Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-09 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of April 7, 1999 April 9, 1999 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to order. Meeting was called to Order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. · Ms. Kristin Peura, with Great Eastern Management, spoke in support of public bus service to Pantops Mountain. Ms. Thomas suggested the presentation be made to City Council as well. · Mr. Lee Middleditch, Chair of the Housing Committee, thanked the Board for its support in providing affordable housing to the community, and presented each member w/a resolution of appreciation and a pin. ADOPTED proclamation proclaiming April Fair Housing Month. 5.1. Appropriation: United Way Child Care Scholarship Program, $427,369.83 (Form #98066). APPROVED. 5,2. Appropriation: Education and Grants, $86,929.44 (Form #98067). Clerk: Acknowledge her comments. None (proclamation presented at meeting). Clerk: Send appropriations memo to Melvin Breeden, Robert Walters, Roxanne White, and Kathy Ralston. Clerk: Send appropriations memo to Melvin Breeden, Robert Walters, Roxanne VVhite, Kevin Castner, and Jackson Zimmerman Send letters of appreciation for donations. 5.3. Proclamation designating May 1999 as Heritage Repertory None (proclamation presented at meeting). Theatre Month~ APPROVED. 5.4. Proclamation designating April 18 through April 24, 1999~ as None (proclamation presented at meeting). the Week of the Young Child. APPROVED. 5.6. Appointment of Patrick Cornell to the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council. APPROVED. 5.7. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Inc., Service Agreement to allocate $70,000 from the Countys Fire Fund. APPROVED. 5.8. Request to proceed with installation of pedestrian/security lighting at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road East. APPROVED, 5.9. Resolution authorizing the Department of Fire/Rescue to apply for dry hydrant grants. ADOPTED. 5.10. Request by County to participate in VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program. APPROVED. 5.13. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for February 18, 1998. RECEIVED for information. 7.a. Discussion: Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743. APPROVED staff's recommendation that maintenance be undertaken at this point to shore up structure and extend its useful life. 7.b. Discussion: Proposed Route 29 Bypass, 4(fl Review for Jogging Trails at Jack Jouett and Greer Schools. TOOK NO ACTION. To come back to the Board when information is available. Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions files and send appointment letter. Clerk: Forward copy of signed agreement to Fire/Rescue and County Attorney. Clerk: Notify Bill Mawyer, Wayne Cilimberg, Joe Letted, and Jerry Shatz. Include in transportation letter to Angela Tucker. Clerk: Forward original to Carl Pumphrey and copy to Bruce Crow. Clerk: Include in Planning's letter. Copy to Jeff Blank. Clerk: Remove attachments and executive session statement from minutes before forwarding to Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. Clerk: Include in letter to Angela Tucker, and in Planning's letter. Include in 5~5~99 agenda. Planning staff: Pursue better enforcement of truck weight limit on bridge. Conduct analysis of options and advise Board of projected costs over the next 2-3 years. Pursue historic designation of the bridge. Clerk: Include in letter to Angela Tucker, and in Planning's letter. County Attorney: Prepare document to submit to Board no later than Tuesday, 4/13. Planninq staff: Include public comments in 7.c. Other Transportation Matters. · Ms. Tucker said contract to install guardrails on Rio Road should be awarded within two weeks. Work is hoped to take approximately six weeks. · Mr. Marshall and others reiterated the need for the Meadow Creek Parkway, or at least a two-lane road to Melbourne Road, to be built. · Ms. Humphris asked about the discrepancy on Georgetown Road spot '~mprovements and postponement of sidewalk construction in the CIP. · Mr. Perkins asked that guardrails be installed at Duner's Restaurant location on Route 250 West, · Ms. Thomas said newly-installed guardrails on Tilman's Road are too close to intersection, reducing sight distance. · Ms. Tucker said constructiOn at Bellair will being next month. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Tucker to investigate tree cutting in that location. · Ms. Tucker said VDOT is studying problems with acceleration lane traffic merging with other traffic in several locations. · Ms. Thomas said she wished to speak with Ms. Tucker on traffic problems on Grassmere Road at a later time. · Mr. Bowerman asked staff to work with homeowners on Rio Road to install fence near the trailer park. · Mr. Bowerman asked VDOT to continue examining the issue of installing bike lanes on Old Brook Road. · Mr. Marshall asked that VDOT look into the problem of soil washing away on his property as the result of their road work. 8. First Night Virginia Funding Request. APPROVED with stipulation that request be treated as a loan; to be paid back to City, County, and U.Va. evenly, if funds are available after expenses. 9. Appointments. · Reappointed: Jacqueline A. Rice and Kenneth O. Lee to Library Board with terms to begin 7-t-99 and to expire 6-30-03. · Reappointed: Dwight T. Colley to Region Ten Community Services Board with term to begin 7-1-99 and to expire 06-30-02. · Advised Clerk to readvertise Public Recreational Facility Authority vacancy. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board. · It was the consensus of the Board to have Parks & Rec staff work with Mr. Phil Bradley, sole survivor of Piedmont flight 349, which crashed in the Blue Ridge Mountains in 1959, who hopes to build a monument at Mint Springs Park. · Mr. Perkins said he was glad to see Y2K information included with the tax bills. · Ms. Thomas asked staff to contact the owners of the cellular tower near State Farm to ask them to paint the antenna a rust color. · Ms. Humphris showed the Board a tray liner she received at the restaurant in Lowe's, which recognized local volunteers. forthcoming report. Clerk: Include all comments in Angela Tucker's letter. Ms. Tucker: Contact Dr. Hoell of Georgetown Road Task Force. Clerk: Notify First Night Virginia, copy to Roxanne White and Melvin Breeden. Clerk: Update Boards & Commissions files, send appointment letters, and advertise vacancies. Parks & Rec staff: Work with Mr. Bradley. Planninq staff: Contact owners of cellular tower. 11. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 12. Certify Executive Session. 15. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on Recommended County Executive staff: Follow up on comments Operating Budget for FY 1999-2000. HELD PUBLIC HEARING, from the public. 15. PUBLIC HEARING on FY 1999 Tax Rates. HELD PUBLIC None. HEARING. COUNTY~ ~OE A~ REMAR~ F... 401 Mcln~m Road April 12, i~l~ggl. Thomas Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation -701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At the April 7, 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 at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road East. APPROVED. Agenda Item No. 7(a). Discussion: Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743. APPROVED staffs recommendation that maintenance be undertaken at this point to shore up.the structure and exxtend its useful life. Agenda Item No. 7(b). Discussion: Proposed Route 29 Bypass, 4(f) Review for Jogging Traiis at Jack Jouett and Greer Schools. TOOK NO ACTION. To come back to the Board when information is available. Agenda Item No. 7(c). Other Transportation Matters. You provided the Board an update on previous discussions, stating that: VDOT contract to install guardrails on Rio Road should be awarded withn two weeks. Work is hoped to take approximately six weeks. Construction at Bellair wiil begin next month. Ms. Thomas asked you to investigate tree cutting in that location. VDOT is studyng problems with acceleration lane traffic merging with other traffic in several locations. Mr. Marshall and others reiterated the need for the Meadow Creek Parkway, or at least a two-lane road to Melbourne Road, to be built. Ms. Humphris asked about the discrepancy on Georgetown Road spot improvements and postponement of sidewalk construction in the CIP. You said you would contact Dr. Hoell of the Georgetown Road Task Force. Printed on recycled paper Mr. Perkins asked that guardrails be installed at Duner's Restaurant located on Route 250 West. Ms. Thomas said newly-instali....uuardrails On Tilman's'Road are too close to intersection, reducing sight distance. ~ ...... :'-'<'? ~:' ~":~'~'~ '"' .... - '~ ,~,.~.. Ms. Thomas said she wishe~i tbs peak with y~u o~iZt~i~ P~°biems on Grassmero Road at time. Mr. Bowerman asked VDOT to continue examining the issue of installing bike lanes on Old Brook Road. Mr. Marshall asked that VDOT look into the problem of soil washing away on his property as the result of their road work. /Ibh S,Jncerely, .. cc: Robert Tucker David R Bowerman Rio Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Joue~ Forrest R. Mamhall, Jr. COUNTY OF Ai REMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-~O~[X/~~) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivann~ Walter E Perkins White Ha~ Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller To: From: Subject: Date: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ({X'~ April 7, 1999 Board of Supervisors Meeting April 12, 1999 The following actions were taken by the Board at its meeting on April 7, 1999: Item No. 5.10. Request by County to participate in VDO'Fs Revenue Sharing Program. APPROVED. Agenda Item No. 7.a. Discussion: Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743. APPROVED staff's recommendation that maintenance be undertaken at this point to shore up structure and extend its useful life. Planning staff to pursue better enforcement of truck weight limit on bridge, conduct analysis of options and advise Board of projected costs over the next two to three years, and pursue historic designation of the bridge. Agenda Item No. 7.b. Discussion: Proposed Route 29 Bypass, 4(f) Review for Jogging Trails at Jack Jouett and Greet Schools. TOOK NO ACTION. To come back to the Board when information is available. Planning staff to include public comments in forthcoming report. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Ms. Thomas asked staff to contact the owners of the cellular tower near State Farm to ask them to .paint the antenna a rust color. /Ibh CC: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Dan Mahon Sharon Taylor John Grady Janice Farrar ,left Blank Printed on recycled paper Attached is the Planning letter from the 4~7~99 Board meeting. 040799.C0.D0C Laurie David P. Bo~erman Charlott~ Y. Humphfis Forrest l~ M~shall, Jr. COUNI'Y OF Al REMAt~I E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlottesville, V~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas April9,1999 Ms. Kristin Peura Great Eastern Management 2619 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Peura: Thank you for your recent comments to the Board of Supervisors on April 7, 1999, concerning public bus transporation to the Pantops Mountain vicinity. As mentioned at the meeting, the Board has set aside monies for this endeavor. The Board appreciates you taking the time to appear and make your views known. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CYH/lbh Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - United Way Childcare Scholarship Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98066 in the amount of $427,369.83 for the United Way Childcare Scholarship Program. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Ralston AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999. ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The United Way Childcare Scholarship Program helps Iow and moderate income working families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District maintain employment through direct fee-subsidies to pay for child care. The program promotes quality childcare for children, especially "at risk" children, by allowing the parent to select a licensed or certified provider. Scholarships are awarded based on a sliding scale fee with parents paying a portion of the cost. DISCUSSION: A 1992 agreement between Albemarle, Charlottesville, and the Virginia Department of Social Services approved The United Way to administer the pool funds. The 1998-99 program will expend $391.426 for direct scholarship and administrative fees. The pool is funded by $195,713 in federal funds, $89,188 by the City of Charlottesville, $63,025 by the County of Albemarle and $43,500 by the United Way. The Albemarle local match was approved in the 1998-99 operating budget and requires no additional funds. In addition, this fund has a carry-over balance of $35,943.83 from FY 97/98, which was expended by the United Way but was not billed to the County until after fiscal year closeout. Albemarle County serves as the fiscal agent and therefore, is required to appropriate the total program funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98066 in the amount of $427,369.83 for the United Way Childcare Scholarship Program, 99.058 I N T E R AIbcmaflc BOOA~ of Comity ~1~g~'lsors Office of ~hc CMo to ~ ~ 0 F F I C'E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Appropriations Approved on April 7, 1999 April 9, 1999 Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the Board at its meeting on April 7, 1999: 1) Appropriation: United Way Child Care Scholarship Program, $427,369.83 (Form #98066). 2) Appro;>riation: Education and Grants, $86,929.44 (Form #98067). Attachments (to everyone) cc: Roxanne White Robert Walters Kathy Ralston Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98~99 NUMBER 98067 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEVV X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: SCHOOL/GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS DONATIONS, SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOL GRANT AND FEDERAL FRLOW-THROUGH FUNDS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2212 61101 420100 FIELD TRIP $ 600.00 2215 61411 580000 MISC. EXPENSE 25.00 2201 61101 132100 WAGES-TEACHER P/T 1,015.00 2201 61101 210000 FICA 85.00 1 2114 61101 602000 TEXTBOOKS 545.06 1 2100 61102 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 56,020.00 1 2100 61102 210000 FICA 4,285.00 1 2100 61102 221000 VRS 7,558.00 1 2100 61102 231000 HEALTH INS. 4,890.00 1 2100 61102 232000 DENTAL INS. 146.00 1 2112 61312 112100 SALARIES-TEACHER 6,333.00 1 2112 61312 210000 FICA 485.00 1 2112 61312 221000 VRS 855.00 1 2112 61312 231000 HEALTH INS. 815.00 I 2112 61312 232000 DENTAL INS. 25.00 1 3107 61101 312700 PROF. SERV.-CONSULTANT 3,247.38 TOTAL $ 86,929.44 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $ 600.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 25.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 1,100.00 2 2000 19000 190214 TEXTBOOK FUND 545.06 2 2000 33000 330110 SP. ED. FLOW THROUGH 81,412.00 2 3107 24000 240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE 3.247.38 TRANSFERS TOTAL $86,929.44 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE FISCAL YEAR: TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: 98/99 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR UNITED WAY DAY CARE PROGRAM. APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER 98066 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X UNITED WAY DAY CARE EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1550 53110 390056 ADMIN. FEE-UNITED WAY $ 39,142.60 I 1550 53110 - 567910 DAY CARE GRANT 352,283.40 I 1550 53110 567910 DAY CARE GRANT 35,943.83 TOTAL $ 427,369.83 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1550 33000 330014 GRANT $ 195,713.00 2 1550 33501 160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 89,188.00 2 1550 33501 160525 UNITED WA"( MATCHING FUNDS 43,500.00 2 1550 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM COUNTY 63,025.00 2 1550 51000 510100 UNV FUND BALANCE 35,943.83 TOTAL $427,369.83 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ApproPriation - Education and Grants SU BJECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: Request approval of Appropriation #98067 in the total amount of $86,929,44 for various donations, grants, and flow- through funds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White, Castner, Breeden April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: At its meeting on February 22, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $600.00 for Woodbrook Elementary School. Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation from Timothy and Debra Rich and Mr. Rich's company, WGP-Transco agreed to do a two to one match. This donation is to help toward the cost of a second grade field trip to the Washington Zoo scheduled for May 27, 1999. Appropriation of $25.00 for V. L. Murray Elementary School. V. L. Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $25.00. This donation will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school. Appropriation of $1,100.00 for Broadus Wood Elementary School. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,100.00 form the Broadus Wood PTO. This donation has been provided to pay for salaries of two part-time teachers for the foreign language program at the School. Appropriation of $545.06. The textbook fund has collected $545.06 from the schools for textbooks that were lost, damaged, or stolen. This money will be used to purchase replacement textbooks. Appropriation of $3,247.38 for Title IV Safe and Drug Free Schools Grant. Title IV of the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 provides funding to local school divisions for operating substance abuse programs to students. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $3,247.38 from fiscal year 1997-98. These funds will be used as a partial payment to the Albemarle County Police Department for School Resource Officers. Appropriation of $81,412.00 in additional Federal Flow-Through Funds. The final figures for Federal FIo-Through funds have been made available to localities. Federal funds were increased due to greater student enrollment and to increased federal per student allocation. As part of the Flow-Through application, Albemarle is reimbursed for salaries of special education teachers and clerical support. The majority of these funds will reimburse our system for additional instructional staffing already in place. A small portion of this increased funding will be utilized to provide 0.5 FTE of additional clerical staffing for special education to meet special education reporting requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $86,929.44, as detailed on Appropriation #98067. 99.050 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum Mar~ 1999 Rof~. TUcker, Jr., County Executive ~e q~e s ~a ~e~'pp~ir ~ ~o~uperintendent At its meeting on February 22, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $600.00 for woodbrook Elementary School. Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation from Timothy and Debra Rich and Mr. Rich's company, WGP-Transco agreed to do a two to one match. This Donation is to help toward the cost of a second grade field trip to the Washington Zoo scheduled for May 27, 1999. o Appropriation of $25.00 for V.L. Murray Elementary School. V.L. Murray Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $25.00. This donation will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for the school. o Appropriation of $1,100.00 for Broadus Wood Elementary School. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,100.00 from the Broadus Wood PTO. This donation has been provided to pay for salaries of two part-time teachers for the foreign language program at the School. o Appropriation of $545.06. The textbook fund has collected $545.06 from the schools for textbooks that were lost, damaged, or stolen. This money will be used to purchase replacement textbooks. o Appropriation of $3,247.38 for Title IV Safe and Drug Free Schools Grant. Title IV of the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 provides funding to local school divisions for operating substance abuse programs to students. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $3,247.38 from fiscal year 1997-98. These funds will be used as a partial payment to the Albemarle County Police Department for School Resource Officers. . .._~Page 2 o Appropriation of $81,412.00 in additional Federal Flow-Through Funds. The final figures for Federal Flow-Through funds have been made available to localities. Federal funds were increased due to greater student enrollment and to increased federal per student allocation. As part of the Flow-Through application, Albemarle is reimbursed for salaries of special education teachers and clerical support. The majority of these funds will reimburse our system for additional instructional staffing already in place. A small portion of this increased funding will be utilized to provide 0.5 FTE of additional clerical staffing for special education to meet special education reporting requirements. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disbursed these funds as displayed on the attachment. shim xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey Donation Revenue: 2-200C-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2212-61101-420100 Woodbrook Elementary School Donation Field Trip $600.00 $600.00 Donation - Murray Elementary School Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2215-61411-580000 Donation Miscellaneous Expense $25.00 $25.00 Donation - Broadus Wood Elementary School Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2201-61101-132100 -210000 Donation Wages-Teacher PT FICA $1,100.00 $1,015.00 $85.OO Revenue: 2-2000-19000-190214 Expenditure: 1-2114-61101-602000 Textbook Appropriation Textbook Fund Textbooks $545.06 $545.06 Title IV Safe and Drug Free Schools Revenue: 2-3107-24000-240500 Expenditure: 1-3107-61101-312700 Grant Revenue-State Prof Serv Consultant $3,247.38 $3,247.38 Revenue: 2-2000-33000-330110 Expenditure: 1-2100-61102-112100 -210000 -221000 -231000 -232000 1-2112-61312-115000 -210000 -221000 -231000 -232000 Federal Flow-Through Funds Sp. Ed. Flow Through Salaries-Teacher FICA VRS Health Ins. Dental Ins. Salaries-Office Clerical FICA VRS Health Insurance Dental Insurance $81,412.00 $56,020.00 $4,285.00 $7,558.00 $4,890.00 $146.00 $6,333.00 $485.00 $855.00 $815.00 $25.00 To: ~Tackson Zimmermann From: Timothy Frazier, V.L. Murray Elementa~ |~.. /cs 14i4 Re: Donation Date: February 3, 1999 Please submit check number 1414 from Brian Smith in the amount of $25.00 made~'~ payable to the Virginia L. Murray Elementary P.T.O. to the Board of Supervisors. ~ Send acknowledgement letter (105 West High Street, Charlottesville, Va. 2Z902-5018) for tax purposes, but keep donor anonymous when submitting this to the Board of Supervisors. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jackson Zimmermann, Director of Fiscal Services Barbara K. Edwards, Principal, Broadus Wood Elemeatary~ February 1, 1999 Depositing funds into operating budget Attached please find a check for $1100.00 to be deposited into the opm~ating budget for Bmadus Wood as part time teachers' wages. The money has been provided by the Broadus Wood PTO to pay the salaries of Mecca Bums (Spanish teacher for kindergarten) and Lucy $oh~nson (French teacher for first grade). Ms. Bums teaches two 15 minutes segments per week in each kindergarten for a nine week duration. Ms. Johnson teachers one fifteen minut~ segment per week in each fn'st grade for an eighteen week duration. We will wait to pay these two teachers until the money appears on our green bar sheet, ffthere arc any questions feel free to give mc a call at 9/3-3865. 2.-I 0000 January 28, 999 Walton Middle School 4217 R~l I-Ytll Road Ch~n-~da~ VA 22903 804-977-5615 Fax# 296-6648 TO: From: Re: Jackson Zimmermann, Director of Fiscal Services Carole Hastings, Principal ~~ Donation to Walton Spirit Team The following donations have been made to the Walton Spirit Team to assist the Team in participating in national competition in Williamsburg this March. I would appreciate your having these donations acknowledged by the School Board: DONATION DONOR $35 S.L. Williamson 1230 River Rd. Charlottesville, Va 22901 $40 in Gift Certificates $20 Gift Certificate Wood Grill Buffet 1250 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Va 22901 Top Flight Hair ~esign 1710 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Va 22901 $20 Gift Certificate Kathy's Produce 206 Carlton Rd. Charlottesville, Va 22901 $60 Gift Certificate Boar's Head Inn PO Box 5307 Wellington Dr. Charlottesville, Va 22905 $20 Gift Certificate Golden Corral 1185 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Va 22901 nLB£MnR[~F. COUNTY PUBIC SCHOOLS 'WE EXPECT SU~' $50 Gift Certificate Brown Chrysler Plymouth 1195 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, Va 22901 These gift certificates will be sold to assist in the fund raising. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate in calling on me. cc: Pam Davis, Team Sponsor F~h I-lammon WOODBROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 100 WOODBROOK DRIVE January 20, 1999 TO: Jackson Zimmermann Director of Fiscal Services FROM: KeithL. Hammon ~//~~. ~nt//~~ Principal Woodbrook Elementary School RE: Gift from WGP-Transco and the Rich Family The enclosed check is from Timothy and Debbie Rich toward a second grade field trip to the Washington Zoo scheduled for May 27, 1999. Mr. Rich's company WGP-Transco, will do a two to one match of this donation (see attached form). The donation from the Rich's is $200.00; the match from Transco will be for $400.00. An IRS letter designating us as a 501(c)3 organization needs to be attached to the Transco form and sent to Transco before they will release a check for the $400.00. Thank you for your help in this matter. KLH/mt Attachm TIMOTHY O. RICH DEBRA RICH ~l?-s4-~4g ~'14 7 7 3 CHA~O~/~S~, VA ~11 ~ ~'. Cmstar Bank Richmond, Virginia ,:0 5 i,l,O l,S& 8 l,r-.[, Z?s?q,," 077~ '(~ DaSd ~ ~ Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Mm~a~ Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMAR! ~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 9, 1999 Charles S. Martin w~ E ~ Sally H. Thomas Broadus Wood P.T.O. 185 Buck Mountain Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Sirs: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation toward Broadus Wood part-timeteacher'swages (Mecca Burns and Lucy Johnson). These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to students in our school system. Again, thank you. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM:lbh cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper Charlotte Y. Humpl'a'is COUNTY OF AI _REMAI~I _E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 M¢ln~ire Road Charlottesville, V'~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 April 9, 1999 Cha~es S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas Mr. and Mrs. Timothy O.Rich 1902 English Oaks Circle N. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rich: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation toward a field trip to the Washinton Zoo. These funds will be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to students in our school system. Again, thank you. Sincerely, CSM:lbh cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Charles S. Martin Chairman Printed on recycled paper HERITAGE REPERTORY THEATRE MONTH VVI~IE~, the arts and humanities enhance and enrich the lives of all Americans; and V~'IEREAS. the arts, in particular, affect every aspect of h'fe in America today including the economy, social problem soloing, job creation, education, creatioity and community liveability; and WJCtEREAS. theatre and dranuaSc arts sp~y teach discipline, creative thinking, teamwork and fi~b skills; and the Heritage Repertory Theatre bas for twenty, six seasons provided the Central Virginia community with q~lity professional entertainment and opportunities to take part in these edm:ational endeavors; NO.T HE'FORE. I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of Co#nty Supervyisors, do hereby proclaim MAY, 1999. as HERITAGE REPERTORY THEATRE MONTH and call its importance to the attention of all our dtizens. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD the Central Virginia Association for the Education of Young Children, Children Youth and Family Services, Ina, the United Way Child Care Scbolarsbip Program, and other local organizations, in conjunction ~oith the Virginia Association for Early Cbildbood Education and the National Association for the Education of Young Children, are celebrating the WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHTLD, April 18 through April 24, 1999; and WHEREAS, by calling attention to the need for bigb-quMity early childhood services for all children and families in our community, these groups hope to improve the quality and availability of such services; and VP~I~S, the future of our commnnity and the Common~vealtb depends on the quality of early childhood experiences provided to young cbildren today; and WHEREAS, young children are the most precious and valuable resources in our community and the Common~vealtb; NO VV, THEREFORE, I, Charles S. Martin, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize APRIL 18 THROUGH APRIL 24, 1999 as the WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD in Albemark County and urge all citizens to recognize and support the needs of young cbiMren and their families in our community. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .-. RVISOR$ Fair Housing Month Proclamation SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Acknowledge and celebrate April as Fair Housing Month by adopting the Fair Housing Month Proclamation STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. McDonald April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes April is Fair Housing Month and Albemarle County's Office of Housing has planned a celebration for Wednesday, April 7, to recognize the progress towards equal opportunity housing that has been made possible by the Fair Housing laws. Albemarle County will celebrate its commitment to fair housing with festivities to be held in the lobby of the County Office Building from 9:00 am until 2:00 pm with refreshments and educational materials for distribution. The day's events will include a proclamation to be adopted on the 7th by the Board of Supervisors. Later in the month, on April 30th, the Housing Office will sponsor a more formal Fair Housing Program which will focus on the Fair Housing rights and protections of the disabled community. Additional information will be provided once the details of the program are finalized. For the past three years the Board of Supervisors has dedicated the annual proclamation to an individual who had demonstrated through their advocacy and work an extraordinary commitment to the creation of affordable housing opportunities for all Albemarle County Citizens. This year, the Housing Committee will recommend a group to honor rather than an individual. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Fair Housing Month Proclamation. 99.059 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, April, 1999, marks the thirty-first anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights of some citizens diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming April, 1999 as Fair Housing Month and encouraging all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law. Signed: Charles Martin, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMAR OARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Appointment to Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council (TJEMS) SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Appointment of Patrick F. Cornell to TJEMS Council STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: No BACKGROUND: With the departure of Rick Huff from the County of Albemarle, a vacancy now exists on the TJEMS Council. Under the by-laws of the Council, you can appoint one member as your representative to the TJEMS Council replacing Mr. Huff. Representation currently exists from three of our volunteer rescue organizations. RECOMMENDATION: In Order to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Huff, staff is recommending that you appoint Captain Patrick F. Cornell who is a county career firefighter and paramedic at the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company. County of Albemarle Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD I COMMISSION / COMMn'TEE Lokas~ t~pe or prim) Board/C~mmission/Commit~e THOMAS JEFFERSON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNCIL Applicmt'sNmue PA%RICK F. COPaNELL Home Phone (~,40) 9,48 ~ .6316 .. HomeAdd~$s 106 MAPLE DRIVE, MADISON, VA 22727 Magis~fi~l DL~i~t in which your home ~r~id~nce is leered MADISON COUNTY Employer ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE DIVISION Phone (806) 296-5833 BusmssA~ress .4o..x ~CtNTIR~. ROA~, C..m~RLO.TTESVTLL.~,V,~ 22902 Date of Employment 06/97 Occupation / Title CAPtAIN/PARAMEDiC' Years Resident in Albemarle County . N/A. Previous Residence N/A Spouse's Name N/A Number of Children 2 Edu¢ation(D~'T, reesandOraduationDatc$) .HIGH SCHOOL Dt?LOMA 06/76, 2 YEARS HAMPTON UNIV. 1989v93 EMS MANAGEMENT Memberships in Fraternal: Business_. Church and/or Social C~oup.q Public. Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities orlnteregs Reason(s) tot Desire to Serve on thi.~ Board / Commission / Comm~ve KEEN INTEREST tN THE I)EVE~OPMENT OF A PRO~KESSIVE EMS SERVICE IN THE REGION. Tl~e information provid~ on this application will be rcleas_ed to ~e public upon $ignamr, Return to: (~rk, Bqar~! of .County Supervisors *re L;~ Dat~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Service Agreement SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Approval of Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Service Agreement to allocate $70,000 from Fire Fund STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Davis/Pure phrey AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: 5.4 INFORMATION: ACTION: x INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: The Western Albemarle Rescue Squad wishes to obtain $70,000 from the County's Fire Fund to use for the purchase of an ambulance. DISCUSSION: A Service Agreement to provide the terms for the use of the Fire Fund has been executed by Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Service Agreement on behalf of the County. 99.054-A SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ~ day of , 1999 by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC., (the "Rescue Squad"). WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide valuable rescue squad services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) for the purchase of an ambulance from the County's Fire Fund (-"Fund"). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises the County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) to be used for the purchase of an ambulance. These funds shall be allocated from the Fund and shall be delivered upon demand after the execution of this Agreement. 2. The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($8,750.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Rescue Squad's operating budget for eight (8) years beginning July 1, 1999, and ending after a final withholding on July 1,2006, and that such withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in addition to the withholding for all prior advances under prior service agreements with the Rescue Squad dated January 28, 1985 and October 6, .1993. 3. The Rescue Squad agrees that the Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the ambulance. The Rescue Squad further agrees that it shall not convey the ambulance or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful life of the ambulance or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the ambulance shall be eight years from the date the ambulance is placed' into service. In addition, the Rescue Squad agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to th'e ambulance shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the ambulance unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such proceeds. SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AG,REEMENT, made this day of ?'T'~F'II , 1999 by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, h political subdivision, (the "County"), and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC., (the "Rescue Squad"). WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide valuable rescue squad services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) for the purchase of an ambulance from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund"). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises the County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows: 1. The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) to be used for the purchase of an ambulance. These funds shall be allocated from the Fund and shall be delivered upon demand after the execution of this Agreement. 2. The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($8,750.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Rescue Squad's operating budget for eight (8) years beginning July 1, 1999, and ending after a final withholding on July 1, 2006, and that such withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in addition to the withholding for all prior advances under prior service agreements with the Rescue Squad dated January 28, 1985 and October 6, 1993. 3. The Rescue Squad agrees that the Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the ambulance. The Rescue Squad further agrees that it shall not convey the ambulance or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful life of the ambulance or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the ambulance shall be eight years from the date the ambulance is placed into service. In addition, the Rescue Squad agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the ambulance shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the ambulance unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such proceeds. 4. The Rescue Squad agrees that at such time as it no longer provides rescue squad services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 1 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Rescue Squad agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated January 28, 1985 and October 6, 1993 shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Rescue Squad, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Rescue Squad. Date Date Witness the following signatures and seals: BY: Darlene H. Grif--fin. fPresident WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. Approved as to Form: orney COMMONWELATH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Service Agreement was .signed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this '~¢~ day of /-~ ,1999 by Robert W. c,,' ~ ~ Notary PblSiic / Tucker, Jr. My Commission Expires: COMMONWELATH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged b.efore~me this /,~day of /~K'P_..~ ,1999 by . ~r}en~, ~, (.-Ir/~-/~ ' on IJehalf of Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. Notary Public My Commission Expires: N T E R 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Bill Mawyer Wayne Cilimberg Joe Letteri Jerry Shatz Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk Pedestrian/Security Lighting April 12, 1999 Please be advised that the Board, at its April 9, 1999 meeting, approved the lighting project locatd at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road to proceed into construction this summer. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Pedestrian / Security Lighting (BOS request to light neighborhood areas) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to proceed with the installation of lighting at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road East. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mawyer, Cilimberg, Letteri, Shatz DISCUSSION: AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map Showing Lighting Locations 2. Roadway Lighting Policy (B.O.S. 1983) 3. Roadway Lighting/~o~ Public Works. 1997) REVIEWED BY: The 1983 Board of Supervisors Roadway Lighting Policy offers citizens, staff and Board members the opportunity to request new lighting projects. The subject project located at the intersection of Old Brook Road and Rio Road was requested Mr. David Bowerman. There is no installation cost involved. The County will be responsible for all future operating costs and funds are budgeted. This request will serve the public as these roads are maintained by VDOT. The following project is proposed: Location Number of Lights [ Rio Road & Old BrOok Rd. I 3 Applicants Cost County Cost Total Installation Cost $ o.o0 I $ o.oo I $ o.oo Total Cost of Installation for these projects: $ 0,00 Estimated Annual Operating Cost $ 300.00 The property owners were all contacted and invited to attend an information session held at Jack Jouett Middle School describing the number of lights, lumens, and location of this lighting project. That public information meeting took place on December 10, 1998, with only about 15 people attending. All of the fixtures to be installed will be fully shielded in compliance with the outdoor lighting requirements (Section 4.17) of the Zoning Ordinance. There were no objections to this lighting project from those attending this meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the lighting project proceed into construction this summer. 99.057 ATTAC'NHENT 1 © © Rufldwny L!~ghfing (IIOS Policy) EtTecliveDate: July 13, 198:i The County ol'Aibe, uarle will e.gnge itt a roadway lighting program as deft,led and limited by lite lbilowi,Jg condilio,ls: Existing roadway ligbls shall ~emain iu use and the cost of their lighting paid fur by the County unlil svch limes lhal. i,t Ihe upinion of il,e Board chnnges i,~ circt, mslances may make their removal and/or relocatio,t desirable. New iightiug shall I,e cuuside, esl opes, II,t~ request oran' individual or grot,p or on lite aclioq of the Llomd itself. As,y svch group or i,,dividual .,us, be directly ail~:cled by lite Ii§Isling ,'cqt,eslcd. The requeslcd lighting musl be clearly a public necegsily rail,er than a ps,vase oz' iqdividu,I bcuelit i,, order to be Considered by the Board. ami Ihc, e Insist be m, objection Io Ihe lighling on lhe part of anyone who is directly affected by il. Areas within tl,e Couvty liar which this policy way be applicable ivclude: community I.,ihli,,gs, growlh ureas as desig,,nlcd is, the Comln'che,tsiVe l'la,t and ,,ondesig.aled glowlh nicas where ex,sling residential density exceeds one dwelling unit per acre (I alu/ac). The County's financial etTo, I toward the roadway lighting progra,n si,all be li,,,iled lo a c~rtain percentage of the ulility lax collected fur lite use of electrical ct,trent, the amotml budgeled for any succeedi,,g year bei,~g computed on lite last year preceding liar which a total may be ascertained; the {,ercenlages as shown below: For the installation a,,d/or relocatio,, of lights: For electrical curreqt t,sed itt lighling: . 0.50% The Cou,,ly si,all conli,u,e lo pay II,e cost of elect,itel ct. real used i,, lighti,,g the street lighls wi,ich have bee,, accepled by Ihe County previot, s Io li,e adoption of II,is Roadway Li§hli,,g Policy a,,d will also pay the cost of electrical currem used in ligl,li.g such add,lionel liBhls as the Co,rely ,.ay rio,. lime to ti,ne acce{)l into the system Itt such cases whcre II,ere is a charge lbr installi,g a street light sub-sysle,n, the CouIlly will participate in such installalion in an amount not to exceed fifty percent of lite cost. provided, however. Ihat the applicant will match II,is atnount. The Board ,,,ay waive this limitation where Ihe Board fiqds Ii,al such would impose a,, unusual hardshil~ on the applicant and the sub-system ligl,li.g i,I rise opinion oftl,e Board is ors. ch value as lo warrant Iha cost to lite Courtly. Lighting systems shall be designed and installed itt accordance will, Ibc policy of the Depa,lme, il ofllighways and 'l'sanSlt.slalio,, as set fi~lh in Ihe l)el~n~lme.l's memura.dum entitled Guide l'olicy For Roadway Lighling Fac, lilies and Security l.ighting Fac,lilies, dated July 26. 1973, as amended. 5. The Cou,lly Engineer shall ~eview all al~plicalions fi)r roadway lighting a,,d ,'ecomme.d AIl~nadc Co. my I:.t~Si.ee~in8 & iYhlic Works Policics i Fcinuary 1997 action to lite Board o£ County Supervisors. The C(]uuty Engineer may set rules ['or p~uccdurc G)r lite processing ol'appiicatiuns. Except in such cases whese the County itselFinstigates Lite installation ol'a roadway lighting system, lite County of Albemarle shall have no part in securing or purchasing any easements which may be necessary fi~r the installation of'a roadway lighting system. Acquisition o£ such easements shall be the responsibility of the applicant attdlor the power company which will serve the system. In such cases where the County itself instigates the installation of roadway .lighting and there a~e costs incmred lot' such, the County of Albemarle may defray costs to the Full extent of the lhnds pt~vided under llem 3 ol'this policy. This is a copy o£tht: policy adopted by the Board o£$upervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at its regular meeting held on July 13, 1983. " All~nad¢ Cut.~ty l~nl~inceting & l'ubli~: Wo&~ I)~)licies :~ F¢lnun~.V 1997 Attachmeut 3 '\ Roadway Lighliqg EfFective l.)ate: January 21, 1997 Albemat Io Calmly Engineer ing shall use Ihe fullowing I:~ ucedtll'es lo gove~ n Ihe s eceipt. ~eview mill In'ucessing .f roadway iigldi,q~ ~eque~:ls. This policy is alqdicable t. sl~ eel lighl ~eq.esls olher limn Ihosa initiated by the County th~.ugh lhe CH' process. Requests shall IJe submitted in wtilin§ either directly to Albemarle County Engineer ami Public Wosks or tie ough lire County Executive's office. Requests shonhl be addressed lo tiro attention of the l)hector of Eqgi,me.ing and l'ublic Wosks. hi such cases whole, in Iile .I)ini.ll of the Dizcch)r, the ~equeslcd i(mdwny liglJting does nut meet thc ~C(lui~cmcnt:; .f thc It.a(Iway Lighting I'.iicy For Tim Comdy uf All,em,. lc, % gini:t, adopted by II~e Bo;H d .f Counl 7 SUl)elvisuts on J.ly ! :l, i 9g~ (co py all ached). the Director or his designee shall tl.til~ thc al)l)licant of ils deficiencies and oiler lo cunsult with thc al)l)licaut in older lo revise the request, if I)oasibl~. The Director ~r Ids designee shall ,.ake a lit:Id investigalion, wilhin a ~'easo.al, le time. lo oblain Ibc info~'malio~ necessmy lbr evalualing the lighth~g req.est. Once Ihe Director has mad~ a preliminmy evahmlion, Ibc l)i~ector shall fi~wmd Ihe lighling ~eq.est t. Ihe Albemarle Courtly Boasd of Supcsviso~s with a ~ecommendatiun Ihat Ihe B.md ~esolve lo receiv~ publio input prior to final co.sideration of the Board. Tlsis preliminary evalualion amy include a cost estimate for inslallation and electrical charges. The Bom'd approval should address tim sot. ce oflmyment tbr the installation c.sl and electrical charges cunsistent wilh the Boasti policy. Should the Boald t:lect to applove Iii(: lighliqg installatioq, the l.)i~ector o£ I[nginec[ing shall submil n w~illen request fi~r a layout plan lo the respeclive power COmlmHy se~'ving Iht men. Thc alqdicanl shall ~'eceive wrillen n.lilicali.n when lhe ~cqucst is made Io ll~c p.wcr C.mlmny. The power COmlmUy designs a,M i~iepal'es tile roadway lighting layoul piml nnd p~'ovides a cuqslsuction cost esli. mte Ibr the IIrojecl. The power CUmlmny submits their layout plan to thc County fbr review, lfllle plan does not appear to meet lighting cxite~ia, or changes need to be made. the plan is returned to the power company fbr revisions a.d resubmittal. The applicant is contnc(ed al this time (bt any commcnls. At this time, the applicant must gua[antee thc cost co,mibulion as al:l~lOl~t'iale by [mymelit Io thc ('~{)tilily or posting ofa btmd in Iht nlii{}tllll SCl I:y DiJcclor. The limd roudway ligh(i.g Ida. will ll,e,s be lb~ warded I. VI)aT lbs' scvicw nmi [~l,lr~oval iJs lite case where the location is associated wiih state n,ailllained road:;., mad.'; mdicilmled to be acccpled by the .c;lale ill Ih6 fillure, Once the Director has tile Ii.al aplr, oval fi om VDOT, tile Director .f' E.gi,leel i.g shall s'cquisilio,s the installati()lt liolll thc electrical power COlnlmnY Ihal se~ ves Ihe alea. I N T E R Albemarle B~ud of County Supervisors Offi¢c of thc Chk m ~be Bea:d 401 Mclnt~' Road Chatlolt~svil lc,Virginia 22902.4596 0 F F I C E MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Carl Pumphrey Brace Crow Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~c[ Resolution - Application for Dry Hydr~ntn Grants April 12, 1999 Please find attached your copy of the resolution adopted by the Board on April 7, 1999, authorizing the Department of Fire/Rescue to apply for dry hydrant grants. Thank you. Enclosure RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Fire and Rescue Division is seeking funding for a Dry Hydrant grant to be administered jointly by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and the Department of Forestry; and WltEREAS, the grant would enable installation of dry hydrants at suitable locations in Albemarle County for the purpose of providing water to extinguish fires at such locations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the filing of an application for the above-described grant and authorizes the Fire and Rescue Division to receive such grant funds for this purpose and perform all acts in connection with the application as may be required. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 6 to 0 on April 7, 1999. cleri~TB~f~d ;f Coun'l'y- g~pe~wi/sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution - Application for Dry Hydrant Grants SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Request authority to apply for Virginia Department of FOrestry Dry Hydrant Grants STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Pumphrey, Crow AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: .,BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Forestry and the Department of Fire Programs provide Dry Hydrant grants for energy conservation and improved fire protection. The program requires that the applicant's governing body authorize the filing of an application. The County Department of Fire/Rescue would like authorization to apply for dry hydrant grants. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution authorizing the Department of Fire/Rescue to apply for dry hydrant grants. 99.060 RESOLUTION WItEREAS, the County of Albemarle Fire and Rescue Division is seeking funding for a Dry Hydrant grant to be administered jointly by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and the Department of Forestry; and WHEREAS, the grant would enable installation of dry hydrants at suitable locations in Albemarle County for the purpose of providing water to extinguish fires at such locations. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby authorizes the filing of an application for the above-described grant and authorizes the Fire and Rescue Division to receive such grant funds for this purpose and perform all acts in connection with the application as may be required. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of__ to on April 7, 1999. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Dry Hydrant Grant Program Application Energ3r COnservation and Improved Fire Protection APPLICATION' DEADLINE: Apdl 1, 1999 Submit to: Virginia Department of Forestry Dry Hydrant Program PO Box 3758 Charlottesville, VA 22903-0758 JAMES W. GARNER S~te Fo~er 1/29/99 TO: FROM: COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Fontaine Research Park 900 Natural Resources Drive Post Office Box 3758 Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-0758 804-977-6555 (V/TDD) FAX 804-296-2369 L. F, SOUTHARD, ACTING FIRE .CHIEF DRY HYDRANT GRANTS COPIES: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROGRAMS REGIONAL FORESTERS Please find enclosed the Dry Hydrant Grant applications for 1999 - 2000 grant cycle. The installation of the dry hydrants by contractor has been very successful throughout Virginia. We intend to continue contract installation. Please note the deadlines for your applications to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Forestry is April 1, 1999. Please note that the applications have been streamlined. We hope that they will be easier to complete. We look forward to working with you and your dry hydrant projects. /gn 2.3.1 (u :/user/hydrant/99fdltr. doc) Mission: "We Protect and Develop Healthy, Sustainable Forest Resources for Virginians." o**olNTRODUCTIONo~o The Virginia Dry Hydrant Grant Program is funded by the General Assembly using funds from the Fire Programs Fund Bill. The program is administered by the Department.of Fire Programs and the Department of Forestry and is assisted by an advisory committee. o~oOBJ ECTIVESo~· Conserve energy by reducing losses from fires. Conserve energy by reducing miles traveled to shuttle water. Fund the installation of dry hydrants that otherwise would not be installed. Conserve processed domestic water supplies in urban and urbanizing areas. or*ELIGIBLE GRANTEES**** Fire departments listed with the Department of Fire Programs are eligible to apply for dry hydrant grants. ****FUNDING CRITERIA AND PROPOSAL REVIEW°*** Demonstrated Need Energy Saving Potential Cost Effectiveness High Visibility Educational Value Accessibility Needed Permits Approved o=*INELIGIBLE PROPOSALS***° The cost-share program is for dry hydrants not currently being funded, and is not intended as a substitute for existing funded projects. The focus of the program is to support new initiatives which would not otherwise occur. o=*G RANT PROCESS**** Upon approval of a dry hydrant grant, a private contractor will contact your department to schedule a site survey an installation. The hydrant connection consists of a six inch NST hYdrant head, six inch to four and one half inch adapter, and cap. A grant agreement form, site information form, certification form, and property owner agreement letter as well as any needed permits must be submitted with the proposal. If more than one grant application is submitted by a'Department, the priority must'be listed on the site information form (i.e. #1, #2, etc.). Forms may be copied locally for multiple grant requests. Date: Name of Fire Department: Address: AGREEMENT FOR DRY HYDRANT GRANT FDID #: County/City/Town: Fire Department Federal Tax I.D. Number: Name of Project Manager: Phone Numbers: Fire Station: Work: Home: Pager: The above named fire department makes application for a Dry Hydrant Grant, (Grant) administered jointly by the Virginia Department of Fire Programs and the Virginia Department of Forestry. The fire department agrees to comply with all requirements of the Grant program. 1. The fire department possesses legal authority to apply for the Grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will ensure that this Grant will be used in compliance with the '13tle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L 88-352) and in accordance with.Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national odgin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benet"rts of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives the Grant assistance and will immediately take any measure necessary to effectuate this agreement 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where 1) the pdmary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or 2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant-aided activity. 4. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with wh~)m they have family business, or other ties. 5. It will give the sponsoring agency or authorized representative access to and the right to examine ail records, books, papers, or documents related to the Grant. 6. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Grantee's sponsoring agency concerning special requirements of State and Federal law, program requirements, and other administrative requirements. 7. It will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended (29 USC 794) and all regulations, guidelines and interpretations issued pursuant thereto. It provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the partidpation in, be denied the benefits of, or subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal finandal assistance. 8. The fire department must pay all expenses that are not covered under the standard inStallation. We Understand and Accept the Above Agreement and Specifications: Any violation of the related policy & procedure within the grant process will void this agreement. Fire Department Authorized Signature Title Date Site Information County: Location of proposed dry hydrant: Type of water source: Distance from dry hydrant site to public road: Travel distance from fire station to dry hydrant:: Within two (2) square miles of: number of homes: County map indicating location of proposed sites: I--I Approved/Denied Title Date Site Location Priority: I-I 1 [~ 2 IZ] 3 Number of other structures: CERTIFICATION Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No Grant appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency related to this Grant or to any public office at .large. (2) If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of a related agency, in connection with this Grant agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying" in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agree ments) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entedng into transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31 U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Signature: Date: / / Name & Title (PRINT): Dry Hydrant Program Letter of Authorization TO: Fire Department Fire Department Address FROM: Property Owner Address Phone Number SUBJECT: Letter of Authorization to Develop and Utilize a Water Source on My Property. The Fire Department is hereby authorized to install a dry hydrant at for the purposes of providing water to extinguish fires in my community and for ~3ther uses with my permission. The Fire Department may use or test the dry hydrant at any time they deem necessary for continuity of hydrant operations. At a minimum, testing of the dry hydrant will occur once every six months. Following the installation of the dry hydrant the property will be returned to a field grade quality as provide for by the contract. This means the ground will be as smooth as possible while utilizing a backhoe, hand raking with the application of gras~ seed and straw, and hand sweeping of road sudaces. Depending on weather conditions hand raking may not eliminate all clumps of soil. Any additional reclamation work not stated above and required of the installing agency by the property owner and or fire department will be billed to the requesting party at the rate of time and materials. The installation and operation of the dry hydrant has been fully explained and I agree to all parts. Permission is hereby granted to come upon my land to install, maintain, and operate the hydrant. To revoke this permission, I will give 30 days written notice to the Fire Department. In the event the permission is revoked; all parts of the installation will be removed at the expense of the above fire department. Signature of Landowner Date I have advised the landowner of the installation procedure and utilization of the dry hydrant. Signature of Fire Representative Date 1999-2000 Dry Hydrant Grant Program Application Instructions Step 1: Locate a reliable water source in your community. Choose a location that will allow access to the future dry hydrant in all weather conditions. Evaluate the water depth to fred a minimum of 4-6 feet of water for proper placement of the dry hydrant strainer. Step 2: Discuses the benefits of the dry hydrant with the landowner. Explain the installation process. Be sure to indicate that the installation is done with a backhoe and the contractor will leave the site in a field grade quality. This means the ground will be as smooth as possible while utilizing a backhoe, hand raking with the application of grass seed and straw, and hand sweeping of hard surfaces. Step 3: Complete each section of the dry hydrant application and submit no later than April 1, 1999. A completed application will contain the following pieces of information: a. Agreement for Dry Hydrant Grant (Front) b. Site Information and Certification (Back) c. Letter of Authorization d. Any Permits Required e. Local Map Indicating Each Hydrant and Priority Step 4: Virginia Department of Forestry will notify in writing each grant recipient. Following notification the contractor will contact your department to schedule a site visit and installation. Virginia Department of Forestry Dry Hydrant Grant Program PO BOX 3758 Charlottesville, VA 22903-0758 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Revenue Sharing Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request by County to participate in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker 'g,Benish,Wade, Blank AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:/~''''''"'''/ BACKGROUND: VDOT's Revenue Sharing Prog ram provides the opportunity for the County to receive an additional $500,000 for road ~mprovements. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment of up to $1,000,000 toward improvements to the local road system. The County has participated in this Program since 1988. The recommended Capital Improvement Plan (ClP) for FY 1999-2005 allocates $400,000 for fiscal year 1999- 00. DISCUSSION: The County must formally request participation in the 1999-2000 program by April 9, 1999. Attached is a draft letter of intent to participate in the program. The funds for FY 1999-2000 would be used for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) from Route 240 to Route 684. noted previously, the draft CIP proposes participation in the Revenue Sharing Program and staff has recommended a total match amount of $400,000 in FY99-00. Staff recommends that the County request the full 000. If the total statewide requests exceed the $10 million allocated for the program, VDOT will pro-rate the to requesting localities based on the percentage overage. It is typical for the total requests to exceed allocated therefore, the County usually receives less than the full $500,000 awards (over the last eight years the has average approximately $430,000 in Revenue Sharing). Once the grants are awarded by the Transportation Board, the Board of Supervisors can then decide whether to match that full award or portion thereof. ENDATION: the County participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, requesting a total of $500,000 (to be with available County funds) for the Jarmans Gap Road improvement project and authorize the Chairman notify VDOT of our intent to participate in the program. 19.061 David P. Bov~rman Charlotte Y. Humphris Fomm~t R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMA.RI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, V'n~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 May 3,1999 Chades S. Mar~n Waiter E Perkins S~7 II. Thomas Mr. James S. Givens State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Mr. Givens: The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer and developed the attached list of eligible projects to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will Pe reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. Sincerely, Mr. Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/Ibh Attach ment Printed on recycled paper ~l'ict: Culpeper ;idency: Charlottesville aject # and UPC # Route # and Local Sh'eet Name -002-258-C501 aans Gap Rd. Total Designation of Funds FY 1999- 2000 Revenue Sharing Albemarle County ·Pagc _1_ of I County State 6 Year Pmj. Funded Project From: Res En~' Admln by Funding Spill FHWA Proposed Match Match Plan w/Rev. Shat. Length Bridge Apprvd Description of VDOT or PE I RW/ 534 Adv. !$) ($) Priority Only(Y/lq) (m!,/km) To: VPD (Y/N) (Y/N) Proposed Work County Conatr Codes Date 500,000 500,000 11 . N 1.5/2.4 From: Route 240 2118 N Y Widen, Straighten w/Curb VDOT D¢¢-01 To: Route 684 & Gutter,$W & Bike Lanes $500,000 $ 500,000 ' /kBG -FINANCIAL SERVICES, [NC. March 8, 1999 P.O. Box 8 CHURCHVILLIL MARYLAND 210'28 410-879;9918 FAX 410-835.5360 Ms. Arlene Hemandez Assistant Treasurer BOg:RD OF SUPERVISORS The Bank of New York .~ :~-: 'i'~ - 9 :~: ?'.~ '~ :~: ~ ' i ~: ,, 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hemandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of February 1999. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Sheila H. Moynihan Project Monitor /shin enclosure CC: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 (a) OF THE nv~n INSTRUCTIONS TO: ABG Financial Services, Inc. P.O. Box 8 Churchville, ~D 21028 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts. ) Charlottesville, VA 21202 Pursuant to Section 7(a)of the Deed Restrictions (the ,,D~m~% Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of TRUST DATED A~ OF A~ril 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority" ) ~ and your bank, as trustee, the ~signe~ 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 (THE "PROJECT"), that as of the date shown b~low: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The n,~mher of units in the Project occupied by lower income tenants is 15. The n,~her of units in the Project unoccupied an~ held available for Lower Income Tenants is 0. THE n,,mher of units rented and the ~her of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 51. The percentage that the n,~m~er of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total n,~mher of units in the Project is 23%. The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the ~ate hereof As of tb~ date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restriotion or in an .Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this report as of.March 5~ 1999. RIChMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A VIP~INIA limited partnership BOND PROGRAM REPORT ProperS': Location: For February 1999 Arbor Crest Apam~ents (Hydraulio Road Apts.) Project ~.. 051-35371 Charlottesville, VA Number of Units: 66 Submitted by: Community Director 1 LO,W~,R INCO, ME The following uni~ have been designated a~ "lower income' 1 4 Arbor Crest Drive 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 Drive 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 Ddve 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 Ddve Betty B. Elliott 15. 94 Arbor Crest Drive M. Eilesn Knick 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The ct~anges from previous report reflected in the above listing are: Deletions 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Mamh 6, 1~9 (Date) Total OCCUPIED: 66 Bond O~.upied: 15 Additions DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 April 1, 1999 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Board of Supervisors Meetings February 4 and March 4, 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. · A report regarding the'truss bridge on Advance Mills Road (Route 743) has been forWarded to County staff. I am prepared to discuss'this issue with the Board. The trailer park on Rio Road (Route 631) can be fenCed by the owner as the construction of the curb in this area is complete. We are reviewing the railroad overpass on Polo Grounds Road (Route 643) for full signalization on each approach. This signalization would require a power source and mounting of signal heads on the railroad structure (will need concurrence from railroad). Approximately $50,000 would need to be funded in the secondary six year plan, We recommend that consideration be given to realigning Route 643 with a standard width railroad overpass as traffic continues to increase on this road. We anticipate that full signalization at the current overpass can be installed this year. Grassmere Road (Route 679) is not eligible for the Pave in Place Program. Adequate right of way is 'available to make the standard improvements of 18 foot width, 2 foot shoulders and 3 foot ditches. The Department has completed a speed study on Porter's Road (Route 627) in Esmont to consider reducing the 35 mph speed zone to 25 mph. Two radar monitoring stations were established and the results follow: One station was located 0.51 mi. north of Route 6. The 85th percentile speed was 41 mph and the 50th percentile speed Was 39 mph. Again, one hundred percent of motorists were traveling over 25 mph. These results were consistent with previous studies conducted at this location (see next page). TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Ms. Ella Carey Board of Supervisors' Meetings February 4 & March 4, 1999 Page 2 April 1, 1999 Study Date Location 85th%lie 50th%lie % Exceeding 25 mph 1/10/90 North of Route 6 42 mph 38 mph 90% South of Route 6 39 mph 35 mph 95% 8/21/96 North of Route 6 45 mph 39 mph 98% As you can see, a reduced speed limit would receive very little or no compliance if installed. By copy of this letter, we are advising the Police Department of this situation. We do not recommend a reduction in speed at this time. The Department has reviewed a request to consider closing the passing zone on Earlysville Road (Route 743 near Sunny Boy Gardens) between Routes 606 and 660. This passing zone is 1,578 feet long (which meets standards for a 45 mph speed limit). There are only two private entrances along this section - one is located approximately 350 feet from the southern end and the other (Haley, Chisholm, Morris/Sunny boy Gardens) is located midway of the passing zone. This is the only passing zone on Route 743 from Charlottesville to Earlysville - a distance of approximately 8 miles. Accident data reveal that four (4) accidents have been recorded within the passing zone from January 1, 1996, to January 1, 1999. Two were single vehicle fixed object and two were rear-end accidents. None was attributable to a passing maneuver. It is important to recognize that on every two lane/two-way roadway we need to provide as much passing as possible. Motorists who are unable to pass for long stretches of roadway quickly become impatient or frustrated. Unless there is documented evidence that passing is a hazard, we are reluctant to close the passing zone at this location. This is based upon the fact that closing a passing zone with this amount of sight distance would only create a hazardous condition. Past experience has shown that closing a passing zone does not necessarily provide the protection that might be expected, and does not prevent motorists from passing when they perceive that sight distance is available for a safe passing maneuver. As you know, motorists entering the main flow of traffic from a side road have the responsibility to yield the right of way , Based upon the information presented above, it is not recommended that this passing zone be closed at this time. We have conducted a review for an All-Way-Stop Condition (AWSC) at Grassmere Road (Route 679) and Morgantown Road (Route 738). During our analysiS, a traffic count was conducted on February 2, 1999, to obtain information regarding the requested AWSC. The major traffic flow was recorded on Morgantown Road (Route 738) with an ADT of 662 vpd. The minor flow was Grassmere Road (Route 679) with an ADT of 85 vpd. Based upon those figures and the accident history of two accidents between Ms. Ella Carey Board of Supervisors' Meetings February 4 and March 4, 1999 Page 3 April 1, 1999 January 1, 1994, and October 31, 1998, this location does not qualify for the installation of All-Way-Stop signs as outlined in the MUTCD. Stop signs are used to improve the safety of an intersection by assigning right of way. Compliance with the signs is essential for their effectiveness. Several studies have shown that where unjustified Stop signs are installed there is a Iow level of compliance. In those cases, motorists were observed either rolling or running the signs. When drivers do not believe that a restrictive sign accurately reflects conditions, they often disregard the sign. · During the field investigation, it came to our attention that the Curve Warning signs on each approach to Route 679 are installed with a supplemental advisory speed plate of 30 mph. According to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), any advisory speed plate of 30 mph or less should be installed with Turn Warning signs. We are, therefore, installing modified Turn Curve signs as indicated on the attached sketch. The Department has reviewed Northfield Road (Route 1427) and Old Brook Road (Route 652) for restriping of the pavement to include bike lanes. Edgelines will be installed on Northfield Road to allow for a 4' paved shoulder, which will serve as a shared pedestrian/bike facility. Because of the variable width pavement and parking along Old Brook Road, the Department does not recommend the installation of edgelines. Carrsbrook Drive (Route 854) will be restriped with wide center and edge lines to better delineate the travelway. A design public hearing for the Mclntire Extension project has been scheduled for Thursday, May 27, 1999, from 5 pm to 8 pm at Charlottesville High SchOol. If you have any questions, I will be prepared to discuss transportation matters at the April 7, 1999, Board meeting. Sincerely, AGT/smk Attachment Cc: Chief John Miller ~dA g99- lOV From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~,~ ~' Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~'J/~~ Reading List for April 7, 1999 April I, 1999 March 13, 1996 June 18, 1997 July 2, t997 December I 0, 1997 March 23, 1998 June t7, 1998 August 19, 1998 December 9, 1998 February 17, 1999 Mr. Martin Ms. Humphris pages t-16 (Item #8) - Ms. Humphris pages 16 (Item #8) - end - Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Mr. Perkins Mr. Bowerman Mr. Martin Mr. Marshall Ms. Thomas /ewc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Advance Mills Bridge, Rt. 743 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To discuss issues of long term maintenance of the bridge over the N. Fork Rivanna River in Advance Mills STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Route 743 bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River in Advance Mills is in need of general maintenance. Maintenance needs include: a new deck, repainting, rail replacement, repair of a cracked abutment, and placement of rip- rap to address scouring problems around a support pier. Due to the estimated cost and life expectancy of these repairs ($175,000 - $200,000 and 10-15 years), and the age and design of this structure, the Board is requested to provide VDOT direction as to how to address the long term future of this structure. Attached are notes provided by the Resident Engineer which summarize the facts and major issues related to this project. DISCUSSION: There are three possible options to address the condition of the bridge: 1. Continue general repair and maintenance of the existing structure to maintain the existing of the bridge and setting; 2. Construction of a new bridge (full replacement), either on a new alignment or the existing alignment. Various design option are available, except for steel truss construction (like the existing structure); 3. Closure of bridge for vehicular use with no replacement structure. This would eliminate vehicular access on Route 743 through Advance Mills. This option has not been given serious consideration at this time. The Advance Mills area ~s not in or near an area designated for future development. Therefore, significant traffic increases are not anticipated other than possible increases in through traffic patterns from Greene County. The bridge currently has a weight limit of 8 tons which, is insufficient for some emergency and construction vehicles. Repair of the existing bridge would not significantly increase the weight limit. The bridge itself has been surveyed for historic register eligibility. The County's Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages (October '1995) states that the bridge is "one of the best-preserved metal truss bridges in Albemarle County (p.6-21)." It, along with the dam, mill race, and old Country store make up the focal point of the Advance Mills community. Over time there has been concern expressed by residents of the community about the possible loss of the bridge and potential changes to the area from new bridge construction. RECOMMENDATION: VDOT recommends that a new structure be considered in this case, due to the need for continual expensive maintenance, possibly over an ever shortening time frame. However, County Planning staff recommends that maintenance be undertaken at this point in time to shore up the structure and extend its useful life. This will serve to maintain structure and the general character of the area for an additional 10 to 15 additional years. At that time, the County and VDOT can re- evaluate condition of the bridge and traffic demands to determine the best solution. 99.055 ADVANCE MILLS BRIDGE ROUTE 743 ALBEMARLE COUNTY A meeting was held on Wednesday, January 27, 1999, to discuss the shod and long-term needs of the metal truss bridge (structure no. 6104) on Route 743 at Advance Mills. The following persons were in attendance: Wayne Cilimberg David Benish Juan Wade Bill Mawyer Jack Kelsey Bill Mills Richard Caywood Brent Sprinkel Angela Tucker The County indicated that no approved or potential growth in the area is expected, as this section of the County is too remote. It was noted, however, that "through" traffic from Greene County might continue to increase. The current traffic counts for roads in the Advance Mills area are as follows: Route 743 (Advance Mills Road): From Route 664 to Route 641 From Route 641 to Greene County line 738 vpd (94) 608 vpd (92) Route 641 (Frays Mills Road): From Route 743 to Route 606 From Route 606 to Route 29 393 vpd (92) 992 vpd (92) A brief history of the truss bridge was reviewed. · The bridge was constructed in 1943 and has a current posting of 8 tons. · Last time the bridge was painted was approximately 20 years ago. A new.deck was placed in 1987. Current deck condition is fair. Some section loss due to traffic. · Minor repairs needed due to vehicle collisions (rail, etc.) · Supplemented hanger bars in truss with cables in 1992. · Scour problems around west pier. Needs rip rap now. Crack in old rubble abutment on the east side (by store). Approximate 2" open crack below water level. Repair may be expensive. · General maintenance needs to include new deck, remove loose paint and apply new top coat, place rip rap, repair abutment crack, replace damaged sections of rail. Various options for full replacement were discussed. These included the following: New location - New bridge could be built without disruption to traffic. Would improve general alignment of secondary road approaches. Existing location - Approximate 1 year road closure needed for new construction. General design would be steel girder, concrete deck (2-lane; 26'-28'), open rail structure similar to bridge on Route 660 at reservoir. An approximate total cost will be $750,000. The bridge will have no load limit and will have a life span of approximately 70 years. No truss design is recommended because initial construction costs and long-term maintenan ce costs are higher. A timber structure is not a viable option at any location because of the span length required. In lieu of reconstruction, bridge will need to be fixed to be kept in service an additional 10 - 15 years. This option is viable if there is no increase in traffic, no major accidents or floods. At an approximate cost of $175,000 - $200,000 the following work would be required. Prepare and paint bridge by removing loose paint and applying new top coat. · Place rip rap at west pier to abate scour. · Repair crack in abutment on east side of bridge. · Replace damaged rail on bridge · Replace timberdeck This work would likely require that the road be closed to traffic for approximately 2 months. Funding for reconstruction would occur through the secondary six year plan. Approximately $100,000 for the short-term maintenance needs would be funded from the secondary six year plan. The Department recommends that a new structure be considered. If this new structure should be placed in the 'existing location, a design waiver would be required for keeping to the existing substandard alignment. Southern Environmental Law Center 5 April 1999 201 West Main St., Suite 14 Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065 804-977-4090 Fax 804-977-1483 selcva@selcva.org J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Re: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF THE TRAIL AT JACK JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL Dear Mr. Witt~ofski: These comments are submitted for the record by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of The Piedmont Environmental Council and the Sierra Club. We filed a law suit in federal district court on behalf of these groups on 8 January 1998 on the grounds that proceeding with the proposed Bypass would violate both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. One of the section 4(f) violations set forth in the complaint concerns FHWA's and VDOT's failure to undertake a 4(f) evaluation of the recreational facilities in the Albemarle County High School complex. The complex consists of three schools: the high school, Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School. The recreational facilities associated with these schools are an important component of the Albemarle County park system and are widely used by the general public. In response to the complaint that we filed, the FHWA and the Virginia Secretary of Transportation initially denied that the school recreational facilities constituted section 4(f) property. Subsequently, the FHWA reversed its position with respect to the jaCk Jouett cross-country trail, conceding that the trail does constitute section 4(f) property and directing VDOT to conduct a section 4(f) analysis. The draft section 4(f) evaluation at issue is completely inadequate and illegal. First, the draft evaluation is legally insufficient because'it narrowly considers only the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the Caro~as Office: 137 East ~anklin St., Suite 404 · Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3628 · 919-967-1450 De~ Sou~ O~ce: TM Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Sui~ 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900 100% recycled paper school complex that also fall within section 4(f) protection. Second, the proposed bypass will severely impair the use of the trail, contrary to the conclusion in the draft evaluation. Third, the assumption that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed bypass is completely flawed given that the evaluation relies on information that is no longer valid. Finally, the suggested mitigation measures would be completely ineffective in minimizing harm to the Jack Jouett trail. Rather, use of the trail as well as use of the other school rec~aational .facilities will be irreparably and substantially impaired if the proposed Route 29 Bypass is constructed. These points are elaborated below. THE DRAFT EVALUATION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY CONSIDERS ONLY THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND COMPLETELY IGNORES ALL OF THE OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX THAT ALSO FALL ~WITHIN SECTION 4(f) PROTECTION. The draft 4(f) evaluation looks only at the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the school complex that serve the public as well. These inclUde the jogging and walking trails at Greer Elementary School as well as the athletic playing fields at Greer and Jack Jouett Middle School. Thus, the statement on page 8 of the draft evaluation that information provided by the County indicates that there are no other~ existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project is erroneous. Rather, the County has made clear that all of the recreational facilities in the school complex, including the trails at Greer Elementary School and the school playing fields, constitute a significant community resource. As the Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation stated in a 3 November 1998 letter to the VDOT Project Manager: "The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, is designated a district park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a major resource." 3 November 1'998 Letter, Response to Question 4. Later in this letter, the Director clearly underscored the significance of all the recreational facilities in the school complex: "The athletic fields, trails, and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the county are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. All the facilities at this complex are used extensively." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 8. Thus all of the recreational facilities in the school complex are protected under section (4), and would be substantially impaired as a result of the bypass. The bypass would come within very close proximity to the athletic fields at Jack Jouett Middle School and Greet Elementary School, and thus would adversely affect those facilities in addition to the impacts on the Jack Jouett trail. THE PROPOSED BYPASS WOULD SEVERELY IMPACT THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND THE OTHER SECTION 4(f) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX. As a preliminary matter, I would also note that the draft evaluation implicitly attempts to minimize the importance of the trail~ by asserting several times in the document that the trail was never mentioned as an issue until recently. Such attempt is completely inappropriate and irrelevant, given FHWA's admission that the trail constitutes section 4(f) property, and thus, by definition, is significant for public recreational use. Moreover, such assertions are disingenuous. The County's documents establish their unequivocal policy that county school recreational facilities are and have been an important component of the County's park and recreational facilities for the public. Moreover, it is important to note that VDOT has yet to finalize the design for the bypass, and the information provided thus far has not been sufficiently clear for the community to determine the exact path of the bypass. Finally, the assertion in the draft evaluation that, once the 4(f) issue was brought to their attention through the lawsuit, an investigation was undertaken is self-serving. In fact, after we filed the Complaint in January 1998, FHWA and VDOT initially denied the allegations in the complaint that the school recreational facilities constitute section 4(f) property. It was only some several months later that the FHWA reversed, its position and conceded that the Jack Jouett trail constitutes section 4(f) property. Turning to the assessment of impacts on the trail set forth in the draft evaluation, the drafters erroneously conclude that the impacts of the bypass would be negligible or could be minimized. The draft evaluation concedes, however, that noise levels on the Jack Jouett trail would be substantially increased and would exceed FHWA's noise abatement criterion. Draft at 10. Notwithstanding, the drafters conclude that noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail on the grounds that "serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there." Draft at 19. Likewise, the drafters assert that the recreational uses of walking and jogging "are not dependent on low noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be)." The drafters also conclude that the bypass would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, asserting that the trail "has no particularly spectacular views of unusual natural or manmade features." Id. Such assertions are completely unfounded. The bypass, with its corresponding increased noise and pollution levels, in fact will severely impact the use and enjoyment of the trail and the other school recreational facilities in the complex. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated existing noise level of 48dBA. In addition, the proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing toward the trails and school playing fields. Moreover, one of the most attractive features of the trails and recreational facilities is the serenity, beauty, and tranquility of the setting, which will be destroyed by the bypass. For example, the trail area beside tributary "K" of the Rivanna River will be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet. This area, which is situated in a narrow valley, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County with its babbling brook, surrounding forest, and dramatic rock outcroppings. The bypass would thus destroy those attributes of the school recreational facilities that make them attractive to the general public. As the Director of the County Parks and Recreation stated in the November 1998 letter to the VDOT Project Manager: "[T]he bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails' system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 12. Further, the Director noted the importance of siting the recreational facilities in a tranquil and wooded setting as follows: "The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area." Id., Response to Question 3. He further stated: "Due to the extensive development of the surroUnding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource." Id., Response to Question 3. Finally, the assertions mn the draft evaluation that the aesthetic impacts are insignificant and that the use of the trails does not depend on low noise conditions are contrary to the FHWA's own section 4(f) regulations. These regulations provide that a constructive use occurs when the projected~ increase in noise levels attributable to the pro]ect interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by section 4(f). The regulation gives as an example the "enjoyment of an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes." 23 C.F.R. section 771.135(p) (4) (i). Further, the regulation provides that the proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by section 4(f), "where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource." Id. ~ 771.135(p) (4) (ii). The regulation states that substantial visual impairment occurs where the proximity of the project "substantially detracts from the setting of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting." Id. ~ 771.135(p) (4) (ii) . The recreational facilities in the school complex fit precisely within the examples set forth in the regulations. THE ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED BYPASS IS INCORRECT AND UNFOUNDED. Based on the analysis in the 1990 draft EIS and 1993 Final EIS, the draft 4(f) evaluation concludes that the bypass (identified as Alternative 10 in the EIS documents) poses the least harm to section 4(f) properties. This finding in the EIS documents was certainly questionable at the time it was made, as 5 CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITION, INC. Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson National Park Service Philadelphia Support Office, 3~d Floor U.S. Customs House 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 March 31, 1999 Re: Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation of Trails at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County, VA Dear Ms. Wilkerson: We understand that the Department of the Interior will provide comments on the referenced Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation (D4fE) according to the Code of Federal Regulations. Without knowledge of the area and without the past history of the Route 29 Bypass (Alternative 10) through Albemarle County, it could be quite difficult to make meaningful comments on this issue. I hope the following comments will be helpful as you prepare comments for the Department of the Interior. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition, Inc. (CATCO) has been very involved with the bypass issue for the past 10 years and is well aware of the area involved in this issue. Overall, we find this Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation to be completely self-serving to VDOT's purposes. The document contains many errors and omissions. In an effort to help the Park Service make an objective analysis and meaningful comment on this matter, we provide here some background information and list some of our concerns. Contrary to the D4fE report, there ARE other prudent and feasible alternatives, namely, the Base Case (widen a segment of Route 29 from 4 to 8 lanes) with grade separated interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road. This would satisfy the primary purpose of the DEIS and the FEIS (p.I-1). The total through traffic constitutes less than 10 % of the total traffic at Hydraulic Road and Route 29, according to the DEIS, thus indicating essentially a local traffic problem. The level of service on Route 29 without the grade separated interchanges would be "F", but would be an "A" with grade separated interchanges, with or without the bypass. At much less expense ($180-200 million for the 6.2 mile long bypass and $45 million for the grade separated interchanges), this option is very much a prudent and feasible alternative with no Section 4(0 involvement. Also, the comments of various agencies quoted in the FEIS showed that the Department of Forestry., the State Water Control Board, the Department of the Army and the Piedmont Environmental Council all recommended the Base Case with grade separated interchanges. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of the Interior recommended Alternative 9, an Expressway, similar to and on the same footprint as but more elaborate than, the Base Case with grade separated interchanges. The FEIS stated that: 1. "No threatened or endangered species would be affected by any of the Candidate Build Alternates." (p. IV-34) 2. "...the selected Alternative takes no Agricultural/Forestal District land." (p. IV-36) 3. "The selected alternative ...Alternative 10, will have no Section 4(f) impacts." (p. VIII-l) The above three statements are all false. The federally endangered James spinymussel was found nearby in the drainage path of nine tributaries crossed by Alternative 10. Alternative 10 has apparently always passed through an Agriculturat/Forestal district. VDOT evidently incorrectly assumed that, when one landowner removed his property from the Ivy Creek Agricultural/Forestal District, all of the other property in the Ivy Creek AgriculturalfForestal District in the bypass corridor was also removed. However, the adjacentlandowner did not and does not intend to remove his property from this District. Alternative 10 has apparently always passed through potential Section 4(f) property, namely, the jogging trails and recreation property at issue in the D4fE and belonging to the Albemarle County School Board. VDOT is trying to blame Albemarle County for VDOT's own oversight, because it is VDOT's responsibility to perform a proper Environmental Impact Statement and identify ALL impacts of the proposed bypass. (Also, the fact that the Brookhill House, located in the Northern terminus area, is eligible for Historic designation and thus Section 4(0 protection, was not discovered by VDOT until late 1996, two years at, er the Environmental Assessment study of the termini modifications.) The Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT have broken agreements and resolutions of 1990 and 1991 on transportation improvements projects. The 3ra paragraph of page 3 of the D4fE implies an image of a satisfied and harmonious local and regional planning process. Such is not the case. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization has banned federal construction funds for the bypass from the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for each of the past three years, until specified conditions (water quality, noise, etc.) requiring CTB/VDOT action are met. The D4fE states (p. 4, 1 st paragraph) that, "only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school property, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource." This, apparently, is also incorrect because the "Section 4(0 Policy Paper" indicates that, "the entire property and not just the portion of the property being used for the project" be considered in the significance determination. This implies that the adjacent school playing fields, also heavily used by the public and less than 150 feet from the north bound lane of the proposed bypass, would also come under the Section 4(f) definition and would be subject to a "constructive use" argument. The D4fE completely evades and ignores this aspect. The D4fE (p. 7, last paragraph) omits the fact that one of the trails' eastern portion access points is near Albemarle High School and omits the fact that ample parking is available behind Jack Jouett Middle School. This parking lot is much closer to several of the trailheads than the parking lots described in the D4fE. The D4fE (p. 8, 2na paragraph) does not address the fact that additional areas of the complex trail system behind the nearby Greer Elementary School are impacted by the project. The D4fE (p. 8, #9) makes a very subjective and self-serving conclusion that "There are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." This School Board property is about 217 acres and the bypass is to take 14.5 acres. Except for the three school buildings, the playing fields and parking areas, most of the remaining acreage is covered with dense woods, mainly hardwoods which have not been harvested in recent times. The trails wind through these woods, up and down the hilly terrain. In several deep valleys, very active streams and the trails wind through massive' rock outcroppings. The valleys are particularly quiet and serene, yet still close and available to the most densely populated area of the urban region of Albemarle County. Indeed, the characteristics of this trail are extremely unusual and attractive for such an urban area. The peace and tranquillity of the trails are a magnet for those desiring to get away from today's hectic pace. The D4fE (p. 10, 1~t paragraph) discusses the noise impact on the trails. The VDOT noise study indicated that the project will create noise levels for near portions of the trail which exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria of 20 dBA or more, compared to the estimated background noise level of 48 dBA. For comparison, a fright train 100 feet away produces a noise level of approximately 72 dBA. Historically, VDOT characterizes sound levels in units of equivalent decibels (dBA) or the average sound level over a one-hour period. This method works for most applications such as large numbers of vehicles continuously passing by. However, this method does not indicate the maximum or peak sound level, which is generally 10 to 15 dB above the value noted with the averaging technique. For example, according to the VDOT noise consultant, the noise from a single tractor trailer truck will produce a maximum or peak noise level that is 13 to 14 dBA greater than the average noise level calculated. This means that, whereas the VDOT noise study indicates that an average noise level of 68 dBA would be experienced 131 feet away from the centerline of the nearest lane, the peak noise level experienced from each heavy truck passing by would be about 82 dBA, lasting for several seconds. This noise level is approximately equivalent to a pneumatic drill operating 50 feet away. This would be a very significant and extreme change in noise level from an estimated background today of 48 dBA. In addition, an independent noise study by a recognized authority, indicated that the actual noise levels for the bypass were much higher than the VDOT noise report presented, because VDOT used minimal assumptions throughout, instead of the maximum assumptions required by federal regulations, so as to minimize the impacts. Moreover, if the Route 29 Corridor is transformed into an interstate-like facility in the future, as VDOT desires, then an additional 19,000 vehicles per day have been predicted to be diverted to Route 29 from 1-81 and 1-95, including many large tractor trailer trucks. This would severely escalate the noise level problem. This projected additional traffic was not mentioned or studied in the noise analysis. The D4fE (p. 10, 2na paragraph) discusses the air quality impact on the trails. The bypass is currently situated west of the trails and most of the winds bl0w from the west. Thus, the traffic exhaust fumes will be blowing toward and across the trails and also across the playing fields toward the Greer and Jack Jouett Schools. The impact on air quality from the projected increase in traffic due to an upgraded Route 29 Corridor, as mentioned above, was not considered. The D4fE (p. 10, last paragraph) discusses the visual impact on the trails. It is very difficult to even grasp the concept that, "To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated..." No landscaping plan could possibly lessen the severe effects ora four lane limited access highway passing through a previously serene and peaceful wooded area. The D4fE (p. 11 and 14) discusses Avoidance Alternatives A and B. These two avoidance alternatives entail a westward shift of the bypass at the trail area of 150 feet and 85 feet respectively. Both increase the encroachment onto the Agricultural/Forestal District and also create new Section 4(f) impacts on the Schlesinger Farm historic site. This historic site is approximately 2000 feet south of the trail area. The bypass design plans of January 1997 indicate that the distance of the bypass right of way line to the Schlesinger property line is about 47 feet at the nearest point, which is 2000 feet from the trail area. Without detailed maps, not shown in the D4fE, it is difficult to understand how the roadway could be shifted 150 feet (Alternative A) or 85 feet (Alternative B) at the trail area and cause a much greater than 47 feet shift of the alignment 2000 feet south, thus creating new 4(0 involvements on the Schlesinger historic site. When the bypass alignment was shifted less than 100 feet at Stillhouse Mountain in 1996 to avoid the Section 4(0 Faulconer property, 50 foot high retaining walls in a 50 foot deep cut were placed in the design to eliminate the sloped edges of the original design. This was apparently a simple design issue then, and retaining walls for either a cut or a fill section could easily avoid a new Section 4(0 involvement with the Schlesinger property in this trails issue. Other problems are still present with these two avoidance alternatives, but this points out VDOT's lack of thorough analysis in design possibilities. The D4fE (p. 19) discusses the noise issue under "constructive use" and again makes a simplistic statement that, "Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute ora trail ..." This statement is ridiculous because it is, indeed, the serenity, peacefulness and tranquillity of the trails that act as a magnet which attracts the public. Serenity is not a significant attribute for jogging or walking beside a busy highway, but it is probably the main characteristic of a trail through quiet woods. The D4fE (p. 19) mentions the aesthetics under "constructive use" and again makes a simplistic statement that, "Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particular spectacular views or unusual natural or manmade features." This statement is also ridiculous, for all the reasons given above. Webster's Dictionary defines aesthetics as: "perceptive, esp. by feeling. The branch of philosophy dealing with the beautiful, chiefly with respect to theories of its essential character, tests by which it may be judged, and its relation to the human mind; also the branch of psychology treating the sensations and emotions..." There is simply no way that a nearby limited access four lane high speed highway would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which today has the characteristics one perceives, feels and expects to experience on a serene, wooded walking/ jogging trail. This letter has attempted to give some background for the Draft Section 4(0 Evaluation and provide our responses to most of the many very serious inaccuracies and omissions in this document. Enclosed are some photos showing typical views of the trails area. I hope that these photographs and this information are helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, George R. Lade, President 107 Tally Ho Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 971-5714 CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITION, INC. April 5, 1999 Ms. Cynthia Wilkerson National Park Service Philadelphia Support Office, 3ra Floor U.S. Customs House 200 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Re~ Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of Trails at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County, VA. Dear Ms. Wilkerson: Enclosed are some of the documents related to my letter of March 31, 1999. These documents may be of interest concerning your comments on the Draf~ Section 4(f) Evaluation of trails at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County, VA. 1. FEIS, dated January 20, 1993 (p. I-1), stating Project Purpose and Need; 2. FEIS Table IV-3, showing that the level of service on Route 29 without the grade separated interchanges would be "F", but would be an "A" with grade separated interchanges, with or without the bypass; 3. FEIS Table 11-4 showing a cost summary of various alternatives; 4. VDOT Primary System Improvement Six-Year Programs FY '92 through FY '04, a compilation showing costs for the proposed Route 29 Bypass; 5. FEIS Table III-1 showing the Route 29 at Hydraulic Road intersection traffic in vehicles trips per day determined from origin-destination studies; 6. FEIS (p. VII-5), presenting an introduction of various federal, state and local agencies' comments on the DEIS of 1990; 7. FEIS (2 p.), comments from Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; 8. FEIS (1 p.), comments 9. FEIS (2 p.), comments 10. FEIS (2 p.), comments 11. FEIS (5 p.), comments 12. FEIS (3 p.), comments 13. 14. from Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Forestry; from Commonwealth of Virginia, State Water Control Board; from Department of the Army; from the Piedmont Environmental Council; from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III; FEIS (3 p.), comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior; and, DEIS, Technical Memorandum dated March 1990 "Traffic and Transportation Analysis" - Appendix C, Table 2.4, showing Year 2010 Triangular Trip Table indicating 2204 vehicles per day of through traffic on U.S. Route 29. I apologize for not including these documents in my earlier letter and hope that this information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. S~h,erely' ~eorge'K. Larie, President 107 Tally Ho Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 971-5714 FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F State Project No. 6029-002-122, PE 100 Virginia Department of Transportation U.S. ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF CHARLOTrESVIT.I.R AND ALBEMARI.F. COUNTY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SECTION 4(0/106 EVALUATION Submitted .Pursuant To: 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c), 23 U.S.C. 128(a) 49 U.S.C. 303(c), and 16 U.S.C. 470(0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 'Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation Dat~ of ,~pproval Date of Approval Chilf E~nt of Transportation Director, Office of Planning and Program Development Federal Highway Administration, Region 3 The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Earl T. Robb Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: (804) 7864559 Mr. James M. T~_~mlin Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 400 N. Eighth Street Richmond, Virginia 23240 Phone: (804) 771-2371 The proposed project is to provide relief from currem and anticipated traffic congestion on the Route 29 north corridor in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. A Base Case alternative with eight corridor construction alternatives have been considered in addition to Mass Transit and Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives. An alternative has been selected following circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a Location Public Hearing, and a full consideration' of comments received. I. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED A. PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the Route 29 Corridor Study is to,. find a solution to existing and future traffic congestion on a three-mile section of U.S. Route 29 between U.S. Route 250 Bypas~ an~d the South Fork Rivanna River in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County north of Charlottesville. A secondary purpose of the study is to complete a gap in ongoing improvements to U.S. Route 29 through central Virginia. South of this section of Route 29 the existing U.S. 29/U.S. Route 250 Bypass is a four-lane limited-access facility with currently adequate capacity. At the northern end, the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivarma River is a four-lane facility with adequate capacity for traffic projected through the year 2010. North of the bridge, development along Route 29 is more limited and traffic congestion is not now a problem, though it will be necessary to limit additional access to the road to prevent future traffic congestion. For most of its length through Virginia, Route 29 is a four-lane divided highway, with controlled access features on some sections. It connects the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area with other urbanized areas through central Virginia such as Warrenton, Culpeper, Lynchburg, and Danville. The section of Route 29 Under study is an uncontrolled access, four-lane-divided highway with'a grass median and at-grade signalized intersections. This facility provides direct access to the numerous businesses located along both sides of the road. This section of Route 29 is the most heavily travelle~d highway in the Charlottesville area, carrying twice as much traffic as Interstate Route 64. It is the only major north-south highway serving the expanding development north of Charlottesville and surrounding portions of Albemarle County. Route 29 is the only major route connecting this development with other population and employment centers in Charlottesville. It also is the only route connecting points north of Charlottesville with points south of Charlottesville. The growing development, increasing traffic volumes, and the inadequate capacity of the existing road are causing increasing congestion as this section of Route 29 has become overloaded. Other factors also contribute to the congestion. For example, there are no bus turnouts along the existing route and buses stopping to pick up or discharge passengers interfere with traffic flow while they are stopped. Also, trucks (two-axle, four tire and larger) currently constitute apprOximately 17 percent of the total traffic. Tractor trailers make up approximat&ly three percent of the total traffic. I-1 .I 4adternativ~ 1987 Existing 2010 T~BLE IV-3 ARTERIAL LEVELS OF SERVICE On altemativ~ On Existing Route 29 Grade Separations All Intersections at Rio, Hydraulic, at (}rade (}r~enbrier B (~ mph) P (<10 MPH) B (30 mph) Alt. 6 B (~fl7mph) P (<10 mph) B (29 mph) Alt. 6B B (~.57mph) F (<10 mph) A (32 mph) Alt. 7 C (~.54mph) F (< 10 mph) A (32 mph) Alt. 7A C (~.54mph) F (<I0 mph) A (31 mph) Alt. 9 F. rpr~ Lane~ Service Lanes Alt. 10 D (~42mph) F (< 10mph) A (~.60mph) F (< 10 mph), A (33 mph) Alt. 11 A (~.60mph) F (<10 mph) A (33 mph) Alt. 12 A (.~.60mph) F (<10 mph) A (33 mph) NOTES: CATCO NOTE: See page I-5 for definitions of levels of service. Alternative 9 (Expressway Alternative) would provide the worst level of servic~ of all of the build alternatives. · Western bypass alternatives (10, 11, & 12), along with implementation of the Base Case with grade-separated interchanges, would provide the best levels of service and operatln~ speeds for both through traffic and local traffic. The Level Of Service (LOS) is determined from procedures found in VDOT's "Highway Capacity Manual (1985)." This manual states, for this class of highway, that LOS "A" is designated for traffic moving at average speeds of >30 mph. As noted in the FEIS chart above, for 30 mph, the LOS on existing Route 29 for the year 2010 Base Case with no Bypass but with grade separated interchanges should be an "A" instead of a "B." -! Alternative Base Case 6B 7 7A 9 10 11 12 Base Case w/Interchanges Note: TABLE 11.4 COST SUMMARY . cost Comtrucfion ~ Right of Way Utili_ty Total $ 17,584 $ 8,487 $ 343 $ 26,414 103,287 10,078 927 114,292 108,304 9,802 836 118,942 87,732 12,095 745 100,572 89,395 8,1'02 567 98,064 133,859 23,618 3,684 161,161 77,523 44,466 1,317 123,306 - 98,338 16,890 1,359 116,587 180,315 16,064 2,228 198,607 32,304 14,441 2,829 49,574 Costs of Candidate Build Alternatives do not include Base Case Improvements. " PRIMARY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT SIX-YEAR PROGRAMS --" FY'92'THRU '04 FUNDING HIS~'ORY OI~ CHARLOTTESVILLE ROUTE 29 BYPASS -- ALTERNATIVE fO '' ..au~CTeO AU.OCAT,O.* PE 1.000 CN ~ .,i, ctjml Aloe. PI~ 6.000 1992-1993 (po4,1iMPE&RW) RW 7.600 1993-1994 (perblPE&RW) RW 15~92 TO 21~2 700 15~92 -- -- 2.000 2.000 2.000 ~0O 1.000 -- 4.692 ...... · o.ooo (I}1.ooo (1~1.ooo (I~ t.ooo PE 6.000 1994-1995 RWplem;ferhanl. CN -- W,Moc. st~p KeJ~ons) TO 21~)2 2.7OO 12.592 -- ~ -- 2.00O 2.0OO gOO 1.000 ' -- ~ ' 4.692 · 5.000 (1) 1.000 (1) 1.000 PE 6.000 RW (3! 33.953 199~1~; (1~ & I~V~vy) CH -- TO 29~q~3 (2) 8.429 24.524 .... 2.320 1~t00 1~0 3,747 4.080 5.360 2.187 · S.000 ' 2.000 ° 1J)00 ,. . (1) 2.000 ,, (1 ) M0 . PE (2) 11.006 I~V 23.842 I 4.360 8.510 6~.074 TO 118.079 ,10'0728.g06 9~.821 ..... ° 1.0001'300 1.~0 3.747 4.0~0I~(1) 1.000 P~ (2) 11.011 iccfumJM/und~ RVV 27.~60 1997-'1998 Iowmd CN 129.857 11.972 W ~,Joc. ,, conslndon TO 16~.42e ' g.90G 143.070 ...... 1.8~0 3.747 4.0~0 4.3~0 8.510 I0.000 10~.323 [1) 2.eeo (1) 5~0o0 ICC~M m' ~ ~N 2?.448 .M.b-UCt~n [O 168.472 ' 9.906 137.064 ....... 3.747 I 4 4.3~0 8.510 10.000 10~X)0 [1) 7.680 ,,, , NOI~: Funclin~lSo~rC~S: SlmleF~nds * °NitOMI,,Hi~ .~t~mF~xis * (l)STPSlelewlde~loce~fl~,, (2)lnctxles3.721Sverd~)R~ ., (3~lnctJdes10.11?~r~ ,, For 1996-07: I~endRWtul~l~zle41n 199e-9~. 6-~.PbnProjecte4Moc~llomecc~edby2001~2~xccns~actQn. I~S7(16~MIc4.1cc(li~) For1997-~ TO(IMiICMI)IslsW)diS16~.428. 8ul~lsOoesnMlnclu411111omisMeecl~W.4.427M~dNo~hGr~jvliC~neclor~dl.4.474. soectMI'M11ckd~OoT'Ig87-G~TMIdCOsI-$177.329. C~TCO For 199&g9:. lO(lOel/COsl)lsItledl$ ¶68.472. BM~lsdoes~ollncl~le I1 homesM~purch~s44- 4.4271n4NQr~GnX~4S~C(mneCt~COSl- 4.474. I~ectuM'oMcIMV~oT'19(JS-~~To~. Co41- $177.373; ~15~6 TAB! ~. HI-1 VEHIC~ ~N. TRIPS PF_21 DAY 1987 Total Through Percent Vehicles Vehicles r. Thr. o.l!~ Route 29 at North Fork Rivanna Autos 23,638 Trucks (va,,,c're~"1 2.338 Total 25,976 ' 4,143 18% 792 34%, 4,935. 19% Route 29 at Hydraulic Road Autos 46,117 Trucks ('r~^~'~. \ \ .r~^~t.~I 3.525 Total 49,642 4,143 792 22% 4,935 10% *******************************`************************************************************************ From Table III-1 in the FEIS as shown above, the Modified Table IH-1 given below can be obtained. Modified Table 111-1 TRAFFIC ORIGIN - DESTINATION INFORMATION Route 29 Traffic Type o,f Traffic at Hydraulic Road Intersection Heavy truck traffic as a percentage of total traffic 7 % Through heavy truck traffic as a percentage of total, traffic 1.6 % Through heavyltmCk ~,~ as a percentage of total through traffic 16 % Through traffic of alljtypes, as a percentage oft0tal traffic 9.9 % Local heavy truck traffic as a percentage of total hmvy truck uaffi¢ 78 % This chart dramatically demonstrates that most (78 %) of the heavy truck traffic has local destinations and therefore will continue to travel the congested Route 29 North corridor. While the "through" heavy truck traffic comprises about 16% of the total "through" traffic, it accounts for only 1.6% of the total traffic. 6. Location Public Hearing The formal Locahon Public Hearing was held in Charlottesville over three days, June 26, 27 and 28, 1990. For the first two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, June 26 and 27, the hearing was held at the Days Hotel, 1901 Emmet Street, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The format on these two days included a slide show shown continuously in one room, displays and exhibits set up for viewing and discussion in an adjacent room, and an area screened off where citizens could provide their statements to a stenographer for the official Public Hearing Record. In the area of the display matetials, members of the study team and other VDOT staff were present at all times to explain the material, answer questions from the public and discuss the project. The third day of the Location Public Hearing, Thursday, June 28, the hearing was held at the Performing Arts Center at Charlottesville High School, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The same exhibits and displays as shown the first two days were available in the lobby. Speakers were given the opportun/ty to present their testimony for the official Public Hearing record in the auditotium, where testimony and statements were recorded by a court reporter. Stenographers were also available on this day to take individual statements from people in an area in the lobby. A Location Public Hearing transcript consisting of two volumes of written comments and one volume of oral comments was compiled. All comments received at the hearing during the official comment period which ended August 15, 1990, are included in the transcript. Section D of this chapter presents public hearing comments and responses. The number of people attending the heating was estimated to be 115 on June 8, 180 on June 27, and 350 on June 28. ~A;ENCY COMMENTS AND KESPONS~ The Route 29 DEIS was widely distributed to appropriate federal, state and local agencies. The agencies are listed in Chapter VI. This section provides copies of the agency comments on the DEIS. The comments are reprinted on the following pages in chronological order. Each agency letter is reprinted in a reduced size on the left side of the page. Specific comments that warrant a response are indicated and numbered in the left hand margin. The responses to these numbered comments are provided on the tight half of the page. AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON DRAFT EIS 5/22/90 5/2219o 5/23/9o 6/05/90 6/07/90 × 6/19/90 w" 6/22/90 ~ 6/28/90 ,/' 7/02/90 x 7/03/90 v 7/03/90 7/09/90 ~" 7/09/90 v/ 7/12/90 x 7/14/90 t~ 7/17/90 ~-~ 7/18/90 7/31/90 8/10-90 8/13/90 8/14/90 8/14/90 8/15/90 8/16/90 8/28/9o 8/31/90 lO/25/9o Virginia Department of Aviation Virginia Outdoors Foundation Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Virginia Department of Historic Resources Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Virginia Department of Forestry Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control Virginia State Water Control Board U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation U.S. Army Corps of En~neers, NOrfolk District Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy Piedmont Environmental Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ~,..'U.S, Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary City of Charlottesville, City Council Resolution County of Albemarle, Office of Board of Supervisors Virginia Department of Historic Resources ~..--Virginia Marine Resources Co~missiou University of Virginia Piedmont Environmental Council Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Council on the Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service COMMONWEALTH o[ VIR~JNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANO CONSUMER SERVICES June 19, 1990 Hr. R.L. Hundley Enviromaental Engineer Department og Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond. Virginia ~3219. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 6/19/90 No pesticide use is anticipated in connection with construction or maintenance of the project, ilerbicides and growth retardants may be used for vegetation maintenance on the completed facility. Ali chemical use will be performed by applicators certified by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Scrviccs in accordance with the specifications for eac~ product used. 2. As shown in Table IV-21, the selected alternative takes fewer acres of prime farmland soils than any of the other alternatives except the Expressway (Alternative 9). Thc se~lectcd a. lternative has been refined so that il will not impact any ~ Agdcultural/Fo~mtal District. RE: Route 29 Corridor Study -- Draft Enviromaenta[ Impact Statement and Section 4(f)/106 Evaluation Your Project 6029-002-122, VEIO0 Dear Hr. Hundtey: This agency has reviewed the captioned draft environmental impact statement {EIS) and has the following comments: I. Pesticides The draft ElS contains no discussion regarding the use of pesticides in connection v/th the project that is the subject o£ the ElS. This agency suggests that the ElS disclose whether Pesticides will be used In connection with the construction or maintenance o£ the project. I£ pesticides are expected to be used, this agency sngqests that a plan be formulated for such pesticide use which would emphasize the uae of the leant toxic Pesticides that are appropriate for the project and employment of any oi the principles o£ integrated pest management that would be effective. If your agency has adopted a policy regarding pesticide use in alt of its projects, Including a summary of that policy in environmental impact statements and a discussion oE ~hether the project in question can be operated in accordance with that policy would be an acceptable alternative. 2. Endangered Species The ElS states that the list maintained by the Virginia ' Natural Heritage Program has been consulted to d any specimens of rare'~L ..... -- . etermine whether · · ~-~ea~enea or enQan ered s - ~x,st within the areas that woul ~-, .~ ..... ~ec~s are know~ alternatives .~- +~_ ,,. .... d___ :-&~eu ~y the proposed · Si..~ ~,m v~g~nzs ~a~urai Heritage Program's list includes specimens of those species under the protection of this agency, this agency has no comment at this time regarding this matter· 3. Agricultural Lan¢ls and Agricultural/Forests] Districts · he ElS discloses that significant amounts o~ prime agricultural land wotl[d be a~fected by several of the proposed ... alternatives, This aoency encourage8 your agency to give gre{~er Weight in choosing a pre~erred alternative to those alternatives that would not involve the loss of Significant amounts of prime agricultural land, Several of the proposed alternatives could also affect existing agricultural/forestal districts by channeling growth to those districts, Thia a~g~ncy encouraa~_e ~ive_oreater weiqht in chooa~n ~ et[ect on a~.~m.~ _~°uta .a e ess or no grlc~u~/~estal ~r~c~: ....... or n( I apprecia~e ~e op~r~uni~y ~o co~en~ on ~he ElS. Sincerely, 8ark D. Iubbs June 28, 1990 ! ENVIRONMENTAl' ~.'V. J COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY P. O. I~,~ Q Chark~l~v,lle. VA ~ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 6/28190 The widening of Route 29 and building of three overpasses alone would not meet the objectives of thc project, one of which is to provide a rome for through traffic to bypass the congested sections of Route 29. As can be seen from Table IV-20, the selected alternative takes fewer acres of high-value habitat than any alternative except thc Expressway, Alternative 9. Gl R. L Hundley Environmental Engineer Department of Transportation 1401 East Brond Street Richmond, Virginia 2.3219 Project: 6029-002-122,PE!00 Dear Mr. Hundley: It is evident that a great deal of work and study have gone into the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Department of Forestry does not have the manpower to properly evalu~,te the many alternatives in this study. As a general statement we would favor the alternative that would cause the least amount of disturbance to the environment and still accomplish the major objectives of the project. it appears that the wideninl~ of 29 and creating three ovec-pas~es at RiO, Hydraulict and Greenbrier' Drive with no additional bv-o~ss, either east or west, may fit the bill. We will '~e glad to do our usual evaluation of t~ effect~ to forest products when an aiternative has been selected. If additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us. Vev/truly yours, Brian W. Eden District Forester cc:. Griffin Coffman ..' COMMONWEALTH o[ ST/frE g;ATER CONTROL 2111 ,%'. Jury 3. 1990 Hr. R. L. Hundley Environmental Engineer Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23H9 RE: Oraft [IS - Route 29 Corrtdor Study Dear Hr. Hundiey: We have reviewed referenced document and the Associated Aquatic Resources and Hater Quality Technical Hemorandum a~d have the following comments: Section iii-F-? 'Wetlands#, Page !Ii-13, first paragraph. The sentence 'Ail three must be present for an area to be wetlands.' is incorrect. Generally speaking, all three parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydrtc soil, add positive hydrologic indicators must be present. However, in certain exceptional and rare cases, field indicators of one or more of the parameters could be missing, yet the area is still a wetland. Special procedures are required to determine the status of certain disturbed or 'problem area' wetlands. We suggest that the sentence be revised to read: 'Generally, all three parameters mqst he present for an area to be wetlands.' Section lV-A "Traffic Impacts', Page IV~3. The last two paragraphs of this section discuss ~rade separated fn~,rs~cttp~s gh~-RgJ~_~9. Its Inclusion In this section is problematfcT[. This prop~saT is apparently not considered part of the Base Case 'alternative, nor as part of Alternative g (expressway). It ts addressed Iff none of the other impact sections. However, according to the information given, ~hts U_ternattve would s~lve the traffic oroblees that nnn. of t~e o~her alterniTiVt~can soive~ #e suqqest J;bat this p.rooosal b_~ d*c~ssed at t~e level.of detail that the ~ther alternatives*have been accordea. - VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD 7/3/90 The Federal Manual for identi .fyjfl_g and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1989) states that 'The three technical criteria specified [hydrophydc vegetation, hydric Mils, and wetland hydrology] arc mandatory and must all be met for an are&to be |denlificd as wetland.' Where.one or nmre of thc criteria arc not readily apparent in disturbed or problem area wetlands, special procedures are provided for determining their presence. The sentence in Section liI.F, has been revised as suggested. The grade separated intersections along Route 29 ere included in the selected alternative. They are discussed in Section (3, the description of the selected alternative in Chapter ]], and the effects of their construction have been inchded in thc comparison of the alternatives throughout the FEIS. The pattern and extent of new development will depend more on local economic. land use,' and development policies than on any of thc highway alternatives. Albemarle County has been vigorous in its attempts to channel mint new development into designated growlh areas. None of the alternatives would be expected to require or promote any additional related road improvements beyond dmso shown in the CATS regional transportation, plan and included in the future highway network assumed for the traffic analyds. During thc project design phase, provision will be made for management of highway runoff in accordance with Commonwealth of Virginia Storm Water Management Regulations. The selected alternative does not include a crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Tbe road names commonly used in the text arc shown in Figure I-3. Levels of service for the Candidate Build Alternatives arc as follows: ~Alternative ~ Alt. 6 B (>_57 MPtl) Alt. 6B B (>57 UPIt) Alt. 7 C (~54 MPH) AIL ?A C (Z54 MPH) Alt. 9 Express Lanes AIL: lO D (2:42 MPH) F (< lO M Page 2 Section IV-V-3, "Land Use', Page !¥o8. The last paragraph discusses the potential for additional development being encouraged as a result of highway construction. Such development can be considered a secondary impact of the project. This document should assess the extent that this development is likely to occur with and without each alternative. One aspect of this should be a discussion of the additional road Improvements promoted by each alternative. Section iV-H-l, 'Streams and #atersheds', Page IV-27. commend VDOT for including the FHWA predictive procedures to estimate pollutant loadings to waters adjacent to highways due to highway use. During the project destgn phase, we would expect VOOT to develop specific Information sho~lng that long term highway runoff will be adequately managed to minimize pollutant loading to streams. This is particularly Important tn the case of any crossings of the South Fork Rfvanna River Reservoir. Figure ll-2. It would help the reader if this figure included tho road names commonly used in tho text, such as Hydraulic Road, as well as those improvements Identified tn the Base Case Alternative, such as tho ffeadow Creek Parkway. Figures IV-! through IV-g. Values for 'Level of Service' should be shown on these figures to Improve understanding. it Is suggested that much of the air, noise, and energy technical Information be placed in a-separate technical document in order to simplify tho £IS. A synopsis of this technical Information could be provided in the primary document. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, '-'~. E. Easllck Environmental Programs'Analyst Office of Water Resources #anagement ed203/sph ~lternn'live ~ Alt. I1 A (~.60 MPH) Alt. 12 A (.~.60 MPli) This information was included in thc broehuro distributed at the Public Hearing. June 26-28. 1990. Addilional technical documentation on air quality and noise was presented in separate technical memoranda, it wn~ felt that tho information presented in the DEIS was necessa~ to discuss adequately the impacts of the alternatives. DEPARTHENT OF THE ARHY July 9. 199o Permits Section Mr. R. L. Bundley~ Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Hundley: This is in response to your letter of Hay 17, 1990, requesting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D£IS) prepared for the Virginia Department of ?ransportatton's (VDOT) proposed extension of and/or conversion to an expressway for Route 29 tn the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County (6029-002-122, PE100). AS indicated In our*November 9t 1988 letter commenting on this pro~ect (copy enclosed)~ the Norfolk District of the Cozps of Engineers is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of documents. He have the following comments and recommendations to make concerning the DEIS. Our regulations state that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse Impact on the aquatic ecosystem~ so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse consequences. Practicability can be dependent upon a number of factors, such as engineering constraints, cost~ safety, etc. Our regulations state that an alternative Is considered practicable if It is available and capable of being accomplished after taking ioto consideration cost, existing technologg~ and logistics in light of overall proiect purposes. If the activity associated ~lth a discharge (proposed for ~atets of the United States) does not require access o~ proximity to or siting within ~aters of the United States to fulfill its basic purpose, practicable alternatives that do not involve waters of the United States are presumed to be available, unless clearly stated otherwise. In providing this Information, applicants should be aware that the Corps will establish and evaluate practicable alternatives in terms of the project's basic purpose. Nhlle we ~111 fully co, sider the applicant's views and information regarding the pro~ect~s purpose and the existence of practicable alternatives, this review must be performed without undue deference to the applicant's ~lshes. This project has been assessed in terms of meeting the needs and purpose ~or ~hlch it is designed while at the same time avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. I variety of public interest factors, such as traffic pressures~ socioeconomic Issues (particularly displacements)~ noise, and historical sites are given considerable weight In our evaluation of a pro,etC. However, the Corps' primary concern in reviewing the protect is the impact to ~etlands located within the project corridor. Based on the information provided~ a relatively small area of wetlands ~111 be Impacted by each o£ the alternatives. In our 1988 letter, we requested that ~etland delineation data sheets be provided to the Corps ~ith the DEIS. As we stated, you should submit the data sheets both for areas determined to be wetlands and areas determined to be non~etlands. In particular, we need to review data sheets for any areas determined to contain hydric soils, but which you determined were nonwetlands on the basis plants or hydrology. ~e ~ould appreciate the submittal of these sheets at the earliest possible date, In ter~s of the natural envlronment~ Alternative 9 appears to be the preferable alignment, because it ~111 have minimal or no impact on wetlands, streams, reservoirs, floodplains, forested land~ or wildlife habitat. In addltion~ It minimizes noise impacts~ will not displace any families, and ~Ill not impact any archaeological sites, parks, or historic sites. Furthermore, it is stated on page IV-2 that It carries the maximum traffic compared to other alternatives. Hovever, Table IV-3 Indicates that the addition of grade- separated interchanges dramatically improves the levels-of-service (LOS) for ail of the alternatives except Alternative ~pparently, grade-separated interchanges cannot be incorporated into the design of Alternative 9~ since it is an expressway along the existing alignment whereas the other alternatives are bypasses. If you determine that grade-separated Interchanges must be constructed in order for your project to serve Its basic purpose~ and that Alternative 9 ~111 not serve that purpose,~e recommend .~hat the Base_Case. be ~ven 9onsideratiop. -separations at the lnterchanqesr the ~ase Cas~ ~ovides traffic i~provements'simila£ ~p ~he ~a.ndid&te §ulld Alternatives, ~hlle ~'inlmlzln~ other lmoac~ (wetlands~ cultural resources~ ~{splacements~ reservoirs, etc.). Alternative 6 impacts the greatest area of ~etlands (1.5 acres). However, It is stated on page IV-28 that the riverine wetland which accounts for 1.3 acres of this impact could be avoided altogether by a slight shift in the alignment. If you select Alternative 6~ ~e recommend that that minor shift in the alignment be included in the design. ®! Wetland impact minimization measures should be incorporated into the design of your selected alignment. In addition to / alignment shifts such as that described above, you should investigate including each of the following in the final design of/ the roadway: reduced fill slopes, elimination or reduction of the/ median, bridging, and/or retaining walls. Considering the relatively samll wetland impacts of the alternatives, it may be determined that these minimization measures are not practicable due to structural, logistical, or economic constraints. That information should be provided in the FEIS. Compensatory mitigation must be provided for any wetland impacts which reamin after the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures. The PEIS should identify potential mitigation sites and include a plan for the construction of the site, showing grades and the planting scheme. preferred to other structures for stream Bridges are crossings. Our standard bridge coma~nts (copy enclosed) should be incorporated. Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please telephone Ms. Alice Alien-Grimes at (804) 441-721g. You should also se~d the wetland delineation data sheets to her attention. Sincerely, William B. Poore, Jr. Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosures Copies Furnished (w/o encl) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ~hite Marsh Environmental Protection'Agency, Philadelphia National Marine Fisheries Service, Oxford Virginia Marine Resources Commission, NewpOrt News 4o U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NORFOLK DISTRICT 7/9/90 The wetland delincatlon data sheets were submitted lo the Corps of Engineers in While Alternative 9 would have the fewest natural environment impacts, it would have other drawbacks, including impacts to businesses and residents along Route 29 and considerable disruption during constmcgon, it would not fully meet the needs of the projecL and would not provide sadsfacto~ service for local traffic on Route 29. The express and local lanes under Alternative 9 would car~/more traffic than Alternative I0 and Route 29 combined because Alternative 9 would divert morc traffic from the Meadowcreek Parkway. Alternative 10 plus Meadowcreek and Route 29 would car~/more north-south Iraflic than Alternative 9 plus Meadowcreck. The Base Case with grade separated interchanges is included as a part of thc selected alternative, it alone, however, will not meet the needs of the project, which include providing a means for through traffic on Roule 29 to bypass the congested and highly developed area between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River. For this reason, a future bypass on Ihe Alternative 10 alignment is also a part of the selected alternative. Alternative 6 was not included as a part of the sglected alternative. The bypass on the Alternative 10 alignment is a Ioug-range part of the selected alternative and final design will not take place for a number of years. At this point it is premature to determine specific design measures to minimize wetland impacts, such as reduced fill slopes, reducing the median, or retaining walk. These measures will be considered during Ihe phase design. Again. since construction of the Alternative 10 bypass, portion'of the selecled alternative is a long-range project, it is prematuare at this time to identify mitigation sites and provide a detailed mitigation plan. When more detailed design is begun, VDOT will begin to identify and acquire potential mitigation sites as necessary. The Corps of Engineers' standard bridge comments will he considered and incorporated wherever possible in bridge design for this project.  PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ~-~ Main Slre~. Box 460, Warrenton. Virgin~ ~186/~-~23~/F~ Re: Route ~ Corridor Study Thank ~au (o~ sending the P[edmQnt ~nv~onme~tal Counci.] CODy o( ~he ~mV ~990, D~]S pertm~ning ~o the Route 89 S~udy, 4n~ (o~ inviting ~ts commen~ on the DEZS. The extension o~ ~tme (or ~ubl[C Ca~ent to August ZS, t990, ts 4ZGO 4Du~ec~4~ed. P~C st4~ hive revt,~d the DEZS 4s ~e~] ~s ~he ex~enstve SUDplemen~&] dQcumln~&~Jon contained ~n ~he techn~cl] PEC s~m(( have 4Isa revte~d both the QUIi~OflS pose~ by the 3bLat TransDottmtton Committee 4nd VDOT's mnl~ers to those questions. A memOer of our staff attended both of the uublic information sessions provided by VDOT at the Day~ Hotel In Charlottesville. at ~lll at the oublic hearing. Fl~lly~ P~C staff have ~xtensively consulted the P~C's transportation expect. ~o~eDh Passonneau. regarding the information presented in t~e DEIS. in the technical rlports and at the public information SuDDlement to this letter. The PEC bllieves that the DEIS as currently constituted rails ~o properly examine the 'no-build" alternative as required b~ Federal law. 4nd that the in~ormation contained ~ithin the D~IS is neither ·dequate. nor sufficiently orqanize~ to provide ~hose ~ho most review 4~ comment ~Don th~ document, or make decisions based ~hereon) kith a proper or fair comparison of all Although the PEC appreciates the opportunity given members of the Public to present their vieNs 4~ the 'public hearing' conducted ~v VDOT staff on June ~8. the P~C questions such 4 meeting satisfies the requirements of the Constitution of Virginia. as none of the members ~f the Commonwealth Transoortation Board charged Nith the resoonsibill~y fo~ making a final decision in this matter, Nith the exception of Mrs. Ktnchloe. ~ere present during the hearing. Full rlvie~ ~ ~ll of the Board's members of ~he extensive transcript of this "hearing" is. in the ooinion gf the PEC. neither Itkely.'nor an adequate substitute for attenaaKe of a majority of the members a~ the hearing. PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 7/14/90 i. ~e no build allemadve was Included In the analysis presented in lbo DI~[$. Dala for lite no build or Base Case was included wber~ approprinle in Ihe tables in lite DEIS Iha/compared Impacts of Ihe al/erualfves. The tables in Ihe FEIS have been revised Io include additional data on Ihe Base OLT~ with grade-separated inicrchangns. 2. The Iranscr¥1 of the public bearing was made nvaflnble to Ihe members of Ihe Commonwealth Tra~portailoo Board. VDOT staff ~ kept thc Board members informed on the project and on the fssoes..The poblfc bearing was conducted in accordanc~ with all applicable federal and stat~ requfr~menu. 3. ~t/s project has followed the Federal Highway Admfu~radon's environmental procedures and h conststent with the guidance provWed in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.aA. It b Jn compliance with the Natfomd Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ami with the FltWA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771), as well as all federal and statu rcquirumcnts for public and agency comment and courdinadon. 4. The ihse Case Improvements on Routa 29 will IM built Initially with/M interchanges to be added at · later date. The Meadowcreck Parkway h a part of the adoptad rqfonal transportation plan. and it was included in the transportation network used in the traffic analyzfs. Construction of tlw M~o-eek Parkway is consistent with th~ selected alternative. The Rio Ro~d Conoector b also s part of the adopted reglo,II IramiMrtailon plan. it cnn be deleted from the plan with the agracmeut of Clmrlottesville and Ail)emetic County acting tlu'ough Ihe Metropofilan Planning ~tfon (MI'O). ,The Base Cas~ Includes only the Improvements programmed for Route 29 (widening to six lanes plus a continuous turn lane). The other roadway improvements in the regional transportation plan, including tho Meadowcreek Parkway and thc Rio Road Connector, were Jncluded in the future highway network used in lite traffic model to analyze all of the alturualives, Including the Base Case. These olher roadway improvements, however, were not a part of the Base Case. Thc Bese Case Improvements along with three grade-separated interchanges will provide an adequate level of service for Iocil traffic lo th year 2010, bug Ihe 30-mph travel speeds along Route 29 would not be adequate for througlt traffic and would not meet lite project needs of providing · means for through traffic on Route 29 tu bypass the congested area around Charlottesville. Thc assumptions and data used in the slndy ware the bnsb for the decision on tile selected alturoutive The bypass along the Altermldv~ l0 alignment ts fucluded in ol ®1 ®1 ~he P~C aisc cue·crone the conscitutionalitv oF the exemption from inaeoend3nc environmental review affarceo projects of the Department of Transportation, The PEC's Position as set forth hereafter is Posed upon reserves Chi right to cnan~e its POSition when and if information occur a true "no-build' alternative is provided and when and if further information is Made available in the DEIB to facilitate comparison Of the alternatives. R~ute 29 (qi,x la·tag wi~ two continuous ~iq~t,~Fn ldneS)o -~-~C[udin~ Grade separated ilnter~hantee at Rio. Greenbrier and Hydraulic Roao~. 2. The PEC SUPPorts the construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway utilizing the parkway design being developed by the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle. Because construction of this facility appears necessary to the proper functioning of Route 2~ in the future, PEC advocates the funding of construction of this facility with State and Federa~ primary road funds, rather than out of secondary and urban funds. 3. The PEC does not SU~DOrt the construction of "Rio Road Connector" because it does not appear from the data provided to have a significant effect upon Route ~?. and because it ~ould reouire the taking of land ~roM two public parks. Alternatives ~hich would avoid the parkland could Pe very environmentally damaging due to the topography in the area. and could intrude upon the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District currently under consideration and which has been under consideration since prior to the commencement of the current Route 29 study.: ~. The P~C takes no position on other elements of the "Base Case" included in the Charlottesville/Albemarle ?ransoortation Study. We recognize that none of the eleMente of the 'Base Case~ imprOVements beyond those proposed on ROUte itself have been considered by this study, including the Meadewcreek Parkway and the Rio Road Connector. 5. From the data provided it le apparent that the 'Base Case" Improvements to Route 29, the three grade separated intercnangeeo and the Meadowcreek Parkway offer a system of roads which will provide an adeouace level of service for arterial traffic on Route 29 tn the year 2010. Representatives of CPM·is also stated that the three grade separated interchanges can De designed to ~rovide acceotaole intersection levels of service in the selected alteruative as a long-range pro~ect, to be constructed when ~uture traffic demands require and economic conditions permit. If traffic grows faster than projected, it will be con·nutted more quickly, and if traffic grows slower than projected, it will be constructed at · later time. 10. The selected alteruativ~ which ifldud~ the bypass Alternative l0 as well as grade- separaled interdumges on Route 29, will provide an medal level of service 'A' on Route 29. 11. The truvel speeds along Route 29 with tho Base Case and grade-separated interchanges would be acceptable for an urban medal street, but not for a major state, vide medal route such as Route 29. 12. Additional through traffic connects between Route 29 and Interstate 64 or Route 250, and this tra~c would abe use a bypass route. In ndditiou, much of the local and regional Iruffic would also use · bypass OF congested Route 29. 13. Al another PoMt along Route 29° a 12M~m would reduce traffic by 26.9 percent. Even the 16.4 percent reduction, at the Mt congested point, would make considerable difference h fmprovJflf traffic flow. 14. The cost of Alternative 10 is'estimated to be $123,306,000. Thc Bas ;.~tso~../with grade-separated interchanges is estimated to 15. The Allen·live 10 bypass, Included as I part oltlb° selected alternative, would have fewer overall impacts than the other bypa. alternatives. 16. Alternative 10 goes through Je~ of tho reservoir watershed than any of the other wesleru bypass alton·terns. 17. The pattern and mens of develOPment will depend moro on'local economics and on local land use and development Ix)lides time on any o/the highway alleruatives. Albenmdo County has been vigorous in its attempb to channel most pow development into designated poMb areas. 18. This comment apparently refers tu Iha Washington Bypass Study, conducted jointly by the Federal ilighway Administration, tho Virginia Department OF Transportelion and the Maryland Depertman! OF Tmmportation. This study looked al alternatives for · major regional highway Improvement in a study aree of more than $,l~J0 sqnare miles. It analyzed potential dm·ge· la develOPment patterns and estimated changes in population and land mo on a county by county ~)asis. Tho Scope o( the Washington Oypass $ludy is apl comparable m tho route 29 study, and Ibis type of analysis is not appropriate for Route 29. Since the Roure 29 project will not alter regional transport·liorl paltere~ il is apl expected to result iff nmiceablo changes irt populMion or employment ia Chad·tm·yello, Albemarle County or any adjoining counties. ~r. fi. L. Hunaie¥ oage tnree It is understood that the adeouacv of this network ~eoenos upon tho validity 0¢ certain funGammncal assumoilons aOouC land use 4nd adopt the construction of the ,remainder of roads recommended in the Charlottesville/Albemarle ?ransoortation StuOv. It is apparent that gDO? is SkeDtiCal about the validity of these assumptions and that VDOT anticipates more traffic demand than the study ~roJects. Thl P£C believes that it is just as reasonable to guess that future demand will be lower than indicated using these assu~Otians as it is to guess that future demand Mil! bi higher than indicated using these assu,~tians. Tho P£C believes that recommendations to and decisions of Chi COmmonwealth Transportation Board in this matter must only bi mags upon the Oasis of the assumptions upon which this S3,O000000 study was conducted. If those assumptions are not considered reliable chon a new D£IS should be developed based upon other logically derived assumptions. To make decisions or recommendations based upon assumptions not included ~ithin the parameters of this statutortly mandated study Drocess would throN into further question the vaIldity of any final decision in this matter by the Commonwealth Transportation-Board. b. The P[C opposes the construction of any of the eastern or western "by-pass" alternatives considered in the DEIS for the following roasons~ a. The data sho~s that none of the by-pass alternatives will provide an acceptable levi] of service on Route b. Tho cLara_shuNs that construction of any of the _bY~oas~ alternatives w~l~only Improve by o~e ~rade ,,~hl already ~cceptabil ~e~,ls of service ~hieved ~by the construction of th~ "Base Case" ~Doether ~ith the trade ~eDarate~ interchanges ~t~, GFeenbrter and Hydraulic Roads. -- c. The data show~ that.north-south throug~ traffic continuing on Route ~q beyond the Charlottesville 4rea ~dtng traffic de~tnea to or fro* the Lynchburg 4nd areas) amounts 'to less than 2qO~ ~Jcles ~er day, or ~ess than ~ of t~tal Route ~9 traffic projected ~r the year 2010. d. The data ~hoN~ that the most effective DOSS reduces Route 29 traffic at ~t5 ~ost congested point by on)v e. The data ~ho~s that the least expensive by- pass alternative (includi~ the cost of necessary 'Base Case" lmorovementsJ ~il] exceed S180,000.~0, 19. 21. U.~. Rouie 29 is a major part of t~ State Medal System designated by Iho Virgiaia General As.~mbly. Thc slate bas made extensive ioveslmants in improving Roule 29 and in bypassing tho mnst mng~ted areas. Wilh plans nearing completion for a bypass at Lynchbur& Chodottesdlle will renmin as tho principal bOlllene~k on Route 29 between 166 and d~ Naflh CKolinl line. Alternatlvo 9. tho ezpremvay, would provide a margimdly acceptabk Iii of service on the express ~ ~d ~ unao:eptable level of sen'ice on the sen~o ~ Tho expn~way wouM provldo a marginal level of sendce "l:r on tho express lanes and an unacceplablo level of sen, Ice "F' on Iho local lanes. To provide a valid comparison with th~ bypass alternatives, tho tame aiteda for levels of raw,co were applied lo the expressway tl~ough lanes as to tho bypas.~A. Alternative 10 and tho Bas~ Case wiib Interchanges are estimated to co~t a Iol~l of approximately $1'/3 million wh'le Alternativo 9 alono is estimated to bit approximately $161 ndllion. Tho adjustments would include additional turning and through lanes, which would . increase tho cost of tho expressway and its impacts upon adjacent businesses. Even with these adjustments, tho through lanes wouM operate at only a marginal level of sei-4ce and Ihoy could not be e~d to accommodato additional future traffic Increases. -. ~r, R. -o Hundie~ oage dour f. [~ audition co the cpsc of engineering, right of wav and construction, the by-pass ~lternattves will nave substantial negative i~pacts upon e~isting residential Ji-eas far removeo from any major road, and upon rural land including farmland, forestlana ano wildlife habitat. g. All of the western by-passes will pass through the watershed of the ~rimary water.supply for the County 4nd City. All of this data, chronicled through hundreds of pages of the D£1S and technical reports, provide the basis for the PECks opposition to the bY-Pass alternatives, These alternatives are simol~ are not cost effective, In audit:on to the forego:ng concerns, the P£C greatly concerned thac construction of any of the alternatives ~ll] DrOmot Inappropriate development patterns in what Albemarle County has for over twenty years designated in its Comprehensive Plan as Rural, In spite of the DEIS assert]on that the ]and use impacts of the by-Pass alternatives can be effectively controlled by the County through its zoning ordinance, the history of the law of land use is to the contrary. Courts are generally sympathetic co the rezoning requests of lando,ners ~ose property has been divided by new roadS, Courts hearing such cases are likely to consider local regulations which deny such landowners the:right to use their land for other than rural uses to be i'nvalid upon a number of grounds,' Localities have no control over such decisions, and once made, they set a pattern of use · virtually impossible)to control through further restrictive zoning, Information about the imDact of the 'car~idate build alternatives" on surrounding land use should be included DEIS, as it ;s understood has been done tn studies of the *Outer Beitway' in Northern Virginia, ?, The PEt opposes the construction of any ne~ facility in the Rou~e ~ corridor ~ose primary effect is to facilitate north-south through traffic, The data sho~s t~at of the''candidate build alternatives," including by-passes and an expressway, have such an effect and do little to improve local conditions, Such facilities are not Justified b~ current or projected traffic volumeS, as reported by the DEIS and technical reports, Furthermore, development no~ occuring In the Route corridor north of the Charlottesville area; the unlimited access to Route ;~; and the geometry of the south bound lanes of substantial section~ of Noute ~ south of GainesvJlle make Route ~ unsuitable as a major link between Maryland and North Carolina. . . M~. R. L. Hundie¥ Doge five 8. If VOOT determines ~o construct a non-stuD through ~acilitv in the Char!otte~villM area tn SPite of the failure of ~he Route ~9 study to provide Justification For such a Project. the FEC believes that this facility should be Alternate ~. the expressway. Our reasons for ~akinq this position are based upon the bata provided and arm as ~ollows: a, The expressway is less environmentally damaging than any of the by-pass alternatives. b. The expressway takes ,~o residences and will not r~sult in the construction of a new road in the vicinity of any residences ~l~ich are not now situated proximate to a major road. c, The expressway ~ilt take no farmland, no forestland, a~d no land from any subdivision, d, The expressway does not pass through the watersheds of any public drinking water impou~ments. e, The expressway has no impact upon structures eligible for the National Register nor does l~ have an impact upon any archaeological Sites, f, The expressway takes fewer Ousinesses than any of t~e Dy-bass alternatives, g, The expressway takes ~B~ acres less right of ~ay than the shortest by-pass alternative, h, The expressway ~ill increase decibel level~ alonh Route ~ by no more.than ~ decibels over those projected to result along ~oute ~ in the event of construction of the "Sase. Case,' This is ,less than the noise lmbact of any of the by-goss alternatives which ~ould in many lecatlons increase decibel levels by more than'lO decibels in residential areas, i, ~he expressway provides 'through traffic and local commuter traffic with a facility ~d~lch has no stop llqhts and which ls ~OX faster than the "Base Case" with the three lnterchar~ies,' Using the standards applied to the level of service analysis of the "Sase Case,' the express lanes provide a level of service "A,' according to C~msis representatives, J. The exp~ess~a~ Is the only "candidate build alternative" g~oviding an improvement to the existing interchange of Route ~9 and the ~/~50 Sy-pass, interchanges at ~ts northern and southern ~lrminii than anv of the by-pass 4)ternatlvll. ®1 l. T'~e expressNay will cpsc ~$9,')00,000 [eSS tha~' the network Of improvements necessary for m. T: e expressway ts I~ less costly per served than the cheat, est by-pass alternative. "F" on its local lan~s due to congestion at the Rio and Hydraulic Road intersections. :c appears from Further analysis undertaken by $oseoh Passonneau that these intersections may operate at acceptable service levels with only minor adjustments in the Proposed design. Passonneau will provide a separate report on this matter. If the local lane intersections of the e~oresswa¥ at Rio and Hydraulic Roads can be made to function at acceptable service levels, then ~e-expressway is cl~a~ly superior to all of the by-pass alternatives in each pT the ~ategories of--analysis ~rovided in the OEIS. A(though ,An apparent shortage of construction funds makes it unlikely that any of the "candidate build alternatives" Niil be built In th~ near future, the PEC urges that any improvements to Route e~ ,itself be designed to allow construction of the expressw&y ir) the future. Again. thank you for .giving the Piedmon't £nvironmentat Council the opportunity to comment on this project. Robert ~. ~ennis. el UNITED STATES ENV1RON&~NT~L II~OlOIl iii ~lt I~.lnu! Building I~h#lldiIDhht. Pll~llyl~iflMI tgi0? ,JUL givJ Sion ~dminl~trator federal ltig~way ~dmintstrator *o0 ~. ~-lghth Street Richmond. Virginia 23240 Re.* Route 29, City of Charlottesville Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia Dear Hr. Tu~lin: Zn accordance with the National Environmental Policy AcC and Section log of the Clean Air Act, EP& has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement IDe-ISl for the above-referenced project. We have rated tan project ~ on EPA's racing scale, a copy of which is enclosed for your~l-nformatica. Our rating is based on the potential for I~e alternatives to impact farmland, forestal and agricultural preserve areas, wildlife habitat, and water quality, as veil as, potential residential and business displacements. Tl~e follo~ing cements are provided for your consideration in r,~e Final Envirormental I~oact Statement (FEIS). Its stated in the D~-IS (IV-l), the principal objective o! this project is to ease traffic congestion along Route 29 north of Charlottesville. However, baaed on ~e infor~ation presented in S~21on IV of the DEIS, ~Be pro~s~ c~idate build al~er~tves will ~t relieve the traffic congestion probl~ without const~ction of grade se~rat~ interc~es at Rio, Hydraulic, and Greenbrier Roads. Since tan pro~s~ build alternatives would not improve ~e Level of Service of Rou~e 29, we ~estion t~e ne~ for a ~lghway on a ne~ allerest. Z~ a~ars ~at Alterna~ive 9 would satisfy ~e ne~ of t~e proJ~ ~ veil as ~y of ~he al~e~tives on a n~ ThI DEIS states that Alternatives. 6, 6B, 7, and 7A follOw the general location of the programmed Neadowcreek Parkvay. The Headowcreelc Parlcvay and the RiO Road/Route 250 Bypass Connector are included as part of the Base Case or No-build alternative. Since the lteadovcreek alignment is already included in the base case analysis, evaluating alternatives 6, 6B, 7, and 7A, may be redUndant. The DEIS should clearly shay the portions of the U.S. I/NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 7/17/90 l. The selected alternative, which includes three grade-separated Interchanges along Route 29, will provide s satisfactory level of seodcu on Route 29. Alternative 9 would grade separate tho cxprus lanes on Routs 29, but tho intersections of tho service lanes with the cross streets would be at grade and would not operate at an acceptable level of sendce. Alternative 9 would also cause adverse impacts to the businesses and residences along Route 29 and would cause serious disruption to Iraffic during construction. 9_ The alternatives that follow the Meadowereek Park-way alignment were Included in the analysis at the request of local officials acting through the Joint Transpoflation Committee. The Meadowcreek Parkway and Rio Road Connector are included in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) plan, tho area's long-range transportation plan. In accordance with FHWA proaxlures, ali of the roads in this adopted plan were Included in the roadway network used to analyze future traffic Impacts of the alternatives. The Base Case (no-build altemagve) includes the costs and Impacts of the improvements already programmed for Route 29 (widening to six lanes plus continuous right turn lane). The roadway network used to analyze traffic impacts of the Base Case also includes all the other roads in the adopted transportation plan, but the Base Case itsel! does not include the costs and impacts of those mher roads. 3. Alternative 10, the selected bypass alignment, has less impact on the rese~vok watershed, slream emssJng~ agricultural lands, and historic properties than the other western bypass alternatives. When compared to the eastern bypass alternatives, Alternative 10 has substantially, fewer displacements and noise impacts and much better traffic service. 4. Altenmdve 9 wauM have fewer natural environmenlal impacts than tim other Candidate Bm'Id Alternatives, but it would have advenm Impacts on businesses along Ihs existing Routu 29 con~dor. II wouM not adequately meet the needs o! the project and would not provide a sadsfaelov] level o~ service for truffle on the local lanes along Route 29. $. Atmospheric concentrations of CO resulting from motor vehicle emissions from each of the proposed project alternatives were calculated using VACAL 3, a microcomputer program developed b,/Ihs Virginia Department of Transportalion ~om the Federal Highway Administration's Mobile 3/CAUNE 3 Graphic Assessment Procedure.. The Mobile 3 Emission Factors used in the VACAI. $ program were developed by the U.S. Environmental P~'otection Agency (EPA). These factors were published In EPA's 'Mobile Source Emission Factors', June, 1985. The percentages of hot and cold starts were set at normal default values: 2'/.39~ hot transient vehicle miles traveled by catalyst-equipp,'-d vehicles and 20.69b cold transient vehicle miles traveled by both catalyst and noncutaiyst vehicles. The ®1 alternatives vhich coincide vith Headovcreek Parkva¥. In addition, the traffic analysis for the vestern alternatives (10,11,1Z! include both-l~e Headovcreek Parkvay and Rio Road/Route 250 connector, as veil as, the proposed alternative align~ent (10,11,or 12}. We believe that due to the vay the analysis vas structured, it ~ay be biased against ~he eastern alternatives The vesternbypass alternatives have the potential for greater impacts on the Sou~h Fork Rlvanna River Reservoir, strew, Agricultural a~d Forestal Districts, Prime tarsi·nd, aPR National Register Historic structures. The eastern bypass alternatives have the potential for greater noise impacts, residential displace~ents, impacts on forest lands, high quality vildlife habitat and parklands. Alternative 9 minimizes impacts to natural resources and residential displacements but has r~e potential for greater business displace~ents. One of our concerns is the ultimate selection of the preferred alternative. It is EPA~s strong feeling that vhenever possible° improvements to a highvay netvork should utilize existing alignments in order to minimize environmental impacts. In light of t~e ol~ions presented in this study, F~ .recommends the selection of~ternative ~ to satisfy this goal. S{~ce none oft he bu21~alternatives relieve the traffic congestion ·long Route 29 vlthout the construction of grade separated interchanges, ye believe that klternative 9 rill satisfy the purpose and need for the project vhile linimizing the potential impacts to farmlands, kgricultural ~nd Forestal preserve areas, rater quality and comunitiea. The FKIS should brieflydescribe the types of ~odels used to predict the potential air quality lea·cts. C~LINE 4 and ~OBILE 4 are the air qualit¥~odels presently in use. The assumptions used in the ~odelS should also be provided, as veil as, the source for the existing or background air quality conditions. In qeneral a ~aJor shortcoming of air quality ~onitoring is the lack of intersection ~K~eling. ~s the resul~ of the lack of intersection ~odeltn9, the caren ~noxide concentrations ~y ~ ~deres~i~t~. Since Route 2~ has a severe proble~ vtth lntersec~ion congestion, lntera~ion~elin9 s~ould be co~pleted for ~ls proJ~. Table ~V-I$ and IV-20 indicate the types of habitats vhich are potentially impacted by the project. The FETS should explain hey the habitat types included on Table IV-19 are converted ~o the high, mediul, and lev quall~¥ ca~agories in Table ~V-~0. VACAL3 program interCom(es metcorofosjcaI conditions that wonM promote CO concentralinns. These conditions include.: · Low wind speed of one meter per second ~ich inhibits turbulence and mixing. · Low wind angle of I0 degrees which reduces dispersion away from the road and increases concentrations along the road. and · Average tempereture of 30 degrees Fahrenheit for the coldest month in Virginia based on Nadonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Admhtistration 30-year averages. Vehicular e_m__i~_ions of CO are higher during colder weather. 6. The project is located In an ·ttainmant area for carbon monoxide and ozone. The maximum concentrations of carbon monozhJo are very low and are expected to remain Iow based on the sir quality analysis for the proposed proj~ The selected alternative, which includes three grade-separated interchanges along Route 29 will provide a sethfactofy level of servi~ on Route 29. lnter~ection mode(lng is not considered necussap/on this project. .7. Lands that arc barren, urban, ~uborban, or consist of roadways and open water arc cons(doted of Iow value for wildlife, Agriculturel fields arc of moderate wildlife ' value, ranging item small fields with adjacent forests and hedge rows that provide better wildlife habitat, to large, unbroken fields that are of poorer value. Lends that are of highest value to wildlife are forested, old fields/~hrub areas and wetlands. 8. The atlerial level of setvfcu on Route 29 for each of the lmlid alternatives is shown in Table IV-3. 9. The Base Cass'is described in Chapter ~, Sect(nh B. Computer plots showing the 2010 ~ on the future roadway network were displayed at public meetings and were made available to the Joint Transportation Committee for their use. The LOS for selected area roadways for 1987 and 2010 was presented in Tab(es $ and 7 of the technical memorandum, 'Traffic and Transportatien Analysis," March 1990. These data were not repeated in the DF. IS in an attempt to limit the size of the document and eliminate unnccessaO, detail 10. Thc analysL~ did not identify any drinking water wells that would be impacted by the build ahcrnatives. Should any be encountered during final design, they will be capped as descfihed by State Water ~ontroi Board standards and lechniques. il. The model used in this study was the STAMTNA 2.0 model developed by thc Federal Highway Administration. The model calcatates noise levels for each noLf, e receptor resulting from · series of sara(sbt.line roadway segments. Inputs to the model Included coordinates for the site-roadway goumetty and traffic data. Traffic data included volumes and speeds of antomobiles, medium tmcla, and heavy tracks. Thc data were developed from e, Msdng traffic counts, origin-destination studies, and land. ®1 ®1 The FEIS should show the Level of Service (~OS) improvements on Route 29 associated with each of the proposed build alternatives. This will allow for amore direct comparison of the improvements associated with Alternative 9. The change in the Average Daily Trafiic (~M~') values associated with Alternative 9 does not provide aaequate information on the improvements to the traffic conditions on Route 29. In addition, Ute FEIS Should clearly identify the programmed improvements included in the Base Case. Also, the ~d)T and LOS (Figure III-1) for the area roadways should be provided for the 2010 Base Case and each of the build alternatives. ®1 The FEIS should indicate whether any drinking water wells viii be impacted by the l~hild alternatives, Hitigation for any potential impacts sl{ould be described in the FEIS. The noise smdel used to predict the future noise conditions should be identified and the assumptions described in the FEIS. We suggest that the~lvisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the development of a Hemorandum of Agreement be contacted for project impacts to National Register Historic Places. ®! The FEIS Should explain the information needed to complete the impact rating score sheet required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. Also, the FEZS should explain how the information will be attained and when the score sheet will be completed. Th&nk you for allowing EPA the opportunity to comment On this project. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Denise N. Rlgney at (215) 597-733&. $i~ereiy, ~_Y Phoebe C. Robb, Tea~ Leader NEPA/309 Revie~Tema gnc. lm~u=e 12. 13. use and population projections. Maximum volumes (peak-hour) were used to produce worst-case conditions except for church and school sites where lower volumes were used to more fairly represent conditions during normal activity times for these facilities. Speeds used were representative of the analysis hour, in mnst cases the peak hour. Tho traffic data used in thc modeling are presented in the technical memorandum, "Noise Analysis", April 1990. One property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will'he adversely affected by the selected alternative. An executed Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement is incorporated in the lEIS. The Agricultural Resources section of Chapter IV. Section K, has been revised to reflect the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating score sheet and additional coordination with thc Soil Conservation Service's District Conservationist. See Soil Conservation Service letter of 10/29/90. 1,74 { MAR-PD ER 90/474 United States Department of the Interior OR=IC~ OF TI~ CUL 31 1990 {E~IRONME~AL DIV. Hr. James H. Tumlin Division Administrator Federal fl~ghway Administration 400 North Eighth Street P.O. Box 10045 Richmond. VA 23240-0045 Dear Nfo Tumlin: This responds to a request £or the Department of the commente on the draft £nvironmental/$ect~on 4(f} Statement for US-29 Corridor Study, C~ty of Charlottesville and Albermarle County° Virginia. SECTION 4 tf) ST~T£M£NT CONMENTS The draft document discuse~e nine pro~ect alternatives; ho~ever,~ none ie ~dentified as the preferred alternative. The Section/ 4ill evaluation does not provide suff£cient evidence for us to conclude that ~here is no feasible and prudent alternat£ve to ~he~'- use o~ Section 4(f! resources. Selection of alternatives 6B. 7, 9, ~0, or Base Case. ~ould be the meet desirable from the standpoint of public parka and historic sites since all direct impacts would be avoided. ' £NV~RONMENTAL $TA?EH£NT COHNEN?$ Y~sh and Hildlife ~eso~rces - Dependinq on the alternatives selected botween----~--~cres (alternatives 65, 9 and 10} and acres (alternative 6) o~ wetlands will be impacted. NontLdal wetlands provide a variety of functions. These include water pollution abatement, flood protect$on, ~ro~nd~atcr ~£scharge and recharge, and aesthetic, cultural, and f~eh and wildlife habitat values. Forested wetlands in particular play a ma~or role in s~ream ecology by helpin~ to control water temperature, contributing food matter, and stabilizin~ stream banks. Forested wetlands also.provSde nesting, escape, and feeding habitat for w~ldlife epeczes includin~ m~gratory birds, deer, beaver and other smallmammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TIlE INTERIOR. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 7/31/90 Tho selected alternative avoids taking any properties with Section 4(0 involveme The selected alternative will Impact approximately 0.138 acres of palustrine forested wetland from a single wodand site. This loss is unavoidable and will bo compensated for. Because of the small size and low functional value, of the wetlands impacted by all of the alternatives, wetland impacts were not major determinant in the selection of an alternative. A Breakdown of wetland types and acreages of Impacts for the candidate alignments is presented in tables IV-16 and IV-17. Moro detailed information is presented in the ,~mmtlc Resources and Water Ouallty_ Technical Memorandum. Detailed mitigation measures for unavoidable-impacts will bo developed during tho design phase. Ocotechnlcal studies will bo conducted as necnssary at the tim~ of the final design for the project. Structures on the project will bo designed in accordance with applicable seismic standards to minimize risks of geoloeic hazards. Mineral production in Albemarle County is JJmited to crushed stone and sand. Crushed stone of greenstone is produced near Shdwell, and crushed stone of granite gneiss is produced at Red HilL Sand is produced by two companies at four Iocatiom on the Rivanna River. The Shndwcll. Red Hill and Rivanna river Iocatiom are not impacted by the proposed alignments. Other minerals and rocks found within Albemarle County which have been produced In the past include iron ore. slate, clay. sandstone, and limestone. Other minerals known to exist in the county, but relatively unimportant, are ameth~ts, asbestos, barite, copper, felsite, garnets, gold. limonite. hematite, and pyrite. No ndverso Impacts to pipelines from tho selected alternative have been identified. The ratios for providing replacement wetlands will bo determined at the time of flnel design of the Alternative 10 bypass. According to Table 4.1 in the technical memorandum, "Aquatic Rcsoorces and Water Quality', April 1990, Alternative 10 would require less w~fland area than Alternative 9 (0,138 acres ,m 0.146 acres). Alternative 10 also does not mm thc South Fork Rivanna River. In choosing the selected alternative, it was necessary to achieve a balance among a number of factors, including natural environmental impacts, socioeconomic and .community impacts, transportation benefits, and project costs. While Alternative 9 would have the least impact in some areas, it would not effectively meet the transportation needs and it would have an ndv~rso effect on communities and Imsiflesses along Routo 29 and renslt in excessive dLsmption to traffic during construction. Mid-Atlantic forested wetlands are experiencing a dramatic decline. In Virglnxa alone, between L95& and 1977, approximately 57,000 acres of palustrine vegetated wetlands, most of which were forested, were destroyed ITiner and Finn 1986). Construction of replacement wetlands is normally required where a project causes unavoidable wetland ~mpactS. Such creation of palustrine forested wetlands has not reached a high level of success. Even Ln successful cases, it may take up to 30 years for planted saplings to 9roy to the size of mature trees~ The 0apartment ks e~peciall¥ concerned about losses of this wetland type because of the ecological impatience, the rapid rate of their destructzon on a region-vide scale, and the general lack of success in attempts' to replace lost acreage, Although losses of wetlands caused by this project were not documented by wetland type sod amount, we presume that forested areas comprise the hulk of the r£qhts-of-wa¥ and wetland impacts. We consider large, unfragmented tracts of.woodland habitat to be superior to smaller tracts for the maintenance of species diversity. Several of the alternatives proposed will fragment these forested areas, thereby reducing the quality of the remaining habitat. The final document should provide the following: Detailed diagrams depicting locations and boundaries o~ existing ve~laflds, streams, and ponds, in relation to the proposed roadva? alignments. A breakdown of wetland types and acreages of impacts for the candidate alignments. Of the build alternatives, the Department finds alternative 9, construction of an expressway along the existing Route 29, to be ~he least damaging'from & fish an~ wildlife resources standpoint. L~erature Cited Tinct, R.W., and $.T. Finn. 1986. Status and Recent Trends of #etlands in Fxve Hid-Atlantic States. 0.S. F~sh and #ildlife Service, Fish and Hildlife £nhancement, National #etlands Inventory Pro~ect. Newton Corner. MA. G~logical Resources - The Terrestrial Ecology Technical Hemorandum, cited on .P.lll-10 vas no~ included for review and ~he the draft ElS does not address the geologic character of the study corridor. The documen~ should state the intention to conduct detailed 9eotechnic&l studies along the proposed project corridor. The project lies in Seismic Risk Zone II of the 0niform Building Code, indicating that's potential for moderate damage to structures exists in the event of a recurrence of the Charleston earthquake of 1886. Hitigation of this and other potential geologic hazards, i~ they exist, should be addressed in the final document. ®1 Mineral Resources The draft document does no~ mention mineral resources, and according to the Bureau's Hxnerals Yearbook for 1987 crushed stone is produced in Albermarle County. In addition, a map by Palmer C. sweet, (Mineral Industries and Resources of Virginia, 1983) shoos four crushed stone quarry's west of Charlottesville. According to PennWell Publishing Co., Natural Gas Pip~lines map ¢198~! of the United States and Canada, a pipeline is located in the northwest part of the county and one in the northern parc. Mineral resources, impacts to those resources, and plans for relocating or protecting p~pelines, ~f they pass through the pro)ecl area, should be discussed in any subsequent reports or environmental documents. If no adverse impacts to mineral resources or pipelines are identified, a statement to that effect should be include in the final document. ~[SH AND ~ILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT COMMENTS The U.S. Fist and ~ildlife service's tellS) most probable position on a ~.So Army Corps of Engineers permit for recommended alternative 9 would be that of no objection, provided that wetland impacts are minimized and compensation for unavoidable ~etland impacts is provided. The FWS recommends that replacement wetlands be provided on a 2:1 basis for losses of palustrine forested wetlands and a 1:1 basis for other wetland types. Implementation of other alternative alignments is not satisfactory, since they either do not avoid impacts to wetlands or require a new crossing of the South Fork Rivanfla River. SUM~IARY CO,gENTS The Oepartment of the [flterigr recommends thaZ, of the build alternative sin~e ~t'~ou£d have the least impact to public park, historic, and fish and wildlife resources. fA8 this Department has a continuing interest in this proJect~ we~ ~are willing to cooperate and coordinate with you on a technical ~asststance basis in further project evaluation and assessment. ~Fo~l=~atters perta~n£ng to recreational and cultural resources, ~ --[e~se contact the Regional Director, National Park Service, Mid- ]A~l~nti~R~gi6n, 143 South Third Street, Ph~ladelphia0 /Pennsylvania 19106, (telephone: FTS 597-70~3, commercial 215/597- ~7013). For matters pertaining to fish and wildlife resources ~please contact the Field Supervisor, U,S. Fish and wildlife JService, 1825 Virginia Street, Annapolis, ~O 2140l ttelephone: ;FTS 922-2007, commercial 301/269-5448), For matters pertaining /to geologic resources, please contact the Acting Assistant ~Dtrector for Engineering Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, (VA'22092 (telephone: 703/648-4422). For matters pertaining to _mineral resources, please contact the Chief0 .lntermountain FieldJ Operations Center, Bureau of Hines, P.O. Box 25086, Buildin9 20, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 (telephone: FTS 776-0263, commercial 303/236-0263). He appreciate the opportunity to provide these commments SLncerely, Director . ~OD~**ff£ce of Environmental AfEaira Robert L. flundley Environmental Engineer Virginia Dept. oE Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Va. SHPO .Va. SLO TRANSPORTATION'ANAl ,002:-~. APPENDIX C Table 2.3 2000 Tri~'n~lar 'Trip Table 2-9 ANAL',-{ Sts Table :2.4 (~Triangular Trip Table COUNTY OF ALBEMAR .B D OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Rt. 29 Bypass, Review for jogging trails at Jack Jouett and Greer Schools SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comments on VDOT 4(f) Evaluation STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACH M E NTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes On February 18, 1999 the Virginia Department of Transportation forwarded for the County's review and comment the Section 4(f) Evaluation for a trail located at Jack Jouett Middle School that would be impacted by the route of the proposed Route 29 Bypass. (Attachment I) The trail has been determined to be a Section 4(f) resource. "The U,S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303), Section 4(f), requires that no publicly owned land from a public park or public recreation area.., be used for federal-aid highways unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative." Furthermore, "alternatives to avoid use of Section 4(f) properties and measures to minimize harm to them must be considered." The County has been requested to provide comment on or about April 19, 1999. DISCUSSION: Attached are staff comments provided by the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Parks and Recreation. (Attachments II and III) A number of areas are noted where the evaluation seems to be deficient or does not accurately reflect existing conditions and potential consequences of the Bypass on the trail system and larger school complex, including other recreation facilities. Of particular note is the absence of any evaluation of the trails behind Greer School, lack of recognition for the extreme importance of the trail areas as a natural, wooded resource in close proximity to the County Urban Area, and a minimization of the potential air and noise impact of the Bypass and the avoidance altematives. It should be noted that the need for this evaluation at this time would be avoided if the Bypass project were planned in accord with the original agreement of the City, County and University which called for the construction of the all other northern urban area CATS projects, including Meadow Creek Parkway and three interchanges on Route 29, and then subsequent assessment for the need for the Bypass. As is well known, the Meadow Creek Parkway has never been built and the interchanges were removed from the 6 Year Primary Plan. Furthermore, the original Sveredrup ElS identified an Expressway in the Route 29 Corridor instead of the proposed Bypass as a less environmentally impacting alternative which, of course, would have prevented the necessity for this evaluation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board is asked to review, modify as necessary and endorse the attached comments as the substance of the County's response to this 4(0 evaluation. After this review, the County Attorney's staff will work with other staff members to draft a final submittal document to be submitted to VDOT. 99.056 LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY 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%' COUNIY ATTORNEY GREG KAMPTNER KIMBERLY F_ WOLOD ASSISTANT COUN'IA' ATTORNEYS April 16, 1999 Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Virginia Division P.O. Box 10249 400 North 8th Street, Room 750 Richmond, VA 23240-0249 J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 2321%1939 Re: Comments on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School; Route 29 Bypass: Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez and Mr. Wittkofski: The County of Albemarle has reviewed the draft Section 4(f) evaluation (hereinafter, the "Evaluation") of the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The comments of David Benish, the County's Chief of Community Development, and Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, are attached hereto as Attachments A and B and are incorporated herein. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of other significant park and recreation areas on the Albemarle High School Complex. The Albemarle High School Complex is a significant publicly owned park and recreation area. The Albemarle High School Complex (hereinafter, the "School Complex"), which includes Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, and Greer Elementary School, is identified as a district park in the County's Comprehensive Plan. (Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000, hereinafter, the "Facilities Plan", 49) District parks provide diverse recreational opportunities for all age groups and are intended to be capable of withstanding intensive use, while maintaining open space. (Facilities Plan, 37) A district park such as the School Complex has multiple playgrounds, basketball courts, multi-purpose fields equipped with soccer goals, softball/baseball fields, additional maj or sports complexes, and an open space area with walking or jogging trails. (Facilities Plan, 37) (See Attachments C and D photographs) District parks, in conjunction with neighborhood and community parks, are intended to provide the majority of close-to-home recreational opportunities in the County.' (Facilities Plan, 37) In his November 3, 1998, letter to Patsy Napier, the VDOT Project Manager, Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, stated: The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, is designated a district park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a major resource. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 4.) Mr. Mullaney also clearly identified the significance of all of the recreational facilities at the School Complex: The athletic fields, trails, and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the county are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. All the facilities at this complex are used extensively. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 8). The Evaluation recognizes that the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School is "a component of a larger assemblage of recreational facilities" at the School Complex. (Evaluation, 8) Mr. Mullaney identified all of the recreational facilities described above as being significant. Yet, without any explanation, the Evaluation ignores the other recreational facilities identified above located at Greer Elementary School and Jack Jouett Middle School that would be constructively used by Alternative 10. All'of the recreational facilities on the School Complex constitute a significant publicly owned park and recreation area. Significance determinations are made by the officials having jurisdiction over the land. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, revised June 7, 1989, 10) The Evaluation's failure to consider these other facilities is error. The Board's response to the Evaluation's criticism that the County failed to timely inform the FHWA and VDOT of the existence of Section 4(f) property is addressed in Section 7. Bo The park and recreation areas of the School Complex not otherwise permanently inco.rporated into Alternative 10 will be constructively used by Alternative 10. In consultation during the preparation of the Evaluation, the County stated that all of the recreational facilities at the School Complex, including the trails at Greer Elementary School and the playing fields, were significant park or recreation facilities. (Evaluation, 8) Nevertheless, the Evaluation erroneously concludes that the "only recreational facility encroached on by the project is the trail" and that "only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school property, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource." (Evaluation, 4) These conclusions are in error both in fact and as a matter of law. Alternative 10 will take additional trails than the one studied in the Evaluation. (See Attachment E) The proximity of Alternative 10 to the park and recreation areas at the School Complex will substantially impair those portions not actually taken by Alternative 10. For example, the batting cage on the ball field at Greer Elementary School will be only 65 feet from the Alternative 10 right-of-way, and only 155 feet from the Alternative I0 northbound lanes. (See Attachment C photographs) As another example, the soccer field at Jack Jouett Middle School will be only several feet from the Alternative 10 right-of-way and only 130 feet from the Alternative 10 northbound lanes. (See Attachment C photographs) The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Route 29 Corridor Study approved January 20, 1993 (hereinafter, the "FEIS"), failed to identify the impairments to these recreational facilities because it erroneously failed to identify the School Complex as a district park or as having recreational facilities. The FEIS says little more than the following about the impact of Alternative 10 on the School Complex: Alternative 10 passes alongside the County schools complex that includes Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, and Greer Elementary School. Shifts have been made to minimize any impacts to these schools. This alternative would require a small piece of this property (a wooded area on the edge of the property) but would not directly impact any of these schools. It would pass about 600 feet from Greer School and within 1,200 feet of Jouett School. (FEIS, IV-15; see also, FEIS S-7) Because the FEIS failed to identify any part of the School Complex as Section 4(f) property, neither the FEIS nor its Section 4(f)/106 Evaluation analyzed the School Complex as Section 4(f) property. The FEIS contains no valid analysis regarding the noise, air quality, nor aesthetic impairments to the recreational facilities identified above as Section 4(f) property. Therefore,'the FEIS is not an informational document upon which the Evaluation could rely on the issues of whether the proposed project would constructively use the recreational facilities, or the extent of the impairments to those facilities as a result of the proposed project. The noise analysis conducted for the FEIS included a site location on the playground at Greer Elementary School, 250 feet east of Station 653. (FEIS, Table IV- 10) At that distance from the bypass, the ambient noise level was 49 dBA, and the 2010 design year noise level (at an estimated traffic level of 17,900 vehicle trips per day) was estimated to be 61 dBA (all dBA references are as "Leq(h)"). (FEIS, Table IV-11) The Final Design Noise Report, dated February 1997, included a site from the "school playgrounds" and concluded that the ambient noise level was 48 dBA, and the 2022 design year noise level (at an estimated traffic level of 24,000 vehicle trips per day) was estimated to be 64 dBA. (Final Design Noise Report, Table 4A) The noise levels may be substantially greater because the traffic levels may be much greater. A technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton) concluded that, given a series of facility upgrades such as limited access bypasses, the number of vehicles on Route 29 in the Charlottesville area could grow by as much as 19,000 vehicle trips per day. As the FEIS states more than once, an increase of 10 dBA or more is considered a substantial increase in noise. (FEIS, IV-22) The FEIS concluded: With the selected alternative, exterior noise levels will increase substantially over existing noise levels., at the Greer Elementary School playground. (FEIS, IV-24, IV-25) The receptor on the Greer Elementary School playground also was identified as equaling or exceeding the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. (FEIS, Table IV-12) The Final Design Noise Report similarly concluded that the "outer edges of the playing fields of the Jack Jouett Middle School and the Mary Greer Elementary School (represented by site 65) will experience a substantial increase (10 dBA or more) in traffic noise with the project." (Final Design Noise Report, 19) The mitigation measure proposed in the FEIS (FEIS, IV-29) - that the cut slope will serve as an effective sound barrier - is deficient because it is based on a noise level obtained 250 feet from the centerline of the closest lane, much farther than many park and recreation areas located on the School Complex. Section 5 contains a more complete criticism of the noise, visual and air quality impact analyses contained in the Evaluation, and is incorporated herein by reference. Finally, neither VDOT nor the FHWA has consulted with County officials to determine the degree of impairment to the School Complex because of the proposed project. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(6)(iii); Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 8) For the foregoing reasons, the Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of other significant park and recreation areas at the School Complex. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of significant park and recreation areas on the Agnor-Hurt Elementary_ School property. 4 Agnor-Hurt Elementary School opened during the 1992-1993 school year, and is identified as a community park in the County's Facilities Plan 1990-2000. (Facilities Plan, 49) The western portion of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School consists of a soccer field, basketball courts, a playground and a baseball/softball field. The FEIS states that Alternative 10 takes a portion of the property of the proposed Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. (FEIS, IV-15) The current Alternative 10 alignment will not require the actual use of the school property. However, there is substantial evidence that there will be a constructive use of the school's park and recreation areas. The Final Design Noise Report determined that the ambient noise level at the receptor site has an ambient noise level of 49 dBA, and estimated the 2022 design year noise level to be 62 dBA, based upon the estimated 24,000 vehicle trips per day. (Final Design Noise Report, Table 4A) The Final Design Noise Report concluded that "[t]he play facilities at the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School on Woodbum Road (site 102, east of the Bypass) also will experience a substantial increase in noise level with the project." (Final Design Noise Report, 19) If traffic levels reach the 43,000 vehicle trips per day estimated in the technical report from the Ronte 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton), the noise levels will be substantially greater. For all of the reasons identified in Section 1, above, the Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of the significant park and recreation areas at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. o The Evaluation does not sufficiently explain the project need and, therefore, its analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135. An evaluation must address the purpose and need for the project. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 4) The need for the project must be sufficiently explained to show that the no-build alternative and any alternative that does not serve that need result in unique problems. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 4) At best, the Evaluati°n's explanation of the project need is confusing: The need for the proposed project is based on the inability of existing Route 29 to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes, particularly through traffic volumes. Although the recently completed Base Case improvements (widening to six lanes plus continuous right turn lanes) have improved travel conditions in the corridor, existing Route 29 still passes through a heavily developed commercial area and the flow of through traffic is impeded by congestion and a number of traffic signals. (Evaluation, 3) The Evaluation then notes that the proposed bypass will be an important link in the State Arterial System. The Evaluation concludes its description of the project need by stating: The proposed project addresses local and regional transportation needs and continues to be consistent with local and regional planning. The project remains a component of the Albemarle County Land Use Plan and the MPO's regional transportation plan (Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Plan, or CATS Plan). (Evaluation, 3) The Evaluation's statements describe the proposed project considered by the FEI S - a multi-phased project that would address both local and regional transportation needs by adding grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 and providing a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. (FEIS, I-1 through I- 8). A bypass would be constructed later only if the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 were not sufficient to accomplish these purposes. (FEIS, I-1 through 1-8). The Evaluation describes a project that no longer exists. The Commonwealth Transportation Board significantly redefined the scope and purpose of the proposed project on February 16, 1995, and it now consists only of a bypass that will be located in Alternative 10. (See Section 4.B. for a more detailed discussion of the change in the scope and purpose of the proposed project.) The current proposed project is described as a "limited access bypass" to which access will be gained only "via interchanges at both ends, with no immediate access points to crossroads or adjacent properties" (Evaluation, 1), and will provide no improvement to the existing and projected level of service (hereinafter "LOS") on Route 29. (FEIS, Table IV-3) The current proposed project certainly does not address local transportation needs. Section 6 responds to the statement in the Evaluation that the proposed project is consistent with local and regional planning and a component of local and County and regional plans. Because of the Evaluation's outdated, confusing and vague statement of the proposed project's purpose and need, it fails to demonstrate that the no-build alternative and the alternatives that do not serve the project need result in unique problems. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R..~ 771.135 because it fails to properly consider feasible and prudent alternatives. The Evaluation notes that the FEIS concluded that Alternative 10 was the only feasible and prudent bypass alternative that avoided using any Section 4(f) property. (Evaluation, 3) This fundamental error of fact laid the foundation for the unlawful choice of Alternative 10 as the selected alternative. This error also caused the FEIS and the Evaluation to fail to consider any alternatives that satisfied the identified transportation needs without affecting Section 4(f) property. As a result, the Evaluation's analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives is nothing more than a post-hoc rationalization to justify an unlawful decision that has already been made. Ao There were no feasible and prudent alternatives under study when the Evaluation was conducted. 6 In keeping with Section 4(f)'s purpose to avoid public park and recreation areas, the use of Section 4(f) property must be evaluated early in the development of the action when alternatives to the proposed action are under study. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(b)) Although the regulations acknowledge that late discovered Section 4(f) property may be evaluated separately from the environmental review process, there is at least an expectation that when a Section 4(f) evaluation is conducted, alternatives will still be under study so that it is possible to consider feasible and prudent alternatives and, if none are found, to determine whether additional alternatives should be considered. In addition, the approach taken in a Section 4(f) evaluation must demonstrate a reasoned methodology for narrowing the field of alternatives to a number sufficient to support a sound judgment that the study of additional variations is not worthwhile. (Policy Paper, 4) The Evaluation fails on all accounts. The Evaluation first considers the alternatives considered in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and concludes that none of the previously considered alternatives to Alternative 10 are feasible and prudent: [T]he No-Build Alternative and Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 were deemed not feasible and prudent because they would not adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs. Alternative 11, the only other alternative considered feasible and prudent, would have Section 4(f) impacts to other resources (two historic properties) and, therefore, cannot be considered a total Section 4(f) avoidance alternative. Therefore, none on the previously considered alternatives to the Selected Alternative represent feasible and prudent Section 4(f) avoidance alternatives. (Evaluation 11) The Evaluation's analysis regarding these alternatives is unlawful. The Evaluation may not rely on the FEIS's analysis of the build alternatives because the field of alternatives considered to satisfy the identified transportation needs, and the selection of Alternative 10 as the selected alternative, were based on the factual error that Altnernative 10 did not affect Section 4(f) property. Neither VDOT nor the FHWA considered a build alternative that would both satisfy the identified transportation needs and not affect Section 4(f) property. Given the erroneous parameters under which the Evaluation is based, it was inevitable that it would conclude that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to Alternative 10. The backwards approach employed in the Evaluation is directly contrary to the intent of Section 4(f) and precludes the FHWA from making an informed decision under 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1)(i). Once it became known that there were no altematives that satisfied the identified transportation needs without affecting Section 4(f) property, it was incumbent upon VDOT and the FHWA to consider other, new, alternatives. The Evaluation fails to explain a reasoned methodology for narrowing the field of alternatives to those identified and rejected in the FEIS. The Evaluation also fails to consider other alternatives in light of the revelation that the FEIS was based upon fundamental errors of fact (i. e., that Alternative 10 was the only alternative that satisfied the identified transportation needs that did not affect Section 4(f) property). (Policy Paper, 4) The basis upon which the Evaluation dismisses Alternatives 6, 6B, 7. 7A, 9, and 12 as not being feasible and prudent is erroneous and, therefore, the conclusion that no feasible and prudent alternative exists is invalid. The Evaluation also errs in relying on the conclusions of the FEIS as to whether other alternatives would adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs. The FEIS described the project need in various ways, but the proposed project's scope and purpose was two-fold: (1) to reduce congestion on a three-mile section of Route 29 between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County north of Charlottesville; and (2) to provide a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. (FEIS, I-1 through I-8) In considering the alternatives, the FEIS stated: [T]he principal objective of each Candidate Build Alternative is to ease traffic congestion along Route 29 north, a comparison between the Base Case and each Candidate Build Alternative was undertaken. (FEIS, IV-2) Providing a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System was identified as the secondary purpose for the project. (FEIS, I-1) The FEIS then concluded that Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 failed to adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs because those alternatives failed to reduce sufficient traffic on Route 29. (FEIS, IV-2, IV- 3) The principal objective of the proposed project was dramatically and fundamentally changed on February 16, 1995, when the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board unilaterally rescinded the mid-range improvements to Route 29 (grade-separated interchanges) and the phasing of the construction of a bypass only if needed. (FEIS, II-10) Without grade-separated interchanges on Route 29, the level' of service on that route will remain LOS F even with the construction of Alternative 10. (FEIS, Table IV-3) The deletion of the grade separated interchanges also prevents any improvement to the east-west LOS at each of the interchange locations. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's February 16, 1995 decision fundamentally changed the scope and purpose of the proposed project to one that merely provides a highway that is part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. The alternatives analysis in the FEIS no longer is valid. The basis upon which the Evaluation dismissed Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 is fundamentally flawed and unlawful. The issue of whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to Alternative 10 must be reexamined. 8 The Evaluation fails to address why Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12, or other alternatives that should have been considered to avoid the Section 4(1) property, are not feasible and prudent. An evaluation must address the reasons why the alternatives to avoid a Section 4(f) property are not feasible and prudent. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j)) Because the project is now a high-speed highway that is part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area, the Evaluation's erroneous summary dismissal of Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 (Evaluation, 11), and failure to consider any other alternatives, does not satisfy the requirements of 23 C.F.R. § 771.1350). The Evaluation fails to demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12, or any other alternatives that should have been considered to avoid the Section 4(I) property, or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes. Supporting information in an evaluation must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(2)) Again, the Evaluation's erroneous summary dismissal of Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 (Evaluation, 11) and failure to consider any other alternatives, fails to satisfy the requirements of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(2). E. The Evaluation fails to consider the no-build alternative. In comments to the draft EIS, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended a non-bypass alternative (Alternative 9 - an expressway along the existing Route 29 Corridor), stating that Alternative 9 "will satisfy the purpose and need for the project while minimizing the potential impacts to farmlands, Agricultural and Forestal preserve areas, water quality and communities." (FEIS, VII-5). The Department of Interior, in its comments, also recommended that, "of the build alternatives, alternative 9 [should] be selected as the preferred alternative since it would have the least impact to public park, historic, and fish and wildlife resources." (FEIS, VII-5) The Evaluation must also examine the alternative consisting of a combination of the Base Case (the widening of Route 29, which has now occurred) with grade separated interchanges on Route 29. This alternative is prudent and feasible, and would serve the primary purpose of the project identified in the FEIS - to alleviate local traffic congestion. VDOT's own study shows that the interchanges are critical to achieving that purpose. Equally important, this alternative would pose the least environmental harm and would avoid using Section 4(f) property. Without grade separated interchanges on Route 29, the level of service on Route 29 in the study area remains LOS F, even after the construction of Alternative 10 or any other bypass. (FEIS, Table IV-3) With the grade 9 separated interchanges on Route 29, the level of service on Route 29 would improve to LOS A. (FEIS, Table IV-3) F. Alternatives A, B, C, D and E are not alternatives. The decision to select Alternative 10 was based, in part, on two fundamental and erroneous premises: (1) that the two-fold purpose of the project was to reduce congestion on a three-mile section of Route 29 and to provide a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area; and (2) that Alternative 10 did not affect any Section 4(f) property. Given that these two premises are erroneous, and that neither the FEIS nor the Evaluation attempted to consider any other alternatives outside of Alternative 10, Alternatives A, B, C, D and E are not true alternatives within the meaning of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1)(ii), but merely a series of equally destructive and unpalatable options within Alternative 10. Alternatives A and B would, among other things, encroach on other Section 4(f) property. (Evaluation, 11-16) Alternatives C and D would, among other things, either use or constructively use the trail and its surrounding environment by placing a bridge over the lower portions of the trail. (Evaluation, 16-19) Alternative E, which would also place a bridge over the lower portions of the trail, would shift the alignment 2,000 feet to the east so that it displaces a public school currently under construction, and would split the School Complex (a County district park). (Evaluation, 19) All five of these "alternatives" would affect Section4(f) property. It is not surprising that the Evaluation failed to find any of these "alternatives" within Alternative 10 to be feasible and prudent. Because Alternative 10 uses Section 4(f) property, it should never have been selected in the first instance. With knowledge that the selection of Alternative 10 was based on fundamental errors of fact (i.e., that Alternative 10 was the only alternative that satisfied the identified transportation needs that did not affect Section 4(f) property), the Evaluation should have explained a reasoned methodology as to why other alternatives were not considered. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Evaluation's analysis of Alternatives A, B, C, D and E is unlawful. o The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R..~ 771.135 because it fails to properly analyze the impacts of the proposed prqiect on the trail, thereby precluding the provision of all possible planning to minimize the harm to the trail resulting from the use. The proposed project would severely impact the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. The Evaluation concludes that "[t]here are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." (Evaluation, 8) This conclusion is plainly wrong. The trail is part of a large area covered with dense woods, mainly hardwoods, that have not been recently harvested. The trails on the School Complex, including the trail studied in the Evaluation, wind through these woods up and down hilly terrain. In several valleys, very 10 active streams and trails wind through massive rock outcroppings. The valleys are particularly quiet and serene. These characteristics of natural and quiet simplicity are unusual not only because they are in close proximity to what is described by the County's Director of Parks and Recreation as the "most densely developed area of the County" (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 1), but also because they are irreplaceable. (See Attachment D photographs) The Director noted the importance of siting the recreational facilities in a tranquil and wooded setting as follows: "The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area." (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 3). He further stated: "Due to the extensive development of the surrounding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource." (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 3) The attributes of the trail and its surrounding environment will be destroyed by the proposed project. As the County's Director of Parks and Recreation stated in his November 3, 1998 letter: IT]he bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails' system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 12) For example, the trail area beside tributary "K" of Ivy Creek will be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet. (See Attachment D photographs) This area, which is situated in a narrow valley, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County with its babbling brook, surrounding forest, and dramatic rock outcroppings. In addition to physically taking some of the trail, the proposed project will substantially impair those parts of the trail not physically taken, as hereafter discussed. A. Noise impacts. (1) The Evaluation fails to adequately identify the noise impacts. The Evaluation's noise analysis concludes that the existing noise level on the remaining part of the trail is 48 dBA, and estimates that that the people using the trail in 2022 after the construction of the proposed project would experience noise levels of up to 68 dBA. (Evaluation, 10) A noise level of 68 dBA is nearly equivalent to the sound of a constantly running vacuum cleaner at a distance of 10 feet. (Route 29 Corridor Study Noise Analysis, dated April 1990, Figure 3) The Evaluation concedes that these noise levels exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. (Evaluation, 10) In addition to this constant level of increased noise, which is an hourly average, the analysis of the noise generated by a single truck conducted by VDOT for the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee showed that there would be bursts of noise from 11 each passing truck at an additional 13 to 14 dBA. The noise on the remaining part of the trail would quite frequently approach 82 dBA, a level of noise that is between the sound of a moving freight train at a distance of 100 feet and the sound of a moving subway train at a distance of 20 feet. (Route 29 Corridor Study Noise Analysis, Figure 3) This level of noise would substantially impair the trail's value as one of the rare quiet places in which area residents can walk, jog, and enjoy the woods, and could make it difficult for children to hear coaches, referees, and physical education teachers during practices and games on the nearby playing fields. If traffic levels reach the 43,000 vehicle trips per day estimated in the technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton), the noise levels will be substantially greater. The noise analysis in the Evaluation must analyze and identify the noise impacts resulting from the current proposed project, and consider the strong possibility that the greater traffic levels identified in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville- Warrenton) will exist on Alternative 10. (2) The Evaluation erroneously fails to conclude that the noise impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail. Because the trail and its surrounding environment is an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes, it is a noise-sensitive facility. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(i)) The trail and its surrounding environment also match the qualities of lands that qualify as Activity Category A in the FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (23 C.F.R. part 772): Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Remarkably, the Evaluation nevertheless concludes that: Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there. The recreational uses of walking and jogging and the school's use of the trail for cross country training are not dependent on low noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be). (Evaluation, 19) The noise levels from the proposed project will substantially impair the noise- sensitive attributes of the remaining part of the trail and will exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. Therefore, a constructive use is established. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)) 12 (3) Because the Evaluation fails to properly conclude that the noise impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail, the Evaluation erroneously precludes all possible planning to mitigate the impacts to the remaining parts of the trail. In order to use Section 4(f) property, the action must include "all possible planning to minimize harm to the proper~y resulting from such use." (23 C.F.R. § 771.135((a)(1)(ii)) The Evaluation must specifically address all measures that will be taken to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j)) The Evaluation does not indicate that all possible planning has been considered to minimize the harm to the trail and does not address all measures that will be taken. In its analysis of the noise levels, the Evaluation states: An evaluation of noise abatement measures concluded that construction of a noise barrier in this area would not be cost-effective, as noted in the Final Design Noise Report prepared for the current design. (Evaluation, 10) The Final Design Noise Report was completed in 1997, before the School Complex was identified as having Section 4(f) property. In its analysis of mitigation measures for the noise impacts, the Evaluation simply states: "Providing noise abatement at this location does not appear to be feasible at this time." (Evaluation, 21) There is no explanation as to how this conclusion was reached, or whether it was reached with the Section 4(f) property in mind. The Final Design Noise Report identified the receptor site as "school playgrounds" and simply states, without any discussion or explanation that noise abatement measures are "not cost effective." (See, Final Design Noise Report, Table 6, Receptor No. 65). The Evaluation's conclusion appears to be a carryover of the conclusion reached in the FEIS before the School Complex was identified as Section 4(f) property. (See, FEIS, IV-25 through IV-29, where the only noise abatement considered for the School Complex is "normal excavation to achieve proper grades.)." Thus, it is clear that no planning has been performed to minimize the harm to the trail. The manner in which the Evaluation addresses the mitigation measures for the noise impacts also is contrary to the FHWA's own guidance. The planning to minimize harm is supposed to be determined through consultation with the officials of the agency who own or administer the land. (Policy Paper, 5) County officials were not so consulted. B. Visual impacts. (1) The Evaluation fails to adequately identify the visual impacts. The Evaluation's analysis of the visual impacts of the proposed project concludes that users of the trail would see embankments of 10 to 58 feet high where natural woods 13 and streams now exist. (Evaluation, 10-11) The visual impacts of the proposed project will destroy the very essence of the trail - its natural and serene setting. (2) The Evaluation erroneously fails to conclude that the visual impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail. As stated previously, the trail is part of a large area covered with dense woods, streams, hills and rock outcroppings. The trail winds through the woods up and down hilly terrain, and runs along streams. (See Attachment D photographs) A proposed project constructively uses Section 4(f) property when its proximity to that property substantially impairs its aesthetic features or attributes. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii)) A substantial impairment to the visual or aesthetic qualities of a park exists when a proposed project is located in such proximity that it substantially detracts from the setting of the park. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii)) The introduction of a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently located (Evaluation, 10) will substantially detract from the setting of the trail and its surrounding environment. The present views of a stream valley forested with hardwoods will be replaced by views of embankments 10 to 58 feet in height. (Evaluation, 11) Nevertheless, the Evaluation concluded that these improvements "would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or man-made features." (Evaluation, 19) The proposed project will substantially detract from the setting of the trail. Therefore, a constructive use is established. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)) The trail and its surrounding environment fit precisely the example in 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii). The Evaluation's analysis of the proposed project's visual impacts to the trail might be appropriate for a sidewalk in an urban environment; however, it is inappropriate in this case. (3) Because the Evaluation fails to properly conclude that the visual impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail, the Evaluation erroneously precludes all possible planning to mitigate the impacts to the remaining pans of the trail. As stated previously, in order to use Section 4(f) property, the action must include "all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use." (23 C.F.R. § 771.135 ((a)(1)(ii)) The Evaluation must specifically address all measures that will be taken to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j)) The Evaluation does not indicate that all possible planning has been considered to minimize the harm to the trail and does not address all the measures that will be taken. In its analysis of the visual impacts, the Evaluation states: 14 To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated into the design. The intent of the plan would be to reestablish a successional forest on the road embankment, beginning with plantings of seedlings or nursery stock that would gradually mature into larger trees that would screen the roadway from view. (Evaluation, 11) In its analysis of mitigation measures for the visual impacts, the Evaluation says nothing more than that "[a]nother measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail." (Evaluation, 19) Although landscaping may screen the roadway, it will do nothing to mitigate the impact of introducing a man-made embankment reaching 58 feet in height into a natural environment. The idea of replacing woods and streams with a four-lane freeway on top of that embankment presents an unacceptable visual impact. It is doubtful that any amount of landscaping could replicate the trail's natural beauty and usefulness. It is also significant that the Evaluation refers to the landscaping plan as a measure that will "lessen" the visual impacts. Once again, the Evaluation reveals that no planning has been performed to minimize the visual harm to the trail, as required by 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1)(ii). The .landscaping plan to gradually fill in a steep wall of fill dirt might be appropriate for sections of a bypass in an urbanized area, but not in this area. Trail users would be walking right alongside an embankment or looking up at the underside of a bridge. The stream would be buried in a culvert under the wall of dirt. No amount of landscaping can turn this into a substitute for the current experience of walking in a quiet wood along a stream. Again, the manner in which the Evaluation addresses the mitigation measures for the visual impacts also is contrary to the FHWA's own guidance. The planning to minimize harm is supposed to be determined through consultation with the officials of the agency who own or administer the land. (Policy Paper, 5) County officials were not so consulted. C. Air quality impacts must be re-evaluated Based upon an analysis conducted for the FEIS, the Evaluation concludes that the proposed project would have a negligible effect on air quality along the trail. (Evaluation, 10) Since the air quality analysis was concluded in April 1990, the scope and purpose of the proposed project has changed. At that time, traffic levels were estimated to be 17,900 vehicle trips per day in the 2010 design year. More recent estimates project traffic levels of up to 43,000 vehicle trips per day in the 2022 design year. (Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton)) If traffic levels reach 43,000 vehicle trips per day, the air quality impacts will be substantially greater than the estimate contained in the Evaluation. The prevailing westerly winds will mean that fumes from bypass vehicles will continually affect the entire School Complex, including not only the trails but also the playing fields. 15 The air quality analysis in the Evaluation must analyze and identify the air quality impacts resulting from the current proposed project, and consider the strong possibility that the greater traffic levels identified in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville- Warrenton) will exist on Alternative 10. o The proposed proiect does not address local and regional transportation needs and is not consistent with local and regional planning. The Evaluation states that the "proposed project addresses local and regional transportation needs and continues to be consistent with local and regional planning." (Evaluation, 3) This statement misrepresents the County's and the Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization's (hereinafter, "MPO") support for the current proposed project (i. e., Alternative 10 alone). The FEIS and the Record of Decision, dated April 8, 1993, identified as the selected alternative a "combination of improvements" to be implemented in phases over time. The first phase (or Base Case) consisted of the widening of Route 29; the second phase included the construction of grade-separated interchanges at the three most heavily used intersections on Route 29 in the Charlottesville area; and the third phase consisted of the bypass, but if and only if, traffic and economic conditions so warranted after evaluation of the other phases as implemented. (FHWA, Region 3, Record of Decision, Route 29, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F, April 8, 1993; FEIS, S-5) This combination of improvements was based on an extensive traffic analysis performed by VDOT's own consultant, which showed that most of the traffic congestion on Route 29 is local and that the three grade-separated interchanges are the key to relieving such congestion. The study showed also that a bypass would do nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion, and, by itself, would leave traffic congestion at the worst possible rating (LOS F) in the projected time frame. (See also, FEIS, Table IV-3) The FHWA approved the sequencing or phased approach as the selected alternative in its Record of Decision. The local jurisdictions involved- Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia- agreed to the sequencing approach. The Commonwealth Transportation Board thereafter unilaterally eliminated the construction of grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 from the proposed project. This decision was made without prior notice to the public or the affected localities, and without benefit of any technical analysis or study. Both the County and the MPO have taken strong stands against the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to scrap, in effect, the sequencing agreement and proceed instead with the bypass alone. While it is true that the bypass appears on the MPO's Charlottesville~Albemarle Transportation Study plan, it appears with caveats regarding the sequencing described above. For several years, the MPO has included a resolution in its Transportation Improvement Plan that withholds approval of federal funds for construction (or accrual of construction funds) of the bypass until several important issues are resolved. 16 The current proposed project is not consistent with either the County's or the MPO's plan and priorities, which continue to reflect the sequencing recommended in the FEIS. The Evaluation's reference to the County's prior failure to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is inappropriate. The Evaluation's repeated statements that the County previously failed to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is disingenuous. VDOT has known that County schools are Section 4(f) property since at least 1993. In a July 7, 1993 internal memorandum to Earl T. Robb, VDOT's Environmental Administrator, Loretta B. Cummings, a VDOT Environmental Specialist, described her field observations to assist in evaluating revisions to the Alternative 10 alignment. Regarding Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Ms. Cummings stated in pan: The school is 1-2 years old and includes extensive recreation space. Included are soccer fields, a baseball diamond, basketball courts, and .many pieces of playground equipment. The area is posted for public use after 6 p.m. It appears that the revised corridor will cross the recreational area and will require 4(f) coordination. (Memorandum to Earl T. Robb, July 7, 1993, 1) Ms. Cummings' memorandum did not refer to the trails and other recreation facilities at the School Complex, presumably because the portion of Alternative 10 on and near the School Complex was not part of the realignment. Nevertheless, the memorandum reveals that VDOT knew that County school properties are used as park and recreation areas. Therefore, VDOT was obliged to conduct a further inquiry as to whether the School Complex contained Section 4(f) property. In fact, it was obliged to conduct such an inquiry much earlier in the process while alternatives to the proposed action (Alternative 10) were still under study. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(b)) In aNovember 16, 1994 internal memorandum to Patsy Napier, the VDOT Project Manager, regarding the environmental assessment for the modified alignment of Alternative 10, Ms. Cummings cautioned: Please make it clear to the consultant designers that we can not use any recreational land or we will be in a 4(f) situation which could jeopardize the FHWA approval of the project. (Memorandum to P.G. Napier, November 16, 1994, 1) Moreover, prior to the preparation of the Evaluation, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation submitted a complete explanation of the School Complex's status as a district park and the variety of recreational activities that take place on the property. This explanation is mentioned in the Evaluation. (Evaluation, 7) Nevertheless, with blinders on, the Evaluation's analysis is limited only to the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. 17 For all of the foregoing reasons, VDOT's criticism of the County's prior failure to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is inappropriate and irrelevant. A properly conducted environmental assessment that included field observations of the County school property would have easily identified the School Complex and Agnor-Hurt Elementary School as potential Section 4(f) property. If that had been the case, the FEIS would have been valuable as an informational document to guide appropriate decision making, and the Section 4(f) evaluation would have been meaningful to the decision making process. 8. Conclusion The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135. The Evaluation describes the project as it existed in the outdated and flawed FEIS - a project that has since been fundamentally changed in scope and purpose. The Evaluation relies on an FEIS that recommended Alternative I 0 as the selected alternative because it satisfied the identified transportation needs and did not affect Section 4(f) property. Neither of those factual premises are now correct. In addition, the technical report from .the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton) now is the source of relevant information pertaining to estimated traffic levels, which will be much greater than previously projected. It is unquestionable that a large percentage of the increased traffic will be tractor-trailer truck traffic diverting from Interstate 81 and Interstate 95. Therefore, the noise and air quality impacts need to be re-evaluated. Because of the change in the scope and purpose of the proposed project, a new environmental review is required. Without any analysis or explanation, the Evaluation fails to consider the other park or recreational areas on the School Complex, even though the only evidence in the record is that there are large portions of the School Complex that are significant publicly owned park and recreation areas that will be used or constructively used by the proposed project. The Evaluation compounds the erroneous conclusion in the FEIS that Alternative 10 did not affect any Section 4(f) property by limiting its analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives to those considered and rejected in the FEIS. Given this error, the Evaluation does not explain why other alternatives outside of Alternative 10 were not considered. Alternatives A, B, C, D and E are not true alternatives within the meaning of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 (a)(1)(ii), but merely a series of equally destructive and unpalatable options within Alternative 10. As a result, the Evaluation's analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives is nothing more than a post-hoc rationalization to justify a decision already made. The Evaluation does not enable the FHWA to make an informed decision as to whether there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to using the School Complex's Section 4(f) property. Finally, the Evaluation's analysis of the noise, visual and air quality impacts of the remaining portions of the trail is invalid. The studies for the Evaluation did not 18 analyze any of the recreational facilities as Section 4(f) property. As a result, the mitigation measures briefly discussed in the Evaluation do not enable the FHWA to make an informed decision as to whether all possible planning has been done to minimize harm to the remaining trail. Unless a new environmental review is performed and the Evaluation is completely revised based upon current, relevant information that addresses all of the issues identified herein, the Evaluation is inadequate as an informational document, and violates 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1). The Board of Supervisors requests your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, · Davis County Attorney Cc~ Cynthia Wilkerson, National Park Service Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization 19 ATTACHMENT A Comments of the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development to the Draft Section 4(/) Evaluation of the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, Route 29 Bypass Albemarle County, Virginia April 16, 1999 The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the Draft 4(f) Evaluation and provides the following comments: As noted in the comments of Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, the Draft 4(f) Evaluation did not address impacts to the trail system behind Greer Elementary School. The County's previous comments have addressed potential impacts to the "school complex" (Albemarle High, Jouett Middle, and Greer Elementary Schools) trails, not just the trails behind Jouett Middle School. The portion of the trail system located behind Greer is also an important component of the overall trail system and should be considered as part of this evaluation of the impact of the Bypass project on the existing trail system. Staff also questions whether other recreational facilities at the school complex should be subject to a 4(f) Evaluation since they will likely be impacted by the Bypass project (noise, air quality, and visual impacts). All school facilities are considered County Park facilities and are used by the general public after school hours. Page 8, "Unusual Characteristics" fails to adequately recognize the quality of the natural setting/environment of the open space area that is the location of the trails. It is this environment that significantly contributes to making this trail system such a valuable part of the County's open space and park trail system. Regarding the section under the heading "Impacts to Trail" (p.8-10), our opinion is that the evaluation does not accurately emphasize the significant noise, visual and air quality impacts the Bypass project will have on the trails and the open space system within which it is it is located. The Evaluation fails to recognize that not only is the trail facility being impacted, but also, more importantly, the setting for the trails is being impacted. This area provides a series of recreational trails supporting a variety of uses (nature walks, jogging, and school educational and athletic uses) in a natural setting within easy access of the most densely populated area of the County. The significant noise and visual impacts, and likely potential air quality impacts, would significantly change the character and quality of the environment. The County will essentially lose the only multi-use trail system within an undisturbed natural setting near this densely populated area. The ICNA does not permit jogging or athletic events. · Page 11, "Avoidance Alternatives:" None of the alternatives provided in this evaluation adequately address or will significantly change the impacts to the trails and open space area. The construction of the Bypass is an intrusion into a quiet, mostly undeveloped area, and will drastically change its character and the quality of the remaining natural environment. The visual, noise and likely air pollution impacts (odors/exhaust fumes) will be significant from any of the modifications to the proposed alignment (avoidance alternatives A-D). Altematives A and B require shifts onto the adjacent properties within historic and/or an agricultural and forestal districts, which are other "significant" areas to be avoided. Would another 4(f) Evaluation be required for further impacts to those areas? The proposed alternative alignment (Alternative E) is not a viable or feasible option and should be deleted. This alternative alignment is shown through the existing school bus maintenance facility and a new school currently under construction. It would also likely impact other school/park recreation facilities, including other sections of the trail, possibly creating the need for another 4(f) Evaluation. This section dismisses all previous alternatives as being not feasible as they would not adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs, or in the case of Alternative 11 would have 4(f) impacts. In the case of Alternative 11, those potential 4(f) impacts may be more easily mitigated than this impact to the trail system, since mitigation requires further negative impacts to an adjacent agricultural and forestal district, which is another area in which impacts should be avoided. It would seem. appropriate at.this time for the 4(f) Evaluation process to reassess all alternatives in light of what is now known about the impacts of Alternative 10. These include impacts to: I) the trails; 2) watersupply watershed and impoundment; 3) the watershed of an endangered species habitat; 4) an agricultural and forestal district; and 5) four (4) major school sites (three public and one private) due to the proximity of the Bypass alignment. Specifically, Alternative 9 (expressway) has no environmental impacts. A more comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation of the previous alternatives, which balances transportation goals and efficiencies with environmental impacts and local concerns, is needed. Regarding comments provided under "Constructive Use" (p.19), we disagree strongly with the statement that "the noise levels will not substantially interfere with use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute for the activities that occur there." As noted previously here, and in Mr. Mullaney's memo, the trail is used not only for athletic practice/events but also for passive recreational use. The existing quality of the environment and natural setting, along with its convenient location near population concentrations, combine to make it an important facility within our overall trail system. The quiet, undisturbed natural setting IS an important attribute of this facility. Comments provided under "Coordination" (p. 23) indicate that the trails were never raised as an issue. In general, the impact of the Bypass to all the schools (and school facilities) in the corridor has been an issue with the County. These trails are located On school property and there is a reliance on the part of the County that project designers will take into account facilities found on properties during field work related to project design. These trails have been constructed (and modified and upgraded) mostly with VOlunteer work, over a long period of time as the need and oppommity has arisen. Trail development post-dated any site plan development for the schools, so there is very little information in the form of surveyed plans or plats that accurately depict the trail location. The impact to trails was not clear to the County until those very familiar with the trail location began to realize that Bypass location and trial locations were in significant conflict. Identification of the trails earlier on the Bypass design drawings would have brought this issue to the surface sooner. ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Department County Office Building 401 Mc~ntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5844 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation ~i~/;)~ March 18, 1999 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation - Comments I have reviewed the draft 4(f) evaluation made by FHWA and VDOT on the impact on the district park facilities at the Albemarle, Jack Jouett, and Oreer school complex. In general I fred the evaluation to be extremely biased towards continuing on with building the road as planned. The evaluation does not fairly consider 4(f) protection and the impact on the other recreational facilities at the complex, and severely minimizes the importance and the impact on the trail system. The evaluation appears to have totally missed the trails behind Greer school which are directly impacted and seems to blame the County for not informing VDOT as to 'the existence of the trails. As Parks and Recreation Director I don't make it a habit to keep myself informed on proposed plans for the State Arterial System. The strongest evidence that this is not a fair evaluation is on page 19 under Constructive use which says "Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there". Later in that section it goes on to say "Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or manmade features". These trails are in the one of the few remaining patches of woods in the most densely developed area of the County. The section of the trail by the stream is as pretty as any site in our entire park system. That section including the stream will be covered by fill. I would consider the stream to be a significant natural feature and I definitely think a major highway through this section, in anyone's estimation, would substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail. To cite specific examples which make me question the fairness of this Evaluation I offer the following: On page 4, fa'st paragraph, the rationale for stating that because only the trail is encroached on by the bypass, then only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school property, which is by County policy a district park, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource, may possibly be faulty. According to "Section 4(f) o- Policy.Paper" dated September 24, 1987 and revised June 7, 1989, the segment tiffed "Section 4(f) - Applicability" states the following: · "No. 10. School Play~ounds. (p. 15-16) Question: Are publicly owned playgrounds subject to the requirements of Section 4(f)? Answer: While the primary purpose of school playgrounds is for structured physical education classes and recreation for students, such lands may also serve public recreational purposes and as such, may be subject to Section 4(f) requirements. When the playground serves only school activities and functions, the playground is not considered subject to 4(f). However, when the playground is open to the public and serves either organized or recreation purposes (walk on activity), it is subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) if the playground is determined to be. significant for recreational purposes. In determining the significance of the playground facilities, there may be more than one official having jurisdiction over the facility. A school official is considered to be the official having jurisdiction of the land during school'activities. However, the school board may have authorized the city's parks and recreation depamnent or a public organization to control the facilities after school hours. The actual function of the playground is the determining factor under these circumstances. Therefore, documentation should be obtained from the official(s) having jurisdiction over the facility stating whether or not the playground is of local significance for recreational purposes. "No. 2. Public Parks. Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfow.1 Refuges. (p. 9-10) "Question B: How should the significance of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges be determined? Answer B: "Significance" determinations (on publicly owned land considered to be park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge pursuant to Answer A above) are made by Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the land. For the most part, the "officials having jurisdiction" are officials of the agency owning or administering the land. For certain types of Section 4 (f) lands, more than one agency may have jurisdiction over the Site. The significance determination must consider the significance of the entire property' and not just the portion of the property being used for the project. The meaning of the term "significance" for purposes of Section 4(f) should be explained to the officials having jurisdiction. Significance means that in comparing the availability and function of the recreation, park, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge area with the recreational, park, and refuge objectives for that community, the land in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. If a determination from the official with jurisdiction cannot be obtained, the Section 4(f) land will be presumed to be significant. All determinations (whether stated or presumed) are subject to review by FHWA for reasonableness." Now that the FHWA has designated the trails, in October 1998, as Section 4(f), does not this last answer mean that the entire recreation facilities of the schools are qualified or are also now designated 4(f)? If this is tree, would there not be a "constructive use" taking argument with regard to the playing fields immediately adjacent to the bypass? In regards to the above information which is taken directly from the Section 4(f) Policy Paper, the recreation facilities at the school complex are extremely significant as they are the only such facilities in the most densely populated area of the County. The two most heavily used recreational facilities on the site are going to be seriously impacted by the proximity of the Bypass. Those facilities are the soccer field at Jouett which is 130' from the NB lane and the Greer baseball field where the batting cage is 155' from the NB lane. The Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the scheduling and the oversight of these facilities after school hours. These facilities are used every day of the week for recreational programs, 10 months out of the year. They are used from6pm until dark on weekdays and from 8am until dark on Saturday and Sundays. They are used for youth soccer, youth football, youth lacrosse, little league baseball and girls softball. On a typical Saturday approximately 1,000 people will be at these fields as a participant or spectator for these recreation programs. The location ora major roadway within 40 yards (or the width of the smallest youth soccer field) raises serious concerns about the noise, air quality, and visual impacts. On page 4, the report seems to imply negative connotations because there are no signs advertising the trails. There were signs for the trails and they were stolen by vandals. There are signs indicating the recreation facilities at the school are restricted to school use until 6 pm. These signs cover all the facilities including the trails. On page 7, the first paragraph questions the public use of the trails, citing VDOT investigations. It is obvious by the comment "observation indicated use by students", that the investigation occurred during the school day when public use is restricted. Public use would then most certainly be incidental during school hours. The responses that Mr. Benish and [ made, which are included as an attachment in the report, thoroughly explain the school and public use. Sign up sheets along the trail indicate public use of 30 to 35 persons per day which is not considered to be incidental. On page 7, the first paragraph also questions the identification of the trails by signs and the trails not being mentioned in the County's Land Use Plan. I think my Answer//4 in the attachment satisfactorily addresses this. On page 7, the last paragraph seems to be critical of the lack of nearby parking facilities, citing distances away for several locations. However, the parking lot behind Jouett, only a hundred. feet or so from one of the trail heads, was omitted from the VDOT analysis. This is a ridiculous issue anyway. The parking areas at the school serve all of the recreational facilities. Recreation space is at a premium in this area of the County and to take up additional space for special parking for this type of trail would be foolish. It is anticipated that anyone who could walk or run the trail could easily walk the relatively short easy distance from any of the parking lots at the facility to do SO. On page 8, the second paragraph states .... "Information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project." Any information provided by the County assumed that the trails behind Greer were also considered. It seems VDOT did not include these trails in the evaluation. The attached map shows both the Jouett and Greer trails impacted by the proposed bypass. On page 8, under "#9. Unusual Characteristics," the one sentence paragraph states that, .. "There are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." Unusual characteristics are in the eye of the beholder. The trail area beside tributary "K," which is to be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County. With the babbling brook, extreme quietness and tranquillity, and enclosed by a forest of large and small trees and huge outcroppings of magnificent rocks in a narrow valley, this provides a serene and peaceful setting for the public to enjoy, providing a calmness of the soul. Yet this wonderful area, with pleasing aesthetics, is located a short distance from the most densely populated area in the County. ~The whole trail system is extremely well maintained and a joy to walk/jog, but the jewel of the syStem is the segment by the creek to be located underneath a fill, 60 feet high. On pages 8 and 10, under "# 10. Impacts on Trail,'.' there are three sections labeled; Noise Levels, Air Quality, and Visual. The Evaluation stresses the minimal or negligible impacts. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated noise level of 48 dBA. Today, one of the most attractive features of the trail is its serenity and tranquility. With the proposed bypass in place, no one would walk the trails just to get away from the hectic and noisy "hubbub" of everyday life. Concerning air quality, it is stated that, ... "the project would have a negligible effect ...along the trail." The proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing towards the walkers and joggers on the trails and also blowing towards the playing fields and towards both Jouett and Greer schools. Under visual, the Evaluation blandly states that, ... "the project would change the character of the view from the trail by introducing a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently present." Also, ... "To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated....". There is no way any landscaping plan can begin to mitigate the intrusion into this beautiful area. On Page 19, under "# 12. Measures to Minimize Harm," the Evaluation suggests that, ... "The severed portions would be reconnected by building a new section of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment." This area is very steep and not conducive to placement of a trail. ... "Another measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail." How can anything screen a 60 feet high, 360 feet wide and 1000 feet long fill, that contains a volume equivalent of 7.3 Monticello Hotels, and is carrying possibly 43,000 vehicles per day (many of which would be heavy trucks)? I think the above information clearly shows that this Evaluation was an effort to minimize the significance and the impact on this area so the Bypass could proceed as planned. The impact on the area is clear. This beautiful area will be totally destroyed in ways that cannot be mitigated. As for significance, the importance to the County of protecting undeveloped land in this area was underscored in 1990 when the decision was made not to build a new elementary school on the nearby County owned Whitewood Road site in order to preserve the wooded area and trials there. Instead the County spent in excess of $1,000,000 to purchase the current Agnor Hurt site. Since that time the County has placed a conservation easement on the Whitewood site. In my opinion, it would make little sense to allow impact to a nearby site of similar character, when such efforts have been made to protect the Whitewood site. I think this clearly shows the significance this land has as a recreational resource to the County. If you have any questions about any of this please feel free to call me. .,~ L£: £' ~ .-'.'..~ LE CO U.~'TY Post-It' Fax Nole 7671 JPl~o~e o ~ OOl Co. ATTACHMENT C GREER SCHOOL PLAY GROUNr BYPASS R~%V LINE ~65 FEET FROM BATTING CAGE BYPASS N.B. LANE -155 FEET FROM BATTING CAGE JACK · JOUETT PLAYING FIELDS WESTERN- MOST PART OF JOUETT PLAYING FIELD BYPASS R/W LINE AT EDGE OF WOODS NEAR BENCH AREA BYPASS N.B. LANE -130 FEET FROM BENCH .~'~EA AUGUST ATTACHMENT D JOGGIN( TRAIL NEAR JOUETT PLAYIN( FIELD EVERYTHING VISIBLE IN PICTURE WOULD BE UNDER FILL MAX FILL HEIGHT = 61 FEET FILL VOLUME = >7 "MONTICELLO HOTELS" JOGGIN( TRAIL NEAR JOUETT PLAYIN(~ FIELD MOST OF VISIBLE AREA OF PICTURE WOULD BE UNDER FILL AUGUST 19 JOGGIN(; TRAIL NEAR JOUETT PLAYING FIELD JOGGING TRAIL NEAR JOUETT PLAYING FIELD THIS STRE.au¥! WOULD LIKELY BE COVERED BY FILL AUGUST 19' VISIBLE CREEKWOULD BE UNDER FILL PIPE PICTURE TAKEN APPROXIMATELY DIRECTLY UNDER N.B. LANE OF BYPASS~ MAX HEIGHT OF FILL = 61 FEET ADJACENT TO JOGGING TRAIL JOGGING TRAIL JOGGIN( TRAIL NEAR JOUET'r MIDDLE SCHOOl JOGGING TRAIL NEAR GREER SCHOOL AUGUST ATTACHMENT E // R - T'"a, '/ DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND. 23219-1939 February 18, 1999 Route 29 Bypass Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Section 4(0 Evaluation Federal No. NH-037(130) State No. 6029-002-F22,PE101 Albemarle County, Virginia ATT^CI-IIv~NT 1 EARL T. ROBB ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR Ms. Sally Thomas. Chair Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission P.O. Box 1505 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed for your rewew and Comment ~s a copy of the Section 4(0 Evaluation for a trail located at Jack Jouett Middle Scholl in Albemarle County. The Route 29 Bypass under the current design would use a portion of this trail. The presence of this tra~t was only recently brought to the attention of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) after years of coordination and environmental and design work. When the location of the trail was brought to our attention, the FHWA reviewed the applicability of Section 4(0 to the trail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemarle County to determine its significance as a recreational resource. Based on the results of this coordination. FHWA concluded that the trail represented a Section 4(f't resource Your t, mety and expeditious rewew of th,s Section 4(0 Evaluation is respectively requested Please provide us with any commems thai: you m¢cht have w~[mr, the 45-day review period, which will expire, on or about Apdl 19. 1999~1f you have any cuesuons slease comac'~ I?r J Mark Wittkofski at (8_0.4_1_371-686_7_. By Sincerely, Earl T. Robb Environmental Administrator J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Enclosure WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING From: "Wittkofski, J. Mark" <wittkofski._j~vdot,state.va.us> To: "~rtannah Twaddell"' <htwaddell.tjpd~state.va.us> Cc: "Sundra, Edward S." <ed. sundra~fhwa.dot, gov> Subject: RE: Section 4(0 Evaluation, Route 29 Bypass, Jack Jouett Trail Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:38:39 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Ms. Twaddell, I hope the following response adequately addresses your issues. We look forward to the MPO's comments on or before April 21, 1999.. J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Tel: 804-371-6867 / Fax: 804-786-7401 Email: wittkofski_j~vdot,state.va.us Ms. Twaddell's QUESTION: What will be the process after the comments are received? For example, will FHWA sign off on this report, and if so when7 Will there be a public hearing on it? Will it be presented to the CTB for approval, when? Mr. Sundra's (FHWA) RESPONSE: After comments are received, FHWA/VDOT will consider all comments that deal with the issue at hand to determine if the Section 4(f) Evaluation needs to be revised or additional information added. If it is determined that the avoidance alternative is neither feasible or prudent, FHWA will look at the remaining alternatives to determine which alternative minimizes impacts to the resource as well as the environment (i.e., endangered species and other Section 4(f) resources). FHWA will sign the Section 4(0 Evaluation after the comment period expires and the consideration of comments (assuming that no comments representing significant issues are received). FHWA will sign the Section' 4(f) Evaluation after its attorneys determine that it is legally sufficient. No public hearing will be held unless there is a major shift in the alignment (e.g., if the avoidance alternative is selected that goes through the new County school). The CTB will not need to approve ans~hing unless the avoidance alternative that impacts the school is recommended U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RLrVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) .albemarle County, Virginia Prepared by FEDERAL H/GHWAY ADMINISTRATION and VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The proposed project involves construction ora new four-lane, limited access bypass to the west of existing Route 29 to facilitate the movement of through traffic and to relieve congestion on existing Route 29. Included in the project is a new access point into the North Grounds of the University. of Virginia. This Section 4(f) Evaluation addresses the project's effects on a trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. Approved by: Date Planning and Environmental Manager Federal Highway Administration 1 1 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Con tents Page A~ackment 1 Description and Need for the Project ...................................................... 1 Overview of Section 4(f) Involvement .................................................... 3 Section 4(f) Evaluation of Trail at Jouert Middle School ...................................... 4 1. Relationship to Proposed Project .................................................. 4 2. Size and Location .............. ~ ............. 3. Ownership and Type of 4(f) Property .............................................. 4 4. Function ..................................................................... 7 5. Facilities .................................................................... 7 6. Access ....................................................................... 7 7. Relationship to Similarly Used Lands .............................................. 8 8. Applicable Clauses Affecting Ownership ...................... . ..................... 9. Unusual Characteristics ..................................... ' .................... 8 10. Impacts on Trail ............................................................... 8 11. Avoidance Alternatives ........................................................ 11 ~2. Measures to Minimize Harm ............ - ........................................ 19 Coordination .... .................................................................... 21 Correspondence with County Officials The U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303), Section 4(f), requires that no publicly owned land from a public park or public recreation area, or land from a significant historic site, be used for federal-aid kighways unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative. Significant historic sites are those listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Alternatives to avoid use of Section 4(f) properties and measures to minimize harm to them must be considered. The current design of the Route 29 Bypass involves the use ora portion of a trail recently identified by Albemarle County as a public recreation facility. Based upon information provided by County officials with jurisdiction over the school property containing the trail, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that the trail constitutes a Section 4(f) resource, which requires preparation of a Section 4(f) Evaluation. This Section 4(f) Evaluation describes the resource, the project's impacts to it, avoidance alternatives, and measures t° minimize harm. A. DESCRIPTION AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The proposed improvements would provide a new four-lane divided, limited access bypass to the west of existing Route' 29. It would extend approximately 10.04 kilometers (6.24' miles) from the Route 250 Bypass and the North Grounds of the University of Virginia on the south end to existing Route 29 north of the South Fork Riv,,~ma River on the north end. The project would also include construction of a connector road into the North Grounds of the University of Virginia, located on the south side of the Route 250 Bypass. Access to the new highway would be via interchanges at both ends, with no intermediate access points to crossroads or adjacent properties. This design is referred to throughout this evaluation as the "current design." Figure 1 show's the project alignment and the location of the trail. The need for the proposed project is based on the inability of existing Route 29 to adequately accommodate projected traffic' volumes, particularly through traffic volumes. Although the recently completed Base Case improvements (widening to six lanes plus continuous right mm lanes) have improved travel conditions in the corridor, existing Route 29 still passes through a heavily developed commercial area and the flow of through traffic is impeded by congestion and a number of traffic signals. The proposed bypass is an important link in the State Arterial System, mandated by the Virginia Genera/Assembty to provide multilane divided, kigh-speed highways serving major towns. and cities in the state. Every other metropolitan area along Route 29 has, or soon will have, a limited access bypass to provide the mobility needed for moving people and goods efficiently through the corridor. The e,'dsting section of Route 29 north of Charlottesville has in effect become a local street and no longer adequately serves the mobility function intended for the Arterial System. The importance of Route 29 beyond the limits-of Charlottesville and Albemarle County has been recognized in the route's designation by Congress as part of the National Highway System and also as a Highway of National Significance. Route 29 is the only north-south kighway linking the urbanized areas through and beyond central Virginia (Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, and Warrenton, Virginia; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Washing-ton, D.C.). Representatives of these and other localities along the corridor continue to strongly support the project to help meet regional and statewide transportation needs. The prol~osed project addresses local and regional transportation needs and continues to be consistent with local and regional planning. The project remains a component of the Albemarle COunty Land Use Plan and the MPO's regional transportation plan (Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Plan, or CATS Plan). B. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(f) INVOLVEMENT The Final Environmental Imr~act Statement (FEIS) signed bv FHWA on Januarv 20. 1993 contained Section 4(0/106 Evaluations tbr rive recreational or historic propemes. These properties had been identified through extensive coordination with local officials and tl'u'ough multiple field · in``'estizations and evaluations of commumtv and historic resources, as ,,','ell as consultations with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)..The Selected Alternative ,,,,'as the only prudent and feasible bypa:ss a!tern, at~``'e that avoided use or' an,,' Section ..t(f) properties. During the design phase of the project, additional coordination with citizens and Count;' officials occurred on a frequent and regular basis..q.r:ter the Design Public Hearing :,,'as held. a suit filed bv tile Sierra Club and the Piedmont Environ. mental Councii alte,..zed that a trail behind Jack Jouetr .Middle School meets the criteria rbr Sec:ion 4(t') protection. Court3' ot:ficials have since confirmed ti:at ti're trail corer>rises an imr>orrant recr~:at~onal resource tbr Albemarle Countv( see Section D mis Section 4(t') Evaluation rbr coorcinat~on cornmenrs~. Upon = --'" ,, r,.c,,t`` m= this confirmation. FHWA !nd the ".'irzinia Deam'-tment o:"'Fr~swo~at~on {",:DOT', commenced actions to prepare this Section 4~ t') Eva!,aanon. i I i I II The trail is an unpaved path through the woods behind Jack Jouett Middle School. A complete description of it is provided in subsequent sections of this Evaluation. It is on school property, and is one of several other recreational facilities on the property.. As a multiple-use property. accommodating several activities in addition to recreational use, only those portions of the property. which function primarily for recreational use are subject to Section 4(f). The only recreational facility encroached on by the project is the trail: Therefore, only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school propert3', constitutes the Section 4(f') resource. The current design for the project would displace approximately 204 meters (668 feet) of the trail with an area of appro.,dmately 0.05 hectare (0.12 acre). This impact constitutes approximately 11 percent of the trail. C. SECTION 4(f) EVA~LUATION OF TRAIL AT JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL 1. Relationship to Proposed Project Figure 1 showed the location of the trail in relation to the Route 29 Bypass project. The current design would cut off the westernmost loop of the trail. 2. Size and Location The unpaved trail is rouglxly 1.8 to 2.4 meters (6 to 8 feet) wide and approximately 1.85 kilometers (1.15 miles) long. It is located on wooded portions of school property west and south of Jack Jouett Middle School, and south of Albemarle High School, as shown on Figure 2. The trail begins at the southwestern comer of the playing field west of Jack Jouert Middle School, goes downhill through the woods to an unnamed stream, turns southeastward to parallel the stream, then one branch rums northward to return to the east end of the field. The other branch cont/,nues eastward along the north side of the stream and appears to have been cut off by construction of the nexv Piedmont Regional Education Program School. The trail picks ua again on the east side of the construction site and continues eas~vard, At a sewer pump station it st~lits, with one branch going toxvard the Georgetown Green residential development ~d the other :ming north to end at the baseball field south of Albemarle High School. Figure 3 shows a D'?ical view of the trail. The surrounding deciduous forest is comprised ofhickoD', ruiip poplar, rd various species of oaks. 3. Oxvnership and Type ~f 4(f) Propert)' The Albemarle Count-,' School Board owns ,3ne trail and all the other property comprising the Albemarle Count,,' school complex. The com~iex includes Mar',' Greer Elementary School. Jack Jouett Middle School. and Albcma;!c Hiuh School. Tile total acreage of the school comvlex property is 216.691 acres accora:n'_' :o t!:e rezorded deed tDB 287 P414. 11/23/49). The trail ~s a publicly owned public recreation :Sciiitv. which ~s one component of the,encompassing multi-use school property. There are no si:ns des~gna:ing the trail or its hours of availability for public use. 7:.. ~ " . l -N · · -..% Current Design / ; I . .'1 . It rind, hill., - '---'" -- I Trail Location ..c ' . . .,,o,,, .;'..,". · , ",. ',.:, ,-"-".,..' ' ,, ..~:: '- ':. ,..-": ". ..... · .... :': · :' '. :' ' : "':"':~- '~":~i "'::.' ',-, ...... ' ' :'":"-"- ;' :"' ': ':' " k,'., ;, , ,.'- : , : A . ./ / .-:" . ...... % ._. '?'~ " ": ('"'~'/: ', :- --' ' ,.-x- --, " ~ \ ' 7%"" ~" "- '" ' ' ' " .... ' %~' 'N' ~' z ' WHI ....... "' .... // .... . .. ,~ i~,.%., '~%, ,' ) . t ,'... . :' '.:v.',: '--. ,,_. ........ -"'" '-. . .--' Z ' ~,~,4;, >: " . : . ,'..) /.~ ' ,:...' ,.,-" '..'- ,'.- ~. '";~0~- ' ... ", '.. · '.. · ,.'. ; :"/ -~ ' r.. ~-.-.,,.~,.'.~' '~-'~ 'Schesnser r '", ' , ,, / ..... "," L.' ' r ,, ...... \,.. Farm · ./'" L/ o ./ , / :' 7'" , ..~.; L '.. ' ~-.%, , ' .... ' .L~,'. /.":J ' .'~ ',q;' .( ~ '"-':' '. · -.,,,...r' ': ?k '' ""' / ' ' '. :5 ,'. ~.,~ ( . ." .......... >' ,. · '..' ':..' '. .-:" ; .,.' ~.., ~. '.-.....6".'.'<.'" · ~. . . · ./ · ;./'..~ ' ;. . . .* ~. .:../ ,./. .;... '.. /-- :--...;. x~;;? ' i ' - . '--' L, -"~,~, .~ . ,: · '~. o,.o to..%.'. ""';'- .~."~.;~, ~ ; ' ,~ .," .:" ', .' ..... ' "~-' ;' 2.' ' (W; ' * .~'~"~' ~ r.,~;.;.,~ -'' ~ f . .'. .,-,c,-:,,:~,c~.,.., .. "v. ' ~;::f ',-'. . Original Alternative 10 L · ~ '~ .~ '.'~ I · ~ ....... ~: Figure 1 Location of Trail Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) 0 1250 2500 Referenc'e: USGS Quadrangles, Charlottesville West. Charlottesville East / i ,\ Jac~ Jouett MS Ddver Training PREP School (new constructJon) x \ X. \~.,._._ \ \ / \\./ '\ x \ ~ I Mary Greer ES School Bus Pa~lng Fueling Facility ~ (new constmcYon) Practice Fields ~bemafleHS Georgetown Green SCALE: $"=600' O O Figure 2 Trail Site Route 29 ByPass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE I01 Albemarle County, Virginia Figure 3 Typical Viexv o1' Trail Project: 6029-002-F2¢, PE 101; I*,UVA-fl{12-O01. ;'!: I01 Alhemarlc Cotlllty, Virginia 4. Function Uoon being apprised of the trail's potential status as a Section 4(f') resource, VDOT began investigations. Initial observations indicated use of the trail by students from the school, perhaps as part of the school's physical education classes. Use by the public, if any, appeared to be secondary and incidental, and there were no outward indications that public recreation is a major purpose of the trail. For example, there areno signs identifying the trail as a recreational resource and the County's Land Use Plan, wh/ch Iists a number of other facilities at the school as recreational resources, does not include the trail. Clarification of the trail's status and its role in fulfilling the County's recreation needs was requested in a letter to the County Executive on June 11, 1998. In a written response dated August 14, 1998, Albemarle County's Community Development Chief indicated that the trail behind Jack Jouett Middle School i's used for school athletic team training, academic programs, and general public use. He further noted that the trail is used for training by Albemarle High School's cross country and track teams (approximately 60 students), as well as other sports teams (soccer, lacrosse) for training purposes. The trail is also used by earth science classes at the three schools. As provided by County policy, school facilities function as public park/recreation facilities to serve the general public. In addition, he sa. id the trail is open after school hours for public use and is actively used by the public for walking and jogging. The trail provides a "soft track facility in a natural setting for walking and jogging near the most populated and densely developed part of the County." He stated that no organized events are held on the trail and that "There are no definite plans for the future other than maintenance to the existing trails and use." In a follow-up letter, the Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation noted that the trail is heavily used by the community because of its location in the most densely developed area of the County and that it constitutes a significant recreational resource. According to the Director, sign-up sheets at the trail indicate that public use is approximately 30 to 35 persons per day, and school athletic teams xvho use the trail three to five times a week in season may have as many as 50 team members on the trail 'at once. He I;arther exr)lained ~e County's policy of utilizing school facilities to more efficientl';' meet the Counm"s overall recreational needs. The facilities at the school complex function as a district park. providing a varlet3.' of recreational activities such as tennis, field sports. and walking. 5. Facilities There are no facilities alon~ the trail. 6. Access Access to the western portion of the u'~it is~ °a/ned ~¥om the Jack Jouett Ivliddle School playing fi.etd. Parking is available approximately' '~" _-,-~ meters [800 feet3 to the northeast in a parking lot between Jack Jouert Middle School and .Mar~' Greer Elementa.r-?' School. Access to the eastern portion of the ]l~trail is fr°m the Ge°rget°wn Green residemial deve!°¢ment °r bv watking ar°u-nd the °utside °f the_ I I I I ! ! I I ! ! ! II II fence 'surrounding the baseball field. No public parking is available at Georgetown Green. Parking at Albemarle High School is approximately 305 meters (1,000 feet) northeast of the trail. 7. Relationship to Similarly Used Lands The trail is a component of a larger assemblage of recreational facilities at the County school complex, as illustrated on Figure 2. The trail complements other existing facilities in the area to provide a variety of recreational oppommities. Information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project. It was noted that a planned trail along the South Fork Rivanna River is called for in the County's Land'Use Plan and Open Space Plan. No location for that trail has been established and the County does not own property on which to place the trail. Therefore, the planned trail is not in the purview of Section 4(f). The proposed design for a bridge to carry the b,vpass over the South Fork R_ivanna River would have sufficient space underneath on either side of the fiver to accommodate any trail the County may wish to put there in the future. The nearest site with comparable recreational trails is Whitewood Road Park. This is a 20-acre wooded park approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) east of the Albemarle High School parking lot. No designated public park/ag is available 'at the park, but an adjacent business site appears to have sufficient vacant par'king spots to accommodate users of the park. Trails through the park are either paved or gravel and are approximately 1.8 to 3.0 meters (6 to i0 feet) wide. Thig park was originally to be the site of an elementar-¢ school. However. county officials decided to use the site as a park for nearby residents and to build the school at the site where A_znor-Hurt Elementary School now stands. It is open from 6:30 a.m. until dark. The Ivx, Creek Natural Area on the south bank of the South Fork Rivanna River Reser','oir, approxirnately 2.09 'kilometers (1.3 miles) north of the school complex, also contains trails. Jogging and bi!ring are not permitted on the Ivy- Creek Natural ,Area trails. 8. Applicable Clauses Affecting Ownership There are no clauses in the deed Ibr ti-Lis properD' that would affect ownership. 9. Unusual Characteristics There are no unusual charactenst:as ~soc:ated with this trail. 10. Impacts on Trail Displacement of Section of Trail. Thc cu,-rent design of the project, as show'n on Figure 4. would require the use of a~prox~ma:eiv 0.05; .... ,~.- 0.1~ · ,.~c,_,, ~ _ acre~ of land comr~fising the trail. This use would displace approximately 204 meters (668 feet) or'the trail, breaking its continuity. Without relocating the disr~lac:d pon~on of the trait, or other,vise mitigating the impact, the trail would essentially be severed and wou!d se~'e ~ two ser~.arate dead-end trails. 8 .c ,) ~ ~' ~7- ~ ~-~ . Construction Limits IW Creek Agricultural '} -, . -- and Forestal District I \ ,"'~' Construction Limits ~ ,.' / Trail \ \ SCALE: 1 "~-200 Figure 4 Use of Trail by Proposed Project Route 29 B~ ypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE I 01; RU VA-002-00 !, P I: ' '"1 Albemarle County, Virginia I ! ! ! i I Noise Levels. In noise studies conducted for the project, projected noise levels at various distances from the road were determined by a noise model-based on roadway geometry and traffic data inputs. The table below shows the calculated noise levels at various distances. After construction of the project, the nearest remaining portion of the trail would be approximately 40 meters (130 feet) from the northbound lanes of the bypass. The noise studies indicate that this portion of the trail would experience a noise level in the year 2022 of appro,ximately 68 dBA. Portions of the trail farther away from the road would experience incrementally lower noise levels, as suggested in the table. Thus, the closest portion of the flail would experience future noise levels approximately 20 dBA higher than the estimated e,,dstLng noise level of 48 dBA. Tiffs represents a substantial increase in the noise level and an exceedance of FHWA's noise abatement criterion (NAC). An evaluation of noise abatement measures concluded that construction of a noise barrier in th.is area would not be cost- effective, as noted in the Final Desi_ma Noise Report prepared for the current design. Table 1 NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS DISTA,NCES FROM PROJECT Distance (from centerline of near lane) Noise Level ~ .(dBA) Meters [ Feet 10 33 76 20 I 66 72 30 98 ' 69 40 131 68 50 ] 164 67 I 6O { I97 66 7O 230 65 80 262 64 90 295 63 100 I 328 62 Air Quality. Air qualiD' analyses conducted for the project included estimates of carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from traffic on the new roadwav. The results reported in the Final EIS for a site near the trail (Mary. Greer Elementary School) are well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Theretbre. the project would have a negligible effect on air quality along the trail. Visual. The project would change the character of the view from the trail by introducing a four-lane free~vay where woods and streams are currently present. Thus. users of the severed portions of the rra/1 at the edge of the proposed right of way would see a roadway embankment approximately 3 to 17 meters high (I0 to 58 feetL A.trail user approaching from the northeast would, upon entering the trail at the edge of the field, initiallv be'able tO look over and beyond the road: but, upon reaching 10 II :he edge of the proposed fight of xvay, the view to the west would be blocked by an embankment -'-pproximately 3 meters (10 feet) h/gh. A trail user approaching on the southern portion of the trail would travel northwestward along the stream valley and then encounter an embankment 2pproximately 17 meters (58 feet) high carrying the roadway over the stream valley. This is in contrast to the current views of the stream valley forested with medium-age to mature hardwoods. 70 lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated into the 3esign. The intent of the plan would be to reestablish a successional forest on the road embankment, beginning With plantings of seedlings or nursery stock that would gradually mature into larger trees that would screen the roadway from view. 11. Avoidance Alternatives Several altematives to avoid use of the trail by the project have been identified and evaluated. They include previous alternatives addressed in the FEIS and modifications to the current design. Such modifications include aligv._ment shifts to the east or west, special design features such as retaining walls, profile adjustments, and the use of bridges. Previous Alternatives Build alternatives discussed in the FEIS included Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Figure 5 shows the locations of these alignment alternatives in relation to the location of Section 4(f)/106 properties. A/1 but Alternative 10 (the Selected Alternative upon which the current design is based) would avoid use of land from the trail. However, the No-Build Alternative and Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A. 9. and 12 were deemed not feasible and prudent because they would not adequately satis~' the identified transportation needs. Alternative 11, the only other alternative considered feasible and prudent, would have Section 4(f) impacts to other resources (two histofic properties) and. therefore, cannot be considered a total Section 4(:[') avoidance alternative. Therefore, none of the previously considered alternatives to the Selected Alternative represent feasible and prudent Section 4(f) avoidance alternatives. .Modifications to Current Design Five alternatives (Alternatives A. B. C. D. ~nd E'~ that modi~ the current design to avoid use of the trail have been considered. They are shown on Figures 6 through 10. Evaluation of these alternatives has taken into account other environmental constraints in the area as well as design considerations. Alternative A, shift alignment to the west. This alternative, shoxvn on Figure 6. xvould involve shifting approximately 1.006 meters 13.300 feet) of the alignment to the west of the presently proposed alignment. The maximum shi~ would be approximately 46 meters (150 feet). With this alternative, the northbound lanes would be approximately 26 meters (85 feet) from the trail at their closest point. The impacts associated with this shift include the following: ! II I I Figure 5 . Previous Alternatives Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101: RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia ' ~Schieslnger Farm Westover :Park Pen 2 u.. I Park ... /. Historic Prc:)ertJes ParKs Sca~e (mile) 1 t and Forestal District /- Ivy Creek Agric,ultur~-I" >:"~ x Construction Limits Trail SCALE: 1"=200' Figure 6 Avoidance Alternative A Route 29 B~ ypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albcmarlc County, Virginia An encroachment on the Schlesinger (Haffner) Farm historic site located to the south would occur as a result of the xveswvard shift in alignment. The encroachment, amounting to approximately 0.27 hectare (0.67 acre), would create another Section 4(f) involvement. Encroachment on the tributary of Ivy, Creek would increase, resulting in displacement of approximately 912 meters (2.992 feet) of stream bottom. This additional displacement, along with the westward shift, would increase, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, which would also increase the concern for potential effects on downstream populations of James spinymussel (federally listed endangered species) in Ivy, Creek. This additional encroachment would likely compromise the determination of no jeopardy to the mussel made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the current design. Encroachment on wetlands associated w/th the tributary of Ivy Creek xvould increase to approximately 0.29 hectare (0.71 acre). Encroachment on the Iw Creek Agricultural and Forestal District would increase to approximately 3.80 hectares (9.38 acres). Because this is greater than one acre of impact to a single farm wfthin the district. VDOT would be required under state law to submit a notice to the Counw Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors would then issue a f'mding on whether the proposed project is necessary to provide service to the public in the most economic and practical manner and whether it would have an unreasonably adverse effect upon state or local policy. Alternative B, shift alignment to the west with reduced design standard. Alternative B, shown on Figure 7. would involve sb_/fti~g approximately 1.006 meters (3,300 feet) of the ali_mmaent to the west of the presently proposed alignment. The maximum sl~ift would be approximately 26 meters (85 feet). With tiffs alternative, the use of reduced design standards (steeper grades, lower design speed, etc.) would allow a smaller lateral si'rift of the alignment and a narrower cross section due to less earthwork in cuts and fills. This alternative would require FHWA approval of a design exception to use standards lower than those to be used on the remainder of the project. The impacts associated with th.is alternative include the following: An encroachment on the Schlesin:er (Haffner) Farm h/storic site located to the south would occur as a result of the wesv, vard shift in alignment. The encroachment, amounting to approximately 0.03 hectare {0.07 acre ), would create another Section 4(f) involvement. Encroachment on the tributary of Ivv Creek would increase, resulting in displacement of approximately 682 meters ~2.238 feetl of stream bottom. This additional displacement. along with the westxvard shifT, would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. which would also increase t~.e concern for potential effects on downstream populations of James spinymussel {federaJly listed endangered species) in Iw Creek. Th_is additional encroachment would likely com?romise the determination of no jeopardy to the mussel made by USFWS for the current desicn. Figure 7 Avoidance Alternative B Trail Route 29 Bypass ~roject: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; ItU VA,002-001, I'F. I 01 SCALE:r;200' Albe~narlc Cotmly, Virginia I I \ Encroachment on wetlands associated with the tributary of Iw Creek would increase to approximately 0.20 hectare (0.50 acre). Encroachment on the Ivv Creek Agricultural and Forestal District would increase to approx/mately 2.26 hectares (5.58 acres). Because ti'tis is greater than one acre of impact to a single farm within the district, VDOT would be required under state law to submit a notice to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors would then issue a finding on whether the proposed project is necessary to provide service to the public in the most economic and practical manner and whether it would have an unreasonably adverse effect upon state or local policy Alternative C, shift ali~mament to the west and provide bridge. Alternative C, shown on Figure 8, would involve shifting approximately 1,006 meters (3,300 feet) of the alignment to the west of the presently proposed alignment: The ma.xirnum shift would be approximately 18 meters (60 feet). With this alternative, bridges would be used to cross the tributary of Ivy Creek and extended northward to elLminate encroachment on the trail by earthwork embankment. The bridges would be approximately 545 meters (1,788 feet) long and would also span part of the Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District. The impacts associated with this alternative include the following: The view from the lower portions of the trail would be of the underside of a bridge rather than a roadwav embankment. The clearance under the bridge (approximately 4 meters or 13 feet) ~vould afford limited views beyond the bridge. The tributary, of I~.' Creek would be spanned, thus lessening potential for erosion and sedimentation and the associated concern for potential effects on downstream James spinymussel populations. The estimated construction cost would incre~e by approximately S19.6 million. Alternative D, bridge over the trail. Alternative D, show~n on Figure 9, would use the same alignment as the current design but would bridge over the trail. This is considered an avoidance alternative because aerial crossinzs of linear $¢c:ion 4t ~) resources are not considered a "use" of the resource unless piers or other appurtenances de v!aced on the resource or the bridge harms the purposes for which the resource ,,v~ es:abiished. The brid~es would be approximately 275 meters (902 feet) lono for the southbound :anzs and a~2rcxirnatetv 280 meters (919 feet) long for the northbound lanes anti would also s~mn :he mbuta,w of Ivv Creek and a portion of the Ivy Creek A~_ricultural and Forestal District. Ti:e ctear-,z,,ce under the northbound lanes would be appro.'drnatety 4 meters (I 3 feet) at :he roints xxn~:re the trail would pass under them. The impacts associated with this alternative include the followin~: The vie~v from the lower ponions of thc trail would be of the underside of a bridge rather than a roadway embznkn:cn:. T::e c!ea-~ce under the bridge (approximately 4 meters or 13 feet) would a.qbrd vie',,.s hz'. --- .......: ,~,., ~_.4,, ,~..,u=c. aithou~h they would be interrupted somewhat bv the bridge pints. · IL ~ m ~ = m m 'n 'm ~ : l~ ?,.. ~.~; ~,,, :" ~. )/ ,_,,'~,:~5-.~ ..,/ / ~> .... ./ ~~'~.," ~--~'~' ~' ('~ ,"IW Creek Agricultural %. ~;;../. ~' -~ ~ .--- ~x,,~ ~? and Forestal District %~ ~¢ ~~~ ~% ~ ,,"- '"'--- k X 't '.,' k.k . ./"' ~ /~J Construction Limits ~' ',,, ~,~ .... .., .... ~ /?~: ,, : C°"stru_u~cti°n Liar \ / I I / I I \ \ \ \ \ ~ccgr-Field~ '~,~ Figure 8 Avoidance Alternative C Trail Route 29 Bypass Project: ~i029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 SCALE: 1'--200' Albemarle County, Virginia \ x. ',.... ~ X,~,,xt Construe ion Limits ./- ~7~.~ /~.~ / Construcbon L~m~ts k.,' /.~ ' x. ,' ........... d'( // - ~. .... -'"'"" Figure 9 Avoidance Alternative D Trail Route 29 Bypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-9 , PE 101 scate:r=2~' Albemarle County, Virginia I The tributary of IW Creek would be spanned, thus lessening potential for erosion and sedimentation and the associated concern for potential effects on downstream James spinymussel populations in IW Creek. The estimated construction cost would increase approximately $ 8.8 million. Alternative E, shift alignment to the east. Alternative E, shown on Figure 10, would involve sb. ifting approximately 3,810 meters (12,500 feet) of the alignment to the east of the presently proposed alignment. The maximum shift would be approximately 610 meters (2,000 feet). The impacts associated with this alternative include the following: The view from a portion of the eastern segment of the trail would be o.f the underside ora bridge rather than a roadway embankment. The clearance under the bridge would afford views beyond the bridge, although they would be interrupted somewhat by the bridge piers. The tributary of Ivy Creek would be spanned with a bridge and the crossing location would be farther upstream, thus lessening potential for erosion and sedimentation and the associated concern for potential effects on downstream James spinymussel populations in Ivy Creek. The new Piedmont Regional Education Pro,am School currently under construction would be displaced, as would the existing vehicular maintenance facility and its new expansion currently under construction. This alternative xvould also split the school complex and disrupt internal traffic circulation patterns. Summary. Table 2 provides a comparative summary, of impacts for the current design and the avoidance alternatives for selected resources in the vicinity of the trail. Constructive use. Constructive use occurs when a project does not physically incorporate land fi'om the Section 4(f) properr}': but. the proximity impacts (e.g.. due to noise or visual intrusion) are so severe that the protected' activities, features, or atn-ibutes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially Impaired [23 CFR 77I. 135(p)(2)]. Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity, is not a significant attribute of the tr~l for the activities that occur t,here. The recreational uses of walking and jogging and the school's use of the trail for cross count, q..' tra:n/ng are not deaendent on Iow noise conditions (as. for example. an amphitheater or a campground x~ould be t. [_:kewise. these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or~ unusual natural or manmade features. 12. Measures to Minimize Harm One of the principal me,utes to minimize harm would be to relocate the section of trail that would be displaced by the project so as not to sever the trail. The severed portions would be reconnected by building a new secnon ot'tral ~ong or near the toe of the fill embankment, as shown on Figure I 1..Another measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail. Work on such a landscaping plan is atreadv in progress for incorporation 19 \ ~ Trail Georgetown Green / / gCALE: 1"=1000' Figure 10 Avoidance Alternative E Route 29 B, ypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RIJVA-002-001, PE i 01 Albemarle County, Virginia -)___ Table 2 ;UMMARY OF IMPACTS Alternative Impact Category Current Design A B C D E Displacements Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 Businesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-Profit Organizations 0 0 0 0 0 2 Section 4(0 Involvements (acres) Trail at Jouett Middle School 0.12 0 0 0 0'* 0* Historic Schlesinger Farm 0 0.67 0.07 0 0 0 ( Haft-ncr Farm) Aquatic Resources Number of Stream Crossings 1 1 1 I 1 1 Len=m.h 0f Stream Bottom Displaced 612 2,992 2,238 0 0 0 (Feet) Wetlands Displaced (acres) 0.26 0.71 0.50 0 0 0 Ao~-iculturat/Torestal District ' 2.68 9.38 5.58 0.92 0.82 0 Encroachment (acres) *This alternative would bridge over the trail and therefore would not "use" it under Section 4(0. into the final design. Providing noise abatement at this location does not appear to be cost-effective. Installation of a more permanent surface (paving) ~vas considered, but County officials have said the current natural surface is preferred. .Another measure to reduce harm would be to use bridges on the same alignment as the current design. These bridges would not be long enough to completely span the trail as in Avoidance Alternative D, but would eliminate encroachment on approxirnately 45 meters (148 feet) of the trail. a reduction of approximately 20%. The br/dges would be approximately 270 meters (886 feet) long for the southbound lanes and 140 meters (459 feet) tong for the northbound lanes. They would span the tributary, of Ivy, Creek. thus lessening the potential for erosion and sedimentation and potential effects on downstream populations of James spinymussel populations. They would also span a portion of the Ivv Creek A. gricultural and Forestal District. thus reducing encroachment on the district to less than one acre. These bridges would increase the estimated construction cost bv approximately $4.7 million. 2I I~ Creek A~ricultural and Forestal District .% Relocated Trail SCALE: 1"=200' Figure 11 Measures to Mini~nize Itarm Route 29 B~ ypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia D. COORDINATION Over the past 10 years of planning and design on this project, extensive.coordination has been conducted with Albemarle County officials, local citizens groups, and the public. During all that time, the trail was never raised as an issue. Only when litigation was initiated by the Sierra Club and the Piedmont Environmental Council did anyone express concern for impacts to the trail. Upon learning that the trail is an issue, VDOT initiated investigations to evaluate the trail and the project's effects on it. Albemarle County officials with jurisdiction over the property were consulted to clarify the role of the trail in the County's recreation pro,ams, identify impacts to the trail, and develop potential mitigation measures. The following is a synopsis of these consultations. Copies of the actual correspondence are included in Attachment 1. Date Coordination ~vith Albemarle County Officials 6/11/98 Letter from VDOT to Albemarle County Executive Robert W. Tucker, Jr. VDOT requested responses to 13 questions regarding the trail behind Jack Jouett Middle SchOol and any other trails or recreational facilities, e.,dsting or planned, that are or could be affected by the project. 8/14/98 Letter from Albemarle County Chief of Community Development, David Benish. Provided responses to the questions, outlining the role of the trail in Albemarle County's overall recreational facilities and programs and providing information on trail users. 11/3/98 Letter from Albemarle Count' Director o'f Parks and Recreation. Pat Mullaney. Expanded on Mr. Benish's responses to the questions. 11/17/98 VDOT's consultant met with 5, Lr. Benish and Mr. Mullaney f6r further discussion. Reviewed project design, potential avoidance alternatives, and potential mitigation measures. 1 ]- COUNTY OF ALBF. MARLE . I Dept. of Planning & CommuniW Deveiopmen~ 401 Mclntire Road Chario~tesviile, Virg,nia 22902.4596 (804) 296-$823 ] ] ] TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Patsy Napier, Project Manager David Benish, Chief of Community Development August 14, 1995 Response to questions regarding exixting trails at County School Complex The following are responses to your questions regarding the above noted trails: l. grhat i~ the ma/or purpose oft/ne traits? The trails are used for school athletic team training, academic programs and general public use. The trails are used for training by Albemarle High School's cross-country and track teams, as well as other sports teams (soccer, lacrosse) for training purposes. The trails are aLso used by earth science classes at the three schoots. As provided by County' policy, all school facilities function as punic park/r~on facilities to serve the general public. The trails are open after school hours for public use and are actively used for by the public for walking and jogging. 2. Are the trails a recreational resource for public :~se? Yes (see above). 3. If $o. do they. constitute a significant recre~ional resource in the CoUnty? Tr, e County, as a general practice, does not designate recreational facilities as "significant." Recreational facilities are provided to address identified or perceived school or public needs. The train provide a soft track facility in a natural semng for waiking and jogging near the most populated and densely developed part of the County. This trail system serves to help meet the demands from this part of the County and compliment other existing facilities in the area to provide a variety of trail types and serd_n~ for walking and running opporrtmities. The trails are also seen as a major r~-source to the high schooL's cross-country, track and other sport teams. There is a need for safe convement soft surface trails for ~aining runs. According to School Board policy, ,Albemarle school athletes are prohibited from pracucing on most public ~ In pardcular, the cross- country team has been forc:d to travel to other locations around the County. to train (participation on the .Albemarle cross-country team recently has a=proached 60 students). 1 1 1 1 i 1 I I 1 I I I 4. ,tf so, what is the basis for that significc~nt determination in the light of the fact that the trails are not identified in the Compreher~ ive Plan ax a public recreational r~ource at the school? All public school~ are identified as public recreational facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. This has been the case since the adoption of the Community Facilities PI.an (May, I991) and was reaff'u'med in the updated Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensiv~'~lan, adopted June 1995 (excerpts from both documents are attached). Neither document inventories all facilities at County parks, so this trail system is not specifically mentioned in either document. However, itandards for the development of each category of park, including the number and .type of facilities to be provided, are established in the Community Facilities Plan. The standards for District Parks (which are to be provided at middle and high schools) call for the development of an "open space area with walking or jogging trail. . . if the opportunity and demand exists for this type of facility (2- 31],. Community Facilifie~ Plan)." The purpose and need for this facility is documented in the responses to other questions. 5. F/hen were the trails constructed? Them were crude trmls in existence in 198.3-84. The cross-country team has held several trail-building activities az different points in time. Between 1984 and 1990, the trails were opened up and improved significantly. The lower trail behind Jouett Middle School was upgraded in 1990 when the cross--country team and athletic deparzment pooled funds ($5,000) to pay a contragor to level and expand thc existing tra/1. The primary group behind the initial trail development has been the Albemarle cross-country team and boosters. Their interest was generated by the limited training oppommit/es/facilifies available ia the County az the time. Over time, the participants in trail development have included the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACA. A), the Boy Scouts, and various service fraternities and volunteer groups. Since they have been i.n exlstence, there has aLso been steady and consistent u.se for school academic exercises and general public use for walking and ming. 6. If'ho were they cor~rructed for and what purposex do they use them? See the responses to ~:uesrions 1.3. and 5. 7. FTho u. sex the rraiiz now and for what purposex do the~ use them? AND 8. How many. ~eopie ~e the rra~lx ar, si how frequehtiy do they. use them? The mls are still used for athletic team training and acaclemm programs. The trails are also regularly used by residents of nei~borhoods along (and w/thin) the Rio/Hydraulic Road "loop" and Georgetown and Barracks Roads. According to the cross-country coach, actual numbers vary with the season. Summer use is more moderate due to warmer ~empera 'nzres. During cooler periods he estimates 20 to 30 users (mostly runners) per day. During the c,mss-counrry season, the team makes use of the track 3 to 5 t/roes a week. with anywhere from 40 to 50 team members at once. 9. ,4re there orgamzed events for which the rratlx are used? No. To date, .',here have eeen no organized e,,'e~..'s scheduled at this facility (trail area). It is considered a back-uo ~'acilirv for' Albemarle cross--counws.' rneem. l O. ,rs there any. program to d:sserntna:e t~/'orrnatton to the public regarding the trails as a recreational re. source? Informatmn is d,'smbutea through ,.ns local ~'ack~trml c:u:s. The ~-~ils have been highlighted in the Charlottesville Track Clui~ newsie~er on sevemi occ~ons. ! I. What are the.future plans.for the trails? There are no definite plans for the futm'e other than maintenance to the existing trails and use. The future of the trail system after construction of the bypass will be considered at that time. 1Z To what extent would this project's effects on the trailz a~ect county recreational programs? The bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trail system, and will reduce the am'a~veness and utility of the remaining trails to the general public. This will result in increased use of Whitewood Park and Ivy Creek Natm-al, both already receiving a high level of use (jogging is not permitted the in the Ivy Creek Natural Area). !3. Are there any other trails or other recreational facilities, either existing or planned that are or could be affected by this project? Yes. The County's Land Use Plan and Open Space Plan call for the development ora linear greenway park along the South Fork Rivanna River and reservoir. It is my understanding that the greenway proposal has been discussed with the Bypass Design Commitr. ee. If you need any further information or have additional queztions, please do not hezimm to contact me. Cc: Wayne Cilimberg Al Reasor PatMulIaney Plarming. KE l } 1 1 1 l l COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Department County Office Building 4OI Mctnrire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5844 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 I998 DELEUW, CATHER & COMPANY FAIRFAX, VA. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Patsy Napier, Project Manager Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation November 3, 1998 Response to questions regarding e?dsd, ng trails ar County School Complex Albemarle County school grounds se,we a dual function as 'Albemarle County parks. This arrangement is defined in the Parks and Recreation section of the Albemarle County Code and is recognized by policy in the Communi~ Facilities Plan. which is a component of'the Comprehensive Plan..As Director of Parks -,.nd Rec:'eauon :t is my responsibility to oversee the provisiom supervision, use, m~inten.~nce, and protection of ail park and recreation facilities in the County. Therefore I would like to take this opport'a=/D, to expand and elaborate on some of the responses of August 21, I998 by Da,Ad Be,risk, C~efof Commua/ry Development to your questions regarding the trails at the County. school complex. 1. What is the major purpose of the trails? The provision of tra/ls for pub}lc recrea=on is a major funcdon of the Parks and Recreation Depzaunent. The tm/is are used ','eD' heavii, y bv ~e commumry because of their location in the mos~ densely developed area oft&e Count','. Tk.,,~ t~aiis alsO serve a major function for the school system for athletic team wa/n.Lng and for academic use. 3. If so, do thev constitute a sig-nificant recreational resource in the Count5.,? Yes. this trmi system and d,,e wooded area :n general, particularly in this veu high developed area of the County, constitute a significant recreational resource. As stated in the Community Facilities ?lan, the provision of parks and recreation facilities can serve to achieve a variety o£commumry objectives. Two of the most common purposes are. (1) the provision of activity related rem'cation opportunities; and, (2) the preservation of.environmental or historically significant resources. Due to the extensive development of' the surrounding land, this Wooded area and trails are def'mitely a si_m'zificant recreation and environmental resource. The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area. 4. If so, what is the basis for that significant determination in the light of the fact that the trails are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a punic recreational resource at the school? As state earlier, the .Albemarle County School grounds also serve as Albemarle County parks, as recognized in the' Community, Facilities Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan, and as deft.ned in the Albemarle County Code. In the Comprehensive Plan, page 1.32, traits are mentioned.. "Distric: parks provide additional facilities _and recreational opportunities beyond what is provided in smaller comrnu~ty parkS. There should be a reasonable variety of recreational facilities and oppo~mities; tot tots, tennN courts, lighted playing fields, and jogg-ing/w~king trails. or trackS am a few examples. These parks are provided st secondary schools in Albemarle Coun .ry.' The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett M. iddle School and Greet Elementary School, is designated a District Park on page 49 of the Albemarle County. Community Facilities Plan I990 - 2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in m~ting the objectives as established in the Co'mmuniry Facilities Plan and they constitute a major rP. SOurCC. The portion of this site that includes the trails and woods is particularly significant in this high/y developed area of the County.. The imDortance to the County of protecting undeveloped land in this area was underscored in 1990 when the decision was made to not build a new elementary school on the nearby County owned Whitewood Road site in order to preserve the wooded area and trails on that site. Lr~tead the Countw s=ent in excess of S 1.000,000 to purchase the current Agnor Hurt school site. Since that the time the County has placed a conservation easement on the Whitewood site. In my opinion, it would make little sense to allow impact to a nearby site of similar character when such effor'~s have been made to protect the Wkitewood site. I think this clearly shows the si~ificance this land has as a recreazonal resource to the County.. 8. How many people use the trails and how frequently do they use them? The ~-ils are in the most denseiy popu2ated area of the County vv_nd receive steady and consistent u~e bv the r~ublic as ,.veil as re_m.dar we bv .:.he Albemarle arlxletic teams and Albemarle, Jouert. and Greet academic progr-ams. Sign Up sheets at zee ,'cra/is indicate that r>ubtic '~e is approximately 30 to 55 persons/day. School athletic :em-ns '.','ho ,use 'd",e u--Mis 3 to 5 times a week in season may have ~ mmn,,' ~ 50 tem-n members on tke n-ails at once. The atln!etic tie!ds, u"',~!s ~d c ..... outxoor recreational facilities in tins most de,ely populated the County are extremely !.w,:oa.~nr in meeting our recreational object,ye and goals. All facilities at this complex are used extensively.. 11. What are the future plans for the traiIs? The wails will continue to be maintained for public and school use. Discussions between parks and recreation and school staff are ongoing as to how to improve these trails and other facilities to enhance school and public use. 12. To what extent would this project's effects on the trails affect county recreational programs? As David stated the bypass would etimin~e, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails system, and. will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains. Any loss oftmil_q in this area will further burden e,,dsring facilities that are a/ready overused. The Ivy Creek Natural Area is used to the point now that the additional public use could result in consideration of new policies to restrict use to protect the natural area. Loss oft. he trails at this CoUnty School Complex would negate much of what the County ga/ned with its investment and effort to preserve a similar area at Whitewood. Road. Tb~nk you for thiq oppommiry to comment. If you have any questions please do not hesitate tO con.ct me. Cc: Wayne Cilimberg Al Reaser David Benish The Planning Department has reviewed the draft 4(/) evaluation and providing comments founds below. Also attached are comments from Pat Mullaney, Director of the Albemarle County Dept of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Mullaney is responsible for the operation of County Park facilities, including school facilities after school hours. Comments: As noted in Mr. Mullaney's comments the DraR 4(/) Evaluation did not address impacts to the trail system behind Greer Elementary School. The County's previous comments have addressed potential impact to the "school complex" (Albemarle High, Jouett Middle, and Greet Elementary Schools) trails, not just the trails behind Jouett Middle School. The portion of the trial system located behind Greer is also an important component of the overall trail system and should be considered as part of this evaluation impact of the Bypass project on the existing trail system. Page 8, "Unusual Characteristics" fails to adequate recognize the quality of the natural setting/environment of the open space area that is the location of the trails. It is this environment that significantly contributes to making this trail system such a valuable part of the County's open space and park trial system. Regarding the section under the heading "Impacts to Trail" (p.8-10), our opinion is that the evaluation does not accurately emphasize the significant noise, visual and air quality impacts the Bypass project will have on the trials and the open space system its located within. The evaluation fails to recognize that not only is the facility (trial) being impacted but, more importantly, the setting for the trials. This area provides a series of recreational trails supporting a variety of uses (nature walks, jogging, and school educational and athletic uses) in a natural setting within easy access the most densely populated areas of the County. The significant noise and visual impacts, and likely potential air quality impacts would significantly change the character and quality of the environment. The County will essentially lose the only multi-use trail system within an undisturbed natural setting near this densely populated area (the ICNA does not permit jogging or athletic events). · Page 11, "Avoidance Alternatives:" None of the alternatives provided in this evaluation adequately address or will significantly change the impacts to the trails and open space area. The construction of the bypass is an intrusion into a quiet, mostly undeveloped area, and will drastically change its character and the quality of the remaining natural environment. The visual, noise and likely air pollution impacts (Odors/exhaust fumes) will be significant from any of modifications to the proposed alignment (avoidance alternatives A-D). Alternatives A and B require shifts onto the adjacent properties with historic properties and/or an agricultural and forestal district, which are other "significant" areas to be avoided. Would another 4(f) evaluation be required for impacts further impact to those areas? The proposed alternative alignment (alternative E) is not a viable or feasible option and should be deleted. This alternative alignment is shown through the existing school bus maintenance facility and a new school currently under construction. It would also likely impact other school/park recreation facilities, including other sections of the trail, possibly creating the need for another 4(/) evaluation. This section dismisses all previous alternatives as being not feasible as they would not adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs, or in the case of Alternative 11 would have 4(/) impacts. In the case of Alternative 11, those potential 4(f) impacts may be more easily mitigated the this impact to the trail system, since mitigation requires further negative impacts to an adjacent agricultural and forestal district, which is another area in which impacts should be avoided. It would seem appropriate at this time for the 4(/) evaluation process to reassess all alternatives in light of what is now known about the impacts of alternative alignment 10. These include impacts to; 1) the trails; 2) watersupply watershed and impoundment; 3) the watershed of an endangered species habitat; 4) an agricultural and forestal district; and 5) four (4) schools sites (three public and one private) due to the proximity of the Bypass alignment. Specifically, alternative 9 (expressway) has no environmental impacts. A more comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation of the previous alternatives is needed, which balances transportation goals and efficiencies with environmental impacts and local concerns. Regarding comments provided under "Constructive Use" (p. 19), we disagree strongly with the statement that "the noise levels will not substantially interfere with use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute for the activities that are there. As noted previously here, and in Mr. Mullaney's memo, the trail is used not only for athletic practice/events but also for passive recreational use. The existing quality of the environment and natural setting, along with its convenient location near population concentrations, combine to make it an important facility within our overall trail system. The quiet, undisturbed natural setting IS an important attribute of this facility. Comments provided under "Coordination," indicate that the trails were never raised as an issue. In general, the impact of the Bypass to all the schools (and school facilities) in the corridor has been an issue with the County. These trails are located on school property and there is a reliance on the part of the County that project designers will take into account facilities found on properties during field work related to project design. These trails have been constructed (and modified and upgraded) mostly with volunteer work, over a long period of time as the need and oppommity arose, Trail development post- dated any site plan development for the schools, so there is very little information in the form of surveyed plans or plats that accurately depict the trail location. The impact to trails was not clear to the County until those very familiar with the trail location began to realize that bypass location and trial locations were in significant conflict. Identification of the trails earlier on the bypass design drawings would have would have brought this issue to the surface sooner. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation March 18, 1999 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation - Comments I have reviewed the draft 4(f) evaluation made by FHWA and VDOT on the impact on the district park facilities at the Albemarle, Jack Jouett, and Greer school complex. In general I find the evaluation to be extremely biased towards continuing on with building the road as planned. The evaluation does not fairly consider 4(f) protection and the impact on the other recreational facilities at the complex, and severely minimizes the importance and the impact on the trail system. The evaluation appears to have totally missed the trails behind Greer school which are directly impacted and seems to blame the County for not informing VDOT as to the existence of the trails. As Parks and Recreation Director I don't make it a habit to keep myself informed on proposed plans for the State Arterial System. The strongest evidence that this is not a fair evaluation is on page 19 under Constructive use which says '2qoise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is · not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there". Later in that section it goes on to say "Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or manmade features". These trails are in the one of the few remaining patches of woods in the most densely developed area of the County. The section of the trail by the stream is as pretty as any site in our entire parks system. That section including the stream will be covered by fill. I would consider that stream to be a significant natural feature and I definitely think a major highway through this section in anyone's estimation would substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail. To cite specific examples which make me question the fairness of this Evaluation I offer the following: On page 4, first paragraph, the rationale for stating that, because only the trail is encroached by the bypass, then only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school property which is by County policy a district park, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource, may possibly be faulty. According to "Section 4(f} -- Policy Paper" dated September 24, 1987 and revised June 7, 1989, the segment titled "Section 4(f) - Applicability" states the following: "No. 10. School Playgrounds. (p. 15-16) Question: Are publicly owned playgrounds subject to the requirements of Section 4(f)? Answer: While the primary purpose of school plaYgrounds is for structured physical education classes and recreation for students, such lands may also serve public recreational purposes and as such, may be subject to Section 4(f) requirements. When the playground serves only school activities and function, the playground is not considered subject to 4(0. However, when the playground is open to the public and serves either organized or recreation purposes (walk on activity), it is subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) if the playground is determined to be significant for recreational proposes. In determining the significance of the playground facilities, there may be more than one official having jurisdiction over the facility. A school official is considered to be the official having jurisdiction of the land during school activities. However, the school board may have authorized the city's parks and recreation department or a public organization to control the facilities after school hours. The actual function of the playground is the determining factor under these circumstances. Therefore, documentation should be obtained from the official(s) having jurisdiction over the facility stating whether or not the playground is of local significance for recreational purposes. "I From: Bob Tucker Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 3:23 PM To: Larry Davis Cc: Laurie Hall Subject: FW: Comments on Draft 4(f) Evaluation LARRY: FYI, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE IT. THANKS, BOB ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE BTUCKER ~.ALBEMARLE.ORG ..... Original Message ..... To: Subject: Monday, April 12 1999 1:16 PM 'btucker@albemarle.org' Comments on Draft 4(f) Evaluation COMMENTS TO FHWA ON SECTION 4(... Dear Mr. Tucker: I appreciated the opportunity to speak at the Board of Supervisors' meeting Tuesday on the draft section 4(0 evaluation of the impacts from the proposed bypass on the Jack Jouett trails. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the letter that I sent to VDOT/FHWA on this matter, a copy of which I also submitted for the record at the Board meeting. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Deborah M. Murray Senior Attorney <<Comments to FHWA on Section 4(f).doc>> 5 April 1999 Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Virginia Division P.O. Box 10249 400 North 8th Street, Room 750 Richmond, VA 23240-0249 Re: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF THE TRAIL AT JACK JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez: These comments are submitted for the record by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of The Piedmont Environmental Council and the Sierra Club. We filed a law suit in federal district court on behalf of these groups on 8 January 1998 on the grounds that proceeding with the proposed Bypass would violate both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. One of the section 4(f) violations set forth in the complaint concerns FHWA's and VDOT's failure to undertake a 4(f) evaluation of the recreational facilities in the Albemarle County High School complex. The complex consists of three schools: the high school, Jack Jouett Middle School and Greet Elementary School. The recreational facilities associated with these schools are an important component of the Albemarle County park system and are widely used by the general public. In response to the complaint that we filed, the FHWA and the Virginia Secretary of Transportation initially denied that the school recreational facilities constituted section 4(f) property. Subsequently, the FHWA reversed its position with respect to the Jack Jouett cross-country trail, conceding that the trail does constitute section 4(f) property and directing VDOT to conduct a section 4(f) analysi, s. The draft section 4(f) evaluation at issue is completely inadequate and illegal. First, the draft evaluation is legally insufficient because it narrowly considers only the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the school complex that also fall within section 4(f) protection. Second, the proposed bypass will severely impair the use of the trail, contrary to the conclusion in the draft evaluation. Third, the assumption that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed bypass is completely flawed given that the evaluation relies on information that is no longer valid. Finally, the suggested mitigation measures would be completely ineffective in minimizing harm to the Jack Jouett trail. Rather, use of the trail as well as use of the other school recreational facilities will be irreparably and substantially impaired if the proposed Route 29 Bypass is constructed. These points are elaborated below. THE DRAFT EVALUATION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY CONSIDERS ONLY THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND COMPLETELY IGNORES ALL OF THE OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX THAT ALSO FALL WITHIN SECTION 4(f) PROTECTION. The draft 4(f). evaluation looks only at the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the school complex that serve the public as well. These include the jogging and walking trails at Greet Elementary School as well as the athletic playing fields at Greer and Jack Jouett Middle School. Thus, the statement on page 8 of the draft evaluation that information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project is erroneous. Rather, the County has made clear that all of the recreational facilities in the school complex, including the trails at Greer Elementary School and the school playing fields, constitute a significant community resource. As the Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation stated in a 3 November 1998 letter to The VDOT Project Manager: "The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett Middle School and Greet Elementary School, is designated a district park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a'major resource." 2 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 4. Later in this letter, the Director clearly underscored the significance of all the recreational facilities in the school complex: ~ The athletic fields, trails, and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the county are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. Ail the facilities at this complex are used extensively." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 8. ThuS all of the recreational facilities in the school complex are protected under section (4), and would be substantially impaired as a result of the bypass. The bypass would come within very close proximity to the athletic fields at Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, and thus would adversely affect those facilities in addition to the impacts on the Jack Jouett trail. THE PROPOSED BYPASS WOULD SEVERELY IMPACT THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND THE OTHER SECTION 4(f) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX. As a preliminary matter, I would also note that the draft evaluation implicitly attempts to minimize the importance of the trail by asserting several times in the document that the trail was never mentioned as an issue until recently. Such attempt is completely inappropriate and irrelevant, given FHWA's admission that the trail constitutes section 4(f) property, and thus, by definition, is significant for public recreational use. Moreover, such assertions are disingenuous. The County's documents establish their unequivocal policy that county school recreational facilities are and have been an important component of the County's park and recreational facilities for the public. Moreover, it is important to note that VDOT has yet to finalize the design for the bypass, and the information provided thus far has not been sufficiently clear for the community to determine the exact path of the bypass. Finally, the assertion in the draft evaluation that, once the 4(f) issue was brought to their attention through the 3 lawsuit, an investigation was undertaken is self-serving. In fact, after we filed the Complaint in January 1998, FHWA and VDOT initially denied the allegations in the complaint that the school recreational facilities constitute section 4(f) property. It was only some several months later that the FHWA reversed its position and conceded that the Jack Jouett trail constitutes section 4(f) property. Turning to the assessment of impacts on the trail set forth in the draft evaluation, the drafters erroneously conclude that the impacts of the bypass would be negligible or could be minimized. The draft evaluation concedes, however, that noise levels on the Jack Jouett trail would be substantially increased .and would exceed FHWA's noise abatement criterion. Draft at 10. Notwithstanding, the drafters conclude that noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail on the grounds that "serenity is not a significant' attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there." Draft at 19. Likewise, the drafters assert that the recreational uses of walking and jogging "are not dependent on low noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be)." The drafters also conclude that the bypass would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, asserting that the trail "has no particularly spectacular views of unusual natural or manmade features." Id. Such assertions are completely unfounded. The bypass, with its corresponding increased noise and pollution levels, in fact will severely impact the use and enjoyment of the trail and the other school recreational facilities in the complex. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated existing noise level of 48dBA. In addition, the proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing toward the trails and school playing fields. Moreover, one of the most attractive features of the trails and recreational facilities is the serenity, beauty, and tranquility of the setting, which will be destroyed by the bypass. For example, the trail area beside tributary ~ ~' of the Rivanna River will be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet. This area, which is situated in a narrow valley, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County with its babbling brook, surrounding forest, and dramatic rock outcroppings. The bypass would thus destroy those attributes of the school recreational facilities that make them attractive to the general public. As the Director of the County Parks and Recreation stated in the November 1998 letter to the VDOT Project Manager: " IT]he bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails' system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 12. .Further, the Director noted the importance of siting the recreational facilities in a tranquil and wooded setting as follows: "The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area." Id., Response to Question 3. He further stated: "Due to the extensive development of the surrounding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource." Id., Response to Question 3. Finally, the assertions in the draft evaluation that the aesthetic impacts are insignificant and that the use of the trails does not depend on iow noise conditions are contrary to the FHWA's own section 4(f) regulations. These regulations provide that a constructive use occurs when the projected increase in noise levels attributable to the project interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by section 4(f). The regulation gives as an example the" enjoyment of an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes." 23 C.F.R. section 771.135(p) (4) (i). Further, the regulation provides that the proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by section 4(f), "where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource." Id. ~ 771.135(p) (4) (ii). The regulation states that substantial visual impairment occurs where the proximity of the project "substantially detracts from the setting of a park or historic'site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting." Id. ~ 771.135(p) (4) (ii). The recreational facilities in the school complex fit precisely within the examples set forth in the regulations. THE ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED BYPASS IS INCORRECT AND UNFOUNDED. Based on the analysis in the 1990 draft EIS and 1993 Final EIS, the draft 4(f) evaluation concludes that the bypass (identified as Alternative 10 in the EIS documents) poses the least harm to section 4(f) properties. This finding in the EIS documents was certainly questionable at the' time it was made, as both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior, among others, noted in their comments on the draft EIS. EPA recommended a non-bypass alternative instead (Alternative 9, an expressway along the existing Route 29 corridor), stating that such alternative "will satisfy the purpose and need for the project while minimizing the potential impacts to farmlands, Agricultural and Forestal preserve areas, water quality and communities." 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Agency Comments and Responses VII-5, U.S. Envir©nmental Protection -Agency, Region 3, Phoebe Robb, Team Leader (17 July 1990). The Department of Interior, in its comments, also recommended that, "of the build alternatives, alternative 9 [should] be selected as the preferred alternative since it would have the least impact to public park, historic, and fish and wildlife resources." 1993 FEIS, Agency Comments and Responses VII-5, U.S. Department of Interior, Director of Office of Environmental Affairs (31 July 1990). Moreover, without question, the alternatives analysis in the EIS no longer is valid, given that the impacts on the school recreational facilities were not even considered in these documents. Thus the issue of whether there are prudent or feasible alternatives to the bypass must be reexamined. Equally important, the selected alternative identified in the EIS and approved in the Record of Decision has fundamentally changed. The EIS and the ROD identified as the selected alternative a" combination of improvements" to be implemented in phases over time. The first phase (or Base Case) consisted of the widening of Route 29; the second phase included the construction of grade-separated interchanges at the three most heavily used intersections on Route 29; and the third phase consisted of the bypass, but if and only if, after evaluation of the other phases as implemented, traffic and economic conditions so warranted. FHWA, Region 3, Record of Decision, Route 29, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F (8 April 1993); 1993 Final EIS, at S-5. 6 This combination of improvements was based on an extensive traffic analysis performed by VDOT's own consultant, which showed that most of the traffic congestion on Route 29 is local and that the three grade-separated interchanges are the key to relieving such congestion. Likewise the study showed that the bypass would do nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion, and, by itself, would leave traffic congestion at the worst possible rating in the projected time frame. The FHWA approved the sequencing or phased approach as the selected alternative in its Record of Decision dated 8 April 1993. The local jurisdictions involved, Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia, agreed to the sequencing approach. Subsequently, however, in 1995, the Commonwealth Transportation Board unilaterally eliminated the second phase of constructing the interchanges, and determined instead to proceed with the bypass. Such decision was made without prior noEice to the public or the affected localities, and without benefit of any technical analysis or study. Both Albemarle County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization have taken strong stands against the CTB's decision to scrap, in effecn, the sequencing agreement and proceed instead with the bypass. As a result of the CTB's action, the fundamental nature of the project, as well as the premises and assumptions in the EIS, have entirely changed. Before the bypass may go forward, a new EIS must be prepared analyzing the project as it now is identified, which in turn must entail a reexamination of the range of atternatzves. One alternative that must be exammned is the combination of the Base Case (the widening of Route 29, which has now occurred) with grade separated interchanges on Route 29. This alternative is prudent and feasible, and would serve the primary purpose of the project, as stated in the EIS, to alleviate local traffic congestion. As stated above, VDOT's own study shows that the interchanges are critical to achieving that purpose. Equally important, such alternative would pose the least environmental harm and would avoid the section 4(f) impacts. THE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ARE COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. The bypass will destroy the tranquil and beautiful setting that is at the core of the recreational facilities' attraction to the general public. Moreover, the proposed mitigation measures would be completely ineffective in alleviating the harm to these facilities. The primary mitigation measure relied upon in the draft evaluation is landscaping to screen the roadway from the trail. No amount of landscaping, however, will be able to screen the enormous size of the fill that will be required to construct the bypass mn this area - the fill will be some 60 feet high, 360 feet wide, and 1000 feet long. Likewise other measures that are suggested would be ineffective. Although the evaluation concedes that the bypass would sever the trail, it provides that" the severed portions [of the trail] would be reconnected by building a new secnion of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment." Even a cursory examination of the terrain shows that this area is very steep and not conducive to the placement of. a trail. In fact no mitigation measures would be effective, underscoring the urgency to reexamine other feasible and prudent alternatives to the bypass. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the draft 4(f) evaluation is completely inadequane and legally insufficient. To meet section 4(f) requirements, the evaluation must be redone to include all of the school recreasionat facilities, to provide an objective and thorough analysis of the impacts on these facilities, and to reexamzne the range of feasible and prudent alternatives. Such an analysis would reveal the severe impacts on the use of the recreational facilities as a result of the bypass. Equally impor5ann, an objective reanalysis of alternatives, including the Base Case with interchanges, is necessary to comply with section 4(f), as well as NEPA in the light of the fundamental change in the nature of the project. I appreciate your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Deborah M. Murray Senior Attorney DMM/cas cc: J. Mark Wittkofski, Environmental Planner, VDOT 9 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-1939 EARL T. ROBB E NVIRONM ENTAL ADMINISTRATOR February 18, 1999 Route 29 Bypass Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Section 4(f) Evaluation Federal No. NH-037(130) State No. 6029-002-F22,PE101 Albemarle County, Virginia Mr; Charles Martin Chairman, Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the Section 4(f) Evaluation for a trail located at Jack Jouett Middle Scholl in Albemarle County. The Route 29 Bypass under the current design would use a portion of this trail. The presence of this trail was only recently brought to the attention of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) after years of coordination and environmental and design work. When the location of the trail was brought to our attention, the FHWA reviewed the applicability of Section 4(0 to the trail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemarle County to determine its significance as a recreational resource. Based on the results of this coordination, FHWA concluded that the trail represented a Section 4(f) resource. Your timely and expeditious review of this Section 4(0 Evaluation is respectively requested. Please provide us with any comments that you might have within the 45-day review period, which will expire, on or about April 19, 1999. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Mark Wittkofski at (804) 371-6867. Sincerely, RECEIVED FEB 2.3 1993 By: Enc O ur nning Dept. Earl T. Robb Environmental Administrator j! Mark Wittkofs~ --'~"~'"~ Environmental Planner WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING U,S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School This item was scanned under Transportation Reports 1999. On page 8, the second paragraph states that .... "Information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project." Any information provided by the County assumed that the trails behind Crreer were also considered. It seems VDOT did not include these trails in the evaluation. The attached map shows both the Jouett and Greer trails impacted by the proposed bypass. On page 8, under "g9. Unusual Characteristics," the one sentence paragraph states that, .. "There are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." Unusual characteristics are in the eye of the beholder. The trail area beside tributary "K," which is to be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County. With the babbling brook, extreme quietness and tranquillity, and enclosed by a forest of large and small trees and huge outcroppings of magnificent rocks in a narrow valley, this setting provides a serene and peaceful setting for the public to enjoy, providing a calmness of the soul. Yet this wonderful area, with pleasing aesthetics, is located a short distance from the most densely populated area in the County. The whole trail system is extremely well maintained and a joy to walk/jog, but the jewel of the system is the segment by the creek to be located underneath a fill, 60 feet high. On pages 8 and 10, under "#10. Impacts on Trail," there are three sections labeled; Noise Levels, Air Quality, and Visual. The Evaluation stresses the minimal or negligible impacts. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated noise level of 48 dBA. Today, one of the most attractive features of the trail is its serenity and tranquility. With the proposed bypass in place, no one would walk the trails just to get away from the hectic and noisy "hubbub" of everyday hfe. Concerning air quality, it is stated that,... "the project would have a neglig~le effect...along the trail." The proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing towards the walkers and joggers on the trails and also blowing towards the playing fields and towards both Jouett and Crreer schools. Under visual, the Evaluation blandly states that .... "the project would change the character of the view from the trail by introducing a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently present." Also .... "To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated....". There is no way any landscaping plan can begin to mitigate the intrusion into this beautiful area. On Page 19, under "#12. Measures to Minimize Harm," the Evaluation suggest that, ... "The severed portions would be reconnected by building a new section of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment." This area is very steep and not conducive to placement of a trail. ... "Another measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail." How can anything screen a 60 feet high, 360 feet wide and 1000 feet long fill, that contains a volume equivalent of 7.3 Monticello Hotels, and is carrying possibly 43,000 vehicles per day (many of which would be heavy tracks)? I think the above information clearly shows that the Evaluation from the start was an effort to minimize the significance and the impact on this area so the Bypass could proceed as planned. The impact on the area is clear. This beautiful area will be totally destroyed in ways that cannot be mitigated. As for significance, the importance to the County of protecting undeveloped land in this area was underscored in 1990 when the decision was made not to build a new elementary school on the nearby County owned Whitewood Road site in order to preserve the wooded area and trials there. Instead the County spent in excess of $1,000,000 to purchase the current Ag-nor Hurt site. Since that time the County has placed a conservation easement on the Whitewood site. In my opinion, it would make little sense to allow impact to a nearby site of similar character when such efforts have been made to protect the Whitewood site. I think this clearly shows the significance this land has as a recreational resource to the County. If you have any questions about any of this please feel free to call me. COUNTY OF Al _I~EMARI _F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Riv. nna Walter E Perkins White Hall 5all~ H. Thomas ,%muel Mil]er April 12, 1999 Mr. Bob Stroh First Night Virginia P.O. Box 2284 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Stroh: Please be advised that, at its April 7, 1999 meeting, the Board approved the request for on4-time funding to First Night Virginia in the amount of $7,000. This funding is to be used for additional tents to accommodate the record crowds that are anticipated for the Millennium celebration. It is understood that these monies are to be considered a loan, to be paid back to the County, if funds are available after expenses (with any repayment to be split equally between the City, the County, and the University of Virginia). Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 296-5843. Sincerely, Laurel B. Hall Senior Deputy Clerk cc: Melvin Breeden Roxanne White Printed on recycled paper First Night Virginia Proposal for Sponsorship March 23~ 1999 Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive County of Albemarle Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Tucker: As the "official millennium celebration" for the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, First Night Virginia seeks to share its message of community, family, civic pride, and love of the arts with people of all ages. At its heart, First Night is about building new traditions across the lines that may divide us in daily life. And, we aim to put a lot of fun in the mix with hands-on activities, fireworks, and memorable concerts and performances. As Charlottesville approaches the end of a century, First Night is challenged to bring to this community truly special events that will mark and celebrate the beginning of a new millennium. John McCutcheon, a Grammy-nominated singer and composer, has been commissioned to write a song which will celebrate Charlottesville as it enters the millennium. The chorus of this special song will be taught throughout this community to schools, choirs, bands, community centers, ANYONE who would like to participate! First Night's Opening Ceremony will feature this song with all the groups involved coming together to perform it. We envision thousands of residents coming out to witness this once-in-a-lifetime event. Other than University Hall, where could something of this magnitude be held? It is our dream to tent the Downtown Mall amphitheater area to provide adequate space for this ceremony. To handle the large crowds out celebrating the millennium we envision tenting Jackson Park, Lee Park, City Hall area, and the Water Street Garage Roof as well. To be able to provide seating for performances at 500 to 1,000 instead often small venues seating only 100 each would truly enhance our community-building focus of having more people together enjoying a show. The bid we have just received totals $21,000.00. We are hoping that in partnership, the University, the City of Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle will provide the necessary funding. We only have thirty days to obtain the backing to secure the tent contract. Can we count on your sponsorship? Yours in community, Bob Stroh, President First Night Virginia Board of Directors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUPERVISORS 'ITLE: Iht Virginia Funding Request ~U BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: uest of $7,000 for First Night Virginia CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: .~/ REVIEWED BY: / BACKGROUND: Due to this year's First Night Virginia Millennium celebration, First Night Virginia is requesting one-time funding in the amount of $21,000 from the University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle. This funding is to be used for additional tents to accommodate the record crowds that are anticipated for this Millennium celebration. Each jurisdiction is being asked to contribute $7,000 to accommodate this request. RECOMMENDATION: As you know, this request was not submitted for review during our normal budget review process, however, should the Board wish to fund this request, there are adequate funds available to accommodate First Night Virginia through your Tourism Fund for this fiscal year. Mr. Bob Stroh, President of the First Night Virginia Board of Directors, will be in attendance to briefly discuss this matter with you on April 7th. 1.051 First Night Virginia Proposal for Sponsorship March 23, 1999 Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Martin: As the "official millennium celebration" for the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, First Night Virginia seeks to share its message of community, family, civic pride, and love of the arts with people of all ages. At its heart, First Night is about building new traditions across the lines that may divide us in daily life. And, we aim to put a lot of fun in the mix with hands-on activities, fireworks, and memorable concerts and performances. As Charlottesville approaches the end cfa century, First Night is challenged to bring to this community truly special events that will mark and celebrate the beginning of a new millennium. John McCutcheon, a Grammy-nominated singer and composer, has been commissioned to write a song which will celebrate Charlottesville as it enters the millennium. The chorus of this special song will be taught throughout this community to schools, choirs, bands, community centers, ANYONE who would like to participate! First Night's Opening Ceremony will feature this song with all the groups involved coming together to perform it. We envision thousands of residents coming out to witness this once-in-a-lifetime event. Other than University Hall, where could something of this magnitude be held? It is our dream to tent the Downtown Mall amphitheater area to provide adequate space for this ceremony. To handle the large crowds out celebrating the millennium we envision tenting Jackson Park, Lee Park, City Hall area, and the Water Street Garage Roof as well. To be able to provide seating for performances at 500 to 1,000 instead often small venues seating only 100 each would truly enhance our community-building focus of having more people together enjoying a show. The bid we have just received totals $21,000.00. We are hoping that in partnership, the University, the City of Charlottesville, and the County of Albemarle will provide the necessary funding. We only have thirty days to obtain the backing to secure the tent contract. Can we count on your sponsorship? Yours in community, Bob Stroh, President First Night Virginia Board of Directors · COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~" April 2, 1999 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through June 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 April 18 and 25. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than May 25, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on June 2, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce BOARD OR COMMISSION (Applications sent to BOSunder separate cover 1/28/99.) (No applications received; closing date was 4/1/99.) MEMBER C, Timothy Lindstrom Patricia H. Ewers TERM EXPIRES 12-13-98 12-31-99 NEW TERM EXPIRES 12'13-01 WISH TO BE RE- APPOINTED? No Resigned MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT? Maria Bell 06.30-99 06-30-02 - No Jacqueline A. Rice 06-30-99 06-30-03 Kenneth O. Lee 06-30-99 06-30-03 Yes Yes Dwight T. Colley 06-30-99 06-30-02 Jacquelyn C. Perry 06-30-99 06-30-02 Yes No (Applications due 5/11/99.) Timothy Lindstrom 07-09-99 07-09-01 Resigned COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Vn~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins S~lly 14. Thoma~ Samuel ~ April 12, 1.999 Mr. Patrick F. Comell 106 Maple Drive Madison, VA 22727 Dear Mr. Cornell: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 7, 1999, the Board appointed you to the .Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council, with said term to begin April 7, 1999, and to expire December 31, 2000. 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 cc: David E. Cullen, Jr. James Camblos Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper Charlotte Y, Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ^~ REMAR~_F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntim Road Charlotmsville, Vh'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Wa]te~ E Perkins Sally H. Thomas S~nuel Miller April 9, 1999 Mr. Dwight T. Colley 9881 Hattan Ferry Rd. Scottsville, VA 24590 Dear Mr. Colley: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with said term to begin on July 1, 1999 and expire on June 30, 2002. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis James R. Peterson Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humph~s Formst R. M~sh~ll, Jr. COUNTY OF AT _REMA~T .~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V~ginia 22902-4S96 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkim Sall~ H. Thomas April 9, 1999 Mr. Kenneth O. Lee 14 Oak circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Lee: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the Library Board, with said term to begin on July J, 1999 and expire on June 30, 2003. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of. the Board, I'would like to take this opportunity, to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Andrea Williams Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphfis Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF A! REMAI?I.E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mch'ltire Road Charlottesville, Vh'ginia 22902.-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally, H. Thomas April 9, 1999 Ms. Jacqueline A. Rice 2431 Proffit Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Rice: ~2.~'-'~g~'/~j~'~d4/a~/(3~qa.~ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the Library Board, with said term to begin on July 1, 1999 and expire on June 30, 2003. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ibh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Andrea Williams Printed on recycled paper MOTION TO CERTIFY EXECUTIVE SESSION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD CERTIFY BY A RECORDED VOTE THAT TO THE BEST OF EACH BOARD MEMBERIS KNOWLEDGE ONLY PUBLIC BUSINESS MA~-~ERS LAWFULLY EXEMPTED FROM THE OPEN MEETING REOUIREMENTS OF THE VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLI - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1999/00 Proposed Budget Hearing SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the BOard of Supervisors' FY 1999/00 Proposed Budget AGENDA DATE: April 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X STAFF CONTACT(S): ATTACHMENTS: Messers. Tucker, White, GUlati REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors supported a proposed FY 1999/00 operating budget of $146.0 million at its final work session on March 22, 1999. DISCUSSION: Attached for your information prior to the public hearing on April 7 is a summary of the proposed changes from the County Executive's recommended operating budget and a budget summary of the Board of Supervisors' proposed operating budget that has been made available to the public. Revenue changes to the recommended budget total $548,123, and reflect the following: $350,000 in General Fund carry-over to initiate funding for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements and provide additional one-time funds to the School Division; $150,000 in additional School Fund carry-over; $32,250 in additional revenue associated with funding a second COPS traffic officer; and $15,873 in other miscellaneous revenue adjustments. Expenditure changes in the General Fund total $398,123, and reflect the net impact of $29,171 in miscellaneous expenditure savings, the use of $131,872 in budgeted Board reserves, and $559,!66 in funded additions to the recommended budget. These additions include $300,000 in additional funding for the School Division (consisting of $100,000 in recurring transfer and $200,000 in additional one-time transfer funds,) plus $259,166 for the following new initiatives: a second traffic officer for the Community Policing Unit, additional hours for the ECC's Emergency Services Coordinator, ~dditional hunting control enforcement funds, a new Engineering Office Associate, full funding for the Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA), new funding for the Music Resource Center, and a $150,000 (one-time) contribution toward the Acquisition of Conservation Easements. Remaining Board of Supervisors' contingency reserves total $68,128, of which $50,000 has been set aside to potentially fund a proposed CTS bus route to the Pantops area of the County. School Fund expenditure changes reflect the $300,000 in additional General Fund transfer, plus $150,000 in additional school fund carry-over to help fund the School Board's unfunded priorities for FY 1999/00. These additional funds, when combined with the School Board's budgeted reserve of $58,907, provide a total of $508,907 in available resources which may be used to address the $990,679 in unfunded School Board initiatives for FY 99/00. The proposed budget recommends no increase in property tax rates. RECOMMENDATION: The attached information is presented for the Board's information only. No action is required at this time. The FY 1999/00 Operating Budget and the FY 1999/00 Capital Improvement Budget will be adopted at the Board's meeting on April 14th, along with setting the 1999 tax rates. 99.062 22, 1999 March 3 - County Executive's Recommended Budget Sent to Board of Supervisors March 10 - Public Hearing on Recommended Budget March 15 - Board Vt/orlc Session: March 17- Board V~/orlc Session: Budget/Debt Service March 22 - Board ~Vorlc Session: March 24 - Board VFork Session: Overview, Schools, & General Government Critical Issues General Government Critical Issues (Continued) & Capital Other Board Issues Other Board Issues April 7 - Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget & Tax Levy April 14. Budget/CIP Adoption, Tax Levy Set The major purpose of budgeting is to formally convert the County's long range plans and policies into services and pro- grams. The budget provides detailed financial information on the costs of services and the expected revenues for the up- coming fiscal year. The budget process also provides a forum for a review of progress made in the current year and for a review of the levels of service provided by local government. [-Ohat Zg the b d et? The budget is divided into three major parts, each w/th sepa- rate documents and public hearings. The operating budget is the total and complete budget used to finance all of the day-to-day operations of local govern- ment. It consists of several major sections including general government operations, the transfer to school operations, school debt service, capital outlay, and the City-County reve- nue sharing payment. Funding for this budget is derived pri- marily from taxes, fees, licenses, fines, and from state and federal revenues. The school budget is used to completely describe the opera- tions of the County's schools. It is prepared by the Superin- tendent's office and is approved by the School Board. The schools have their own budget calendar which is separate from that of other budgets. Funding for the school budget is derived mainly from transfers from the General Fund, fees, and inter-governmental revenues (i.e. state and federal fund- ing.) The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is used to pur- chase or finance the construction of capital goods from the building of schools, parks, and roads to the upgrading of com- puter and phone system equipment. Funding for these proj- ects is obtained primarily from bond issues (long term debt which is typically borrowed for the building of school proj- ects) and from transfers from the operating budget. T_.Ohat the ,_ tate The Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all localities meet certain budget guidelines, as outlined in Sections 15.2- 2500 to 15.2-2513 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. According to these guidelines, all localities within Virginia must have a fiscal year beginning on July 1 and end- ing on June 30 and must approve a balanced budget. The School Board must approve the School Budget by May 1 or within 15 days of receiving estimates of state funding, which- ever shall occur later. The Board of Supervisors must approve the operating budget and set the tax rate by July 1 of each , year. The adoption of the operating budget and the tax rate requires the Board to hold a public hearing and to advertise this hearing no less than 7 days in advance. Although these are the minimum state requirements, the County traditionally has adopted the budget by April 15 in Order to establish teacher contracts and to set the personal property tax prior to the tax bill mailing date. The official appropriation of funds takes place prior to July 1 of each year. T_.Ohen the l~t4d~et r~eci~ion~ /]'tade and d'~o~o ca~ ..~ ~!~a~tictpate tn the ~!~>~oceaa? Each year the County develops a schedule of events which describe the dates of public and Board participation in the budget process. The Board is asked to approve the schedule of the budget process in order to establish firm dates for meetings and provide the public with as much notice as possi- ble. A summary budget calendar appears on the cover page. .Ohat 78"d et The County's FY 1999/00 operating budget schedule began on October 13, 1998, with the preliminary projection of reve- nues for the coming year. On November 4, the Board pro- vided the County Executive with financial guidelines for the development of the budget. On November 13, the County Executive's Office sent budget instructions to all depart- ments. In the middle of December, departments submitted budget requests to the County Executive's Office. From the middle of December to the middle of January, the executive staff reviewed budget requests and developed budget-related questions. From these discussions, the execu- tive staff developed recommendations ranging from the fund- ing of new programs to the reduction of funding for current programs. In mid-February, the School Superintendent sub- mitted the school budget to the County Executive and the ex- ecutive staffreviewed the school budget. At the end of Febru- ary, the County Executive made the necessary adjustments to balance the budget and staff printed the County Executive's recommended budget. This budget was presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 3, and a public hearing on the County Executive's recommendation was held on March 10. After the public hearing, the Board began a detailed review of each area of the budget and recommended specific cuts or ad- ditions to the County Executive's recommended budget. A public hearing on the Board of Supervisors' proposed budget and the tax rate will be held on April 7, 1999. On April 14, the Board will adopt the operating and capital budgets and set the tax levy for the coming year. The budget is legally en- acted through passage of a Resolution of Appropriation prior to June 30. 7 .a{fet O ectivee · Basic service levels will be maintained at current levels; · Property tax rates will be maintained at current levels - real property at $0.72/$100 assessed valuation and personal property at $4.28/$100 assessed valuation; · ~rrent fiscal planning policies will be maintained; · Education and public safety continue to be high priorities for the provision of services; · Local revenues are not used to replace reduced or eliminated federal or state programs; · Future fiscal uncertainties are reduced and fiscal stabihty is maintained through an appropriately funded General Fund Bal- ance; and · Necessary infrastructure improvements are programmed for im- plementation. · State and federal revenues for FY 2000 increased by $4.64 mil- lion (13.5%) over the current year, largely due to econorrdc prosperity at the State-level and growth in state income tax revenues; · School Division revenues increased by $2.81 million (10.6%) from state and federal sources, and by $2.45 million (5.0%) from the General Fund, for a total transfer of $51,685,564; · Local revenues for FY 2000 increased by $5.1 million (5.5%) over the current year, with real property tax revenues increasing $2.33 million or 5.9% over the current year due to this year's reassessment and $178.6 million in new construction; personal property revenues increased by $0.41 million or 2.0% over cur- rent year; and meals tax revenues increased by $0.80 million, or 34.7%, over the current year; · The revenue sharing agreement with the City of Charlottesville provides the City with an additional $266,781 for a total pay- ment of $5.85 million; · Debt service of $8.45 million for school construction projects has been funded; · Community agencies receive an average increase of 5%; · Departmental operating budgets are level funded with no in- crease over their current budget; · Compression pay for long-time employees is in the second year of a three year phase-in, as directed by the Board of Supervisors last year; · School Division and General Government employees are pro- posed to receive a 4% pay-for-performance increase; · A General Government debt service reserve of $200,000 is funded for proposed bonded projects; and · A Board of Supervisors contingency reserve in the amount of $68,128 is provided for the Board's discretionary use, of which $50,000 has been set aside for potential funding ofa CTS bus route to the Pantops area of the County. ~{2>~tto~tttte~ 7~dd~eaaed in the 7~,d~et: Administration - Funding is provided to increase the amount of continuing education assistance for employees and to hire a Strategic Planning and Process Review Manager (Human Resources); and to fund the second year of the three-year compression phase-in. Judicial - A permanent bailiff is funded at the Juvenile & Domestic Relations' Court; ongoing funding is provided for Hunting Control Enforcement (Sheriff); and funding is allocated for a chair and com- puter in the General District Court Judge's chambers. Public Safety - Funding is provided for two new Police Traffic Of- ricers; for specialized Police training; for additional operating and staff associated with the regional jail expansion; for an additional dispatcher, an expanded Emergency Services Coordinator position and a Regional Crime Information Network (RCIN) Coordinator at the Emergency Communicati°ns Center; for three new career fire- righters and Hazardous Materials supplies (Fire/Rescue); and for vehicle maintenance and fuel expenses for volunteer fire companies and rescue squads (J.C.F.R.A.) Engineering & Public Works - Funds are budgeted for a new Sen- ior Civil Engineer, an erosion control Plans Reviewer/Inspector and additional clerical support in Engineering; for stormwater detention basin maintenance; and for weed control, maintenance and mowing of median strips along Routes 250 and 20 South. Human Development - 2.0 FTE new foSter care social workers are added in Social Services; additional Comprehensive Services Act funding is budgeted to address the increase in foster care cases; JABA received additional funds for congregate, fee and home deliv- ered meals; Children, Youth and Family Services received addi- tional funds for the Runaway Emergency Shelter; Growing Healthy Families received $25,000 for home visits (Commission on Children & Families); SARA and Madison House received additional operat- ing Rinds; the AIDS/HIV Services Group and the Music Resource Center were funded; and Piedmont Virginia Community College received additional operating and capital project funds. Parks, Recreation and Culture - Funding was provided for ten special needs assistants at Parks' Summer Playground Program, as well as for the following Library requests: a Library Clerk at North- side, a Technical Services Librarian at the Central Library, and Sun- day hours at the Monticello Avenue Virtual Village (Mont-AVV) Intemet lab. Community Development - Funding was added for a Planning Technician, a GIS Specialist, aerial photography, and tax map/parcel digital conversion in Planning; a new Zoning Assistant is provided to help with plan review; additional funding is provided to MACAA for the Community Assessment Program (CAP) and salary adjust- ments; funds are budgeted to the Planning District Commission for additional RideShare staff and a Rivanna River Basin study; a $150,000 contribution was made to initiate funding for thc Acquisi- tion of Conscrvat,ion Easements (PDR Program); and funds have been set aside for a potential CTS bus route to Pantops. Education - The School Division has added 15.2 growth teachers and other costs in support of 224 new students, including 2.0 new health clinicians and additional elementary art, music and physical education staffing; provided additional funding for high school ath- letics; funded the Standards of Accreditation; funded technology support; and other initiatives. The Board also provided an addi- tional $300,000 to help address unfunded School Board priorities. FY 1999100 Proposed Total County Revenues $146,039,501 Self-Sustaining 5% Federal Revenue 3% Local Property Taxes 45% State Revenue 24% Carry-Over/Fund Other Local Balance Revenues 1% 22% TOTAL COUNTY REVENUES LOCAL REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL REVENUE OTHER LOCAL - SCHOOL FUND SUBTOTAL STATE REVENUE GENERAL SCHOOL FUND SUBTOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE GENERAL SCHOOL FUND SUBTOTAL SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS TRANSFERS/FUND BALANCE GOVT: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL GOVT: TRANSFERS SCHOOLS: CARRY-OVER/FUND BAL SCHOOLS: TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL TOTAL REVENUE FY 97/98 ACTUAL 59,796,119 27,206,324 633.977 87,636,420 5,088,270 24:104.339 29,192,609 2,458,915 812,103 3,271,018 6,968,6891 0 136,697 0 58.670 195,367 127,264,102 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 63,233,900 63,233,900 29,008,387 29,034,120 612.099 642.137 92,854,386 92,910,157 5,410,678 5,560,828 25.549.819 25.638.989 30,960,497 31,199,817 2,577,834 2,577,834 946.448 946.448 3,524,282 3,524,282 6,545,782 6,726,525 69,916 1,004,616 30,000 30,000 985,512 985,512 58.670 58=670 1,144,098 2,078,798 135,029,045 136,439,578 FY99~0 FY99/00 FY99~0 REQUEST RECOMM PROPOSED 0 0 350,000 280,084 400.60% 0.24% 110,300 136,775 235,575 205,575 685.25% 0.16% 790,000 790,000 940,000 (45,512) -4.62% 0.64% 158.670 158.670 158.670 100.000 170.44% 0.11% 1,058,970 1,085,445 1,684,245 540,147 47.21% 1.15% 142,527,559 145,491,378 146,039,501 11,010,456 8.15% 100.00% 2,293,500 2,964,576 2,986,826 408,992 15.87% 2.05% 1.027.860 1.027.860 1.027.860 81.412 8.60% 0.70% 3,321,360 3,992,436 4,014,686 490,404 13.92% 2.75% 7,275,680 7,275,680 7,275,680 729,898 11.15% 4.98% 5,810,600 6,894,253 6,837,383 1,426,705 26.37% 4.68% 28.275.580 28.275.580 28.275.580 2.725.761 10.67% 19.36% 34,086,180 35,169,833 35,112,963 4,152,466 13.41% 24.04% 65,226,315 66,173,400 66,t73,400 2,939,500 4.65% 45.31% 31,042,800 31,278,330 31,262,273 2,253,886 7.77% 21.41% 516.254 516.254 516.2~4 (95!845) -15.66% 0.35% 96,785,369 97,967,984 97,951,927 5,097,541 5,49% 67.07% o o L E 8R~ go oogo~g~°~°g~ ~ Z 0 ~zom z 0~ i i ~ww z o~ ~ 0 z ~ O~ ~ oz~ ~ ~o, ~g ~ ~ Z ~ =~o ~o°~g g oo~g~gg~ggg~g w ~<~0 o~~°~w w~Z>Ow~ n g ~ ~§~o~ooooooo~o~OOO~O~~o~ ~ ~ . w 0 0 0 w n ~ z ~0 z 0 z 0 -- m~ ~0 0 O~ o~ ~o ~O~>N , Z ~ z o~ Administration Strategic Planning& Process Review Manager (Hired in January, 2000) - Human Resources Increased Funding for Continuing Education Tuition Reimbursement - Human Resources Judicial I~eplacement L;r~a~r and L;omputer tor Judge - r~eneral L~stnct L;ourt P'ermanent Juvemle & L)omest~c I-~elat~ons L;ourt 15a~l~tt - :Sheriff's r,)thce ((.;ounty ,Share ¢g (Jngo~ng ~-und~ng tor Hunting (.;ontrol ~-ntorcement - ,Shentrs ott~ce Public Safety Additional Overtime for Specialized Police Training - Police Department 1.0 FTE Traffic Officer for Community Policing Unit - Police Department Market Equity Adjustment for Police Officers - Police Department Regional Crime Information Network Coordinator- ECC (County Share @ 33%) 1.0 FTE Dispatcher - Emergency Communications Center (County Share @ 43.29%) 3.0 FTE Career Firefighters (Hired in October, 1999) - Fire/Rescue Division Hazardous Materials Response Unit Supplies - Fire/Rescue Division J.C.F.R.A. Vehicle Maintenance Funds - J.C.F.R.A J.C.F.R.A. Vehicle Fuel Funds - J.C.F.R.A Additional Operating Costs for Regional Jail Expansion - Regional Jail Engineering & Public Works 1.0 FTE Civil Engineer Senior for Plan Review - Engineering 1.0 FTE Erosion Control Plans Reviewer/Inspector - Engineering Stormwater Detention Basin Maintenance - Engineering Median Strip Mowing Funds -Public Works- Maintenance Human Services 2.0 FTE Foster Care Social Workers - Social Services Comprehensive Services Act Local Match Funding Increase - Social Services Additional Funds for Growing Healthy Families - Commission on Children and Families Additional Congregate Meals - JABA Additional Home Delivered Meals - JABA Additional Funds - Madison House Agency Funding - AIDS Support Group Additional Local Match for the Runaway Emergency Shelter - Children, Youth & Family Services Additional Operating Costs - Piedmont Virginia Community College Parks/Recreation/Culture 10 Summer Playground Program Special Needs Assistance - Parks & Recreation 40 Hr./Week Library Assistant - Northside Library (County Share @ 81.09%) Technical Services Librarian - Central Library (County Share @54.87%) Sunday Hours at Mont-AVV Computer Lab - Central Library (County Share @ 50%) 33,065 3,500 2~,bUU 1/,¢dlZ" 10,951 36,731 * 141,500 20,000 12,307 123,632 6,100 50,000 40,000 67,259 59,780 60,770 * 10,000 15,600 20,167 * 250,000 25,000 1,358 4,109 2,500 3,260 1,250 1,715 16,205 18,452 7,227 1,050 (Continued on next page) ene a! ove ment ! io itie (Continued from previous page) Community Development 1.0 FTE Planning Technician (Hired in October, 1999) - Planning Funding for Tax Map/Parcel Digital Conversion - Planning/E-911 Funding for Aerial Photography - Planning/E-911 1.0 FTE GIS Specialist I - Planning/E-911 1.0 FTE Zoning Assistant (Hired in October, 1999) Additional Overtime for Zoning Inspectors - Zoning Salary Adjustments for MACAA Staff - MACAA Community Assessment Program (CAP)/Centralized Intake Funds - MACAA Additional Staff for the P, ideShare Program - TJPCD Rivanna River Basin Corridor Study - TJPDC Capital Improvement Program & Debt Service PVCC Main Academic Facility Renovations (County Share @ 40.9%) - 1st of 2 Annual Payments General Government Debt Service Reserve Funds Total County Executive's Funded Priorities * Net of Offsetting Additional Revenues Judicial AclO~t~onal I-uncl~ng tor Hunting Control P_ntorcement - ~51~entrs Ott~ce Public Safety 1.0 FTE Traffic Officer for Community Policing Unit - Police Department Expanded Hours for Emergency Services Coordinator - ECC (County Share @ 43.29%) Engineering & Public Works 1.0 FTE Office Associate II - Engineering (net of Reduction in Part-Time Wages) Human Services Additional Funds - SARA Agency Funding - Music Resource Center Community Development Contribution to Acquisition of Conservation Easements (PDR) Program School Division Additional One-Time Operational Funds Additional Recurring Operational Funds Total Board of Supervisors' Funded Additions 22,310 30,076 1,125 6,600 17,600 6,124 10,000 18,618 1,385,990 b,O00 36,731 4,574 9,131 2,790 1,000 150,000 200,000 100.000 509,226 * Net of Offsetting Additional Revenues SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET EXPENDITURES SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS SELF-SUSTAINING OPERATIONS SUBTOTAL REVENUES GENERAL FUND TRANSFER OTHER SCHOOL FUND REVENUES SELF-SUSTAINING OPERATIONS SUBTOTAL OVER/UNDER FY97/98 ACTUAL 70,675,712 7.096.627 77,772,339 46,091,436 25,609,088 6.968.689 78,669,213 896,874 FY 98/99 FY 98/99 ADOPTED REVISED 77,391,036 77,510,244 6.545.782 6.726.528 83,936,818 84,236,768 49,238,488 49,238,488 28,152,548 28,271,756 6.545.782 6.726.525 83,936,818 84,236,768 FY99/00 FY99/00 FY99/00 $ % % REQUEST RECOMM PROPOSED INC INC TL 83,130,700 82.153 928 82,603,928 5,212,892 6.74% 91.91% 7.275.680 7.275.680 7.275.680 729.898 11.15% 8.09% 90,406,380 89,429,608 89,879,608 5,942.790 7.08% 100.00% 51,385,564 51,385,564 51.685,564 2,447,076 4.97% 57.51% 30,768,364 30,768,364 30,918,364 2,765.816 9.82% 34.40% 7.275.680 7.275.680 7.275.680 729.898 11.15% 8.09% 89,429,608 89,429,608 89,879,608 5,942.790 7.08% 100.00% -976,772 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 7~etd~et ~Req~te~t The School Board's requested budget of $90,406,380 includes $83,130,700 in regular School Fund operations and $7,275,680 in self-sustaining fund operations, for an increase of $6.5 million (7.7%) over the current year. This requested budget exceeds available revenues of $89,429,608 by $0.977 million. The maj or components of the funded portion of the School Board's baseline operational request include: $1.7 million in growth costs for the anticipated 224 new students and other improvements, including 15.2 new teachers for regular and spe- cial education; $0.7 million in funding for the Standards of Accreditation, including 12.0 new teachers to equalize baseline class sizes for all schools, in light of the differentiated staffing, seven period high school schedule and other instructional fac- mrs; and regular salary and benefit increases for teaching and classified staff. Expanded funding also is requested by the School Board for the following unfunded needs: · Three (3) Additional Mobile Classrooms · Elementary Art, Music and Physical Education Staffing (3.0 FTE) · English as a Second Language - Phase II · Gifted Education - Phase II · 2% Operational Increases for School and Department Budgets · Orchestra- Phase I · Secondary Alternative Education · Staffing Committee Recommendations (Partial Funding for 4.0 FTE) · Tuition Reimbursement Phase-In $120,000 $122,709 $76,032 $102,086 $120,060 $46,180 $180,000 $163,612 $60,000 The proposed School Division budget of $89,879,608 is balanced with available revenues and reflects a $5.9 million (7.1%) increase over FY 98/99. This proposed amount includes $82,603,928 for School Fund operations and $7,275,680 in self-sustaining fund operations. The proposed budget represents a $450,000 increase over the County Executive's recommendation, reflecting the addi- tion of $150,000 in school fund carry over (expenditure savings from the mild winter we have experienced,) $200,000 in additional one-time transfer from the General Fund, and $100,000 in additional recurring School Fund transfer, which the Board of Supervisors approved during work sessions to help address the School Board's requested $0.977 million shortfall. Projected Revenue Available Additional Funds * Local Revenue Decrease Increased General Fund Transfer (Recurring Funds from Local Government) State Revenue Increase (Estimated ADM of 12,057) Additional Federal Revenue (Special Education Only) Plus Additional Local Government One-Time Funding Include One-Time Transfer from ClP Less Budgeted School Fund Balance Less FY 1996-97 Carryover Include FY 1997.98 Carryover Expenditure Changes Decrease Lapse Factor to -$276,715 Other Reductions One. T me Item Reductions (95,845) 2,397,076 2,725,761 81,412 100,000 100,000 (195,422) (790,090) 940,000 (23,285) 19,830 554,247 ITotal Available Funds 5,813,684 Proposed Expenditures Funding for Growth & Other Improvements 100% 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 Custodial/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 and Drivers (2 FTE) Health Clinicians Phase II of III (2 FTE) Elementary Media Teaching Assistant Time (3 FTE) Additional Elementary Art, Music, & PE Staffing (0.8 FTE) Additional Funding for High School Athletics Technology Reorganization SOA Funding Standards of Accreditation Funding Staffing for an Equal Baseline (12 FTE) Staff Deve opment Clerical Position (0.5 FTE) (Continued on next page) 458,114 163,612 83,487 50,425 97,172 108,658 175,000 78,866 76,301 40,000 50,046 54,192 40,932 32,723 80,000 80,000 200,000 490,836 12,325 (Continued from previous page) Maintain Competitive Compensation Misc. Adjustments 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 Person) 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 Instructicna Coordinator Additional Funding for School Resource Officer at Monticello Additional Instructional and Administrative Reclassifications 749,571 1,321,538 428,139 235,698 13,920 44,467 15,914 21,000 51,033 23,125 27,683 ITotal Proposed Expenditures Reserve School Board Reserve 5,304,777J 58,907 ITotal Reserve 58,907I Total Available Funds Less Total New Expenditures (Excluding Reserves) 5,813,684 (5,304,777) IAdditional Resources Available to Fund School Board Unfunded Priorities 508,907I Based on School Board approved budget of $77,341,036 for FY 98/99. School Board (Unfunded) Additions to Superintendent's Budget School Board Additions Additional Mobile Classrooms (3) Elementary Art, Music, & PE Staffing (3.0 FTE) English as a Second Language · Phase II Gifted - Phase II Increase School and Department Budgets by 2% Orchestra - Phase I (Revised) Secondary Alternative Education Staffing Committee Recommendations (Partial Funding 4.0 FTE) Tuition Reimbursement (Phase-in) 120,000 122,709 76,032 102,086 120,060 46,180 180,000 163,612 60,000 ITotal School Board Additions (Unfunded) 990,679 Fiscal Year 1996/97 General Judicial Public Public Heaith Rec & Comm. Admin Admin. Safety Works Welfare Education* Culture Develop. Misc.'* Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Per Total Selected Counties Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Capita Expenditures Fairfax 90.21 21.83 260.65 148.04 272.11 1,124.28 84.93 91.95 Prince William 58,66 29.21 279.02 88.35 145.91 1,138.62 83.26 48.76 Chesterfield 64.59 31.57 259.99 46.49 106.42 1,057.87 45.71 28.16 Henrico 101.09 27.4 324.67 110.57 117.03 879.97 61.24 26.62 Arlington 188.22 48.38 457.8 143.4 429.49 939.27 196.87 73.94 Loudoun 96.06 26.15 184.34 64.22 164.68 1,080.95 76.94 54.73 Roanoke 64.44 28.61 197.08 155.59 88.89 1,022.15 50.67 19.85 Montgomery 28.61 13.81 48.59 38.55 104.32 692.47 24.21 10.81 Stafford 49.18 22.74 151.13 40.22 91.9 1,049.43 51.76 20.2 Albemarle 45.91 23.77 139.34 28.53 163.51 918.64 42.01 49.92 Hanover 50.83 15.45 160.15 42.19 97.76 885.27 31.17 28.95 Spotsylvania 52.86 28.73 134.02 46.78 99.79 1,093.27 42.16 18.39 Rockingham 33.03 21.15 97.08 55.06 94.66 946.52 13.62 11.29 Augusta 32.36 12.17 107.75 30.66 76.82 951.26 23.08 53.8 Henry 38.49 23.49 104.76 39.58 121.28 862.38 25.49 21.18 Pittsylvania 26.25 20.1 121.52 28.6 133.89 807.60 8.1 29.47 York 68.34 20.48 195.07 123.67 126.99 997.89 32 27.63 Bedford 25.73 12.19 100.3 66.19 95.23 689.73 25.61 17.81 Fauquier 103.76 40.69 157.72 177.43 200.51 1,071.58 43.95 37.06 Frederick 49.61 29.91 134.14 84.6 91.7 1,009.31 49.21 36.74 Charlottesville 123.89 35.21 327.64 190.09 372.09 1,013.26 135.8 32.54 65.04 1,924,194,302 472,254,000 399,985,046 402,749,514 444,689,758 233,891,990 132,785,885 74,025,168 130,379,814 117,393,311 103,105,139 117,793,791 82,069,940 79,974,157 69,621,853 67,945,520 90,111,289 57,939,265 95,117,166 80,943,994 84,982,801 Average 66.29 25.38 187.75 83.28 152.24 963.42 54.66 35.23 3.10 250,569,224 For Virginia Counties 67.97 26.23 190.12 85.77 175.19 968.49 53.24 45.82 30.60 7,165,546,265 * Education expenditures exclude debt service. ** Revenue Sharing with the City of Charlottesville. Source: Commonwealth of Virginia, Auditor of Public Accounts. Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues & Expenditures: For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1997. Richmond, Virginia. COMPARATIVE REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES - FY 97~98 Selected Counties 1998 Population Fairfax 930,400 Prince William 258,700 Henrico 247,200 Chesterfield 246,100 Arlington 181,700 Loudoun 143,900 Stafford 87,400 Spotsylvania 83,500 Roanoke 81,600 Hanover 81,500 1998 Tax Rate* 1.23 1.36 0.94 1.08 0.998 1.11 1.08 0.94 1.13 0.73 IAIbemarle 80,200 0.72 J Montgomery 77,500 0.76 Rocking ham 65,000 0,68 Augusta 62,400 0.58 Pittsylvania 58,900 0.48 York 57,200 0.86 Bedford 56,600 0.64 Henry 56,000 0.60 Frederick 55,800 0.59 Fauquier 52,600 1.00 Averages 148,210 0.88 Charlottesville * Per $100 of assessed value. 38,100 Source: Tax Rates: University of Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 1998 Tax Rates: Virginia's Cities, Counties and Selected Towns. Albemarle, Virginia, 1999. Population: University of Virginia, Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (1998 Provisional) 1.11 PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on Recommended Operating Budget for. FY 1999-2000. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARL D The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS NAME (Please print clearly) - 11 12 13 14 15 PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING on FY 1999 Tax Rates. (PLEASE PRINT CLEARL D The following guidelines will be used for this public hearing: EACH SPEAKER IS ALLOTTED 3 MINUTES. INDIVIDUALS CANNOT RELINQUISH THEIR 3 MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER. INDIVIDUALS CAN ONLY SIGN UP ONE PERSON TO SPEAK. PLEASE GIVE ANY WRITTEN STATEMENTS TO THE CLERK WHO WILL CIRCULATE COPIES TO BOARD MEMBERS NAME (Please print clearly) PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AnrL'J.ml .AZberr~-le CotzrL~ Citizen Taxpayer ©pirdorL Survey The pt~lrpose of this poll is to enc. o~.u,age eve~7; citizen of ~Zbenmrle Co~.uz.5.' to paiticdpate.. ~egu]az'ly in their goverraneut .An ara-~ual suz~cey kc a conve~fient, efficient, az~, effec, ti.t.~ process that c~n rr~ *his possible.. Former Corkgre. ssrr~n L.F.Payn¢ of the. 5th district of Vh~ii-da t~sed arm~Jal constit0~nt sui~?.~ ~ a basis for his cor~ressior~al decision makh~. He '~ras very pop~J,ar ~rith bis constituenls bec~J~e he made their opinio~, desires, end, needs ]'~l~d in Washir~ton. Like n'mny great leaders he er~."oui-aged us to part~.ipate in the decision rn~fing process. Informed ir~divid~.mls c~n rr~],;¢ good decisions for therr~selves about public iss~Jes ~ccl ~hen they have reac]"zed a decision a means such as this ~tnwey is a convement,econornical,and effectl~ ~,,~.y to rn~$'*e these decision ktzovn lo *heir goven-an-~nt for discussion., deliberation, arcl, imple~enl~lion. .The followircg questior~ are offered as a suggas~ed guide to irdtia~ th~ process. Some questions sitch as those concerning t~xes,schooIs,budgets,capitol improvements,and,r~ajor expenditures should ~l'~.ys be present on the survey whi~ others can be added as ?he need for them arises. Petitiol~ ?he.t have ?kcee hundred or more sigr~atures could be offered to the. rest of the citizens of the. cour~, for their consideration arct input. The curre, r~t re,~i es~ property ~ rate of 72. cents per one. h~zrclred dollars should: rerr~dn ~;c¢, ~c~ged increase ..... decrease How much sho~JJd ?~re tax rate decrease increase ~ . 1% . 3% ...... 5% 7% 10% 15%. 20% 25% or more Should ~ breaks such as kn~d use tax redt~tions be given to land owr, ers of over acres ? ~ yes ~ ~ Do ~u favor or oppose reversion to to~'z-~ stat~s by the. Ci~,,' of Ch~clottest,fi]le..? ...... oppose favor Do you favor or oppose closed door rr~eetings of the Board of Supe~wisors arcl the School Bo~;cd? I'avor . opposed Do j~Ju think that the. salarY_es paid lo the deparlment heads of ot~% co~mty governn~ent are? ........ too iow ~ too high , OK Do ~-~tt ~ that the sal~-ies of en'zployees of Albemarle Cozmty are? too low . to I come to you tonight to talk about the low tam-over rate that Albemarle School System enjoys and the large teacher applicant pool we have to choose from to replace those few who do leave. But first, I want to talk about the extreme difficulty I had with the county in securing necessary information to prepare for various budget forums, including tonight..I feel it very important for you to be aware they are hiding behind a narrow interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold information provided in previous years. I have included in your handout copies of correspondence from Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Brandenburger and myself in which I requested varied personnel data. The most troubling aspect is the perceived attempt to withhold or delay giving information by Mr. Zimmerman & Mr. Morgan when the data had already been forwarded to the state and simply required copying. The most frustrating events transpired between the Human Resources Office and again, Mr. Morgan and myself. I requested of HR 9 information items: i.e. #of applications received for teacher and classified employee vacancies as well as average wages from all components for teachers and all classified employees - exactly what had been provided by Mr. Brandenburger last year. HR answered 4 of the 9 items but refused to provide data on 5 items citing an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. After 2 conversations with Mr. Morgan on Apr 1 & 2, he finally provided me on Monday, the 5th, the #of teaching applications in 1998 but nothing on classifieds. He did provide me with the 98-99 Recruitment, Selection & Retention Report which was available from the beginning and contained some valuable data. A couple of the items they in- clude as successes are particularly noteworthy - the first being that the teacher applicant database had been streamlined to provide better information about applicants to administrators. Wouldn't it be logical that some data which was denied would be available from this database?? Here is another success they list and I quote:"The improvement of an already high retention-rate pattern, with a rate of 95.6% this year." Is there really a problem of teacher retention/recruitment because of the county salary scale or any other reason-HR's statistics certainly do not support that assertion! Nor does the current pool of 621 applications for teaching positions of which Mr. Morgan wishes to declare 352 are qualified. Further, only 8 teachers left the county to teach in other counties in VA & only 3 went to other states to teach out of a total of 941 teachers. Though Mr. Baker speaks quite eloquently of the difficulty in replacing the Monticello math teacher, he fails to mention the prime reason for this difficulty is that we are in the middle of a school year and teachers who would love this job are currently under contract and cannot be released. I will not even address the absurdity of our competitiveness to Reno or the New Jersey site so often mentioned. I feel the administration is trying to interpret the FIA to the disadvantage of the citizens. Why are they fearful of releasing this information - is it because the data does not support the need for 5% wage and benefit increases recommended by an ad- ministration's "hand-picked consultant" who was selected without benefit of the bid process. I think all deserve to have these questions answered now and not after the budget is set. These type of occurrences lead to distrust and are not healthy for our community. ~PR 8 1999 l~:10PM ~.~ROBERT H~USER HOME~F~_~O¥ ~01~ [~002 <3cod E~;'ening, my name is Bob Hauser. ! live in the Rivanna District of Albemarle County ~,:tnd I appear before you tonight In my capacity as Chairman of the Charlott~sville Regional Chamber of Commeme, We are an association of 1 busines~:~es and many of our members are citizens Of the County or work for busines?.es located in the County. Our legislative action committee monitors and studies the budgets of our local jurisdictions and ! am here tonight once again t~iR~r~'~gJr~° and his staff, ' especially Roxanne White for the open process tm and educate us on the budget process. I would like to share with you our process at this time. We have a county budget subcommittee chaired by Chris Lee that followed the School Budget a, meeee and then worked several weeks tQ prepare at formal presentation of ideas or~ how we can save a great deal more resource, provide revenue for some key unfunde~l priorities, and potentially to prevent the need for property tax increases for years to come, In general our focus was to identify and inspire our county leadership to consider long term ¢o~)peration in shared services and facilities with the City, and potentially with other jurisdictional partners in the region, A recent initiative, launched by the_ /,~_~_~;~ react[vat.ed 5 C's is supported by Chamber leadership and should reap real tma4or the .City anc~ County over the next 9 months of stucty and consultation with City and County ,DePartment heads and elected officials. We hav,.~ identified the following areas where we could share resources to improve services~add programs and still save money: 1. Parks and Recreation 2. Tran,,iportatlon Sen/lees 3. $oci;~l Services 4, Fire ~nd Rescue Services ,5, Polic~:l Protegtion 6. Scho:)l Facilities 7. $cho3! Programs We hop,~ through collaborative efforts with the League of Women Voters and the neighborhood associations, under the umbrella of the 5 C's to discourage the duplicat on of services, which underservell/the citizens of the County and the City and: looking ahead te the years ahead --- puts tremendous pressure on property tax, rates d~ ring non-assessment years. Becau$i.) M~, Tucker and his staff have successfully balanoebthe budget this year, we would like to request only the following items/while we spend the balance of this year working with the 5 C's. ~ .~N_. e a~.~k that you resist the temptation to begin funding any new projects or initiatives this year which may present cooperative opportunities with tlqe City in the future. You will ~lnci opportunities for these savings with the A. digital photography i~itiative - the City's is Jn piece and softwares and other onetime investment items may be shared B. fire and rescue agreement - please don't goal' up to duplicate a tim and resoue system which could be enhanced in the City for far less County investment than creating a second system, 2. We a,,.~k that you defer the expansion of departments this year while we research anti recc~mmend ways in which City and County staffs may work together anct maximize economies of scale, You will find opportunities for these savings by forgoing this year the expansion of Planning, Zoning and Engineering, Use existing staff to perform the basic services of these departments, which will Increase response time~.n_d put on hold some of the development of clesigner programs which demand-~6 much time from staff such aa the historic preservation lala~, the Acquisition of Easements, mountain top preservation, etc. It's our view that a more in depth review of the tong term cost of these programs, especially ACE, needs to i:)e analyzed before publio hearings continue regarding the philosophical aspects of these inl :latives,' These si eps will save you more money to set aside for future capital improvements and for ~,~. future economic downturn. These s~ eps will also allow you to send money back to the School System whioh has a number of unfunded priorities, Among those of concern to the Chamber are in the ar~a of workforce development- :l_ ~ (~; oing back to unfunded priorities from the School Budget:) ~i Car~er Awareness Specialist English as a Second Language lc, School based Technology Support d. Greater funding for CATEC to better meet business community needs The Cha tuber looks forward to working olosely with the Board of Supervisors through this entire year to achieve me most efficient and productive County government possibl~in., the years ahead. Apr'O8-g9 02:39P PPD * PCC * 804-973-5100 P.01 Good Evening, my name is Chris Lee. I live in the Scottsville District of Albemarle County and 1 appear before you tonight in my capacity as Chairman of the Budget Subcommittee of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce. As mentioned by the Chamber's Chairman, Bob Hauser we monitor and study the budgets of our local jurisdictions and I also wish to thank Bob Tucker and Roxanne White for their assistance and support while we reviewed this year's proposed budget. Bob Hauser presented ideas on how wc can save a great deal more resources within the current budget, provide revenue for some key unfunded priorities, and prevent the need for property tax increases for years to come. I will limit my remarks to suggestions on how the budget presentation can be made even more citizen friendly in subsequent years. First, given the complexity of both thc School and general government budgets, we recommend that the budget process with the public be an ongolng nne throughout the year. The amount of information to absorb is a mammoth task to accomplish in a few short weeks alter each budget is presented to the public. Second, we recommend that the public hearings be televised on local cable and that the budget summary be published in the local papers and advertised on the luternet once it is released. Third, we prefer that the budget show actual expenditures and actual revenues, not net of offsetting revenues. For example the Budget Summary shows Tax Map/Parcel Digital Conversion; Aerial Photography; and a GIS Specialist 1 at no cost. These items will cost more than $350,000 and are being funded by E-911 telephone surcharges. Fourth, in order to understand ca pital improvements which loom in the future, that will impact decision making on set aside savings in current budgets, we recommend a full description of projects that are not funded in the current budget but will need to be funded in subsequent years. Fifth, we would like details on the budgets of each department with detailed information on employee's responsibilities and personal expenses. The budget request for additional staff in Engineering and Zoning is due to "unacceptable response times". We would like to know the current response time and the improvemet expected with the additional stuff. This information is necessary to evaluate the request, Sixth, annotation of mandated spending from the State and Federal Governments will prevent us from spending time reviewing initiatives over which we have no control. We otter these ideas, without criticism of the current method of sharing information. We found the process open and forthright. Implementing most or all of these ideas will help open the budget process to more citizens in the future and appeal to those of us more familiar with private sector accounting practices. Thank you from all of us on the Legislative Action Committee of the Chamber and especially from my committee Sue Lewis, Dennis O'Leary and Bob Tobey who spent many hours reviewing the budget.