Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-04 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 4, 1998 November 9, 1998 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 AGENDA ITEM Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Edward Strickler spoke regarding a resolution to end hate violence and unjust discrimina- tion. CONSENSUS of Board to support attached statement prepared by Sally Thomas. Amend Albemarle County Design Guidelines with the addition of the "ArchitecturalReview Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies". ADOPTED the attached amendments to the Design Guidelines. Adopt Policy to set time limits for applicants presentations during public hearings. ADOPTED the attachedpolicy to be effective January 1, 1999. Set public to amend Sec 4-213 of the County Code to include Bedford Hills Subdivision under the County's dog "leash law". SET public hearing for December 2, 1998, 11:00 a.m. Adopt Resoluticn for VDOT to install "Child At Play" signs in Minor Hill Subdivision. ADOPTED the' attached Resolution. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on Owensville Road (Route 676). ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Road Name Change Request - change the name of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. AUTHORIZED staff to coordinate/imple- ment the road name change. Adopt Resolution endorsing First Night Virginia 2000 as "Albemarle's Official Millennium Celebration". ADOPTED the Resolution. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Forward to Edward Strickler. Clerk: Forward in letter to Planning. Clerk: Forward to attorneys and engineers who regularly represent applicants. Coun _ty Attorney: Include as part of Rules of Procedure when amended at Organizational meeting in January. Clerk: Advertise for public hearing and notify homeowners' association. Clerk: Forward to Juan Wade and copy in letter to Angela Tucker. Clerk: Forward to Juan Wade and copy in letter to Angela Tucker. Clerk: Forward to Tex Weaver and copy in letter to Angela Tucker. Clerk:. Forward to Lee Catlin to give to appropriate person. 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.16 Adopt Resolution to Amend the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Service Agreement. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Adopt Resolution Authorizing an Extended Term of Office for Albemarle County Jail Authority Board Appointee. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Appropriation: Drug Court Services Grant, $35,508 (Form #98038). APPROVED. Draft Report on the Regional Planning Summit. Ms. Thomas suggested that Planning Commission agendas be sent to other localities. Transportation Matters. Ms. Humphris provided a handout with a list of four questions pertaining t0a funding source for the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II, and asked that VDOT respond to the questions. Also on the handout, Ms. Humphris listed four projects that received STP allocations and asked why fimding for those projects were separated out in the Six Year Plan as opposed to the funds being folded in with other funds in the Plan. Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of long range planning questions concerning the widening of Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. She believes the Board needs a chance to discuss these plans before they are finalized and presented to the Board for support. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that another multi- axle track turned over near Penn Park. He suggested that VDOT install flashing signs, that indicate the portion of Park Road is non- negotiable for that type of vehicle, at the last point where a truck can turn around at Melbourne Road and Penn Park. Ms. Tucker said the speed limit on Broad Axe Road will be legally reduced from 45 mph to 35 mph, and will be posted. 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.16 Clerk: Forward to County Attorney. Clerk: Forward to County Attorney. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden with copy to Pat Smith. Clerk: Send letter to Nancy O'Brien, Planning: Start sending agendas to other localities in the Planning District. Clerk: Set out in letter to Angela Tucker. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. JAUNT Annual Report. RECEIVED. Rivanna Trails Foundation. RECEIVED. PVCC Annual Report. RECEIVED. ACSA Water Conservation Measures. RECEIVED. Proposed GroundwaterTreatment System, Ivy Landfill. RECEIVED. PUBLIC HEARING to consider imposing, increasing and decreasing certain fees in an ordinance amending Sec 17-209. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Resolution of Intent to amend Sec 35, Fees of the Zoning Ordinance, re: telecommunica- tions towers. ADOPTED the attached Resolution pursuant to Option 2. Status of Comp Plan on Community Facilities in the Crozet area. 16. 17. Zoning Enforcement Regulations. CONSENSUS to support staff's recommen- dation. Purchase of Development Rights, Funding Options. REQUESTED additional informa- tion. 18. Draft TJPDC Legislative Program. ACCEPTED. Ms. Humphris suggested the format be changed to separate the items of support and the items of opposition to make more clearer. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Clerk: Forward to County Attorney and copy Engineering. County Attorney: Update Code and forward to appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward in memo to Planning. Engineering: Provide Board members with a copy of the summary of the Adaptive Reuse of the Old Crozet Elementary School study. Provide information on what the Code requirements are to bring the School building up to standards to meet ADA requirements, fire safety, etc., and the costs. Planning: What cost-wise can be done to make the building a more permanent facility, i.e., library or school. Clerk: Set out in memo to Amelia McCulley. County Attorney: Provide info on process for bond referendum as source of funding. County Executive's staff.' Bring back recommendation on something specific the Board can do in the interim as source of funding, i.e., use of Tourism Fund and/or Fund Balance. PDR Committee to provide feedback on today's discussion. Clerk: Forward in letter to Bonnie Fronfelter. 19a. 19b. 23. 20. 25B1. 25C2. FY 1998/99 Revised and FY 1999/2000 Estimated General Fund Revenues. RECEIVED. FY 1999/2000 Budget, Allocation of New Revenues. SUPPORTED staff's recommen- dation for proposed allocation of new revenues to the School Division (60%)and General Government (40%). Appointments. Marcia Joseph to the Architectural Review Board, with term to expire on November 14, 2002. Elizabeth A. Isley to the Public Defender's Office Citizens Advisory Committee. William B. Harvey to the Advisory Council on Aging, with term to expire on May 31, 1999. Bruce Kirtley to the Piedmont Housing Alliance with term to expire on January 2, 2002. Bruce Kirtley to the Housing Committee, with term to expire on December 31,2001. Albert Humbertson to the Equalization Board, to represent White Hall District, with term to expire on December 31, 1999. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas asked staff to provide some guidance on whether the Board should continue accepting and supporting requests for Child at Play signs. She believes if people do not see children, they will not pay attention to the signs. PreliminarySalary/BenefitsRecommendation RECEIVED report. School Budget Process/Presentation. RECEIVED. Clerk: Notify appointees and other applicants. /ewc Attachments Distribution list: County Executive and 4th Floor staff Board of Supervisors Kevin Castner Wayne Cilimberg Larry Davis Bill Mawyer Amelia McCulley Bruce Woodzell COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cle~~/ November 9, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of SUpervisors took the following actio~is: Item No. 5. I. Amend Albemarle County Design Guidelines with the addition of the "Architectural Review Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies" to provide guidance on deSign of fuel pump canopies proposed in the County's Entrance Corridors. ADOPTED the attached amendment to the Albemarle COunty Design Guidelines with the addition of the "Architectural Review Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies" to provide guidance on design of fuel pump canopies proposed in the County's Entrance Corridors. Item No. 5.2. Adopt Policy to set time limits for applicants presentations during public hearings. ADOPTED the attached policy to set time limits applicants presentations during public hearings. This policy will become effective January 1, 1999. Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" signs in Minor Hill Subdivision. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Original forwarded to Juan Wade. Ms. Thomas asked for some guidance from staff on whether the Board should continue accepting and supporting requests for Child At Play signs. She feels that if people do not see children in the neighborhood, theY will stop paying attention to the signs. Item No. 5.5. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on Owensville Road (Route 676). ADOPTED the attached reSolution. Original forwarded to Juan Wade. Memo To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 9, 1998 Page 2. Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. GRANTED staff the authority to coordinate/implement the road name change of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. Item No. 5.16. Draft Report on the Regional Planning Summit, dated September 10, 1998, hosted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was received as information. Ms. Thomas said it was discussed at the summit that local planning commissions send their agendas to other localities. She suggested that this be done. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Set out in letter to Angela Tucker's. Agenda Item No. 13. 10:00 a.m. - PUBLIC HEARING to consider imposing, increasing and decreasing certain fees in an ordinance amending Section 17-209 which is contained in Article 2 of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the"Albemarle County Code. ADOPTED the attached ordinance. Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 35, Fees of' the Zoning Ordinance, re: telecommunications towers. ADOPTED the attached Resolution of Intent to initiate a zoning text amendment to establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred in the review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits pursuant to Option 2, as follows: A multi-tiered fee for each application, based on the required level of review by the consultant for that application. The level of review by the consultant would be based on staff's review of the application, the type of wireless facility proposed, and the level of information submitted by the applicant. The maximum possible fee would be collected at the time the application is filed and a portion of the fee paid by the applicant would be refunded to the applicant if less than the most comprehensive review by the consultant were required. It is anticipated that the ballpark fee would be $1,500 for a Level I review, $3,000 for a Level II review, and $5,000 for a Level III review. The exact amount of such fees to be set out in the ordinance will be depen- dent upon further discusSion with the consultants to assure the County will recover the review costs. Agenda Item No. 15. Status of the Comprehensive Plan on Community Facilities in the Crozet area, as identified in the Crozet Community Study. Engineering to provide Board members with a copy of the summary of the Adaptive Reuse of the Old Crozet Elementary School study. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know from Engineering, what the Code requirements would be to bring the Old Crozet School building up to Me, no To: V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: November 9, 1998 Page 3. standards to meet ADA requirements, fire safety, etc., and the cost for such improvements. He also suggested the Planning Commission look into the feasibility of making the building something more permanent, ie., a library or school, and the cost for such a project. Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation: Zoning Enforcement Regulations. CONSENSUS of Board to support the following, staff recommendations: I) Continue a responsive program under the current philosophy with the goal of continual improvements in staffs work directly with the applicant and with the plan review process, inspection process and computer tracking system; 2) 3) Through the budget process, staff to inform the Board of staffing impacts for various levels of service for increased enforcement; Special permits not be singled out from the many other Zoning permit and plan approvals, if a new program is initiated; and 4) The number of cases in which conditions specify a review or reinspection period be limited. Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments. APPOINTED Marcia Joseph to the Architectural Review Board, with term to expire on November 14, 2002; /ewc Attachments CC: Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Sharon Taylor John Grady Dan Mahon File David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. HumpbaSs Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMAR~ F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfim Road Charlottesville, Va~inia 22902-4596 (804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November I 1, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins WhiteHall Sail9 H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Edward Strickler, Jr. 8232 Scottsville Road PO Box 70 Scottsville, VA 24590-0070 Dear Mr. Strickler: The Board of Supervisors would like to thank you for your recent comments and, information regarding hate violence. At its meeting on November 4th, in response to your request, the Board felt it was appropriate to present the attached statement condemning this type violence. Again, thank you for your comments and for bringing this issue to the Board's attention. Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.' Sincerely, Printed on recycled paper "This Board does not usually make pronouncements on local issues, much less on national issues, believing we serve our citizens best when we keep our attention on the specific matters brought to us. But today, we have been asked to express our condemnation of a particular type of hate crime. We would like to think that it goes without saying that we, individually and collectively, abhor violence that harms any human :being. Violence is both hateful and generally arises from hate. All victims of personal violence have felt the rage that hate unleashes. But sometimes the sentiments that we would like to think "go without saying" do need to be emphasized. We, the members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, want to speak for our community in saying that this community does not and will not put up with harmful actions that arise from hate. We urge our citizens to recognize that stereotypes and prejudice of all types diminish us as human beings and can create a breeding ground for hate. We all can profit from examining our own prejudices and teaching our children the value and sacredness of each individual." November 4, 1998 This board does not usually make pronouncements on local issues, much less on national issues, believing we serve our citizens best when we keep our attention on the specific matters brought to us. But today we have been asked to express our condemnation of a particular type of hate crime. We would like to think that it goes without saying that we, individually and collectively, abhor violence that harms any human being. Violence is both hateful and generally arises fi-om hate. All victims of personal violence have felt the rage that hate unleashes. But sometimes the sentiments that we would like to think "go without saying" do need to be emphasized. We, the members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, want to speak for our community in saying that this community does not and will not put up with harmful actions that arise from hate. We urge our citizens to recognize that stereotypes and prejudice of all types diminish us as human beings and can create a breeding ground for hate. We all can profit from examining our own prejudices and teaching our children the value and sacredness of each individual. for ¸ GllO - 1'18 for vere! vere!_ Gue - ne Vere!. Edward Striclder, Jr 8232 Scottsville Road PO Box 70 Sco~sville, VA 24590-0070 804/2863741 edwardnvirgini a ~. m-ail city. com Forrest R. Marshall, Jr, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 Dear Mr. Marshall, and Supervisors: All best wishes! I request that you consider a Resolution that ! have drafted. It regards a recent national horror of hate violence, and its local significance, not only for sexual minority persons, but our community and Commonwealth. Public endorsement for societal respect for human rights is always salutary. And, favorable County action on this Resolution, would be particularly timely, in that public comments continue to come forward that suggest deep seated, if not widespread, skepticism about the intentions of Albemarle officials with regard to the civil and human rights of sexual minority persons (THE DAHX PROGRESS, 'Letters', October 21, 1998, "Sting at Ivy Creek"). I hope to be able to present the Resolution to you, personally, at your first November meeting, if you request. Your consideration that week would be particularly timely with a amazing panoply of Nobel Peace laureates - all defenders of human rights -- visiting our community. The Resolution endorses County respect for the human rights of sexual minority persons, among all persons, and specifically calls for community concern to end hate violence and unjust discrimination.I have enclosed attaclunents that document the need for your/our concern, and action. These include: a. THE DAIIX PROGRESS, May 28, 1997, "Judge sentences three", regarding recent horror of hate crime in our comanunity b. Virginians for Justice VOICE, May-June 1997, '~Dramatic Iaacrease in Reported Hate Crimes Against Gay Virginians" c. Virginians for Justice VOICE, March-April 1998, "Crime Commission and General Assembly Sanction Anti-Gay Violence" d. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Always Our Children", a selection that outlines one important religious perspective, that emphasizes need for complete and continuing family and social concern for persons of different sexual orientation e. draft "Research Highlights" from the SUrvey and Evaluation Research Laboratory, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the Virginia HIV Community Planning Committee (on which I am a founding member). These highlights present some outstanding f'mdings from nationally recognized behavioral research we conducted in the Commonwealth (the research continues at present with Hispanic communities). Among these findings, with significance for understanding behaviors alleged at Ivy Creek, we present that - many sexual minority men (and especially African-American men) live lives of incredible secrecy extending to spouses and other family; - many sexual minority men (and especially African-American men) are not associated with any helping organization, including their churches, that might assist their social, emotional and moral self understanding, and appropriate regulation of behavior - alarmingly high proportions of sexual minority men report abuse of alcohol and other drugs, suicidal ideation, and a history of physical and sexual abuse; and that those most significantly affected by these mental health and medical problems -- cutting across economic, educational and racial groups --engage in particularly risky behaviors, that we recommend treated with a comprehensive, ongoing case management approach. Presenting a question: is imprisonment a proper 'cure' for behavior alleged at Ivy Creek? as much public comment has questioned. I am happy to help provide additional documentation that you ,nay £md helpful in your deliberations of the Resolution. Please let me know how I ,nay help, and if, and how, you should like me to present the Resolution to the Board. My respect and honor! Very truly yours, Edward Strickler, lr CC: Senator Emily Couric Delegate Paul Harris Delegate Mitchell VanYahres The Cville Weekly The Daily Progress The Observer RESOLUTION Whereas, Albemarle County has been home, haven and host to notable defenders of human rights, from founders of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America to an assembly of Nobel Peace laureates this 1998, and Whereas, Albemarle County's son, Thomas Jefferson, has been philosophical and spiritual father to defenders of human rights throughout the world, with his ringing words that our inalienable rights include 2ifc, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', and Whereas, a fellow citizen, in Wyoming, was deprived of his liberty and his life through inhumane and ungodly cruelty, rooted others' hatred of his different sexual orientation, causing national and local revulsion and grief, care and compassion, and Whereas, citizens of this County and Commonwealth have al. so been deprived of the same inalienable rights because of others' hatred of their different sexual orientation; Therefore, be it resolved, that Albemarle County publishes this resolution to its agencies and citizens to encourage reflection and study, education and action, that UpholdS, promotes and defends the life and liberty of all persons, toward ending violence and unjust discrimination rooted in hatred of different sexual orientation, and that Albemarle County will review its pOlicies and procedures to ensure that its agencies do not discriminate unjustly against persons of different sexual orientation, and that Albemarle 'County appeals to the Governor and General Assembly to include protection in our laws against hate crim es perpetrated against persons of different sexual orientation, and further appeals to them to encourage a society that upholds, promotes and defends the life and liberty of all persons. ,1997' Judge sentences three to'50 years in Kittredge beating By CHRIS $NOWBECK one," Charlottesville Circuit Judge Jay T. -- i than the four to seven years called for by Daily Progress staff writer Swett said. Calling the crime one of the most heinous acts of wounding and abduction to ever come through his court room, a Char- lottesville judge Tuesday gave three men 50-year sentences for their acts in a November attack described by one defen- dant as "fag bashing." "I cannot recall a more brutal beating under more brutal circumstances than this In handing down his verdict~ Swett sus- pended tho majority of the sentences, meaning that Chad Turner DePusquale, 23; Billy Ray McKethan, 18; and Joseph Cane Breeden, 17; will spend 20 years each in prison. DePasquale, McKethan and Breeden all pleaded guilty this spring to felony charges of abduction, malicious wovnding and rob- bery. "The question that,.., has,, n, ot been answered is, Why? Charlottesville Circuit Judge Jay T. Swett The severity of the Nov. 2., 1996, attack on Evan James Kittredge -- in which he was kicked and beaten, urinated on and burned with a dgarette -- led Swett to sentence the defendants to moro jail time state sentencing guidelines. But at~er five hours of testimony Tues- day, Swett said he still had not been given a full explanation for why the three men "bru- tally attacked -- repeatedly ~ a defenseless human being who had done absolutely noth~ ing to warrant what you did." ~l~he question that simply has not been answered is, 'Why?' ' he said. Af~er the attack, Kittredge spent almost two days locked in the trunk of his Pontiac Grand Prix in near-freezing temperatures. He was suffering from eight broken ribs, an almost-collapsed lung and facial frac- turos. He had let the throe men into his car amid talk that the group would go to a party where "sexual liaisons might occur," according to previous testimony. They drove to a parking lot behind First Bap[ist Church on Park Street. · When Kittredge tried to touch See SENTENCING on Al0 VIRGINIANS · FOR JUSTICE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN REPORTED HATE CRIMES AGAINST GAY VIRGINIANS On March 11, Virginians for Justice, in conjunction with The National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs (NCAVP), released our 1996 Report on Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence at a press conference in VJ's Richmond office. When compared to 1995 statistics, the 1996 report indicated a 206% increase in hate violence perpetrated against Virginia's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as reported to VJ's hate crimes reporting line (1-800-2JUSTIC). The report also includes a summary of national statistics and findings from the other thirteen member organizations nationwide that meet NCAVP reporting criteria. The 1996 report has already proven to be an invaluable resource as VJ has distributed it to the Virginia State Crime Commission (see adjacent article). Our 1995 report was distributed to dozens of legislators during the 1997 General Assembly, many of whom remarked that professional research materials such as the report are what is needed to make progress in the legislature. SUMMARY FINDINGS - Nationally, a total of 2,529 anti-LGBT incidents were documented by the NCAVP, a 6% increase from 1995. This increase in the total number of reported incidents sharply contrasts with the much touted decreases in all forms of violent crime in most localities (in excess of 20% in some metropolitan areas). In Virginia there were 55 anti-LGBT incidents, a startling increase of 206% from 1995. - Contrary to the conventional belief that most bias crimes are directed at property (such as graffiti and vandalism), a majority of the violence against lesbian and gay men continues to be directed at individuals. Nationally, of the incidents reported, 86% were directed at individuals, while only 14% targeted property. - Not only did the number of incidents of violence increase, but the intensity and viciousness of the violence increased as well. The number of incidents which included at least one assaultive offense rose from 39% to 41% in 1996. In Virginia, reported assaultive incidents resulted in the injury or death of 4 victims. In a continuation of a disturbing trend from 1995, Virginia's 3% rate of murder was much higher than the national rate of 0.5%. - The primary offenders continue to be teenagers and young adults. In Virginia, 88% of the known offenders were under the age of thirty while the proportion of offenders under 18, increased from 18% of known offenders in 1995 to 21% in 1996. - While the services provided by VJ and the continued on page 2 VJ INCLUDED IN CRIME COMMISSION STUDY OF ANTI-GAY HATE CRIMES In the last issue of The Voice, we reported that VJ would be monitoring the Virginia State Crime Commission to assure that hate crimes committed on the basis of a victim's sexual orientation were included in their legislatively-mandated study. Since then, VJ lobbyist David Perry has met with members of the Crime Commission, along with Commission staffers, and has confirmed not only that anti-gay hate crimes will indeed be included, but that Virginians for Justice will be involved in the study. Until mid-April, VJ had only verbal assurances continued on page 3 GOV. ALLEN SIGNS ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE BILL As expected, Governor George Allen signed the bills passed by the 1997 General Assembly banning the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Same-sex marriages were already explicitly prohibited in Virginia law, but the new law, scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 1997, will prevent gay and lesbian couples v~ho may marry in other states from having their marriages recognized in Virginia. No states currently allow same-sex marriages, but Hawaii continues to inch closer to sanctioning such marriages, at least for a brief period of time in 1998 before a proposed ban on same-gender marriage could be enacted. As reported in the last issue of The Voice, the Virginia bills sailed through both the House of Delegates and the Senate with only token opposition by a few brave allies of the gay community (see Action Alert on page 4). The sponsor of the Senate bill was Se~.. Stephen Newman (R-Lynchburg) with Del. Joseph Johnson, Jr., (D- Abingdon) sponsoring the House legislhtion. The Senate bill alone had a frightening thirty-five cosponsors (3 Democrats and 32 Republicans). Both bills had the support not only of Governor Allen, but also of both candidates in the race to succeed him: Lt. Gov. Donald Bever and Attorney General lames Gilmore. The Voice of Virginians for ~ustice · · · · · · · · Hate Crimes .... continued from page 1 NCAVP are available regardless of sexual orientation, the majority of victims nationally who reported to NCAVP during 1996 continued to be lesbians or gay men (87%). Eight percent (8%) identified as bisexual, 3% as heterosexual and 2% as questioning/unsure or unknown. In Virginia, 100% of the victims identified as lesbian or gay. - Nationally in 1996, 61% of victims were male, 29% female, 4% transgendered and 6% were either LGBT institutions or unknown. In Virginia, 73% of victims who were not institutions were male, 27% female. - Nationally, a total of 413 incidents were classified as motivated by fear and loathing of persons with (or perceived to have) HIV/AIDS. Forty-five percent (45%) of these incidents involved both anti-gay and anti-HIV/AIDS bias, clearly demonstrating the continuing nexus between these two hatreds. - Nationally, 35% of incidents occurred in or around a victim's home or workplace. In Virginia, the most common site for anti-LGBT incidents in 1996 was a LGBT institution (primarily in the form of hate calls) - 82%. It was distantly followed by 9% of incidents occurring in the street or in a public area. - In Virginia 20% of incidents were. reported to the police. This is a 44% increase from 1995. Additionally, 18% of Virginia victims reported that the police were indifferent and 9% said the police were verbally or physically abusive. WHY HAVE VIRGINIA CRIMES INCREASED? There are several possible causes for the increase in hate crimes reported to VJ on our 1-800-2JUSTIC hate crimes reporting line. In the previous year's report, the NCAVP predicted an increase in LGBT violence for 1996 based on the expectation of escalating anti-LGBT rhetoric during the 1996 presidential and congressional elections, the fervor surrounding the possibility of the legalization of same-sex marriages and the possibility of the Supreme Court rendering a decision on Colorado's amendment 2. Hate crimes of other types have also been increasing in Virginia, including an alarming increase in anti-Semitic incidents. In 1996, the Anti- Defamation League reported 49 anti-Semitic incidents in Virginia, up from 27 in 1995. At least forty African American churches were also targeted by arsonists across the country, as well as in Virginia. Awareness of VJ's repor.ting line and more consistent staffing over the past several years also appears to be a major source of increased reporting. NONETHELESS, ARE VA NUMBERS LOW? Despite the large increase in Virginia reports, VJ still believes that the numbers are deceptively low for several reasons. Foremost is the poor record of local hate crimes reporting in general. Local groups often know of anti-lesbian/gay hate violence, but do not report or refer victims to VJ. The reasons for this · ~ pa~ge 2 may vary from not appreciating the importance of reporting to a reliance on other anti-violence groups (such as in Northern Virginia). Regardless, VJ encourages all local groups and individuals to report any and all hate crimes by calling 1-800-2JUSTIC. . Fear of reprisals from both the perpetrators and society at large also contributes to a general lack of reporting; gays may be even more at risk of reprisal then other minority groups since relatively few laws currently exist to protect the rights of gay and lesbian Virginians. The Commonwealth may have a particular problem in this area due to a surge in recent years of anti-gay activity in all branches of government. These activities have ranged from anti- gay statements of the Gov. Allen and his administration; court cases dismantling lesbian families, to the rejection of gay-positive legislation, including hate crimes bills. There are pockets of gay- positive local governments, particularly in parts of Northern Virginia, but this is still the exception rather than the rule. Another contributing factor to the low reporting rate, especially to law enforcement, is the fear of public officials. There is a wide-spread perception among the gay population that law enforcement will not only not help, but will make the problem Worse. In fact, in one rural county, it is rumored among the small group of gay and lesbian activists that the sheriff has indicated that gays should be bound up and thrown in front of a moving truck. In another rural town, members of the local gay community told VJ that the LGBT community refrains from calling their elected representatives for fear that a representative would "out" them, resulting in harassment and physical violence. In addition to the general oppressive climate in the Commonwealth, the fact that VJ's Anti-Violence program dollars are'ostensibly spread over the entire state, as opposed to concentrated in a specific city or metropolitan area, has diminished VJ's ability to effectively and consistently track anti-LGBT violence. Individuals and organizations that have regular contact with a VJ make reports of the harassment and violence, while those who are not in regular contact do not make reports. Reports are also limited primarily to those areas of the state that have representation on the VJ board of directors: usually urban or relatively progressive localities where harassment, intimidation and vandalism are often less prevalent. Finally, the VJ reporting line currently does not offer any direct services such as court advocacy, COunseling, or referrals to an agency which might offer those services. The VJ program serves strictly as a reporting line that is usually staffed only 20 hours a week. While this system may adequately provide for reporting, it does not assist the victims. Even if a survivor was inclined to report the incident to VJ, the lack of support may dissuade them from doing so. Whether you are a victim, witness or just hear about it CALL: 1-800-2JUSTIC ! VIRGINIANS FOR JUSTICE MAR-APR 1998 CRIME COMMISSION AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY SANCTION ANTI-GAY VIOLENCE AND VJ'SCOMPLETE 1998 LEGISLATIVE REPORT In an unexpected turnaround, the Virginia State Crime Commission, as well as Senate and House committees, refused to address the prevalence of hate crimes committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Virginians. After months of working with the Crime Commission and dozens of legislators, Virginians for Justice was disappointed to witness the backpedaling exhibited by the majority of t-he Crime Commissioners and members of the Senate and House Courts of Justice committees. The inability of these public officials to provide protections from anti-gay violence can be interpreted as tacit endorsement of such crimes. Perhaps most egregious of their gaffes was the Crime Commission's vote not to endorse two hate crimes bills that were drafted as a result of their own study: a clasSic example ~f burying their heads in the proverbial sand. The legislation in question was borne from last summer's Crime Commission study that detailed 58 different incidents of hate crimes committed against Virginians because of their sexual orientation. The study was developed and conducted by Commission staff with the assistance of VJ Lobbyist David Perry and Executive Director Shirley Lesser. At their January 16 meeting, the Commission defeated (4-6) a motion put forth by its chair, Delegate Chip Woodrum (D-Roanoke), to endorse the bill~ (see Action Alert #1 on e 2). Prior to that vote, VJ believed that sufficient votes existed for endorsement. Unfortunately, a commissioner who had not attended a 'single meeting since VJ began working with the Commission last spring appeared and voted against endorsement. Another who rarely attended did the same, while other votes gaged to b e uncommitted turned to definite "nays". Testifying against the bills was Frank Ferguson from the Attorney General's office. Ferguson used the well-worn tactic of linking sexual orientation with pedophilia by asking if assaulting a pedophile would be considered a hate crime under the proposed legislation. Delegate Woodrum quickly countered Ferguson's rhetoric by dismissing his presumption that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. VJ is deeply disappointed that a representative of newly-elected Attorney General Mark Earley would attempt to sabotage the legislation. In 1993, while a member of the State Senate, Earley spoke from the Senate floor against hate crimes legislation of all types, but he said that neither gays and lesbians nor any other group should be denied inclusion in the law. VJ was hoping that Earley and other members of the Gilmore administration might be less zealous with their anti-gay activities than was the notoriously anti-gay Allen administration. Ferguson's testimony is not a good first indicator. After the vote, Commission member Delegate continued on page 2 The Voice of Virginians for Justice Legislative Report .... continued from page 1 page 2 committee were Senators Jackson Reasor (D- Jmes Almand (D-Arlington) gave an impassioned defense of the legislation. He vowed to submit the bills with or without the Commission's endorsement. Alma_nd is a longtime supporter of equal justice and has been the sponsor of gay-inclusive hate crimes legislation in the House since 1994. Almand made good on his pledge by submitting House Bills 310 and 311, both designed to expand hate crimes penalty enhancement laws to include crimes motivated by hatred or bias of a person's sexual orientation. Simultaneously, Senator Patsy Ticer (D-Alexandria), submitted a similar version of hate crimes penalty enhancement legislation, Senate Bill 159, that would add sexual orientation and gender to existing laws. All three bills passed subcommittee votes in the House and Senate, but did not pass at committee level. The case for expanding the laws was backed up by powerful testimony. Speaking on behalf of the bills were Sen. Ticer, VJ's Perry, Stephen Colecci of the Catholic 'Diocese of Richmond, Shelly Roeder from Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) of Fredericksburg, Rev. Fletcher Lowe from the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, and VJ members Arthur Scott and Rev. Darell Headrick. On the Senate side, SB159 advanced from subcommittee on a 3-3 vote. Senators Henry Marsh (D-Richmond), John Edwards (D-Roanoke) and Roscoe Reynolds (D-Martinsville) voted to move the bill forward while Senators Dick Saslaw (D- Springfield), Ken Stolle (R-Virginia Beach) and Randy Forbes (R-Chesapeake) voted "nay". Sen. Marsh, chair of the subcommittee, ushered the bill to full committee where it was "passed by indefinitely" on a 9-5 vote. Passing by indefinitely is equivalent to defeating a bill. Joining the subcommittee "nays" in full Bluefield), Malfourd Trumbo (R-Fincastle), 'Fred Quayle (R-Chesapeake), Thomas Norment (R- Williamsburg), Marty Williams (R-Newport News), and William Mires (R-Leesburg). Additional votes in favor of SB159 were Senators Joe Gartlan OD-Mason Neck), Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), and Janet Howell (D-Reston). Sen. Marsh was not present for that vote. In the House, HB310 and HB311 both advanced to the full Courts of Justice committee only to be "continued until 1999". Continuing is almost always equivalent to killing legislation, but can on occasion allow for a bill to be revived in the next session. While the official votes against both bills were 24-0, this situation can be deceiving. After hearing testimony on the bills' merits, including Del. Almand's reference to endorsement by the State Fraternal Order of Police, the House Courts of Justice committee took a voice vote on a motion to pass the bills. When it looked as if that motion was heading for defeat (11-13), a substitute motion was made to "continue until 1999". In a close voice vote that motion passed, but in the cryptic system of rules and regulations that the General Assembly operates under, it was recorded officially as 24-0. More from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Follow the Way of Love A Pastoral Message of the U.S. Catholic Bishops to Families In this encouraging message to families on the realities of today's society, the U.S. bishops address the challenges of living faithfully, giving life, growing in mutuality, and tak- ing time to balance work and family obligations. English: No. 677-8, 32 pp. Spanish: No. 676-X, 32 pp. To order this resource or to obtain a catalog of other USCC tides, call toll-free 800-235-8722. In the Washington metropolitan area or from outside the United States, call 202-722-8716. Visit the U.S. bishops' intemet site located at www. nccbuscc.org. STATES ISBN 1-57455-131-0 CONFERENCE Publication No, 5-13! United States Catholic conference Washington, D.C. ISBN 1-57455-131-0 Always Our Ch 'ldren A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children -- and -- Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers A STATEMENT OF THE BISHOPS~ COMMITTEE ON IV~ARRIAGE AND FAMILY NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS cient, but it may also be necessary to talk about your feelings. Do not expect that all tensions can or will be resolved. The Ghristian life is a journey marked by per- ~everance and prayer It is a path leading from where we are to where we know God is calling us. Accepting Your Child How can you best express your love--itself a reflection of God's unconditional love--for your child? At least two things are necessary. First, don't break off contact; don't reject your child. A shocking number of homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by their families. This, and other external pressures, can place young people at a greater risk for self-destructive behaviors like sub- stance abuse and suicide. Your child may need you and the family now more than ever. He or she is still the same person. This child, who has always been God's gift to you, may now be the cause of another gift: your family becoming more hon- est, respectful, and supportive. Yes, your love can be tested by this reality, but it can also grow stronger through your struggle, to respond lovingly. The second way to communicate love is to seek appropriate help for your child and for yourself. If your son or daughter is an adolescent, it is possible that he Or she may be experimenting with some homosexual behaviors as part of the process of coming to terms with sexual identity. Isolated acts do not make someone homosexual. Adolescence is often accompanied by anxi- ety or confusion about sexual identity. Sometimes the best approach may be a '~wait and see" attitude, while you try to maintain a trusting relationship and provide various kinds of support, information, and encour- agement. In many cases, it may be appropriate and neces- sary that your child receive professional help, includ- ing counseling and spiritual direction. It is important, of course, that he or she receive such guidance will- ingly. Look for a therapist who has an appreciation of religious values and who understands the complex nature of sexuali~ Such a person should be experi- enced at helping people discern the meaning of early sexual behaviors, sexual attractions, and sexual fanta- sies in ways that lead to more clarity and self-identi~ In the course of this, however, it is essential for you to remain open to the possibility that your son or daugh- ter is struggling to understand and accept a basic homosexual orientation. The meaning and implications of the term homo- sexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Ghurch teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual "tendency," which proves to be "tran- sitory,'' and "homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct"(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8). In light of this possibility, therefore, it seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation (hetero- sexual or homosexual) as a fundamental dimension of one's personality and to recognize its 'relative stability in a person. A homosexual orientation produces a stronger emotional and sexual attraction toward indi- viduals of the same sex, rather than toward those of the opposite sex. It does not totally rule out interest in, care for, and attraction toward members of the opposite sex. Having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activi~ There seems to be no single cause ora homosexual orientation. A common opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors--genetic, hormonal, psychologi- cal-that may give rise to it. Generally, homosexual ori- entation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orien- tation cannot be considered sinful, for morality pre- sumes the freedom to choose. Some homosexual persons want to be known pub- licly as gay or lesbian. These terms often express a person's level of self-awareness and self-acceptance within society. Though you might find the terms offen- sive because of political or social connotations, it is necessary to be sensitive to how your son or daughter is using them. Language should not be a barrier to build- ing trust and honest communication. You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God's grace to live a chaste 1/fe. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itseff. This implies respecting a person's freedom to choose or refuse therapy directed toward changing a homosexual orien- tation. Given the present state of medical and psycho- logical knowledge, there is no guarantee that such therapy will succeed. Thus, there may be no obligation to under- take it, though some may find it helpful. All in all, it is essential to recall one basic truth. God loves every person as a unique individual. Sexual' identity helps to define the unique persons we are, and one component of our sexual identity is sexual orienta- tion. Thus, our total personhood is more encompass- ing than sexual orientation. Human beings see the appearance, but the Lord looks into the heart (cf. 1 Sm ' 16:7). God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God's love is always and ev- erywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it. St. Paul's words offer great hope: For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor an- gels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future ' things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39) 5 6 /4lt lrth lli(Ihliqhl. ~ ~ From the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Vixpinia Commonwealth University's Center for Public Policy No. 6 September 1998 Research conducted for the Virginia HlV Community Planning Committee Men Who Have Sex with Men Who Differ on Risk for HiV also Differ on Variety of Qther Factors In a recent study in Virginia of a large sample of HIV-negative or untested men who have sex with men, about 11 percent said they engage in sexual behaviors that carry the highest risk of transmission These results come from an analysis of 546 Vir- ginia men who said they were HIV negative or had not been tested for HIV. These 546 men represent 77 percent of a sample of 711 responding to a survey of men who have sex with men. The survey was con- ducted between January and June 1997 by the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University for the Virginia HIV Community Planning Committee. In this analysis, the 546 respondents were di- vided into high, intermediate, and low risk groups, based on responses to questions about their sexual behavior in the three months prior to completing the survey. The high risk group was made up of the 58 men, or 11 percent, who said they had been the re- ceiving partner in both oral and anal intercourse without consistent condom use. Fifty percent reported that they had neither anal nor oral sex during the previous three months or had been in a monogamous relationship with another HIV-negafive man during that time. The men in this category were considered to be at low risk for HIV. Thirty-nine percent said they had had anal and/or oral sex with the consistent use of condoms, or had engaged in only one of the two behaviors without consistent use of condoms. They were con- sidered to be at intermediate risk. for meeting sampling targets derived from estimates of the number of MSM in the various regions of the state, given their urban, rural and suburban compo- Data were gathered in bars, dance clubs, book- stores and restaurants, through organized social, religious, athletic and political groups, and at public gatherings. Posters, advertisements and information cards were placed where appropriate with a toll-free telephone number for call-in completion. Informa- tion was also placed on the Internet. In most cases, snowball techniques were used in which respondents were asked to pass the question- naires or information along to others in their social networks. About 27 percent of the resulting sample of 711 men were African-American, 61 percent White, seven percent Hispanic and five percent from other racial/ethnic groups; 13 percent came from non- urban areas of the state. The age of respondents ranged from 15 to 77 years. ' Four percent reported that they had not com- pleted high school; 24 percent had pursued graduate study. Thirty-eight percent reported incomes under $20,000 per year while 14 percent reported incomes of more than $50,000 per year.2 High-risk group compared to others Responses of thc 58 high-risk individuals were compared to those of the Iow and intermediate risk Methodology Thc data were gathered through a complex non- probability sampling process, which included group, in-person, mail and telephone survey administration. Regional data collection managers were respOnsible t These estimates were taken from E.O. Laumann, et.al, The Social Organization of Sexuality, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994. 2 Further details about the overall results are available from the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory. groups, to assess whether 'these groups differ on characteristics other than sexual behavior.3 Personal responses to HIV -- The men in the high-risk category worry more about HIV but also more often think safer sex cannot be maintained over the long run. Thirty-nine percent of this group agreed that they worry that every bruise, blemish or illness might be a symptom of HIV, compared to 25 percent and 15 percent of the intermediate antl Iow risk groups. Thirty-three percent of the high-risk group agreed that safer sex is too hard to maintain over the long run, compared to 14 percent and 17 percent of the intermediate and low risk groups. While about three-quarters of the Iow and in- termediate risk groups (78 percent and 74 percent respectively) said they have a personal plan for re- ducing their chance of contracting HIV, only 57 per- cent of the high-risk group gave this response. A large majority of all respondents said they are now more careful about their sexual behavior be- muse of the AIDS epidemic, but this response was given by 78 percent of the high-risk group, compared to 96 percent and 89 percent of the intermediate and low risk groups, respectively. Mental health -- The highest risk group is much more likely to report having thoughts about suicide than the other two groups. Figure 1 shows these re- sults. Fifty-nine percent responded they "often," "sometimes," or "rarely" thought about suicide, compared to 35 percent of the intermediate group and 39 percent of the lowest risk group. Respondents were also asked how often they felt they wanted to become infected with HIV. Of the highest risk group, 23 percent gave a response other than "never," compared to nine percent of the inter- mediate and four percent of the low risk group. Beliefs about sexual behaviors -- The high-risk group tended to rate sexual behaviors, particularly oral sex, as less risky for the transmission of HIV than did the other groups. Whereas 71 percent of the low-risk group said swallowing semen during oral sex has a high likelihood of transmitting IqlV, this response was given by 53 percent of the high-risk group. 3 Since this is a non-probability sample, reporting statisti- cal significance is inappropriate. Such tests are used here · as a guide for reporting results. All relationshlps reported here would be significant at p = .05 or less, if this were a probability sample. Figure 1. Mental health 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% :0% 59% Percent ever having thoughts of suicide 23% Percent ever wanting to contract HIV [] Low rlsk [] Intermediate rlsk [] High risk For oral sex without ingestion of semen, 50 per- ~ent of the lowest risk group saw this as carrying a high likelihood for transmitting HIV, compared to 31 percent of the highest risk group. The same rela- tionships are found for anal sex with and without condoms, although the differences among the groups are smaller. Attitudes toward high-risk sex - Men at highest risk expressed attitudes toward high-risk sexual be- haviors that differed from attitudes of the others. These comparisons are shown in Figure 2. For example, 28 percent of the high-risk group, compared to just eight percent of the intermediate group and three percent of the low-risk group, 2 Figure 2. Attitudes toward high-risk sex Will have sex without condom to keep partner's interest Anal sex is the most important kind Receiving semen shows interest in partner 28% [] High risk 8% []Intermediate risk 3% [] Low risk 47% 1 18% 6% ~$2% · -:.:,'<.:-:~ .:-:.:~ > 27% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent agreeing agreed with the statement, "If someone who is really hot wants to have sex with me without a condom, I'I1 go along to keep him interested in me." As Figure 2 shows, high-risk men were also much more likely to agree that anal sex is the most important kind of sex and that receiving a man's semen is a way of show- ing interest in him. Perceptions of own risk -- While the high-risk men perceive their sexual behavior as riskier and see their chance of contracting HIV as higher than men in the other groups, these men still do not perceive themselves to be at particularly great risk. Forty-four percent of the high-risk men charac- terized their chance of contracting HIV as Iow. The remaining 56 percent said this chance is moderate, high or certain, compared to 33 percent and 17 per- cent of the intermediate and low-risk groups. Fifty-four percent of the high-risk men per- ceived their sexual behavior to carry low or no risk (14 on a scale of 1-10). This compares to 76 percent and 88 percent of the intermediate- and low-risk groups. Alcohol and drug use, -- The high-risk men more often precede or accompany sex with alcohol and drug use. As Figure 3 shows, 29 percent of the high-risk men said they always or usually drink al- Figure 3. Alcohol, drugs and sex Q% 5% 0% 5% 0% []Low risk []Intermediate risk ElHigh risk 33% 29% Alcohol with sex DrUgs with sex' usually or always sometimes, usually or always cobol before or during sex, compared to fewer than half' that percent of the intermediate- and low-risk men. In addition, 53 percent of the high risk men said that alcohol had caused them to do something sexually that they later regretted, compared to 40 percent and 34 percent of the intermediate- and low- risk groups. The high-risk men also were more likely to say they use drugs other than alcohol to get high or in- toxicated just before or during sex, as shown in fig- ute 3. The high-risk men also more frequently said these drugs caused them to do something sexually they later regretted, although this difference was not as great as in the alcohol analysis. Physical and sexual abuse -- The high-risk men Figure 4. Physical and sexual abuse Sexual abuse as child or teenager Physical abuse while growing up 126% ~29% %25% PhyslcallYabused ~ 20% because of ~ 17% sexual orientation ~.~9% , 0% 25% I~ High risk []Intermediate risk [] Low risk 5O% 75% 100% 3 DRAFT were most likely to report having been sexually or physically abused as children or teenagers, particu- larly in comparison to the Iow-risk group. Of the highest risk group, 40 percent reported that they had been touched sexually or forced to do something sexually they did not want before age 18, and 29 percent said they had been beaten or physically abused while they were growing up. Figure 5 shows that a smaller proportion of the lower risk groups reported early sexual or physical abuse. In response to a related question asked only of the men who self-identified as gay or bisexual, 20 percent of the high-risk group, 17 percent of the in- termediate group, and nine percent of the low-risk group reported they had been physically abused be- cause others thought they were gay or bisexual. Reasons ['or not using condoms - As noted above, respondents were placed in the high risk category if they had engaged in both oral and anal sex without consistent use of condoms. Respondents were asked to list their reasons for not using con- Table 1. Reasons given by high-risk men for not using condoms Not used during oral sex 65% Does not swallow during oral sex 39% Does not use with long-term partner 39% Sex partner has same HIV status 39% Reduces pleasure of sex 39% Pulls out before ejaculation 25% Interrupts "heat of th~ moment" 25% Not always available 16% Embarrassing to talk about 12% doms. Reasons given by the high risk group are shown below in Table 1. Summary Thc high-risk respondents, 11 percent of the sample, may represent the group most likely to fuel the continued growth of the HIV epidemic among the population of men who have sex with men. Since this study measured sexual behavior only during the previous three months, it may be a con- servative estimate of high-risk behavior, given that men who have not recendy had sex with another man were not includedfi 4 For example, a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at the 12tu World AIDS Confer- This study indicates that these high-risk men differ from other men They are less likely to have devised a personal plan for reducing their risk, less likely to have changed their sexual behavior because of thc AIDS epidemic, more likely to use alcohol and drugs in conjunction with sex, and more likely to have had suicidal thoughts. They have lower estimations of the risk of various sexual behaviors, maintain perhaps unrealistic optimism about their own chances of contracting HIV, and have higher frequencies of sexual and physical abuse in their backgrounds. As a result, these men pose particular challenges for AIDS prevention efforts. Recommendations · The men in this high-risk category present a constellation of issues calling for a case management approach, involving the following steps: · These men should be identified when they pres- ent for services, such as HIV testing or treat- ment of other STDS or in other health and mental health settings, as well as during other HIV/AIDS outreach activities. · Mechanisms should be developed to refer them to a range of other mental and physical health services to address their issues in a holistie way. · AIDS education staff may need additional training in counseling, referral and communica- tion to recognize these men and deal with them effectively. · Training in nonjudgmental communication may be particularly necessary to get past defenses and avoid alienating them. · For these men, sexual behavior may be a way of % acting out emotional and psychological stress. Treatment of sex as simply a biological function that ignores its emotional and psychological components may in particular undermine pre- vention efforts with this group.5 ence in Geneva, Switzerland, June 1998, (Gordon Man- sergh, "Continued Risk Behavior Among Young Gay Men in the U.S. Points to Need for Sustained Prevention and Suggests a FOCus on SOCial Influence") found that 56 per- cent of KIV-negative gay and bisexual men, 25 years old and younger, in Chicago, Denver and San Francisco re- ported unprotected anal sex at least once during the previ- ous 18 months; the figure was 46 percent for older men. s See, for example, Johnston, W.J. Hill- Negative: How the Uninfected Are Affected by AIDS. New York: Plenum, 1995 4 at Virginia Commonwealth University's Center for Public Policy No. 7 September 1998 Research conducted for the Virginia HIV Community Planning Committee Dramatic Differences betWeen White and Black Men Who Have Sex with Men A recent study of men who have sex with men (MSM) in Virginia found significant differences between White and Black members of the sample in sexual behavior and identity. Black respondents were more likely to report sex with women than were White men. Blacks were more likely to report that their sexual encounters with other men include anal sex, while Whites more frequently reported oral sex. Blacks were less likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual and less frequently acknowledged their sexuality to others. These results come from an analysis of 711 sur- veys completed by Virginia MSM obtained between January and June 1997 by the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory of Virginia Commonwealth University, working on behalf of the Virginia HIV Community Planning Committee. Twenty-eight percent (198 respondents) of the sample is made up of Black men, allowing compari- sons with White members of the sample) Methodology The data were gathered through a complex non- probability sampling process, which included group, in-person, mail and telephone survey administration. Regional data collection managers were responsible for meeting regional sampling targets derived from estimates of the number of MSM in the various re- gions of the state, given their urban, rural and subur- ban components.2 i Only 48 respondents identified themselves as Hispanic, too few to include in this comparison. Since they also categorizes themselves by race, they were placed in either the Black or White group for the purposes of this analysis. 2 These estimates were taken from E.O. Laumann, et.al, The $ociat Organization of Sexuality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 'Data were gathered in bars, dance clubs, book- stores and restaurants, through organized social, religious, athletic and political groups, and at public gatherings. Posters, advertisements and information cards were placed where appropriate with a toll-free telephone number for phone completion. In most cases, snowball techniques were used, in which respondents were asked to pass questionnaires or information to others in their social networks. One goal of the sampling was to obtain inter- views with MSM who may not think of themselves as gay or bisexual. The population is not defined by self-identity, but by sexual behavior with other men or at least the interest in such behavior. About 12 percent of this sample did not self-identify as gay or bisexual, did not express any sexual interest in other men, and said they were exclusively heterosexual. However, most of these completed surveys could be traced to locations or contact points (gay bars, dance clubs, bookstores, organizations) that would indicate these men are indeed part of the MSM population. ~nerefore, they were kept in the sample as possibly representing the non-gay-identified group of MSM who are critically important to understand for pur- poses of HIV programming. Thirteen percent of the sample came from non- urban areas of the state. The age of respondents ranged from 15 to 77 years. Four percent reported they had not completed high school; 24 percent had pursued graduate study. Thirty-eight percent re- ported incomes under $20,000 per year while 14 percent reported incomes of more than $50,000 per year.3 ~ Overall results are available from the S~ey and Evaluation Research Laboratory. · Results Sexual contact with women - Black respondents reported considerably more current and past sexual. contact with women than did Whites. Blacks and Whites were about equally likely to say they had been in a relationship during the three months prior to the survey. Of those in a relationship, 44 percent of Blacks said this relationship had been with a woman, compared to nine percent of Whites. Figure 1 shows that a greater proportion of Black respondents reported sex with a woman in the three months Preceding the survey. It also shows that BL:cks were more likely to say they were currently married, or were separated or divorced. Figure 1. Sexual contact with women Sex with women in past three months Married rnWhite [] Black 35% 3% 10% Separated or divorced o% 2s% s0% ?$% lO0% Sex with men - White respondents were more likely than Blacks to acknowledge sex with another man. Figure 2 shows 82 percent of Whites and 67 percent of Blacks said they had had sex with another man in the previous three months or had ever paid or been paid for sex with another man.4 Sexual attraction and identity - Figure 2 also shows Black respondents were less likely than Whites to repOrt exclusive sexual attraction to men and less likely to say they were gay or bisexual. While 34 percent of Black respondents reported being sexually attracted only to men, 65 percent of Whites reported such exclusivity. Seventeen percent of Blacks compared to eight percent of Whites said they were equally attracted to men and women. Twenty-four percent of Blacks and eight percent of · Whites said they were attracted only to women. Seventy-nine percent of White respondents identified themselves as homosexual or gay, com- pared to 47 percent of Blacks. Twenty percent of Blacks and 11 percent of Whites identified them- selves as bisexual. A quarter of Black respondents said they were heterosexual or straight, compared to eight percent of Whites. Attraction/Identity/Behavior - When the results of these questions on sexual behavior, attraction and identity are examined together, 94 percent of Whites Figure 2. Sex with men, attraction to men, and sexual Identity Sex with men Exclusive attract[on to men Gay or bisexual identity , 0% 165% ~~34~ rlWhite [] Black ! 79% ~~ 47% 25% 50% 75% 100% in this sample and 79 percent of Blacks reported either sex with another man, some degree of sexual attraction to other men, or some degree of gay/bisexual identity. However, these differences .are concentrated in the lower education categories, as shown in Figure 3. The least educated Black men were less likely than the least educated Whites to indicate attraction to men, sex with men, or gay/bisexual identity. The gap 4 Since this is a non-probability sample, reporting statisti- cal significance is inappropriate. Such tests are used here as a guide for reporting results.' Ail relationships reported here would be significant at p = 0.05 or less if this were a probability sample. 2 closes considerably as education increases so that college-eduCated Black men are verY similar to col- lege-educated White men in this regard. Connections with Other Gay and Bisexual Peo- ple, - Of the respondents who self-identified as gay or bisexual, Blacks were much less likely than Figure 3. Sexual Identity, behavior, attraction to men, by race and education 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 96% ~L...._....~ 95% ~ - 88% 81% 74% High school or Some college College less or technical graduate Black --qlS-~ Whit e Whites to say they had been associated with a gay, lesbian or bisexual organization or to have "come OUt," and they reported fewer gay and bisexual friends. Thirty-five percent of Blacks said they had ever been associated with "a social, political, religious, athletic or support organization or activity made up mostly of gay, lesbian or bisexual people," compared to 76 percent of Whites. This difference was par- ticularly large among college-educated men. Forty-five percent of Black respondents and 61 percent of Whites reported that all or most of their closest friends were gay or bisexual. This result is related to education, with the biggest difference oc- curring within the least educated group, and very little difference among college-educated men. Finally, as Figure 4 shows, White members of the sample were much more likely to say they had "come out" to a variety of groups of people. This was highly related to education, however, with less edu- cared Black and Mite men being very similar in the degree to which they have "come out." At higher levels of education, Blacks are less likely than Whites to disclose their sexuality. Figure 5 shows disclosure of SeXuality to family members by race and education. The pattern is quite .similar for dis- closure to' other groups. Sexual Behavior and Condom Use - Of Black respondents, 52 percent said their sexual encounters Figure 5. Disclosure to family members, by race and education lOO% "5o% 25% 0% 61% ............ ~[ 66% 51% 49% ~ 34% High school or Some college College less or technical graduate Black --qJ~-- Whit e with other men always or usually include anal sex, compared to 31 percent of Whites. Oral sex is more frequent among White respondents, with 76 percent reporting that their sexual encounters with men al- ways or usually include this behavior, compared to 49 percent of Blacks. Figure 6 shows Blacks reported more frequent condom use than Whites during anal sex. When they were the inserting partner, 62 percent of Blacks re, ported always using COndoms, compared to 47 per- cent of Whites. When they were' the receiving part- ner, 64 percent of Blacks and 51 percent of Whites ~d their partners always used condoms. Figure 6 also shows Blacks were more likely than Whites to say they talk with partners about pre- venting HIV. Twenty-seven percent of Blacks and 12 percent of Whites said they always have such discus- Figure 4. Percent of self-ldentifled gay and bisexual men who sald they were "out" to various groups 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%. 48% 46% Churoh members Health providers Oo-workers Ili Black CIWhlte Gay friends Straight friends Family 3 sions; 55 percent of Blacks and 37 percent of Whites responded "always" or "usually" to this question. Education was related to discussing HIV/AIDS with sex partners. While at all education levels, Figure 6. Use of condoms and talklng~about HIV with partners ,' ' ~ Condom use-, Insertlve Condom use- receptive Talking about HIV 0% 25% 50% Percent always 62% 51% ~12% :~::.!:!.'.':!:::~:!.'..':<::s!:!.'::::!:127 Ye ElWhite EIBlack 75% 100% Black men were more likely to say they talk about HIV with their sex partners, this difference was greatest among the least educated men, and overall the least educated men of both groups were the most likely to say they discuss HIV. This is shown in Fig- tlre 7. HIV Testing and Perceptions of Risk -- About 83 Figure 7. Discussing AIDS prevention with sex 3artners~ by race and education 3% 5% 0% 5% 0% 38% 35% High sohool or Some college College less or technical graduate Black ---{II-~ Whlte percent of both Blacks and Whites reported having been tested for HIV. Of those who had been tested, 32 percent of Blacks and 19 percent of Whites re- ported a positive test. The HIV-negative or untested Blacks perceive their current sexual behavior to be more risky than do Whites. A third of Blacks believe then' sexual behavior carries a moderate to extreme risk for in- fecting them with HIV, compared to 15 percent Of Whites. Of respondents who had not been tested, 17 per- cent of Blacks and 49 percent of Whites said they had not been tested because they know they are not at risk. Belief that AIDS was created on purpose - Re- spondents were asked a wide variety of questions about then' beliefs about HIV/AIDS. Responses to these questions did not differ greatly by race, with one exception. Twenty-one percent of Black respon- dents, as compared to eight percent of Whites agreed that "AIDS was created on purpose to get rid of groups of people, such as homosexuals, drug users and African Americans." Conc:lusions and Recommendations Survey results show Black and White MSM differ dramatically in their sexual relationships with women, in their sexual behavior with other men, in their perceptions of their own sexuality, in the open- ness with which the express their sexuality, and in their connection to other gay and bisexual people. To the degree AIDS education and prevention programs have been designed within a context de- fined by the perceptions and behaviors of White men, much of this effort may be inappropriate and even irrelevant to Black men. This is a critical issue since Blacks are over-represented among people with AIDS and HIV and constitute a rapidly growing segment of both groups. The results of this study indicate that prevention programs must be especially and carefully targeted for Black MSM. In particular: · Prevention efforts for Black men should make no assumptions about the sexual orientation or identity of the men to which they are presented. .~, Given the apparent fear of disclosure of their ', sexuality on the part of the Black men, preven- tion/edueation activities should provide "safe places" for such activities. · Presentations should be culturally appropriate and should take into account the variety of life- styles that exist within the population · The results of this study indicate that Black MSM may be more socially isolated than White MSM. Prevention efforts may need to create peer support for Black MSM. · In order to implement these recommendations, Black MSM should be included in all aspects of prevention education activities. 4: RESOLUTION Whereas, Albemarle County has been home, haven and host to notable defenders of human rights, from founders of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of Am erica to an assembly of Nobel Peace laureates this 1998, and Whereas, Albemarle County's sOn, Thomas Jefferson, has been philosophical and spiritual father to defenders of human rights throughout the world, with his ringing words that our inalienable rights include q_ife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', and Whereas, a fellow citizen, in Wyoming, was deprived of his liberty and his life through inhumane and ungodly cruelty, rooted in others' hatred of his different sexual orientation, causing national and local revulsion and grief, care and compassion, and Whereas, citizens of this County and Commonwealth have also been deprived of the sam e inalienable rights because of others' hatred of their different sexual orientation; Therefore, be it resolved, that Albemarle County publishes this resolution to its agencies and citizens to encourage reflection and study, education and action, that upholds, promotes and defends the life and liberty of all persons, toward ending violence and unjust discrimination rooted in hatred of different sexual orientation, and that Albemarle County will review its policies and procedures to ensure that its agencies do not discriminate unjustly against persons of different sexual orientation, and that Albemarle County appeals to the Governor and General Assembly to include protection in our laws against hate crim es perpetrated ag~nst persons of different sexual orientation, and further appeals to them to encourage a society that upholds, promotes and defends the life and liberty of all persons. OGT.-2~'981THU1 12:02 P. O02 SABRA L. JONES ARLINGTON COUNTY. VIRGINIA OFFICE OF 'THE COUNTY BOARD #i COURTHOIJ$~: PLAZA, SUITE 300 2 i00 CLARENDON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON. VIRGINIA 22201 [?03) 22g-3130 · FAX (703) E-MAIL: courttyboard a co. ,rtingtOn. va. us CHAIRMAN October 17, 1998 ^L~.T c. BARBARA A. FAVOLA PAUL JAY RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the people of Arlington County join milJions around the nation in deploring the brutal and ultimately fatal attack on Matthew Shepard, an openly gay student at the University of WYoming; and · WHEREAS, hate crimes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals are the third- highest category of hate crimes reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and WHEREAS, Arlington Counb/proudly includes sexual orien~atJon in i~ Human Rights Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly in 1994 passed hate crimes legislation covering race, religious conviction, color, and national origin, thus recognizing that such discrimination does, in fact, occur and should be discouraged, yet stripped sexual orientation protections from the bill as Yc was originally proposed; and WHEREAS, despite concerted attempts in each subsequent year by Arlington County and others throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. the General Assembly has failed to incorporate protections for gays and lesbians into existing slate hate cdmes legislation; and WHEREAS, only 21 states and the District of Cotumbia include sexual orientatiOn-based crimes in their hate crimes statutes; NOW, THEREFORE, we, the members of the Arlington County Board, do hereby resolve to vigorously pursue addition of protections against hate crimes based on sexual orientation to Virginia law in the coming session of the Virginia General Assembly, and ca[I upon jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth to join us in this effort both in memory of Matthew Shepard and in rededication to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. Christopher Zimmerman Chairman ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDELINES FOR FUEL PUMP CANOPIES o o o o Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump canopies are functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their character and appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function. Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in "Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies." The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36" in total height, including any accent bands. Canopy fascias and canopy signage shall not be illuminated. Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward directed, and shall not emit light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5 foot- candle spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations. Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters, etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used for advertising. The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to reflect trademark canopy design. Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review. Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its building(s), and structures. 10. Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to "ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies." STANDARDS FOR FUEL PUMP CANOPIES - August 13, 1998 The configuration of the canopy is a function of the number of fueling positions and any site constraints. canopy should provide enough coverage to protect motorists at all fueling positions from the elements. LENGTH · Length is determined by I) the number of islands required and 2) automobile length. · A standard pick-up truck is 18' long. The · Standard minimum for single island canopy = 26' 4' comfort zone front + I 3' auto length + 4' comfort zone back * Standard minimum for double island canopy = 42' 2' comfort zone front ~- 18' auto length - 2' comfort zone middle + 13' auto length + 2' comfort zone bache Standard minimum for triple island canopy = 66' comfort zone front ~- 18' auto length + 3' comfort zone middle - 18' auto length - 3' comfort zone back - 18' auto length - 3' comfort zone back WIDTH ss'.0' · Standard minimum for single island canopies: 26' 3' (open door overhang) ~- 6' (car width) -~ ~' (curb clearance) ~- 4' (island width) ~' - - ~ (curb clearance) 4- 6' (car width) ~- 3' (open door overhang) HEIGHT (from ground to ceiling) . · Current Standard: 15'6" (This'is the height preferred by manufacturers.) · Minimum Acceptable: 14'6" · Note 1Y6" is too Iow. Canopies of this height are typically damaged by trucks. A truck with a baCk hoe on a trailer, without the boom extended, will hit a 13'6" canopy and damage it. FASCIA HEIGHT Current heights range up to 44" ,, E,,cxon fascia height standard is 35 1/2"; Texaco is 36" (without letters); BP is oo ~ 36" is workable FUEL DISPENSER SIZE · 7'9" high (approximately half the minimum canopy height), 4'6" wide, 32" deep · Changes in dispenser size.are limited due to the need for use of replacement parts # OF DISPENSERS · The number of dispensers provided is based on the projected volume of sales. SIZE OF ISLA~ND · '1' 9" · 12-14' long, 4' wide, tall · Island length is related to vehicle length COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ARB Gas statiOn CanoPy Design Guidelines SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Albemarle County Design Guidelines with the addition of the "Architectural Review Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies" to provide guidance on the design of fuel pump canopies proposed in the county's Entrance Corridors. STAFF CONTACT(S): Margaret Pickartl Messrs. Tucker, Huff AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: A number of applications wei'e submitted to the ARB over the past few months for proposals to install canopies over new fuel pump islands at existing convenience stores. Federal regulations require that these businesses upgrade their underground fuel storage tanks by December 22, 1998, and these businesses have chosen to combine their tank upgrade with the installation of new pump islands, dispensers, and canopies. Because standard canopies typically incorporate multiple colors, bright lighting, internally illuminated signage in multiple loCations, and trademark designs, the Architectural Review Board drafted and approved guidelines to help ensure more consistent regulation of the design of this type of development in the county's Entrance CorridOrs. Work sessions were held by the ARB on JulY 6, July 13, and August 24, 1998, Staff Consulted With Gene Arnette of the Tigei; Fuel ~o~pany in the preparation of the guidelines, particularly regarding fuel company standards for canopy size. Mr. Arnette, representatives of Scenic 250, and appliCants with pending CanoPY inStallatiOn projects attended some Or all of the ARB's work sessions and were given the opportunity to comment. The guidelines were approved by the ARB on August 24, 1998. DISCUSSION: The Architectural Review Board has outlined ten guidelines for pump island canopies and related elements. The guidelines address overall canopy size, the size of components of the canopy, the character of canopy signage, canopy lighting, changes to existing structures on site, and the color of canopies. The guidelines are supplemented with "Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies," which illustrates the nOt-to, exceed sizes for canopies and related items. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of SuperviSOrs approve the addition to the Design Guidelines. 98.236 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDELINES FOR FUEL PUMP CANOPIES August 25, 1998 Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump canopies are functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their character and appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function. Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in "Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies." o The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36" in total height, including any accent bands. 4. Canopy fascias and canopy signage shall not be illuminated. Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward directed, and shall not emit light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5 foot-candle spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations. Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters, etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used for advertising. The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to reflect trademark canopy design. 8. Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review. o Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its building(s), and structures. 10. Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to "ARB Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies." ISDEPT~PlanningWUELPUMP.FIN POLICY TIME LIMITS FOR APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS The Board has determined that effective January 1, 1999, a Board policy shall be that applicants will be limited to a ten-minute presentation of their proposal and will be allowed a five-minute rebuttal at the dose of the public hearing. If additional time is required, it may be granted by consent of the Board for good cause, but such decision shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Such requests for additional time shall be made in writing to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, at least five business days prior to the meeting, stating the reason for the request and how much additional time will be needed. The current three-minute time limit for public comments, including presentations from organizations, shall be maintained. (Adopted 11-04-98) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10'28~98A10:04 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Policy on Time Limits for Public Applicant Presentations during Hearing Comments SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Research the time limitati°n§ Pla88d on applicants and the public speaking at BOS public hearings STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Huff, Hall, Davis AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Y~----~ REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board reqUested staff to reSearch the length of time applicants and the public were allowed to speak during public hearings in other jurisdictions. Our current policy allows three (3) minutes for members of the public to speak but there is no time limitation for the applicant's presentation. DISCUSSION: The attached table illustrates the amount of time other localities allow applicants and the public to speak. The information demonstrates the Wide range of options that comparable c0~nti6s a~e"~Sing fOr apPlicants and the 3-5 minute norm for public comment. The lOcalities surveyed limit applicant presentations from no limits to ten (10) minutes and above. RECOMMENDATION: Based on review of the information and Our own experience, staff suggests that a 10-minute maximum be allotted for an applicant to present their application and then 5 minutes for rebuttal after Public comment- if desired. The current 3-minute time limit for public comment should be maintained. Your approval of this policy amendment will authorize the addition of this poliCy limiting applicant speaking time into your Rules of Procedure Manual. 98.235 Comparable Counties' Time Limitations on Applicants and the Public During Public Hearings COUNTY POPULATION TIME LIMIT FOR APPLICANT TIME LIMIT FOR PUBLIC Loudoun 86,129 10 minutes 5 minutes/person Roanoke 79,332 None 3 minutes/person Montgomery 75,000 3 minutes 3 minutes/person Hanover 73,000 30 minutes (divided between applicant and 3 minutes/person any proponents). Also given 3 minutes for rebuttal, if any. Stafford 61,236 10 minutes. Also given 5 minutes for 3 minutes/person, 5 minutes if rebuttal, if any. representing an organization Augusta 60,000 None 3 minutes/person David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphfis ~orrest R. Mamh~l, Jr. COUNTY OF AI REMARI F. Office of Board of Supev,~sors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V~cjinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November 11, 1998 Charles $. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ms. Harriet Wasch 930 Bedford Hills Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 Dear Ms. Wasch: At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors received a petition from the Bedford Hills Homeowners Association requesting that the County include Bedford Hills under its dog "leash law". The Board has scheduled this item for a public hearing on December 2, 1998, at 11:00 a.m. If you have any additional information, you wish provided to the Board prior to the public hearing, please forward it to me no later than November 20, 1998. /ewc cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Sincerely, Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0-28 -98A]0:04 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Leash LaW ReqUest for Bedford HillS Subdivision SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Set public hearing for leash law request. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: / Under Section 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the restriCtion of dogs from running at large in certain areas approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: Of the 52 homeowners located in Bedford Hills Subdivision, 29 have signed a petition supporting the adoption of the leash law request; 13 homeowners are opposed to this request and 10 homeowners are neither in favor of nor opposed to the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on this matter for December 2, 1998. A cOpy of the Petition and formal request can be found in the Clerk's Office for your information and review. 98.243 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Juan Wade Transportation Planner Ella W. Carey, Clerk, C~&~~--~ November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolutions: VDOT's installation of "Child At Play" signs in Minor Hill Subdivision. VDOT's installation of "Child At Play" sign on Owensville Road (Route 676). During a discussion under "Other Matters" Ms. Thomas asked staff to provide some guidance on whether the Board should continue receiving and supporting these requests for Child At Play Signs. She believes that if people do not see children, they will not pay attention to the signs. /ewc Attachments (2) cc: David Benish RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the residents of Minor Hill are concerned about traffic on their street and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the residents believe that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary Child At Play signs to be located at .: ........... the entran6~ ~0fMin6i~.H~li.--Subdi~Sion andat the intersection' ot~ Westfield Road and Westfield Court. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, by a vote of five to zero, at a regular meeting held on November 4, 1998. ~ ~'oard of S~s RESOLUTION WHERF~S, a resident on Owensville Road ,with the support of neighbors, is concerned about traffic on Owensville Road and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that cross the street; and WHEREAS,,the residents believes that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of ....... Supervisors hereby support the community's request for VDOT to install the necessary Child At Play ding 6i~ ~ensville ROad. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, by a vote of five to zerol at a regular meeting held on November 4, 1998. - ~ors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '10-28.98A'10:04 RCVD iENDA TITLE: ~ Minor Hill Child At Play Sign SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Resolution SuppOrting Min~'r Flill Child At Play sign STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. TUcker, HUff, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The Minor Hill community has requested that VDOT install Child At Play signs at the entrance of Minor Hill Subdivision and at the intersection of Westfield Road and Westfield Court DISCUSSION,: The Minor Hill Subdivision has many homes with Young children. The residents have contacted the County and requested that two Child At Play Signs be installed at the entrance of Minor H I Subdivision and at the intersection of Westfield Road and Westfield Court. The sign at the entranCe Will let mOtOrists know that theY are entering a community With many children. The sign at the intersection of Westfield Road and Westfleld Court indicates an area where children have to cross the street. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of SuperVisors endorse a resolution for VDOT to install tow Child At Play signs in the Minor Hill Subdivision. 98.240 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The residents of Minor Hill are concerned about traffic on their street and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, The residents believe that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the necessary Child At Play signs to be located at the entrance of Minor Hill Subdivision and at the intersection of Westfield Road and Westfield Court. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of on November 4, 1998. Clerk, Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARL o^RD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '~0-2'7-98P02:00 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Child At Play sign on Ownensville Road (Route 676) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution supporting Child At Play sign STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BY: REVIEWEp ~/ BACKGROU N D: A resident on Owensville Road (Route 676) has requested a Child At Play sign. DISCUSSION: The resident lives on a curve where there are many families with young children. The resident has requested two signs be posted in the area between Route 614 and the Clay Hill Farm area. Staff supports the installation of two Child At Play sign in this area. Although this is not an area where children play in the street, they often cross the street in order to visit friends. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors Owensville Road. (Route 676). endorse a resolution for VDOT to install two Child At Play signs on 98.232 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a resident on Owensville Road ,with the support of neighbors, is concerned about traffic on Owensville Road and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that cross the street and WHEREAS, The residents believes that a Child At Play sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby support the community's request for VDOT to install the necessary Child At Play ding on Ownensville Road. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of the ResOlution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of the Albemarle County by a vote of on NOvember 4, 1998. Clerk, Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Tex Weaver Information Resource Planner Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~ November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors granted staffthe authority to coordinate/implement the road name change of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. /ewc cc: Wayne Cilimberg COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -2?-9 2:55 RCVP AGENDA TITLE: Road Name Change SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Road Name Change Request STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Weaver AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FO RMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REV'EWED BY~~IJ BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been made aware of a situation for which a road name change should be further considered. DISCUSSION: Request to change the name of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place at the request of the property owner (see attached letter). Staff has cOnfirmed that this road serves only one (1) property owner. A map indicating the location of this road is attached. It appears that the road name was misspelled when it was originally approved. The property owner is requesting a new name prior to changing their address from a rural route address to the Enhanced 911 standard road name address. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with a new road name sign. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Board approve the new road name as coordinate/implement the above referenced change. requeSted, the Board should grant staff the authority to 98.233 SHADWELL STONE ROBINSON ES LOU]s4 RD HADWELL ION LN RUMAS LN " SHAD "" W~LL CT 'J ii~ S, HA,NNON OR F"'"-.., /~,',4 T_-=-~ '~, i UN]ON RUN BAPTIST ) MILTON HEIGHTS RES OL UTION WHEREAS, DECEMBER 31, 1999 WHZ MARK THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, THE MILLENNIUM, INTO THE YEAR 2000 AND SIGNAL A PERIOD OF RE-BIRTH, RE-EVALUATION, RE-DEDICATION, AND RESOLVE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AND THE WORLD; AND WHEREAS, THE OBJECTIVES OF FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA, WHICH TAKES PLACE ON NEW YEAR'S EVE OF EACH YEAR, ARE TO RECAPTURE THE SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PASSAGE FROM THE OLD YEAR TO THE NEW; TO UNITE THE COMMUNITY THROUGH A SHARED CULTURAL CELEBRATION; AND TO DEEPEN AND BROADEN THE PUBLIC'S APPRECIATION OF THE VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS; AND WHEREAS, FURTHER OBJECTIVES OF FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA, ARE TO CULTIVATE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, CELEBRATE OUR COMMUNITY'S DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY IN THE HEART OF THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN, AND DECREASE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION ON NEW YEAR'S EVE; AND WHEREAS, FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA HAS BEEN THE COMMUNITY'S PREMIER NEW YEAR'S EVE CELEBRATION FOR THE LAST SIXTEEN YEARS, ATTRACI~NG TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PARTICIPANTS EACH YEAR FROM EVERY FACET OF THE COMMUNITY; Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, FORRESTR. MARSHALL, JR., CHArRM/~, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, DOES HERBY ENDORSE AND DESIGNATE THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AS AN OFFICIAL CO-SPONSOR OF. FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA 2000; AND FURTHER RESOL gED, THAT FIRST NIGHT VIRGINIA 2000 SHAZ~ BE DECLARED HENCEFORTH AS "ALBEMARLE'S OFFICIAL MII_J,ENNIUM CELEBRATION." SIGNED AND SEALED THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1998 FORREST R. MARsHArr, JR., CHAmMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS F~rst First Night Virginia, Inc., a non-profit organization. Gift~ tax deductible to the extent of the law. Board of Directors I998~I999 President Julie Sparks President-Elect Bob Stroh Vice-?resident Chauncey Huffer Secretary Alice Sennema Lawrence Treasurer Barry Hinton Executive Consull2~t Chris Eure Executive Director Cathryn Harding Alicia Arnold Becky Bushey Margaret DeMallie Bruce Duncan Harvey Finkel Ed Gimenez Kimberly Hall Kelley Johnson Jennifer Lear Jacqueline Lichtman Michelle McCoy Gary Pistulka Sheri Raymond Karen Salmonson Lisa Stewart Advisory Board Bonnie Brewer Jeanne Cox Brad Eure Eddie Lynch Cap Matfie Phil Sparks David Toscano P.O. Box 2284 Charlotte,ville, VA 22902 804/296-8269 October 21, 1998 Ms. Lee Catlin Albemarle County Office BuildingCouncil 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Lee, You know First Night Virginia as our community's longest-running (16 years!) New Year's Eve party; an alcohol-free, family-friendly celebration of local arts and cultural diversity. First Night Virginia, a non-profit organization directed by community volunteers, has turned the Historic Downtown area into a festive site from which to welcome another new year and mark the passing of time. With the coming of the new millennium, First Night Virginia is asking leaders from the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia to join together with us for a coordinated celebration to mark this once-in-a-lifetime event. First Night Virginia sincerely hopes that you will take the first step in this year long celebration by endorsing the enclosed Resolution. If there are any questions or suggestions please'do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to working with you since your involvement in this project will mean a great deal to its success. Yours in community, Elisabeth T. Greenbaum Executive Director First Night Virginia 2000 cOUNfV: OF XLBEMXRLF_. EXECUTIVE OFFICE 'i :i-'10-98P'12: ~i4 RCVD 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 .':~ o ~SRD OF SUPERVISORS MARK A. TRANK DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY GREG KAMPTNER KIMBERLY E. WOLOD ASSlSTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS Roger C. Wiley, Esquire ' Hefty & Wiley, P.C. Old City Hall, Suite 230 1001 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Re: Dear Roger: November 6, 1998 Resolution Amending Service Agreement The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved at its November 4, 1998 meeting the enclosed Resolution authorizing the addition of Nelson County as a member jurisdiction t° the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. Sincerely, Co~' l~"un-ty Attomel If you have any questions, please contact me. With best regards, I am cc: W. Clyde Gouldman, II, Esq. Margaret Dean Moncure, Esq. ~/Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Ella W. Carey RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SERVICE AGREEMENT ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY Be it Concurrently Resolved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, the Boards of Supervisors of Albemarle and Nelson Counties and the City Council of the City of Charlottesville: I. RECITALS The ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (hereafter the Authority"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Albemarle" and Charlottesville" or collectively the "Member Jurisdictions") have previously approved and executed an original Service Agreement dated November 15, 1995 and amendments thereto effective March 12, 1998, (collectively, the "Service Agreement"), creating the Authority and specifying the terms and conditions under which (1) the Authority will operate the Albemarle-CharlottesvilleRegional Jail (the "Jail") and (2) the Member Jurisdictions will commit prisoners to the Jail and pay the charges assessed by the Authority for keeping such prisoners. Due to changes in state funding, the COUNTY OF NELSON ("Nelson"), also a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, has found it impracticable to continue to operate its own jail facility and has asked to become a party to the Service Agreement and a Member Jurisdiction of the Authority. By adopting this resolution, and the further amendments to the Service Agreement detailed below, the Authority, Albemarle and Charlottesville are indicating their approval of the terms under which Nelson will be admitted to such membership in the Authority, and Nelson is indicating its acceptance of those terms and its intention to execute and abide by the Service Agreement as thus amended. II. AMENDMENTS A. The Service Agreement is amended by adding the COUNTY OF NELSON as a named party and signatory. B. The following Section is added to the Service Agreement: Section 2.7. Addition of Nelson County as Member Jurisdiction. Effective July 1, 1998, or as soon thereafter as the amended Service Agreement may be executed by all parties, the County of Nelson shall become a Member Jurisdiction, under the following terms and conditions. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.2, Nelson shall be represented on the Authority's Board by its sheriff and one other person appointed by the governing body of the county. Alternates may be appointed as provided by state law. (b) Within 30 days following its admission, Nelson shall pay the Authority the sum of Two Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars ($292,000.00) as agreed compensation for its share of the equity value of the Authority's existing land and facilities. The Authority shall transfer this amount to Albemarle and Charlottesville in proportion to their respective original contributions to the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping such land and existing facilities, as nearly as the same can be determined. In the event of a dispute between Albemarle and Charlottesville about the appropriate distribution the decision of the Authority shall be final. (c) Until such time as the Authority's expanded facility is Placed in Service, Nelson shall pay the Authority a rate of Fourteen Dollars ($14.00) per diem to house its prisoners. After the expanded facility is Placed in Service, Nelson shall pay the same Prisoner Per Diem Payments as the other Member Jurisdictions, including both the Operating and Debt Service Components, calculated and paid as set forth in Section 5.1 (a). In addition, after the expanded facility is Placed in Service, Nelson shall pay the Additional Payment for Debt Service as required by Section 5.1 (b), calculated at the rate of four percent of the Authority's Net Debt Service not included in the Per Diem Charge. (d) Nelson agrees to commit all of its jail prisoners to the Authority on the basis set forth in Section 4.2, and to be responsible for their transportation as set forth in Section 4.3. (e) In the event the Authority is dissolved or its powers and obligations are transferred by operation of law, and the Authority's property is reconveyed to the Member Jurisdictions, as contemplated by Section 2.5:1, the Member Jurisdictions' shares of such reconveyed property shall be in direct proportion to their respective capital contributions to the Authority's facilities, including both their initial capital contributions to the existing facility (including Nelson's payment under Section 2. 7(b) above), and the respective totals of their payments of the Debt Service Component and Additional Payments for Debt Service under Section 5.1, as nearly as all such amounts can reasonably be determined using available records. (f) Except as provided in this Section, Nelson shall have the same rights and obligations under the Service Agreement as the other Member Jurisdictions. B. In all other respects the Service Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. III. EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT. 2 Upon adoption of these amendments by the Member Jurisdictions, including Nelson, and the Authority, their respective chief administrative officials are authorized to execute a conformed copy of the entire Service Agreement, incorporating the foregoing amendments into the original document. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia the fourth. day of November, 1998. t....~t/C~rl~, Board ~sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution Amending the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of changes to the Service Agreement to add Nelson County as a member jurisdiction to Jail Authority AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucked Davis BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENT.~_.~: Reso!uti~.~ REVIEWED BY: The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority now consists of only two member jurisdictiOns: the COunty of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. Due to changes in state funding and other circumstances previously outlined to the Board, Nelson County has found it impracticable to continue to operate its own jail facility and has asked to become a party to the Service Agreement and a member jurisdiction of the Jail Authority. DISCUSSION: The Jail Board suPportS the addition of Nelson County to the Jail Authority under the terms and cOnditions outlined in the attached Resolution. Nelson County and the City of Charlottesville have alreadY adopted identical Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution authOrizing the addition of Nelson CoUnty to the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail AUthority. 98.238 'i'i-'1u-987'12:'t4 ftCVi) ....... TPERV!SORS LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ATTORNEY PHONE (8041 972-4067 FAX (804) 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A. TRANK DEPLr[Y COUNTY ATFORNEY GREG KAMPTNF_R KIMBERLY E. WOLOD ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS November 6, 1998 Roger C. Wiley, Esquire Hefty & Wiley, P.C. Old City Hall, Suite 230 1001 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 W. Clyde Gouldman, II, Esquire Charlottesville City Attorney's Office PO Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Margaret Dean Moncure, Esquire Nelson County Attorney LaGrande Avenue PO Box 149 Charlotte Court House, Virginia 23923 Re: Resolution Authorizing Extended Term of Office Dear Roger, Clyde and Peggy: On November 4, 1998 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted the enclosed Resolution to authorize an extended two year term for Mitchell Neuman to serve on the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board. Under the Jail AuthoritY's Service Agreement Mr. Neuman is not eligible for any additional term. However, my Board and the Jail Board desire for Mr. Neuman to stay on the Jail Board until the jail expansion project is completed. I would appreciate each of you submitting an authorizing ReSolution to your respective clients which would allow the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to appoint Mr. Neuman to an additional two year term. It is my understanding that his current term expires in December of 1998. Roger C. Wiley, Esquire W. Clyde Gouldman, II, Esquire Margaret Dean Moncure, Esquire November 6, 1998 Page 2 If you have any questions or concems please give me a call. with this request. With kind regards, I am I appreciate your assistance LWD:md Enclosure cc:/Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ~/Ella W. Carey Sincerely, ^ &Sy RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN EXTENDED TERM OF OFFICE FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY JAIL AUTHORITY BOARD APPOINTEE WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to extend the service of the citizen appointee to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Jail Authority Board (the "Jail Board") until the completion of the expansion of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (the "Jail"); and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle's citizens appointee is completing his third full term and cannot be reappointed under the terms of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Jail Board and the Member Jurisdictions concur that the services of Mitchell Neuman, the Albemarle County citizen appointee, would be beneficial to, and in the best interest of, the completion of the Jail expansion project; and WHEREAS, due to these special circumstances it is desirable to authorize an additional two year term on the Jail Board for Mitchell Neuman. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CONCURRENTLY RESOLVED BY THE ALBEMARLE- CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE AND NELSON COUNTIES AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE THAT: Notwithstanding Section 2.2 of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement, Albemarle County may reappoint Mitchell Neuman as its citizen representative On the Jail Board to serve an additional two year term. At the conclusion of such special two year term Section 2.2 of the Agreement shall, again, be controlling in all respects. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, this fourth day of November , 1998. Attested: . L--</ - -Clerk COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10~28'98^:10:03 R:CvD AGENDA TITLE: Resolution AUthorizing An EXtended Term Of Office For Albemarle County Jail Authority Board Appointee SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorization for additional two year term for citizen appointee to Jail Board AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: November 4, 1998 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucked Davis ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution BACKGROUND: The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Agreement limits the nUmber of terms a citizen member may serve on the Jail Board to not more than three full terms of three years. Mitchell Neuman, the CoUnty's citizen appointee is completing his third term of service on the Jail Board. Mr. Neuman has played an important role in the jail expansion project and would like to continue on the Jail Board until that project is completed. The Jail Board supports a special allowance for an extended term to allOw Mr. Neuman to continue his oversight of this project. DISCUSSION: The attached concurrent Resolution, upon adoption by all Member Jurisdictions and the Jail Board, authorizes the Board of Supervisors to appoint Mr. Neuman to an additional term of two years. The two- year term would safely allow for the completion of the jail project. At the completion of this special two- year term, the Jail Agreement would again limit any citizen member to a term of service not to exceed three full terms. RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution to authOrize an additional two-year term for the County's citizen appointee to the Jail Board. 98.237 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of F{nance Ella W. Carey, CMC, Cle~~ November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.10. Appropriation: Drug Court Services Grant, $35,508 (Form #98038). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Agenda Item No. 19a. Discussion: FY 1998/99 Revised and FY ! 999/2000 Estimated General Fund Revenues. RECEIVED as information. Agenda Item No. 19b, Discussion: FY' 1999/2000 Budget, AllocatiOn of New ReVenues. APPROVED the proposed allocation of new revenues to the School Division (60%) and General Government (40%). /ewc Attachment pc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Pat Smith Kevin C. Castner FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DRUG COURT SERVICES. APPROPRIATION REQUEST NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO GRANT EXPENDITURE X X 98038 CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1237 29405 566120 OFFENDER AID & RESTORATION $35,508.00 TOTAL $35,508.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1237 24000 240414 STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS $35,508.00 TOTAL $35,508.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Drug Court Services Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 98038 in the amount of $35,508 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.: Tucker, Breeden, Walters Mss: White, Smith AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: The County of Albemarle has entered into a contract with the Virginia Department of Corrections to prOvide eligibility determination for all potential candidates for the Drug Court Prior to bond hearing. The county in t~rn has contracted with Offender Aid & RestoratiOn (OAR) to provide these services as part of its Pre-Trial Services program. The Commonwealth Attorneys and the Courts make recommendations for eligibility. DISCUSSION: Funding is provided by a $35,508 Department of COrreCtions grant. The County serves as the fiscal agent for the grant and there is no local match. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation 98038 in the amount of $35,508. 98.225 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Revised Final Allocations for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System - Albemarle County SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Comparison of 1997/98'2002/03 and FY 1998/9-2003/04 Primary Plans STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: . INFORMATION: x ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:,~~.~ BACKGROUND: On September 2, 1998, staff presented the Final Allocation for Interstate, Primary, and Urban Highway System for Albemarle County to the Board of Supervisors. Staff informed the Board of Supervisors that there might be some minor changes because the Federal allocations were not final at that time. The federal funds are now final and it did have a minor impact on three projects. The total for all listed projects in the tentative was $246,238,000. The final allocation is $246,278,000, a $40,000 increase. DISCUSSION: The final allocations only had a minor impact on three projects: (comparison belowis between the tentative 1998/99- 2003/04 plan and the final 1998/99-2003/04 plan) Rt. 29 Widening from South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road: · Funding in FY 2000/01 increased from $556,000 to $754,000. · Funding in FY 2001/02 decreased from $1,121,000 to $621,000. · The tota funding over the five-year period decreased from $3,293,000 to $2,991,000. Reason: VDOT is still determining the scope of this project. Money in the plan was moved to finance more current projects. Once the scope of work has been established, a more accurate estimate will be established and a realistic funding schedule will be established in the Plan. Rt. 29 Bridge Replacement over South Fork Rivanna River: · Funding in FY 2002/03 increased from $800,000 to $845,000. · The total project cost increased from $6,850,000 to $6,895,000. Rt. 29 Vertical Improvement on the South Bound Lane near Rt. 641' · Funding in FY 1999/00 decreased from $243,000 to $238,000. · The total project cost decreased from $943,000 to $938,000. All changes are in italicized in Attachment A. The Board of Supervisors requested information from VDOT on certain road projects. Staff sent a letter to VDOT (Attachment B) requesting a response from VDOT. VDOT response can be found in Attachment C in the last two paragraphs on the first page and the first four paragraphs on the second page. The Board of Supervisors also requested that staff inquire as to why the County has not been receiving its fair share of surface transportation program funds (STP). Staff has requested this information from VDOT. VDOT is in the process of investigating the lack of STP funds for the County. RECOMMENDATION: Provided for information only. 98.241 Cc: Angela Tucker COMPARISON OF FY 1997-2003 AND FY 1998-2004 FINAL ALLOCATION PLANS ATTACHMENT A FISCAL YEAR FUNDING PER EACH PLAN (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROG.,M I F~g8'99 I FYgg'00 I FY00'01 I ~01-02 I ~02-03 I TOT^L-over C,ange~ TOT^, ELEMENT I 97-03 [ 98-04 I 5 yr period From/PROJECTCOST 98-04 1-64: Upgrade FogDete~ion ~ 300 ~ 296 ~ 596 0 ~ 1,696 System NCL to Rio Road 1,000 1,000 710 .......... 2,710 (75) 21,195 (1) 29: ~dening- Rio Road to 985 776 600 600 ..... 2,961 1,976 11,486 S. Fork Rivanna (1) 29:~dening- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S. Fo~ Rivanna 205 213 754 62~ 1.198 2.991 (6,096) 27,432 to Airpo~ Road Repla~ment 602 1,000 2,160 1,088 ~5 5,695 935 6,895 S. Fork Rivanna 29: Bypass ~ 3,747 ~4,080 ~4,360 ~0,510 ~10,000~30,697 0 ~ 168,472 29:S~;d;~i~;~2~lmpmve ve.i~, ~~ 100 ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ 100 0 ~ 200 nearalignment on SBL ~Rte. 641 Res?~:~:trd~e ..... ~ ..... ~ .......... ~ .......... 0 010 ~;Plj;;e~tver 300 750 480 124 ..... 1,6~ 124 1,654 ~den to four 250: UVA O3~Oad ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... O ~ 300 (1) Project completed. (2) Preliminary engineering only. ( ) Negative number. finalpri.xls ATTACHMENT B COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Commumty Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4,596 (804) 296-5823 September 10, 1998 Angela Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Angela, Thank you for attending the Board of Supervisors September 2, 1998 meeting. As we discussed, I am sending you several items the County would like for VDOT to review. The County requests VDOT to review the unpaved roads that are already on the Six Year Priority List to determine which, if any, are eligible for pave-in-place. The County requests VDOT to conduct updated traffic counts for as many of the projects on the Six Year Secondary Priority Plan as possible before the 2000-2001 update. The County requests explanation regarding several significant changes in the 1999 Tentative Primary Road Allocation Plan (Attachment A) as compared to the 1998 Final Allocation Plan. These changes include: Rt. 29: Widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Rio Road to S. Fork Rivarma. The total cost of this project increased by approximately $2,000,000. Rt. 29: Widening from S. Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. Funding for this project over the five common years has decreased by approximately $5,800,000. The total project cost' has increased by close to $7,000,000. Page 2 September 10, 1998 Rt. 29: Bridge replacement at S. Fork Rivanna River. The project total cost increased by approximately $1,000,000. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Juan Wade. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cflimberg [~ '",,,,J Director of Planning a~~unity Development attachment R. GEHR C, OM MI,~IONEF; Ji 3 ~1~3 ATTACHMENT C REOENED · 0 6 COMMONWEALTH.o[ VIR INIz("tanning Deot. D~R~ O~ ~~T~ION ~1 VD~ WAY ~ID~ ~IN~ O~ober 5, 1998 Town of Scottsville Road Improvement Requests Ir. Juan Wade Office Building Mclntire Road harlottesville, VA 22902 .,ar Mr. Wade: We are currently reviewing the seven (7) requests for road improvements as outlined in the September 1998, letter from Steve Phipps, Town Council member. Item #1 can be addressed through the Secondary Six Year Plan, however, the intersection is severely bstandard and the alignment of Route 795 should be improved. We will review the cost/benefit ratio of this improvement and advise the County if the project is a reasonable one. Item ~r2 should be requested at the Pdmary Preallocation Hearing as the work involves changing the grade to Route 20. Items #3 - 7 are being addressed through separate field reviews, we will share the results of these with you once they are complete. With respect to your letter datect October 2, 1998, the following information is provided. Currently there are no roads eligible for Pave-in-Place applications on the Six Year Plan. We will update traffic counts on all Six Year Plan projects over the next year as requested. The Board of Supervisors requested information regarding changes in the 1999 Primary Six Year Plan. a project is originally placed in the Interstate/Primary/Urban Six Year Plan we establish costs based on neral criteda such as proposed length, number of lanes, etc. These estimates are, at best, an educated As the project progresses through scoping, field inspection, and final plans, we are able to periodically our estimates based on more accurate information. The estimate is again updated once the contract is and we have an actual contract price. As construction progresses and we encounter work orders, etc., the allocation can change again if these items are significant. Once the is complete and all costs are known, the allocation will change again to reflect these actual costs. The DiStrict is given a finite number of dollars for each year of the Six Year Plan, As costs increase on construction and nearing construction, allocations for projects further out in the plan are to provide the needed money. -os' ?) voo l~r. Juan ~age 'ir. own of Scottsville Improvements Requests GVILI TEL:804 9v~ 3759 P. 0.03 Page 2 October 5, 1998 Considering the above, the following are answers to Mr. Cilimberg's questions: For the Route 29 widening project, from Rio Road to S, Fork Rivanna, we had an increase in cost of =Iy $1.3 million for Overruns and work orders (sidewalk. etc.). Also as the project took longer to ~lete than anticipated, we had increased construction engineering costs. The revised allocation reflects [ncurred. For the Route 29 widening project, from S. Fork R[vanna to Airport Road, the est[mate is still a guess we have not settled on the scope of work. Money in the plan was moved to finance more current projects. 1ce the scope of work has been established, a more accurate estimate will be established and a realistic schedule will be established in the Plan. For the Route 2.9 brfdges Over S. Fork Rivanna, we now have an estimated construction cost based on plans. The money in the Plan reflects this updated information. The dght of way is not available on Route 667, Catterton Roach, 'from Route 776 to Route 601. When dght of way is unavailable by donation to improve gravel roads, the project is either deleted from the or moved to the lowest pdodty in the plan. As this section of Route 667 is not currently in the Six Year nor on the priority list, our recommendation [s to withhold the project from the plan until the property ners formally request its inclusion after'dedicating the necessary right of way. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-1939 October 1, 1998 Revised 1998-99 Construction Allocations and Revised Six-Year Improvement Program City/Town Mayors/Managers County Board of Supervisors County Libraries Planning District Commissions Transit Agencies Transportation District Commissions Concerned Citizens I am sending you copy of the revised construction fund allocations for fiscal year 1998-99 for the Interstate Primary, and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports, and Airports, including the Revised Six-Year Improvement Program through 2003-04. Approval of these allocations was given by the Commonwealth Transportation Board at its September 17th meeting, and incorporates the provisions of the new federal highway legislation, "TEA-21" CC: The Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra Very truly yours, David R. Gehr Commissioner :26 RCVD WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING REVISED SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFY 1998-199 thru 2003-2004 This item was scanned under Transportation Reports 1998 1998-00 WORK PLANS FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS This item was scanned under Development Plans 1998 DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902-2013 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER October 20, 1998 Route 692 Albemarle County Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: Beginning Monday, November 9, 1998 Route 692 .5 miles East of Route 29 in Southern Albemarle County, will be closed to through traffic through November 20, 1998. This closing is due to the replacement of the bridge with a concrete deck structure. Detour signs will be in place to direct traffic from 29 North and South bound to Route 712. Weather and other conditions that are beyond the control of VDOT can affect the schedule for this work' JHS/ldw Sincerely, Attachments cc: Mr. D. R. Askew, Mr. Robert W. Tucker; Bd. of Super. Sch. Trans. Dept., North Garden Fire Dept. Albemarle Co. Schools; Ch'ville Fire Dept. County Police, State Police. D. E. Johnson, Ch'ville. Post office; Ch'ville. Rescue Sqd. North Garden p~st Office Keene Headquarters TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Building Code Information (8041 296-5832 J O-J6-98AOg :49 COUNTY OF ALBEMART F_ Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TTD (804) 972-4012 P, cv~ Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 October 14, 1998 Dorothy and Charlie Floyd 2233 Earlysville Road Earlysville, VA 22936 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 45, Parcel 31W Dear Mrs. and Mr. Floyd, I have reviewed the infonnation you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is my official determination that this property consists of one (1) parcel. On the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance, this property consisted of 8.265 acres as described by Deed Book 672 Page 116. At that time, this parcel was entitled to four (4) theoretical development rights. Because there have been no subsequent subdivision(s) or other similar transactions on the property since that date, these development rights remmn. In making this detennination I have considered the acreage of the property and the descriptive clauses of the relevant deed. The deed delineates "all that certain lot or parcel of land ... designated as Lot 1 lA containing 8.265 acres." This is noted to be a lot of the Lake Hills Subdivision The land is treated as one parcel by the legal instruments of the deed and plat. As far as I understand, the ownership is continuous and the land is not separated by a state road, railroad or the property of others. As stated in Section 10.4 Area and Bulk Regulations, the minimum lot size in the Rural Areas zoning district is 2.0 acres. Therefore, the maximum number of parcels that this 8.265 acres may potentially be divided into is four (4) parcels. These rights are strictly hypothetical. To utilize the rights and create the lots, all other ordinance requirements must be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final October 14, 1998 Letter to Dorothy and Charlie Floyd Determination of Parcels TM 45-P 31W and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95. The date notice o£this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Zoning Administrator Charlottesville Magisterial District One parcel by tax map, one parcel by determination Four (4) development rights Cc~ Ella Caro?; Clerk' to tlie']~'b~gi:d'~"F'S~r3is0i:S Betty Driskill ALBEMARLE COUNTY 44 / 61 CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS SECTION 45 ,z'~ ~,C "FINAN :IAE SERVICES, INC. October 12, 1998 P.O. BO× 8 (,7 IUF. C,~HVII,LE. MARYLAND 21028 41©-$79-9918 FAX 410-838,5360 Ms Arlene Hemandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 21W New York, New York 10286 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hernandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of September 1998. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Project Monitor /shm enclosure cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors .......4iyi'"M~ntire i~.biid Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 q0_19_95705:¢9 RCv9 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 (a) OF T~E D~ INSTRUCTIONS TO: ABG Financial S%~-vice~, 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 (t.he "D~ Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of TRUST DATED ~S OF April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority" ) , ~,%d your bank, as trustee, the undersigned 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 below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The n~her of units in the Pro~ect occupied by lower income tenants is 15. The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is 0. THE n,~mher of units rented and the n,~mher of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 51. The percentage that the n,~mber of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total n~m~er of units in the Project is 23%. The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreeme~nt contained in the Deed Restriction 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 October 1998. RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A VIRGINIA limited partnership ~0 IzED mm~S~aTr~ Property: Location: BOND PROGRAM REPORT Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project #: 051-35371 Charlottesville, VA Number of Units: 66 Submitted by: Loretta Wyatt, Community Director October 1, 1998 Effective 9/30198 (Date) Total Occupied: 66 Bond Occupied: 15 l, LOWER INCOME The following units have been designated as "lower income ~ units I 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 Viyginia 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'Boyte 10. 70 Arbor Crest Drive Ernest M. Nease 11. 76 Arbor Crest Drive Ann G. Saylor 12. 84 Arbor Crest Drive Juanita Boliek 13. 88 Arbor Crest Drive Nancy G. Foley 14, 90 Arbor Crest Drive Betty 19. Elliott 15. 94 Arbor Crest Drive M. Eileen Knick 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. The changes from previous report reflected in the above listing are: Deletions I 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Additions David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF A~ RI~'~ _~ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November 11, 1998 Charles S. Martin P.~an~a Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Ms. Nancy O'Brien Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 Dear Ms. O'Brien:: At its meeting on November 4, 1998, it was suggested that Planning Commission agendas be sent to other localities in the Planning District. This was a recommendation included in the. Draft Report on the Regional Planning .Summit. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that this could be done. /EWC Sincerely, a . Carey, cM~,t~eml CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper Jet: rerson ]Planning Dish'ic . Commission PO Bo. 1505, CMAo es,rilh VA 22902-1505 (804} 979-PD10 {7510) + FA2X {804) 979-1597 ]0-79-98/~09:19 RCVD MEMO City of Charlottesville Susan M. Cab¢ll Meredith M. Richards Albemarle County Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas, Chair Fluvanna County Thomas E. Payne Stafford M. Pace Greene County Thomas C. Powell dall P. Freund Louisa County Fitzgerald A. Barnes Jane H.'Poore Nelson County S~rnuel C. DeLaura. Jr. Fled M. Boger ~ ! Nancy K. O'Brien Executive Director TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Chair and Members of the Commission Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director Regional Planning Summit September 24, 1998 Attached is a draft of the report on the Regional Summit. A review of the event with local planners indicated the Summit was a success and the participants got a lot out of meeting other elected officials and planners and finding out how much they had in common. Two future actions have emerged: 1. Provide another opportunity for the same group to meet again with a topical focus from a speaker and then small group discussions of the topic, relating it to several localities and across jurisdictional boundaries. The topic suggested was Growth Management Tools. Six months from now was suggested as a time frame. This would fit nicely with the Annual Legislative Dinner. A fall, winter, and spring opportunity for local elected officials to meet for a common purpose. The PDC way of doing business needs some adjusting. Two areas occur to me: a. Insure projects have a local point of view as well as regional to that there is a clearer relationship between what is done in regional plans and studies and what is happening in the localities or how regional issues relate to local interests. The effort to do this has been through committee participation, ,.- but that is a less effective means of communication than is needed at present. Ideas are welcome. b. More frequent, clear, and concise communication. The Director's reports are a step in that direction and we need to keep monitoring how successful that is. 3. There are many opportunities for local planning commissions and governments to work together on across the boundary, limited focus issues. This is probably best done by the localities. The PDC will remain available to help in any way necessary to facilitate these conversations and bring issues to the table. 4. All planning commission and local elected agendas should be shared in the region. Just add a few to the mailing list from the list included with the report. We look forward to the Commission's comments on the meeting, content, location, food. meeting format or whatever occurs to you '- ! A REPORT on the DRAF~ i e'gional iiplanninlg Umrnitl: Sept. 0 1 998 Hosted by The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission ., 300..East Main Street, First Floor Mall Entrance P.O. Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 (804) 979-7310 Fax: (804) 979-1597 E-mail: tjpd@state.va.us Web Site: http://avenue.org/tjpdc Funded Through the Support of the Virginia Department of Transportation's Urban an,:! Rural Planning Programs and by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission A Report on the Regional Planning Summit September 10, 1998 Hosted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission at West'minster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge Charlottesville, VA Introduction The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commiss ion convened a dinner meeting on Thursday, September I0, 1998 from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM at Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge as a means for elected officials, planning commissioners, and staff'to meet and learn more about the issues faced by each locality in the planning district and to identify issues of regional importance. Over 60 persons attended the meeting, which was kicked offby Mr. Fred Boger, Chair of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Mr. Boger introduced a representative from each of the six member governments and from the planning district who, in turn, addressed the following questions: What is the status of your local comprehensive planning process? What are the three to five major issues facing your locality? What are the three to five most significant impacts · ,your locality is experiencing from neighboring localities? How do you see your locality relating to the region as a whole? This information set the stage for discussions over dinner on the following five key topics identified as most important by those attending: ~ Location, Location, Location: Development of Residential, Employment, and Commercial Centers Growth Management Strategies: Wttat Works, What Doesn't EconOmic Development: The Relationship of Rural and Urban Interests and Developing a Prepared Workforce Sharing Reso~trces for Water and Sewer Development Transportation: Best Investments for the 21'' Century The Findings and Recommendations for each group are included in this Report. Conclusions There ~vas unanimous support for this first Regional Planning Summit and the need to continue to share information, resources and ideas. In particular, the following common themes resulted from the Summit. There should be more regional summits like this one, and, in particular, the local planning commissions should meet together on topics of mutual interest such as land use policies and growth management. The localities in the planning district should communicate regularly. This can be achieved by sharing local planning commission agendas, and by bringing together local elected officials and planning commissioners for regular forums. For example, local governments can, through the TJPDC, notify neighbors of current and en%rging issues or successful approaches to growth management, recognizing the commonality, of the issues. The Thomas'Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) should be mOre frequently used as a regional forum, with active participation and broader representation from the member localities. Local issues can be presented to the Commission, and the Commission work program can focus on one or two top regional priorities. The TJPDC should develop a regional comprehensive plan, to include a shared vision of how the region will grow, and an economic development plan that focuses on multiple employment centers throughout the region. The specific recommendations identified by each group in the attached summary of group discussions offer a broader and more in-depth understanding of the issues related to the five topic areas. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is pleased to have hosted this successful Regional Plarming SmCanit and wishes to thank all in attendance for their insights and ideas. Attached to this report are: Summary of Presentation From Each Locality and the Planning District Summary of Findings From Each of the Five Group Discussion Topics; List of Local Elected Officials, including those in attendance; List of Local Planning Commissioners, including those in attendance; Members of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Calendar of Public Meetings in the Region REGIONAL PLANNING SUMMIT September 10, 1998 Location, Location, Location: Development of Residential, Employment, and Commercial Centers Findings/Current Issues and Recommendations Findings/Current Issues. Three localities in the planning district are among the top 20 growth localities in the State: Fluvanna 'at #3, Greene at #7 and Louisa at #20. These grow-th pressures and the local decisions on where and how to locate new growth affects the entire re,on. The groups studying this topic identified the following: Growth pressures in the region are resulting in more traffic, strip development, less open space, increased employment and a growing in-migration to fill new jobs. A disproportionate number of rural citizens in the planning district travel outside their place of residence to work, even though employment centers are shifting from the traditional urban center to new central business districts, including Route 29 North. An imbalance of local retail sales throughout the region, created, in part, by a workforce that is employed outside their own locality and often shop where they work Infrastructure is needed throughout the region, and, in particular, water and sewer are needed in targeted areas, (such as new growth areas in Greene County) The North Fork Research Park in Northern Albemarle County will create additional burdens on surrounding counties The depreciation schedule and eventual de-commissioning of the Virginia Power North Anna facility in Louisa County is resulting in a loss oflocat tax base Recommendations. The following ideas were developed to more effectively deal with the identified issues: Create higher paying jobs with benefits for our citizens, through increased training and education of the workforce (such is occurring through the Piedmont Virginia Community College). Work toward a majority of citizens working in their own locality, with agoal of less than 15% commuting outside for employment. Support development o fregional infrastructure, including transportation (JALrNT, RideShare and light rail were identified specifically), water and sewer, and high tech infrastructure such as fiber optics. This can be achieved through improved communication about economic development issues within the region. Develop a regional comprehensive plan, to include a shared vision o fhow the region will grow, and an economic development plan that focuses on multiple emplo~,Tnent centers throughout the region. Greene and Albemarle counties should work together on water and sewer and road issues, and tb.e implications of' the North Fork Research Park. At the State level, legislation to penalize excessive growth localitres and to relax the Dillon r~.~l: should be investi~,ated The University o fVirgirda must better understand the impact of their actions on the region and take a greater role in formulating regional policies. There should be more regional summits like this one, and, in particular, the local planhing commissions should meet together on topics o fmutual interest such as land use policies and growth management. REGIONAL PLANNING SUMMIT September 10, 1998 Growth Management Strategies: What Works, What Doesn't Findings and Recommendations Findings. There are many areas in the planning district recognized as successful in growth management. Examples identified include the Village of Crozet and the Town of Scottsville, with their mix of uses and their different types of housing Lake Monticello, which is able to accommodate much of the growth in Fluvanna County, and includes mixed uses surrounding the Lake community and has an active citizenry Farm Colony in Greene County that carefully includes homes within a working farm the South River Valley and the Swift Run areas of Greene County and the Whitehall area of Albemarle, with their mountain vistas and natural scenic qualities The Charlottesville Downtown Mall and its mixture of uses. A strong urban center is needed to keep Charlottesville vibrant. Louisa County's Rural Historic Areas The route to Crabtree Fails, a scenic area and destination for many tourists in Nelson County Albemarle's growth areas, which now accept about 70% of the new growth in the County the Avon Street extended area, with different types of housing, schools and commercial sites However, .there are significant differences among the localities in the planning district in specific growth management tools such as comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. These differences can create problems in one locality, that are avoided in another, including additional burdens on low-income families and environmental concerns, particularly related to watershed protection. Moreover, the impact of the University of Virginia on economic development and growth generally should'~°t be underestimated throughout the region. Recommendations. Based on the issues identified, the following topics should be discussed further. Each recommendation includes a suggestion for what body should conduct the needed follow-up. Use the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as a regional forum, with more active participation and broader representation from the member localities. Local issues Can be presented and the work pro,am can focus on one or two top regional priorities. The localities in the planning district should share their growth management practices, zoning and other land use ordinances with each other so there is a more specific understandin7 o fcurrent practices. The Thomas Jefferson Plara~ing District Commission could convene pe~od: - (perhaps quarrerlf meetings of interested plar~ning commissioners and elected officials. Local governments should notify neighbors of current or emerging issues and successful approaches to growth management, recognizing that there is a commonality of the issues. This recommendation, too, could be handled through periodic meetings of interested planhing commissioners and elected officials convened by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Economic Development and Growth Managemenf'need to be coordinated. The impact of North Fork Research Park in northern Albemarle, for example, will have a major impact on the region's ability to manage growth. Another economic development impact on growth management is the influx of new workers, especially given the region's low unemployment. Information on mai or economic development projects should be shared throughout the region, with the localityprovidin~ information to the region, perhaps in a specific forum hosted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission The Virginia General Assembly's assistance in several specific issues is needed: 1. The purchase development fights; 2. The transfer of development rights; 3. The abuse of family subdivision provisions by the development community; 4. Local government ability to adjust already platted, but not built, subdivisions to conform to current ordinances. The legislative program of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission could include these issues. REGIONAL PLANNING SUMMIT September 10, 1998 Economic Development: The Relationship of Rural and Urban Interests and Developing a Prepared Workforce Findings and Recommendations Findings. There are a number of proposed developments that will significantly affect the region. In particular, the group identified the following: In Albemarle County: - The North Fork Research Park - The Towers Land Trust property in the Piney MOuntain area - Gro;vth in the southern ring around the City of Charlottesville - The Route 29 South Corridor In Fluvanna CoUnty: - The Village of Palmyra and the adjacent Pleasant Grove property - The Zion Crossroads Area near the Louisa County border In Greene County: - From the Greene/Albemarle border to Ruckersville In Louisa County: - The Zion Crossroads Area near the Fluvanna County border . InNetson County: - The Oak Ridge Estate Race Track ~ The Route 29 Corridor from Lovingston to Colleen, including the Industrial Park at Colleen Outside the Region: - Motorola Plant in Goochland County -New Roadways: - Meadowcreek Parkway - Route 29 Bypass - Possible Eastern Connector Some of the impacts of this proposed growth are new' residents moving to the region as empI0ym~nt opportunities grow, traffic congestion and the attendant safety concerns, the increased demands on the school systems, employment centers are in the center of the region but residents are spread out, and Iowet' income residents locate in the City of Charlottesville and in rural areas. Recommendations. Based on the foreseen impacts, the follov,'ing recommendations are made and include a suggestion for who should implement the recommendation. The localities in the pla.m-ting district should communicate regularly, especially at the elected official and planning commission levels. This can be achieved by sharing local commission agendas, and by bringing together local elected officials and planning commissioners for regular forums. Identify common economic development goals and work together to achieve the identified goals. This' includes developing cooperative agreements and sharing revenue. Prepare econometric and environmental analyses to identify the impacts of proposed developments. This should be conducted at the regional level. Identify who should take the leadership role for specific projects, such as the Zion Crossroads Initiative. 9 REGIONAL PLANNING SUMMIT September 10, 1998 Sharing Resources for Water and Sewer Development Areas bf Interest/Concern and Issues/Recommendations Geographic Areas of Interest/Concern: Gum Spring/Eastern Louisa: This area will need water and sewer, especially if Motorola plant is built in Goochland. ZiOns Crossroads: This area needs water and sewer very soon tO support planned development. Ruckersville: This area should have adequate water and sewer if transfer of Camelot sewage treatment plant from RWSA to RSA goes through as proposed. Northern Albemarle: The existing systems should support anticipated development, even if North Fork Park results in more jobs than originally expected. Eastern and Southern Albemarle, immediately adjacent to Charlottesville: The existing, systems should support anticipated development. Route 29 Bypass: The possible effects of the proposed bypass on the Rivanna Reservoir are still not fully understood. A PDC-sponsored forum of local, state, and federal officials scheduled for October 15 will focus on identifying and addressing water resource protection as it relates to the bypass plan. Issues and Recommendations: Transfer of Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant from RWSA to RSA: As far as the staffknows, t'nere are no problems with this idea. All that is needed is for the local elected officials from Greene and Albemarle to formally direct the staffto complete the process. It is a good example ofregionaI cooperation, as are many aspects of the working relationship between RWSA, ACSA, and RSA. Zions Crossroads Proposal Redevelopment: The Louisa and Fluvanna Boards attempted to pass a regional proposal for drawing v,'ater from the James through Fluvarma County to the site. Although both boards were sUpportive of the proposal, it failed in Fluvanna due to citizen opposition, based on a perception that Flu`,'anna would not get much benefit from the pipe. There are currently no other financially feasible solutions to explore. The ~oup recommended that the t`,vo boards meet to discuss ho,,,,' the proposal could be re-developed in a way that clearly showed the benefits to residents of'both localities. Planning for Gum Spring/'Richmond Growth: This area is ~ov.'ing steadily beca,xse employ~.ent and residential de~,'elopment :,.'esr. of Richmond. lftb. e 5[otorola plant in Goochla:'/. is buit: as planned, de,,'elopmen: in Gum Spring ceuld intenslf';' dramatically'. The I0 recommended that Fluvanna and Louisa meet with Goochland and perhaps other localities west of Richmond in order to form a working relationship and begin addressing the planning implications ofgr~owth in this region. The PDC could organize this with the help of the Richmond Regional PDC. James River Access 50-year Plan: An observation upon working with the map was that, ultimately, the James River could prove to be the water source for several locations throughout the planning district. The group recommended that a planning process wih the Richmond Regional PDC be initiated to envision access to the River within 50 years. Northern Albemarle/Southern Greene 50-year Plan: For the 20 year horizon, the group noted water and sewer needs xvill likely be met unless planned improvements are for some reason not carried out. However, this area is likely to continue to grow, especially given improved water and' sewer resources. The group recommended initiating a planning process for the 50 year horizon. Education for Localities: Water and sewer systems are one of the most expensive and important investments a locality can make. They are crucial to economic development, and are very costly. The group recommended that the PDC develop educational resources and activities for local officials on the following topics related to Water and Sewer systems: Planning; Investing (including cost/benefit analyses); Operating and Maintaining; and Public Health/Environmental Issues. ll REGIONAL PLANNING SUMMIT September 10, 1998 · Transportation: Best Investments for the 21st Century Issues and Points for Consideration .[ssttes The group began by working through an exercise of mapping issues and identifying strategies but found themselves frequently diverting into more detailed discussions of the issues involved in transportation planning. As a result, they did not complete the "assigned" task, but did engage in a fruitful discussion. Below is a summary of the points made and issued raised. Our Ideal Transportation System features m Alternatives to the Single Occupant Vehicle New roads built before development occurs Self-contained communities (mixed land use, internalization of trips, intercormections) Freight shipped by rail A grid road pattern throughout the region for traffic dispersal Access management on major arterials. Transit as an essential part of land use planning MAG LEV along interstate corridors and ?oints for Consideration · Transportation is a major issue in land use planning. · ~he region needs to'work together to overcome transportation problems. · Public transportation planning has personal (individual) and policy (societal) implications. · The City's role as the employment center means it supports commuters from outlying areas and absorbs heax3~ traffic congestion impacts. · Road design standards often conflict with the character and needs of neighborhood; examples include high speed standards resulting in wide roads, limited design flexibility, and subdivisions that don't connect to anything. · More input is needed around the issues of disincentives to automobile use and lifestyle changes ~vhich suppor~ increased Single Occupant Vehicle (SOX,') alternatives · The Route 29 Bypass issue is a political realitx'. · Real traffic red~.:ction progress might come/'rom preventing that second er third trip. 12 Land use density strengthens public transportation. The funding process works against good planning. When planning for traffic calming, it's important to remember traffic itself is not the problem; neighborhood character and quality are the real issues. Transportation is a key component of economic development. Roads are needed for economic development opportunities. The good thing about dispersing traffic is that people have many routes available; the bad thing is that no place is left without traffic. People mainly travel to work. Supporting the need for convenient access to commercial areas results in ~vide roads that make travel too easy. Land use policies should require residential development to accompany mai or industrial/commercial sites. Employer incentives for commuter traffic reduction should be encouraged (the urban area has the Big Wheels Commuter Opportunities Group in place, and TEA-21 may offer some new funds). "Take Back the Rails!" Legislation may be needed to help communities reclaim trolley systems. 1998 10TM ANNUAL VIRGINIA WATER & SEWER RATE REPORT This item was scanned under Water-Related Reports 1998 :~;~.:;;:~:;:. :.~ ::~[t~;' ~c~ a~d~mr~,· md~fi~rs :~d rang ~ag~ficies;~as ::we~ ~ ~n~' ~d~it6~'' :.:~ Albemarle County Service Authority Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 1998 This item was scanned under Albemarle County Service Authority Reports 1998 To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey, CMC, ClerkZ-~ Reading List for November 4, 1998 October 29, 1998 March 20(A), 1995 October 16, 1996 March 19(A), 1997 March 24(A), 1997 March 16(A), 1998 July 27(A), 1998 September 2, 1998 September 9, 1998 September 16, 1998 October 14, 1998 Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Ms. Humphris Mr. Bowerman Mr. Marshall pages -17 (Item # 13) - Mr. Marshall pages 7 (Item #13) - end - Mr. Bowerman pages -23 (Item #10) - Ms. Thomas pages 23 (Item # 10) - end - Mr. Perkins pages 1-22 (Item #7) - Mr. Marshall pages 22 (Item #7) - end - Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin /ewc September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Space Land Act and is well-suited to do this. The Committee approached the Authority and they are willing to hold these easements if directed by the Board of Supervisors to do so. The Committee contemplates there being an Oversight Commission, something like the Committee that now exists. Its purpose would be to make adjustments in the criteria from time to time to be sure the criteria flow with the new Comprehensive Plan, and to ensure fairness and maximize efficiency of the program and to harness some of the energies in the private sector now doing volunteer work on this effort. The Committee contemplates there being easement terms. The most important would be a density of no more than one house per 100 acres. That could still be adjusted somewhat in terms of exactly how that would be put together, whether it be minimum 100 acre lots or simply a 100-acre density, so five acres could be cut off leaving a residual as a larger farm. Ms. Buttrick said for a financing plan, the Committee recommends that the zero coupon installment purchase plan be pursued. This is the plan that Howard County, Maryland (they were the pioneers in this program) has used, and that Virginia Beach, Virginia, has adopted. The Committee recognizes that the ,~,f~i~an~ing plan W~~o be modified for ~se by a county in Virginia. Sh.e~,~ II~ has. been working with Mr. Dav%~~'~ ~r~j~e~ to figure out how that adjus, ~ ~n~ ~houl~.be,made~r~a~,n,~s in terms of future obligations ~? ~u~ure Doa~lc ~.- -t~e% major problem with c ' ~ia is their bein~ u~i~cur l~'~--~e~m debt. Shou~n~e~o~nbe possible to adapt the zero coupon mechanism, which has enough positives that it is worth trying, it would be possible to run a purchase of development rights program on a pay-as-you-go, cash basis. It would mean that only ease- ments could be bought with the amount of money the Board appropriated each year. It would not be as good as the other program. Mr. Marshall asked if it would be a one-time payment. Ms. Buttrick said ~yes." The property owner would lose those installments over time that put off the capital gains tax. It may be the only way to do the program. Mr. Marshall said if the County made tha~ one-time payment to an individual, what length of time would tha~ one-time payment cover. Ms. Buttrick said if the County has to go with a pay- as-you-~o cash basis, the entire financing year-to-year, long-term plan in the report, must be foregone. Mr. Marshall asked if the plan is then only good for one year. Mr. Bowerman said it onll, moves that land into the program. Ms. Buttrick said it is then an outright purchase instead of purchase over a period of time. Mr. Marshall said in that case, the land can never be developed. Ms. Buttrick said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said it is paid for in year one in totality. Ms. Buttrick said it is then over and done with in the first year. Mr. Marshall said he understood the program was going to be more of a rent-type program. Ms. Buttrick said that is the financing plan the zero coupon bonds would enable. Mr. Marshall said ~hat would then be on a year-t~c~ year basis. Mrs. Thomas said it would be a permanent purchase at the time, the payment would be made year to year. Mr. Marshall said it would guarantee an income for an individual for a year. Ms. Bu~trick said the Committee recommends a funding level of $1.0 million a year. They believe this is the most conservative approach to creating a meaningful program. Virginia Beach has a program of $3.0+ million. The Committee is aware that most existing programs are funded at a higher level. Land in Albemarle County is slightly less expensive than in some other localities. The Committee did not want to crea~e a program which would necessitate a tax increase. They do caution that a token program funded at a significantly lower level would do more harm then good and should be avoided. Mr. Martin aske~d the reason for that recommendation. Ms. Buttrick said the Committee feels it crea~es false expectations if a program is advertised and when applications are received, nine out of ten people are disappointed. The program then gets a bad reputation for being a false expectation. Mr. Marshall said there is a cap on the income of people so it will no~ make the rich richer. Ms. Buttrick said it is not exactly a cap, but in the criteria the Committee has suggested financial considerations would be given a double set of points. They propose that only those applicants of a median income or less for Albemarle County be given maximum points, and tha~ if someone is at 70 percent of that median, they would receive additional points. She person- ally had to defend before the committee that the ~ift of conservation ease- ments program of the Outdoors Foundation not be discouraged. That program ha~ been successful over the last 30 years. The Committee does not wane to pay for something which has been given freely up to this point. The income tax deduction is a good incentive for one sector of the market. It is inappropri- September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) staff will have to work out. Mr. Davis said if the Board chose the zero coupon bond route, that is a complicated procedure to get out of. Basically, the Board would be locking future boards into doing a level of commitment to this program from a financial standpoint. Mr. Marshall said staff just needs a consensus from the Board that that is what it wants to do. Mr. Tucker said he believes staff has gotten a consensus today that all of the Board members are supportive of doing some- thing. Staff will continue to work with Ms. Buttrick and the Committee to refine some of the technical issues and ~hen start looking at options for funding. At that point, if it doesn't come to $1.0 million, the Board can decide if it wishes to support it beyond just the revenues currently projected for the General Fund. Ms. Humphris said based on cost benefit and what the citizens have said they want the Board to do, this is now a win-win situation even though the Board would be spending tax dollars of one kind or another. The Board has said for a long time that it wanted the right to do this, then it got the right, and has now slowly crept up on the doing. She thinks the public would be pleased with this program as one of the arrows the Board hopes to exercise. Mr. Bowerman said this report on the first phase of the Committee's work is in line with what the Board needs to do before the Committee goes further. The Board needs to recognize the work which has been done, and buy into the concepts that have been presented. Ultimately there will be detail changes as the work proceeds. Ms. Tho~s said she appreciates the Committee's work on this program. This seems to be a good program after a lot of false starts. Mr. Marshall said he does not hear anyone saying they are opposed to the concept. It appears there is a consensus from the Board to proceed. He thanked all of the Committee members who were present at the meeting. Mr. Perkins said the Committee has done what they were instructed to do. That was, to bring in a program~using existing State law ..... ~e said the .... existing State law is antiquated, it is complicated, and he thinks the Board needs to work on the General Assembly to get some laws changed. (Note: At 11:45 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened au 11:55 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation: Albemarle Housing and Development Program (AHIP) Strategic Plan 1998. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director, was present to thank the Board for its support of AHIP and its programs. She said they want to show a video made possible by Hantzmon Weibel & ComPany, First Virginia Bank and an anonymous AHIP Board member. Mr. Nick Munger, President of A~IP s Board, said Ms. Tapscot~ is now the Chairman of the Virginia Housing Coalition which is the most significant organization of volunteer affordable housers in the state. She is also Chair of the newly-formed State Trust Fund Committee which is trying to build an affordable housing trust fund on a statewide basis. He said that as President of AHIP and in working with Ginnie McDonald of the Housing Office, he would like to sa3~ how important it has been that the Board acknowledged th~ n~ed for finding new sources of funding in the housing area, and the Board or Supervi- sors commitment to the County housing trust fund. It is a substantial first step for the County to take, and is something A~IP can point to when working regionally with neigh-boring counties in cooperation with the Piedmont Housing Alliance and other regional groups. Albemarle County is a forerunner in the state ~n it~upport of affordable housing. / / M~. Bowerman said he appreciates AHIP putting what the Board does in ~ers~c~iye. The only ~this Board can view is what it does and what it ~s/~riticized for not doing enough of. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Munger said the video touches on that briefly. AHIP has been around for 20 years and it has been thought of as an improvement program for existing housing, emergency repalrs and rehabs. In just the last year or two, as the new certification plan has pointed out, AHIP has changed organizationally even to the point of contemplating a change of name. For the first time, this is September 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) an organization where initiatives are being taken in different directions than just fixing existing housing. Just yesterday, A/RIP got a letter from V H DA committing $400,000+ for financing for a nine-unit scattered site, rent-to-own project they have applied for several times. The Board probably does not realize how exceptional it is ~n terms of supporting housing on a statewide basis. Ms. Humphris said that is very refreshing to hear. Ail the time she hears that Albemarle does nothing in the area of affordable housing. Every person who says that to her, she findsj~we--th~ know absolutely nothing about what the County's programs are, and th~ distance the County has come in the eight years s~nce she has been a Board member. AHIP is now a totally differ- ent organization. Many strides have been made in positive direction toward home ownership and rehabilitation. She thinks all the players should be congratulated. Mr. Munger said Ms. Tapscott is trying on a statewide basis to make sure the Board of Supervisors ~s recognized for its efforts. The video was then reviewed by the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked how the video will be used. Ms. Tapscott said AHIP does have one major fund-raising event coming up. They are going to raffle off a house. The Kessler Group has agreed to work with them to find a lot in a good subdivision. Vito Cetta, one of the Board members, is going to build the house for cost, and they will raffle it off. This idea will be taken to community groups, civic organizations, churches and businesses and market the house raffle, and let people know who they are. Mr. Bowerman asked if AHIP had approached the public television stations about running the video. Ms. Tapscott said they will. The producers of the video are working with the new Charlottesville television station, and they are interested. Mr. Bowerman asked what commercial time would cost locally. Ms. Tapscott said they have not gotten that far yet. Mr. Tucker suggested using the public access cable channels. Mr. Marshall said he is glad to see the video. He has seen a lot of~i.~in~ hi,~s lifetime, and that is one re~son he is sitting on this Board. ~~ ~-//Z~/~ /f 6) /~d~ S' /w%/~3 Mr. Munger said that AHIP Board members who have connections back to the neighborhood will be asked to assist in taking this video to different committees, etc. Mr. Marshall said there are a lot of people in the County who live like this, and the vast majority of people do not know about those situations. Ms. Tapscott said there are a lot of' people throughout Virginia who live like this. Mr. Marshall said Albemarie is one of the wealthiest /-' counties zn the state. Ms. Tapscott said one of the objectives statewide is selling housing as an economic development tool, as well as an educational tool. They believe that everything starts at home. If you don't have a home, it is hard to keep a job. If you don't have a place to study, it is hard to excel in school. Ms. Thomas said it is a fact that rural housing zs almost always hidden when there is substandard housing. In 1975 when the first housing survey was done in Albemarle, she drove around the County and saw the most incredible housing conditions. Mr. Martin asked where land comes from for the houses AHIP builds. Ms. Tapscott said it comes from the family, or they try to find affordable lots they can buy and hold for a short time. Mr. Martin asked the average size of a lot. Ms. Tapscott said in the rural areas, it is two acres. Mr. Marshall said he knows that a lot of people in the City of Charlottesville live in worse conditions. Ms. Tapscott said it is everywhere, although the problems are different in the City. There are not the indoor plumbing problems in the City that exist in the County. Mr. Bowerman aske ce between the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and AHIP. Ms. Tapscott said PH~ is still in the developmental phases. There are resources available sometimes that are not necessarily available just to Albemarle County. These funds might be available on more of a regional basis. PH~ is an organization specializing in housing. It is tryin~-~ to become a clearinghouse for those types of resources. AHIP is more of a bricks and mortar implementer of programs and direct contact with clients. PHA is more of a receptacle for resources. David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Joyett COUNTY OF ^i REMARI _f Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vn'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November I I, 1998 Charles $. Martin Walt~r E Perkim Sally H. Thorn.s Samuel Miller Ms. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear M s. Tucker: At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors made the following comments regarding transportation matters: Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" signs in Minor Hill Sub~livision. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Item No. 5.5. Adopt Resolution for VDOT to install "Child At Play" sign on Owensville Road (Route 676). ADOPTED the attached resolution. Item No. 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. GRANTED staff the authority to coordinate/implement the road name change of Rumas Lane to Carriage Trail Place. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Ms. Humphris provided the attached handout with a list of four questions pertaining to a funding source for the Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II, and asked that VDOT respond to the questions. Also on the handout, Ms. Humphris listed four projects that received STP allocations and asked why funding for those projects were separated out in the Six Year Plan as opposed to the funds being folded in with other funds in the Plan. Printed on recycled paper Angela G. Tucker November 1 I, 1998 Page 2. Ms. Thomas said there are a lot of long range planning questions that need to be addressed concerning the widening of Route 29 from the South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road. She believes the Board needs a chance to discuss the road plans before they are finalized and brought to the Board for support. /EWC Mr. Bowerman }nentioned that another multi-axle truck turned over near Penn Park. He suggested that VDOT install flashing signs, that indicate that portion of Park Road is non-negotiable for that type of vehicle. The signs need to be lighted at Melbourne Road and at Penn Park. The signs need to indicate that multi-axle trucks absolutely cannot negotiate the roadway. Also, if you have any information or updates that need to go to the Board for its December 2nd meeting, they need to be in this office by November 20th. Board packets will be assembled and distributed to Board members on November 24th. Attachments CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. v. Wayne Cilimberg MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY-PHASE II FUNDING SOURCE ? SECONDARY IMPROVEMENTS UTILIZING STP REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS FY99 thru FY04 (Revised - September 1998) CTB 6-Year Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 1998-99, Volume 1 District Page No. of Project Amounts No. Projects ($) Project Type(s) Fredericksburg 71 1 7,000 Specific Improvement to be Determined Lynchburg 863 - Pittsylvania PE Only, 2 lane (In Tentative Vol. 1) 82 1 300,000 ' reconstruction Northern Va. 126 1 9,282,000 Pr. Wm. - Extn. Betw. Davis Ford Rd. and Rt. 234 Bypass 604 - Chesterfield - Widening; Richmond 172 - 27 50,000 to 653 - Chesterfield - Widen to 4 lanes; 176 12,858,000 668 - Chesterfield - Woolridge Rd. Extn. - 4 Lanes on New Construction; 656 - Hanover - 4-Lane Divided; Hanover- Ali~nment Study; etc. Suffolk 271 3 1,785,000 to 704 - Isle of Wight - ?; 6,943,000 603 - York - Widen and Extend; 1050 - York- ? Five of the nine Districts have received or are receiving STP Secondary Regional Allocations for Secondary Improvements. · Was this funding source investigated by CTB members for the Meadow Creek ...Parkway, Phase II? · Can this be a funding source for the Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase Il? · What are the requirements/guidelines for participating in these STP Secondary_ Regional Allocations? · IF this is an available source of funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway, Phase as a secondary_ road, why have we not been made aware of this possibility? CYH - 11/2/98 ~ 99- FY04 Fiscal Year Secondary Construction and Unpaved Road Allocation Approved by CTB on September 1Z 1998 ' Construction STP Funds Regular and Incl. STP & Construction Tele Fee Equity Equity Funds Funds (56-468.1 & ) Funds & Tele Fee (33.1-23.4 C) (56-468.2) T~' 2 ! Sub Total Unpaved Road State Construction Funds (33.1-23.1:1) FY98/99 3,002,379 202,147 1,418,563 4,623,089 FY99/O0 2,909,116 242,577 923,600 4,075,293 FYO0/OI 3,071,515 283,006 968,879 4,323,400 FY01/02 3,259,404 343,650 940,335 4,543,389 FY02/03 3,296,274 343,650 957,050 4,596,974 FY03/04 3,264. 810 343. 650 957,050 4. 565. 510 Six Yr Totals 18,803,498 1,758,680 6,165,477 26,727,655 785,722 758,401 801,611 850,597 862,723 854.514 ,913,568 FY98/99 FY99/00 FY00/01 FY01/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 Six Yr Totals 1,035,735 1,003,562 1,059 585 1,124,401 1,137 120 1.126.266 6,486 669 59,431 346,139 1,441,304 71.318 260,761 1,335,641 83,204 273,547 1,461,336 101,033 265,489 1,490,923 101,033 270,207 1,508,360 101.033 270.207 1.497.506 517,052 1,686,349 8,735,070 531,898 513,403 542,654 575,815 584,024 578.467 326,261 auquier TOTAL STATE SECONDARY FUNDS 5,408,811 4,833,694 5,125,011 5,393,986 5,459,697 5. 420. 024 31,641,223 1,973,202 1,849,044 2,003,990 2,066,738 2,092,384 2.075.973 12,061,331 FY98/99 '1,950,999 118,224 791,215 2,860,438 738,169 3,598,607 FY99/00 1,890,395 141,869 596,059 2,628,323 712,501 3,340,824 FYOO/OI 1,995,925 165,514 625,285 2,786,724 753,096 3,539,820 FY01/02 2,118,018 200,981 606,865 2,925,864 799,117 3,724,981 FY02/03 2,141,977 200,981 617,650 2,960,608 810,510 3,771,118 FY03/04 2,121.531 200.981 617.650 2.940.162 802.797 3.742.959 ShYrTotats 12,218,845 1,028,550 3,854,724 17,102,119 4,616,190 21,718,309 FY98/99 788,535 44,752 223,953 1,057,240 FY99/O0 764,041 53,702 168,714 986,458 FYO0/01 806,693 62,653 176,987 1,046,333 FYOI/02 856,039 76,079 171,773 1,.1'03,891 FY02/03 865, 722 76, 079 174,826 1,116,627 FY03/04 857.45p 76,079 '174. 826 1. 108. 363 Six Yr Totals 4,938,489 389,344 1,091,079 6,418,912 525,690 509,361 537,795 570,693 577,149 3,292,327 1,167,157 1,130,902 1,194,033 1,267,074 1,281,407 1.269.176 7,309,749 34,581 41,497 48,414 58,788 58,788 58.788 300,856 60,771 72,926 85,080 103,311 103,311 103.311 528,710 185,538 745,809 139,774 690,632 146,627 732,836 142,308 771,789 144,837 780,774 144.837 775.264 903,921 4,497,104 ! 366,228 1,594,156 275,897 1,479,724 289,424 1,568,537 280,898 1,651,284 285,890 1,670,608 285.890 1.658.777 784,227 9,622,686 FY98/99 FY99/O0 FY00/O I FYO 1/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 Six Yr Totals 167,889 162,051 171,284 181,751 184,342 182.588 049,905 127,908 123,460 130,494 138,468 140,442 139.106 799,878 295,992 285,700 301,978 320,431 324,999 321.9Q7 1,851,007 FY98/99 FY99/00 FYO0/.O 1 FY0 [/02 FY02/03 FY03/04 Six Yr Totals 1,225,129 1,148,509 1,217,617 1,285,642 1,300,969 1.290.951 7,468,817 873,717 814,092 863,330 910,257 921,216 914.37Q 5,296,982 1,890,148 1,765,424 1,870,515 1,971,715 1,995,607 1.980.28~ 11,473,693 JAUNT, Inc. Annual Report FY97-98 This item was scanned under Boards and Commissions Reports 1998 CHARLOTTESVILLE A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE RIVANNA GREENWAY TRAILS This item was scanned under Land Use Reports 1998 PIEDMONT VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE The PVCC Profile In Albemarle County In 1997-98, Piedmont Virginia Community College served 6,804 students, 2,375 of whom were residents of Albemarle County. This accounted for 34.9 percent of the college's total enrollment and 3.0 percent of the county's total population. From the time of its founding in 1972 through the summer of 1998, PVCC served a total of 75,992 students. Since its first commencement in 1974, the college has awarded 5,385 degrees, certificates, and diplomas. Other statistics demonstrate PVCC's impact on .its service region. In Albemarle County, for example, 50.6 percent of all county residents attending a college or university in Virginia in the fall of 1997 were enrolled at PVCC. Within its service region, PVCC enrolled 44.1 percent of all students attending institutions of higher education in Virginia during that semester. PVCC's nationally recognized transfer program and its expanding role in workforce development shaped the work of the college in 1997-98. During that year, more than a third of all students at PVCC were enrolled in transfer courses. Among students in a curriculum of study, more than two-thirds were enrolled in transfer programs. Followup studies of PVCC transfer students indicate that they continue their strong academic performance at the four-year schools in which they enroll. PVCC's strongest transfer connection is with the University of Virginia. From the time the college opened through the 1997-98 academic year, a total of 1,429 PVCC students enrolled at the university. Typically, more PVCC students transfer to UVa than do students from any other Virginia community college. In 1997-98, the 79 PVCC transfer students to UVa accounted for 44 percent of all community college transfer students accepted. PVCC's national recognition in general education and humanities is the result of the work of highly qualified faculty; some 40 percent of PVCC faculty have doctorates, an unusually high percentage for a community college. PVCC's transfer program also received a boost this fall with the opening of the V. Earl Dickinson Building for Humanities and Social Sciences which provides specialized classroom space for the college's largest academic division. The college is committed to supporting workforce development in Albemarle County and to the county's economic vitality. PVCC is a member of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce and regularly participates in its activities. In response to concerns of area employers, PVCC in April hosted a workforce summit to address workforce shortages, particularly in technical areas, and to kick off an in-depth look at the problem. In subsequent work sessions, PVCC is collaborating with economic development personnel, employers, and other educators to seek solutions. PVCC provides services to the area workforce through its Center for Training and Workforce Development. The center works closely with employers in the service area to provide specialized and custom training for business, industry, and government. The center organizes it program delivery in the following areas: continuous quality improvement, management and leadership training, software applications training, trade and technical training and ~ograms, professional development, and pre-employment services. In 1997-98, the center enrolled 3,894 students in credit and noncredit courses offered to business and industry in the service region. Among the center's 100+ clients in 1997-98 was Albemarle County, which continued its training relationship with PVCC through the delivery of continuous quality improvement training for its employees. Other clients located in Albemarle County included Acme Design Technology Company, 501 COLLEGE DRIVE · CHARLOTTESVILLE · VIRGINIA 22902-7589 PHONE 804-977-3900 · FAX 804-971-8232 · V/TTY 804-977-4265 WORLD WIDE WEB WWW. pVCC.CC.Va.US Albemarle County Schools, Albemarle Housing Authority, Avionics Specialties, The Boar's Head Inn, Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, Comdial Corporation, GE Fanuc, Humagen Fertility Diagnostics Inc., Lakeland Tours, Monticello Foundation, National Ground Intelligence Center, Pharmaceutical Research Associates, QualChoice, Senior Center, Sperry Marine,. State Farm Insurance Companies, Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Manufacturing, Virginia Department of Forestry, and the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. The Central Virginia Tech Prep Consortium, administered by PVCC for school systems including Albemarle County, continues to provide assistance to teachers as they integrate academic and vocational education. Tech Prep is a federally funded program .emphasizing technical preparation and academic skills beginning in high school and continuing at the community college. Through this program, the college and Albemarle County have developed articulation agreements in business technology and design technology. Facts About PVCC PVCC is one of 23 colleges in the Virginia Community College System which was founded in 1966. In addition to Albemarle County, PVCC serves Charlottesville and the counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson, and northern Buckingham. In its service region, studies show, the college has an annual economic impact of some $31 million. The college is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097: Telephone number 404-679-4501) to award associate degrees. PVCC provides university parallel/college transfer programs, occupational/technical developmental education, and continuing education/community service programs. The college associate degree programs in 29 majors and specializations, and 18 certificate programs. programs, offers 14 The PVCC students profile for the 1997-98 academic year (based on fall semeSter 1997 data) is as follows: 86.9 percent were residents of the PVCC service area. Another 9.9 percent came from other areas of Virginia and 3.3 percent were classified as out-of-state residents. * 81.5 percent of the PVCC students attended part-time. · 60.5 percent of the students were women. · 12.3 percent of the students were African-American; a total of 17.8 percent were minorities. · 66.9 percent were returning students. During the same semester, a total of 1,432 students from Albemarle County were enrolled at the college. Of these students, 79.6 percent were part-time, 61.0 percent were women, 9.8 percent Were African- American, and 70.7 were returning students. Compared to the student body as a whole, fewer Albemarle County students attended part-time and fewer were African-American. More were returning students and about the same percent were women. Among the Albemarle County students who attended PVCC in 1997-98 were 62 members (25.9 percent) of the 1997 graduating class of Westem Albemarle High School, 96 members (25.7 percent) of the Albemarle High School class of 1997, and 7 members (41.2 percent) of the Murray High School class of 1997. PVCC is working with Albemarle school administrators in planning and implementing joint programs and facilities sharing with Monticello High School. PVCC also continues to offer a full range of evening classes at Albemarle High School. In 1997~98, 1,352 students enrolled in college classes at the high school--an increase of 62 percent over the previous year. PVCC rents classrooms each semester at a cost of $18,000 per year. 8-26-98 ........... RIVANNf SOLID WASTE AUT. HORITY · · P.O. BOX 979 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-0979 (804) 977-2976 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM w. COUNTY PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYTEM OCTOBER 22, 1998 Enclosed is a package from Joyce Engineering, Inc., Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's consultants for the Ivy Sanitary Landfill. The package includes an abstract of the groundwater treatment system and several attachments. The purpose of the treatment system is to intercept contaminated groundwater flowing off the western side of the landfill property, treat the groundwater to remove organic contaminants and then use the treated water to irrigate vegetation on the landfill soil cover. The treatment system will remain in operation until the applicable regulatory standards are achieved. Most likely, this period of operation will be measured in years. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has been working with us on this plan and concurs with the design. Since there will be no discharge off-site, the DEQ will not require a separate permit for the system. The system will be monitored through existing permits that cover landfill operations. Mr. ChidSey, the Solid Waste Director, and I will attend the November 4th Board of Supervisors meeting to review this information and answer questions. ADP/csw K:\Landfill\groundwater trmt system, rtl PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ABSTRACT OF GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR THE IVY SANITARY LANDFILL October 21, 1998 Joyce Engineering, Inc., proposes to install a pumpiand-treat system at the Ivy Sanitary Landfill to remove contaminants from the groundwater in the western area of the site. The extracted groundwater will be treated to remove organic constituents from the water, and the treated water will be used on-site for irrigation, dust control, and other non- potable uses that do not create any off-site discharges. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) has committed to have the system operational before 1999. This document describes the proposed pump-and-treat system. A schematic flow diagram of the pump-and-treat system is attached as Attachment 1. A preliminary schedule for installing and operating the system is presented in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 is a table that identifies various activities associated with installing the system. Groundwater will be extracted from nine extraction wells, an interceptor trench, and the cell 2 underdrain and pumped to an equalization basin, which is currently an erosion and sediment control basin. After resolving permitting issues, the sediment basin will be converted into a groundwater equalization basin by diverting stormwater from the basin, removing the outfall, and lining the basin. The extracted groundwater will be pumped from the equalization basin to the southern portion of the property where the treatment system will be located. The water will run through a filtering device to remove particulates from the water column and into an air stripper, which will remove the organic constituents from the liquid through a volatilization process. Stripper offgas will be treated by carbon filter to remove volatile organic constituents prior to its release to the atmosphere. Prior to its on-site use, the treated water will be collected in a holding pond that will be constructed in the southern portion of the property. The pond will be designed and usage rates will be planned so that no run-off to the creeks surrounding the site or adjacent properties occurs. Any excess treated water that cannot be used on-site will be sent to the POTW. The treatment system will be designed to reduce organic constituent concentrations to below laboratory limits of detection using analytical methods acceptable to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for groundwater monitoring. No inorganic constituents have been detected at concentrations significantly greater than background in any of the compliance monitoring wells. The effluent concentrations of inorganic analytes will remain less than or equal to site-specific background groundwater levels. The on-site use of the treated water is considered a zero discharge scenario, and is therefore not regulated under the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES). A relevant DEQ letter is presented in Attachment 4. The proposed groundwater extraction and treatment system, including the treatment levels and zero discharge scenario, is protective of human health and the environment, and will allow the beneficial reuse of the treated water for on-site uses. F:~proj ectsXivy\grnd wateXpump&treat~p&tabstract_gw, doc Printed on recyclea DaDer Attachment 1 Schematic of Pump-and-Treat System IVY SANITARY LANDFILL SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM IEcGROUNDWATER Interceptor Trench ell 2 Subdmin xtraction Wells IRRIGATION I I HOLDING POND I MANHOLE WITH PUMPIi~ I POTW I TREATED WATE ~P~ ATMOSPHERE CARBON OFFGAS TREATMENT STRIPPER OFFGAS I ~ PLATE AIR STRIPPER IBLOWER I IEQUALIZATION BASII~ MANHOLE PUMP THROUGH FORCE MAIN TO SOUTH PROPER-I-~ ~i FIL -EEI P:\PROJECTS~IVY~GRN DWATE~PUMP&TREA'r~SCHE MATIC_GW. XLS Attachment 2 Preliminary Schedule Preliminary Schedule for Installation and Operation of Treatment System October 20, 1998 Milestone Activity Design of Extraction Well Network Installation of Extraction Wells Installation of Intemeptor Trench Installation of Cell 2 Subdrain Sizing and Selection of System Equipment (e.g., pumps, air stripper, holding tank, air stripper building, pump house) Design of Holding Pond Design of Equalization Pond and Stormwater Management Completion of Constructing Equalization Pond Completion of Constructing Holding Pond Installation of Treatment System Test Run of Treatment System (system check) Start-u p Period for Treatment System Design of Irrigation System Installation of Irrigation System Target Completion Date Complete Complete Complete Complete November 11, 1998 November 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 December 21, 1998 December 21, 1998 December 23, 1998 December 30, 1998 December 31, 1998 - February 1, 1999 January 5, 1999 March 1, 1999 P:\PROJ ECTS\IVY~GRNDWATESPU M PTREAT~SCH EDULE1 .XLS Attachment 3 System Installation Activities Table I Assignment of RespOnsibilities During GroundWater Treatment System Construction Task Joyce RSWA Contractor Supplier Extraction Wells Select and order equipment x x Construct distribution manhole adiacent to equalization basin x Install pumps in wells x Install control panel x x Install electrical cables x Install discharge lines x Connect discharge lines x Connect control panel x Equalization (EQ) Basin Re-route stormwater from sediment basin x Modify VPDES General Permit Ito eliminate ouffall/ x Remove out/all x Line basin x Install pump in existing underdrain manhole x x Install 4-inch diameter force main from EQ basin to air stripper x Treatment'Unit Select and order equipment x x Construct concrete pad for building x Install equipment x x Pour foundation for building x x Install building x x Install control panel x x Install electrical cables x Connect discharge lines x Connect control panel x Construct manhole near air stripper x Install pump in manhole x x Install discharge line from building to manhole x Holding Pond Design holding pond x Install discharge line from manhole to pond x Construct dam and grade in Iow water benches x Install discharge line from pond (dewatedng system) x Revegetate x x Ivy Sanitary Landfill Tasks and Responsibilities Joyce Engineering, Inc. 10/21/98 Attachment 4 Correspondence from DEQ RiVF4'~ GUT~i]RIT!ES Sop 25 '98 13:58 P. Sam~ ,~. Gilmore, TTI Governor John p~JI Woodlcy, Jr. CO M_MOAT%VEALTH VIRGINIA DEP ~R TMENT OFF. NFIR ONM~ArrAL Q U/i~TY Meiling ad~r~J: ~.0, Box /I2D. H~l~onbur~, VA 22~81-1T29 Telephone (540) 574.7100 F~x (540) ~74-7E78 Directo~ R. B~ilcy Chewning, p.E Vailay ;teg$~n~ Di~o~ Me. Terri ~hilltps, P.G. Joyce Engineering, Inc. 4s08 Re,ford Avenue Richmond, ~rA 23230 Dear Ms. ghillips~ This lea=er iA in response to our recent discussions concerning the Ivy Landfill an~ your proposal =o use a ~ortion of the =rested groun~ water ~n~ leachers to irriga=e th~ cover crop at r_he 1~a~i11, Followin~ =h~ reJec=ion of the VPDES perm2L= application by the Virpinia D~par~men~ of Heal=h, ~ Riv~ Soli~ Waste AU~rimy proposed to collect ~ =roan =h~ Con=a~e~ ~o~ ~at~ ~ lea~te at =he site. A portion of the trea~ed ~O~d ~=~r ~ leaches ~ be e~loye~ as i~i~ion ~=er for =he cover crop wi=h ~ bal~ce being~ed :o a ~by P~. ~ ~ality of =he ~re=~md wa=er will essentially be e~valent Ko ~a= of the non-con~a~nat~d ~rc~d water In =he ~ea or back~ro~ levels as est~lishea by the Waste Pe~i~ Section of o~ Con=rs1 office. Various aspects of ~h/s was=swaYer proposal, such aG applica=ion rates, irrigation scheduling, irrigation m at,hoes, runoff prevention, ~round water prozection, nnd =rea=ed liquid storage have been discussed over =he las~ few months. We unders=and nha= the formal submit=al of =he Conccp=ual Engineerin~ Report hag been d~laye~ pending ~he s=aff's review of =his preliminary proposal. Based on these discussio~, we believe that this w&atewa=er ~-ngemen= is a¢cep:able and should pro=sod =o formal proposal implemen=ation. As you will nots from the enclosed memorandum, if the system is designed azu~ operated as propose~, the Valley Regional office does no~ believe tha~ az~y ad&litio~3 water per~i=~, such as VPDES or VPA, are necessarY. Provided that uh~ prcpose~wastewater managemen~ practice is found to be ¢onsis~en= wi~h the provisions of the ~irginia Sol~d Waste M~gemenu Rsg~la=ions. t/lo st~ff O~ =he valley ~e~ional Office r~¢ommends regu!aued th=ou~hmodlfica=ion of the Ivy Landfill Soli~ Waste permi= or through a r~vision =o ~he Ivy Lanafill opera=in~ record. When the final engineering proposal is ~ubm±tted0 we will review it an~ s~ould any elements of ~he pla~ be di=ferent than those previously discussed or should new £n~orma=ton RiViNg ~iU'C~_~ iT i ES i3:58 Ms. Terri Phillips, September 23, 199B Page 1 Come to li~hC, the applicability of additional. Water permits will be considered. Follo~rin9 regional review we w/ll forwar~ the proposal to the Waste Perm/~ section in Richmozu~for their review. I hope r-his clarifies the Wa=ar staff's optn/on on ~his pr°P.osal~ As always, should you wish ~o discua~ this mat~e~ further, please don't hesitate to contac= me. Sincerely, William L. Kreglos E~virunmental ~ngineer Senior /199 Enclosure cc: ~oward Freela~'~DEQ-Was:e, GroundWater) Has~anVakili (DEQI Was:e) Ray Tesh (DEQ-VRO, Waste) Corre~ond~r~ce File (~lhemarle Co.-Ge~l~ral) To: From: Subject: Date: Marsha Davis ~ Ella Washington Carey, Clerk, C Ordinance Adopted by Board on November 4, 1998 November 11, 1998 1998. Code~ (1) The attached ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on NOvember 11, The ordinance is forwarded to you for inclusion in your next update of the County to consider imposing, increasing and decreasing certain fees in an ordinance amending Section 17-209 which is contained in Article 2 of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code. /EWC Attachments ( 1 ) cc: Bill Mawyer File ORDINANCE NO. 98-17(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SuPERvIsORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, THAT CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND REORDAINED BY AMENDING SECTION 17-209, FEES, AS FOLLOWS: Sec. 17-209 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit: 1. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit located in a residential development: 2. Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit not located in a residential development: 3. Plan for a single family dwelling unit: 4. Each reinspection: Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempt agricultural land: 1. Plan: 2. Each reinspection: Ail other land disturbing activity: 1. Plan: Co Annual renewal of approved plan: Major amendment of plan: Each reinspection: $10 $25 $100 $25 $100 $25 $250 + $i00 per acre of disturbed area or portion thereof, not to exceed $2500 $250 $120 $50 (§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2.77, 4-17-85, 2-I 1-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-17(I), ) State law reference--Va. Code § 10. 1-5 62. This ordinance shall be effective on and after December 1, 1998. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below: at a regular meeting held on November 4, 1998. ~lt~;l(, Board of County Supeffvisors / Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman X Ms. Humphris X Mr. Marshall X Mr.' Martin X Mr. Perkins X Ms. Thomas X COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Erosion and Sediment Control Fees SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing to AdoPt ReVision to the Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Schedule of the Water Protection Ordinance, Sec. 17-209 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mawyer, Davis AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: November 4, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND: REVIEWED BY: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes (See Table of Cont?~) / When the new Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) was adopted in February of this year, the Engineering Department indicated a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Schedule would be proposed to more accurately reflect the cost to the Department to administer the program in accordance with State inspection re(;uirements. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires biweekly inspection of all projects disturbing more than 10,000 sf of land area (agricultural activities includingforesting are exempt) and all single family dwellings in a residential development. Past administrative practices of the Department included periodic site inspections on an "as needed" basis with an inspection fee charged only if a site was not in compliance with the approved erosion control plan. State inspection requirements are reflected in the WPO, requiring biweekly site inspections for all active sites. The WPO also requires submission of a fee for plan review and site inspection efforts at the time of application for an erosion control permit. Administration of the new fee collection process is more effective than sending inspection bills monthly. State Erosion Control law allows a locality to recover costs incurred to administer an erosion control program. DISCUSSION: The Department expects to provide erosion control plan reviews and biweekly inspections for 70 new subdivision and commercial projects as well as 650 informal erosion control Agreements for new single family dwellings in FY 98/99. The operating cost for a staff of 2 plan reviewers and 3 inspectors is anticipated to be $218,500. Based on anticipated workload, the proposed erosion control fee schedule will generate annual fees of $110,000, or approximately 50% of actual cost. Fees totaling $9,500 were collected in FY 97/98. The proposed fee schedule is consistent with the fee schedules of comparable counties such as Spotsylvania, Stafford and Augusta. The State Division of Soil and Water Conservation has reviewed and supports the proposed fee schedule as fair and reasonable. The proposed fee schedule replaces the "one fee fits all" approach with a variable rate structure to address the quantity of land disturbed by a subdivision or commercial project, as well as the length of time a project will last and require staff time for inspections and bond adjustments. Representatives of the construction, design and development communities have been reasonably involved and generally support this revised fee schedule. An "Impact on Housing" review of the proposed fees suggests the cost of a single family home in a residential neighborhood will increase $16 - $100 depending upon the density of the development, the cost of a single family home located outside of a growth area (rural) will increase $25 and the cost of a small commercial project will increase $250. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that'the Board of Supervisors adopt the new Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Schedule as proposed with an effective date of December 1, 1998. 98.239 ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, THAT CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND REORDAINED BY AMENDING SECTION 17-209, FEES, AS FOLLOWS: Sec. 17-209 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each storm cvcnt: ...... : .... , ,,o~, ......... reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." A_~. Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit: .= Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit located in a residential development: $10 Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit not located in a residential development: $25 3~. Plan for a single family dwelling unit: $100 4_ Each reinspection: $25 DRAFT 10/28/98 Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempt agricultural land: Plan: 2_ Each reinspection: All other land disturbing activity: 1_=. Plan: Annual renewal of approved plan: Major amendment of plan: Each reinspection: $100 $25 $250 + $100 per acre of disturbed area or portion thereof, not to exceed $2500 $25O $120 $5O (§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11- 91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-562. This ordinance shall be effective on and after December 1, 1998. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Ms. Humphris Mr. Marshall Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Ave Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5. 6. 7. 8. Proposed Erosion & Sediment Controls Fees Current Erosion & Sediment Control Fees Chart, Erosion & Sediment Program Staffing v. Cost v. Fees Analysis of Cost Impact on Housing Erosion & Sediment Control Fees of Other Counties Mawyer letter dated April 8, 1998 Mawyer letter dated June 26, 1998 Division of Soil and Water Conservation letter Proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Fees (6/26/98) Sec. 17-209. Application Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of'a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle". Single Family Dwelling: II. a. Agreement for a Single Family Dwelling Unit Located in a Residential Development: b. Agreement for a Single Family Dwelling Unit Not Located in a Residential Development: c. Plan for a Single Family Dwelling Unit: d. Each reinspection: Plan for a non-exempt agricultural land disturbing activity: Each reinspection: Plan for all other land disturbing activity: a. $250 + $100/acre of disturbed area or portion thereof not to exceed $2500 b. Annual renewal fee: Each reinspection: d. Major amendment of plan: III. $10 $25 $100 $25 $100 $25 $250 $5O $120 File: mawyer\e&s fees.doc ALBEMARLE COUN. TY CODE (4 7-5, 6-18-75, 4 7, 2-I 1-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-I 1-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §4 7-5, 19.3-15; Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) State law reference-Va. Code § 10.1-565~ Sec. t7-208 Amendment of erosion and sediment control plan. The program authority may change an approved erosion and sediment control plan and require an owner to submit an amended plan in the follOwing circumstances: I. An inspection conducted pursuant to section 17-212 reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of this article; 2. The owner f'mds that, because of changed circumstances or for othei' reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out and proposed amendments to the pl~, consistent with the requirements of this article, are agreed to by the program authority and the owner; or 3. The land disturbing activity did not begin during the one hundred eighty (180) day period following plan approval, or ceased for more than one hundred eighty (180) days, and the existing plan has been evaluated to determine whether it still sati-~fies the requirements of this article and state erosion and s~diment control criteria and to verify that all design factors are still valid, and it has been determined that the plan is inadequate. In such a case, the land disturbing activity shall not be resumed until a modified plan is submitted and approved as provided in this article. (§ 7-5, 6-18-75, 4 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-16, 2-I 1-98; Code 1988, 44 7-5, 19.3-16; Ord. 98-A(l), 8-5-98) State law reference-Va. Code § 10.1-563. Sec. 17-209 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or entering into an agreement in lieu of a plan shall pay a fee upon submittal of such plan, and shall pay a fee for each storm event inspection or reinspection, in amounts according to the schedule set forth below. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." 1. Plan for residential land disturbing activity: $40. 2. Plan for agricultural land disturbing activity: $40. 3. Plan for all other land disturbing activity: $150. 4. Major amendment of plan: $100. i~ 5. Each inspection: $45. (4 7-4, 6-18-75, 4 6, I0-22-75, 4-21-76, 11~10-76, 3-2-77,'4-17-85, 2-I 1-8;/, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17, 2-11-98; Code 1988, 4§ 7.-4, 19.3-17i Ord. 98-A(I), 8-5-98) State law referenee~-Va. Code § 10.1-562. Sec. 17-210 Review of certain program authority actions. ~ Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the program authority because of its disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan submitted pursuant to this article, or in the interpretation of the 17-15 ATTAL'III, ll~r 2 COUNTY OF ALnEMARLE ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM June 17, 1998" Staff Approximate Year (*FTE) Operating Cost Fees Collected.. .,..-'" ...'i?" FY 95-96 ,, 2.7 FTE $113,800 .. ['"" ~..:~ .$' 10,328 .... : ~. :'. '-'i' FY 96-97 2.7 FTE . "'$13'~600 : $ 9,760'." ' FY 97-98 '3'.6'FTE., $170,500., '"'". :" '$"9,500. · '~ .... ';L ' ' '., t.:, ?..). ~:'" · .'~ :. $1'10,000 * FTE -- Full Time EmplOyee (less than whoie'numb~r due to partial managers-and support personnel) **--Based :6n'ih~' fees in the new Water Protecti~in Ordinance -' *** Based' 6'~ the proposed.fees .~: --." allocation of County of Albemarle , Engineering & Public Works Department Revised Erosion & Sediment Control Fee Schedule Analysis of Cost Impact on Housing, Single Family Home in a Non-Residential Development past $0 Total Cost Increase = $25 per house Single Family'Home in a Residential Developmen~ Proposed, $25. Past Proposed $0 $10 plus ... ; A. Small Subdivision, five acres disturbed, two year duration, lO.lots Past Proposed Application Fee: $100 $I, 000 Cost Impact = $1,000 - $100 = $900 / 10 lots = $90 per house Total Cost Increase = $10 + $90 = $100 per house B. Medium Subdivision, ten acres disturbed, three year duration, 50 lots Past Proposed, Application Fee: $100 $1,750 Cost Impact = $1,750 - $100 = $1,650 / 50 lots = $33 per house Total Cost Increase = $I 0 + $33 = $43 per house C. Large Subdivision, 100 acres disturbed, four year duration, 400 lots Past Proposed Application Fee: · ' $100 $2,500 Cost Impact = ~;2,500- $100 = $2,400/400 lots = $6 per house Total Cost Increase = $10 + $6 '- $16 per house' Comme. rcial, one acre disturbed, one year duration .~ Past ,; Proposed Application Fee: $100 $$$0 Total C~st Increase = $$50- $100 = $250 per project , " AITACHllE~ 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FEES OF OTHER COUNTIES Agreement for Single Family Dwelling Plan for all other land disturbing activity Count), Unit Albemarle $10 - Residential Development $250 + $100/acre of disturbed area, not to exceed $2,500 (Proposed) $25 Non-Residential Development Annual Renewal Fee - $250 Augusta $10 $250 for up to one acre of disturbance $350 for 1-5 acres $500 for 5-15 acres $700 for over 15 acres · In addition: $100 for each sediment basin $50 for each stormwater conveyance channel ' $250 for each detention facility $100 if impacting live water course $50 Resubmital Fee Fluvanna $50 Subdivision & Trailer Parks: - $300 + $10/lot over 5 lots- $1,000 max Commercial Industrial: - $250 + $50/aere over 5 acres- $1,000 max Land Clearing/Seeding only: - $200 + $5/aere Greene $150 (6 mo. duration) Subdivisions & Trailer Parks: $250 (12 mo. duration) - $500 + 10/lot (6 mo. duration) - $750 + 15/lot (12 mo. duration) - $1,000 + 25/lot (18 mo. duration) Commercial/Industrial: - $500 + 50/dist acre (6 mo. duration) - $900 + 100/dist acre (12 mo. duration) - $1,200 + 150/dist acre (18 mo. duration) September 1998 -1- Madison . 0 $250 Nelson 0 $60 Orange $25 $200 + $80/acre up to $1,000 Spotsylvania $150 (6 mo. duration) Subdivisions & Trailer Parks: $250 (12 mo. duration) - $500 + lO/lot (6 mo. duration) - $750 + 15/lot (12 mo. duration) - $1,000 + 25/1ot (18 mo. duration) Commercial/Industrial: - $400 + 50/dist acre (6 mo. duration) - $800 + 100/dist acre (12 mo. duration) - $1,200 + 150/dist acre (18 mo. duration) Stafford 0 $250 + $100/acre, not to exceed $2,500 · Annual Renewal Fee - $250 File: mawyefe&s fee~ compafisonl.doc September 1998 -2- ATTA~ 5 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE · Depadment of Engineeflng & Public Works 401 MclnSre Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8O4) 296-5861 April 8, 1998 Re: Meeting to Discuss ProPosed Erosion Control Fees Dear Developer, Consultant, Contractor, Environmentalist or Concerned Citizen: l ,'un Writing to invite you to parttc~pat¢ m a roundtablc dmcusston of the County s Erosion and Sediment Control program. Significant changes have occurred this year with the retirement of tho County's first and only Erosion Control Officer, Mr. Robert Shaw, as well as the adoption of a new Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Article II of tiao Comprehensive Water Resources Ordinance). The new ordinance has a more cost effective approach tdthe collection of erosion control plan review and site inspection fees. Formerly, this office issued montlfly bills to tho~e owners which required site inspections that month. The new ordinance minimizes this administrative expenseby requiring payment for periodic site inspections at the time of application for an erosion control permit. New erosion control application fees are proposed to implement this change in approach to fee collections, as well as to more accurately reflect the actual cost to the County of adnfinistering this program. The proposed fee schedule considers the number of acres included in a land-disturbing activity as well as the length of time the project will be active and require inspections. The number of'site inspections is established by State regulation to include initial, bi-weekly, after each storm event, and final inspections. The proposed erosion control fee schedule is attached for your review. The roundtable meeting to discuss the fees and other program issues has been scheduled for April 28, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. to be held in the County Office Building, Room 214. Please contact nay secretary, Ms. Sherry Short, to confirm your attendance. I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Sincerely, Wiili~er~ Director of Engineering & Public Works WIMJdss Attachment Copy: Jack I~elsey, Chief of Engineering Mark Hem'y, Senior Engineer Rick Huff, Deputy County Executive AI'~A~ 6 June 26, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARi Department of Engineering & Public Works 401 Mclnttre Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5861 Revised Erosion Control and Sediment Control Fees Dear Developer, Consultant, Contracto.r, Environmentalist or Concerned Citizen: Iam writing to invite Your comments on a revised Erosion and Sediment Control Fee Schedule. These fees will apply to all nonagricultural actiVities which disturb more than 10,000 SF of land area, and all single family dwellings in a residential development. A copy of the proposed fee schedule is enclosed, along with related historical and projected data addressing the cost to the County to administer the erosion control program, fee revenues and cost impacts to housing. Your comments are important to help us prepare a fee schedule which is fair to everyone living or working in our County. I in'ted many of you in the spring to a roundtable discussion ora proposed fee schedule. Several persons from the development and construction communities attended the meeting held on April 28, 1998 including Don France of The Kessler Group, Don Wagner of Great Eastern Management Company, Mike Wade and Bill Can'swell o£R. D. Wade Builders and Nat Perkins o£Hunter E. Craig Development. Along with representatives from the State Division of Soil ~d Water Conservation, who are responsible for making sure we comply with the State Erosion Control Law, we discussed many aspeet~ of our erosion and sediment control program, such as the requirement to inspect aH active projects biweekly, including single family dwellings. Our past practice has been to inspect projects on. an "as needed" basis and' to charge inspection fees only if the site was not in compliance with the approved erosion Control plan. Our current intent is to inspect active sites biweekly and to collect inspection costs in the application fee. The proposed fee schedule considers the number of acres included in a land-disturbing activity as well as the length o£time the project will be active and require impeetions. If you have suggestions to improve this fee schedule, please write or call me by July 31,1998. I plan to ask the Board of Supervisors to hold a public hearing to consider these fee changes in August. Thank you in advance for your participation this process which will enhance our ability to protect the streams and lands of our County. Sincerely, William I. Mawyer, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & Public Works ~F/SS Attachments Copy: Jack Kelsey, Chief et' Engineering Mark Henry, Erosion Control Administrator Rick Huff, Deputy County Executive Filc: mawyer\e&s fee letter, doe 7 091].0/98 '13:35 FAX 804 '[86 1798 SOIL'& ~¥ATER CONS. coMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA 'DEPARTMENT OF'CONSERVATION AND RECREATION · 203 Governor Street. Suite 206 ~ " Richmond. Virginia 23219.2094 ' Phonz (804) 7~&2064 FAX: (804) 785-1798 TDD (804) 786.2121 September 9, 1998 David O. BricMcy Mr. William I..Mawyer, Jr., P.E.' Director.of Engineering and Public Works. County ofAlbennarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlotteswille, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Mawyer: · ' Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed revision of Albemarle County's Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and fee structure. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) approves and commends your most recent proposed ordinance revision, structure, and hiring of additional staff resources. In addition, your continuous review and update of Albermarle County's Erosion and Sediment Control Program to ensure that staff resources, fee structures, and erosion and sediment control initiatives meet the locality's growing urbanization trends is also commendable. Your continuous review of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program is absolutely necessary to maintain consistency with the commonwealth of Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations. Localities such as Albemarle provide a stable platform with which to promote the successes of an Erosion and Sediment Control Program that truly protects the welfare of its' citizens and protects the locality'S and the Commonwealth's natural land and water resources. · Thank you for your support and implement~ttion of a successful Erosion and Sediment Control Program. Please feel free to contact myself or Laura Daniels with any 'questions or technical assistance,that we may be able to provide. Sincerely, · cc: Laura Daniels, DCR File ' otter . Erosion and Sediment Control program Manager, DCR ATTACBI~NT ~8 RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Section 35.0, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance is intended to collect fees to cover the costs of processing applications for zoning approvals; and WHEREAS, substantial new costs are anticipated to process applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 35.0, Fees, of the Zoning Ordinance to establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred in the review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to return its recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 4, 1998. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0-,2s,9 sP0 :48 cVD AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of intent to amend section 35,0 (Fees) of the Zoning Ordinance. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution of intent to initiate zoning text amendment to establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred in the review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Cilimberg BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: November 4, 1998 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY:/~/~~''~'~ IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: A contract awarded under RFP 97-24 will enable the County to use a consultant to assist the County in its review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits. The cost of review by the consultant is estimated to be as much as $5,000 per application. Section 35.0 of the Zoning Ordinance currently establishes a fee of $780 for the class of special use permit sought by wireless service providers. DISCUSSION: Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6) authorizes the County to collect fees to cover the cost of filing or processing an amendment (including a special use permit) to the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants for wireless telecommunications special use permits typically submit technical and siting information pertaining to, among other things, the area to be served by the propose(~ facility, the existing level of service, the estimated level of service after the facility is operating, alternative sites, and structural heights and designs. Because this information is often beyond the expertise of County staff, a consultant hired under RFP 97-24 would review this information, or conduct an independent evaluation of the application, and make recommendations to County staff. The proposed resolution of intent would initiate a zoning text amendment to establish fees to recover the costs incurred by the County arising from the consultant's review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits. Staff has met and developed the following three options: A fiat fee for each application. Under this option, the consultant would conduct the same review for each application, regardless of the nature of the proposed facility. The fee may be as much as $5,000 for each application. A multi-tiered fee for each application, based on the required level of review by the consultant for that application. The level of review by the consultant would be based on staff's review of the application, the type of wireless facility proposed, and the level of information submitted by the applicant. The maximum possible fee would be collected at the time the application is filed and a portion of the fee paid by the applicant would be refunded to the applicant if less than the most comprehensive review by the consultant were required. It is anticipated that the ballpark fee would be $1,500 for a Level I review, $3,000 for a Level II review, and $5,000 for a Level III review. The exact amount of such fees to be set out in the ordinance will be dependent upon further discussion with the consultants to assure the County will recover the review costs. A multi-tiered fee for each application which, like Option 2, would be based on the required level of review by the consultant for that application. Unlike Option 2, which would enable staff to determine the appropriate level of review on a case-by-case basis, the level of review by the consultant under this Option would be based on fixed criteria that apply to the type of wireless facility proposed. The criteria could best be established after Kreines and Kreines has completed its work and wireless telecommunications policies and regulations have been adopted. For example, a Level I fee might be established for facilities collocating on existing structures. A Level II fee might be established for "tree top towers." A Level III fee might be established for r~ew facilities other than treetop towers, such as monopoles or lattice structures that exceed the tree line. The Level III review would be the most comprehensive and command the highest fee. Without existing wireless telecommunications policies and regulations, however, staff believes that this option is problematic. For example, the collocation of multiple AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of intent to amend section 35.0 (Fees) of the Zoning Ordinance. November 4, 1998 Page 2 antenna on an existing structure (which would trigger a Level One review) may require heightened review if it is in a highly sensitive area; the construction of a 150 foot tall lattice structure (which would trigger a Level III review) in a mountain area may not warrant Level III review because the proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to initiate a zoning text amendment to establish fees to recover the cost of consulting services incurred in the review of applications for wireless telecommunications special use permits pursuant to Option 2. The amount of the fee specified in the ordinance for each level of review will be calculated and set at a level projected to recover the average review costs. 98.244 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Mawyer Director of Engineering and Public Works Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~// November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors discussed the status of the Comprehensive Plan on community facilities in the Crozet area. Board members requested Engineering provide them with a copy of the summary of the Adaptive Reuse of the Old Crozet Elementary School study. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know what the Code requirements would be to bring the Old Crozet School building up to standards to meet ADA requirements, fire safety, etc., and the cost for such improvements. He also suggested the Planning Commission look into the feasibility of making the building something more permanent, ie., a library or school, and the cost for such a project. /ewc Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Rick Huff COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMAR¥, .... : j~ RCVL) AGENDA TITLE: Status of Comprehensive Plan on Community Facilities in the Crozet Area. SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To provide information pertaining to recommendations regarding facility improvements in Crozet, specifically those identified in the Crozet Community Study. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Benish, AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: x CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.: ~/~'~"~'-"'-'"~ BACKGROUND: In 1992, the County began to develop community level studies/plans for each of the Urban Area Neighborhoods, Communities, and Villages in the Land Use Plan. These Plans are to be used as general guiding documents to supplement the recommendations established in the Land Use Plan by providing more definitive recommendations regarding land use and physical development issues. To date the County has developed two neighborhood/community level plans, the Crozet and Neighborhood Three (Pantops) Studies. Further development of community level plans was suspended during the update of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan (the Crozet and Pantops Studies are included by reference in the adopted Land Use Plan). Since the adoption of the Land Use Plan, the Board has established the DISC Community to develop a vision and guidelines for future development of the Development Areas. The continuation and enhancement of the neighborhood planning process is seen as an essential implementation tool for the DISC initiatives. The Crozet Community Study was adopted in March, 1995. The study was prepared by the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development under the direction of a 13-member committee appointed by the County Supervisor representing Crozet. The committee consisted of citizens who lived and worked in the Crozet area. The purpose of the Study is outlined in its prologue: "1) to establish at the community scale a more detailed oriented plan; 2) to support and further emphasize the development of the Community in a manner consistent with the wishes of the citizens of Crozet; 3) to establish a process for public participation in the planning process; and, 4) to become a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan and be used to guide growth and development in the Community (p. ii)." In addition to the Crozet Community Study developed by staff and citizens of Crozet, students from the University of Virginia prepared a study for the Adaptive Reuse of the Old Crozet Elementary School. This study was prepared in the summer of 1997 for the County Department of Engineering & Public Works. The report discusses several different options for this building ranging from public use options, the sale of the property to private interests, maintaining the building for future needs and uses, and the demolition of the existing building. This report should prove to be very helpful to us as we determine the appropriate and best use for this property in the future. A copy of the report is available in the Department of Engineering & Public Works for your review, if desired. DISCUSSION: The recommendations of the Crozet Study focused primarily on establishing guidelines and standards for development in Crozet; proposing changes to the Land Use Plan and/or zoning and subdivision ordinances; and, identifying physical improvements related to public facilities, infrastructure and spaces. Many of the recommended iENDA TITLE: ;tatus of Comprehensive Plan on Community Facilities in the Crozet Area. ~ovember 4, 1998 Sage 2 physical improvements would required County funding well in excess of that currently set aside in the Neighborhood Plan Fund in the County's CIP. Total funding allocated in the CIP for Neighborhood Plan implementation (Pantops and Crozet) is $70,000; the FY 1999/00 Draft Plan proposes $60,000 for this purpose. Attached are excerpts from the Crozet Plan highlighting most of the major recommendations which would be implemented as public projects, thus requiring public funds such as CIP funds, VDOT Six Year Road funds, or other sources (these projects are noted with an asterisk). RECOMMENDATION: This report is provided for information only. No action is required of the Board. 98.242 A. DOWNTOWN SECTION The downtown area is defined generally as an area located east of Carter Street. west of Con Agra. south t¥om the rescue squad building and north of Park Road (see Map L). Downtown Crozet Goal Statement The Crozet Community envisions the creation o fa unique, physically unified and vibrant downtown that will be the social, cultural and economic heart of the community. This will be accomplished through the'development o fa pedestrian accessible downtown with a mix o fuses. This includes homes varying in size and type, street level shops and offices, all within walking distance of one another. The downtown will consist of an efficient sidewalk system, public spaces, attractive new buildings that are compatible with existing development and preservation of old buildings. New development and improvements will deemphasize the automobile both visually and functionally, and architectural and site design will reflect traditional building styles and the historic townscape. The Central Business Area. located around the railroad underpass including the buildings along Crozet Avenue, the Fruit Growers Warehouse and library is the _focal point of the downtown. This is the area where Crozet began and is still the economic center of the downtown. The Central Business district should be celebrated and become the centerpiece of downtown, receiving special recognition in the form of physical improvements highlighting this area. Objectives In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives outline the policies for Downtown Crozet. Economic Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area and the focal point of the Crozet Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown as opposed to Route 250. Establish an overall strategy to support and develop retail growth in the downtown area. Such a strategy includes retail retention and attraction. Contextual Transform the downtown into an "Urban Village" with the railroad underpass, Square, library, post office, and Blue Goose area as its focal point. Encourage residential uses to locate in and near downtown to increase pedestrian activity and make the area more vibrant. Provide residential units in the downtown through the reuse of existing structures, particularly upper floors. 18 people more frequently and hold them as long as possible by creating reasons to come and to stav downtown. Recommendations All Districts - The following are recommended strategies for developing and supporting retail growth in Downtown Crozet. The Crozet Arts and Crafts festival is well recognized and highly regarded throughout the state and region. Crozet should capitalize on the arts theme by encouraging/allowing retail and studio space in upper stories of existing buildings in the downtoWn area. Also. reuse of existing buildings (i.e., warehouses) should .be encouraged for studio and retail space for artists. Define specific retail retention and attraction targets. Coordinate special retail promotions and sales events to increase awareness and frequency of downtown shopping opportunities. Create a volunteer maintenance group to ensure the shopping area is clean and attractive. Coordinate a system for tracking retail sales and other leading indicators of retail performance. Update and maintain an inventory of available retail space for lease, purchase or development. Implementation The business owners, possibly in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, should develop a comprehensive retail plan. The plan should address the strategies above. New Sidewalks in Downtown To create a downtown that will attract people and foster economic interaction, it is essential to encourage people to move into and through the downtown on foot. Recommend ations These improvements are prioritized as follows: l) Construct a sidewalk at the east side of Crozet Avenue from Tabor Street to the existing sidewalk along the Square. 23 --~ 2) ~ 4) ~' 6) Construct a sidexvalk on the east side of Crozet Avenue from the railroad bridge north to the new elementary school. Construct a sidewalk on the north side of Jarman's Gap Road from Blue Ridge Avenue to Crozet Avenue. Construct a sidewalk along Carter Street and Blue Ridge Avenue. Construct a pedestrian connection through the middle of the Carter Street/Crozet Avenue Block. Improve the curb cuts in the downtown to make them accessible to the physically challenged, (See Transportation Section p. 46 for recommended sidewalk improvements community wide.) Width of New Sidewalks * Central Business District - 6' or greater, if possible. * General Business District - 5' Mixed Use District - 5' Pedestrian Crossings (See Transportation Section p. 47.) Maintenance, Repairs and Improvements * Maintain sidewalk along Three Notch'd Road by periodically clearing weeds and other growth off the sidewalk. Widen existing sidewalks in the Central Business District. Install guardrail at sidewalk along the Square. Improve sidewalks under the railroad underpass through repaving and. providing curbs. Repair sidewalk along Tabor Street. Repair sidewalk in front of the Blue Goose. Paving Central Business District - A special sidewalk treatment should be considered such as the unidecor pattern shown in Illustration 1. General Business District and Mixed-Use District - Concrete sidewalks Illustration 1 Implementation Funding of Pedestrian Improvements The funding of pedestrian circulation improvements may be realized through the following sources: - Community Contributions (fundraiser); - Federal Funds (ISTEA); - Developers' Contributions; - County's Capital Improvement Program. 25 Maintenance The Community should establish a citizens group to help maintain sidewalks. Responsibilities would mainly include clearing, cleaning and minor repairs. Plant Materials_ Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road serve as the main roadways into Downtown Crozet. Ideally, there should be a strong sense of beginning at entrance points into downtown and visual clues which repeat down the length of the corridor to help reinforce the sense of destination. Plant materials (trees and flowers) should be the principle element of continuity. The illustration plan recommends location, of plantings and type of plants to be utilized (i.e. wildflowers, small flowering trees, larger tree). In the Central Business District, smaller flowering trees are recommended to help create a more human scale. Many of these trees will be planted along the roadway edge (street trees) and incorporated into the sidewalk. Recommendations The base of street trees in the Central Business District will incorporate ivy with xvickets or tree grates similar to the illustrated below. / Illustration 2 2~ Acceptable tree plantings in the Central Business District include: Genus/Species Ceridiphyllum j aponicum Comus florida Cercis canadensis Chionanthus virginicus Common Name Katsura tree White Flowering Dogwood Redbud White Fringe Tree Plantings in the General Business District/Mixed-Use Districts should consist of larger trees and wildflowers common to the area. Acceptable tree plantings in these districts include: Genus/Species Quercus macrcarpa Quercus rubra Acer saccharum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus americana Common Name Bur Oak Northern Red Oak "Green Mountain" Sugar Maple "Marshall's Ash" "Autumn. Applause" Ash Implementation Funding of Plantings Possible sources for the funding of plantings include: - County's Capital Improvements Program; - Grants available through the Department of Forestry; Revenue Sharing Funds; - Federal Funds (ISTEA); - Developers' Contributions; - Community Contribution (fundraiser). Maintenance of Plantings Consider maintaining plantings within the VDOT right-of-way through the County's Parks and Recreation Department. Plantings outside the right-of-way will either be maintained by the property owners or by the Parks and Recreation Department. In order for plantings outside VDOT's right-of-wav to be maintained an easement would need to be obtained by the County. The use of Garden Clubs and other civic organizations for maintenance would be preferred in 27 examples of acceptable building styles and scale and provide these examples to the ARB in the form of illustrations. This will provide the ARB with a framework and a reference source when evaluating proposals within the downtown area. Also. it ts recommended that modifications to the Zoning Ordinance be implemented to ensure that new development in the downtown has the flexibility to adhere to the guidelines above (especially that outside the EC Overlay District). This may take the form of modification to the existing zoning district, creation of an overlay district or an entirely new district. Parking One of the most important issues in making the downtown a quality place for people is the design and location Of parking. Downtown cannot have a pedestrian orientation and continuity of street level activity and building style if parking continues to be provided in its current manner. Although an adequate supply of convenient parking is essential, it must minimize the land area required and not be located between the street and business when possible. Parking shared by uses with variable peak demand periods can be used more efficiently than parking dedicated exclusively for one use. Shared parking opportunities must be taken into account in defining appropriate off-street parking ratios for the downtown area. Opportunities to reduce parking requirements for establishments in the downtown should be considered. Short term centralized parking for the public should be an option that is further explored. Recommendation All Districts - Parking should only be provided at the side and rear of buildings. The visual impact of parking areas upon the downtown character should be reduced through landscape buffers. Parking lots should be screened along lots lines. Within parking areas, trees shall be planted in planters or medians protected by curbing and shall be-evenly spaced and planted ara rate of one tree for every ten parking spaces. Such trees shall measure at least two and one-half inches in caliper (measured six inches above the ground). Centralized parking is encouraged. Also, consideration should be given to reducing parking requirements for new construction and or redevelopment. Implementation The previous section recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be modified to address building setback/style. The modifications should also address the parking concerns outlined in this section. The County should investigate the possibility of securin~ and providing a central _parking lo--t in Downtown Crozet for short term customers. A centralized lot would give the County more justification to reduce the current on-site parking requirements. New parking lots within the EC District are already subject to some of the recommended requirements listed above. 3O ~ccessorv ~9tructures and Equipment Loading areas, service areas, mechanical equipment, etc. not only create an unsightly . view from the roadway but also can create an eyesore to the residents that live adjacent to the downtown area. The ARB generally requires tl~at accessory structures and equipment be screened from the corridor:'however, the Board has no control over the rear of buildings not visible from an EC roadway. As a result, the possibility exists that accessory structures and equipment may be visible from residential areas. Recommendation All Districts - Loading areas, service areas, refuse areas, storage yards, mechanical equipment and the like shall be screened from the road corridor and any surrounding residential uses with vegetation, or in the case of equipment on roofs, hidden by roof lines. Implementation The Zoning Ordinance should be modified to address this concern. _Street Furniture/Lighting The streetscape has potential to define a clear identity through the consistent use of well designed light standards, benches, trash receptacles, etc. Recommendations Trash Receptacles - Trash receptacles shall be placed every 60 feet in highly traveled pedestrian areas. Trash receptacles shall not intrude into pedestrian pathways and should be of a similar style to those shown in Illustration 4. Street Benches - Street benches shall be of a similar style to those shown in Illustration 4 and Illustration 5. Lighting - Lighting in the Central Business District will be achieved by the use a fixture similar to that illustrated in Illustration 7 and approximately 18' above the sidewalk. Lights will be in accordance to VDOT standards. Any new lighting should be direct, that is, not produce a halo effect that would be detr/mental to surrounding residential properties. 31 Illustration 7 Implementation Funding of Street Furniture/Lighting Possible sources for the funding of street fumirare and lighting include the following: - Community Contribution (fundraisers); - Federal Funds (ISTEA); - Developers' Contributions; - Capital Improvements Program. Maintenance of Street £urniture/£ighting The Community should establish a maintenance group which periodically empties trash containers. Street benches should be maintained by the County's Parks and Recreation Department. Streetlights will be maintained by VDOT. Signs play an influential role in determining the degree of visual continuity in the downtown. - o. vided a.t a relat, ively low. cos.t and w.,th~n a relatively short period They c.an be pr crmcal, to yield highly dramatic results Consistency in the design m the s~ze, design and the placement of signs is Recommendations Gateways: In order to announce significant · . gatewavs shall be given s,-~:-, ..... entrance points ~nto Downto,~,,, ,-' ..... · ' p,.,.~al arrentlon hvn,,~.k .: ..... "-- ,-.iu.c=t, lm ortan t .... ,~, a~,n~..~g~., important gateways are l~no Three Notch'd Road near Con Agra, along Crozet Avenue near its intersection with Jarman's Gap Road south of the railroad underpass, and near the Rescue Squad north of the railroad underpass. Location of these gateways are illustrated on the enclosed schematic plan. Directional Signage - Improvements are needed in downtown directional signage. A new coordinated system of "trailblazer" signs should be implemented to guide motorists to points of interest (i.e. the Square, Crozet Park, future centralized parking). Trailblazer signs are generally brightly colored and uniformed signs that provide clear direction to motorists and pedestrians. An example of such signage is shown on the next page. 35 Illustration 8 Implementation Crozet should attempt to have the signs donated to the Community, possibly by a local business. The County Parks and Recreation Department can install the signs. Public Space A public space located in the downtown can serve as a significant identity builder. If the space is truly a visual focal point and an activity center, it can become a powerful symbol. Downtown Crozet is lacking in adequate public open spaces. The area around Windham has the potential to serve as a central point; however, the sidewalk area would need to be increased and the area enhanced. Recommendation Consider enhancing the area around Windham by installing street furniture and landscaping. Install a kiosk at this location to provide a directory of downtown businesses and a map for visitors. New developments should be encouraged to incorporate public open space. 3~ Implementation Funding of ?ub/ic Space Possible funding sources fbr the funding sources include: Community Contribution (fundraisers); Federal Funds (ISTEA); Developers' Contributions; Capital Improvements Program. Historic Resources Historic preservation represents a public response to the accelerated loss of older buildings and their replacement with more anonymous structures with parking lots in front. Such changes threaten to destroy Crozet's heritage and the unique character that makes Crozet attractive and comfortable. Currently, there are no Virginia Landmarks or National Register designations in Downtown Crozet. The downtown area has not been surveyed, find it is difficult to ascertain the potential historic significance of the buildings in the downtown.. A survev could help the Community decide which buildings should remain. ' Recommendation Ail Districts - A survey of the downtown area should be completed immediately to determine potential historic structures. Implementation The County should attempt to secure funding from the Department of Historic Resources to conduct a detailed survey on historic sites in Albemarle County. Downtown Crozet should be a high priority since a survey has never been completed for this area. Also, the University should be contacted to explore the possibility ora student prepared inventory of the area. Downtown Housing Housing is an important component of a vibrant and strong downtown economy. A residential population creates an extended cycle of activity and provides a ready market for retail uses. Public improvements (i.e. streetscape) can play a key role in creating a desirable living environment to spur investment in the renovation and construction of residential units. 37 Recommendations * Renew interest in the urban village lifestyle and historic architecture by providing opportunities for reasonably priced housing through the conversion of buildings such as the warehouse and of second floors over the top of existing businesses. * Encourage housing in and around the downtown. * Place emphasis on providing owner occupied units. Implementation The County needs to provide incentives in the zoning ordinance that encourages conversion of vacant commercial structures to residential use. especially the top floor. Flood Prevention The citizens of Crozet have periodically expressed concern about excessive runoff following storm events in the downtown area. Most new growth in Crozet will likely occur outside of the downtown area. However, due to an anticipated mix of new commercial construction, as well as some revitalization, additional demand may be placed on the existing downtown stormwater drainage system. The Albemarle County Engineering Department is responsible for inventorying flood prone urban areas throughout the County, as well as performing studies on chronic stormwater drainage problem areas. Upon citizen request, the Department performs a site-specific study on the problem area. The engineering study will analyze problems through extensive field data collection, determination of study area boundaries, and overalI hydraulic analyses. If it is determined that the existing stormwater drainage system requires modification or improvement, the Department may initiate discussion with the representative member on the County Board of Supervisors. The member may then offer a vote to the Board for inclusion of the stormwater drainage problem as a capital improvement. If the Board agrees to the motion, then the recommended improvement(s) will be made part of the county's overall Capital Improvement Plan. The County is currently beginning a Master Drainage Plan for the County, including Crozet in anticipation of the new EPA and State of Virginia stormwater management regulations. This study will identify and recommend the correct drainage problems from existing and future development. Recommendation * Implement drainage improvements in Crozet as determined in the Master Drainage Plan for the County. Implementation Fund new projects through the stormwater management fund and the CIP. Railroad Crossing In December of 1993 a resident and an employee of Windham were struck and killed by a train near the library at a familiar crossing. The following recommendations should be implemented to eliminate this crossing area (see Map M). Recommendations * Construct a fence along the northern portion of the Square parking lot. * Extend the existing fence east of the library to a point past the existing foot path. Implementation Request the Board of Supervisors write a letter to the railroad company requesting that the company put up a fence or grant the County permission to construct a fence at this location. 39 D. Transportation Transportation Goal Statement Develop an accessible transportation system designed to provide a satisfactory level of service with minimal environmental impact and community disruption. Efforts should focus on designing a balanced transportation system that includes commuter and bus transportation systems, rapid rail into the City, sidewalks, bikepaths and greenways. Roadways The Community generally concurs with the recommendations for road improvements in the Comprehensive Plan (see background section), except for the development of the Route 240/250 connector road. The Brookwood, Parkview and Crozet Mobile Home neighborhoods strongly oppose the construction of the connector road due to the fact that the traffic, especially truck traffic would disrupt the lifestyle of the people living in the area. Residents living in these subdivisions forwarded a petition to the Crozet Study Committee requesting that the recommendation for a R6ute 240/250 connector road be removed from the Comprehensive Plan. BaSed on this public comment, the Committee recommends that a connector road be removed from the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is recommend that a residential service road from Park Road to Route 250 be constructed. This connection is intended to allow for better access, particularly emergency access to those residents living in Brookwood. Parkview and the Crozet Mobile Home Park. The road should be designed for a 25 mph. speed limit with curvature design to slow down traffic. Recommendation Remove the recommendation for a Route 240/250 connector road from the Comprehensive Plan. Add a recommendation to construct a residential service road connecting Park Road to Route 250. The road should be designed for a 25 mph speed limit. Implementation The Route 240/250 connector road should be removed as a recommendation for the Crozet Community during the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan. Sidewalks, Crosswalks and Greenwa. vs Sidewalks are the most safe and familiar form of pedestrian accommodation. Due to the expense of installation, the possible new construction of any sidewalk should be closely evaluated before 48 - Orchard Acres/Powell's Creek Recreation Area (possible future park area). The existing sidewalks include: - West side of Routes 240 & 810 from Jarmans Gap Road to the old Crozet Elementary; - North side of Jarmans Gap Road from Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) to Carter Street. - East side of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue), near the Square; - A short portion of sidewalk on the north side of Tabor Street; - North side of St. George's Avenue from Route 810 (Crozet Avenue) to the Crozet Baptist Church. Construction of sidewalk improvements shall be prioritized based on the distance of the project from the focal point of the downtown area (railroad underpass, Square, Windham, etc.). The recommended sidewalk projects located within a half mile radius of the focal Point have the highest priority for construction. Those projects located within a half-mile to three-forth mile radius of the focal point have a second priority. Finally, those projects outside a three-forth mile radius will have a third priority. Recommendations The proposed sidewalks include (see Map P): Construct a sidewalk on the east side of Crozet Avenue from Oak Drive to the existing sidewalk along the Square. This will provide residents living in Parkview and Brookwood. as well as those working and visiting the business area, more direct access to the downtown. Construct a sidewalk on the east side of Crozet Avenue from the railroad bridge north to the new Crozet Elementary School. This will provide direct access to the new elementarv school and downtown for those residents living in Wayland Park. Construct a sidewalk on the west side of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) from the Meadows north to Jarmans Gap Road. This will provide residents living along Crozet Avenue safer access into downtown. This project should be completed in conjunction with the upgrade to Route 240. Construct a sidewalk or pathway on the south side of Three Notch'd Road from its intersection with Crozet Avenue to a point past the old train station. This will improve pedestrian circulation to the commercial area along Three Notch'd Road and hopefully eliminate the need to cross the railroad tracks near the old train station. Construct a sidewalk or provide a striped area on the north side of Three Notch'd Road from Crozet Avenue to the existing sidewalk. This will improve pedestrian circulation in SO the commercial area along Three Notch'd Road. Construct a sidewalk on the north side of Route 240 (Three Notch'd Road) from the existing sidewalk to a point near the intersection of Three Notch'd Road and the proposed Route 240/250 connector. Construct sidewalks on both sides of Three Notch'd Road from the Mechums River residential development to the proposed Route 240/250 connector road. This will provide residents living in the Mechums River Subdivision and other existing and future residential areas safe pedestrian access along Route 240. This project should be completed in conjunction with the planned road improvements. Construct a sidewalk on the north side of Jarmans Gap Road fi.om Route 684 to Blue Ridge Avenue. This will provide residents living along Jarmans Gap Road in Jarmans Gap Estates and Omhard Acres safe and direct access into the downtown. Construct sidewalk or pathway on the north side of Railroad Avenue and Mint Springs Park Road from the downtown to Mint Springs Park. This will provide residents safer access to the park and the downtown. Construct a sidewalk on the north side of Tabor Street and Park Road fi'om the existing sidewalk on Tabor Street, past Crozet Park to the Route 240/250 connector road. Construct sidewalks along the Route 240/250 connector road. This will provide future residential developments in this area access to Three Notch'd Road and C rozet Park. Construct a sidewalk or pathway on the west side of Crozet Avenue from the existing sidewalk that terminates at the old Crozet Elementary School to its intersection with White Hall Road (Route 789). This will provide residents living in the northern part of the Community direct access to the schools and downtown. Construct sidewalks on the east side of White Hall Road from its intersection with Crozet Avenue to its intersection with Railroad Avenue. This will result in the connection e f the exi sting sidewalk and provide residents living in the northern part of the Community future pedestrian access to the downtown, Mint Springs Park, and the schools. Provide sidewalks along the northern portion of St. George's Avenue from the Church to White Hall Road. This will permit a future connection with the recommended sidewalk along Whitehall Road. Implementation Consider funding projects through the County's Capital Improvement Projects and through developer contributions. Projects should be built in conjunction with road projects whenever -!~iMINT SPRINGS PARK / / ELEMENTARY INDUSTRIAL/ ~COMMERCIAL, ~..AREA/ CROZET COMMUNITY STUDY PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVMENTS ) / · 240 ~ ~-~.,~.~THE MEADOWS ~. HENLEY M. S.t BROWNSVILLE ELE ALBEMARLE H. ./ ~FUTURE PARK !iii~ ATTRACTOR AREA c~ c~ c~ c~ u EXISTING a · · · · PRIORITY I ........ PRIORITY II (~) CROSSWALK * * * * PRIORITY III ~PP ] possible to reduce cost to the County. Crosswalks Crosswalks should be clearly marked and maintained. The following areas should be considered for new crosswalks and crosswalk improvements. Recommendations New crosswalks and crosswalk improvements are recommended at the following locations (see Map P): - Crozet Avenue at the elementary schools; - Improve the existing crosswalk on Crozet Avenue between the Windham and the Square; - Crozet Avenue at St. George Avenue; - Crozet'Avenue at the Blue Goose/post office area; - Crozet Avenue at Lickinghole Creek (after greenway is constructed); - Three Notch'd Road between the railroad' underpass and the Fruit Growers Warehouses; - Three Notch'd Road at its intersection with the proposed Route 240/250 connector road; - Route 250 between Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School. Implementation Request VDOT to provide crosswalk at the locations above. Greenways The intent of greenways are to protect the stream corridors, while providing pedestrian and recreation opportunities. The majority of any trails constructed will be in a manner similar to the Appalachian Trail or the trails at the Ivy Creek Natural Area. However, around park areas, portions of the trail should be designed so that they may be accessible by physically and mentally challenged users. The County is in the process of developing a Greenway Plan for the County.. This Plan will include a design phase which addresses trail surfaces, widths, signage, access points, etc. Any new trails in Crozet shall adhere to these standards. It is hoped that as development occurs, developers will either donate land. provide easements or develop portions of the trail as amenities to the neighborhood. Recommendations 52 Greenways are recommended at the following locations (see Map Q): * Construct a greenway along Slabtown Branch from Crozet Avenue to the Brownsville/Henley School complex. Construct a greenway along Powell Creek from Jarmans Gap Road to Crozet Avenue where it will connect to a future sidewalk. Construct a greenway along Lickinghole Creek from the sedimentation basin to a point south of the Brookwood Subdivision. Explore the 'possibility of providing access to the greenway from Brookwood. Construct a greenway along Parrot Branch from the'new Crozet Elementary School to the Beaver Creek Reservoir, then east along the southern edge of the reservoir to a point near the parking lot. The greenways will be maintained by the County's Park and Recreation Department. Groups like the Crozet Community Association should consider sponsoring clean up days. Also, consideration should be given to the formation ora group similar to that formed for the Ivy Creek Natural Area. This group could assist in maintaining the greenway and sponsoring nature hikes and field trips. Implementation * Through the Departments of Planning and Community Development and Parks and Recreation, complete a detailed plan for developing the greenway. Proposed greenways should be displayed on the topographic maps that can be overlaid by tax maps. This will all-ow property owners to better evaluate the impact of the greenway on the their property. Contact property owners along the proposed greenway corridors about the project and allow comment on the plan before it is approved by the County. * Encourage future residential developments to construct portions of the greenways as amenities to the development. Encourage property owners to .dedicate easements along creeks to allow for construction ora future greenwav. Possibly fund the greenway through available Federal and State grants or throug~ the County's CIP. Trq~Tqc Signals The installation of traffic signals will provide a greater flexibility in managing traffic flows and providing increased safety at intersections. Traffic signals are recommended to be installed at the locations below and are prioritized as followed (see Map R): Recommendations 1) 2) 3) Intersection of Crozet Avenue and Route 250. Intersection of Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road. Intersection of Three Notch'd Road and Route 250. Implementation Request VDOT to consider installing traffic signals at the locations above. Street lighting will enhance the overall safety of nighttime pedestrians in the Crozet Community. As the incidence of vehicular traffic and evening pedestrian traffic increase, street lighting should be considered. The County uses the criteria listed below to locate possilsl~ street lighting projects: - at intersections carrying a high volume of nighttime pedestrian traffic; - at locations of frequent evening activities; - along sidewalks utilized by pedestrians after dark; - at bus stops, particularly those away from major roads and near sources of nighttime activity. Crozet currently has adequate street lighting between the intersection of Crozet Avenue and Jarman's Gap Road to the south, and the intersection of Crozet Avenue and Three Notch'd Road to the north. St. George's Avenue west of Crozet Avenue also currently has adequate street lighting. In addition to these locations, the following are recommended areas for future streetlights (see Map S). Recommendations Street lighting is recommended at the following locations: * Jarmans's Gap Road (Rt. 691) between Half Mile Branch Road (Rt. 684) to the west and Crozet Avenue (Rt. 240) to the east. Crozet Avenue between Rt. 250 to the south and Jarman's Gap Road to the north. Proposed Rt. 240-250 connector road between Three Notch'd Road to the north and Rt. 250 to the south. Mint Springs Road (Rt. 684) between Rt. 788 to the south and Mint Spring Park to the north. WALDORF CROZET COMMUNITY STUDY PROPOSED GREENWAYS THE MEADOWS HENLEY M. S. ~ ELEMENTARY OMMERClAL ~REA ~ \ -\ ALBEMARLE H. S. ATTRACTOR AREA GREENWAY I MAPQ '] Crozet Avenue (Rt. 810 between St. George's Avenue (Rt. 202) to the south and Buck Mountain Road (Rt. 789) to the north. Implementation Review annually as part of the County's Capital Improvements Program the need for street lights in the Crozet Community,. Fund streetlight projects through the County's CIP. ._Commuter Rail Recently the Federal Government has begun to turn its focus to the provision of alternative transportation sources. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency, Act of 1992 and the Virginia Department of Public Transit provides the policy and economic stimulus for new thinking on transportation modes. One such mode is that of commuter rail. The City of Charlottesville serves as a major employment center and is expected to continue in this role. Escalating land prices and a decrease in available land in the Charlottesville/ Albemarle County Area are forcing people farther away from their work place. As a result, more people are commuting into work. Commuter traffic is overburdening roads such as Route 250 West into the City and making commuting by car more time consuming. Commuter rail into Charlottesville would allow for continued economic growth without the inevitable increases in traffic congestion and costs. At the same time, those people unable to afford living in the City and nearby County Urban Area will be afforded quick and convenient access into the Urban Area. Generally, commuter rail can extended up to 70 miles from its terminus point. Therefore, it is conceivable that one day areas such as Staunton and Waynesboro can be linked bv rail to Charlottesville. Typically, the first stops on commuter rail lines are approximatel'v 20 minutes from its terminus point. This makes Crozet a prime location for a future rail stop. There appears to be two general areas where a future commuter rail stop might be located. The first and preferred location is the area around the existing industrial uses near the proposed Route 240/250 connector road. This area could either be redeveloped or the vacant areas developed as a rail stop. The second location is the undeveloped area east of the Square and lumber yard. There is enough available acreage to provide a station house and adequate parking. The concern with this area is securing the necessary access to the property. If Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) is upgraded. there is a possibility that a turn lane may be constructed and access can be achieved by crossing the tracks. Also. if the Route 240/250 connector road is built, access to this property ~ould be achieved by building a road parallel to the tracks off of the connector road (see Map R). Recommendations 55 CROZET COMMUNITY STUDY PROPOSED STI~d~ETLIGHTS \v ./ General recom- mended location of st~eetlight pro- ject For the locations of existing streetiights see MAP K * Support and maintain railroad facilities for possible future commuter use. Any new development or redevelopment of sites should reserve the opportunity to construct a future stop or station. This can be achieved by reserving land for the construction of a future station or constructing a building type that would allow it to be converted into a rail station at a later date. Implementation The City, County and University, in conjunction with the Planning District, should prepare a comprehensive commuter rail study. ISTEA and VDPT funds should be utilized for construction of a commuter rail line. Park and Ride There are two types of park and ride lots: permanent park and ride lots and joint-use park and ride lots. Permanent Park and Ride A permanent park and ride facility is a lot that has been solely developed to accommodate the parking of vehicles from which people either shuttle by bus or train or carpool to work. This results in the reduction of traffic during peak traffic periods. General location criteria for a permanent park and ride lot are: - sufficient size to permit adequate parking and circulation; - minimize the cost of site development; - minimal impact to adjacent areas and existing traffic circulation. - convenient access and egress for buses and automobiles. Coupling commuter parking with carpooling, express bus or rail service to the University, downtown, and major points of employment in the City and County can reduce the number of automobiles on Route 250. Ifa permanent lot is to be located in Crozet the following elements are desired: 1) transit or rail service with 20 minute headways during peak hours; 2) reasonable bus or rail fare: 3) vigorous promotional campaigning; and 4) non stop service to points of destination. Joint-Use Park and Ride A joint-use park and ride lot is defined as a parking lot used to accommodate commuter vehicles during the day. The tot is usually privately owned, for example, by a church, lodge or shopping center. Peak demands for such lots are generally in the evenings and on weekends, obviously different from the needs of the commuter. An advantage the of joint- use parking lot is that it 56 allows the County the opportunity to gauge the success of a park and ride facility before making a commitment to a permanent park and ride facility. Advantages for the owner of the lot include possible general maintenance activities such as repaving and striping. Also, in the case of a shopping center, the name of the center would be used in promotional campaigns, and ridesharers are more likely to shop at the shopping center where they are parked (see Map R). Recommendation In the long term, consider constructing a permanent park and ride facility. In the short term, explore the possibility of a joint-use park and ride lot. Possible location of joint- park and ride lots include the lodge on Route 250, the commercial area on Route 250, and the industrial area on Route 240 (Three Notch'd Road ). Implementation Through the VDOT. CTS, and MPO, conduct a study on the location of permanent park and ride and joint-use park and ride lots in Crozet to serve the residents of the Crozet Community and western portion of the County. The County should petition VDOT to include the construction of a permanent lot into the State's Six Year Primary Road Plan. Also, undertake a general investigation for potential locations for a joint-use park and ride lot. Bicycle Facilities The Bicycle Plan makes recommendations for facilities in the Crozet area (see Background Section). In addition to those recommendations in the Bicycle Plan, the following facility is also recommended. Recommendation Construct a separated bicycle facility such as a bike lane or bicycle path along Jarmans Gap Road in conjunction with the planned road upgrade. Implementation Schedule and utilize CIP funds to construct the bicycle facility. 57 E. Public and Semi-Public Services and Facilities Public and Semi-Public Services and Facilities Goal Statement Public and semi-public services and facilities should be provided for residents in the Crozet Community in a manner that adequately supports the population. Objectives In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives outline policies for development of public/semi-public facilities. * The location of new facilities to serve Crozet and the surrounding rural population should be located within the Crozet Community boundary when practical. * Priority should be given to locating facilities on County-owned land in County-owned structures. * Related or complementary services shall be located in one complex when possible. Public Facilities The need for improved public services and facilities exists for this part of the County. Below is a status of public facilities and services offered in Crozet. Police Crozet is within Police Sector B. This sector ranges from Greene County to the north, Rockingham, Augusta and Nelson Counties to the west, Covesville to the south and the City of Charlottesville to the east. Currently, pOlice continuously patrol Sector B by automobile. The Community Facilities Plan recommends a police substation be considered for construction in Crozet to reduce response times to this sector. Library The Jefferson Madison Regional Library has indicated that it has outgrown its existing site. Circulation at the Crozet branch increased 29.2% from 1992 to 1993. Collection size is restricted due to limited space. Additional meeting room and computer space is also needed. In order to tDA standards, aisles will need to be widened and shelves lowered which will further reduce the amount of useable space. Also. parking is very limited at the site. Office office does not have adequate parking, and the current traffic circulation/parking pattern 58 is unsafe. The citizens of the Community have requested that the post office relocate to a larger and more user friendly site. Social Services The need exists for outreach social service in this portion of the County. Due to distance, it is difficult for citizens without transportation to travel into Charlottesville. Schools In 1994, enrollment for the schools in the Crozet Community were as follows: 1993 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Table #4 School Capacity Actual 1993 Projected 2003 Crozet Elementary 376 371 322 Brownsville 329 250 240 Henley 666 655 535 WAHS I,I 79 1,142 1,496 According to enrollment projections, elementary school enrollments will remain fairly stable over the next ten years. Once the new Sutherland Middle School opens, enrollments at Henley are projected to drop below capacity levels and remain stable. Enrollments at WAHS are projected to exceed capacity over the next ten years. However. the School Board is currently requesting funds to build a new high school, which if constructed would reduce enrollment levels at WAHS. However, if residential growth continues in Crozet at its current pace, these projections may have to be revised. ' The citizens of Crozet hold education in high regards. Schools provide academic; recreation. athletic and social opportunities to the children of the area. Future residential growth in the Community may have a negative impact on the quality of education due to larger class size and more demand for use of equipment and facilities. Therefore. the impact of residential growth on the school system needs to be fully considered. Solid Waste Disposal through Crozet is provided through the Ivv. Landfill. The Board of Supervisors recently adopted the Albemarle County Recycling Ordinance. The ordinance requires waste haulers to collect container glass, metal cans and plastic soda. milk and water bottles commingled in a translucent bag from residents wishing to participate. Effective September 24, 1994, newspapers (in a brown bag) will also be required. In the summer of 1994, a household hazardous waste drop off will be available one Saturday each month at the Ivy Landfill. Fire and Rescue Fire and Rescue response times to Crozet currently meet County standards. Parks and Recreation Park and Recreation services in Crozet currently meet County standards. The possibility exists to develop a passive park in and around the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin. The pool at Claudius Crozet Park provides an important social gathering place for the residents of Crozet, especially children. The Crozet Park Board operates and maintains the pool, deriving its funds from proceeds-from the Crozet Arts Festival and other similar events. The pool is in need of costly repairs which the Park Board can not fully fund. If the repairs are not made, the pool may need to be closed. Recommendations Conduct a feasibility study on providing public services (police, social service, health. library, etc.) at a centralized satellite facility in the Crozet Community. Include in this study a recommended site for the satellite facility. The County should maintain the old elementary school as a public building for use as a school or other public uses as necessary. Construct a police substation in the Crozet area. The substation could be located at the old Crozet Elementary School if the school use is ever discontinued, or at the old train station if the library, can find a larger building to locate. Locate and construct a new post office building in the Crozet Community, preferably in the downtown area that allows for efficient pedestrian and traffic circulation. The County Planning Department should coordinate with the U.S. Postal service to assist in the sighting of a new post office. Crozet Elementary should be the primary, elementary school that serves'the population in the Community and grow with the needs, of the Community. Monitor the curbside recycling program. If not successful, the location of a recycling center should be considered for Crozet. Explore the possibility of developing the Lickinghole Creek Basin as a passive recreation 6O or wildlife refuge area. The Crozet Park Board should consider submitting a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) request for funding from the County or seek other possible funding sources to make necessary repairs to the pool. Implementation Consider funding facilities through the Coun ,ry's CIP. ~emi-Public Facilities Cemetery A need exists in the Crozer Community for additional cemetery space. Rockgate Cemetery, located off of Crozet Avenue south of the downtown area, has traditionally been the cemetery of choice for residents in the area. At the current rate of sales, Rockgate cemetery will be at capacity within three years. Recommendation Secure additional cemetery space in or near the Crozet Community Boundary to meet the needs of the citizens. Implementation Currently, the County does not operate a cemetery. Members of the Community should create an association/organization to locate, acquire and develop land for a Community cemetery. As development occurs in Crozet. the County should apprise developers of this need and the organization responsible for this issue. Donations or reservation of land for future cemetery use may be possible. Da), Care Currently. a need for day care facilities exist in the Crozet area. The closest day care is located in Ivv. Recommendation The County should publicize the need for a dav care facility in Crozet. Implementation The County. should make developers aware of this need in the Community. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library 201 East Marker Street * Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-5287 · (804) 979-7151 · FAX (804) 971-7035 Mr. Thomas Loach, President Crozet Community Association 1255 Bayberry Court Crozet, VA 22932 ( December 8, 1993 / ) x...__~_ j j× Dear Mr. Loach: Mary Plum, Crozet Branch Head, forwarded the article you wrote for the Crozet Bulletin over a week ago. I also had an opportunity to look at the streetscape designs displayed in the library. I was impressed also with the results of the survey that placed the Crozet Branch Library so high on the list! As you mentioned in your article, the Crozet Branch Library is too small to serve the large western area of the county - and the limitations of the seven parking spaces available and nowhere to expand are real. You might be interested to know Crozet Branch Library's circulation of materials continues to increase greatly. As an example, the circulation fi,mares comparing November 1993 to November 1992 were up 29.2%. The collection size also is limited and the library simply cannot hold any more materials. In other words, except for the factor of the increase in circulation, for every book we add to Crozet we have to take one out which results in a static state collection size. As funding permits we may be able to add more evening openings or at best another story hour but that is all we will be able to do without more room. In addition to meet ADA requirements Crozet Branch Library's shelving is too high and our aisles are not wide enough for wheelchair access. The demand for expanded library services is growing in the Crozet community. We need more space for public access computers, more and more meeting room space for programs and community use. We have to hold our bigger children's programs at the Crozet Elementary School. You and the Crozet Community Association have the library's support for planning a larger library for the Crozet area. Please let me know - when the timing is appropt~iate - to provide you with more detailed library projections. Sincerely, Donna M. Selle Director DMS:dlg Serving Charlottesville..Albemarle Countx'. Greene Coum'. Louisa Countx'. and Nelson County ROUTE 3 8OX 188 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, C R 0 z E ', C H 0 0 L CROZET, VA 22932 ~ OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 804-823-4800 ~ December 28, 1993 ~. As principal of Crozet Elementary School, I was approached by a member of the Crozet Community Association and asked to give my opinion regarding the need for services to families in my school. I b~an to think about the last four years that I have been at Crozet and about some of ~he difficult situations that we have had to deal with regarding our children and their families. It truly has been hard to see the difficult situations that too many of our children have to experience: dysfunctional families, families in crisis, suicides, violence, alcoholism, custody battles, mental illness, financial hardships, health problems, incarcerated parents, and others. The Crozet area is probably no different than just about any other part of our country. We have seen an increase in numbers and intensity of the serious problems that our families experience. I recognize that the solution to such societal ills is not just more government service. It takes life-changing behaviors that will result in restored values, morals, responsibilities, and love. At the same time, I do believe that there aro some services that our county provides that are not easily accessible to many of the people in our school district who need it the most. Therefore, I would propose that consideration be made for establishing a satellite facility in the western Albemarle area that would bring the Social Services Department, Public Health Department, Region X, Family and Youth Services, and possibly other agencies within easier access to people who just do not make the drive into downtown Charlottesville to receive the help that is available. Because of our school setting, my staff and I often have the opportunity to come in contact with many troubled families. Our relationship with the child or children gives us a window into the home of so many families. Quite honestly, what we see inside that window is too frequently not pleasant at all. We are doing what we can to provide stability to these children and offering referral assistance to the families. We would very much look forward to strengthening our relationship with the other service agencies in our county. With a satellite facility in the western Albemarle area, we could provide better service to our most needy people. Sincerely, Steve Braintwain, Principal COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Amelia McCulley Zoning Administrator Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~~// November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors received your report on Zoning Enforcement Regulations. It was the consensus of the Board to support the following recommendations: 1) Continue a responsive program under the current philosophy with the goal of continual improvements in staff's work directly with the applicant and with the plan review process, inspection process and computer tracking system; 2) Through the budget process, staff to inform the Board of staffing impacts for various levels of service for increased enforcement; 3) Special permits not be singled out from the many other Zoning permit and plan approvals, if a new program is'initiated; and 4) The number of cases in which conditions specify a review or reinspection period be limited. ,/ewc cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Rick Huff COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS !0 21,98P02:00 RCVD ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Zoning Enforcement SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: Worksession ITEM NUMBER! INFORMATION: Discussion of monitoring prOgram fbr special permit aPprovals STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff and Ms. McCulley CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes j BACKGROUND: Recently as a result of zoning approvals for sites which are restricted with specific operating conditions and which may have a history of violation, the Board has asked staff to consider a system of ongoing inspection for comp lance. It is suggested that we initiate a procedure and schedule to actively ensure compliance on a continuing basis. Staff drafted a response (attached) which was carried forward from the October 7th consent agenda to this date for discussion. DISCUSSION: As the Board is aware, regardless of the staffing or the effectiveness of the enforcement program, zoning violations can not be completely eliminated. The question is: what is the most appropriate method by which we can achieve the highest level of compliance? Because the zoning application is checked for compliance when the use first begins, the cuestion is more defined as how can we best achieve compliance in the long term? Reaching this answer involves discussion about which zoning applications should be included in this program - site plans, zoning clearances, home occupation class A and all other zoning applications, or just special permits? Reaching the decision also involves issues of procedure and of adequate Staffing. Prior to having this discussion, the Board will need to address whether they wish to change to a proactive enforcement philosophy. Presently, for long-term compliance we rely on applications at a later date from owners, contract purchasers, leasees, etc. for approval of a change of owner, change of use and the like, to commence a zoning investigation. In addition, we respond to complaints raised by citizens who have concerns. In these respects, we are responsive in long-term enforcement. There is no accurate way to measure the number of violations that are not detected by this program. However, in reliance on the public we are responding to those items of general nuisance. In addition, we are attempting to strike the balance with enforcement as needed. Two continuing work program items that relate to improving this program are: 1. Providing better information to the applicants and public prior to and during the process through pre-application conferences, handouts and an application which is explicit as to the regulations. In addition, we are using approval letters that not only specify conditions but also list other relevant references such as a Zoning staff contact and deadlines for the approval. 2. Developing a computer database, tracking system and "tickler" for zoning applications. This question about our zoning enforcement program arose originally relating to a special permit. There have been 883 special permits approved (excluding mobile homes). Staff has calculated that approximately 10,000 staff hours would be needed to review each of these permits once. This translates to almost 5 staff to do special permits alone as an annual review and it does not account for permits increasing. (Please see attached information regarding current applications and trends in the attachments.) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we continue a responsive program under the current philosophy with the goal of continual improvements in our work directly with the applicant and with the plan review process, inspection process and computer tracking system. We recommend that through the budget process, staff inform the Board of staffing impacts for various levels of service for increased enforcement. We recommend further that special permits not be singled out from the many other zoning permit and olan approvals if a new prOgram is initiated. 'Finally, we suggest that the number of cases in which conditions specify a review or reinspection period be limited. 98.234 Building Code Information (804) 296-5832 COUNTY OF ALBEMARI .E Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 972-4126 TYD (804) 972-4012 Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator ~'~ DATE: September'22, 1998 Enforcement of Home Occupation Regulations and Conditions of Approval Several questions have recently arisen relating to the regulation of home occupations. These include the question of what performance standards are generally applicable and to what extent the applicant acknowledges acceptance of these requirements. An ongoing periodic inspection is suggested for a proactive compliance program. Zoning violations cannot be completely prevented nor can they all be detected, regardless of how many staff we have or how efficient we are. We attempt to strike the balance between reasonably and appropriately administering regulations and oppressive enforcement. Citizen-based complaint provides most of the information about noncompliance and nuisances. By this memo, I will explain the standards for operation to which all applicants agree. In addition, I will note measures, which are presently undertaken to ensure compliance and discuss, suggested enhancements to the enforcement program. Prior to the issuance of approval of a home occupation class A or B, the applicant must sign a statement indicating an understanding of and intent to comply with the six standard ordinance requirements (Sect. 5.2.2.2). One of these requirements includes compliance with all of the performance standards applied to industrial uses, such as maximum vibration, glare, air or water discharges (Sect. 5.2.2.1). A class B home occupation is only permitted by special permit and as such is routinely subject to conditions in addition to the ordinance requirements. The positive finding that a specific use may be approved for a particular location relies upon compliance with these special permit conditions that define and restrict the operation of that use. Depending on whether the use is new or an expansion of an existing use, whether it involves construction or does not, one or several processes may generate the opportunity to check for compliance with Conditions of approval relating to a zoning application. If a site has been in violation, there is also a compliance review by the Zoning Inspector who follows up to abate the file. The processes which initiate a compliance review include: 1_. Approval of a site plan or subdivision plat 2_. Issuance of a building permit - (New construction) Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Memorandum Page 2 3_. Issuance of a zoning clearance - (Any new business or change of owner will need a zoning clearance) 4_. Zoning compliance letter - (These are requested by a lending institution, owner or purchaser to verify the zoning approvals for property) Subsequent to the approval of a special permit, future applications for the property may cause a compliance rewew. We have a growing database of all prior zoning applications and are expanding a tracking system for those which are under review. In addition, we are working on developing improved calendar systems for the review and reminders of scheduled action or inspections. This scheduling includes items such as the submittal of annual reports on tower sites. Routine compliance inspections for designated sites would be problematic and are limited by available manpower. Furthermore, these inspections will not completely prevent and eliminate violations. We cannot distinguish which sites warrant proactive inspection while others are less likely to violate and may not. We could not justify enforcement which singles out one type of application (home occupation class B or some other zoning application) or just certain approval years. Let me further describe the zoning inspection program. As is typical in most localities, we rely to a great extent on citizen complaint to inform us of violations. Regardless of the number of staff, the Zoning Inspectors are practically prevented from being proactive in all of their enforcement areas by the size of the County. These same staff also inspect: new commercial sites for compliance with site plans; residential sites for accessory structures and applications for signs. They are the enforcement staff for all special permits, rezoning proffers, variances, signs, zoning clearances and accessory tourist lodging. Without more in-depth study it is impossible to know the numbers of approved and currently active applications; however, we do know that excluding site plans and the 2,000 or so new building permits per year, there have been over 14,000 zoning applications ever submitted. As a conservative estimate 6,000 plans have been submitted. The numbers of applications for building permits, variances, rezonings, special permits and signs have been trending upward and have greatly increased this year. There are as many as 300 home occupation class A permits approved in one year. New regulations such as the lighting ordinance expand the Zoning Inspectors' responsibilities. This illustrates the varied and increasing workload on the Inspectors. The majority of zoning enforcement originates from citizen complaint on violations that are not related to prior application approvals. The most common of these relates to cases involving junk cars or trash. These cases are labor-intensive and may result in legal action. Of the approximate 850 zoning applications and 2,000 building permits approved per year, the percentage which involve violations is the minority. As an example of the 67 special permits in 1997, about 5 were in violation. Those violations we know of are resolved through voluntary compliance or legal action. There are frequent circumstances in which we work cooperatively with the Police Department on a particular site or activity. In addition, they partner with us and provide a Police presence as needed if a situation may be threatening. In the event that the Board chooses to undertake a more rigorous enforcement program, staff recommends that this is done with the understanding that it necessarily is an increased level of involvement in the public, it should be applied evenly to all applications and it will require additional manpower. Please let me know if you would like further discussion on this. ZONING ACTIVITY REPORT CURRENT ACTIVITY Zoning complaints are expected to exceed 225 this year, an increase of 20% over last year. Application % Change 1997 Actual 1998 Projected 1998 Year to date Variances +37% 24 33 26 Rezonings + 114 % 14 30 24 Special Permits +30% 56 73 58 Signs +12% 199 222 178 Home occupation class A permits were 315 in 1997 and are projected to be 282 this year Zoning business clearances were 172 in 1997 and are projected to be 165 this year Building Permit Activi~ is increased by 15% over last year at this time. I~f the trend continues, we will have processed almost 2,200 building permits this year. Applications issued to-date (an estimate) TYPE Clearance Special Permit Variances Home Occupation Class A NUMBER 2,000 883 1,093 4,000 There are several thousand sign permits which have been approved. That number has not been estimated at this time. There are over 600 site plans which have been approved to-date. That number is an approximation. The number ofrezonings has not been estimated. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of Development Rights - Funding Options SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed funding options for Purchase of Development Rights proposal. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At the September 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting, the Purchase of Development Rights Committee brought forward a proposal to implement a purchase of development rights program in the County. Phase I of the committee's work included an outline of the purpose of the program, development of the eligibility criteria and property ranking, recommendations for the administrative structure, and recommendations for sources and level of funding. The Committee came before the Board to request approval Of Phase I, as well as a request to move forward with Phase II, which includes public education and community consensus building. The committee also requested a financial commitment from the Board of approximately $1 million dollars before proceeding with Phase II. The Board approved Phase I of the report and directed staff to report back to the Board at the November meeting with potential funding sources for the $1 million commitment to a Purchase of Development Rights program. DISCUSSION: The following three options provide the largest blocks of local revenues and are found in the General Government and School Division Capital Improvement Programs and the General Fund fund balance. There are, obviously, in a $135 million dollar operating budget and a $11.3 million dollar CIP, other alternative packages of reductions to programs and/or capital projects that could be presented to the Board. However, other funding reduction scenarios seem premature at this point, when the Board has not seen either the proposed FY99/00 - FY03/04 ClP or the FY99/00 proposed operating budget. 1. Highway Revenue Sharing Funds $400,000 Currently, the CIP budgets $400,000 annually in local funds to leverage approximately $400,000 in state highway funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of secondary roads. Without the commitment of local funds, the Cpunty would give up approximately $800,000 in funds earmarked for secondary roads. The following road improvements are scheduled over the next five years: Old Ivy Road, Jarmans Gap Road. Old Lynchburg Road, James River Road, Owensville Road, Browns Gap Road, Profit Road and Dickerson Road. 2. School Maintenance/Replacement Funds $400,000 - $500,000 In the approved FY98/99- FY02/03 CIP, the General Fund Transfer to the School Division CIP was budgeted at $600,000 in FY99/00 with planned annual increases up to a $1 million dollar contribution of local revenues in FY02/03. These local funds have been used historically to fund maintenance and replacement projects and instructional technology. In developing the FY99/00 -FY03/04 CIP, the current projected revenues in the School Division CIP are projected to increase by $800,000 in FY99/00, $400,000 in State Construction Funds and $400,000 in School CIP Fund Balance revenues. From FY00/01 to FY03/04, the state school construction funds are projected to remain at $400,000, although the School ClP Fund Balance revenues are projected to increase by only $100,000 in FY00/01 to FY03/04. With these additional revenues, particularly the new School Construction Funds which can be used for maintenance and replacement, the General Fund transfer could be reduced by $400,000 to $500,000 ($600,000 in FY00) thus freeing up local funds for the PDR program. 3. Fund Balance - $500,000 to $1 million The current General Fund fund balance is approximately $14.5 million dollars, with available funds of $1.5 million over the $13 million required by the Department. of Finance for cash flow purposes. The Board could decide' on an annual basis whether available fund balance revenues could be directed to the PDR program. If fun d balance revenues were positive, the Board could decide how much to put in the PDR fund; conversely, if revenues at year end were not positive, the Board AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of Development Rights - Funding Options November 4, 1998 Page 2 could adjust their contribution downward. The Board could also set a fixed percentage of the year end available fund balance to be directed to the PDR program, i.e. 30% in FY99/00 would be $500,000. This would also provide a larger donation to the PDR fund when revenues were good and less when revenues were down. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has presented the above three funding options for a PDR program for the Board's review and consideration. Should the Board support funding option 2, School Maintenance/Replacement, staff would ask the Board to defer a final decision until the proposed FY99/00 - FY03/04 CIP is reviewed by the Board in December. Using the freed'up local transfer to the School ClP has some potential funding consequences that are difficult to present at this time without a thorough review of the proposed CIP. 98.228 David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Jack JouSt Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMAR! F_ Office of Board of Sulx, rvisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, V~cjinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 November ! 1, 1998 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Ms. Bonnie Fronfelter Legislative Liaison Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 Dear Ms. Fronfelter: At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors supported the Draft I999 TJPDC Legislative Program. The only suggestion made at the meeting was that the format of your Program be changed to list the items of support and the items of opposition separately which would allow more emphasis to be placed on the items in each section. Sincerely, ._..2 Roxanne White CC: Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10-27-98702:00 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Draft 1999 TJPDC Legislative Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of the Draft 1999 TJPDC Legislative Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROU ND: The Thomas Jefferson Planning DistriCt Commission works with the County each year to develop a legislative program for the 1999 General Assembly session. The attached draft of the 1999 TJPDC Legislative Program is before the Board for discussion and approval and will form the basis of the County's discussion with the legislators later this month. Also attached is a copy of the Albemarle County School Board's proposed legislative program, which was approved by the School Board at its October 16th meeting. DISCUSSION: The Draft 1999 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years, with ten broad categories of general policy and legislative requests followed by a section highlighting some of the most important issues, The ten broad sections have been marked to show the changes from last year, the new information being in italics. The County's five major issues recommended to VACO, i.e. 599 funding, VDOT towers in their right-of-way, meals tax code provisions that are the same as cities, composite index revisions, and state support for locally funded PDR's are all included within these 10 sections. The VODT tower legislative request is under Land use and Growth Management, our meals tax request is under Finance, the composite index is under Education, and the 599 funding and/or commonality with the Compensation Board formula for funding Sheriff's departments is under Public Safety In addition to the broad categories, the draft program focuses on five major issues: 599 Funding for Police Departments, School Construction and Renovation Funding, the Composite Index, Deregulation of Electric Utilities and Growth Management issues, including funding for locally funded PDR programs. The School Board's Proposed 1999 Legislative Program is also attached for your information and will be sent to the Legislators along with the TJPDC Legislative Program prior to our meeting with them on November 23% RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Draft 1999 TJPDC Legislative Program with the understanding that any suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program. Ms. Bonnie Fronfelter wil provide a brief presentation at the meeting and will be available to address any of the Board's questions. 98.229 1999 THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM This item was scanned under Legislative Reports 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COMPENSATION BENCHMARK ANALYSIS NOVEMBER, 1998 This item was scanned under Financial Reports 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 1999/00 Budget Guidance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed Distribution of New Revenues to General Government and the School Division for FY 1999/00 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messers Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: November, 4, 1998 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: In October of each year, the Department of Finance prepares preliminary revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year, 'which form the basis for the recommended budgets to come before the Board of Supervisors in March. In November, the Board of Supervisors traditionally allocates these revenues to committed expenditures, General Government and the School Division. DISCUSSION: Based on recent revenue projections from the Department of Finance, property tax revenues are expected to increase by approximately $1.99 million over the current year. This increase reflects an anticipated 2.25% reassessment increase and $100,000,000 in new construction value, as well as increased vehicle sales and va ues. Other local taxes are projected to increase by $1.98 million, reflecting increased food and beverage sales, recordation and business license taxes. The attached sheet allocates these new revenues to committed expenditures, General Government and the School Division. The $3.97 overall increase in local tax revenues is shown at the top of the sheet, followed by the reductions required to fund revenue sharing and the transfer to the Tourism Fund, for a net ~ncrease of $3.62 million. Increases n committed expenditures are presented next, and total $733,339. Based on the remaining $2.89 in uncommitted revenues, 60%,.or $1.73 million, is allocated to the School Division, and 40%, or $1.16 million, is allocated to General Government. This allocation provides an increase of approximately 3.5% in local revenues to the School Division, and a 3.3% increase in local revenues to General Government, to address baseline costs, fixed costs and additional operating costs associated with capital projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed FY 1999/00 allocation of new revenues to the School Division and General Government. 98.230 Attachment FY 1999-00 ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL OPERATING FUND Net Local Taxes FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 Dollar Adopted Estimated Increase Increase Over FY98/99 CHANGE IN REVENUES Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Fund Balance PROJECTED REVENUE INCREASE Less 3% transient tax to tourism Less Revenue Sharing NET PROJECTED LOCAL TAXES 63 233,900 65,226,315 1,992,415 24,177,100 26 152,200 1,975,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87,411,000 91,378,515 3,967,515 585,600 664,380 78,780 5,587,013 5,853,794 266,781 81,238,387 84,860,341 3,621,954 3,967,515 3,621,954 COMMITED NEW EXPENDITURES Debt Service - School Division Transfer to Capital Improvement Program Revenue Sharing Board Reserve Fund Refunds TOTAL COMMITTED EXPENDITURES TOTAL NET AVAILABLE REVENUE 7,558,748 7,850,000 291 252 2,212,312 2,789,312 577,000 5,587,013 5,853,794 0 184,913 50,000 -134,913 81,500 81,500 0 15,624,486 16,624,606 733,339 0 0 2,888,615 733,339 2,888,615 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION AVAILABLE REVENUES TO SCHOOL DIVISION OPERATIONS @ 60% AVAILABLE REVENUES TO GENERAL GOVT OPERATIONS @ 40% 1,733,169 1,155,446 FY 1999-00 OPERATIONAL BUDGETS FY 98199 FY99100 $ Increase % Increase I General Government $35,522,385 $36,677,831 $1,155,446 3.25%r School Division (Local Transfer) $49,038,488 $50,771,657 $1,733,169 3.53%I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY'?°' 2o ~ o AGENDA TITLE: FY 1998/99 ReVised and FY 1999/00 Estimated General Fund Revenues SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of revised 1998/99 and estimated 1999/00 General Fund Revenues STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: November 4, '1998 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACH M E N TS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes ~ BACKGROUND: The November revenue estimate for the current and next fiscal years is the first step'in the annual budget process for both the operating and capital budgets. Revised revenue projections are provided by the Department of Finance in late October after the second cycle property tax bills have been processed. These projections reflect more current information than was available for the March 1998 estimates. DISCUSSION: Attached for your information are the revised projections for FY 1998/99 and estimates for FY 1999/00 General Fund revenues. The revised projections for FY 1998/99 exceed the appropriated budget by $641,686, 0.64%. The excess revenues are due to increased food & beverage, real estate, busii~ess license, and recordation taxes offset by a decrease in personal property taxes. The decrease in personal property tax is due to the continued slower growth in both vehicle sales and values. It is anticipated that this slowdown will begin to reverse itself beginning with FY 1999/00. The increase in state revenues and the decrease in federal revenues reflect a re-allocation of social services revenues from less federal to more state revenues for social services, as reported by the Department of Social Services. The estimated revenues for FY 1999/00 exceed the current year budget by $4,152,800, 4.14%. Real estate tax represents 41% of the increase due to an anticipated 2.25% reassessment increase and $100,000,000 in new construction value. Additional revenues are expected from increased vehicle sales and values, food & beverage, sales, recordation, and business license taxes. Social serv~'ces revenues are responsible for the continued reversal of state and federal revenues. RECOMMENDATION: This report is presented for the Board's information only and does not require any action. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, will be present at the meeting to discuss revenue projections and answer any questions from the Board. 98.231 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND REVENUE PROJECTIONS Description Property. Taxes: Real Estate Current Public Service Current Personal Property Current Mobile Home Current Machinery & Tools Current Other than Current Subtotal Property Taxes Appropriated Revised Budget Projection InclDec 98/99 (t} 98/99 (2) 98/99 Preliminary Estimate 99100 Other Local Taxes: Sales & Use Tax Food & Beverage Tax Other Subtotal Other Local Taxes $39,179,900 $39,344,100 $164,200 $40,888,700 1,590,000 1,656,300 66,300 1,640,600 20,039,800 19,270,000 (769,800){ 20,343,400 46,600 45,100 (1,500){ 56,100 977,800 997,800 20,000J 1,026,800 1.399.800 1.269.500 (130.300){ 1.270.715 63.233.900 62.582.800 (.651.100) 22~5~6~5_ Other Local Revenues TotalLocal Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues total Revenues rrans~m & Fund Balance rOTAL REVENUES & TRANSFERS 11) July 1 Appropriation 2) Revised 10/22/98 8,457,100 8,375,000 (82,1005 8,850,000 2,300,000 2,850,000 550,000 2,935,500 13.420.000 13.946.900 526,90__0. .14.366.700 24.177.100 25.171.90Q 994.800 ~ 4.831.287 4.875.185 43.898 4.890.602 92,242,287 92,629,885 387,598 96,269,115 5,410,678 5,810,150 399,472 5,810,500 ~577,83~ 2.283.200 ~94.634~ 2.293.500 100,230,799 10C,723,235 492,436 104,373,215 99.916 249.166 149.250 110.300 $100.330~715 $~lD0+972.~D~ $641:686~ ,~1_04:483=515 $ InclDec 99100 - 98~99 $1,708,800 50,600 303,600 9,500 49,000 {129.085) 1.992.415 392,900 635,500 946.700 ~.975.100 ~9,313 4,026,828 399,922 (284.334) 4,142,416 10.384 % Inc/Dec 99/00 - 98~99 4.36% 3.18% 1.51% 20.39% 5.01% -9.22% 3.15% 4.65% 27.63% 7.05% 8.17% 1_.23% 4.37% 7.39% -11.03% 4.13% 10.39% 4.14% As of October 22, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Thom pson Director of Human Resources Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM~ November 11, 1998 Board Actions of November 4, 1998 At its meeting on November 4, 1998, the Board of Supervisors received the Compensation Study prepared by the consultants. The Board took no action on the report. /ew~ CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Rick Huff Kevin C. Castner Frank Morgan Roxanne White cOUNTY OF ALBEMARLE to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Compensation Study, Consultant's Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consider compensation recommendation and give direction to County Executive and Superintendent STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Thompson AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: x INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ' ACTION: INFORMATION: Huff, Morgan, and ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEW.ED BY_/~~ i BACKGROUND: The following statement is included in the Vision for Albemarle County, adopted in 1994: "A highly recognized, satisfied and well-compensated workforce exists in Albemarle County." This statement is consistent with research indicators for both the public and private sector, which show that employee salary and benefits consistently rank as the two most important factors to individuals considering a job offer. A strong compensation and benefits program is of significant value to the County in attracting and retaining top-quality employees and improving employee commitment. In 1995-96, Local Government and the School Division collaborated with an independent consultant, Charles Hendricks, on a comprehensive compensation study. The Board of Supervisors and the School Board adopted and implemented many of the changes recommended through this study in FY 1996-97. The most significant change as a result of this study was to move away from the traditional step structure for classified employees and to adopt a system of competitive pay ranges with minimum, midpoint, and maximum salaries for each position. In addition, a merit pay formula based on evaluation scores was adopted for classified employees. This kind of structure is prevalent in private industry and is becoming more widely utilized in the public sector. The School Division has continued to maintain a step structure for teachers, as recommended in the Hendricks study. However, the teacher scale was expanded to 30 steps to make it more competitive, especially for more experienced teachers. In FY 1998-99, both the School Board and Board of Supervisors provided funding for the first phase of a three- phase plan to reduce salary compression for specified classified positions and empldyees. In FY 1998-99, both Boards also provided funding for a 1% adjustment in classified pay ranges. AGENDA TITLE: Compensation Study, Consultant's Report AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 Page 2 of 4 In August 1998, the County selected Aon Consulting to assist in revisiting and reviewing the competitiveness of its salary and benefits structure. This study was not designed as a reclassification study but rather as a study to refine the structure already in place. In this study, Aon analyzed selected benchmark positions in order to · determine market competitiveness for these positions. · make recommendations concerning internal and external equity. · make recommendations concerning salary administration guidelines and policies. Study Methodology Through discussion with administrators and department heads, 26 benchmark positions in Albemarle County were chosen for review (see page 1 of the Aon report). Aon analyzed the job descriptions for these positions, related organizational charts, and salary administration policies and guidelines. Aon then used a number of professionally published labor surveys of private and public sectors to match these positions in terms of skills, tasks, responsibilities, knowledge and experience. The most appropriate labor market for some positions is the private sector, while for other positions it is primarily the public sector. Moreover, the relevant labor market for some positions is local, while for others it is more regional or statewide. In analyzing market data, Aon used a professionally accepted practice of"aging" data to reflect the current time period and a "geographic assessor" to adjust salary data to the Charlottesville and Albemarle Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and labor market. Information on the surveys utilized is included at the end of the report. Study Recommendations Mr. Gene Poindexter, Senior Vice President with Aon Consulting, will present the report findings and comments about recommendations. Information presented will focus on private sector compensation and its comparability with that of public sector entitles such as Albemarle County. These recommendations are presented to both Boards to consider for the FY 1999-2000 budget preparation. It should be noted that all recommendations are subiect to and based upon available state and local revenues. Compensation Based on the aforementioned process, Aon recommends that both Boards consider the following recommendations for the FY 1999-2000 budget: 1. Based A. on available local and state revenue, increase the salary plan 4% through the following: Adjust the salary scales by 3% for both classified employees and teachers and adjust salaries of both groups in order to maintain the salary to midpoint ratio. Adjust the salary plan an additional 1% to be used for step increases for teachers, for classified employees under the minimum of their pay range, for promotions, and for other appropriate pay adjustments. Some of this amount could also be used to provide a "bonus" pool to recognize employees with outstanding performance, since employees would not be receiving a "merit increase". 2 AGENDA TITLE: Compensation Study, Consultant's Report AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 Page 3 of 4 Move the pay ranges for the following six position classifications identified in the report (Funding for this recommendation would come from the 1% adjustment noted in item lB above): Custodian, Office Associate II, Office Associate III, Police Officer, Management Analyst II, and Programmer/Analyst. Amend the current salary administration policy to allow managers to offer a starting salary up to the midpoint, commensurate with skills, knowledge, and experience and subject to advance approval of the Department of Human Resources. Benefits Although the primary focus of Aon's study is an update of the earlier compensation study, Aon did include some general comments related to benefits. Aon's America @ Work Survey, conducted in the spring of 1998, validated the role of compensation and benefit programs in meeting these three human resource goals: · Recruiting and retaining qualified employees. · Improving the commitment of employees to their employer. · Enhancing employee productivity. Out of 23 benefits, employees rank the following as most important, listed in order of importance: 1. Medical benefits. 2. Employer-paid retirement plans. 3. Employer-matched savings plans. 4. Paid vacation and holidays. 5. Sick leave/short term disability. 6. The ability to choose benefits that best meet their needs. Albemarle County's benefit programs generally meet these needs. The three major benefit categories, from the standpoint of cost to the employer, are health care (medical, dental, and prescription drugs), retirement, and disability. After several years of stabilized costs, health care is now entering a new era of increased cost. Prescription drugs lead in causing these increases, with anticipated "trend" (inflation and utilization) of at least 15%. Medical trend varies by type of program as follows: · Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs): · Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs): · Traditional Indemnity Plans: · Dental trend going into 1999 3-5% 7-9% 10-12% running at 9-10% The 1998 average retirement costs for local government employers nationally, as a percent of base payroll is 9.4%, according to a KPMG study which focuses on retirement plans. This percent is higher, as a percent of payroll, than private employers pay due in large part to regular cost of living adjustments found in 74% of local government plans. 3 AGENDA TITLE: Compensation Study, Consultant's Report AGENDA DATE: November 4, 1998 Page 4 of 4 While a few public and private employers have talked about combining compensation and benefits under the banner of "total compensation" for budget purposes, very few successfully adopted such policies. In today's tight labor market, it is most important that an employer's philosophy address each benefit separately due to their importance in attracting qualified, committed employees. Realistically, job candidates first look at expected pay as the main driver of their decisions, with benefits entering into the equation based on individual need. It is the perception of disposable income versus some unknown future benefit, such as pension or retirement benefits, that is hard to sell to employees. Unless the organization has a strong communication effort and employees buy into the "total compensation" concept, an employer will be challenged in finding good applicants and retaining current employees. The option of choosing a competitor offering more money, higher annual increases, incentives, bonuses, and possible stock options seems, in their minds, a better choice than banking on unknown and usually misunderstood benefits looming in the distance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors and School Board consider accepting these recommendations for budget guidance in preparing the upcoming 1999-2000 budget. The recommendations ultimately included in the budget will be based on projected local and state revenues. 98.245 4 NOVEMBER 4, 1998 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION I move THAT THE BOARD GO INTO eXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) tO DISCUSS THE ACOUlSITION' OF PROPERTY FOR a PUBLIC ROAD; UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO AN INTERJURISDICTIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION REGARDING THE DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. Statement to the Board of Supervisors, November 4, 1998, by John E. Baker, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board. Public School and Local Government Collaboration On November 6, 1998, the subject of the most recent Curry Leadership Forum will be New Models of Leadership for the 21st Century Schools. I have been asked to participate on that panel and will use the occasion to extol the virtues of the Albemarle County Government and Albemarle School Division collaboration as being the most extensive and durable of any other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. That premise should serve to set the discussion of our budget deliberations for the coming fiscal year. A copy of the forum agenda is attached (Attachment 1). The Virginia Institute of Government published a report, Public School and Local Government Collaboration in Virginia 1997, ,4 Compendium of Existing Programs. The report was requested by the partnership of the Virginia Local Government Management Association and the Virginia Association of School Superintendents. The report summarizes its findings from some 83 counties, 36 cities, and 1 town in 15 functional areas of collaboration. Examples of the functional areas include Early Childhood Education, Job Training, Parks and Recreation, Financial Management, Personnel Administration, Information Technology, and Legal Services. Actually we have other collaborative programs not listed in the report. Of the 15 functional areas, Albemarle County has collaboration in nine of them. What is most significant is that eight of the nine areas are at a Level III--that is, collaborative programs are durable, and pervasive relationships exist. There is not a jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, of the 120 that are included in the report, that can match this level of program cooperation between the local government and the school division that we experience in Albemarle County. An abstract is attached (Attachment 2). As we approach the formal process of developing the budget for 1999-2000, I ask that we develop a common message from our two Boards. That message is that we have demonstrated an unprecedented joint commitment to fiscal responsibility and a dedication to providing high- quality service to local government operations and school programs through a program of cost- saving by sharing functional areas of responsibility, as no other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia has done. The citizens of Albemarle County are the beneficiaries of our efforts. Level III collaboration is described in the report as follows: "Participants bring separate organizations into a new structure with full commitment to a common mission. Such relationships require comprehensive planning and well-defined communications channels operating at all levels. The collaborative program's structure determines authority, and risk is much greater because each parmer contributes its resources and reputation. Power is an issue and can be unequal." Successful collaborations operate in an environment where the political leaders, opinion makers, persons who control resources, and the general public support the mission of the collaborative effort. Collaborative members interact often, update each another, discuss issues openly, and convey all necessary information to each another and to people outside the group. Trust exists between the partners. There are some cautions regarding the obstacles to collaboration. Ninety percent of the collaborative programs in Virginia were started in an effort to reduce costs. Many times these efforts have unrealistic expectations regarding the success of each organization's mission accomplishment. Collaborative programs are not a substitute for adequate funding. In most instances, collaborative programs require periodic review to ensure that they are accomplishing their intended purpose. We are undertaking such a review today. In doing so, we must not confuse "collaboration" with "commonality." Using the study on Public School and Local Government as a background, let us enter into the formal budget process supported by the positive results we have had in the past. The School Board understands fully that while it does not have funding authority, it has a responsibility to present to the Board of Supervisors an accurate picture of the Albemarle County School Division's funding needs. A critical component of the process is your trust in the School Board that it has, with full accountability, carefully considered each funding request and weighed it against the reality of available funds. The School Board has used several strategies in the past in bringing projected funding needs to you to demonstrate its accountability to the community. One approach was to use local government projections for the coming.fiscal year some eight (8) months in advance. However, we have found that basing a projected budget on projected revenues has proved unrealistic. Monies and resources estimated in November are arbitrary at best. Another approach was to "Zero Base" or "Base Line" the school division operations each year. We then considered an "enhanced" increment of 10% above the base and a 10% "decremented" budget below the base to anticipate an appropriate level that would meet approval. "Baseline" budgeting from year to year does not take into account new programs instituted and mandated by the federal and state governments that were not required in a previous year. When we used this process, it demanded some six months of staff time to recalculate and reappear before the School Board to justify changes. A third approach was to submit a "Maintenance of Effort" budget that was predicated on projected revenue figures for a "balanced budget" provided by the County Executive's office. This approach considered those school programs and activities that would retain a status quo for instructional, educational, and operational activities that could not be enhanced or expanded. We found that it was not consistent with the goals of attaining high-quality education for all our children. For the budget considerations for 1999-2000, the School Board will use all these strategies, because no single approach will fully satisfy a budget process with an indeterminate funding ceiling and a continuous infusion of unpredictable funding cuts and additions. We will therefore begin the process by asking the Superintendent to couch the School Division's needs from the base documents and tenets of the Division. The Mission and Goals of the Albemarle School Divi sion, the updated six-year Albemarle County Schools Strategic Plan, the Individual School Improvement Plans, and the Annual School Board/Superintendent Priorities will guide us through the budget development process and will be presented as justification for funding. All these documents exist now and, when viewed and considered together, should not present any programmatic surprises for fimding support. The School Division budget development schedule with working sessions, public input opportunities, and budget proposal dates has been published. It represents some ten (10) planning and school division department heatings, public hearings, and another joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, culminating with the proposed budget being submitted to the County Executive on February 17, 1999. The full schedule is attached (Attachment 3). The School Board invites your participation in any of these activities as we deliberate throughout the process. We ask for your trust in the sincerity, accountability, and dedication of the School Board in presenting its budget needs. We welcome the need to make concessions and to compromise where needed. After all, these have been the hallmarks of the exceptional collaboration between Albemarle Boards of Supervisors and School Boards, in the past. Our mutual trust will ensure the continued high-quality service to the citizens of Albemarle County. CURRY LEADERSHIP FORUMS NEW MODELS OF LEADERSHIP FOR 21~t CENTUR Y SCHOOLS Inaugural Forum: Education, Community and Business Leaders Working Together to Improve Virginia's Public Schools November 6, 1998 - UVA Alumni Hall 12:00 PM Welcoming Remarks and Luncheon David W. Breneman, Dean, Curry School of Education Harold J. Burbach, Chairman, Curry School of Education Department of Educational Leadership, Foundations & Policy 12:45 PM The Power of Education, Community and Business Collaboration paul D. Stapleton, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1:00 PM Hampton City Schools & Community: One Model of Successful Leadership Billy K. Cannady, Jr., Superintendent of Hampton City Schools Joseph H. Spencer, II, Hampton City Mayor James M. Haggard, Chairman, Hampton City School Board George E. Wallace, Hampton City Manager Mary E. Bunting, Assistant City Manager, Hampton Carl Gaborik, Sentara Hampton General Hospital William F. Johnson, Director of Planning, Assessment & Evaluation, Hampton City Schools 2:30 PM Break 2:45 PM VASS/VLGMA Local Government-School System Collaboration Study Ted Povar, Technical Assistance Advisor, Virginia Institute of Government 3:30 PM Leaders' Views of the Possibilities, Concerns and Future Directions James T. McCormick, Superintendent of Lynchburg City Schools John Baker, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board Jane Dittmar, Director, Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce 4:15 PM Audience Interaction 5:00 PM Closing Remarks Alfred R. Butler, Executive Director, Virginia Association of School Superintendents COLLABORATION LEVEL MATRIX BY LOCALITY AND FUNCTIONAL AREA =,- . ~ .- ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- · - -- Locality by County u~ ~u ~ Accomack 1 1 1 1 Albemarle 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 Amherst 2~ 2 Appomattox 1 Arlington 1 I 2 2 2 Augusta 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 Balh 1 I 1 1 2 Bedford 3 2 1 1 Bland 1 Botetourt I I 1 1 3, 1 Brunswick 2 Campbell I 1 2 1 Caroline 1 1 Carroll 1 Charles City 1 1 2 Charlotte I I 2 2 2 2 Chesterfield 1 2 2 2 3 Note: Numbers represent the level of collaboration. 39 Collaboration Level Matrix Locality by Counly ua ua Clark ! 1 2 Craig 1 Culpeper ! I 1 Cumberland ! 1 Dickenson 1 1 ! I ! I 2 Dinwiddie 3 1 1 Essex 3 2 I ! 3 1 Fairfax I I 3 Fauquier ! 3 ! 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Floyd Franklin 1 1 1 2 Frederick 2 2 I I I 1 Giles I 2 Gloucester 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 Goochland I 1 Grayson 1 1 Greene 1 ! I 1 Greensville 1 1 Halifax I 1 Hanover I 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 Henrico I I 1 2 2 ! I I 2 2 2,3 Locality by County ua Henry 1 1 ! .. Highland 1 2 Isle of Wight 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 James City 1 2 I 2 2 1 1 1 King George 1 ! King William 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lee 1 Loudoun 1 1 ! 1 3 2 2 ! 2 Louisa 1 Madison 1 Mathews 1 1 1 Mecklenburg 2 2 3 Middlesex 1 1 1 1 ! 1 Montgomery 1 1 Nelson 1 1 New Kent 2 1 1 1 Northampton 1 1 Northumberland 2 N°Uoway 1 2 I 2 2 Orange 2 3 3 Page 1 1 Collaboration Level Matrix Collaboration Level Matrix 42 '~ ~- < ~ ~- ~.~ =~~-~~ 0 Locality by County Patrick ! I ~ 1 Powhatan 1 1 Prince George I 1 I 1 Prince William 1I I I 3 1 Pulaski 2 1 1 2 2 Rappahannock 1 Richmond 2 1 Roanoke I 2 1 2 ' 3 3 2 3 Rockbridge 2 1 Rockingham I 1 I I 3 2 Russell 1 1 Scott 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Smylh 1 1 Southampton 1 1 Spotsylvania I I I 1 Slafford 1 3 2 2 2 2 Surry I 1 1 1 Sussex 1 1 1 Tazewell 3 3 I 1 Washington 1 1 2 · - ._ ._ ~.'- - Locality byCounty Weslmoreland 2 2 2 1 I 2 2 1 Wise 1 Wythe 1 York 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 Zocalitr by City Alexandria I 1 1 1 Bedford Bristol 1 Buena Vista 1 1 I 1 1 Charloltesville 1 1 1 2 Chesapeake 1 1 1 2 3 3 Colonial Heights I I 2 I 1 Covington 1 1 Danville I 1 1 2 1 1 Falls Church 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 Franklin Fredericksburg 1 1 I I 1 Galax 1 Hampton I 1 1 2 I 3 3 2 Harrisonburg I 1 1 3 Collaboration Level Matrix 43 Collaboration Level Matrix Hopewell [exinslon [~n~hbur8 Manassas Manassas ~arE Marlinsville Newporl News NorfoiE Nor~o. ~oquoson ~odsmouth Eadford Eoanoke ~al~m ~taunton 5uffolE Virsi.ia ~ea~h Wa~nesboro Wiliiamsbur8 Winchester Eolonial ~ea~h .4 TT.4 CHMENI' $ Wednesday, November 4, 1998 Monday, November 9, 1998 Monday, December 14, 1998 Tuesday, January 19, 1999 Saturday, January 23, 1999 Thursday, January 28, 1999 Monday, February 1, 1999 Wednesday, February 3, 1999 Wednesday, February 10, 1999 Wednesday, February 17, 1999 Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors: Preliminary Budget Discussion Budget Overview Presented to School Board Additional School Board Discussion of Budget (if needed) Presentation of Superintendent's Proposed Budget to School Board Budget Work Session Budget Work Session Budget Work Session Public Hearing on Budget and Budget Work Session Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors on Budget; Budget Work Session/Proposed Budget Adopted Proposed Budget Submitted to County Executive Two Public Budget Discussions to allow citizens the opportunity to hear an overview of the budget and provide staff with feedback are scheduled as follows: Thursday; January 21, 1999 7:00 p.m. Henley Middle School Tuesday, January 26, 1999 7:00 p.m. Monticello High School. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD LEGISLATIVE POSITION PAPER 1999 This item was scanned under SchOol Board Reports 1998 David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Ja~._.k Jouet~ Forrest R. Marshan, Jr. COUNTY Of A! RE~v~! F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Laurie Hall Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: October 29, 1998 Applications for Boards and Commissions On the attached I have provided a list of applicants interested in current vacancies on Boards and Commissions which have been advertised. I have also attached copies of all applications. All interviews were scheduled for Wednesday, November 4, 1998. Please note that Mr. C. Henry Hinnant, III was not able to come on November 4, as he is out of town that and the following week. Please let me know if you wish to set up another interview date for him. Attachments: cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper Page 2 BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW, EXPIRE INCUMBENT IF DATE SCHEDULED William B. Ha~ey 1:00 p.m. C. Henw Hinnant, III .... John W. He--ann 1:30 p.m. Elizabeth A. Isley 1:20 p.m. William B. H~vey 1:10 p.m. '"~i~'~' ~ ................... ; ..... ~ ;;~¢:~¢¢I~JJ¢¢~ ......... ~"':'*' ~¢~:~"~:: '''~';~'~ ~;-;;'~'"~'"~:~: ~ ............. '~y~¢~j;'~': ' ~;' :~'~'~"~'~":':~;'~'~'*~ :~t,;;,;~*: "*~ ~' :::;~" : ~4i'~'~'! ~/, l:e~;'~'~; '~ ~ ~¢q~ ¢¢~;~: ;~,,~,~,~;,~, ,¢: ,~ ~¢~;~,~,~,,~,,~' ~ ":. ;.' ~h~'"?'~';~": ¢'~¢~'*~ ' ~ ~'.~%;!me~¢ [m~B;~ ,,; ~: ~¢~¢;~¢?' ~; '~;,~ ~; ~ ~:~,;;:;; ~ ~,~J;~ ~; ;::;,;;:;,¢~{~";~'~¢~ ~,~:,~;5~'~;;;4:" ..... : ~,~,,:4 ' ~¢~'" ~¢;~h;,~ ~:::; ~'~' ~¢ .... ~ ~ :*:?~ (~: :~;~;~,~,,,~;~; ....... M~cia Joseph Paul Grady, Jr. Tony Vande~arker Hazard D. Evans Leo Mallek, D.M.D. Andy SpraE David Vanaman Susa M. Cabell William J. AbboE Richard C. Kirsten Edmund W. Kitch George W. Ray, Jr. Thomas W. Payne, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~. October 27, 1998 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through January 31, 1999 on the attached. 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 November 15 and 22. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than December 22, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on January 6, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION (Applications sent under separate cover, and interviews established.) MEMBER Nancy Barnette (resigned) TERM EXPIRES 05-31-99 NEW TERM EXPIRES 05-31-99 (to fill balance of term) WISH TO BE RE- APPOINTED? No MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT (Applications sent under separate (New committee) TBD (Applications sent under separate (Applications sent under separate cover.) C. Timothy Lindstrom Stephen Ayers 11-14-98 9-30-98 (moved) 11-14-2002 12/01/2001 No No (Applications due 11/25/98.) (The PHA recommends the Board appoint Bruce Kirtley. Will not advertise.) Karen Waters Karen Lilleleht 12-31-98 12-31-98 12-31-2001 12-31-2001 No (See note to left.) (Applications due 11/25/98.) Albert Humbertson, Jr. Frank Rice 12-31-98 12-31-98 12-31-99 12-31-99 Yes White Hall Rio G. David Emmitt 12-31-98 12-31-2000 Not eligible Not eligible (Applications due 11/24/98.) (New committee, two TBD TBD (The PHA recommends the Board reappoint Bruce Kirtley. Will not advertise.) James R. Skove Bruce W. Kirtley 01-20-00 01-20-00 01-02-99 01-20-04 01-02-2002 Has not responded Yes (Per Bob, will advertise. Applications (New committee) will be due 12/22/98.) (Will be a 2-year appointment) David ~ Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, &. COUNTY OF Al REMA~! F Office of Board of SuI~r~om 401 Mclntke Road Charlottesville, V~ginia 22902-4596 (804) 29G-5843 FAX (804) 29~-58()0 Chade~ S. Mzu~dn Walter E Perkins WhiteHall Sally H. Thomas Samuel ~ November 5, 1998 Ms. Elizabeth A. Isley 108 Blueberry Rd. V^ At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, the Board appointed you to the Public Defender Office Citizens Advisory Committee effective November 4, 1998. You will be notified as to when the first meeting of the Committee will be held, and term dates will be discussed at that time.. 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, ~ Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/lbh CCi James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis James Hingeley c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun_ty Supervisors 401 McIntire Rbad Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITIEE (please type or print) Board / Commission / Committee' Applicant's Name ~~ ~c.,~.~ Home Phone Home Address )Ot Magisterial DisU-ict in which your home residence is located Employer S ~ Ir3C Business Address ~ Date of Employment M Years Resident in Albemarle County Spouse's Name - - Education (Degrees and Graduation Dates) Occupation / Title ~Y> ~ ~ Previous Residence ~t Numar of Children Memberships in Fratemal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups Y5 ltV) > CLod,) Public, Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Interests ( Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board / CommiSsion/dOmmittee ~ ~ )~ ~ ~ \ The inf°nnafionP~vidZ~-'this--~aP] li?afi~ease~u inre uest · ' p' tionwilI15e~9t ;~ p ip q . RetUrn to: (~]~rk, Bq~r~ of .County SUpervisors { J ~emci ntaneir~., o~nw, ~ Date [~OARD OF SUPERVISORS David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humpl-tfis Jack Jouett Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMA~i_f_ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VL"ginia 229024596 (804) 296.-5843 FAX (804) 296--5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas Samuel ~ November 5, 1998 Ms. Marcia Joseph 384 Clarks Tract Keswick, VA 22947 Dear~ flb/~4 At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, the Board appointed you to the Architectural Review Board effective November 15, 1998, with term to expire on Nox;ember 14, 2002. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/lbh CC: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Ben Blankenship Amelia McCulley c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle (~04) ~CA~ON TO S~RVE ON BO~ / CO--SION i CO~E David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Hurnphris J~:t~ douett Forrest R. Mamhall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARI F Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Vu~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296584,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sal~y H. Thomas Samuel Mi~r November 5, 1998 Mr. Albert O. Humbertson, Jr. 1440 Beacon Hill Alton, VA 22920 Dear Mr. Humbertson: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, you were reappointed as the White Hall District representative to the Equalization Board, with term to begin on January 1, 1999 and expire on December 31, 1999. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/lbh cc' James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell c:\wpdocs\bds&comm~reappoint Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman (~harlotte Y. Humphris COUNTY OF ALBEMAR[ F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vkginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas November 5, 1998 Mr. Bruce Kirtley Rt. 1, Box 406 Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Kirtley: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, the Board reappointed you, to the Piedmont Housing Alliance effective January 2, 1999, with term to expire on January 2, 2002. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/Ibh CC: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Stu Armstrong c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Forrest R, Mamhall, Jr. COUNTY OF At REMARI F_ Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'wginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins White ~ Sally lq. Thoma~ S~auel ~ November 5, 1998 Mr. Bruce Kirtley Rt. 1, Box 406 Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Kirtley: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, the Board appointed you to the Housing Committee effective January 1, 1999, with term to expire on December 31,2001. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/lbh CC: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Ginny McDonald c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris Forrest P~ Marsh~. Jr. COUNTY OF ALB~_F Office o~ Board o[ Superdsors 401 Mclnfi~ Road Ch~o~e, V~ia 22~2~96 (~) 29~ F~ (~) 29~5~ Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins White ~ Sall~ H. Thomas S~muel Miner November 5, 1998 Mr. William B. Harvey 2721 Timberlake Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Harvey: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on November 4, 1998, the Board appointed you to the Advisory Council on Aging, effective November 4, 1998, wiht said term expiring on May 31, 1999, to fill out the term of Ms. Nancy Bamette. 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, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Chairman FRM/lbh CC: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Gordon Walker Lida Amason c:\wpdocs\bds&comm\appoint Printed on recycled paper County of Albemarle., ,~.~ ~o~ su~v~s~ Office of Board of Coun.ty Supervisors 401 Mchtire Rbad Charlottesville. VA 22902-4~96 (804) 296-~843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMlkfITTEE · (pt~ts~ ty~ or print) Board / Commission l Committ~ :::rtloll i~ V;,~ofL',.f Applicant' s NameW;~Ii^~ (s. ~a/~ Home Phone re~rV-' ~" ~S/~ -- HomeAddr~ss oq-'~ bi '~tsl,~l~{{l ~J,t C~l~-Sv,'l~, ~. Magisterialpis_tric. t in w~ltich ~o, ur jtmme miden~ i$ located ~.~ Da~ofEmploymeut Dt~m,{~ 1'~1"/ Oct .... r' . ~ YeataRemideutinAlbemarleCounty. I~'F'oTI~ PtevioumResi,t-,,,,- V;zal'ni& ~T~,~ ~/'{¢~,.L:a - - S 's lq M ,, ,.I J - Memberships in Fralzmsl. Bu~.in~ss. Church snd/or Social Orour~ P~blic. Civ~ ~d Ch~mbl~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ A~viti~ or ~ _ ' ~ . ~s] for ~e m Sewe ~ ~is ~ / Commissi~ / Comm{~:.:. . . , . _ _ ~ ~ u ~ , -, -~1 I I ' . i. J ' [ '' ------ il Al~e ~ CbarloRemville, VA 22~2-4596 Employment 1997-Present 1991-1997 198%1991 1985-1987 1983-1985 1982-1983 Education William B. Harvey 2721 Timberlake Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804)293-8373 Manager of Non-Dues lh~hlieation.~ American Health Lawyers Association, Charlottesville, Va./Washington, D.C. -Manage all revenue gen~Sng publications -Assist with marketing plan -Develop yearly budget -Research current and future topic areas -Identify member authors for new publications Sr. Acquisitions Editor. Michie Company, Charlottesville, Va. -Acquired legal content for print and electronic publication. -Coordinated sales and marketing efforts for Professional Publications products. -Investigated and developed new areas of comenr -Addressed all aUthOr-related issues. Senior Associate. Anderson, Lee, & Norris, P.C. Va. Beach, Va. -Handled all aspects of civil litigation, with emphasis on appellate practice, construction law, personal injury, asbestos defense -Ordered and budgeted library acquisitions. -Coordinated and conducted annual recruitment activities. ~. The Honorable William H. Hodges, Judge for the Court of Appeals of Virginia. -Drafted opinions and orders. -Researched and wrote within jurisdictional mandate of the court. -Recommended action in procedural matters. ~ Preston, Wilson and Crandley. Virginia Beach, Virginia. -Analyzed liability and made reCOmmendations for trail preparation. -Appeared in all courts for trials and motions. Law Cl~k. The Honorable Richard B. Kellam, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia. -Researched and prepared memoranda and opinions. -Acted as a liaison between court and attorneys. T.C. Williams School of Law, 'University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia. May, 1982 Vice President of Student Bar Association Phi Delta Phi University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. January, 1976 B.A. American History References available upon request.