJECT HIGHWAY It, tPROVEt, tEIII' PROJECT RIO ROAD (ROUTE 631) ALSEI~ARLE COUtVTY PROJECT: 0651-00E-185.C-501 FR:O.09$ t, tI.S. IIfT. HYDRAUUC RD. (RTE. 745) T~O.3~.i MI. N. INT. RTE. ~9 LENGTH: 0.729 M/LES SCN. E I 0 1.0' M~e 2.0' ~les INTRODUCTION The purpose of this public hearing is to provide a formal public opportunity for persons, acting on their behalf or representing a group or governing body, to offer comments or submit written material for the record on the proposed project. Public hearings are beneficial to citizens and the Virginia Department of Transportation. They permit an exchange of information, ideas, and suggestions before final design features are approved. They permit the engineers to report on the facts developed in their studies and obtain citizen comments which offer help materially in determining the location and design details of p~oposed projects. PROJECT LOCATION AND PURPOSE This project is located in the northeastern portion of Albemarle County. The land adjacent to the project is primarily residential and commercial development with some agricultural property. The purpose of this project is to improve the horizontal and vertical alignment of Rio Road (Route 631) as well as widening the existing pavement width. This improvement is being constructed to carry current and anticipated traffic volumes. This project is currently identified in the Six-Year Improvement Plan for Albemarle County. LOCATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATION The existing facility is a rolling two-lane paved road with approximately twenty two-feet or two eleven-foot lanes of existing pavement and two-foot shoulders. The entire length of this project is approximately 0.?29 miles. The proposed improvements will provide five eleven-foot lanes and four-foot shared biks facility with curb and gutter and five-foot sidewalk with three-foot landing. A minimum width of 79 feet of right of way along with construction easements will be acquired to accommodate the slopes where they exceed the proposed right of way. The height of fills or depth of cuts will dictate whether this easement is permanent or temporary. TRAFFIC In 1991, this per day. Five percent increase to section of Rio Road carried approximately 14,600 vehicles of the vehicles were trucks. Traffic is expected to 27,200 vehicles per day by the year 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL In accordance with Federal regulations and technical guidance, a Categorical Exclusion was approved be the Federal Highway Administration for this project on September 26, 1994. This Categorical Exclusion was amended in November, 1995 when the project was modified from a four-lane facility to a five-lane facility to better meet the transportation needs of the area. During the development of the Categorical Exclusion, a noise study was prepared. Three residences within the project corridor will experience a noise level that approaches or meets the Noise Abatement Criteria for the design year under the build condition. One site, a mobile home, could be moved to lessen the noise levels. The other two residences will not benefit from any noise abatement m~asures. These Environmental Documents and the noise study are available for p~blic review. Through coordination with the federal, state, and local agencies, it has been determined that this project will not have any significant impacts to the environment, land use, or natural resources. ESTI~TED COST The construction of this project is expected to cost approximately $3,450,000, including financed with Federal The right of way and construction. Funds and State Funds. REI4~INING ACTIONS following steps remain before this project This project will be is constructed: 1. Review and evaluate comments received at the Public Hearing 2. A recommendation by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 3. Approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board 4. Acquisition of necessary right of way 5. Advertisement of Project RIGHT OF W~Y OR RELOCATION ~SSIST~NCE There are no buildings located within the construction limits of this project. However, construction features may require the relocation of two tenant occupant families. Any questions concerning right of way or relocation assistance should be directed to: Mr. J. W. Jenkins Culpeper District Right Of Way Manager Virginia Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 WRITTEN COMMENTS Maps, drawings, and other information are available for public review in the Department of Transportation~s District Office located on Route 15 at 1601 Orange Road (Business) south of Route 3 in Culpeper and in its Residency office located on Rte. 250 East at 701 VDOT WAY, Charlottesville VA. 22902. Pre-addressed comment sheets for written comments are available at this meeting. Written Conunents to be made a part of the public hearing must be received within 10 days after the public hearing. Ms. Angela Tucker Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT WAY Charlottesville Virginia 22911 I ,f I i STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT ~I{ANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14 (G)] (a) Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction: I declare that: I ~ a me~r of the following business, professi~, ~c~ation, or gro~p~ the m~ers of w~ch are affected by the tr~ction: (b) I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Dated: STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INT~KESTS ACT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT for Officers and Employees of Local Government [Section 2.1-639.14 (G) ] 1. Name: ~)/% ~ D ~, ~o ~-'~,f ~'~ 5. Nature of Personal Interest ~f~ted by Transaction: (a) I declare that: I am a member of the following business, profession, occupation, or group, the members of which are affected by the transaction: (b) I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the txlblic interest. Dated: RESOLUTION WHEREAS_ the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing on March 14. 1996, to consider the proposed improvements to Route 631 {Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydratflic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive ~ in Albemarle County (Proiect #0631-002-185 ,C501 ); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from twelve persons, although none of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing made any verbal statements; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. that the Board does hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. which includes the construction of sidewalks on the east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) only. Recorded vote: Motion by: Mr. Marshall. Seconded by: Mrs. Thomas. Ayes: Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. Nays: None. Absent: Mr. Martin. I. Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supermsors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on July 3. 1996. erk. Board Ill Virginia Department of Transportation Telephone (804) 293-0011 Charlo~~e ~ncy FAX (804) 979-3759 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Phone; FAX Number COMMENTS: FAX: (604) 979-3759 Number of pages: ,~ ... (including Transmittal Sheet) If yoy have any problems receiving this Information, please call VDOT at (804) 293-0011 R. ESOLUTION WHEIt.EAS, the Virginia Department of Tran~portagon held a Locatioo and Desik,n~ Public l-leafing on Man:ti 1'!, 1996, t.o con~ider tile proposed improvements lo Koute 6.'31 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (lterkmar Drive) in Albemarle County (Proiec~. #0631-002-185,C501 ); and WI-tF. ILEAS, written comments were recei;~d from twelve person~, although none of the citizens in attendance at tt-;~ public he,ring made any verbal slmemem..~; NOW, THEtLEFOKE, BE IT KESOI.VED by tt~e Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Viri!n. ia, that th~ Board does hereby endorse the project, as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation: wi,ich includes thc construction of sidewalks on ~he east skte of Route 63t (Rio Road) only. _J 1, Ell~ W. Catty, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a lrue, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Super~sors of Albemarle Ceunty, Vir~.,in~a~ at a regular meeting held on luly 3~ 1996. C~r. rk, BoaM of County ~)~sors RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereafter, "County") opposes the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass (hereafter, "Bypass") because of (1) the imminent risks the interchange would create for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; (2) the undesirable pressure for residential development it would cause in the watershed; (3) the undesirable pressure for commerdal development itwonld cause in locations which conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; and (4) the negative traffic consequences it would cause for local traffic; and WHEREAS, the County recognizes the significant impact construction of the Bypass will impose on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the County desires to minimize the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision to the greatest extent possible consistent with the protection of the drinking water reservoir and the greater public interests; and WHEREAS, the County bdieves that the best alternative identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation to minimize the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision is the alignment for the Bypass which includes only the southern portion of the subdivision and for which, under an advance fight of way plan, five lots in the subdivision have already been purchased. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation finalize and confirm an alignment for the Route 29 Bypass which includes fight of way which impacts only the most southern portion of the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision so as to provide the least possible impact on that subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reconfirms its opposition to the construction of an interchange at Hydrauiic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass and steadfastly opposes the acquisition of any right of way for the purpose of future construction of such an interchange. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of five to zero on July 3, 1996. ~Ei~JrkTBoard of County~/dpervisors BYPASS.29 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing on March 14, 1996, to consider the proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berlwnar Drive) in Albemarle County (Project #0631-002-185,C501 ); and WHEREAS, written comments were received from twelve persons, although none of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing made any verbal statements; NOW, q2-IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation, which includes the construction of sidewalks on the east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) only. I, Hla W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting hdd on July 3, 1996. of County SupeI RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a Location and Design Public Hearing on March 14, 1996. to consider the proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive) in Albemarle County (Project #0631-002-185,C501 ); and WHE~. written comments were received from twelve persons, although none of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing made any verbal statements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation, which includes the construction of sidewalks on the east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) only. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on luly 3. 1996. ~d of Coun~i Su~sors FACSIMILE COVER SI-IEET TO: PHONE NO.: FAX. NO.: FROM: FAX. l%mber of plg¢o, ladudln~ cover sheet:~.~ . Mr. Browd~r: r~~ to ~ fi~ of way ~r 10 ~ ~ ~ p~ f~ d~l~ ~m ~ ~ w~ ~d ~v~y ~ the Ci~'s believe it world l;e helpful toe botlt City mad County MPO membe's to discusa this issue with you. In pscticul=, we would like to know: the ~ ~udy ~t~ was ~ to ~ero~ would bo 12v~t in the bypass uales$ requested by the Board of Ifa re0ommendadon to purcha~ fight ofway ia made, what would be the process for the C_.ounty, the tho public to comment upoo thb r~r, ommm~fion? W~t would ~ th~ effect of tho~e coO~z~M$? ~ would make the ~tl clecisJon vegar(t~ $uch a recom~ondation? We would aMx~:h~ t~ opportunity to ~ ~s ~ ~ you ~ y~ s~at ~ rage i~ thc d~ COMMON'WEALTH o[ VIRQINIA J~ 21, 1996 · . O, BOX 1505 ~herlotCe~ville, Virginia 22~02 Thank you for l, our letter of June 14, 1996 concerning the nform~=ion so you unde Deparcment,s pO~itiO~ on this issue. ¢Onsultan~ ~irm o~ Parmons Brinekerhoff O~ade and Douglas co provide complete ~reliminazy engineerin~ ~ervices =o the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the Rou~e 29 for ~he corridor. AIDema=le county ~oard o~ ~rv!eors in~ormabion regarding traffic pro~ectione ~or the ~ouce 29 ~ypass, as well as traffic and one ac Hydraulic Roa~. Their analysis !dentifi~d ~he future need foT an interohmn~e a= ~ in~erse¢=ion of Hvdraulic Road and =ne R~u=e 2~ B~aSS. ~umphrl$ layout ~hac would a~commmda=e th? pro,cC=ed =raffic for this l~a~%on an~ u~il~ze ~e north s~e ~f Hydra~lic Read, ~h_hu~ e continue co keep that ¢~mmitme~t ~o the County. The Department, however, ia also aware that in the future, · as not tO ~reclude the option of construction interuhan~e wxth ~ydrauli= Road in =he future, when and if for ~he d~sign o~ ~he mainl£~e ~YP&ss in a manner that i~ woul~ a¢¢ow~oda:e a ~u=ure in~e=chen~e from a righ~ cf way perspective. ~iqh= of way reTuire~ for the future i~terchan~e. This would allow ~DOT =o work wi=h ~he affected prope~=¥ ~ners, a~d n~t hay. them ~emain in a ~a~e o~ uncer~aint~ for F~ TJF~C Mr{. Charlotte ¥. Page 3 Xf [he County and the M~ are in disagreemen= with =he De~ar=men~s cause of ac=Ion on ~hie ma==er, please ~o~i~y me in wri=in~ wxUhin ~he nax~ 2 weeks. I assure you VDOT is willing ~. work Wi=h the County, ~he MPO an~ tha reside=~e of Albemarle ~in~ereIy, OOhief ~ngineer g COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: US Rte. 250 W Scenic Highway Provisions SUBJECT/PROPOSAI. JREQUEST:. Analysis for reinstatement of scenic highway regulations STAFF CONTACT(B): Citimberg, Joseph, Keeler AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBEP'- INFORMATION: X ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: At its May 17 meeting, the Board of Supervisors requested a study of possible reinstitution of Scenic Highways zoning provisions on US Rte. 250 W. .DISCUSSION: The Scenic Highway zoning regulations were effective in sign control, which ultimately resulted in State designation as a Scenic Byway. The setback regulafionswere not effective. Ofthe 30 setback varl~nces reviewed bythe BZA (along all scenic roads), 28 were granted. Following adoption of the Entrance Corridor zoning regulations, establishment of the Architectural Review Board and adoption of new signege regulations, the Scenic Highway prov~ons were repealed. RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Review Beard met on June '~7, 1996 to discuss amending the zoning ordinance to redesignate Scenic Highways by requiring a separate set ofdesign standards. The ARB preferred to leave the design standards in their generic form with a sensitivity in determining the application of the guidelines that will recognize the contextual nature of the properties under rewew (For example, the rural area might be considered differently than the urban areas). The ARB made no recommendation for an increased setback in this area. There has been no demonstrated situation in which the current Entrance Corridor provisions have not provided superior protection compared to the regulations of the Scenic Highways provisions. The Architectural Review Board has broad powers which exceed those of the Planning CommLssion in site plan review. Staff has identified no area in which ARB powers of review are inadequate for its intended purpose. OPTIONS: The Board requested options to the current regulations: 1. Add Scenic setbacks and sign regulations to EC zoning text; 2. Repeal EC designation of Rte. 250 W and readopt Scenic Highways zoning district; 3. Increase setback to 75 feet along entire length of Rte. 250 W (i.e.-require Rural Areas setback for all zoning districts). SCENICSU.WPD 96.119 BACKGROUND: SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROVISIONS Prior to construction ofi-64, US Route 250 W was a major east-west route as well as the primary link between Charlottesville and the southern end of the Skyline Drive. As such, the roadway was developed with highway oriented businesses (motels, restaurants, gasoline service stations, coumry stores, fruit stands, gift/craft/antique shops) m a greater extent than other County roadways. Billboard s~gus were also prevalent along the road, particularly close to the City. With the advent of zoning, ciftzen groups sought regulatory controls along the roadway to, among other things, make the road eligible for state designation as a Virginia Scenic Byway. Two major impediments to state designation were the proliferation of billboards and lack of local corridor controls. Through dedicated efforts of the citizen groups, the Scenic Highways Overlay zoning district was adopted in 1976. The primary regulatory aspects of the Scenic highways ordinance were: a) sign regulation; and b) increased building/parking se*backs. These regulations were amended over the years, therefore, not all of the provisions in the following analysis were in effect at once: Signs: Generally, s~gns allowed in the district were smaller, fewer, and otherwise more restricted than allowed in the tmderlying zoning districts. Some types of signs were not permitted (i.e.- roof signs). The ordinance also regulated design features such as color and setback and required design approval by Planning for individual signs. Many signs were made nonconforming with implementation of the ordinance, and through amortization of these signs, Rte. 250 W eventually became eligible for State designation. Therefore the ordinance was effective as to its purpose to restore scenic qualities related to siguage in order to obtain Virginia Scenic Byway designation. Setbacks: At time of development of the Scenic Highway provisions, other localities were addressing roadway aesthetics by such measures as increased setback to create a 'corridor' effect. Albemarle's ordinance required a 50-foot parking and signage setback and a 150-foot building setback from the road right-of-way. While the Board of Zoning Appeals heard 5 variances to s~gn regulations, the BZA entertained 30 variances to setback regulations and approved 28 of the requests (These actions were along all County scenic highways. Mapping of variances along Rte. 250 W will be presented at the Board meeting). Section 34.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, derived f~om the Code of Virginia, states that: No variance shall be authorized unless the board of zoning appeals finds that the condition or situation of the property concerned or the intended use of the property is not of so recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation ora general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.~ ~ While this language applies to the BZA, similar experience with private road waivers led to amendment to restrict the circttmstances under which waiver could be granted. The Commission had concluded that waivers had been so mtmerous that the "ordinance" did not exist in practice. Also, in analysis of mobile homes by special use permit, staffobserved that so few permits had been denied that continued special use permit review appeared unwarranted. Based on this provision, it was evident that amendment to the regulations was warranted. While mnendments were made which allowed the Planning Commission to reduce setback under certain circumstances, ~he BZA continued to grant variances. Therefore, the ordinance was not ~/iewed as effective in regard to setback. While the Scenic Highways Overlay zoning district provided effective regulation of signs, setback provisions were not as effective. During the period before repeal, it was also observed that even if effective, the regulations were of questionable aesthetic value in that there were no controls over building design within the district. Also. sign regulations were effective only within the district (i.e.- a depth oflS0 fee0. There was recognition that the County should have an architectural review board. DEVELOPMENT OF ENTRANCE CORRIDOR (ECl OVERLAY ZONE When directed to develop Entrance Corridor zoning regulations, staffinitially recommended that the regulations be accompanied by an historic zoning district. Also it was recommended that an architectural review board be created and tasked with developing design gnidelines for each of the individual Entrance Corridor roadways before being given review authority. In the interim, standardized measures were to be implemented by the Planning Commission (i.e.-additional landscaping; increased setback) along with carry-over sign controls from the Scenic Highways prowsions. This approach was rejected as being ineffective as to aesthetic concerns and the staff was directed to develop more permanent provisions. Following extensive work sessions and public hearings, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Entrance Corridor Overlay zoning district and created the Architectural Review Board in November, 1990. In July, 1992, new sign regulations, developed by Zoning with extensive public participation, were adopted. These regulations prohibit 'billboards' throughout the County (Section 4.15.6 m.). While the size and number of signs permitted within the EC district is the same as for the underlying zone, a certificate of appropriateness if required from the ARB. The ARB deals with such matters as materials, colors, lighting and the like in a manner similar to building review. Also in 1992, Zoning and Planning undertook wholesale review of the zoning ordinance which resulted in amendments intended primarily: '~to address lingering issues identified by the Commission and Board; to improve codified language as to interpretation; to npdate the ordinance m current Code of Virginia provisions; andto modify or delete outmoded provisions." The Entrance Corridor prowsions and Architectural Review Board had been in existence for about two years and had established a review history. The Scenic Highways provisions had been identified as ineffective during original Entrance Corridor consideration. In recommending deletion of Scenic Highway prowsions, staff stated that: Staff opinion is that the EC, Entrance Corridor district (30.6) provides superior protection to the Scenic Highways provisions, therefore, the Scenic Highways provisions are no longer needed (All Scenic Highways have been 2 designated with EC zoning). The only Scenic Highways requirement which could not be required under EC regulation is a mandatory 150-foot setback for single-family detached dwellings [because the EC district does not regulate single-family dwellings]. The Planning staff prepared an interim ordinance for Entrance Corridor protection which relied on such measures as increased setback and more vigorous landscaping requirements. During development of the Entrance Corridor provisions, the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission were presented with comment from citizen groups and the development community alike that measures such as increased setback would not satisfy aesthetic concerns. The interim ordinance was abandoned in favor of immediate exercise of review by an Architectural Review Board. While Scenic Highways setbacks were carried over to early ordinance provisions, the Scenic Highways provisions were repealed as ineffective and having been replaced by superior provision. A new sign ordinance also replaced special provisions contained in the original EC ordinance, RECOMMENDATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on June 17, 1996 to discuss amending the zoning ordinance to redesignate Scenic Highways by requiring a~ separate set of design standards. The Design Planner had prepared several design standards for discussion. The Design Planner's propsals and minutes of the ARB meeting are Attachment A. The ARB preferred to leave the design guidelines in their generic form with a sensitivity in determining the application of the guidelines that will recognize thc contextual nature of thc properties under review (For example, the rural area might be considered differently than the urban areas). The ARB made no recommendatio~ for an increased setback in this area. REINSTITUTION OF SCENIC HIGHWAYS ORDINANCE A zoning regulation should be effective as to its stated purpose, The mandatory 150-foot setback of the Scenic Highways provisions Ms been found as ineffective to its purpose. Likewise, as evidenced by variances, the setback was ineffective in application. Past Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors took action to repeal the regulations in favor of superior regulations. Neither the Scenic Highways regulations nor the Entrance Corridor regulations were intended to disallow development otherwise permitted "by right." Both regulations were intended to ensure development consistent with aesthetic matters and in that regard the Entrance Corridor provisions were judged as superior the Scenic Highway provisxons. There has been no demonstrated situation in which the current Entrance Corridor provisions have not provided superior protection compared to the regulations of the Scenic Highways provisions. Therefore, staffdocs not recommend amendment of the Entrance Corridor provisions to re-establish any mandatory setback or other such requirement. Under Section 30.6.4.1 the Architectural Review Board has authority to: "specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to: motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or regulations of section 32.0 [Site Plan] of this ordinance. These broad powers exceed those of the Planning Commission in site plan review, although the Commission is held superior in matters of public health and safety. Staff has identified no area in which ARB powers of review are inadequate for its intended purpose. [ATTACHI,.1EN'F AliI Discussion Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Designate Scenic Highways by Requiring a Separate Set of D/sign Standards Prior to 1992, rite Route 250W corridor was subject to reqnirements within the Scenic Highway Overlay District. The major aspect effecting these properties was a requirement of a 150' yard requirement (set back) for the building and 75' set back for the parking on the site. The setbacks were restrictive to development within this Overlay District. Because of this, many variances for relief from the set back reqmrements were applied for and granted within the Overlay District. Many of the variances granted requfl'ed specifications applied to the building design, layout and landscaping. These aspects of site design are currently reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The Zoning Ordinance and the State Code require a change to the Ordinance' if there is a request that is recurring and that a formulation ora general regulation should be adopted as an amendment to the Ordinance. The numerous variances that were granted along the Scenic Highway led staff to request a change to the Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors amended.the Zoning Ordinance to delete the Scenic Highway provisions in 1992. Because the Board of SupelMsors has requested information from staff concerning the deletion of this recommendation, staff suggests that the following regulations could be applied to any Scenic Highway within the Overlay District to differentiate the areas that are more rural in nature: 1) Require groupmg trees and shrubs into a more natm'al design, instead of requiring street trees aligning the rural roads. 2) Require major screening for parking areas. 3) Prohibit service m'eas to be located on the site visible fi'om the con'idor. 4) Prohibit the dumpster to be located on the site visible from the corridor. 5) Prohibit a satellite dish visible from the corridor. 6) Prohibit communication towers visible from the corridor. Scenic Highway Designation June 17, 1996 pagel 7) Require use of trees that are indigenous to the surrounding area. 8) Continue to require trees measuring 3 ½" caliper adjacent to the comdor. Requixe that the proposed building relate contextually with any surrounding historic buildings. If none exist, then the architecture should reflect historic structures within a mile radius. Set a scale or size of the buildings allowed visible from the corridor. This would keep the buildings small and discourage big box development along the corridors: Scenic Higf~way Destgnation June/Z ]996 page2 DRAFT MINUTES OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DATE: June 17, 1996 LOCATION: Meeting Room #241, Second County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia Floor BOARD MEMBERS: Diane Miller, Chairman Rudolph Beverly Vice-Chairman Tim Michel Timothy Lindstrom A Steve Runkle COUNTY REPRESENTATION: Marcia Joseph, Design Planner (An A after a name indicates their absence from the meeting.) I. CALL TO ORDER II. ESTABLISH A QUORUM A quorum was established, the meeting was convened at 3:00 III. WORK SESSION Scenic Setbacks Staff pointed out that Routes 250W 6, 20 and 151 were scenic routes which were included in the scenic highway overlay district. She handed ou~ copies of the previous Zoning Ordinance seccion. "Discussion Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Designate Scenic Highways by Requiring a Separate Set of Design Standards Prior to 1992, the Route 250W corridor was subject to requirements within the Scenic Highway Overlay District. The major aspect effecting these properties was a requirement of a 150' yard requirement (set back) for the bui-t~~e~ back for the parking on the site. ~-~V~ DRAFT The setbacks were restrictive to development within this Overlay District. Because of this, many variances for relief from the set back requirements were applied for and granted within the Overlay District. Many of the variances granted required specifications applied to the building design, layout and landscaping. These aspects of site design are currently reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The Zoning Ordinance and the State Code require a change to the Ordinance if there is a request that is recurring and that a formulation of a general regulation should be adopted as an amendment to the Ordinance. The numerous variances that were granted along the Scenic Highway led staff to request a change to the Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors amended the Zoning Ordinance to delete the Scenic Highway provisions in 1992. Because the Board of. Supervisors has requested information from staff concerning the deletion of this recommendation, staff suggests that the following regulations could be applied to any Scenic Highway within the Overlay District to differentiate the areas that are more rural in nature: 1) Require grouping trees and shrubs into a more natural design, instead of requiring street trees aligning the rural roads. 2) Require major screening for parking areas. 3) Prohibit service areas to be located on the site visible from the corridor. 4) Prohibit the dumpster to be located on the site visible from the corridor. 5) Prohibit a satellite dish visible from the corridor. 6) Prohibit communication towers visible from the corridor. 7) Require use of trees that are indigenous To the surrounding area. 8) Continue to require Trees measuring 3 ~" caliper adjacent to the corridor. 9) Require that the proposed building relate contextually with any surrounding historic buildings. If none exist, then the architecture should reflect historic ssruc~ures within a mile radius. Set a scale or size of the buildings allowed visible from the corridor. This would keep the buildings small and discourage big box development along the corridors." Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, was present to answer any questions concerning the scenic highway provisions. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, was present. Larry Davis, County Attorney, was present. Staff pointed out that the entrance corridor exempts single- family residence. Mr. Keeler pointed out that a group of citizens in the Crozet area had told the Board of Supervisors that they were unaware that the scenic highway provisions had been repealed. The Board of Supervisors asked for the history on why the provisions were repealed and what properties would be affected if reinstituted. While he did hOE attend the Board meeting, he believes the question is whether additional guidelines should be instituted for these scenic roads. Initially, the ARB reviewed creating different regulations for each road based on the historic sites along the road. The ARB adopted general guidelines which would give more flexibility to detail and design rather than corridor specific regulations. Mr. Michel felt a little highway provisions since of Zoning Appeals busy. vague about reinstating the scenic it would do little except keep the Board Mr. Runkle felt that regulations were more appropriate on a specific site, not on a certain highway. The generic guidelines should be viewed in relation 5o the character of the area and be consistently applied. Staff asked if the ARB would recommend reinstating the 150 foot setback. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that on a parcel with less than 150 feet of depth that the variance request could create some legal problems. In consensus, the ARB did not want to tie their hands with more restrictive regulations. Staff pointed out that currently they could do everything already except the prohibitions. Ms. Miller asked what the ultimate goal was in having more restrictions. Staff pointed out that a major requirement was screening for parking since currently they just tried to soften the effect of the parking. She pointed out that the scenic highway provision 3 could mitigate commercial uses in the rural areas. Mr. Michel questioned lighting in the rural areas. Mr. Davis pointed out that some uses on Route 250 are not nonconforming since the zoning is commercial and the use is a conforming use. He pointed out that there were some distinctions in urban commercial and rural commercial. Mr. Runkle pointed out that it was not this group's responsibility to determine whether the scenic provisions were allowed or not, since the ARB's responsibility is to enforce the guidelines equally. In summary, the ARB preferred to leave the design guidelines in their generic form with a sensitivity in determining the application of the guidelines that will recognize the contextual nature of the properties under review. (For example, the rural area might be considered differently than the urban areas.) The ARB made no recommendation for an increased setback in this area. IV. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes: April t, 1996 and April 29, 1996 (Note: April 15, 1996 for signature only) MOTION: Mr. Beverly moved for approval of the minutes of April 1 and April 29, 1996. SECONDED: Mr. Runkle seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously (4:0) approved. V. The Board (Recorded Secretary) NEW BUSINESS ADJOURI~q~ENT meeting was adjourned at 2:22 p.m. and Transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Administrative Respectfully Submitted, Diane Edgerton Miller, (i:A96Jun17.MIN) Chairman - A R G E S T B A S K E T [3 ] S P L ,~ Y I I~ V I R G I N A BASKETS - WICKER FURNITURE - GIFT SHOP CHAIR CANING - WICKER REPAIR & RESTORATION IN THS HEART OF HISTORIC VIRGINIA ON U.S. ROUTE ~50 ~IDWAY EE'J~VEEN ONA~LOTTESViLLE AND SKYLINE DRIV~ June 3, !996 'Z ? Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Department of Planning and Community Development County Office Building 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902-4595 Dear Wayne: I have read with interest that there is some effort being made to attempt to reinstate the ~"Scenic Highway" designation to Route 250 West. As you know i own property along this corridor, and an operating business. This property is in the Crozet Growth Area of the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned for commercial use. i have not been made aware of any meetings or discussions about this matter, and I would very much like to have you send me any memoranda or reports that have resulted from such meetlngs, as well as any Staff reports which exist or may be prepared in the future on this issue. Or0 if you would prefer that [ come to your office, where I could review any material that you have on hand regarding this matter, then please call me and let me know of a convenient time to do that. If possible i would hope that at that same time you would have a few minutes to discuss your knowledge and feelings about this matter. I would like to be advised of any public meetings or discussions that may be held in regard to this topic redesignation of Route 250, and ask to be included in any notification of such meetings so that I m!ght attend~ Thank you. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Yours. truly, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~n~ v^ ,-~ __.,~_,~,NT.~FALE~_~ARLE ~OARD OF SUPERVkSORS £X CUT V = SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CACY Commission Report on Child Care SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation and Discussion of the CACY Commission Child Care Report STAFF CONTACT(S): · Messrs. Tucker, White, AGENDA DATE: July 3, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS:) REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: Attached to a June 19th letter sent to each Board member from Dr. Chades H. Gleason, Chairman of the Steering Committee for CACY's Child Care Program Area Team, was "Cadng for Children~, a report on child care in the Albemarle and Charioffesville community. This report reflected the work of this group over the last several years to address the growing need for child care and its impact on the community. DISCUSSION: The report defines the basic elements or requirements of quality child care, examines local child care data and trends, and provides a summary of the available child care programs in the community. On the basis of their findings, the C.,ACY Commission concluded their report with three recommendations: 1) Create a Chartottesville/AIbemarle Child Care Council; 2) Support a community resource and referral service; 3) Make regulations for child care providers user friendly. The Steering Team would like to begin implementing these recommendations by working closely with the regional Welfare Reform group that will also be looking at affordable child care needs prior to the start of welfare reform in July, 1997. RECOMMENDATION: This report was provided to the Board for information only and does not require any action at this time. Dr. Chades Gleason will be at the Board meeting to present the report and answer any questions from the Board. 96.123 Choice It C..vle~o~, M,D. 1 $31 Yorktown C~lo~e, ~ J~ 19, ~ ~ ~ble C~l~e ~p~ C~ ~e C~ B~d of~u~ We ~e ~ ~e~ ~ p~ to ~ C~ F~ ~l~, ~ C~lo~es~e - ~b~le CMIdr~ ~d Youth Co~s~on Rein on C~Id C~. a CACY ~o~ion i~fiafive w~h ~ ~ a ~ty fo~ ~ April, 1993. M~y of~e p~s in tO ~ Ch~lou~lle ~d ~le ~ ~ a ~u~W where M~ qu~ day is a~i~le ~d ~ble to ~ ~ q~ emit ~ ~ be a key deter oft~ ~ss ofo~ approwh ~1~ rffo~ for ~e g~d cMld ~ w~d ~ the Iiklihaod ofwelf~ f~l~s ~ ~ t~ trmsi~on ~o ~ ~ ~ b~ ~d c~ wo~d have a n~tive t~ ~f~ ~ ~ork. ~e pw~gon of8o~ c~d c~e ~d pwve ~sg~us f~ the co~u~ by bw~ ~e a~ or,mm ~M ~jus~mt,, direly b~eid~ ~r those yo~ c~d~ w~ s~nd much of~e~ &y ~ ~e out,de ~e ~. We l~k fom~ to the o~ ~o ~e a ~ p~n~on to ~e ~e C~ ~o~d of Supe~ when ~ could ~ my questio~ you Charles H, (}lea~on, Chairman, Steering Commltte~ CACY Commission Cl~ld Care Progra~ Area Team "CARING FOR CHILDREN" The Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission Report on Child Care April 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction Project Findings Research Summary Accreditation Regulation Local Data and Trends Programs Available Recommendations Page 1 Page 2 Page 3-9 Page 3 Page 5 Page 6 Page 6 Page 8 Page 10-11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Child Care Report Steering Committee would like to acknowledge the CACY Child Care Program Area Team and the Subcommittees of the Child Care Action Project whose members have helped to gather information and offered sugges- tions during development of this report. Through these volunteers, all segments of the child care community were represented. Steering Committee members for this report are: Dr. Charles Gleason, Chair and former CACY Commission Member Malcolm Cole, Director, UVA Health Sciences Child Care Center Etta Legner, Director, St. Anne's Betfield Preschool and Kindergarten Jori Nafziger, Program Coordinator, United Way Child Care Scholarships Helen Reynolds, Early Childhood Consultant PREFACE I. Child Care Action Project Objectives Recognizing that improvements iQ child care will greatly enhance the quality of life for children and all people in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, the CACY Commission initiated the Child Care action project with the following objectives: To evaluate the current impact on children of care provided in the city and county in terms of quality, availability and affordability, through a study which would include all ages of children from infancy through middle school years. To draft a plan for bringing together citizens, businesses and governing bodies iQ a concerted effort to make Charlottesville ane Albemarle known as a community where good, affordable child care is available for all children. To make specific recommendations to the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors designed to create a new vision in caring for children. II. Organization of the Child Care Action Project On April 16, 1993, the CACY Commission, in partnership with Children, Youth and Family Services, hosted a community forum on caring for children. Out of the forum, a steering committee formed to initiate a community child care action plan. In this report, the Child Care Steering Committee has formulated a series of recommendations as the foundation of a community plan to improve the care our children receive. These recommendations are based on the work of subcommittees in evaluating programs, resources, and deficiencies n available child care, in addition to the [ol owing assumptions: 1. The City and the County have made a strong commitment to maximize existing and potentia resources for children and youth. 2. Although parents bear primary responsibility for meeting their children's developmental needs, a community effort to improve the availability of good child care will greatly improve children's chances of success. 3. Although the cost of safe, healthy, and educational care for all children may currently seem out of reach, its cost effectiveness will become evident as it translates into more productive working parents and less expenditures on social maladjustment. 4. Although the basic principles of good care apply to children of all ages, the developmental needs of infants, preschool and school age children are quite different and the standards of quality must be age appropriate. ~ CACY Commission Child Care Report ] April 1996 INTRODUCTION Among the basic goals of parents in raising children are: 1. keeping them safe, healthy, and happy; 2. instilling in them a set of values that will enable them to live in society as law-abiding, socially responsible citizens; 3. helping them develop the highest standards of performance possible in both educational achievement and social development; 4. preventing them from performing destructive or dangerous acts. As a community, we can help children reach these goals by focusing on a crucial element in many children's lives - good child care. This report reflects widespread community concern that children receive good care that meets their basic developmental needs. Recent studies in Virginia have shown that only a small percentage of children in care outside their homes receive the nurturing care they need. In spite of the consideration given to children by our local governing bodies, those findings also apply to Charlottesville and Albemarle. Good child care should not be a luxury. In this era of two-working and single parent families, our children's safety, health and happiness depend on good child care. Child care ~s a basic influence on many children, who may spend 8-9 hours a day in care outside the home. For infants and young children, care and education are intrinsically linked. Our c. hildre.n's future contributions to the commumty spring from their earliest experiences. Our children's future contributions to the community spring from their earliest experiences, particularly the first three years of life. Children's success in school and in adult life is grounded in their early care and the abilities of those who teach them. Many social ills result in part from the lack of good, affordable child care. reproved care for our children will result in both an improved future for them and long term savings for our community as the need for remedial and corrective services diminishes. This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Children and Youth Commission's multidisciplinary study of the needs of children in child care programs in our community. Strong agreement exists among service providers, community leaders and parents in need of help that our children will benefit from a concerted effort to improve local child care. CACY Commission C~ld Care Repon 2 April 1996 CHILD CARE ACTION PROJECT FINDINGS I. Research Summary The 1993 Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers (Cost, Quality, Outcomes) study confirmed what numerous other studies have reported - that the majority of child care in America is bad for children. This landmark study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team representing the University of California, the University of North Carolina, the University of Colorado and Yale University. Its data is taken from evaluations of 50 non-profit and 50 for-profit centers in each of the four states. Paren[ surveys at these centers revealed that parents valued the characteristics of good child care. Unfortunately, they consistently overestimated the quality of care their children were receiwng. In the very same centers, ~qO percent of parents rated the programs as very good while a team of trained observers indicated that the children received care of/ess-than-minimal quality. This disturbing finding points out that, for those unfamiliar with early childhood education, good child care is often difficult to assess. The study reported that programs which offer good care include: small groups of children cared for by each adult; · children taught by professionally educated teachers who understand child development and know how to work with children in groups; · planning and curriculum overseen by experienced administrators; · experienced staff due to the programs' ability to recruit and retain good staff; · measures to ensure high standards for children's safety, healthy development, and learning, including required public licensing and voluntary standards such as accreditation. Child care which is beneficial to children can be evaluated by examining a provider's staffing, programs, and setting, A. Staffing The relationship between a child and teacher-caregiver ~s crucial to that child's experience and development. Children need caregivers who exhibit traits such as personal warmth, corn pass.on, understanding, flexibility, enthusiasm, and a sense of humor. Providing children with a good program requires having teachers, administrators and other staff who not only exhibit many of these traits, but also understand child development and early childhood education. Children learn more from teachers with higher levels of education and training (Assessing School-Age Child Care Quality, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College, 1991). Trained and experienced staff provide cohesive, age appropriate programs that improve a children's learning and understanding of their world. They also understand the importance of involving parents in the program in meaningful ways. CACY Commission Ch/Id Care Report 3 April 1996 Young children need the stability that dependable and committed careg~vers can offer. Unfortunately, local and national sources estimate staff turnover of as much as 40% each year. To provide consistency for children and keep experienced professionals in child care careers, child care teachers should be given the same professional recognition as elementary school teach6 rs. According to the National Child Care Staffing Study (1989): 1."The education of child care teaching staff and the arrangement of their work environment are essential determinants of the quality of services children receive." 2."Th9 most important predictor of the quality of care children receive, among the adult work environment variables, is staff wages." This study rated the care given to children by most centers as barely adequate and found that the centers which provided the best care had the following features in common: *better educated and trained staff; ~more teachers caring for fewer children; *lower teacher staff turnover; *higher wages; *better adult work enwro nments. B. Program A program which helps children learn well doesn't just happen; it must be carefully planned. Children must have regular access to a variety of educational toys, games, ~uzzles, imaginative play materials, musical and art activities, books and outdoor play equipment. The program should encourage free play activities, plus a curriculum aimed at each child's particular stage of development. This is commonly referred to as a "developmentally appropriate" curriculum. C. Setting A child care [acility should be thought of as an extension of the child's home; it should be safe and healthy. The 1989 Virginia General Assembly Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission's re port on Regulation and Provision of Day Care in Virginia (JLARC study), revealed tragic situations that have occurred n unregulated child care settings. State and local regulations are designed to prevent such serious neglect or abuse. D. Quality and Cost The lowest cost care ~s for children cared for by relatives or family day care homes. According to the Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care from the Families and Work Institute, April 1993, the overall quality of such care is poor. However, good family child care does exist. This ~mportant resource for children and families needs further improvement and support. CACY Commission Child Care Report 4 April 1996 As with center-based child care, the keys to children receiving what they need are provider education, compensation and regulation. Good child care is costly. The high cost of providing child care, however, prevents many programs from meeting the standards necessary to meet children's needs. Many families cannot afford the true cost of good child care, and providers are forced to reduce costs to make the service affordable. The most common way to lower fees is to provide compensation to teachers wel below standards for their level of education and experience. While teachers underwrite the true cost of programs by working for Iow pay with no benefits, the ultimate loss is to the quality of care children receive. Substandard compensation leads directly To less experienced, less qualified staff and high staff turnover rates. The quality of care for children depends on improved teacher While teachers underwrite the true cost of programs by working for low pay with no benefits, the ultimate loss is to the quality of care children receive. salaries, which cannot be paid solely by parent fees. As stated in Compensation Initiatives Bulletin (January 1995), "A keystone of any revamped child care system will have to be an ability to break the link between what parents pay for child care...and what child care providers earn .... " ]-he Cost, Quality, Outcome study included a number of significant observations concerning the impact of economic decisions on the care children receive The first key finding was that centers which received extra resources were able to provide better care for children in the program. Second, if parents have difficulty evaluating quality, they are not likely to demand ~mprovement, thereby reducing the incentive for providers to offer good care. Third, the policies of agencies that help Iow-income families pay for child care frequently subsidize providers of good and bad care on an equal basis. If an agency's payments are not based on the quality of care a child receives, they contribute to the perpetuation of poor care. II. Accreditation Accreditation is an effective way to address the level of care that children receive. It is a voluntary process in which a program's staff and parents join with representatives of the accrediting body to determine if their program meets nationally recognized standards. National accreditation of early childhood programs benefits children, parents, and society by: * improwng the quality of child/staff interactions and curriculum; · increasing classroom learning through offering valuable professional development experience for teachers and directors; CACY Commission Child Care Report 5 April 1996 · assisting parents and contributors in evaluating the quality of care a program provides to children; · increasing staff retention through professional and public recognition for good early childhood teachers and programs. III. Regulation Child care ~n Virginia is regulated by a m~xture of required licensing, various local and state health, fire and building codes, local zoning ordinances, and voluntary registration or certification of family day care providers. Some programs are exempted from certain licensing regulations while still required to meet health and safety codes. Additionally, the Virginia Department of Education ~s charged with the regulation of child care programs sponsored by school districts. Regardless of the type of program, child care providers can face a difficult and confusing process in meeting regulatory requirements. Individuals attempting to provide regulated child care in our community must independently contact the various regulatory agencies and conform with their numerous requirements. These agencies procedures and codes are not well-coordinated and conflict in some instances. When individuals are discouraged from providing regulated child care because of these difficulties, the regulatory process becomes counter- productive to meeting its goal of ensuring a mimmum standard of health, safety and quality for children IV. Local Data and Trends One of the most disturbing trends n canng for children is the widening gap between the number of children needing care and the number of good quality licensed or certified child care spaces available. The 1989 JLARC study revealed that in Virginia there were no such spaces available for three out of every four children. The Cost, Quality, Outcomes study revealed that the gap continues to widen. Even with an increase in the number of licensed and certified providers, only a small percentage of children needing day care get the nurturing care they need. In 1990, there were an estimated 2900 children age five and under in Charlottesville, based on statistics from the Virginia Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood Programs and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. 670 of these children lived in poverty, representing 24% of city children age 0-5. In Albemarle County, there were some 5600 children in this age group. 610 children five and under lived in poverty, or 11% of county children age 0-5. There are also approximately 2,400 and 5,300 children age 6- 1. 1 in Charlottesville and Albemarle respectively, with comparable percentages living in poverty. Based on local surveys, the Virginia Department of Social Services has established local market rates as a maximum for their assistance payments. Local CACY Commission Ch/Id Care Report 6 April 1996 rates for preschoolers are ~85 per week in family day care homes and ~90-95 in centers. Infant care is even more costly, ranging from ~90 per week for home care to $110-120 for center programs. More recent information from the Child Care Resource and Referral Service indicates the current cost of care for children in our community is somewhat higher than those rates, particularly in centers. The mid-range of child care center charges is $130 for infants, $110 for toddlers and ~)95 for preschoolers. After school care for school age children ranges from $15-45 per week in family day care homes to $25-35 per week in centers. Good programs provide children with professional teachers, necessary program materials, appropriate class sizes and good staff/child ratios. A 1991 national study reported that when all parts of a program were directly funded, good care cost approximately $160 per week per child, or ,~8300 per year. This compares to recent statistics from the Charlottesville City Schools which have costs of ~7400 per child for a 9-10 month year. In 1996, a review of local programs A large gap exists between..?hat good care costs and what most fam hes can afford. found that, for up to 10 or more hours a day, 52 weeks per year, the child care center which comes closest to paying professional level salaries has true costs of $200 per week, or $10,400 per year. Of course, the actual budget of a program may include donations of space, materials, utilities, staff, etc. A General Accounting Office study (1991) reported that child care centers on average spent 65% of their budgets for personnel, 11% for rent/mortgage, 7% for food, 3% for educational materials and 14% for other expenses. Of the personnel costs, 74% went for teachers and aides, 13% for benefits and 13% for other salaries. Recent studies suggest that personnel costs of over 70% of total budget are likely needed to maintain a well-trained, experienced and stable staff to effectively meet the needs of children. Out of the 8,500 children age 0-5 who live in the City and the County, the Child Care Resource and Referral Service of CYFS suggests a conservative estimate of 70% or 6,000 children who need child care outside the home. No information ~s available on what percentage of these 6000 children need full-time care. If half of them require full-time care and the other half part-time, the total amount currently spent on child care in our community is an estimated ,~22,230,000. Using the 1990 figure of $160 per week, the true cost for good care for our community would be an estimated $37,440,000 annually. The 1996 local benchmark of $200 per week would require an estimated ~46,800,000 annually. None of these esumates includes after-school and summer care for school age children, CACY Commission Child Care Report 7 Aphl 1996 The Social Services standard for what the average family can afford to pay for child care is 10% of gross income. Obviously, a large gap exists between what good care costs and what most families can afford. For example, a single mother earning 815,000 per year could be expected to afford 8t,500 per year toward child care, well below even the current average cost of almost 85,000 per year for one child ($95 x 52 weeks). V. Programs Available 1. Child Care Centers: Child Care Centers are full-day programs designed to care for and enrich the lives of children from infancy until they are of school age. As of August 1995, there were 24 state licensed child care centers in the area, representing approximately 1800 full-time spaces for children. Five of these centers were also nationally accredited. The Salvation Army Child Care Center serves homeless children ages 2 to 13. In 1994, 167 children were served. 2. Day Care Homes: Family Day Care Homes provide part-day and full-day child care in home settings. In July 1995, 120 regulated family day care homes operated in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, representing approximately 300- 400 openings. In addition, there were approximately sixty unregulated family day care homes listed with the Child Care Resource and Referral Service. 3. Preschools: Preschool programs are part-day and are designed to enrich the lives of three, four and five year olds. In August 1995, 32 preschools operated in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, six of which were nationally accredited. 4. Public Four Year Old Programs: In 1995, the Charlottesville Public Schools program operated a part-day program (9:30-1:30) serving 80 city children. Federal Chapter monies pay for the majority of the program, therefore it must provide an educational opportunity for four year old children with learning needs. In 1994, Albemarle County served 34 children age 2-4 with special needs. Albemarle also has begun a four-year-old program for 16 children in the Stone Robinson School district. 5. Head Start: As of August 1995, Head Start operated six classrooms with a total of 116 children at five Charlottesville locations, two classrooms with 35 children in Albemarle County, as well as two home-based programs serwng predominantly the Charlottesville area. Head Start is a comprehensive child development program for three, four, and live year olds that includes a preschool experience (classroom or home-based), USDA nutrition program, health and developmental screenings, social and mental health services, active parent involvement and transportation. CACY Commission Child Care Report 8 April 1996 6. After-School Programs: After-school programs are provided by the city and county school systems and several day care centers. Such programs are designed to care for children ages 5 to 12 after school hours. In November 1994, seven K-6 city schools served 280 children, with an unknown number of children in private programs. In Albemarle County, there were 15 sites serving approximately 1000 children. Both the City and County programs offer scholarships/reduced rates as funds allow. 7. Child Care Support Services: A Children, Youth & Family Services offers child care related services which include: · recruiting, training and certifying [amily child care providers; · operating a child care resource and referral service for city and county residents and employees of city and county businesses; · conducting parenting courses at convenient sites; · providing ongoing educational and other support services; · administering the U.S.D.A. Child Care Nutrition program; · maintaining a close working relationship with the city and county social services, the juvenile court system, and statewide child care networks. B. The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program (CCS) provides scholarships to children of Iow income working families to promote good child care and help working parents maintain productive employment. On average, CCS assists 55 city and 40 county children age 0-5 and about 15 city and 10 county school age children per month. CCS coordinates its efforts with local social service departments, Children, Youth & Family Services, and area child care providers. As of February 1996, the program had a waiting list of 150 eligible children in the city and county. C. City and County Social Service Departments provide child care assistance to qualified Iow income families through programs for parents who are working or in education and training programs. On a monthly basis, the Charlottesville Department of Social Services offers assistance to about 180 children five and under and to about 108 school age children from Iow income families. The Albemarle Department of Social Services assists approximately 110-120 children five and under and 35-40 children who are school age per month. CACY Commission Child Care Report 9 April 1996 RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the findings of this report, the CACY Commission recommends to the citizens of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and their elected representatives, the following actions for making our community known for its strong commitment to canng for its children. 1. Create a Charlottesville/Albemarle Child Care Council to make good child care available and affordable to all children in the community who need care. The 1 6- 18 member Council would be composed of leaders from large and small businesses, local government and child care representatives committed to the education and nurture of our children. The Council's specific goals would be to: A. promote parent and community education about child care and the needs of children, including public recognition of good quality child care centers and day care homes; B. create incentives for improved care and support efforts to expand the local pool of qualified child care teachers; C. mobilize business and community support to meet the educational and developmental needs of children through employer-sponsored child care programs, benefit packages, support for existing programs and other initiatives; D. develop and implement a long range plan to improve the care our children receive and increase assistance for families who cannot afford good care by exploring and adapting innovative and successful funding strategies from other communities. The Council wou d determine the most effective and efficient organizational structure for its work in cooperation with other local groups. 2. Support a Community Resource and Referral Service for the Charlottesville and Albemarle community to: · Serve as an information/advisory resource on all issues regarding child care; · Provide specific information to families on how to choose and find good child care; · Assist businesses in finding good child care for their employees; · Offer a fact sheet of provider services and qualifications, including staff/ provider experience, education/training completed, teacher salary ranges, educational activities offered, child/adult ratios, hours, licensing and accreditation, etc; CACY Commission Child Care Report 10 April 1996 · Stress the value of accredited programs for preschool children; · Serve as a consultant and information resource for persons interested in developing child care services, upgrading the quality of their service through accreditation or training, or becoming a licensed home care provider; · Increase opportunities for training and education for child care providers in both centers and home care settings. 3. Make regulations for child care providers user friendly. One office/agency should coordinate all regulatory requirements for persons wishing to become regulated child care providers. Review and revise City and County zoning ordinances as necessary to be consistent with established zon ng guidelines and to conform with Virginia codes. The processing of special use permit applications and the information required should be consistent for both localities. CACY Commi~ion Ch/Id Care Report 11 April 1996 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors//// Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive/d~ -/ June 25, t996 / Barking Dogs The Board had requested that staff look at the issue of barking dogs based on several recent complaints from neighbors in the Hessian Hills area. As you might expect, the issue is handled very differently in the jurisdictions that have been researched to date and this information is presented for your review. In the City of Charlottesville, the harboring or keeping of any dog, which by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any person or neighborhood is classified as a Class IV misdemeanor. Enforcement in the City of Charlottesville is basically the responsibility of the landowner who is annoyed by such loud, frequent or habitual barking. The complainant is responsible for obta'ming a warrant and test'flying in General District Court as to the problem. A third conviction within one year of any offense involving the same dog puts the judge in the position to order the owner or custodian of the dog to remove it permanently from the eity within two weeks. In Spotsylvania County, it is unlawful for any person to allow within the county prolonged or intense barking or other harsh or excessive noises to be made by any animal under his ownership or control at any time so as to disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of one or more members of the community. The Spotsylvania ordinance, modeled after Prince Vfdliam and Stafford Counties, requires that the owner be put on notice by the county sheriWs department or the animal warden upon the complaint of two persons who are not members of the same household or one person if there are not two households within a defined distance of the property line of the noise source. A violation in Spotsylvania County is a Class III misdemeanor. This approach puts the enforcement entirely on the County. James City County deals with animals under their noise ordinance with a definition that indicates that the keeping of any animal which, by causing frequent or continued noise, shall disturb the comfort or repose of any person inthe vic'mity. Such violation is treated in the same fashion as loud exhausts, amplified loud speakers, hawkers and musical instruments and is punishable as a misdemeanor. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors June 25, 1996 RE: Barking Dogs Page 2 It is clear that a barking dog is often a situation that is more of a people problem than a dog problem. What often begins as a neighbor-to-neighbor feud unfortunately turns into criminal prosecution based on a barking dog ordinance necessarily involving the Animal Control staff and the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. The County Attorney's Office has cautioned that any attempt to restrict the application of a barking dog ordinance to particular geographic areas of the County needs to be suppmted by a very rational basis. Depending on that basis, an ordinance appr~cable by magisterial district, as is done in Spotsylvania County, may or may not be upheld. It is clear that drawing such lines by neighborhood, as is now done, for leaf burning and for our leash ordinance, will not solve many of the problems because the sound of a barking dog frequently transcends neighborhood lines, an example being the Hessian Hills situation. Enforcement of a barking dog ordinance in a large county is a concern. Staff is unable to project the number of calls which might be generated or the enforcement load which may be placed on our animal control officers and taw enforcement personnel. Whether the same roles and enforcement is reasonable in both suburban and rural neighborhoods is an issue. Staff continues to receive citizen inquiries as to when this topic wilt reach the discussion and/or public hearing phase with the Board of Supervisors. It is staff's recommendation that the Board discuss these options and consider if a separate worksession on this topic is needed. Specific topics that need to be addressed include: whether or not to put the entire enforcement responsibility on the offended party, as the City does, and leave county staff out of the enforcement arena (except for rote of Commonwealth's Attorney and the courts); whether due process dictates that the owner of an offending dog receive a notice before charges are brought; · whether such an ordinance should be county-wide; and whether the civil remedy under a nuisance action is sufficient if the County chooses to adopt a barking dog ordinance. RWT.lr/dbm 96.089 Attachment § 4-3? CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE Sec. 4-37. Same--Year and tax. ta; Dog licenses shah run from January 1 co December 31. inclusive, and the license ~ax, pay- able at the office of the city treasurer, shall be as follows: 1) For an unsexed female or male dog, three dollars ($3.00). (2) (3) For any dog not spayed or neutered, five dollars $5.00). For a kennel of twenty (20 dogs, twenty dollars ($20.00). (4) For a kennel of fifty (50) dogs, thirty-five dollars ($35.00]. (b) No license tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing impaired person. As used in this section, '%earing dog" means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond. (Code 1976, § 4-16) State law referenct~--Duty of city to impose license tax on ownership of dogs and provisions similar to subsection (b) above. Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.87. Sec. 4-38. Running at large. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to allow such dog to run at large, at any time, within the city, even though the dog is both lawfully licensed and vaccinated. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor; provided that, upon a fourth conviction within one (1) year of any offense under this section involving the same dog, the defendant shall be deemed guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1976, § 4-13) Cross reference--Penalty for Class 3 and 4 misdemean- ors, § I~11. State law reference--Authority for above section Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.13. Sec. 4-39. Dogs prohibited in certain busi- ness establishments; exceptionS. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to allow, cause or permit such dog to enter any grocery or food store, restauranT, ice cream parlor, soft drink parlor or retail store during the time ~hat such business establishments are open for public business. The provimons of this section shall not be construed to prohibit a blind, deaf or hearing impaired person accompanied by a guide dog or hearing dog. as defined by section 4-37(b). from taking such dog into any such business establishment. Code 1976, § 4-17) ;a t The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and qui.et of any person or neighborhood is hereby declared to be a nmsance and unlawful. (b) Any person annoyed by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling by a dog may enter a complaint by warrant returnable to the general district court, where the complaint shall be heard as all other complaints under criminal warrants are heard. Upon a finding by the judge that the dog involved is a loud, frequent or habitual barker or howler and causes annoyance and disturbs the peace and quiet of the complainant or neighbor- hood, the owner or custodian shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Upon a third conviction within one (1) year of any offense under this section involvir~g the same dog, in addition to imposing a fine for the violation, the judge shall order the owner or custodian of the dog to remove it permanently from the city ,~'ithin two (2) weeks. Should the owner or custodian fait to comply with such order, the dog shall be seized by the animal warden and humanely destroyed or placed for adoption outside of the city. tCode 1976, { 4-14 Cross references--Penalty for Class 4 misdemeanoc § 1-11; noise control. Ch. i6 Sec. 4-41. Leashes required for dogs in cer- tain areas. ta) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, dogs shall be kept on a leash and under control in Pen Park, including Meadow' Creek Golf Course; provided, however, that dogs in a sanctioned obedience or ~raming show. trial~ class, Supp. No. 10 278 Spotsylvania -- ANIMALS AND FOWL § 4-16 (b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the burial or cremation of the whole or portion of any animal or fowl which is to be used for food or in any commercial manner. (Code 1980. § 4-8; Ord. of 3-23-82(1): Ord. No. 4-2. 6-1-93: Ord. No. 4-6. 10-11-94x Cross references--Disposal of companion animals. § 4-25; dead animals not m be placed in green boxes, § 19-6. State law referenee--Similar provisions and authority for above sections, Code of Vir- ginia. § 18.2-510. Sec. 4-15. Restriction on sale of animal adopted from county animal pound. It shall be unlawful for any person who adopts an animal from the counw animal pound to sell such animal within a period of six (6) months from the time the animal is acquired from the pound. {Ord. No. 4-2, 6-t-93) (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to allow within the county prolonged or intense barking or other harsh or excessive noises to be made by any animal under his ownership or control, a~ any time, so as to disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of one (1) or more members of the community, provided, however, this section shall not apply to the Lee Hill District and those portions of the Berkeley and Livingston Districts which are located both south of the Norton Prong Creek and Po River. and outside subdivisions within the resort residential zoning district~ (b) For the purpose of this section, a harsh or excessive animal noise is one which disturbs the quiet, comfort or repose of a reasonable person with normal sensitivities. (c) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to have "allowed" his animal to bark or cream other harsh or excessive noises if he has once been put on notice by the county sheriffs department or the animal warden, upon the complaints of two (2) persons who are not members of the same household or upon the complaint of one (t) person if there are no more than two (2) households within seven hundred fifty (750) feet of the property line of the noise source, that the animal is disturbing one (1 ~ or more members of the community within seven hundred fifty (750) feet of the proper~y line of the noise source and he thereafter fails to confine such animal inside his dwelling unit or other enclosed structure or take other action to ~er- mina~e such disturbance. It shall not be necessary for the sheriffs department or animal warden to issue a new notice for each repeated occurrence. (d) Notwithstanding the above provisions of this section, harsh or excessive animal noise emanating from any commercml kennel established prior to the development of any residen- tial proper~y upon which such sounds may be audible, shall not be considered noises in vio- lation of this section. (e) A violation of this section shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanon (Ord. No. 4-2, 6-1-93; Ord. No. 4-4, 7-26~94) Supp. No. t9 197 13-20 OFFENSES--MISCELLANEOUS ~ 13 23 h) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, voluntar- ily and intentionally appear in public, or in a public place, or in a place open to the public or open to public view. m a state of nudity or so employ, encourage or procure another person ~o. so appear. ~c} Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to apply to the exhibition, presentation, showing or performance of any play, ballet, drama, tableau, production or motion picture in any theater, concert hall, museum of fine arts, school institution of higher learning or other similar establishment which is pri- marily devoted to such exhibitions, presentations_ shows or per- formances as a form of expression of opimon, communication speech, ideas, information, act or drama as .differentiated from commercial or business advertising, promotion or exploitation of nudity for the purpose of advertising, promotion, selling or serv- ing products or services or otherwise advancing the economic welfare of a commercial or business enterprise such as a hotel, motel, bar, nightclub/restaurant, tavern or dance hall. (Ord. No. 56A-2, $-13~84; Ord. No. 56A-4, 12-2-85) Editor's note--Ordinance No. 56A-2, adopted Aug. 13. 1984. amended Ch 13 by adding ~ new § 13-24.1. In order to better facilitate the inclusio5 of these provisions, and with ~he consent of the county, the editor has redesig~ated these provimons as a new § 13-19.1. I~ shall be unlawful for any person to, within the limits of the county~ make, continue or cause to he made or continued any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise or any noise on any premises of such a character as to either disturb~ injur~ or endanger the quiet, comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others; provided, that this section shall apply only to residential- zoned areas and all uses provided for in such a zoning classification. The following acts, among otaers, are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise in wolation of this section, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (a) Horns, szgnat~ng clev~ces, etc. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle, bicycle or other vehicle on any street or public place of the counw, except as a danger warning; the creation by means of any ~59 e 13-21 OFFENSES--MISCELLANEOUS ~ 18 22 ~g~ 14a~Jkers. The shoutin~and :rying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors, which disturbs the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. (h Musical ~str~*mer~ts. The use of any drums or other musi- cal instrument or device for the purpose of attracting at- tention by creation of noise to any performance, show or sale. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in an amount not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.OOL or be imprisoned in jail for a period not exceeding ten 10) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. 9-13-71: 4-t2-76 Sec. t3-21. Obstructing free passage of others. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons m any public place or on any private property open to the public to unreason- ably or unnecessarily obstruct the free passage of other persons to and from or within such public place or prorate property and to fail or refuse to cease such obstruction or move on when re- quested to do so by the owner or lessee or agent or employee of such owner or lessee or by a duly authorized law enibrcement officer: but nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit lawful picketing. (Ord. No. 56A-4. t2~2-85) State law reference--For similar state law. see Code of Va ~ 18.2 404 Sec. 13~22. Peeping Toms. tt shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the prop- erty of another, in the nigbttime, and secretly or furtively peep through or aztempt to so peep Etc. through, or spy through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature.occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclo sure be permanently situated or transportable and when )r not such occupancy be permanent or temporary. (1-9-61) State law reference--For similar state [aw see Code of Va ~ 18,2-130. Supp. No. 23 4-88 161 THIS AGREEMENT dated the __ day of ,1996, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County'~) and the EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INCORPORATED (hereinafter "East Rivauna"), a not- for-profit volunteer fire company organized pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-8, provides as follows: WHEREAS, the County is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of land containing 2.036 acres, being a portion of that property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 4 (the ~'Property"), and further designated as Parcel "Z" on plat of Key Incorporated Land Surveyors and Land Planners, revised April 20, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A", by deed dated ,1995, recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book , page; WHEREAS, the County has agreed to lease the Property to East Rivarma for parking purposes, and East Rivanna has submitted a site plan amendment for the purpose of constructing certain parking improvements at its sole cost and expense to the Property in consideration for the County agreeing to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and cOvenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the date written above, and shall continue in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. In addition, the County may cancel this Agreement for any reason, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice of such cancellation to East RiYanna~ 2. Ownership and Use. The County agrees to allow the Property to be used as a parking facility for East Rivarma vehicles at no cost to East Rivarma in consideration for East Rivarma constructing, at its sole cost and expense, certain improvements to the Property as set forth in the site plan amendment currently on file with the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development. All improvements to the Property shall be and remain the property of the County. Said improvements shall also be completed prior to the commencement of any parking activities Or other related use of the Property by East Rivanna. No further improvements to the Property will be constructed without the County's pri6r knowledge and consent. East Rivanna further agrees that it will not utilize the Property to store or possess any hazardous substances or materials of any k/nd. The parties also agree that the County and East Rivanna shall each be permitted to use the Property, as well as the existing parking area that currently serves East Rivanna, on a shared basis for parking and recreational purposes, as well as for emergency purposes as set forth in Section Three of this Agreement. 3. Operation and Maintenance. East Rivarma agrees that it will utilize the Property only for the purpose of parking its vehicles and the vehicles belonging to its personnel, its invitees and licensees. East Rivauna shall be responsible for all maintenance associated with the improvements to the Property. East Rivarma further agrees that it will obtain the prior written consent of the County and obtain all necessary County approvals before undertaking any alterations, further improvements or other changes to the Property. 2 East Rivarma agrees that the Property, as well as the existing fire facility, including all buildings and existing parking lot, may be utilized by the County on an emergency basis as well as for routine parking and recreational purposes as set forth in Section Two. Once utilized by the County on an emergency basis, or if used for recreational purposes, the Property, or portion thereof being utilized by the County, will be managed by County personnel. East Rivauna agrees to make the Property available to the County for use on an emergency basis within one (1) hour of notification by the County. In the event the Coanty utilizes the Property on an emergency basis, th/s Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless the County terminates the Agreement as provided hereunder. 4. Indemnification. East Rivanna hereby agrees to indemnify, protect and save the County harmless from all liability, obligations, losses, claims, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of, connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the Property by East P_ivanna and its agents, representatives, invitees or licensees during the term of this Agreement. East Rivauna agrees to maintain general liability and property damage insurance coverage in amounts acceptable to the County, and further agrees to add the County as an additional named insured to its liability and property damage insurance policies. East Rivanna will, at the commencement of this Agreement, provide the County with a certificate of insurance evidencing this addition. 5. Termination. At the termination of this Agreement, all improvements erected upon the Property shall revert and belong to the County and shall be flee t~om any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. In addition, at the termination of the original term (if any) of this Agreement, it shall not be renewed if the Property is required for any of~he purposes 3 enumerated in Virginia Code § 15.1-258. In the event ora breach of this Agreement by East Rivanna that is not remedied within ten (10) days after delivery of written notice of such breach, the County may terminate this Agreement by written notice to East Rivanna. 6. Public Hearing. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle at a public heating to be held in accordance vCith Virginia Code § 15.1-261.I. 7. Remedies. In the event o~'a dispute under this Agreement, the parties agree that the County is entitled to obtain an immediate injunction to obtain specific performance of the terms of this Agreement, and is entitled to all other remedies available under law and equity. Date - Ro~,ert W.Tucker, Jr, \ /,/ Cc~flnty Executive, Coun~ of Albemh(,le/// Date Approved as to form: East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Incorporated By Its: County Attorney 4 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/dC~'day of 1996, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Notary Public / My Commission Ex-ptres.~'~e,t ctO~/ff'~ ~ STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1996, by , authorized representative of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 5 COUNTY OF AIJBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: · DATE: RE: Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk-~0& July 11, 1996 Agreement - East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company At its meeting on July 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Executive to execute the attached agreement between the County of Albemarle and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc,, for property to be used by East Rivamaa for parking purposes. After the agreement has been signed by East Rivauna, please return the original to this office for our files. /ewc cc: Richard E. Huff, II AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of ,1996, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the "County") and the EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INCORPORATED (hereinafter "East Rivarma"), a not- for-profit volunteer fire company organized pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-8, provides as follows: WHEREAS, the County is the owner in fee simple ora certain parcel of land containing 2.036 acres, being a portion of that property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 4 (the "Property"), and further designated as Parcel "Z" on plat of Key Incorporated Land Surveyors and Land Planners, revised April 20. 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A", by deed dated _, 1995, recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book , page ; WHEREAS, the County has agreed to lease the Property to East Pdvanna for parking purposes, and East Rivanna has submitted a site plan amendment for the purpose of constructing certain parking improvements at its sole cost and expense to the Property in consideration for the CoUnty agreeing to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Term.. This Agreement shall become effective on the date written above, and shall continue in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, In addition, the County may cancel this Agreement for any reason, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice of such cancellation to East 2. Ownership and Use. The County agrees to allow the Property to be used as a parking facility for East Rivanna vehicles at no cost to East Rivarma in consideration for East Rivarma constructing, at its sole cost and expense, certain improvements to the Property. as set forth in the site plan amendment currently on file with the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development. All improvements to the Property shall be and remain the property of the County. Said improvements shall also be completed prior to the commencement of any parking activities or other related use of the Property by East Rivanna. No further improvements to the Property will be constructed without the County's prior knowledge and consent. East Rivanna further agrees that it will not utilize the Property to store or possess any hazardous substances or materials of any kind. The parties also agree that the County and East Rivanna shall each be permiued to use the Property, as well as the existing parking area that currently serves East Rivanna, on a shared basis for parking and recreational purposes, as well as for emergency purposes as set forth in Section Three of this Agreement. 3. Operation and Maintenance. East Rivanna agrees that it will utilize the Property only for the purpose of parking its vehicles and the vehicles belonging to its personnel, its invkees and licensees. East Rivanna shall be responsible for all maintenance associated with the hnprovements to the Property. East Rivanna further agrees that it will obtain the prior written consent of the County and obtain all necessary County approvals before undertaking any alterations, further improvements or other changes to the Property. 2 East Rivanna agrees that the Property, as well as the existing fire facility, including all buildings and existing parking lot, may be utilized by the County on an emergency basis as well as for routine parking and recreational purposes as set forth in Section Two. Once utilized by the County on an emergency basis, or if used for recreational purposes, the Property, or portion thereof being utilized by the County, will be managed by County personnel. East Rivarma agrees to make the Property available to the County for use on an emergency basis within one (1) hour of notification by the County. In the event the County utilizes the Property on an emergency basis, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless the County terminates the Agreement as provided hereunder. 4. Indemnification. East Rivanna hereby agrees to indemnify, protect and save the County harmless from all liability, obligations, losses, claims, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of, connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the Property by East Rivarma and its agents, representatives, inv~tees or licensees during the term of this Agreement. East Rivanna agrees to maintain general liability and property damage insurance coverage in amounts acceptable to the County, and further agrees to add the County as an additional named insured to its liability and property damage insurance policies. East Rivarma will, at the commencement of this Agreement, provide the County with a certificate of insurance evidencing this addition. 5. Termination. At the termination of this Agreement, all improvements erected upon the Property shall revert and belong ro the County and shall be free from any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. In addition, at the termination of the original term (if anYl of this Agreement, it shall not be renewed if the Property is required for any of the purposes 3 enumerated in Virginia Code § 15.1-258. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by East Rivauna that is not remedied within ten (10) days after delivery of written notice of such breach, the County may terminate this Agreement by written notice to East Rivanna. 6. Public Hearing. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle at a public hearing to be held in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.1-261.1. 7. Remedies. In the event of a dispute under this Agreement, the parties agree that the County is entitled to obtain an immediate injunct',un to obtain specific performance of the terms of this Agreement, and is entitled to all other remedies available trader law and equity. WITNESS the following signatures. Date Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive, County of Albemarle Date Approved as to form: East Rivauna Volunteer Fire Co., Incorporated By Its: County Attorney STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1996, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. day of My Commission Expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1996, by Fire Co., Inc. My CommissionExpkes: day of , authorized representative of the East Rivanna Volunteer Notary Public MAT96:erivanna.lsl 5 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of ~ 1996, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGiNIA (hereinafter the "County") and the EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRECO., iNCORPORATED (hereinafter "East Rivauna"), a not- for-profit volunteer fire company organized pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-8, provides as follows: WHEREAS, the County is the owner in fee simple of a certain parcel of land containing 2.036 acres, being a portion of that property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 4 (the "Property"), and further designated as Parcel "Z" on plat of Key Incorporated Land Surveyors and Land Planners, revised April 20, 1995, a copy of wtfich is attached hereto as "Exhibit A", by deed dated ., 1995, recorded in the Cterk~s Office for the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book , page ; WHEREAS, the County has agreed to lease the Property to East Rivarma for parking pUrPoses~ and East Rivanna has submitted a site plan amendment for the purpose of constructing certain parking improvements at its sole cost and expense to the Property in consideration for the County agreeing to enter into this Agreement~ NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants hereinal~er set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the date written above, and shall continue in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth here'm. In addition, the County may cancel this Agreement for any reason, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice of such cancellation to East Rivarma. 2. Ownership and Use. The County agrees to allow the Property to be used as a parking facility for East Rivauna vehicles at no cost to East Rivauna in consideration for East Rivanna constructing, at its sole cost and expense, certain improvements to the Property as set forth in the site plan amendment currently on file with the Albemarle County Department of Plamfing and Community Development. All improvements to the Property shall be and remain the property of the County. Said improvements shall also be completed prior to the commencement of any parking activities or other related use of the Property by East Riva/ma. No further improvements to the Property will be constructed without the County's prior knowledge and consent. East Rivanna further agrees that it will not utilize the Property to store or possess any hazardous substances or materials of any kind. The parties also agree that the County and East Rivmma shall each be permitted to use the Property, as well as the existing parking area that currently serves East Rivann& on a shared basis for parking and recreational purposes, as well as for emergency purposes as set forth in Section Three of this Agreement. Operation and Maintenance. East Rivarma agrees that it will utilize the Property only for the purpose of parking its vehicles and the vehicles belonging to its personnel, its invitees and licensees. East Riva/ma shall be responsible for all maintenance associated with the improvements to the Property. East Rivauna further agrees that it will obtain the prior written consent of the County and obtain all necessary County approvals before undertaking any alterations, further improvements or other changes to the Property. East Rivanna agrees that the Property, as well as the existing fire facility, including all buildings and existing parking lot, mag be utilized by the County on an emergency basis as well as for routine parking and recreational purposes as set forth in Section Two. Once utilized by the County on an emergency basis, or if used for recreational purposes, the Property, or portion thereof being utilized by the Connty, will be managed by County personnel. East Rivamm agrees to make the Property available to the County for use on an emergency basis within one (I) hour of notification by the County. In the event the County utilizes the Property on an emergency basis, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect an/ess the County terminates the Agreement as provided hereunder. 4. Indemnification. East Rivauna hereby agrees to indemnify, protect and save the County harmless from all liability, obligations, losses, claims, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of, connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the Property by East Riwnna and its agents. representatives, invitees or licensees during the term of this Agreement. East Rivanna agrees to maintain general liability and property damage insurance coverage in amounts acceptable to the County, and further agrees to add the County as an additional named insured to its liability and property damage insurance policies. East Rivanna will, at the commencement of this Agreement, provide the County with a certificate of insurance evidencing this addition. 5. Tem~ination. At the termination of this Agreement, all improvements erected upon the Property shall revert and belong to the County and shall be flee from any encumbrance at the time of such reversion. In addition, at the termination of the original term (if any) of this Agreement, it shall not be renewed if the Property is required for any of the purposes 3 enumerated in Virginia Code § 15.1-258. In the evem of a broach of this Agreement by East Rivanna that is not remedied within ten (10) days after delivery of ~witten notice of such breach, the County may terminate this Agreement by written notice to East Rivauna. Public Hearing. This Agreement is subject to and contingent upon the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle at a public hearing to be held in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.1-261.1. 7o Remedies. In the event of a dispute under this Agreement, the parties agree that the County is entitled to obtain an immediate injunction to obtain specific performance of the terms of this Agreement, and is entitled to all other remedies available under law and equity, WITNESS the following signatures. Date Date Approved as to form: East Rivarma Volunteer Fire Co., incorporated By Its: County Attorney 4 STATE OF V1RGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /~9~'day of ~/'.q 1996, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Notary Public ~/ My Commission Expires:)~/o~,~ ~,c --q~t/~2 ~ STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1996, by. , authorized representative of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: JULY EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT tO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( ) TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MA]-rERS CONCERNING APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THE REASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT With LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MA]-TERS RELATING TO REVERSION AND SPECIFIC LEGAL MAi I ERS RELATING TO A PUBLIC SAFETY AGREEMENT. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804 296-5843 FAX 1804) 296~5800 MEMORANDUM CharIes S. Martin Wa]ter F. Perkins Sally H. Thoma~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Cler~ June 28, 1996 Appointments to various Boards/Commissions/Committees COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: One vacancy as of June 30. 1996. Grace Carpenter is not eligible for reappointment. The new term will expire on June 30, 1999. Interviews have been scheduled for July 3. COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM (CPM~[3: One vacancy. The term of Cathy Bodkin expired on June 30, 1995. (We were just notified that her tern had expired and she is currently still serving.) She is eligible for another two-year term and wishes to be reappointed. The new term will expke on June 30, 1997. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Two vacancies as of June 30, 1996. Lois Brown is not eligible for reappoinmaant Jacquelyn Perry is eligible and has expressed a desire to be reappointed. The new terms will expire on June 30, 1999. Interviews have been scheduled for July 3. EOUALIZATION BOARD: One vacancy as of December 31, 1995 (Rivatma District). The new tarm wilI expire onDecember 3t, 1996. Clerk has advertised for applicafions. HOUSING COMMITTEE: One vacancy due to lack of attendance by Committee member. The unexpired term of this appointment is through December 3 i, 1996. Clerk has advertised for applications. JAiL AUTHORITY: The term of Mitcliell Neuman expired on May 22. 1996. He is eligible for another three year term. The new term will expire on May 22, 1999. JEFFERSON AREA BOARD ON AGING: One vacancy. John Plantz resigned. His unexpired term is through March 31, 1997. Clerk has advertised for applicatinns. LIBRARY BOARD: One vacancy as of June 30, 1996. Jerry E. Jones is eligible and has expressed a desire to be reappointed. The new term will expire on June 30, 2000. Printed on recycled paper Memo To: Board of Supervisom Date: June 28. 1996 Page 2. PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY: David Bass was appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals and resigned this position effective January 1, 1996, His unexpired term is through December 13, 1996. Ricardo Preve resigned effective October 25, 1995. His unexpired term is through December 13, 1997. Tim Michel's term expired on December 13, 1995; he does not wish to be reappointed. The new term will expire on December 13, 1998. Sherry Buttrick has also expressed an interest in serving on this committee. With the death of Mr. Agnor, we now have another vacancy, since he also served. Clerk has advertised for applications. RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY: The term ofF. A. Iachetta expired on May 1, 1996. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mr. Preston Coiner the joint City/County appointees term expired on May 1, 1996. RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY: The term ofF. A. Iachetta expires on May 1, 1996. ewc 12:30 p.m. INTERVIEWS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 3, 1996 Mr. ChristofN. Schubert Community College Board of Directors 12:40 p.m. Mr. Dwight T. Colley Community Services Board 1:00 p.m. Mr. RichardG. Piccolo ~ ~!, ' · - 'uthonty 1~.'10 p.m. Colonel J. E. Goodrich Commurtity College Board of Direct~ NOTICE TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Colonel J.E. Goodrich was previously scheduled for an interview for a position on the COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS at 1:10 p.m., on July 3rd. Colonel Goodrich called to say he was out of town, due to the birth of his grandchild, and was unable to keep this appointment. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas July 10, 1996 Mr. Dwight T. Colley 9881 Hatton Ferry Road Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Colley: At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were appointed to the Community Services Board with said term us expire on June 30, 1999D On behalf of the Board, I would like us take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness us serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH/aw cc: Mr. James R. Paterson, Executive Director Mr. James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 584a FAX I8041 296-5800 J~/le 26, 1996 Charles S. Martin RDanr~ Waiter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Dwight T. Colley 9881 Hatton Ferry Road Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Colley: This letter is Eo confirm that you have an interview scheduled with the Board of Supervisors on July 3, 1996, at 12:40 pom. regarding the Community Services Board. This interview will be held in the fourth floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at 296-5843. Sincerely, EWC/aw Ella W. Carey, Clerk Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle ~OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Bohrd of County Supervisors ."- 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee Commllnl ry gov'xri t'eg Board Applicant's Name l~,right T. Cnlley Home Phone (804~ 286-6348 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located sec t tsvil le Employer Virginia Department of Correct±OhS Phone (804)977-8888 DateofEmployment 12/01/95 Occupation/Title t~7-~Jo~ q ....... 4~nw- M~ne~l 14*:~lrh Years Resident in Albemarle County 6 mos. PrevionsResidence ~,'~,~ ~ .... ry, v~g~,i~ Spouse,sName.~K~berly W. Colley NumberofChildron two Education (Degrees and Gradoafion Dates) Doctor of Psychology (Psy. D.) - 1989 Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups 3cottsville United Methodist Church., Scottsville Lions Club, Scottsville Community Chamber Of Commerce Publi~ Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Acfi~fie~ or Intem~s Araerican Psychological Assn., La~ Enforcement Behavioral Sciences Assn~T~ast se~retary~treas., Society of Police & Criminal Psychologists, Virginia Correctional Psyehologi's'ts-Assn., C ...... Li~ ~f P~llca Psychologists Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Commil~e After 30 years in the law enforcement/mental health arena, I find this ~n~q~e hle~0~ng of segment of our communi',ty; the emoti'onglly dis-turbed turning crzhninal, Eas~n~ the plight of th~se troubled persons, ag. simts th~ enti~e comnmni'ty. My experience will as~i's~t the board in muetlng this challenge. The informa~on provided on this applica~on will be released to the public upon request. ~_,.j ,I ~J~-..~! ~ 04/16/96 Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of Connty Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Da, id P. Boatman Charlotte Y. Humphfis Forrest R. Marshall. Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (804} 296-5843 FAX (804,296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sallk H. Thomas July 10, 1996 MS. Jacquelyn C. Perry 2224 Commonwealth Drive, Apt. A Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms~ Perry: At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were reappointed to the Community Services Board with said term to expire on June 30, 1999. On behalf of the Board, I would like no take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman cc: Mr. James R, Peterson, Executive Director Mr. James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board af Supervisors 401 McI~ire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 March 19, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Ms. Jacquelyn C. Perry 2224 Commonwealth Drive, Apt. A Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Perry: This letter is to advise you that your term on the Community Services Board expires on June 30, 1996. According to the Board's policy, when an incumbent has served a full term, the position is to be advertised for the general public. However, since you are eligible to continue serving, you need only notify Angie Welch at 296-5843 if you wish to be considered. Your name would then be considered along with anyone else who applies. Please contact this office by April 19, 1996 as to your desire. If you do not contact this office by 5:00 p.m. on the posted date, we will assume that you do not wish to be considered for reappo'mtment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Welch. Sincerely, W. ~arey, EWC/len Pdnted on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesviile, Virginia 22902-4596 1'804) 296-5843 FAX 1'804/ 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas July 10, 1996 Mro Richard G Piccolo 439 Maple View Couru Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Piccolo: At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were appointed to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said term uo expire on December 13, 1998. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity no express the Board's appreciation for your willingness Eo serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Hur~phris Chairman C1q4 / aw Mr~ C. Timothy Lindstrom, Chairman Mr, James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 f804} 296-5843 FAX ~,8041 296-5800 June 26, 1996 SaIIy H. Thomas Mr. Richard G~ Piccolo 439 Maple View Court Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Piccolo: This letter is to confirm that you have an interview scheduled with the Board of Supervisors on July 3, 1996, at 1:00 p.m. regarding the Industrial Development Authority. This interview will be held in the fourth floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. If you have any questions, do hOC hesitate to call me an 296-5843. Sincerely, EWC/aw Ella W. Carey, Clerk Printed on recpcled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 MeIntire Koaa Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) ApplicantsNatne ~-~..M~;~J:) ~--i.~-~ccoL~' Home Phone Magisterial District in which your ho,me residence is located Employer (.~vxx.x3e~% e~[3 ~.~m'ca_ Phone Date of Employment c~ 1~(9 Occupation/Title ~% '~4delco~ ¢ ' ./'F-,k~4~t-~ years Resident in Albemarle County ~ ~/q-~ Previous Residence '~'7~t m t nc~-4~ Spouse's Name ~l ~- NumberofCMldren ffo ' Education (Degrees and araduation Dates) '~_~, "-~t-~.O~ , ~wc~,n~.~f-~ Memberships in Fraternal Business. Church and/or Social Grou_rm Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commlgsion / Committee Tho information pr~ided on this a~Nioafio~will be~4ease~to the pqblic u~on reau~st43 ~v~ ,c~a~ ~cev3 [ Signature Date Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McInfire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 DaSd P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX f804] 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkir~ Sally H. Thomas July 10, 1996 MS. Sherry Buttrick P. Oo Box 20 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were appointed to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said uerm to expire on December 13, 1998. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman C%TH/aw CC: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Chairman Mr. James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper CounW of Albemarle COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville, VA' 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board/Commission/Committee gO/ ~>/7_~'F' 'th~V'{~q~t'~l ~WI~ f PU~, [~e~----~ Applicant's Name ~-r~',/ ~Cl .Q'"'F ~x~--I~/~_~ dome Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Phone Employer ~../ h . (X~ ID~ ~3 t2..~ ,~ dY-t tV t-) .l:¥?.~_ !xl Phone Business Ad.ss / D[ O ~/~J~ ~ofEmplo~ent ~ ~ [ Occupation/Title ~/'~; =~ Ye~ Resid~t ~ Al~m~le Co~ty ~0 Previo~ Residence Spout's N~e ~ ~ ~ Nmber of Chil~n Education~e~ees~d~duafionDates) ~.~. ~ ff~ - Memberships in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or Social Groups Publi~, Civic ~d Ch~imble Office dd/ or ~er Activities or Inters Reason(s~ for Desire to Serve on this Board / Commission / Committee ~e ~omation pmhded on ~s application will ~ ml~ed to ~e pub ' ~rque~. Re~ ~: Cl~ Bo~d of Co~ Supe~ Alembic 401 Mc~ Road C~lo~sville, V~ 22902-4596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles $. Martin Walter F. Perkins Salb, H. Thomas July 10, 1996 Ms Cathy Bodkin 116 W. Jefferson Streec Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Bodkin: At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were reappointed to the Community Policy & Management Team with said cerm to eklolre on June 30, 1997. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman Mr. Rory Carpenter, Director, Children & Youth Commission Mr. James L. camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlo~esville, Virgi~ia 22902-4596 ('804) 296-5843 FAX I804, 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas July 10, 1996 Mr. Mitchell E. Neuman 1205 Orchard Drive Crozet, VA 22932 At the Board of County Supervisors meeting held on July 3, 1996, you were reappointed to the Jail Authority with said term to expzre on May 22, 1999. On behalf of the Board, I would like Go take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue serving the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH/aw CC: Mr~ Albert Tumminia, Jail Administrator Mr James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper To: ELLA CAREY From: Karen Morris Subject: CPMT APPOINTMENTS Date: 6/7/96 Time: 3:57PM Ella - We have one BOS appointment on the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) that had a two year appointment .... that of Cathy Bodkin, a private provider. Our policy calls for a possible re- appointment for a two year term. Her first term was up in June 1995 (This slipped past us!) My real question is: in this instance, when someone's first two year term is up, do you normally advertise, or see if that person wants (or the CPMT wants) to serve a second term? Clear as mud? COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 July 12, 1996 Donald E. Sours, President. R. E. Lee & Sons, Inc. P. O. Box 7226 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 RE: Provision of Sewer Service Along West Side of Hydraulic Road DearDon: I recently took your request to expand the sewer service on the west side of the Hydraulic Road area to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. The Board is reluctant to change their policy to provide sewer service in that area at this time. As you know, in the past, when evidence has been provided to the Board that soil or percolation problems ex/st with existing businesses or other land uses, the Board has been receptive to providing sewer service to that specific problem area. The.Board of Supervisors and I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention, which was timely, in order for the Board to provide some consideration in light of the construction planned for Hydraulic Road. Should you have any questions concerning the Board's response, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert W_ Tucker, Ir. County Executive RWT, Jr/dbm 96.099 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 McIntir¢ Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902~1596 (804) 296484i FAX (804) 972-4060 June 25, 1996 Don E. Sours, P.E., President R. E. Lee and Sons,/nc. P. O. Box 7226 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 RE: Installation' of Sanitary Sewer Along Hydraulic Road Dear Don: ~?hank you for your recent letter concerning the provision of sewer in conjunction with the widening of Hydraulic Road. As you know, the policy of the Board has been not to provide sewer service in the area of the South Fork Rivanna watershed I will, however, bring this to their attention for discussion at their next available meeting, as you requested. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive RWT,Jr/dbm 96.092 pc~ Albemarle County Board of Supervisor w/attachment Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg w/attachment Ms. Jo M. Itiggins w/attachment Ms. Ella W. Carey w/attachment R.E. LEE, JR., Chief Executive Officer D.E. SOURS, President June 19, 1996 2811 Hydraulic Read P.O. Box 7226 Charh~esville, VA 22906 Tele [804] 973-1321 FAX [804] 973-9784 Mr. Robert W. Tucker. Jr. County Executive Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: install Sanitary Sewer on Hydraulic Road Bob: VDOT has let a contract for the widening of Hydraulic Road IRoute 743) from Albemarle High School to Rio Road and work is starting. The properties, including our business, located on the reservoir side of Hydraulic in the areas to be widened, are not served by sanitary sewers. Most or all of these properties are still tied to individual septic systems. These properties are in the water shed of and in close proximity to the public drinking water supply, the Rivanna Reservoir. This is an urbanized area along with other residential properties on the reservoir side of Georgetown Road, but public sewer has been prohibited by previous Board of Supervisor actions. This area is "red lined" for "water only". A lot of us know that' this previous population growth control action was a judgment error that should be corrected now. My request to you and the Board of Supervisors is to install a sewer now in conjunction with the widening of Hydraulic Road. This is the least expensive way and if this decision is delayed it will be more costly to later dig up a new four lane highway, or the decision will be deferred with the potential for continued pollution of the Reservoir. Please advise the Board of this matter, and let me know of their plans and any hearings scheduled. Thank you for your assistance as I consider adequate public sewers to be a necessary part of responsible governance by the Board. Sincerely, D. E. Sours, P.E. President cc: VDOT \cks\L:\General\Worksp\Don\L0239 Construction and Construction Management Since 1939 Virginia Contractor's License #2701 800192A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville~ Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX [804] 296 5800 july 11, 1996 Char~s S. Marflr Waiter F. Perkins Sa~y H. Thomas 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 July 3, 1996, the Board of Supervisors discussed your suggestion of a "Tax Work Off" program whereby retired dtizens age 60 and older who own property, can apply to and work for the county to earn credit toward their real estate tax bill Although Board members thought this program may be a good idea, they felt it should be sent to the local legislators for them to consider and determine how it might be implemented. It is the Board's understanding that Virginia does not presently have enabling legislation which would allow localities to implement such a program. Sincerely, i/EWC cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Printed on recycled pal2er COUNTY OF A .... JEFFERSON AREA BOAR~T~OR*~3Ig~I~ ~iilt 22901 ~OA~D OF S~~S 8~-277-5222 8~-978-3~ FAX 8~978-3~3 Your Agency on Aging Serving the Citizens of Charlottesville. Albemarle. Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson June~4,'1996 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road - Fourth Floor Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Greetings: We would like to share with you an idea we discovered from another state. "Tax Work Off" is a program whereby retired citizens, age 60 and older who own property, can apply to and work for the county to earn credit toward their real estate tax bill. This is a great way for the county to tap into a wealth of available talent and/or knowledge without any out-of-pocket expense to the payroll. Obviously, the idea requires a lot of frae tuning as to the maximum amount of credit they can earn and exactly what jobs the county deems valuable enough to offer such compensation. We have enclosed a folder from Union County, North Carolina which explains how their program works as an illustration of some of their ideas of fine t~ning. We believe this to be a wonderful opportunity for your jurisdiction to recognize the worth of your older citizens by offering them "a chance to pay thek own war' doing something of value for their community. Considering the statement made to our older citizens by offering this unique program, it occurs to us that this could be a real win-win idea. We herewith offer it for your evaluation and possible adoption. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter, or any other, please don't hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, Ed~J. Jones Chairman Gordon Walker Chief Executive Officer /jec Enclosure: Tax Work Off folder Celebrating 20 Years of Community Service to the Elderly and Their Families Adult Healthcare · Case Management * Geriatric Consultation * Homebound Meals * Home Care · Home Safety/Repair * Informaaon and Referral · Legal · Ombudsman · Outreach * Personal Care · Senior Community Centers * Senior Em?loyment * Telephone Reassurance * Transportation * Volunteer Programs )l~o,'a cn s.moqjo # ,quo O~fl · ssa~pp~ ~o Jaqmnu aaoqdalal ,(m .to ( uopg~o1 Jo sJnoq ) Kl!l!qgl.~,~ ,(m u! sa~tmq~ ,~tre jo KmnoD uo!nf~ K3.uou m Kl!l!q!suodsa.~ rcm st. 1! l~q~ pu~ls~apuu osl~ I 'l.~odo~ ptr~ alaldmo~ 'an J1 a~ uoge~.qdd~ s!ql uo ap~m sluamal~ls 11~ ~q; ~!laa~ I :moq~ ~aomt plnoqs ~ t~3 noK suo.n~.msoa 2i~o~ ,(u~e xs!i os~kl /,olq~Imx~ ~ou o~e no~ .moa oq13o ~ou~. o~oads ~.t~ql o.W sm~p ptre suo~2v, uoo ~t23~ ,(tm ls!q ON s~A. L~smr~x.q sJoA~(I l~!OzounnoD ~ oa'eq nod OCl :# ouoqdoloJ ~moH .LN~I)X[~LV.LS ]xEINflf~MOddO &N~Oqd21NH 'IVfI~)H NOI.LVDIqdd¥ - INV'dDOMd ~fl0-)12tOA~ X~& SN3ZIlID CI~dllEDd A/LNflO3 NOINf'I JEFFERSON AREA BOARD F~ 2300 Commonwealth Drive, Sui~ Charlottesville, Vkginia 22901 800-277-5222 804-978-3644 FAX 804-978-3(~-3 Your Agency on Aging Serving the Citizens of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson July 15, 1996 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclmire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Greetings: Thank you for your letter of July 11 from Ella W. Carey, your clerk, presenting your reaction to our "Tax Work Off" proposal Based on an earlier, and similar reply from Mayor Kay Slaughter, we have discussed the idea with Senator Emily Couric who felt it had great promise. She said she would seek to have a determination made as to whether or not enabling legislation would be required and advise us as soon after she returns from her vacation as possible. We will share her response with you. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Gordon Walker Chief Executive Officer ~ec Celebrating 20 Years of Community Service to the Elderly and Their Families · Adult Healthcare · Case Management · Geriatric Consultation* Homebound Meals * Home Care · Home Safety/Repair · Information and Referral * Legal · Ombudsmen · Onireach * Personal Care * Senior Community Centers * Senior Employment · Telephone Reassurance · Transportation * Volunteer Programs June 25, 1996 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Enhanced E-911 Planning Board Mr, L. Sipe 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 In follow up of my letter of June 23, 1996, concerning continuing mail and UPS delivery problems, we the undersigned request that our E-911 address be changed. We are the only residences on the current "Timber Point" E-911 address designation. Our desire is to have an address that can be easily identified by emergency vehicles, the Charlottesville Post Office, as well as the United Parcel Service and other delivery services. For these reasons we request that our address change from the current "Timber Point" (which is frequently confused with "Timber Pointe" in the Forest Lakes subdivision off U.S. 29 North) "Garth Road" (our first choice), "Garth Lane' (second choice), or "Garth Court" (third choice). Thank you for your immediate attention regarding this matter. We look forward to hearing from you. name signature date Ken Pedersen 2211 Timb~ Point Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 E~OAr~D OF SUPEF~,'S09$ Albemarle County Attention: June 24, 1996 I need your help!!! Enclosed is an example of the on going problem I am having with my mail delivery since my new 911 address has been given to me. This has turned into a serious problem because it is not getting better it is getting worse! Please review the enclosed, note that my "old" address was: Rt.2 Box 337 Charlottesville 22901 My "new" 911 address assigned to me is: 2211 Tirmber Point Charlottesville 22901 The example enclosed clearly shows that a letter ~ailed to me on June 4th 1996 was returned to the sender, not only was it stamped "NO SUC~ NDMBER- it was hand written on by the Charlottesville post office'"NSN# Part of the problem is that there is a Timber-something in the Forest Lakes subdivision, there zip code has been changed to 22911 .... but my mail continues to go there, I know this for I have received mail written on by apparent residents there that read "NOT ~XB~E' or "Not in Forest Lake~" I would like to request that the county of Albermarle and the 911 system change my mailing address to a numbered Garth Road address. ' ~ ..... I know of several pieces of mail that I have not received, one being a recent Birthday card sent mo me from a friend, there was an article he enclosed, he has not received it back either...so where is that piece of mail? I also never received my car insurance bill .... I realized that when my agent sent ~ letter of cancellation .... I can tell you after having that insurance for 12 years and paying my bills I was very upset to realize I never got the bill! My neighbor (Finn & Alice Pedersen) also my elderly parents, have had the same problem. Here is where my biggest concern lies, if this ADDRESS is for the 911 system, and being my parents have had some serious health problems, and I was to call 911 for help .... where would the police or ambulance be dispatched too ? FOREST LAKES ??? As far as the mail delivery, I have called several times~ it improved for a few weeks, only to fall back to errors and missed mail once again. I have even filed a formal complaint form with the post office, I received a letter saying the quality was there #1 goal. Well take a look at my mail delivery and that of my parents and you can see that is not the case. Sloppy, lazy, and inconsistent delivery is what we have had since this 911 address change. This is why I am requesting that the County of Albemarle and the 911 system CI~ANGE my (and the two other homes on our street) address to a more identifiable address ~-~AP,~ ROAD. Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter. I can be reached at work 8-5 823-4567 or home after 6pm 979-4105, however I prefer you write to me so that I may keep this situation well documented. Sincerely,/~ ~ Kenneth P~dersen cc: Charlottesville Post Master- Matthew Hoffman h,,llh,llh,,Ih,hh,,hh,ll.,llh.,h,h,JIh,h,,hll~ Mr. Richard T. Moebes 18 Sherbrooke Dr. Smithtown, NY 11787 h,hl ,,I,II,h,lh.~ ,,llhh,,h,h,lhl ,h,,Ihh,,h,hll RESOLUTION FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RECREATIONAL TRAILS AND TRAILS-RELATED FACILITIES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program provides grant funds to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in providing and maintaining recreational trails and trails-related facilities. WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to develop an accessible section of the Rivauna Greenway along the Rivanna Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the funding available from the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is limited to 50% on projects totalin~ $20,000 to $100,000. WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program share to complete the project will be provided by the County of Albemarle; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby authorized to cause such information or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the Virginia Departmem of Conservation and Recreation and to ~mer into such agreements as may be necessary to permit formulation, approval and funding of the Rivauna Reservoir Segment of the Rivanna Greenway. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Albemarle County hereby agrees to accept all malmenance responsibilities, and keep this facility reasonably open for public use for the expected useful life of the project. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia at a regular meeting held on July 3, 19 9 6 OF' JPETISORS David P. Bowe~man Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshath Or. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ~804) 296~5843 FAX I804 296-5800 luly 8, 1996 Charles $. Martin Walter F Perkins Baby H Thomas Mr. Ron Keeney President, Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood Association 329 Squirrel Ridge Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Keeney: This letter is in response to your comments regarding a resolution adopted by the Board at its meeting on luly 3, 1996. You will recall that on lune 19, several persons from Squirrel Subdivision appeared and asked the Board to b~isically support VDoT's purchase of homes in Squirrel Ridge and to allow VDoT to include drawings of an interchange at Hydraulic Road in their tight-of-way acquisition portion of their documents. As you know, the Board is, and has been for many past years, opposed to the construction of any interchange along the proposed bypass for reasons stated in the resolution. In addition to those reasons, an interchange would direct approximately 30 percent more traffic through residential neighborhoods. When the Board considers an issue such as this, the effect on the overall community has to be considered and the Board felt it needed to reaffirm its previous position to VDoT. At no time has the Board ever supported this or any other interchange along this corridor. The Board members have read the letters and listened te the residents of Squirrel Ridge, but it is somewhat concerned that a representative from this Board or a member of County staff was not included in the discussions between VDoT and the residents. In addition, up to this date. the Board has not received any written communication from VDoT on those discussions As stated, it is the Board's feeling that an interchange at this location would be counter to the general interests of the entire community. Again, thank you for your comments which are reflective of the importance of maintaining an open communication. Attached is a copy of the adopted resolution. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Htm~hris Chairman CY~ec Attachment Members: Board of Supervisors {~ CC: Printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereafter, "County") opposes the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass (hereafter, "Bypass") because of (1) the imminent risks the interchange would create for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; (2) the undesirable pressure for residential development it would cause in the watershed; (3) the undesirable pressure for commercial development it Would cause in locations which conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; and (4) the negative traffic consequences it would cause for local traffic; and WHEREAS, the County recognizes the significant impact construction of the Bypass will impose on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the County desires to minimize the impact on the Squirrd Ridge Subdivision to the greatest extent possible consistent with the protection of the drinking water reservoir and the greater public interests; and WHEREAS, the Counw believes that the best alternative identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation to minimize the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision is the alignment for the Bypass which includes only the southern portion of the subdivision and for which, under an advance right of way plan, five lots in the subdivision have already been purchased. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation finalize and confirm an alignment for the Route 29 Bypass which includes right of way which impacts only the most southern portion of the Squ'trrel Ridge Subdivision so as to provide the least possible impact on that subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reconfirms its opposition to the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass and steadfastly opposes the acquisition of any right of way for the purpose of future construction of such an interchange. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of five to zero on July 3, 1996. d of ,~,m~,Ly o~pervisors BYPASS.29 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereafter. "County") opposes the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass (hereafter. "Bypass") because of (1) the imminent risks the interchange would create for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir: (2) the undesirable pressure for residential development it would cause in the watershed: (3) the undesirable pressure for commercial development k would cause in locations which conflict with the Comprehensive Plan: and (4) the negative traffic consequences it would cause for local traffic; and WHEREAS, the County recognizes the significant impact construction of the Bypass will impose on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the County desires to minimize the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision to the greatest extent possible consistent with the protection of the drinking water reservoir and the greater public interests; and WHEREAS, the County believes that the best alternative identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation to minimize the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision is the alignment for the Bypass which includes only the southern portion of the subdivision and for which, under an advance tight of way plan. Five lots in the subdivision have already been purchased. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation finalize and confirm an alignment for the Route 29 Bypass which includes fight of way which impacts only the most southern portion of the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision so as to provide the least possible impact on that subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albematie County Board of Supervisors reconfirms its opposition to the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass and steadfastly opposes the acquisition of any right of way for the purpose of future construction of such an interchange. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of five to zero on July 3. i 996. Clerk, Board of County Sfipervisors / BYPASS.29 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296~5841 FAX (804) 9?2-4060 July 12, 1996 Donald 1L Askew, District Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819 RE: Route 250 Corridor Planning Study Dear Don: Thank you for your recent letter informing me of VDOT's proposed study for both short-range and long-range plamfing along the U. S. Route 250 Corridor This planning effort is very important to us and we appreciate your involving the County of Albemarle from the beginning. The ouly suggestion that I have, after having discussed this with the Board of Supervisors, is that you ensure that a citizens advisory committee be created to help provide inputdaring the study phase. Perhaps it might be best to have one committee for the 250 East section and a separate one for the 250 West section. These separate committees are suggested since you plan to develop a study of the 250 West Conidor area usiag a consultant and the 250 East section being developed by department staff. One final suggestion is that any data or information that flae consultant and/or deparlment staff would need can be provided through our Deparanent of Planning and Community Development, as they will be our lead agency for this planning study. Again, thank you for involving us in this study up front and we look forward to a successful ~vorking relationship on this corridor. Should you have any further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. S'meerely, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive R.WT,Jr/dbm 96.100 pc: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Ms. Angela G. Tucker SUMMARY OF GRAPHIC PRESENTATION: SCENIC ROADS- U.S. RTE. 250 W VARIANCES TIlE BZA GRANTED 20 OF THE 22 BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCES. FOR THE TWO VARIANCES DENIED, REZON1NG/SPECIAL USE PERMIT WERE ALSO DENIED. · ~ BZA GRANTED SIX OF THE SEVEN SIGN VARIANCES. TWO OF THESE VARIANCES WERE FOR SETBACK. AFFECT OF SETBACK ON UNDEVELOPED/UNDERDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL LAND SEVEN SITES TOTALING 19.45 ACRES WOULD BE AFFECTED. ADDITIONAL ACREAGE LOSS TO SETBACK FOR FIVE SITES: ACREAGE SCENIC SETBACK 1.56 acres 0.96 acres 4.06 1.24 2.00 0.41 0.11 0.11 (variance) 0.76 0.50 TWO SITES HAVE ACTIVE PLANS. IF SETBACK WERE TO APPLY AS BEFORE, TWO OTHER ACTIVE PLANS WOULD BE AFFECTED AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMII,Y DWELLINGS.