Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-05 F I N A L 9:00 A.M. July S, 1995 Room 241, County Office Building 1) 2) 3) 4) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 14h) 14c) 15) 16) Call to Order~ Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PDBLIC, Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Approval of Minutes: December 14, 1994, March 1 and May 10, 1995. Transportation Matters: a) Discussion: FY 1995-96 Secondary Road Construction Budget, b) Discussion: six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2000-2001, per Mrs. Humphris, c) Discussion: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court Bus Stop on Route 9. d) Other Transportation Matters. 10:00 a.m. - Public ~earin~ on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both public water and sewer service to all existing and proposed buildings ac the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. boundrrlcz cf tka ~cmar!c Ccunt~- ~a~;icc Autkcrity fcr sc~cr Route 250 W at Route 2~Q. (Applicant requests deferral until July 12, 1995.) Discussion: Self courses qualifying under use value taxation - open space category. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend and reordain Chauter 2, Adminis- tration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal from office; maximum number of terms, of the County Code relative to term limit of any private citizen. Appropriation: a) Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission - $2,500 (Form %95004). 11:00 a.m. - Senator Ed Robb - update on General Assembly legislation, Appointment: University of Virginia liaison on Planning Commission. Discussion: Foxfield Races. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Certi£y F~ecutive Session. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSENT A~ENDA FOR APPROVAL 5.1 5.~ 5.3 Appropriations: a) Bright Stars Program at Stone Robinson - $87,816] b) Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant - $3,750, (Form #95002). (Form #9~003). Resolution to accept Cardinal Drive in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. Statemen=s of Expenses for the Depar=men= of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, month June, 1995. for the FOR INFORMATION: 5.4 5.5 Letter dated Jthne 23, 1995 from A. G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing the monthly update of highway improvement projects currently under construction and the construction schedule for [uture projects in Albemarle County. Meadow Creek Parkway - efforts to obtain primary road funding for section of Rio Road to Route 29 North. 5.6 Primary Road Allocation Plans for Albemarle County projects, comparison of FY 1994-2000 and FY 1995-2001 plans. 5.7 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for May 18, 1995. 5.8 May, 1995, Financial Management Report. S.9 Update on Magistrate's office and Juvenile Court electronic monitoring. 5.10 Operating results for Acme Design Technology, Co., for May, 1995 (on file in Clerk's office). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804- 296-5843 FAX [804l 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins SaI{y H. Thomas MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V Wayne Citimberg, Director, Planning a Community Development Ella W. Carey, Clerk July 6, 199~ Board Actions of July 5, 1995 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on July 5, t995: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Called to order at 9:02 a.m.. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Walter Johnson made a presentation on Cost Plus Incentive Fee (COIF) contracts and requested that the County staff consider these for future projects (copy attached). He said CPIF contracts can significantly reduce the cost of construction projects and increase contractor profit, without affect- ing quality. Agenda Item No. 5.1.a. Bright Stars Program at Stone Robinson - $87,816, (Form ~95002). Approved as presented. Original forwarded to Finance (Copy attached). Agenda Item NO. 5.1.b. Virginia Commission for the Arts Grant - $3,750, (Form ~95003). Approve~ as presented. Original forwarded to Finance (copy attached). Agenda Item No. 5.2. Resolution to accept Cardinal Drive in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. Adopted attached resolution. Original sent to Engineering. Agenda Item No. 5.6. Primary Road Allocation Plans for Albemarle County projects, comparison of FY 1994-2000 and FY 1995-2001 plans Mrs. Humphris asked why there was a 52~5 percent increase in construc- tion funding for the Route 29 widening from Rio Road to South Fork Rivanna River. Printed on recpcIed paper To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cili~berg Date: July 6, 1995 Page: 2 Agenda Item No. 7a. Discussion: FY 1995-96 Secondary Road Construction Budget. Approved as presented. Mrs. Thomas provided Board members with a letter from Mr. Thomas Farley, dated August 20, 1992, regarding donated right-of-way and design cost (at- tached). Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2000-2002, per Mrs. Humphris. Received report from Mrs. Hum~hris, no action. Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court Bus Stop on Route 9. Motion to approve the change which removes Whitewood Road/Albert Court from Route 9, and adds the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and removes the south leg of Berkmar betwee~ Rio Road and Route 29 from Route 9, and allows the location of s bus shelter at the intersection of Commonwealth and Peyton Drives (south bound). Staf~ is to closely monitor these changes ~o see if they are having the desired results, and the Board will revisit the issue at budget time. The motion failed by a tie vote. (NO other motions were made.} Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Tucker discussed a resolution he would be presenting for the Board's consideration later in the meeting. The resolution supports repairing damage to the streak[bed of the Moorman's River due to flooding. The cost is $90,000, of which the County is responsible for 25 percen=. This work will move the River back into its proper bed and eliminate flooding on private property and the roadway. Mrs. Thomas asked about the progress of repairs to the railroad bridge on Route ~33. Mrs. Tucker said cost estimates are currently being reviewed. Mrs. Thomas said some residents from Route 712 would like to mean with Mrs. Tucker to discuss protruding rocks on the hillside and the shoulder of the road. Mrs. Tucker said she would bring back a cost estimate to remove these rocks. Mr. Perkins wanted to make sure that Route 674 would receive additional maintenance due ~o increased traffic caused by the closing of the Millington Bridge. Mr. Bowerman asked about the speed limit reduction on Route 250 between the Bellair Market and the traffic signal at Boar's Head in the Farmington area. Mrs. Tucker will obtain information. Agenda Item No. 8. 10:00 a.m. - Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for both public water and sewer service to all existing and proposed buildings at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Approved as presented. To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: July 6, 1995 Page: 3 Agenda Item No. 9. 10:15 a.m. - Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the Cafe-No Problem located at the intersection of Route 250 W at Route 240. Deferred to the J~ly 12, 1995, meeting, et the applicant's request. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Golf courses qualifying under use value taxation - open space category. Adopted the attached resolution to amend Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Public hearing to be advertised for August 9, 1995. Agenda Item No. 11. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal from office; maximum number of terms, of the County Code relative to term limit of any private citizen. Adopted the attached Resolu- tion of Intent. Public Hearing to be advertised for August 2, 1995. Agenda Item NO. 12a. Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Conmlission - $2,500 (Form $95004). Approved as presented. Original forwarded to Pinance {copy attached). Agenda Item No. 13. 11:00 a.m. - Senator Ed Robb - update on General Assembly legislation. Due to a scheduling conflict, Mr. Robb canceled. Rescheduled for August 2, 1995 at 11=00 a.m. Agenda Item No. 14. Appointment: University of Virginia liaison on Planning Commission. Appointed Mr. Samuel A. "Pete" Anderson as the Universi- ty of Virginia liaison to the Albemarle Cou/aty Pla~uning Co~ission effective, J~ly 1, 1995. Agenda Item No. 14a. Discussion. Foxfield Races Chief John Miller said he met with Mr. Whitley to discuss his concerns about inadequate bathroom facilities, congested traffic and underage drinking during the Foxfield Races. It was the consensus of the Board to encourage Foxfield officials uo declare the races a nonalcoholic event and to work with all the agencies sponsoring the races to assist in resolving these con,plaints. Agenda Item NO. 14b. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Move Bowez~nan, seconded Humphris that the Board go into Exesutivs Session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel regarding pending litigation regarding a zoning decision and to consult witb legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concern- Agenda Item No. 14c. Certify Executive Session. Certified. Agenda Item No.15. Other Matters non Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD~ To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: July 6, 1995 Page: 4 Mr. Tucker clarified the Board's action regarding the elimination of the Whitewood Road/Albert Court bus stop from Route 9. Mr. Bowerman asked when this would be effective, Mr. Tucker responded July 1, 1995. Mr. Tucker recognized various agencies and groups that provided support the County during the flooding. Mr. Tucker requested that the Board adopt a Resolution to request federal funding through the Soil Conservation Service to restore streambeds au several river locations in Albemarle County. Adopted the attached Resolution. Mrs. Thomas expressed concern, on behalf of residents who live in Sugar Hollow, about a possible crack in the Sugar Hollow Dam. She asked for clarification on this issue, Mr. Tucker said the Rivanns Water and Sewer Authority performed an inspection of the dam and did not find any major problems. He will investigate this matter further. The meeting adjourned at 12:48 p.m. to July 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.. EWC/tpf Attachments (8) cc: Richard E. Huff Roxaune White Jo Higglns /~melia McCulley Bruce Woodzell Larry Davis File RAY D. PETHTEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP©RTATION P. 0 BOX 671 CULPEPEF. 22701 August 20, 1992 THOMASF FARLEY Mr. Walter F. Johnson Spokesman, Citizens on Rte. 682 Bucks Elbow Rte. 10 Box 113 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Dear Mr. Johnson: Re: Project 0682-002-P33, N501 Albemarle County This letter and its purpose and cost° is in response to your correspondence dated 8/7/92, is to clarify your concerns over the project schedule Prior to the 7/1/92 Board of Supervisor's (BOS) unanimous vote to purchase right of way (ROW), the Rte: 682 project was slated for a "No Plan" type of plan development. Plan development under this concept incorporates donated right of way, virtually eliminates survey and engineering, and typically eliminates the public hearing process. It follows that a significant reduction in the cost of Preliminary Engineering (PE) and construction as well as time savings is realized under such conditions. Estimates associated with this process reflect in-house contract assembly and minimal uechnical effort to prepare the project for advertisement. The PE and construction costs under this scenario ~nd as indicated by your letter were $85,000 and $1,150,000 respectively. A 16-month PE phase for this "No Plan" project was proposed. As a result of the BOS decision to purchase right of way, the plan will now follow a "C Plan" type of plan development. Detailed surveying and engineering, public hearings, field inspections, ROW negotiations and other plan activities are now required under this phase. Hence, the revised schedule of approximately 30 months (7/92 to 1/95) to incorporate the above and other required plan activities under the PE phase of the project° Right of way negotiations beyond Rte. 787 will reflect an advertisement date of 8/95. This revised schedule reflects consultant survey rather than in-house services to expedite the PE schedule. RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County, VirginIa, Chapter four to establish the consistency of the various park or recreation uses identified in "Attachment A" with the land use plan for purposes of qualifying for use value taxation as open space use. The plan would provide that land being devoted to specifically designated uses either will or will not qualify for the Open Space Category. This amendment would evaluate and decide the sEauus of each specific park or recreation use identified in "Attachment A", including golf clubs as well as uses such as fairgrounds and athletic fields; and FURTHER REQUESTS that the Albemarle County Planning Commis- sion hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehen- sive Plan, and does hereby request that the Planning Commission send its recommendations =o this Board prior to its scheduled public hearing on August 9, 1995. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on July 5, 1995. C rk, B ar of Co ntv ~zvisors STANDARDS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF R~EAL :ESTATE AS DEVOTED TO OPEN-SPACE USE UNDER TIlE VIRGINIA LAND USE ASS 'ESSMENF LAw. Umki the at~tbority of §58.1-3229 et seq. o[ the Code ol Vi~ioia. the Director of the Departlnent of Conservation and l listoric Resources adopts these Standards fm Classification ol Real Estate AS Devoted to Open-Space Use Under the Vit~ini; Imnd Use Assessment Law to ]. Encotaage the ~roper use ol' real estate in otc er Itl assr re a readily available sot rce of agricultural bordculmnd and 3. Ihotccl ariel:ii,ale and salt: water supplies 5. Pmmote pmpcr land Use plmming and the orderly expanding population According to tire spccilic authority and respoasil:,ilily conveyccl by §§58. I- 3230 and 58. I - 32't0 ol'tlm Code of Virginia. the Diteclnr n[ IJw I)eparnnelll ol Cnnservalion and J lislolit which shall be applied uniformly dn'ouglxmt the Commow After holding public I~arings. tim statement sbalt be sent lo tl~e egcb locafity at&)pnng an orclinfince m compliance with Article 4 of Chapter 32 o/Title 58.1. of the Code o[Virgmia. §1. GENERAL STANDARDS. To qttaJiJy as an open-space rise, real estate must meet the requirements o1 botb this section and the specific standards contained in Section 2 of these regulations. The general A. Consistericy witb land use plan.. which bas been made and adopted officially accordance with Article 4. Chapter 1 t. Tide 15.1 o[ file Code of Virginia. depicted on a map that is part of the land use plan, ur tfiat directly supports or its generally consistent ~tb bistoric preservatioo t~bjectives, goals or standards of the land ttse plan. 'J ~TTACHHE.'~' A] 3. A p~opct'ty that is subject to a ~ecorded perpetual conservation, historic or open-space easement beJd by any pubRc body, or is part of all agricultural, a }'ores~al or an agricultural and forestal disn-ict approved by local government, shall be considered to be conslstem with the land 'Use plan. B. Miltimum acreage. 1. Except as provided n subdiv sion B 2 o[this section, ileal estate devoted to open-space ttsc shall consist ora lllillilntniq tit five acres. 2. 11 the gdvertfing body o[ any count}; city nr towlt has so prescribed by ordiqance, real estate devoted to open space shall consist ~J'fi minimui~ of two acres wbeli the teat estate is: a. Acl acent to a scenic liver, a scenic highway, t~ Vi;ginia byway of public property {istc'~J i~l the approved State Comprehe,sive Otitdoor Rckrea- . tion Plan. also knoml as tile Viginia outdoors Ptafi (thc Virginia outdoom Pla~i can be tfl~taincd {'toni the Department of Conservatitm ami liistoric Resources al 203 Governor Street. Suite 302 Richmond. Virginia 23219); or b. Located it1 a counly city tlr town bavi0g ti density of population greater than 5,000 }~et sqnatc nlJ}e. C, Other Reqtqremen~s Real e~tate devoted to open-space rise shall be: I Within an agricttfitttal, a tbrestal or an agticttltttraJ alid [orestal district entered into pursuant Jo Chapter 36 of Title 15.1 of the Code b[Virginia: 2. Subject to a recorded peq~emal eascmcttt that is held by a pnblic body mad that promotes the open-space use classification as de~ned in ~581-3230 of the Code of Virginla: OI 3 sob cci to a recorded commimaent entered hm~ by th~ andowner ~th the governing body in accotdahcd wRh Section 3 o[ tbcsc tcgtllfidoit~ D. Opinions. In determining whether a property meets tile general and specific standards for open-space ttse. the Iocat assessing officer m0.y request art opinion fmlrt the Director olr tile Department o[ Cdnse~vatiot~ and Htstoric Resottrces Under the provisions of Section 4 o[ these t-eguJatlons. §2. 5peciltc Standards The specific standards lot determinlng w'heflaet teal estate will qualify for speclat ]sses~.ment based o~:~ open-space use ate as follows. The term 'land ihctudes wateL submerged land wetlands, marshes, and similar propel'ties. A. Park or recreation use Lands that fire provided preserved Iron I. Any pnblic, semi-public nr privatdy-owned pm'l<. pla)ground,, or similar recreational area. for public or eonnnunity use, except any use nperafed with intent tbr pm[it. Examples ~Parks~ play are~. athletic Gelds. botanical gar&ns ~shing or skatlug ponds. Golf clubs country cluhs, swJmmh~g dabs. beach ~Faltgrouuds. 15 2 GoIrcntuses operated for profit as a public service and having the park-like characteristics normalb asso~ cialed with a country club. 3. BuikJlngs shall not cover more titan 10% of die site 4 Commctclal recreational or amuscntent places, such as drivlug ranges, miifiatttre golf course~ pony Hdes. trap shoots, marinas, motor.speedways, drag strips, amusement parks and the like. shall not qualify. 11. CUusct'i,athin t~{r laud or other natural resources-- Lands ti,at are pmvldcd or preserved for forest presewes. bird ne ~ldlffc sanctuaries, watershed prese~es nature preserves, arboretums, t~nrshes, swamps find similar C. lqoodwayS--Lands tlmt are provided or preserved I. The ~assage m contaimneut o[watets, indudhig the Iloodp ains or va leys and side slopes of sttea ns that are or may be subject to periodic or occasional ovetllo~V, such as floodplains identttled by enghieer- ing surveys by tbe U.S. Corps of Euglneers or others, or by still surveys or topographic tnaps. Ftoodways also indu,de nd acenf lands that shottld be resetk,ed as ac ditto m ~ tam ets [or futm'e ~loo& due ~o increased rtinnllk Z Coastal lowlands, such as bays, estuaries or oceal~ shores, subject to flmndatioi~ by storms or higl~ tides. Tidal and Non-tidal WetJauds. such as swamps, bogs alta n ,aL'shes, D. Iitshifie or Scenic Att:Is Lands tll~/t mc provided preserved for historic orscenic purposes arc: 1. Oil the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places br conb'ibuting properties ~ uti lusto rc d~strict hated in fl~e trg~ na t~ dma~ks Register or the National Register of H stork' Jn[omlation concerning properties on these Regis can be obtained [tom the Depatt?e~t ol Cnnscr~tion and 1 tistm-lc Resotitces. 2. Properties protected by scenic m' open-space easements. 3. Places designated or recommended at %cenic" hy the Department of Conservation and Historic Resnurces. the Department o[Transpoftatiom tee General &ssem- bly or other State agency subject in each case to a speciSc a~a description provided by die designating agency Asslst!ng hi ate shaping ol'the character, direction and timill~ utr community develo, pment, ut for the public itlie~-~s[ Lands that are offic a y p)anned or ap ~roved by tile local governing body to be Icl~ Ill ',t relatively natural and undeveloped state and that are provided or preserved for the purpose of shaping tire locality into ne g ~borhoods and c~mmunities, identifying their boundaries, insulat- ing incompatible Uses frmn otie another directing growth, controlling the rate o~ tithing nf grow~l~ or otherwise serving tile public interest as deter ~ ned ~y tim local governing body. Examples: Greeubelts, parkways and tmilways. Steam valleys, --Forests and farmlands. --Hilltops or hillsides. --MountaiUtops and mountainsides. --Scenic Vistas. §3., 5TANDARbS FoR ~)iilH[-N COMMITMENTS BY L'4.NDOVqNERS TO PRESERVE OPEN-SPAcE LAND USE. The written commitment entered tutu by landownms for the' local governing body to presmwe open-space land ttse, pursualu to subdivision 3 of §58.1-3233 of the Code of Virgiuia, shall conform substantially to the following [brtn ~[-agreenlenk OPEN-SPACE USE AGREEMENT This Agreement, made this _ day nl 19 hel'eafier called the Owner, and the {Co?nty, City or Towttl nf · a political subdlvis~on ol the Commonweal ~ o£Virginia, hereinafter called the [County, City or Tovm], recites aud provides as follows: RECITALS I. 'Fire Owner is the owner of certahi real estate, described belnw, hemiltafler calted the Property; and 2. The [Cottllty City or Town] s tee oca gwer~ g b)dy having real estate tax j re'tad<turn over the I'mpcriy: and' 3 The ICout~ty, City or ToWtq has detemfined: A. That it is ill tl~e pbblic inIeres~ thai tile Pm ~erty shotlkl be provided or pre.lin,ed for insert one or oiore bt ~e following Uses: ~ai-k o{ recreational ~ i 'p ~scs) c~? i~' -- ration of ant: consmvation o[' (to,crt tescn ~tJOU tff other nummi reson~e); an historic at.a: a s~cuic area: ti~sisting in the sbapii~g of Ibc chanwleL dire( tk)~l and timing ut commflnlty developme~ ~ r oihe- se ~hicb se~es the puhlic iiiterest by the presci~,ation 0[ open-space hind as provided iu the iand4isc plan.l; and B. That the Property meets the applicable criteria i'or teat estate devoted to open-space use as presi:i'ibed Article 4- (§58.1-3229 et seq.) of Chapter 32 of Title t6 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Administration, Article VII, Regional Jail Board, Section 2-42, Vacancies; removal from office; maximum number of terms, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia presently limits the Eerm of any private citizen member of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board to no more than three consecutive three-year terms~ and WHEREAS, for reasons of good governance and in the public interest such term limitation should be lengthened; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia hereby resolves the intent to amend section 2-42 of the Code of the County of Albemarle to lengthen the term limitation restriction for private citizen members of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail Board. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that such a code amendment be prepared and advertised for public hearing. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle Counuy, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on July 5, 1995. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 40] Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 9724060 July 5, 1995 Ms. Denise Doetzer, State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite #209 Richmond, Virginia 23229 Dear Ms. Doetzer: This letter serves as Albemarle County's request for Federal Assistance under provisions of Section 403, Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, to restore streambeds at several river locations in Albemarle County caused by storms of June 21 and 22nd, 1995. This work is needed to safeguard lives and property from an imminent hazard of floodwater and erosion caused by flooding along the Moorman's River in the northwestern part of Albemarle County. We understand, as sponsors of an emergency watershed protection project, our responsibilities will include acquiring land rights and permits needed to construct and, if required, to operate and maintain the proposed measures. We or the affected property owners are prepared to furnish the 25% local cost-share of the construction work Albemarle County's contact person for this work will be: David H/rschman, Water Resource Manager 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone: (804) 296-5861 Please feel fee to contact Mr, Hirschman for any additional information needed. RWT,Jr/dbm 95.106 Sincerely, Mr. Robert W Tucker, Jr (,// cc: Mr. J. Gordon Yager Mr. David Hirschman State: Virginia Watershed: Albemarle County IJNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC-qJ-LTURE NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day ofluly, 1995, by and between, Albemarle County called the Sponsor and the Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department o Agriculture, called NRCS. WlTNES SETH THAT: WHEREAS, under the provision of the Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, Public. 95-334, the Sponsors and NRCS agree to a plan which provides for restoration of certain works listed below: Removal of debris from streams, riprap installation, gabion installation, and seeding as required. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the several promises to be faithfully performed by the parties hereto as set forth, the Sponsors and NRCS do hereby agree as follows: It is agreed that the above-described work is to be constructed at an estimated cost of $89,494. The Sponsor will: Accept all financial and other responsibility for excess costs resulting from their failure to obtain or their delay in obtaining adequate land and water rights, permits, and licenses needed for the work of improvement described above. 2. Pay 25 percent of construction cost, as described in Section A. Designate an individual to serve as liaison between the sponsor and NRCS, with authority and responsibility for reviewing and approving changes in the work described in A. Furnish such information, in wrifmg, to the Contracting Officer. Review and approve the plan for the work described aboveD 5. Provide certification (sign SCS-ADS-78) that real property rights have been obtained D for installation of planned measures. Upon completion of works of improvement, inspect, jointly with representatives of NRCS, those works of improvement described in A. Upon acceptance of the work by NRCS from the contractor, assume responsibility for operation and maintenance. If applicable, complete the attached "Clean Air and Water Certification" and comply with the attached "Clean Air and Water Clause." Upon completion of emergency protection measures and the elimination of the threat, the sponsors will take action, if needed, to bring the measures up to reasonable standards by other means and/or authority. Unless the measures are brought up to reasonable standards, the sponsors will not be eligible for future funding under the emergency watershed protection program~ I0. Complete the attached Certification Regarding Drug-Free workplace requirements. N-RCS will: Provide 75 percent of the cost of constructing the works of improvement described in Section A. Contract for the construction of the works of improvements described above in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. Provide authorized technical services, included but not limited to obtaining basic information; preparation of contracts, drawings, and designs; contract administration; and quality assurance during installation. Arrange for and conduct final inspection of the completed works of improvement with the Sponsors to determine whether all work has been performed in accordance with the contractual requirements. Accept work from contractor; notify the Sponsors of acceptance; and turn over the accepted works to the Sponsors. It is mutually agreed upon: No member of or delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if mead with a corporation for its general benefit. The furnishing of financial and other assistance by NRCS is contingent on the availab'flity of funds appropriated by Congress from which payment may be made and o shall not obligate lqRCS upon failure of the Congress to appropriate funds. NRCS may terminate this agreement in whole or in part when it is determined by NRCS that the Sponsors have failed to comply with any of the conditions of this agreement. N-RCS shall promptly notify the Sponsor in writing of the determination and reasons for the termination, together with the effective date. Payment or recoveries made by NRCS under this termination shall be in accord with the legal rights and liabilities of NRCS and the Sponsors. This agreement may be temporarily suspended by NRCS if it determines that corrective action by the Sponsors is needed t meet the provisions of this agreement. Further, NRCS may suspend this agreement when it is evident that a termination is pending. The program or activities conducted under this agreement or memorandum of understanding will be in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-259); and other nondiscrimination statutes; namely, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation ACt of 1973, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age Discrimination ACt of 1975. They will also be in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture (7 CFR- 15, Subparts A & B), which provide that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sec~ religion, marital status, or handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture or any agency thereof. The sponsors certify to the best of their knowledge and belief, that they and their principals: Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgement rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction, violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, the~ forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and Dw Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default. Where the primary sponsors are unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this agreement. Albemarle County Spons~/~ ' ' ~4 ~ ~'~ . ~ I ~ / Albemarle County Board of SBpervisors ~e~ ~Robert W. Tuckor, ~ ~ on th~ dgy of Jul~'.5 , 1995, ~ ~ gt County of Albemarle State Of Ti~e' ~ounty Executive Vir~ - Date: July 5r 1995 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE 6ignature) (title) By: Title: Date: Charlotte ¥. Hurnphds Forrest R. Marshalk Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-584~ FAX I804) 296~5800 July 10, 1995 Mrs. A~gela Tucker Resident Engineer Department of Transportation P.O. Box 2013 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0013 The following is a list of actions taken by the Board at its day m~eting , on July 5, 1995: Agenda Item 5°20 Resolution to accept Cardinal Drive in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways° ADOPTED RESOLUTION. Agenda Item 5°6° Transportation Matters: Primary Road Allocation Plans for Albemarle County projects, comparison of FY 94-2000 and FY 95 1995~2001 plans. Mrs. Humphris asked why there was a 52.5 percent increase in construction funding for the Route 29 widening from Rio Road to South Fork Rivanna River~ Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: FY 1995-96 Secondary Road Construction Budget. A~PROVED as presented. Agenda Item No~ 7b. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Six Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1995-96 through 2000-2002, per Mrs. Humphris. Received report fromM rs. Humphris, no action. Agenda Item No. 7c4 Transportation Matters: Discussion: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS} changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court BUS Stop on route 9. MOTION TO APPROVE the change which removes Whitewood Road/Albert Court ~rom Route 9, and adds the Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments, and removes the south leg of Berkmar between Rio Road and Route 29 from Route 9, and allows the location of a bus shelter at the intersection of Co~unonwealth and Peyton Drives (south bound). Staff is to closely monitor these changes to see if they are having the desired results, and the Board will revisit this issue at budget time. The motion failed by a tie vote. (No other motions were made). Printed on recycled paper Mrs. Angeta Tucker July 10, 1995 Page 2 Agenda Item NO o 7d. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Tucker discussed a resolution he would be presenting for the board's consideration later in the meeting. The resolution supports repairing damage to the streambed of the Moorman's River due to flooding. The cost is $90,000, of which the County is responsible for 25 percent. This work will mov~ the River back into its proper bed and eliminate flooding on private property and the roadway. RESOLUTION ATTACHED. Mrs. Thomas asked about the progress of repairs to the railroad bridge on Route 633. You said cost estimates are currently being reviewed. Mrs. Thomas said some residents from Route 712 would like to meet with you to discuss protruding rocks on the hillside and the shoulder of the road. You said that you would bring back a cost estimate to remove these rocks. Mr. Perkins wanted to make sure that Route 674 would receive additional maintenance due to increased traffic caused by the closing of the Millington Bridge Mr~ Bowerman asked about the speed limit reduction on Route 250 between the Bellair Market and the traffic signal at Boar's Head in the Farmington area. You said you would obtain information. EWC/tpf S'la~W.cerely' · y, ler~,/CMC Board of Supervisor~/ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation Bright Stars Program IUB JECT/PROPOSAL/REQUES T: Request approval of Appropriation #95002 in the an~unt of $87,816 for the Bright Stars Program, an at-risk program for four-year olds at Stone Robinson. ITAFF CONTACT: rucker, White AGENDA DATE.: July $, 1995 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: yes (I) REVIEWED BY: /~ ~ BACKGROUND: At the lune 3 meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved funding in the amount of $87,816 from local fitgds to implement an at-risk program for four-year olds at Stone Robinson Elementary School. Local funding in the amount of $36,191 i~ to match the state grant of $38,145 for the ongoing expenses for the program: local funding in the amount of $51,625 is for one time monies to purchase and install a modular unit to house the program at Stone Robinsan~ Approval of this request will officially appropriate those funds to be spent on the progrmn in FY 1995-96. Local ftmds will be shown as a transfer from the fund balance to the Department of Social Services budget, where they will be shown as a general fund expenditure to a special fund which will track all the program expenses and other revenues. RECOMMENDATION~ Staff recommends approval of Appropriation # 95002 in the amount of $87,816 for the Bright Stars Four-Year Old Program. EXEBSTAIL SAM 95.112 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation: Virginia Commi~qion for the Arts Grant SUBJECT~ROPOS~Q~ST: Request approval of Appropriation #95003 in the amount of $3,750 to be allocated equally to the Virginia Diseovery Museum and the Piedmont Council of the Arts. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 5, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~ {~ REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Eachyear, the County applies to the Virginia Commission for the Arts for a Local Government Challenge Grant, which matches the County's appropriations to arts agencies in the community. For the current fiscal year, Albemarle County has been awarded a total grant in the amount of $3,750 which will be equally divided between the Virginia Discovery Museum and the Piedmont Council of the Ans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation $95003 in the amount $3,750; $1,875 to the Virginia Discovery Museum and $1,875 to the Piedmont Council of the Ans. 95.115 JUN 2 9 I995 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, in regular meeting on the 5th day of July, 1995, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated J~ly 5, 1995, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 5, 1995, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require- ments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ella Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II June 28, 1995 Cardinal Ridge Subdivision (12.404) The road servin9 the above referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for a VDOTacceptance inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form fora resolution, which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at your next opportunity. Once the resolution has been adopted, date and sign the SR~5(A) and please provide me with the original and four copies. Thanks for your assistance. Please call me if you have any questions. PJP/ctj Attachment eng~oete~cardridg. 1 TO: STATE COMPENSATION BOARD FOR: MONT~ OF JUNE, 1995 STATEMENT OF EXPENSES DEPARTMENT COUNTY STATE TOTAL SHARE S~ARE Department of Finance ~0~ -0- -0- Sheriff -0- ~0- -0- Commonwealth's Attorney -0- 191.17 191.17 Regional Jail -0- ~0~ -O- Clerk, Circuit Court -0- -0- -0- NOTE: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in which the State Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and are not the total office expenses of these departments. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLO3TESVILLE, 22902-2013 June 23, 1995 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Current Projects Construction Schedule Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of' Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction and the construction schedule for future projects in Albemarle County. Please see that this information is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors members. I will be prepared to discuss this matter with them at the next meeting if they desire. Yours Truly, ggu cc: Mr. R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment Mr. David Beni~h w/attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Projects Under Construction Albemarle County July 1, 1995 Route Location Status Estimated No. ~,omp. Dat~ 29 From Hydraulic Rd, (Rte. 743) Construction 82% Complete Dec 95 To N. of Rio Road (Route 631) 240 Route 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 20% Complete Dec 95 Near Int. Route 250 1-64 Bridge Repair - Various Locations Construction 73% Complete Sop 95 ** 29 Fron N. of Rio Road (Route 631) Construction Started - June May 97 To S. Fork Rivanna River ** 671 Bridge Replacement Construction Started - June Nov 95 At Millington * Revised Date ** New Project RTE NO. (1) 29 (2) 610 (3) 631 (4) 631 (5) 631 (6) 637 (7) 649 (8) 656 (9) 682 (10) 711 (11) 712 (12) 743 (13) 759 (14) 760 (15) 866 PROJECT LISTING ALBEMARLE COUNTY JULY 1 1995 LOCATION - DESCRIPTION CURR. ADV. DATE S.FORK RIVANNA RIV. TO AIRPORT RD.(WIDEN TO 6 LANES 08-99 FROM ROUTE 20 TO 1.8 MI. E. RTE. 20 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-96 FROM BERKMAR DR. TO ROUTE 29 08~95 FROM ROUTE 743 TO BERKMAR DR. 09-97 FROM NCL CH'VILLE TO CSX RR (RIO ROAD) MEADOWCREEK PKY. 07-97 FROM ROUTE 635 TO 0.55 MLW. RTE. 682 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 606 (AIRPORT ROAD) 12-00 FROM ROUTE 654 TO ROUTE 743 04-01 FROM ROUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI. S. RTE. 250 (GRAVEL ROAD) 08-95 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-97 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-96 FROM ROUTE 657 (LAMBS ROAD) TO ROUTE 631 01-96 FROM ROUTE 616 TO FLUVANNA CO. LINE (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-99 FROM ROUTE 712 TO ROUTE 29 (GRAVEL ROAD) 10-98 FROM ROUTE 743 TO ROUTE 1455 09-99 PREV. ADV. DATE EST CONST TIME 24 MO. 6 MO. 6 MO. 12 MO. 12 MO. 12 MO. 9 MO, 6 MO 12 MO. 5 MO 9 MO 12 MO. 5MO. 12 MO. 9 MO. ' INDICATES NEW PROJECT *' INDICATES REVISED DATE ADV. INDICATES THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED REASONS FOR CHANGES IN ADVERTISEMENT DATES COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Meadow Creek Parkway SUBJECT]PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Efforts to Obtain Primary Road Funding for Rio to 29N Section STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Citimberg & Ms. Itiggins AGENDA DATE..' Suly $, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: ~, O '7V .S~(S- INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The Comty h~s requested t55ma~y Road funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Rd. to U. S. 29N as its highest priority primary road project. Questions have been raised as to thc accuracy of preliminary cost estimates for this project A meeting was recently held between County staff, David Bowermsu, Charles Martin, VDOT staff and representatives of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to strategize how to better prepare fur requesting Meadow Creek Parkway funding in next year's primary road allocation process. DISCUSSION: The County has had underway for some lime with Svercdmp Co~p. an alignment study for Meadow Creek and associated connectors. Cost estimates for the recommended Meadow Creek alignment are $72.5 million for a 4.1 mile length of suburban expressway with a design speed of 50mph and which includes interchanges at Rio Road and U. S. 29N as well as bridges necessary to span the floodplain of the South Fork Rivanna River and P owell Creek, the Southern Railway and Route 643. The recent meeting noted above foansed on ways to reduce the cost of Meadow Creek and procedures that could lead to that goal. The following was deeided: 1) Develop new cost estimates based on a lower design speed (probably 40mph) and functiunal classification (Suburban Prineiple Arterial), and at-grade intersections rather than interchanges at U. S. 29N and Rio Road. 2) Include additional controlled access points to serve future development along the alignment and include in a m-mn of the traffic forecasting model. 3) Create a task force of County and VDOT staff to review the above refereneed information and work with Sveredmp to finalize the alignment study inclusive of this new informatiorh Have the task force also make contact with affected properties along the potential alignment(s) to determine the willingness of property owners m cooperate in the fight-of-way acquisition and/or construction of the Meadow Creek. 4) Complete the alignment study for public hearing and assessment of level of environmental review that w;dl be necessary for this projact in time for presentation of County request to the VDOT Primary Allocation hearing next spring. RECOM3/IENDATION: None necessary - for information only. JUN 2 9 95.114 MDCKPKWY.EXE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ........ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Primat~ Road Allocation Plans - Albemarle County Projects SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comparison of FY1994-2000 and FY1995-2001 Plans STAFF CONTACT(SI: Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: Suly5,1995 ACTION: fl'Ei~ NUM]IER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: X REVIEWED BY: ~~'"'~ BACKGROUND: The FY1995-2001ProposaiPrima~ Road Allocatiun Plen recently went to statewid¢ public hearing. TI~ Board has asked for information comparing the proposed plan with the FYI 994-2000 Plan. DISCUSSION: A table comparing planned allocation to Albemarle County projects for the five common years in each plan is provided as ARae2unent A. Some facts worth noting regarding the two plans: I) Seven Albemarle projec/ts'~vere listed to receive $48,052,000 in funding over the six years of the FY 1994-2000 Plan. Eleven projects are listed to receive $46,0Y7,000 in funds ovar the sixyears ofthe FY1995-2001 Plan, a 4.2°4 decrease in fonding. Total Culpeper District project fimding for the six years of each plan was $101,661,000 in the FY1994-2000 Hen and $100,562,000 in the FY1995-2001 Plan, a 1.1% decrease in funding. 2) Six Albemarle projects were listed to receive $37,732,000 in funding over the 1995-2000 period (five common years o£both plans) in the FY1994-2000 Plax Eleven projects are listed to receive $36,602,000 in funding over the sarae five years m the FY1995-2001 Plan, a decrease of 3.0%. Total Culpeper District project funding ovar the five common years ofeach plan was $82,687,000 in the FY1994- 2000 Plan and $82,673,000 in the FY1995-2001 Pla~ a decrease of less than 0.1%. 3) Five new projects have been added~ one project separated out (29-Bridge Replacement S. Fork Rivatma) and one project dropped (29- Interchanges) in the FY1995-2001 Plan. 4) Significant inca:eases i~ project funding between the two plans over the five common years are $3,075,000 for the widening of Rt 29 from Rio Road to the S. Fork Rivarma due to increased construction costs and $12~077,000 for the Rt 29 Bypass for preliminary engineering and right of way acquisition. 5) Significant decreases in project funding between the two plans over the five common years are $7,455,000 for the widening of Rt 29 from S. Fork Rivanna to Airport Rd ($3,300,000 of which went to the Rt 29 bridge replacement at S. Fork Rivarma) and $14,657,000 for the Rt 29 lntorehanges which have been dropped. RECOMMENDATION: '~ ............. ~ - Provided for information only. i JL~[ 2 9 I9~ 95.113 ~ ....... ~ COMPARISON PRIMARY ALLOCATION PLANS [FY 1994-95 Final & FY 1995-96 Tentative) lin Thousands of Dollars) PROGRAM FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98~99 FY 99-00 TOTAL 1-64: Upgrade (1) - System 20: Extended (1) - Replacement (t) - 200 700 ~ 900 29: Widening- Rio Road 29: Widening- S. Fork Rivanna to 1,170 300 1,315 560 1,840 700 3,429 i 900 4,161 2,000 H,9151 4,460 29: Bddge Replacement (2) - 200 500 800 ~,000 800 0 3,300, 29: Interchanges (3) 2,000 _1,09_ 0_ ~ ,900 5,692 4,965 14,65 0 29 (south): Bridge i- _ Crossovers (1) 40 ~ 0 40 (1) New projects in FY 1995-2001 Plan (2) Project separated from '29 Widening - $, Fork Rivanna to Airport Road* in FY 1995-2000 Plan (3) Project dropped in FY 1995-2001 Plan COUNTY OF ALBEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: May 1995 Financial Report SUB JE CT/PROPOSAIdRE QUEST: May 1995 Financial Report for the General and School Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters June 28, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Attached is the May 31, 1995 Monthly Financial Report for the General and School Funds. Projected General Fund revenues were last revised as of March 31. Projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time Projected School revenues are based on the May School Financial Report. Projected School expenditures are based on the May School Finaucial Report. ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X RECOMMENDATION: Staffreenmmends the acceptance of the May 1995 Financial Report. 95MAYRPT.WPD 95.109 J~ 0.-< --Im 0~ c,.--I Z i'1'1 0 '11 ,-,n itl ITl Z Cfi © X I1"1 Z CD ~00~ Om~c~Z°O~~ ~ ~mo ~ ~ mO~ m × ~o z ~Q z m X Z .-4 --~ -H Z .< 0 ~-c ~ °mm~z Z m cO~J c x ~ ~ -- KS ~ m 0~ ~m~ O~ mz ~r ~ 0 m z rn ITl Z 0 0~" ~ 0 m ~ ~z~C~m~ ',~o ~ 0 ~q~q ~m ~ ~o~ < o~ ~ m: ~z~ m ~m_ I m ~m uz ~ z~ ~ ~0 m ~ 0 ~ o 0 m ~ m m ~ ~ O~ 0 ~0 0 0 ~0 ~ 0 ~00 0 ~ ~0 ~ ~oo o ~ ~ Zm EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA 'ITrLE: Magistrate's Office/Juvenile Court Electronic Monitoring ;UBJECT/PROPO SAL/RE QUEST: Staff update on the Magistrate's Office move and electronic monitoring for the Juvenile Court. AGENDA DATE: July 5, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITAF~ CONTACT: rucker, White INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ REVIEWED BY: Magistrate's Office: ffyou have not already heard, the Chief Maglstrato's Office has moved into new quarters on Water Street adjacent to the Hardware Store Restaurant entrance as of Thursday, June 29. This was a necessary move forced by the current landlord's demand for a substantial increase in the monthly rent. Alternative suitable space has been difficult to secore, due to the lack of affordable and ADA access~le locations in the City with adequate parking for citizens, and more importantly for police vehicles. Although the accessibility issues have been solved, to remedy the parking and safety issues staff is recommending using video cunferencing equipment between the magistrate's office and the jail. Although the equipment has ant been purchased yet, when installed it will allow both county and city police officers to take prisoners dkectly to the joint security complex and book them interactively with the magistrate using the teleconferencing unit for identification and signed verifications forms. Both police departments are extremely supporlive of this arrangement, since it substaatially reduces the danger of taking prisoners in and out of vehicles at the magaStrato's office, as well as the security issues within the magistrate's office itself Initial estimates for the equipment range from $20,000 to $30,000 for each jurisdiction depending on leasing or purchasing anangements. Staff will be bringing back a final estimate and a request for an appropriation for this equipment sometime in the next month or so. Because of the parking limitations and the lmbHc safety issues, this equipment will hopefully be installed within 60 days and will ultimately be a cost e~i¢iant and benefic'ml use of new technology. Juvenile Court Electronic Monitorin2 At the request of Judge Beny (see attached letter), dlscnssions have been underway for several months between City and County staff and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Service Unit to begin using cleelxonic monitoring for juvenile offenders as a more effective way of monitoring "house atxest", as well as an alternative to using critical and expensive space at the Juvenile Detention Home. The initial agreement with the service company, Tracking Systems Corporation, is to lease 15 units. The units, which can electronically monitor a tightly secured ankle band within a distance of 150 feet, are linked through the phone system to a monitoring service located in Harrisburg, Pa. The service maintains a log of the juveinle's activity throughout the day and night and sends a daily fa~ report to the juvenile court office. Immediate contact with the Juvenile Court Service Unit is made ff the juvenile veers from the schedule and loses eontnet with the monitoring device. The units rent for g6.50 per day, although charges occur only when the devices are acoJally being used. Since the extent of the usage and accompanying costs are unlmown at this time, Juvenile Corot staff will begin using the devices at the discretion of the judges and will begin to charge within their current budget when a monitoring device is used for a County or City juvenile. A quarterly report will notify both the city and county of their respective usage and costs to date. If usage is extensive, a mid-year appropriation may become necessary ff the Juvenile Court budget looks like it will be overspent. Staff will also be monitoring the cost savings of these units compared to daily costs for the juvenile detention facility. -w~- RECOMMENDATION; This sununary is prepared for the Board's information and requires no action. MAGIUV.SAM 95.116 JUg 3 0 ' -~ OF Jannene L. Shannon, Judge Edwa~ DeJ. Berry, Judge FmnkW. Some~ille. Judge ALBEMARLE42~RLOTTESVILLE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT 411 E. HIGH STI~EET CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902-5192 TELEPHONE 804-979-7165 Anne E Patten Clerk TDD Users Call: 1-800-828-1120 March 13, 1995 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Bxecutive COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Mr. Cole Hendrix City Manager C~TY OF~CHAP~LO~TESVILLE ~ P. O. Box 9~1 _:- _ · Charlottesville, ~irgi-nia 2290~ ~.~-- Gentlemen: I am writing to you as a follow-up on the progress of implementation of an electronic monitoring system to be used by the Juvenile Court. Several recent cases have made it clear that our present sysmem of "house arrest" is not effective. Without an effective means to monitor "house arrest" we may be forced to only consider detention when "house arrest" may be the mos% 5ppropriate solution. Our main problem ms the lack of supervision of the ]uvenile. There are many valid reasons for the lack of supervision of the offender, e. g. large caseloads, poor cooperation from parents, working parents, but in any case our "house arrest" is not effective. With an effective monitoring systems, we would be alerted %o a violation as it is happening. Detention space ms critical. We, at the court, feel that electronic monitoring is a practical alternative to detention ink,many cases. Wi~h fewer children being detained, a savings in !'operammon" cost is realized as well as freeing up space ao be ten%ed by ot~er jurisdictions that can be used to defray costs further. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Mr. Cole Hendrix March 13, 1995 -2- Jr. I wish I could report to you that the current situatmon was lessening in intensity, but from our vantage point I see little relief; instead I see a growing need. I think I can safely say that Juvenile Court will continue to be a busy place. Ye believe the electronic monitoring system will arrest" a viable alternative to detention in a number of cases. make "house significann I do want to thank you for the way in which you have always responded to this court's needs. We appreciate the support you have given to us and look forward to continued good working relations with you. ap cc: Very truly yours, Edward DeJ. BarrY, Chief Judg~ \ Ms. Roxanne White Executive Assistant COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia Ms. Linda Peacock Budget Administrator CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 22902 Acme Tel: 804-823-4351 Fax: 804-823-1625 Deeign Technology, Co. June 23, 1995 1000 Aliview Drive, Crozet, VA 22932 Ms. Ella W. Carey Clerk of Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclndre Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: The following is Acme Design TechnologT, Co.'s May 1995 operating results: Sales 6[ Flarketlng Our May bookings were slightly over our 1995 plan. Our shipments were slightly over our plan. Note the following charts for detailed performance to plan and last year: FlAY 1995 BOOKINGS Products Plan Actual Variance $ 6~000 $ 2,191 $ 65,000 $ 64,453 $ 40,000 $ 22,060 $385,000 $496,878 $ 20,000 $ 15,369 $200,000 $122,531 DataVue ($ 3,809) (63.5%) Visible Steel ($ 547) (0.8%) Product Service ($ 17,940) (44.9%) Storage Products $111,878 29.1% Freight/Miscellaneous ($ 4,631) (23.2%) OEM ($ 77,469) (38.7%) Totals $716,000 $723,482 $ 7,487 1.1% MAY 1995 BOOKINGS YEAR-TO-DATE Products Plan Actual Variance DataVue S 29,000 $ 27,555 ($ 1,445) (5.0%) Visible Steel $ 345,000 $ 297,035 ($ 47,965) (13.9%) Product Service $ 205,000 $ 151,800 ($ 53,200) (26.0%) Storage Products $1,800,000 $1,559,4~-7 ($240,553) (13.4%) Freight/Miscellaneous $ 85,000 S 83,017 ($ 1,983) (2.3%) OEM $ 825,000 $ 458,252 ($366,748) (44.5%) Totals $3,289,000 $2, S77,106 ($711,894) (21.7%) FIVE lqONTHS 94 VS. FIVE MONTHS 95 (BOOKINGS) Products 5 Mo. 94 5 Mo. 95 Variance DataVue $ 25,894 $ 27,5S5 $ 1,661 6.4% Visible Steel $ 240,779 $ 297,035 $ 56~256 23.4% Product Service $ 167,128 $ 151,800 ($ 15,328) (9.2%) Storage Products $1,377,365 $1,559,447 $182,082 13.2% Freight/Miscellaneous $ 70,943 $ 83,017 $ 12,074 17.0% OEM $ 591:011 $ 458,252 ($1:32,759) (22.5%) Totals $2,473,120 $2,577,106 $10:3,986 4.2% STORAGE PRODUCTS MONTHLY QUOTE LOG SUMMARY MAY 1995 ENDING Amount Total Outstanding Quotes Dated 5/31/95 297 Total Budgetary 7 Total Quotes Won 40 Total Quotes Lost 11 Remaining Quotes Outstanding 246 Orders Received Not Quoted by Acme/Crozet 34 Dollar Value $4,520,122 $1~102,307 $ 156,042 S 99,809 $4,264,271 $ ! 75,O23 OUTSTANDING QUOTES - PENDING CLOSING DATE 0-30 31-60 61-90 120 Days a: Over $623,931 $1,831,793 $818,575 $989~973 OEH QUOTES PENDING City of New York, Metropolitan Museum Arc Cabinet U. S. Postal Service, Metal Flat 6: Letter Racks, CA Knoll International, Inc. Cabinets (5-Drawer) $ 239,528 $ 763,673 $2,866,122 Total: $3,869,323 Our storage product performance was better in May than it has been all year. I look for this trend to continue. Our OEM performance is poor to plan. We just cannot close the big orders. I am working to sign up a couple of people to represent us in the marketplace. Manufacturing, Materials ~z Equipment The factory again in Nay ran fairly well. We are falling behind because we have short cycled some orders because of our early shortfall in bookings. Our material position is good. I continue to have concern on all the price increases we are receiving. Engineering ~: Quality Engineering work load remains very high. With our quote activity so high, it takes away time we would be spending on engineering proiects. Quality is very high. I believe it is truly our most valued asset. As stated earlier, our performance to plan is poor. Many reasons for the shortfall: (1) Figgie's work load is way down because of their losses last year and they are in the process of being sold. Figgie accounts for about $40,000 of our shortfall. (2) PSSI shipments have been excellent this year but new bookings are very light from them as the market is soft for them. They have not been able to establish any new customers. Next month I will address how this is being corrected. Financials Our over-90-day accounts increased in May: iys: 0-30 31-60 61-90 91-999 Total $63S,647 $ 457,082 $98,161 $239,035 $1,429,925 44.4% 32.0% 6.9% 16.7% 100% Note Attachment A for complete details of the major over-90-day accounts. Sincerely, ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. Thomas D. Hall President ahd Enclosures ATTACHiqENT A May 31, 1995 1. Absolute Filing Solutions 2. Alpha Systems 3. Commercial Products Company 4. Convert-A-File 5. Hagiazo-Sys~emadc Storage 6. LFI Associates 7. Medical Forms st Equipment 8. New England Visible 9. Osborne Office Systems $19,935 $10,520 $21,352 $64,612 $64,239 $ 5,353 $ 5,699 $ 5,509 $29,891 Former master distributor. Will get this down this year, Turned over to collection agency. Have personal guarantee. Has been turned over to a collection agency. Suit in process. Claims to be waiting for payment from their customer. Judgment issued for Acme. Earning 10% interest. Slow pay. Turned over to collection. Judgment issued by court. Working on repayment plan. Received first payment. $1000/month plus commissions. Will work out. We have picked up product from this account that has not been credited as yet. Will not cover total due Acme. 10. Star Production Services $ 9,305 11. Weissman-Heller, Inc. $13,300 Slow pay. *Sub Total: $249,715 104.5% Judgment issued for $16,000. Grand Total: $239,033 100% *Sub Total is higher than the Grand Total because the grand total has credits reflected that may be written off. ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE Pursuant to the Security Agreement dated as of January 28, 1993, and as -mended as of August 19, 1994 (the "Agreement") between ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO., (the "Company") and NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, N3L, the undersigned officer of the Company hereby cerises as follows: The Company is in compliance with all terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement that are binding upon the Company. Compliance with the financial covenants as o£the statement dated Ma~ 37 ~ 7995 iS outlinedbelow: (a) Quick Ratio. M,int,i- a ratio of (i) cash plus accounts receivable to (ii) Current Liabilities o£not less than 1.0 to 1.0 as of the end of the Fiscal Month ending July 31, 1994, and at all ~mes thereafter. Cash $ Accounts Receivable +7,278,853 Total $ ~,324,~04 Current Liabilities $ ~,~39,37~ Ratio: ~. ~ 6 Current Ratio. M,intain a ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities of not less than 1.9 to 1.0 as of the end of the Fiscal Month en~i-g July 31, 1994, and at all times thereafter. Current Assets Current Liabilities $.2,439.8~1 $ 7~139~37~ Ratio: 2. ~ 4 Leverage Ratio. M,intain a ratio of Senior Indebtedness to Adjusted Tangible Net Worth as of the last day of each Fiscal Quarter, of not more than the ratio set forth opposite such Fiscal Quarter. Fiscal Quarter Ending ~al~o 9/30/94 3.25 to 1.0 12/31/94 3.25 to 1.0 3/31/95 3.00 to 1.0 6/30/95 9/30/95 12/31/95 3/31/96 and each Fiscal Quarter end thereafter Total Liabilities SuborJ~- ated Debt Total 2.75 to 1.0 2.50 to 1.0 2.25 to 1.0 2.0 to 1.0 2~367~737 525~000 7,836,737 Net Worth $ 527,922 Intangibles s0,547 Subordinated Debt + 525.000 Adj. Tang. NetWorth $ 966,387 Ratio: 7.90 Debt Service Ratio. Not permit its Debt Service Ratio for any period set forth below, ending on the last day of each Fiscal Quarter to be less than the rat/o set forth opposite such period: Applicable Period 7/1/94 to 12/31/94 1/1/95 to 3/31/95 1/1/95 to 6/30/95 1/1/95 to 9/30/95 1/1/95 to 12/31/95 1/1/96 to 3/31/96 and each respective 6-Fiscal Month, 9-Fiscal Month, 12-Fiscal Month and 3-Fiscal-Month Period thereafter beg~u~n g on the first day of the Fiscal Year and ending on the last day of each Fiscal Quarter Ratio 1.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 1.15 to 1.0 1.30 to 1.0 1.30 to 1.0 Net Income Depreciation & Amort. + 43,167 Other Noncash Charges + o Other Noncash Credits v Cash Flow $ 218,216 ~ 775,049 C1V]LTD $ 711,783 Cap. Lease Pymts + 694 Fixed Charges $ ?~2,477 Ratio: ~] . 94 Capital Expenditures. Not make or permit any Subsidiary to make Consolidated Capital Expenditures at any time during the respective applicable periods set forth below, ff the Consolidated Capital Expenditures would exceed the smount set forth opposite each such applicable period. Applicable Period 1/1/94 - 12/31/94 and each calendar year thereafter Amount $50,000 Applicable Period: 1/~/95 - 5/3~/95 Net Fixed Assets at start of period: Net Fixed Assets at end of period: Depreciation changed during period: Capital Expenditures during period $ 37~,205 '348.206 + 3~t795 $ 8,796 Tangible Net Worth. Maintain a Tangible Net Worth as of September 30, 1994 and December 31, 1994, of not less than the -mount set forth opposite such date. Date September 30, 1994 December31, 1994 Required Actual $199,000 ~ 799,042 $249,000 $ 254,960 The representations and warranties of the Company set forth in the Agreement and all representations and warranties which are contsined in any certificate, document, or fi~ancial or other statement furnished pursuant to or in connection with the Agreement are true and correct on and as of the date hereof with the same effect as ffmads on the date hereof. The Borrowing Base (as defined in the Agreement) as of Ma~ al, 1995 calculated in accordance with the Agreement, is shown on the Schedule ~uuexed hereto and the Borrowing Base is equal to or exceeds to aggregate principal ~mount of the Tern Loan outstandiug to the Company pursuant to the Agreement. ~~.~_~, ~ Thomas D. Hall ~e: President Dated: June 23, 1995 ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY, CO. Schedule to Borrowing Base Certificate Computations are as of . 5/3~/95 COMPUTATION OF NET SECURITY VALUE OF INVENTORY ISVFENTORY (valued at lower of cost or FMV at FIFO) $. 96'5,020.25 LESS: Inventory charged off or written down as unsaleable $(. Other unqualified Inventory ELIGIBLE INVENTORY $ 965,020.25 .5O NET SECURITY VALUE INVENTORY $ 482,5~0.~3 II. COMPUTATION OF NET SECURITY VALUE OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL ACCOUNTS LESS: Affiliate or Employee Accounts Accounts not Invoiced Accounts more than 90 days past due Disputed Accounts .Insolvent Debtor Accounts Foreign Accounts Consignment Accounts Government Accounts Unshipped Accounts 'Other unqualified Accounts ELIGIBLE ACCOUNTS NET SECURITY VALUE - ACCOUNTS $ 1~429~922.64 · $ ~. 239.032.78 ) 5( 5(. ) $(. ) $(. ) $( ) $ (, $(, .; $ ~90~889.86 X. .75 $, 893r167.40 5(. ) $(. ) III. BORROWING BASE VALUE Net Security Value - Inventory $ 482,510.13 Net Security Value - Accounts $ 893~67.40 Total Net Security'Value $ ~,375,677.53 TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4E,~S0.S9 40i4~8.4~ 4,8~.17 30,936.57 14,314.0E 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,3S8,469.43 71,453.E3 ],E6S,766.98 164~1SS.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1S1,069.~8) 0.00 (147,64S.44} (3~4E4.E4) 0,00 0.00 0.00 ~.00 ~,E78,SEE.66 I ,E07,399.45 7'1,453.R1 ! ,'104,080.89 174,771 INVENTORY FINISHED DOODS FINISHED PARTS UORK IN PROCESS RAN HATERIALS FACTORY SUPPLIES CAPITALIZED INDIRECT COSTS INVENTORY CONTRA ACCOUNT TOTAL INVENTORY EO7,6E7.E6 ~09,EOS.E4 (1,£TS.gD) 17Eo~74.50 3~,353.06 OTHER CURRENT ASSETS ADVACES TO EffPLQYEES 1,650.00 TRANSPORTATION CLAIMS 0.00 OTHER RECEIVABLES 33,833.19 NOTE RECV - RELATED PARTY 0.00 NOTE RECV - CUSTOHER 0.00 NOTE RECV - EMPLOYEES 0.00 INTEREST RECV-RELATED PRTY 0.00 DEFERRED INCOME TAXES 66j000.00 101,483.1~ TOTAL OTHER CURRENT ASSETS 1,650.00 0.00 3,300.00 (l~SEO.O0) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,395.67 437.EE ~8,896.7~ 4~936.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.~0 O,O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6~000.00 0.00 66~000.00 0.00 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS For Periods Ending HAY 199S Rcme Design Technology Co. BALANC~ SHEET This Period Last Period Change From Last Yea~ Change From NOTES RECV - RELATED PARTIES 0.00 0.00 PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT LAND 0.00 0.00 IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND O.OO 0.00 BUILDINGS 0.00 0.00 LEASEHOLD IMPROVEhENTS SoO00,O0 S~O00.O0 TOTAL FIXED ASSETS - COST ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION NET FIXED ASSET~ 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 5~000.00 0.00 0.00 4El~66R.98 3,394.E4 OTHER ASSETS PREPAID INSURANCE PREPAID RENT OTHER PREPAID EXPENSES PATENTS LESS AHORTIZAT[ON DEFERRED ORGANIZATION EXPENS OTHER DEFERRED EXPENSES TOTAL OTHER ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Page CURRENT LIABILITIES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TRADE PAYABLES PAYROLL W.B. FEDERAL PAYROLL W.H. STATE ~ LOCAL SALES TAX OTHER ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DEFERRED INCOME -' SERVICE DEFERRED INCOME - PENSION DEFERRED INCOME - OTNER TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ACCRUED EXPENSE8 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 180~000.00 180,000.00 0.00 ~07,615.00 (E7,615.00) 8,964.10 8,863.40 100.70 8,4~1.7S 54~.38 11~48~.S~ 111,984.~3 498.0B 89,599.69 E~,88~.S6 301.446.3S 300,847.63 B98.TB 30S,636.41 [4,190.06) 1,044,51S. ! 0 94,8S~3.67 I, 07~, SES.~5 68,814.22 Page LONG TERM DEBT NATIONS BANK - NOTE #~ FIXED NATIONS BANK - NOTE #B LINE VA. ECONOMIC DEV. AUT.~VRLF YEDCORP INC. OBLIGATIONS-CAPITAL LEASES NOTES PAYABLE-OTHER LONG TERM TOTAL LONG TERH DEBT DEFERRED INCOME TAX CAPITAL COMMON STOCK DEBENTURES PAYABLE PAID IN SURPLUS RETAINED EARNINGS-BEGIN PERIOD ~ET INCOME TOTAL CAPITAL 1,~1,765.83 1,~48,494.3E (~3,7E8.EE) 1,366,4~E SO (t44,7a6.67) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EO,O00,O0 EO,O00.O0 0.00 EO,O00.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1E8,000.00 (18E~O00.O0) 480,000.00 480,000.00 0.00 480,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 SO0,O00.O0 0.00 6~S,000.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY E,883,0SS.RT E,?S6,SS7.8S 9&,~OO.4E ~,804,001 83 79,0~6.44 Page DescPiptIo~ Current Per~od Pc( GROSS SALES RETURNS & ALLOWANCES COMMISSIONS NET SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS PROFIT SALES. MARKETING, & ADVRTISING GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE INCENTIVES & PROFIT SNARING 630,i15.71 (104,77) 5,354.82 (0.89) ~3~3E~.00 (3.88) 601,438.89 (lO0.OO) Current Period Compared to Budget and Pr(or Year For per~ods MAY 199E thru HAY (99E Acme Design Technology Co. INC0ME STATEMENT Budget to Budget 0.00 485,037.38 Page 1 0.00 538,484,48 (17.0~) 0.00 8,819.80 (34.85) 0.00 6,4~4.04 263.04 0.00 E~3.840.64 (14.81) 0.00 419,401.53 16.60 0.00 104,439.11 (7.6~) 0.00 39~68E.75 0:00 30,303.37 30.96 O.OO 43,037.98 0.00 43,595.61 (1.E8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8E,7~3.73 0.00 73,898.~8 11.94 NET OPERATING INCOHE INTEREST EXPENSE OTHER INCOHE OR EXPENSE INCOME TAXES NET INCOME ~9,677.78 (4.93) 0.00 E9,677.78 0.00 30 540.13 ~,8S 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~5,373.E7 (4.~E) 0.00 ~5,373.~? 0.00 ~3,~8T.33 (8.96) NET SALES PURCHASED FOR RESALE-COST 0.00 HATER[ALS FACTORY BURDEN PROOUCT SUROEN 13,734.66 INSTALLATION COSTS 601.438.89 (100.00) 0.00 601,438.89 0.00 5~3,840.64 (14.811 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.O~ 0,~0 9.00 (~9.61) 0.00 178,073,R3 0.00 183~874.47 43.75 COST OF GOODS SOLO GROSS HAROIN 160,511.03 TOTAL OTHER FACTORY EXPENSES GROSS PROFIT 0,00 (5~0.8S) 0.00 40,886.51 (101.~7) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47~809.5~ (7.95) O. O0 47~609.5P- 0.00 8,6,631 .97 (44.81) FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT SALARY 46,113.0~ (T.671 0,00 46~113.0~ 0.00 39,938.78 OTHER COMPENSATION 4,96S.E9 10.83) 0.00 4~9&8,~9 0.00 4,968.~9 0.00 OTHER EHPLOYEE COSTS 110.00 (O.OE) 0.00 110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FACTORY SUPPLIES 18,390.11 [3.061 0,00 16~390.11 0.00 14,449.36 ~7.~7 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1~893.14 10.311 0.00 1,893.14 0.00 I~637,97 1S,58 DPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 8,11~.94 11.3~} 0.00 8,11~.94 0.00 8,S04.13 ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE SALES, MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALARIES - MANAGEMENT TOTAL EXPENSE 39,633.25 (6.59) 0. O0 39,633.E5 O. O0 30, ]0].37 ]0.79 OFFICER'S SALARIES 8,846.17 OFFICE SALARIES 14,873.68 OVERTIME PREMIUM 0.00 0.00 PAYROLL TAXES 1,853.07 (0.31) INSURANCE - EMPLOYEES I,E89.B~ PENSIONS 0.00 0.00 OTHER EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 0.00 0.00 LEGAL & AUDIT 4,000.00 (0.67) OFF[CE EXPEHSES 6~8.19 (0.10) DEPRECIATION ~51.09 (O.O4) TOTAL EXPENSES Current Period Compared to Budget and PPioP Year Page ~.00 0.00 0.00 73.50 (100.00) 0.00 1,5B9.88 0,00 I~BEg.SB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 O.O0 6,~7.B9 (35.SS) O.O0 6E8,1~ 0.00 334.4B 87.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ISO.O0 0.00 BO0,O0 (70,00) 0.00 6~B.64 0.00 1,078.74 (41.7E) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~47,~8 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43,037.98 (7.161 0.00 43,03'/.98 0.00 43,55~.61 (1 .~8) 06/16/95 ~:S6:28 massie Curpent Period Compared to Budget ann Prlop YeaP Page Descplptlo~ Cuprent Period Pct Budget to Budget Percent This Period Last Year INTEREST EXPENSE INTEREST EXPENSE PARENT INTEREST EXPENSE - VISA INTEREST EXPENSE BANKS IHTEREST EXPENSE CAPTL LEASE OTHER INTEREST EXPENSE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fl. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE INTEREST INCONE PARENT INTEREST iNCOME MONEY MARKET INTERESI INCOME OTHER CAPITAL GAINS CAPITAL LOSSES RENTAL INCOME INVESTMENT EXPENSE BANK FEES RESTRUCTURING EXPENSE MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (43.78) 0.01 0.00 (43.78) 0.00 (8.30) 427.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 iT, lBO.B3) 1.19 0.00 (7,1E0,53) 0.00 (4,400.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 344.93 (0.06) 0.00 344.93 0.00 509.0~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 (360.ES) 0.06 0.00 (360.2S) 0,00 0.00 0.00 (7,~09.63) 1.20 0.00 (70R09.63) 0.00 (3~899.28) 84.90 Current Period Compared Fo Budget end Prior Year Page Description Current Period Pet Budget ~o Budget Percent This Period Last Year PRINT COSTS DIRECT LABOR 0,0~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0o00 0.00 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT SALARY O.O0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INDIRECT LABOR 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OVERTIME PREHIUM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER COMPENSATION 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 PAYROLL TAXES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PENSIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FACTORY SUPPLIES 5~.B0 [0.01) 0.00 5~.~6 0.00 R6.13 I00.00 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OUTSIDE SERVICES O.OO O.OO O.O0 O.OO O.O0 0.00 0.00 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSURANCE OTHER 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 TAXES 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UTILITIES 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TELEPHONE 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RENTAL OF [QUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 RENTAL OF BUILDIN~ 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURBEN REDISTRIBUTED 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENGINEERING SUPPORT 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UARRANTY COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 LOSSES & ERRORS 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MISCELLANEOUS 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NET DELIVERY COST~ 0.00 0 O0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES E~,R6 (0.04) 0.00 E~.R6 0.00 R6.13 ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE STEEL FASR]CATIDN COSTS DIRECT LABOR 67,863.67 FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT SALARY 0.00 0.00 INDIRECT LABOR 0.00 0.00 OVERTIME PRE~IUH E,:061.~ OTHER COMPENSATION 3,801.86 PAYROLL TAXES 4oS4S.30 EHPLOYEE INSURANCE 7~889.8B PENSIONS 0.00 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS ~.00 0.00 FACTORY SUPPLIES 8,187.83 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1~813.1I (0.~0) OUTS[DE SERVICES 3~O.OO (0.06) DEPRECIATION ~ AMORTIZATION 0.00 0.00 ]NBURANCE OTHER 0.00 0.00 TAXES 0.00 O.O0 UTILITIES 0.00 0.00 TELEPHONE 0.00 O.0O RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT 3S.BB (0.01) RENTAL OF BUILDING 0.00 0.00 TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT 0.00 0.00 BURDEN REDISTRIBUTED 0.00 0.00 ENGINEERING SUPPORT 0.00 0.00 ~ARRANTY COSTS O.OO 0,00 LOSSES & ERRORS 0.00 0.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,:0E6.71 (O.BO) NET DELIVERY COSTS 0.00 0.00 TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES Cu~pent Period Compaped to Budget and Pptop yeep FOp peptods NAY 199S thpu NAY 199B Ac~e Design Technology Co. Page B 0.00 67,863.67 0.00 61,668.8B 10.0S 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,174.5;0 (S.0:0) 0.00 30~174.B0 0.00 31,54:°.64 (4.34) ACTUAL BURDEN ~PPLIED BURDEN ~ANUFACTURING VARIANCE 98,038.~7 (16.30) 0.00 98,038.17 0.00 93,:01t.5B 5.lB (11B,04:0.851 18.&3 0.00 (11:0,04:0.8~) 0.00 (101,409.99) 10.49 MANUFACTURING OVERHEAD COSTS DIRECT LABOR FACTORY EXPENSES TOTAL FACTORY EXPENBES Current Period Compape~ :o Budget and Prior Year O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 0.00 0,00 (3.80) 0.00 (0.18) 0.00 (0.97) 0.00 (0.61) 0.00 0.00 0.00 [0.0~) 0.00 (1.67) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (1.56) 0.00 (I.35) 0.00 (0,4~) 0,00 (3.88) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.0~) 0.00 [~.36) 0.00 (0.0~) 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.04) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (O.IB) 0.00 (0.~3) 0.00 143,303.55 Page 9 This Period Last Year 0.00 0.00 3~,675.67 0.00 ~6,639,33 ~R.66 R~,846.73 0.00 19a55~.54 16.S5 740,98 0.00 745.S6 (0.61) 0.00 143,303,BB 0.00 ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE 143,303.55 (~3.83) 0.00 143,302.55 0.00 140,585.~8 0.50 Description Current Per[od Pet PRODUCT SERVICE COSTS DIRECT LABOR 0.00 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT SALARY 7,952,68 (I.32) INDIRECT LABOR 0.00 O.O0 OVERTIME PREMIUH 0.00 0.00 OTHER COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 PAYROLL TAXES 650.19 10.112 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE 85~.19 PENSIONS 0.00 0.00 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS D.O0 0.00 FACTORY SUPPLIES B2.90 (0.01) REPAIRS & HAINTENANCE 0.00 0.00 OUTSIDE SERVICES 4,075.1~ I0.66) DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 0.00 0.00 INSURANCE OTHER 41.04 (O.Ol) TAXES 0.00 0.00 UTILITIB$ 0.00 0.00 TELEPHONE i49.46 (0.02) RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT O.O0 0.00 RENTAL OF BUILDING 0,00 0.00 TRAVEL & ENTERTAINNENT 106.07 BURDEN REDISTRIBUTED 0.00 0.00 ENGINEERING SUPPORT 0.00 0.00 WARRANTY COSTS 0.00 0.00 LOSSES & ERRORS 0.00 0.00 MISCELLANEOUS 44.00 (O,Oi) NET DELIVERY COSTS 0.00 0.00 CurPent Period CompaPed to Budget and Pr[or Year Page 10 Budget to Budget Pepcent This Period Last Year 0.00 0.~0 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 7~9EB.68 0.00 8,053.S4 0.00 0,00 O.OO O.O0 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 177.4~ 1100,00) 0,00 0.00 0,00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 650.19 0.00 914.09 (E8.87) 0.00 8BR.19 0.00 8BB.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0,00 5B.90 O.O0 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.O0 4,075.13 0.00 4~265.47 (4.46) 0.00 0,00 O,O0 .0.00 0.00 0.00 41,04 0.00 41,04 0.00 O.O0 0.00 O,OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 149.46 0.00 494.30 (69.76) 0.00 0.00 ~,O0 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $06.07 0.00 2,701.48 196.07~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 ~.00 33.78 (100.00) 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 0.00 362.59 187.87) 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 O.OO TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COSTS DIRECT LABOR FACTORY EXPENSES I~0IRECY SALARY INOIRECT LABOR OVERTIME PREMIUM OTHER COMPENSATION - PAYROLL TAXES EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PENSIONS OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS FACTORY SUPPLIES REPAIRS & HAINTERANCE OUTSIDE SERVICES DEPRECIATION & A~ORTIEATION INSURANCE OTHER TAXES UTILITIES TELEPHONE RENTAL OF EGUIPMENT RENTAL OF BUILDING TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT SURDEN REDISTRIBUTE~ ENGINEERING SUPPORT ~ARRANTY COSTS LOSSES & ERRORS HI$CELLANEOUS NET DELIVERY COSTS TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9S.EO lO.OS) 0.00 98.20 0.00 98,~0 0.00 Descnlption Cunnent Period Pct Budget to Budget Pencent This Peniod Last Year GROSS SALES RETURNS & ALLOWANCES COHHISSIONS NET SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS PROFIT SALES, MARKETING, & ADVRTISING GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE INCENTIVES & PROFIT SHARING OPERATING EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME INTEREST EXPENSE OTHER INCOHE OR EXPENSE INCOME TAXES NET INCOME NET SALES PURCHASED FOR RESALE-COST MATERIALS FACTORY BURDEN PRODUCT BURDEN INSTALLATION COSTS COST OF GOODS SOLD GROSS MARGIN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE PURCHASED MATERIAL VARIANCE VARIANCE TO STANDARD DISCOUNT ALLOCATION SCRAP SALES INTERIM INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT PHYSICAL INVENTORY ADJUSTMENT CAPITALIZES INVY INDIRECT COST TOTAL OTHER FACTORY EXPENSES 170,823.47 (5.905 0.00 GROSS PROFIT Description Current Period Pct Budget to Budget Percent This Period Last Year DIRECT LABOR 313.494.13 (10,83) 0.00 313.494.13 0,00 ~76,6SB,£9 t3.50 FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT SALARY B18.803.6~ (7.56) 0.00 ~IS,B05.6~ O.O0 180,975.11 ~0.90 TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE l, 0~9,896,84 (35.59) 0.00 1,0~9,896.84 0,00 910,897~B0 13.66 1,34],390.97 ¢46.4:::') 0.00 { ,343,390.97 0.00 I, 187,586.19 13. I~ 1,183~ 157.60 (40.88) 0.00 '{, 18], 157.60 0.00 974,093.7~ l&O~ B33.37 (B.541 0.00 { 6 O, E.~33.37 0.00 E~13,49{~. 47 SALARIES - MANAGEMENT SALARIES - SALESHEN SALARIES - CLERICAL OVERTIME PREMIUM OFFICE SUPPLIES OUTSIDE SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSE Current Pepiod Compared to Budget Fop periods JANUARY 109B thru HAY Acme Design Technology Co. INCOME 2TATEMENT and PriDe Yea~ 199S This Period Last Yea~ 74,367.07 (2.27) 0.00 74,367.07 0.00 E7,968,06 2B,~9 7,061.48 (0.243 0.00 7.061,48 0.00 7,205.~3 (2.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.37 (100,00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 9,E62.62 (0.33) 0.00 9,56~.68 0.00 8,18B.06 16.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,834.40 (0.24) 0.00 6,834.40 0.00 6,7~4.40 ~.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 B,500,O0 (0.09) 0.00 ~,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~,667.00 {0.78) 0.00 2E,667.00 0.00 ~0,000.00 13.34 4,400.00 (0.15) 0.00 4,400.00 0.00 5,065,00 (13.13) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1~5.44 0.00 0.00 122.44 0.00 74.10 69,B8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1,696.66 (0,061 0.00 1,696.66 0.00 1,705.90 (0.54) 118.00 0,00 0.00 {18.00 0.00 75.00 57.33 0.00 0,00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 24,00 1100.001 339.65 (0.011 0.00 3~g.6E 0.00 339.65 0.00 1,111.00 (0,041 0.00 1,111.00 0.00 1,014.70 9.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 757.10 (0.03) 0.00 727.10 0.00 875,34 (13.5i] 186,806.E~ 16.461 0.00 186,806.5~ 0.00 149,264.87 ~4.90 O&/{6/SS 3:28:03 massie Current Period Compared to Budget and P~io~ Year Page Fo~ pePtods JANUARY 1995 th~u MAY 199B DescripTion Cu~renz PePiod Pc{ Budget to Budget Percent This Period Las1 Year GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SALARIES 6S,4S~.78 (~.37) 0.00 68,48E.78 0.00 70,~46.10 OVERTIME PREMIUM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4(4.7~ ({00.00) INSURANCE ~ EMPLOYEES 7~&49.10 (0.~6) 0.00 7°649.{0 0.00 7,649,{0 0,00 PENSIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 OTHER EHPLOYEE EXPENSES {10.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 OFFICE EXPENSES 1,6~7.3~ (0.06) 0.00 1.657.3~ ~.00 1,~90.84 28.39 DEPRECIATION 1~111.00 (0.04) 0.00 1,111.00 0.00 1,014.70 9,49 INSURANCE - SENERAL 1~,671.08 (0.66) 0.00 19,~71.08 0.00 7,408.3~ 16B.53 TAXES, FRANCHISES & LICENSES {,460.00 (O.OS) 0.00 1,460.00 0.00 110.00 TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT 347,19 (0.01) 0.00 347.19 0.00 ~8.30 TELEPHONE 0,~08.86 (0.~} 0.00 &,~OS.B& 0.00 6,497.74 OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,497.B7 (O.1R) 0.00 3.497,~7 0.00 S,80~.4£ ~4.7S DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 179.97 (0.0{) 0.00 {79.97 O.O0 631.00 (71.48) OUTSIDE SERVICES 4,(71.R7 (0,{4) 0.00 4~1~1.~7 0.00 10,8~6.49 (61.47) RENTAL OF AUTOS 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 BUILDING OCCUPANCY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 DONATIONS 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 63~.00 ({00.00) DIRECTORS FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BAD DEB~ EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,7S6.30 ({00.00) CHARGE TO ACME SEELY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL EXPENSES ~1 ~.,'~B. 85 (7,48) 0,00 ~16,3E8.85 0.00 :~17,7S9.94 (0.66) Acme Design Technology Co. INCOHE STATEMENT Page 6 INTEREST EXPENSE INTEREST EXPENSE PARENT 0.00 INTEREST EXPENSE - VISA 0.00 TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 (0.77) 0.00 ~,~.BE 0.00 18~181.50 22.39 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE INTEREST INCOME PARENT INTEREST INCOME MONEY MARKET INTEREST INCOME OTHER (410.67) CAPITAL GAINS 0.00 CAPITAL LOSSES 0.00 RENTAL INCOME [NVESTNENT EXPENSE O.OO BANK FEES I,S14.~6 RESTRUCTURING EXPENSE 0.00 MISCELLANEOUS (I,564.07) (36,365.47) TOTAL OTHER INCOME & EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 (4{0.67) 0.00 (4~.0~) 79~,37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.05 0.00 (1,564.07) 0.00 {7,570.80) (79.34) I .E:6 O. O0 (36,365.47) 0. O0 (26~ 674.43) 36.33 This Perio~ Last Year PRINT COSTS DIRECT LABOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES INDIRECT'SALARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 INDIRECT LABOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 O.OO 0.00 OVERTIME PREMIUM 0.00 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER COMPENSATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 PAYROLL TAXES 0.00 0.00 0 O0 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 PENSIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 OTHER EHPLOYEE COSTS 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 O0 FACTORY SUPPLIES ~BO,9~ (0.01) 0.00 ~0,9~ 0.00 6R8.8! (64 87) REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO OUTSIDE SERVICES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INSURANCE OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O,O0 O.OO TAXES 0,~0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UTILITIES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 TELEPHONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.OO RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 O,O0 0.00 O.OO 0,00 0.00 RENTAL OF BUILDING 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.OO 0,00 O.O0 TRAVEL & ENTERTAINMENT 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BURDEN REDISTRIBUTED 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 ENGIItEERING SUPPORT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UARRANTY COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LOSSES & ERRORS 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 ~.00 0.00 0.00 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OC NET DELIVERY COSTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES ~0.9~ (0,01) 0,00 ~0.9~ 0,00 I~487.71 ACTUAL BURDEN (0.01) 0 O0 220.9~ 0.00 l, q87.71 (85.15) APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE 1,07l,R5~.83 (37.02) 0 O0 ],07~253.83 0.00 877,~7.7! (~.13} Current Period Compared To Budget ~nd Pr(or Year Page B STEEL FABRICATION COSTS DIRECT LABOR 313~494.13 (10.83) 0.00 313,494.13 0.00 ~T6,GSB.69 13.30 TOTAL FACTORY E×PENBES ACTUAL BURDEH APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURZNG VARIANCE 485,69P.86 (I 6.78) O. O0 485,6cjE:.86 O. O0 4E:O,534.ST 15.49 DescriptIo~ Curpent Period Pet Budget To BUdgeT Percent This Period Last MANUFACTURING OVERHEAD COSTS DIRECT LABOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 C.O0 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES ~NDIRECT SALARY 15B,0~.37 IB.36) 0.00 155,0BB.37 0.00 1(6,87~.97 3~.70 INDIRECT LABOR 106,204.63 (~.67) O.OO 10G,~04.6~ 0.00 84,045,55 B6.37 TOTAL FACTORY EXPE{tSES ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN MANUFACTURING VARIANCE 1,106,585.03 (38. ~4) O.OO 1~$060585.03 O.O0 880.46( .03 I~5.68) (380,P01 ,59) ~3.14 0.00 (380,~01 .~9) O. O0 (PBS. 997.07) 48.E~ Description Current Period Pct Budges to Budget Percen~ This Period Last Year PRODUCT SERVICE COSTS DIRECT LABOR 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES TOTAL FACTORY EXPENSES 76, S72.57 (2.65) 0.00 76,S72.57 O.O0 95~ 634.15 (18.22) ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN NANUFACTURINC VARIANCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPHENT COSTS DIRECT LADOR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FACTORY EXPENSES ACTUAL BURDEN APPLIED BURDEN HANUFACTURING VARIANCE 4~o~B0.83 (1.43) 0.00 41~80.83 0,00 47~465.80 (13.03) 41 ..~80.83 (1.43) 0.00 41, E:80.83 0.00 47,465.80 (13.03) 1,071,~53.83 (37.0~) 0.0~ 1,Q71,~3.83 0.00 S77,1~7.73 (1,0~9,973.00) 35.59 0.00 (1,0~9,973.00) 0.00 (8R9,661.91) 84.14 David P. Boatman Charlotm Y. Humphfis COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville. Vir~inia 929024596 (804~ 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles $, Martin Walter F, Perkins $a119 H. Thomas TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: December March 1, Board of Supervisors Ella W. Carey, Clerk, June 30, 1995 Reading List for July 5, 1995 14, 1994 - p~-~c~ I I~ (~.!2,~ .- M~~. F~arsha£1-- ~3e~ qA (~1.2) - end Mrs. Thomas 1995 - ~%-~I-e'"~--T'5 (~17) ~.c. B .~ - ~ May 10, 1995 - Mr. Martin EWC:mms Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Secondary Construction Budget 1995-96 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of FY95-96 VDOT Secondary Roads Construction Budget STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker. Cilimberg,Wade,Beulsh AGENDA DATE: July 5, 1995 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors armually approves VDOT Secondary Road Construction Budget. VDOT is requesting the Board of Supervisor's approval & the FY95-96 Budget (see Attachment A). DISCUSSION: This budget is consistent with the priorities of the County's Six Year Secondary Road Plan (approved May I 1, 1994). There is a change regarding the funding of one project. Route 682, an unpaved road, is receiving additional funding for the 1995-96 fiscal year. It was previously estimated that funding for this project would be complete during the 1994-95 fiscal year. The cog for this project has increased by $968,073, from the $1,999,000 in the original plan to $2,967,073. Therefore, an additional $841t:341 has bee~a~catedt~t~dsp~anf~rFY95/96.Theba~ance~$33~323~istobepaidinth~upc~mingFY96/97.Th~ right-of-way cost and prelimina~ engineering was higher than estimated for Route 682 The higher cost has extended the timing for completion of Route 682. While the priorities for other road paving projects have not been affected, the additional allocation to Route 682 has affected the amount of funds available to fund other gravel road projects. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Supervisors' approval of the budget is requested by V'rrginla Department of Transportation and staff recommends approval of the Secondary Construction Budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. 682.wp 95.108 Jl . 2. 8 995 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA June 14, 1995 Secondary Construction Budget 1995-96, Albemarle County Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 29202 Attached ~s a copy of the Albemarle County Secondary Construction Budget for 1995-96 The final allocations show an increase of $615,533 in regular construction funds and an increase of $232,808 in unpaved road funds, The additional funding was allocated to Route 682 to cover additional costs which were higher than the estimates in the s~x year plan Please make this information available uo the Board Members for their review and, if agreeable, forward a resolution supporting this budget. I will be prepared 5o discuss this maE=er at the July 5th board meeting. Sincerely, ggu attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY $R-2 ALBEMARLE CHARLOTTESVILLE CULPEPER COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM JULY 1, 1995 - JUNE 30, 1996 (002) COUNTY (43) RESIDENCY (7) DISTRICT DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET REGULAR CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATION (33.1-23.4C) UNPAVED ROAD ALLOCATION (33.1-23.1:1) NET FUNDS FOR DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION INCIDENTAL IMPROVEMENTS NUMBERED PROJECTS: REGULAR IMPROVEMENTS UNPAVED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL ALLOCATION DATE:OG/06/95 $ 3,575,013 $ 853,790 4,428,803 $ 410,000 $ 2,549,480 $ 1,469,323 4,428,803 Date of Board of Supervisors Approval of Annual Priority Program COL~ (002) ALBE~£ R~SID~Y (¢~) CHARLOT~ILLE CO--TH O~ VIRginIA t~5~ O~ TR~ATION JULY 1~ 1995 - JUh~i ~, 199~ J BO 1 ,$ -,S _*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.~ ~ I J F/5~TILIZE~ J CON ~ ~lS J JP.E. ~ ~ ;TOT (1) I T~: 67 J 0~2~-~02-~00 ID: | OP~P~T~ H~TTO~ STA'r~ (2) | J ]P~VIO~LY BL4~-T I P'UNO~ ~ou~rs oJ 0 o o 0 [IqT~: 06106/95 Pase: I COMMENTS I I I I oI 0 10,000 | 0 lO,OOO [ 0 O: 40,000 J 0 J 4.0,000 J 0 | I I JP.E. 0 )P~ 0 |CON J TOT I0, oI ; I I ~STATE O 10,000 ] 10, 000 J I ID: Jlm~: ~TE, 776 |CON STAT~ ] LE~NGTH: 2. ~E~, J OI o| o ol 10,000 J 10.000 J OJ OI oI oI 0 J CONTRPCT o~ S2,000 J · 2,000 J COLe~TY (00~) ~qL]~lviPA~L~* R~ID~qCY (4~) C~A~LOTTE~VILL~ DISTRICT (7) OJ.~-r.~ COt~v~4;~F~LTH O~ VI~INI~ CET~IL$ OF ~IOtJ BUOC~-T JULY 1,, ; ~IPTt~ ~ L~TH ROUTE O~6S {NEW FI.ANT MIX ~: 117~ )~-~ (~) ROUTE 0715 |h~W F~/~JT MIX ID: ]PR:ROUTE 622 COt~PR~ ) TO :RCXP?~ 712 (~) 2020 ] 144~-002-~00$ ; ~:ROUTE ~ ~ ]TO:~ CH'VILLE STAT~ L~TH:O.~ ($) |R/w o] )TOT go,oeo | o ) ~TOT 12,000 ] 0 ] ITOT ICON ) TOT TOTAL I~CIDE~L I~] |TOT I IP.E. ~TOT I | | o oI o | CONTP. nCT OI I I I I 410,000 I | I I I | COUNTY <00~ ALJ~J~L~ ~-$IDENCY (4~) C]~LOTTESVILL~ OISTR~T (?) CLI..PE.F-c,~ TC: O ID: R~ ~E'COND~¥ 5'YS'TEM ~'TAIL$ ~F ~ION BU~ Jl~-Y l, 1~$ - Jl~ 50, ~9~ ~,101 J& PP~TIAL COh~5'TRUCTIO~ (~} | TOTAL R~SL~ NI~I~E~ PRO~ECTSJ l JP./W JTOT I I J ITOT J I I I 12,770,~3 I ~ PPRTL~L r_~IgI~?RUCTIO~J I I I I l I (002) ALS~ (45') ~OTT~ILLE DETAILS O~ CONSTRUCTION BUDGET JLt_y 1, 1~$ - ~LI~E ~0. 1996 ~TATE |LENGTH:2.1 MI, ; 2.~7,07~ J 1,7~7,409 0 ;Ft~ P/N~TI/~L o I CONSTRUCTION Pa.~oe: 30,000 940,000 15,000 J 0 15,000 ] 0 417 ,(~ J 0 o ]FUND 0 ~ION 3~0,000 J ~t~O, 000 J 15,000 JFUND P.E., R/W ~ 15,000 JP~tI~l C(~4STRUCTION 237,~ J l | l jco~ JTOT TOT IP.e- IP. YW IC:O~ TOT I I I I I I I I 4,3~7,073 ~ (002) (43) (7) CUt~ Page: $ BUDC~ TOTALS ] 17,S37,~5 ] 7,111,04~ ~ ¢,42~,~05 ] COMMENTS AND QUE 'riON - SIX-YEAR iMPROVEMENT PROQRAM T~tative ]} ~.WI; ~onstm,q~,m ...... AIIn~.tiflns. and Six-Ye~r lmoravemeut lsremram: 1. Rt. 29 widouiug ~om NCL to Rio Rd.: Whydoemthetotal~ostinoreaseby~$900,ooo, ·om S18,~o, ooo i,x 9~-gsto $Ua,86.~,o00 in 9~-96 {~ee (A) pp. 3 & 4}? Rt 29 wider~m8 ii, om lqCI, to Rio Rd.: ~ iS the ~onstrtl~tion on this projeot shown to be completed in l~J5, but ~ have over $5,000,000 allocated uatil the y",~r 2000/01 {see (A) p.4}? itt. 29 widening ~rom Rio {Cd. to 8.F.R.River: Why does the total cost increase by over $~,000,000, fi'om $I,8~,000 in 94.95 to $8,~30,000 in Oti-~ {see (B) pp. 3 & 4)? 4. Pt. 29 widening t'om $.F.R.River to Airport Road: Why was start ot'constrdctioa put unt{l time year 1909. It was listed az 1~8 in the 9a,95 program {see (C) pp, 3 & 4}? ILL 29 biidi~ replacement $.F.l:LP, iver: Explain this new item {see (l)) pAL In which Meadow Creek Parkway from Pt. 250 Bypasm to NCL: Why was s~.rt of construction on IMs project delayed by one year from i g~:)7 to 19~$ {see (!r) pp. :5 & 6}? Cost of Revi~ed Alternate l~itsmas~ Lsee o. 71: 1) Comparison costs -- 1994, for Original a~d Revised Aitemative 10 Brpass: Ulxiated flip, res in earl:~ Amc hdigated & total cost for the revised bypass as ~ not S90 million as VDoT ChiefEngiaeer Jack Hodge hits consistently stated in Chetlottesv/le and to the CTB earlier ibis year. Thb updated figure uses a PdW arid Uglitims cost of SZ3.$36 million. However, the Teatative 1995-96 Construotion Allocations and Six,Year Improvement Program {see p.4) indicates thc P, YW for this project to he $33,953 miBion, which is approximately $10 miBJon ~eater lhim the updat~ 1994 fisures done i~ early June. This means ~he m~w ~ ia now 3) If a 8rad~ aq)aratell interohanl{e is indu&d inst~l of aa at-srade stoplight at the interseciion with RI. :19 North, then the total ex)st would probabll/hi,tease W at [eas~ ~ !glli~. This h $45 million or ~0% greater tlum the figure Mr. Hodge has been using. Federal I~TEA t) Alloc~ttofls for this six year tm~iod have been totaled for each of'the nine stat~zdde districts. Note that the Culpeper District has the lens~ percentage of the total amounts of a~y ot'tl~ nine disti'kts in both Federal and ~,tate ~undins {see 2) Note that over _~ in Fecl~al ISTRA fundln8 and almost ~ in Rtate funding has b~n allocated state,,vide over elis six year period. 3) "Previous Funds' ~rom actual allocations prior to 1994D$ and "Balance to Complete" funds reciuired al~e~ 1999//000 are totaled for each of the nine stetewide districts on p.9. Note that over $1 billio_n in total ~ndin6 is still required aider the year 2000. Meadow Creek Parkelp;: 1) Pertbient statistics on eleven ststewide projects such as bypasses and/or new roads currently receiving allocations in the six-year progr~n are shown on p. 10. ~ the estimated cost of $?1.$ million for the MCP, note the high ~ost per mile ot'$17.? million relativ~ to the other projects, it does seem ~o be out of line, 2) Letter from CATCO to BO$ mambers dated June 19, 1995. Seepp. ll & 12. Ti,is statement does seem to stat up the s~ttmtiofl concem~ the MCP, We do need do follow up on our resolution of Sune 1, 1~$ aad keep i~ormed as To wh~ the CTB will ~Sain }mvc this (m their asgnd& ang whon our $1:~ak~s should attead Charlotte ¥. Humphris Board of Supervisors Jury s, I I I I i °1 6 Ama ~oT OEIS FEI6 ] Rig~ of Way 24.400 30,429 ~,4~ 53.~1 To~l ~7,900 $109.102 $123.3~ * Soume: C~municatio, ~h Cu ~r D s~ offi~. COMPARISON COSTS --- t994 I($ rnmlo ,?) "' ORIGINAL AND ~tEVISEb Ai'"TERNATiVI~ t 0 BYPA~8 So,th .,,,,, No~h Mid Total South No~h Mid Total Terminus Te~inu~ Se~lo~_. Te~inus Tetanus Se~ion .on~r. & Enor.~ ~2,720 $14,626 $~5.91~ $93,260 $24,~7 $3~.a46 ~3S.9~ $92',187 & UtiiiU~ 8.68~ 33,953.... 1.2,589 55.230 4.875 6.372 12.589 '23~838 Total ~=1.408 ~8,57Y ~8.~'"~. ~2~502 $~8.018 ~8.503 ~(,~:~" ........ CosVmlle $30.2 ~4.2 $16.7 ~7,6 _ .$27.0 $15,5 , S18,7 ~19.3 Soume: VdoT ,,, ~. P ~1~ ~, Peb.13, 1995 and ~mmunl~flo~s with Culpeper Npte:_Gq~ of ~evls~ Alternate 10 B)pa~ (In Ig~ do ~) S $116 million end NOT Sg0 miUion as stated mmny times b~ Mr, Jack H~ge, ~oT Chief Engineer. If a gtaUe separate~ "' int~ha~e Is ~nclud~ in~ead of 'an at, grade ~opIl~ht at t~o Intem~on with Rt, 29 No~h. then the total ~'~uld in~a~ to an e~tlmat~ $I~ million. ,, ' CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITION, iNC. ,Itm~ 19, 199~ ¢ommo~w{~l~h Tr~sportation ~oard Members c/o Mr, Rob~ l~, ~ F,O, li]Ox 1475 Richmond, Va 23212 Bmr Commonw~dth Trampo~ation Board From tim transcript ofth~ April 19, 199~ CTB work~hop on the propos~i Meadow Cr~ek Parkway (MCP), it is obvi~ that clarification is n~:led to respond to th~ ntisin.~rmation mci omission of pertinent availabl,, inibrmarion about the request for primary tundiag for this project. Several areal with additional information are shown below. Rzlmrt on the M~rch 29, 1995 Culpeper District Pm-Allocation Hearing: C~lo~ll~, S~tor ~ ~bb, Del~ Mit~lt V~Y~, Del~ P~er Way ~ ~ ~10~11~-~1~ C~b~ of C~. Priorki~ of fggt[ftlllttl:li~ and nroposed ~rtion of MCP: · e ~u~m six-y~ s~On~ pro~. ~ ~ a pgofi~ of 6, but ~o first ~ pilotings ~e ~r ~u~ · pmons~ ~n on. co~dor na y~ l~, ~ a pfio~ of i2 ~ ~e six-y~ sc~ progr~ ~ ~ of ~y ~d t~d ~ns~on, ~o ~u~ ~ a ~ute ~3 d~i~fion ~r ~e MCP ~ ~e ~ssible 3 Cost ofti~ MCP: In Mar~ 1991, the VDoT e, stim~t~ got this project was $17.1 million. In Augus~ 1993, the Sverdrup r~port stau;d, "A pr~lhnin~ ~ost cstiraa~ ($72,5 million) was condu~axl using per milo quantity ~stimatcs and squar~ foot structure ~timates,'* s This $72.~ million figure is obviously {mt of lin~ ~ ~ompar~l to otlmr stat, proje~., in th~ prinm% urban md secoml~ry si~-year pro, am. $~e chart below. * i more reali~e cost stud~ is needed, showing both 2 and 4 l~s on 4 lane M~*- P~ i, ~ ~,3} 0,5 18,7 ~ B~*- Rt, 33 13.~ 23 5.8 MCP -P~ 1; ~, IO,Z~ 1,0 10,~ L~~* - 123A7 14,i 8,3 ~c?,'~},.~. :.;~ ~i~ .. .... ~ ' '~ ....... · ,:~.t.'I ',:';.17.1~ .'~ W~entan~}~' 32.~3 ! 2.6 ] 12.6 (~ 1~ ra~ _~'. , ~.'~_:¢~ ':' ':;~ ~ " ',;:, Sp~- R'.. I~ (a ;[n;~. I ~le B~*- Rt. 43,13 8,~ 4.9 Ch~le B~ · 116.0~ 6,0 19.~ 265 (21~ ~, gt. 10 (4 ~ n~) // Fundin$ oftl~ proposal MCP: · Albemarle Count~ cannot l~sibly fund tl~ MCP tl~.ou~h th~ ~.condary ro~d system, * Prima~ funding has b~a ~ by Albemarle County to provide e.~rly fun~;pg for PE and RAV a~d to · R~v~ue Sharh~ ~ can b~ a~pl~ tovm'ds tl~ MCP. $ov~mi countf~ presently do this within the · Th~S~.7 millionSv~rd~psl~dystatestl~atP,~t~29NandHydmulicRoad, the~ ~ u a percentage of totBI trsffi~ i! 9,9 ~. ~ Ttgs Svcfdrup study ~SO ll~0rmed th~ moat ~ ye, hiole ori~ia-daati~ation ~malysis iii +,he Cl~rloi~svillc/Alb~m~rl~ a~aa. This shows ~h~ follov~ da~ ~- the year 2010 from page ~ -9 in Aplxmdix C of the Traffic And Tranm~',sfle~ Analysia. March 1990. Tluougl~ Tgaff~ Pro..je~_ or~ for Y~r 2010 I 1~ md ~/N ~Rt. 19 ] Nm a~d F~I on Rt. 29 N ~om 1,64, RIs.2,0, ~3 & ~0 L - 22~ .?J~cl~da~/ ] ~ 13,00 wldcl~td~I~ , Idea~ truck traffic (lar~ tractor trailers): · Th~ $3,7 mi]lio. ~v~.b,'up study g,~v~ ~ foilo-.vir~ 'qb'ur~ for 19~7 to~ tr~.~ ~ .t ~.i~O ',~d. I "' .' 2N- '- _-- -~_ llesw tmek traffic aa a lx~uta~ cf jottl trt~ ........ -~- 7,1% ~ -~ h ' . r _:~-q u a ~M* of~t~ t~e .... 1.6 % 1.~ ~h-~i~ k_ .,r-.ua~:~~ 16% ~al hetw track traffic ~ a ~_~1_ heaw t~ck t~...~- _.. , 78 % The MCP racers all of~ ~eri~ required fc~ imlusion ~ the p~imary system, ~ s,.a~ by Mr. Hedge a~ ~e April CTB workshop, includin~ scrv~ resional and thr~uSh Thank you ve~ much for your c~ impe~ion of this i~ormation. 107 Tally Ho Driv= Charlot~n411~,, VA. 22901 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Changes to Whitewood Road/Albert Court Bus Stop on Route 9 SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Review Replacement of the Albext Court Bus Stop With a Colonnades/Old Salem Apartment Bus Stop STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilfmber~, Wade AGENDA DATE: July 5,1995 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On Janumy 4, 1995, the BOS approved the replscement of the Albert Court bus stop with a new bus stop at The Colonnades, which would also serve the Old Salem Apts, along with two other changes to Route 9 (see Attachment A). On May 3, 1995, the [lOS requested CTS to see flit was possible to keep the Albert Court bus stop along with establishing the new bus stop. This report is provided in response to that reques~ DISC1LISSION: Staff and CTS made actual test runs that incorporated both the Colonnades and Albert Court stops. The test runs were done at different times during the day and took timing for passengers to board into consideration. When compared with the original Route 9 bus that did not stop at'Die Colonnades, the bus lhat stopped at both the Colonnades and Albert Court took an average of eight (8) additional minutes. If the delay is compounded for each Route 9 run during a full day, it would add to 64 minutes, the equivalent of another bus in order to keep up with the printed schedule. This delay may be longer when the students at the University of Virginia return Route 9 is already the longest CTS mute. In constmatingmutes, consideration must be given to both moderate and heavy raffle conditions. Creating a schedule problem on Route 9 would also affect other routes in the bus system. Many passengers transfer l~om Route 9 to other CT$ routes. These transt'ers must be closely time& A late arriving Route 9 would either cause another route to hold Ul~ to wait for a passmger, or wouldrequire the passenger to wait a full hour to transfer to other bus. The first option would cause other buses to be late;, the second option would deter people fi:om using the system. RECOMMENDATION: Staffcontinues to recommend the original (January 4, 1995) proposed change in bus service in Albemarle County. 95.107 I:gLs\salemm.wp COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Proposed Changes to Route 9 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: .Request Board Approval to Initiate Three Changes to CTS Route 9 for Albemarle County Residents. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Wade, Benish AGENDA DATE: January 4, 1995 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION.: ATTACHMENT__S: Yes/~ ~ REVIEWED BY: ///~/ . BACKGROUND: In order to provide cost effioient service to Albemarle County, CTS has proposed three changes to Route 9. These changes will increase ridership without increasing the cost to the County. DISCI~$SION: CTS and staff are proposing the following changes: Remove Albert Court from Route 9 and add Ihe Colonnades and Old Salem Apartments. The Albert Court stop serves file Whitewood Road Village, Oak Forest, and Cornelia Garden residential m-ecs. It has experienced limited ridership averaging 10-12 riders per day. The riders who presently catch the bus at the Alber~ Coull location will still have access to CTS by walking two blocks to the stop in fi'ont of DMV on Commonwealth Drive. Adding the Colonnades stop may help reduce the demand for service from JAUNT, which is more cosily Io provide Ihan CTS service. The cost of JAUNT service lo the Colonnades in FY 1993-94 was estimated to be approximately $18,000. Staff and CTS conducted a survey with The Colonnades and Old Salem Apa~lment t9 delermine if the residents would use the proposed bus service. Staffdelivered 300 surveys to Old Salem, 33 (I 1%) of which were returned; 81 ont of 220 (37%) Rom The Colonnades were returned. The results of the survey show lhat if service was provided to Old Salem 94% of ire residents that returned the survey would use it, and 81% of the Colonnade residents would do the same. The results of the full survey are attached. NO COST Remove the south leg ofBe~ 'Samar Road (Route 1403) between Rio Road and. Roule 29 from Route 9. The riders who presently catch the bus on this leg of Bet 'kmar Drive Will still have access to CTS by u~alking, at the most, to the stop at the intersection of Rio Road and Berkmar Drive. See map for new bus route. NO COST 3. Permission to locate a bns shelter at tile interseclion of Commonwealth Drive and Peyton Drive (anUth bound). NO COST RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of 1, 2, and 3 of C'FS's proposed changes to bus se~-,~ice in Albemarle, County. These changes will more efficiently serve the residents of the county. i:\g\s\CTSBUD.wp 94.204 c: Helen Poore SURVEY RESULTS The Colonnades Are you familiar with the Charlottesville Service? yes 45 (55.6 %) no 36 (44.4 %) IfCTS service is provided toThe Colonnades; would you use the bus? yes 69 (81.2 %) no 16 (18.8 %) How often would you like to see the bus come to the Colonnades? 60 Minutes 34 (53.1%) 90 Minutes 18 (28.1%) 120 Minutes 12 (18.8 %) Where would you like the bus to take you? Downtown Area 57 (16.3 %) Senior Center 30 (8.6 %) Rio Hill Shopping Center 24 (6.9 %) Fashion Square/Albemarle Square 54 (I 5.4 %) Seminole Square 29 (8.3 %) Kmart 29 (8.3 %) Barracks Road Shopping Center 54 (15.4 %) University of Virginia Itospital 47 (13.4 %)' Martha Jefferson Hospital 26 (7.4 %) 5 D you require a wheelchair accessible vehicle? yes 6 (8.2 %) no 67 (91.8 ttow many times a week do you leave The Colonnades to make trips to Charlottesville or along the 29 North corridor Monday Ihrough Saturday from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM? 0 3 (3.7 %) 1-4 54 (65.9 %) 5-8 19 (23.2 %) 8 or more 6 (7.3 %) How do you make these trips? Drive yourself 56 (40.3 %) Ride with friends of family 32 (23.0 %) Colonnade van 23 (16.5 %) JAUNT 15 (10.8 %) CTS 1 (0.7 %) Taxi 12 (8.6 %) SURVEY RESULTS Old Salem I. Are you familiar with tile Charlottesville Transit Service? Yes 29 (87.9 %) No 4 (12.1%) IfCTS provides service toOId Salem Apartments would you use tile bus?. Yes 31 (93.9 %) No 2 (6.1%) ltow often would you like to see the bus come to the Colonnades? 60 Minutes 28 (90.3 %) 90 Minutes 2 (6.5 %) 120 Minutes 1 (3.2 %) Where would you like the bus to take you? Downtown Area Rio Hill Shopping Center Fashion Square/Albemarle Square Seminole Square Kmart Barracks Road Shopping Center University of Virginia 19 (14.4 %) 17 (12.9 %) '19 (14.4 %) 12 (9.1%) 14 (10.6 %) 25 (18.9 %) 26 (19.7 %) PRESENT BUS RQUTE Arrow indicates direction. of tr~ ~a 0 W(' F_MARI_Ii gq Iii. I,~I<L E',' ~;1~t(11:'1"1 I,~f; W()l~l (;1:._1",111 IT PROPOSED BUS ROUTB Arrow indicates direotion of traVel. o W~ 17SEI~I<LEY t~l~(~l~l~l IS.<; W()l~l % ;I I~ )1 '1 'lNG Cl!31q'll I~ COgNT¥ OF A BEi LA I.,E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amend Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdiction to include all land of the proposed North Fork Business Park. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: UREF request expansion of water and sewer jurisd/ctional area to include land added to Hollymead Community under CPA-94- 1 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Citiraberg, Keeler AGENDA DATE: June 7, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: In December 1994, about 300 acres were added to the Hollymend Community with a designation for industrial/office service development DREF subsequently filed rezoning petition from RA, Rural Area to PD-IP, Planned Development-Industrial Park for these 300 acres. DISCUSSION: l~ublic water and sewer services are appropriate within designated Growth Areas. Of UREF's 525 acre property, water and sewer sermce fi'om ACSA is currently limited to about 225 acres RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set publ/c hearing on this request for the same date and following action on the rezoning petition. l~ere is eun'ently no Board date set for the rezouing petition's review, therefore the date for public hearing of this jurisdiefioual area request will need to be set later. UREF-ACS.SUM 95.089 OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION 108 CRESAF ROAD P. O. BOX 9023 CHARLO3-rESVILLE, VA 22906 May 22, 1995 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville: VA 22901 Re: Revision to the Albemarle County Service Authority Service Jurisdiction Ladies and Gentlemen: On February 27, 1995, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF) submitted a rezoning application for the northern 300 acres of its 525 acres North Fork property. This application requested that this 300 acre parcel be rezoned from RA to PD-IP so that it is consistent with the southern 225 acres which is already zoned PD-IP. As is described in detail in the rezoning application, it is UREF's goal to develop the North Fork Business Park on its North Fork property. This Park will create an enwronment where private industry and various University entities can create mutually beneficial partnerships to advance research and development efforts to the benefit of both parties. In order for the North Fork Business Park to be viable, the entire 525 acres must be included into the Albemarle County Service Authodty's (ACSA's) servioe jurisdiction for water and sewer service. Currently, only the southern 225 acres is included in the ACSA's service jurisdiction. Please consider this letter UREF's formal request that the ACSA service jurisdiction be modified to include UREF's entire 525 acre North Fork property. We would like this request to be considered concurrently with the rezoning application for the North Fork Business Park. As you consider this request please consider the following: the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recent modification to the Albemarle Corn prehensive Plan which now includes the northern 300 acres in the Hollymead Growth Area as industrial service land; The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors May 22, 1995 Page 2 UREF has created a define masterplan for the property delineating a mix of proposed uses; and, the entire 525 acres can easily be served by extensions of existing ACSA water and sewer lines that run through the property. As you review this request, we would be pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it in detail with you. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions Sincerely, Tim R. Rose Chief Operating Officer TRR:ov Mr. Hovey S. Dabney Mr. Leonard W. Sandridge Mr. William T. Brent Mr. Steven W. Blaine Mr. Dean M. Cinkala Ms. Ellen G. Miller Mr. Robert B. McKee AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ Form.3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A G-ENDA 'ITI'LE: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority - Request for Amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Areas Map SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to Schedule a Public Hearing for Amendment to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Map for Public Water and Sewer Serviecto All Existing end Proposed Buildings at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport STAFF CONTACT(S): Massrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: June 7, 1995 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On August 27, 1980 the Board took action to amend the Jurisdictional Area Map to bring it more into compliance with the Comlm~hensivePlan. Oneoftheareascensideredwasthe airponproperty, where thejurisdictional area origmally extended to Route 743. The map was amended to include only the area where existing ai~ort buildings were located for water end sewer service. At that time, the airport was served by water only. Sewer service was extended to the airport in 1993. Since 1980, several new buildings have been constructed, including the new terminal. This request is to permit all existing end future buildings to connect to public water and sewer. Most of the airport property (including all the proposed buildings) is located in the Hollymead Community Growth Area in the ComprehensivePlan, and is designated public/semi-public. The Comprehensive Plan states that an objective and ovenSding policy guiding the planning end provision of utilities is that public water and sewer services be provided to the Growth Areas to accommodate the growth anticipated in accordance with the lend use plan. DISCUSSION: The atlached airport map shows the buildings which are proposed to be served by public water end sewer. They incinde three existing buildings: the Amveat-Worrell ecrperate hangar, an airport storage building, and the corporate jets/community hangar; two future Phase I (1994-1999) projects: the anow removal and maintenence building, and 26 T.hangar units; two futhre Phase II (1999-2004) projects: en additional community hangar, and 34 T-hangar units; one future Phase III (2004-2014) project: 16 T-hengar units; end one future (beyond 2014) project: the air ~'affic control tower on the west side of the runway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this request meets the Comprehensive Plan criteria for Jurisdictional Area designation, and reconunends the Board state a resolution of intent to forward th/s request to public hearing. The Jurisdictional Area boundary should follow the Comprehensive Plan Growth Area boundary. June 73 .sum 95.079 COUNTY Revised 8-10-83 ALBEMARLE / / / / ~ ,/ SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY WATER ONLY WATER AND SEWER WATER ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES These are existing structures as of the adopted dale, either 10-1-82 or B-10-83 Please see 'List of Existing Structures OR Developmen{ Rights" for specific structures and, dates. LIMITED SERVICE RIVANNA AND CHARLOTTESVILLE · DISTRICTS = '=-""--' 'r' SECTION ;52 DATE AGENDA IT~m~ NO. AGENDA IT~ NAME DEFEI~RD UNTIL Form.3 7/2S/86 DATE AGENDA IT~ NO. AGENDA IT~m~ NAME DEFERRRD UNTIL Form. 3 7/25/86 AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation: Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission (CACY) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #95004 in the amount of $5,000 for the County's share of the FY 1995-96 CACY operating budget. STAFF CONTACT: Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: Suly 5, 1995 ACTION: X INFORMAT/ON: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: During budget worksessions, staff discussed with the Board the poss~ility that state funding for the Children and Youth Commission (38% of their total budget) might be eliminated by the General Assembly. During the final budget sessions of the Legislature, funding was restored with the caveat that each year beginning in FY 1995-96 the funding will be reduced 25% a year. The actual reduction from the state for this fiscal year turned out to be approximately 20%, since CACY was able to apply for some unused ~anding designated for other localities.. DISCUSSION: The operating budget for the CACY commission that was proposed during the County's budget worksessions was $71,000, which required a share of $22,500 from the County, $22,500 from the City and $26,000 from the Virginia Department of Youth and Family Services. With the 20% reduction, the total funding from the state will be approximately $21,000, leaving a $5,000 shortfall in their projected budget for FY 1995-96 The CACY Commission has requested that the Board of Supervisors and City Council continue the current operations of the CACY Commission by approtmating un udditional $2,500 for FY 1995-96 from each jmSsdictian. During this next year, the Commission and City and County staff will be looldng at the future direction of the CACY Commission and the impact of declining state funds for the activities of the Commission. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95004 in the mount of $2,500 to be transferred from the Board's Reserve Fund. JU,,'q 2 9 1995 95.111 DATE AGENDA I'£]f~ NO. AGENDA I'3.'~ NAME DEFERR F,n UNTIL Form.3 7/25/86 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4696 (804) 296~58~ FAX (804) 296-5800 Ct~arles $. Martin Walter F. Pcrk~s Sally H. Thomas July 7, 1995 Mr. Samuel A. "Pete" Anderson Architect for the University Office of the Architect The Rotunda Charlottesville, VA 22906 Dear Mr. Anderson: At the Board of County Supervisors meeting on July 5, 1995, you were appointed to the Albemarle County Planning Commission, as the University of Virginia's representative. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportuni- ty to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Walter F. Chairman Perkins EWC/tpf cc: V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recyoled paper Madison Hall · P.O. Box 9014 · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville, Virginia22906-9014 · 804-924-3349 · FAXS04-982-2770 VICE PRESIDElqT FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 June 23, 1995 Dear Walter: We ask that the Board of Supervisors appoint Mr. Samuel A. "Pete" Anderson as the University of Virginia's representative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission effective July 1, 1995. Mr. Anderson is the new Architect for the University. He will replace W. Thomas Leback who was the UniversiLv's interim representative. S!nce£ely Colette Capone Vice President for Management and Budget CC:rap c: Mr. Samuel A. Anderson Mr W. Thomas Leback JULY 5, 1995 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUaNt tO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of The COde OF ViRGiNIA UNDer SUbSeCTION (7) TO CONSUlt WITh LEGal COUNSel REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION REGARDING A ZONING DECISION AND TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MAI IERS CONCERNING REVERSION. 0705~5,WPD