Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-04-10
FINAL 7:00 P.M. APRIL 10 1996 ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. .,Call to Order. Pledge of Allegmnce. Moment of Silence Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). ZMA-94-12, River Heights. Public tlearing on a request to rezone approx 29 ac from -I~ to Lt (proffered) located on E sd of Rt 29 approx 0.5 mi N of North Fork Rivanna Rive*r. TM32,P5 (part), P5C(part)&TM33,P14(part). Site is located in a growth area & rs recommended for Industrial Service in the Village of Piney Mountain by tlre Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist. Approve FY 1996-97 County Operating Budget. Adopt FY 1996 Tax Rates. Adopt FY 1996-97/2000-2001 Capital Improvements Program and FY 1996-97 CIP Bud'~et. Approval of Minutes: October 6 and November 3, 1993; and March 20, 1996. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSENT AGENDA FOR INFORMATION: 5.1 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 26, 1996. 5.2 1995 Armual Report for Allegheny Power (on file in Clerks office). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4696 (81)4) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perking Sally H. Thomas MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ella W. Carey, Clerk April 11, ' 996 Board Actions of April 10, 1996 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting on April 11, 1996: Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Charles Tracta was present to talk about a problem he thinks memoers of the public are having with the Planning Commission. He suggested that members of the public have been harassed and speakers, particularly women, intimidated at meetings of the Commission. He thinks an applicant should have to prove the merits of his application, and not the public. He said if it is felt that it wastes a board members' time to have the public appear, that person should decide if he wants to continue on the Board/Commission, He also suggested that if any request is strongly opposed, it should not be voted on at the same meeting at which the public hearing is held. He asked that the Planning Commission not be used for a "dress rehearsal" and the Board's meeting for a "final performance". Agenda Item No, 6, ZMA-94-12, River Heights. Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 29 ac from RA to LI [proffered) located on E sd of Rt 29 approx 0.5 mi N of North Fork Rivanna River. TM32, P5(part), P5C{part) & TM33, P14(part). Site is located in a growth area & is recommended for Industrial Service in the Village of Piney Mountain by the Comprehensive Plan. Rivanna Dist, APPROVED ZMA-94~12 with the six proffers presented in the Board's packet and amended this date, and gone over by the County Attorney at this meeting. The proffers are set out in full below. PROFFER ZMA# 94-12 MARCH 12, 1996 Printed on recycled paper Robert W. Tucker, Jr. April 11, 1996 (Page 2_) Development shall be in general accord with the plans drawn by RTKL Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD, dated February 5, 1996 and signed by Nena Harrell, Vice President, United Land Corporation (the "proffered plans"). The proffered plans shall be modified to be consistent with revisions which are recommended by the Site Review Committee, Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors to address requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Activity within the WRPA (Water Resource Protection Area as identified in the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996] shall be limited to that necessary to install and maintain access, utilities and features recommended or approved by the Water Resource Manager and Architectural Review Board. Right of way necessary for a four lane divided roadway shall be dedicated upon request of the County in general accord with the "proposed entrance road" shown on the proffered plan, The location and design of this roadway shall be modified upon the request of the Department of Transportation or the County provided that the entrance location remains located at the existing crossover as shown on the proffered plans. An undisturbed buffer area shall be maintained on the southern border of this site (from the intersection of Herring Branch and tt~e North Fork Rivanna River to the westernmost portion of the existing pond). This buffer area shall maintain existing vegetation which results in a level of screening equal to or greater than that required by Section 32.7.9,8a. of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. Where existing vegetation does not provide for this level of screening new plantings shall be established. Vegetation shall be maintained in accord with section 32.7.9.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall not result in a level of service of less than C. Easements and Right of Way necessary to maintain a C level ef service at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall be dedicated upon request of the County. The owner, its successors and assigns, shell provide upon request by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County a signal analysis to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County to insure a traffic signal is installed when warranted. This analysis must include traffic generation proposed by the Briarwood development. The full cost of the signalization will be borne by the owner, its successors and assigns. Agenda Item No. 7. Approve FY 1996-97 County Operating Budget. Shifted money for second bailiff from Juvenile Court to contingency fund until more information is received concerning the need. Added $1,209 to SHE appropriation; took the funds from the contingency fund. Mr. Bowerman asked staff to list the items which the county is funding for more than its formula share. ADOPTED attached resolution approving the FY 1996-97 County operating budget. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. April 11, 1996 (Page 3) Agenda item No. 8. Adopt FY 1996 Tax Rates. ADOPTED attached resolution setting the tax rates for 1996. Agenda Item Ne 9. Adopt FY 1996-97i2000-2001 Capital Improvements Program and FY 1996-97 CIP Budget. ADOPTED both. Attached is an extract from the minutes showing the motion and attached to that extract ~s a copy of the approved program, Agenda Item No, 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD Mrs. Humphris introduced Mr. Mark MacGregor, the new director of JAUNT. Mr. Tucker said staff had recently learned that the design of the new high school will exceed the height regulations of the R-1 zoning regulations. In order to maintain that height, the property will need to be rezoned to R-15. The Board ADOPTED the attached resolution of intent to rezone from R-1 to R-15, Parcels 2 and 2C on Tax Map 91. Mr. Bowerman mentioned L, F. Wood's proposal for a storage facility on property near the Putt-Putt Golf Course. He said a complication concerning that rezoning has arisen. Part of the rezoning with the proffers included adding an eight-foot strip of property from the parcel zoned HC that the Putt-Putt sits on. There is a proffer on that parcel which says that storage facilities are proffered out so the Zoning Administrator has said that they cannot add the eight-foot strip of land to what was rezoned because the proffers are inconsistent. This matter has to come back to the Board, so he asked if the Board would expedite an application to change a proffer for that portion of the Putt-Putt site, the eight-foot strip only, so it can get to the Planning Commission, and the Board can hear it the next day, maybe within five or six weeks. It was consensus that this could be expedited as soon as the application is submitted, Mrs. Humphris mentioned an invitation to attend a meeting in Shenandoah National Park on May 4, 1996, to learn about park activities. LEN/mms Attachments (4) cc: Richard E, Huff Amelia McCulley Roxanne White Jan Sprinkle Jo Higgins Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Larry Davis Wayne Cilimberg File RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1996, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation and Culture Community Development County/City Revenue Sharing General Government Committed Reserve Refunds Capital Improvements Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve General Government Debt Se~/ice Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Jail Expansion Reserve Contingency Reserve 5,161,938 1,727,433 9,007,133 2,176,301 5,643,508 2,940,998 2,307,857 5,170,853 192,250 53,100 2,686,500 450,000 113,500 67,172,182 6,337,670 6,845,880 200,000 217,002 TOTAL 8,404,105 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adoPted-by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a reguiar meeting held on April 10, 1996. Clerk, Board of County S~pervisors RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the _County Levy for the taxable year 1996 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real estate; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty- Eight Cents (84.28) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Two Cents (80.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a man uf. acturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it to the Board of County Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 10, 1996. County Sug~visors EXTRACT FROM MINUTES Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thom- as, to approve the FY 1996-97 through FY 2000-01 Capital Improve- ments Program totalling $76,760,120, and to approve the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements Budget totalling $25,339,827, all as set out on the attached sheets. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. I, Ella W. ~Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 10, 1996. ~er~d of~Coun~ty S~u ervisors ~Y'96/97 - 00/01 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - ALL FUNDS (Revised Totals Highlighted) County Facility and Avon street extended in School Division CIP Fund School M&R projects funded with VPSA except with specified annual transfer Projects/Revenues FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 TOTAL Administration & Courts Fire/Rescue & Safety Highways & Transportation 298.850 150,000 145,000 266,250 468,000 1,328,10011 322.295 502,331 25C,000 265.000 40a,000 1,739,62611 561,000 548,500 737.900 592,750 794.200 3,234,35011 000 424,44711 Libraries 68,500 322,947 Parks & Recreation ~~ 314,000 Utili~ Improvements 0 100.000 ClP Projects/Debt Svc. Reserve 0 102.222 School Division Projects 23,154,385 16,588,120 Stermwater Projects _1.10,000 110.Q00 Grand Total Projects 25~339,827. t8.7:~.8_~120 300,000 410,100 6,876,6~,0 !! _0.000 .8;926,680 Funding Summary - General Government Capital Improvement Fund 15.000 15.000 118,230 49.500 IS ~ 300,000 295,842 9~5,842 782,770 277,458 1,572,550 10,420,700 8,534,793 . 65~574,678 ~0,000 ~,000 ~90,00~ 12,870,700........10,884;793:, ..~6_,760;!120 518,842j ~.vailable Resources.'_ CIP Fund Balance Genera Fund Appropriation Subtotal Revenues 118,842 t00,000 100,000 1.940.000 1.840.000 2,040,000 1,940,000 total Recommended Projects ~~ 2,040,000 1,940,000 100,000 100,000 ~,240.000 2.200.000 ~340,000 ~300,000 2,340,000 2~00,000 0 Shortfall/Excess Revenue 0 0 0 0 .3umulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 Funding Summary - School Division Capital Improvement Fund ~.vailable Resources VPSA Bonds ]'rnsfr. from Split Billing Reserve nterest Earned ~roffer Funds Transfer from General Fund Subtotal Revenues 15,988,_120 16,500,000 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 500.000 23,154,385 16,588,t20 0 100,000 0 6OO 9,220,700~~ o 0 16,500,000 100,000 100,000 500.000 400,000 0 400,000 ~00.000 800~000 ~269~_0~ 10,420,700 8,534;793 65,574,678 Recommended Projects 23,154,385 tShortfall/Excess Revenue 0 [Cumulative Shortfall 16,588,120 0 t0,420,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 Funding Summary - Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Available Resources Transfer from General Fund 60,000 60.000 Stormwater Fund Balance 50.000 50.000 Subtotal Revenues 1t0,000 110,000 Recommended Pro_iects Shortfall/Excess Revenue 60,000 60,000 0 240.00a 50~00 50.000 50.000 250.00~ 110,000 tt0,000 50,000 490,00~ 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 80,000 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 verall Short~all 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overall ~umulafive Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 04/04/9607:27 PM 1 CIP9701D.WK4 ooooo o c~ c~ March 15, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dep[. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296~5823 Wendell Wood River Heights Associates P. O. Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-94-12 River Heights Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 12, 1996, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at thek meeting on APRIL 10. 1996. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk ofth~ Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your schedule hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf ce: Ella Carey Jo Higglns Amelia McCulley Date: 3/1~/96 ZMA# PROFFER FORM 94-12 Tax Map Parcel(s) # ! Original Proffer. Amended Proffer (Amendment # , 28.88 Acres to be rezoned from RA to T.I Pursuant to S,ection 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be spplied to the properly, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the' conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. SEE ATTACHED PAGE OF 6 Proffers River Heights Associates Limi'ted Partnership /~~~~ ~n a ~-~i-- ~-~ r t n e r ~ig'na~bres o(A1[ Owners Printed Names of All Owners 3/12/96 Date Signature of Afferney-in-Facl (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM WPD Rev. December 1994 OR PROFFER ZMA# 94-12 MARCH 12, 1996 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plans drawn by RTKL Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD, dated February 5, 1996 and signed by Nena Harrell, Vice President, United Land Corporation (the "proffered plans"). The proffered plans shall be modified to be consistent with revisions which are recommended by the Site Review Committee, Planning Commission and/or Board Supervisors to address requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Activity within the WRPA (Water Resource Protection Area as identified in the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996) shall be limited to that necessary to install and maintain access, utilities and features recommended or approved by the Water Resource Manager and Architectural Review Board. 3. Right of way necessary for a four lane divided roadway shall be dedicated in general accord with the "proposed entrance road" shown on the proffered plan. The location and design of this roadway shall be modified upon the request of the Department of Transportation and the Couniy provided that the entrance location remains located at the existing crossover as shown on the proffered plans. 4. An undisturbed buffer area shall be maintained on the southern border of this site (from the intersection of Herring Branch and the North Fork Rivanna River to the westernmost portion of the existing pond). This buffer area shall maintain existing vegetation which results in a level of screening equat to or greater than that required by Section 32.7.9.ga. Of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. Where existing vegetation does not provide for this level of screening new plantings shall be established. Vegetation shall be maintained in accord with section 32.7.9.26 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section belng attached hereto. 5. Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall not result in a level of service of less than C. Easements and Righi of Way necessary to maintain a C level of service at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall be dedicated. 6. The developer, successors and assigns shall provide upon request by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County a signal analysis to insure a traffic signal ~s installed when warranted. This analys~s must include traffic generation proposed by the Briarwood development. The full cost of the signalization will be borne by the developer, successors and assigns. River Heights Associates Limited Partnership Wen-dell W. Wood, General Partner Once again I find myself in front of you opposing a project of Mr Wood not because the project itself is wrong but because I don't trust Mr Wood's real intentions. [ will not talk about the problems of piece mealing out our coumy, or the preservation of our rural lands, others will do that, and I stand with them. I will speak of other concerns Lately we have been heating much about water usage in this county. I believe we all can admit that water is a limited commodity. Yet this one issue, water, is one of the red flags which jumps out in saying, what is Mr Wood's mai intentions? [ also challenge Mr Wood's implicatior/that if he is not granted this project, as he proposes, that the NGIC will leave Albemarle. I have talked to people in the GSA which have related to me, that there is no mone i~s year~ budget to buy hat, Mr Wood's proposal. If they were to buy into it, it will not be'bef~next year, if it is that soon. As we all know, the NGIC has wanted to consolidate all it components since the early 1980's. Also, when there is money allotted for this project, Mr Wood would have at least four months to get the rezoning he would need. Them is no need to grant it now, if the tenant will be the NGIC. And I wo~l~,,.know why Mr Wood feels that it is necessary to have unlimited water and sewer right~ The GSA can't understand why they would need this, nor would they would look for this concession if they decide to go ahead with this project. I have also been in contact with our Senators and Congressman and I will submit their letters to 09 you at this time. I am sorry to say that they ca~_~ot give us solid answers today but if you rev~e~vt these letters, you should at least postpone your vote until we receives their answers. Again, I.J[ ' would like to point out that it sh,ould be the applicant who has the burden of proof, n ,o.~t?djJ t/' community Where is Mr Wood s proof? ~'~ Iftbe NGIC wilt be the tenant of this property, I would withdraw my oppOSition but Mr Wood will not guarantee that. If he would profit this project to only the NGIC,[IchI do believe that most opposition would cease. I would like to point out to the board that Mr Wood's own brother, did such an act. LF Wood requested that the variance on his property be changed so that instead of having his building 50 feet from the property line, he could have it at 3 feet. This property is located behind Putt-Putt on Rio Road. Woodbrook, Raintree and the apartment complex all opposed this request. To get us to agree to drop our opposition to his proposal, LF Wood gave us the profit that if his original project fell through, the variance would return to 50 feet. What better precedence can we ask for than one set by the applicant's own brother. Why is it that LF Wood has seen the light an,d,/~w realizes that it is easier for him to work with the community than against it, yet Wendal~re~ses to? This Board has done much to protect the county from what we may call, dirty industry. If you grant Mr Wood's request, without the profit I ask for, you will be defeating your own work. After this property is zoned as Mr Wood requests, including unlimited water and sewer usage, he may get impatient with dealing with the NGIC, GSA and all the other governmental agencies. It would then become more profitable and easier for him to seek out a new tenant. Maybe a subsidiary of Mobil. Maybe a smaller version of Motorola. All he would have to do is keep the quote basicfoot!prlnt of this proposal. Do you really want to give up your control on Mr Wood's words alone? Charles J. ~rrachta, I~ ' Albemarle County League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County 413 Esst M~rket Street, Room 203. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (804) 972-1795 April 10, 1996 To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: League of Women Voters Re: ZMA 94~12 River Heights Associates Our statements to the Harming Commission concerning this application h,we focussed on queslious we had about compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, transpormtion~ and critical slopes. We were particularly concerned that designating the original 63 acres for industrial growth instead of planned development would lead to a piecemeal approach to development on crowded 29N. So, we agree with staff that we would have preferred a planned approach to the entire industrial area. We are hopeful that the staff is correct in judging that the proposal does address the same issues that would be addressed in a planned development. The site is served by the North Rivauna Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although the applicant originally proffered a water usage cap, that proffer was removed after the Albemarle County Service Authority advised the planning staff that it does not recommend/imitations on water usage (Staff Report, 3/12/96). In a letter to the Department of Planning and Community Development (3/4/96), Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, raised a series of questions relating to how a policy for water limitations on rezoning requests would be implemente& We believe that those questions deserve consideration by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors because, as Mr. Brent observed~ "This could add a whole new dimension to land use and all involved will want to think tl~'s through carefully." "The limiting factor on this site," said Mr. Brent, "is sewer capacity, which is limited by an existing agreement between the Service Authority and the property owner." The Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant had an original capacity of 365,000 Gallons Per Day. Its current usage is about 250,000 GPD. According to the 1992 agreement Mr. Brent referred to, the ACSA and RWSA shall develop a plan for meeting future sewer needs in the North Rivanua River drainage basin designated for public sewer by the Board of Supervisors. All costs for this would be borne by the ACSA and its customers. That plan would be triggered when Camelot reaches 80% of its capacity and implemented when flow to Camelot reaches 90% of capacity. The plant itself would not be replaced, but the Service Authority would have to determine the most eeunomically feasible solution for transfer of sewage to the Moore's Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Thus, in the long ran, the North Fork Rivanua River Basin is assured of sewerage service. ",..a non-~art~san organization cfe~r~catecf to t~te j~ronvotfi~n of informe~f a~f act ~¥e J~art~c~at~on of citizens in ~overnlne~t.' PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Statement on ZMA-94-12, River Heights Associates Delivered to the Board of Supervisors on April 10, 1996 The Piedmont Environmental Council asks that you uphold the Comprehensive,Plan and deny this request which fails short of the planned development designation recommended for this property. Yes, it's true that the amount of property to be rezoned falls below the amount required to establish a Planned Development-Industrial Park. tf the County continues to approve applications for rezonings which fall under this threshold, this entire property could be developed in 29~acre chunks, as prospective purchasers line up for desirable sites. This piecemeal approach makes it easy to overlook the cumulative effects of developing the entire site. It also hides the fact that the problem with this request may be more fundamental than the type of zoning application submitted by the owner, As you may remember, this land was added to the industrial inventory rather hastily four years ago, when an unnamed industry briefly considered the County in its search for a site. Since that time, another 300 acres along Route 29 North has been designated for industrial use: the land owned by the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. Albemarle County may be on its way to making the same mistake Northern Virginia counties have made: overloading its inventory of industrial and commercial office space so that it no longer bears any reasonable relation to the number of people expected to live in this area over the next 20 years. With that crucial connection lost, development could easily attract more residential growth than the County expects or can handle. Next week, .you consider the growth areas and the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. We ask that you defer this rezoning and consider, as part of your discussion on the growth areas, whether the County needs this land in the industrial inventory at this time. If you find t..ba~hat this property is essential to the industrial inventory, we ask once again that you consider amending the ordinance to re(~uire a special use permit for new large industrial and office uses, and encourage the applicant to present a development plan for the entire tract. 45 Idorner Street. Box ~300. Warrentoi~ Vlr2ii~ia 2213o/703-347-2334/Fax 349-9003 Rose HdI Drive Suite 1 Char!ot~es,~dlc Vi~i~ia 22903/804-5 77-2033/Fax 977-u 506 Date: 3/t~/96 _PROFFER FORM ZMA¢. 94-12 Original Proffer __ Amended Proffer (Amendment # _) Tax Map Parcel(s) ~._- 28.88 Acres to be rezoned from ~A to LI Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the condittons listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. SEE ATTACHED PAGE OF 6 Proffers River Heights Associa%es Limited Partnership .~~~'~ c ~l~'Par ~ner '~lgna~ures o¢kl~Ownars Pdnted Names of A~I Owners 3/12/96 Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach proper Power of Attorney) P~lnted Name of Attorney-in-Fact PROFFORM.WPO Rev. December 1994 PROFFER ZMA# 94-12 MARCH 12, 1996 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plans drawn by RTKL Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD, dated February 5, 1996 and signed by Nena Harreli, Vice President, United Land Corporation (the "proffered plans"). The proffered plans shall be modified to be consistent with revisions which are recommended by the Site Review Committee. Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors to address requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Activity within the WRPA (Water Resource Protection Area as identified in the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996) shall be limited to that necessary to install and maintain access, utilities and features recommended or approved by the Water Resource Manager and Architectural Review Board. 3. Right of way necessary for a four lane divided roadway shall be dedicated upon request of the County in general accord with the "proposed entrance road" shown on the proffered plan. The location and design of this roadway shall be modified upon the request of the Department of Transportation or the County provided that the entrance location remains located at the existing crossover as shown on the proffered plans. 4. An undisturbed buffer area shall be maintained on the southern border of this site (from the intersection of Herring Branch and the North Fork Rivanna River to the westernmost portion of the existing pond). This buffer area shall maintain exlsting vegetation which results in a level of screening equal to or greater than that required by Section 32.7.9.ga. of the Albemarle County, Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. Where existing vegetation does not provide for this level of screening new plantings shall be established. Vegetation shall be maintained in accord with section 32.7.9.2b of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on March 12, 1996 a copy of the section being attached hereto. 5. Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall not result xn a level of service of less than C. Easements and Right of Way necessary to maintain a C level of service at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection shall be dedicated upon request of the County. 6. The owner its, successors and assigns shall provide upon request by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County a signal analysis to the specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County to insure a traffic signal ~s installed when warranted. This analysis must include traffic generation proposed by the Briarwood development. The full cost of the signalization will be borne by the owner its, successors and assigns. River Heights Associates Limited Partnership ~efi'del-I W.'"Woo'd,'~ General Partner 32.7.9.8 Shrubs shall be in a single row planted five (5) feet on center. Alternate methods of landscaping designed to minimize the viMual impact of the parking lot may 1 approved by the agent. (32.8.5.1.c, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) SCREENING (~2~8.6, 7-10-85) The following ~equirements shall apply to screening: When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a sightly opaque wall or fence, or combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent. Where only vegetative screenzng Ks provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth, vegetative screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center. Alternate methods of vegetative screenzng may be approved by the agent. Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be a minimum of six (6~ feet in height and plantings may be required at inter- vals along such fence or wall. (32.8.6.1, 7-1~-85; Amended 5-1-87) Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement. When screening is required along the frontage of public streets, the agent shall determine if the street tree requirement has been met. (32.8.6.2, 7-10-85) c. Screening shall be required in the following instances: Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas dist- ricts. (32.8.6.3.a, 7-10-85) Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts. (32.8.6.3.b, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) Objectionable features including, but not limited to, the following uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural areas districts and public streets: loading areas - refuse areas -219.16- (Supp. ~37, 3-18-87) 32.7.9.1 32.7.9.2 Provide pervious area which helps to reduce run-off and to recharge groundwater; e. Improve air quality; f. Minimiz~ ~Qlse, dust and glare; Promote traffic safety by controlling views and de- fining circulation patterns; h. To protect and preserve the appearance, character and value of the neighboring properties. (32.8.1, 7-10-85) WHEN REQUIRED Whenever a site developmen~ plan is required by this ordi- nance, a landscape plan shall be required as precedent to final site development plan approval. The foregoing notwith- standing, a landscape plan shall be required at time of preliminary plan review: when the impervious coverage of the site exceeds eighty (80) percent of the gross site area; when the agent determines that due to unusual circumstances, conditions of the site or by character of the proposed use, review at the preliminary plan stage is warranted; oflin any case where required by the commission. (Added 5-1-87)' ADMINISTRATION; APPEAL The agent in review of the landscape plan shall con- sider comments from other agencies before approving the plan, including the Virginia Departmen~ of Highways and Transportation and the Albemarle County Service Auth- ority. Once the landscape plan is approved, no changes may be made unless the revision has been approved by the agent. (32.8.2.5, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) Required landscaping may be bonded in accordance with section 32.3.5 to insure completion prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All required landscaping shall be completed by the first planting season following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A maintenance bond for the required landscaping shall be posted by the developer in favor of the county. If the land- scaping is completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, then the maintenance bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If the landscaping is bonded for completion, rather than completed prior To the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, -219.10- (Supp. ~37, 3-18-87) 32.7.9.3 then the maintenance bond shall be posted when the materials are planted and before the completion bond released. (32.8.2.6, 32.8.2.7, 7-10-85) is The maintenance bond shall be in the amount of one- third (1~3) of the value of required trees and/or shrubs, ~nd shall be held for a period of twelve (12) months following the planting date. 32.8.2.7, 7-10-85) At the end of the twelve (12) month time period, the bond shall be released if all required plantings are in healthy condition as determined by the zoning adminis- trator. Thereafter, required landscaping shall be maintained in healthy condition by the current owner or property owner's association, and replaced when neces- sary. Replacement material shall conform to the original intent of the landscape plan. When existing plantings are preserved in lieu of required new plan- tings, the bond shall be calculated according to the replacement value of plantings which meet minimum requirements of this ordinance. (32.8.2.7, 7-10-85) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the agen= may demand a review of the plan by the commission pursuant to section 32.3.10 of this ordinancel (32.8.2.8, 7-10-85; Amended 5-1-87) VARIATION; WAIVER (Added 5-1-87) The agent may vary or waive the requirement of a landscape plan in whole or in part together with improvements required herein upon a finding that requirement of such plan and/or improvement would not forward purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest; provided that such variation or waiver shall result in a plan substantially in comp- liance with the approved site developmen~ plan together with all conditions imposed by the commission or agent thereof; and, provided further that such variation or waiver shall have no additional adverse visual impact on adjacent properties or public areas nor otherwise be inconsistent with section 32.7.9 of this ordinance. No variance or waiver of landscape plan shall be approved excep~ after notice required by section 32.4.2.5. (Added 5-1-87) DJ Whenever, because of unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property, or other unusual conditions, excluding the propri- etary interests of the developer, strict applica- tion of the requirements of section 32.7.9 would -219.11- (Supp. #37, 3-18-87) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 March 15, 1996 Wendell Wood River Heights Associates P. O. Box 5548 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-94-12 River Heights Dear Mr. Wood: This letter is to notify you that your above-referenced petition, has been scheduled for public hearings as follows: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1996 Both of these meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #24t, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. You will receive a copy of the staff report and tentative agenda one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE MUST BE PRESENT AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS. [n order to comply with the notice provisions contained in Section 33.8.1 and Section 33.8.2, the enclosed notification sign shall be posted by the applicant. At least fifteen (15) days preceding the Planning Commission's public hearing, the applicant shall erect on the subject property the enclosed sign(s). The sign(s) shall be erected by the' applicant within ten (10) feet of whatever boundar? line of such land abuts a public road and shall be so placed as to be clearly visible from the road with the bottom of the sign not less than two and one-half (2½) feet above the ground. If more than one such road abuts the property, then a sign shall be erected in the same manner as above for each abutting road. If no public load abuts th6reon, then signs shall be erected in the same manner as above on at least two boundaries of the property abutting land not owned by the applicant. Page 2 March 15, 1996 Upon receipt of written notice that a public hearing has been scheduled before the Board of Supervisors for the subject property, the applicant shall erect, at least fifteen (15) days preceding such hearing, a sign(s). Such sign or signs shall be erected in the same manner as prescribed the paragraph above. In order to verify compliance with this provision, please complete the attached affidavit and return it at the Planning Commission meeting and Board of Supervisors meeting at which this item is heard. If you should have any questions or concerns about this petition or schedule, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 {804) 296-5823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission William D. Fritz, Senior Planner March 5, 1996 ZMA 94-12 River Heights Associates On November 8, 1994 the Planning Commission reviewed the above referenced request and deferred action indefinitely in order to allow additional review. The staff report presented at that meeting and the minutes of that meeting are attached. Since the review by -the Planning Commission staff has met with the applicant and representatives of NGIC (formerly FSTC). These meetings have resulted in a reduction in the area to be rezoned from 63 acres to approximately 29 acres. In addition, a plan of the proposed development has been submitted which has allowed staff to address many of the issues identified in the November 1994 report. Staff wilt address each of the concerns raised in the 1994 report. Water and Sewer Based on the review of the plan and the existing agreements regarding waste water staff opinion is that water and sewer demands for this site and the residue have been addressed. Staff has discussed the idea of limitations on total water usage with the Service Authority. Limits on water usage is not recommended by the Service Authority. The limiting factor on developmem of this site is sewer capacity which is limited by an existing agreement between the Service Authority and the property owner. Staff will provide Service Authority written comments at the~ Planning Commission meeting. The submitted plan indicates a corridor for water and sewer which is intended to serve not only this development but the adjoining areas shown for industrial use. The layout of the proposed utilities is based on both engineering and security concerns. Staff opinion is that this issue has been addressed. Page 2 March 5, 1996 Planned Development approach to allow coordination of utilities, road access and internalized support services A plan showing the proposed layout of this single use has been submitted. The plan does address the provision of utilities and access to the remaining designated industrial land. No support serwces are proposed with this use and in the opinion of staff none is appropriate at this time. The approach to this rezoning is a conventional rezoning and not a Planned Development approach to the entire industrial area. While staff would prefer a planned approach to the entire area this proposal does address many of the issues which would be addressed in a planned approach and does not negatively impact future development of the industrial area, Staff ophiion is that this issue has been addressed. Limitations of Access and Provision of Emergency Access The proposed plan does limit access to Route 29 to the appropriate location. Information addressing traffic impact was submitted to VDOT (attached). Staffhas worked with the applicant m provide proffers which address the concerns stated by VDOT. Issues such as the specifications of turn and taper lanes are not appropriate for a proffer as these issues are besl addressed at the time of site plan review. In the opinion of staff, the proffers provided by the applicant address the concerns of VDOT. Further, staff opinion, based on review of VDOT comments, that this development will not adversely impact Rt. 29 and will provide for future development of the industrial area. Staff opinion is that the issue of access has been addressed. Visual impact to Route 29 and Route 600 Due to the remoteness of the area to be rezoned from Route 600, no visual impact to that road is anticipated. The proposed location of the building on the area to be rezoned is such that visibility from Route 29 is limited. The location of the building has been determined both by terrain and security concerns. Staff opinion is that all issues of visibility, should site development be visible from Route 29, will be adequately addressed at the time of site plan review by the Architectural Review Board. Staff does note that by proffer, activity near Herring Branch is limited which will provide additional visual buffer from Rt. 29. Staff opinion is that tiffs issue has been adequately addressed. Provision of Buffers Adlacent to Herring Branch and Maintenance of Natural Buffers on the Perimeter of the Site The proposed plan, including proffers, provide for the protection of Herring Branch. The layout of the proposed development will involve activity on critical slopes. The design of the building appears to minimize the impact on the areas adjacent to the river. As has been stated previously the need for security at this facility has been stressed to the staff. Due to the nature of the use, Page 3 March 5, 1996 NGIC desires to m~nimize visibility from all adjacem areas. Staffopinion is that a substantial buffer will be retained adjacent to the river. Staff opinion is that this issue has been addressed. Staff notes that approval of this rezoning in no way implies approval of any modifications for development on critical slopes. Additional Comments In the previous staff report, staff noted that no information on the number of employees was available. Based on information provided by NGIC staff offers the following information x~ hich is taken from the NGIC information packet: The FSTC currently has a staffof 590 professionals and administrative support personnel in Charlottesville, while the ITAC currently has a staff of 561 located near Washington D.C. The merger and consolidation of the FSTC and ITAC will proved for a combined staff reduction from 1,151 to 858. Staff has identified the following favorable and unfavorable factors: Favorable 2. 3. 4. Location is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan; Entrance is limited by proffer to the existing U.S. 29 crossover; Buffering along U.S. 29 and Herring Branch is provided by proffer; Retention of a local employer and employment expansion opportunities are provided by this proposal; Visual impact on adjoining areas ~s addressed by the layout of the proposed development; Access to this site from Route 29 can be accommodated. Staffnotes no unfavorable factors for this application. Recommended Action: The applicant has provided proffers and a plan which address many of the issues identified in the 1994 staff report. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a planned approach to development of this area. The proffers and plan are a satisfactory substitution for a planned development rezoning. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. ASZMA9412-.RP~ , _~ A~e~-to, be rezoned from Original Proffer Amended Proffer.___. (Amendment #~_ ) ZMA # 94~12 TaxMap Parcel(s) RA, to LI Pursuant to ,?~tl~ 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or ~s'~.~ad.~, ~y ~l~ily proffers the ~ditions listed below which shall ~l~d to Ihs ~y, if ~rezoned, These ~nditions are proffered as a part of the ~{~ [ezoni~ ~:!t ~ ~e~ that: (1) the rezonlng i~self gives rise to the need for ~h~;~nditt~s; and :(2) Such ~itions have a reasonable relallon to the rezontng d~Sh::l~ this r~d~' ~ ~i ~d~tid u~on the request o~ the ~purtment o~ the ~n~m~e~to~ of HerrL~&ranGh lnd the North Ferk Rtv~nna River to ~he *e~er~st ~;~t~.r Eei~h~s.,Ap~o~ia~ Limite~ ~artne~S~ ..... .~ 0f Alt ~I~ ~rtnted ~mes of All Owners O~te Prtnled Name of Attorney-in-Fact DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VlrRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO'~-FESVILLE 22911 February 22. 1996 A. G. TUCKER RESIOENT ENGINEER Z~-94-12 Wendell Wood Route 29 North, Albemarle ~ounty Mr. Rom Keeler Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Kealer: Thi~ is zn reference to our meeting on Monday, February 12, 1996, regarding the 29 acre rezoning proposal for NGIS. The following are our comments with respec~ co the Piney Mountain site es noted in the final environmental assessmenn document dated November 1994 1. Access to Route 29 should align with the existing crossover as shown on the undated utility plan for NGIS submitted to this office on October 25, 1995. 2. A four-lane divided typical section is recommended for the proposed entrance road in order to serve ultimate development. The NGIS site is adequately served by a two-lane facility (phased construction of four lane roadway) with 200' x 200' turn lanes, however, the four-lane divided section should be built to align with the four-lane cross section of Briarwood. Internal road design should meet a 50 mph design geometrics Dual left turns onto Route 29 southbound from the proposed entrance road may be necessary due to PM peak traffic volumes. 3. A minimum 200' x 200' right nurn lane is required but additional stacking capacity may be needed co accommodate the AM peak traffic volumes. 4, A minimum 200' x 200' left turn lane on Route 29 southbound is required at the crossover/proposed entrance road 5. Ail necessary easements and right of way should be dedicated no insure an adequate LOS (level C or better) at the Route 29/proposed entrance road intersection to include potential signalization. 6. The developer will be responsible for conducting a signal analysis to insure that a traffic signal is installed when warranted. This analysis mus~ include traffic generation proposed by the Briarwood developmenE The full cost of the signalization will be borne by the developer. The Department must review and approve all signal plans to be installed under permit. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Mr. Ron Keeler ZMA-94-12 Wendell Wood Route 29 Worth, Albemarle County Page 2 entrance road alignment. 8. It would be beneficial to review locatIon. 9. The Department will ultimately need all traffic has been adequately addressed The existing crossover may need to be widened to accommodate the proposed overall development plan at this co review site/road plans to insure HWM/smk Yours truly, Assistan~ Resident Engineer cc: J. H. Kesterson Irma yon Kutzleben Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please con~ac5 this office prior to forwarding to the developmen~ community. UTILITIES PLAN NATIONAL GROUND INTELLIGENCE CENTER STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ NOVEMBER 8, 1994 NOVEMBER 16, 1994 ZMA 94-12 - RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOGIATES Petition: River Heights Associates petitigns tl~e Board of Sypervisors to rezone approximately 63 acres from RA, Rural Areas to LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5 (part) and 5C (part) and Tax Map 33, Parcel 14 (part) is located on the east side of Rt. 29 approximately 0.5 miles north of the No~th Fork Rivarma River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Industrial Service in the community of Piney Mountain. .Character of t.he Area: This site fronts on Route 29. Herring Branch and its associated floodplain are located near Route 29. The site is wooded with a mixture of deciduous and pine. Areas of critical slopes exist. The North Fork Rivanna River forms a portion of the southern boundary: Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone 63 acres to LI to allow for industrial development. The applicant has submitted proffers intended to address the issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment C). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends denial. Planning and Zoning History: April 1969 - Z/VIA 52 was withdrawn. This was a request for a Planned Community. September 17, 1970 - SP 70-67A was approved. This was a request for modular unit sales and manufacture. December 16, 1980 - A site plan for a 85,000 square foot component assembly plant was denied. This was due to inconsistency with the recently adopted zoning map and zoning ordinance. Comprehensive Plan: A recent Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved designating this ar~ for Industrial Service. The text of the Comprehensive Plan addressing this 'area is included as Attachment D. The following addresses the various portions of the'Comprehensive Plan which speak directly to this application: Al!.. area east of Route 29 and west of the unnamed tributary_ of the North Fork of the Rivanna River is designated for industrial service. No development of properties above what is allowable under current zonim! will take nlace until water and sewer services are prg. vided to the area consistent with the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority planning for the provision of service to this area. This site is within the designated industrial service area. Au agreement exists between various property owners, the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority which addresses the issue of provision of adequate sewage treatment facilities. No agreement exists which addresses the provision of adequate water supply. Staff notes that water availability is limited by the in-stream flow to the treatment facility on the North Fork Rivanna. Staffis unable to determine the utility demands of this rezoning as uses have not been proposed or proffered out which would allow for detailed analysis of the adequacy of either water or sewer service. Further, staffis unable to address the locational needs for any utility corridor to serve the site. ACSA comments are included as Attachment F. A proffer has been submitted which is intended to address this provision of the Comprehensive Plan which more or less duplicates the Comprehensive Plan language stated above. Staff opinion is that the proffer does limit development. However, it does not allow for a determination of what water and sewer improvements will be necessary for development permitted by the rezoning. Consider development proposal for the industrial area east of Route 29 under a planned .d..evelopment approach to allow for the coordination of public utilities and facilities, road access and necessary internalized support services. Staffhas discussed with the applicant the idea of a Planned Development approach for ali the industrial service land on the east side of Rt 29, or at a minimum, a planned approach for the 63 acres under review which would allow ~ssues of transportatmn~ utilities and developmem/preservation areas to be addressed. No planned development approach has been taken in this rezoning. A plan, unproffered, has been submitted showing one theoretical development pattern. Staff opinion is that this provision of the Comprehensive Plan has not been adequately addressed. · Access to Route 29 for the industrial service are~ east of Route 29 shall be li~nited to the existing crossover south of the Briawood/G.E. Fanuc crossover. A second access to the siti~ for emeraen _cy~purposes shouldl be considered during the development review process. Site for emergenc~ purposes should be considered during the development review process. Access is limited by a proffer to the existing crossover.. However, ~taffis unable to determine the level of improvements which will be necessary at this entrance. No plan or proposal for a second access has been pursued. While the access pro,sion of the Comprehensive Plan has been addressed ~hrough a proffer, staff is unable to determine the full impact of the development to Route 29. RQ~jte 29 is a designated Entrance Corridor route. Dueto the elevation of the industrial area east of Route 29 and its potential visibility from Route 29, as well as potential visibility from Route 600 and surrounding areas, development of this area wilt be subject for review for such visual impact. A proffer establishing a buffer along Route 29 centered on Herring Branch has'been provided. A certificate of appropriateness will be required for any features visible from the Entrance Corridor. No plan or proffers are available which address visibility from surrounding areas. (This 63 acres isnot visible formRt. 600.) Staff is unable to findthat this rezoning fully addresses this Comprehensive Plan provision. However, it is likely the combination of the proffer and ordinance requirements can adequately address this provision. Ag. undisturbed buffer area along Herring Branch should be provided to reduce the visual impact along Route 29. Maintain natural buffers on the perimeter of the site along steep s|gpes and stream valleys. As stated previously, a buffer has been provided along Herring Branch. No other restrictions have been offered. Staffhas noted the existence of critical slopes on this property. Approval of this rezoning in no way implies support or approval of any modification to allow development on critical slopes. A portion of this provision of the Comprehensive Plan has been addressed. However, the intent of the Plan appears to require more detailed analysis of areas appropriate to development than is gvailable with this rezoning application. Therefore, staff is unable to find that this provision of the Comprehensive Plan has been fully addressed. ADDITIONAL COMMENT: In addition to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, stafftypically provides analysis as to the utility, transportation and other impacts of a rezoning. Staffhas covered issues of available water and sewer facilities in the area earlier as part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion. This area is currently not loceted in the ASCA jurisdictional area. Based on the Comprehensive Plan designation, the Board can proceed to inclu, de this area in the jurisdictional area for both water and sewer. While not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan or in most re. zoning applications, staff does note that this area's electrical service has recently been upgraded with the construction of a 115 KV line by Rappahannock Electric. Staff has previously stated that a detailed analysis of the transportation impact of this rezoning is unavailable. Comments from Virginia Department ~Sf Transportation are included as Attachment F. lqo uses for this site have been offered which,would allow for an analysis of the employment generation of this site which could aid in deteimining traffic impact. No traffic study has been prepared. Staff cannot address the.level of improvements that.may be necessary on Route 29 or required on-site. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance includes, among a number of purposes, "to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base" (Section 1.4.7). This rezoning will provide employment expansion Opportunities. As no uses oftha site have been identified, staffcannot comment on the number or type ofjobs created or the potential fiscal impact of the development. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following favorable and unfavorable factors: .Favorable: 2. 3. 4. 5. Location is in accord with Comprehensive Plan. Development is limited by proffer until adequate utilities are planned and provided. Entrance is limited by proffer to the existing U.S. 29 crossover. Buffering along U.S. 29 and Herring Branch is provided by proffer. Employment expansion opportunities are provided by this proposal. Unfavorable: No identification of potential uses or uses that would not occur.. Lack of plan of development. Visual impact to surrounding areas (other than U.S. 29) and maintenance of buffers/environmentally sensitive areas are not addressed. Utility, transportation, employment and other impacts of the development are unknown due to lack of information on the type, scale and orientation of development. The applicant has submitted proffers addressing some of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Detailed information on the impact of the rezoning is unavailable. The Zoning Ordinance regulations will address basic physical demands of this development However, the ihtent of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a planned approach to this industfiai service area. This would allow for ~aalysis of the o-Oerall impact of development as part of the rezoning. Staff opinion is that this request does not address all Comprehensive Plan provisions or enable adequate assessment of utility, transportation and other impacts. Therefore, .staffrecommends denial of this request. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffers. ATFACIIMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Proffers D - Text of Comprehensive Plan for the review area E - Albemarle County Service Authority Comment F - V.D.O.T. Comment G - Agreement including ACSA & RWSA AREA ~%-94 -12 RiV~ Heights Associates / COUNTY 4J ALBEMARLE 2Z~A '94-12 P. TVER }~IGHTS ASSOCIATES "~ 36 JATTACHMENT D I · VILLAGE OF PINEY MOUNTAIN LOCATION " .Piney Mstmt.ain is located north of thc City of GbarJottesvillc on Route 29 Iqorth. The Piney Moun- tain Village _is I'~uunded on the east by Rotue 29 North;' ~ '.a ~iq. unnamed .tributary of the Hurtb _~9~.o.~k of the Riv.aD.~~ , 9n the north by Rdut¢ 763 and on tll~ west hr ltoH!e (~)6. Thc ~o,!){~:cn.I .xJuudary is [qrmed hy thc. f{c~×l:p!ain of thc North Fdrk of thc Riven cia Itivcr. IjXISTING LAND IISI'.' The 1985 cslimaicd population of Piney Moumain the Community of 11011ymcad. Of the !24 existing dwelling units in Piney Mounlain, 106 ar: single-family detached units and 118 arc single-[ tinily attached units. D}~ t~ibuliun of land area by land nsc in 1985 con- staled of ~9 dcvelo~d residential acres and 56 'l'h~cc also exists inclusifially zoned acreage east of Rome 29 North, across from Fincy Mountain, and just north ~f die North Fuck Ri~nna River. Thia area ia in~ tendc~ only to ~ dcvclo~d to current zoning and is , Serv~c~ d~siq~ated land exists east of E~O~ME~T~LJ CIIA~ACTERI S'I'IC~ qlle Village lies within the watcrsiiecl of thc North Fork 0f Um Rivanna River it is compri~d of two ridges~one d~ining in thc sotlih ~nd west and dircclly in the[Horth Fork and a ~cond d~ining of He?ring~ B~nch, wbich Rows soutb to thc Norlb Tile soils in the Piney Mountain Village arc ~rm~ab c subsoil, clayey sub,oil, and shallow depth PUBLIC W&~R AND ity. Water is provided from the North Fork Rivanna tern and is readily available in the Village. ROADS Route 29 is tile primary route to tile ¥illage and has tile same limiiations as mentioned for l-lollymead. Route 606 is considered non-tolerable b1, tile Virginia Dcpartm~pt of Tr4nsportation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Two areas of environmental sensiti¥ity exist. One ia thc a~:ea of steep slop?s on the western boundary of the 'Village and a second Is tb~ tributary valley separating the industrial portion of th~: lage from the residential s~ction. These areas are not to be disturbed during development. The North Fork Rivanna River Iloodplaln is designated opcn space. Piney Mountain, by its mixtxtre and scale of land usc types, functions as a small community. Its proximn¥ to Hollymead and tile Urban Area pro- vklcs a variety of services that are faidy convenient. Thc village service area is intended to support commercial needs in tbe Village's Iow and medium density residcnlial areaS. Tim North Rivanna Waler Treatment Plant west of Route 29 1Norlh and the Camelot S~'wage Treat- ment Plant east of Route 29 North are indicated on die map. While hoth systems currently provide adequate service to the YiRagc, they will need to hc evaluated in tile udlilies master plan as ihey lam to regional needs. This is fitlly discussed In tile i Ioiiymead proRie. I:utt;rc land de~,6iopment along Route 29 North, as with areas to the Soulb along ibc corridor, are to have cnnlrolled access to the roadway. This can accomplished ti:rough joint entrances, frontage reacts, and side stree~ access. Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its sra. tus as an entry corridor to the Village, lloillanead, and the Urban Area. To provide ahcrnative access and circulation ti~rougi~ tile Village, a connector road ia intended tiirough tile' IIrJaocvood development from Route 29 North to Route 606. The Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant serves the e An area east of Route 29 and west of ,thee unnamed tributary of the North Fork of the Bivanna River is desiqpated industrial service. No developmep~ ~f properties above what is allowable undeK current zoning will take place un~il water add sewer services are provided to the area cQpsistept with tbe"Rivanna Water apd Sewer Authority and Albemarl9 ~ouoty Service Authority plaQning ~@r the provisiOq' of service to ~his area. Consider development Pr~Rgsal fog the i~l!stria] ~¥ea east o~ planned d~yelop_~ent appypach to allow for the coordinatiop of public utilic~es and facilities, road acgess necessary internalized S~Dort services. Access to Route 29 for the ihO%~strial ~ervice area east of Route 29 shall be l~ited to the exig~Ln~ crossover sou~t~ of th~ ~riarwo~d/G.E. [~Duc c~pssover. A second a~cess to the git__e fR~ ~merqency purpQ~es shp~!~__be co~s%~ered d__griDq the develoR~e~t~gview_process- Route 29 is a designated Entrance Corridor ¥Oute. Due to the elevation of th~ industrial area ea~sg, of Route 29 and its potential visibility from Route 29.~ as well as potential visibility from Rdute 600 and surrounding areas, development of this ar_e~ will be subqgc~ for review for such visual i~pact. A~ undisturbed buffer area along Herring Bran_qb should-b_~e_~rovided to reduce visual ~p~[ a]90~_R, oute 29. Maintain natuyal buffers on the p~ri~ter of the site alon__q steep slopes iD~d stream valleys. TABLE 58 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ¥1LLAGE OF PINEY MOUNTAIN N~i8hbol~ood 5e~,ic~ ~ ' lB . Map ;l'!-i Village of,Piney Mountain Land Use / j/ ~ :M~di~-~ Den~lt~ Roeldent~l ~ .Low, Sc&l~ lA Feal ( 0 1000 ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERV MEMO To: Bill Fritz, Senior Planne~ FROM: Richard Johnson, Civil Engineer DATE: October 19, 1994 CE AUTHORITY The following are our comments regarding the above referenced project: (1) Jurisdictional area question needs to be resolved. (2) Water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to construction. RRJ:dmg cc: J. W. Brent RECEIVED .~)CI 1 9 1994 I'll--,", ~ ,-' .... ~rt..ng De,.t DAVID R. GEHR COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BO~¢ 2'013 CHARLO'Iq'ESVlLLE 22902 J ATTACHHENT F 1 D. S. ROOSEVELT RESIDENT ENGINEEEi October 24, 1994 ZMA-94-12 Rouge 29 Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Mr. Benish: The comments, as mentioned for the rezoning, still apply. A traffic generation study is needed to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed development. Bassd on I.T.E. Land Use 110, it would appear thac approximately 2950 trips per day could be added to Route 29. Left and right turn lanes with tapers will be necessary. If you should require any additional information, please advise. Sincerely, J. H Kesterson Per. & Sub. Spec. Supv. JHK/ldw ~ C i Q 6 %994 % lanninc3 Dept: 11-8-94 1 NOVEMBER 8, 1994 The. Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, November 8, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charldttesville, Virginia. Those members present ' .were: Ms. Bahs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blde, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Do[son; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monies Vanghan. Other officials present were: lvk. Ron'Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Communit3, Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Larry Davis, CounW Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 25, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. Nh'. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the November 2, 1994, Board of Supervisors meeting. ZMA-94-12 River Heights Associates - Petition to xezone approximately 63 acres from Rural Area to LI, Light Industrial. Propen3', described as a portion of Tax Map 32, parcels 5 (part of) and 5C (part of) and Tax Map 33, Parcel 14 (part of), is located on the east side of Rt. 29 approximately 0.5 miles north of the North Fork Rivmma River in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Industrial Service ~n the Community of Piney Mountain. Deferred from the November 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request does not address all Comprehensive Plan provisions or enable adequate assessment of utility, tratlsportation and other impacts. Therefore, staff recommends deuial of this request." Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain the distinction between the solid red area_ vs. the area outlined in red. Mr. Fritz explained that the solid red area showed the area that ~s proposed for rezoning. Mr. Dotson asked if all the area proposed for rezoning Is within the area "where the Plan was amended to show industrial service." Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. [NOTE: Mr. Dotson raised this quesnon again later in the meeting.~ The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission He asked that the plan which his comments would refer to be displayed for the Commission. [Mr. Fritz complied with Mr. Wood's request, and noted that the plan was not proffered. 1 le explained that this plan was a sketch of one potential layoul of the property.} Mr. 3Vood directed his comments to those factors which were listed as "unfavorable" aspects of the proposal in the staff rei~ort. His comm cuts, and answers to Commission questions, inclnded the following: --'He identified tl~e prospective user of the property as the Foreign Science Technology Center (FSTC). [NOTE: At times during the discussion, FSTC was also referred to as t 1-8-94 2 GSA/General Services Administration.| FSTC has narrowed its search for.a site to 3 perspective properties. The other two sttes are the UREF Industrial Park on Rt. 29 north and property at the intersection of Rt. 29 and Airport R[ad (the "Joe Wr/ght site"). --FSTC is requesting the use of 16 to 20 ac. res of the property. --Site ~mdies have been performed (e.g iest borings, archeological and en~,ironmental studies) on thc site shown on thc left on tho plan. --A 240,000 square feet bgilding i~ proposed, with parking for 1,000 vehicles. --"We have proffered the protection of the entrance from Rt. 29 with Herring Branch. We have sh0wa a size of road that would handle any development that would go in there-- showing a 4-lane divided road going into the site. We control the property on all tbur sides of the site, even across 29." The county has control over the size and width of the right-of- way through the site plan process. --Mr. Wood offered to have the zoning revert back to RA, should FS. TC not ultimately choose this site_ [NOTE: Mr Davis addressed this issue later in the meeting.] --When looking for potential sites, this site was pointed out to FSTC, by county staff, as a potential site. IMf. Cilimberg addressed this comment later in the meeting.] --Sewer is 800 feet from thc property. Thc applicant (Mr. Wood) has entered into an agreement with Albemarle County Se~wice Authority and UVA which "adequately speaks to sexver." The existing capacity of the Camelot Treatment Plant is 365,000 gals./day. It is presently using 100,000 gals/day. For comparison, Mr. Wood stated that presently GE is using 20,000 galsTday. --Noting that the road shown on the plax~ ends at the property line, Ms. Imhoff asked if Mr. Wood knew what that road would connect to. Mr. Wood exl~lained that it would connect to the adjoining property. Ms. Huckle asked why the request is to rezone 63 acres if FSTC needs only 16-20 acres. Mr. Wood explained that FSTC has not yet determined which part of the t~vo potential sites on the property would be preferable. He stated he would be willing to reduce the zoning to the specific acreage needed by FSTC if this property is the final choice. Ms. Imhoff asked if Mr. Wood would then plan to amend this rezoning request. He responded: "I am willing to do. whatever it takes to achieve that...that we would amend the reques~ in a downward fashion to accommodate the 16-25 acres that they want." He was not sure how this would be done. Expressing the feeling that this request m premature given the fact that the plan is unproffered and lacks detail, Mr. Blue asked if the apphcant had considered negotiating with GSA, "contingent upon rezoning." Mr Wood responded' "They have requested me ~o do this" Mr Blue felt there wasn't enough information for the Commmsion to make a "definitive decision" on the request, but if the applicant "already !md a deal and knew what was going On, contingent upon rezomng," it would be a "smooth" review. Mr. Wood responded; "Life would be great if il was that cas2,, but that', not the ~ay thc r~al world operates." Mr. Blu~ pointed out that this plan has not been proffered. Mr. Wo~l offered to proffer that plan." 11-8-94 3 Ms. Imhoff expressed discomfort with reviewing rezonings which have not been maturely presented by the applicant. She cautioned that the Commission should not be writing proffers for the applicant. She felt Mr. Wood was asking.the Commission what the proffers should be. She asked that Mr. Davis comment. Regarding Mr. Wood's offer to "zone 20-to 60 acres, to be determined later,"-Mr. Davis did not think there was any legal wa~ to accomplish that. He explained: "The property that is to be rezonod needs to be specifically identified and until that 20 acres is definite, you can't just zone 20 acres, to be determined." Regarding Mr. Wood's offer to have the zoning revert back to RA if FSTC does not choose this property, Ms. Huckle asked ff that were legal. Mr. Davis responded: "No. Zoning is a legislative action and once the property, is zoned it remains zoned until another legislative action rezones it_ So there is no way for the property to be rezoned to Light Industrial and then to revert back to another zoning classification without another zoning application." Mr. Dotson asked if all the property which was a part of the Comp Plan Amendment was owned by Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood replied affirmatively. Mr. Dotson stated: "So it wonld be possible for you to bring in the whole property for a unified development approach, in the sense that you control it." Mr. Wood questioned whether such an approach would be in anyone's best interest because he did not feel there was presently a need for so much industrial property. He pointed out that there has been only one large business (GE) to locate in the County in the last 14 years. Mr. Dotson expressed concern about developing the property in "little small pieces" which could result in "alt of a sudden you've got the package, but you never planned the package." Though he noted that he had not been a part of the Commission at the time the Comp Plan was amended to designate this property for industrial use. it was his understanding, from the reports he had read, that the intent had been to "look at this as a unified piece." Mr. Wood responded: "I think it's all in what you consider little pieces:" Mr. Wood qnestioned the classification of half-a-million square feet as "a small piece." Mr. Dotson asked staff to comment on the "precision with which Comprehensive Plan boundaries are drawn." He felt there appeared to be approximately a 10% discrepancy between the boandary in the Comp Plan Anlendment and the area shover tn solid red. He thought this proposal seemed to be "taking a little bigger bite." He felt, in both cases, the boundaries seemed to be arbitrary. Mr. Benish explained that the boundaries in the Comp Plan had been adjusted, as much as possible, to match physical features, without expanding too far beyond the initial request. He explained: "It was difficult to find physical features which were close enough to the proposed site, so th~ere were some arbitrary lines drawn. In lem~s of what is being requested, w~ did quentin, u ~mall p~;~ntu~ to th~ ~outh by th~ river...." Mr. Citimberg added that "it would have been much cleaner with a development plan." ~ 11-S-94 4 Mr. Wood stated: "Based on where the FSTC didlheir test borings, we would be willing to reduce that boundary to the site on the left--the one that they. have done all their research on. ... That's what we would be willing to request and that, for sure, falls well within the Comprehensive Plan designated area," Ms. Imhoff expressed a desire to,hear public comment. She noted, however, that. she felt staff had assessed the request very accurately. She felt that this proposal was premature and that the applicant needed to go back and address all those issues identified in the staff report. Mr. Wood expressed the feeling that he had already addressed those issues. Ms. Imhoff responded: "You've not done it in a way that is legalty before us in terms of a rezoning application. You have done it verbally, but it is my understanding that you- would need to rewse your application; you would need to identify the exact acreage and location; and you would need to proffer this type of development plan." Mr. Davis confirmed Ms. lmhoffs statements were accurate. Mr, Wood expressed frustration with the system given the fact that the potential user was told by the County that this was a potential site. Ms. Imhoff stated: "I think staff has been very consistent on this rezoning, as they have been With other applicants and we have gotten more detailed information on other rezonings." She stated that other localities in which she has worked would never have accepted this as a rezoning request in its present form. Regarding Mr. Wood's statement that the staff had identified'this site for the applicant, Mr. Cilimherg explained: "We were contacted by GSA and made aware of multiple sites (they were considering), There were many more than the 3 he has mentioned. We told GSA very specifically that we were not going to recommend anything to them .... What we told them was (1) whether the properly was in the Comp Plan and how it was designated, and (2) how the property was zoned. We did respond to questions regarding the process' for bringing a piece of property igto compliance with the Comp Plan. In this particular case, we did indicate that it wa~shown in the Comp Plan for industrial, but it would need to be rezoned if it were to be developed'~ by a private user. We made similar comments for every site that was questioned, depending on the circumstances for that site. So there was no recommendation made. They made their decision in terms of narrowing down the field to the final sites. We purposely told them we didn't want to be involved in that. We did not want to get into steering users in any direction We did not warn to show any favoritism." Public comment was invited Ms. Kath~,n Hobbs, rep[esennng the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission and read a prepared statement which expressed support for staffs recommendation to deny the requ,est. (See Attachment A.) 11~8-94 5 Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission and read a prepared statement which e:~pr~ssed_support for staff's recommendaiton to deny the request. (See Attact/ment B.) There being no further public comment, Mr. W~od was allowed to address one of PEC's comments about what they believed to be.hi~ unfulfilled promise (at thc time of the Comp Plan Amendment) to request a r.ezoninffof this property back to rural areas if "industry X" did not proceed at that time. Mr. Wood explained that he had made an "overture to' do thatM but had been advised by County staff that he should not. He indicated he was still willing, as a matter of honer, to fulfill that promise, but he stressed that he had been asked, "by officials, not to do that." Ms. Huekle asked staff to comment on why Mr. Wood had been advised ngt to rezone the property back to RA. Mr. Keeler responded: "In the meeting we had with Mr. Wood today, that issue came up. I believe he just said that we recommended that it not be done. I don't believe we made a recommendation one way or the other. I believe what I said, in terms of a traditional land use approach, to mmcnd the Comprehensive Plan on Monday to find this land suitable in the furore for industrial development and then to take it out of the Plan on Tuesday, doesn't seem to be an orderly type of approach, in terms of classic planning." Mr. Cilimberg added: "There were discussions around the last Comp Plan Amendment consideration, and I think it was stated there that the expectation was if it were made industrial area, it would remain industrial area until the Comp Plan review would look at it again. So I think with the review going on, it is inappropriate just-to remove it. Mr. Wood is entitled to request whatever he would like. but I think even that would be considered within the review process." There being no further applicant ar public comment, the matter was plai:ed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff movedthat ZMA-94-12 for River Heights Associates be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, based on those reasons listed in the staff report. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that the applicant was hying to do the right thing in terms of trying to satisfy the demands of a potential client with a piece of property that has been designated as an industrial site. He.agreed, however, that there should be more detail provided before final action is taken on the request, He suggested that perhaps a 90-day deferral was in order to allow the applicant time to make change~ in tim pmpo~?. There followed a discussion as to the implications of a 90-day deferral i.n relation to the time requireni'ents of the rev~w period. Ms. lmhoff did not think there was sufficient time for a 11-8-94 6 90-day deferral. She noted, however, that the applicant could r~quest an-indefinite deferral, if he so chose. Mr. Davis explained that the Ordinance reqtrires,"you to act within 90 days after the first meeting of the Commission following the date'the application was submitted." He was uncertain of that particular date. There was s6me question,as to exactly how to interpret the Ordinance, i.e. "90 days from the date of this Commission me,ting, or 90 da~s from_ the date tho application was submitted?" "Mr. Davis felt there was some ambiguity in the way the Ordinance was worded. Ms. tmhoff stated it had been her experience, in another locality, that the interpretation was a very conservative one, i.e. the clock had begun "upon receipt" of the application. Mr. Davis agreed that would be his interpretation, but he explained this was a' determination for the Zoning Administrator to make, and she might interpret it differently. Ms. Huckle felt this question should be answered. She pointed out this ite~ had already been deferred once. Given the lack of a definitive determination as to the Ordianc¢ requiremcms, Ms. Imhoff fell it would be "much cleaner" to either deny the request, or see if the applicant might want to request an indefinite deferral. Noting the amount of work that staff had put into the request, she expressed a preference for denial The applicant could then start over. Nh-. Jenkins noted that though there originally had been an unknown user ("company X") at the time of the Comp Plan Amendment, the current prospective user is now known to be a "neighbor." He was concerned about the lack of input from FSTC. He indicated he was in favor of taking action and passing the request on to the Board, who would then, with the benefit of the Commission's minutes, take whatever action they deemed appropriate. Mr. Dotson noted that he did not feel a delayed Commission action on this request would place this property at any disadvantage in terms of FSTC's final selection given the fact that the UREF property (one of FSTC's other possible sites) is not currently zoned industrial either. Mr. Blue asked when the proposal could be re-submitted in the event the Board should deny this request. Mr. Da,As explained that "substantially the same application" could not be re- filed for one year. Mr. Blue was somewhat concerned about this possibility, because it could place this applicant out of the running if FSTC needs to make a decision in less than one year. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the key words were "substantially similar." It could not be re- heard within that one-year period if the subsequent groposal was for a "63 acre site, with no details." She again stated: "With ail the staff work that has gone into it, I thi~k it needs to be denied and let the applicant start over." [ 1 - 8 -94 ? On the question of what is "substantially the same," Mr. Davis explained .this would be a case-by-case review. He stated: "But, certainly, if the ~pplication was for a 20-acre site and had proffered conditions which nailed down the u~e, in/ny 6pinion, it would be substantially different. That would be the Zoning Adminfstra[or's dctermination ultimately, fi-om a legal standpoint." Mr. Dotson asked:" ' If It came back, the same 63 acres, but was not Light Industrial, but PDIP, would that be substantially different.'?" Mr. Davis responded: "That would certainly be a factor that would be considered in making that determination." Ms. Huckle expressed support for the motion for denial. She felt it was too premature for the Commission to make an "informed, intelligent decision at this time." Mr. Nitchmann asked if Ms. lmhoff wonld consider changing her motion t~ one fnr indefinite deferral. Ms. Imhoff expressed the belief that an indefinite deferral cannot be proposed by the Commission without the applicant's having specifically requested such a deferral. Mr. Davis confihned this was correct. He explained that if the applicant were to make such a reqoes~, then Ms. Imhoff could, if she wished, withdraw her previous mottos and a new motion could be offered. Noting once again all the staff time that had gone rote the review, Ms. Imhoff once again stated she favored a denial, w/th the applicant starting off with a new slate. However, because she understood the desire m have a good relationship with this project, she stated she would be willing to withdraw her motion, if the applicant were to request an indefinite deferral. The appJicant was asked if he wished to request an indefinite deferral. Mr. Wood once again addressed the Commission. It was not clear, initially, whether he was requesting an indefinite defcn'al or not. bls. hnholT asked him directly: "A~-e you requesting aa~ iudefinite defe~'al?" Mr. Wood replied: "I think that is probably what it boils down to." Assuming an indefinite deferral, he asked when he would De able to get the item back before the Commission. After the applioant has submitted additional information, Mr. Keeler explained that it would take approximately 4 weeks for the staff to respond and get the request back to the Commission. He explained the clock would start again when the applicant refines the request and submits new information to staff. Though Mr. Keeler pointed out that an indefinite deferral would require re-notification of the item, Ivlr. Davis questioned the accuracy of this statement. Since the public heating had already been held and closed, he/lid not think there ~vas any legal requirement that the item be readvertised. It was agreed that it has been the Commission's policy to re-ad:,,ertise an item which has been changed, so .that the public will have a chance to re. spend 11-8-94 8 Mr. Wood asked: "So the only difference for an indefinite deferral is that it has to'be readvertised?" Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. Mr. Dotson noted that given the fact th~t there is substantial work needed on the request, he felt there would be sufficient time for re-advertisement. · Mr. Wood stated: 'TII ask for an indefinite deferral, I guess." Ms. Huckle advised the applicant not to hold back on the detailS of the proposal when he comes back before the Commission· lvlr. Wood continued to state that he could not offer details if FSTC did not make him aware of the details. Ms. Imhoff withdrew her previous.motion for denial. Mr. Dotson withdrew his second to the motion. Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that the County is "extremely generous in deferring things and allowing applicants every opportunity, and I hope this doesn't put an undue burden on staff, who I think did a really good job on this project." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the applicant's request for an Indefinite Deferral of ZMA- 94-12 be accepted. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed (6:1} with Commissioner Vaughau casting the-dissenting vote. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Albemarle County PlanniDg Commission League of Women Voters November 8, 1994 ZMA 94-12 River Heights Association: to rezone approximately 63 acres from RA, Rural Area to LI. Industrial. Light The League of Women Voters supports the Planning staff's recommendation to deny this application. Although the land is in a designated industrial area and will, undoubtedly, provide employment; we believe the staff is justified in recommending denial for this particular proposal for the following reasons. First of all, the applicant has not submitted a planned development approach, as the Comprehensive Plan recommends. The intent of the Plan requires more detailed analysis of areas appropriate for development than the applicant has provided. As a result, it is impossible to coordinate public utilities and facilities, and other necessary support services. Lack of information concerning numbers and types of u~es makes it difficult for the staff to provide any kind of detailed analysis of the adequacy of both water and sewer services. Although the 1993 agreement addresses sewer needs, the proposed plan gives no clue as to what water and sewer improvements will be necessary to accommodate this area and how their provision affects other areas also counting on available capacity. Lack of information concerning user and the number and kinds of jobs created does not allow an analysis of their impact on traffic flow. A traffic study is needed. We believe that this area should not be included in the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service until the questions concerning utility servlce to the whole Piney Mt./Hollymead area have been answered. This means that ~he issues involviqg Chris Greene Lake must be resolved. The pl'~n fails t~ comply with The Comprehensive Plan or to provide enough information to assess its impact on services. Therefore, it should be denied. Thank You PIEDM©NT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL /×- Protecting The Environment ls Everybody's Business Statement on ZMA-94-12 River Heights Associates When this applicant requested a comprehensive plan amendment, we learned a little about the Fortune 50 company driving this change tn land use. We learned how many employees it expected to hire and how many of those would be local people. We learned that it was a "clean industry" although we weren't really sure what it did. Many members of the public thought this was too little information upon which to base a major change in land use, but we were assured by the Board of Supervisors that all necessary details would be required at the time of the rezoning. Even the applicant promised then that if Industry X was not "who it says it is", he would personally come back to the Board and ask that the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan be reversed. Well, Industry X has disappeared. Instead of returning to you with a request to change this property back to rural areas, the applicant appears before you asking that you zone this site to light-industrial. And now we find, at the rezoning stage, .that we know even less about the use proposed for this site than we did when the Board approved the comprehensive plan amendment. That's why we urge you to follow your staff's recommendation and deny this rezoning: This application asks you to approve thousands of square feet of industrial space without telling you anything about tl3e use. The application makes no mention of the type of industry, the number of people employed, the percentage of local residents employed, the amount of traffic generated, or the amount of water used. Nor is this application compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Under "Industrial Land Use Standards", the Plan recommends that rezonings of 50 acres or more be accomplished under a planned development designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. The proposal before you is not a planned development, nor is it accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. In the months to come, as you work on your economic development strat,eg ~es and objectives and examine the County's growth areas, we ask that you reconsider the wisdom of having this land designated in the Plan for industrial development. When you were discussing your economic development policy, you noted that some of the proposals were drafted for economic ctrcumstances that no longer exist. The same may be true for this comprehensive plan amendment - that it was approved to address perceived economic shortcomings that do not exist today. .... - - V,r ~ .~ ?7' Hh/7f~7,-31%237-t /Fax 34%9003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AGENDA TITLE: FY 1996-97 Budget Resolution end t 996 Tax Levy Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Request Board approval of FY 1996-97 Operating Budget and 1996 Tax Rates STAFF CONTACT(S): lv~ssrs. Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: April 10, 1996 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ]BACKGROUNB: Attached for your approval are two resolutions that must be approved at the April 10th meeting: DISCUSSION: l: Resolution to Approve the ~ 1996-97 Operating Budget The first resolution £ormally approves the proposed expenditures for FY 1996-97, which are shown by major category or function and total $118,404,105, an increase orS1,014, 939 over the County Executive's recommended budget. The added revenues are shown on page 2 and reflect an additional $539,726 in revenues to the General Fund, $525,788 to the School Fund and a decrease of ($50,575 ) in the School Division Self-Sustaining Funds. County Executive adjnstments to the recommended budget in the amount of $14,248 include budget reductions in Juvenile Detention, the jail and JAUNT, which are pail/ally offset by minor program adjustments and increases in state salaries for constitutional officers. Adjustments since the final worksession, mainly a $17,500 reduction in the JAUNT budget, have increased the Board' s reserve fund fi.om $150,513 to the current Board Reserve of $166,794. Board of Supervisor's priorities of $515,002 now reflect the return of the Scottsville depmy and the additional full-time position in Juvenile Court, which is offset by the deletion of the $40,000 reserve amount for the Pantops/Walmart bus route not funded by the City. Board additions to the School Transfer include $929,987 from the Reserve Fund and $501,495 in one-time General Government Fund Balence revenues for a $1,431,482 increase in the general fund transfer to the School Division over the recommended budget· The total F Y 96/97 General Fond trensfer is $42.6 million, a 9.2% iucrease over the current year. School Fund Changes include a net increase of $465,376 from the state maimy due to the additional No-Loss and Transitional Composite f~mds, plos a slight increase inprojected foster care reimbursement revenues of $60,412. A decrease of $50,575 in the Self~Snstalning Funds reflects a reduction in PREP program revenues IL Resolution to Set the County Levy. The second resolution, page 4, sero the tax levy for the taxable year 1996. The proposed rates are the same as the current year and are set at $0.72 for the real estate tax rate end $4.28 for the personal property tax rate· RECOMMENDATION: If the Board has no further additions or deletions to the proposed budget, staff requests approval of tl~ attached resolutions. %.062 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1996, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Recreation and Culture Community Development County/City Revenue Sharing General Government Committed Reserve Refunds Capital Improvements Capital Projects/Debt Service Reserve General Government Debt Service Education - Operations Education - Self-Sustaining Funds Education - Debt Service Jail Expansion Reserve Contingency Reserve 5,161,938 1,727,433 9,007,133 2,176,301 5,643,508 2,940,998 2,307,857 5,170,853 192,250 53,100 2,686,500 450,000 113,500 67,172,182 6,337,670 6,845,880 200,000 217,002 TOTAL 118,404.105 I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy for a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 10, 1996. Clerk, Board of County S/~pervisors BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FY96-97 ADOPTED BUDGET RECOM~ ADOPTED I. CHANGES FR~ RECOMM TO ADOPTED GENERAL FUND_ BEGINNING RESOURCES (BOARD RESERVE) Less Recommended Reserve for Jail Expansion NET BEGINNING RESOURCES 1,759,304 ,759,304 ,559~304. COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO GENERAL FUND Miscellaneous Adjustments in Personnel/Operating Costs SUB TOTAL COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADJUSTMENTS 14,248 14,248 GENERAL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES Additional General Fund Balance/Carry-Over Additional E-911 Revenues Restoration of Scottsvil[e Reimbursement Additional City Contribution - Juvenile Court Bailiffs Additional State Compensation Board Revenues - Salary Increases Additional Federal Revenues - Management Analyst II Offset SUB TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS 501,495 597 4,179 8.521 14.432 10,502 539,726 B.O,C.S. FUNDED PRIORITIES - GENERAL FUND Contingency - General Government Pay Plan Implementation Contingency - Expansion of CTS Bus Service to Wal-Mart/Pantops Shopping Ctrs. County Attorney - Part-Time Law Clerk Sheriff- Additional Bailiff in Juvenile Court (Net of City Share & Scottsville Refund: $38,717) Police - Temporary Part-Time Clerical Help Fire/Rescue - Three, Full-Time Uniformed Fire Fighters (Hired In January) Management Analyst Region Ten - Contribution Toward Purchase of New Building Social Services - Additional Bright Stars Program JABA - Contribution Toward Construction of New Adult Health Care Facility SHE - Additional Funds To Meet 3% Agency Increase Teensight - Additional Funds for School Liaison Worker Service Hours Parks & Recreation - Milton River Access Gate Opener Discovery Museum -Additional Funds SUB TOTAL B.O.C.S. FUNDED PRIORITIES (192,250) 0 (8,840) (51,417) (10,203) (74,492) (42,009) (75,000) (39,405) (14,400) (1,713) (200) (2,573) (515,002) B.O.C.S. ADDITIONS TO SCHOOL TRANSFER Increased School Transfer - Ongoing Operations Increased School Transfer - One Time Costs SUB TOTAL B.O.C.S. SCHOOL TRANSFER ADDITIONS (929,987) (1,431,482) ENDING BOARD RESERVE-GENERAL FUND 166,794 04/05/9610:25 AM 2 WKSUMBOS.WK4 II. CHANGES FRO~ TO ADOPTED SCHOOL FUND SCHOOL FUND ADDITIONS TO REVENUES Net Increase due to No-Loss & Transitional Composite index Payments Increase in State Schoot Fund Revenues - Foster Care Reimb. SUB TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUE ADDITIONS ~RECOMM ADOP~D 465,376 60.412 525,788 III. CHANGES FROM RECOMM TO ADOPTED SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS REDUCTIONS TO REVENUES Decrease in Local Self-Sustaining Revenues - PREP Program SUB TOTAL SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS REVENUE REDUCTIONS ~60.575~ {50,675) V. ADOPTED FY ~9~9-97 T~AL COUNTY BUDGET TOTAL GENERAL FUND TOTAL SCHOOL FUND (LESS TRANSFER) TOTAL SELF-SUSTAINING TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET 86,966,814 87,506,540 24,034,107 24,559,895 6~ ~670 $117,389,166 $118,404,105 04/05/9610:25 AM 3 WKSUMBOS.WK4 Revenues FY 1996-97 Adopted Total County Revenues State Revenue 23% Federal Self- Carry-Over/Fund Revenue Sustaining Balance 2% 5% 1% Other Local Revenues 20% Prope~y Taxes 49% FY 94/95 FY 95/96 FY 95/96 FY 95/97 FY 95/97 FY 95/97 FY 96/97 [ % o,~ TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED ES3~MA3ED RECOMM PROPOSED ADOP3~D INC NC_ 3]. LOCAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES 48,9t2,599 52,395,648 52,396.648 57.843.000 57.828.980 57.828.980 57.828,980 5.432,332 10.37% 48.84% OTHER LOCAL REVENUE 21.267.032 2%994.540 21,999,540 22,717.5~ 22,861.573 22.862. t70 22.874.870 880.330 4.00°,~ 19.32% Expenditures FY 1996-97 Adopted Total County Expenditures School General Gov't Revenue Sharing Debt/Capital Miscellaneous 4% 6% 2% General Gov't Operations 25% School Operations 63% TOTAL COUNTY EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNC~ ONS ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL PUBUC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS -IUMAN DEVELOPMENT PARKS R/-~CREATION & CUL3~JRE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMI'F~ED RESERVE 9 O_ O_ 0 O_ 192,250 192,250 ~192.250 100.00% 0.16% 103,187,901 110,753,130 1t2,500,993 126,083,120 117,389,166 118,381,565 115,404,105 7,650,975 6.91% 100.00% 0 15.000.000 15,000,000 103,187,90t 125,753,130 127,500,993 General Fund Summary of Expenditures FY 94/95 FY 9~/68 FY 95/96 FY 95/97 FY S6f97 ~ 95/97 FY 96~97 $ % % ^C%IAL ADOP'i~D REVISED REQUEST RECOMM PROPOSED ADOPTED IhIC NC 290.022 268.533 301.533 301.533 301.533 12,201 4,22% 0,34% 268.880 327.778 319.938 327.778 327.778 30.868 10.41% 0,37% 855.794 991.913 894.113 894.113 594.113 59.783 7,17% 1.02% 382.048 291,313 291.313 291,313 291.313 68.657 30.85% 0.33% 932,579 689.697 939,126 939,126 939.126 24.339 2,66% 1.07% 4@~668 5~ 51.749 51~749 5_1,749 2,051 4A3% 0.06% 2.220.119 2.204.672 2176,301 2.176,301 2.176.901 154.860 7,66% 2.4~% HUMAN DEVELOPMENT A%RISK PLANNING GRANT 5.000 0 0 0 BEA'~ NG 31-iE ODDS 0 0 O 11.410 CHARLOTTESVILLE FR~E CLINIC 4.600 5.000 5.00~ 5.359 CHILDREN & yoLr~t COMMISSION 22.250 22.250 24.750 25.792 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.(~3% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 5,150 5.190 5.150 150 3.00% 0.01% Albemarle County Schools FY 94195 FY 95/96 FY 96/96 FY 96197 FY 96/97 FY 96/97 FY 96/97 9 % SCHOOL DIVISION EXPEND~JRES AC~AL ADOP'I~D REVISED REQUEST RECOMM PROPOSED ADOP~D INC ~NC SCHOOl. OPERA~ONS 61.082,784 63,774.854 64.165.322 67.099.298 65.214.912 67.111,770 B7.172,182 3.397.328 5.33% SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS 4,392~535 5,895,827 5~951~906 6~388,245 6,388~245 6,358~245 6,337,670 441~843 7.49% TOTAL EXPENDB~JRES 65.475.319 69.670,681 70.117.228 73.487.543 71.603.157 73,500.015 73.509.852 3.839.171 5,51% GEN. FUNDTRSNSFEP~ -OPERA'I~ONS 36.804.945 39.013.874 39.013.874 42,868,677 41.180.805 42.110,792 42.110.792 3.096.918 7.94% GEN. FUND q~SNSFEP~ - ONE-~ME 6 0 0 0 0_ 501,495 501.495 501.495 100.00% TOTAL C~NERAL FUND 'I~ANSFER 36.604.94~ 39,013,874 39.013.67~ 42.868,677 41.180.805 42.612.287 42,612,287 3.598.413 9.22% Budget Discussion As in FY 1995, the School Board recommended an unbalanced budget indicating a shortfall of $1,884,386. Approximately $0.586 million of this shortfall was due to a loss in State funds as a result of a projected increase in Albemarle County's composite index. The proposed operating budget funds this shortfall through a combination of Board Reserves ($929,987), and $501,495 from the General Fund Balance for the one-time purchase of language arts textbooks ($236,630) and non-recurring SOL Alignment, Assessment and Curriculum Development expenses ($264,865). The remaining $452,904 was funded by increased State funding from the General Assembly in the form of one-time funds for transitional composite index and no-loss provisions. The adopted budget reflects an additional increase of $60,421 in State foster care reimbursements and a $50,575 decrease in self-sustaining fund revenues and expenditures. School Division operating revenues are depicted below, followed by a synopsis of the School Division's proposed funded initiates for FY97. FY 1996-97 Adopted School Division Operating Revenues Local - Transfers 57% $42,62~ 787 Local - School Fund 1% $541,876 Self-Sustaining 9% $6,337,670 Federal1% Car~-Oved State $658,185 Fund Bal. 32% <1% $23,251,334 $100,000 I .: . Sarah ~McC ellahd 317 i5ih~S;[met?'N.W-; #203: ' Char ottes~i e- Virgi n a 22903 Board 0f SupervisOrs. ' 401 MCinti:r,e, ~Rba. d :.-: -COUNTY , , BOARD provided by the SI '. -~ are resid ntial'§erv ces Safe shelter, and adv(~cacy) non-res dent al serv ces (twenty-fou hour hotline walk-in counseling and.adv~acy)~ and perhaps;'m0st importantly,. ~ offered;t6, ih~'~om'Cn~i{9 t~fough;:: .. d S{d~uti0n education/awareness materials about domestPr°gramSc v olence and'¢u5 C Speaking'inan 'e~°'~to ed'~Cate ' ;~': community membem and professionals ab0~t t~'~Uses of d0me~ic violen~ and its effe~s, -,, .-: ~-- -- -, S ncerely, ' .Sarah' McClelland Community Resident so that these, t to MEmo To: From: Date: Re; Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Canherine J. Bodkin April 3, 1996 Child Care Resource and Referral of. Children, Youth and Family Services Albemarle County funding for '/996~97 CYFS is requesting that the County of Albemarle increase the funding for the child care resource and referral to cover the cost efthe services received.,, The full funding would be $26.887. The County of Albemarle has for at least 3 years funded the program at a level between $7,500 and $9,645. Given the funding constraints of the CYFS budget for 1996- 1997, the agency will only be able to provide the services to Albemarle County citizens for which there is funding support. CYFS had requested 2 years ago that the funding by the county be brought up gradually over a three year pedod, These incremental steps have not occurred. The impact of increased county residents. Welfare Reform and cuts in other funding sources make it a critical decision point in terms of county funding. CYFS has not only signtficantJy increased the number of service houm provided in the past 3 years but also taken on the additional task of voluntary registration of child care providers. This saves county staff time. There was no reimbursement for this increase in tasks. CYF8 has been responsive to the request for increased child care training class offedngs and for more services to the child care centers. I ( PHONE CALL ) ~E'fURNED PHONE YOUR CALL - AREACODE NUMBER E~ENSION PLEASE CALL MESSAGE_ SIGNED W~LL CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TOSEEYOU PLEASE CALL MESSAGE ~ ~ m SEE YOG , WANTS ITC SEE YOU EXTRACT FROM MINUTES Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thom- as, to approve the FY 1996-97 through FY 2000-01 Capital Improve- ments Program totalling $76,760,120, and to approve the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements Budget totalling $25,339,827, all as set out on the attached sheets. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshatl. None. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 10, 1996. Clerk, Board of County Su?ervisors ~Y 96/97 - 00/01 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - ALL FUNDS ~Revise~. Totals Highlighted) County Facility and Avon street extended in School Division CIP Fund School M&R projects funded with VPSA except with specified annual transfer Projects/Revenues FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 TOTAL A~m nistration & Courts 298,850 150,000 266,250 468,000 1,328,100 Fire/Rescue & Safety 322,295 502,331 250,000 265,000 400,000 1,739,626 Highways & Transportation 561,000 _ibrades 68.500 3arks & Recreation Jtility Improvements 0 CIP Projects/Debt Svc. Reserve 0 Projects 23,154,385 ects 1~10.D0_0 548.500 322,947 314,000~ 100,000 102.222 16,588,120 110.000 18.738 145,000 737.900 .000 300,000 110.000 592,750 794,200 3,234.350 15,000 15,000 424,447 118.230 49.500 300,000 295,842 995,842 782,770 277,458 1,572,550 10,420,700 8.534.793 65.574.678]! 110.000 Funding Summary - General Government Capital Improvement Fund ~,vailable Resources_: 31P Fund Balance 3eneral Fund Appropriation Subtotal Revenues 118.842 total ~ecommended Pr~ects Shortfall/Excess Revenue 0 100,000 100,000 100.000 100,000 ~940.000 1.840.000 2~240.000 2.2000~Q~QO0 2,040,000 1,940,000 2,340,000 2,300,000 2,040,000 1,940,000 2,340,000 2,300,000 0 0 0 0 518,8421 ,~umulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 -~nding Summary - School Division Capital Improveme~ ~.vailable Resources CPSA Bonds rmsfr, from Split Billing Reserve nterest Earned =roffer Funds transfer from General Fund Subtotal Revenues 15,988,120 16,500,000 0 0 0 0 16,500,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 0 0 0 400.000 0 400,000 500~Q~ 600.000 700.000 800,00~0 3.,2-5_~ ,90.0_ 23,154,385 16,588,120 t0,420,700 8,534,793 65,574,678, ~,ecommended P ro'e~e~.ts_ 16,588,129 ~hortfalllExcess Revenue 0 0 0 ,~umulative Shortfall 0 0 0 23,154,385 =unding Summary - St~-mwater Capital Improvement Fund ~,vailable Resources I'ransfer from General Fund 60,000 60,000 Stormwater Fund Balance 50,000 _50.000 ~ubtotal Revenues 110.000 110,000 60,000 60,000 0 240,000 ~ 50.000 50.000 250,000 110,000 110,000 50,000 490,000 110,000 [ecommended Projects 1t0,000 110,000 1t0,000 50,000 490,000 ~hortfall/ExcessRevenue 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 OverallShorffall 0 0 0 0 0 3verall Cumulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 04/04/9607:27 PM I CIP9701 D.WK4 0 o w °°~° § °°°°°°~° ooo o-o~.~§ °° ~ ~oo~o~o~oo~oooo~o~o~oo~q~ ~zz~zzz~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: 4pproval FY96/97 - FY00101 Capital Improvements Program and FY96/97 CIP Budget SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Request Board approval of FY 1996-97 - FY 2000-01 Capital hnprovemant Program and FY 1996-97 Capital Improvements Budget ~TAFF CONTACT: Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: April 10, 1996 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVl~WED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: At the Apr// 3rd worksession on the proposed FY 1996-97 - FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Prograna, the Board recommended the following changes to the proposed plan: Place an unspecified amount of planning funds in FY 98/99 for the High School Pool Facility and delete the $3.5 million allocation in FY2000/01; increase the Crozet Pool contribution by $50,000 in FY1996-97 (contingent on additional informatiOn) and delete the Greenwood School Abestos Removal Project ($200,000), transferring available funds to the Contingency/Reserve line item. DISCUSSION: With the requested changes, the total FY1996-97 - FY 2000-01 Capital Improvements Program totals $76,760,120, a reduction of $3.4 million with the replacement of the $3.5 million pool facility with $50,000 in planning funds and an additional $50,000 for the Crozet pool. Reflected below is the total five-year CIP, program, which is further broken down on the followmg pages into the three separate funds: $10,695,442 for the General Govemmant Capital Fund, $65,574,678 to the School Division Capital Fund and $490,000 to the Stormwater Capital Fund. Expenditures by Function FY96/97 FY 96/97 - 00/01 Fire/Rescue.Safety 322,295 1,739,626 Highways,Trans portaion 561,000 3,234.350 libraries 68,500 424.447 Parks/Recreation 824,797 1.400.527 Utility Impmvements 0 995,842 School Division Projects 23,154.385 65,574,678 Storm Water Projects 110,000 490,000 Contingency 0 1,572 550 Total Expenditures 25,339,827 76,760,120 Resources FY96/97 FY 96~97 - 00101 d.,~w rand Balance -~ o~,u,~2 13,686,500 General Fund Revenues 2,686.500 VPSA Bonds 5,884,485 44,904,778 Split Billing 16.500,000 16,500,000 Interest 100,000 500,000 Proffers 0 400,000 ITotal Resources 25,339,827 76,760,1201 On the, attached~sheets, page 1 reflects a summary of the total projects by function and a summary of both revenues and expenditures for each of the three separate funds. Pages 2 -4 show all the funded projects for the five-year period with the most recent changes highlighted. The requested information on the Crozet pool was not complete at the time of this mailing, but will be provided to you at Wednesday's meeting. In response m other questions raised during the last worksession, sidewalks will be added at a later time to the Ivy Road Project, although they are not parr of this ISTEA bike lane and streeflight project, hi the library maintenance projects, the carpeting should not have been included in the project description. The library had intially requested in FY97 to recarpet the third floor, but remaining funds l~om several other library projects were used to complete the carpeting in the current year while the other floors were being done. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY1996-97 - FY2000-01 Capital Improvement Prog~un and approval of the FY 1996-97 Capital Improvement Budget. 96.024 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: COUNTY ALBEMARL MEMORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Richard E. Hu~ II, Deputy County Executive BOAi~D OF $~JPESV~$O~S ~' ! April 5, 1996 Crozet Pool Site Plan Per the Board's request, the following information is provided regarding the Crozet Pool Site Plan. The Special Permit required for the new pool was originally scheduled for a Board of Supervisors meeting on January I0, but the meeting was canceled due to snow. The Special Permit was heard by the Board of Supervisors on February 14 (next available meeting) with action deferred until February 21. Conditions adopted by the Board as part of the Special Permit included: overnight parking shall be permitted only if adequate sanitation facilities are provided to the satisfaction of the Health Department: no site plan shall be approved until adequate parking is provided on the plan; improvements to the entrance in accord with the recommendations of VDOT shall be indicated on the site plan. The special permit was approved on February 21 and final staff comments were forwarded to the applicant on February 29. Applicant submitted final plan on March 24 for review which wilt be completed by April 5. The major issue that has slowed review down by staffhas been the uncertainty on behalf of the applicant as late as March 20 as to whether they will agree to hook up to Service Authority sewer per Health Department requirements as well as provide a sewer dumping station to allow for camping on the grounds as is currently the practice. What may be clearest in understanding the length of time this process has taken is the fact that many of the Park Board members did not contemplate having to go through the County's Special Permit process for an expansion of an existing use. The requirement, however, was a legal one in that the exisfmg pool was a non-cOnforming use that did not have a special permit. If there should be any further questions, please do not hesitate to comact me. REH, IUbat 96-5 COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1996/97 - FY 00/01 Capital Improvement Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAIdREOUEST: Workscssion on FY t 996-97 - FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Program and FY 96/97 Capital Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tuvker, Ms. Whim AGENDA DATE: April 3, 1996. ACTION: Q¢. INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTAC3-1MENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFO~TION: / BACKGROUND: The recommended FY 1996-97 Capital lmprovem~t Program was presented to tho Board at a workseasion on December 6 followed by a public hearing on February 14 (deterred from January 10 due to mow). Tho only public comment was m support of the praposad ~Virmallng pool at th~ new high school in FY 00-01. Based on tlie Board's final review of the proposed projects, both tbe FY 1996-97 - FY 20004) 1 five year plan and the FY 96197 Capital Bndget may Ix/approved at the April 10 meeting in conjunction with approval of the FY 96/97 operating budget. DISCUSSION: Since the Board's initial worksessioo, several revisions are being proposed to the plan, all of which are addressed in the aRached information: Proposed changes to the Cl!o from the initial worksession ~ funding z~mma~y for all fimds Revised funding for School Division projects Revised project sheets for Ivy Road, County Land Alldeti¢ Field Study and Voting Machine Debt 8ervice. $,rmmmy of proposed FY 96-97 projects Letter from A1Reeser on revised school division projects Additional information from Pat Mallauey, Director of Parks and Recreation on the proposed swimming fac/lity at the new high school, The proposed FY 1996-97- FY 20004) I CapRal Improvement Program totals $80,1 million. $69 million to the School Division Capital Fund, $10.6 million to the C~lleral Govemlns~ CIP ~ and $490,000 to the Stormwater Fund. Total revisions to the proposed CIP include thc addition of $66,600 in projects for FY 1996-97,$46,600 to Ivy Road Bike Lanes and $20,000 for the County Land Athletic Field Study, the reallocation of $1,353,485 in School Diviskm Funds from several maintenance related projects to seven underestimated construction projects, and an additional $396,500 in General Fund transfer funds allocated to both the General Govea-ament and School Division CIP Funds. Proposed revisions to the CI!0 proposed in December are listed on page 1. Under revenue changes, of the additional $500,000 approved by the Board to transfer to the CIP fund, $113,500 needs to be retained in the Oeneral Fund operating budget to cover tbe debt seavice costs for the voting machines, which we~ approved in the current year's CIP for a two year leasing period. Because the leasiug costs were actually funded in tt~ cmrmt yesr out of the General Fund, this project had been erroneously omitted from the Capital Improvement Program budget. The revised project sheet for the voting l~l~hln~-~ from last year's CIP is included for your review (page 6). Page 2 reflects thcse r~vised dollar changes across all the funds and page 3 reflects tho proposed changes to thc school division projects, thc increased general fund transfer and tM decreased VI>SA bond requirement. RECOMMENDATION: This information is ~ fc~ the Board's information and review aud dees not require approval at this time. 97 - FY 2000-01 Capital Improvement Program and tM FY 1996-97 CIP Capital Budget can be ( conjunction with the approval of the FY 1996-97 Operating Budget. 95.058 Approval of both the FY 1996- BOARD OF SUPERV~$O~ Proposed Changes to FY1996-97 - FY2000-01 Capital Improvement Program General Government CIP Fund Ivy Road Bike Lanes and Streetlights - add $46.400 to FY1996-97 based on revised estimates for County's local match utilizing funds from the additional general fund transfer. County Land Athletic Field Study - Move project from FY2000-01 to FY1996-97 using $20,000 bom the additional general fund transfer. Funds planned for the study in FY00/01 are moved into contingency line item. School Division CIP Fund Reallocate $1,353,485 from 4 maintenance/lower priority projects to 7 renovation and expansion projects to reflect escalated costs of construction: Reduce: Phase I Chiller Replacements Roofing Replacement ADA Stmctttral Changes Phase I Technology Labs Total Reduction $248,000 594,000 186,485 325,000 $1,353,485 Enhance: Western Albemarle High Woodbrook Elementary Cale Elementary Brownsville Elemtary Crozet Elementary Stony Point Elementary Yancey Elementary Total Addition $313,485 295,000 179,000 262,000 142,000 132,000 30,000 $1,353,485 Revenue Changes: Additional $386,500 transfer to CIP ($500,000 additional transfer less $113,500 retained in General Fund to cover debt service costs for Voting Machines). Transfer from the additional $386,500, $66,600 to the General Government CIP fund, $46,400 for Ivy Road and $20,000 for the Athletic Field Study in FY1996-97. Transfer from the additional $386,500, $319,900 to the School Division CIP Fund to increase the percent (37% to 67%) of school maintenance and repair projects being funded by current revenues and reduce reliance on VPSA bonds. F~ 96~97 -00101 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM -ALL FUNDS Funding Scenario II County Facility and Av~0p.st~ef~ext~e. pded in School Division CIP Fund Schbol M&R proje~ta tundbd ~ith vPsA except with specified annual transfer Projects/Revenues FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 TOTAL Administration & Courts 298.850 150,000 145.000 266.250 468.000 1.328.100 Fire/Rescue & Safety 322,295 502.331 250.000 265,000 400,000 1.739,626 Highways & Transportation 514.438 548,500 737.900 592,750 794.200 -3.1,~7.750 Libraries 68.500 322.947 3,000 15.000 15.000 424,~7 Parks & Recreation ~L~,~,,=, 314.000 294.000 118,230 ~,500 1.550,527 UtJli~ improvements 0 100.000 300.000 300,000 295,~2 995,~2 CIP Proje~s/Debt Svc. Rese~e 0 102.222 210,100 782,770 ~,~ 1.352.550 School Division Pro, ems 23.1~.385 16,588.120 6,826,680 ~0.420.700 12,0~.793 69,024,678 Stormwater Pro~e~s ~10.000 110.000 110,0~ 110,~ 5~ 490,000 Grand To~l Projec~ ~ 18~738~120 8,87e~680 t2,8~700 14,384~793 Funding Summary - General Government Capital improvement Fund ~Av a ila b le~eso u r c e s :.' CIP Fund Balance 118,842 General Fund Appropriation ~ Subtotal Revenues .a~ 100.000 100.000 100,000 100.000 518,842 1.940.000 t.840.000 2.240.0QQ 2.200.QQQ .tO~360:~00 2,040,000 '1,940,000 2,340,000 2,300,000 1~ 2,040,000 '1,940,000 2,300,000 ~ Total Recommended Projec~_ 2,340,000 Shortfall/Excess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Cumulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 Funding Summary - School Division Capital Improvement Fund A_vailabie Resource~ ~;E.~q. qg~' VPSA Bonds '"~1154,$65 15.988.120 6,126,680 9,220.700 11,134,793 Tmsfr. from Split BiJling Reserve 16,500.000 0 0 0 0 16.500.000 Interest Earned 100,000 100.000 100.000 100,000 100.000 500,000 Proffer Funds 0 0 0 400.000 0 400.000 Transfer from General Fund %~ ..~C-030,?,0 5~00.000_ 600.000 700.000 800.000 ~.000~ Subtotal Revenues 23,154,385 16,588,120 6,826,680 10,420,700 t2,034,793 69,024,678 Recommended Projects 23,154,386 16,588,120 6,826,680 10,420,700 t2,034,793 Shortfall/Excess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 ~umulative Shortfall 69,024,678 0 6 0 0 0 0 Funding Summary - Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund -vail Transfer from General Fund ~tormwater Fund Balance Subtotal Revenues 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 0 240,000 50.000 ~0,000 50.00Q 50.000 ~ 250.000 1~0,000 t10,000 110,000 1t0.000 60,000 490,000 110,000 ~ecommended_Prejects 1'10,000 '110,000 110,000 50,000 490,000 ~horffall/Excess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 ~umulative Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?~erall Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 0 era Cumu at ve Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0 03/28/9610:07 AM 2 CIP9701C.WK4 F~( 96~97 - 00101 RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DIVISION CIP FUND Project~ FY 96-97 I~t 97-98 ~Y 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 TOTAL Expenditures School Technctogy projects Mandated Projects Maintenance/Rectacement Projects' ~liscellaneous Projects Avon Street/Route 20 Connector New High School Comm. Rec. Facilities School Division Projects Available Revenues: 69.80g,060 $12.820.$50 $0 $0 SO $22.620.35C Transfer from GeneraJ Fund ?}~ ..~,~ $500,000_ [600,000_ Subtotal Revenues $23,154,385 $16,588,120 $6,826.680 $10~420,700 $12,034,793 $69,024,67~ TOTAL REQUESTED PROJECTS I~VER/(SHORT} ACCUMULATED OVER/(SHORT~ School Division CIP Fund Projects: $23,154,385 $t6,588,t20 $6,826,680 $t0,420,700 $12,034,793 $69,024,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $6 S0 $0 $0 Cmzet Addition ~714.3-~ $0 $0 $0 CATEC ADA Corr 31iance $14.000 $0 $0 $0 A, HS Phase Il & Ig R~storafions $539.000 $20.000 $249,000 $0 Woodbmok Renovafion/~dition ' .7gC.~23 $0 $0 $0 N~ High S~ 69.800.000 $12.820.350 $0 $0 9Yg,gqo _ Subtotal School Division CIP Funa 623.t54.385 $16.588.120 66,826.680 610.420.700 612.034.793 $69.024,678J Maintenance projects include Greet Renovations, Chiller Replacement & Walton HVAC Renovation 03/28/9609:56 AM 3 CIP9701 C.WK4 Ivy Road Bike Lanes& Streetlights IDepartment: PLANNING/CMTYDEE New R~qU'eYt? MandatedProject? Project Start Date: 8/96 Continuation? Documented Project/Need? Proposed Completion Date: 12/98 Revised? X Other Community Need/Service? xl Project Description: Construct shared bike lanes and install streetllghts along the Ivy Road Corridor (Route 250 West) fi:om the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass. This project is revised from prior years to include bike lanes and $8,100 in additional funds to install streetltghts (over the $31,900 approved iostyear for FY 98 and FY99.} Project dates also have been moved from FY 98 and 99 to FY97-99. It is expected that 80% of the right-of-way and construction costs for the bike lanes will be borne by VDoT through ISTEA funding. The bike lanes will be a joint project with the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, with funding occurring in FY 97 ($$O, O00 from each jurisdiction, plus $600, O00 from ISTEA funds). FundingJbr the streetlight installation ($40,000) would occur in FY99. University funding their portions of the project. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Ivy Road Design Study and the City/County Bicycle Plan and with the Lewis Mountain- University Heights Neighborhood Study. Impact if Project Not Completed: If not funded, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles will be compromised. Project Manaeer: Planning & Conuntmity Development Location/Site Status: Ivy Road from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass Project Justification: This project will enhance the "Entrance Corridor" status of Route 250 West and improve the safety of the corridor. The high UVA student population irt this area generates considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the corridor is subject to high traffic volume and multiple turning movements. The construction of these improvements will help to implement the Ivy Road Corridor Plan, with the bike path portion of the project contingent on the City and Operating Cost Breakdown: The amaual operating expenses of $5,000, $9,720 and $9,720 in FY 99-01, respectively would cover electricity costs associated with the streetlight installation. Land Acquisition Arc. hit/Engineering Construction Other Total Proje t Cost Less: Fees Les~: ISTEA Funds Net County Cost Opetuting Costs 24,440 Priqr FY 97 0 !7,g~ 0 0::(:0~"., 0 ! o! 0 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 40,000 0 0 57,0CC 0 40,000 0 40,000 t~cco 0 0 4~~ 0 5,000 9.720 9,720 24,440 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 County Land Athletic Field Study Department: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 2000 Proposed Completion Date: June 2001 INew'R~quest? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? Other CommuniO~ Need/Service? X Project Description: An anal~ sis oft, he athletic fieM potential of exist'rog County land. Potential sites include the Preddy Creek property, Albemarle High School/Jouett Middle School complex, the new high school site, Walnut Creek etc. Project Justification: The various youth athletic leagues are in need of additiunal playing space £or practice and games. Current school and park fields are used relentlessly which makes maintenance of a reasonable grass cover near impossible. To pull a field out of use for a season results in irate citizans. This is a progressive attempt to keep up with the desire for more and better fields. County staff will work to identify areas for a more detailed study. Relationship to Plan: this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life. rhis project promotes positive youth development and anticipated growth of the County. This project ma~unizes use of existing County facilities. Impact if Project Not Completed: Continued and increasing problems with athletic field scheduling. Continued deterioration of existing fields. Ma3 need to prioritize sport use according to season. Proiect Manager: Parks & Recreation Project Revision: Based on comments from Board of Supervisor members, the study has been moved from FY00/01 to FY96/97. Parks and Recreation staff will work closely with engineering consultants to assess athletic space needs and identify properties. Thc engineering consultants will provide the technical expertise needed to determine the feasibility and cost estimates for specific sites. Location/Site Status: Several sites around County to be identified by staff. TL Land Acquisition 0 Arch/t/ Engmeedng 20,000 Construction O~her Total Project Cost 20,01~ Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 20,00~ Opera tmg ;.;oszs 01 FY97 FY98 FY'99 FY O0 O 0 o o o 20,0C,~ o o o ..... FY01 TL 97-01 o 0 ~ .... 20.000 0 0 20,00~ 0 0 2o,oo~ Prior o --~ o -~- Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 69 Replace Voting Machines Functional Area: Department: pro_iect Description/JuM'iflcarian: Replace all current mechanical lever voting machines with direct recording electronic voting machines. It is estimated that 57 machines will be needed at the time of project initiation. This project is needed became the advancing age or current machines will lead to increased election day problems and maintenance costs. Additionally the new, electronic machines will increase the accuracy, speed and reliability of election results; will be easier to use, especially by the disabled; and will be easier to (ransport and store than current machines. These machines have currently been purehnsed through a leasing agreement. 'Ibis project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County resident through a combination of mutually complementary public facilities and public and human services and by meeting the documented needs of County residents. Administration and Courts County Electoral Board 21 Polling Places throughout the County. Estimated Project Cost Funded by County: 57 ¥~3chines $221,000. . .' .: -! ': No impact on the operating budgeL Impact if Pro_iect Not Completed: If not funded~ the increasing machine age of cun-ent mach'mes will lead to greater electiun day problems and higher maintenance costs. The Board approved the project as propese~L Financing/Operating Budget Impact: ~ [ Prior [ FY 96-2000 I Years FY96 FY 97_ FY98 FY 99 FY'2000 Request Saao, oooI $10%000 S~AOe ~ ~0 ~0 S0 $2~,000 Capital Improvement Program Spring, 1995 FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Administration & Courts County Technology Upgrade. This ongoing project provides microcomputers for gen- eral government and Information Services staff, upgrades the infi:astmcture of the County Office Building Local Area Network (LAN) hardware, and upgrades the PBX phone system. The impact on the operating budget is projected to be $17,200 in FY 96/97 and $105,900 over the entire five-years to provide for help desk support and training. This project is expected to cost $805,000 over the 5-year period. County Office Building Maintenance & Replacement Projects. In FY 96/97, various maintenance and replacement projects are scheduled to be completed that include replacing a boiler, cleaning duct work, replacing windows, stripping paint and tack-point- ing remaining exterior walls of the County Office Building. Additionally, this project includes $106,250 in FY 99/00 for repairs to the Juvenile Court building and $280,000 in FY 00/01 to replace obsolete AC chillers and re-surface the County Office Building parking area. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. This ongoing project is expected to cost $505,100 over the 5-year period. $180,000 $118,850 Fire/Rescue & Safety Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund. This project involves the ongoing contribu- tion to a sinking fund created to provide funding for the furore construction of two (2) new County fire and rescue stations in designated rapid growth areas and for the purchase of an aerial truck. Although final decisions have not been made on the location and staffing of the new stations or on the staffing of the aerial track, the required funding will be available through this funding mechanism. This project is expected to add $74,500 to the FY 96/97 operating budget for the hiring and equipping of 2 firefighters, and $1,221,250 to the operathig budget over the next five years for the addition of 2. 5, 7, 10, and 12 fn'efighters, annually. Police Computer System, This project completes efforts to replace and expand the current computerization of the Police Deparunent, which has become outdated and unreliable. A new file server would be added to store needed crime data, provide access to the LAN and prepare the Department for the eventual interface of its computers with the Computer Aided Dispatch system and with the City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia police. Additionally, this project funds software upgrades. Annual operating costs of $3,800, beginning in FY 97/98. are anticipated for maintenance contracts. The total cost of this project is $142,295. including $70,000 in prior year funding, and is scheduled for completion in FY 96/97. $25~,000 $72,295 Capital Improvement Program 7 245 FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Highways & Transportation Revenue Sharing Road Projects, Each year, the County participates in the Revenue $501],000 Sharing Program ua which the State provides funds to match County funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of secondary roads. (VDOT matches local contributions up to $500,000 annually.) These projects provide an additional infusion of funds, which allows particular projects to be constructed in a year in which they otherwise would not have been. The roads programmed for improvements with Revenue Sharing Funds include: Meadow Creek Parkway (Rt. 631 )~ Rio Rd. (Rt. 631 ), Greenbrier Drive Extended (Rt. 866), Georgetown Road (Rt. 656), Airport Rd. (Rt. 649), Old Ivy Rd. (Rt. 601), Old Lynchburg Rd. (Rt. 631) and Sarmans Gap Rd. (Rt. 691). No impact on the operating budget is projected. The County's annual contribution is $500,000 Rt. 29 North Landscaping. This project provides landscaping for the median area of Rt. $11,000 29 North disturbed by the Rt. 29 road widening project (VDOT). This project adds operating costs in the following amounts for landscape maintenance and phased plant- ings: $5,000 (FY 96/97), $8,000 (FY 97/98) and $10,000 (FY 98/99-00/01). The net total cost of this project is $54,000, which includes $3.000 in prior year funding. (Supplemental funding of $10,000 per year from the Route 29 North Business Council also is anticipated in support of this project.) Ivy Road Bike Lanes & Streetlights. This project funds the construction of shared bike lands with the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia and installs $50,000 streetlights along a portion of the Ivy Road Corridor (Rt. 250 Wes0. Funding for the bike lanes would occur in FY 96/97 (at a cost to the County of $3,q09 $50,000), and funding for the streetlights is proposed for FY 98/99 ($40,000). (VDOT is expected to fund 80% of the right-of-way and construction costs for the bike lanes.) In FY 99-01, annual operating expenses of $5,000, $9,720, respectively, cover electricity costs asso- ciatad with the streetlight installatiun. The total cost of this project is ?.3,~. 00 $90,000. The revised project totals reflect a $46,600 increase in the cost of the bike lanes based on a new understanding of the County's matching requirements for ISTEA funds. Library Library Maintenanee& Replacement Projects. This ongoing project funds mainte- nance and replacement projects at all branches of the regional library. FY 96/97 projects include replacement of the Central library circulation desk, painting and carpet replace- ment at the Central library, exterior painting and interior refurbishments at the Gordon Avenue branch, and HVAC repair at the Scottsville and Crozet branches. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. The net 5-year project total is $131,000. (The City of Charlottesville is providing $66,000 to fund maintenance and replacement projects over the 5-year period.) $68,500 246 Capital Improvement Program FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Parks & Recreation ADA Compliance at Parks. This project funds the completion of projects specified in $80,278 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan for County Parks. FY 1996-97 projects include: sign installation, parking/pathway paving, fishing platform construction, shade tree planting and porta-john installation at Totier Creek Park ($21,154); construction of accessible playground equipment (Greenwood Elementary) ($12,000); baseball field pathway paving at Scottsville Community Center ($12,600), and area/tennis courts/concession improvements at Towe Park Field/Shelter ($36,214). Operating costs of $1,700 annually are projected for replacement signs andportable toilet rental beginning in FY 97/98, plus an additional $5,000 in FY 99/00 for tot lot mulch. Project costs over the 5-year period total $80,278, and represent the final phase of a $387,001 funding plan developed in FY 94/95 to complete the transition plan. (The City's share of the ADA improvements totals $387,001.) ADA Compliance on School Grounds. This project funds the completion of improve- $89,375 merits to outdoor recreation facilities at various County schools. FY 96/97 projects install paved pathways, signage, accessible parking, accessible playground equipment and replacement mulch/borders Cale Elementary., Jouett Middle, Walton Middle, Burley Middle, Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle, Yancy Elementary and Woodbrook Elementary Schools. Operating costs of $15,000 annually beg'mulng in FY 98/99 for replacement mulch are projected. Project costs over the 5-year period total $89,375 and represent the final phase of a $275,000 funding plan to remove architectural barriers at County Schools. Walnut Creek Park Improvements. This project provides for continued improvements $75,000 at Walnut Creek Park, including the construction of a picnic shelter (FY 96/97), an accessible children's playground (FY 97/98), and the renovation of the old home site (FY 98/99) for an Environmental Education/Nature Center. Annual operating costs of $680 are anticipated beginning in FY 99/00 for minor repairs, painting and electrical costs, plus an additional $3,000 in FY01 for replacement mulch. The total cost of this project, including $1,910,000 in prior year funding, is $2,041,000. Towe Park Improvements. This project budgets funds to continue the development of $143,144 Towe Park, where the facilities constructed will be determined by the Towe Park Committee~ Likely facilities are picnic shelters, playground, a tot lot, a river access and trails. The City of Charlottesville will ftmd approximately 42% of all improvements, based on a previously agreed upon formula. This project adds $2,500 in operafmg costs in FY 97/97, and $5,000 per year thereafter for maintenance and repairs. The total cost of this project, including $1,629,459 in prior year funding, is expected to be $1,772,603. Crozet Park Improvements. This proJect continues Board of Supervisors funding $100,000 assistance to Crozet Park for improvements or for the construction of a new swincmting pool. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. This total funding assistance to be provided is $150,000, of which $50,000 already has been disbursed. 247 Capital Improvement Program ' FY96-97 CIP Project :Descriptions Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security. This project installs a security fence around the $20,000 shops at Chris Greene Lake and Mint Springs Parks and constructs a covered storage area for tractor implements and other large items at Chris Greene Lake. Annual operating budget savings of $2,000 are projected due to reductions in thefi and losses due to vandalism, beginning in FY 96/97. The total cost ofthis project is $30,000, which includes $10.000 in prior year funding. Outdoor Recreation Project Completion. This project funds outdoor recreation im- $49,600 provement items at Broadus Wood, Woodbrook, Brownsville and Scottsville Elementary schools and at the Scottsvilie Community Center. These improvements include back- filling around borders ($10,000), playground equipment ($25,300), and other items such as trash cans mad benches ($14,000). No impact onthe operating budget is anticipated. This project is funded at 100% in FY 96/97. Swimming Beach Playground Structures. This project constructs three (3) small beach $30,000 playground structures in a boat/sand box design for toddlers at Chris Greene Lake, Mint Springs, and Walnut Creek Parks. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. This project is funded at 100% in FY 96/97. Scottsville Community Center Improvements. This project continues funding for $55,400 improvements ar Donqer Park and the Scottsville Community Center. Facilities to be constructed include: two tennis courts, a restroom facility or restroom access, individual picnic shelters, a large picnic shelter, baseball field improvements and outdoor basket- ball courts. This project is expected to add $900 in recurring operating costs annually, be(mnmg in FY 96/97, for restroom facility maintenance, water, electric and janitorial supplies. The total cost of this project is expected to be $164,325, including $108,925 in prior year funding. Rivanna Greenway Access & Path. This project funds the purchase of 4 acres of property $75,000 to be used in conjunction with land proffers to develop an accessible section of Greenway along the Rivanna Reservoir. Funding in FY 96/97 will be used with a prior allocation of $25,000 to purchase property and develop paved pathway and accessible parking. FY 97/98 funding will be used for the development ora boat ramp and additional parking, and funding of $25,000 per year begi~ming in FY 98/99 for the development of the Rivanna Greenway Plan through the purchase of land, easements or construction. Annual op~rat'mg expenses of $1,800/year beginning in FY 96/97 for trash pickups and trail cheeks, plus $4,500/year for police security in FY 98/99-00/01, andan extra $1,700 in FY 99/00 and $3,400 in FY01 for new trail sections are anticipated. The total cost of this project, including $25,000 in prior year funding, is $425,000. County Land Athletic Field Study. This project provides funds with which to study the $0 athletic field potential of existing County land. No operating costs are anticipated. This $20,000 project is funded at 0~4 100% in FY97, Funding for this project was moved from FYO1 to FY97, based on a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors that the study be completed as soon as possible. 248 .lO Capital Improvemem Program FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Parks & Recreation Maintenance & Replacement Projects. This project funds the repair and maintenance of existing facilities, and adds an additional $10,000 per year beginning in FY 96/97, to implement park improvements and enhancement priorities, as determined by a Parks & Recreation Department Goal Team. FY 96/97 maintenance and repair projects include enhancements to Chris Greene Lake Shelter and Scottsville Community Center classrooms, plus replacement bumpers at all parks. This project is not expected to have an impact on the operating budget. Maintenance and replacement projects over the 5-year CIP total $160,230. $37,000 School Division Technology Education Labs, This project funds the conversion of approximately 1,500 SF of the industrial arts shops at Henley, Jouett, and Walton Middle schools to dust free, climate controlled industrial arts technology education labs. (This project would add 1.500 SF for the same purposes to Burley Middle School.) This project is expected to add $3,750 to rite County operating budget in FY 97/98 and is funded at !00% 63% in FY 96/97. The remaining $325,000 in total project costs will be deferred until later in the five-year CIP to offset increased construction costs of several other CIP projects in FY97. Itenley Addition. This project funds the addition ora 6th grade "house" at Henley Middle School to consist of 8 regular classrooms, two science classrooms, a special needs classroom and office, a work room and students restrooms. Two additional special needs offices and classrooms, and the replacement of two classrooms used for library expansion would be included in the 15.900 SF addition, which is needed to meet middle school enroliment growth and to maintain feeder integrity pattern with the new high school redistricting. This project adds $35,900 in operating costs in FY 97/98. The total cost of tlds project is $2,385,500. New High School. This project funds the construction of the new Monticello High School in Southern Albemarle County designed to serve a capacity of 1,500 students. This project ~s expected to add $130,000 to the County's operating budget in FY97, and $1,428,550 over the 5-year period for staff, equipment and materials costs. The total cost of this project is expected to be $25,020,350, including $2,400~000 in prior year funding. Western Albemarle lligh School (WAHS) Building Renovations. This project funds a classroom addition of 10,665 SF, an auxiliary gym, minor and major renovations to current interior space, major parking/bus/driveway improvements, baseball field up- grades, two lighted tennis courts, a roof replacement and HVAC duct cleaning. This modernization will not change the total capacity of the school which currently is 1044. This project is expected to add $19.500 to the operating budget in FY 96/97, and $7,200 in FY 98/99 for custodial and utility costs. The total cost of this project over the 5-year period, plus prior year fimding, is $3,6~g,575 $3,982,060. The revised project totals reflect a $313,485 increase in construction costs associated with this project in FY97. $550,000 $185,000 $9,800,000 $1,894,135 Capital Improvement Program 249 FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Albemarle High School (AILS) Phase H & 11I Renovations. Phase II includes a kitchen renovation and addition, cafeteria and auditorium improvements, new restrooms for the cafeteria and auditorium, renovation of the first floor restrooms, removal of the front lobby kiosk and renovation of the lobby area to include a security window overlooking the lobby ($1,545,500). Phase III includes renovation of the old girls/boys locker rooms, and miscellaneous contingency fees ($269,500). No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. The total cost of the project, including $1,007,000 in prior year funding, is $1,815,000. Woodbrook Addition. This project funds a 16,718 SF addition to Woodbrook Elemen- tary School that includes 4 kindergarten and 4 fncst grade classrooms, an addition to the administrative area, 2 work rooms, guidance/testing/conference area, 2 resource rooms, a staff lounge/dining area, and an addition to the media center. In addition, a parent drop-off area is included, as well as upgrades to door hardware, signage and restrooms to meet ADA requirements. The physical capacity will be increased from 220 to 440. This project is expected to add $43,300 in operating costs in FY 97/98 for custodial and utility costs. The total cost of the project, including $200,000 in prior year funding, is $!,950,550 $2,245,550. This revised project totals reflect a $295,000 increase in construction costs associated with this project in FY97. Cale Addition. This project adds approximately 6,800 SF in the form of 3 specialty classrooms and 3 special needs classrooms, and would increase the total capacity oftha Paul Cale Elementary school from 396 to 528 students. This project adds $24,000 in operating costs in FY 97/98 for custodial, maintenance supplies and utility costs. The total cost of the project, including $78,000 in prior year funding, ~s ........ $937,000. The revised project totals reflect a $179, 000 increase in construction costs associated with this project in FY97. Stony Point Addition. This project funds a kitchen renovation, a 9,500 SF addition for 5 regular and 1 special education classrooms, auxiliary workroom and storage space, and a testing area at Stony Point Elementary School. Operating costs orS 19.500 in FY 97/98 are projected for custodial and utility costs. The total cost of this project, including $70,000 in prior year funding, is $ !,! ! ~,000 $1,250,000. Therevisedprojecttotalsreflect a $132,000 increase in construction costs associated with thisproject in FY97. Brownsville Addition. This project fimds a 9,470 SF addition/renovation to Brownsville Elementary School that includes 2 kindergarten and 1 special education classroom, an addition to the administrative area, 2 work rooms, guidance/testing/conference area, 2 resource rooms, a staff lounge/dining area, and mx addition to the media center. In addition, a parent drop-off area, separate from the buses, is included, as well as upgrades to door hardware, signage and restrooms to meet ADA requirements and asbestos removal. The physical capacity will be increased from 242 to 330. This project is expected to add $23,000 m operating costs in FY 97/98 for custodial, maintenance supplies and utility costs. The total cost of the project, including $100,000 in prior year fanding, is $t-r2-99r470 $1,561,470. Therevisedprojecttotalsreflecta$262,000increase in construction costs associated with this project in FY97. $539,000 $2,045,550 $859,000 $1,180,000 $1,461,470 250 Capital Improvement Program FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions Crozet Addition. This project adds approximately 7,200 SF to include 1 kindergarten, 3 $7!4,$90 general and 1 first grade classrooms, a resource room and a work room. This addition $856,890 would expand the physical capacity of Crozet Elementary School from 286 to 396. This project is expected to add $21,000 in operating costs in FY 97/98 for custodial, mainte- nance supplies and utility costs. The total cost of the project, including $80,000 in prior year funding, is E77.,890 $936,890. The revised project totals reflect a $142,000 increase in construction costs associated with this project in FY97. Instructional Technology (School Division). This project funds new instructional $939,600 technology in the form of computers in the classroom, libraries and in the computer labs, new/expanded networks, software, supporting equipment and supplies. This project is expected m add $69,650 in operating costs in FY 96/97 and $624,250 over the 5-year period for maintenance, help desk support and training. The total cost of this project, including $1,207,500 in prior year funding, is $4,236,350. Administrative Technology (School Division). This project funds new administrative $70,000 technology in the form of networks for all schools. This project is expected to add $4,850 in operating costs in FY 96/97, and $46,750 over the 5-year period for maintenance, help desk support and training. The total cost of this project, including $92,500 in prior year funding, is $442,500. Vehicular Maintenance Reconfigurafion. This project is a three phase addition/reno- $17,500 vation to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility to accommodate growth in the number of vehicles serviced. Phase I is a 2040 SF addition to relocate the parts/service deparunenr and add a driver training room. In Phase 1I, a 2080 SF double-wash bay would be constructed, along with site improvements to permit a second entrance and additional parking space for fifty buses. Phase III will relocate the fuel station and removes/replaces the underground storage tanks. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. The total cost of this project, including $329,900 in prior year funding~ is $784,400. Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) ADA Compliance. $14,000 this project funds structural changes to the CATEC building to comply with ADA-man- dated accessibility mqmrements. These changes include renovations ~o two restrooms, water fountains, and signage to meet ADA specifications and the installation of fire alarm signaling devices. The City is responsible for 50% of the $28,000 total project cost. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. This project is funded at 100% in FY 96/97. ADA Structural Changes. This project funds ADA-mandated structural changes m $I$6,~.~5 various School Division facilities to allow for accessibility. No impact on the operating $0 budget is anticipated. The total cost of this project, including $487,315 in prior year funding, is $1,098,800. Funding for this project will be deferred until later in the five-year CIP to fund higher than anticipated construction costs of several other CIP projects in FY97. Capital Improvement Program 251 FY96-97 CIP Project Descriptions School Division Maintenance & Replacement Projects. This ongoing project funds a $!,5!~,?.~ variety of maintenance and replacement projects at County School facilities. FY 96/97 $949,940 projects include renovations to Burley Middle, Jack Junett Middle, Henley Middle, Stone Robinson Elementary and Yancey Elementary schools, chiller replacements at various schools, CATEC road improvements, Jack Jouett parking lot light installation, roof replacements, Walton parking lot light replacement, Western Albemarle High sound/light system replacement, and computer network cabling. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. Thetotal5-yearprojectcostis $4,865,933. Therevised project totals reflect a $30.000 increase in construction costs associated with the Yancey project in FY97 and a decision to defer $594,000 in roofing replacement costs until later in the five-year CIP to fund higher than anticipated construction costs of several other CIP projects in FY97. Chiller Replacement. This project replaces chillers at tile following County schools: Albemarle High (1996, 1998), Walton Middle (1996), Hollymead Elementary (1998), $118,000 Greet Elementary (1998), and Burley Middle School (1998). Due to Federal regulations that prohibit production of Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) after December 31, 1995. chillers nearing the end of their life expectancy that use CFC as a refrigerant must be replaced. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. The total cost of this project, including $15,000 in prior year funding, is $847,000. The remaining $248.000 in total project costs will be dq£erred until later in the five-year CIP to offset increased construction costs of several other CI£ projects in FI~97. Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector. This project funds the construction of a road and bike $1,399,300 path running firom Avon St. East to Rt. 20 for the purpose of providing access to the New High School and other County-owned property for future uses such as Fire/Rescue or library use. This road also would alleviate potential congestion along Avon St. due to residential and industrial development. No impact on the operating budget is anticipated. The total cost of this project, including $220,700 in prior year funding, is $1,620,000. New High School Community Recreation Facilities. This project requests ftmds: 1) to $275,000. light and irrigate the baseball field and construct and indgate two multi-purpose fields at the new Monticello High School in FY 96/97 ($275,000); 2) to equip the auxiliary gym at the new high school with basketball goals and volleyball eqmpmem in FY 98/99 ($18,500); and 3 ) to develop a 50 meter pool facility at the site in FY 00/01 ($3,500,000). Operating costs of $19,250 per year in FY 99-00 and $135,910 over the five year period are anticipated to fund staffing and operating costs at the gym and pool. The total cost of this project is expected to be $3,793,500. 252 - -~ Capital Improvement Program ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE Memorandum DATE: March 14, 1996 TO: Roxanne White, County Executive's Office FROM: L. A. Reaser, Director of Building Service~-~2./~. RE: Capital Improvement Program Revision Approved by the School Board Based on current trends, it is estimated that construction costs for several CIP projects will be greater than originally estimated. Attachment 1 is a copy of the Superintendents Memo No. 128, Public SchoolBuilding~ Put Under Contract between July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995 Dr. Bosher states that, "In reviewing the new school construction cost for the past year it is clear that costs have risen dramatically with double digit inflation. Contributing factors include the recovering economy, added costs to meet tfigher building code standards and general inflation of building materials trod labor costs,'? Bids were recently opened for the Western Albemarle High School Renovation/Addition and they exceeded our $2,118.000 consauction budget by $600,000. We are working with the school, architect and contractor to reduce the scope of work in order for the major portion of the project to proceed. In the next three months, seven additional projects, totaling $7.66 million, will be bid. All deferred projects w/Il be accounted for in the 1997/2002 C[P which may require other projects to be moved back one or two years Based on the Western Albemarle High School project, it will be necessary m supplement the budget for each of the projects. The primary goal will be to provide additional classroom space, which will allow maximum flexibility during redistricting and remove mobile units. Chiller replacement would still occur at Walton and CATEC with the Freon to be recycled and stored to extend the service life of other chillers The Technology Labs would be phased in over the following two years. The roofing replacement can be deferred with minimal repairs. By the completion of the above listed projects, all major structural obstacles concerning the Americans with Disal~flities Act (ADA), will be completed, excluding door hardware and minor restroom renovations which will cuntinue in 1997. To offset the escalated costs of construction, on March ll, 1996, the School Board approved our recommendation to defer the following four projects in order to increase the project budgets for seven Renovation/Addition projects. As you requested, I have al/ocated the funds to each project based on the anticipated costs. The projects noted in (A) below should be reduced by the specified amount, and the projects noted in lB) below shouId be increased by the specified amounts: (A) Project Name (REDUCE) Reduction (B) Proiect (INCREASE) Budcet Increase Phase I Chiller Replacements Roofing Replacemanr ADA Stmcturnl Changes Phase I Technology Labs TOTAL $248,000 $594,000 $186A85 $325,000 $1,353,485 Western Albemarle High $ 313,485 Woodbrook Elementary 295,000 Cale Elementary 179,000 Brownsville Elementary 262,000 Crozet Elementary 142,000 Stony Point Elementary 132.000 Yaneey Elementary 30,000 TOTAL $1,353.485 15 Roxanne White CIP Revision March 14, 1996 Page 2 As we also discussed, the School Board approved the use of $875,448 for incorporation of the sustainable design strategies. Therefore, we are requesting that the remaining $780,158 from the originally requested funds for sustainable design strategies, remain in the New High School constmctiun account, in order to offset potential, additional building costs. Thank you for your asskqtance in these matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me on 973-3677, should you have any questions or require additional information. LAR/sjc Attachment cc: Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent Jo Higgins, Engineer'mg/Public Works Tina Fuller, School Board Clerk 3_6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE OFFICE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Depar~rnem County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5844 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation~,~ March 22, 1996 CIP Worksession Swimming Pool Roxanne White has advised that the Board would like no have a brief CIP worksession on April 3 that would include a discussion regarding a swimming pool at the new high school site. She also recommended that we forward to you any additional information we may have on that subject prior to the worksession. Our Deparnmenu has always considered that if a year round swimming facility were ever built in the County, it should be centrally located. At the pre design meetings of the LSDT for the new high school, several groups suggested the opportunity for a pool facility at the site. At that point, we thought it wise no place the pool in the final year of the CIP in order to preserve a spot for it on the site, and initiate the discussion of this idea. In an effort to determine the need for such a facility we asked several questions of the City Parks and RecreatIon Deparnmenn regarding the operation of Smith and Crow Pools. Enclosed you will find the responses no those questions. We also asked for information on the annual operating budget for the City pools. To summarize that information, the annual operating budget for Crow alone is approximately $208,000 wi~h 49% returninG- as revenue. Crow and Smith are both 25 meuer pools. Preliminary estimate for operating cosns of a 50 meter pool is $312,000 with approximately 75% returning in revenue. Please feel free no call me if you have any questions przor to the worksesslon. 17 Q 1. What are the functions and a general schedule of the two indoor pools? Smith and Crow Pool serve different [unctions within the City Aquatic Depar[ment~ These functions have been determined based on needs of the City schools and Parks and Recreation first, general public second and rental groups/revenues third. Smith Pool has become the .home for the Charlottesville Youth Aquatic Club (6 hrs a day), public and rental group aqua-aerobic exercise classes (3 hrs a day), PVCC (1 hr a day) and a general lunch/afternoon La p/Recreation swim (5 hrs a day). It is open from 5:30 AM to 9:00 PM, Crow Pool is dominated by City School Programs. Their Learn-To-Swim and Water Safety classes for all 5th and 6th graders at Walker U.E. School and (6 3/4 hrs a day, year round) and CHS swim Team practice (2 hrs a day + 10 X 4 hr meets, VSHL winter season) use the majority of pool time. General Lap and Recreation swim (8 1/2 hfs a day), home to the Flamingo Synchro Team (7 hrs a week) and swim classes (11 hrs a week} provide a ful schedule br county and city patrons. Smith Pool: Weekends: Crow Pool; 5:30-7:45 7:45-12:00 12:00-4:00 4:00- 8:00 8:00-10:00 6:30~10:30 10:30-1:00 1:00-6:00 5:30-8:45 8:45-2:30 2:30-4:00 4:00-6:00 6:00-8:30 8:30-10:00 CYAC Exercise Lap/Rec/PVCC/Senior Center CYAC Lessons/Kayak CYAC Lessons Lap/Rec Swim Lap Swim School Lap/Rec Lessons/School/La p/Rec Lessons/Exercise/Synchro Lap/Scuba Weekends: 6:00-9:00 Lap 9:00-1:00 Lessons 1:00-6:00 Lap/Rec Four schedules (4) are released yearly to the public. Schedule One includes aquatic programs and hours from Labor Day to mid-November. Schedule Two covers hours and programs through the winter sports season to mid-February. Schedule Three starts from mid-February, covers all Winter and Spring programs, ending when school is out. Schedule Four incorporates all hours and programs offered at the indoor and outdoor pools for the summer months. Q 2. Are there any groups/individuals currently.being denied access to City indoor pools? All activities in the pools are scheduled as public demand and space allows keeping in mind City residents first. City residents are given the first opportunity to sign up for aquatic classes and programs. In addition, no fnore than two activities are ever scheduled within the same hour. The below listed individuals/activities are currently denied space or time due to conflicts with existing programs. 11 Expanded room for County residents in swim lesson program 2) After 6:00 PM Weekday Full Program of Aquatic Lessons 3) Expanded Recreational/Lap Swim hours after school 4) Rentals for Medical Groups physical therapy programs 5) Therapeutic exercise class between 12:00-6:00 PM 6) Swim Lesson Program for Home Schoolers bet. Noon and 4:00 PM 7) Expanded Hours for Fast Paced Aerobics to 3-4 days a week 8) Masters/Triathlon training during work hours. 9) Any Hours for Boating Safety (leading cause of drowning in C.Va) Q 3. What is the percentage of City and County Patrons using City Aquatic Facilities and the average daily number of participants? city Adult Lap Swimmers 60 % Seniors and Handicapped 65 % Child (under 18 yrs) 98 % Swim Lessons: Youth 35 % Adult 55 % Teams: CYAC 20 % Flamingo Synchro 50 % County 40 % 35 % 2% 65 % 45 % 80 % 50 % Smith Pool: 75 25 30 35 28 55 Charlottesville Youth Aquatic Club Senior Center Aquatic Wellness Center General Lap and Recreation Swimmers PVCC/KayaldPks and Rec classes Parks and Recreation Exercise Classes Crow Pool: 150 Walker Upper Ellementary School 22 Flamingo Synchro Team 20 Parks and recreation Exercise Classes 80 General Lap and Recreation Swim 60 Parks and Recreation Classes/CHS Swim Team Q 4, How would a pool at the new High School.effect your activities and the communities in general? A 50 meter indoor pool located off of Route 20 South would serve primarily those county residents south and west of the City. These residents would live in the Ivy, Crezet, North Garden, Keene, Schuyler and Scottsville areas. Their access would be 64 west to south Rt 20 instead of north on Ridge Street to Smith Pool. These county residents would' effect largely the Early Bird Swim and after work Lap swims at Crow Pool. This could be beneficial to the City, as lap swim times are being dropped in favor of more youth related activities, thus allowing additional room for City and those County residents living north and east of town. The move of the Charlottesville Youth Aquatic Club (CYAC) to the new facility would be anticipated by the City. While the City would lose 28% of its aquatic revenue immediately, the vacated space could be used for City youth activities such as swim lessons, Boys and Girts Club functions and/or rental to CYAC as a satellite pool serving the needs of City team members withbut transportation to Rt 20 S. Other activities would be lap swim, boating safety, therapeutic activities, Masters and many of the programs that have been curtailed due to lack of space. The City would still benefit by Offering at Smith a wider and more varied program for its 'citizens similar to what is currently offered at Crow Pool A new pool would greatly enhance the opportunity of county high school age youth to participate in High School Swim and Dive competition and the general quality of life for the surrounding residents. AHS is one of the few schools in their distdct that does not field a High School Swim and Dive team. The county would be entering three teams into the VHSL area to compete against E.C. Glass, CHS, Heritage and G.W.-Danville. Others would be Fork Union and Woodberry Forest. This influx of county swimmers and divers, male and female, plus the addition of an indoor 50 meter pool would elevate aquatic competition to new leveIs by providing a site to host Virginia High School, YMCA and USS competition. New levels of local tax revenues would also be generated similar to those anticipated by other localities who host the construction of a major athletic facility. The City would benefit by all this increased public attention to the county aquatic programs by spill over interest into its own indoor and outdoor peel activities. Two aquatic revenue sources will be effected by the opening of the new indoor pool. The first is rental revenue. 95 % of CYAC pool rental and 100% of Aquatic Wellness Center and PVCC rental will' go to the county's budget. Secondly, the operational budget will be negatively effected by the toss of 20 % of lap swimming and swim lesson revenue. At current rates, this may total over $ 38,000 a year. 23 Q 5. What recommendations can the City give in the building of an indoor pool and the operation of one with schodls? 1) Base the pool design on clearly planned aquatic activities and programs first. Interview prospective renters and users and incorporate their needs into the pool. This will increase public support and future revenues.. 2) Schools are concerned about student health and safety. Four locker- rooms will allow the pool to serve both students and the general public at the same time. 3) The installation of a movable, not removable, bulkhead, while maintaining the 50 meter tank, will allow for multiple programming and increased revenues while still meeting the needs of students and the general public. 4) Invest in high technology for HVAC/pool temps and chlorination system. The future savings in both energy, money, maintenance and patron satisfaction will far outweigh initial cost. 5) Acoustical and lighting design are areas that can make or break any indoor pool. Sound absorbing wall tiles and ceiling materials as well as 100 foot candle illumination at the water surface fo~' the entire poot are necessary. 6) Pool should be built along standards suitable for meets conducted under the auspices of United States Swimming, Diving, Synchronized Swimming and the National High School Association. Presently, almost 1 out of every 2 adult patrons using the City pools for lap swimming is a county resident. Almost 7 out of every 10 youth in swimming classes are county residents: The CYAC swim team and Flamingo Synchro team boasts 80 % and 50 % county residency,-respectively.: In building an indoor pool at the new high school, the county would be meeting a need that already exist among its citizens and allowing the city to expand its own mission . to its constituency. 25 J Name Address Phone Hear About Pool From ....... ¸26 Albemarle County, Virginia Approved Capital Improvemems Program FY 1996-97 to 2000-01 COUNTY OF ALBEMAREE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Department/Agency Heads Anne Gulati, Management Analyst May 14, 1996 Approved FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Capital Improvements Program Enclosed please find cop(ies) of the FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 Capital Improvements Program approved by the Board of Superwsors on April 10, 1996. The capital improvement budget for FY 1996/97 also was approved on April 10. If you have any questions or comments, or need additional copies, please contact me at 296-5841, ext. 3026. ALG/alg Enclosttre(s) Table of Contents & Calendar Table of Contents Table of Contents & Calendar Table of Contents Capital Improvement Program Calendar Introduction Technical Committee Recommended Changes to FY 96/97 ~ 00/01 CIP Projects Board of Supervisors' Changes to Proposed FY 96/97 - 00/01 CIP Projects Board of Supervisors' Changes to Proposed FY 96/97 ~ 00/01 CIP Revenues Summary Information Total Expenditures & Revenues Revenue Summm¢~ -All Funds Project Summary - General Government, School Division & Stormwater Funds General Government CIP Fund General Government CIP Fund Revenues General Government CIP Fund Expenditures Summary of Mandated & Committed Projects Summary o£Malntenance/Replacemem Projects Summary of Public Safety Projects Summary of Projects by Type General Govermment CIP Fund Five-Year Project/Expenditure Summary General Government CIP Fund Project Descriptions Adra'mis~ration & Courts Projects Public Safety Projects Highway & Transportation Projects Library Projects Parks & Recreation Projects Utility Improvement Projects 5 9 I0 11 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 31 39 53 57 73 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 1 Capital Improvement Program Calendar FY 1996/97 - 2000/01 CIP Fri., June 16 Thurs., June 29 Fri., August 4 Aug. 4 - Aug. 17 Fri., August 18 Thurs., September 7 Fri., September 8 Sept. 8 - 21 Thurs., September 21 Fri., September 22 Fri., September 29 Oct. 2- 20 Mon., October 23 Tues., November 7 Tues., November 28 Wed., December 6 Wed., February 14 Wed., April 3 Wed., April 10 Instructions for completing the CIP application sent to each department. Training workshop on new application forms. County departments submit applications to County Executive's Office. County Executive's Office reviews requests for accuracy and completion. CIP applications sent to Technical Committee members. CIP Technical Committee meets to review projects. Selected project requests returned for needed revision and/or corrections. Planning Department evaluates and prioritizes projects. County Executive's Office determines preliminary available revenues. Technical Committee meets to prioritize projects within available revenues. Technical Committee meets to finalize recommendations. Technical Committee meets to review recommendations (if needed.) County Executive's Office prepares CIP document for work sessior~ Technical Committee receives document for review. CIP document sent to Plarm'mg Commission. Planning Commission holds public hearing Board of Supervisors holds work session on recommended CIP. Board of Supervisors holds public hearing on proposed CIP. Board of Supervisors holds worksession on proposed CIP. Board of Supervisors approves FY 96/97 - 00/01 CIP and FY 1996/97 CIP Budget. Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 3 Introduction Introduction The five:year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as the major planning guide for County expenditures for major capital facilities and equipment. It is based on the "physical needs" of the County identified in the Capital Facilities Plan, which is a section of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The five year plan for capital projects first is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and then recommended to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. The Board of Supervisors subsequently approves the five-year Capital Improvements Plau, as well as the annual CIP budget for projects ftmded in the next fiscal year. The first year of the Capital Improvement Program is called the Capital Budget, and is appropriated in the same manner as the annual operating budget of the County. Funds for projects are appropriated on an annual basis; projects scheduled for subsequent years are approved for planning purposes and do not receive expenditure authority until they are part of the capital budget. Although approved in concept, each project is re-evaluated annually to ensure that all aspects of the project are still valid. Capital Improvement Program Policies General Guidelines In October 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved Financial Management Policies (see Attachments), which set guidel'mes for the Capital Improvement Program, fund'mg for maintenance and replacement projects, as well as target limits for the County's indebtedness and debt service levels. In alignment with the approved policies, the recommended Capital Improvement Program is now coordinated with the operating budget to a greater degree than in prior years. Summaries of all general government and school division projects now show associated operating costs that will be reflected in future operating budgets. Proposed debt service levels stay within the County's debt service guidel'mes. The recommended CIP also attempts to fund a "significant portion of capital improvements on a cash basis," and increases incrementally the percentage of its capital improvements fmanced by current revenues. The "Total Expenditures & Revenues" summary sheet included in the next section shows an increasing transfer from the general fund to the CIP. For FY 1996-97, a transfer of $2,300,000 initially was recommended by the Technical Committee. Following its worksessions, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional $386,500, for a total transfer of $2,686,500. In FY 97-98 and FY 98-99, $2,500,000 will be transferred, and an additional $500,000 will be transferred in FY 99-00 and FY 00-01 for a total contribution of $13.4 million over the 5-year period. The percentage of general fund revenues transferred to the CIP was 1.83% in FY 1994-95, and 2.9% in FY 1995-96. Based on approved FY 1996-97 General Fund revenues of approximately $87.5 million, the CIP transfer will be 3.1%. Asset Maintenance. Replacement and Enhancement Polices The County's Financial Management Policies state that: "The County will maintain a system for maintenance, replacement and enhancement of the County's and School Division's physical plant. This system will protect the County's capital investment and mimmize future ma'mxenance and replacement costs." In accordance with these approved policies, the CIP targets available revenues to both general government and school division maintenance Capital Improvement Program FY 96/~7- 00/01 5 and repair projects. Over the 5 year CIP, approximately $6.4 million is requested for maintenance and repair projects, approximately $5.6 million or 87% of which is targeted to school division projects. Debt Policies Recommended levels of indebtedness and annual debt service are set out in the approved financial policies. As evident from the Long-T~lai Debt summary chart on page 82 of this document, the recommended FY 1996-97/2000-01 CIP adheres to those guidelines: Net debt per capita should remain under $1,000. Net debt as a percentage of the estimated market value of taxable property should not exceed 2%. The ratio of debt service expenditures as a percent of general fund revenues should not exceed 10%. For the 5-year period, the highest ratio of debt service m general fund revenues is 8.7% The CIP Process The CIP Technical Committee In 1993, a Technical Committee was created to review department and agency requests. The Committee is comprised of representatives fi:om the County Executive's Office, Planning and Community Development, Engineering, Finance and the School Division, plus one designated representative from the Planning Commission. The on-going task of the committee is to thoroughly analyze project costs, estimate the impact of capital projects on operating budgets and determine the accuracy of and need for the requested projects. Several recommendations ofthe Technical Committee now have been incorporated into the CIP Process: Greater Emphasis on the 5-Year Plan In past years, departments and agencies were allowed to submit project requests in any year of the CIP, making long range forecasting over a 5-year period extremely difficult. Now, ail departments and agencies are instructed to plan their projects out for the five year period, with the knowledge that any new request submitted in the nero year would automatically go to the fifth year of the CIP plan. Only emergency projects, projects aimed at clearly identified critical needs, or unanticipated technology needs may be submitted in the first four years, thus providing a more accurate projection of what the County actually plans to finance over the next 5 year period. Establishment of Evaluation Criteria Project evaluation criteria (see Attachments) have been established and are used by the Technical Committee to rank new and expanded projects. Mandated, committed and maintenance projects are not ranked, but are automatically funded as number 1 priorities. Consistent with the policy of restricting new projects to the 5th year, projects in the first four years have already been evaluated under these same criteria. If there have been no significant changes, the projects in the first four years will receive the same ranking. Separation of Maintenance and Replacement Projects As stated in the fmancial policies, the goal of the County is to fund maintenance and repair projects with current revenues, rather than through borrowed funds. It is also the County's goal to insure that maintenance and repair projects are funded before new projects are undertaken, which is why they are eousidered a higher priority than new or expanded projects. Individual maintenance, repair and replacement projects are not listed as individual projects, but are submitted by deparmaents as one line-item for each year of the five-year period. General Government, Parks and Recreation, the Library and the School Division ail submitted a maintenance and repair 6 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 line-item reque~ Although current revenues were unable to fund all the School Di~sion Maintenance and Repair projects, which total $4.3 million, the committee proposed tr~et~g $3.0 million in current revenues to school division maintenance projects over the 5-year period. The Board approved an additional transfer of $269,900, for a total lxansfer of $3,269,900. In FY 96/97, the General Fund transfer represents 63% of the School Division's total maintenance and repair projects. Five- Year Projections of Revenues To implement a more realistic plan of the actual projects to be completed in the next five year period, the County Exeeutive's Office provided the Technical Committee with a forecast of available revenues over the next five years. Although revenue estimates may vary in either direction, the general revenue parameters are used by the Committee to prioritize and stage the projects over the five year period. The first step is to prioritize and fund all the projects within the 5-year period; the second step often involves moving several projects to the seconc[ and third years, since most projects have a tendency to be bunched up in the first two years and exceed available revenues for those years. Evaluation of School Division Projects within Debt Service Levels Because the Technical Committee and the Planning Commission have questioned their role in evaluating and prioriti~ng schOol division projects, including new and expanded facilities and repair and maintenance projects, the prioritizing function for school projects has been given to the School Board, whose members are more knowledgeable about their needs and priorities. Although the Technical Committee reviews all school projects for accuracy and financial impact, the Technical Committee no longer evaluates or prioritizes individual school division projects. Rather, the Committee recommends a debt service level and an annual maintenance transfer from general revenues within which the School Board may determine its priorities and the staging of their capital facilities. The approved 5-year CIP plan incorporates a funding scenario in which the majority of school division projects approved by the School Board, including the high school and $1,792,033 of the major repair and maintenance projects, are funded through VPSA bonds inthe amount of $44,904,778 and split billing revenues of $16,500,000. Two additional projects were recommended by the Technical Commitee to be included in the School Division CIP Fund. the New High School Community Recreation Facility and the Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector. Total debt service levels stay within the 10% guideline. Debt service costs will increase by approximately $2,929,920 over the 5-year period. This funding scenario is presented on page 83 of this document. Capital Projects/Contingency The Technical Committee recommended that $1,352,550 be set aside as contingency reserves to be used to fund unanticipated needs for capital projects in the outlying years, particularly those needs that may accompany the opening of the new high school. The approved CIP increases this reserve by $220,000, for total contingency reserves of $1,572,550, or approximately 2% of the total 5-year CIP. General Government CIP Fund, School Division CIP Fund, Stormwater Fund Based on the auditor's recommendation last year, general government capital projects and school division projects have been separated into two separate and distinct funds, which sets out a clearer audit trail for educational funding, VPSA bonds, debt service, etc. Therefore, in the proposed CIP a portion of the general fund transfer will be seen in each fund and VPSA funds will be shown as a resource only in the school fund. Likewise, interest accrued on VPSA funds is now shown as a revenue only in the school CIP fund. As a clarification issue, the Technical Committee also recommended that stormwater projects be shown in the CIP analysis and appropriation process as a separate fund, since stormwater projects have always been transferred at a later time into a separate fund to account for developer fees. Previously, stormwater projects have been shown and appropriated into the Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 7 general CIP fund and then subsequently transferred into their own separate stormwatcr fund. Separating these projects into a separate fund at the beginning of the process again sets out a clearer audit trail. 8 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 ~ Technical Committee Recommended Changes to FY 96/97 - 00/01 CIP prOjects: Beginning Project Total - All Funds: Projects Recommended for Reduced Funding Police Facility Needs Assessmem Pro_iects Recommended for Increased Funding New High School Ending Project Total - All Funds: Proiects Moved To Another Year Drive-In Window Replacement & Canopy Police Firing Range Police Facility Needs Assessment Ivy Road Landscaping Greenwood Elementary Demolition $78.123.52_ 0 ~ Recommend ~ $60,000 $30,000 ($30,000) $20,620,350 $22,620,350 $2,000,000 FY00 FY01 FY97 FY98 FY97 FY98 FY98 FY01 FY01 FY98 $80393.52Q Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 9 Summary Information FY 96/97- 00/01 Approved CIP Total Expenditures & Revenues - All Funds Pm)~ts/Revenues FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 TOTAl. Utility improvements 0 100.000 300,000 300,000 295.842 966,8421 m~able Resources: CIP Fund Balance 118.842 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 518.842 General Fund AODrOD~ation 1.956.600 1940.000 1.840.000 2.240.000 2.200.000 10.176.600 Subt~mlRevenues 2,078,442 2,040,000 '1,940,000 2,340,000 2,300,000 10,698,442 Total Recommended P ro)~cts 2,075,442 2,040,000 1,940,000 2,340,000 2,300,000 10,696,442 Sho~a~Exces~ Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Cu r~lative S ho~al 0 0 0 0 0 Tmsf r. from Spli[ Billing Rese we 16.500.000 0 0 0 0 16.500.000 SubtotalRe~enues 23,'154,385 15,988,120 6,876,680 10,420,700 8,534,793 65,574,678 Recorrrrended PnY~ects 23,154,385 15,888,120 6,876,680 10,420,700 8.534.793 65,97,~,678 Sho~rarr~ec ess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Cu~kit]ve Shogdal 0 0 0 0 0 Avaitable Resources Transferflom General Fund 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 0 240.000 Storffavater Fund Balance 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000 250.00(1 Subtotal Revenues 110,000 110.000 110,000 110,000 80,000 490.000 ~ecornm~nded Projects 110.000 TI0,000 TI0,000 '110,000 50,000 490,000 ShorUar=xcess Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 011 0 0 0 0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 13 FY 96/97 - 00/01 Recommended CIP Revenue Summary - All Funds General Government CIP Fund Revenues total Revenues $10,695,442 Ocn. Fund Approps~ 95.1~ CIP Fund Bal. 4.9% School Division CIP Fund Revenues Total Revenues $65,574,678 VPSA Bonds 68.5% Gen. Fund Transfer 5.0% Proffer Funds 0.6% interest Earned 0.8% Split Billing 25.2% Stormwater Fund Revenues Total Revenues $490,000 Stormwatm' Fund Balanv¢ 51.0% Gen. Fund Transfer 49.0% 14 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 FY 96/97 -00/01 Recommended CIP Project Summary General Government, School Division & Stormwater Funds Projects School Division 85.4% Utilities 1.3% Parks & Rec. Libraries 0.6% Hwys. & Transportation 4.2% Public Safety 2.3% Aclmin. & Courts 1.7% CIP/Contingency Reserve 2.0 Stormwater 0.6% General Government CIP Fund School Division CIP Fund Stormwater Fund Total CIP Projects $10,695,442 $65,574,678 $490,000 $76,760~120 Capital Improvement Program IVY 96/97- 00/01 15 General GOvernment CIP Fund General Government CIP Fund Revenues General Fund App. 4.9% CIP Fund Bal. CIP Fund Balance General Fund Appropriation FY 96/97 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 $118,842 $I00,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,956.600 $1.940.000 $1.840.000 $2,240,000 FY 00/01 Total $100,000 $518,842 $2,200,000 $10.176,600 Total: $2,075,442 $2,040,000 $1,940,000 $2,340,000 $2,300,000 $10,695,442 Capital Improvement Program FY 96~7- 00/01 17 General Government CIP Fund Expenditures Hwys. & Trans. Public Safety 30~2%o ./~ 12.4% Admin. & Courts Libraries Reserve Funds Parks & Rec. Utilities FY 96/97 Admin. & Courts $298,850 Fire, Rescue & Safety $322,295 Highways & Trans. $561,000 Libraries $68,500 Parks & Recreation $824,797 Utilities Improvements $0 Contingency Reserve $0 Total: $2,075,442 FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 Total $150,000 $t45,000 $266,250 $468,000 $1,328,100 $502,331 $250,000 $265,000 $400,000 $1,739,626 $548,500 $737,900 $592,750 $794,200 $3,234,350 $322,947 $3,000 $15,000 $15,000 $424,447 $314,000 $94,000 $118,230 $49,500 $1,400,527 $100,000 $300,000 $300,000 $295,842 $995,842 $102,222 $4.10,100 $782.770 $277.458 $1,572.550 $2,040,000 $1,940,000 $2,340,000 $2,300,000 $10,695,442 18 Capffal Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Summary of Mandated/Committed Projects Mandated/Commi~ed 50.5% Public Safety 15.8% Maint./Replaccment 7.4% Reserve Funds 14.7% Other Projects 11.6% County Technology Upgrade Revenue Sharing Road Program Hydraulic/Rio Roads Sidewalk ADA Compliance at Parks ADA Compliance on School Playgrounds Walnut Creek Park Improvements Towe Park Recreation Improvements Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security Crozet Park Improvements Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Improvements Rivarma Greenway Access and Path Keene Landfill Closure Total: Total Project Cost $805,000 $2,500,000 $28,5OO $80,278 $89 375 $131 000 $143 144 $20 000 $150 000 $55 400 $400 000 $995 842 $5,398,539 Year FY 97-01 FY 9%01 FY 98 FY 97 FY 97 FY 9%99 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97-01 FY 98-01 Pa_~e 28 40 49 58 59 61 62 63 64 67 68 74 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 19 24 TYPE Rev New Rev Cunt Rev Rev Rev New New FUND/PROJECT Curl Cunt Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev New New Cunt Rev Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Cunt Rev Rev New New Rev Rev GEN ~N- GOV~IMEHT CIP FUND Adn~lstra~on & Couds County Tech notogy Upgrade $1.025.000 $1.025.000 $220,000 $805.000 Ddve. k~ Window Replacement & Canopy $18.000 $18.000 $0 $18.000 C.O.B. Maintanance/Repiacement $551.041 $551.041 $45.941 $505,100 S u btota I Ad nlin. & Co rata $1,594,041 $1,594,041 $265,941 $1,328,100 Fkel Rescue & Safety Fire/Rescue Building & E~ui0ment Fund Ongoing Ongoing $400.000 $1.400.000 Police NClC 2OO0 Upgrade $ ~5,000 $15~000 $6 $15,000 Police Computer System $142.295 $142,295 $70,000 $72,295 Redio Receiver Systent~EOC Site Conn. $448.331 $448,331 $246,000 $202.331 Police Fldng Range $20.000 $20,000 $0 $20.000 Police Facir~iy Needs AsSessrnen; $60.000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 SubtotaIFim, Rescue & Safety $685,626 $655.626 $716.0~ $1.739.626 Highways & Transportation Revenue Sharing Road Program Ongoing Ongoing Yearly * $2.500,000 Zan Road Extensin n $557.000 $27.900 $0 $27.900 Old Ny Bicycle Path and Sidewalk $125.000 $53.500 $0 $53,500 1-64 IRt 20 tntercllange Study $50,000 $50.000 $0 $50,000 Route 29 North Landscaprng $104,000 $54.000 $3,000 $51.000 Ny Road S~e Lanes & Streetl~hts $790.000 $90.000 $0 $90.000 Meaoow Creek Pkwy to Rio Bicy/Ped Path $55,000 $20.000 $0 $20.000 Greenbrier Drive Extended Sidewalks $62.500 $27.500 $0 $27.500 Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Stnsetl~lhts $19.250 $19.250 $0 $19.250 Hydraulic/Rio Rd, Sidewalk $~76.000 $71.500 $43,000 $28.500 Route 250- Route 616 Turn Lane $110.000 $100,000 $0 $t00.000 S~dewaik C0nstructinon program $67.700 $67,700 $0 $67.700 Ny Road Landscaping $199.000 $199.000 $0 $199,000 Subtotal Hvajs. & Tra nspoltaUon $2,315,450 $780,350 $46,0~'~ $3,234,350 L~l'a des L~0rary Main Frarne Computer Upgrade $535.000 $293.447 $0 $293,447 L~Drary Maintenance/Re olacement projects Onoing Ongoing $40.000 $'L31.000 SubtOtal Libra des S535.000 $293,447 $40,000 $424,447 Parks& Recreation ADA Co rnoliance at Pa rks $441.611 $387.001 $306.723 $80,278 ADA Compliance o n School playgrou nos $275,000 $275.000 $185,625 $89.375 OutdoOrRec. Project Completion $49.600 $49.600 $0 $49,600 V~inut Creek pa rk Irnorovements $2,391.000 $2.041.000 $1.910.000 $131.000 Towe Park Rec. Imurov. $3.907,997 $1772.603 $1.629,459 $143,144 Chris Greene/Mint Sprgs. Secudty $30.000 $30,000 $10,000 $20,000 Crozet Park Imorovements $200 300 $200,000 $50,000 $150.000 Swimming Beach Playground structures $30.000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 Northern Area Elementary School Rec $71.500 $71.500 $0 $71.500 Scottsviile Comrnu n fry Cir. Outdoor rntP $164.335 $164.325 $108.925 $55.400 Rivan na Greenway Access a nd Path $425.000 5425,000 $25.000 $400.000 Greenwood Elementary Demol~ion $0 $0 $0 $0 County Land Athletic Field Study $20.000 $20.000 $0 $20,000 pa rks Maintenance/Replacement Pro~e¢ts Ongoing Ongoing $77,000 $160.230 SubtotalParks & Rec. $8,006,053 $5,466,0z9 $4,302,732 $1,400.527 Subtotal UfJli0es Improv. CE~ CapitalProjectsJ Contingency Resewe SubtotaiGen, GovernmenL ClP Fund General Fund Appropriafior rotalAva feble General Fund Revenues: Recorrzne nded General Fund Proiects $2,586,650 $2.556,650 $1.590.808 $995,842 $2,586,650 $2,586,650 $'L590,808 $995.842 so so so so $15,722,800 $17.656.923 S6,961,481 $10,695,442 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- O0/OI TOTAL ~995-97 t997-98 1995-99 1999-09 200Q~- 01 FY97tO00 $180.000 $150,000 $145.000 $"160.000 $170.000 $805,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15.000 $15.000 $115.850 $0 $0 $106.250 $280.000 $505.100 S298,850 $150,0~ $145,000 $266,250 S468,000 $1,328,100 $250,000 $250.000 $250.000 $250.000 $400.000 $~400.000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $15.000 $72,295 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72~95 $0 $202,331 $0 $0 $0 $202,331 $0 $20.000 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $30.000 $0 S0 $0 $30.000 $322,2~'~ S502,331 $259,0~ S265,0~ $400,0~ $1,739,626 $500,000 $500.000 $500.000 $500.000 $500.000 $2.900.000 $0 $0 $27,900 $0 $0 $27.900 $0 $0 S0 $53.500 $0 $53,500 $0 $0 $50.000 S0 $0 $50.000 $tl.000 $10.000 $10.000 $10.000 $10.000 S5~000 $50.000 $0 $40.000 $0 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $20.000 50 $0 $0 $27,500 $0 $27.500 $0 $0 $0 $1,750 $~,500 $19~50 $0 $28,500 $0 $0 $0 $28.500 $0 $10.000 $90,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 S0 $0 $0 $67.700 $67.70D $0 S0 $0 $0 $109.000 $109.000 $961,0~'~ $548,5~-~ $737,9~'0' $592,7~"~' $794,200 $3,234,350 $0 $293,447 $0 $0 $0 $293.447 $68.500 $29.500 $3.000 $15,000 $15.000 5t31.000 $69,500 $322,947 $3,000 $t5,000 $15~000 $424,447 $80.278 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80.278 $89.375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89.375 $49.600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49.600 $75,000 $31.000 $25.000 $0 $0 $131000 $143.144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143.144 $20.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $150.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30~00 $0 $0 $0 $71.500 $0 $71500 $55.400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,400 575.000 $250.000 $25.000 325.000 $25.000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20.000 $0 50 $0 $0 $20,000 $37.000 $33.000 $44.000 921.730 $24.500 $160.230 $824,797 $314,000 $94,000 $115,230 $49,590 $%400,527 $0 $100.000 $300.000 $300.000 $295.942 $995,842 S0 $t00,000 $300,000 $300,000 S299,542 S995,842 $0 S102,222 $410,100 8752.770 S277.458 Sl, 572,550 $2,075,442 $2,040,000 $1,940,000 $2,340,000 $2,300,000 $10.695,442 $118,842 $~00,000 $t00,000 $100,000 $'[00,000 $518,842 $'f, 955.600 $1,940,000 $1,840,000 $2,240,000 $2,200,000 $10,~'6,600 $2,075,442 $2,040.000 $1,940,000 $2,340,000 $2.300.000 $t0,699,442 $2,079,442 $2,040,000 $1,940,000 $2.340,000 $2,300,000 $'10,695,442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 25 General .Government CIP Fund Project Descriptions Summary of Administration Projects FY 1996/97-2000/01 CIP General Government Expenditures Hwys. & Transportation / Fire, Rescue & Safety / \..,' ~6.~ / \ 30.2% Admin. & Courts Libraries Parks & Rec. Utilities imp. County Technology Upgrade Drive-In Window Replacement & Canopy C.O.B. Maintenance/Replacement Projects Total: Total Proieet Cost Year Page $805,000 FY 97-01 28 $18,000 FY 01 29 $505.100 FY 97, 00, 01 30 $1,328,100 Capi~ Improvement Program FY 96/97 - O0/OI 27 County Technology Upgrade Department: Information Services Project Start Date: 7/94 Proposed Completion Date: NZ4 New Request? I Continuation? I ReVised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Description: Numerous technology initiatives including: LAN servers, LAN hubs, LAN disk space, Document Management/Imaging System, LAN Fax System, microcomputers and mmrocomputer hardware to support the networks. This project is revised from previous requests to include equipment for upgrading the infrastructure of COB LAN hardware, including servers ($150,000), operating system software ($50,000), hubs ($100,000), LAN Fax system ($30,000), and networli hardware ($75,000). The request also includes $60,000 in additional funds far micro- computers for general government and information services staff. (The current request spreads the remaining $90,000 in approved FY 97 and FY 98funding for general government microcomputers over the five year period, adds an additional $10,000 in FY 01 and requests $50,000 in supplementary funds for computers for information services staff,, which is spread in $10,000 installments over the FY 97- O1 CIP.) Finally, the revised request includes $60,000 in additional funds to upgrade the PBX phone system in FY 97 and FY 00. Relationshio to Plan: N/A Project Manaeer: Information Services Project Justification: The broad range of technology requested focuses upon the creation and maintenance ora high performance central LAN enviroumem m support information access and distribution to stafflocated both inside and outside the County Office Building (COB). The near arrival of a County-wide fiber optic WAN has accelerated the need for funds to upgrade the infi:a-stmcture of LAN hardware, as reflected in this revised request. This project also requests funding to provide higher performance computers to COB staff, required in part. m permit expanding use of Internet services in the future. Finally, the request for funds to upgrade the County's PBX phone system is needed since the available capacity of the phone switch is almost totally exhausted, with only one remaining open slot for expanmon. Impact if Pro_iect Not Comoleted: Inefficient resource management. Operating Cost Breakdown: Yearly maintenance costs in FY 97-01 provide for help desk support & training. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Location/Site Status: Coun~ Office Building. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: Revenue Net County Cost Costs TI_ 1.025.000 1,025,000 1,025,000 114,300 I 28 220.000 220,000 220.000 8,400 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 180.000 180,000 150.000 145.000 160.000 170.000 805.000 150,000 145,000 160,000 170,000 805,000 180,000 150,000 140.000 160,000 170.000 805,000 17,200 19,000 20,800 23,100 25,800 105.900 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01. Drive-in Window Replacement &Canopy IDepartment: Staff Services Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July 2000 Sept. 2000 INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Proiect Descriution: Replacement of Finance Department's drive-in window (est. $8,000) and the construction ora canopy over the drive-in window (est. $I0,000). Proiect Justification: The drive-in window unit originally was installed when the County Office Building was renovated in 1981. In the year 2000, the unit will be approaching 20 years old. It is used extensively by taxpayers. Over the past several years, numerous service calls and repairs have been made in order to keep the unit in working order. Also, in inclement weather Finance has received numerous taxpayer complaints concerning the lack of a canopy to shield them from the elements. On occasion, due m vehicle height, a taxpayer must exit their vehicle in order to complete their transactions and thus are exposed. Taxpayer documents also are subject m getting wet during transactions ifa canopy is not constructed. Relationship to Plan: None. Imuaet if Project Not Completed: If not funded, repairs would continue to be made to the window and money would continue to be invested in a unit over twenty years old. tn addition, there is a risk of the unit breaking down during a "busy time," resulting in taxpayers being unable to use the drive-in facility. Additionally, without a canopy, taxpayer complaints about difficulfias in inclement weather will continue. Proiect Maria -er: Staff Services Location/Site Status: County Office Building Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction 18.000 Other O_ Total Project Cost 18,000 Less: Fees Leys: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 18,000 Operating Costs 0 Prior FY 97 F.Y 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY O1 TL 97-01 O~ 0{ 0~ 0.: 18.000 18.000 18.000 18,000 18.000 18,000 0 0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 29 Maintenance ep lacement Summary Departmena' Staff Services Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July 1, 1997 June 30, 2001 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? MandatedProject? Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Prelect Description: Various maintenance and replacement projects that include replacing a boiler, cleaning ductwork, replacing windows, stripping paint & tuck-pointing remaining extarior walls and painting the interior and replacing ceiling tile at the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. (City/County project.) In addition, these projects include the replacement of the #t and #2 chillers and resurfacing the parking area of the County Office Building. The project revision includes $106~250 in FY O0 to complete repairs to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Building, and $280,000 in FIr O1 to replace obsolete AC chillers and resurface the parking area in the Coun~g Office Building. Prelect Justification: The maintenance and replacement are need to ensure adequate parking facilities for citizens and employees. The replacement of the chillers is necessary because of age and the discontinuation of chillers using Freon 11 (CFC's) per EPA regulations. The cost to retro-fit the chillers is not practical due to the age of the original equipmem. Maintenance costs of City/County joint owned buildings will be shared by both entities. Relationshin to Plan: None· Impact if Prelect Not Completed: If not funded, the County will continue to waste money patching surfaces. Additionally, the high cost ofFreon 11 and the inability to locate it would necessitate shurdng down AC units. Project Manaeer: Staff Services. Location/Site Status: County Office Building & Park'mg Lot. City/County owned Buildings (Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court.) Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed· TL Land Acquisition Archit/Engineertng Construction Other 551.041 Total Project Cost 551.041 Less: Fees Less: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 551,041 Operating Costs Prior FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 TL 97-01 45.941 i 118.850 45.941 i 11L850 o] _o 45.941 118.850 106,250 280_000 505.100 106~50 280.000 505,100 106.250 280.000 505,100 30 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Public Summary of Fire/Rescue & Safety Projects FY 1996/97 -2000/01 CIP General Government Expenditures Fira, Rescue & Safety 12.4% Aclmin. & Courts Libraries Parks & Rec. Utilities Imp. Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade Pofice Computer Sys[em EOC Site R~io Connection Police Firing Range Police Facility Needs Assessment Total: Total Project Cost $1,400,000 $15,000 $72,295 $202,331 $20,000 $30.000 $1,739,626 Year FY 97-01 FY 00 FY 97 FY 98 FY 98 FY 98 Pa_fie 32 33 34 35 36 37 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 31 Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund Department: Fire and Rescue Division Project Start Date: FY 95 Proposed Completion Date: Ongoing INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? i~ Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro'ect Descri tion: This project involves the continued contribution to a sinking fund created to provide funding for the future construction of two (2) new County fire and rescue stations in designated rapid growth areas as specified in the Community Facilities Plan and for the purchase of an aerial track. Since final decisions have not yet been made on how to stafffue aerial apparatus and on the location and staffmg of new stations. specific details are unavailable at this time. However, as these decisions are made, the required funding will be available through this funding mechanism. Proiect Justification: Currently, volunteer f~re and rescue stations are experiencing an increase in the number of calis and in the time it takes to arrive on the scene of an emergency. ,4s a result, the number of calls to which a first response unit cannot respond and to which the second unit may take longer than is clearable to respond is increasing, especially during daylight hours. This project is revised to include $400,000 in additional fundlug bt FY O1 toward the construction of the secand fire and rescue station (to begin in FYOO-OL) Aerial service is needed throughout the County, due to the increased growth in residential, commercial and industrial properties. The average cost per vehicle varies from $400,000 to $550,000, depending on type, and continues m rise yearly. Project Manaeer: Fire/Rescue Division Relati0nshin to Plan: Comprehensive Plan: Goal 9, Objectives: 5,6,7,8,9 & 10. Community Facilities Plan: P. 71 (Sect. 2A)& P. 74 (Sect 2C) Imnact if Proiect Not Comnleted: If the stations are not_funded, response times will rise and the number of"no-response" calls will continue m increase. These delays may cause additional losses, injuries or deaths. Additionally, higher losses from fire will result in higher insurance premiums for citizens and businesses. Finally. the Community Facilities Plan's service objectives and recommendations relating to emergency response times and station locations will not be met. If an aerial truck is not purchased, the current lack of track service, other than on a delayed basis from the City, will continue. Since the cost of such specialized units increases substantially each year, a unit should be obtained as soon as possible. An alternative to funding an aerial truck would be to fund additional personnel to staffthe City's second u-ack at $263,000/yr. Location/Site Status: Southern or Northern Urban Area Ooecatine CostBreakdown: Operating costs reflect the impact of hiring & equipping 3 firefighters for aerial truck service in FY97 ($74,500), plus $1,146,750 in FY 98-01 for 9 additional firefighters, if volunteers can not staff future additions. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed following the insertion of the italicized clarifying text in the project justification regarding so-called '~ao response" calls. TL Land Acquisition Archit/Engtneering Construction Other On~oin~ Total Project Cost Ongoing Less: Fees Less: Revenue O_ Net County Cost Ongoing 32 Operating Costs 1,221,250 ]~?inr FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY O1 TL 97-01 400.000 i 250,000 250.000 250.000 250.000 400.000 1.400.000 400,000 ] 250.000 250,000 250.000 250,000 400.000 1,400,000 400,000 i 250,000 2~0,000 250,000 250,000 400.000 1,400,000 0 i 74,500 174,750 236,250 399,500 1,221,250 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade ]Department: Poij:; Department Project Start Date. July 1999 Proposed Completion Datm' Sept 1999 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? X i Documented Project/Need? I Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: Replace the current Honeywell VCIN terminal in order to continue effective interface with the NCIC/VCIN network. Project Justification: The Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) is the State Police-operated criminal justice network that hnks the county police to other agencies and information at the local, state, and national levels. Operation of this system is necessary to carry out basic law enforcement functions such as DMV checks, Wanted/Stolen/Missing inquires, and to secure high speed electronic communications with other criminal justice agencies. The FBI operates the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) which we aecess daily through the VCIN system. The FBI sets the operating standards for the VCIN system, heoee the VCIN must keep pace with technological advances and regulatory changes occurring at the NCIC - and local agencies must keep pace with the changes in the VCIN. The FBI is upgrading the NCIC (NCIC 2000) to allow for enhanced capabilities at the state and local levels. The NCIC project includes upgrades to permit, among other tlfmgs, batch inqu'ntes, and image transfers. Local agencies will need to purchase the computer hardware to access this new system. This project requests funding for new equipment to keep pace with the upgrade in 1999 and to allow County Police to continue to operate at a basic service level. The project revision moves $1$,000 from FY 98 to FY 2000 . Relationshio to Plan: Goal of quality of life promo~d by public services~ Imoact if Project Not Comnleted: If not funded, the County Police will not be unable to function safely and effectively. Officer and citizen safety will be in grave jeopardy. Wanted persons may go free due to an inability to eonI'~m the existence of warfares un file. The Police will not receive "be on the look outs" or other automated information that affects the safety of officers or the community. Without the VCIN upgrade, County police will be unable to function at curtent levels of operation: the VCIN is a basic tool used constantly. Not having the VCIN system would be analogous to losing our telephone system. Pro_'eet Maria er: Police Deparmtent Location/Site Status: County Office Building - Police Department Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engineering 0 Construction 0 Other 15,000 Total Project Cost 15,000 Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 'Net County Cost 15,00~ Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 15.000 ~s,ooo 0 0 0 0 15,000 ui u u u u TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 15.000 5 15,ooo 0 0 0 15,005 u u Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 33 Police Computer System Department: Police Department Project Start Date: July 1995 Proposed Completion Dote: June 1997 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project.? Documented P~.!ect/Need? Other Community Need/Service? Project Descriofion: Replace and expand current computerization of the Police Deparnnent. This expansmn consists of the following equipment: IBM Pentium 90 server w/241vIB RAM, 5 GB HD; Netware; 31 Workstations; 5 Printers; Jet Direct Cards; Regular 10MB Ethernet; 5 Hubs; 45 Cards; 4 Fiber Modules; 3 UPS; Cabling; Fiber Backbone/Sleeves; as well as the following software: Windows; Perfect Office; DaVinci Ernail and PrnjectYActivity software. Proiect Justificafion: The Police Depar~nent currently is operating on 1986 software and mainframe technology. The current computers do not communicate with our IBM S36 Mini, which holds all crime information data. Additionally, the S36 has become unreliable and is unable to store all data being collected. Also, we need to prepare for interface with the Computer Aided Dispatch system and ~he other two police agencies in the near future and to provide useable data in a timely manner to officers, administration and citizens. This proposal would add a file server to the County Off~ce Building (COB) Local Area Network (LAN) which would store the needed data for crime information while providing access to all COB network functions. This LAN tie-in is consistent with Information Service's goal of adding file servers for data intensive applications in departments rather than relying on a single server to handle all data traffic (The single server would require routing data requests around the entire network ring.) The ability to s~ore, retrieve, and analyze criminal, traffic, personnel, and financial data is critical due to the size, workload, and accountability ofthe agency. The S36 is unable to adequately perform these tasks using 10 year old computer tecimology. ThcS16,053 increase la total project cost is related to changes in technology and to taking a closer look at specific software needs. Relationship to Plan: Goal of quality of life promoted by public services. Imuact if Project Not Comuleted: The inability to provide quality information in a timely manner, or at all, to officers, managers and citizens is a current reality. The S36 has proven to be unreliable and may completely fail. If that were to happen, officers would be unable to check local wanted or intelligence information, or to provide basic data to management and citizens, resulting in a threat to officer safety and to the safety of the general public. Project Manager: Police Department Location/Site Status: COB - Police Deparunem Operating Cost Breakdown: Maintenance contracts of $3,800/yr in FY 98-01. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engineering Construction Other 142.295 Total Project Cost 142,295 Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues Net County Cost 142,295 34 Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-01 70,000i 72.295 70 ~-~ 72,2ss 70,000 i 72,295 0 0 0 72.295 72,~9s 0 0 72,29;0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 EOC Site Radio Connection IDepartment: Police Department Project Start Date: July 199 7 Proposed Completion Date: June 1998 INew Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Description: This project will limk the radio system rec~]var Linkage network equipment with the new central communications facility (EOC)nsing microwave eqmpment. This will require 6GHz microwave transmitting, receiving, and controlling equipment installed on Bucks Elbow Tower and at the new Emergency Operations Center building. This pro)ect adds a second "expansion"phase to a previous Police capital pro)ect aimed at upgrading the Police radio system receiver linkage network. Funding for the "upgrade" (first) phase of the project was appropriated in a prior year CIP, but has yet to be spena levels of service for police and other agencies and services. This project also will enhance the operat'mg efficiency of the upgraded 900 MItZ radio system. This link is expandable and sharable with other users on Bucks Elbow Tower. Funding for this project is requested in FY98 instead of the fifth year of the CIP, since it is critical that the Police Department be able to communicate with the EOC when it is completed. The new EOC building is expected to be operational by the end of 1998. Relationshin to Plan: Goal of quality of life promoted by public services. This request replaces the Police Department's current year request for radio receiver additions, approved by the Board of Supervisors. Due to a change in microwave dish technology, the Police Department will be able to accomplish the goals of the radio receiver additions project with $246,000 in previously opproprioted funds for upgrading the Department's radio connections. With the $363,851 in FY 98 funding for the radio receiver additions project, approved by the Board in the current year, the Department hopes to complete this critical need for an EOC site radio connection. Proiect Justification: This project will result in expanded officer safety and higher Impact if Proiect Not Completed: Linkage with the EOC could be achieved with leased telephone lines or dedicated radios, but these wouldnot be expandable or support centrol of the comparitor at the cenlral communications site (EOC). Project Manager: Police Deparmaent Location/Site Status: Six County sites. (See project description in original application materials.) Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition Archit/ Engineering 0 Construction 0 Other 448,331 Total Project Cost 448,331 Less: Fees Less: F~ev~nues Net CountyCost 448,331 Operau ng [.os;s u Prior FY 97 246,000 246,000 u FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 202.331 0 0 0 202.331 202,331 ~ ~ ~ 202,331 0 0 202,331 0 0 0 202,337 U U e U U Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 35 Police Firing Range Department: Police Department ] Project Start Date: July, 1997 Proposed Completion Date: June, 1998 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X IMandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Proiect Description: This is a project to research, develop and con~tmct a Police Department firing range for the purpose of training and qualifying police officers with various firearms. A regional concept is very possible with this project. This initial request is simply to raise the financial issue that a range is needed and to begin to set aside funds to be used for construction. Much further research and development needs to be done to obtain an accurate dollar amount. This research and development can be accomplished by staff. Relationship to Plan: Goal of quality of life promoted by public services. Impact if Proiect Not ComOleted: It is mandated by the Department of Criminal Justice Services that our police officers qualify with firearms. We must have a site that serves all of the training needs oftbe Department. Without control over a range it will not be easy and may not be possible to train and qualify properly, as required, thus raising serious liability issues. Proiect Justification: The currem facilities used by the Police Deparunen* are inadequate for the level of training needed. The number of officers that must qualify is placing a strain on our currem range. Many training needs are not being met because safety restrictions and physical limitations of the current range. The effort and potantial cost associated with developing a range necessitate that the County f'md a permanent site controlled by the Police Department so that an acceptable level of flexibility and stability can be reached. Project Manager: Police Department Location/Site Status: Any location within reasonable travel distance. Preferably one owned or fully controlled by thc County. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition 0I Archit/Engineenng 0I Construction 0 Other 20,00~ Total Project Cost 20,000 Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 20,00'~ uperat]ng Co~s u Prior Pt'97 FY98 FY99 FYO0 FY01 20.000 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 20.000 0 0 o 2o,oo~ U 36 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Facility Needs Assessment IDepartment: Police Department Project Start Date: FY 98 Proposed Completion Date: FY 98 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: The project requests funding for consultant fees to perform a space needs assessment and facility planning for the Police Deparmaent. This project will allow for a full space needs assessment to be conducted so a new police facility can be planned that will provide for anticipated growth of the Department as well as addressing current space inadequacies. Pro_iect Justification: The Police Depar~mem acquired additional office space in the north wing of the County Office Building (COB) during the most recent COB renovations. While this additional space has helped to alleviate some short-torm shortages, immediate space needs continue to exist. Additionally, there is aneed to provide additional space for the long-term growth of the Deparrmem. There are several critical space needs that must be addressed in the future. A few examples include: an armory for storage of weapons and other specialized equipmenT; basic storage space for department equipment (ammunition, lxaffic flares); an evidence and property section; crime lab facilities; lraining facilities; K9 facilities: and office space needed for anticipated growth of sworn personnel and support staff, etc. The Technical Committee estimates that $30.000 will fund the Relationshin to Plan: Goal of quality of life promoted by public services. Impact ifProlect Not Comnleted: The future space needs of the Police department are beyond the current capacity of facility space. In addition, there is no space available (or the space ava'flable is inadequate) for many specialized needs O.e., evidence ua/t). The lack of adequate space could adversely affect the quality of police services provided by the deper~ent. Proiect Manaeer: Police Department Location/Site Status: Within the County Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Although $60,000 originally was requested for this project, TL Land Acquisition-- 0 Archit/ Engineering 0 Construcb'on 0 Othe[ 30,000 Total Project Cost 30,000 Less: Fees Less: Revenues Net County Cost 30,0l] vperaung t.oszs u I Prior i FY 97 FY* 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-0'1 o 0 0 ] 0 30.000 0 0 0 30.000 ~ ~ 30,000 o ~ ~ 3o,ooo 0 0 i 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,00~ U~ U U U U U U Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 37 _ Highway & Highway/Transportation Project Summary FY 1996/97-2000/01 CI? General Government Expenditures t2.4% Libraries Parks& Rec. Utilities Imp. Revenue Sharing Road Program Zan Road Extension Old Ivy Bicycle Path and Sidewalk 1-64/Route 20 Interchange Study Route 29 North Landscaping Ivy Road Bike Lanes & Streetlights Meadow Creek Parkway to Rio Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Greenbrier Drive Extended Sidewalks Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Streeflights Hydraulic/Rio Road Sidewalk Route 250 - Route 616 Turn Lane Ivy Road Landscaping Sidewalk Construction Program Total Project Cost Year Page $2,500,000 FY 97:01 40 $27,900 FY 99 41 $53,500 FY 00 42 $50,000 FY 99 43 $51,000 FY 97-01 44 $90.000 FY 97, 99 45 $20,000 FY 99 46 $27,500 FY 00 47 $19,250 FY 00, 01 48 $28,500 FY 98 49 $100,000 FY 98, 99 50 $199,000 FY 01 5I $67.700 FY 01 52 Total: $3,234,350 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 39 Revenue Sharing Road Program IDepartment: Planning/Community Dev. New Request? Mandated Project? Project Start Date: Ongoing Continuation? Documented Project/Need? Proposed Completion Date: Ongoing Revised? X Other Community Need/Service? xl Prelect Description: Each year the County participates in the Revenue Sharing Program in which the State provides funds to match County funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of secondary roads. The roads which are programmed for improvements with Revenue Sharing Funds include: Rt. 631 (Meadow Creek Parkway) Rt. 631 (Rio Rd.) Rt. 866 (Greenbrier Ext.) Rt. 656 (Georgetown Rd.) Rt. 649 (Airport Rd.) Rt. 601 (Old Ivy Rd.) Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd.) Rt. 691 (Jarmans Gap Rd.) Project Justification: These projects will provide an additional infusion of funds into the Six Year Secondary Plan (VDoT will match local contributions up to $500,000 annually). Since the County currently allocates its share to the year a project is scheduled to begin construction, the infusion allows particular projects to be constructed in a particular year in which they would otherwise not be constructed. Relationshin to Plan: These road improvements are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and are consistent with the Plan's goal of establishing a systematic and equitable transportation system to insure the effective provision of road improvements and new conm'uction. Imnact if Prelect Not Completed: If not funded, these projects will be constructed at a later date, thereby delaying safety improvements to the roadway and/or delaying improvements to the urban roadway network. An alternative method of funding through the Six Year Secondary Plan would delay actual construction of the projects. Prelect Manaeer: Planning & Community Devalopmeat Location/Site Status: County wide. (See Project Description.) Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineertng Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: VDoT Contrib. Net County Cost Operating Costs 40 Ongoing Ongoing Oneoin~ Ongoing TL Prior (Yearly) (Yearly) (Yearlv~ (Yearly) FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 1.000,000 1,000,000 1.000.000 1.000.000 1,000.000 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 [,000,000 5,000,000 500,000 500.000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2.500.000 fi00,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 IDepartment: Engineering Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: Zan Road Extension July, 1999 I Jane, 2000 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? Other Communi~ Need/Service? Project Descrintion: This is the extension of Zan Road (in the City) to connect Hillsdale Drive at the existing cul-de-sac. Project Justification: This will allow traffic entering at Seminole Square an alternate path to Rio Road without using Route 29. (Ninety- five percent of this road alignment is within City limits.) This road witl provide an alternative facility to Route 29 traffic. Based on the traffic study, this road will not significantly relieve Route 29 traffic. The City's share of funding for this project is $529,150. Relationshin to Plan: Goal 9, Objective l Impact if Prelect Not Comnleted: If not funded, and the City funds their portion, the road could not be built. Prelect Manager: City Project Location/Site Status: Through Pepsi property behind Post Office, Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land A cquisition 10,000 Archit/Engineermg 1.313 Construction 16,537 Other 529,,150 Total Project Cost 557.000 Less: Fees 0 Less: City Share 529,100 Net Coun~ Cost 27.900 Operating Cost 0 Prior FY 97 FY 98 o FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 I'L 97-01 10,000 10,000 1,313 1.313 16.537 16.537 529. 150 529.150 557,000 557,000 0 0 529,100 529~100 27.900 27,900 oi o Capital Improvement Program FI' 96/97- 00/01 41 Old Ivy Road Bicycle Path & Sidewalk Department: Planning/Community Dev. Project Start Date: FY O0 Proposed Completion Date: FY O0 INew Request? Continuation? Revised? X IMandated Project? Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: Install a bicycle path and sidewalk, including signage, along Old Ivy Road fi.om Ivy Road (Rt. 250} to the Rt. 29/250 Bypass, in conjunction with the road widening project. It is expected that all right-of-way, half ofcunstmction costs, and all maintenance costs will be borne by VDoT. This project is revised from previous requests to correspond with the Fiscal Year for the road project. The funding year has been moved from FY 99 to FY 2000. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, with the City/County Bicycle Plan. and with the Lewis Munnt~m-University Heights Neighborhood Study. Impact if Proiect Not Completed: If not funded, safety for pedestrians and bicyclists will be compromised. Pr. oiect Justification: This corridor is heavily utilized by the large student population living in the area and may also be utilized by residents moving into University Village. Constructing bicycle and sidewalk facilities in conjunction with the road project reduces County costs by approximately $71,500 (VDoT contribution), with the County's share for the sidewalk being $38,500 and the County's share for the bike path being $15,000. The road project is scheduled to begin January 2000 and take about 14 months to complete. Proiect Manager: Planning & Community Development Location/Site Status: Old Ivy Road fi.om Route 250 to Route 29 Bypass Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction 125.000 Other Total Project Cost 125.000 Less: Fees Less: VDoT Contrib. 71.500 Net County Cost 53.500 Operating Costs Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125.000 0 0 125,00~ 0 0 71,500 0 0 53.500 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 0 125.000 0 12~,000 0 71.500 0 53,$00 1-64 t. 20 Interchange Study IDepartment: Planning/Community Dev. Project Start Date: FIr 99 Proposed Completion Date: FY 99 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Prolect Descrintion: Conduct a study on the feasibility of thereconfiguration of the existing interchange at.Route 20 and 1-64 ro maprnve traffic circulation in the area. ~his project has been revised to remove a proposed ~4von Street interchange from this study based on the findings of the MPO Southern City Study. Due to the likelihood that the study will become more complex in nature over the next three years as new roads are constructed and other elements are considered, the total cost of the project is not expected to decrease significantly. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study "Area B." Impact if Proieet Not Comnleted: If not funded, the confusing and unsafe traffic pattern at the 1-64/Route 20 interchange will persist. Project Maaager: planning & Community Developmem Project Justification: The current configuration of the interchange and associated exit and entrance ramps at the Route 20 interchange has resulted in a confusing and unsafe Ixaffic pattern which has led to a number of accidants. Location/Site Status: 1-64fRoute 20 Interchange Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL ] Prior Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering 50.000 Construction Other Total Project Cost 50,000 Less: Fees Less: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 50,000 Operating Costs FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-O1 0 0 0 0 $0.000 50.000 0 0 50.000 0 0 50.000 0 0 $0,000 0 0 50,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 43 Route 29 North Landscaping IDepartment: Planning/Community Dev. I Project Start Date: ~ 96 Proposed Completion Date: FY O1 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? X MandatedProject? XI Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? I Project Descrintion: Landscaping the median area of Route 29 North disturbed b) the proposed VDoT improvements. Landscaping for the second phase of the Route 29 widening, from Rio Hills Shopping Center to the South Fork Rivanna River, is included as a revision to this project from previous requests. /ldditionally, the project years have been changed from FY 96-00 to FY 96-01. The fa'st phase of the widening, from the Charlottesville City limits to the Rio Hills Shopping Center, is currently underway and is scheduled to be completed by December, 1995. The second phase is underway and scheduled for completion in May, 1997. A third phase of widening, from the South Fork Rivauna to Airport Road, is also planned and a landscaping project may be proposed to follow that phase, but the timeline and cost estimate for such a project are not yet determined. Funding of $10,000 per year for five years from the Route 29 North Business Council is anticipated for support of this project. Project Justification: This project will improve the appearance of this major traffic con'idor. Funding nfS10,000 per year for five years from the Route 29 North Business Council is anticipated in support of this project, plus possible additional funding for maintenance costs. Additionally, VDoT may conlxibute funds for landscaping and maintenance Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation of making development along Route 29 North sensitive to its status as an Enlrance Corridor to the Urban Area (p. 167). Imnaet if Proiect Not Completed: If not funded, The County will miss an opportunity to enhance the Enhance Corridor status of Route 29 North. Prolect Maria,,er: Planning & Community Developmenl Location/Site Status: Route 29 North from the Charlottesville City limits to the South Fork Rivanna River. Operating Cost Breakdown: Operating costs over the 5-year period include landscape maintenance and phased plantings in the following mounts: $5,000 (FY97), $8,000 (FY98), $10,000 (FY99-01). Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TI_ Land ~tcquisition /trchit/Engineertng Construction t04.000 Other Total Project Cost 104,000 Less: Fees Less: Business Cont. 50.000 Net County Cost 54.000 Operating Costs 43,000 Prior FY97 FY 98 FY99 FY00 FY01 TL97~l 21.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 101.000 3,000 i 21,000 20.000 20,000 20.000 20,000 101,000 3,000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 50.000 11,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ~;1,000 5,000 8,000 10,000 I0,000 10,000 43,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Ivy Road Bike Lanes & Streetlights l Department: Planning/Community Dev, Project Start Date: 8/96 Proposed Completion Date: 12/98 New Request? Continuation? Revised? Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro|ect Description: Constmc~ shared bike lanes and install streetlights along the Ivy Road Corridor (Route 250 West) from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass. This project is revised from prior years to include bike lanes and $8.100 in addilional funds to install streetlights (over the $31,900 approved last year for FY 98 and FY99.) Project years also have been moved from FY 98 and 99 to FY 97 and 99. It is expected that 80% of the right-of-way and construction costs for the bike lanes will be borne by VDoT through ISTEA funding. The bike lanes will be a joint project with the CiO~ of Cbariottesville and the University of Virginia, with funding occurring in FY. Funding for the streetilght installation ($40,000) would occur in FY99. During worksessions, the net County cost of the bike lane project (FY 97) was increased by $46,600,from $3,400 to $30,000, based on revised estimates of the CounO~ 's local match. The revised total cost of ibe bike lanes is $750,000, to which VDOT wiil contribute $600,000 in ISTEA funds. The remaining $150,000 in local costs will be borne evenly by the localities, for a net County contribution of $$0,000. Project Justification: This project will enhance the "Entrance Corridor" status of Route 250 West and improve the safety of the corridor. The high UVA student population in this area generates considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic end the corridor is subject to high traffic volume and multiple turning movernenrs. The construction of these improvements wilt help to implement the Ivy Road Corridor Plan, with the bike path portion of the project contingent on the City and University funding their portions of the project. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Ivy Road Design Study and the City/County Bicycle Plan and with the Lewis Mountain- University Heights Neighborhood Study. Impact if Project Not Comoleted: If not funded, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles will be compromised. Proieet Manager: Planning & Community Development Location/Site Status: Ivy Road from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass Operating Cost Breakdown: The annual operating expenses of $5,000, $9,720 and $9,720 in FY 99-01, respectively, would cover electricity costs associated with the streetlight instaIlatinn. Board Action: The Board approved the project as revised during worksessions from $3,400 to $50~000, a total increase of $46,600. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction Ot~er Total Project Cost Less: ISTEA Funds Less:C#:v/UVA Cont. Net County Cost Operating Costs T_~L 69.500 78,500 642.000 790,000 600,000 100,000 FY 97 69.500 78.500 602.000 750,000 6oo.ooo FY 98 90,000 0 50,000 24440 0 0 FY 99 FY 00 FY O1 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 69.500 0 0 0 0 78.500 0 40.000 0 0 642.000 0 40,000 0 0 790,000 0 0 0 0 600.000 _o fi _o _o lOO.OOO 0 40,000 0 0 9o,o00 0 5,000 9,720 9,720 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 45 Meadow Creek Bicycle edestrian Path Department: Planning/Community Dev. Project Start Date: 9/98 I Proposed Completion Date: 9/99 INew Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Deserintion: Install a ten foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path along Meadow Creek Parkway fi~om the CiW limits to Rio Road, in conjunct'mn with the construction of the Parkway. Pavement markings will separate bicyclists and pedestrians, and signage is included. It is expected that all right-of-way costs, half of all construction costs, and all maintenance will be funded by VdoT. This project is revised from previous requests to move the funding year from FY97 to FY99-O0 0t order to correspond with the Fiscal Year for the road project. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the City/County Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Obstacle Study. Impact if Pro_leer Not Completed: If not funded, the County will miss an opportunity for a major North/South bicycle and pedestrian facility. Project Manager: Planning & Community Development Pro_iect Justification: This bicycle/pedestrian path will provide a safe and efficiem transportation system and will help implement the County's traffic reduction strategy. Also, constructing this facility in conjunction with a road project reduces the County's costs by approximately $35,000 (VDoT contribution). The road project is scheduled to be advertised in July 1998 and take about one year to complete. Location/Site Status: Along the Meadow Creek Parkway between the City limits and Rio Road. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. T~L 46 Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction 55.000 Other Total Proieet Cost 55,000 Less: Fees Less: VDoT Contrib. 35.000 Net County Cost 20,000 Operating Costs Prior FY 97 FY 98 0 ~ 0 55.000 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 55.000 0 55,000 35.OOO 20,OOO 0 0 0 55,000 35.0O0 20,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Gte' ' r" ' enorte vnve Extended Sidewalk Department: Planning/Communi~ Dev. Project Start Date: FY O0 ~ Proposed Completion Date: FY O0 INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Descrintion: Install a 4 foot wide sidewalk along 0.5 miles on the south side of Greenbrier Drive Extended, In conjunction with the road project. It is expected that all of the right-of-way costs, half of the construction costs, and all maintenance costs will be funded by VdoT. This project is revised from previous requests to move the funding year from FY 98 to FY2000 in order to correspond with the Fiscal Year for the road project. Proiect Justification: This project will provide a safe alternative transportation system, and will provide the large residential population In the area with access to Whitewood Park and Hydraulic and Rio Road sidewalks. By constructing this project In conjunction with a VDoT road project, the County's costs are reduced by approximately $35.000 (VDoT contribution). The project is scheduled to begIn September 1999 and take about 9 months to complete. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehansive Plan~s objective to develop a transportation system which provides a variety of transportation modes, including the provision of sidewalks, and with the Pedes~an Obstacle Study. Impact if Project Not Comnleted: If not funded, safety for pedestrians will be compromised. PlannIng & Community Development Location~ Site Status: Greenbrier Drive Extended Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition Archit/Engbteering Construction 62,500 Other Total Project Cost 62,$00 Less: Fees Less: l/DoT Contrlb. 35,000 Net County Cost 27,500 Prior Operating Cos~ I FY 97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 0 62.500 0 62.500 0 62.500 0 61,500 0 35.000 0 35.000 0 27,500 0 27,500 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 47 Greenbrier/glydraulic Road Streetlights Department: Plan..ning/Community Dev. Project Start Date.. FY O0 Proposed Completion Date: FY O1 INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? 1 I Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: Construct 10 streetlights at the Greenbrier/Hydraulic/Rio Road imersection. This project would be completed after the construction of Greenbrier Drive Extension. This project is revised from previous requests to move the funding years from FY 98 and 99 to FY 2000 and 2001, in order to correspond with the Fiscal Year for the road project. Project Justification: This intersection is currently subject to high traffic volume and multiple mining movements. As Hydraulic and Rio Roads ere widened and Greenbrier Drive is extended, the situation is expected to intensify. Additionally, pedestrian traffic is prevalent in this erea and is increasing. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Pedestrain Obstacle Study. Imnact ifProlect Not Completed: If not funded, safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles will be compromised. Proiect Manager: Planning & Community Development Location/Site Status: Hydraulic Road/Rio Road/Greenbrier Drive Extended Oneratin~ Cost Breakdown: Operating costs of $3,600 in FY 01 will cover the electricity costs associated with the streetllght installation. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering 1.750 Construction 17.500 Other Total Project Cost [9,250 Less.. Fees Less: Revenue Net County Cost 19.250 Operating Costs 3,600 Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 i 0 0 0 1.750 0 1,750 0 ] 0 0 0 0 17.500 17,500 0 0 0 1,750 17,500 19,250 0 0 1.750 17,500 19,250 0 0 0 0 3.600 3,600 48 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Hydraulic io Road Sidewalk Depa. rtment: Planning/Communigy Dev. Pro]ect Start Date: FY 96 Proposed Completion Date~ FY 98 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X IMandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Project Descrintion: This project will install a 5 foot wide sidewalk inside the loop of Hydraulic and Rio Roads (north side of Hydraulic, south side of Rio) from Whitewood Road northward to Route 29. This project is revised from previous requests in that it no longer includes a bike path component ~$25,000 reduction), since I/DoT has included all the bike path costs with the Rio/Hydraulic widening project The bike lane will be constructed adjacent to the travelway and VDo T will assume the costs of design. For the sidewalk project, VDo Tis expected to contribute all of the right-of-way costs, half of all construction costs, and all maintenance costs, Project Justification: This project is in conjunction with the widening of Hydranlic and Rio Roads. The Hydraulic Road widen'rog is scheduled to begin in January 1996 and will take about one year to complete ($43.000 was appropriated in FY 95 for the Hydraulic Road portion of this project). The Rio Road widening is scheduled to begin in September 1997 and take about one year to complete, during which time the remaining costs of this project would be funded. This project would provide a safe and efficient alternative Iransportatian system. Additionally, constructing these facilities in conjunction with VDoT road projects reduces the County's total costs by approximately $104,500 (VD oT conffibution). Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the City/County Bicycle Plan and Pedestrain Obstacle Study. Imnact if Proieet Not Completed: If not funded, safety for pedestrians will be compromised. Alternatives to funding include providing an asphalt path in lieu ora sidewalk. Proiect Manager: Planning& Community Development Location/Site Status: Hydraulic and Rio Roads Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: VDo T Contrib. Net Count. Cost Operating Cost 143.000 176,000 104.500 71,500 t Prior FY 97 0i 0 101,000 ~ FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 33.000 0 0 FY 01 .T.L 97-01 0 33.000 0 42.000 0 0 0 42.000 101,000 ~ 0 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 58,1300 i _0. 46,500 0 0 O_ 46.500 43,000 ~ 0 28,500 0 0 0 28,500 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97~ 00/01 49 Route 250-Route 616 Turn Lane Department: Planning/Community Dev. Project Start Date: 9/97 Proposed Completion Date: 12/98 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro'ect Descri fion: Construct a left mm lane and taper (200 ft. x 200 ft.) within the existing right-of-way of US Route 250 at its intersection with State Route 616. This project includes lowering the grade and cutting back the banks of Route 250 to improve sight distance from Route 616. This project is revised from previous requests to move the funding years from FY 97 and 98 to FY 98 and 99 in order to reflect a change in the anticipated Fiscal Year for the project. Project Justification: This project is necessitated by the proposed 1781 Productions' outdoor theater. The intersection of Route 616 and Route 250 also has extremely poor sight distance to the east. Traffic utilizing I-6,1 going to and coming from the proposed theater would have to enter or cross the westbound tmfftc stream at the intersection, increasing accident potential. County funding is necessitated by a condition of a special-use permit which requires the County to complement the developer's contribution (10%) toward the construction of the turn lane. Relationship to Plan: This road improvement is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal of astabYlshing a systematic and equitable transportation system to insure the effective provision of road improvements and new construction. Impact if Project Not Completed: ffnot funded, vehicular safety at this intersection will be compromised. The alternative to funding this project is to continue utilizing the exisfmg road network and/or to ultimately fund this project through the State's Six Year Primm-y Road Plan, Proiect Manaffer: Planning & Community Development Location/Site Status: Boyd Tavern Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. T..k Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering 10.000 Co~truction 100.000 .Other Total Project Cost I10,000 Less: Fees Less: Developer 10,000 Net County Cost 100,000 Operating Costs Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 10.000 0 0 0 10.000 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 10,000 100,000 0 0 tl0,000 O_ lO.OOO o O_ 10.000 10,000 90,000 0 0 100.000 50 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Department: Planning/Community Dev, Project Start Date: . 7/00 Proposed Completion Date. 5/01 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X IMandated Project? I Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Descriotion: This project would plant railroad embankment and median landscaping along the Ivy Road Corridor (Route 250 West) from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass, in accordance With the Ivy RoadDesign Study. The study recommends extensive planting~ of flowering ~ees with some evergreen hedges and extensive ground cover and flowers. The trees and t~edges would account for approximately $69.000 of the installation costs; with the ground cover accounting for approximataly $130,000 of the installation costs. Ongoing maintenance costs are expected to be about one-fuurth of the installation costs each year until the plantings are well established. The City of Charfuttesville and the University of Virginia would be responsible for a similar project Within the City limits. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Ivy Road Design Study and the City/County Bicycle Plan and with the Lewis Mountain- University Heights Neighborhood Study. Impact if Project Not Completed: If not funded, an importam enwance to the County's urban area and the City and Univemity will continue to fall short of the status called for in the Design Study. Maintenance costs for the area can be expected to increase. An alternative to full funding would be funding the project in phases until completed. Project Manager: Planning & Community Development Proiect Justification: This project will enhance the Entrance Corridor stares of Route 250 West and will help to implement the Ivy Road Design Study. Location/Site Status: Ivy Road from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass Oneratin~ Cost Breakdown: Operating costs of $49,750 in FY01 will cover landscape maintenance. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: Revenue Net County Cost Operating Costs TL Prior FY 97 199.000 0 199,000 0 199,000 0 49,750 0 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 ~L 97-01 199.000 199.000 199.000 199,000 199,000 199,000 49,750 49,7~0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 51 Sidewalk Construction Program Department: Planning/Community Dev. Project Start Date: FY 01 Proposed Completion Date: Ongoing New Request? X Continuation? Revised? Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community. Need/Service? Project Deseriufion: The purpose of this request is to provide annual, ongoing funding for the construction of sidewalks and other pedestrian-related improvements. Proposed projects are either public requests or projects identified in the Comprehensive Plan, adopted Neighborhood Plans, CATS, or the Pedestrian Obstacle Study. The projects are consmacted either by contracting for services or participating (funding) with VDoT on road :onstmction projects. Projects anticipated for conslyuction in FY 01 are: - Airport Road (fr. Rt. 29toRt. 606) (ast. $39,600); - Georgetown Road (fi'. Rt. 654 to Rt. 743) (est. $28,100). ~?nase projects will be done as part of VDoT road construction projects identified in the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. This provides additional cost savings as VDoT will pay one-half of all consmaction costs and all right-of-way costs. Pro]eot Justification: This project provides ongoing funding to support and improve pedestrian access opportunities. Annual funding for a general sidewalks construction program will also permit greater flexibility for planning and constructing needed facilities. A new emphasis at the County (Comprehensive Plan review) and regional leveis (update of CATS) is being placed on developing a multi-modal transportation system, which includes the development of pedestrian facilities. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's objective of"davelop[ing] a transportation system which facilitates a variety of transport modes, including the provision of sidewalks and bikeways in appropriate areas." It is consistent with the adopted Six Year Road Improvemem Plan. It also is consistent with the general goals and objectives of the Qualitative Component of the revised Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS.) Impact if Project Not Completed: If not funded, opportunities to fund sidewalk improvements in a timely manner may be lost. Project Manager: Planning & Community Development Location/Site Status: Various (see Project Description.) Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. ILL Land Acquisition Archit/Engmeermg Construction 67.700 Other O_ Total Project Cost 67,700 Less: Fees Less: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 67,700 Operating Costs Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 0 67.700 67.700 O~ 0 0 o o o o 0 { 0 0 0 0 67,700 67,700 0 0 fl fl fl fl 0 0 0 0 0 67.700 67.700 52 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/0I Summary of Library Projects FY 1996/97 -2000/01 CIP General Government Expenditures Fire. Rescue & Safety Hwys. & Trans. 3o.2~ \ / 12 Admin. & Courts Libraries ParRs & Rec. Utilities Imp. Library Main Frame Computer Upgrade Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects Total: Total Project Cost $293,447 $131,000 $424,447 Year FY 98 FY 97-01 Page 54 55 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- O0/OI 53 Parks & Recreation Projects Summary of Parks & Recreation Projects FY 1996/97-2000/01 CIP General Government Expenditures ADA Compliance at Parks ADA Compliance on School Playgrounds Outdoor Recreation Project Completion Walnut Creek Park Improvements Towe Park Recreation Improvements Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security Crozet Park Improvements Swimming Beach Playground Structures Northern Area Elementary School Recreation Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Improvemems Rivarma Greenway Access and Path Greenwood Elementary DemoF~tion County Land Athletic Field Study Parks Maintenance/Replacement Projects Total: Total PrQectCo~ $80,278 $89,375 $49,600 $131,000 $143,144 $20,000 $150,000 $30,000 $71,500 $55,400 $400,000 $0 $20,000 $160.230 $1,400327 Year FY 97 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97-99 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97 FY 97 FY O0 FY 97 FY 97-01 FY 99 FY 97 FY 97-01 Pa.~g.~ 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 57 ADA Compliance at Parks Department: Parks & Recreation New Request? Mandated Project? Project Start Date: July 1994 Continuation? X Documented'Project/Need? Proposed Completion Date: June 1997 Revised? Other Community Need/Service? Project Descriotion: The completion of projects in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan for County Parks. Funds requested will supplement current funding being used for other ADA projects. FY 1996-97projects include: Totier Creek - signs, parking/pathway paving, fishing platform, shade trees, porta johns ($21,154) Greenwood - accessible playground equipment ($12,000) $cottsville Community Center - pathway to baseball field ($12,600) Towe Park Field/Shelter - area/tennis courts/concession ~mprovements ($36,2 l 4) Relationsh~ to Plan: To promote an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County residents through a combination of mutually complimentary public facilities and services. Imnaet if Project Not Completed: If not fundet, the County will not be in compliance with the spirit or law of the Americans ADA, which has mandated the removal of architectural barriers in County parks by January 26. 1995. Pro'eot M-na er: Parks & Recreation The project schedule may be modified based on requests from disabled citizens, as current funding allows. Project Justification: The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the removal of architectural barriers by January 26, 1995. This is the final phase of a funding plan developed in FY 94-95 to complete the transition plan. The City is contributing $36,205 toward the completion of the projects in FY 96-97. for a total contribution of $54,610 (which includes $18,405 in prior year funding.) Location/Site Status: Totier- Route 726 near Scottsville Greenwood Community Center - Route 691, Greenwood Scottsville Community Center - Page Street, Scottsville Towe Park - Route 20 & Elks Drive Operating Cost Breakdown: Operating costs are ~;1,700 annually in FY 98-01 for replacement signs and potable toilet rental, plus an additional $5,000 in FY00 for tot lot mulch. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TI. Land Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engmeenng 0 Construction 441,611 Other 0 Tota I Project Co~t 441,61'~ Less: Fees 0 Less: City Sham 54,610 Net County Cost 387,001 Prior FY 97 325,128 0 116.483 0 116,483 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 0t TL 97-01 18,405 ] 36.205 306,723 ! 80,278 0 0 116.483 o o o o o 115,48~ 0 36,205 0 0 0 0 80,278 58 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 ADA Compliance - School Grounds Department: Parks & Recreation New Request; Mandated Project? Project Start Date: July 94 Continuation? X Documented Project~eed? Proposed Completion Date: June 97 t Revised? Other Community Need/Service? xI Project Description: Thc completion of ADA improvements [o outdoor recreation t'acilities at County Schools. Funds requested will supplement current funding being used for ADA improvements on school grounds. FY 96-97 Projects include: Cale Elementary School Signage, Paved Pathway; Replacement Mulch and Borders: Accessible Equipment ($31,994l ' Jouett Middle School Paved Pathways; Accessible Parking ($5,473) Walton Middle School Paved Pathways ($8,300) Burley Middle School Paved Pathways; Accessible Parking Area; 60' of Entrance Road: Removal of Old Concrete Walk ($13,130) Henley Middle School Paved Pathways ($5,400) Brownsville Elementary School Paved Pathways ($9,180) Yancey Elementary School Paved Pathways; Replacement Mulch and Border; Accessible Equipment ($26,622) Woodbrook Elementary School Paved Pathways; Curb Cuts; Replacement Mulch and Borders ($16,995) $27,719 of the Cale project funded in FY 95-96. The project schedule may be modified based on requests from disabled citizens, as current funding allows. ~cation: The Americans with Disabilities Act required the removal of architectural barriers by January 26. 1995. This is the f'mal phase of a funding plan developed in FY 94-95. Rel tio-_shi_, to Plan._' To promote an adequate standard of living and quality of lite for all County residents through a combination of mutually complimentary public facilities and Services. Impact if Project Not Comoleted: If not funded, the County will not be in compliance with the spirit or the law of the ADA, which has mandated the removal of architectural barriers in County parks by January 26, 1995. Parks and Recmatiun Loeafi..n/Site Status: Various locations listed under Project Description~ Onerating Cost Breakdown: Operating costs are $15,000 annually in FY 99-01 for replacement mulch on three playgrounds. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition Archit/ Engineering 0 Construction 275,000 Other 0 Total Project Cost 275,00~ Less: Fees Less: Revenues Net CounW Cost 275,00 Opera,lng Cow Prior FY 97 FY 98 185.625 89.375 0 0 lss,s~ 89,37~ a 88 82~ ] 89,37~ FY99 FY00 0 0 0 0 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 89.375 0 0 0 89,37g 0 0 0 o 89,37~ 45,u66 4b,OOu t~,Ouu 4~,OOu Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 59 Outdoor Recreation Project Completion IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 96 Proposed Completion Date: Feb 97 INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project~eed? Other Community Need/Service? x Pro'ect Descri_ tion:_ Funding to complete desired outdoor recreation unprovements at Broadus Wood. Woodbrook. Brownsville, Scottsville Elementary, and Scottsvitle Community Center. These are items desired by the various playground committees that had to be deleted when bids came in over budget in FY 94-95. The projects include backfilling around borders [$10.000). playground equipment ($25,300), and other items such as trash cans and benches ($14,000). Project Justification: Most importantly the backfilling around borders will improve the safety of the sites. The additional equipment also will increase the effectiveness of the sites as community parks. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. which provides for an adequate standard of living and quality of life t'or all County residents through a combination of mutually complementary public facilities and human services, and supports programs and services which promote positive youth development. The project also agrees with recommendations in the Community Faeilitias Plan regarding upgrading and repairing existing facilities at school sites to permit continued productive and safe usage and to function effectively as Community Parks. Imoact if Proiect blot Comnleted: If not fundea, problems will persist with children tripping and falling due to a high border, and some playgrounds will not be equal to others in the County. In addition some playground committee members may be disappointed. Project Manager: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Broadus Wood Elementary, Woodbrook Elementary, Brownsville Elementary, Scnttsville Elementary, and Sco,asville Community Center. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition O I Archit/ Engtneering 0 Construction 49.600 Other 0 Total Project Cost 49,60~ LESS: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 49,605 Prior I FY974916000 FY98 FY99 FYO0 FY01 TL 97-0149.600000 - 49,605 0 0 0 0 49,605 0 Oi 0 0 -i 0i 49,605 0 0 0 0 49,605 Ut U U 60 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Walnut Creek Park Improvements Department: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July, 1996 Proposed Completion Date: June, 2000 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? Proiect Description: The construction ora picnic shelter ~ FY 96-97'} and a children's playground (FY 97-98) which are accessible from the main parking area n6ar the beach and are in compliance with ADA requirements. The project also includes the renovation of the old home site (FY 98-99) for an Environmental EducatiorffNature Center. Project Justification: These are high priority items which had to be cut out of the original construction budget. The addition ora picnic shelter and playground will provide facilities equal to those at Chris Greene and Mint Springs for residents of Southern Albemarle. The shelter is expected to generate $1,500-$2.000 in additional daily fees. Covegarden Ruritans have offered to provide labor to renovate the old house. The park consists of 525 acres and interest has been expressed in developing a program similar to ICNA. ICNA is being used very heavily, The State has provided $350,000 in prior year funding for this projec[. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for residents, equitably providing cost effective public services, supporting services that promote positive youth X IMandated Project? i Documented Projec~eed? X Other Community Need/Service? development, and providing education to ensure protection of the County's aataral and scenic resources. Impact if Project Not Completed: Not funding the shelter and playground projects will result in a lower level of service at Walnut Creek compared to Chris Greene and Mint Springs. Not funding the Nature Center project will delay the opportunity to supplement the program at ICNA and take full advantage of the total park acreage. Proiect Manager: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Route 631 V2 mile south of Route 708 intersection. Oneratin- Cost Breakdown: FY00, FY01: $680 annually for minor repairs, painting and electrical costs for the building, plus an additional $3,~)00 in FY01 for replacement mulch on the playground. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engmeedng 0 Construction 2,391.000 Other 0 Total Project Coat 2,391,00~ Lass: Fees 0 Less: Stale Funding 350.000 Net County Cost 2,041,000 Prior ] FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-01 I 0 I 0 2.260.0001 75.000 31.000 25.000 131.000 2,260,000 ! 75,000 ::31,000 25,000 0 0 131,00~ 0 350.00O i 0 0 0 0 7s.oo 31,00 2s,oo o o u t 6 u u ~uU ,~,6~u Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 61 Towe Park Improvements IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 96 Proposed Completion Date: December 97 INew Request? Contmuatton. Revised? X IMandated Pro]ect? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro_iect Description: Funds budgeted to continue the development of Towe Park. The facilities constructed will be determined by the Towe Park Commi~ee. Likely facilities are picnic shelters. playground, a tot lot. a river access and trails. The majority of Phase I facilities already have been completed, the City will fund approximately 42% based on previously agreed upon formula. Project Justification: Towe Park is the City/County's most heavily used park. It currently has only one picnic shetter and has primarily athletic facilities. This project will address the need to expand on river and picnic opportunities so that a wide vanaty of residents can make use of'the park. The tot-lot will help to service the community park needs listed in the Public Facilities Plan. The City will provide $103.656 in funding for FY 96-97, for a total project contribution of $l,733.115. The State has provided $402.279 in prior year financing for this project. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for residents, by equitably providing cost effective public servzcas, by supporting services that promote positive youth development, and by providing education to ensure the protection of the County's natural and scemc resources. The project serves the community park needs listed in the Public Facilities Plan. Imnact ifProiect Not Comnleted: The park functions well now, however l~igh demand has facilities used to capacity. New facilities would be heavily used. Current development does not take full advantage of the river - a key natural feature that should be emphasized. The park has only one picnic shelter that is usually booked every weekend. Pro_iect Manager: Parks & Recreation ~Status: Towe Park Route 20 and Elks Drive Operating Cost Breakdown: FY98-FY01:$2,500 in FY98 for miscellaneous maintenance and repairs (½ year) and $5,000 annually for maintenance and repairs in FY99-FY01 (full year.) Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition ~-45.000 Archit/ Engineering 212.000 Construction 2.950.997 Other 0 Total Project Cost 3,907,99~ Less: Fees 0 Less: City&State 2.135.394 Net County Cost 1,772,603 opera ztng ¢o~s ~ zx,o~u Prior 745.000 197.000 2.719.917 0 2.031.738 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 15.000 15,000 231.800 231.800 0 0 246,80~ 0 0 0 0 246,80~ 0 103.656 103.656 143,144 0 0 0 0 143,144 62 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 ~ Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 96 Proposed Completion Date: Aug 96 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X Mandated Project? Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: Install a security fence around the shops at Chris Greene Lake and Mint Springs Parks and construct a covered storage area for tractor implements and other large items at Chris Greene. Project Justification,: The shops at Chris Greene and Mint Springs have been vandalized frequently, resulting in a considerable loss of valuable equipment. Losses over the paar several years have averaged about $2,000/year. Also. eqmpment and materials currently being stored around the shops create an attraction for young children to play around equipment. ~ft~e Chris Greene shop is right along a path from the parking lot to a shelter. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Community Facilities Plan recommendation to ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are adequately mn'mtn'meal to permit their continued productive and safe use. Imuact if Pro_iect Not Completed: If the project is not completed, there will be confmued losses due to thef~ and vandalism and the potential for injuries to children playing around eqmpment and materials will continue to exist. Pro_iect Manager: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Chris Greene - Route 850 Mint Springs - Route 684 Onerating Cost Breakdown: FY97-FY01- Savings of $2,000 annually due to reductions in theft and losses due to vandalism. Board Action: The Board approved the project aa proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/ Engineering Construction 0 ther Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: Revenues Net CounW Cost TL Prior 0 0 30,000 10,000] 0 Oi 30,00[ 10,00[ 0 0 3o.oo o,oo i FY97 FY98 FY99 FYO0 FY01 20,000 0 20,00[ 0 0 0 0 0 20,00[ 0 0 0 0 TL 97-01 o o 20.000 0 2o,oo 0 0 (7o0~ t2,uuO) [z,uuu! (2,000) [z,uuuJ 12,00u! [IO,UUUl Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 63 Crozet Park Improvements Department: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 96 Proposed Completion Date: June 98 New Request? Continuation? Revised? X IMandatedProject? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Description: Continuation of Board funding assistance to Crozet Park for improvements or the construction of a new swimming.pool. Project Justification: This funding plan was approved during last year's CIP program after several appearances by the Crozet Park Board before the Board of Supervisors. The pool is the only swimming pool open to the general public in the County. It has operated for 35 years and is now in need of replacemem. A new pool will cost approximately $330,000 and last 30-40 years. Renovating the existing pool would cost $200.000 and due to structural problems would carry no warranty. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which seeks to promote an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County residents through a combiaation of mutually complementary public facilities and public and human services that promote positive youth development and which direct growth into designated growth areas. The County also has a restrictive Covenant agreement with Crozet Park that assures the property will serve as a public park ia the future. Imnact if Project Not Completed: Not providing funding for the pool will perpetuate current problems and increase the annual operating deficit, which is currently about $14,000. Without funding, the pool might eventually have to close. Pro'eot Mana:-er:_ Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Crozet - Claudius Drive Board Action: The Board approved the project after adding $50,000 in supplemental funding ia FY 97, for a total conthbufion of $150,000, to cover higher than anticipated construction costs. l. and Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engineering 0 Construction 0 Other 200.000 Total Project Cos~ 200,000 Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 200,00~ operatmg Costs o Prior FY 97 0 0 50,000 150.000 fiO,O00 150,000 50,000 i 150,000 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 'IL 97-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 000 0 0 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 ~ O0/OI Department: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: Oct 1, 1996 Proposed Completion Date: April 1997 Request? Continuation ? t Revised? I MandatedProject? i X Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Description: Playground structures for toddlers to be placed on the beaches in close proximity to the kiddie swimming areas. Beach sand will serve as surfacing material. Impact if Pro_iect Not Completed: This is a request to enhance our exmfmg facilities to make them more attractive to parents and young children. Also. this would be the only playground equipment in close proximity to the beach at Chris Greene Lal(e. Project Justification: Numerous parents have requested these structures. The design will make kiddie areas more attractive to toddlers and will help to keep them contained in a designated area. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County residents and promoting positive youth development. The project meets service objective of the Community Facilities Plan by enhancing the existing facilities. Project Manager: Parks and Recreation Location/Site Status: Cixris Greene - Route 850 Mint Springs - Route 684 Walnut Creek - Route 631 Board Action: The Board approved the project after changing the project description from "Small playground structures in a boar sandbox design for toddlers..." to "Small playground s~ucmres for toddlers..." Land Acquisition 0 Archit/ Engineering 0 Construction 30,000 Other 0 Total Project Cost 30,00~ Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 30,00~ O[~eraOng Costs 0 Prior FYg7 FY98 30.000 o 3o,oo o 3o,oo FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 30.000 0 0 0 0 0 30,00~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,00~ Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 65 Northern Area Elem. School Rec. IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 1999 Proposed Completion Date: Feb 2000 INew Request? Continuatiott ? Revised? X Mandated Project? t Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro'eot Descri: tion: Provide all outdoor recreation facilities for a new not'them area elementary school. The school division would provide all clearing and grading and the hard court area. Parks and Recreation would provide 2 playgrounds with swings, soccer goals, basketball goals, sot~ball/10aseball backstop. Proiect Justification: This is justified because elementary schools serve a Community Park function and should contain facilities listed in the Community Facilities Plan. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and qualivy of life for all County residents through a combination of mutually complementary public facilities and public and human services based on cost effectiveness and which are supporf]ve of land use policies. The project als0 promotes positive youth development, directs growth into designated Growth Areas, and is consistent with ruraLurban service levels in growth areas. This project is in compliance with the Community Facilities Plan which says Community Parks shall be~ located at County Elementary Schools. Impact if Project Not Completed: Without funding the school would be built without outdoor facilities that serve the needs of students and the communky. Pro'ect Mana er: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Unknown Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/ Engineenng Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: Revenues Net County Cost Operazmg Go.,=s TL 0 0 71.500 0 71,,~0~ 0 0 71 ,S0m Prior FY 97 FY 98 0! o FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 71.500 71,500 0 0 0 0 71,500 0 71,50~ 0 0 0 0 71,500 0 71,50~ u u u u 0 66 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 Scottsville Community Ctr. Improvements tDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 95 Proposed Completion Date: June 98 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? X IMandated Project? Documented Project~eed? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Descrintion: Continuation of the development of the Dorrier Park and Scottsville Community Center property. FY 96-97 funds along with FY 95-96 funding ($63,525) will be used towards the following facilities in priority order: two tennis courts, a restroom facility or resrroom access, individual picnic shelters, a large picnic shelter, baseball field improvements and outdoor basketball courts. While the total scope of the project and funding amount remains the same, the Scottsville Park Development Association has re-ordered priorities based on Communi~ feedback. Last year, at the request of the Association, the Board moved up funding from FY 97 to FY 96. The Association ~s requesting that funding requested last year for FY 98 be moved up to FY 97. Project Justification: This project represents a priority need of the Scoltaville Parks Development Association and is justified because of the lack of picnic shelters and district park facilities nearby. The Scottsville Parks Development Association has become very active and is now staffed by volunteers through a two day Community Center program in Scorrsville. Pro_ieet Manager: Parks & Recreation Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County residents through a combination of mutually complementary public facilities and public and human services. The project also promotes positive youth development, directs growth into designated growth areas. and is consistent with rural urban service level objectives in growth areas. This project also agrees with the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan to provide district-level park services to Scottsville. Imnact if Project Not Completed: There are no nearby alternatives for tennis or picnic shelters. The lack of field space will women if not addressed. Il'not funded. Scottsville will lack the district-level park service called for in the Public Facilities Plan. Operating Cost Breakdown: FY97-FY01:$900 annually breaks down into: $600 in salary and fxinge costs (for additional mowing shelter prep. & restroom cleaning) + $700 in operating costs (for water, electric & janitorial supplies) - $400 in miscellaneous shelter revenues. Location/Site Status: Scottsville Community Center - Page Street in Scotlsville. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Prior t FY 97 FY 98 Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering 0 Construction 164.325 108,9251 55.400 Other 0 0 ~ 0 Total Project Cost 164,32~ 108,92~I 55,40~ Less: Fees 13 Less: Revenues G 01 0 Net County Cost '164,32~ 108,925I 55,405 Operating [.oats 4,~00 FY99 FYO0 0 0 0 0 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 55.400 0 0 0 55,405 0 0 0 0 55,405 9~u ' ~ud 4,5uu Capital lmprovement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 67 Rivanna Greenway Access & Path IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: Nov 1996 Proposed Completion Date: June 1998 INewRequest? Continua~on? RevVed? X IMandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? X Other Community Need/Service? Pro]ect Description: Phase I: The purchase of 4 acres of property to be used in conjunction with land proffers to develop an accessible section of Greenway along the Rivauna Reservoir. 96-97 funds used along with prior allocation to purchase property and develop 2400 ft of paved path and accessible parking. 97-98 funds used to unprove/relocate existing ramp and provide parking for 35 car and trailers and 15 cars. (There is a possilfility of City and State funding assistance for the boat ramp and parking improvements). Funding for this pro)ect has been moved up from FY 97-00 to FY 97,98 due to recent focus on Reservoir access problems and UFa crew site. Phase II: Funding of $25,000 per year beginning in 98-99 to be used for the implementation of the Rivanna Greenway Plan. Funds may be used to purchase land, easements or fund construction depending on the opportunities available. While the highest priority is the development of the Rivanna Greenway, consideration would be given to developing associated Greenways such as Moore's Creek (see City request) if no progress could be made on R~,anna in a given year or an unusual opportuniO became availabla Pro'ect Justification: The Rivauna Greanway ts proposed along a 12 mile section of the Rivanna River fi.om ICNA to the Milton area. Suitable portions of the Greenway ~rail need to be made accessible to the disabled. The boat access improvements are necessa~ because currently informal accesses are being used which are dangerous and have inadequate parking. This project will also provide decent bank fishing access to the reservoir. Relationshin to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. which protects the County's surface and ground water supplies and promotes efficient use of County resources. The project insures the preservation and use of a significant section of the Rivanna Greanway corridor. Imnact if Proiect Not Completed: If the property is not purchased or acquired by the County, there may never be a decent access to the reservmr. This is the most reasonable section of the Rivanna Greenway to make accessible. Additionally, the County could risk a future ADA complaint for non compliance. Regular funding is necessary to make the Greenway concept a reality. Project Manager'. Parks & Recreation L.cation/Site tatns._. Route 659 near Water Treatment Plato Onerating Cost Breakdown: FY97-01: $1,800/yr in FY97-FY01 for trash pickup & trail checks, plus $4,500/yr for police security in FY99-FY01. and $1,700 in FY00 and $3,400 in FY01 for new sections. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. TL Land Acquisition -~0, 000 Archit/ Engineenng 0 Construction 375.000 Other 0 Total Project Cost 425,00~ Net County Cost 425,0(~ opera ~:i ng c,o~s 68 Prior 25,00C 0 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY' O0 FY 0t TL 97-01 50.000 50.000 0 25.000 250.000 25.000 25.000 25.000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,00~ 2so,oo~ 25,00~ 25,00~ 29,0o5 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,(~ 250,00~ 25,00~ 25,00~ 25,00~ 400,00~ ~'~e ! t,euu 'heuO ~=,,~uu ~,u0u u,,ruu Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Greenwood Elementary School Demolition Department: Par~ & Recreation I Project Start Date. July, 2000 Proposed Completion Date: June 2001 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? X IMandatedProject? Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? Pr_xpject Desc~ Demolition of the old Greenwood Elementary School to construct a parking area and multipurpose fields attached to the Greenwood Community Center. Following the purchase of the Greenwood Elementary School property by a private citizen, this project was ' removed from the FY97-OI CIP. prOject Justification: Sale of the property does not appear to be an option due to the high cost of dealing with asbestos containing materials and lead based paints. Remodeling the building is too expensive at $1,000,000+. The engmeermg report of May, 1995 recommends demolition with an estimated cost of $192,000 that includes asbestos abatement. The property line adjoins the Greenwood Community Center. Field Space is needed for parking for the Greenwood Arts and Craf~ Fair. There is a tremendous demand for more athletic field space in tho County. The property has the potential for 2 to 3 soccer fields, depending on the age group programmed there. The Greenwood Community Center baseball field is used for baseball spring and fall. The property is convenient to 1-64. It is critical that this project be funded in FY99 to expedite the removal of a potential safety risk in the community. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life. This project promotes positive youth development, gives priority to maintenance of existing facilities, and addresses a health and safety problem. Impact if Project Not Completed: The property is a community eyesore and becoming more hazardous ali the time. Consideration should be given to moving this project up in the plan and allowing this property to benefit the commu~ty again. Project Manaeer: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Route 690 - Greenwood Board Action: This project was removed from the FY 97-01 CIP following the purchase of the property by a private citizen. Land Acquisition Arch#/Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: ReveNues ~et County Cost Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY g9 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o o o 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 69 County Land Athletic Field Study IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 2000 Proposed Completion Date: June 2001 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? IMandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Description: An analysis of the athletic field potential of existing County land. Potential sites include the Preddy Creek property, Albemarle High School/Jouett Middle School complex, the new high school site. Walnut Creek etc. Proiect Justification: The various youth athletic leagues are in need of additional playing space for practice and games. Current school and park fields are used relentlessly which makes maintenance of a reasonable grass cover near impossible. To pull a field out of use for a season results in irate citizens. This is a progressive attempt to keep up with the desire for more and better fields. County staff will work with this project to determine athletic needs and identify potential sites. The consultant will provide the actual feasibility and engineering designs for the identified sites. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life. This project promotes positive youth development and anticipated growth of the County. This projecr maximizes use of existing County facilities. Impact if Project Not Comnleted: Continued and increasing problems with athletic field scheduling. Continued deterioration of existing fields. May need to prioritize sport use according to season. Project Manager: Parks & Recreation Location/Site Status: Several sites around Counvy to be identified by staff. Board Action: The Board approved the project following the addition of the highlighted paragraph under Project Description, and after moving the project year from FY 01 to FY97, based on the immediate need for additional athletic field space in the County. Land Acquisition Archit/ Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: Revenues Net County Cost uperatmg ~;osts Prior 0 20.000 0 20,000 0 0 20,00~ U O[ FY 97 20.000 20,000 20,000 FY 98 FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 TI. 97-01 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 o 20,005 70 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Maintenance/Replacement Summary IDepartment: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: July 1, 1996 Proposed Completion Date: June, 2000 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? IMandated Project? Documented Projec~eed? Other Community Need/Service? Project Description: Various maintenance and replacement projects. emphasis on enhancement of existing facilities. Also a new Relationshi to Plan'._ This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goal and Community Facilities Plan recommendation related to the adequate mamtanance of existing facilities. Project Justification: Maintenance and Replacement projects generally repair and enhance existing facilities to make them more enjoyable and. tn many cases, safer. Some projects reduce annual operating expenses by reducing the frequency of repeated repatrs. This.~ear, there is a new emphasis on the enhancement of existing facilities. This budget adds $10,000 each year to 'implement park improvements and enhancement priorities, as determined by the Department Goal Tearra Most improvements would be repairs and replacements but at enhanced levels. A new emphasis would be placed on landscaping to add color to the parka A new project in 2000-01 provides for painting and repairs to the tenant house and barn at lCNA. The City will provide half of the funding for that pro)cc& Imnact if Project Not Completed: The continued deterioration of facilities will make them less ffmctional, less safe and less enjoyable. Not funding the enhancements would result in maintaining the status quo at best. Parks and Recreation ::ca off n/Sit~ tatus: Various locations Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/ Engtneedng Construction Other Total Project Cost Less: Fees Less: City Share Net County Cost Opera;trig Costs TI Ongoir~j Ongoing Ongoing Prior i FY97 FY98 FY99 FYO0 FY01 83.500] 37,000 33.000 44,000 21.730 39,000 0_] o o o o o 83,500] 37,00~ 35,00~ 44,00~ 21,73~ 39,00~ 5.500 i 0 0 0 0 14.500 77,000] 37.00~ 33,00~ 44,00~ 21,73~ ?4,500 TL 97-01 o 0 174.730 0 174.73~ 0 14.500 160,236 U Capital Improvement Program FY 96/'97- 00/01 71 Utility Improvement Projects Summary of Utility Improvement Projects FY 1996/97 -2000/01 CIP General Government Expenditures Hwys. & Transportation 30.2% Firs. Rescue & Safety / .2/ 12.4 % Admin. & Courts Libraries Reserve Funds Parks & Rec, Utilities Imp. Keene Landfill Closure Total: Total Project Cost $995,842 $995,842 Year FY 98-01 P_._~.gg 74 73 Keene Landfill Closure IDepartment: Engineering Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July, 1990 July, 2001 INew Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? X i Documented Project~eed? Other Community Need/Service? Proiect Description: The project includes §ubsurface investigation, groundwater wells and sampling, and the establishment of a long term monitoring program plan (of at least 10 years). Long-term monitoring of the groundwater quality is presently being provided through the operating budget. This project is for remedial action for groundwater contamination. The funding projection is based upon the guess of what "could be" designed to mitigate the impact to groundwater. This represents the completion of a~_ existing and previously approved project. Relationship to Plan: Goal 9. Objective 9, Strategy d Imnact if Project Not Completed: Failure to proceed would be a violation of Federal and State regulations. Proiect Manager: Engineering Project costs have been revised to reflect a $45,842 increase in total project cost as well as a change in funding years and annual funding requests. Funding no longer is requested for FY 97. FY 98funding has been reduced from $150,000 to $100,000, FY 99funding has been increased from $200,000 to $300.000. FY OO funding remains the same, and a request for $295,842 in FY Ol has been addea~ Location/Site Status: End of State Route 704 - Map 121 & 129. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Pro'cc Jt ustification: Completion of DEQ mandated project requirements. Land ,4aquisition 0 ,4rchit/Engineering 245,750 Construction 2,140,900 Other 200.000 Total Pro}ect Cost 2,586,650 Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenue O_ Net County Cost 2,586,650 Operating Cost 74 Prior 0 195,750 1,195,058 200,000 1,590,808 0i 1,590.808 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 TL 97-01 0 50,000 0 0 0 50.000 0 50,000 300,000 300.000 295.842 945.842 0 100~00 300.000 300.000 29~842 995.842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 300,000 300,000 295,842 995.842 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 ~choo Division CIP Fund School Division CIP Fund Revenues VPSA Bonds 68 5% Proffer Funds 0.6% Transfer - General Fund 5.0% nterest Earned 0.8% Trensfer- Split Billing 25.2% FY 96-97 F.Y 97-98 VPSA Bonds $5,884,485 $15.988.120 Transfer - Split Billing $16.500,000 S0 Interest Earned $100,000 $106.000 Proffer Funds $0 $0 Transfer - Gen. Fund $669.900 $500.000 Total: $~23,154,38S $16,588,120 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 $6,176,680 $9,220,700 $0 $0 $100.000 $100.000 $0 $400,000 $600.000 $700.000 $6,876,680 $I0,420,700 FY 00-01 Total $7,634.793 $44,904,778 $0 $16,500,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $400,000 $~00,000 $3.269.900 $8,534,793 $65,574,678 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 75 76 School Division CIP Fund Expenditures New Hioh School 34.5% Other Projects 2 7% Miscellaneous 0.7% Renovations/Additions 46.7% Maint./Replacement 8.5% Mandated Projects 0.9% Technology projects 6.0% (List of Projects on Opposite Page.) Capital Improvement Program FI' 96/99- 00/01 School Division CIP Projects (Full Project Descriptions Found in Separate School Division CIP Document.) I~otal Project Cost Year Pane* * Crozet Addition* $856,890 FY 97 S25 CATEC ADA Compliance $14.000 FY 97 S42 AHS Phase II & III Restorations $808.000 FY 9'~-99 S20 Woodbrook Renovatior[ Addition* $2,045,550 FY 97 S21 New High School $22,620,350 FY 97.98 S18 Cale Addition* $859.000 FY 97 S22 Brownsville Renovation/Addition* $1.461,470 FY 97 S24 Stony Point Renovations/Addition* $1,180,000 FY 97 S23 Murray High Renovation $825,000 FY 98.99 S26 ADA Structural Changes* $425,000 FY 98 S40 Red Hill Expansion $5,100.000 FY 00, 01 S28 Technology Projects $3.378,850 FY 97-01 S29a, b Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration $454.500 FY 97-99 S30 Walton I-IVAC Renovation (Maint./Replacement) $370.000 FY 98, 99 S39 Northern Area Elementary School $8,381,000 FY 98-00 S27 Greet Renovations (Maint./Replacement) $306,000 FY 98.99 S38 VIvIF Underground Storage Tank Replacement $180,000 FY 98 S41 WAHS Building Renovations' $3,004,335 FY 97-99 S 19 Chiller Replacement (Maint./Replacement)* $584,000 FY 97-99 S37 Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector $1,399,300 FY 97 86 Jouett Addition $763.500 FY 00. 01 S17 Walton Renovation $995,000 FY 00. O1 S 16 Henley Addition $2,385,500 FY 97-99 S 14 Technology Education Labs* $550.000 FY 97 S13 Stone Robinson Addition $1,982,000 FY 99. 00 S 15 New High School Community Recreation Facilities $343,500 FY 97. 99 87 Maintenance and Replacement Project Summary* $4.301.933 FY 97-99 S31 Total: $65,574,678 Revised project costs approved by the School Board on March 11. 1996. ** Page Numbers preceded by an "S" indicate a page from the School Division CIP Document. as revised and edited 10/31/95.~ Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 77 School Division CIP Fund Summary Projects FY 964)7 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 004) 1 TOTAL Expenditures qew High Scnoo~ $9.800.000 $12.820.350 $0 $0 $0 $22.620.350 ~chool Renovations/Adddlons $9.021.045 $1.495.000 $4.404.700 $9.428.000 $6.298.500 $30.647.245 SchoolTechnology Projects 51.559.600 $675.070 $614.480 $559.700 $520 000 $3.928.85(~ Mandated Projects $14.000 $605.000 $0 $0 $0 $619.000 Main tena nco/Reolac ement Projects' $1.067.940 $698.700 $1.646.000 $433.000 $1.716.293 $5.561.933 Miscellaneous Projects $17.500 $294,000 $143.000 $0 $0 $454.500 ~,von S treeb' Route 20 Connector $1.399.300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.399.300 ~ew H~gh School Comm. Rec. Fac ities $275.000 $0 $68.500 $0 $0 $343 500 $ choolDivision P~jects $23,154,385 $16,$88.'120 $6.876.680 $10.420,700 $8,534,793 $6B.574.678 Available Revenues: Pn3~er Funds 8t VPSA Bends $5.984.485 $15.988.120 $6.176.690 $9.220.700 $7.634.793 $44.904.778 Tmsfr. from S pld Billing Rese rye $16.500.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16.500.000 Interest Famed $100.000 $100.000 $!00.000 $100.000 $100.000 $500.000 $0 $0 $0 $400.000 $0 $400,000 Transfer from General Fund $669.900 $500.000 $600.000 $700.000 $800.000 $3.269,900 $ubtotalRevenues $23,1~4.356 $16.585,t20 $6,$76,680 $10,426.700 $8,$34,793 $65.574.67 TOTAL REQUESI~D PROJECTS $23,~84,388 $16,688,120 $6,876,680 $10,420#00 $8.634,793 $68.674,678 OV~J(S HORT) $0 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 ACCUMULATED OVER/(SHORT) $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 School Division ClP Fund Projects': Crozet Adddion CATEC ADA Co mDl~ance AHS Phase II & III Restorations ~odhrook Renovation/Addition New High School tale Adddion Brownsville Renovation/Addition Sro ny Point Renovation s/Addrdon Murray High Renovation Red Hill Expansion ADA Structural Changes Technology Projects Vehicular Maintenance Fa cildy Reconfig ~don HVAC Renovation (Maint./Replacement) Northern Area EJernentary School ~reer Renovation s (Maint./Replacement) /MF Underg round Storage Tank Replace NAHS Buildin{ Renovations ;hiller Re01ac eme nt (MaiotJ Replacement) ~.von St,/Rt. 20 Connector Nalton RenOvat~n -lenley Ad dFoon Fechnolog¥ Education Labs Stone Robinson Addition ~ew High School Cora~n. Rec. FacililJes SubtotalSohoolDivision Cl~ Furtd $856.890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $856.890 $14.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14.000 $539.000 $20.000 $249.000 $0 $0 $808.000 $2.045.550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.045.550 $9.800.000 $12.820.350 $C $0 $0 522.620.350 $859.000 $0 SC $0 $0 $859.000 $1.461.470 $0 $0 $0 $0 51.461.470 "Maintenance projects include Gmer Renova~ons. Chimer Replacement & Wadon HVAC Renovation 78 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 School Division CIP Fund 5-Year Project/Expenditure Summary (Continued on Next Two Pages.) Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- O0/OI 79 TYPE FUND/PROJECT TOTAL NET COUNTY CURRENT PROJECT COUNTY PR~OR REQUEST 80 Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Cent Con~. Cent Cent Cent Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev New New New New New New Rev SCHOOL DNISlON ClP FUND Crozet Addition CATEC ADA Compliance AHS Phase II & III Restorations ~A,~odbrook Renovation/Addition New High School Caie Addition Brownsville Renovation/Addition Stony Point Renovations/Addition Murray High Renovation ADA Structural Changes Red Hilt Excans~on Technology Projects VehicularMaintenance Facility Reconfig. Walton HVAC Renovation Northern Area Elementa~ School Greer Renovations VMF Underground Storage Tank Replace WAHS Building Renovations Chiller Replacement Avon St./Rt. 20 Connector Jouett Addition Walton Renovation Henley Addition Technology Education Labs Stone Robinson Addition New High School Comm. Rec. Facilities Maintenance and Replacement SubtotalSchool Division ClP Fund VPSA Bonds Transfer from Split B~ng Resewe Local Revenues PmfferFunds iotarest TotalAvaiable School Fund Revenues Total Recommended School Fund Protects ~)ve#Sho~ Cumulative Ove#Shmt $936.890 $936.890 $80.000 $856 890 $14.000 $14.000 $0 $14.000 $1,815.000 $1.815.000 $1007.000 $808 000 $2.245.560 $2.245.550 $200,000 $2.045.550 $25.020.350 $25.020,350 $2.400.000 $22,620.350 $937.000 $937 000 $78.000 $859.000 $1.561.470 $1,561.470 $100.000 $1.461.470 $1,250.000 $1.250.000 $70.000 $1,180.000 $920 000 $920 000 $95.000 $825,000 $912.315 $912,315 $487.315 $425,000 $5,100 000 $5.100.000 $0 $5,100,000 $4.678 850 $4,678,850 $1,300.000 $3.378,850 $784.400 $784.400 $329 900 $454.500 $471.700 $471,700 $101.700 $370,000 $8,381.000 $8,381,000 $0 $8.381,000 $306,000 $306.000 $0 $306.000 $180,000 $180 000 $0 $180.000 $3.982.060 $3.982.060 $977.725 $3.004.335 $599.000 $599.000 $15.000 $584 000 $1,620.000 $1,620,000 $220.700 $1.399,300 $763,500 $763,500 $0 $763 500 $995.000 $995,000 $0 $995.000 $2,388.500 $2.385,500 $0 $2.385.500 $550.000 $550.000 $0 $550 000 $1,982.000 $1,982,000 $0 $1982,000 $3,793,500 $343.500 $0 $343.500 $4,301,933 $4,301,933 $0 $4.301.933 $76,487,018 $73,037,018 $7,462,3~'~ $65,574,678 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 1996-97 TOTAL 1997-98 19998-99 1999-00 2000-01 FY 97to00 $856 890 $0 $0 $0 $0 $856.890 $~,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SN.O00 $539.000 $20.000 $249.000 $0 $0 $808,000 $2.045.550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.045.550 $9,800.000 $~,820.350 $0 $0 $0 $22,620.350 $859.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $859000 $1,461,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,461470 $1.180.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.180.000 $0 $70.000 $755.000 $0 $0 $825.000 $0 $425.000 $0 $0 $0 $425.000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $4,800,000 $5,100,000 $1.009.600 $675.070 $6~.480 $559.700 $520.000 $3,378,850 $~ 500 $294.000 $~3 000 $0 $0 $454 500 $0 $25.000 $344,000 $0 $0 $370.000 $0 $25.000 $1,300,000 $7,056 000 $0 $8,381.000 $0 $22.000 $284,000 $0 $0 $306,000 $0 $160,000 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $1,894,135 $80.000 $1,030,200 $0 $0 $3,004,335 $1~.000 $20,000 $446,000 $0 $0 $584 000 $1.399.300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $t399,300 $0 $0 $0 $75 000 $688.500 $763;500 $0 $0 $0 $165.000 $8~.000 $995000 $195,000 $1,300.000 $900,500 $0 $0 $2,385,500 $55C 000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550 000 $0 $0 $~0,000 $1,8~.000 $0 $1.982,000 $27~ 000 $0 $68,500 $0 $0 $343.500 $949.940 $630.700 $572,000 $433.000 $1,716,293 $4,301,933 $23,'154,388 $'16~ $6,876,680 $19,420,700 $~793 $65,674,678 $5,884,485 $19,800,000 669,900 0 $190,000 23~ $23,154,386 $0 $0 $16,988,120 $6,'176,680 $9,220,700 $7,634,793 $44,904,778 $0 S0 S0 $0 $'16,500,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 3,269,900 0 0 400,000 0 400,000 S'lO0,O00 S~0,000 S100,000 S100,000 $500,000~ 19,688,120 6,876,680 'K),420,700 8,534,793 65~I $t6,588,120 $6,876,680 $10,420,700 $8,634,793 $66,674,078~ $0 $0 T~ $0 $01 $0 S0 $0 $0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97-00/01 81 Albemarle County Long-Term Debt FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 Beginning Bonded Debt(VPSA & LIT) 43.894.530 47.853 107 49.900.334 62,216.196 64,805.618 70.289 06(3 New Debt Issued 7.503.335 5.884485 15.988.120 6.176.680 9.220.700 7.634.793 (1) Retired debt 3,544.758 3.837.258 3.672.258 3.587~258 3,737.258 3,382.258 Net Tax Supported Bonded Debt 47.853.107 49.900.334 62.216.196 64.805.618 70,289.060 74 541,595 Pooulation 73~760 74.825 75.890 76,950 78.015 79,080 (2) Estimated Propert~ Values 6.025 6.326 6.642 6.975 7.323 7.689 (3) (in millions) General Fund Expenditures 80.096,323 87.506.540 91.800,699 97.767.071 102.708535 108,734,518 (4) Debt'Service 5.932.310 6,458,493 6.747.133 8.372.488 8,964.283 9388.413 (5) Debt Per Capita ($1,000) $648.77 $666.89 $819.82 $842.18 $900.97 $942.61 Debt to Estimated Value I2%) 0.10% 0,10% 0.10% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% Debt to General Fund Revenues (10%) 7.41% 7,38% 7.35% 8.56% 8.73% 8.63% Note: Numbers in ~3arentheses represent generally accapte~ fiscal policy target ratios that were adopted in October 1994 (1) Issued debt retirement rates assume 20 year maturity at level principal; {2~ Estimated population based on Virginia Employment Commission projections for the year 2000: (3~ Est[mated property value is based on FY 94/95 audit and assumes a 5% annual increase: (4) General Fund Revenue increase estimated by Dept, of Finance - average 6% inc~ear: (5) Projected interest rate is 6.5% for FY97 and 7% for FY98-FY01. by the Board of Supervisors 82 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Albemarle County Debt Service FY 1993/94- FY 2018/19 TOTAL BOND ·' 900.000 450.000 7.503.335 5.884,485 16.988.120 6.176.680 9.220.700 ? 634.793 64.758.113 FISCAL CURRENT TOTAL INC % YEAR TOTAL DI~T* PRIOR YR GEN. FUND 1994 51588.325 5.588.325 8.05% 1995 6.829,572 6.829.572 1.241.247 9.20% 1996 5.875.887 5.932,310 897,262) 7.41% 1997 5.583.117 6.458.493 526.183 7.38% 1998 5.244.191 6.747.133 288.640 7.35% 1999 4.991.766 8.372.488 1.625.355 8.56% 2000 4.969.113 8.964.283 591.796 8.73% 2001 4.447.077 9.388.413 424.130 8.63% 2002 4.387.060 10.097.925 709.511 8.57% 2003 3,8(:,4.086 9.341,582 (756,343) 7.48% 2004 3.521.655 8.883.808 .457.775~ 6.71% 2005 3.426.840 8,611.674 (272,134) 6.14% 2006 3.134.554 8.137.221 (474.453) 5.47% 2007 2.922 967 7.745.723 (391,499} 4.91% 2008 2.585.763 7.235.698 {510.025~ 4.33% 2009 2.449.021 6.926.110 f309.589) 3.91% 2010 2.032.443 6.336.661 589.449) 3.37% 2011 1.161.947 5.293.282 (1,043,380) 2.66% 2012 908,740 4.867.188 (426,094) 2.31% 2013 158,361 3,943910 (923,278) 1.76% 2014 87,125 3.699.766 (244.145~ 1.56% 2015 3.439.732 (260,034) 1.37% 2016 3,247.484 (192,249) 1.22% 2017 2.695.840 (551,644' 0.95% 2018 2.249.917 (445,923) 0.75% 2019 1,317,937 (931,980) 0.42% 2020 928.491 (389.4473 0.28% 2.021 408.461 ( 520.029 ~ O. 11% PROJECT~L) GENOF~!R** 69.402.332 74.204.354 80.096.323 87,506.540 91.800.699 97.767.071 102.708.535 108.734.518 117.828.176 124.897 867 132.391.739 140.335.243 148.755.357 157.680.679 167.141.520 177.170.011 187.800.211 199.068.224 211,012.318 223.673.057 237.093.440 251,319.046 266.398.189 282.382.081 299.325.005 317,284.506 336.321 576 356.500,871 * Assumes intarest rate of 6.5% for FY96197 and 7% thereafter based on 20-year fixed principal. ~' Total General Fund based on Dept. of Finance estimates through FY02. FY03 - FY21 based on 5% increase Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 83 School Division CIP Fund Project Descnpuons School Division CIP Projects (Full Project Descriptions Found in Separate School Division CIP Document. I Total Project Cost Year l?age** Crozet Addition* $856.890 FY 97 S25 CATEC ADA Compliance $14.000 FY 97 $42 AHS Phase II & III Restorations $808.000 FY 97-99 S20 Woodbrook Renovation/Addition* $2,045.550 FY 97 S21 New High School $22,620,350 FY 97.98 Sl8 Cale Addition* $859.000 FY 97 S22 Brownsville Renovation/Addition* $1.46t,470 FY 97 S24 Stony Point Renovations/Addition* $1,180,000 FY 97 S23 Murray High Renovation $825,000 FY 98, 99 S26 ADA Structural Changes* $425,000 FY 98 S40 Red Hill Expansion $5,100,000 FY 00, 01 S28 Tedmology Projects $3,378,850 FY 97-0 l S29a, b Vehicular Maintenance Facility Reconfiguration $454,500 FY 97-99 S30 Walton I-IVAC Renovation (Maint./Replacement) $370,000 FY 98, 99 S39 Northern Area Elementa*y School $8,381,000 FY 98-00 S27 Greet Renovations (Maim./Replacement) $306.000 FY 98, 99 S38 VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement $180,000 FY 98 S41 WAHS Building Renovations* $3,004,335 FY 97-99 S 19 Chiller Replacement (Maint./Replacement)* $584.000 FY 97-99 S37 Avon SWeet/Rt. 20 Connector $1,399,300 FY 97 86 Jouett Addition $763.500 FY 00.01 S 17 Walton Renovation $995,000 FY 00.01 S 16 Henley Addition $2,385,500 FY 97-99 S 14 Technology Education Labs* $550,000 FY 97 S13 Stone Robinson Addition $1,982,000 FY 99.00 S 15 New High School Community Recreation Facilities $343.500 FY 97, 99 87 Maintenance and Replacement Project Summary* $4.301.933 FY 97-01 S31 Total: $65,574,678 · Revised project costs approved by the School Board on March I 1, 1996. · - Page numbers preceded by an "S" indicate a page from the School Division CIP Document. as revised and edited 10/31/95. Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 85 Avon St./Rt. 20 Connector Department: Engineering Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July, 1995 June, 1997 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? X Mandated Project? i Documented Project/Need? Other Community Need/Service? X Proiect Description: This road. to include bike path. would run from Avon Street east to Route 20, The purpose is to provide access to the New High School and a roadway network that will alleviate congestion along Avon Street in both the County and City when this area develops both residentially and industrially by providing access to Route 20 and 1-64 interchange. This route is particularly important to service trucking from industrial areas along Avon Street. The length of proposed roadway is 4.530 feet. This project was requested during the current year CIP process, but was dropped, as consideration for the road was tied to the high school decision. l~,elationsh'~ Goal 9. Objective 2 Imnact if Project Not Completed: Traffic congestion and resultant complaints will continue. Project Manager: Engineering Location/Site Status: Avon Street - Map 91. Proiect Justification: This project will provide access to the New High School site and other County owned property for future uses such as Fire/ Rescue, library, or other designated public use. This project will alleviate traffic congestion on Avon Street from present and furore development along this corridor. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed, 86 Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering 120,000 Construction 1,500,000 Other 0_. Total Project Cost [,620,000 Less: Fees Less: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 1.620.000 Operating Costs 0 [ Prior FY 97 FY 98 FY,99 FY 00 120,000 i 0 0 0 100,700 i 1.399.300 0 0 220,700 i~ 1~399,300 0 0 220.700 i 1.399,300 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 FY01 TL 97-01 0 0 0 0 0 1.399.300 0 0 1,399,300 0 0 1,399.300 0 0 0 New High School Commty. Rec. Facilities Department: Parks & Recreation Project Start Date: FY 9 7 Proposed Completion Date: FY O1 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? X I MandatedProject? Documented ProjectfNeed? Other Community Need/Service? X Project Descrintion: This project requests funds: l/to light and irrigate the baseball field at the New High School and to construct and irrigate 2 multi-purpose fields in FY 97 ($275,000); 2) to equip the auxiliary gym at the High School with basketball goals, padding and volleyball equipment in FY 99 ($18,500); and 3~ to develop a 50 meter indoor pool facility of the High School site in FY 01 ($3,500,000). During worksessions, the $35,000,000 pool facility was retnoved from the CIP in FYO1 and $50,000 in pool planning funds were added in FY 99. Project Justification: Middle Schools and High Schools serve as district park facilities in the County. There is a tremendous need for more and better athletic fields in the County. rhe New High School's centralized location makes it an ideal site. Lights and irrigation are necessary to accommodate joint school and heavy community use. Additional gym space also is an urgent need, especially in a centralized urban location. The centralized location makes this the best location for an indoor swimming facility to serve the entire county. City pools are booked to capacity with a high percentage of County residents. Proj.ect Manager: Engineering/Schools/Parks & Rec. Relationship to Plan: This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting an adequate standard of living and quality of life for all County residents through a combination of mutually complimentary public facilities, the project also promotes positive youth development and agrees with the Community Facilities Plan which calls for District Park Facilities at high schools. Impact if Project Not Completed: If not funded, problems with lack of athletic field and gymnasium space will worsen. An overcrowding of City indoor pools will result in higher rates and decreased availability, to County residents. The alternative to a 50 meter pool would be a 25 yd pool for $2.300.000 Location/Site Status: New High School site near PVCC. Operating Cost Breakdown: FY99-00: $19,250/yr = $4.220 salary & fringe + $15.030 in operating costs for R&M, supplies, utilities and fuel.. FY01: $97,410 = $256,220 for salary & fringe (based on Crow pool (25yds) budget x 1.5~. + $75,665 in operating costs (including 60,634 in pool expenses), less $234,475 in revenues based on 75% recovery (Crow 49%). Board Actiom The Board approved the project after deleting the $3.500.000 allocation in FY 00/01 for the pool facility and adding $50.000 in pool planning funds to the FY 98/99 mount to investigate the feasibility of a public/private partnership in funding the pool facility or of constructing a larger pool facility elsewhere in the County. 11. Lend Acquisition-- 0 Archit/ Engineenng 0 Construction 343.500 Other 0 Total Project Cost 343,$0~ Less: Fees 0 Less: Revenues 0 Net County Cost 343,80~ Prior FY 97 FY 98 275.000 0 ~7s,oo~ o 0 27S,00~ 0 O O FY 99 FY O0 FY 01 *iL 97-01 0 68.500 0 343.500 0 o 0 68,500 0 o 343,50~ o 0 0 o 68,$00 0 0 343,500 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 87 Stormwater Fund Stormwater Fund Revenues Transfer - General Fund 49.0% Stormwater Fund Balance 51.0% Transfer - General Fund Stormwater Fund Balance Total: FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY98-99 FY99-00 FY 00-01 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50.000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110~00 $50,000 Total $240,000 $250.000 $490,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 89 Stormwater Fund Expenditures County Master Drainage 49.0% Drainage/Erosion Correction 51.0% County Master Drainage Plan Transfer -Drainage/Erosion Correction Total: 90 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 Total $60.000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $240,000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 ~ ~ $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $50,000 $490,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Stormwater Fund 5-Year Project/Expenditure Summary TOTAL NET COUNTY CURRENT TYPE FUND/PROJECT PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR REQUEST Cont Cont STORMWATER FUND County MasterDrainage Plan $570.000 $510.000 $270.000 $240 000 Transferto Drainage/Erosion Correction $250.000 $250 000 $50.000 $200,000 Subtotal Ston'nwate r Fund $820,000 $760,000 $320,000 $440,000 TotalAva~,ble Ston'nwaterFund Revenues: Transferfi'om Gene mi Fund Stownwater Fund Balance TotalAvaita bla Ston~,mter Fund Revenues Total Recommended 8tomtwaterPtojects OvedShort Cumulative Over/Short GRAND TOTAL CIP $93,029,818 $91,463,941 $14,743,821 $76,710,120 TotalAvailable Revenues (Al Projects) Total Recormnended Projects Dve~fShort ~umulaOve Ove#Shmt 92 Capital Improvement Program FIr 96/~7- 00/01 Stormwater Fund 5-Year Project/Expenditure Summary TOTAL 1996-97 ~997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 FY97to00 $60.000 $60 000 $60.000 $60.000 $0 $240.000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $50.000 $5C 000 $250.000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $~'~,000 $490,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $240,000 $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $250,000 S'HO,O00 $110,000 $~,000 Sl~,O0~ ~ $490,-~'~ $110,000 St10,000 S'110,000 S110,000 SS0,000 S490,000 $o so so so $o so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,335,827 $18,738,120 $8,828,680 $12,870,700 $10,884,793 $76,760,120Jl $25,339,827 $18,738,120 $8,928,680 $12,870,700 $10,884,793 $76,760,12011 $25,339,827 $18,738/120 $8,926,680 $12,870,700 $10,884,793 $76,760,120~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 93 Stormwater Fund Project Descriptions County Master Drainage Plan Department: Engineering Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July, 1994 June, 2001 New Request? Continuation ? Revised? Project Description: The original CIP request proposed a study to identify and correct drainage problems from existing and future development. The scope oi' this project was expanded to include a master drainage plan for the County in anticipation of new Virginia State and Federal EPA stormwater management regulations. The County has been divided into drainage basin areas andprioritized. The City/County/UVA shared Moore's Creek basin area is to be completed in 1995- 96. as is the South Fork Basin study. The next priority drainage basin will be done in 1996-97 and. in subsequem order, one will be done each year. Project Justification: This project is needed: l) to meet the 1990Virginm Stormwater Management Regulations; 2) to prepare for the new Federal EPA discharge criteria for municipalities; 3) to accommodate the specific recommendation of the Blue Ridge Neighborhood Study "Area B" of a regional stormwater managemem plan: and 4) to establish the srormwater managemem capital recovery policy to provide a basis to recover a portion of the costs for regional detention facilities. This study will provide the master plan to locate these structures. The City and University have provided a total of $60,000 in prior-year funding for this project. X lMandated Project? i Documented Project.ced? X Other Community Need/Service? Relationship to Plan: Goal 9. Objective 9. Strategy d and Goal 5. ObJective 2, 3 and 5. Impact if Project Not Comnleted: The quality of~ater discharge from our region may be lower than the new State guidelines, to the detriment of the Chesapeake Bay and other downstream waters. Also. if the project is not funded, the County will be unprepared when Phase II of the EPA discharge regulations commences, Project Mana~,er: Engineering Location/Site Status: County wide. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition 0 Archit/Engineering 570.000 Construction 0 Other !l Total Project Cost 570,000 Less: Fees 0 Less: City & UVa 60.000 Net County Cost 510,000 Operating Costs 0 Prior 0 330.000 0 330,000 0 27o.0o01 FY 97 FY 95 FY 99 FY O0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 60.000 60.000 60,000 60,000 FY 0t TL 97-01 0 0 0 240.000 0 0 60,000 60.000 60,000 60.000 0 240,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 95 Transfer to Drainage/Erosion Correction - IDepartment: Engineering Project Start Date: Proposed Completion Date: July, 1995 Continuation? X Documented Project~eed? X June, 2000 Revised? Other Community Need/Service? PEoject Descrintion: This project will provide readily available funds to the Engineering Department for the expeditious response and provision of corrective measures for the increasing incidence of flooding, erosion, and other drainage related problems. Use of funds shall be limited to incidents that are not covered under VDoT. Homeowner's Associations, or any other maintenance agreemenT, but are a public use and/or an endangerment to the public health, safety and welfare. A program proposal will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The program criteria may require property owners to contribute a share depending upon the specific situation. This would be revenue which could not be estimated at this time. Proieet Justification: This project is needed to provide relief from flooding and erosion for the downstream properties. Additionally, the County may be liable for the downstream effects. Relationshi to Plan: Goal 9. Objective 9, Strategy d Impact if Project Not Completed: [fnot funded, individual funding requests will be submitted erratically over the fiscal year and the amount of staff time required will continue to increase. Project Manager: Engineering Location/Site Status: County wide. Board Action: The Board approved the project as proposed. Land Acquisition Archit/Engineering Construction Other Total Project Cost 250,000 Less: Fees Less: Revenue 0 Net County Cost 250,1100 Operating Costs 96 Prior Fy ~7 Fy 9~ FY 99 FY 00 50,000 i 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,OOO 50,000 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- O0/OI FY Ol TL 97-01 0 200.000 Attachments Albemarle County Financial Policies (Excerpts) Approved by the Board of Supervisors, October. 1994 Capital Bur[get Policies The County will approve an annual capital budget in accordance with an adopted Capital Improvements Program The Board of Supervisors will accept recommendations from the Planning Commission for the five-year Capital Improvements Program that are consistent with identified needs in the adopted comprehensive plan and capital facilities plan. The County will coordinate the development of the capital budget with the development of the operating budget so that future operating costs, including annual debt service, associated with new capital projects will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts. Emphasis will continue to be placed upon a viable level of "pay-as-you go" capital construction to fulfill needs in a Board approved Capital Improvement Program .- The County believes in funding a significant portion of capital improvements on a cash basis and will. therefore, increase incrementally the percentage of its capital improvements financed by current revenues. The County's goal will be to dedicate a minimum of 3 % of the annual General Fund revenues allocated to the County's operating budget to the Capital Improvement Program. Financing plans for the five-year capital program will be developed based upon a five-year forecast of revenues and expenditures coordinated by a capital improvements technical management team. The County will begin to inventory capital facilities and estimate remaining useful life and replacement COSTS. Upon completion of any capital project, remaining appropriated funds in that project will be returned to the undesignated capital project fund, Any transfer of remaining funds from one project to another must be approved by the Board of Supervisors The County will develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the School Board regarding tlle development and coordination of the County's Capital Improvement Program, which will address the following areas: a) plan for required capital improvements; b) debt ratio targets; c) debt issuance schedules. Asset Maintenance. Replacement and Enhancement Polices The County will maintain a system for maintenance, replacement and enhancement of the County's and School Division's physical plant. This system will protect the County's capital investment and minimize future maintenance and replacement costs: The operating budget will provide for minor and preventive maintenance; Within the Capital Improvement Program, the County will maintain a Capital Plant and Equipment Maintenance/Replacement Schedule, which will provide a five-year estimate of the funds necessary to provide for the structural, site, major mechanical/electrical rehabilitation or replacement to the County and School physical plant requiring a total expenditure of $10,000 or more with a useful life of ten years or more. To provide for the adequate mamtenance of the County's capital plant and equipment, the County intends to increase the percentage of maintenance/repair and replacement capital improvements financed with current revenues. Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 97 Albemarle CounW Financial Policies Debt Policies 9. 10. 98 Approved by the Board of Supervisors, October, 1994 (Continued) (Excerpts) The County will not fund current operations from the proceeds of borrowed funds. The County will manage its financial resources in a way that prevents borrowing to meet working capital needs. The County will confine long4erm borrowing and capital leases to capital improvements or projects that cannot be financed by current revenues. To the extent feasible, any year that the debt service payment falls below its current level, those savings will be used to finance one-time capital needs. When the County f'mances capital improvements or other projects through bonds or capital leases, it will repay the debt within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the projects. The County' s debt offering documents will provide full and' complete public disclosure of financial condition and operating results and other pertinent credit information in compliance with municipal finance industry standards for similar issues. Recognizing the importance of underlying debt to its overall financial condition, the County will set target debt ratios, which will be calculated annually and included in the annual review of fiscal trends: Net debt per capita should remain under $1,000. Net debt as a percentage of the estimated market value of taxable property should not exceed 2 %. The ratio of debt service expenditures as a percent of general fund revenues should not exceed 10%. Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 Project Evaluation Criteria Project Title Mandated and Committed Proiects Mandated Project - Is the project needed to meet Federal or State mandates? If so. this request will be marked at the top of the priority list or in the primary tier of projects. Historically, in the mandated category the ADA projects have been ranked higher than EPA or other environmental mandated projects. Also, projects that could subject the County to liability may be considered as mandated projects. Committed or On-going Project - Have funds for this project been approved in the previous CIP for purchase or construction purposes? If so, this request will be ranked in the second tier of projects. A project that has had pervious funds approved for engineering or planning purposes only is not considered a committed or on-going project. Projects should be prioritized within this group based on level of commitment and/or if the project is addressing an unsafe condition (i.e. E-911 or Police Satellite Receivers'should be ranked higher than the Comprehensive Assessment Administration System.) Previous Prqiects Not Funded/New Requests Health and Safety and Emergency Need Projects - Does this project eliminate or reduce a pressing unsafe or unhealthy condition? If so, this project will be ranked in the tertiary tier of projects. Projects within this group should be prioritized based on perceived need. All Other Projects - Scored According to How They Meet the Intended Criteria Comprehensive Plan or Other Documented Plans Goals, Objectives and Recommendations - Does the project meet the intent of the stated goal(s), objective(s) and/or recommendation(s) of the Comprehensive Plan or other documented plans (e.g., the Community Facilities Plan, Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Neighborhood Plans?) Does the project meet an adopted service or facility standard? 10 (High) 5 (Average) 0 (Low) Extent of Service - Does a large segment of the population benefit from the project? Does the project meet an obligation to serve the special needs ora segment of the population including the elderly,' children, low income, physically or mentally challenged minorities? 10 (High) 5 (Average) 0 (Low) Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 99 Community Economic Impact - Does deferral of the project increase the project cost? Will the project have a positive impact on the local economy or is it needed for economic development? Will the pro3ect generate. revenue? 8 (High) 4 (Average) 0 (Low) Aesthetic Effects - Does the project have a positive environmental or aesthetic impact on the County? 6 (High) 3 (Average) 0 (Low) TOTAL SCORE Maintenance and Replacement Projects - Each fiscal year, a certain percentage of the available CIP funds are m be allocated automaticaily to maintenance and replacement projects. The role of the technical committee is to determine what percentage of current revenues can be allocated towards maintenance and replacement projects. It is not the role of the technical committee to prioritize individual maintenance and replacement projects to determine which projects receive funding within the annual allocation. For maintenance and replacement repairs, it will be up to the individual department submitting the request to determine which projects need to be completed within the funding year. 100 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 _ Index of Projects Index of Projects Project Name Page Number* ADA Compliance at Parks 58 ADA Structural Changes - School Division S40 ADA Compliance on School Playgrounds 59 AHS Phase II & III Restorations S20 Avon Street/Rt. 20 Connector 86 Brownsville Renovation/Addition S24 C.O.B. Maintenance/Replacement Projects 30 Cale Addition S22 CATEC ADA Compliance S42 Chiller Replacement (Maint./Replacement) - School Division S37 Chris Greene/Mint Springs Security ~ - 63 County Technology Upgrade 28 County Land Athletic Field Study 70 County Master Drainage Plan 95 Crozet Park Improvements 64 Crozet Addition S25 DriVe-In Window Replacement & Canopy 29 EOC Site Radio Connection 35 Fire/Rescue Building & Equipment Fund 32 Greenbrier/Hydraulic Road Slreetiights 48 Greenbrier 'Drive Extended Sidewalks 47 Greenwood Elementary Demolition 69 Greet Renovations (Maint./Replacement) S38 Henley Addition S 14 Hydraulic/Rio Road Sidewall 49 [-64/Route 20 Interchange Study 43 Ivy Road Bike Lanes & Streetiights 45 Ivy Road Landscaping 51 Jouett Addition S 17 Keene Landfill Closure 74 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 101 Library Maintenance/Replacement Projects 55 Library Main Frame Computer Upgrade 54 Maintenance and Replacement Project Summary - School Division S3 l Meadow Creek Parkway to Rio Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 46 Murray High Renovation S26 New High School Community Recreation Facilities 87 New High School S 18 Northern Area Elementary School Recreation 66 Northern Area Elementary School S27 Old Ivy Bicycle Path and Sidewalk 42 Outdoor Recreation Project Completion 60 Parks Maintenance/Replacement Projects 7 l Police Firing Range 36 Police Facility Needs Assessment 37 Police NCIC 2000 Upgrade 33 Police Computer System ' 34 Red Hill Expansion S28 Revenue Sharing Road Program I 40 Rivarma Greenway Access and Path 68 Rotate 29 North Landscaping 44 Route 250 - Route 616 Turn Lane 50 Scottsville Community Center Outdoor Improvements 67 Sidewalk Construction Program 52 Stone Robinson Addition S 15 Stony Point Renovations/Addition S23 Swimming Beach Playground Smactures 65 Technology Projects o School Division S29a, b Technology Education Labs - School Division S 13 Towe Park Recreation Improvements 62 Transfer -Drainage/Erosion Correction 96 Vehicular Maintenance Facility (VMF) Reconfiguration S30 VMF Underground Storage Tank Replacement S41 WAHS Building Renovations S 19 102 Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97 - 00/01 ~ Walnut Creek Park Improvements 6 l Walton Renovation SI6 Walton HVAC Renovation (Maim./Replacement) S39 Woodbrook Renovation/Addition S21 Zan Road Extension 41 A page number preceded by an "S" indicates a page from the School Division CIP Document. as revised and edited October 31, 1995. Capital Improvement Program FY 96/97- 00/01 103 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Superwsors 401 Mclntire Read Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5842 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. M~rtln Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, DATE: April 5, 1996 CMC SUBJECT: Reading List for April 10, 1996 October 6, 1993 - pages 1 to I8 (Item 7c) - Mr. Marshall l~l~ pages 18 (Item 7c] to 34 (Item 13i) Mr. Perkins pages 34 (Item 13i to end - Mr. Martin November 3, 1993 - pages 1 ~o 26 (Item 26) - Mr. Bower~an {~ March 20, 1996 - Mrs. Thomas ~ EWC: mms Printed on recycled paper I N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Planning & Co~mmunity Development Let-tie E. Neher, Senior Deputy Clerk Resolution of Intent-High School Property April 17, 1996 Attached is the resolution of intent adopted on April 10, 1996, by the Board relative to initiating the rezoning of the property for the new high school. LEN:mms Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Larry W. Davis Jo~I-~ggins RESOLUTION TO INITIATE REZONING OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns 107 _+ acres of property identified as parcel 2 on Tax Map 91; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors has been advised by its staff that the current R-l, Residential, zoning of the property imposes standards which do not adequately meet the design needs for the public uses intended for the property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the County to consider the possible rezoning of the property to R-15, Residential, to determine whether such rezoning will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or advance good zoning practice, in accordance with the provisions of § 15.1-491 (g) of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby initiate the rezoning of parcel 2 on Tax Map 91 owned by the County of Albemarle from R-l, Residential, to R-15, Residential. 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 County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by vote of 6 to 0 on April 10, 1996. Cl~rl~,-Board of Cbunty ~upervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Monticello High School property -- need for rezoning SUBJECT/PROPOSALfREOUEST: To adopt a resolution of intent to rezone the County's property where the new high school and other public facilities are planned. STAFF CONTACT(S): Bob Tucker Wayne Cilimberg Ron Lilley BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: April 10, 1996 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGI~NIIA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 'Yes REVIEWED BY: The property just south of Piedmont Virginia Community College recently purchased by the County for a new high school site and other public facilities is zoned R-i, Residential, which allows a maximum building height of 35'. The high school design calls for portions of the building to be on the order of 50' above the finished grade (with variations in grade, some portions may be considered more than 50~ above grade). The possibility of obtaining a variance for the height was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the County Attorney and was considered an undesirable ~approach for resolving the height problem and an alternative of rezoning the property to. a more appropt~iate zoning district has be~n recommended (see attached memo). DISCUSSION: Staff has evaluated the other zoning districts in light of height allowances, the existing and proposed Land Use Plan recommendations, inter-district buffer requirements, and existing traffic studies and recommends that the R-15, Residential District be considered the most appropriate district for the County property. While all districts allow public facilities, the R-15 district allows a building height of 65' and requires only a 15' side yard (with a possible reduction to 10'), whereas districts such as CO, Commercial Office require a 50' buffer from adjacent residential districts, which account for the majority of the adjacent properties in this case, which could .have the unintended consequence of rendering certain areas of the property unusable. Also, the R- 15 district is more in keeping with existing zoning in the area and with the assumptions of the traffic Study supporting the Avon Street/ Route 20 Connector Road. Due to the construction schedule for the high school, it is hoped that appropriate zoning, can be secured as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution of intent to rezone the County's property, identified as portions of parcels 2 and 2C on Tax Map 91, from R-1 to R-15. Attachments: A - Memo from Zoning Administrator I:\general\share\lilley~ighschl.rez COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntir¢ Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (80a.) 296-587_5 FAX (804) 972-4035 TDD (804] 972-4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Comnfunity Development Ron Lilley, Planner Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~'~tA~- DATE: April 9, I996 RE: Monticello High School Height Variance This is to confirm in writing our separate conver.s?ions regarding varying the building height requirement for Monticello High School within {~e current zoning district. :As I understand, the proposed building will exceed the 35 foot height maximum by approximately 20 feet. I have mentioned that my preliminary conclusion in reviewing such a request would result in negative findings of the satisfaction of the criteria. necessary for approval Of the variance. }, therefore, recommend that this property either be rezoned to a more appropriate zoning district or that a zoning text amendment be reviewed for pubic uses such as this. The State Code specifies that approval of a variance necessitates findings of special conditions unique to the property itself. The property owner must show that'~the property is of exceptional narrowness, size, shape, exceptional topographic condition or other ext~aordina ry situation, such that strict application of the ordinance would effectively prohibit or restrict the use of the property. In addition to undue hardship, review under the State Code requires finding that the hardship is not shared generally and will not change the character of the district nor be detrimental to adjacent properties. The facts of this situation would not satisfy all the criteria. Design goals influenced building location and features. Planning based on enrollment and facility needs guided site plan development. These do not satisfy all of the variance criteria as were dictated by the State Code. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. AGM/st cc: Reading File I :\general\share\zoninghmelia~mhighsch.rnem Post-it'" Fax Note 7671 Date // /2 ~/ I # of · ~-~//-~'& IPaaes ~ This is to confirm in writiDg mir s 'for Monticello Hi!$h ,School withi will e×ceed the 35 Bni e ~ t max t ~ -' ~.-.,-,, ................. fig cone sJo ~ in rev uw n q,,~ ......... .J '}l'u,~,, ,at~y ZU ]~t. I lt.tXe IllClllIO[lCd that my p~el lint. '.~"'J ' .....IJJ o~.~mt ~.}a~ race., I. therefore, reco ~nem ,,,h;~ ~-~v,,~,-;,~2¢[ ~'~' ~'?~ ~: more appropriate' zonin~· dlStfidt-.~ t~u- * ,, · ,' , , ' ....... ,----,-~-'J ~,xu~ oe rezpne~ ~0 ~-~tate C~e ~c!fi~sth~approval of a vaOahe~' nee~g~itaf6~ 'hnd h~h~ q:i;~;~;:~: i~.- : .....: , ' .... ~. --'~; .~r ....... ~[~ U~llcr ~1 SI SIIO~ tllal tile. ~ a' , ·, - . ' -~ o- th~n~;~gG,2,~,.:';';~ . .~norotl. cxhaordm,lys~ualon suchthal "'rm-r,ll-.,:na ~d~ ha 'c sh,p, review t nde' d,,, ~,. ,'r,. .... ~r. 0,.~, :~,u ,,~c mule p~openy. In addmon to t 1due . ~;~ -~, in< n .e hie elh:lactel of Ihe (hstric m)r I)o deL' me Iai lo ,,,t; ............ ~. ...... ~-:-,. · ....t,~ ........ ~ .nu ~1~5;~] T~ facts of this si~atioh ~ou d not satisfy all th~ Cri'--: ...... ' , , .... J - tetra. UeSlg~ OalS mnuenced b ' : features. Pla~m -~s~: ...... r~. '* '; , .... ~ ; '; -- uildmg location and . g: ~ enrollmenf and-famh ~n ~:: ,' ~ .~ .... ~: r? ~..-,; -~-.- satzs~ ~ ~r,h .... :_,~ ,~;,~ .. t~ ~ ~de~ szte plan develo ment. "~ese do n: ' .~ al ........ atta ........... a as were mctated ~by the State Code. ' P .or If you have ~y haher questions, please do not ~sitate to contact me. AGM/st ~, .,~ ~ cc: Reading File l:\general~share\zoning~amelia\mhighsch.mem APRIL I O, 1996 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 (3) tO CONSIDER AN agREeMeNt TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO REVERSION. 04109~WPD