The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-02-03 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 3, 1999 February 5, 1999 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT Call to order. Meeting was called to Order at 9:00 a.m.~ by the Chairman. Ail BOS members present. Presentation: Annual Innovation Award by the None. Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. Appropriation: Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund, $3,000.00 (Form #98050). APPROVED. Appropriation: School Division, $10.,478.72 ' (Form #98051). APPROVED. Appropriation: Community Services Act (CSA), $1,102,323 (Form #98052). APPROVED. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998. ACCEPTED. FY 1999/2000 Revenue Projections Update. APPRO~D. Amendments to Albemarle County Personnel Policy, Section P-03, Employee Grievances. ADOPTED. Request to proceed with installation of Pedestrian/Security Lighting along Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive and Whitewood Road (Capital Improvement Projects). APPROVED. ZTA-98-08. Tower Fees {Planning Commission's recommendation on proposal to increase fees for review of personal wireless service facilities). DEFERRED until such time as Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy. SP-98-61. Triton Communications. DEFERRED until February 10, 1999. Letter dated January 20, 1999, from Jay Roberts to Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., re: Permit Modification Request for VWPP No. 97- 1961, North Fork Research Park. (a) Discussion: Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper. DEFERRED until February 10, 1999. (b) Other Transportation Matters. --Ms. Tucker said VDoT is dealing with Y2K issues as they relate to traffic signals. --VDoT continues to work on coordinating signals along Route 29 corridor. --VDoT was surveying Route 20 for future Clerk: Send appropriations memo to Melvin Breeden and Ginnie McDonald. Clerk: Send appropriations memo to Melvin Breeden, Kevin Castner, and Jackson Zimmerman. Clerk: Send appropriations memo to Melvin Breeden and Kathy Ralston. Clerk: Notify Melvin Breeden. Clerk: Notify Melvin Breeden and Anne Gulati. Clerk: Notify Rick Huff, Larry Davis, Michael Thompson (include copy of policy), and Mark Trank. Clerk: Notify Rick Huff, Bill Mawyer, Wayne Cilimberg, Joe Letteri,and Jerry Shatz. Clerk: Include in Planning letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Include in Planning letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Staff and Clerk: Add note to such items to advise Board of how it is being handled (for example: forwarded to David Hirschman.) Clerk: Include in Planning letter to Wayne Cilimberg. Clerk: Prepare transportation letter to Ms. Tucker. Attach copy of Mr. Browder's letter. widening project. --A left-hand turn onto Greenbrier Drive is expected to be in place this spring. --She will keep the Board apprised of lighting issues. --She asked to receive a copy of letter from Mr. Browder, of VDoT. --Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker to look into unsafe passing lane on Rt. 743, in front of Sunny Boy Gardens. --Mr. Perkins asked for status of review of condition of Advance Mills truss bridge. --Mr. Perkins asked if Grassmere Drive improvements could be done under Pave-in-Place Program. --Mr. Marshall asked that the speed limit on Porter's Road in Esmont be reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph. --Mr. Marshall asked that VDoT keep area residents apprised of road widening project near Monticello High School and that work be confined to eastern side of Rt. 20 whenever possible. --Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Tucker to find out for Batesville residents whether TEA-21 funds can be used for underground utilities project. --Mr. Bowerman asked when fencing will be installed at the trailer park on Rio Road. He also informed Ms. Tucker that VDoT did not clear snow from entrances affected by construction. Minimum in-stream flow at Moorman's River, Presentation by Donna Bennett. PRESENTATION made by R.D. Gilgesm, Jim Bennet, and Art Petrini. Art Petrini: Provide additional information at March 3, 1999 Board meeting. Clerk: Send memo outlining Board questions/requests to Art Petrini, Bill Mawyer and Bob Tucker. Outdoors Foundation, Presentation by None. Sherry Buttrick. PRESENTATION made. Discussion: Deer Hunting Enforcement Efforts. PRESENTATION made by Lt. Moore. Work Session: CPA-98-04, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment of the Comp Plan. PRESENTATION made by Mary Joy Scala. Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC), Interim Report. PRESENTATION made by Eric Strucko and Kathy Galvin. Update on Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) (PDRs), Presentation by Sherry Buttrick. PRESENTATION made. --Board appointed Babette Thorpe to replace Timothy Lindstrom on the PDR Committee. Work Session: FY 1999/2000-FY 2003/2004 Capital Improvements Program. PRESENTATION made by Roxanne White. Staff: Continue to track statistics, including disposition of cases. Planninq Staff: Summarize the public's comments and forward recommendations to the Board.~t~?~,l~ None. Staff: Meet w/Sherry Buttrick to identify staffing needs and costs. Clerk: Update Board/Commission records, send appointment letter to appropriate persons. County Executive Staff: Prepare GO Bond scenarios and present them to the Board. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. --Board passed a resolution supporting increased funding for planning district commissions to continue the partnership of state and local funding of the commissions. --Board members will individually contact the School Board about taking SOL tests. Executive Session: Personnel Matters and None. Property Acquisition. Certify Executive Session. None. Appointments. --Appointed Mr. Charles Trachta to the Industrial Development Authority, with term to expire 1/20/03. --Appointed Mr. Fred Catlin to the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee, with term expiration date to be determined. 4:00 P.M. - JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD B) Discussion: FY 1999/2000 School Board Budget. PRESENTATION made by Kevin Castner. Non-docketed. --Mr. Martin read a proclamation proclaiming February 1999 as School Board Appre'ciation Month. C) Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. -- Ms. Thomas invited School Board members to attend a meeting on the widening of Rt. 250 West Thursday, February 11, 1999, from 5:30- 8:30 p.m. at Murray Elementary School. Adjourn. Clerk: Forward copy of resolution to Nancy O'Brien. Clerk: Update Board/Commission records, send appointment letters to appropriate persons. Meeting was called to Order at 4:05 p.m., by the Chairman. Ail BOS members present except Mr. Marshall. All School Board members present except Mr. Ward and Ms. Gallion. Clerk: Forward proclamation to Tina Fuller. None. Adjourned at 4:55 p.m. School Board adjourned to their regular meeting at 6:00 P.m. D{v~id P. ]3~w~rn~n Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COU1VI~ OF AI REMARt F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, V~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 CharleS S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller February 8, 1999 Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At the February 3, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following action regarding transportation matters: ~. Item No. 5.1 Request to proceed with installation of Pedestrian/Security Lighting along Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive, and Whitewood Road (Capital Improvement Projects). APPROVED. Agenda Item No. 8(a). Discussion: Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan -- Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper. DEFERRED until February 10, 1999. Agenda Item No. 8(b). Other Transportation Matters. You provided the Board an update on previous discussions, stating that: --VDoT is dealing with Y2K issues as they relate to traffic signals; --VDoT continues to work on coordinating traffice signals along the Route 29 Corridor; --VDoT was surveying Route 20 for a furore widening project; --A left-hand mm onto Greenbrier Drive is expected to be in place this spring; --You will keep the Board apprised of lighting issues. Mr. Perkins asked that you look into an unsafe passing lane on Route 743, in front of Sunny Boy Gardens. Printed on recycled l:mper You said you would report back on a review of the condition of the Advance Mills tress bridge. Mr. Perkins asked if Grassmere Drive improvements could be done under the Pave-in- Place Program, and you said you would look into that. Mr. Marshall asked that you look into reducing the speed limit on Porter's Road in Esmont, from 35 mph to 25 mph. Mr. Marshall asked that you keep area residents apprised of the road widening project near Monticello High School, and that work be confided to the eastern side of Route 20, whenever possible. You said you would look into whether TEA-21 funds can be used by Batesville residems to finance an underground utilities project. You said you would find om when fencing will be installed at the trailer park on Rio Road. You also advised Mr. Bowerman that VDoT should have cleared snow from entrances affected by construction on Rio Road, but did not. VDoT will make sure those entrances are cleared, should snow fall again before construction is complete. You asked that someone send you a copy of a letter Mr. Cilimberg received from Mr. Browder. I have attached a copy. /lbh Sincerely, / Attachment cc: Robert Tucker I N T E R Alb~maflcBemd of County Supervisors Charlottesville,Virginia 22902.4596 804.296-5843 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk February 3, 1999 Board of Supervisors Meeting February 8, 1999 The following actions were taken, by the Board at its meetings on February 3, 1999: Item No. 6.8. ZTA-98-08. Tower Fees (Planning Commission's recommendation on proposal to increase fees for review of personal wireless service facilities). DEFERRED until such time as Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy. Item No. 6.9. SP-98-61. Triton Communications. D~FERR~D until February 10, 1999. Item 6.11. Letter dated January 20, 1999, from Mr. Jay Roberts to Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., re: Permit Modification Request for VWPP No. 97-1961, North Fork Research Park. BOARD REQUESTS that, from now on, staff add a note to such items explaining how it is being handled (for example: ~forwarded to David Hirschman"). Agenda Item No. 8(a). Discussion: Albemarle county Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan -- Statement for 1999 Primary Road Plan Preallocation Public Hearing in Culpeper. D~F~RR~D until February 10, 1999. Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: CPA~98-04, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment of the Comp Plan. Planning staff was asked to summarize the public's comments and forward recommendations to the Board at the March 3, 1999 Board of Supevisors meeting. Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: Improvements Program. FY 1999/2000-FY 2003/2004 Capital Staff to meet with Ms. Buttrick to identify staffing needs and costs. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 February 8, 1999 Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. The Board passed a resolution supporting increased funding for planning district commissions to continue the partnership of state and local funding of the commissions. /lbh cc: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Dan Mahon Sharon Taylor John Grady Janice Farrar I N T E R OffiCe of the C~ tO ~he B~d 401 Mc~ ~2~3 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk L~ Appropriation Approved on February 3, 1999 February 5, 1999 Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the Board at its meeting on February 3, 1999: 1) Appropriation: Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund, $3,000.00 (Form #98050). 2) Appropriation: School Division, $10,478.72 (Form #98051). 3) Appropriation: Community Services Act (CSA), $1,102,323 (Form #98052). In addition, the Board accepted the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998 and approved the FY 1999/2000 Revenue Projections Update. Attachment(s) CC: Roxanne White Richard E. Huff, II Robert Walters Ginnie McDonald Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Kathy Ralston Anne Gulati APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVER~SEMENTREQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR HOME LOAN. NUMBER 98050 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X CROZET CROSSINGS EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 8515 81030 900100 LOAN $3,000.00 TOTAL $3,000.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 8515 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $3,000.00 TOTAL $3,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98051 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER X NEVV ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: EDUCATION PURPOSE OFAPPROPR~TION: VARIOUS DONATIONS, GRANTS AND BUDGETADJUSTMENTS CODE I 2114 61311 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT $200.00 I 2215 61101 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 7,500.00 1 2430 62150 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 1,000.00 I 3104 60252 312500 PROF. SERVICES 5,500.00 3132 63323 111400 SALARIES (14,765.75) 3132 63323 210000 FICA (1,142.51) 3132 63323 221000VRS (2,880.00) 3132 63323 231000 HEALTH INS. (1,320.30) 3132 63323 232000 DENTAL INS. (39.62) 3132 63323 520000COMMUNICATIONS (700.00) 3132 63323 520100 POSTAL SERVICES (800.00) 3132 63323 550100TRAVEL-MILEAGE (697.94) 3132 63323 550400TRAVEL-EDUCATION (884.98) 3132 63323 580500 STAFF DEVELOPMENT (100.00) 3132 63323 601200 BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS (60.00) 3132 63323 601300 INST/RECSUPPLIES (287.62) 3132 63323 601700 COPY SUPPLIES (1,000.00) 1 2430 62150 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 5,000.00 I 2410 60100 999981 BOARD RESERVE (5,000.00) TOTAL ($10,478.72) REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $200.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 7,500.00 2 2000 18100 181109DONATION 1,000.00 2 3104 18000 181221 FREDERICK UPTONGRANT 5,500.00 2 3132 24000 240252 REGIONAL ADULTED. GRANT (24,678.72) TOTAL ( $10,478.72) TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98052 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER X NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: CSA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FY 98/99 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1551 53120 581101 THERAP FC IV-E :$450,000.00 1551 53120 581102 THERAP FC OTHER 500,000.00 1551 53120 581201 FAMILY FClV-E 13,661.00 1551 53120 581202 FAMILY FC-OTHER 50,000.00 1551 53120 581203 FAM. FSTR CARE MAINT PAYMENT 13,662.00 1551 53120 581301 FC PREVENTION 35,000.00 1551 53120 581501 FC PREVENTION 40,000.00 TOTAL $1,102,323.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1551 24000 240609 STATE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES $695,232.00 · 2 1551 51000 512016 TRANSFER FROM G/F 407,091.00 TOTAL $1,102,323.00 TRANSFERS 1 1000 53013 571205 SOCIAL SERVICES-TRS. TO CSA 407,091.00 2 1000 51000 510100 G/F BALANCE 407,091.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARL o^p,D OF SUPF RV $OR$ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98050 in the amount of $3,000.00 for Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund Loan Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White, Ms. McDonald BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes The Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund was created in September 1994 through a joint agreement between the County of Albemarle, Charlottesville Housing Foundation and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program as a means of providing financial assistance for housing projects "which benefit Iow and moderate income households." The agreement states that "only projects within Albemarle County shall be eligible for such assistance".., and that "assistance shall be in the form of loans, grants and equity contribution to qualifying projects .... "The agreement further states that "all Program Income from the Crozet Crossing project shall be deposited in this Trust Fund. Through. compounded interest and a resale to date, the current balance (as of December 28, 1998) is approximately $26,300. DISCUSSION: An unnamed Crozet Crossing family is presently facing foreclosure on their home as a result of the loss of one income and ongoing medical bills. Following extended meetings With our Office of Housing's Comprehensive Housing Counselor, the family has established a workable budget and to date has paid a total of $2,236 in past and current monthly mortgage payments; They still owe a remainder of $3,000 to the lender to avoid foreclosure on their Crozet Crossing home. The Office of Housing is requesting a short-term loan from the Crozet Crossing Loan Fund to pay the remaining $3,000 on behalf of the family. The Crozet Crossing Trust Fund Board of Trustee approved using the Loan Fund monies for this purpose, however, to actually disperse the funds requires an appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. Prospects for repayment by the family to the Trust Fund are good. Since the date of original default back in June when the family member lost her job due to medical reasons, she has since secured full time employment. The family is currently enrolled as clients of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) of Virginia, Inc., for help in further reducing their debt burden. The family is also scheduled to receive a lump sum disbursement through an upcoming settlement of a family estate-- anticipated by the estate lawyer to occur on or about the last day of September 2000-- which can in turn be pledged as collateral and guarantee of the proposed $3000 note. RECOMMENDATION: In keeping with the tenets of the Crozet Crossing Operating Agreement, that "no funds shall be expended unless appropriated by the Board of Supervisors," and in acknowledgment of the County's interest in encouraging and/or assisting home ownership among individuals of Iow to moderate income, the Office of Housing recommends approval of a short-term loan to this Crozet Crossing family as conditioned below: · Short-term loan from the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund in the 'amount of $3,000, · Amortization at the rate of 2% over a period of ten years, with a balloon payment on or before December 31, 2000. 99.007 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Appropriation - School Division SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of various School Division appropriations for donations, grants, and budget adjustments as detailed on Appropriation #98051. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Castner, Breeden February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: INFORMATION: At its meeting on December 14, 1998, the School Board approved several appropriations. Appropriation of $200.00 for Albemarle County Schools. Nations Bank made a donation in the amount of $200.00 to help defray the cost of the expenses incurred for the Fall Professional Development Day held for teachers on October 9, 1998. Appropriation of $7,500.00 for V. L. Murray Elementary School. V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation from V. L. Murray PTO in the amount of $2,500.00 and an anonymous donation in the amount of $5,000.00. These donations will be used to help with the cost of the art consultant and for the Fine Arts Program at the school. Appropriation of $1,000.00. Albemarle County Schools received a donation from Sprint for the Monticello High School dedication. This donation will be used to help defray the costs for this event. Appropriation of $5,500.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. J.T. Henley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $5,500.00 from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation. This grant will provide Henley students with an interdisciplinary arts program. This will include three artists in residency, which the entire school will participate in. Reduction of appropriation of $24,678.72 for Regional Adult Education Specialist Grant. The public School systems in Planning District 10, which consist of the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville, have entered into an agreement to receive ancillary services for the adult education program within their localities. Albemarle County Schools has served as the Administrative/Fiscal agency for these services. As of October 1, 1998, these services were transferred to the Charlottesville City Schools. The funds have been budgeted as part of the FY 98~99 Budget. All funds expended prior to October will be reimbursed to the school system. Expenses and revenues for this grant should be reduced to reflect only those expenses and revenues handled by Albemarle County. Overall the remaining expenses and revenues of this fund are $7,693.28 to cover operations prior to October 1. Transfer of $5,000.00 from the School Board Reserve. The School Board approved the transfer of $5,000.00 to help defray the cost of the Monticello High School Dedication. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations as detailed on Appropriation #98051. 99.016 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE.; : .: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 80AR. D OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: ApPropriation Community Services Act (CSA) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98052 in the amount of $1,102,323 for projected FY99 Community Services Act expenses. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Ralston AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUN D: The CSA Committee of the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) requests supplemental funding for the Comprehensive Services Act Programs for FY 1999. The total supplemental request is $1,733,949, of which 45% is local match or $780,277. Of the required supplemental local match, $161,735 is requested from the school division to pay for special education costs associated with CSA children and the remaining amount of $618,542 from general government funds. Of the $618,542, the CCF had budgeted a reserve of $211,451 bringing down the total local request to $407,092. In FY98, the county was required to pay an additional $424,835 to fund the additional local required match for CSA services. That FY98 supplemental appropriation was approved last June. The Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), implemented in 1995, is the primary funding source for at risk children and families that enter the foster care, residential special education or juvenile court systems. The fund is managed by the CCF (formerly the Community Policy and Management Team or CPMT), comprised of the directors of Social Services, Community Services Board, Dept. Of Health, Court Services and Special Education along with some specifically appointed community representatives. Children and families served with these funds are mandated by the Code and include: 1 ) children placed for purposes of special education, 2) disabled children placed by local social services or the court in private residential facilities and whose Individual Education Program (IEP) indicates such schooling is appropriate and needed, 3) foster care children and, 4) children and families served to prevent foster care placement. Additionally, certain groups of children and families are considered targeted groups and include: 1) children placed by a juvenile and domestic relations district court and; 2) children committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and placed in a pdvate or locally operated public facility or nonresidential program. These children are not considered mandated, but could easily become mandated if they are not served. Although increases continue in special education, preventive foster care and court placed children, the primary reason for the current supplemental request is due to the continued rise in foster care. DISCUSSION: The CCF (formerly the CPMT) has taken several measures over the past few years to curtail spending in this program. However, the driving force behind the current increases is: 1 ) the number of children entering foster care, 2) the severity of emotional and behavioral problems of the children and, 3) an increase in the number of youth ages 13 and over requiring specialized care. Trends affecting the increasing costs include the following: AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Community Services Act (CSA) February 3, 1999 Page 2 · Twenty-one children have been taken into care since July, 1998. Of these 21, twelve represent five sibling groups requiring specialized placement in order to enable the children to remain together. We anticipate five more children who are currently supervised and placed by the Court Services Unit in residential facilities to come into foster care because the CSA fund has run out of non-mandated money. The only way for these children to continue to be served is for them to be placed in foster care. The percentage of cases requiring specialized care has grown steadily since 1994 costing the system an average of $40,000 per year per child (an increase of $10,000 per year over 97-98). Temporary care for seriously emotionally disturbed children with a history of aggressiveness, chronic runaway behavior and/or suicidal behavior can cost as much as $400 per day (up from $300 per day in FY 97-98) to maintain them in a secure setting in order to stabilize them enough to transition to a less restrictive and less costly setting. (See attached charts). Increased costs are the result of vendor increased cost of doing business. There are often few placement choices for many of these children, particularly for emergency care for aggressive behavior, sexual offenders or combined handicapping conditions of seriously emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired youth. · Increase in the number of children coming from homes of parents with addiction problems or where the children have been prenatally exposed and/or negativity impacted by substance abuse prior to removal. Increase in the number of foster care children that had been served by public institutions in the past, had been funded through Medicaid or had been incarcerated prior to the stringent criteria being applied now. For example, Medicaid criteria for acute psychiatric care has narrowed so that children that once were able to be placed at DeJarnette Hospital for a longer period of time are now only able to obtain a few days of care at the same facility - if they can get in at ail. They are discharged with continued acute needs as defined by the court or the community and must be placed in some form of out of home setting, which usually ends up being foster care. · Increases in children requiring day treatment services that cannot be addressed in the public school setting. · Significant increases in the number of children with autism being served in the community Increases in the number of children requiring residential special education services. In FY 98, 39 children were placed in public or private residential or day treatment programs (14 of which were foster care). Thus far in FY 99, 39 children are also placed in these types of facilities with 14 of those 39 being in foster care. The CCF believes the following factors contribute to the increases: 1) an increasing urbanized population; 2) increase in overall population and; 3) a shift in family preservation efforts to shorter time frames before removal. Other factors may include changes in the poverty population and fewer options for local placements resulting in higher cost placements outside the community. The CCF has implemented several cost control measures that are working well but cannot be effective in keeping costs down at the same time that there are dramatic increases in the numbers of children being ordered into care either through court intervention or child protective service intervention (which is often synonymous with court intervention) or through special education. Additionally, market increases in vendor services impact the cost of caring for these children. Following are policies implemented by the CSA Committee to try and control costs: All foster care cases are referred to the state Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) for establishment of support. Currently these cases represent 65% of the caseload. In FY 98 DCSE collected $10,430 in support. Since July 1998 they have collected $9,200, a 176% increase over this time last year.. Although the average collection is small ($200-$300monthly average) compared to the cost of care, it still helps to defray the total cost of the child s care. AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Community Services Act (CSA) February 3, 1999 Page 3 All parents in non-foster care cases are expected to contribute to the cost of care for their children. While most parents are unable to contribute significantly to the cost of services, it is our policy that all should contribute based on ability to pay, however limited. The pursuit of alternative funding sources is aggressively pursued. Federal IV-E foster care funds pay for room, board and clothing for 55% of the current foster care caseload (down from 75% in FY 98); Medicaid, private insurance and SSI defray the costs of medical and psychological care in most cases depending on the vendor and Juvenile Crime Control funding is used to the extent possible for children served through the court services unit. The CCF has developed automated financial reports, which enable it and its workgroups to track and analyze expenditures. Last year the CCF finalized a new vendor contract with tighter specifications for fiscal accountability and reporting on services provided. The CCF has developed a Utilization Review process (required by the General Assembly) that will review cases on a severity scale to determine whether services are appropriate for the children. Attached is a list of the high cost foster care placements made by the Department of Social Services, the School Division and the Court Services Unit this year. As you can see by the brief descriptions of the placed children, the behavioral and emotional problems faced by these children are significant. Low cost foster homes cannot be utilized as placements for children with these types of needs, especially in the initial phase of their care. Additionally lower cost home based services are not available to assist with these children at this level of need. However, we anticipate the expanded use of Title IV-E federal funds to pay for some services for many of these children as of January 1999, since 69% of the current foster care children who are in therapeutic foster care are IV-E eligible. This change has been factored into the current supplemental request. Finally, a JLARC study last year resulted in the General Assembly passing a bill that allows for the use of Medicaid to pay for therapeutic foster care beginning in January 1999. However, DMAS did not finalize the rules regarding rates and eligibility criteria timely and now federal approval has been delayed. We do not anticipate start up before April 1999. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98052 in the amount of $1,102,323, $695,232 in state funds and $407,091 in local dollars from the General Fund balance. A request will go to the School Board on February 22nd to approve the $161,735 transfer from the School Fund to the CSA fund for the Special Education costs. If approved, the Board of Supervisors will be asked to approve the transfer appropriation in March. 99.011 .LBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 1 ?lacement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan Cost AGENCY Jrafton (10/17/97) $11,331.00 11/16/84 DSS (FC) Spec. Ed.-Seriously emotionally' Anticipated discharge date unknown. 'iedmont $5,580.00 distUrbed, mentally handicapped, sexually Terminated from Grafton on 11/14/98 3ehavioral Health (IV-E) molested. History of neglect and and placed at Piedmont Behavioral ~are (11/14/98) significant CPS interventions and home .Health Care due to persistent D# 229333629 based services. Suicidal gestUres, volatile uncontrollable aggressive behavior. rages, assaultive, delinquency. Previous Placement in a mOre intensive residential psychiatric hospitalizations. Unsuccessful program is being sought. Long term plan in previous specialized foster home is transition back to therapeutic foster placements. Hospitalized on TDO 6/97 home program. for homicidal and suicidal threats and actions. Terminated from Graft°n due to persistent, unpredictable rageful, assaultive outbursts against staff and other residents. Has recently been rejected for placement by 5 different inpatient psychiatric facilities based on their assessment that her behavior is too volatile for their programs. 'EKOA (8/12/98) $2,220.00 6/12/84 DSS (FC) History of abuse and neglect, truancy, · Anticipated discharge 6/99. Current plan D# 223338709 (IV-E) behavioral problems, ADHD, verbally and is to transition to relative's home or a physically aggressive, suicidal threats, has therapeutic foster home if relative required psychotropic medications, placement is not viable. previous placement in psychiatric hospital setting. ;eorgia House $2,400.00 12/21/82 DSS (FC) History of abuse and neglect sexually Anticipated discharge date 12/98. ~/18/98) (IV-E) abused, behavioral problems, eating Current plan is to transition to a disorder, suicidal threats. Previous theraPeutic foster home and eventual 9# 227279647 placement in psychiatric hospital.setting, placement with relative. ~kLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs .Plan Cost Agency United Methodist $3,475.00 9/7/84 DSS (FC) Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed, Anticipated discharge date 5/99. Current Family Services $3,600.00 . previous placement in Burgess Lane self plan is to transition back to a therapeutic (1/8/98) (IV-E) contained SED program, ADHD, foster home program or less restrictive' Westend (7/20/98) depression, delinquency, significant residential facility. ID//226336772 previous home based services provided, aggressive, assaultive behaviors, property destruction, on probation, previous psyc. hospitalizations. Unsuccessful in previous therapeutic foster home placement due to escalating assaultive behaviors. Terminated from UMFS due to persistent assaultive behavior and property destruction. Centra Health $3,556.00 12/11/83 DSS (FC) Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed. Anticipated discharge date 1/00. Current (Bridges)(11/25/97) $9,270.00 History of physical and emotional abuse plan is to transition to a'therapeutic foster Hughes Memorial (IV-E) and neglect, suicidal threats, verbally and home program or other less restrictive I10/26/98) physically aggressive, assaultive toward residential facility. ID# 226316468 school staff. Significant home based services prior to foster care, delinquency, specialized school placement in self contained program for SED students. ' Terminated from Bridges due to possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun. Youth detained and given suspended commitment to DJJ and ordered to cooperate with placement at " Hughes. .' ,,LBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 3 ?lacement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan Cost Agency ~lew Dominion $1,350.00 3/31/80 DSS (FC) CHINS - truancy and runaway. Has 2. Discharged 8/98~ Obtained her GED 18/5/97) (IV-E) year old child in custody of grandmother, prior 'to discharge. Youth declined iD//226297042 Ran away from initial group home further services and was terminated from placement, on probation. Not accepted by foster care 9/98 to live on her own. therapeutic foster home programs due to repeated runaway behavior. ~entra Health $4,200.00 1/24/85 DSS (FC) History of physical abuse, lack.of Anticipated discharge date 3/99. Current ~ridges (IV-E) supervision, and emotional neglect, plan is to transition back to a therapeutic 12/10/98) sexually victimized by an older youth, foster home placement. iD//228392264 History of multiple placement disruptions due to severe aggressive, behavior, self- destructive behavior, sexual ~ inappropriateness with younger children, fire setting and cruelty to animals. Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed and · mildly mentally handicapped. Aggressive · outbursts continued to persist despite 4 months in psychiatric hospital setting. Previous therapeutic foster home placements unSuccessful due to dangerous behavior. tew Dominion $3,000.00 8/1/82 DSS (FC) Sexual victimization of younger children, Anticipated discharge date 6/99. Current 9/2/97) (Non-IV-E) beyond control of authority, runaway plan is to transition to specialized foster DO 225319405 · behavior, impulsiveness, chronic history' home placement. of family dysfunction, abuse and neglect, previous foster care placements. . Significant CPS interventions. I Terminated from premous residential placement due to repeated runaway behavior. Picked up and detained but ran immediately upon release. Adjudicated as CHINS. Court ordered residential treatment. ~kLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs . Plan Cost Agency Youth & Family $4,800.00 12/9/79 DSS (FC) Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed. Anticipated discharge date 12/98. Advocates (Georgia (Non-IV-E) History of suicidal ideation and past Current plan is for transition t° House) (12/12/97) psychiatric hospitalization. Transitioned independent living arrangement with ID# 230191390 to current group home placement from intensive supportive services. specialized foster home program to receive intensive services directed toward preparation for independent living. Centra Health $4,200.00 3/28/86 DSS (FC) Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed. Discharged 9/98. Returned to father's (Bridges) (8/7/97) (IV-E) Prior placement in Burgess Lane self- home with supportive services and self- ID# 228375236 contained SED program. Previous CPS contained SED special education interventions, parental substance abuse, 'program. Previous placement in foster care, previous psyc. hospitalizations, aggressive, .assaultive behaviors. New Dominion $3,000.00 2/24/82 DSS (FC) History of physical abuse, learning Anticipated discharge date 6/99. Current il 1/20/97) (Non-IV-E) disabled, ADHD, aggressive behaviors, plan is to transition to a therapeutic foster ID# 223459939 substance abuse, CHINS/delinquency, on home placement with a focus on probation, disrupted placements with Independent Living preparation. relatives due to behavior problems. Terminated from drug treatment program for continued drug use and lack of. motivation. History of family alcohol and substance abuse and drug dealing ~I.,BEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases. FY 99 11/30/98 Page Placement Date· Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan Cost Agency Graydon Manor $9,124.00 t0/14/80 Region X Psychiatric hospitalization after serious Discharged from Graydon Manor (12/10/97) (Non-IV-E) (Mandated assault on mother; significant rage and · 11/30/98. ID# 217023528 Spec. Ed.) homidical ideation, making return home an impossibility, extensive substance abuse history, history of suicidal ideation and gestures/depression, history of Psychotic (auditory and Visual hallucinations) and obsessive compulsive disorders. Spec. Ed.-seriously emotionally disturbed; parental history of mental illness. Client recently started on lithium. Grafton (6/9/97) $10,080.00 8/21/83 Region X Spec. Ed.-mentally handicapped, seriously Anticipated discharge 8/99. Current plan ID# 230298583 (Non-IV-E) (Non- emotionally disturbed, autistic, is to transition to less restrictive Custodial) aggressive, self-destructive, sexually community setting such as an adult group assaultive. Extensive out-patient services home. Long term placement is have been provided. Previous psyc. anticipated. hospitalizations. Destructive of property, requires extensive supervision. New Dominion $3,000.00 10/14/82 School Received services in a day treatment Discharged 8/98. Returned to live with (9/16/96) (Non-IV-E) (Spec. Ed) facility for students with emotional mother. Attends regular high school ID# 229863716 disturbance. Instability in home. Abuse with special ed.. issues. .. ~LBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 6 Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan Cost Agency Grafton (9/5/94) $10,000.00 6/22/82 School Was not making progress in the local Discharge g°al 6/99. May continue at ID# 231459080 (Non-IV-E) (Spec. Ed) community or school setting. Student's Grafton through next school year. significant behaviors (some potentially dangerous), poor judgement, intense supervision needs, and profound communication deficits combine to make residential care a necessity. The severity of his autism continues to make Grafton the best choice for service. Graydon Manor $10,000 3/4/82 SchoOl In'patient and out-patient hospitalizations. Discharged 8/98. Reunited With mother (10/9/97) (Non-IV-E) (Spec~ Ed) In-home therapy, inability to sustain any in the community.. Enrolled in an level of education (including homebound), alternative educational program with ID# 076708433 long history of seVere mental illness, special education support. In-home s~rvices provided to support transition back to community. Community $1,340.00 4/25/83 DSS (Non- Emergency-shelter placement at parent's Discharged 9/98. 'Returned to mother's Attention (4/30/98) (IV-E) custodial request to enable mother to complete home with supportive services. ID# 242595410 inpatient drug treatment and locate housing. History of domestic conflict, substance abuse by mother and youth, homelessness. Georgia House $4,500.00 9/1/81 DSS (FC) History of delinqUency, suicidal threats. Anticipated discharge 9/99. Current (2/21/98) Poor impulse control, previous psYchiatric plan is transition to Independent Living New Dominion $3,000.00 hospitalizations. Previous commitment to arrangement or emancipation if youth. I7/14/98) (Non-IV-E) Dept. of Juvenile Justice. Unsuccessful in declines further services. ID# 231236369 Community Group Home placem'~nt.' 'Virginia Treatment I Eenter (3/20/98) I Ehild Help 1~7/31/98) $7,500.00 $7576.00 (Non-IV-E) 1~4~0 DSS (FC) Repeated parole violations. Disrupted adoption, serious behavioral problems, homicidal ideation and threats, aggressive behaviors. Intensive preventive services unsuccessful. History of previous t~svchiatric host~italizations. Anticipated discharge 8/99. Current plan is to return to prior custodians 'with goal of adoption and resume intensive supportive services. SJ.,BEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan _ Cost Agency . ~ Piedmont Behavior $8,580.00 7/10/84 DSs (FC) Seriously emotionally disturbed. Mentally Anticipated discharge 8/99. Current Health Care (Non-IV-E) handicapped, physically assaulting, plan is to return to mother's home with (6/23/98) sexually inappropriate behaviors. Needs intensive supportive services. IfretuTM ID# 225339885 strictly controlled environment with home is not viable, then the plan would intensive monitoring. Needs sex offender be to transition to a therapeutic foster treatment, home program 'or other less restrictive · residential facility. Westend (4/28/98) $8,400.00 10/1/81 DSS (FC) Seriously emotionally disturbed. Low Anticipated discharge 1/99. Current ID# 226494358 (Non-IV-E) cognitive functioning. History of plan is to transition to a therapeutic delinquency, assaultive behaviors, defiant foster home placement. of authority. History of previous psychiatric hospitalizations. J&ckson Feild $4,860.00 10/14/81 DSS (FC) History of delinquency,'truancy, runaway Anticipated discharge 8/99. Current (5/6/98) (IV-E) behavior. Poor impulse control, alcohol plan is return to mother with supportive ID# 223294188 and substance abuse, sexual promiscuity services.. . and aggressive behaviors. Community $4,390.00 6/28/82 DSS (FC) Prior custodian requested relief of custody Discharged 10/98. Currently a runaway. Attention A-Home (Non-IV-E) due to escalating defiant behaviors and Will continue to need residential ~6/24/98) suspected sexual involvement with placement once located until transition ID# 224435090 custodian's daughter. Mother is alcoholic to a therapeutic foster home placement and previously determined unfit by court, can be made. Father in prison for murder conviction.' Unsuccessful in community group home . placement due to substance abuse and repeated AWOL's. ~kLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs Plan Cost Agency · . New Dominion $2,100.00 10/22/85 DSS (FC) Seriously emotionally disturbed, Anticipated discharge 12/99. Current (5/27/98) (IV-E) aggressive, assaultive. History of suicidal plan is to transition back t° a therapeutic ID# 224398423 and homicidal threats. 'Previous foster home placement. therapeutic foster home placement unsuccessful due to inappropriate and dangerous behaviors. History of psychiatric hospitalizations. St. JosePh's Villa $4,990.00 7/16/91 DSS (FC) ADHD. History of aggressive behaviors Discharged 9/98. Transiti°ned to (5/26/98) (Non-IV-E) and safety concerns. History of .suicidal therapeutic foSter home placement. ID# 23161021 ideation and depression.. Previous psychiatric hospitalization. Unsuccessful in previous foster home placement due to . assaultive behaviors toward other children and repeated school suspensions. Virginia Treatment $4,500.00 7/23/82 DSS (FC) Significant history of neglect and sexual Discharged 7/98 to therapeutic foster Center (IV-E) abuse. Previous foster home placement home placement. (5/23/98) disrupted due to chronic runaway pattern, ID# 223371329 defiant behavior and repeated suicidal · threats. Serious emotional disturbance and low cognitive functioning.. ALBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 9 Placement Date Westend (7/1/98) ID# 224399491 St. Joseph's Villa (8/12/9S) ID# 223395348 New Dominion (8/3/98) ID# 223271278 Community Attention (10/20/98) ID# 228336794 Avg. Mo. Cost $3,600.00 (IV-E) $2,850.00 (IV-E) $3,000.00 (Non-IV-E) $4,990.00 (IV-E pending) DOB 7/8/86 3/13/85 5/25/81 7/3/84 CSA Agency DSS (FC) DSS (FC) DSS(FC) DSS(FC) History/Spec. Needs History of long term family dysfunction and significant intervention services. Aggressive and assaultive at home and school. History of emergency mental health interventions and psychiatric hospitalizations due to homicidal and suicidal threats. Older siblings in care for similar behaviors. Terminated from emergency shelter facility due to escalating dangerous behaviors. Severely emotionally abused, impulsive rages, assaultive behaviors, depression, suicidal, PTSD, previous psychiatric hospitalizations, special education- seriously emotionally disturbed, ADHD. Significant amount of home based services provided to prevent placement. Temporary removal from therapeutic foster home placement was necessary due to escalating assaultive behaviors. History of neglect, behavioral problems at school, aggressive, CHINS 'for truancy, delinquency, probation violations, ADHD, unsuccessful in community group home placement due to repeated AWOL's, previously committed to D J J, currently on parole and court ordered placement. History of neglect and parental alcohol abuse, special ed - mildly mentally handicapped, placed in community group home program with sibling on a temporary, emergency basis. Awaiting placement in Plan Anticipated discharge 3/99. Current plan is to transition to a therapeutic foster home placement. Anticipated discharge date 11/98. Current plan is to returu to previous therapeutic foster home placement. Anticipated discharge date 8/99. Current plan is to transition to an independent living arrangement or emancipation if youth declines further services. Anticipated discharge date 12/98. Current plan is to transition to a therapeutic foster home placement and eventual return to her father's home if viable. ! kLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 10 Placement Date Community Attention (9/21/98) ID# 224292170 Community Attention (9/28/98) ID# 230275805 Presbyterian Home (10/14/98) ID# 219298514 Presbyterian Home (10/14/98) ID# 216351204 Avg. Mo. Cost $4,530.00 (IV-E pending) $4,710.00 (Non-IV-E) $2,700.00 (IV-E pending) $2,700.00 (IV-E ~ending) DOB 12/30/80 12/18/82 11/18/90 1/30/92 CSA Agency DSS(FC) DSS(FC) DSS (FC) DSS(FC) History/Spec. Needs History of neglect, parental alcohol abuse and instability, special ed - learning disability, placed in community group home program with sibling on a temporary, emergency basis. Youth will be 18 in 12/98 and plans to leave care. History of neglect, lack'of supervision and domestic violence, minor problems in school with tardies and oppositional behavior. Ran away from home on several occasions due to abuse by stepfather. Group home placement was only placement available that would maintain child in same high school. On waiting list fOr therapeutic foster home placement. Sibling group of 4 gifts, ages 4-9, removed from mother by emergency court order due to chronic neglect. Placed in group home on a temporary, emergency basis to allow siblings to remain together. Awaiting placement in a therapeutic foster home. Sibling group of 4 girls, ages 4-9, removed from mother by emergency court order due to chronic neglect. Placed in group home on a temporary, emergency basis to allow siblings to remain together. Awaiting placement' in a therapeutic foster home Plan Anticipated discharge date '12/98. Current plan is emancipation. Anticipated discharge date 1/99. Current plan is to transition to a therapeutic foster home placement and eventual retum' home if viable. AnticiPated discharge date 12/98. Current plan is to transition with siblings to a therapeutic foster home placement and eventual return home if viable. Anticipated discharge date 12/98. Current plan is to transition with siblings to a therapeutic foster home placement and eventual return home if viable. aLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page ! 1 Placement Date Avg. Mo. DOB CSA History/Spec. Needs . Plan Cost Agency Presbyterian Home $2,550.00 5/8/89 DSS(FC) Sibling group of 4 girls, ages 4-9, removed Anticipated discharge date 12/98. (10/14/98) (IV-E from mother by emergency court order due Current plan is to transition with ID//220230943 pending) to chronic neglect. Placed in group home siblings to a therapeutic foster home on a temporary, emergency basis to allow placement and eventual return home if siblings to remain together. Awaiting viable. placement in a therapeutic foster home Presbyterian Home $3,000.00 2/14/94 DSS(FC) Sibling' group of 4 girls, ages 4-9, removed Anticipated.discharge date 12/98. (10/14/98) (IV-E from mother by emergency court order due Current plan is to transition with ID//224715142 pending) ' to chronic neglect. Placed in group home siblings to a therapeutic foster home on a temporary, emergency basis to allow placement and eventual return home if siblings to remain together. Awaiting viable. Placement in a therapeutic.foster home St. Joseph's Villa $4,330.00 8/30/89 DSS(FC) History of neglect, ADHD, non-compliantDischarged 10/98. Transitioned to a (9/21/98) (IV-E behavior at home and aggressiveness foster home placement. Eventual plan ID//591982927 pending) toward siblings. Placed in emergency is return to mother's home if viable. shelter facility with sibling initially until · appropriate foster home placement could be located. St. Joseph's Villa $4,675.00 8/7/84 DSS(FC) History of neglect, special ed-seriously Anticipated discharge date 1/99. (9/21/98) (IV-E emotionally disturbed, aggressive Current plan is to transition to a ID# 192645507 pending) behaviors at home and at school, therapeutic foster home placement and Delinquency, diagnosed with bi-polar eventual return to mother's home if disorder, victim of sexual abuse and has viable. acted Out sexually in the past. Plfi'ced in emergency shelter facility awaiting placement in therapeutic foster hOme. ~kLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 12 Placement Date 'Avg. Mo. DOB CSA HistorY/spec. Needs Plan . ~ Cost Agency - Bridges - $8,500.00 12/18/82 School Multiple in-patient hospitalizations, Discharge goal 12/99. Plan is to attend (Non-IV-E) (Spec. Ed) individual and family therapy, Student's high school, live with family, and (Is currently at severe weight loss outside of residential · continue with Outpatient treatment. DeJarnette. Has not care has resulted in other health care issues stabilized enough to such as osteoporosisl Student has not been move to Bridges) able to maintain at home for more than a ID# 579138879 I few weeks since 1995. Student unable to maintain physical health, attend school, or participate in therapy 'outside of residential treatment. Virginia Treatment $7,500.00 5/18/88 DSS(FC) Seriously emotionally disturbed, history of Anticipated discharge 2/99. cUrrent Center (IV-E) depression, destruction of property, plan is placement in a residential (11/24/98) aggressiveness, unpredictable, rageful treatment facility if return to treatment ID# 227490190 behavior, unsuccessful in multiple foster home not viable. treatment foster homes, despite significant wrap around services. : Westend $10,200.00 1/4/85 DSS(FC) CondUct disorder, alternative education Anticipated discharge 2/99. FAPT has I11/20/98) (IV-E program, ADHD, history of depression, recommended placement in residential ID# 223497057 Pending) previous psychiatric hospitalization for treatment facility. physically assaultive, destructive· behaviors. History of fire setting, impulsive, disruptive, non-compliant with medication. ALBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page 13 Elk Hill $4,484 1/20/87 CoUrt Non- Seriously emotionally disturbed· student. Anticipated discharge 6/99. Damien is 9/11/98 Mandated Disrespectful to teachers and students, currently responding well to the .- ' ID# 014724320 case fighting and'disruptive behaviors in the residential setting and it is hopeful that switched to classroom. CPS referrals and delinquency appropriate behavioral patterns can be DSS(FC) concerns. Family had received intensive intr°duced and transferred to the general when non- out-patient and in-home counseling to no community. It is hopeful he will be able mandated avail. Has been diagnosed with Conduct to be returned t° his mother with funds were Disorder/ChildhOod Onset and has. supportive services. depleted displayed impulsivity difficulties. Father is'incarcerated and mother is a recovering Cocaine addict who has also been previously incarcerated. Timber Ridge $5,296 7/3/84 Court Non- Found guilty of assaulting his father and Expected to return to community in 9/3/98 Mandated placed on supervised probation. June 2000 and live with father and ID# 223535641 case Habitually in trouble at school and placed attend public school. Counseling will switched to in Burgess Lane in May 1998 due to his be made available to family. Special DSS(FC) aggressive behaviors. Considered to be a Education services will need to be when non- seriously emotionally disturbed student addressed, 'mandated and suffers from anxiety disorder, funds were depressive disorder. Inability to control his depleted compulsions and he has symptoms not · uncommon with ADD. Has been on medications to control his mood swings for the last three years. Home based services were unsuccessful. Demonstrated aggressive behavior toward other residents at the Attention Home along with his failure to comply with their structure led to a return to court and placement at. DeJarnette and 'eventually' Timbe~ Ridge. aLBEMARLE COUNTY Residential Facility CSA Cases FY 99 11/30/98 Page New Dominion $3,000.00 01/02/82 Court Non- Placed on probation in JulY 1998 for Plan is to return to community in .;:uly (7/7/98) Mandated repeated trespassing. Had difficulties in 1999, with Court Services Unit ' ID# 224413945 case. both school and home. Counseling maintaining probation supervision. Will switChed to services were delivered for approximately be required to attend High School and DSS(FC) 6 months. Spring 1998 found guilty of maintain part-time emPloyment. when non- several larceny charges, probation mandated violations and trespassing. Received funds were commitment to Dept. of Juvenile Justice depleted but staff requested placement in New Dominion. Father is an alcoholic and mother is codependent to the alcoholic behavior. Labeled as an seriously emotionally disturbed student. -. New Dominion $3,000.00 12/4/81 Court Non- Placed on suPervised probation 12/12/96Anticipated discharge 6/99. 9/25/97 Mandated for truancy. Received services through Transitional plan is to enter the ID# 228375211 case Albemarle County Schools for learning Community Attention Home upon switched to disabilities and serious emotional discharge and slowly transition back to DSS(FC) disturbance. Father a recovering alcoholic her parent's care. when non- and mother in therapy for mental problems. mandated Electronic monitoring, in-home .counseling funds were and repeated detentions did little to depleted improve the runaway and truant behavior. Foster Care Caseload Trend Over Ten Years 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Calendar Year 80 70 60 ~ 50 ~ 4O ~ 30 2O 10 New Foster Care Cases (Chart #1) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year % of New Foster Care Cases Requiring Specialized Placement (Chart #3) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year New Cases Requiring Specialized Placement (Chart #2) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year ElNew Cases gReq. Specialized Placement SpecialiZed and Residential Care Cases Over the Last 16 Months (Chart #4) 70 60 50 ~ 40 ~ 30 [] 20 10 Month New Foster Care Cases Since July 1998 12 10 8 # of New Children 6 Entering Care 4 2 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Month Foster Care Cases With Goal of Adoption (Chart 5) 2O Fiscal Year Foster Care Youth 16 and Up (ILP) (Chart #6) 40 30 20 10 0 1988 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fiscal Year COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE2OA. D OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The 1997/98 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors. DISCUSSION: Certificate of Excellence This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last three years and is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification within six months. General Fund General Fund FY 97~98 revenues were $113,525 less than budgeted, expenditures were $1,239,390 less than budgeted, resulting in an excess of revenues over expenditures of $1,125,865: Please keep in mind that $817,444 of this amount was reappropriated in FY 98/99 for uncompleted projects from FY 97/98. School Fund Due to reporting requirements which require that school activities be shown as a component unit of local government, it is very difficult to compare the audit amounts to our actual records. A number of Federal Programs and what we consider self-sustaining activities are combined in the audit for reporting purposes. The fund balance for what we consider the School Fund increased by $986,940 in FY 97/98 primarily due to expenditures being less than budgeted. Fund Balances The Combined Balance Sheet on pages 4 and 5 in the Financial Section details the assets, liabilities, and fund balances for various funds as of June 30, 1998. The schedule below is intended to reconcile these fund balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to you. Fund Balances General Fund Capital - General School Fund Capital - School Per audit 06/30/98 $16,205,621 $ 7,354,752 $ 158,730,370 Fixed Assets (141,733,371) Debt Service ( 2,666,847) Jail Reserve Fund (300,000) Capital Projects (10,590,699) $ 10,590,699 Fire Service Fund (2,000,000) Cafeteria Fund (643,044) Storm Water Fund (927,985) Combined Funds 28,115 (378,117) Inventory ( 51,806) (222,668) Sales Tax Reserve (804,673) (586,978) PREP Advance 107,953 Reserves - VDOT (500,000) (2,500) Waldorf Adjusted Balances $14,874,757 $ 4,126,767 $ 1,908,646 $ 10,698,652 Attached for your information is an updated November 1998 Fund Balance Report using audited amounts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 97/98 annual report and for a better understanding of the County's financial status that you review the letter of transmittal included in the Introduction Section and the Notes on pages 13 - 49 of the Financial Section. 99.006 ALBEMARLE COUNTY OPERATIONS FUND BALANCE REPORT NOVEMBER 30, 1998 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL GENERAL SCHOOL FUND CAPITAL EDUCATION AUDITED FUND BALANCE 06-30-98 APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS: BUDGETED ANTICIPATED FUND BALANCE CARRYOVER REAPPROPRIATIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SOIL CONSERVATION STAFFING BAILIFF JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT $14,874,757 (69,916) (354,130) (463,314) (72,250) (10,834) {25,733) $~,126,767 (365,000) (3,761,653) $1,908:646 (1,035,512~_ $10,698,652 (lOO,OOO) (9,873,332) TOTAL APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS (996,177) {~,126,653) (1,035,512) {9,973,332) FUND BALANCE ~13,878,580 ~$114 $873..13~ Totals may not balance due to rounding /RL~I-M,RI~LI' L;UUN I Y UlaI'I~LR I IUN~ FUND BALANCE REPORT NOVEMBER 30, 1998 GENERAL CAPITAL SCHOOL CAPITAL FUND GENERAL FUND EDUCATION AUDITED FUND BALANCE 06-30-98 AP PROVED APPROPRIATIONS: BUDGETED ANTICIPATED FUND BALANCE CARRYOVER REAPPROPRIATIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SOIL CONSERVATION STAFFING BAILIFF JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT $14,874,757 (69,916) (354,130) (463,314) (72,250) (10,834) (25233) $4,126,767 (365,000) (3,761.653) $1,908,646 (1,035,512) $10,698,652 (100,000) (9,873,332) TOTAL APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS (996,177) (4,126,653) (1,035,$12) (9,973,332) FUND BALANCE $114 $873,134 Totals may not balance due to rounding COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FY Ended June 30, 1998 Scanned under Financial Reports. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEC R ) OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1999/00 Revenue Projection Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Updated FY 1999/00 Revenue Projections STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, White, Gulati AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER:~ I N FORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: .~'~'-'---'--" / DISCUSSION: Fiscal Year 1999/00 revenues projected in October, 1998 at $104,483,515 have been revised to $105,780,235, an increase of $1,296,720. Local tax revenues increase overall by $960,185, the majority of which are general property tax revenues. General property tax revenues were revised upwards by $947,085, and consist of an additional $671,800 in real estate tax revenues, $100,200 in personal property tax revenues, and other miscellaneous increases. (The increased real estate tax revenues reflect the impact of a 3.5% reassessment increase, over the preliminary 2.5% reassessment estimate used in October.) Other significant changes in local tax revenues include a $163,000 increase in meals tax revenues, reflecting current activity and better compliance, and a $373,600 decrease in sales tax receipts (attributed to the rapid growth of taxable sales in the outlying localities.) Other local revenues are projected to decline $143,925 from the October estimates, reflecting a $239,500 decline in interest income (due to a change in the way interest income is allocated among County funds,) offset by small increases in permit and fee revenues, fines, charges for service, and miscellaneous revenues. Finally, state and federal revenues increase by $467,960, reflecting a projected increase in social services revenues of $468,000, based on current year receipts. These increases are summarized as follows: Revenue Type Local Tax Revenue Other Local Revenues State/Federal Revenues Transfers Total General Fund October, January, 1998 '1999 $ Increase 91,378,515 92,338,700 960,185 4,890,600 4,746,675 (143,925) 8,104,100 8,572,060 467,960 110,300 122,800 12,500 104,483,515 105,780,235 '1,296,720 At this time, the revised revenue projections do not include any additional state revenues proposed by Governor Gilmore to fully fund general government's 599 allocation or sheriff's deputy pay increases. These revenues, which could total $952,610, would provide additional revenues for local government should they be approved by the General Assembly. Based upon the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive an additional $536,907 in local tax revenues for FY00 (60%), leaving $375,938 (40%) for general government. This additional allocation of funds is summarized below: Additional Allocation to the Schools Additional Local Tax Revenues Less Additional Tourism Revenues Total Additional Local Tax Revenues for Operations Schools @ 60% Gen. Govt. @ 40% 960,185 (20,340) 939,845 563,907 375,938 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 1999/00 revised revenue projections and the allocation of the additional local tax revenues between the School Division and General Government. 99.014 I N T E R Offic~ of thc Ck~ to ~ ~ ~1 M~ 0 F F I C E MEMO To-' From: Subject: Date: Michael Thompson Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Personnel Policy February 5, 1999 At its meeting on February 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached amendments to the Albemarle County Personnel Policy, Section P-03, Employee Grievances, as submitted. Thank you. Attachment cc (memo only): Rick Huff Larry Davis Mark Trank BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendments to Personnel Policy SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of amendments to the Albemarle County Personnel ~ Policy, Section P-03, dealing with employee grievances, to clarify role of Human Resources Department and to clarify procedures for appealing decisions and procedures governing grievance hearings. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. TuCker, Huff, Davis, Thompson, Trank AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Section 15.2-1506 requires the Board of Supervisors to maintain a grievance procedure for its employees that affords an immediate and fair method for the resolution of disputes which may arise in the workplace. The current grievance procedure is set forth in Section P-03 of the Albemarle County Personnel Policy. Currently, the grievance procedure does not specify who is responsible for administration of grievances, nor does it adequately address procedural matters relating to grievance hearings. In addition, current policy provides for two separate reviews by the County Executive's Office, a practice which experience has proven to be duplicative and unnecessary from both a management and employee perspective. Section P-03 has been completely revised to address these issues. Major changes proposed are as follows: · The Human Resources Department will serve as the impartial administrator of the policy. Time frames for filing and appealing grievances have been modified and made consistent at each stage. Specifically, the grievance must be filed within 20 calendar days after the occurrence or event giving rise to the grievance, and the employee's supervisor must respond within 5 calendar dayS, Current policy contains a mixture of calendar and working days and has proven to be confusing for both sides. The two levels of review in the County Executive's Office (currently, Steps 3 and 4) have been combined into one (Step 3), giving the County Executive or his designee the authority to review the grievance and meet with the employee. Current language giving the employee the right to have legal counsel or other representative(s) and witnesses present at this level has been retained. The composition of the grievance panel has been modified to require that all three panel members be employed by the County on a full-time basis in good standing. Experience has shown that current policy has led to inordinate delays and inability to agree on the third panel member, who must be chosen by agreement between the County and the employee. · Procedures regarding conduct of the grievance hearing, including the order of presentation of evidence and related issues, have been specifiCally addressed and clarified. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the County Personnel Policy, to be effective upon passage. 99.013 LARRY W. DAVIS COUNT~ ATrORNE'Y PHONE [804) 972-4067 FAX (804) 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A. TRANK DEPLrI¥ COUNT3' A'I'rORNEY GREG RAMPTNER KIMBERLY E. WOLOD ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS February3,1999 B Y HAND The Honorable Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk Albemarle County Circuit Court 501 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: County of Albemarle Grievance Procedure Dear Shelby: Enclosed please find a tree and correct copy of the amended Grievance Procedure adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1999. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2- 1507(A), I hereby certify that the amended Grievance Procedure is in compliance with applicable state law. Please return to me a certified copy of this Certification for our records. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, County Attorney Enclosure c: 2Robert W. Tucker, Jr. x/Ella W. Carey, Clerk MAT/county. gert/ge i evcert, twd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-~96 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060 February 3, 1999 B Y HAND The Honorable Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk Albemarle County Circuit Court 501 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: County of Albemarle Grievance Policy Dear Shelby: Enclosed please find a true and correct copy of the amended Grievance Policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1999. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2- 1507(A), I hereby certify that the amended Grievance Policy is in compliance with applicable state law. Please return to me a certified copy of this Certification for our records. Please let me know if you have any questions conceming this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Enclosure c: Lan'y W. Davis, County Attorney Ella W. Carey, Clerk MAT/county. gen/gr f evcert, rwt §P-03 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE I. Objective The purpose of the Albemarle County Grievance Procedure is to afford an immediate and impartial method for the resolution of disputes that may arise between the County government and employees in County service. II. Coverage of Grievance Procedure A. This procedure applies to all non-probationary employees in permanent full-time and permanent part-time positions in: 1. Albemarle County; 2. the Department of Social Services of Albemarle County, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(4); and 3. the Charlottesville-Albemarle-University of Virginia Emergency Communications Center. Bo This procedure shall not apply to the following employees: 1. 2. o 4. 5. 6. Appointees of the Board of Supervisors; Officials and employees who by law serve at the will or pleasure of the Board of Supervisors or the County Executive; Deputies and Assistants to the County Executive; Department and agency heads; Employees whose terms of employment are limited by law; Employees in temporary, on-call or seasonal positions; Probationary employees; Any law enforcement officer whose grievance is subject to the' provisions of Virginia Code § 2.1-116.1 et seq. and who has elected to proceed pursuant to those provisions in the resolution of his of her grievance; or Any other employee who elects to proceed pursuant to any other existing procedure in the resolution of his of her grievance. The County Executive or his designee shall determine the officers and employees excluded from the grievance procedure, pursuant to section II(B) above, and shall be responsible for maintaimng an up-to-date list of the affected positions (See Appendix §P-03-A, Positions Not Covered by the Grievance Procedure). III. Def'mitions County Attorney shall mean either the County Attorney or his designee. County Executive shall mean either the County Executive or his designee. Grievance shall mean a complaint or dispute by an employee eligible to use this procedure relating to his or her employment, including but not limited to: (a) disciplinary actions, including dismissals, demotions and suspensions, provided that dismissals shall be grievable whenever resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; (b) the application of personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; (c) acts of retaliation as the result of using the grievance procedure or of participation in the grievance of another Albemarle County employee; (d) acts of retaliation because the employee has complied with any law of the United States or of the Commonwealth, has reported any violation of such law to a governmental authority, has sought any change in law before the Congress of the United States or the General Assembly, or has reported an incidence of fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement; and (e) complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, political affiliation, age, disability, national origin or sex. Grievant shall mean an eligible employee who has filed a complaint under this procedure. Human Resources Director shall mean either the Human Resources Director or his designee. Management shall mean the Board of Supervisors and its designees who establish policy for Albemarle County. IV. Management Responsibilities Management retains the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of County government. Accordingly, the following complaints are nongrievable: 2 (a) establishment and revision of wages or salaries, position classification or general benefits; (b) work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment or work activity which may reasonably be expected to be a part of the job content; (c) the contents of ordinances, statutes or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; (d) failure to promote except where the employee can show that established promotional policies or procedures were not followed or applied fairly; (e) the methods, means and personnel by which or by whom work activities are to be carded out; termination, layoff, demotion or suspension from duties because of lack of work, reduction in work force, or job abolition, except where such action affects an employee who has been reinstated within the previous six months as the result of the final determination of a grievance; (g) the hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment and retention of employees within the County; and (h) the relief of employees from duties of the County in emergencies. In any grievance brought under the exception to Section IV(f) above, the County's action shall be upheld upon a showing by the County that: (i) there was a valid business reason for the action, and (ii) the employee was notified of the reason in writing prior to the effective date of the action. V. Human Resources Department Responsibilities The County Human Resources Department shall serve as an impartial administrator of this process. Upon the filing of a grievance, the Human Resources Department shall do the following: (a) open a file and assign a number to the grievance; (b) ensure that all parties are aware of the process; (c) monitor procedures and time frames; (d) notify either party of noncompliance; (e) be informed of the status of the grievance by both parties at each step; 3 (f) maintain appropriate documentation; and (g) perform all other responsibilities as Specified in this Procedure. VI. Grievance Procedure Generally A. For purposes of this procedure, "days" shall be defined as calendar days and time periods shall begin to run on the day following that on which any action is taken or report rendered, without regard to weekends or County-observed holidays. If a time period specified in this procedure ends on a weekend or holiday, the last day of the time period shall be the end of the first business day following the weekend or holiday. For example, a written grievance under Step 1 must be presented to the grievant's immediate supervisor within five (5) days of the supervisor's verbal reply to the informal grievance. The five (5) days shall begin to nm on the day after receipt of the supervisor's verbal reply and shall terminate on the fifth day following. If the fifth day is a weekend or holiday, the time period shall terminate at the end of the next full business day. B. Time limits established under this procedure are intended to be strictly construed and enforced. However, in the interests of fairness, such time limits may be extended if both parties agree to such extensions in writing. C. All stages of this procedure beyond Step 1 shall be reduced to writing on forms supplied by the Human Resources Department. At Step 3 and above, the grievant may, at his option, choose to have a representative of his choice, including legal counsel. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel or other person(s), the County likewise has the option of being represented by legal counsel, provided that a person may not serve as both a witness and a representative at any Step under this procedure. D. The grievant shall bear any and all costs involved in employing representation and preparing his case at all steps of this procedure, including but not limited to attorneys' fees and expenses and any costs of judicial filings or appeals. E. After the initial filing of a written grievance, failure of either party to comply with all substantial procedural requirements of this procedure, without just cause, shall result in a decision in favor of the other party on any grievable issue, provided that the noncomplying party fails to correct the noncompliance within five (5) days of receipt of written notification by the other party of the compliance violation. However, the right of the grievant to correct cOmpliance violations shall not apply to any determinations under Steps 1 through 3, or to grievability determinations, provided that the grievant has previously received written notice of the applicable deadlines for appealing such determinations at the time the determination was rendered but has failed to respond in a timely fashion. F. The County Executive may require a clear written explanation of the basis for any requests for just cause extensions or exceptions, and shall determine all compliance issues. Such determinations by the County Executive are subject to appeal by the grievant by filing a petition with 4 the Circuit Court of Albemarle County within fltirty (30) days of the compliance determination. The grievant shall be solely responsible for filing such petition. VII. Grievability A. Decisions regarding grievability, including the question of access to this procedure, shall be made by the County Executive. Grievability decisions shall be made at the request of the grievant or his department head or immediate supervisor within ten (10) days of such request. A copy of the County Executive's decision concerning grievability shall be sent to the grievant, to the department head and/or immediate supervisor and to the Human Resources Director. B. Decisions by the County Executive that an issue or complaint is not grievable may be appealed by the grievant to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for a hearing de novo on the idsue of grievability as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-1507(A)(9). Proceedings for the review of the County Executive's decision regarding grievability shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the County Executive within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the decision and giving a copy thereof to all other parties. Within ten (10) days thereafter, the County Executive shall transmit to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County a copy of his decision, a copy of the notice of appeal, mid any exhibits that may have been provided in connection with the resolution of the issue of grievability. A list of the evidence furnished to the court shall also be furnished to the grievant. C. The failure of the County Executive to transmit the record shall not prejudice the rights of the grievant. If the County Executive fails to transmit the record within the time required, the Circuit Court, on motion of the grievant, may issue a writ of certiorari requiring the County Executive to transmit the record on or before a certain date. D. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such records by the clerk, the Circuit Court, sitting without a jury, shall hear the appeal on the record transmitted by the County Executive and such additional evidence as may be necessary to resolve any controversy as to the correctness of the record. The Court, in its discretion, may receive such other evidence as the ends of justice require. The Court may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the County Executive. The decision of the Court shall be rendered no later than the fifteenth (15th) day from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. The decision of the Court is final and is not appealable. E. The issue of grievability may be raised at any step of the Grievance Procedure prior to the panel hearing provided in Section XII of this procedure, or it shall be deemed waived by all parties. Once raised, the issue shall be resolved before further processing of the complaint. A request that grievability be determined shall toll the time limits under this procedure. Time limits shall begin to run again the day after the decision on grievability is made by the County Executive or the Circuit Court. F. The classification of a complaint as nongrievable by either the County Executive or the Circuit Court of Albemarle County shall not be construed to restrict any employee's right to seek, 5 or management's right to provide, customary administrative review of complaints outside the scope of the Grievance Procedure. VIII. Consolidation of Grievances If more than one grievance is filed arising from the same factual circumstances, the County Executive may, at any time prior to a panel hearing, consolidate those grievances for joint processing, including grievability determinations. If consolidation occurs, all time limits set forth in this procedure shall thereafter be calculated from the date of the last filed grievance. Once consolidated, the grievances shall all be processed as a single matter pursuant to this procedure. IX. Step 1 Procedure: Immediate Supervisor Level A. No later than twenty (20) days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the grievance, the employee affected shall identify the grievance verbally to his immediate supervisor. Within five (5) days of such identification, the immediate supervisor shall give his response to the employee with respect to the particular grievance. The failure of an employee to identify the grievance within the time specified above shall constitute a forfeiture and a waiver of any rights to proceed further and shall terminate the grievance. B. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this informal process, the employee shall notify the Human Resources Department of the intent to file a grievance and shall obtain a copy of Grievance Form A (See Appendix to the Grievance Procedure). The employee shall reduce the grievance to writing on Grievance Form A, identifying specifically and in detail the nature of the grievance and the requested remedy. Should he prevail in the grievance, an employee is entitled only to the relief specifically requested (see also Section XV for discussion of Grievance Panel decisions). Such written grievance shall be presented to the immediate supervisor within five (5) days of the supervisor's verbal reply to the oral grievance. The supervisor shall then reply in writing to this written grievance within five (5) days of receiving it. C. If the employee's supervisor is also his department/agency head, he shall pass by Step 2 of this procedure and proceed immediately to Step 3. If the employee's sUPervisor is the County Executive, he shall pass by Step 3 and proceed immediately to Step 4. X. Step 2 Procedure: Department/Agency Head If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the conclusion of Step I as outlined above in Section IX, the grievant shall have the right to appeal as follows. Within five (5) days following receipt of the Step 1 (B) written reply, the grievant shall notify his department/agency head and the Human Resources Department in writing on Grievance Form A that resolution has not occurred and shall supply the reasons why the grievant believes that resolution has not occurred. The department/agency head shall schedule and hold a meeting with the grievant to review the grievance within five (5) days of receipt of such submission, or on such other date as the parties may mutually agree. The only persons who may be present at this meeting are the grievant and the 6 department/agency head. The meeting may be adjourned to another time or place by agreement of the parties. A written reply to the grievance shall be provided to the employee and the Human Resources Department within five (5) days after the meeting. XI. Step 3 Procedure: County Executive Level A. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the termination of Step 2 as outlined above in Section X, the grievant shall notify the Human Resources Department, indicate on Grievance Form A that resolution has not occurred and submit the grievance to the Deputy County Executive within five (5) days following receipt of the Step 2 reply. The County Executive or his designee shall schedule and hold a meeting with the grievant to review the grievance within ten (10) davs of receipt of such submission, or on such other date as the parties may mutually agree. B. The grievant may have legal representation or another representative present at the Step 3 meeting. If the grievant is represented by legal counsel or another representative, the County Executive may also have legal counsel or another representative present. The grievant shall inform the County in writing of the name of his legal counsel or other representative at least two (2) days prior to the Step 3 meeting. Either party may call appropriate witnesses, who shall be present only while actually providing testimony. The County Executive or designee shall, in his sole discretion, determine whether the testimony of witnesses is relevant or, if witnesses have testified, whether additional testimony by other witnesses is necessary. C. A written reply to the grievance shall be provided to the grievant and the Human Resources Department within five (5) days after the Step 3 meeting, or on such other date as the parties may mutually agree. XII. Step 4 Procedure: Grievance Panel A. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the termination of Step 3 as outlined above in Section XI, the grievant shall notify the Human Resources Department, indicate on Grievance Form A that resolution has not occurred and request a hearing before a Grievance Panel ("Panel"). The request shall be submitted to the Human Resources Director within five (5) days following receipt of the Step 3 reply. B. An impartial Grievance Panel shall be constituted and selected for each grievance hearing. The Human Resources Director shall arrange for the Panel selection. If the Human Resource Director is a party to the grievance, the request form shall be submitted to the County Executive, who shall make the necessary arrangements. XIII. Composition of the Grievance Panel A. The Panel shall be composed of three (3) members who are County employees (except as provided under paragraphs C or D of this section) and who shall be chosen in the following manner: one member shall be appointed by the grievant, one member shall be appointed by the County Executive and a third member shall be selected by the first two Panel members. All Panel members must be employed on a full-time basis in good standing by the County at the time of selection and hearing. To ensure an objective, impartial Panel, no persons having direct involvement with the grievance being heard by the Panel, or with the complaint or dispute giving rise to the grievance, shall serve on the Panel. Managers who are in a direct line of supervision of a grievant, persons residing in the same household as the grievant and the following relatives of a participant in the grievance process or a participant's spouse are prohibited from serving as panel members: spouse, parent, child, descendants of a child, sibling, niece, nephew and first cousin. B. Both the grievant and the County Executive shall make their appointments to the Panel within five (5) days after the request for a panel hearing is filed. The Human Resources Director shall be notified of the appointments on Grievance Form B (See Appendix 8-B Grievance Form). The two panel members chosen by the grievant and County Executive shall select the third panel member within ten (10) days after the request for a panel hearing is filed and shall notify the Human Resources Director of their selection. Unless it is necessary to involve the Circuit Court in the selection of the third member, a complete panel shall be selected within ten (10) days after the request for a panel heating is filed. C. In all cases where the first two members cannot reach an agreement as to the third member within ten (10) days, the Human Resources DirectOr, after confirming such fact, shall immediately notify the County Attorney's Office, who shall request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County to appoint the third member pursuant to the selection procedures outlined in paragraph A of this section. Such third panel member appointed by the Court must be employed on a full-time basis in good standing by the County at the time of appointment and hearing, unless the County and the grievant mutually agree in advance to permit the selection of a non-County employee as the third panel member. In the event that the third member selected by the Court is a non-County employee, the County and grievant shall share equally in the costs and expenses, if any, of such third panel member. D. The County, at its sole option, may use an administrative hearing officer in employee termination or retaliation cases. When the County elects to use an administrative hearing officer as the third panel member in an employee termination or retaliation case, the administrative hearing officer shall be appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. The appointment shall be made from the list of administrative hearing officers maintained by the Executive Secretary pursuant to Va. Code § 9-6.14:14.1. If the County elects to use an administrative hearing officer, it shall bear the expense of such officer's services. E. In all cases, the third member shall serve as chairperson of the panel. The chairperson shall set the time for the hearing and notify the Human Resources Director, who shall in mm notify the grievant, County Executive and County Attorney. The grievant and the Count)' Executive shall each be responsible for arranging the presence of their respective witnesses. The hearing shall be held as soon as possible after the date of the original request for a hearing, allowing sufficient time for access to records as specified in paragraph F below. Either party may have an attorney or other representative of his choice present at the Panel hearing. 8 F. The Human Resources Director shall provide the Panel with copies of the grievance record prior to the hearing, and provide the grievant with a list of documents furnished to the Panel. At least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the grievant and his attorney or other representative shall be allowed access to and copies of all relevant documents intended by the County to be used in the hearing. At least five (5) days prior to the hearing, the grievant and the County shall exchange lists of witnesses and exhibits to be called or introduced at the proceeding. XIV. Conduct of Grievance Panel Hearing A. The Panel is constituted solely for the purpose of determining whether a grievance filed by an employee is substantiated and what remedy, if any, should be provided. The Panel may not formulate or change County policy, rules or procedures. The Panel shall determine whether, the grievant has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action complained of was without cause, or done in violation of a law, rule, regulation or other policy. The Panel shall not otherwise substitute its judgment for that of management. B. The Panel shall conduct the heating as follows: At the request of either party, the hearing shall be private and limited to the grievant, the Panel members, the legal counsel or other representative of the grievant and the County, appropriate witnesses as they testify, and any court reporters or other official recorders of the hearing. At the request of either party, witnesses shall be separated from the hearing room and allowed to be present only during the time that they actually testify. o The Panel shall consider the grievance without regard to any proposed disposition (including offers of settlement) by any lower authority, unless the grievant and the County Executive shall agree in writing that the issue(s) shall be so limited. In all other cases, the Panel shall consider the matter as if presented to it in the first instance. o The Panel may at any time ask the parties or their representatives for statements clarifying the issues involved in the grievance. Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the County, may be received as evidence by the Panel, and when so received shall be marked and made a part of the record. o Both parties shall have the right to make opening statements, starting with the grievant. After opening statements, the order of the hearing shall be as follows: the grievant shall proceed first, and shall bear the ultimate burden of persuasion. At the conclusion of the grievant's evidence, the County shall have the opportunity to present its evidence. At the conclusion of the County's presentation, the Chairperson shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any further evidence to oiler or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving a negative response, the Chairperson shall permit the parties to summarize their cases (beginning with the grievant) and shall then declare the hearing closed. o Both parties have the right to offer evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and shall produce such additional evidence as the Panel deems necessary for understanding and ruling upon the dispute. There shall be no formal rules of evidence at the hearing; however, the Panel shall have the right to determine the relevancy of any evidence offered. All evidence shall be taken in the presence of the Panel and the parties, except by mutual consent of the parties. The hearing may be reopened by the Panel on its own motion or upon application of either party for good cause shown at any time before a final decision is made. Upon the request of the Panel, the County or the grievant, the Human Resources Director shall insure that a verbatim record of the hearing is made and retained in his custody for not less than 12 months. The record may be in writing or by a taped recording. The party requesting the record shall bear the costs of preparation and transcription, including any costs associated with attendance of a court reporter. If both the grievant and the County request such a record, they shall share equally in all costs incurred. The Human Resources Director or his designee may be called upon by the Panel or either party as a witness at any time to provide specific policy interpretation or clarification of applicable County policy and these procedures. 10. In any matters not covered by this section, the Panel shall determine the applicable procedures to be followed. XV. Decision of Grievance Panel Hearing A. The decision of the Panel shall be filed in writing by the Chairperson with the County Executive and the grievant no later than twenty (20) days after the completion of the hearing. The decision shall summarize the grievance and the evidence, shall make specific findings of fact, and shall state in full the reasons for the decision, and the remedy (if any) to be granted. Decisions shall be made by majority vote of the entire Panel. The decision of the Panel shall be final and binding and shall be consistent with law and written policy. B. The question of whether the relief granted by the Panel is consistent with written policy shall be determined by the County Executive, or his designee, unless such person has a direct personal involvement with the event or events giving rise to the grievance, in which case the decision shall be made by the Commonwealth's Attorney of Albemarle County. The County Executive or Commonwealth's Attorney shall request the Panel to reconsider any decision which in his judgment is inconsistent with the laws or written policy applicable to grievance resolution. He shall not disturb any decision consistent with the laws or written policy. 10 C. If the Panel determines that the grievant prevails on any grievable complaint or dispute, it may remedy that complaint or dispute by ordering that the grievant be reinstated to a former position; awarding back pay; or ordering expungement of information contained in the grievant's personnel file(s) maintained by the County Human Resources Department or individual department; or rendering opinions specifying the application or interpretation of County personnel policies and procedures as they may relate to the specific facts of the grievance. The grievant shall not, however, be entitled to any relief that he has not specifically requested in the original written grievance form, unless the parties have mutually agreed otherwise as to alternative relief. D. If, in response to a grievable complaint or dispute, the Panel finds that a department head or other County official failed to follow established procedures governing promotion, demotion, transfer, hiring or layoff, the Panel shall remand the grievance back to the department head or official with instructions that the actions taken be rescinded, and proper procedures be followed for the matter at issue. In connection with such remand, the Panel may make appropriate provisional orders concerning the case. XVI. Implementation of Grievance Panel Decision A. The County Executive shall implement any remedy that may be ordered by the Panel, provided that such remedy is consistent with applicable law and County personnel policies. If the County Executive determines that the Panel decision is not consistent with applicable law or County personnel policies, the following steps shall be taken: the County Executive shall inform the Panel and the grievant of his determination within ten (10) days of his receipt of the Panel's written decision; and 2. the County Executive shall not implement the decision of the Panel. B. Either party may petition the Albemarle County Circuit Court for an order requiring implementation of the Panel decision. The review of the Circuit Court shall be limited to the question of whether the panel's decision is consistent with provisions of law and written policy. Adopted: February 3, 1999 11 I N T E R AltmmmieBo~d of C~nuy Supen, m~r~ Offic~ of ~he CUr to tb~ Ba~t 401 Mc~ ~2~3 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ¢ ....... ~ Pc!icy February 5, 1999 At its meeting on February 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to proceed with installation of PedestriardSecurity Lighting along Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive and Whitewood Road (Capital Improvement Projects) and to proceed into construction this spring. Thank you. Attachment cc: Rick Huff Wayne Cilimberg Joe Letteri Jerry Shatz COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Pedestrian / Security Lighting (Capital Improvement Projects) SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request approval to proceed with the installation of lighting along Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive and Whitewood Road. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mawyer, Cilimberg, Letted, Shatz DISCUSSION: AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map Showing Lighting Locations 2. Roadway Lighting Policy (B.O.S. 1983) 3. Roadway Lighting Po~~e-VC~s. 1997) REVIEWED BY: ~',///~/ ?' 1/'" ' The subject lighting projects are part of the Capital Improvement Program previously proposed by staff and approved by the Board. These lighting projects are recommended to address the increasing need for pedestrian / security lighting in a densely populated area of the County. Funds are budgeted for the installation and operation of these lighting projects. The following Capital Improvement Projects are proposed: Location Commonwealth Drive - Hydraulic Road to Turtle Creek Entrance Hydraulic Road - Inglewood Road to Georgetown Road Hydraulic Road - Georgetown Road to the main entrance of AHS Hydraulic Road - Main Entrance of AHS to Whitewood Road Whitewood Road - Walkway bordering the Whitewood Road trail Hydraulic Road & Earlysville Road - The intersection Number of Lights 6 9 16 Total Installation Cost $ 13,160 $ 7,717 $ 6,270 $ 1,300 $ 12,670 4 $ 2,000 Total Installation Cost: $ 43,120 Estimated Annual Operating Cost $ 5,500 The affected property owners were invited to an information session held at Jack Jouett Middle School on December 10,1998. About 15 people attended that public meeting which provided information describing the number of lights, lumens, and location of the lighting projects. All of the light fixtures to be installed will be fully shielded in compliance with the Lighting Ordinance. There were no objections to the lighting projects from those attending this meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the lighting projects proceed into construction this Spring. 99.009 A~ach~ent ! ROSL~N FOREST LN FOUR SEASONS DR EARLYSVILLE C~ LN ALSF. RT CT POND Ol 8ENNINGTON RD BENNINGTON CT PROPOSED S'I'REET LIGHT LOCATIONS A~tachment 2 Roadway Lighling (IIOS Policy) Effective Date: July 13, 1983 The County of Albemarle will engage in a roadway lighting program as defined and limited by lite following condilions: Existing roadway lights shall re,hain itl use and tile cost of their lighting paid for by the County unlil such times that, ill Ibc opinion of the Board changes in circumstances may make their removal and/or relocation desirable. New iightiug shall i)e cot]sides'ed olden the request of an individual or group or on lite action of the 13oal'd itself. Any such group or individual must be direclly alli:cled by lite lighting ~'equesled. The requesled lighting must be clearly a public necessity ralher thau p~ivate or iudividual benefit in order to be considered by the lloatd, atul Ibe[e musl be nu objection to the lighting on lhe paD, o£anyone who is directly affected by il. Areas wilhin the County ibr which this policy may be applicable include: community buildings, growlh areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and nondesignated g~owtl, a~eas where existing residential density exceeds one dwelling unit per acre (! do/ac). The County's financial effot! toward the roadway lighling program shall be limited to a certain percentage el'the utilily tax collected for the use of electrical current, Ibc amount budgeted for any succeeding year being computed ou lite last year preceding fi~r which a total may be ascertained; the percentages as shown below: For tide installation at,d/or relocation of lights: For electrical current used itt lighting: . 0.50% The Counly shall conli[me lo pay lite cost ofeleclrical cturent used is, lighting lite street iighls which have been accepled by Ihe County previous to Ihe ariel)lion or lhis Roadway Lighli,tg Policy and will also pay Ihe cosl o£ electrical current used in lighling such additional iighls as Ihe Ce,rely may flora time Io lime accepl into lhe syslem hi such cases where there is a charge lbr installing a street light sub-system, lite Counly will participate in such installation in an amount not to exceed fifty percent of lite cost. provided, however, that the applicant will match Ihis amount. The Board may waive lhis limitation where lite Board finds that such would impose an unusual hardship on lite applicant and the sub-system lighting in tile opinion of the Board is of such value as to warrant the cost to the Counly. Lighting systems shall be designed and installed is] accordance with the policy of lite Depal tmeut of 1 lighways and T,msl)o[talion, as set' fi~fth in the l)epattment's memorandum entitled Guide Policy £or Roadway Lighling Facilities attd ,Security Li§h(ing Facilities, daled July :26, 1973, as atnended. 5. The Counly Engineer shall [eview all applicalions for roadway lighting and recommend All~nntle County Enl~ineedng & Public Wosks Policies I Felnunry 19~7 notion to lhe l)o~rd of Coumy Supervisors. Tho County Engi,eer may set rules For i" ocedurc £or thc i)rocessi,g o£ npplicatio,s. Except in such cases whet'e thc County ilsel['iusligntes the i,slnllalio, o£n roadway lighti,g system, the Comfly of Albemarle shall have no pa~t iu securing or purchasing any cascme,ts which may be t~eccssary t~r the installation o[' a roadway lighling system. Acquisitio, o[' such easements shall bt the responsi[)ility of the applicant and/or the power company which will serve tl~e system. hi such cases where the Cou,ty itself instigates the i,stallation of' roadway lighting and there ate costs i,cu,'cd Ibr such, the Cotmt¥ of' Albemarle may del'ray costs lo the rull exte,t et'the lift,Is I' ovidcd umler item 3 o['lhis policy. This is a copy of thc policy adopted by lite ]3oflrd oF Supervisors o1' Albemarle Com~ly, Virginia. fit its regular meclj,g Imld on July 13. 1983. AIIx.npadc Cmufly F. ugi,cc, i,l~ & Put)lie W.ik~ Policies 2 Fclnun~y 1~)~7 Attachment 3 Itoadwny Liglnling Efl'eclive Dale: Jantm~y 2 !, 1997 Albenlatle Courtly Eugineel ing shall use die [bllowing ill ocedures lc) govel Ii the I cceil)t, l evicw ami princes,lng of.)adway lighting ~e(luc. is. This I)olicy is alii)Ileal)lc to itl ecl light l e(lUeSls ulher lhan Ihuse initiated by Ihe County (lllough lhe CIP process. Requests shall be submilted in w, iliug either directly to Albemarle Couuty Eugineeling ami Public Wm ks or tlu ough thc County Executive's of[icc. Requests should be addressed lo lite altcntion of the l)irector of Engineering and l'ublic Wo~ks. Ill such cases whe, c, itl lira opini.u ofthe Director, the ~equesled roadway iighling does not meet thc ,c(iuh CJilCIiIs el'iht R.a(lway Lighting Policy For The Co.nly (fi' AllJcnmt lc, Virginia, ariel)led by (he liolud o['Coullly Supefvisols on hlly 13, 198) (copy atlached), lira Direclor or his desiguec shall tmlil~ lira applicant oFils deliciencies ami oll~r lo consull wilh Ihe applica.l iu eider lo revise the requesl, if possible. The Director ur his designee shall make a field investigalion, wilhiu a I'easoJmble li,ue, lo obtain the infol'nmlion necessaly lbr evaluating the lighting requesl, elite the Director has medea iJreliminal'y evaluation, the l)i~ector shall folwmd Ihe lighling le(lueSt h) Ihe Ail)croatia County Boaid of SUl)e~'viso~s with a recomnlendalion Ihat the I.h)md ~esolve Io receiw public input i)rior to final consideralion of the Board. This l)reliminm~ evaluation nmy include a cost estimate for installation and electrical charges. The Board approval should addt'css Lite sot.ce of i)aymcnt Ibr the installation cost aud electrical charges consistent with the Boat d i)olicy. Should the Boas d elco( to app, eve Ihe lighting installation, the I.)i, ector of lhlgiaeedtlg sliall sublnil a wfillen ~eq,est fbr a layout plan Io Ihe respective power compaJ)¥ set'vilJg Ihe asca. The al)l)licanl shall receive wrillen nolilicali,n when the Je(lUeSI is made 1o Iht p(Jwer couq)any. The power company designs and plepares lite roadway lightiug layoul l)lau and provides n couslmclion cost cslinmle lin' Ihe project. Thc power COml)auy submits Ilneir layout plau to the County For review. If the plan does not appear to meet lighting criteria, wr changes need to be made, lhe idan is returned to Ihe power company lbr revisions and resubmit(al. The applicaut is contacted al Ihis limo lbr any com~llc~lts. At this time, the al)plicaut must guarantee tl~e cost conuibudon as al)plol)date by l)ayulent itl tine Cou[lly or i)t)sdng ora bt)nd in Ihe am(it[al scl by the DileClor. The final soadway ligh(in§ I)la, will ll,en be fblwafded !o VI JOT fbi' levicw and al,Ii[oval in Ihe case where lhe location is associaled wilh stale mainlained anlicipaled lo be accepled by Iht Slale iii Ih6 fillure. Once Ilia Direclor has Ihe linal al)p~ owd fi om VDOT. the l)i[ color o1' E,gine(:l ilig stroll requisilion Ihe installation liom the elecllical power coulpally Ihat sel'ves Ihe al'ea. I N T E R AlbcmarleBoa~l of County Sul~n~o~ Of Fi~ of **ltg Ct~ ~ ~te Boazd. 0 F F I C E To: Wayne Cilimbcrg From: Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Subject: ZTA-98-08 Date: February 9, 1999 MEMO At its meeting on February 3, 1999, the Board of Supervisors not only deferred action on ~this item until such time as the Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy, but also endorsed the staff's recommended policy for submittal standards for pesonal wireless service facilities with changes. The staff's recommended policies are contained in Attachment A of the staff report titled "Minimum Submittal Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities" (see attached). The changes are as follow: Delete references to tiers under title; Change (13) to state, "provide a certified statement from a licensed engineer/surveyor indicating the height of the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed facility"; and Change (14) to state, "The following information shall be provided...". Attachment COUNTY OF ALBEMAR , , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA-98o08 Tower Fees SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission recommendation on proposal to increase fees for review of personal wireless service facilities. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff. Fritz AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on January 12, 1999 reviewed staff's proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to amend the fee collected to cover the cost of reviewing applications for special use permits for personal wireless service facilities and the cost of associated advertising. At that time, the Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors defer action on this Zoning Text Amendment until the Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation and presents the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board at this time for rev Jew. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board concur with the Planning Commission and defer action on the Zoning Text Amendment until such time as the Board adopts a wireless telecommunications policy. Policy recommendations are expected in late Spring. 99.008 OF SUPERVISORS Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Date: To: C~ From: RE: 1/15~99 Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County E,~cutive Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors William D. Fritz, AICP, Senior Planner ~/~ ZTA-98-08 Fees The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 12, 1999, reviewed the above- noted proposal in accord with the provisions of Section 33 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to amend the fee collected to cover the cost of reviewing applications for special use permits for personal wireless service facilities and the cost of advertising therefor. After extensive discussion, the Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors defer action on this zoning text amendment until a "Wireless Telecommunications Policy" is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The Commission expressed concem that the proposed fee structure was too complicated and provided a negative incentive for applicants. The Commission unanimously endorsed the staffs recommended policy for submittal standards for personal wireless service facilities with changes. The staff's recommended policies are contained in Attachment A of the staff report titled "Minimum Submittal Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities". The changes are as follows: Delete references to tiers under title; Change (13) to state "provide a certified statement from a licensed engineer/surveyor indicating the height of the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed facility; · Change (14) to state "The following information shall be provided..." The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this petition at their February 3, 1999 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ JANUARY 12, 1999 FEBRUARY 3, 1999 ZTA -98-08 Description of Request: Proposal to amend Section 35.0 of the zoning ordinance in order to establish fees for personal wireless services facilities. The County intends to obtain the assistance of outside consultants to provide technical review of personal wireless service facilities. It is intended that the fees will cover the cost of this review. Origin: County staff and Board of Supervisors Resolution of intent dated November 9, 1998. Background: The County has experienced a significant increase in the number of applications for personal wireless service facilities. The graph below indicates the number of applications the County has received per year since personal wireless service was initiated in the County. Applications Per Year 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Not only have the number of applications received by the County increased, the level of review each application receives has increased. Each application is reviewed for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as are all special use permit applications. Review of applications for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 involves, in part, a determination of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition applications for personal wireless services must also be reviewed for compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Due to the nature of personal wireless service facilities the review of each application involves technical issues which County staff does not have expertise in. Public Purpose to be Served: Approval of an amendment to the fee structure for personal wireless service facilities will enable the County staffto obtain the necessary technical assistance and provide the most comprehensive review. In mm, decision makers will have improved information from which to make decisions. The improved level of review will allow the impacts of a proposed facility to be known with greater certainty, reducing the possibility that an application will be decided based on the assumed impacts of the facility. Staff Comment: RFP 97-24 was issued to solicit proposals to obtain services to provide independent engineering analysis of each application for special use permits for personal wireless services facilities. The services to be performed by the consultant included review and preparation of propagation analyses, identifying feasible alternative sites, alternative antenna design, alternative tower design and other related services. The cost of the original proposed contract was estimated at $5,000 per review. Subsequently, it was determined that it would be appropriate to tier the fee structure to reflect the level of review appropriate to various types of applications. Staff is proposing that the fee for review be submitted at the time of the application in order to off-set the cost of review. If, in an individual case, it is determined that the cost of review is less than hormally anticipated for that Tier, any unused portion of the fee would be refunded to the applicant. The following Tier structure is proposed by staff: Tier One - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to an existing structure. Tier Two - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure no miler than the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed structure. Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure other than listed in Tier One or Tier Two. Staff proposes the following fee structure for each Tier: [This fee is in addition to the existing fee for a special use permit for a personal wireless service facility. The current fee is $780.] Tier One - $1,500. Tier Two - $3,000 Tier Three - $5,000 2 The level of review for each Tier would be: Tier One Photo simulation. Comment as. to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may allow for the placement of additional antenna. Tier Two 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Comment as to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. Preparation of a sight line from all dwellings located within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Preparation of a sight line from all public roads within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Preparation of analysis of the number and location of Tier One type facilities which would be required to replace the proposed Tier Two facility. Preparation ofphoto simulations from dwellings and public roads. Tier Three 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Comment as to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. Preparation of a sight line from all dwellings located within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Preparation of a sight line from all public roads within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Preparation of analysis of the number and location of Tier One and/or Tier Two type facilities which would be required to replace the proposed Tier Three facility. Preparation of photo simulations from dwellings and public roads. The fee for review would be submitted at the time of application. The fee would then be used to offset the cost of review for the application. In order to allow a determination of the Tier appropriate to the application, staff has developed minimum submittal requirements for applications for personal wireless service facilities. [Attachment A] These submittal requirements do not require a zoning text amendment as they can be adopted as reasonable administrative requirements in accord with the provisions of Section 31.1. Staff, however, does request that the Board endorse these proposed minimum submittal requirements for personal wireless service facilities. Completion of all the information contained in the minimum submittal requirements is necessary in order to avoid delay in the review of individual 3 applications. Failure to submit the requested information will likely result in a delay in the processing of applications. Applicants may submit more information than required by the minimum submittal requirements. Submission of additional information may reduce the amount of review which must be performed by the consultant. In such cases where additional information is submitted it is anticipated that the amount of work which must be performed by the consultant would be reduced and the unused portion of the review fee returned to the applicant. In response to requests by the Board and the public, staff reviews zoning text amendments for impact on the following items: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Water and Sewer Facilities Roads Stormwater Management Anticipated impact on natural, cultural and historic resources Effect on housing costs Effect on length of development review Effect on County staffing Water and Sewer Facilities This zoning text amendment will have no impact on water and sewer facilities. Roads This zoning text amendment will have no impact on roads within the County. Stormwater Management This zoning text amendment will have no impact on stormwater management. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural and historic resources Approval of this zoning text amendment will allow for more thorough and comprehensive review of personal wireless service facilities. This will allow the County to more accurately detemaine the potential impacts of a facility on various resources of the County. Effect on housing' costs This zoning text amendment will have no impact on housing cost. Staff does note, however, that the personal wireless service providers may pass the cost of review on to its customers. 4 Effect on length of development review No effect on length of development review is anticipated. Any contract with an outside consultant would require the consultants review to occur within the existing'review schedule which has been adopted by the Board. In the past, review of personal wireless service facilities have been deferred on occasion in order to allow for additional study. It is possible that such deferrals may become less necessary, thereby reducing the average review time. Effect on County_ staffing This zoning text amendment will have no adverse impact on County staffing. Use of an outside consultant may actually reduce the workload of current staff, thereby increasing the time available for other planning matters. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the fee structure to increase fees for personal wireless services facilities. The increase in fees would be in addition to the existing fee of $780. The increased fee would be as follows: Tier One - $1,500 Tier Two - $3,000 Tier Three - $5,000 The Tiers would be defined as follows: Tier One - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to an existing structure. Tier Two - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure no taller than the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed structure. Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure other than listed in Tier One or Tier Two. In order to insure the appropriate fee is collected staff recommends that the Board endorse the minimum submittal requirements for personal wireless services facilities contained in Attachment A: Staff again notes that any unused portion of the fee would be refunded to the applicant. The applicant may reduce the amount of work which must be performed by the consultant by submitting information above that contained in the minimum submittal requirements. Attachment B is a document that staff would provide to applicants for personal wireless service facilities at the same time as' the minimum submittal requirements are provided to the applicant. It would explain what review would be performed by the consultant and how the applicant may reduce the total amount of the review fee used by the County. A:kzta9808 fees.doc ATTACHMENT A MINIMUM SUBMITTAL STANDARDS FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES The following Tiers of Personal Wireless Service Facilities have been designated by the County. Tier One - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to an existing structure. Tier Two - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure no taller than the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed structure. Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure other than listed in Tier Two. The following information must. be submitted with any application for a personal wireless service facility. 10. 11. A completed special use permit application form. These forms are available in the Building Code and Zoning Services Department. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the special use permit. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey a legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number of the Plat Book and page number shall be provided. Ownership information shall be provided. If the ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership or association, or in the name of a trust, or a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing .the special use permit application has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. Each applicant requesting a special use permit shall submit a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals, showing the location and dimensions of all improvements, including information concerning existing and proposed topography, radio frequency coverage, tower height requirements, set-backs, drives, parking, fencing, landscaping and adjacent uses. The County may require other information to be necessary to assess compliance with the ordinance. Additionally, applicant shall provide actual photographs of the site. Maximum height above ground of the proposed facility. Location of all residential structures and residential district or rural areas boundaries within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. Written or graphic description of the nature of the uses on properties within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. This description shall include, but not be limited to, the nature and extent of tree coverage and foliage. Surrounding topography within 2000 feet of the proposed facility. Such topographic information shall be at a scale of not less than 1 inch equals 100 feet and the contour interval shall not be greater than 10 feet. Design of the facility, with particular reference to design, characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. The specific type of support structure, shall be provided. Design, type, location, height and configuration of all 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. antenna proposed shall be provided. Future antenna addition shall be noted as shall the design, type, location, height and configuration of all potential future antenna. Proposed ingress and egress. For a Tier Two type facility the applicant shall provide a certified statement from a licensed Engineer, Surveyor or Landscape Architect indicating the height of the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed facility. For a Tier Two or Tier Three type facility the following information shall be provided: a. Evidence that no existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet applicant's engineering requirements. b. Evidence that existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements. c. Evidence that existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. d. Evidence that the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna. e. Evidence that the fees, costs, or contractual provisions in order to share an existing tower or structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding the cost of new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable. f. Any other information or other limiting factors that render, existing towers and structures unsuitable. Proximity to commercial or private airports. Inventory of existing facilities owned or operated by the applicant that are either within the locality or within five miles of the border. A:~ta9808 attachment A.doc ATTACHMENT B REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES Personal Wireless Service facilities require a special use permit. All special use permits are reviewed for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to insure comprehensive review, the following procedures for the review of personal wireless service facilities has been developed. Albemarle County has divided these types of facilities into three Tiers. The tiers are described as follows: Tier One - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to an existing structure. Tier Two - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure no taller than the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed structure. Tier Three - Personal Wireless Service facility attached to a new structure other than listed in Tier Two. The fee for each type of revieW is $780 plus: Tier One - $1,500 Tier Two - $3,000 Tier Three - $5,000 The fee for review must be submitted at the time of application. The fee is used to off-set the cost of review for the application. In order to allow a determination of the tier appropriate to the application minimum submittal requirements for applications for personal wireless service facilities have been developed. These minimum submittal requirements are available in the Building Code and Zoning Services Department. The fee applied to each tier is intended to cover the cost of review incurred by the County. The County will refer applications for personal wireless service facilities to a private engineering firm. The purpose of this referral is to obtain additional review which cannot be performed by County staff. The County will refund to the applicant any unused portion of the application fee. A reduction in the cost of review is most likely in those cases where the applicant submits more information than required by the minimum submittal requirements. This additional information reduces the amount of review, which must be performed by the consultant. Below is a listing of the type of ~eview which will be conducted by the consultant for each tier. Tier One 1. Photo simulation. 2. Comment as to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. 3. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. 4. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may allow for the placement of additional antenna. Tier Two 1. Comment as to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. 2. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. 3. Preparation of a sight line from all dwellings located within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Draft: 12/29/98 Tier III review is conducted. The department of planning and community development shall determine the appropriate tier review of each application after it has reviewed the application and considered the nature of the wireless facility proposed and the information submitted by the applicant. 15. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92) b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00. c. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $815.00. 2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00. 3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00. 4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00. 5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $175.00. d. Board of Zoning Appeals: o Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8- 92) For other appeals~ to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) - $95.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned. e. Preliminary site development plan: 1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit. 2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet. f. Final site development plan: 1. Approved administratively - $325.00. 2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $900.00. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $630.00. For site development plan waiver - $215.00. For site development plan amendment: Draft: 12/2~/98 a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $75.00. b) Major - commission review - $215.00. 6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $160.00. 7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $190.00. 8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $150.00. 9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan: a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00. b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project. g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or'landscape waiver by agent - $140.00. h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan: 1. Road - $15.00. 2. Development - $20.00. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment: 1. To a specific date - $25.00. 2. Indefinitely - $60.00. k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond estimate - $45.00. 1. Zoning clearance - $25.00. m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00. Draft: 12/29/98 n. Official Letters: 1. Of determination - $60.00. 2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00. 3. Stating number of developmem rights - $30.00. o. Sign Permits: 1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board - $25.00. 2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $60.00. In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. (Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92) Preparation of a sight line from all public roads within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. Preparation of analysis of the number and location of Tier One type facilities which would be required to replace the proposed Tier Two facility. Preparation of photo simulation from dwellings and public roads and dwellings. Tier Three 1. Comment as to alternative types of antenna which may be provided that would reduce visibility. 2. Comment as to alternative mounting techniques which may reduce visibility. 3. Preparation of a sight line from all dwellings located within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. 4. Preparation of a sight line from all public roads within 1000 feet of the proposed facility. 5. Preparation of analysis of the number and location of Tier Two type facilities which would be required to replace the proposed Tier Three facility. 6. Preparation of analysis of the number and location of Tier One and Tier Two type facilities which would be required to replace the proposed Tier Three facility. 7. Preparation of photo simulations from dwellings and public roads. A:Xzta9808 attachment B.doc Draft: 12/29/98 ORDINANCE NO. 98-18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZON1NG, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 35.0 as follows: Chapter 18. Zoning Article IV. Procedure 35.0 FEES. Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. a. For a special use permit: 1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section !2 56 14-106 of the subdivision ordinance $175.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 2. Rural area divisions - $990.00. 3. Commercial use - $780.00. 4. Industrial use - $810.00. 5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00. 6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00. 7. Public utilities - $810.00. 8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00. 9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$85.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 10. Extending special use permits -$55.00. 11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00; Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00. 12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00. (Added 6-3-92) 13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added 6-3- 92) 14. For personal wireless facilities- $5,780.00, subiect to a refund of a portion of the fee if less than the most comprehensive review by an independent consultant with expertise in wireless facilities is required. An applicant shall be entitled to a refund of $3,500.00 if a Tier I review is conducted; a refund of $2,000.00 if a Tier II review is conducted; and no refund if a Steven W. Blaine swblaine~mwbb, com M WooDs Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TDD (804) 977-2500 · Fax (804) 980-2222 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Direct Dial: (804)977-2588 Direct Fax: (804)980-2251 January 14, 1999 VIA HAND ,DELIVERY Ms. Amelia McCulley Zoning Administrator County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Re: Triton Communications; SP 98-61; Reduction of Setback under Section 4,10.3.1 Dear Ms. McCulley: At its regular meeting on January 5, 1999, the County Planning Commission denied our client's request for a reduction of the setback under Section 4.10.3.1 of the zoning ordinance. The request was in connection with the applicant's Special Use Permit Application SP 98-61. This letter is to notice the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Please coordinate this appeal with' the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the special use permit request, scheduled for Wednesday, January 20, 1999 Please also advise if you require anything further.~ r / SWB:hll Mr. George Cumming Ms. Susan E. Thomas www. mwbb.com ~ · BAmMo~ · BaUSSK$ · ~oTr~ · Ct'o,R~O~ . ~0.~ · JAC..Ie~IIX~ · MO,~OW · NOi~OI.K · Rl~aO~ · T/Sons C.~I~I!R . W~$1111~6~ON · ZORI~ (0~ eX}Oldie) ABG - FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. January 14, 1999 P.O. Box 8 CHURCHVILLE, MARYLAND 21028 410-879-9918 FAX 410;838-5360 Ms. Arlene Hemandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 BOARD OF SUPER'VISORS Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hernandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of December 1998. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Shefla H. Moymhan Project Monitor /shm enclosure cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 MONTHLY REPORT PURS~ TO SECTION 7 (a) OF THE D~ INSTRUCTIONS TO: Fir~n~ial Serv£~e~, In~. Box 8 Churchville, MD 21028 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road .Apts.) Charlottesville, VA 21202 Pursuant to Section 7 (a)of the Deed Restrictions (the "Dm~ Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of TRUST DATED AS OF April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County., Virginia (the "Authority" ), and your bank, .as trustee, the ~ndersigned authorized representative of Richmond -Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, VA (T~E "PROJECT"), that as of the date shown below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The n,~mher of units in tb~ Project occupied by lower income tenants is 15. The n,m~er of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is 0. T~E n,,~er of units rented and the ~,m~er of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 51. The percentage that the n,~mher of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total n,~er of units in the Project is 23%. The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under a,~y covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restriction or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, betwee~ the Authority ~zd the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this report as of January 4, 1999. RIC~MOND-A?.mm~%RLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A VIRGINIA limited partnership Property: Location: BOND PROGRAM REPORT For December 1998 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts,) Project ~. 051-35371 Charlottesville, VA Number of Units: 66 Submitted by: Community Director !,,~ LOWER.INCOME, The following units have been designated as 'lower income' unfts 1 4 Arbor Crest Ddve Beverly T, Lane 2 6 Arbor Crest Drive Wilma M. Atkinson 3 7 Arbor Crest Drive Ruth M. Jones 4 9 Arbor Crest Drive Virginia Burton 5 14 Arbor Crest Ddve Lennie P. Leake 6 18 Arbor Crest Drive Ann S, Kemp 7. 30 Arbor Crest Drive Mary Cox Allen 8. 44 Arbor Crest Drive Carolynn Atherton 9. 56 Arbor Crest Drive Helyn E,O'Boyle 10. 70 Arbor Crest Drive Ernest M. Nease 11. 76 Arbor Crest Ddve Ann G. Saylor 12. 84 ArbOr Crest Drive Juanita Boliek 13. 88 Arbor Crest Drive Nancy G. Foley 14. 90 Arbor Crest Drive Betty B, Eliiott 15. 94 Arbor Crest Drive M. Eileen Knick 16, 17 18. 19. 20. January 4,1999 (Date) Total OCCUPIED: 66 Bond Occupied: 15 The changes from previous report reflected in the above listing are: Deletions 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Additions John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources ':~'.. ~RD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office James S. Gilmore, III Dennis H. Treacy Governor Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Director Mailing address: P.O. Box 1129, Harrisonburg, VA 22801-1129 Telephone (540) 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878 http ://www.deq.state.va.us January 20, 1999 R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director lVir. Forres-t-R::M~r3h-a~,'Jr~,, CtimYrnan Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Permit Modification Request for VWPP No. 97-1961 North Fork Research Park, Albemarle County Dear Mr. Marshall: The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received a request to modify a Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP) for a project in your locality. The applicant is University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation. The applicant is requesting that DEQ revise the wetland mitigation schedule requirements contained in the existing VWPP which was originally issued on April 27, 1998. The permittee has not requested a revision of any other aspect of previously authorized activities which include construction often road crossings of streams, one stream channel realignment for road construction, four stormwater management ponds, and expansiOn of one existing pond for aesthetic purposes to serve North Fork Research Park located in Albemarle County, Virginia. This letter is being sent for your information as required by Section 62.1-44.15:4.D of the Code of Virginia. ~ DEQ will review the permit modification request and will propose to draft a modified VWPP for the proposed impacts to State waters. A public notice will appear in the Daily Progress announcing our intention to issue the modified permit and inviting public comment on the content of the permit within approximately 60 days of your receipt of this letter. This public comment period will mn for 30 days from the date the notice first appears in the newspaper. In the meantime, the public is welcome to review the permit application at our office during normal business hours. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions about this notification. cc: PP File Sincerely, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Caring Retirement Community December 1, 1998 Mr. Charles Martin Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: Our Lady of Peace is pleased to report that it has exceeded, as in the previous years, the requirements of the agreement of November 24, 1992, between Albemarle County, Virginia, and Our Lady of Peace, Inc. Our Lady of Peace has currently residing within its Assisted Living facility eleven indigent people. In addition, there are eight other limited income elderly residing within its 30 bed Nursing Center. The Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace would like to convey our deepest and most sincere appreciation to you and the members of the Board of Supervisors for your on, going support of the indigent elderly. We invite yOu and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to visit Our Lady of Peace at your convenience so that we may show you around and demonstrate to you the good care all of the residents of Our Lady of Peace receive. Thank you again for your good works for the common good of Albemarle County. Sincerely, Ruth DePiro President RDbb C' Robert McNichols Management Agent 751 Hillsdale Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804/973-1155 SCHOOLS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS FY 98199 PROJECT REPORT Scheduled Bud.qet Completion Stony Point Parking and Playfield Northern Elementary School Master Plan/Feasibility Crozet School Level Spreader Chiller Repiacement-AHS/Hollymead Henley Middle School Addition Stone Robinson Addition PREP Facility VMF Facility WAHS Site Improvements Henley Roof Replacement Jouett Roof Replacement Northern Elementary School ADMINISTRATION & COURTS Subtotal COB Space Study Courts Space Needs Study Keene Landfill Remediation Court House Drainage Project Old Crozet School Windows & 1961 Addition Roof Chiller & Mechanical Projects COB Maintenance Program: Misc. Building Renovations UST Replacement Auditorium Renovation Additional Parking & Repaying COB Island Removal HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION Subtotal Greenbrier Sidewalk West Leigh Drive Rural Addition Mill Creek Drive Area Master Plan Adams Court 250 East Landscaping Barracks Road Sidewalk Wilton Farm/20 Sidewalk Street Lighting: Parkview (Crozet) Hydra ulic/Earlysville Road Commonwealth Drive Hydraulic Road (Inglewood to Georgetown) Hydraulic Road (Georgetown to AHS) Hydraulic Road (AHS to Whitewood) Whitewood Road Area Northfield/Rolling Hills Road Airport Acres Rio/Old Brook Road Forest Lakes (North Entrance) Subtotal STORMWATER CONTROL PROJECTS Design Standards Manual - Needs Assmt. Moores & Meadow Creek Studies Windham/Jarman Gap Channel Monticello High School Dam Remediation Peyton Basin Rick3/Road Design Standards Manual - Final Design Westmoreland Ct. Drainage Improvements Woodbrook Channel Phase II Teakwood Drainage Channel Minor Ridge Drainage Improvements % Complete 147,000 12/01/98 99% C 16,000 01/30/99 80% D 10,000 02/01/99 95% D 425,000 05/31/99 25% C 2,003,000 06/15/99 65% C 2,500,000 06/30/99 60% C 3,000,000 07/05/99 30% C 600,000 07/21/99 80% C 270,000 08/01/99 100% P 422,000 08/15/99 99% P 422,000 08/15/99 99% P 11,200,000 07/01/01 50% P $21,015,00O 10,000 02/28/99 5% P 50,000 06/30/99 50% P 170,600 06/30/99 50% P 4,000 06/30/99 95% D 255,000 10/01/99 90% D 600,000 03/01/00 95% P 16,000 02/15/99 95% D 145,000 06/01/99 1% C 50,000 12/30/99 0% D 150,000 08130/00 25% D 40,000 08/30/00 90% D $1,490,600 10,000 10/30/98 95% C 300,000 12/30/98 95% D 15,000 01115199 100% P 3,800 06/01/99 50% C 20,000 10/30/99 10% D 51,000 12/01/99 95% D 400,000 06/30/00 100% P 0 06/30/99 5% C 1,500 06/30/99 95% D 16,000 06/30/99 95% D 8,000 06/30/99 95% D 7,000 06/30199 95% D 1,500 06/30/99 95% D 15,000 06/30/99 95% D 1,500 07/30/99 40% D 1,500 07/30/99 95% D 0 07/30/99 95% D 5,000 12/30/99 40% D $856,800 11,980 11/30/98 100% P 184,600 11/30/98 95% D 82,000 01/30/99 50% P 60,000 04/01/99 50% D 80,000 05130/99 1% C 39,900 05/30199 5% D 38,000 06/30/99 5% P 30,000 06/30/99 10% D 28,035 06/30/99 50% D 6,000 09/01/99 60% D 30,000 11/30/99 5% D Updated 1/26/99 No~s Closeout in Progress Site Selection in Progress Punch List Items Follow-Up on Utility Quit Claims Construction in Progress Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 2/5/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 3/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 3/99 Scheduled for BOS Consent Agenda 3~99 Under Review by Virginia Power Completed Finalize and CIoseout ' Reevaluating Need Consultant Preparing Fee Proposal Evaluating Developer's Improvements LEGEND: P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction Four Seasons Basin/Channel Birnam Basin Master Drainage Study Subtotal pUBLIC SAFETY Regional Jail Addition Juvenile Detention Facility Subtotal PARKS & RECREATION Chris Greene Lake Pier Crozet Park Festival Grounds Site Work Scottsville Baseball/Soccer Field Walnut Creek Picnic Shelter Brownsville Elementary Field Improvements Rivanna Greenbelt Crozet Park Master Plan Crozet Park Field Improvements, Phase II Subtotal TOTAL 119,200 98,485 205,400 $1,013,600 16,755,000 7,200,000 $23,955,0O0 90,000 35,000 40,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 640,000 128,000 $1,233,000 $49,564,000 11/30/99 11/30/99 06/30~0O 12/01/99 04/01/01 01/15/99 02/05/99 04/01/99 04101199 05/26/99 12/30/99 06130102 TBD 70% D 30% D 10% P 35% C 95% P 99% C 70% C 100% D 90% P 75% D 15% P 90% D 40% D Preliminary Design/Land Acquisition Develop Strategy for Next Watershed Prebid 2/3/99 File: i:\dept~ngineer~cip~stabJs~proje=t repolt by classification.xls LEGEND; P = Programming D = Design B = Bid C = Construction January 28,1999 Board of Supervisors Meetings December 2, 1998, January 6, 1999 Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at previous Board meetings. · The deed for dedication of right of way along Grassmere Road (Route 679) has been forwarded to Westvaco for signature. · Broad Axe Road (Route 682) has been posted for a 35 mph speed limit. (I have contacted Mr. Mark Sataro and advised him of outcome.) · We have scheduled brush cutting along Broad Axe Road (Route 682) and will advise the Board when this is complete. · We are working with the County Police to consider camera surveillance at major intersections for purposes of traffic control and enforcement. I will keep the Board apprised of this potential pilot program. · We are developing signage to alert large trucks not to use Route 637 from 1-64 to Route 250. These signs should be installed within the next 3 to 4 weeks. · The Gateway Program never "got off the ground" and is no longer in use. Similar projects are now eligible for ISTE^ funds. Information regarding the Department's Y2K efforts on signalization has been forwarded electronically to Mr. Robert Tucker. Test plans are used for each piece of equipment. Manufacturer's certification indicating that products are compliant are also being inventoried. Official records are being kept in our Central Office in Richmond. · The study for a multi,STOP at Grassmere Road (Route 679)) and Morgantown Road (Route 738) should be completed within the next month. I will advise the Board when the study is complete. · The annual Primary PreallocatiOn Hearing is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 1999, at 9 a.m. in Culpeper. I will be prepared to discuss these and other matters at the February 3~d Board meeting. Sincerely, AGT/smk Cc: Board Members via e-mail R. Tucker via e-mail A. G. Tucker From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~ ~,~,," Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk,,~ Reading List for February 3, 1999 January 27, 1999 March 18(A), 1996 December 3, 1997 March 18, 1998 August 5, 1998 October 7, 1998 October 21, 1998 December 2, 1998 Ms. Humphris Mr. Per~ins Ms. Thomas Ms. Thomas Mr. Martin Mr. Bowerman Mr. Marshall /~WC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of recommendation to be submitted to VDOT at its 1999 Primary'Road Plan Pre-Allocation Public Hearing in Culpeper STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: On March 15, 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e., Route 29, Route 250). DISCUSSION: The Six Year Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary road projects proposed within all localities of the district compete for those funds. The Culpeper district includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock Counties. The purpose of this review process by the Board of Supervisors is to recommend which County projects to include in the Primary Plan for the District. Attachment A is a draft copy of the County's improvement priorities for the primary system for the Culpeper District. This draft is based on the County's 1998 priority list with modifications proposed by staff. Changes proposed by staff include: 1 ) general update of status of previously prioritized projects; 2) the addition of the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to the Elks Drive/Fontana Drive intersection as an STP project; and, 3) adding the completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail as an Enhancement project. RECOMMENDATION: For discussion at this time. Staff can modify this draft based on the Board's comments and provide a final draft for review and approval at a future Board of Supervisor's meeting. 99.018-A VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1999 SPRING PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Standard Projects: The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds not set aside. The County supports these projects as referenced. 1) Undertake those Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already underway, construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's next highest priority project, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The first phase of this project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. In an effort to further this project, 'the County is also receiving funding within its Secondary Priority Plan for planning and design of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North. County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway. However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely with secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. With the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to eliminate the Route 29 interchanges, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. VDOT is urged to investigate all possible funding sources to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway. Other projects listed in CATS in the northern study area also should be actively pursued and completed. These projects include the Airport Road improvements and the Hillsdale Drive-Zan Connector Road. The County also supports any initiatives to re-open consideration of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr. and Rio Rd., possibly under modified design concepts. 2) The County is closely following the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 North Corridor Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board two years ago with the County's endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels these recommendations should be the basis in developing plans for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Airport/Proffit Road intersection. County staff comments on the preliminary plans for this section of road have consistently supported this approach in lieu of a limited access design. The Route 29 South Corridor Study continues. The County appreciates efforts that have been made in this process to receive public input, including an early December public hearing in Albemarle County. The County continues to hope that the study will be truly multi-modal in scope and give particular consideration to the benefits of rail service to the corridor. 3) The County supports the "Bristol Rail Passenger Study" and recommends that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations identified in the Route 29 North Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 South Corridor Study. 4) Undertake the widening of Route 20 south from 1-64 to Mill Creek Dr. that serves the traffic from Monticello High School. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. 5) Undertake road projects parallel to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on Route 29. 6) Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into all parallel street improvements associated with the Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Rd./Proffit Rd. 7) Widen Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is covered by a joint design study by the City, County and University of Virginia and was recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain Neighborhood Study. The joint study should be used as a guide in developing the widening plans. The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) is now under study by VDOT with a 2 local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road. VDOT will also conduct a similar study of Rt. 250 East fi:om Free Bridge to the Fluvanna County line. The County supports and appreciates this effort and encourages continued public participation and consideration of recommendations. 8) Finish the VDOT corridor study of Route 240 in Crozet and improve Route 240 in accord with County recommendations regarding this study. 9) Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force. 10) Undertake improvements to the Bellair/Route 250 intersection as generally proposed at the VDOT Location and Design Public Hearing. 11) Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. Safety Improvements: Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order: 1) Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian walkways: 1) Route 20 north fi:om Route 250 to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden Towe Park; 2) Route 20 south from the City line to the new Route 20/742 connector road; 3) along Route 250 east in the Pantops area as an extension to existing sidewalks; and, 4) along Route 250 west from City to Bypass (as part of the overall improvements to this road). Of these, the walkways along Route 20 north are the most important improvement. Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development of the Wilton Farm Apartments. Residents have raised concerns with the safety of walking along this segment of road as currently constructed. 2) Installation of traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250 and the 1-64 interchange at Fifth Street. 3) Improvements to Route 250 west along the business corridor in Ivy (from just east of the intersection of Route 637 to just west of the intersection of Route 678) to address existing and short-term traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. The Route 250 West Corridor Study currently underway should address these safety improvements. 4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet. 5) Functional plans for Route 20 North and South for alignment improvements. 6) Functional plans, including an analysis of possible safety improvements, for Routes 22 and 231. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by large trucks along these road segments, and encourages all appropriate measures are considered to ensure that tracks travel safely along these roadways in the future. Restriction of through truck traffic is still considered the most effective measure by the County. Enhancement Projects: Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order: 1) Construction of pedestrian walkways in development areas under a comprehensive program of eligible projects. 2) Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage, placement of overhead utilities underground, etc. 3) Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation trail project between the Monticello Vistors Center and Monticello. 4) Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991). 5) Development of portions of the Rivarma River Greenway path system. 6) Removal of non-conforming billboards. National Highway System (NHS) The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the NHS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. The County desires to continue active participation in Route 29 Corridor studies, including the Route 29 Corridor Study south of Charlottesville, which is currently underway. The County will monitor the progress and recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional information is provided under Standard Projects #2). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality_ Improvement Program This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area of non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. 99.018-B 6852 Porters Road Esmont, VA 22937 January28,1999 Mr. Forrest Marshall 2356 Scottsville Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Reference: Request to reduce speed limit from 35mph to 25mph on SR627. Dear Mr. Marshall: On behalf of the Southern Albemarle Organization and the Esmont community, i am seeking your support and assistance in reducing the speed limit on Porters Road. We propose that the present ... posted speed limit of 35mph be reduced to 25mph along SR627, between SR715 and SR6, and continuing from SR6 south, past .Yancey Elementary School and the proposed park site, to the New :'~ Hope Baptist Church. We believe that the narrow, winding nature of the road, the number of residential properties, as well as the amount of pedestrian traffic warrants such a reduction. We further believe that the number of children traveling up and down Porters Road will increase as the neighborhood continues to 'grow and improvements, such as the park, are developed. We intend to gather petitions from the residents along Porters Road in the coming weeks to show the degree of solidarity within the community on ~this issue. In the meanwhile, I wo~ld appreciate your assistance in bringing this issue before the Board of Supervisors at your earliest convenience. It is our understanding that the Board will then present it to-the Virginia Department of TranspOrtation for further study. Please contact me should you have any questions. The S.A.O. appreciates your consideration of this matter and looks forward to your reply. Sincerely Rev. Carlton Luck President Southern Albemarle Organization mcg cc: David P. Bowennan, Charlotte Y. Humphris, Sally H. Thomas, Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins, Ella W. Carey, Bob Tucker, Angela Tucker DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 January 25, 1999 J. G. BROWDER, JR. CHIEF ENGINEER Roadway Lighting and Provisions Adopted by Albermarle County Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Cilimberg: I am in receipt of your letter dated DeCember !7, 1998 wherein' you have requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) desig, n all,furore roadwaylighting such that it would meet the provisions of the COunty of,ailbernarie ~ Zbning Ordinance adopted 0n August 12, 1998. We will consider the ordinance in our design where that proves to be within the safety considerations we must employ. However, by the very nature of roadway lighting, this may prove difficult and not in the motoring pUblic's best interest. Roadway lighting has an objective that is not imperative to lighting of most any other nature. It must be designed accounting for the fact that the users of the light will be moving, oftentimes at high rates of speed, with little or no time to allow the eye to focus or re-focus to varying light levels. For this reason, it is imperative that the light be uniform and consistent, and', of a fairly high intensity. In fact, roadway lighting is designed more to be travelway lighting than a lighting of the road surface. Obtaining the desired lighting effects using a full cutoff luminaire as required by the county's ordinande could and often would mean several issues of importance to us would be violated. First, a full cutoff design involves the use of what is typically referred to as "cobra head" fixtures positioned over the edge of the travel lane. By virtue of its positioning, the pole supporting it must be set close to the travelway in a much more hazardous location for errant Wehicles. ......... : Secondly~ this pd:siti0ning of the luminaire 'alS6 means that the simplest of maintenance operations, e.g. re-lamping, requires that a lane closure be established which'creates congestion and hazards to motorists. In addition, the lane Closures can be very costly and in many cases would cost more than the repairs. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Page 2 January 25, 1999 A third significant issue is the full cutoff luminarie designs now available do not broadcast light as far as the drop refractor designs available. To use cutoff fixtures exclusively for all types of highways would mean additional fixtures and supports, thus, having a negative cost advantage. Even more than that, because of the limited broadcast of the light, the potential roadside obstacle problem is heightened as more fixtures are added to compensate. The limited broadcast of light found in cutoff luminaries could also lead to the need to install fixtures and supports in the median on larger highways, thus compounding both the obstacle and lane closure issues described before. Obviously, the lower the operating speed of a roadway and the more compact the cross-section design, the more suited cutoff luminaries are for roadway (travelway) lighting use; as these two features directly relate to and amplify the concerns I have expressed. It is because of these expressed concerns that I must respond to your letter stating only that VDOT will consider the county's ordinance where feasible. Due consideration to motorists' safety and cost effectiveness will be used as our key design principles and may result in roadway lighting being provided that will not comply with the county ordinance. Further, the Department intends to take full advantage of emerging technology that might be in line with your ordinance and still account for our needs, as it becomes available to the general public. I thank you for bringing this ordinance to my attention, and for your understanding of our position. Sincerely, Chief Engineer Mr. J. L. Butner Mr. J. T. Mills Mr. D. R. Askew ,/fVls. Hannah Twaddell Ms. Charlotte Humphris Ms. Sally Thomas David R Bowerman C. harlott~ Y. Humphris COUNTY OF Al REMARLE offic~ of Board of Supe~sors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'm:jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5848 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Pekins Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Febmary8,1999 Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director R.ivanna Solid Waste Authority P.O. Box 18 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Petrini: As you are aware, at the February 3, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board requested that you provide additional information to the Board at its March 3,1999 meeting. Specific additional information you have been asked to provide includes: --information on the storage of potable water from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; --what criteria generates the need for water conservation measures are, and whether the criteria should be changed; and --a description/mission of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Advisory Committee. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper FRO~ .:RD~.zGILGES FAX NO. : 884 8~37838 Jan. 25 199g 02:04PM Pi To: Members of the Board of Supervisors Date: January 24, 1999 Subject: Moommns River: Sugar Hollow: Background Information Dear Members of'the Board of Supervisors: On February 3, 1999, a group of White Hall D/strict citizens, representing FHends of the Moorman$ River, will appear before you to discuss the problem of lack of flow in the Moormans River. The following discussion is intended to serve as a general introduction to the nature of this problem. Sincerely, Donna and Jim B~nn~tt 6430 Sugar Hollow Road Crozet, VA 22932 823,2636 The Problem. Every year for the past six years, the Moormans dries up for five months along a two mile segment below the Sugar Hollow Dam. This man-made drought, which did not occur regularly until 1992, becomes evident in early June when water demand from the Sugar Hollow reservoir exceeds filling rate and now typically lasts until mid- November. During the five month drought period, the North and South Forks continue to show significant flow into the reservoir, which does not drop dramatic, ally below the five foot mark leR when the crest gates were removed. Two miles downstrea~ a naturally flowing tributary, draining Middle Mountain, "starts up" the river again. Lack of water in this segment of the Moormans River is not part of a natural process. Substantial flow continues into the reservoir, even during periods oflow rainfall. If'the Sugar Hollow Reservoir is not drawn down to the Ragged Mountain system, the level in the reservoir remains fairly co,ant over the summer, but no water goes over the crest to supply the river downstream. This section of the Moormans is the only river in .~bemarl© County that experien~s severe drought conditions. Ifa natural drought were to. occur throughout Albemarle County, a water conservation plan would be instituted. We need a water conservation program designed to address the special case of man-made drought along a segment of the Moorman$. Also, we need some mechanism built imo Sugar :Hollow Dam which would allow flow-by during the months o£inerea~ed usage.. Because we are causing unnatural drought conditions to occur on the Moormans, we should fred some way ofamelioratixlg this condition Lack of water in a river bed is a form of pollution: People do not ordinarily think of the 'processes that degrade habitat' as pollution. However, an EPA document, The Qualiey of Our Nation's Water, lists 'Habitat modific.,ation' along with more familiar FRQM.: RD.GILGES F~× ND, : 80~ 82~7G~S Jan. 2~ !D~D 02:0~PM P2 pollutants ~ch as 'Pesticides and herbicides,' 'Metals' and 'Pathogens' under thc hcadin§ "Pollutants That Degrade Water Quality". Under this heading, the EPA clarifies what is meant by the term "Pollutants" by explaining that pollution occurs both as a result of "pollutants or processes th.at degrade .water quality". "Prooesses that degrade waters ", the EPA further ~xplains, "include habitat modification (such as destruction of streamsid¢ vegetation)and hydrologio modification(such as flow reduction)." In another document (841-B-95-002), When More Is Better, the l/PA focuses on the problem ofproces~s that degrade water quality, calling them more spec/fically forms of"nonpoint pollution", In expandinB upon the ways in which nonpoint polttrtion may ori~rmte, the EPA includes "chanses to the natural ilow o£water in stream channels or wetlands.'~, explaining that: "Changes to the natural flow of water in s~reams or wetlands result in habitat destruction for fish and wildlife," This EPA document underscores the problem confronting our community, because it deals with "the relationship between the quantity of water and its quality" and dit~sses how "developln8 water-use efficiency programs can help states and local communities achieve cleaner water through conserving water,' Albemarle County presently recognizes two 'beneficial values' in the Moormans River: Sbeneficial in-strenm values' and ~beneficial off=stream values'. These ~erms originated in the Clean Water Act, which directs individual States to "assess the quality of their waters by determinin8 if their waters attain State water quali~y standards" such as "beneficial uses" that support aquatic habitat or supply drinkin8 water. Although States may set their own standards, thc Clean Water Ac~ "requires that aH State beneficial uses and their cri'terla comply with the "fishable and swimmable' goals of the Act. At a minimum State beneficial uses must support aquatic life and recreational use." The Commonwealth of'Virginia interpr~s this directive in the following way: (9VAC25- 452-30). "Thc Federal Clean Water Act P.L.92-500 Section 305(b)1972 as amended established a national goal of water quality suitable for fishing and swimming. Present State Water Quality Standards specify ~at the water quality be generally adequate for beneficial uses such as water based recreation, the propagation of fish,. ,and other aquatic life and water supply. The Commonwealth of VA State Water Control Law2 established water quality goals to inelude guarding against surface and groundwater quality degradation and for mainl:enanc© of the existing high quality waters." Conforming to Clean Water Act terminology, both the EPA and Virginia State Watcr Control Board charaoterlze rivers in terms of 'beneficial in-stream values' (supporting healthy aquatic habitat), "beneficial off-stream values" (stipplying drinking water to communities) or a combination both values, There is no doubt that the Moormans possesses both instream and offstre~m values, As One of oul' most ~rcasurc~I rmtural resources, thc I%loormans }ms helen honored by Albemarle County with special designations: It is'an Albemarle County Scenic River and a Virginia State Scenic River, Albemarle County has supported its nomination for Exceptional Waters (Tier III desilnation). As lhe Administering Agency for the Moormans River~ Albemarle County's duty is'"to preserve and protect its natural beauty and to assure its use and enjoyment for its scenic, recreaIional, geologic, fish and wildlife, FROM : RD,GILGES FAX NO. : 884 8237S38 Jan. 25 1999 02:06PM P3 historic, cultural or other values and to encourage the continuance of existing agricultural, horticultural, forestry and open space water uses." And to "Periodically survey the scenic river and its immediate environs and monitor all existing and proposed uses of the scenic river and related land resouces." (VA Code 10,1405), Albemarle County, also, has participated in The Related Lands Study with the Shenandoah National Park and has designated the Moorrrans as a riparian corridor of critical importance as a migratory area for preservation of Southern Appalachian species indigenous to the Park.. In addition, Albemarle County utilizes the Moormans as a dual source of public drinking water. (Sugar Hollow and South Fork Rivanna reservoirs) Either way, whether as valuable aquatic and riparian habitat or as a source of drinking water, the Moormans is in the process of undergoing degradation as a result of excessive water usage. The end result of this habitat degradation is no different than polluting with toxic chemicals arid is having a devastating affect on aquatic life downstream.. For the past three years. Isaac Walton League Association bioassessments, obtained from the Moorrnans downstream of the dry segment, show declining populations of those species whose life cycles are interrupted by dry river conditions. These four sites scored 'poor'; whereas, a tributary of the Moormans in the same geographic area scored ' excellellt' Who is responsible for deeming whether 'in*stream', ~off-stream', or both values should be given priority? The Moormans River is a natural resource shared by everyone in our community. Therefore, the citizens of the community, and not an individual agency, should be the ones to decide what value or combination of values take priority. The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the national spokesmen.for the water industry, incorporates Clean Water Act goals in their policy statements. In two recent white papers, the AWWA advocates a more integrated and environmentally conscious approach to water management. The AWWA calls the new way of looking at water management a "paradigm shiit" from past practices. In a paper titled Total Water Management, the AWWA envisions the role of the water industry as assuring '~that water resources are managed for the greatest good of people and the environment and that all segments of society have a voice in this process." They explain that "water-utility demand-side and supply-side plans need to be a part of the overall community plan, with the utility plans using the same consensus basis as the overall community plan." At present, there is no mechanism in place to allow water related decisions to be .made on a community wide "consensus basis", Our problem in Albemarle County is to find a more balanced way to sustain both beneficial in-stream and beneficial off-stream values in the Moormans River, The AWWA could be speaking directly to our problem on the Moormans wh~ they state: '%Va,,er supports life--from the basic needs of living organisms to .complex habitats and recreational and aesthetic environments, as well as Public drinking water requirements. The water industry must consider the total interaction of water with the en,~4ronment, including balancing human and ecological risk and the preservation and restoration of ecosystems." FR~.:.RB~GILGES FAX NO. : 884 8~37638 Jan. 25 1999 0~:07PM P4 1. Water 'needs' are defined by RWSA, with no (realistic) public mechanism by which to question what these 'needs' represent. The RWSA equates "demand" with "need". 2. Repairs to thc Sugar Hollow Da~ are in progress, with no plan to install a flow-by valve. No public mee~g was held where installation of flow-by apparatus could be discussed. At thc only public mee~ to discuss the dam alteratior~, the RWSA indicated that minimum irlswe~m flow was not going to be discussed. Although the pcrmittin~ process for the Buck Mour~ein Cre~k Reservoir has been takingplac,~ for several years, there has been no. public meeting (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act). Ni~PA recommends early seeping sessions to involve thc whole community. An early public meetln~ would have allowed the Moormans River problem to be aired in the context of larger community issues-such as the need for more et~cie~t use o£water, population ~row~ lz~d planning, and sustainable resource management.. The USGS, i~ reevaluating its role in the 21t Century, observed the following; "A supply that has ecological and economic limits calmo~ be continuously expanded to try to meet insatiable demands. Comprehensive ~reamilow data are needed to account for the water in the Nation's hydrologic systems and to quantify the stress on existing supplies. Just as managers neeclexi supply information during the dam-building era, they now need more comprehensive str~flow data to assess the effectiveness of various management options and to monitor mandated instream flows." Our community needs a more balanced approach to our water managenmt polioies where both instream and off stream uses are given equal value. Ultimately, pre~ervLag our aatural systems will help sustaia future generations and will affect future water quality in our region, from the head waters La the Blue Ridge to the Chesapeake Bay. Note: Newspaper Article. Carlos Santos reported on the five month long drought in a front pa§e article, "A cherished river is running on empty" in The Richmond Time,~-Dizpatch, back in November~ 1993. EPA Document'. 841-B~95-002'. Whe~ More b B~tter http://earth 1.epa.gov/305b/suml .htrni F--~PA Documor~: The Quality o£Our Nation's W~ter http ://www. aw~a. or~govtafffmtrepap.htm Total Re~our~e Management Integrated Resource Management FROM : RD. G I LGES &OD ~'o FAX NO, : 804 82J7638 ROBERT D. GILGE~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS January 18, ,1999 Mr. Jack Mia-shall Chainna~ of the Board Rivarma Water & $,wer Authority P. O. Box 18 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr, Marshall: As you requested during our recent telephone conv, rsation, I have attempted to outline below my thoughts 'regarding the a~rren~ eomtition of the Moorings River., set forth rationale as to a po~.sible non- intrusive and low ex>st solution to re,tore some flow to the area inhm~iat~ly below the damn, and an plan to help implement this ~olufion, You have asked that I work '~,ithin the system" m ac~'omplish my goal and this l~,~er is my attempt to do just that. I must also tell you, however, that i believe the Authorlty's irnmedia~ r~aotio~ will b~ not to consider the plan, b~t to bring staffand o~¢r r~ources t~ether to discredit the cone,pt, challenge fact~ or approa~es, and m refute any possible degree of influence or authority over a such a solution. Unlike RWSA I do not have the dozens of staff personnel or ~h.e hundred~ oftfiouiindi of consulting dollar£ to bring to boar on thio i~uo. I am l~sl~iR~ f~ & eoop, rative, team approa~ to solve an mvironmental problem that this communk~y car~s d~ply about. Plaas~ give it fair PERTINANT FAC'TS This se~ion lays out intbrmation that helps to ~pport my thais. No water has flow~ over the Sugar Hollow dam since June 6, 1998, Thee has bom a comet flow of wat~ into ihe l, eservoir al! summer from the North and 'S/~th forks of the Mom'mans. Th~ Sugar Hollow reservo{r has a water~hcd of 18 square miles and, together with the Ragged- Moun~n reservoir, supplies 44°,4 of thc community's water rieeds. The Ragged Mountain reservoir bas a watershed of 2 square milc~ and, together with the Sugar Hollow reservoir, supplies 44% of the community's water needs. The South Fork Rivanna reservoir has a watershed of 261 square miles and supplies 56% of tho cotllm'unity's water needs. There is a disproportionate .share of water being taken out of the Sugar Hollow r~q~voir (7%- of the watershed is providing 44% of th .c water). RWS~ transfers up to 4, l.million gallons 'of water a day to the other r~qervoirs or to the Observatory Hill water treatment plant. The x,,,ater line cspacity out of S%,ar Hollow exceeds 4, t miUiori gallcms a day and it may be that water in exc~ of 4. I million galloms a day is taken ~om the Sugar Hollow reservoir and not report~. Water is sent ~om the Sugar Hollow res~woir to tbs Ragged Mountain reservoir f~equelqtly to keep the level et'that reservoir b~gh. 'Ibis was the case in the summer of 1998, Water ihat flows over the damn at Sugar Hollow (or any water lhat would ultimately be relcase~t from Sugar Hollow into the river) would be recovered downstream ia. the South Fork Rivaima reservoir, minus evaporation or riverbed absorption. Water has flowed over the South Fork Rivanna reservok dam all summer, and is still flowing over the dam. Therefore one has to ~sume thai there is no water shortage in the overall oommunity water system. The Ragged MOuntain reservoir also appears to be full at the present time. It' water continues to flow into the Sugar Hollow reservoir, but no water tops the dam, it is feasible to co~elude that RWS,a. is sm:king the Moormans Kiver ~y. FROM : RD.GILGES There is no ~otivc water cons~vatic~ ~ru.s't ~ ~e Ch~l~vill~Al~m~le communi~, 't'he c~eu~ RWSA ~ ~rva~ p~ d~um~t ~ ~ in 1977 ~d has n~ ~ mMifi~ si~, ~ ~e c~m~iW ch~g~ s~ 19777 ~e c~t RWSA wat~ ~~ plm~ h~ ~ impl~mt~ ~]y ~ice sm~ 197Z On~ m a vol~ ~si, (ar 70% sy~ ~) md race m ~ ~vol~ ~sis (m 60% s~ mpaei~). ~erefo~ s~e ~ ~ flow could haw ~ ~ver ~ m le~t 20 of th, 1~ ~ y~s (~cluding l~g) withom adv~ly ~ff~ing the or,MI wat~ $~.. ~is ~ not done. ~~ mt~ m ~ pm~ ~m ~e ~ Fo~ Rimnna pr~es~ng facili~ to the O~t~ Bill ~g ~il~ f~ dia~i~im~. ~w wat~ PLAN TO rNTRODU. CE. WATER INTO THI~ R!.VER There is no need to complicate ~his mat~er. IfRWSA is grandfath~n/out of current Federal relpflations related to mlnimom/n-stream/low requirements, the~ it can be grandfathered out of relying on federal bmideline% regulatiol~s, and the I/kc, to create roadblocks to a conm~unity derived coop,rative action plan. Here is what I suggest: 1. Ask "Frimds of the Moormans River" to work w/th RWSA, County, and City officials to finaliz~ arid ~dors~ a plan to 'introduce water into the Moormans River wh~ conditicms 2. Rules atO'eed v4x~ for rel~sing water should be siringent, so as not to compromise the adequacy of drinking water and other legit/mate uses, For example, if the overall capacity of the syatem reaches 75%, flow to the Moormans should be .mapencled. 3, Me, hods ofreleadng water should be studied and agreed upon. Low cost should be a priority; Some possible Iow cest .$olur[oas are 1) siph~m 2) submersible pump with flexible pipe 3) partial or,pa/rig of the bottom valve (which has been out of opetaiica for many yeara), and 4) installation of a small valve/a the existing grav/ty feed pipe below the dam. I tend to favor at this thn¢, w/thout the benefit ora hyflmulJc engineer, a suhmvrsibl~: pump with a 450 gallon pa` minute capacity. This would yield 648,01)0 gallorls a day into thc river and would be sufficient to ma/ntain some bio-dix~sity in the r/va' and keep many invertebrates, grazses, cad mosses alive from year to year, I am nm trying to make a kayak/esaoe dyer out ofthls. but it would be nice m keep a few of the State and Trout Unlimited st~ked Irout al/ye during 4. When water flows over the dam naturally, all pumping would be suspended. 5, If costs were a problem, I would consid~ leading a community fund raising drive m procure the necessaD' funds crt a 50/50 basis with RWSA. }kw much can a submersible pump and some fl~0dble pipe coat? Ifth~ parties can agree, w~ can do it, It's simple! It's inexpensive! It won't impact our availability of drinking water! lt's th~ right thing to do! We can all be ~oud orR. We probably get ,nome Statewide, and maybe ~vtm r~ational publicity ot~ of it. All we really need is your support. IM. pLEME. !~?_6 TI_ON We can implement the plan in ~ot~ ord~, Here's how: FEB-MAR APR-IV[AY JUN-JUL JUL Meetings with RWSA to formulate an acceptable plan, Ptese~latioms to BOS and City Council to obtain approval Purchase of/tec~sary equipmem. Installatkm and operation of equipment if needed at that time, July is mually whe~ · e rivar dries up. FROM : RD. GILGES FAX NO. : 804 823?638 Jan, 29 1999 09:55AM P3 1 firmly believe that this c~m b~ a~omplished. It's not t~knioal. It's not ~nsive. It w~'t ~u~ a ~ip ~ ~e ~W. I~ w~'t e~ n~i~ vol~ w~ ~v~i~ m~, which ~e comm~ d~ately n~ reg~dl~ of~e o~e of this ~. PI~ find it i~ y~r b~ lo om~a~ ~s id~ ~ a "~ do' a~ ~d help to mzke it b~pen. You will ~ pr~d of it, and ~ ~il o~ oils. Finally, I would ~pr~e k ify~ w~l{d m~¢ ~pies of~ 1~ available to ~ RWSA B~d m~ ~d to ~, P~ni, ~s for yo~ ~o~t~l ~sid~fion. Cc: Board Memlmes Arthur D. P~ini Waiter Pta-kius Robert D. Oilg~ Summary of Water Needs DP. AFT 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 %aterDemand Proje,:tion(W' rt~ ~×t,r for. Wa' ~iR .LAg ~ ~ ~/~ ~ Water S apply 1990 200O 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 V 003 - Year 21 MGD 18 MGD ,/.3 Sugar Hollow Reservoir 0 1 2 Miles Reservoir Observato~J WI'P ¢ Lake Water Tank North Fork Rivanrm WTP South Fork Rivanna WTP Pantops Tank Charlottesville City Limits Urban Service Area Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Water Storage Tank Ragged Moumain 18" Raw Water Line Sugar Hollow 18" Raw Water Line Treated Water Lines Existing Reservoir / Water Supply County Line Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Urban Service Area COUNTY OF ALBEMARLEBo^ ) OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Deer Hunting Enforcement Efforts S U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Report on Deer hunting enforcement efforts from Police, Sheriff and Game Warden STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Huff, Miller & Hawkins AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: Currently, Albemarle has two full-time game wardens assigned to handle pdmary response to local hunting incidents, with the County Police providing supplementary support when needed. Both Departments have indicated that it is very difficult to catch many hunting violators due to the quickness in which violations occur and the large size of the territory that must be covered, 740 square miles. DISCUSSION: To better enforce the current county hunting regulations, the Board of Supervisors decided to authorize additional County resources to supplement the efforts of the game wardens during deer hunting season. TheAIbemarle County Sheriff's Office volunteered to provide auxiliary and off-duty deputies to heighten law enforcement visibility in the field, speed the response of officers to callsl and more proactively patrol hunting areas. The deputies conducted the majority of their fieldwork during known high incident times -- the start of the season, holidays and weekends. As attachment A indicates, the Sheriff's deputies responded to 86 calls, checked nearly 200 hunters for compliance with game laws and logged over 500 hours out in the field. The bulk of the calls the deputies responded to were for illegal hunting on posted land, road hunting, spotlighting, shots fired & trespassing. Also, while in the field, the deputies responded to non- hunting related issues such as vehicle violations and stranded motorists. During the same time period, the Police Department responded to 40 hunting related calls and issued 8 summons (for failure to tag, trespassing and weapon discharge on roadway) - see attachment B. This combination of local enforcement activity freed up the state game wardens to respond to 69 calls and make 63 arrests, which are identified in attachment C. Lieutenant Jim Moore of the State Game Warden Office is scheduled to be available to provide additional details or answer any questions concerning hunting activity. The legal disposition of the various summonses issued will not be available until the applicable cases work their way through the court system. When that information becomes available, staff will update the Board. Commonwealth's Attorney, Jim Camblos, has been invited to comment on the prosecutorial process. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the Board's review and comment. An expanded budget request will be presented to the Board for consideration with the overall budget in order to establish comparative data against the baseline. 99.015 ATTACHMENT A 410 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of the Sheriff Albemarle County Courthouse T.W.. Hawkins Sheriff Telephone: 804-972-4001 Fax #: 804-972-4065 Date: To: Front January 15, 1999 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors T. W. Hawk/ns, Sheriff Subject: Report on Supplemental Game Law Enforcement Purpose: To provide support tbr state game enforcement officers Duties: To answer normal calls for service in order that selective enforcement could be camed out by state officers. Statistics: 1. 2. Dispatched calls from 911 Center 86 Summons issued: 'rramo 13 Game Violation I Execute copias I Total 15 3. Traffic Stops 50 4. Warnings Issued 1 5. Game Checked a. Deer 6 b. Turkey 1 6. Hunters checked 187 7. Assist disabled motorists 3 8. Contacts with public 165 Note: Types'M calls d/spaU:bed: megal hunting (posted land) Hunting fi'om the road Trespassing Shots fired Spot light deer Assist county police (traffic accident) ~legally parked vehicles Assist county police (domestic call) Dispose of injured deer P. espond to hold-up alarm Subject branishing irearm Hunting in subdivision Hunting at Mint Springs Park Total man hours expended: Supervisory (full time deputy) (rote ofpay $15 per hour) Part-time deputies (rate of pay $12 per hour) $3,105.00 $3,618.00 207 man hours 301.5 man hours Conclusion: The program was well accepted by the general public, The additional entbrcement staffwas well received by the state game wardens. TIM enabled them to be free to carry out special projects. However, the hunter population was exceptionally Iow due to the warm weather the county experienced through most of the hundng season. The general opinion among the enforcement officers was that most hunters were in compliance with hunting regulations due to the fact that a larger enforcement presence was available. Respectthlly submitted. T. W. Hawldns, Sheriff 410 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of the Sheriff Albemarle County Courthouse T.W. Hawkins Sheriff Telephone: 804-972-4001 Fax #: $04-972-4065 January 19, 1999 To Members of the Board of Supervisors: Enclosed you will find a summary of activity that was a result of our supplemental Game Law Enforcement efforts. In my opinion, it was a highly successful program. In addition, it was conducted at a tremendous savings on the taxpayer. For example, we conducted numerous training sessions with eleven (11) auxiliary deputies, comprised of approximately 286 hours of training time. We didn't compensate these officers for their time. This produced a savings of $3,432.00 when you figure the cost of 286 hours of training time at $12.00 per hour. A lot of other time was also donated by the dedicated officers of the Auxiliary. There was some expense incurred by the program that was a direct result of the program. We purchased the following items for the officers and used auxiliary funds: Criminal Law Handbook $46.30 Camera and Film $75.53 Miranda Rights Cards $12.64 Hats for Auxiliary Deputies $35.95 Equipment Bag and First Aid Kit $41.78 Business Cards $30.00 Total Expense $242.20 The program was a big deterrent to illegal hunting and we received a warm response from citizens who praised the program and were very thankful to the Board of Supervisors for funding the project. 1 want to personally thank all of the Board Members and I would encourage you to consider funding the program again next year. Enclosures Sincerely, Terry W. Hawkins, Sheriff · . I I IATTACHMENT B Date Disoosition ~ Descriotion 1' 1/17 GOA 3000 Red Hill Rd Spotlighting deer 11/17 HBO 4952 Irish Rd Hunting violation 11/18 REPT RT 691 Hunting violation 11/18 UNFD Ingleside Farm Ln Call unfounded 11/19 GOA RT 708 Hunting on road 1'1/20 REPT Turkey Sag Rd Illegal hunting stop 11/21 HBO 1385 Orchard Dr Hunting near homes 11/21 GOA 3104 Lonesome Mtn Illegal hunting 11/22 RTOA Proffit Rd Spotlighting deer 11/22 UNFD James River Rd Iliegal hunting 11/24 GOA Sugar Ridge Rd Shots fired 11/24 UNFD 2695 Stevens Ln Hunting call 11/26 HBO 2262 Locust Hoilow Past hunters 11/26 GOA WOodlands Rd Spotlighting deer 11/27 HBO 6185 Estes Ln Past hunters 11/27 UNFD RT 810 Road hunting 11/28 HBO RT 676 Poachers 11/29 HBO 3977 Stony Point Shots fired-illegal hunt 1 2/3 TELE RT 630 Illegal hunting 12/5 GOA Dickwoods Rd Road hunting 'i2/5 UNFD 908i Holstein Ln Illegal hunting 12/10 HBO 3606 Loftland Dr Illegal hunting 12/i7 HBO RT 640 Illegal hunting 12/18 UNFD 892 Woodlands Rd Illegal hunting 12/19 HBO Batesville Rd Illegal hunting 12/22 HBO 7230 Plank Rd Road hunting 12/24 UNFD RT 712 Road hunting 12/25 HBO 3854 Stony Point Problems with hunters 12/25 HBO RT 633 illegal hunting 12/25 GOA Bumley Station Rd Hunters w/flashlights 12/27 HBO 4174 Laird Ln Illegal hunting 12/27 HBO Ingleside Farm Ln illegal hunting w/shots 12/27 'HBO 250 West Road hunting 12/27 GOA Rabbit Hollow Ln Shots fired 12/28 GOA 500 Bloomfield Rd Illegal hunting w/shOts 12/28 REPT 478 Campbell Rd Spotlighting deer 12/29 HBO Eyeland Dr Illegal hunter in truck 12/30 HBO Jarmans Gap Illegal hunters 12/30 HBO RT 641 Checked hunter 1/1 CANC 7060 Esmont Farm Illegal hunting cancelled 1/1 GOA RT 640 Illegal hunters 1/2 HBO 3214 Oakmont Farm Illegal hunters 42 calls HBO = handled by officer RTOA = referred to another agency GOA = gone on arrival UNFD = unfounded REPT = report ~*SOURCE: County Police Records ATTACHMENT C ICallsFor Service ,, Trespassing 33 Hunting out of Season 4 Road Hunting 10 Shots Fired 11 Spotlighting 4 Illegal Calls 6 Felon w/Firearm 1 Arrests IBlaze Orange 7 ITrespass 13 ITagging 3 IShooting from Vehicle 1 IShooting from Roadway 2 IIIlegal Firearm Transport 15 , ISpotlighting 8 IPossession of Illegal Game 2 IConvicted Felon w/Firearm 3 ILicense Violations 4 IIIlegal Sale of Wildlife 4 IHuntina Out of Season _1. ITOTA 63 I* SOURCE: State Game Warden's Office Calls for Hunters Service Checked 86 187 *SOURCE: Albemarle County Sheriff's Office Contact w/Public 165 Hunting Summons issued Total Hours 508.5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intir¢ Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 804/296-5823 FAX 804/972-4012 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala February 3, 1999 WORK SESSION, CHAPTER TWO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Board of Supervisors held a work session on January 6, 1999, and a public hearing on January 13, 1999. Public comments at that hearing were unanimously supportive of Chapter Two. This memorandum summarizes public comments received since January 13. Some comments warrant discussion before revisions are made. Staff recommends that adoption of Chapter Two be deferred until March 3 so that you can review the actual revisions prior to adoption. *Asterisked items indicate their relative importance because they were mentioned multiple times. GENERAL COMMENTS These statements are important to consider as the Board makes decisions on this chapter; however, no specific text changes are proposed: *Adopt Chapter Two * The overwhelming theme of public comments is the intrinsic importance of the resources discussed in this Chapter to Albemarle County's quality of life. * Apply More Resources to Planning * Scale up the Comprehensive Planning effort to complete the Plan more quickly. * Apply more resources to planning efforts in general so we can set firm time frames for plans to be adopted. * Move forward with specific implementation measures; historic ordinance, biological survey, hydrogeological data collection and well testing ordinance. * Albemarle County should be more progressive, set an example for other communities, stay ahead of growth pressures in our planning efforts. *Support the Protection of Specific Resources * Biological resources * Mountain protection * Water resources, watersheds, groundwater, water quality - Others: Open space planning, PDR's, sustainable development, conservation easements, wetlands, clean air, controlled growth, agricultural and forestry BMP's. 3. *Strengthen Specific Sections of Chapter Two: - Groundwater - Agricultural and forestry resources - Historic resources - Open space resources stewardship Other General Comments: - More extensive educational programs. - Include natural resource data in future County GIS program. - Minimize strategies to form committees/programs/studies as ends in themselves. - Edit/clarify/simplify/shorten text. - Develop systematic County positions on justice and equity in land use planning decisions. vg2 Water Pg 8 Pg 9 SPECIFIC COMMENTS The Board may wish to discuss and comment on these statements, bolded ones in particular: Sustainability Endorse the Statements of Accord or take them out. Resources Give equal treatment to all natural resources, particularly those not in 1989 Plan. Provide personnel for water programs. Extend public education about water supply to schools. Include list of incentives to protect water resources. Pg 21 Emphasize maintenance of stormwater facilities. Pg 25 *Allow minimum instream flow for Moorman's River, Add strategy re: riparian easement program. Pg 33 *The County should take leadership on water conservation: add unequivocal statements; use education and incentives. Pg 36 Strengthen second bullet re: Drinking water standards/VDOT activities. Pg 37 Give special scrutiny to important groundwater section. Pg 46 Strengthen LUST statement. Pg 48 Add strategy to consider regulation to require septic system maintenance, Pg 49 Add strategy to consider County adopting its own septic system regulations. Strengthen statement re: groundwater protection implementation. Pg 52 Strengthen strategies: development ofhydrogeological database and well testing. Biodiversity Pg 63 Change to read, "Staff will develop an action plan." Pg 69 Resolve conflict re: agricultural and forestry resources and biological resources. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Pg 66 Pg 67 Pg 68 Pg 69 Mention urgency: loss of farmland; Forestry Department study of fragmentation. Use good soils for agriculture and forestry. Board respects commitment made by landowners in A/F Districts; add incentives to join districts. Add Statement from Open Space Plan re: intelligent use of non-renewable resources (logging). 2 Wooded Areas Pg 94 Add: Protect wooded hills where topography makes area visually prominent. Air Pg 97 Add short paragraph on activities which impact air quality (maintain wooded areas and forests, energy efficiency, public transit, etc.) Join with other agencies to obtain air quality device for the area. Scenic Title of chapter does not reference scenic resources. Pg 99 Pursue enabling legislation for regarding aesthetics in specified areas of importance. Pg 104 Add standards re: communication towers. Historic Pg 106 Restore statement from previous draft re: loss of historic resources. Open Space Planning Pg 118 Clarify that conservation easements do not allow public access. Pg 121 Seize opportunity for urban parks. Pg 122 Map road traces and trails. ALBEMARLE COUNTY FARM BUREAU ® 913 East Market Street · Charlottesville, Va. 22902 ° (804) 293-5775 ° (804) 293-5703 cd- February 2, 1999 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virgiinia 22901 Re: Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, may I express our concern that Chapter 2 as proposed appears to subordinate production agriculture and forestry to the other benefits of open space. We consider, in fact, that the reverse is tree. Agriculture and forest land are the predominent types of rural land in Albemarle County. The farms and forests are the basis for providing the rural character, the scenic quality, the wildlife habitat, the rural historic resources, the clean air and water, and even the dark sky that the Comprehensive Plan lists as important. Ag/Forest resources in the draft Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan are undervalued, especially in comparison with the other resources. They seem to be taken for granted, but they are in fact the basis for maintaining all the other resources. Any conflicts between ag/forest and other goals should be resolved before the plan is finalized. See p.69. We therefore propose the following textual revisions to reflect the above point of view. p. 1 add "production of food and fiber" to list of ecological functions. Replace "quality of life" with "health and welfare." p.65 Goal: Change to "Protect Albemarle's agricultural lands and forests as a resource base for its agricultural and forestry industries, rural character, scenic quality, plant and animal habitat (biodiversity) and clean air and .watersheds." p. 65 Introduction: Put par. 2 first and strengthen it. Add: "The predominent use of open-space lands in Albemarle is agriculture and forestry. Maintenance of the agricultural/forestal land base sustains the scenic quality residents and tourists enjoy, the natural areas that support wildlife, and the air and water quality vital to both the City and County. A viable agriculture/forestry industry as well as the county's Growth Management goal that gives highest priority to ag/forestry uses encourages the maintenance of these lands in open space in the future." p.65 Benefits of Protecting Ag/Forest Resources. Replace this title with "Importance of Ag/Forest .... "Make "Extent of Ag/Forest" part of that section. Place the acreage figures in that section on p.68 under sections on AFD's and easements. p.66 last paragraph on Extent section is misleading: says that an increase in forestland has occurred since 1986, BUT the Department of Forestry Forest Land Assessment shows a DECLINE of Rural (usable) forestland: 31% of Albemarle's forestland (about 90,000 acres) is now classified Non-Rural. Include this data. Also: includeTJPDC Buildout statistics showing that the rural areas can be transformed into suburban lot sizes(approx. 2.5 acres) within the page 2 existing zoning ordinance, by way of documenting the fact that zoning alone will not protect our open space in the absence of agricultural/forestry viability. p.66 spelling: "important"misspelled ("Agricultural and Forestry Soils," 1st. line). p.67 Soils for woodlands: Southwest Mt./Green Mts has belt of very good forest soils of statewide importance. Include information on this resource. Protection Measures: p.67. Maintaining the land-use tax is as important as the Growth Management goal. p.68 The land use assessment tax is NOT a voluntary tool: ifBOS does away with it, no one can sign up. Loss of the land-use tax would cause large-scale conversion of rural land to suburban uses. Top line: omit the first sentence "All other measures are voluntary" (incl land use), as this implies they are unimportant to the Comprehensive Plan. AFD's also require enabling by Board of Supervisors. p. 68 Par.6: strengthen the ag education section. Consider "Ag in the Classroom" or similar education in schools to teach resident children importance of agriculture and recognition of where food comes from. p.68 Strategy 2 put a period after "forestry resources." Replace "evaluate and pursue...incentives" with "Develop incentives..." in order to strengthen meaning. p.69 Put land-use tax strategy earlier. p.69 "Relation to other Comprehensive Plan Policies" The first relationship noted is a conflict with the new category of Biodiversity. The fact is that ag/forest land supports and sustains all the other resources, including plant and animal habitat. That point needs to be the main point of this section. Add: "The ag/forest resource base supports the land base for all other natural resources in the rural area. Protection of ag/forest lands and their associated activities make the maintenance of open space resources sustainable in Albemarle." Renewed vigor should be used to promote ag/forest land protection and to promote the voluntary measures now enabled. p.79 Mountains: The mountains are 98% forest. Consider including in the forest resource (and perhaps also water, and scenic) section(s). In summary, it must he recognized that open space with all its benefits will not, indeed cannot, be maintained without the means to earn its upkeep. Production agriculture and forestry, operated under existing environmental regulations, make possible biodiversity, clean water and air, and all the other features of a desirable rural ambiance. They are, by nature, low-return economic practices; therefore, strong efforts must be made to encourage and enable their continuance, to avoid the economic alternative of subdivision and development. Yours sincerely, A. Colquitt Shackelford, Jr. President DRAFT Minutes from the Board of Supervisors' public hearing of January 13, 1999. Agenda Item No. 9. CPA 98-04. Chapter Two, "The Natural Environment" PUBLIC HEARING on an 'Amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Mary Joy Scala summarized the amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan relating to "The Natural Environment." This is part of the state-mandated five-year review, to revise the language of the chapter as it currently exists in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval on December 8, 1998 of a new Chapter Two, entitled "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" which replaces Chapter Two, "The Natural Environment" currently in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter Two addresses all open space resources in the rural area and the development area, because both areas are dependent on the resources of the overall natural environment. The-Open Space Plan identifies four major open spaces, and they extend across the boundaries of the rural area and the growth area. She mentioned that the resources and resource protection efforts described in this chapter, for natural and scenic landscapes, historic resources, water supply protection and agricultural and forestal preservation are closely tied to the rura~ areas through the growth management goal. There are a lot of strategies in this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and the staff will be preparing an action agenda which will list the most pressing strategies in order to give them priority. Ms. Scala then outlined some of the similarities and the differences between the proposed amendment and the 1989 version of Chapter Two. First, there is a new section on sustainability which indicates that the Board should review and support as appropriate the Accords which were presented to the Supervisors at their last work session. The Physical Setting section is basically the same, and the remainder of the chapter is divided into Open Space Resources and Open Space Planning. She explained that Open Space Resources include natural, scenic and historic resources. She commented that the overall goals of these sections are very similar to the 1989 plan, but there are some new strategies, and there are some organizational changes. She remarked that water resources and agricultural/forestal resources are now included under the Natural Resources section rather than listed in separate headings as they were in the previous Plan. The Water Resources section has undergone major updates and revisions which were written by the Water Resources Manager, David Hirschman. Some of these were occasioned by the adoption of the Water Resources Ordinance in February of last year. Ms. Scala said other changes to the Water Resources section include a list of principles on Page Eight which establish a blueprint for philosophy and action. She went on to say there are sections on' stormwater management, water conservation and recreational use of water supply areas. There is a major expansion of the groundwater section including an update of the Groundwater Protection Study, as well as a section on well head protection, which is new. Ms. Scala said Biological Resources and Biodiversity are shown under the new Natural Resources section. She commented that in the Open space Plan which was previously adopted, a Critical Resource Inventory was discussed, which is - Page 1 - DRAFT DRAFT similar to the Biological Resource Inventory. She noted that the Mountains section was adopted on August 5 of last year, and the Dark Sky section is also new, but it has been implemented by a Zoning Lighting Ordinance amendment last year. She said although these are new sections, they have been discussed before. She mentioned that the Scenic Resources section refers to scenic roads and streams, and it contains new strategies. The Historic Resources section is basically a place holder, since all the strategies are existing ones from either the Comprehensive Plan or the Open Space Plan, and they are currently in place. Ms. Scala added that she anticipates that the Historic Preservation Committee is nearly ready to present its Historic Preservation Plan which will contain additional strategies. Ms. Scala said the Agricultural and Forestal Resources section places importance on these resources, and the current Chapter 2 discusses both the land resource and agricultural/forestal activities. However, the new chapter discusses only the agricultural/forestal resources. She noted that agricultural/forestal activities, along with other rural land uses, will be discussed in the new Chapter Four which is called, "The Rural Area," and work is beginning on this chapter. She said the Open Space Planning section has more detail than was included in the 1989 Plan, and in 1992 the Open Space Plan was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This is referenced as a free standing document. She pointed out that a new section on Urban Open Spaces recognizes the importance of designed open spaces as amenities ~n urban developments. The greenways were mentioned in the Open Space Plan, but there is more discussion in this chapter, and there is a detailed greenway plan in the appendix. She stated that these are the major changes relating to this amendment. Mr. Martin inquired if Board members had any questions for Ms. Scala. one responded, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing. He asked people who were interested in speaking to come forward. No Ms. Karen Dame spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors for Citizens for Albemarle indicating that members of her organization have actively participated in the protracted review of the County's Comprehensive Plan. She added that they have carefully reviewed the August, 1998 draft of Chapter Two, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, and provided substantive input to the Planning Commission. She emphasized that Citizens for Albemarle supports adoption of the draft of Chapter Two which is currently before this Board. In addition, she indicated that her organization members would like to see the Albemarle County government and administration address the weaknesses in the review process that result in a comprehensive planning mechanism which is clearly inadequate to match the speed and scale of population growth in Albemarle. They recognize the fact that Albemarle's planning resources have been stretched in recent years to support several citizen-committees working on important land use issues, and they agree with maximum support for the committees' work and argue that the very need for those committees has arisen from the intensive development pressures in this county. She stated that these same pressures demand that there be an up- to-date Comprehensive Plan as a basis for land use regulation. She pointed out that the County's population growth has been persistent for over two decades, and it is not likely to suddenly reverse its trend. Therefore, the high levels - Page 2 of demand on County planning resources have to be treated as persistent and not transient and the County government and administration have to rise to this demand, rather than accept that parts.of the planning process have to falter in order for other parts to proceed. She said an unacceptable fact is that there is a document under consideration this evening that is technically part of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan review, a process which began in 1992. She noted that a county genuinely committed to prospective planning must face this flaw in its process, move quickly to define its causes, and provide the resources and reorganization necessary for a planning process that, in all its facets, runs ahead of the growth curve, not four to seven years behind it. In summary Ms. Dame said her organization supports adoption of the draft Chapter Two and scaling up of the comprehensive planning mechanism. Mr. David Crouch, Conservation Chair for the Piedmont Group of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated that the members of his group overwhelmingly support a Comprehensive Plan which places a high priority on protecting Albemarle County's natural resources. The need to control sprawl while protecting the County's open spaces is paramount at this time. County officials and citizens cannot afford not to do all they can to make sure the County does not begin to resemble the suburbs of Northern Virginia during the next decade or two, and action is needed now. He stated that Albemarle County is an incredibly beautiful place to live, and he urged the Supervisors to make sure it stays beautiful in the future. The local chapter of the Sierra Club supports strong mountain protection, stronger than is currently in use, controlled growth development, preserving open spaces and protecting the County's watershed. He added that only by greatly strengthening the Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will this be accomplished. Mr. DeForest Mellon, Jr., a resident of Albemarle County, remarked that the draft text for the chapter of the revised Comprehensive Plan dealing with natural resources is an important and progressive document. He noted that it includes provisions for not only the protection of open space but it also recognizes the critical importance of maintaining biological diversity in the County for the benefit of all its citizens. This recognition will have important consequences, through the recommendations of a standing citizen Biological Advisory Committee, for future decisions by the County in identifying and protecting its varied natural habitats. It is now well understood that, both directly and indirectly, the services provided by ecological systems, and the biodiversity they support, are critical to the functioning of the earth's life-support system. He pointed out that these services include the regulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide/oxygen balance~ protection from harmful ultraviolet B radiation, the regulation, storage, and purification.of surface waters, as well as control of erosion and soil formation processes. He said not included in this list are more direct benefits from natural ecosystems, including food resources, such as fish and game, as well as raw materials, recreation, and aesthetic and spiritual values. He stated that while people are immediately insulated from their biological heritage by a highly technological lifestyle, as biological beings they are ultimately dependent upon natural ecosystems for their survival. Albemarle County is not unique in facing the challenge of protecting its dwindling natural resources, including its biodiversity, from the inexorable pressures occasioned by the growth of its human population. - Page 3 He then mentioned spending a six-month sabbatical in Massachusetts recently where, if anything, residential and commercial growth pressures are more intense than in Central Virginia. The citizens of that Commonwealth have passed important legislation establishing landbanks to purchase and protect their critical natural resources. He stated that depending upon the particular community, these land banks are supported through local real estate taxes or by surcharges paid by the buyer when real property changes hands. It is time for Albemarle County to move beyond the expansionist attitudes of the 1950s toward a sustainable accommodation with the natural environment. He emphasized that the draft chapter on natural resources is a step in that direction, and he urged the Board to adopt it as written. Mr. Jim Bennett said he-is speaking on behalf of his family and his wife Donna, who are residents of Western Albemarle. He added that although the current draft of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses many interrelated areas of concern to his family, he specifically wants to comment on the draft as it applies to his major area of interest, which is the forests and streams of Western Albemarle County. He recalled that five years ago, as a result of the Related Lands Study carried out by the Shenandoah National Park and the University of Virginia, Albemarle citizens were asked to help conserve resources of mutual interest. He said at stake was an integrated forest system presently undergoing fragmentation, which ultimately thr.eatened those speciesthat depend upon wide forested expanses to survive. He noted that when owners of private land adjacent to the Park were asked to help preserve wide forest tracts voluntarily, he, as well as a majority of others, pledged support. He believes this was an important beginning step toward addressing a problem that should occupy a central position in the proposed document. Me stated that the problem relates to the~best practices that will minimally disrupt or improve the biodiversity of this area. He said it is now clear that the long-range quality of human life depends on environmental practices.that support all living things. He commented that beyond promoting people's own pleasures, comforts and short-term profits, they are obliged to value their natural resources for their intrinsic worth. He pointed out that natural resources possess status beyond physical senses, and he believes they form the basis of an ethic of how they must be managed. This duality of purpose, as far as doing what is convenient for humans and what is in the best interest of the area's resources, is frequently the source of conflict. Unfortunately, it is his family's opinion that this draft appears to have a bias toward how human needs can best be accommodated, rather than giving equal status to determining which policies and practices are in the best interest of environmental resources. He next applauded those portions of the draft that seek to present a more balanced view by valuing the health of ecosystems in themselves while pointing out the public benefits that can be derived from them. He believes the introductions to the sections on biodiversity and water resources are especially effective. He went on to say that establishing a comprehensive biodiversity database will allow environmental impact decisions in Albemarle County to be made more rationally. His family supports strengthened proposals to encourage~ minimizing but ultimately restricting further forest fragmentation in sensitive areas, and to improve stream biology by controlling watershed land use practices and mandating minimum in stream flows. He also encouraged the development of the educational programs outlined in the draft, and he said he would like to See -Page 4 - them be more extensive. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, a resident of the White Hall District at the Village of Millington, stated that there are many good goals and objectives in Chapter Two, as well as a lot of good information. She would like to speak to the structure of the document because she thinks it interests other people besides herself. She would also like to speak to the Agricultural and Forestry Resources section, because it is the one area that she thinks needs strengthening. As far as the structure of this chapter is concerned, especially with the prospect of there being another work session on this matter, she urged that the amendment should be edited and the text clarified. It could be simplified, and it could be shortened. She stated that it would be good if the internal conflicts in this document could be addressed and resolved, and she called attention to Page 69 where the plan notes a potential area of conflict between two ma]or areas that were outlined among the resources. As a structural matter, Ms. Buttrick pointed out that there should be equal treatment to the natural resources that were outlined, particularly those new natural resources which were not in the Comprehensive Plan during the 1989 version. She added that she hopes strategies toward actions can be oriented and benchmarks attained. She suggested that County officials try to minimize suggestions of strategies which recommend the formation of committees, subcommittees, establishing programs, and the development of studies where they become goals in and of themselves. It would be profitable to continue to look outward. She went on to say when Supervisors are reviewing and discussing strategies, they should overcome nerve failure and make a decision as to whether or not certain things should be endorsed. She suggested that if the Supervisors do not wish to endorse these things, then perhaps they do not belong in the Plan. She reiterated that the Agricultural and Forestry section needs some augmentation, since this is the primary land use in Albemarle County and in the rural areas. Mr. Bob Belton commented that the amendment document is a blueprint of the future so it must be unequivocal. He then called attention to a strategy in the document which states, "Support the Albemarle County Service Authority, City of Charlottesville and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to develop a water conservation and efficiency program through the future water supply permitting process. Implement recommended measures that require County action through regulatory or non-regulatory programs." He noted that Albemarle County is an aggressive County and a unique place. The County needs to depart from the traditional approaches to natural resources and make unequivocal statements that such a plan be developed and implemented by a specific date. As part of the process, the difference between water demand and water need should be determined. For example, he explained that the watering of lawns is a waste and should never take place. He said Charlie Goodman, who used to be the County agent, is still available and will verify this statement. Mr. Belton suggested that the University of Virginia, Farmington and other major water resource users should be asked to help in this process. Me urged the Supervisors to develop a strong program now. He said an across-the-board water conservation program must be developed, and it should not be just a permitting process. He next mentioned another strategy in the document which states: "Work with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and appropriate state agencies to Page 5 - balance water supply needs with minimal stream flow requirements for the Moorman's River." In his opinion, this is another weak statement. He recalled that representatives of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority mentioned, at a November meeting on this subject, that the Authority works for the Board of Page 6 - Supervisors and takes its direction. He stated that the Supervisors should, therefore, direct them to resolve the minimal stream flow problem. Ms. Ruth Wadlington, Co-President of the League of Women Voters, thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their hard work in completing Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, and for the care given to hearing and including input from the public throughout the process. She stated that the quality of life, economic wealth and health of citizens in Albemarle County's developed and rural areas depend on the water, agricultural, forestal and scenic resources of the rich natural environment. These natural resources must be protected, and the revised Chapter Two provides the basic umbrella of protection and strategies for implementing this protection. She then asked the Supervisors to give special scrutiny to the groundwater section of the document. She said nearly half of the County's population relies on groundwater, a resource about which very little is known. It is not known how much is available, how much is pumped out daily, whether supplies are being depleted or misused or how increased use of' groundwater affects water in the streams that feed the reservoirs. To correct this situation, she urged the Supervisors to place the~development of a hydrogeological database on the action agenda. In addition, to protect the quality of water, she urged strong measures to prevent pollution by reducing paved-over surfaces and eliminating improperly-maintained stormwater drainage basins and septic systems. She also urged the County's promotion of ongoing water conservation measures through education and incentives. She said sound water management will help to meet present and future needs of the County's growing human population. She added that it can also help to assure the viability of the plant and animal populations that are essential partners in the ecosystem; for example, by allowing a minimum in Stream flow for the Moorman's River. While she has focused specific comments on water, the League wants to stress its support for the principles of sustainable development, biodiversity and open space planning. She encouraged measures such as mountain protection, conservation easements and purchase of development rights to preserve rural areas that are endangered by urban sprawl, and she urged the Supervisors to adopt and implement the strategies in the "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. She added that on the way to this meeting she heard a few sentences from the Governor's speech to the General Assembly. She reported that the Governor indicated his number one priority was water quality, and he was proposing approximately $48,000,000 in the budget. She said perhaps Albemarle County will be able to get some of this funding. Mr. Peter Hallock, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that there has been a lot of discussion lately about what the citizens of Albemarle County really want. He said perhaps it is time to reflect upon the findings of the 1994 "Albemarle County Planning Needs Study," which is the $15,000 poll the County sponsored to gauge public opinion on issues related to the update of the Comprehensive Plan. He then noted three of the five planning goals that were considered top priorities by Albemarle County residents. They are: protecting water quality, preserving open space and preserving farms and forests. He said over 70 percent of the citizens of the 500 households polled thought that protecting these resources ought to be a top priority. He pointed out that it is not just the wealthy who care about protecting these resources. He stated that of the lower income households surveyed, over 87 percent of the - Page 7 - citizens thought that protecting water quality ought to be a top priority; over 81 percent thought that protecting natural resources ought to be a top priority and 77 percent thought that protecting farms and forests ought to be a top priority. The review of the Comprehensive Plan has stretched on for four years, and it's easy to forget what the public wanted. The Planning staff and Commission have spent two years developing goals and strategies to protect the resources this community values, and he urged the Board of Supervisors to adopt Chapter Two and begin to put the plan to work. Ms. Wren Davis Olivier stated that she lives on a farm in the Schuyler area of the Scottsville District. She mentioned that this farm has been owned and operated by her family since the 1850s, and today they raise approximately 200 lambs on a part-time basis. She noted that her father farmed full-time, and as a girl she helped him chop corn, milk cows, kill pigs and perform countless other tasks of farm life. She has a long and affectionate connection to commercial agriculture in this County, and'she knows first hand the consequences of bad weather, disease outbreaks, livestock price cycles and government regulations. She also knows that the difficulties of agriculture will not be solved with the neglect of natural resources. She believes the native plant and animal population must be maintained in the rural area, and she asked that the Board of Supervisors accept the proposed "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" Chapter of the updated Comprehensive Plan. She also urged that the Supervisors quickly establish the proposed Biological Advisory Committee and see that the Biological Inventory is conducted. Ms. Jean Kolb, an Albemarle County resident living west of Covesville, said she would like to comment on the biological resources and biodiversity issues. She is extremely pleased to see this section included in the Comprehensive Plan, and she was pleased to read in it that: "Humanity has an ethical responsibility to care for other forms of life on earth." She wishes she could show the Supervisors the many different animals and birds she has encountered in her mountain forest over the last 23 years. There are little animals that only live in the northern United States and down the Appalachian chain such as the yellow nose rock vole with its young under a spice bush in a leaf nest; the woodland jumping mouse that hibernates in the winter, but travels in eight foot leaps when it's active; the star nosed mole with 22 pink finger like projections around its nose; and many others, that are more widely distributed from the little long tailed weasel, to. spotted skunks and the occasional black bear. She wishes she could show the Supervisors the mother grouse leading a covey of her chicks; and the warblers coming off the nest, edging out on a twig, gripping it tightly and pressing close together while their parents call to them, trying to work up the courage to leap off into space. She said it is a critical moment for them because they have to jump and, finally with their wings whirring, they do. She noted that the woods are a busy community of hundreds of interacting lives that most people never see. She went on to say when people don't see them, they don't know they are there, and important habitat tends to be thought of only in terms of investment return on dollars. She remarked that the proposed Chapter Two is knowledgeable, and it shows that there is more at stake than that. She said migratory species such as warblers and thrushes are declining in numbers yearly. She pointed out that forest fragmentation is part of the problem, and what is done in Albemarle County makes a difference. There really is a responsibility in the survival of Page 8 other species, and she asked the Supervisors to try to think of them as part of their constituency and make this chapter a strong addition to the Comprehensive Plan. She then called attention to the strategy listed on the bottom of Page 63 which states that the "Staff should develop an action plan ...... "She asked that the word, "should" be changed to "will," so the strategy will indicate that the "Staff will develop an action plan, Mr. Dan Beeker stated that as President of the Ivy Creek Foundation, he has been authorized by the Foundation's Board of Directors to extend a unanimous appeal that the Supervisors adopt this draft chapter to the Comprehensive Plan. Me noted that the Ivy Creek Foundation presently has 700 members who contribute financially to the Foundation, and last year alone over 5,000 people attended its nature programs, and over 250 people volunteered thousands of hours to its efforts. Me said that day after day Foundation members see a tremendous love exhibited by a broad cross section of this community for natural and scenic resources. He urged the Board of Supervisors not only to adopt the draft but to resist efforts to make it weaker and to continue to seek even more proactive and aggressive ways to protect the County's lands and waters. He mentioned that' this past year there was the first record of a bald eagle nesting in this County near Milton on the Rivanna River. This is a positive sign. However, there are warnings that other species are disappearing including the Bob White Quail. He urged the Supervisors to protect habitat and give the animals a chance. Mr. Tom Olivier stated that he lives in the Scottsville District, and he urged the Board members to accept the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the updated Comprehensive Plan. He commented that much of this chapter contains advances over current County policies, and some sections, such as historic preservation, await further development and strengthening. He said natural resources face many escalating threats, and if more efforts are not made in protecting the County's natural resources, many will disappear. He remarked that Albemarle County must commit to equitable, direct protection of its precious natural resources, and it must do so soon. He noted that much of the original biodiversity of Albemarle County has been lost, yet existing policy is dangerously silent regarding protection of biological resources. This propo.sed chapter calls for creation of a County Biological Advisory Committee and conduct of the long called for Biological Inventory. He urged that these measures be implemented soon. He said continuation of the current state of ignorance is indefensible. Mr. J. J. Murray commented that he would like to focus on the Historic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. Me endorses the objectives of the Plan, and he thinks there is a lot of general support and agreement that there is a very important historical resource in Albemarle County, and more should be done to protect it. He stated, though, that he thinks the current strategies are totally inadequate, and he looks forward to a thorough discussion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in the future. He was sorry to see what he considered the most important statement in an earlier draft disappear from the chapter as it is written now, and he quoted this statement: "Moreover the number of resources destroyed in recent years, together with the continuing development trends suggest that continued reliance solely on voluntary measures would be imprudent." He knows this is true from personal experience. H~ lives in one of the original farmhouses of the Carr.family, which he purchased 35 years ago when - Page 9 - it belonged at that time to a developer. The developer had left it empty for five years, and it was in bad condition. One of the other potential buyers for the property wanted to tear the house down and build another one in its place. He does not particularly like the idea of having to request Certificates of Appropriateness for the kinds of improvements he has undertaken on this property over the years. However, he sees no alternative to an ordinance with some strength in it if the loss of the County's heritage is going to be prevented. He said, at least, minimum standards of maintenance must be specified, and the demolition of historic properties must be prevented without some type of due process. He remarked that he is quite willing to give up some of his personal property rights in order to achieve the greater good of protecting the historic heritage of Albemarle County. Mr. Jim Eddins remarked that he is a resident of the Rivanna District in Albemarle County, and he appreciates the opportunity to speak on behalf of what he considers to be one of the more important chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. He then mentioned a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1791 in which Mr. Jefferson stated that, "The earth belongs and user fruit to the living." He said '~user fruit" is an 18th century term, and Thomas Jefferson was referring to someone taking over a farm. The people could enjoy the fruit from that farm and then they were expected to turn it back to the original owner unharmed. He stated that the resources the proposed chapter to the Comprehensive Plan addresses are precisely the resources alluded to by Thomas Jefferson. These are the natural and cultural resources, which are the things that make Albemarle County a community different from all others, not only in Virginia, but elsewhere in the United States. A strong chapter addressing natural and cultural resources is very worthy for consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Jason Albert informed the Board that he is a City resident and Coordinator of the Appalachian Restoration Campaign which is a GIS based nonprofit mapping organization that works on long range conservation planning for the Appalachian. He would like to volunteer for the Biodiversity Committee, if volunteers are needed. He supports the proposed chapter to the Comprehensive Plan, as it stands, although he urged strengthening in any part of it where possible. He commented that it is very important for young people to recognize the fact that they are going to be handing down quite a different place to their children than was handed down in the past. This is unfortunate. He mentioned that his grandparents owned farms in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and now they are developments. He has gone back and looked at these places, and the farms are gone. He is not saying everything has to be stopped, but what has been done to the land is unfounded, and it has been done without any sort of regard for the natural environment. It is time to respect and love that which people are surrounded by and that which supports the country's entire economy. He emphasized that he will even stand in the way of bulldozers, especially when things such as the new Walmart are being built, and there is a growing number of people who will do so. He stated that this may be an unfortunate event that will have to take place, but a lot of members of his generation have seen the situation, they don't like where it is heading, and they are tired of it. They are willing to do a little more than just ask that it not be done. He urged 'the Board to pass this amendment. Mr. John Hermsmeier, Program Director for The Environmental Education Center - Page 10 - (EEC), spoke next. He 9ave a prepared statement indicating that the EEC strongly supports the proposal to protect biological resources included in the "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The mission of the EEC is to implement a regional program of environmental education for the community and its schools that encourages informed participation in the issues, decisions and projects that shape the environment. He remarked that a proactive commitment to the identification and protection of our biological resources is necessary to the success of local environmental education efforts. He said a community armed with this determination and information can actively decide what amount of its landscape and associated biological resources to preserve, what amount to restore and what amount to relinquish for various purposes. He stated that without these tools, a community risks losing not only its natural heritage, but its overall capacity to shape its future in all respects. Me remarked that building biodiversity awareness, conducting a Biological Resources Inventory, appointing a Biodiversity Committee and developing and implementing an action plan are important steps in establishing Albemarle County's capacity to ensure the preservation of its biological resources. He then mentioned that the EEC's experience with a similar approach in the Kellytown neighborhood of Charlottesville demonstrates that a school, neighborhood, local government, university and environmental organization can cooperate to address habitat issues. He said given the wealth of interest and expertise across this community, it now seems an opportune time for Albemarle County to take full advantage of its ability to understand and protect the biological resources that its residents treasure. He mentioned that it would be quite a gift to future generations of Albemarle County citizens who, upon growing up in a community with its natural' heritage intact, can reflect on the wisdom of leaders who understood that preserving nature provides freedom for culture. Mr. Matt Kehoe mentioned that this amendment represents a fantastic direction for the County. He has no friends at all, who would not stand up and cheer if they knew the County was embarking on something such as this. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. He mentioned that the Board members had tentatively agreed to postpone the vote. Ms. Thomas said it shows respect for the people who have made presentations tonight for the Supervisors to think about their statements and suggestions. She stated that she appreciates the general support, as well as the specific suggestions. She added that County officials cannot take care of all of these things tonight, but they can continue to work on them. Mr. Marshall thanked everybody for coming to the public hearing. He mentioned that he and Jean Kolb belong to such organizations as the Wild Turkey Federation and Quail Unlimited, and they have constantly tried to re-introduce these specmes. He likes to bird hunt, and as a young man he remembers going out into the fields on his families' farms to hunt quail at any time'. He added that ten years ago when he would get close to the middle of a field when he was cutting hay, there would be huge coveys of quail that would fly away. This doesn't happen any more on his farm, and it is because of the way people now - Page 11 farm. He explained that his cattle eat everything up to the fence rows, so the quail don't have the habitat they once had. He stated that ways are being considered to re-introduce this habitat. It may require double fencing so there will be a row of grass between the fences, and it won't be as pretty, but it should work. He then commented that the main thing he is really concerned about is the County's water. He has a very close friend who lives in New York. He and his friend talk on the phone a lot, and he informed his friend that people from New York were coming to this area to live. His friend answered that people are leaving New York now because the taxes are too high, and they think they have a better deal somewhere else. However, they are going to come back because New York has water, and this portion of the country does not. Mr. Marshall said he thought about this for awhile, and realized that the Great Lakes are close to where his friend lives, and there is a tremendous amount of water in that area, which is not true here. He said, though, a lot of industry is coming to this part of the country, particularly to North Carolina. He does not know where the water will come from to run these places, and he does not know where the water will come from to serve the people living in this community. When he was a young man living here, the Moorman's River supplied all the water needed in the City of Charlottesville. Now everybody knows what the Moorman's River is like, and something has to be done, although he is unsure if some of these suggested methods are going to work. He stated that the money is going to be a problem for historical preservation because there are some people who simply cannot afford it. All of this needs to be discussed in the Board's work sessions. He added that all of these things are wonderful, and they are things that need to be done, but it will take a lot of work to get to that point. Mr. Martin asked if there was a motion to set a time for a work session on this matter. Mr. Tucker informed Board members that a work session could be scheduled for February 3, 1999, which is a day meeting for the Board of Supervisors. At this time, Ms. Thomas offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to schedule another work session on the proposed Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The Natural Environment," for February 3, 1999. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris. Mr. Martin reiterated that the Board members decided prior to this meeting not to take a vote tonight, but to listen to the comments and then have another work session on February 3, 1999. He said a vote on the issue will probably be taken at that time. He explained that it seems there is a great deal of support for this amendment from Board members, but they need to work out some of the details. He thanked the members of the public for coming and for their comments. Page 12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intir¢ Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 804/296-5823 FAX 804/972-4035 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala )?~ January 11, 1999 Citizens' Comments on Chapter Two from Planning Commission Hearing As you requested in your work session last week, attached are written comments from citizens submitted to the Planning Commission for its October 20, 1998 public hearing on Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan: League of Women Voters Jean Kolb J.J. Murray Piedmont Environmental Council Tom Olivier Citizens for Albemarle League of Women Voters o, Oharlottesville and Albemarle Oounty LWV r 105, Charlottesville VA 22903-1561 phone: 804-970-~1707 http://avenue, org/Iwv Iwv~avenue. org fax: 804-970-1708 October 20, 1998 TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission FROM: League of Women Voters RE: Comprehensive Plan: Chapter Two, The Natural Environment/Natural Resources After reviewing Chapter Two's recommendations and background information, we find ourselves agreeing with the Nature Conservancy's ecologist who said, "We are drowning in information while starving for Wisdom." While we may be flooded with information, we believe that the six principles (pg. 6), "which establish a blueprint for philosophy and action", plus many oi' the proposed strategies do guide us on an effective course of action to achieve the goal of protecting our natural resources. Faced with a time limitation, we could just say that we endorse all the proposals and sit down, but them am several that we want to emphasize and place others on our "wish list". Our comments focus on our community's water supplies. Heading our priority list is stormwater management. Proposed strategies reflect and the recent Rivanna River Basin Report concludes, that all is not well with our water supplies. We asked ourselves, "What is the most serious problem affecting groundwater and surface waters in the County? And what should we do about it?" The answer seems to be stormwater-borne sediment - plain old dirt that cames, piggy- back, the pollutants that are causing the deterioration of the tributaries, large and small, that supply the rivers, while stormwater flow across farm lands has long been recognized as a source of non-point pollution, the cumulative effect of urbanization on the quality of small streams has received little attention. Development by its very nature means more impervious surfaces which, in turn, means more and faster runoff, more stream channel erosion, and more sediment. It makes sense to prevent the pollution in the first place by reducing impervious surfaces and trapping sediment before it reaches a stream (i.e:, detention ponds, vegetative buffers). However, every stormwater control program must have a clear understanding of responsibility for routine inspection, maintenance and enforcement, both during and after construction. This lack of responsibility has been a major fault in out present program. ~...a rmn.yartisan or~anizatiort ~[eacicatec[ to tfte.promot ion of infornte~[ am[ act ive.partici, pation of citizer~ in t]overnment." We encourage the County to focus its stormwater management program within the drainage basins of the small watersheds. Protecting the small tributaries goes a long way in restoring our rivers. The Plan proposes new emphasis on the role of watersheds for study and action. In addition to stormwater management, for instance, watersheds can provide the physical boundaries for other proposals: basis for stewardship (p. 6), boundaries for growth area (p. 17), and hydrogeologic studies (pp. 39-42). The Plan, like previous ones, relies heavily on educational programs and volunteer efforts that focus on the landowners' responsibility to conserve groundwater and surface waters and to prevent their pollution. Educational programs and voluntary efforts usually have broad support. Opposition arises when citizens or officials move into the sensitive area of proposing regulations. Depending on voluntary stewardship will require a more aggressive role in providing information to the public. Implied in many of the proposed educational-type strategies is the belief that the public does not know or understand how important these measures can be,'i.e., stormwater management, open space, minimui'n in-stream flow, wetlands, flood plain protection, etc. WISH LIST: 1. Prevention of groundwater contamination (p. 39). Studies have found that, of the five leading sources of groundwater contamination, septic systems are, by far, "the most ubiquitous pollutant source". Considered the most lenient in the nation, Virginia's septic systems were never meant to protect groundwater. They were designed to dispose of sewage as quickly as possible, not to treat it by giving soil time to filter out pollutants. Albemarle County has the responsibility and the authority to develop stronger regulations. The proposed Plan includes a recommendation that the County study present regulations and measures for improvements in order to protect groundwater. 2. Conservation is absolutely necessary. According to the Rivanna River Basis report, the Rivanna basin is not "water-rich" but "water adequate". Forecasts of water supply needs for the County's urban area alone emphasize the necessity of a strong water conservation program. Contfibute to the work of the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources l~_es,-~,'ch C~nter in developing a hydrogeologic base system for Albemarle County for determining how much groundwater is available and for developing a list of watersheds based on development potential. ' Minimum In-Stream Flow Standards (IFS). Albemarle County should work with the Rivanna Water and. Sewer Authority to balance water supply needs with IFS requirements, especially for the Moormans River, and perhaps also for the Rivanna River below the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir's dam. 5. Strongly support the strategies for Biological Diversity, a new section in the Plan. 6. Strongly support Wellhead Protection, a means of preventing groundwater pollution. ~Support the Rivanna River Basin project through contribution to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Consider contribution to the Environmental Education Center which has done an outstanding job of educating the public and contributing many volunteer hours to monitor streams and collect data. Water Resources Committee. The committee should expand membership to include .representation from environmental organizations. Prepare a prioritized list of watersheds based on development potential (p. 42). 10. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The use of TML's for a given fiver segment allows agencies to determine acceptable pollutant loads for the fiver as a whole and thus allocate pollutant levels to various pollution sources .within the basin so that total acceptable load are not exceeded. It is supposed to solve problems of parcels being developed one at a time without considering the cumulative effect. Study at this time implements proposals for TMDL's for the Rivanna River. 11. Central Well Systems - continue to oppose. 12. Support a groundwater summit. Members, Planning Commission' Public Hearing, 10/20/98 .Subj: Chapter Two, The'Natural Environment Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Review This document is well written, and I learned a lot in reading it. My interest is in the biodiversity section. I'm VerY pleased to see this sect~ion included in a county planning document. 1- On page 50, under""Building Biodiversity Awareness; Recommendations, What Owners can do," I would add: Learn to recognize and suppress invasive alien plant species such as garlic mustard .(Alliaria petiolata) and mile-a-minute (Polygonum perfoliatum). Garlic mustard is.native to Europe and Asia. Most alien plant species require sunny locations,' but garlic mustard thrives in shade as well--especmlly4moist, forest hollows where it can spread rapidly and smother native species such as low-growing orchids, yellow violets, and Dutchman's breeches (which 'it does on our mountainside). Planting native species is an excellent thing to do, but we also need to curb aggressive, fast-spreading imported' plant species. 2- I'm not sure what "Conserverepresentative ecological communities" on p. 52 means. Since one "representative" ecological community could be wiped out by flood, fire, or landslide, or could be so limited in area that genetic' diversity(mentioned on p. 46).is compromised, I think our stated goal should be something like: "Conserve ecological communities to insure their continued genetic diversity, and..." 3- Twenty. years ago I would see 5 or 6 flocks of migrating warblers pass through our forested mountainside--30-50 birds in a flock. Now Isee only 2 or 3 groups of perhaps 10~15 birds. They really are in decline. On the other hand) about Christmas time we often get a flock of 200 or more robins that have spent the summer feeding on lawns, They Spend a week stripping every berry off the spicebushes-the main food supply of overwintering hermit thrUshes who can't fend off the robins. Warblers, and birds that need. forestst are not doing So well; robins, that need open, grassy areas are thriving. We need to make every effort to keep the forest areas we have. 4- ! don't see anything in this' chapter on communication towers, but they are a real threat to migrating birds. Bill Evans, a .biologist at the cornell Laboratory of . Ornithology is quoted in the May-June (1998) issue of Audubon: "It is not far-fetched to predict that annual tower kills across North American will soon exceed five million songbirds a year." The FCC says there are already 75)000 towers across the country and 1,000 more may be erected in the next year. To keep AlbemarI~ County's biological divers)ty-and help protect songbirds nationally --we need to talkabout birds and communication towers. I am told that cellular phone towers work well'even when they do .not projeCt above surrounding trees~-a configuration that protects migrating birds. ~ Jean B..Kolb 4 6855 Heards Mountain Road Covesville, VA 22931 Tel. 293-7398 Albemarle Co. Comprehensive Plan Comments on Historic Resources Section: 20 October 1998 My name is J. J. Murray, and I should like to endorse the 'objectives~ of the Historic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. There surely must be broad agreement on the recognition of the value of our historic buildings and landscapes, and on the need for additional measures for their protection. On the other hand I deplore the inadequacy of the stated strategies, and I look forward to the full discussion of the Historic Preservation Plan, alluded to in the parenthetical comments. The most important statement in the current document is the following: "Moreover, the number of resources destroyed in recent years, together with the continuing development trends suggest that continued reliance solely on voluntary measures would be imprudent." I know this to be tree from personal experience. I live in one of the original farmhouses of the Carr family, and it has both historical and architectural interest. We bought it at a time when it belonged to an out-of-state developer. Having stood empty for a number of years it was in terrible condition, and another potential buyer wanted to tear it down in order to rebuild on the same site. I don't particularly like the idea of haVing to request a certificate of appropriateness for the kinds of improvements that I have undertaken in the past. However I see no alternative to an ordinance with some teeth if we are to prevent the loss of our heritage. At the least it must specify minimum standards of maintenance and prevent demolition of historic properties without due process. I, for one, am quite willing to give up some of my personal property rights in order to achieve the greater good of protecting the historic heritage of the County. Piedmont Envir()~n'i¢~tal Statement on Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan "The Natural Environment" Delivered to the Planning Commission, October 20, 1998 Thank you fo[ the time and attention you have given to considering measures to protect the County's natural and scenic resources. We have the following comments: Overall structure. The current Comprehensive Plan includes the rural areas and natural and scenic resources in the same chapter. This makes it clear that land use policy in the rural areas should protect streams and rivers, historic and scenic resources, as well as encourage farming and forestry and discourage residential development. Separating the rural areas section from the natural resources section undermines the connection between the two. Surface Water. We support the new strategy regarding minimum instream flow and the Moormans River (p. 20). One barrier to maintaining flow in the Moormans River is the absence of a water conservation policy. In another section of Chapter 2 (page 26), a strategy calls for the County to support efforts to develop a water conservation program. No mention is made of the Moormans River in this section. A strong connection between flow in the Moormans and water conservation should be made somewhere in Chapter 2. Groundwater. Over 43% of the County's households rely on groundwater. Every month, new lots are created in the rural areas which depend on private wells for their water supply. Nearby counties have enacted measures to require subdividers of rural land to test the quantity of groundwater before recording the lots. This makes it less likely that new lots are put to record without the water needed to support the development. A May, 1995 article in The Observer notes that water is a scarce commodity in eastern Albemarle due to a belt of shale running near Keswick. As development increases, Eastern Albemarle residents are experiencing Iow flows and dry wells. Another problem area is Earlysville, according to the consultants working on the permit for the Buck Mountain Reservoir. It seems irresponsible to continue approving new lots in the rural areas without doing everything legally possible to be as sure as we can be. that groundwater exists to serve the new development, and that existing houses aren't left without water. For this reason, we support the strategies calling for the Groundwater Subcommittee to consider requirements for'hydrogeologic testing. P.O. Box 460 · warrenton, Virginia · 20188 · $40-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 ! [ I I F1O.q~. Hill I~ri~¢~ . ~, ,i,,-., t~,-,~ . r-.~.~.~ ........... Biological Resources. We support the development of a biological inventory. It makes sense to use the expertize of County residents to help coordinate the data available on natural resources and help the County plan where it can grow with the -least impact to these resources. Mountains. We remain concerned about the absence of an ordinance to insure that by right mountain development is safe and sensitive. We thank the five Planning Commissioners who recommended approval of the mountain protection ordinance. We do have a question for your planning staff: will the recommendati,ons of the mountain protection committee for an ordinance and overlay district be considered as part of the upcoming review of the rural areas section of the Comprehensive Plan? Statement on 10/20/1998 to the Albemarle County Planning Commission regarding the Proposed Natural Environment Chapter of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by Tom Olivier, 4632 Green Creek Road, Schuyler, Virginia My name is Tom Olivier. I live in the Scottsville District and I am speaking as an individual. First, I want to say that I support protection of our open space resources, including water, biological resources, historical resources and pleasant views. I commend the efforts to protect these resources embodied in this document. Of our natural resources, water and ecosystems are the most basic. In the past, Albemarle County policy has been dangerously vacant in its treatment of biological resources. I believe the most significant element in this chapter is its call for a biological inventory and creation of a biological resources advisory committee. Once an inventory is conducted and the advisory committee is in operation, I believe Albemarle County can develop open space resource protection policies that are rooted in a much deeper understanding of open spaces and the natural resource systems they contain. My greatest concerns center around omissions in this chapter or potential omissions in the new Comprehensive Plan, when taken as a whole. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan sought to protect our natural resources indirectly, by fostering agricultural and forestal industries. The newer land use plan, states that this policy will operate in the new Comprehensive Plan. Sadly, there is no logical reason why this should work. There is no reason why the presence of commercial farming and forestry assures us clean water and intact ecosystems. Empirically, this policy has had nine years to work and it hasn't. Not only are our water and biological resources in peril, truly profitable farms are rare and small parcel sizes threaten commercial forestry. I believe that economic reductionism will never adequately protect our open space resources. I believe that any adequate policy for protection of our rural areas must recognize that there are various essential resources provided by our open spaces and all of these should be protected directly. Ideally, we would have a scheme that includes places for open space resources that elevate our existence, namely historic and scenic resources. Furthermore, if we are to plan land uses adequately, we must understand the interactions between lands devoted to watersheds, habitats and ag/forestal industries. I raise all of this now because I do not believe that in the current update, there has been any adequate examination of how our rural lands in various uses must form a system that generates many vaded requirements of human life. These ~ssues have been raised at different times in the update process by citizens, but I don't believe there has yet been adequate public discussion of them. I ask that in the coming discussion of rural areas you examine how natural areas, watersheds and ag/forestal industries contribute to the production of resources we need and that the new plan call for direct protection of all essential natural resources. If the new plan does not commit to assessment and direct protection of all essential open space resources, I believe the new plan will be a failure from the moment it is adopted. Written Statement to the Albemarle County ]Planning Commission from Citizens for Albemarle on the August 11, 1998 Drnft of Chapter Two of the COmprehensive Plan: The Natural Environment Comments Presented by Charlotte Graham for Citizens for Albemarle October 20, 1998 For over 25 years, Citizens for Albemarle has worked to protect Albemarle County's natural resources. We appreciate the time the Commission and planning staffhave spent devising and refining strategies to protect 'these resources. We applaud the new emphasis on biodiversity, greenway planning, and conservation easement promotion. We beli~we a successful comprehensive plan must ensure that all residents of Albemarle bear a responsibility as the people who set County policy, and must include mechanisms for implementation of these policies with measures and standards ofper~brmance and accountability. We present the following comments for your consideration: The Overall Structure: Meaningful comment on this chapter requires addressing the natural environment from the perspective of the entire comprehensive plan, o£which Chapter 2 is but one component. While it may make sense to have a chapter focused on the natural environment as it exists within Rural Areas and Developed Areas, the Plan must address the natural environment comprehensively by recognizing that both Rural Areas and Developed Areas are subsets of the overall environment of Albemarle, upon which the developed environment and its people depend. The key is to maintain the connection between Rural Areas Strategies and the Preservation of the Natural Environment and to conarnunicate that clearly throughout the overall comprehensive plan structure. Attached is our suggested outline for doing so. Biological Resources and Biodiversity. We strongly support the creation of a critical resources inventory and thank the Commission for including this important element in the County's Ion§- range planning. We respectfully ask that you consider the attached revisions. SurFace Water. We believe that the County itself should take the lead in developing a water conservation plan incorporating standards to measure its progress. It should be stated that the MoOrmans River runs dry due to the demand for water by City and County consumers. The minimum instrearn flow section (p. 20) should mention a meaningful water conservanon strategy to reduce the demand on the Moonnans. We support the intent to assess the cumulative effect of land use decisions on our streams and rivers; however, we fear tha~ u-~ing Total Maximum Daily Loads (p. 16) thereby setting pollution ~ may not discourage pollution. Groundwater. We strongly support the recommendations that the County consider requiring well, testing in the rural areas before new plats are recorded (p. 43). Sustainability. The essence ofsustainability is to maintain a healthy system over time. The Plan should include a definition of and recommendations for sustainability, including a list ~d CFA's Written Statement on the Draft Chapter Two of'the Comprehea~ivc Plan 1 Wd~E:~,O 866~ 9~ '~o0 ~;~8~9~08 : 'ON X~ SDIHc~t~I' NBff'iO9 : WO~J--I benchmarks and indicators to bc used to measure the County's ability to achieve sustainability Perhaps this section should corisidcr thc rccommendations of the S~stainabitity Council. Air, This section should con~Jn recommendations for/mprovin~ air quality by devising sensible~ workable altcmativcs to the single-occupancy vehicle. Urban Open Spaces. This section should acknowled§e thc potential conflict between pre~-vin$ open spaces in the County's development areas arid thc new emphasis on achieving hi§her densities in those areas and st~g~t ways to resolve that conflict. Historic Preservation, We s~pport the intent of this section; however, we suggeat that the Commission consider impl~neating some of the incentives and/or san~ions recommended by. t-rtstodc Preservation Committee. Thank you. CFA'$ Written Statement on th~ Draft Chapter Two of thc Comprehensive Plan 2 I,lzt~:l~ 866I 9~ '~oO 17I'i;8£c~1~8 : 'DH X~_-I S3IHc~U N:~O']09 : WD~L~ Expanded Comments on the Overall Structure of Chapter Two As part of a statement given to the Albemarle Planning Commission on November 21, 1995 regarding proposed revisions to the Land Use Plan section of the comprehensive plan, Citizens for Albemarle requested an explicit commitment at the beginning of the comprehensive plan to the preservation of Rural Areas that actively protects the elements they provide. We suggested these elements be expressed in the text as: · protection of quality and supply of groundwater and surface water · preservation of natural habitats · preservation of scenic resources · conservation of agricultural and forestal resources · preservation of historic resources · limited service delivery This request for an explicit commitment was based in part on the results of the 1994 Albemarle County Planning Needs Survey, where residents of Albemarle listed the protection of water quality and natural resources as top priorities. While some of these Rural Areas elements are not exactly natural, one main point remains clear: Albemarle's natural environment is the foundation on which the developed environment and its people depend. While it may make sense to have a chapter focused on the natural environment as it exists within Rural Areas and Developed Areas, the comprehensive plan must also address the natural environment comprehensively by recognizing that both Rural Areas and Developed Areas are each subsets of the overall Albemarle environment. For example, the current Chapter 2 draft distinguishes between forests in the Rural Area and wooded areas in the designated Development Areas. This distinction is helpful in planning within each sector, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding of the existing total forest of Albemarle and a commitment to the total forest systemresidents want to have. The Rivanna River and its tributaries also provide an example of a natural resource that must be considered more broadly than within the bounds of a particular land use sector. The Need for a Systems Approach: The comprehensive plan outline needs to reflect the system of lands as they exist and as residents want them to exist in the future. The need for a clear plan outline structure is so critical that it warrants the same serious attention by the public, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors as that afforded to each section. The lack of a clear structure makes it difficult, if not impossible, to find one's place in the overall outline and measure progress toward stated goals. It is difficuk, for example, to pull out strategies for the Rural Areas and see how they are woven into the plan as a whole. In the existing 1989 comprehensive plan, elements of the Rural Areas, especially those that play a role in preserving the natural environment, are referenced throughout the text. But Rural Areas elements are not enumerated until page 203 and are located, oddly enough, within Chapter CFA's Written Statement on the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Three, the Developed Environment under the heading Rural Development. In the current revision to the Land Use Plan, which provides direction for the physical development of the County (the . Developed Environment), the Growth Management section features Rural Areas elements. And in the current Chapter 2 draft, historic preservation is included as part of the natural environment when it seems more appropriate to include it in the Land Use Plan. Since the natural environment is the platform on which all else rests and is also part of both rural areas and developed areas, explicit protection of the elements of the natural environment is required based on an understanding of those elements provided by a critical resources inventory It is dangerous to assume that protection of the natural environment can be accomplished indirectly through the protection of something else. For example, open spaces do not necessarily protect wildlife unless they contain the habitat required to support wildlife. The 12/17/96 outline for the current comprehensive plan update creates a separate section for the Rural Areas, which has an impact on the plan's overall treatment of the natural environment. In any outline structure, it is important to make clear both the connection and distinction between the natural environment and a sector like Rural Areas. There need to be clear linkages between the logical flow within a particular section and how that flow meshes with other sections. Whether Rural Areas are a separate chapter or included within some other chapter, the point is to create consistency with the preservation of the natural environment as the foundation. Strategies for Rural Areas play a critical role in protecting the environment. Rural areas also provide several other functions, like maintaining rural culture and providing employment from forestal and agricultural activities, that may be compatible with preservation of the natural environment but which do not necessarily place preservation of that environment as a top priority. A focus on all components of the Rural Areas in the form of a separate section of the comp plan (like the Land Use Plan for Development Areas) appears a reasonable option, as long as the connection between Rural Areas and the Natural Environment is maintained and clearly communicated within the overall comprehensive plan structure. CFA's Written Statement on the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Suggested Outline for the Natural Environment Chapter that Links it with the Overall Plan: I. The Natural Environment in and around Albemarle A. Physical Setting/The Total Landscape B. Total Open Space Resources/Planning C. Natural Resources Water Resources Biological Resources Mountains Soils Forests Air Etc. D. Scenic Resources I Part A. The Rural Areas 1. Rural Open Spaces 2. Natural Elemems of Rural Open Spaces I Part B. The Designated Development Areas 1. Urban/Suburban Open Spaces 2. Natural Elements of Urban/Suburban Open Spaces Draft outline of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (for illustration purposes only) presented to the Albemarle County Planning Commission by Citizens for Albemarle on November 2I, 1995: Introduction Summary of Recommendations Foreword Special Considerations This Document: Three Perspectives on Life in Albemarle County The Individual in Her/His Total Environment The Population and its Total Environment The Total Environment and the Population Living In It The Map Green Areas (Kural) Blue Areas (Urban) Orange Areas (to be decided) CFA's Written Statement on the Draf~ Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents of the Plan Chapter 1: An Overall Vision and a Community Profile of Albemarle in its Region Multi-jurisdictional Vision Community Profile Strategic Problems Chapter 2: The Natural Environment in and Around Albemarle (The Open Space Plan, etc.) Chapter 3: The Developed Environment In and Around Albemarle (The Land Use Plan, etc.) Chapter 4: The People Living In and Around Albemarle (The Population Change Plan) Chapter 5: Implementation of the Overall Plan in Order to Realize the Overall Vision Appendices CFA's Written Statement on the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Revisions to the Biological Resources and Biodiversity Section , BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES "... it is difficult to believe that it lies with [man] so to remodel the work of nature as it would be remodeled, by a deswdclion not only of individuals, but oI'emire species; and not only cfa ~ species, but of every species, with thc v~y few cxc~tXions which he might spare for his own accommodation." James Madison, excerpt from speech to the Albemarle Agricultural Society of Albemarle, Charlottesville, Virginia, May 12, 1818 In.eduction Biodiversity is short for biological diversity. It describes the variety of living organisms of all kinds -- animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms -- that inhabit a particular area .o..r..~.o..sy.sl.e...m., protecting and understanding biodiversity is a task that requires a long-term, large-scale view. Most commonly, biodiversity is measured by the number of species present in an ecosystem ..H..o...w...ey...e..ro..biodiversity also includes: genetic diversity within those speoies in the ecosystem, and the diversity of different ecosystems across the landscapes. These three levels (species diversity, genetic diversity, ..an...d. ecosystem diversity) interavt in an extremely complex manner, and these interactions gr.O.'dg[~ drive the life support of all species. . Species Diversity Species diversity can be described as the r-an ge y~i.¢.ty of organisms that live in a particular -"~ or habitat and that ..m..a.~r..b..~ ere linked as biotic cg,,m,,,m,,u,,,ni}.i.e.s., usually through food webs. Perhaps becau.s¢ the li-dng world is most widely considered in terms of species .b.y..t..h..e..p!4...b..li.c., tM concept ofbiodiversity is commonly interpreted used to mean species diversity or "species richness", wl'dch may be described at various levels, from local to regional. Th.c !-...~.cr i: ~i...--.c__. Genetic Diversity Genetic diversity is the heritable variation within and among populations of organisms. As a plant, animal, fungus, or microorganism population becomes smaller due to human impact,.. -,~nd habitat destruction, '.o..r...t!a..t..u.r..al...c.~ge.,.it :.:i',da :c, Ic,:c, gcnetb veriability .t..e..n.d.~..t.o...b...e..l..o.s..t. juze by chance. The loss of genetic variability .u..~y. affects thc ~kftre ...~...b..i!i.ty and survival ora species by reducing its ability to r~.r..og..u.c..e..o.r...t.o..~al effectively with environmental farters suzh as disease, wealher, predation, ,~,~ ........... ~-~ .... ,,~v ................ 8d CFA's Writt,n 5tat*mcnt on linc Draft Chapter Two of th, Comprehensive Plan Wci~:i~O 8GGT 9~ '~oO ~TT8£9~1708 : 'ON Ecosystem Diversity Ecosystem diversity describes the variety of di~erent natural sy~ems found in ~e .a. region and is .li,~i.,m,j.t..e.d..,.a.p..d. ~haract~;ized by the .b..o..u...n..d.~.s..a..n..d. interactions among biological communities and th~ physical landscapes that support them. The .'m.!.~...a..~..i..q.n..s....a~....o..n& c,c~w, bi-*,--',i~r, ;£ar~imals, plants, ~.d.~...mi..~.r..~..q.r~..a~....s.m.s...?i~...tb...~.e..i~.h.~/~.c~..vi...r.¢.~t. --~ *' ..... · .... produce ~ a ~ ..wi..'.d.~..v...a~..'...~. of ecosystems .t,b.~,,,..n]~,,, ,b..e...d..e.s...c~..'.b. ~.d....aS....a...~...ng.e. .o. ,.~,L.c~.. p..o..r..a.i....~..d.. }p..a..ti.'..a!. !.q .ig..~..s., Importance of tliodlversity blodiverslty7 .......... : ..... ~ I ) Biodiversity is essential to human life. Huma~ life depends on the produ~s ...... --;-'--'~- "~'""~ ~-'~ --; ........ :'--~ fc~md ..... ...... ~ :hZ of living or~a~sm~ worl~ ............ , ~ ................ ~ ....... pro,de food, mc~cine, ~d in odu~s economy. !~l.i~.fsh=ies, forest~, ~{~r~, ~d o~er in~d~ :?~ doped on ....... , ~i!.h~!~ rely dk~tly on a. div~d~ ofSolotic~ re~uro~. Soil ba~ oss~ti~ for produ~ve faadi. ~r bact~a pro,de ~d~ ~t~s and Bio ~v~siW. 9f.~Vg.~!, .~~, .~..~!~!~..~ .pro~d~ for :~& r~on ofzlean water, ~ produ~on ofo~en, ~ ~ns~pdon oFc~on dio~d~ r~is~ce to p=~ites ~d dise~ ore, m, ~n~ol o/~ficul~ pests, ~ti~ ro~di~ ofinort~io ~lfi~ts upon w~ch ~1 ~ pr~u~vity d~ponds, 2) Biodiversity preserve~ t-be aesthetic and economic value ~f blc!;~izal zc. mmuaifiz:. Many p~ople come ~o ~.~.he..~l~..C..Q~ bemuse of its ~reat natural beauty.=- ,.. views of the Blue Ridge, wooded hillsides and pastures, ,~,.~.~..creeks and ri~rs. Natural, diverse landscapes and the proximity to wildlife provide ~m enrichment to our citizens that is unique in its impact and that is irreplaceable. The natural environment of Albemarle County complements its historic reso~ces arid together these features drive the tourism industry wideh .t...h~.! is so vital to our economy. Protect/on ofbiodiversity is into/Fei to mainter~nce ofAlbemarle's r,a~,:r=l 9y.e..r..a!l.. ~nvironment, 3) Humanity has an ethical responsibUity to care for other forms of'life on earth. humans have a responsibility to care for other species on Earth, whether or not those species have direa ,~,n,,g,.mi,.',c. use, Rather th~ simply usir~ the Earth's resources/or present purposes, human beings have a responsibility to care for the I~arth's future. Biodiversity i.s..i.n..t,e~.,~,,t,g..,t,h,,o..~.,.n..c, ti.o.m plant spccics ..o.f...a.'.rmr. m.o. ao.~.y..~.u.,..~..o..~.s, and mini z i the .ffm.t..s. ~.-..c..a.u..s..e..d...e~....~iT....o...n~.....e~....a!. disturbance ^~- ...... ~- 6d CFA's Written Shltement on the DraR Chapter Two of file Comprehensive Plan WdS~:t~O 866I 9~ '~o0 l~I~B~9~i~08 : 'ON SDIHc~8 NBO-109 : WOe_4 Albemarle County Trend~ Albemarle County lies within the Southern Appalachian - Eastern Dedduous Forest, the most species-diverse portion of temperate North America. Over the decades, forest clearing and rc~rowth, ~, .b..u....mj'..n~ development,., and other .a..c. ~.~j.e**s....~...d. events have affccted the Albs-nmrI~ County land~ap~...hl...a..d..di.'..u.'.o..n.,...ml....d..e.~p..e, gj..a!.!y.~inc~ 1950, thc ht~nan population of Albemarle County and Charlottesville has grown rapidly. Perhaps the greatest threat to our natural environment is the increasin§ demand for, ~d thus, ~creasing ~ono~ ~u~ of~ l~d. ~sidenti~, co~crci~,., and ~dust~ d~elopment c~t~ue to ~d onto ~r rich ~d ~v~se landscape, ~using ~men~on of h~itats ad ~nversion or,nd M the Rurfl ~a~. to more Mtemive uses. In ad~fio~ the use ~d m~agement ofprope~es Mthin ~vdopm~t ~e~ ~ve similar impa~s on ~ ~bimts ~' ~ biolo~cal ~so~ces ~ ~.fshe Co~. ~ a re~lt, pop~tio~ of some species ~ve disappeared ~d o~s ~e ~d~going ~jor r~u~ons..~0~llq~i~y,.~ ~h:gld .~.g ~ticipam erosion ov~ time of o~ ~osyst~s ~d ~e ~c~ ~ pro, de ~ .~d.g~!.l~.!~..~.~,~i~ ..F.0..r..e..x..a.m..P.l!,.'.ztn Albemarle County today, only a ~ patches of old growth forest still exist, ..T.,r,e.,e, .t..M.,,o,,u. gh,,..,d~.l~$.c,,h...a..s..t.,h,.e,..A...m....~..'.q..a!]...C..b..e~.t.n..u.D. Various native species have been lost or and .-s~a~e-,a..,n.~,.b..~,.,g,.f exotics .a..n..d....ng..n.:.n..a.t.j..'~....sp..e.9[e.~ have been introduced (such as ~e .P...a.~ bvmom..ei~ unwelcome~ pests ,.,.w,.b.i.q.h....o.U.t~.o..m..p.~,e..!.n..d,.r..el~,l,a.,~,~ljX~f. ~ Prominent animal los~ or substantial declines in species formerly native to this area include the passenger pigeon, wolf, puma, and bison, Recent bird declines include the loggerhead shrike, wood thrush, whippoorwill,., and Bewiek's wren. In turn, species ,,mere accustomed to open .fl..el.ds .o.r..m.~.o..w...s. or edge areas,., such as the robin, cowbird, deer, and groundhog have increased in numberi.. Los~.s. of larger predators such as wolves, mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes ~.v..~ ~ led to ~a increase.., in s~rmller predators, .~..e..h...~. raccoons, skunks and opossums;...~..!s..e..~.l..~.., 9pp..o...r~....n.'.m..n.'.e.. p..r..e..d..a.t..o.~, h.a..v..e..b.e.~ .s..e..n.'..q .u..s!~..a..u..~...e..n..t.e..d...by. f~.g....o..r. ~:.r...~. gi...ng ..d..o. m~.tj..e..a.t.~ ~ .s,.!!!...o..s..fl.y....~.t..s...m!.. ~...d..o~.,...~...t..h...o..f...w...l!i.'..eb,.~.~.~.~g~L~..~! .~r~.9.~,. :F4,,e-f-~.resh waters have perhap~ suffered the most ,t, ,hr,,~,a, 1~,..e, !~ .0.i.':~.n..d,..s.~.d.i...m~.....nl .a!i.o.~..a..n..d..l~gll.t..rtj.~9, fi i ,a.,,r,~i, fishes have declined dra,~ically, and Albemarle's freshwater mussels, such a~ the green floater and the James .Rj.'.v..e.r spiny,..mussel, are designaied as ealdangered. Although the preservation of one particular endangered species may not seem .a..t...fi!/..s.L~..a!]..c..e..t..o...b..e. critic, al, it is important to. consider ..fli..~.t. ,t.~.s..i.s...o.~.e.. j.n..d.j.9.a.t. 9.r..t..h.~..t..h..e..~., ,c9,~g..e~.... is be.q.o.,,m, jn. g4v4~}~i-~ys ecologicalllt unsus..t~..'...~.b. Jp. .... :--~ .... Tb...a.l is, the presence of~ endangered species is 9..~..e..n. cna indicati.v..e, ev of.a...d..e..ql.i.n.~..'.m., the general health of ks ...k~...i..~..t. cur 0Id CFA's Written Statement on the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Wd9~:l~O 866~ 9g %°0 l~II8~9~la~8 : 'ON SD IHc~IU NB(I-lO5 : WOa/.~ F~es~ .H.a. bjt.at. Fragmen~at-lon .T..h..e.....n!Major causes,..W...o..r.l.d.=..wi.'..d..e,,.for the reduction of species .i.s..ar-e · t ..... L _.. ~yl~j,-mettas) d ..fi;..a~,. ,n..~.!i or~a;-'.~,m:; ~ ..... and destruction an e oD of habitat. ~i~..s..~,~...i.x!.~l..u..d..e.. ~l.r...o4!...u. ,.cg..'.o..n.. 9.f. ,.~...o..~i.c....~....d...n..o..n. = .n..a!i..v..e..s. p~i.e..s...~.. ~...o,y..eX..:..e~.. p. !.o, i..~. t~ .o..n.; Benefits of Unbroken .Ha..bit. a.ts. .C..o, ~,tj.qr~.,..w.i.s..d..o..m....di.'~.~..t..~.s..~.a..t..~,he more contiguous a .h. ~i..m. t ~ ,~,r..~systerrg the greater number and varimy of birds, animals,, and plains it will support. Also, :h; iLi..s._o.i!..e!!.. ..~...s.u..m...ed....fl!._a.t..unbroken ..l~bj..m.t.s..p.r.o..vi.'..d.e. f~..'w'_..c..o..n, t~.u.o..u..s..a protective pathways for the safe movements or migratio~ o~' animals .o.~.~.~p~si.0xt.o.f. pl~n~..~es.o.~t~m.~, .h.o...w.~.v.~..r,..c~.n..b.~ . .nii..'.s.!~ ,~,g,, ,~S. ,~.~,..app. l~...m~. ,',.mi. y..Lo.,.st!..~, j.e..~ ,.t.h..a..t. ~.~,,~,t. ..afi..'..~...o..c.~.e....~or~sted areas also protect and maintain the purity ofo~ groundwater and stream and river water, Forests serve as filters ~o trap sedimem and absorb pollutants from overland runoff. Loss of'topsoil and silt into surface waters can illlogl.er.~'-'--'3' the gravel bottoms that are breeding habitats of most of our stream fishes and the aquatic insect larvae that are the £ood for these fishes. Forests along rivers and streams help make waterways livable for many ~ .~.n.b..r.`~.~k~...n.~f.~..r..e..s.t~.e..d~..a~r..e.~..~..b..u..t...m...ay~.~..~.d..~....w..e..~.e..~..~w..h.~e..r..e.. Plant material falling into the water ~ provides a food source:,. ,~¥shade from the tree ,.,c4!!,,.i~py help,s, maintain a lowe~ water temperature, and tree roots help s~abilize the bank and provide shelter. TM .... ' =z'J,',:!-,,*,: ...... Finally, forests contribute to t-he-.Ai..~..m...~...e.l.s, ar~,a~s natural beauty, complement the cultural resources of the area,., and enhance the County as a desirable place to live,..r.,e..c.r..e..a.t.e., and visit.' C, FA's .Written Statement oa the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan 10 I, Idl~:PO 866I 9~ '~,o0 I~II8~'9~Iz08 : 'ON Iici b-"JIl-tc~a9 Ni~ffl3D : HO~Ld Effect of~e~ .]E[a.bjt.a.t Fragmentation on The decline ofmauy ~sr-es~ plant and animal species .'.m....AJ..b.~[.e can be atmgibuted to ¢it,u,== ._.: .... .,: ......... t,., :_ ,,. ...... flarg al sting, d~velopmu-nt ~¢~Mvitle~ ~uch as wocMl~ud subdivisions, power lh~cs, or ..az.).c] roads, s~,~.e..habitat fragments .t..h..~..t.h..e.~.e...a...e~i..',,vi.',t,i,e.,~.l~,r,o,,d,,u,9,.e, differ from the original habitat in two important ways: 1) the center ore .t.~.e fragmemated area is closer to the ...fiXa..~..¢..n.t.',.a. edge ~7 ,,,,¢~, ................... ; ........ the amount of edge relative to the amount of interior habitat .i.~ ...&..a...m.a..t.i...e~...l~.i,,n, ~,,r,~.4. Because .o..f.,fi'.,a. g~,..~.a..t..a.tj..o.~ thc center of the habitat is closer to the edge, ~aenta~ien exposes the ,-~u:,~, species within to increased predation ·, _,u~_ ~,~,a .... ~...F.._.- .rt..h..e...mA...o..r.e.,..t.:l:he .h.a..bi.t.a..t~.s. fer~ edge represents a. dynamic ~ environment which mauy pc;,, .o.~ speci~ can invade es~Peiish-ar~ ....... :"' '" ..... :-'~ ~' ....... " ~:~?,~t ..T..h~$~...~..~....eo.,t.a.~..n..T, ere~ f~asmea~a~a no~ orJy L-.creases the number ofp~edators es within the edge,., but some of these predators compete for the same food supply as species within the habitat, For instance, predatory animals may dedmat¢ insect and amphibian populations in edge areas. Forest fragmentation ~.s.9..reduces.,.,,,,~,]-~':':*" ~-~,c~h~ ability ora many species to move freely across the ..~...d...r,,e,,d,g,.,e~,.d,~..qp..u.!..~.[o..n...n..tl...~.b...~.~..~.~y, ~.~r~ lead to loss of genctic variability, which reduces a species' .yi.'.a..b~.ty...a~...d.. ~.s. ability to deal with environmental flucttmtions, disease and preda, ion, -m.... ~. ..... ,,,: .......... u :_. a ........ _ .':-'w~': ..... ~" Whet, *~' '¢: ...... ~ Ce.- ..... :-' i: ~, .AI,,,$,~, many pJant species wfiieh ~.a..t..rely on animals to transfer sea, ds is ..a~...e..~,.~.. CFA's Writtea Statmncnt on theDrafl Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan 11 NdS~:Iz8 8G6T 98 '~o0 t~TTS~'gZ~O8 : 'ON X~..-I S3IHc~SL.'.q N=J(l-lOCJ : fragmentation is urr ntly being addressed,..i..n,p..a~.., in Albemarle t~ough land.-, use policies and volunta~/measures to protect forestry and open space in $~¢ral, such as Rural Areas ~onings and A~ricultural/Forestal Districts. The Agrlcultural/Forratal Industries Support Committee state~t-r.;. "Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat m thc furze viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County....Forest sizes below 40 acres arc difficult to man~ge economically." The Mountain Protection Committee concurred;-, ;.' Thc principle threat to the County's mountain forests and ~rms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use." This Plan [what Plan?] continues to support and promote forestry and agriculture as pr implgmt'ntation program ;;-hlch,...t~...Lstress~s education and volunta.W actionS..H..o.....w~....e.r., Impicmcnta,tion ofa Biodiversity Program OB,FECTIVE: Recognize th~ importanc~ of prot¢cang biological diversity in both the Rural Xrea and the Development.4reas for th~ ecological, aesthetic, ethical, and economic benefits to the community, · Building Biodiveraity Awareness We should value our natural surroundings as ~¢osystems -,v~¢h that provide essential services tn bas.. Destruction and fragmentation of habitat is usually not deliberate, but results from tmoth~r activity{.'..~.,, such as building a new home. Therefore, increasing the public's awareness of biodiversi~, and how ~ iii,actions aff',:ct our ~cosystems, is key to implementing a successful program. Other than the Shenandoah National park and other publicly owned parks and school sites, almost all of the land in Albemarle County is owned privately. Thus a motivated, ir~ormed c/tizenry can 8reatly effect changes in the health of ~ ecosys~em.s....flK..o..u.~....'.m..c..r.e..a..s..~...~.w..~,,~,,n,c,s,~. CFA's Written Statement on the DraR Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan 12 Wd6~:P0 866~ 9~ '~oO ~8£9L:~08 : 'ON S3IHdU~ NBO-I~ : ~trategy: Develop and disseminate educational and technical material for the purposes af informing the general public, developers, and private land own~ws, including residents of urban Development A~eas, on the value, of biadiversity and volunteer techniques that can be used to protect biological resources located on their land l~commendationa; -Develop material and conduct educational sessions to provide information to the public on the importance - Develop illustrations and other materials that demonstrate biological resource protection efforts that develo · Educate individual land owners through pamphlets and other methods on immediate volunteer efforts they The County could provide information at meetings or in leaflets to expla/n the importance of biodiversity, and to inform landowners l~ow to protect biological resources on their land. For example Io.: · Seek to reduce habitat fragmentation by maintaining large contiguous patches of woods, · Plan to allow old grow~ forest areas to develop-~-,y~g-4a~, · P~.~st the urge to remove all dead timber ~:m ye'--'r .~.~.A.y..~.i..d.~..~...~.t~jg~..a~...d~B9~n~..qa..t`iy.~ant~;~.~native shrubs and trees that produce berries. · Sow seeds of native wild flowers useful to insect: != · Keep livestock out of the streams. · Put nesting boxes up on your property. · Minimize the use of pesticides, · Preserve fen~erows in a natural state as habitat for wildlife. Additional info~tion regarding community water ~upplies and local pollution sources may be found at: http://epa, gov/enviro/htm/ef_home.html and trap://www, scorecard.org. OBJECTIVE: Through a .B~..ioiogical..R~s..o.u.r.ce.s.Ijnve~tory, develop a systematic knowledge of the typo and distributions of biological resources in Albemarle County, and develop an understanding of the requirements of our ecosystems. · Conducting a Biolosical Resources Inventory The County needs to develop a systematic knowledge of the type and distribution of biological resources in the area. The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, adopted in 1992, recommended corapletion of a critical resource inventory to plan for open space and significant resource protection in thc Rural Are~... Areas containing significant biolo§ieal resources may be identified bya number of criteria, such as habitats of specifio plant or animal types, catchment or filter areas, riparian areas, mountain areas-mpa, unbroken patches of forests, and patches of land that have been relatively undisturbed by .h...uman.s... CPA's Wrinen Statement on the Drat~ Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan 13 Wct8~':~'O 8661; 9~ '~.o0 ~,*1;T8~9~08 : 'ON Xt~4 $3IHc~i~9 N~(I'I3B : 14O~.q Sources ~ f.9..r...tb..e..preliminarity identif~afion of areas of concern include.:., aerial photos, satellite images, m.u..l~.sp,.eq..~.al...i..m...ag..e~.,.and digitized spatial data bases. Data bv~cs available for Albcmarle County include surface water distribution, elev~ions, soil types, vegetative cover types, and hind ¢~ed by usage type. Th~se dalab~es can be used to co,tweet layers ina Creograpl~ic Information System (OI$) ~, to be incorporated into the existing County OIS system. Other sources may include the citizens of. the County. Many local residents are avid, exlvor/enced naturalias and could provide much information on the distribution of plant and animal .s.p.~i..~.s....a!!...d. communities. Local foresters also have a great deal of firsthand knowledgc of thc distributions of forests of d/fferent types. A biodivetsity committee composed of knowledgeable and interested citizens will ~. c~r,a',~d t~, ,i.~,~..s~.~.n.t. ia!...~9.r, coordinatei.o...n...qf the ..B. bological ~urces ..Iinventory. Strategy: Ertablish ~n advisory committee to assist the County in overseeing the development cfa _B. biological . .Rresources .~nventory and the Integration of stwh an r. inventory into the planning proce~ · Appointing a Biodive~ity Committee A ...Bbiodiversity...C. eommittee ',&,u!d will be appointed to oversee the development of a ..B. biological ...Rr-esources .I, invento~ and its intetFa~ion into the planning ~ocess. The committee she'ald will be composed of interested citizens representing environmental, agricukural, forestry, biologist, skilled amateur naluralists, a representative o£the Shenandoah National Park, land owners, developers and other concerned dtizens..a.,n..d., business interests. The ..B. biodiversity .C~ommittee *&e-.'-Id will bo a continuiiag committee. It *&o-old will assist the staffin developing an action plan for protecting biological resources, and should periodically report to the Board of Supervisors on the state of our biological resources. The responsibil/ties of this committee would be to: l) develop public educational materials on biodiversity; County, 3) solicit regional cooperation among nearby counties in collaborating on a regional inventory; 4) determine criteria for identifying the types of biological resources to be inventoried; 5) assess prospects for donations to the .l. invamnry of time, e~pertise,., or other resources ~om the community, including the University of Virginia; 6) evaluate methods of conducting the ..Iinvcntory; 7) recommend one or more approaches for conduct of the ..Iinventory to the Board of'Supervisors, with estimates of costs; 8) assist staffin developing an action plan (discussed below) that specifies detailed steps for achieving protection ofbiodiversity as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; and 9) provide periodic reports to the Board o£ Supervisors on the state ofbiodiversi~y in the County. CFA's Written Statetrumt on the Draft Chapter Two of the Comprehensi,~e Plan 14 t4:l~£:Iz0 866~ 9~ %00 I~I~8£9~I~08 : 'ON SDIHc~9 N~C-IOB : WO~..-! OI~IECTIYK: Conserve representative ecological communities, and protect ecosystems that provide essential services to .h.uman~, Strategy: Stall--will develop an action plan, with a~'istance from the .B..biodiversity .~.c-ommittee, and through a public participation process, to protect significant areas of biological resources; Developing and Implementing an Action Plan for Achieving Biodiversity Following the completion of the ..Bbiologica ..Reesourees .I. invemory, statt'shemM will develop an action plan in conjunction with the ..B. biodiversity .Geommittee. This plan should provide details for achieving the protection ofbiodiversity and biological resources as outlined in the Compr~ensive Plan. Actions to be addressed ia the action plan at a minimum should include: * How the information obtained from the biological inventory will be incorporated into the land-me decision: · Establishing educational programs. * Procedures for the establishment/maintenance of a biological resource data base. , Voluntary measures that could possibly be utilized by th, County such as use-value assessments of rural lan · Whether there is a need for hiring a County staff member with expea'tise in conservation biology, md/or training existing County staff in principles o£conservation biology." .o,,f, Bierregaard, R. 1992.. The Biological Dynamics of Tropical ~ Forest Fragments. Bto$~ence 42: $59-866. Olivier, T., Blair, C., Hermsmeier, .J.,.Me/Ion, M., Ray G...C..., and ..M..c..C...o...r~..i.q.k..-.Ray, J. 1996. Citizens forAlbemarle~: Prote~tiag Our Biological Heritage,.. Albemarle County, VA. Primack, R. 1993. Essentials o£Conservation Biology, Sunderland, MA. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Biodiversity: An Overview http :/Iwww. wcmc.org, uld'mt'oserv/biogea~ogen.html~what Please note that these references appear to he incomplete in the. drnfL CFA's Written Statement on the Draft'Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan Wd~£:~ 8~6~ 9~ '~o0 ~8£9~08 : 'ON ×~-~ S3IHc~ N~O-]O~ : WOB~ Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: The Environmental Education Center Date: January 13, 1999 Re: Proposal to Protect Albemarle's Biological Diversity The Environmental Education Center (EEC) strongly supports the proposal to protect biological resources included in the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The mission of the EEC is to implement a regional program of environmental education for the community and its schools that encourages informed participation in the issues, decisions and projects that shape our environment. A proactive commitment to the identification and protection of our biological resources is necessary to the success of local environmental education efforts. A community armed with this determination and information can actively decide what mount of its landscape and associated biological resources to preserve, what amount to restore and what amount to relinquish for various purposes. Without these tools, a community risks losing not only its natural heritage, but its overall capacity to shape its future in all respects. Building biodiversity awareness, conducting a biological resources inventory, appointing a biodiversity committee and developing and implementing an action plan are each important steps in establishing Albemarle's capacity to ensure the preservation of its biological resources. The EEC's experience with a similar approach in the Kellytown neighborhood of Charlotteville demonstrates that a school, neighborhood, local government, university and environmental organization can cooperate to address habitat issues. Given the wealth of interest and expertise across our community, now seems an oppomme time for Albemarle County to take full advantage of its ability to understand and protect the biological resources that its residents treasure. What a gift this would be to future generations of Albemarle citizens, who upon growing up in a community with its natural heritage intact, can reflect on the wisdom of leaders who understood that preserving nature provides freedom for culture. 1108 East High Street. Suite I00 Charlottesville, VA 22902 ph/fx: 804-923-3792 Citizens for Albemarle P.O. Box 3751 Charlottesville VA 22903 January 13, 1998 To: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: The Board of Directors of Citizens for Albemarle Citizens for Albemarle has actively participated in the protracted review of this county's Comprehensive Plan. We carefully reviewed the August, 1998 draft of Chapter 2, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets, and provided substantive input to the Planning Commission. We support adoption of the draft Chapter 2 that is before you now. In addition, we would like to see this county government and administration address the weaknesses in the review process that result in a comprehensive 'planning mechanism that is cleady inadequate to match the speed and scale of population growth in Albemarle. We recognize the fact that Albemarle's planning resources have been stretched in recent years to support several citizen-committees working on important land-use issues. We agree with maximum support for the committees' work and argue that the very need for those committees has arisen from the intensive development pressures in this county. Those same pressures demand that we have an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan as a basis for land-use regulation. The county's population growth has been persistent for over two decades and is not likely to suddenly reverse its trend. Therefore, we must treat the high levels of demand on county planning resources as persistent not transient and rise to that demand, rather than accept that parts of the planning process have to falter in order for other parts to proceed. The unacceptable fact is that we have in consideration this evening a document that is technically part of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan review, a process which began in 1992. A county genuinely commited to prospective planning must face this flaw in our process, move quickly to define its causes, and provide the resources and reorganization necessary for a planning process that, in all its facets, runs ahead of the growth curve, not four to seven years behind it. In summary, Citizens for Albemarle supports adoption of the draft Chapter 2 and scaling up of the comprehensive planning mechanism. Respectfully submitted, Karen Dame ~ [Statement by DeForest Mellon, Jr. to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at the public hearing on the revised Comprehensive Plan, Wednesdy, January 13, 1999.] Draft text for the chapter of the revised comprehensive plan dealing with natural resources is an important and progressive document. It includes provisions for not only the protection of open space but, importantly, it recognizes the critical importance of maintaining biological diversity in the county for the benefit of all its citizens. This recognition will have important consequences, through the recommendations of a standing citizen biological advisory committee, for future decisions by the County in identifying and protecting its varied natural habitats. It is now well understood that, both directly and indirectly, the services provided by ecological systems, and the biodiversity that they support, are critical to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. These services include the regulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide/oxygen balance, protection from harmful ultraviolet B radiation, the regulation, storage, and purification of surface waters, control of erosion, and soil formation processes, to name just a few. Not included in this list are more direct benefits from natural ecosystems, including food resources, such as fish and game, raw materials, recreation and aesthetic and spiritual values. While we are immediately insulated from our biological heritage by a highly technological lifestyle, as biological beings we are ultimately thus dependent upon natural ecosysems for our survival. Albemarle County is not unique in facing the challenge of protecting its dwindling natural resources, including its biodiversity, from the inexorable pressures occasioned by the growth of its human population. Having recently spent a six-month sabbatical in Massachusetts, where, if anything, residential and commercial growth pressures are more intense than even here in central Virginia, the citizens of that Commonwealth have passed important legislation establishing land banks to purchase and protect their critical natural resources. Depending upon the particular community, these land banks are supported through local real estate taxes or by surcharges paid by the buyer when real property changes hands. It is time for Albemarle County to move beyond the expansionist attitudes of the1950's toward a sustainable accomodation with Our natural environment. I believe that the draft chapter on natural resources is a step in that direction, and I urge the Board to adopt it as written. Natural Resources Chapter Comp Plan Although the current draft of the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses many interrelated areas of concern to us, we specifically are here to comment on this draft as it applies to our major area of interest, the forests and streams of western Albemarle County. Five years ago, as a result of the Related Lands Study carried out by the Shenandoah National Park and UVA, Albemarle citizens were asked to help "conserve resources of mutual interest". At stake was an integrated forest system presently undergoing fragmentation, which ultimately threatened those species that depend upon wide forested expanses to survive. When owners of private land adjacent to the Park were asked to help preserve wide forest tracts voluntarily, a majority (including us) pledged support. This was an important beginning step towards addressing a problem that we feel should occupy a central position in this document. Simply stated, that problem is what are the best practices that will minimally disrupt or perhaps even improve the biodiversity of our area. It is now clear that the long-range quality of human life depends on environmental practices that support all living things. Beyond promoting our own pleasures, comforts and short-term profits, we are obliged to value our natural resources for their intrinsic worth. That our natural resources possess status beyond our physical senses, we believe, forms the basis of an ethic of how we must manage them. This duality of purpose, doing what is convenient for humans and what is in the best interest of our resources, is frequently the source of conflict. Unfortunately, it is our opinion that this draft appears to have a bias towards how our human needs can best be accommodated, rather than giving at least equal status to determining which policies and practices are in the best interest of our environmental resources. We applaud those portions of this draft that seek to present a more balanced view by valuing the health of ecosystems in themselves while pointing out the public benefits that can be derived from them. Especially effective are the introductions to the sections on Biodiversity and Water Resources. Establishing a comprehensive Biodiversity database will allow environmental impact decisions in our County to be made more rationally. We support strengthened proposals to encourage minimizing but ultimately restricting further forest fragmentation in sensitive areas, and to improve stream biology by controlling watershed land use practices and mandating minimum instream flows. The Natural Resources chapter will have meaning only if citizens understand the value of what they are being asked to protect. We encourage the development of educational programs outlined in this draft and would like to see them be more extensive. Finally, we in Albemarle County love our history. Our revered ancestors have challenged us to preserve the natural legacy they left us. This document is an excellent starting point in our struggle to shape the environmental inheritance of future County citizens who will judge us through the sharp lens of hindsight. Hopefully we will earn their gratitude for the wise choices we now must make. Donna and Jim Bennett 6430 Sugar Hollow Road Crozet, VA 22932 823-2636 lO'League of Women Voters of Charlottesville andAIbemarle County _ http:/laven ue. orgllwv Iwv{~avenue. org fax: 804-970-1708 January 13, 1999 To~ From: Re: Albemarle CountyBoard of Supervisors League of Women Voters Chapter Two, "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets", Comprehensive Plan The League of Women Voters thanks the Planning Commission and statffor their hard work in completing Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, and for the care given to hearing and including input from the public throughout the process. The quality of life, economic wealth and health of citizens inAlbemarle County's Developed andRural areas depend on the water, agricultural, forestaland scenic resources of our rich natural environment. Thus, we must protect these natural resources. The revised Chapter Two provides the basic umbrella of protection and strategies for implementingthis protection. We ask you to give special scrutiny to the groundwater section. Nearly half of the County's population relies on groundwater, aresource about which we know little. We do not know how much is available, how much is pumped out daily, whether supplies are being deleted or misused or how increased use of groundwater affects water in the streams that feed our reservoirs. To correct this situation, we urge you to place the development ofa hydrogeological database on the action agenda. In addition, to protect the quality of our water, we urge strong measures to prevent pollution by reducing paved-over surfaces and eliminating improperly-maintained stormwater drainage basins and septic systems. Once again, we urge the County's promotion of ongoing water conservation measures through education and incentives. Sound water management will help us to meet present and future needs of our growing human population. It can also help to assure the viability ofthe plant and animal populations that are essen- tial partners in our ecosystem; for example, by allowing a minimum in-stream fl ow for the Moorman's River. While we have focused specific comments on water, we want to stress our support for the principles of sustainable development, biodiversity, and open space planning. We encourage measures such as mountain protection, conservation easements and purchase of development rights to preserve rural areas that are endangeredbyurban sprawl. In short, we urge your adoption of, and implementation of the strategies in, the "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Thankyou. RuthWadlington, Co-President :..a nonpartisan orlTanization deaCicatecl to the.promotion of informecl and acttve parttci, patton of citizens tn btrvernment." Piedmont Environmental Council Chapter 2, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Statement to the Board of Supervisors January 13, 1999 There has been'a lot of discussion lately about what the citizens of Albemarle County really want. Perhaps it is time to reflect once again upon the findings of the 1994 Albernar/e County Planning Needs Study, the $15,000 poll you sponsored to gauge public opinion on issues related to the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Here are three of the five planning goals Albemarle County residents considered top priorities: protecting water quality, preserving open space, and preserving farms and forests. Over 70% of the 500 households polled thought that protecting these resources ought to be a top priority. It's not just the wealthy who care about protecting these resources. Of the lower income households surveyed, over 87% thought that protecting water quality ought to be a top priority, over 81% thought that protecting natural resources ought to be a top priority and 77.0 % percent thought that protecting farms and forests ought to be a top priority. The review of the Comprehensive Plan has stretched on for four years, and it's easy to forget what the public wanted. Your Planning staff and Commission have spent two years developing goals and strategies to protect the resources this community values. We urge you to adopt Chapter 2, and begin to put this Plan to work. Fax 540-349-9003 033 · Fax 804-977-6306 Statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on the Proposed Natural Resource and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by Tom Olivier 4632 Green Creek Road, Schuyler, VA 22969 13 January, 1999 Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Tom Olivier. I urge that you accept the natural resource and cultural asset chapter recommended to you by the Planning Commission as part of our updated comprehensive plan. Much of this chapter contains advances over current county policies. Some sections, such as histodc preservation, await further development and strengthening. Our natural resources face many escalating threats. If we do not raise our game in protecting our natural resources, many will disappear. I believe Albemarle County must commit to equitable, direct protection of our precious natural resources, and must do so soon. We have lost much of the original biodiversity of our county yet existing Albemarle County policy is dangerously silent regarding protection of our biological resources. The chapter before you calls for creation of a county biological advisory committee and conduct of the long called for biological inventory. I urge that these measures be implemented soon. I believe continuation of our current state of ignorance is indefensible. Albemarle Co. Comprehensive Plan Comments on Historic Resources Section: 13 January 1999 My name is J. L Murray, and I should like to endorse the "objectives" of the Historic Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan. There surely must be broad agreement on the recognition of the value of our historic buildings and landscapes, and on the need for additional measures for their protection. On the other hand I deplore the inadequacy of the current strategies, and I look forward to the full discussion of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. e_~Y! I ~'r d i-~ ~ ~ The most important statement in the c~ffnt document is the following: "Moreover, the number of resources destroyed in recent years, together with the continuing development trends suggest that continued reliance solely on voluntary measures would be imprudent." I know this to be true from personal experience. I live in one of the original farmhouses of the Cart family, and it has both historical and architecO, w-al interest. We bought it at a time when it belonged to an out-of-state developer. Having stood empty for a number of years it was in terrible condition, and another potential buyer wanted to tear it down in order to rebuild on the same site. I don't particularly like the idea of having to request a certificate of appropriateness for the kinds of improvements that I have undertaken in the past. However I see no alternative to an ordinance with some teeth if we are to prevent the loss of our heritage. At the least it must specify minimum standards of maintenance and prevent demolition of historic properties without due process. I, for one, ~m quite willing to give up some of my personal property rights in order to achieve the greater good of protecting the historic heritage of the County. Dr. & Mrs. John Huckle 255 Ray[ord Farm Earlysville, VA 22936 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 01-28-99P05:~5 Comments on Chapter 2 of the COHPREHENSIVE PLAN. JAN. 1999 The staff is to bo congratulated on producing an excellent vision of the Natural Environment, well explained and thoughtful. The Planning Commission has passed it and it is hoped that the Hembers of the Board will do so also. In order to translate this vision into reality, however, the PERSONNEL MUST BE PROVIDED to implement the plan; to see that the BHP's, the septic systems, the storm water detention systems (both the ponds and the underground systems) are built correctly AND maintained so that they work as designedf See pages 7,and 16. Without the needed staff this chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will be nothing more than a fairy tale- pleasant to read, but having no practical value. WATER RESOURCES- page 7.The effort to educate the public about their responsibility to preserve our vital water supply should continue and the subject should be taught in schools. The Water Resources Research Center in Blacksburg developed an excellent curriculum for use in the schools and this should be used if still available. The Board has recently wisely agreed to buy critical land which is in danger of being developed. In 1997 two pieces of land abutting the So. Rivanna Reservoir were subdivided for development. These lots might have been good candidates for purchase thus saving additional siltation into the reservoir. The city which uses this water source should also participate. The interoonneotion of ground and surface water must be recognized and the practice of putting free-flowing st~oama in pipes must stop since it prevents the recharge of ground water sources.Pages 7, 15, 21. One very easy change in county prooeeduro which could pay BIG dividends is for the county to produce its own SANITARY CODE which would be more effective than the State Code. The Virginia code is one of the weakest in the nation and even that is not always adhered to. Suggestions are 1- Increase the n--her of feet of lines in the drain field, 2- increasing the separation between the bottom of the drain field and the water table and also to rook, 3- increasing the distance between the drain field and the property line and 4- ~estrioting the placement of drain fields to slopes of 15~ or less. Strengthening the Sanitary Code in this way would mean less ground water pollution, and also out down on the n,,-her of houses which could be built in the rural areas. The county has the right to produce its own code as long as it is more strict than the state code. Several Piedmont counties have their own sanitary codes and at least one (Fauquire) hires their own sanitarian instead of using personnel from the State Health Department. MOORI~S RIVER- Page 19 The objective is listed as "continue" to protect the river. This is a misnomer since the river is dried up for months each year and its environmental setting has been decimated by VDOT when "improving" tho road. Please use the word "begin" instead o~ continue. AG~ICULTURALANDFORESTAL Bl(Ps -Page 20. Use of these BI{Ps should help lower the amo~t o~ non-poin~ pollution entering our wa~ers. Uith most agricultural land in pasture, hay, o= fomests, however, ~he amo~t o~ non- point pollution i~om developed a~eas ~st be addressed as wel~. ~den~ la~s, sh~bbery ~d golt cou~ses which a~e highly fertilized, and t~eated wi~ weea and in~ect killing poisons con~=i~. ~ch noxious waste. I~e=vious cover such as roofs, paved streets, driveways and parking lots cause the rain water to wash these polluters into ~e surface water ~ickly. WET LANDS- Should be maintained, not dismissed as unimportant since they have a role in purifying surface water and absorbing flood water as well as benefiting ecosystems. WATER CONSERVATION- page 25. The county should implement some water conservation measures now rather ~han wait for an emergency. If the public learns to practice conservation, it will become a habit to uso water wisely. WHEN wo have a drought, wells will go dr~ and ~he demand on surface water will increase. Page 26 The BOCA code now mandates W.C.s with smaller tanks.Care must be taken that the tYl~e required is efficient and does not require more flushes- thus using more water. There has been widely publicized criticism o~ some brands. Greene County has Jurisdiction over much of the watershed of the North Fork of the Rivanna which supplies Chris Green Lake and some drinking water. The oounty should begin consultations with Greene oounty on protection measures helpful to bo~h counties. A computer model created at the }fPO office showed that~ using Greene counties present Zoning ordinance, the watershed of the North Fork would be totally built out An Greene county. 6~OUND WATER Page 41- Since very little is known about the location of ground water here, a groundwater survey and map is being considered, Given that most ground water in the county is found in ~raotures in the rook, the location of this ~ater is not uniform; one property may strike a fracture producing 40 gal/min, while the property next door may get 2 gal./min, or nothing. It would be more definitive and CHEAPER for the county to require that a well be drilled and a water flow test be done on each lot when a subdivision if platted. For those subdivisions already platted this well test could be done before a building permit is issued.Having adequate water on each lot would be a prerequisite for approval. According to the county attorneys office, Albemarle has the right to require such flow tests although it has not been implemented here as it has been in some other counties. ~OUNTAIN 'PROTECTION- Pages 54 to 62 The Mountain Protection Plan was well thought out and would have served the whole county well as a safety measure both for the hill top resident whose home could slide away as well as the valley resident who could be buried by a debris slide, i remember the destruction, including over 160 deaths, following Hurricane Camille, from such debris slides. I have just returned from Southern California where a burgening population and a lack of suitable building sites means that large houses are perched on the tops o4 hills and small mountains. ~e have all seen the results of such inappropriate ~uilding on T.V. so ye know it is dangerous. T~at it is an aesthetic nightmare is obvious to the visitor. The sight of simila~ large vhite houses lined up on the top of a hill reminds one o4 a set of false teeth and is no more attractive. ~e are all lucky to live here in the most beauti4ul place on earth; let us do all ~e can to p~otect its beauty~ history and natuxal resources- the things which make it special to residents and visitors alike. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COPY TO: FROM: Albemarle County Planning Commission Kathleen M. Galvin, Chair ~6' ~ ~ Eric Stmcko, Co-Chair Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee SUBJECT: Interim Report: Findings, Goals, and Strategies for the Development Areas DATE: January 19, 1999 The Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC) is pleased to present this interim report to the Board of Supervisors summarizing the Committee's findings, goals, and strategies, thus far. DISC has met as a whole 23 times since February 25, 1997 and has held over 20 Subcommittee meetings. With the public, DISC has conducted two evening meetings and two all-day design workshops to ascertain citizen needs and desires for the quality of new development. The DISC meetings have been well attended and provided opportunity for debate among members. We are continuing to build a consensus among the members and we will make more specific recommendations to the Board at the end of our project. The interim report contains our conclusions to date, which we provide for your information. It also contains a set of definitions to provide clarity to the findings, goals, and strategies. We hope to complete our charge by the end of May and will be putting together development guidelines, a set of recommended ordinance changes, a template for writing new master plans for the Development Areas, and,a set of strategies for marketing the vision. We will present this interim report to you at your February 6 meeting and will be glad to answer any questions you may have at that meeting. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to contribute to community in this way. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATIVES FINDINGS, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES INTERIM REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FEBRUARY 6, '1999 The Interim Development Area Initiatives Findings, Goals, and Strategies recognize, support and serve to better implement the overarching goals and objectives of the Land Use Plan which establish the County's growth management policy. The growth management goals are shown in bold Italics as follows: GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize county resources by: Emphasizing the importance of protecting the elements that define the Rural Area: f) Agricultural and Forestry resources 2) Water supply resources 3) Natural resources 4) Scenic resources 5) Limited service delivery Of these, the protection of agricultural and forestry resources is the highest priority. FINDINGS The success of protecting the Rural Areas from residential development is equally dependent on the Development Areas' capturing new development. For that reason, a balance of measures is needed to direct development toward the Development Areas and away from the Rural Areas. · At present 45 - 50% of the County's single family residential development is occurring in the Rural Areas which is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. · The current zoning designations for properties shown for residential development on the Land Use Plan would result in very Iow densities in the Development Areas of the County. · Current single family detached housing in the Development Areas is being developed at a gross density of less than 2 dwelling units per acre. Overall density of housing in the Development Areas is less than 4 dwelling units per acre for all types of housing. · Areas designated for Neighborhood Density on the Land Use Plan ( 3- 6 dwelling units per acre) must be developed at a minimum of 3 dwelling units per acre in order to accommodate projected population growth and retain the existing Development Area boundaries until the year 2015. According to the Consultant's Buildout Analysis, there is more commercial and industrial land per capita in Albemarle County than is typically seen in metropolitan communities across the U.S. · While the Comprehensive Plan supports residential, commercial and industrial development in the Development Areas and discourages development in the Rural Areas, the Zoning and Subdivision regulations make development more difficult in the Development Areas and facilitate development in the Rural Areas. In order for the rural areas to reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the development potential of the Rural Areas should be reduced concurrent with making the Development Areas more attractive places for residential development. While not the primary charge of this committee, the committee recognizes the critical relationships that exist between the Rural Areas and the Development Areas. As a result, · the Committee strongly recommends these strategies be considered for reducing the development potential of the Rural Areas: STRATEGIES As part of the Rural Areas review for the Comprehensive Plan, develop strategies to reduce residential development in the Rural Areas. Serious consideration should be given to these tools: · Phasing of development rights over time · Having the same regulatory requirements for development in the rural areas as in the development areas · Raising the minimum lot size from 21 to 42 acres · Preserving opportunities for land divisions to provide affordable housing for County residents · Educating new residents on the growth management policies of the County including the provision of fewer services to the rural areas Bm Designating Development Areas where a variety of land uses, facilities, and services are planned to support the County's future growth, with emphasis placed on infill development. FINDINGS · The emphasis of the Development Areas Project is to find ways to make the Development Areas the most attractive places for new residents to live and to enhance their use and habitability. · The development regulations of the County currently are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan for implementing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the findings above, the following goals and strategies are offered for the Development Areas. These goals and strategies provide greater clarity and understanding of the vision and expectations for the physical environment of our emerging urban communities. It is envisioned that these goals will augment or replace existing goals and strategies in the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas. DEVELOPMENT AREA GOALS AND STRATEGIES Recommended Goals are in bold Italics as follows: GOAL FOR MASTER PLANS The Master Plans for each Development Area will be created with respect and attention to the unique characteristics of the Development Area. The County's growth management plan, community needs, the needs of the owners of land and the desires of the inhabitants of the development areas will guide the appropriate form, character, and intensity of development. STRATEGIES Each Master Plan will: · Be the guiding document for future development in the Development Areas. · Use a community visioning process similar in character to the design workshops held for the Towers property, Crozet, and Pantops as a tool to develop the Master Plan. · Identify existing transportation networks and needed improvements to streets, bicycle routes, public transit opportunities, and pedestrian paths to provide for interconnections between developments and nonvehicular access to places of human habitation and congregation. · Identify existing environmental features, in accordance with the Open Space Plan, that will be preserved and/or protected from the degrading influences of development and consider whether these places should become part of the public realm. · Identify areas which should be considered for public parks and centers for civic activity. · Show the proposed land use, in accordance with the Land Use Plan, for the undeveloped parcels and identify important features of existing neighborhoods, which should be preserved and respected when planning for new development or redevelopment of parcels in the development areas. · Have a variety of housing types to accommodate a range of incomes and needs for housing. · Identify the capacities of facilities and services that will be provided to the development areas. These facilities and services need to be planned in advance and concurrent with development to ensure that roads are not congested, schools are not overcrowded, and that water and sewer provision is adequate. · Demonstrate new relationships and road connections to be made between existing and future developments and between Development Areas. · Employ the "Neighborhood Model" as a principle means of evaluating the relationships cited above and assessing the appropriateness of any new development. GOAL FOR TRANSPORTATION Accessibility throughout the development areas will exist using a variety of transportation options for the movement of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists in an equally safe manner, while providing economical and efficient alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. STRATEGIES While streets are part of the transportation network and their design characteristics are under the purview of the Virginia Department of Transportation and other regulatory agencies, they are also a principal constituent of a neighborhood's public space. As such, new streets should be designed with equal consideration given to their capacity for vehicular movement and their character within neighborhoods. Neighborhood streets will reflect a human scale to accommodate primarily the needs of residents and their vehicles, and, secondarily to accommOdate the needs of service vehicles. · An urban cross-section, using curb and gutter, will be the standard for streets in the development areas. A rural cross-section using ditches and culverts for drainage will be exception. · Provision of street trees will be encouraged as a fundamental part of the urban infrastructure because of their environmental, economic, and aesthetic value · Design speeds will be Iow throughout neighborhood streets. · Provision for alleys will be encouraged to provide for rear access to buildings, provide for better use of front yard areas for buildings and landscaping, and to disperse neighborhood traffic. · Street interconnections will exist within neighborhoods, between neighborhoods, and with nonresidential areas to provide for a sense of community and opportunities to distribute traffic more evenly throughout a community. Interconnections provide for more choice for drivers and reduce vehicular congestion. Pedestrian access will be available throughout the development areas. · Sidewalks and paths will be provided on both sides of the streets throughout new residential neighborhoods and connect existing residential and nonresidential uses alike. In all cases these paths will make walking to and from properties an easy and attractive alternative to driving. · Nature trails and paths within greenways and environmental corridors will connect new and existing developments to provide recreational amenities. Bicycle access will be available throughout the development areas. · Access will be provided as on-road for commuting; separate lanes will be provided on major collectors and arterials. · Off-road lanes will be provided for recreational activities. Safe and secure bicycle storage will be available. GOAL FOR DENSITY AND THE MODEL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT Density of new residential development will be within the range established by the Land Use Plan. The form of new development strongly influences the desirability of more dense places. Consequently, short-term efforts by the 4 County will be concentrated on changing th® form of development; long-term efforts will promote the densities in the Comprehensive Plan. The principle vehicle for effecting this change in development practice for undeveloped sites and places where development has already occurred will be the "Neighborhood Model': The Neighborhood Model for development has these characteristics: · Interconnectivity of streets throughout neighborhoods and with existing neighborhoods and nonresidential areas. · "Centers" or focal points for congregating, such as schools, parks, churches, civic centers, and small commercial or social areas and that such features are accessible within a walkable distance such as ~74 mile. · Street trees and landscaping. · Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other, houses to centers and commercial areas and to front doors and main entrances. · Opportunities for alleys to provide rear access to parcels and garages to the rear of houses. · A variety of housing types to accommodate a range of incomes. Affordable housing units will be dispersed throughout neighborhoods. · Opportunities to have a mixture of commercial and residential use. · Public and private outdoor recreational areas for active and passive recreation. · Architecture which enhances the public realm by massing, height, setbacks, and orientation to the street. Garages should be less dominant than houses. · Realistic parking requirements; parking areas provided to the rear of sides of buildings; and on-street parking without increasing street widths. · Transit stops. GOAL FOR HOUSING Housing will be affordable to all income levels in the County. STRATEGIES · The "Neighborhood Model" will allow for a variety of housing types within a neighborhood and within the development areas. · Affordable housing will take all forms - single family detached and attached; duplex, townhouse; apartments, and accessory dwellings. It will consist of both owner-occupied and rental units. · Affordable housing will be scattered throughout all neighborhoods rather than concentrated in Iow-income developments. · New residential developments should have dwelling units that are affordable to families eaming less than the median household income in the county and incentives should be provided to developers such that they break-even on the affordable units on their projects. If sufficient affordable housing exists within a neighborhood, then new residential developments should not have to provide additional affordable housing. · Redevelopment of existing residential and commercial areas will be a primary tool for achieving affordable housing and re-forming buyer expectations. The Albemarle County Housing Committee will convene a subcommittee of local developers, builders, real estate agents, and other relevant participants to develop a local housing program to implement these proposals SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS: To begin to implement these goals, the following interim strategies are proposed. These strategies are recommendations which the Development Areas Steering Committee is ready to make in the areas listed below. As the process continues other recommendations will follow. · Until the Master Plans are created the final Development Areas Report will be used to evaluate how well each new development meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. · Immediate changes recommended: 1. Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to a. Allow for small planned developments that can accommodate a mix of uses. b. Reduce front and side yard setback requirements in all zoning districts in the development areas c. Make parking requirements more realistic to uses. d. Allow for on-street parking to count for use needs. e. Allow for more cooperative parking opportunities. f. Require information on massing, building proportions, and orientation of buildings and parking to the streets with new developments. 2. Modification of the Subdivision Ordinance to a. Make curb, gutter, and sidewalks or paths on both sides of the streets the standard rather than the exception in all new developments in the development areas. b. Provide standards for public and private alleys. c. Resolve conflicts that preclude or discourage street trees. d. Have the subdivision process for the rural areas, except for family divisions, more closely mirror the subdivision process for the Development Areas. e. Expedite the subdivision approval process in the Development Areas when proposed subdivisions meet the Goals, Strategies, and Recommendations of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee. · Long-term changes recommended: 1. Development of a Bikeway Master Plan for the Urban Areas of the County. 2. Consideration of the following long-term strategies regarding neighborhood streets: a. Work with VDOT to gain acceptance of street standards that result in livable streets which the state maintains. b. Develop a private road sYstem in the County in which Homeowners' Associations and the County each have a role in maintenance. c. Develop a two-tier system of roads: urban roads and rural roads. Urban roads would be owned and maintained by the County; rural roads would be owned and maintained by VDOT. d. Establish a public works department in the County to own and maintain public roads. ? 10. DEVELOPMENT AREA GOALS AND STRATEGIES SET OF DEFINITIONS: Community - This term refers to the residents of the County, when not used to identify a Development Area, such as "Community of Crozet". Density - When dealing with dwelling units on a parcel, the total amount of (gross) acreage in a parcel divided by the number of dwelling units proposed: 1 acre divided by 4 dwelling units proposed = 4 d.u./acre. Development - The activity resulting in the construction of improvements on a parcel, such as a new residential subdivision, a new office complex, a new restaurant, a new apartment complex, and the like. Development Area - The areas in the Comprehensive Plan defined as "Urban Neighborhoods" 1 - 7; the Communities of Hollymead, Piney Mountain, and Crozet; and the Village of Rivanna. Form - The comprehensive design for improvements of a parcel; the way in which all of the individual improvements fit together. Infill - The activity of placing improvements on a parcel of land located within a Development Area. Infill development may be construction on a currently undeveloped parcel or it may be redevelopment of an existing improved parcel. Master Plan for a Development Area or "Master Plan" - A plan for a Development Area which will follow the completion of the DISC project. This Master Plan will: Co identify the boundaries of the development area identify important social, environmental, and physical attributes of the development area identify desired use of undeveloped land articulate characteristics which specific undeveloped parcels should have when developed specify important improvements needed for the development area (such as streets, parks, sidewalks, etc.) Model Neighborhood Plan or Neighborhood Model - A set of ch aracteristics that each new development should have. Neighborhood - A discernible place with its own edge and center or centers that are within % mile of the residential uses. A building block of a development area which is made up primarily of residential uses or a mix of uses. A Development Area is made up of neighborhoods. Parcel of land - A piece of property. 11. Public realm - Public spaces or places of public focus or orientation 12. Redevelopment - The process of renovating, remodeling, restoring, or replacing an existing set of improvements for the same or a different use 13. Sense of community - A sharing of interest in the natural, cultural, and social features that characterize a community, by residents of that community. VOF EASEMENTS IN ALBEMARLE There are now a total of 20,799 acres of land in permanent conservation easement in Albemarle County. (approx. 4% of Rural Areas). Statewide, there are 125,151 acres under easment (as of 4 Jan 99). Albemarle has the second highest number of acres under easement after Fauquier, which has nearly 34,000 acres. Neighboring Orange County has the 4th highest number of acres, 8,506 after Loudoun. Clarke has 8,292. These easements generally permit either no subdivision if the property is under 100 acres, or subdivision at a density no greater than one per 100 acres. Easements are not accepted in areas where the Comprehensive Plan has designated the land for growth and determined that permanent open space would not be desirable from a planning perspective. In 1998 there were 19 new easements and one amendment in Albemarle. 2,998 acres in 1998. In 1997 there were 13 new easements: 2,800 acres. This is to say that there has been significant easement activity in Albemarle County in the last several years. Resources protected in 1998: Drinking water supply watershed: ~ acres, including one property on the Moormans River, one on its major tributary, the Doyle's River, one property lying one parcel from the reservoir, and. one amendment adding a riparian buffer to an existing easement on the Moormans River. Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District: 265 acres within district. Other Historic Resources: An easement on the farm containing the national register historic house, Sunnybank, and another easement on the adjoining farm lying in the immediate view of the historic house and of the Fan Mountain Observatory. Scenic Road Protection: One property on Route 22 One property on Route 250 West One property on Route 20 South One property on the Sugar Hollow Rd. Dark Sky: All the easements contribute to protection of dark sky by limiting the number of houses. The VOF Board will take up in spring of 1999 whether dark sky should be explicitly addressed in VOF easements as a natural or scientific resource requiring protection such as shielding of outdoor lighting. C 0 V E R 401 Mcl~re Road Cha~ttesvill¢. ~ 22902-4596 804-296-5843 ! FAX 804-296-5800 S H E E T FAX To: Fax #: Subject: Date: Pages: Nancy O'Brien 979-1597 Resolution February 4, 1999 2, including this cover COMMENTS: Attached is a copy of the resolution you requested. Thank you. From the desk of... Laurie Hall Senior Deputy Clerk Albemarle Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 804-296-5843 Fax: 804-296-5800 From: Sally Thomas Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 1:47 PM To: Laurie Hall Subject: FW: PDC State budget item ..... Original Message ..... /Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 1:41 PM ~To: sthomas(~,albemarle.org ISubject: PDC State budget item Sally - would you be willing to propose the following at the Board meeting? This amendment came up after the session started from Vince Callahan and Wampler. It will be voted on I think later this week. City Council and I hope Louisa passed it last night. We'd appreciate support in raising our state funding to $100,000 from $60,000 this year. Thank you. Hope the land use bills went well today. Nancy RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning district Commission serves he City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson, and WHEREAS the Commission provides a valuable link between state and local government, and WHEREAS, the budget amendment before the Senate Finance Committee and the House Appropriations Committee will increase the state funding for planning districts, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle supports increased funding for planning district commissions to continue the partnership of state and local funding of the commissions. file:c\fy99\budget\resolutn.wpd Nancy K. O'Brien Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct Commission PO Box 1505 300 East Main Street (NationsBank Building) Charlottesville, VA 22902 (804) 979-7310 / fax 979-1597 nobrien.tipd ~,,state.va. us BOARD OF SUPERV 5 02 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY99/00-FY03/04 Capital Improvement Program Worksession SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on the proposed FY99/00 - FY03/04 Capital Improvement Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. TuCker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: February 3, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: At the December CIP work session, staff presented several funding options to the Board for the $22 million dollars needed to fund general government requested projects in the ClP and the $10.5 million dollars needed for the school division's requested CIP projects. For the school division, the Board supported the funding option that freed up $5.6 million dollars in local transfer funds targeted for repair and replacement projects to be used for additional debt service on the School Board's requested projects. On December 14, the School Board approved this funding option, which provides a $61 million dollar school CIP for FY99/00 - FY03/04 (a list of the approved school projects is attached). For general govemment, the options were: 1) not fund the projects; 2) increase local revenue resources, to pay-as-you-go on projects; 3) lease purchase general govemment projects; or 4) pursue a general obligation bond referendum for needed projects. Staff was to come back to the Board in February to provide more detail on the unfunded general government projects and associated funding options prior to a public hearing scheduled for March. DISCUSSION: As shown in the chart below, available revenues are exceeded by $22 million dollars between the requested projects and the funded projects in the FY99/00-03/04 ClP. The three major unfunded projects are the Juvenile Court complex (increased from an estimated $5 million county share to $15 million), the public safety facility and the urban gymnasium. The other unfunded projects are mainly in reduced project costs and only total $836,000 when the three major projects are removed. Unfunded Capital Projects FY00 FY01 FY02 Fy03 FY04 Total Project Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Unfunded ADA changes Rev. Sharing (Traffic Calming) Neighborhood Plan Sidewalk Construction Greenbrier Streetlights County Athletic Fields Court Square Maintenance/Replacement County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 72,295 72,295 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 300,000 60,000 55,000 115,000 100,000 50,000 150,000 17,500 17,500 11,630 0 43,771 55,401 50,000 50,000 75,840 75,840 Total Unfunded by Year 475,635 46~630 7,475,000 7,375~00 ~173,771 21,966,036 Project Needs The Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court is the major project that exceeds our available revenues, not only because it is an expensive project, but because it is not an optional project. Although the scope of the project can be modified, the Juvenile Court building is programmed to be remodeled or replaced soon. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court will receive a third'~judge in the next fiscal year, which means that two courtrooms will be running at all times for Charlottesville and Albemarle. Currently there is only one courtroom. The juvenile holding cells must also be completely renovated or replaced if we are to be in compliance with state requirements. If the county chose not to fund the Juvenile Courthouse replacement project, it is likely that it would be ordered by the Court. The $4.6 million dollar public safety facility (page 43 in the ClP book) is not a mandated project, although it is cdtical to the expanding needs of both the police and fire/rescue departments. If the expanding public safety departments do not relocate to a separate facility thus freeing up space in the County Office Building, the County will need to seriously look at renovations or expansion of existing office space for these and other growing programs and staff. Although a space analysis is underway, it has not been completed at this time and therefore, no comparative costs can be projected at this time for a new public safety facility vs. additional County Office Building space. The urban gymnasium (page 71 in the ClP book) is a new project proposed by the Department of Parks and Recreation in response to .the increasing demand for gym space for youth basketball and other evening recreational programs. At this point, there is no additional available gym space in the urban area from November to March. However, questions have been raised about this project that are similar to those asked about the Monticello High School swimming pool, i.e., is it the role of government to provide recreational facilities to the general public; should this project be funded solely by user fees, i.e. a self- sufficient project; or should the county pursue some form of public/private partnership to provide the needed recreational space. Funding Options Conceding that the Juvenile Court complex must be renovated or replaced, there are three ways to fund the project. First, the County could raise taxes in FY02 and FY03 to directly pay for the new facility. The tax rate increase in both fiscal years would be approximately $0.12 cents. A second option would be to arrange a lease/purchase agreement, which would cost the County approximately $1.3 million a year in additional debt service. The additional debt service could be paid by a $0.02 cent tax rate increase diminishing to $0.01 in year twenty based on a 3.5% annual increase in the tax base. If the Board does not wish to pursue a lease/purchase option (it is unclear at this time whether lease-purchase can be an option), the third avenue is a general obligation bond referendum. The annual cost would be approximately the same as the lease-purchase option at a $0.02 tax rate increase in year one decreasing to $0.01 in year twenty. If the county were to pursue a GO bond referendum for the juvenile courthouse, a referendum would need to be held in November 2000 in order to begin construction in FY02. The process would require the Board to approve an ordinance in July 2000 requesting that the Circuit Court place a GO bond referendum on the November ballot. If approved by the voters, it would take approximately one year to prepare the bond prospectus and sell the bonds, and therefore have the money available for construction in November of 2001 or FY01/02. Should the judges wish to fast track this project and begin construction in eady summer of 2001, the County may be forced to pursue some short-term interim borrowing until the long-term bond financing is secured in November. Should the Board wish to pursue a bond referendum for the courthouse, and that may be the only option if lease-purchase and a direct tax increase are not possible, the County may want to look at other general govemment projects to include in the same bond referendum. The Director of Finance feels that 2 the expense of a general obligation bond (estimated to cost between $75,0000 and $100,000) should require a minimum bond amount of $20 million. Therefore, if a referendum is held the Board may want to include other projects they feel strongly about in the bond referendum. Potential projects could include partially funded ClP projects, e.g. sidewalks, athletic fields, traffic calming, as well as identified future needs that are not in the proposed CIP, e.g. libraries, urban improvements, PDR. Another possibility is to include some projects that have already been funded in the CIP, e.g. firestations, 800 MHz, which could free up already committed transfer revenues for other projects or to put towards debt service. Project Cost Firestations (2) Northside Library Crozet Library Sidewalk Construction Neighborhood Plans Athletic Fields Traffic Calming 800 MHz Urban Improvements Public Safety Facility Urban Gym PDR program $1.9 million $2.5 million $500,0o0 $2.8 million Unknown $1.2 million $500,000 $3 million Unknown $4.6 $1.5 Unknown From the above list, the Board may want to decide which projects are important enough to the public to place on a referendum with the knowledge that the tax rate would need to be increased to pay the debt service on the bond proceeds. Even without the unknowns, which may be considerable, a potential bond referendum could be as high as $25 -$30 million. Debt service on a $25 million dollar bond over 20-years at 6% interest rate would require an approximate tax rate increase of $0.035 diminishing to a little less than $0.02 cents by year twenty based on a 3.5% average annual increase in the tax base. Debt service on a $30 million dollar bond would require a $0.04 tax rate increase diminishing to approximately $0.02 by year twenty. For a $25 million dollar bond, total obligated debt and debt service would be at the following limits: Long-Term Debt per Capita at $1,158; Long-Term Debt per Assessed Property Values at 1.3%; Debt Service as a Percentage of General Fund Revenues at 12.32% in FY03. For a $30 million dollar bond amount, the ratios would be $1,216 per capita, 1.4% of assessed value and 12.9% of revenues. What becomes evident from the Capital Improvement Program requests we have seen over the past several years, as well as potential projects, such as the libraries, sidewalks, traffic calming, urban improvements and neighborhood development plans that are not even in the CIP, is that Albemarle County may be entering a new phase of capital infrastructure needs, all connected to a growing and urbanizing population. In the past 15 years, the County has been able to fund the school division's growth and infrastructure needs through VPSA bonds. General government is now faced with similar needs, although an adequate funding source is not available. The needs are quickly outstripping the annual transfer of approximately $2 million dollars (increases to $3.1 million by FY03/04)to the General Government CIP. Considering a $0.03 to $0.04 cent tax rate increase for general government debt, either through lease purchase or GO bond referendum, the Board needs to recognize that School Division debt currently uses $0.15 cents of the tax rate, increasing to $0.16 by FY05 if all requested school projects are funded. 3 Also included for the Board's review based on questions from the December worksession is a chart showing the pay out schedule for existing VPSA bonds and a list of the current outstanding bonds including the remaining principal and interest and the year of retirement. RECOMMENDATION: After the Board has had a chance to review and discuss the projects and funding implications laid out above, staff would like the Board's input and consensus on the following questions: Does the Board want to fund the Public Safety Facility and/or the Urban Gymnasium? Are they important enough for the Board to either raise taxes for a pay-as-you-go option or increased debt service for a bond referendum? If funding for the Juvenile Court complex is mandated, would the Board favor a lease-purchase arrangement, if available, or would the Board want to take the decision to the voters in a general obligation bond referendum? If the County must go to a referendum for the Juvenile Court project in November 2000, does the Board want to include other projects in the bond referendum? If yes, what projects are important enough to take to the voters for a tax rate increase? 99.017 Proposed School ClP Fund Projects/Revenues FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 0t/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 I Total 00-04 I Out Year Recommended Revenues Proposed VPSA Bonds 2,835,805 11,947,640 8,782,695 7,793,830 9,535,593 40,895,563 Interest Earned 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 ClP Fund Balance 500,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,300,000 State Construction Funds 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000 General Fund Transfer to ClP - Total Recomm. Revenues 3,835,805 '12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830 '10,235,593 44,695,563 Projects Reouestino Fundino from Current Revenues: Administrative Technology (Schools) 70,000 50,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 330,000 Instructional Technology (Schools) 439,700 250,000 395,865 450,000 450,000 1,985,565 Northern Area Elementary 400,000 400,000 Maintenance/Replacement Projects 490.300 234.135 180.000 180.000 1.084.435 Subtotal Projects/Current Revenues 1,000,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 3,800,000 Projects Reouestino Borrowed Fundino: ,Iorthern Area Elementary Recreation 300,000 200,000 - 500,000 Southern Area Elem. School Rec. - - 335,000 335,000 230,000 AHS Restoration 649,000 - - 649,000 Brownsville Addition 120,000 1,090,000 - 1,210,000 CATEC Cosmetology Lab 38,234 - - 38,234 Crozet Kitchen 65,000 - 65,000 Henley Renovation - - 200,000 200,000 Hollymead Gym Restrms 100,000 757,000 857,000 ~/Ionticello High Addition - 330,000 330,000 8,068,000 Vlurray High Renovations 864,000 864,000 Northern Elementary 971,504 9,443,000 10,414,504 WAHS Renovations 502,000 - 502,000 Western High Window Repl. - 230,000 230,000 Burley Library Add/Reno(Lib) 300,000 1,700,000 4,800,000 6,800,000 Jouett Add/Reno - 275,000 2,340,000 2,615,000 Scottsville Library Add. - 75,000 75,000 420,000 Southern Urban Elem. - 500,000 3,000,000 5,435,000 8,935,000 Walton Add. - 100,000 506,000 606,000 ADA Structural Changes 30,000 215,000 245,000 Maintenance Reelacement 694.067 604.640 1.509.695 1.163.830 1.452.593 5.424.825 1.438.153 Subtotal 2,835,805 '1'1,947,640 8,782,695 7,793,830 9,535,593 40,895,563 '10,'156,'153 Total Available Revenues 3,835,805 '12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830 '10,235,593 44,695,563 Total Requested Projects 3,835,805 '12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830 10,235,593 44,695,563 Annual Surplus/Shortfall Cumulative Balance - 1/28/9910:48 AM BOS Proposed fyO0-04 cip.xlsSchools $10.0 $9.0 $8.0 $7.0 $6.o $5.0 $4.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0.0 Albemarle County Debt Service Expense on Existing VPSA Debt 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Fiscal Year 2017 2019 Fiscal Year Debt Service Obligation $ Freed Up FY 98/99 8,569,547 FY 99/00 8,742,755 (173,208) FY' 00/01 8,100,910 468,637 FY 01/02 7,949,540 620,007 FY 02/03 7,270,631 1,298,916 FY 03/04 6,886,992 1,682,555 FY 04/05 6,690,820 1,878,727 FY 05/06 6,291,056 2,278,491 FY 06/07 5,971,147 2,598,400 FY 07/08 5,532,907 3,036,640 FY 08/09 5,292,435 3,277,112 FY 09/10 4,770,048 3,799,499 FY 10/11 3,798,681 4,770,866 FY 11/12 3,445,769 5,123,778 FY 12/13 2,596,737 5,972,810 FY 13/14 2,426,170 6,143,377 FY 14/15 2,239,045 6,330,502 FY 15/16 2,119,548 6,449,999 FY 16/17 1,640,422 6,929,125 FY 17/18 1,273,715 7,295,832 FY 18/19 216,310 8,353,237 01/26/99 1 DEBTFLOW.WK4 Total Remaining Debt Service as of 6130/98 Issue/Ye_aE 800,000-71 700,000-72 500,000-79 500,000-80 1,000,000-81 11000, 000-82 1,000,000-82 349,904-83 977,505-84 239,317-84 179,152-84 2,000,000-86-BW 2,000,000-88-1VY 3,000,000 - 91A VPSA 2,885,000 - 92B VPSA 11,900,000- 93C VPSA 24,710,000 - 94A Refunding 450,000 - 94B VPSA 7,850,000 - 95C VPSA 5,900,000 - 96B VPSA 20,455,'000 - 97A VPSA 4,245,000 - 98B VPSA Total Remaining P rin cip_a_! 79,950 93,400 25,000 50 000 150 000 200000 200000 87 500 293 400 83 300 62.706 900 000 1,100,000 2,030,000 2,055,000 8,200,000 17,645,000 375,000 7,060,000 5,605,000 20,455,000 4_~4245,000 Total Remain. ing Interest 4,798 7,006 750 2,250 9,000 15,000 15,000 '7,875 30,807 9,996 7,524 135,000 264,000 809,791 827,238 2,214,746 7,372,487 192,060 3,307,369 2,841,002 10,701,682 2~054,551 Total Remaining Debt Service 84,748 100,406 25,75O 52,250 159,000 215,000 215,000 95,375 324,207 93,296 70,230 1,035,000 1,364,000 2,839,791 2,882,238 10,414,746 25,017,487 567,060 10,367,369 8,446,002 31,156,682 6,299,.551 Retires in Fiscal Year FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 04/05 FY 06/07 FY 08/09 FY 10/11 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 11/12 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 Totals 7O,995,256 30,829,932 101,825,188 12/10198 DEBTFLOW. WK4 FEBRUARY ..3, 1999 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE Of VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER ThE ACE~UISitION OF PROPERTY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PURPOSES ; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) tO CONSIDER THE USE OF COUNTY PROPERTY FOR SPECIFIC PUBLIC PURPOSES; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING TWO SERVICE AGREEMENTS, a HIGHWAY PROdECT AGREEMENT, AND PENDING LITIGATION. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk January 28, 1999 - revised * Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through April 31, 1999. Unless'you indicate that you would either like to reappoint the same person, if eligible, or select your own magesterial appointment without advertising, these vacancies will be advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and 21. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than March 22, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on April 7, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis *Note: Please note that I have added the Piedmont Housing Alliance to the bottom of the list on the reverse of this memo. · WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL ~ ; ~ ~. NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER ~ TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? Preston Coiner (joint) 12-31-98 12-31-00 Not eligible (Applications sent under separate (New committee, two TBD TBD cover.) vacancies) (Received no applications .) G. Blair Turner 01-20-99 01-20-03 No (Applications sent under separate C. Timothy Lindstrom 12-13-98 12-13-01 No cover.) Patricia H. Ewers 12-31-99 Resigned The PHA Nominating Committee has Bruce W. Kirtley 01-01-99 01-01-02 Yes recommended his reappointment as the Board's appointee; please reappoint him. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~/6 January 28, 1999 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through April 31, 1999. Unless you indicate that you would either like to reappoint the same person, if eligible, or select your own magesterial appointment without advertising, these vacancies will be advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and 21. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than March 22, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on April 7, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? Preston Coiner (joint) 12-31-98 12-31-00 Not eligible (Applications sent under separate (New committee, two TBD TBD cover.) vacancies) (Received no applications.) G. Blair Turner To begin 01-20-99 01-20-03 No (Applications sent under separate C. Timothy Lindstrom 12-13-98 12-13-01 No cover.) Patricia H. Ewers 12-31-99 Resigned David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlott~ville, V~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin l~'vanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Laurie Hall Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: January 28, 1999 Applications for Boards and Commissions On the attached I have provided a list of applicants interested in current vacancies on Boards and Commissions which have been advertised. Attachments: 4 cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM EXPIRE DATE APPLICANT/ INCUMBENT A. Gordon Gledhill INTERVIEW, SCHEDULED 1:00 p.m. William C. Johnson 1:10 p.m. Frederic F. Catlin J. Roy Saunders, Jr. 1:20 p.m. County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Board of Coun.ty S.upervisom 401 MeInfi~ Rbad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5543 APPLICATION TO SEKVE Obi BOARD / CONIMI$SION / COMM1TEEE ~leasc ty~ or print) Board / Commission / Commiuee Magisterial District ~_which your home residence is located ~//,a~/b//3/,~ Employer . ~"~/4:~'-'~. ~.~. Phone Business Address Date of Employment Occupation / Title Years Resident in Albemarle County ~'//~5~ Previous Residence ,d--"7/'"',,~.,,~'~. ~:. Spouse's Nan4.? ,~/~'~e~L Number of Children Memberships in Fraternal: Business, Church and/or Social Groups The information provaded on this apphcalaon will be released to the put, hal updn request. Signature Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Desire to Servexxn thi.q Board / Commission / Committe~ Dat~ Return to: ~]grk, Bqar$;l of ~County Supervisors Ul ¢lrl£1r t~, ~h h~'lto~tt es~i~le, ~ 22902-4596 County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclnti_'~ Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION ?O SERVE ON' BOARD / COMMISSION' / COMMITTEE ~ , (ple~s~ ~pe el print_) · Magisterial Dist~ric~in which your hwn¢ residence is locamd ~-~q~ Employer ~~[/,~:~.~ A~ (/~_~") . ' . Phone( Years P~sident in Albem~'~,ounty ,, Previous Kesidence Spouses Nam'~ ,~'L/.f~--f. (7' O o/4'~ Number of Children ~ , Membershins in Fraternal. Business. Church and/or SociaJ Grouo~ , ,.?../,,_), f~.~/t,~ Public. C{vi~ and Charita[ le Office and / or Other Activities or Interest~ , ,-~ . _ Re~onfs~for D~im to Se~e ~mthis B0~d / Commissi~ / Corinne _, .~ / _ u~ ~o~o~ p=~a~a o~ ~ ~p~on': ~ -~I ~ ~==a to m~~p~q=~. .= , . Si~~ ' D~ ' Return to: ~rk, Bqar~ of ~oun~ Supe~sors . ~ . ~h~7~Rcl ~le~ 22902-4596. County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Roaa ' ChaflottosC. lle, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 1 -,3,5-9 8PI 2: 1 5 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or prin0 Board/Commission/Committee P-o,aT~ Z~'o ~,sx- C~~o~, 5-ruby Apph~t'sN~e ~e~ ~. ~ ~ Home Phone M~iaefifl Di~ ~ w~eh yo~ home residen~ is I~d ~~ Employer ~k~~o~ ~~ ,~ ~~ Phone Daeof~plo~ent ~ ]t/~ 0ccup~on/Tifle ~ ~ Ye~ ~sident in Mbem~le Co~ ~o + Previous Residence qz ~a~ S~use'sN~e ~a ~.~~ Nm~rofChil&en Memberships in Fraternal, Business. Church and/or Social Groups Public, Civio and Ghari~bl; Office and / or Other Activities or Interests Re, on(s) for Desire m Se~e on this Bo~d / Commission / Commi~ee ~e i~o~on provided on ~s ~plic~on ~II be mle~ed to ~e pubUc upon reque~. ~ Si~ Da~ Return to: ~]¢rk, Bgar~ of ¢oun~ Supe~sors County of Albemarle Offic~ of Board of Coun_ty Supervisors 401 Mchttire Koatt Charlotte~e.' VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 , _./,.. APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/.COMMISSION / COMMI'ITEB (please type or print) Applicant'sNamc J, ~ov .~a. cincle, r5 ,Ir'. Hom~ Phone Magisterial District in which your ~is located ~ a~ ~ ~ I ~ Empl°yer <~'¢ c¢ ~ ' - Business Address ~ B ~f'or~¢,/ Freak X/x/'~.~'~. cdel(,s~0cA V/~.. Date of Employment Oc~'c; h,~,~ I}q~S Occupation/Title ('orm~,,n';~',, Years~LnAlbemarIeEounty 'la ,~£~r4. Previous Residence ~c-kae~c~ · ',- ' ' "d ' Spouse's Name, ~/t~.~,~fm. ~ · _a_occ~-~er5 Number of Children Education (Degrecs and Graduanon Dates) ¢C~¢ (.(.~% [zic-,,~,~} (..[.~c,., . . . .~ . q' , ,,/g - Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups · .L~ .- - . . .q Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests , , ... .- -~ .,~ .. t/.,,. t, . t ~' , ' / .- -i . , .. , , ' ~e~oDIs} tot DeSl~ t0 ~O~e o~ ~lS ~oEd / Commission / comml~ee ~e ~om~on provided on ~is ~plic~on~ll be rele~ed to ~e public u?on reque~. ~i ~ ~ - / ff Si~m / Return to: ~l~rk, B~aO of ~oun~ Supe~sors I clntlr ~ Charlottesville, VA., 229024596!'::* To Whom It May Concern: 893 Stoney Creek West Nellysforcl, VA., 22958 :?!:~'~nber 31, 1998 RCV~. Please find enclosed my application for the vacant position on the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Some explanation is in order. First of all, I am not a resident of Albemarl~County. However, I am a tax paying land owner of property in Albemarle County and have been for some 25 years. After graduating from the University of Virginia, I began to look for property near Charlottesville with the hope of some day building a permanent home there. In 1973, I purchased 35 acres near Batesville, ail wooded with a pond in the .middle. In 1975, I accepted a contract with the World Bank/United Nations Development Program which took me to the Philippines for a year, and in 1977, I left for Jakarta Indonesia on a World Bank project where I ended up lixRng until this past summer. Since our return to the U.S. in June was in some haste, and there was no house on the property in Batesville, we signed a lease on a house in Wintergreen in Nelson County. It was the natural beauty, the physical and social ambience, and the cultural and recreational assets of the area around Charlottesville and the University of Virginia that caused me to adopt it as my future home many years ago, a story I hear frequently from others as well. I am certainly aware, therefore, of the pressures placed on the environmental systems of the area by those who want to live here precisely to enjoy those attributes. I understand those who want to preserve the area just the way they found it. I also understand the financial concerns of some related to the impact on the tax base and tax rate of new people moving in with children to educate, and I understand those who are concerned about what they consider their inherent rights to the use and enjoyment of their property. These are not issues peculiar to Albemarle County of course. I lived and worked in and for Fairfax County in the 1960's and early '70's and saw the same matters, sprawl versus open space, growth versus no growth, rights of the individual versus the greater good for the greater number of people, raised and debated from both sides. 'And I look at Fairfax Coun~ty ~oday like Rip Van Winkle after 20 years of; s!eePana s~b0th.the successes and failures of our attemPts t° Pr0tecf th6'l/eal~ Safety knd general welfare and balance the forces. While I know there is no single simple solution to the commdnlm, the Public Recreational Facilities Authority could perhaps be a small step in the right direction: ~., ! ~.~. I do note from the enabling legislation that such authorities are granted by the state thepowers to acquire land by purchase, to sell general obligation bonds and to levy taxes and assessments, whereas the Albemarle County Authority is expressly prohibited from purchasing land, floating bonds or incurring debt. In fact, I am not sure what decisions the Authority really makes or-What actiion it takes. It appears to be in a rather passive position of just receiving land. I also wonder how it relates to the functions of the Parks and Recreation Department relative to the development and use of the land it receives. .,I enclose herewith a brief summary- of my professional background and experience. I am in the process of restarting a consulting practice in urban and regional planning after 23 years in Asia, so the resume emphasizes m,v experience in Virginia. Of course. I have the ability to read and understand real estate plats and easements, and I have a general understanding of the Albemarle County zoning and subdivision ordinances and the ability to learn them in greater detail. And most importantly, I have an abiding interest in and dedication to the preservation and conservation of open space land, water supply' and historic resources. I thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, ~. Roy S~ct~rs, Jr. ROy saUnders, gr. 'Community Plan'n.,ing Consultant Bachelor of City Planning, (five Year professional degree) School of Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia Master of Arts in Government-Public Administration, School of Government, Business and International Affairs, George Washington University Certificate in Local Planning Administration, Internatlonal City Managers Association. Professional Credentials: Full Member, American Institute of Planners 'Charter Member, American Institute of Certified Planners Past President, Virginia Section, AICP. Recipient of AICP Award for Outstanding Contribution to Virginia Planning Profession. Virginia Citizens Planning Association, Past President l~ecipient of VCPA Award for Contribution to Virginia Planning. Ameri can Planning, Associ ation American Society of Planning Officials American Management Association Urban Land Institute, Community Builders Council Society for International Development Certified by Virginia and West Virginia to be Planner-in-Charge of HUD 701 planning .grants. Kegistered consultant with the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, United . Nations Development Program and U.S. Agency for International Development. Experience: * In Local Government and PDC M'~'~er Planning, . Zoning and. Subdivision Ordinance PreParation~.a.P~t!:Management. ,,.I~. Sa~unders h~ prg~ded consUlting asSiStance't9 'cities~'.i0/~s;C'ouiities,~ plaiining district. cOmnifssions and unincorporated Co~h~n'uhi~e~'~thr6i~h0u'i Virginia, Mai-yl .amd, We~t virgfni/i'~d.~.O.'~h'.carolina.' i.~s~-~a~_'.'i,'ih~lU~i~!",~e.P~ti0~i~0[~///~e ordinances., for such .~ientS as FairfaxCb~Uh~,. Falls' Chiii~C~, MCL6a~ff, ~i Annalridal'~;'Ty~0/is corn~, centei~vill~, :~'LiilC6i~iia, MiiiaiS'ai;~'i, ill~,'~ ~/i/f BlUefield,' W.Va.,~. Rapp~liaiin~X:k co~m~,'~in'd ii~d~n plan'ning ~ii§ii-i~t commissions from NOr~hei:n virginia` to the ~6U'thWestern ~ip of.virgiiiia2to~ the Eastern Shore. For planning district commissions, he prepared goals alnd objectives;' overall work programs and budgets, land use elements of water quality management plans, and advice and assistance in meeting various government certifications. * Environmental Assessment. Mr. Saunders has done a great deal of work in impact assessment, such as writing reports on demography, land and marine use, ecology, socio-economic and socio-cultur~fl impacts, public health, man-induced events, oceanography, meteorology, geohydrology, and Volcanology for a 7200 Mw nuclear power project; writing the final report on its feasibility and environmental impact assessment; preparing the feasibility study and preliminary environmental impact assessment for a hazardous and toxic waste disposal facility; a PL 566 soil erosion and sedimentation project for .a watershed about to undergo extensive development; an upland soft and water , conservation program to prevent damage to downstream agriculture; a regional impact prediction system design, based on computerized data cells, for a sophisticated planning district commission, dealing with storm runoff, air quality, traffic, sewage disposal and public services. * New Town Planning for Private Developers. Mr. Saunders has worked with many prominent developers in planning for large scale land development projects. Some of these include Lake Ridge near Woodbridge, Va; Montgomery Village, Maryland near Gaithersburg; Skyline Center, a high rise mixed use project in Fairfax County adjacent to the Alexandria line; Reston in Fairfax County; Looc, a 22,000 acre tourism estate on the island of Luzon in the Philippines that included a number of beach front hotels, three golf courses, and a substantial community for the workers; Royal Sentul Highlands, a new satellite city near Jakarta, Indonesia. * Infrastructure Planning in Urban and Rural areas. Mr. Saunders has been responsible for planning some large infrastructure projects, including a World Bank financed project in Jakarta, Indonesia to install infrastructure in the neighborhoods of over 2 million people, incldding roads, walkways, water stand-pipes, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, primary schools and health clinics, called the largest urban development propect in the world at the time; an industrial alrpark with railroad spur, highway and airport on 400 acres, including a marketing strategy and financing plan; a land use density, school and sewer program for a watershed that was to be sewered and developed; a program to locate sewage treatment plants and alternative waste water treatment systems in a multi jurisdictional metropolitan area that was undergoing rapid development. * Urban and Rural Development Project Management in Asia. Mr. Saunders spent 23 years in Asia, managing projects for the World Ba~k, Asian Development Bank, United N~ions Development Program and the United States Agency .for International Devel0Pi~'ent. Some of those projeCtS included management and': mOni[0ring: assistance tot he Minister 'for Transmigr~tion'~in a program to relocate fi-~e millidn i~e0ple from OVercrOwded Jaw to'sUsmiiiabl communitie~s' i° be Planned ~iid built oh"the 0ut~r islands'~0f IndoneSia~:~le~i~n and. m~agement'i' ~ss. ist~aiaC~"i~i.a?~gioiial devel0Pment aiit~0rity i~ :th~,':::i~,~ ';,. construction of thou~c~:.6f ioie~ COst.h0~'ses fOP Wbrker~'iri' plantati6ni in'~:::: ::'~ · Malaysia; management or,the planning and implementation of a project to'. build infras~.ruc~u~!h:.~h~ne~ghboi~hoO'ds"6f th~ poOY~i:~f the and Surabaya; a:pro]~Ct't0 ~laqe'idvis~ors~ in a wide rangi'0f fields from~,~,?~:.:~.; ~'.'. liveslock breeding, ~hrimp 'pbrid "nutrition;' small scale"indUStry,~ rural credit' programs, cooperatives management, fast growing trees and deep water rice in six provinces in Indonesia; applied agriculatural research; non-formal education in agriculture, livestock, construction, mechanics, sewing and weaving and sericulture in Bangladesh. In all, Mr. Saunders worked in 12 countries, including Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, Pakistan, Egypt and others already mentioned. * Expert Testimony. Mr. Saunders has appeared as an expert before courts, legislative bodies, regulatory commissions, and congressional study committees. He has testified on condemnation cases for park land, court cases on zoning actions, right-of-way cases for utilities, Interstate Commerce Commission hearings, federal installation site selection hearings, and planning commission hearings on zoning matters in a number of jurisdictions. *' Downtown Redevelopment Studies. Mr. Saunders has worked on downtown studies that involved historic preservation, carried out economic and marketing studies for downtown revival, and prepared land use plans for redeveloping central business districts into pedestrian malls. Academic Appointments: Mr. Saunders was a Professor of Urban Planning at Virginia Commonwealth University, teaching courses in Legal and Legislative Foundations for Planning, Economic Development Planning, Community Growth and Development, Planning Techniques, and The American City. He also served as Deputy Director and Project Manager of the Center for Urban Affairs at VCU, where he carried out consulting projects to communities in Virginia on behalf of the university. Mr. Saunders lectured as an Adjunct Professor in the City Planning Program at the University of Virginia. Mr. Saunders was a visiting lecturer at the Asian InStitute of Technology in Bangkok under the auspices of the United States Environmental Training Institute, where he gave a series of lectures on Environmental Policies in Urban Planning. Publications and Presentations: Mr. Saunders has written and presented many professional papers to international meetings, conferences and seminars on such topics as * "Capital Mobilization for Improving Low Income Residential Areas in Southeast Asian Cities." * "The Role of the Private Sector in Financing and Management of Human Settlements in the 1980'~."' * "Environmental Issues As They Affect the Indonesian Coal Indust{'y." * "Privatisation of Urban Infrastructure and Private-Public Partnerships in Urban Services." * "A Perspective on Environmental Management in. Indonesia." Contact Points: Address: 893 Stoney Creek West Nellysford, VA. 22958 Phone: 804-361~173 5 .' Emaih roy_saunders@hotmail.com - Fa~c 804-361-2498 David P. Bowerm~ Charlott~ Y. Humphris Forrest P~ Malshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ~,T REMART_~= Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlotte.wille, V'mginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas January 15, 1999 Mr. FrederiC F. Catlin 2144 OwenSville Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Catlin: This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 1:20 p.m., February 3, 1999, for a vacancy on the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. The interview will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the fourth floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building. Please feel free to contact me at 296-2843 should you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\intcr Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Office of Board of CounW Supervisors 401 Mclntire Rbad Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee ¢-o o-r~ Z~'c> ~-~,~x- C_~ ~_.~..~ ~o~ ~x-o ~¥ l~'e,u ~ ~o Applicant's Name '-~'¢.}T=~iVAc~ -~, C-~'-CLt k~ Home Phone Magisterial District in which your home residence is located ~*~ ~t_ ~ ~ Employer kAc>~w~o~_~ C.~k.~.ru~o crv ~-a<x~t_ Phone Business Address 1{53~5 ~-7..~c_~o~ ~c.,~"~ ~ C.~e~co-rtw__~ulucr=, Mb, Date of Employment ~ ]~ [o~ff> Occupation/Title ~ oV Years Resident in Albemarle County ~o ~ Previous Residence q~ ~, ~:~rs~x- Spouse's Name Lea --¢. C-~Tt_~ ~ Number of Children Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~.- ~q'-+~ (~. o. ~/~') [ ~ - ~qe,8 Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups ~.blic, Civic .~d Ch~ble Office ~d / or O~er A¢ivitios or ~e~on(s) ~or Desi~ to ~e~c o~ this Do~J / Co~issio. / ~e ~om~on provided on ~s application will be rele~ed to ~e public upon reque~. ~ Si~mm Dam Return to: ~l~rk, Bqa~ of ~ounty Superdsors ~ e ~o n~ 0[ ~tir ~ ~h a~es~]le,~ 22902-4596 David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humph.ds COUNTY Of ALB~I Office of Board of Supervisom 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'n'ginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Chaflas S. Martin Walter E Perkins ~ H. Thomas November 6, 1998 Mr. Frederic F. Catlin 2144 Owensville Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Catlin: Your completed application form has been received. We appreciate your interest in se~ing on the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. After the closing date, your application will be distributed to the Board members for their review; for a magisterial district appointment, your application will be forwarded only to the supervisor of your district. Depending on the position and the number of applicants, the Board will decide whether to interview candidates. If you are selected for an interview, you will be notified approximately one month after the application closing date. Although it is not always possible, due to the Board's meeting schedules, or the schedule of individual members, the Board attempts to schedule interviews within 60 days and to make the actual appointment within 90 days of the application deadline. If you have any questions on the status of your application during that time period, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk Printed on recycled paper David 1~. ~o~erman COUNTY OF ,~ REMAR~ .~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Chm,'lottesville, V'n'ginia 22902..4596 (804) 296-58~ FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Mm'fin W~lter E Perk/ns Sall~ H. Thoram December 7, 1998 Mr. Frederic F. Catlin 2144 Owensville Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Catlin: This letter will confirm your interview with the Board of Supervisors at 1:20 p.m., January 6, 1999, for a vacancy on the Route 250 East Corridor Study Advisory Committee. The interview will last approximately ten minutes, and will be held in the fourth floor conference room of the Albemarle County Office Building. Please feel free to contact me at 296-2843 should you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\inter Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowem~n Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF al_B~i F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntim Road Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902-4596 (804) 2965843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Marlin Walter E Perkim WhiteHall Sally H. Thomm Samuel ~ February 9, 1999 Mr. Caroline S. Wilson 1829 Wayside Place Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Ms. WilsOn: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on January 6, 1999, and the City Council meeting held on February 2, 1999, you were appointed to serve as the joint City/County appointee and Chair to the Rivana Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, with said term effective January 1, 1999, and to expire December 31, 2000. I have enclosed a copy of the RSWACAC's roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this oppommity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James Arthur Petrini Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlofl'e ~. Humphris Forrest R. Marshal, Jr. COUNTY OF AIREMARI_~ offic~ of Board of Supewisors 401 Mdntfl'e Road Charlottesville, V'~in~a 22902-.4696 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charl~ S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas February 8, 1999 Mr. Charles Trachta, Jr. 203 Westbrook Pl. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. 'Trachta: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 3, 1999, the Board appointed you to the Industrial Development .Authority, with said term effective February 3, 1999, and to expire Janu'ary 20, 2003. I have enclosed a copy of the IDA roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James B. Murray, Jr. Shelby Marshall c:\wpdoc$\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled pcper David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Formst R. Marsh~, Jr. COUNTY OF P,l REMARI E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclniire Road Charlottesville, Vh'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkim Sal~y H. Thomas February 8, 1999 Ms. Babette Thorpe 1111 Rose Hill Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Thorpe: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 3, 1999, the Board appointed you to the Purchase of Development Rights Committee, with said term effective February 3, 1999 (no term expiration date). I have enclosed a copy of the PDR roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ibh Enclosure CC: Robert Tucker Larry Davis c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper School Board Appreciation Month WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is proud of its educational system and is appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the Virginia public school system an excellent place in which to educate its youth; and WHEREAS, local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of education for all students of the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, this year's theme, "School Boards Work!" is a testimony to the importance of education in all walks of life; WHEREAS, the contributions of these men and women shouM be recognized and appreciated by all who benefit from our public school system; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin., Chairman on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors do hereby procIaim the month of February 1999; as School Board Appreciation Month and call its significance to the attention of all citizens. DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 1999. CHAIRMAN,, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Summary of the Superintendent's Proposed 1999-2000 Budget Budget Information on Division Web Page - http://K12.albemarle.org SECTION A - OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS The Overview provides summary information of the key points of the Superintendent's Proposed Budget. Introduction ...................................... : .............................................................. A- 1 Superintendent's Transmittal Letter. ............................................................... A- 2 Assumptions and Areas of Emphasis .............................................................. A- 8 Budget Summary ............................................................................................. A- 9 Vision for the Future ...................................................................................... A-11 Adopted Mission and Goals ........................................................................... A-12 1998/1999 School Board/Superintendent's Priorities .................................. A- 13 Adopted Budget (by type of expense) ........................................................... A-15 Adopted Budget (by functional area) ................................................. : ........... A-16 INTRODUCTION This document contains the Superintendent's Proposed Budget for FY 1999-2000 for the Albemarle County Public Schools. Based on suggestions from citizens and staff over the past several years, this document has been revised on a yearly basis tn order to improve clarity and readability. Previous changes have included the incorporation of the Superintendent's Transmittal Letter, a more detailed Table of Contents and User's Guide, a Glossary of Budget terminology, increased annotation, and the separation of line item budgets and narrative information for each Cost Center into a separate Appendix. Following are major changes in this year's Budget document: · Proposed funded and unfunded initiatives are delineated in separate sections of the document (Section B for funded and Section C for unfunded). · Section G (Compensation Expenses) includes a breakdown ofpositions by Cost Center and in the aggregate. As in previous years, an abbreviated Budget Summary has been developed for general distribution. The Budget Summary includes: · The Superintendent's Budget Transmittal Letter. · A summary of'Areas of Emphasis in the Superintendent's Proposed Budget. · A two-page synopsis of revenues, major expenditures, and funded and unfunded initiatives: · A synopsis offunded initiatives. · A synopsis of unfunded initiatives. · Graphics of both revenue sources and expenditure areas. Questions or comments concerning this document should be directed to Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, at 296-5877. A-1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the Superintendent 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 January 19, 1999 Mr. John E. Baker, Chairman Members of the Albemarle County School Board 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Baker, Members of the School Board, and Citizens of Albemarle County: With this document, I present the Superintendent's Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budget. This budget totals $82,140,021 and represents a 6.2% increase over the School Board's Adopted FY 1998-99 Budget. Development of the Superintendent's Proposed Budget included significant input fia~n the School Division's Leadership Team and School Division Budget Committee. The Proposed Budget was developed consistent with the direction provided by the School Board to structure an essentially maintenance of effort budget with unfunded initiatives clearly delineated. Further, during the past several months, the School Board received a number of reports related to instructional and operational areas having significant budget implications. A School Division budget is more than a document that lists costs and numbers. It is a revenue and expenditure plan for accomplishing our organizational mission. It reflects the goals, priorities, commitments, and activities of the School Division for an entire year. In developing this Proposed Budget, I have attempted to address the School Division's most pressing needs in a fiscally responsible and focused way. I need to emphasize, however, that this Budget is not one that I believe addresses many long-standing needs. The guiding forces behind this Proposed Budget are the School Board's Adopted Mission and Goals, the Strategic Plan for a Total School System Commitment to the School Improvement Procems, and the School Board/Superintendent Priorities. These documents provide clear direction for the inevitable choices that need to be made in any budget process. I developed this Proposed Budget based on the belief that the School Division is a strong one, and one that will become even more responsive to the needs of our children as we continue to focus on the School Improvement Process, The initiatives included in the Proposed Budget are designed to promote this continued focus. Although the Proposed Budget, as presented, exceeds preliminary revenue projections by approximately $550,000, it was developed based on revenues that I believe can be reasonably expected once the General Assembly and Board of Supervisors complete their budget processes. The Proposed Budget represents a conservative, judicious approach to meeting the many ne~cls of the School Division within the parameters of available resources. I must emphasize, however, that there are a number of critical needs that remain unaddressed. These needs are reflected in the initiatives that, based on available resources, I could not recommend as funded in the Proposed Budget. This transmittal letter includes the following sections: · Key Factors Affecting the FY 1999-2000 Budget · Resource Issues - Past and Present · Budget Focus Areas · Conclusion · Budget Process Calendar Expect Success" A-2 Key Factors Affecting the FY 1999-2000 Budget ~ Several key factors affected the development of the FY 1999.2000 Budget. Following is a summary of these factors: Standards of Accreditation - School divisions across the Commonwealth are now subject to a greater degree of accountability than ever before. While we will in no way shirk this accountability, the revised Standards of Accreditation and the accompanying Standards of Learning tests do continue to place significant fiscal pressure on the School Division. Although the state has provided some additional resources, the Standards of Accreditation are, at best, a partially funded mandate. Significant resources have already been directed to textbooks, materials, general curriculum alignment, and the record-keeping and parental notification required by the Standards. For example, in the current fiscal year, we will spend over $25,000 to print and mail information to parents and over $230,000 to purchase textbooks and other materials needed to align the Social Studies curriculum. Further, remediation needs related to the Standards must be addressed quickly and aggressively if schools and individual students are to meet the requirements of Stand_ar_ds. Growth - Enrollment growth continues to be a source of fiscal pressure. For FY 1999-2000, an additional 224 students are projected. Since 1992, the division's enrollment has increased by 1,545 students, or about 14.8%. The cost for teachers, textbooks, computers, buses, and materials for these students, in addition to the obvious space needs, dictate that a large portion of any available additional revenue be directed toward growth-related costs. Competitive Compensation - Recruitment and retention of employees in an exqremely tight labor market has become problematic. It is difficult for us to compete in a regional market for teachers in areas such as Special Education, math, science, and Technology Education. In addition, over 140 teachers in the division have 25 or more years of experience and will retire in the near future, thus increasing the number of vacancies. All of this is occurring at a time when, due to increased accountability, the strength and stability of our teaching staff is more critical than ever before. Further, as we compete with the private sector for employees, it has become extremely difficult to hire custodians, maintenance staff, bus drivers, teaching assistants, and technology support staff in a labor market boasting one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Commonwealth. Our administrative salaries are also problematic and require attention if we are to continue to attract strong leaders. All of these challenges require us to focus on competitive salary and benefits for employees. Special Education Mandates - Legal demands on the School Division for mandated Special Education services continue to grow. For example, School Division costs for services mandated by the Comprehensive Services Act will increase by $175,000 in FY 1999-2000. The School Division must direct over $97,000 more in funding for placements in the Ivy Creek School to serve seriously emotionally disturbed students. Four Special Education positions at a cost of approximately $163,000 must be added to provide Special Education services required by the projected 224 new students. These expenditures alone total approximately $435,000 in new funding. Resource Issues - Past and Present Over the past several years, we have not simply requested additional funding to meet our needs but have also taken proactive, and often painful, steps to redirect existing resources. DeparUnents and schools have been level-funded for five out of the previous six fiscal years. Funds for curriculum development, teacher training, and materials have been reduced. Equipment and furniture replacement has been delayed. School starting and dismissal times were changed to reduce long-term bus replacement costs. Funds for building improvements not funded by the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) have been eliminated. A differentiated staffing formula, providing additional staffto schools with significant at-risk populations, has been implemented within existing resources. While actual dollars in state funding have increased, the proportion of the division budget funded by the state since 1994 has decreased from 37% to 34%~ This situation reflects the fact that Albemarle County's Composite Index, which represents the state's measurement of the locality's ability to pay, has increased from .5585 to .6233, or by 11.6%, since 1994. This decline in the proportion of state support has placed additional A-3 fiscal swain on the County at the same time as local population growth has increased demand for normal government services such as police, social services, and f'n~ protection. In the Proposed Budget, approximately $940,000 in non-recurring funds are being utilized to meet critical needs. Further, approximately $1,340,000 in anticipated one-time funding from the state in the current fmc, al year will be used for bus replacement, textbooks, and furniture and equipment replacement so that these needs do not have to be addressed in the FY 1999-2000 Budget. A similar infusion ofnon-reoxrring funds from the Meals Tax was critical to the development of the FY 1998-99 Budget. Without this $1,340,000, it would be impossible to present a fiscally responsible budget that would not require further reductions in programs and services. Budget Focus Areas Based on these fac~, the Superintendent's Proposed Budget focuses on four main areas: meeting the Standards of Accreditation Requirements, Equity, Supporting Employees Through Fair and Reasonable Compensation, and Growth. Specific initiatives in the Proposed Budget will be described based on these four Meeting the Standards of Accreditation Requirements The newly adopted Virginia Standards of Accreditation mandate very high expectations for all schools. Specifically, they include the following requirements: Prescribed instructional time in the core areas of reading, writing, English, mathematics, science, history/social sciences, and instructional technology; Established state curriculum in the core content areas, as defined by the Standards of Learning;, and A strong accountability program which ties student achievement on the Standards of Learning state assessment program to student promotion and school accreditation. This increased accountability required by the Standards of.4ccreditation is an area which is changing the way schools throughout the CommonweaJth do business, now and in the future. Tho fact that school accreditation will be contingent upon 70% of a school's population passing the required Standards of Learning tests makes it essential to increase our commitment to learning for all students. The Albemarle County School Board has also established high expectations for the division, for individual schools, and for student achievement, which support and complement the Standards of Accreditation. The Board recognizes that no one test or program can measure the success of an individual student, a school, or a division. Therefore, in the Albemarle County Division, the Board measures our success based on nationally normed test data combined with the state assessment program and with division and individual school assessment. Achievement expectations are clearly delineated in the Board-adopted division mission, goals, and prim'ties. The School Improvement Process provides a systemic structure to continuous improvement. This process requires each school to establish specific measurable achievement targets and a plan which supports and monitors the attainment of these goals. Annually, the Board reviews and monitors division and school progress through the Division Progress Report. To ensure that Albemarle students meet the established standards, the division has refocused how we deliver instruction and has restructured resources internally to support this intensified division-wide effort. Key components include the following: Phase-in of a division literacy program in all schools; Clearly defined benchmarks in the core content areas, with longitudinal assessment of individual student performance; Required system-wide student intervention/remediation programs; and Standards of Learning staff development program based on assessed teacher competency. Over $1,100,000 in existing funds are being restructured to support this major effort. In addition, $200,000 has been included in the Proposed Budget to support me~ing the Standards of.4ccreditation. 2. Equity Providing equity for all students requires a delicate balance because equity and equality are not always the same. The School Division has, within existing resources, implemented a staWmg formula designed to provide additional resources to schools with large at-risk populations. Doing so within existing resources-what many have characterized as a "rob Peter to pay Paul approaeh"-forced some schools to reduce staff, although an effort was made to cap class size. The implementation of the seven-period day without the necessary positions has exacerbated this situation. Funding to address this situation and some other inequities has been included in the Proposed Budget, as follows: · $490,836 to provide 12 positions equalize baseline class size for all schools, in light of the seven- period high school schedule and other instructional factors, before any differentiated staffing is provided, as follows: ~ 20.25 to 1 in K-3 21.25to 1 in4-5 22.55to 1 in6-8 22.55 tO I in 9-12 · $40,932 tO provide Teaching Assistant time in elementary schools with fewerthan 300 students to allow Media Centers to be open all day without having to use existing staff to do so. (Based on enrollment, these schools have only a half-time Media Specialist funded.) · $32,723 for an additional .8 teaching position to staffthe Elementary Task Force recommendations in art, music, and physical education. · $54,192 to fund the second phase of a plan to place health clinicians in all elementary schools. 3. Supporting Employees Through Fair and Reasonable Compensation The following areas are included in the Proposed Budget to maintain a competitive compensation package for employees: $2,071,109 to provide a 4% salary increase pool $ 428,139 to make a required increased payment to the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) $ 249,618 to maintain the current level of health and dental insurance benefits $ 44,469 to fund the second phase ora plan to address salary compression I must emphasize the importance of compensation. The recruitment and retention of strong employees is essential to the success of this School Division. As already stated, we are having serious difficulty in attracting employees in a number ofjob categories because of the tight labor market in this area. The proposed 4% salary adjustment along with maintenance of the current level of benefits is justified based on the following considerations: · Annual salary increases in the relevant labor market in the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area averaged 4% over the past three years and are expected, at the very least, to remain at this level. Further, the Charlottesville Human Resources Association reports that the average merit increase in 1999 for 25 representative local employers will be between 4% and 5%. · According to the Ecanomie Research Institute, the cost of living in the Albemarle-Charlottesville region is 10-13% above the national average and the second highest in the Commonwealth after Northern Virginia. · According to Roy L. Pearson, Chancellor Professor of Business Reseat'eh at the College of William and Mary, 1997 wages and salaries throughout Virginia increased 7.4% and, after adjusting for inflation, the 1998 real increase in total wages and salaries is likely to be 8%. It is also interesting to note that in Governor Gilmore's Proposed Budget, an approximately 6.25% increase was included for state workers. · Although teacher salaries in Albemarle County are now reasonably competitive in the immediate area, this competitiveness would be seriously damagedby a year in which other school divisions in the area make a significant commitment to teacher salaries while Albemarle County falls to do A-5 so. Regional competitiveness, however, is only part of the picture. The School Division currently competes for teachers with districts throughout the Commonwealth and in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast that have higher salaries and a lower cost of living. Teacher salaries in Albemarle County are hampering efforts to attract teachers in hard-to-fill areas and in minority recruitment. Classified employees currently receive salary adjustments based on a merit system. A smaller merit pool, such as the 2.75% funded in FY 1998-99, does not differentiate between outstanding and average performers in a meaningful way. This seriously undermines the concept of merit pay. There is a national teacher shortage projected over the next several years. The impact of this shortage in Albemarle County could be particularly serious as the School Division now employs 142 teachers with 25 years or more of experience who will probably retire in the near future. In addition, Governor Gilmore's proposal to allow retirement at 30 years of service, regardless of age, may accelerate retirements. Competitive teacher salaries will be essential to alh~cting the best candidates possible as this shortage materializes. Education is a staff-driven endeavor. The excellence of this school division in the past and in the future is dependent on our being able to atUact and retain high-quality, dedicated individuals. The quality of employee that this community expects, and has the right to expect, will not be attracted by "average" cornpensatior~ We need to address this reality. 4. Growth To support a projected enrollment growth of 224 students, I have included the following funded areas totaling $1,553,961 in the Proposed Budget: · $458,114 for 11.2 teaching positions to accommodate the additional students, based on a ratio of 20:1. · $163,612 for four Special Education teaching positions to accommodate services required by the additional students. · $97,127 for seven additional placements for seriously emotionally disturbed students at the Ivy Creek School. · $175,000 for projected increases in services mandated through the Comprehensive Services Act. · $76,301 for the first phase ora plan to accommodate the significant increase in students requiring ESOL (English as a Second or Other Language) services. · $80,000 to resu-ucture technology support services based on the Comprehensive Technology Plan presented to the School Board on December 14, 1998. This restructuring is designed to address the continuing increase in computers and networks that has occurred during the last five years. · $344,941 to address growth-related needs such as textbooks; materials; custodial and maintenance services and operations for newly constructed space at Stone-Robinson Elementary, Henley Middle, and Ivy Creek School; Special Education cars; mobile classrooms; and clerical support for staff development. · $78,866 for projected increases in funding for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC). · $80,000 to provide parity for the athletic programs at the Division's three comprehensive high schools. Conclusion The presentation of the Superintendent's Proposed Budget is simply the fa'st step in an ongoing process that invites the Board and the public to consider all possible needs and priorities in the context of available resources. During the next few weeks, there will be nine opportunities for the public to participate in this process. I look forward to working with the School Board and the community as we make decisions that affect the educational opportunities available to our children. A-6 Budget Process Following is the Tuesday, January 19 Thursday, January 21: Saturday, January 23: Tuesday, January 26: Thursday, January 28: Monday, February 1: Wednesday, February 3: Wednesday, February 10: Monday, February 15 schedule of meetings and other activities in the budget development process: Presentation of the Superintendent's Proposed Budget in Room 241 of the County Office Building Public Budget Discussion at Henley Middle School at 7:00 p.m. School Board Budget Work Session at 8:30 a.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Public Budget Discussion at Monticello High School at 7:00 p.m. Budget Work Session at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Budget Work Session at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building Joint Board Meeting on the Budget at 4:00 p.m. in Room 235 of the County Office Building Public Hearing on the Budget at 6:30 p.m. in Auditorium of the County Office Building, followed by Budget Work Session in Room 331 of the County Office Building Budget Work Session at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building (Possible Adoption of the Board's Preliminary Budget) School Board's Proposed Budget submitted to the County Executive Division Superintendent A-7 Assumptio ,ns 1. Superintendent ' s Proposed Budget- Assumptions and Areas of Emphasis Develop the budget to support the Adopted Mission and Goals and School Board Priorities with specific emphasis on improved student performance. 2. Develop the budget based on revenue expected to be available at the end of the Board .of Supervisors and General Assembly budget processes. 3. Include needs to support projected enrollment growth of 224 students. 4. Provide a salary adjustment to maintain minimal market competitiveness and maintain existing level of employee benefits. 5. Utilize $1,340,000 in non-recurring (one-time) funding from the State in FY 1998-99 to fund textbooks, bus replacement, furniture and equipment replacement, and athletic uniform and equipment replacement so that these needs would not have to included in the FY 1999-2000 Budget. Areas of Emphasis 1. Funding for regular classroom teachers and Special Education teachers needed for enrollment growth. 2. Additional funding to be utilized with existing resources to address remediation and other needs related to the Standards of Accreditation. 3. Funding to support other needs related to enrollment growth. 4. Funding to support mandated Special Education services. 5. Funding for a 4% salary pool for employees. 6. Funding to maintain the existing level of health insurance and increased State mandated retirement costs without increased benefits. 7. Funding for staff to provide equal base,De class size for all schools while maintaining differentiated staflrmg cons.~tent with the FY 1998-99 level. A-8 Summary of Superintendent's Proposed Budget Available Additional Funds Local Revenue Decrease . -95,845 Projected Increased General Fund Transfer (Recurring Funds from Local Government) . 1,733,169 Revenue State Revenue Increase (Estimated ADM of 12,057) 2,725,761 Additional Federal Revenue (Special Education Only) 81,412 Less Local Government One-Time Funding -195,422 Less FY 1996-97 Carryover -790,090 Include FY 1997-98 Carryover 790,000 Expenditure Decrease Lapse Factor to -$276,715 -23,285 Other Reductions 19,830 Changes One-Time Item Reductions 554,247 ITotal Available Funds 4,799,7771 Funding for Growth & Other Improvements SOA Funding Maintain Competitive Compensation MISc. Adjustments Proposed Expenditures lOO% Funding for Regular Education Staffing to Support Growth (11.2 FTE) Special Education Staffing to Support Growth (4 FTE) Per Pupil Allocation (224 additional Students) Textbooks for Growth Additional Placements at Ivy Creek School Custndial/Maintenance/Operations at Ivy Creek/Henley/Stone Robinson Increased Comprehensive Services Act Funding Increased Funding for CATEC Enhanced English as a Second Language (ESOL) Services Additional Mobile Classrooms Additional Special Education Cars a~l Drivers (2 FTE) Health Clinicians Phase II of III (2 FI'E) Elementary Media Teaching Assistant Time (3 FTE) Additional Elementary Art. Music, & PE Staffing (0.8 FTE) Additional Funding for High School Athletics Technology Reorganization Standards of Accreditation Funding Staffing for an Equal Baseline (12 FTE) Staff Development Clerical Position (0.5 FTE) 4.0% Classified Merit Pool 4.0% Teacher Incr. (Step, $700 for teachers in transition, & 2.36% Scale Adj) VRS Rate Increase Increased Medical Insurance (From $2,445 to $2,608 Per Pemon) Increased Dental Insurance (From $73 to $84 Per Person) Funding for Phase-in of Compression Adjustments Additional Funds for Board Deputy Clerk Position (0.5 FTE) Additional Funds for ESOL Positions Recurring Funding for Technology Instructional Coordinator Additional Funding for School Resource Officer at Monticello Additional Instructional and Administrative Reclassifications ITotal Proposed Expenditures .458,114 163,$12 83,487 50,425 97,172 108,858 175,000 78,866 76,301 40,000 50,046 54,192 40,932 32,723 80,000 80,000 200,000 490,836 12,325 749,571 1,321,538 428,139 235,698 13,920 44,467 15,914 21,000 51,033 23,125 27,683 5,304,7771 Reserve School Board Reserve 45,000 ITotsl Reserve Total New Expenditures & Reserve Less Available Funds IAddJtional Revenue Needed to Fund BudQet A-9 5,349,777 4,799~777 550,0001 Summary of Unfunded Priorities Unfunded Priorities Building Improvement Projects Career Awareness Specialist English as a Second Language - Phase II Foreign Language Taskforce Recommendations Furniture/Equipment Replacement Gifted - Phase II High School Athletics - Unfunded Portion Incentive Bonus to Recruit Bus Drivers and Custodians Increase School and Department Budgets by 2% Orchestra - Phase I Outsourcing COBRA School PsYchologists Increase School-Based Technology Support Secondary Altemafive Education Staffing Committee Recommendations Substitute,Teacher Pay Increase fi-om $52 to $60 per Day Support Analyst for Instructional and Administrative Technology Tuition Reimbursement 90,000 40,903 76,032 24,920 230,000 102,086 100,000 22,500 120,060 46,180 10,000 105,122 204,800 180,000 449,933 69,000 87,868 300,000 :~:: ITotal of Ail Unfunded Priorities 2,259,404 Descriptions of Selected Unfunded Initiatives am located in Section C of the budget document These Unfunded Priorities are in alphabetical order A-10 WHAT'S NEEDED IN 1997-98 TO STEP INTO 2002 1996 ENRO L Ir. CIL I · 11,120 students and ?.3 schools CURRIC L N TRU TION · Identification of essential curriculum and effective instructional strategies Alignment of county curriculum with Virginia Standards of Learning · Development of curriculum. based assessments and performance standards · Library/media automation Building and wide*area network installation · Development of Division Instructional Technology Plan CULT OF CO U SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT · First generation Strategic Plan · Division Improvement Plan · Development of performance data bases · ' School Improvement Plans CAREER PREPARATION i · Charlottesville-Albemarle ~ Technical Education Program · Career connections within core curriculum ]~NROLLMENT & FACILITIES · 12,143 students projected by 2001 · Monticello High School opened in 1998 · New Northern elementary school opened to .Fall 2001 · 16 school ndditions~renovntions completed by 2001 CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTION/ ASSESSMENT · Ongoing refinement of essential curriculum · Implementation of effective instructional strategies · Full implementation of curriculum-based assessment program · Established standards of performance · Emphasis on demonstrated performance · Full utilization of the wide area network and integration of technology into instruction · Increased use of technology for management · Use of distance learning for students/staff A CULTUREOF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT · Institutionalized Strategic Plan · Performance data bases established .... Ongoing School Improvement Plans · Ongoing Division Improvement Plans ....... ~ CAREER PREPARATION ?'i .!.'' .. · Senmlessacademlcnndcareerprogrums · ,/~ · Transition progrmns to the work world · Grnduate portfolios, with specific evidence of mastery of essential curriculum · Meaningful Fartuershlps with local business nnd government communities A-11 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS MISSION The primary mission of Albemarle County Schools is to provide and promote a dynamic environment for learning through which all students acquire the knowledge, skills and values necessary to live as informed and productive members of society. GOALS Albemarle County Public Schools will nurture a climate that promotes trust, idea sharing and sensitivity to student needs and ensure a healthy environment for intellectual development for all childrem To provide such an environment, we will ensure that: Student Performance Standards ' · The primary purpose of all disciplines is for students to apply knowledge, facts, concepts and skills in new situations. School Climate and Board Adopted Values · Ali schools will promote an environment conducive to learning in which all members of the school community practice the system's established core values. Feeder Pattern Support · Individual schools will operate in feeder patterns that provide consistent, comprehensive opportunities and early intervention strategies for students to acquire the knowledge and demonstrate sound physical, mental and emotional health. Curriculum and Staff Development · Curriculum development and implementation, including staff development, will be a dynamic process which supports student learning. A primary focus will be in reading, math, written and oral communication, science and social studies. Extended School Community · Schools will welcome and encourage involvement of parents, community members, and businesses that directly support our educational goals. Working together, we will ensure that all students develop the skills and abilities to be contributing members of the community. EVIDENCE Indicators to provide evidence of progress toward each goal's attainment are found in. the system's Strategic Plan for a Total School System Commitment to the School Improvement Process. A Progress Report, which outlines the division's performance on these indicators, is issued annually by the Superintendent. Amended ~lpril 6, 1998 A-12 1998-99 Albemarle County School Board/Superintendent Priorities The Albemarle County School Board annually adopts priorities for the school year which support the Mission and five Goals contained in the Strategic Plan and in School Board Policy. These priorities are congruent with the Yirginia Standards of Quality. These same priorities serve as the cornerstone for long range improvements for the school Division and parallel the Albemarle County Public Schools Vision for the Future. Enrollment and Facilities The Long Range Planning Committee will be institutionalized and established objectives including (a) planning for the Northern Elementary School, Co) planning for the implementation ofa cenlral capital fund for large ticket capital items. Planning of the new Piedmont Regional Education Program {PREP) facility will be done to ensure a successful opening for the 1999-2000 school year. The program for Monticello High School will continue to be implemented and monitored in conjunction with the work of the High School Steering Committee. The 1998-99 school bus schedule will be monitored, assessed and modified as necessary. II. Curriculum and Assessment The curriculum will continue to be refined and updated in all areas with particular emphasis on alignment with the Virginia Standards of Learning and the Standards of Accreditation. The High School Steering Committee will continue to work to ensure both compliance with the Virginia Standards of Accreditation and program consistency across the Division. In addition, the seven period day will be evaluated. The Middle School Steering Committee will continue to work to ensure both compliance with the Virginia Standards of Accreditation and program consistency across the Division. The Elementary School Task Force will continue to work to ensure compliance with the Virginia Standards of Accreditation, program consistency across the Division, and overall improvement in the elementary program to include a goal of 100 percent literacy after second grade and standards for art, music, and physical education. The Foreign Language Task Force will develop a long-term improvement plan for this curriculum area. III. Technoloev The Albemarle County Technology Plan will be revised to reflect the new organizational structure that will separate the use of technology into two basic areas: (a) the day-to-day administrative use of technology in schools, and Co) the day-to-day instructional use of technology in the classroom setting to ensure compliance with the Virginia Standards of ~lccreditation, through an evaluation component. The use of technology will be expanded in order to revise and improve the internal and external commtmication of school system information. A-13 ~ A Cu~mr~ o_~ ¢on~nuous $choo~ Improwme#t School Board members will continue to attend and particiPate in School Improvement Team planning sessions at local schools. Programs, funds, and differentiated stafl~mg will continue to be provided for at-risk students and other special populations. Phase H of the differentiated stuffing model will be implemented and Phase HI will be developed. The administrative and teacher evaluation processes will be reviewed and recommendations developed to improve the processes. The quality and relevance of staff development offerings at the Division and school level will be evaluated with improvements made as needed. Phase I of the Action Plan for the g'irginia Standards of.dccreditation will be implemented and Phase H, to support student achievement, including budgetary, staff development, and organizational implications, will be developed. The evaluation of the following alternative middle and high school programs will be completed: Walton Alternative Program, Eight Plus PrOgram, Murray High School, and Project Return. Program options for students with disciplinary problems will also be developed with emphasis on preventive strategies. P'.. CareerPreparation The Career Education programs, including the Charlottesville-Albemarle School Business Alliance (CASBA), Tech Prep, Career Pathways, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC), will continue to be emphasized. VI. Compensation Classified and teacher salaries will be studied and adj.sted, as necessary, to be commensurate with comparable school divisions and to ensure equity within the Division. A report on the compression issues will also be completed. VII. Improving and Streamlining Operations Section I, Instruction, Section J, Students, and the Leave Policies in Section G, Personnel, in the School Board Policy Manual will be reviewed and revised as appropriate. Cooperative planning with the Board of Supervisors will continue to be scheduled on a regular basis. A Charter Schools policy will be developed to ensure compliance with the implementation of state legislation. A communications plan for the school division will be developed and implemented. Evidence: Progress on these priorities will be clearly communicated to the Board by category on a monthly basis through an Annotated Project Summary provided in a Thursday Letter. In addition, the Board will receive a formal midyear update in January on the priorities. A-14 FY 1999-00 Superintendent's Proposed School Budget (by type of expense) Operating Expenses 14% Fund Transfers 1% Capital Outlay 1% Staff Costs 84% Page A-15 FY 1999-00 Superintendent's Proposed School Budget (by functional area) Building Operations t0% Transfem t% Transportation 7% Administration 5% InstruCtion 77% Page A-16 Synopsis of Funded Initiatives Growth-Related Initiatives: (* Starred items are described in additional detail on subsequent pages.) Additional Placements at Ivy Creek School ($97,172) - This initiative would provide seven (7) additional placements for severely emotionally disturbed students at Ivy Creek School.* Additional Funding for CA TEC ($78, 866) -This initiative would provide additional funding for CATEC based on the established formula agreed to with the Charlottesville City Schools. Comprehensive Services Act Increase ($175, 000) - This initiative would meet projected increases in services mandated by the Comprehensive Services Act. Cuswdial/Maintenance/Operations at Ivy Creek School, Stone-Robinson Elementary School, and Henley Middle School ($108, 658) - This initiative would fund the custodial, maintenance and operational costs for new space at these three buildings.* English as a Second or Other Language Services (ESOL) ($76, 301) - This initiative would provide funding for the first phase of a two-phase initiative to increase services in response to a large increase in ESOL students. (This initiative assumes retaining the $21,000 in non-recurring Reserve the Board provided during FY 1998-99.)* Growth Positions - Regular Education ($458,114) - This initiative would provide 11.2 teaching positions for enrollment growth of 224 students based on a ratio of 20 to 1. Growth Positions - Special Education ($163, 612) - This initiative would provide 4 teaching positions in Special Education to address projected Special Education needs for the additional students. High School Athletics ($80, 000) - This initiative would provide additional funding to provide parity in athletic programs at the Division's comprehensive high schools.* Mobile Classrooms ($40, 000) - This initiative would fund the leasing of two (2) additional mobile classrooms to support projected enrollment growth. Per-Pupil Allocations to Schools ($83, 487) - This initiative would provide an increase to schools to support materials and other needs for additional students. Special Education Car/Driver ($50, 046) - This initiative would fund two additional Special Education cars and drivers based on projected needs from enrollment growth. B-1 Synopsis of Funded Initiatives (Continued) Staff Development Clerical Position ($12,325) - This initiative would provide funding to increase clerical support for the Staff Development Office in re~onse to significantly increased participation in Staff Development programs.* Technology Support Reorganization ($80, 000) - This initiative would be used to fund needs related to the reorganization of School Division technology outlined in the Comprehensive. Plan for Technology. Funding to support this reorganization would also come from savings realized from the renegotiation of the contract for the Wide Area Network (WAN). (This initiative assumes funding the Technology Instructional Coordinator from recurring funds versus from non-recurring CIP transfer.)* Textbooks for New Students ($50,425) - This initiative would fund the necessary additional textbooks for the 224 projected additional students. Other Funded Initiatives: (* Starred items are described in additional detail on subsequent pages.) Elementar~ Art/Music/Physical Education ($32, 723) - This initiative would fund an additional .8 teaching position to address staffing needed to provide instruction in 'these areas based on the recommendations of the Elementary Task Force. Elementary Media Teaching Assistant Time ($40,932) - This initiative would fund a half- time teaching position in all elementary schools with an enrollment under 300 which, under the Division's staffing standards, receive a .5 Media Specialist. This Teaching Assistant would enable the Media Center in these schools to be staffed all day.* Health Clinicians - Phase II ($54,192) - This initiative would provide funding for the second stage of a plan to place health clinicians in all elementary schools. These positions already exist in the middle schools. Phase III would place these positions in high schools.* Staffing for Equal Baseline Class Size ($490,836) - This initiative would provide 12 positions to fund an equal baseline class size for all schools prior to any differentiated staffing being added. The seven-period high school schedule is incorporated into this baseline. This baseline class size would not include ancillary positions (Gifted, Technology, Media, Elementary Art, Music and Physical Education, Guidance etc.).* Standards of Accreditation - Remediation, Curriculum Development, and Staff Development ($200, 000) - This initiative would provide new funding to be used in conjunction with existing resources to suppOrt critical needs related to the revised Standards of Accreditation.* B-2 Synopsis of Funded Initiatives (Continued) Miscellaneous Adjustments: Funding for Deputy Clerk Position -. 5 FTE ($15, 914) - This funding is incorporated into the Proposed Budget as recurring fimding because this position was funded in FY 1998- 99 with non-recurring Board Reserve. Funding for School Resource Officer at Monticello High School ($23,175) - This funding is incorporated into the Proposed Budget to replace grant funding now supporting this position that is no longer available. Funding for Technology Instructional Coordinator ($5L 033) - This position was originally funded by non-recurring CIP transfer. However, the key ongoing role of the position in the Comprehensive Plan for Technology and the overall restructuring of technology support implied a need to utilize recurring funding for this position. Instructional and Administrative Classifications ($27, 683) -This funding is incorporated into the Proposed Budget to support routine reclassifications that have taken place during FY 1998-99. B-3 Synopsis of Unfunded Initiatives (All Unfunded Initiatives are described in greater detail on subsequent pages.) Building Improyements Pro./ects ($90, 000) - This initiative would provide previously eliminated fimding for building improvements (not safety-related) that are not funded in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Career Awareness Specialist ($40,903) - This initiative would replace eliminated federal funding (Carl Perkins) which has been used to support positions at the high school level that provide career development services to students, especially those in Special Education. English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) Services - Phase II ($76, 032)- This initiative would provide funding for the second phase of a plan to increase services for the growing population of these students. The first phase of this plan is funded in the Proposed Budget. Foreign Language Task Force Recommendations- Phase I ($24,920)- This initiative would provide funding for the first phase of a plan to implement recommendations of the Foreign Language Task Force relative to having foreign language ~nslraction in elementary schools. Furniture/Equipment Replacement - ($230, 000) - This initiative would fund a centmt fund for the replacement of"big ticket" furniture and equipment. The establishment of such a fund was included in the 1998-99 School Board Priorities. Gifted - Phase II ($102, 086) - This initiative would fund the second phase of a plan to increase Gifted services in all schools. The first phase of this plan was funded in the 1998-99 Budget. High School Athletics - Unfunded Portion ($100, 000) - This initiative would fund the remainder of a plan to restore previously reduced funds and assure parity for high school athletic programs. Incentive Bonus to Recruit Bus Drivers and Custodians ($22,500) - This initiative would provide a $500 bonus to bus drivers and custodians at the end of one successful year of employment as a strategy for recruitment and retention in a tight labor market. Increase School and Department Budgets by 2% ($120, 060) - This initiative would increase baseline budgets for schools and departments by 2%. These budgets have only been increased once in the past six years. Orchestra - Phase I ($46, i80) - This initiative would provide funding for the first phase of a plan to initiate Strings instruction. C-1 Synopsis of Unfunded Initiatives (Continued) Outsourcing COBRA ($10, 000) - This initiative would fund the outsourcing of federally mandated services related to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Doing so would allow Human Resources personnel to concentrate on other critical projects. School-Based Technology Support ($204,800) - This initiative would fund additional positions to increase school-based positions for technology support to.1 FTE per 100 students, with a minimum of.2 FTE for small elementary schools (under 200 students). School Psychologists Increase ($105,122) -This initiative would fund additional psychologists services to support Special Education and .other needs related to high-risk students. Secon.dary Alternative Education ($180, 000) - This initiative would provide funding to place students in an Alternative Education program based on a regional model. Staffing Committee Recommendations ($449,933) - This initiative would provide eleven (11) additional teaching positions to fully support the staffing plan developed by the Staffing Committee. This plan also addresses the seven-period high school schedule. Support Anal?sts for Instructional and Administrative Technology ($87,868) - This initiative would provide two (2) additional positions for central technical support of instructional and administrative hardware and networks. Substitute Teacher Pay Increas.e.from $52-60 Per Day ($69, 000) - This initiative would allow substitute teacher pay to be increase to $60, consistent with the Charlottesville City Schools. Phase I of this plan, which would increase pay from $52-56, would cost $34,500. Tuition Reimbursement ($300, 000) - This initiative would increase the staff development stipend for teachers from $100 to $300. C-2 Presentation to the Albemarle County SchOOl Board on January 19, 1999 KEY QUESTIONS LAST YEAR FY I998-99 BUDGET THIS YEAR (Projected) FY 1999-2000 BUDGET : New State .-- : $2,725,761,10;67% :; : :: Carry0vef ~ $790,000 :; ; ;nd!t~ : : i Total ~ $940;000 WHY THIS BUDGET WORKS · :: $~i340,000 in:t flmefunding forcurrentYear; SuPerintendent's plan for these FundS: $650~000 for Bus Replacement $560;000 for Textbooks $ 40,000 One Time for TechnologY $ 40,000 for High SchOol Athletics, $ $0,000 for Equipment Replacement 2 NEXT YEAR FY 2000-01 BUDGET N~ ~e~i. Non'RensSeSsment Yeas Continuous Division Improvement Process Mi¸ Pri, Evaluation VISION for ALBEMARLE COUNTY FUBLIC SCHOOLS Itisa .... ~'- Quality and Equity: in Student Performance and the ~ - is shared decision:, making with all stakeholders. School: Improvement StrategicPlan rContinuous School ImprovementProcess ll~ AStat~ Standards of Accreditation (SOA) ' nl~ ASSystemGoals/6YearStrate~Plan/AnnualBoardPriorities/Evaluation v · School Improvement Team Plans · Teach ) '·Adjust ' ·Results · Retench · Quality · Eqidty System for Effective Instruction · Alignment of Writt~x, Taught and Tested C~rrkulum · .What is Taught (Kssenthd Curriculum) '· How do We Know When They Know It Superintendent~s Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budget 1.. Develop the budget ~OSupport the Adopted Mission and Goals and School Board/; Superintendent'S Priorities~with specific emphasis on: improved student performance:, 3. Fund:growth~ (224newStudents) 4. Provide a salary"adjustmentto=maintain minimal market competitiveness and maintain existing level of employee benefits. Superintendent's Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budget ASsumPtions 5, Address SOA with:neW and reStruCtured.funds, 6: Maintain current levelof differentiati°hand provide equRy in baseline staffing,: 7, UtiliZe $1:34:miilion in nonrecurring (°ne-time) : funding from theState in ~ !998,99 to fund teaks, bus replacement, furniture and equipment replacement, and athletic Uniform and equipment rePlaCementso that these, needs would not have to be included in the ~ 1999-2000 Budget. : : . 4 Superintendents Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budset [p~e~ious. EffOrts: to !Redirect:-ResOurces LeVel FUnding:of Schools and: Departments :ReduCtiOn in Curriculum Development. Teacher :~i Trainin:g~ ~nd Materials :: i: :::.~: * Supcrintcndent's Proposed FY 1999~2000 Budset ~?Meeting the Standards (SOA) ,:.::Equity ,~ SUpporting Employees through Fair and Reasonable COmpensation · :Growth Superintendent's Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budget 5 I Meeting the. StandardSl $200,000 · Phase-in of a Division.'Literacy Program in all schools · Clearly defined benchmarks'in the cora content areas, with Iongitudinalassessment · Required system-wide student intervention/= mmediation programs · StrongStandards of Learningstaff development , program Superintendent~s Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budset IEquity[ · 121 positions to.fUnd equal baseline, before - $490,836 differentiation K 3 = 20~25 to t 4- 5 = 21/25 to 1 6-t2 =22.55 to t, Baseline does notinclude: K-12 K_~ Special Education' Guidance Art Technology Gifted Music Media Differentiation :. PhyslcaiEducatlon Superintendenfs Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budset := icontinued... ty] · ' Teaching Assistant time for Elementary Media · Elementary. Art/Music/P.E. Health Clinicians - $ 4O,932 ' $ 32,723 ' $ 54,192 Superintendent's Proposed hr 1999-2000 Budset 6 Supporting Employees :, through Fair;and Reasonable COmPensatiOn C~p~SSion : : , 44i469 Superintendent'$ Proposed FY 1 ~0-2000 Budget Growth · 11.2 teaching positions (Regular Education)i:, $458,1~14 · 4 Special:Education teaching positions o $163,612 · - Comprehensive ServiCes Act ; $~175,000 · 7 additional placements at'ivy Creel( SChool- $ 97;127 · EsOL services: ' ' ' '. - $:76~301: · Technology reorganization: ': ::''. $: 80,000 · cATEc increas~ . $;'78,866 · High:School athletics - $ ~80;000 · other'growth needs . $344;941 (textbookS, materials, custodial/maintenance) Superintendent's Proposed FY 1999-2000 Budset Unfunded Initiatives · Building Improvements Projects ~$ 90,000 · Career Awareness Specialist - $ 40~903 · English as a Second orOther Language ~-$ 76,032 '(ESOL) Services - Phase II · FOreign Language Task Fome -$ 24,920 Recommendations - Phase I · Furniture/EquiPment Replacement - $230,000 · Gifted - Phase II - $102,086 7 Unfunded Initiatives · High School Athletics - Unfunded Portion - $100,000 -' Incentive BonUs to Recruit Bus DHvers - $ 22,500 and :Custodians · Increase Schooland Department - $120,060. Budgets- by 2%' · Orchestra - Phase I - $ 46,t80 · OUtsourcing:COBR~:' -$ 10,000 · SChool-Based Technology' Suppor[ - $204,800 Unfunded Initiatives · ,School Psychologists: Increase - $t 06,t 22 · ' Secondary AlternatiVe Education ' - $t80,000 · Staffing Committee:Recommendations :- $449~933'. :(11 additional positions) .... SuPportAnalysts for Instructional'and ,: - $, 87',868 Administrative ~Technology - $ ': 69,000 ~ ::Tuition Reimbursement - $300,000i revenUe: and' expenditure plan: for' accomplishing the organizational:: mission. Learning for All Whatever it Takes 8 CHOICES Budget Communication Process JanUar~ 23:: School Board: Budget:Work'SessiOn ... COB january:26:, Public Budget DiscUssion at Monticello H.S. !janu,~i 28:!:.: BUdget~Work session :FebrUary,,3: Joint Board meeting/Public Healing :in COB . ~Possible'Adoption of the Board's Prelim/naryBudget) W~B $~: Attp://klg. 9 'h~, ~^sm~lo'ro~ Pos'r (~kp~ · .. OUTLOOK ....-,$ta'ndards o! Learni . raae ",~l'q~ji.[ ' en days ago, Virginia announced the results of Its new Standards of Learning teats, and the. news ,::YF.1. looked ugly. A mere. handful of '/6l:h0ois met the score--70 percent of their · ".Sttld~nta passing--that ~l/be required In ' 't~i~'~uture to earn state accreditation ('97 ', P,~rcent of Schools in .Va, Fall New Exams," q'~a~ a front page headline In The Washing- '16n Post), A measly 4 percent of Northern ' .vit'glnla's schools managed tolexceed the "?0 l~rcent pass rate. · "' '~ . :, ' ." :Embarrassed school officials were quick. 't6'p~!rform damage control. Many rightly ,'06In!ed out that poor performances should ~bd ~pected in the first year of a .teaOng ':pto,~am. The figures prompted others to '.qdeatlon the credibility of the exam, whic. h : '~vered math, science history and English. ~alrfnx Superintendent Daniel A. Dome- ' ~i6:h went so far as to release a statement Lth?t~sald: 'We cannot accept these results :.sis a&:urate.' Supportive PTA leaders ech- '"~d his view. Their latent is clear: Kill the WHAT SHOULD WE' MAKE .of the es Its on ¥irginia' new t, tb?d, fifth., a.n. d dghtn grades and high school? :.~hite and minority students on the :f0~ 9 (a hatlon~ teat that IS ~qulred, 11~ ' ,.th~ SOLe, ~ the'e~te In third, flRh and eighth ~adss and In htgh s~l) differ by ';a~dt 30 ~rc~tlle ~in~a difference. :$dffldent to I~k minority students out of ,high-level high school courses which pr~ . ~re,studen~ for ~flege and work. The .,e~t~.ex~ resul~ In No,em ~nla ,,~IS a~ Sh~d a dir~t rebtlonship I ~en etudmt scores iud family income. "Worse still, re~nt da~ from districts each :_Those overblown.reaetlo~ ,:I~eFM S~ut the Sol; exem~ t~at'a~sfl'(', re~t reality. FhsL the ~ores weren't 'bad as that 97 percent fl~re suggests. A Clair i~k shows that, in many sch~ls, ?~'~ perceht of the kids pa~d the tests "~u~ ~lmt the~ fared ~orl~ In Just one:of the ,'fbu~ subject nrta th~ Ba~d on What ~s hap~ned ~ Other~ ',attires with n~w m?men~,, those 'achaia should ~ able to; reach'.a , · ........... What matters most to children's learning: , p~t~0ut pa~ ratQ m rue next iow m ~nre , ,,,, ,Thg,~h~is, b and large, do not make. ...,. ............... ~nn ~e done. ~h~is still se~ up d[fferent ~ mnmo me exn~. · · ' , ~,lstako lo slough off the ,~reo '~ ,houl~'t ,weeNort~e.it under the SAI~, and other 8hndardiz~ teals, these .................. dcad~Jc ~eduat~ wbo went ~n to ~r~nla colleg- es had to ~ke remedhl courses men In the 1~90 i~demic~ar, lnuddi, '~. ' ' tiod,~ nh achievement r~ce, ethnlcity tad hmily Incom~ ~roio~' ,'~ -i;iii; g'a"ati:ate thai'is producing dra- matic, results in other states. It ia simple , enough: Public standards are defined; as- sessments are designed t~ test those stan- dards; and schools are held accountable for their students' performance. Standards re- present a contract between the state and parenti (as well as the.community) that · promises to educate their children to th!s i high level. In a standards-based system,'~t ' 'Ia no'longer acceptable to challenge some students and leave tile others to muddle ,O,:Ale~tandrla suggest,that the gaps are through; Nor are schools able to excuse ,l~te~vlhg;,' . i" ' .' :_... low performance because the family Is l,i!My interest in the Virginia SOLs{~1 ~ , '' ~r OS n~ fluent In English. foldlMy work as an analyst for the Educe- i; ~ ............ ~ ...................... ' .';'t' 4 Ithough I am a strong advocate for ti~n')'ll'ust Involves examining national, ; /..~ standards and school accountability, a.lale: and local pollcleb and practice8 for L/..t.l was an early, public critic of the. ,tbelf capacity to raise the academic bar for SOLs. In. my opinion, the Virginia 'stan. ~ll~'students, particularly those whom ~.dards are overly 'specific and lack coher- ,iKh~ois have tradltlonallyleft behind.. '" ence'between grades, I was concerned-- ,,::'But I am also s Virginia parent with i' and still am--that their tendency to lose. tltree children. My two old~r boys have ' i the big picture would produce students date their time in Falrfak County public' , ~ ?hose knowledge was a mile wide and an = schools: one is now In cbllege; the other~ inch decp~ especially.when instruction is' Ividll, be aduatlng from high school this i gr · 'dflven 'by high-stake?, multiple-choice i~rlng. The youngest IS In first g~.ade. Over , ' tests such as those VIrgmia was proposing. .15 ~eara of being a public kchool parent, I ', Mostly, I wa8 afraid that the SOLs would Ilitte seen changes In school technoloo, itl; 'merely' be'. offering struggling students ;dl~clpflne codes, In topics teachers are al- . ..~ mbre of the kinds oilnstructlon we a!ready ,loWed to address In the euph~misticaU7 know imft working for the,n. ' ' ,n.,fnt.ed 'Family Life Education' currlcu. · :.';'; I still believe that the' SOLs are flawed, Iff/n~ But I have witnessed little change in '~ but not htally so.' And while I continue to . want better standards and tests, my early . fears that the SOLs won't work at all h~ve .'been' dispelled by ',the. results In other '. states.': ',.' : ;' .' ." '' . :.~:~, Texas and North Carolina, in particular, '..have'drafted standards that leave room for : Improvement. These standards are aligned ,'ts tests that'.rely too much on multiple- '. choice responses for mY preference, but 'bojh states also emphasize stro,~g account- i ;ability that pisces most bf the burden for i,.student achievement °n.the schools. The ,': °Utcome~ A win-win situation. In less than :..five. years, student', achievement' is up ': ..ay,sag students from all backgrounds; at the same' time; the achievement gap ' between students Is narrowing. .... ?," ~e'pro~eea on their Int~rnd,'~tatb ~e~emente le further validated by the per. for~nce of ~xas and North ~roltna on .,~ ~ the National A~agment of ~o~e~ (NAEP), more ~mmo~l~ ~ ' as ~e 'natlon'~ re~rt ~rd.' ~e most r~ .' cent N~P math ~ment ah~ two a~tea are getting ~heed more qulc~y tha~ moat others In the count~; Nor are, ~ey ~o~1~. Wear ~r~nla, whl~ ~. adopted n~x~us~ edu~flon~ ~!1~ hss shown tre~ndous pro~eU. Once ~tter known for ba~ment-l~M t~t ~orea, W~at ~r~nla '. four~-~aders, wh~e families are among th~ ~or~t In] .. ~e nation, hgv..ad~nc~ 1~ Just abort years to be on par with ~r~nla. And their ~cores are still rising.. ' ' ~rglnla students rank right In the mid- dle on NAEE What should be of more con- cern to n~te residents la that their ~ores have tematned fiat, whOe ntuden~ are , pro~ng nation, de.' Maturer, ~e achievement ~p we a~ In Northern ~r- ~nla exlat~ atatewide. Obviously, Vir~nia schools ough~ to do a much better Job, ~e Northe~ ~rginlan superintendents, lnclfidlng Domenech, reco~lze this and have launched ~veral of their own initiatives to ~be the achieve meet of their minority and Iow-in.me ate- dents. But it h hard work and it's not wn~ easy to know bow high stude.~ go. The SO~ provide ~e road map and the motl~tion to gat there. Regar~ess of the SO~ flaws, the riski- est step for the a~te to take tight now would be to Put the brakes on a ~Hcy that, for the first t~e, de~nda that ~urOVlde ~ ~elr studentn ~ bent currtcu- m and tnst~ction: That leaven ~1~ wl~ the atic~ pro~lem of how to get from 'nhnoat no ~lt~ pa~ing to MI ~hooh pa~ing by 2~7, when ~eir accredl~flon, will depend upon 70 ~rcent of their ate- . dents parting. ' ' ', ~r~nla should take ~m~ le~na from the ,tares that have I~en purmfl,g ~tnn. ~ard~baned reform. FirnL ~ool dls~lcts need to make ~ure that the curriculum and cour~ ~equencea ar~ all.ed to the SO~, ~k at the data to find out where ~e weak links are. ~r example, the re~nt r~ suits showed a' d~lfl~nt drop in math and ~lence SOL s~rea between eighth · . ~ade and high ~h~l. ~y? ~e content of th~ high ~hool cournes should b~ th~ first place to look. ~r their part, the atst~ should ~ more ureful a~ut scheduling exams ~o that they are a~lnistered at the end of the ~ar, after studen~ have had a chance to complete the courne work, . T~era should a~o use the SO~ eve~ · day to Inform cla~room practice. And they ~hould make sure their students ~ow ~ ' which ~tandarda their a~t~men~ are~ working toward; It's not unusual to ~lk~ into ~aumoma in ~xss or Vermont and bent even the you.gear students talking a~ut their work In rehtion to atan~rds. ~cond, ~e state ~ard of eduction [ should not be stubborn a~ut leaving th~ test aS It h, It !~ not t~ late to Incorporate· ~me ~ore open~nded questions such e~aya or abort easy'rs in add~tion to mul-] tiple choice, ~any states, i.cludlng~a~-J land, have used such methods ~th ~eat, ' success. ~nchtng to the test b not a bad: thing aa long as the t~t la worth teaching to. l'd be the first to admit that the present, · SOL exam encourages the ~hort-term ac-, quisltlon of knowledge: pi~en of lnforma-~ ~ Oas reproduced for the'teat, likely to be~ ' ,forgotten aeon afle~rd. ~e next few~ ~ears should be u~d to refine the test~ ' Items au that they require atudeutn tel make counectlo.s and analyze subject mat-] tec At the ume time, release the questions on previous tea~ ~ the public. If there ia a' . ~uentlon a~ut th~ tears credibility, let ev- eryone take a look au they un nt least nmke nn informed decision,. . i .'-?~lfi~R~ni~"'sh0'uld make'sure that' ' students in all racial a~d income groups are malting progress. Much of the success in Texas ia attrlbutgble ti) its accountabili- ty tlyatem, which requires schools to show that each group is meeting standards. Keeping the ap0_tllght on the achievement of aH students has done an much as any- thing to narrow the gap in Texan, It should work In Virginia aa well. Finally, there cnn no more excuses. Every child from every family needs and deserves a ~olld education, one that pre. pares them for success in college and work, Other states are ~roving that all stu- dents can meet high standards wheu they a,r~e taught at high lave¼. It's time for Vlr. I~.la echoo¼ to catch up. ' - Benchmark ' ',"' :** ,Under a plan Virginia State · officials approved two years . ago, Virginia publl~.schools ,will lose their accreditation In ". 20'07 if fewer than 70 percent of their students have passed the SOL. battery ~'of tests In Eqgllsh, math, · : history and science.. ,... The required passing rate '.~ Is 50 percent on two of the, · exams, third,grade history ' : and third-grade science. · Starting In 2004,'any Virginia .,, ..' .public school student who' '. ",has not pa~sed the high ..' ~ - . ?: school exams will not receive