Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-07-07
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 7, 1999 July 12, 1999 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Walter L Eades, asked about the status of paving of Route 605. Discussed under transportation matters. 5.1. Appropriation: JAUNT Transportation Grant, $183,120 (Form ~98077). APPROVED 5.2. Appropriation: Community Development Block Grant 98-07, $770,989 (Form #98078). APPROVED 5.3. Appropriation: VRS Early Retirement Debt Service, $39,233 (Form #98079). APPROVED 5.4. Appropriation: General Fund - Rescue Squads, $3,014 (Form #98080), APPROVED 5.5. Appropriation: Education/Grant, $33,652.38 (Form ~98081). APPROVED 5.6. Allocate FY 1998 Library Carry-over Funds. APPROVED as recommended by staff. 5.7. Authorize County Executive to execute "Agreement for Highway Project Administration" between VDoT and the County - Meadow Creek Parkway. ADOPTED the attached resolution which authorizes the County Executive to execute the project administration Agreement. (Attachment #1) 5.8. Pantops CTS Bus Route Service. APPROVED as recommended by staff. 5.12. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Reports for the month of May, 1999. Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary for the Board to receive these reports or if they could go to an appropriate officer or staff member. In 1983 as part of the approval for Arbor Crest, the Board requested that it receive monthly update reports. 7a. Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743, Historic Register Designation. APPROVED as recommended by staff. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. . Regarding Mr. Eades' comments, Ms. Tucker said VDoT is experiencing a cash flow problem which has resulted in delaying some gravel road projects. This means a delay of six to twelve months on some projects. They are currently looking at advertising Route 605 next spring. Regarding a meeting on Morgantown Road, Ms. Tucker said she will be forwarding a report to Ms. Thomas. Regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr. Tucker asked if the County will be able to move forward with its plans to four- lane, given City Council's impending action to two lane its section. Ms. Tucker responded that she believes formal VDoT support will be for four-lanes. She did not know how the CTB would proceed with the City's action. · Mr. Perkins said there is a large dead tree on Tabor Street ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to Order at 9:02 a.m., by the Vice-Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: Acknowledge his comments. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward letter to John Halliday and copy appropriate persons. Clerk: Forward resolution to Jack Keisey. Clerk: Forward in memo to Juan Wade. Clerk: Discuss with Board members whether they still want to receive the report as part of the consent agenda. Clerk: Set out in memo to Planning (Attachment ~). Clerk: Set out in letter to Angela Tucker. that is coming down, one limb at a time. He asked that it be removed. · Mr. Perkins said there is a large limb down on Route 627, south of Route 712. · Mr. Perkins said the sidewalks under the railroad bridge in Crozet have a lot of gravel on them, and asked that they be cleaned. · Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the installation of street lights at the intersection of Route 20 and Mill Creek. Mr. Mawyer said they are in the process and moving forward. · Ms. Thomas said the Bellair project is complete and looks like it is doing well. · Ms. Thomas asked for an update on West Leigh Drive. She understands that it is not yet in the State system because of some quitclaim work with the utility companies. · Regarding unpaved road projects, Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should warn everyone that the projects have been put off a minimum of six months. Ms. Tucker responded that it will be from six months to a year. At the August Board meeting, she will provide an update on the status of all projects. · Ms. Humphds mentioned the need for everyone, including the public, to continue the fight concerning VDoT towers in the median of the interstate. · Mr. Bowerman said he plans to attend the meeting about expanded rail service from Bristol to Washington and to Richmond, that is scheduled for July 12, 1999 in Lynchburg. · Mr. Martin said he has been receiving complaints about the dust on Rocky Hollow Road. He asked that VDoT put something down on the road. · Mr. Martin asked if VDoT would determine if a need exists for a traffic light on old Free Bridge Road. He also asked that Parks and Recreation look at whether there is a need to reinstall the gate. 8. Discussion: Minor Ridge Area Storrnwater Control Project. APPROVED Alternative #2 funding. 9. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Committee Report. · Ms. Thomas asked that the Committee run some sample properties. 10. School Board Report. · Mr. Perkins said one way to balance the number of students in the high schools would be to allow students who ddve to school some flexibility in choosing the high school they attend, as long as the school is not at capacity. This may reduce some of the need for mobile classrooms. · Ms. Thomas mentioned that some areas (i.e., cosmetology) are turning out more students with skills than the community need, and then there are other areas where the need is not being met. She asked if Mr. Baker could get some information on whether this was true. 11. Bdefing on changes to Freedom of Information Act. None. · Received; no action. 12. Discussion: Year 2000 Legislative Proposal to submit to VACo. · Mr. Bowerman said he would rather limit the proposal to a local option income tax as opposed to including a local option sales tax. Clerk: Send memo to Bill Mawyer. Clerk: Send letter to Sherry Buttdck. School Division: Provide response. County Executive: Update legislative proposal and include on consent agenda for July 14, 1999. · Ms. Thomas asked staff to provide information on the "Five for Five" initiative. This proposal would return five percent of the income tax to the locality, and in return the locality would reduce its real estate taxes by five percent. · Mr. Tucker suggested adding the increase of state revenues to localities for such joint services as jails, juvenile detention facilities, etc. 13. Work Session: CPA-97-~5. Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). · Held; public hearing scheduled for July 14. Board indicated that it probably would not take action at the July 14 meeting. Would defer until September so they could have a chance to consider all the comments made at the public hearing. 13. Appointments. Appointed Ms. Elizabeth D. Mclvor, as the Jack Jouett District representative, to the Board of Social Sen/ices, with said term to expire on December 31, 2001; Reappointed Mr. Juandiego Wade and Mr. Clifford R. Buys, to the JAUNT Board, with said terms to expire September 30, 2002; Reappointed Mr. Dan M. Maupin, Fred W. Shields, Jr., and Montie Pace, to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board, with said terms to expire September 1,2001; Appointed Mr. Thomas Foley to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Planning & Coordination Council Technical Committee. · Appointed Mr. Thomas Foley as the Assistant County Executive, effective July 1, 1999. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. · Mr. Perkins asked about arrangements for the Board's attendance at VACo's Annual Conference at the Homestead. · Ms. Thomas mentioned the Italians recent visit to the area. Proposed that the County form a relationship with the Provincia of Prato, similar to the relationship the City has with Poggio a Caiano. She asked that the Board support a resolution to go on next week's agenda that she can take when she goes to Italy. The Board SUPPORTED a resolution for the July 14th agenda. · Ms. Thomas handed some information to the Planning staff and County Attorney concerning Peacock Hill and the problems they are experiencing with their central well system. They are looking for some alternatives and want some help. · Ms. Thomas said when she and Susan Thomas went to Richmond a few weeks ago, they learned about Jim Jacoby, who has designed and built Targets and Walmarts as part of mixed use applications, including with two stodes. She feels the Board could get a lot of information from this person. He is willing to talk to Board members via phone. Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas will talk with him via conference call and will report back to the Board. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to see some pictures of Mr. Jacoby's work. He also would like to know the economics; where the Targets and Walmarts are None. Clerk: Update Boards and Commissions and send out appointment letters. Clerk: Vedfy resewations. Clerk: Include resolution on July 14, 1999 agenda. 16. 17. 16. located to get an idea of their relationship to the communi{yand their relationship to local enabling ordinances; what was enabled by dght and what was required; whether the I~ had a Comprehensive Plan; and the circumstances of the projects. Ms. Humphris mentioned a complaint from a citizen regarding open burning. Someone, in the tree business is bringing by truck, to an area which is priv~ely owned, tree stuff to bum. This is taking place on property right behind houses on Old Forge Road, off of Georgetown. When she contacted Fire & Rescue, she was told this could be done. Mr. D~vis s~id he believes it is a violation and he will address the issue. Closed Session: Legal and Property Matters. At 12:55 p.m., the Board went into closed session. Certify Closed Session. At 3:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified. Adjourn. At 4:10 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to July 12, for a joint meeting with the School Board. County Attorney: Look into the issue. Note: Copies of all attachments are on the following pages. A signed copy is forwarded in the regular mail to the responsible individual. If you need a signed copy, please let me know, and I will forward one to you. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: V. Wayne Cflimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development Ella W. Carey, Clerk,,CM~-~ July16,1999 Board Actions of July 7, 1999 At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 7a. Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743, Historic Register Designation. APPROVED as recommended by staff: 1 ) Maintain the Advance Mills Bridge so that it retains its historic significance; 2) Nominate the Advance Mills Historic District for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; 3) 'If it i~ determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety requirements, dose the historic Advance Mills Bridge to vehicular traffic and maintain it for pedestrian traffic. Thoroughly study alternate alignments that will not compromise the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District; and 4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district, proceed with nomination of the bridge as an individual resource. Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: CPA-97-05. Brass, Inc. (Willoughby). Held the work session. Board indicated that it would probably not take action after the public hearing on July 14. /ewc I~x~d P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphfis Fom~t R. Ma~all, Jr. COUNTY OF AI REMA~I.E offic~ of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdnfire Road Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 J~yI6,1999 Ch~nl~ S. ~n Walter E Perkins ~ H. Thomas Ms. Angela G. Tucker Resident Engineer 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Ms. Tucker: At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors made the folloWing comments regarding transportation matters: Item 5.7. Authorize County Executive to execute "Agreement for Highway Project Administration" between VdoT and the County - Meadow Creek Parkway. ADOPTED the attached resolution. Agenda Item No. 7a. Advance Mills Bridge, Route 743, Historic Register Designation (deferred from April 7, 1999.) APPROVED as recommended by staff: 1 ) Maintain the Advance Mills Bridge so that it retains its historic significance; 2) Nominate the Advance Mills Historic District for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; 3) If it is determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety requirements, dose the historic Advance Mills Bridge to vehicular traffic and maintain it for pedestrian traffic. Thoroughly study alternate alignments that will not compromise the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District4 and 4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district, proceed With nomination of the bridge as an individual resource. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters. · Regarding Mr. Eades' comments, Ms. Tucker said VDoT is experiencing a cash fl0w problem which has resulted in delaying some gravel road projects. This means a delay of six to twelve months on some projects. They are currently looking at advertising Route 605 next spring. · Regarding a meeting on Morgantown Road, Ms. Tucker said she will be forwarding a report to Ms. Thomas. Printed on recycled paper Ms. Angela Tucker July 16, 1999 Page 2 · Regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway, Mr. Tucker asked if the County will be able to move forward with its plans to four- lane, given City Council's impending action to two lane its section. Ms. Tucker responded that she believes formal VDoT support will be for four-lanes. She did not know how the CTB wood proceed with the City's action. · Mr. Perkins said there is a large dead tree on Tabor Street that is coming down, one limb at a time. He asked that it be removed. · Mr. Perkins said there is a large limb down on Route 627, south of Route 712. ~ · Mr. Perkins said the sidewalks under the railroad bridge in Crozet have a lot of gravel on them, and asked that they be cleaned. · Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the installation of street lights at the intersection of Route 20 and Mill Creek. Mr. Mawyer said they are in the process and moving forward. · Ms. Thomas said the Bellair project is complete and looks like it is doing well. · Ms. Thomas asked for an update on West Leigh Drive. She understands that it is not yet in the State system because of some quitclaim work with the utility companies. · Regarding unpaved road projects, Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should warn everyone that the projects have been put off a minimum of six months. Ms. Tucker responded that it will be from six months to a year. At the August Board meeting, she will provide an update on the status of all proiects. · Ms. Humphris mentioned the need for everyone, including the public, to continue the fight concerning VDoT towers in the median of the interstate. · Mr. Bowerman said he plans to attend the meeting about expanded rail service from Bristol to Washington and to Richmond, that is scheduled for July 12, 1999 in Lynchburg. ~. Mr. Martin said he has been receiving complaints about the dust on Rocky Hollow Road. He asked that VDoT put something down on the road. '~ Mr. Martin asked if VDoT would determine if a need exists for a traffic light on old Free Bridge He also asked that Parks and Recreation look at whether there is a need to reinstall the /EWC Road. gate. CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Mawyer Sincerely, Sent by:~,,~VA BIO MED ENG[NEEfl[Na 804 982 3870; 07/02'/99 0:43PM;lYJ/.a,L#801;Page ~/1 July 2,1999 Mr, Charles S. Mmin Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Melntit¢ Road Charlottesville, VA, :22902 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors.' With today's vote by the City Council to approve the Mcadowcreek Parkway, we are very, very unhappy and fearful that our elected officials (including both city and ~;otu~ry officials) may be missing the main point of recem debates over individual new roads. Tho main point is this: new roads equal new growt.h and more congest/on. We believe the Meadowbtook Parkway should be stopped, and lha: the Western ilypas~ should b~ slopped, and that scenic byway Route 250 We~t should ,lever, never t:~ cnlarged to more than the cra'mat two lanes. Why? Didn't you hear jmt this week how thc Parkway will scrve to alleviate tsaffic on om recently oversized I 0-lane Route 29? What is r~xt - 4 lan~ on the Parkway?, Thcs, a nov., road m alleviate Parkway congestion? And so on into thc future, until at1 that rcmains is pavement and cars. Don't you see a pattern here? k is the same as everywhere else. When will we all wake up and understand this? Let's preserve tho beauty of th, area and limit growth. NO NEW ROADS. This is rio: jt~t rhetoric and fo, elected officials to say so is nesligent and lazy - plenty of good and cheap solutions ~xiat, and we delailed one {atagsemd work start times) in a recent letter to you. Other place~ have done it, survived, and thrived. We can too! Sincerely, Thomas and Susan Skalak 2565 Cedar Ridge Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 (Albemarle County) Daytime Phone (Thomas Skalak): 924-0270 Evening Phone (llaomas and Susan Skalak) 296-2977 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ..! Ella W. Carey, CMC, C~. July 16, 1999 Board Actions of July 7, 1999 At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the following requests: Item 5.1. Appropriation: Item 5.2. Appropriation: #98O78). Item 5.3. Appropriation: Item 5.4. Appropriation: Item 5.5. Appropriation: JAUNT Transportation Grant, $183,120 (Form #98077). Community Development Block Grant 98-07, $770,989 (Form VRS Early Retirement Debt Service, $39,233 (Form #98079). General Fund- Rescue Squads, $3,014 (Form #98080). Education/Grant, $33,652.38 (Form #98081). Item 5.6. Allocate FY 1998 Library Carry-over Funds. APPROVED allocating the surplus funds from the Jefferson Madison Regional Library's FY 98 budget in the following manner: $5,700 to remain at the library for their architectural assessment; $30,000 to restore the County's share of the library's automation proiect and the remaining $58,883 to be returned to the library's CIP account for other uses to be determined and recommended by the CIP Technical Committee. Item 5.8 Pantops CTS Bus Route Service. APPROVED a CTS Pantops bus service route based on the proposal from Great Eastern Management Company. This approval does require the transfer of $50,000 from the reserve fund set aside for that purpose and an additional $4,000 from the fund balance (advertising costs borne by Great Eastern have reduced the original $56,000 request by $2,000). /ewc Attachments pc: Roxanne W. White Robert Walters Addie Armstrong Bryan Betts Ginnie McDonald Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Bob Brandenburger APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98077 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VDSS/TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE GRANT, EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 1556 53140 110000 SALARIES $ 18,516.00 I 1556 53140 210000 FICA 1,416.00 I 1556 53140 221000 RETIREMENT 2,252.00 I 1556 53140 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 2,300,00 1 1556 53140 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 41.00 1 1556 53140 270000 WORKER'S COMP. INSURANCE 185.00 I 1556 53140 343000 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 158,410.00 TOTAL $ 183,120.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1556 24000 240535 VDSS/TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE $ 183.120.00 TOTAL $183.120.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE ?-/~ --?? FISCAL YEAR: TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENT TO VRS EARLY RETIREMENT DEBT. APPROPRIATION REQU EST 98/99 NUMBER 98079 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I 9900 68000 910110 SCH/VRS EARLY RETIREMENT $ 39,233.00 TOTAL $ 39,233.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9900 51000 512011 TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND $ 39.233.00 TOTAL $39,233.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FI NANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNAT. URE ~ DATE FISCAL YEAR: TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: APPROPRIATION REQUEST 98~99 NUMBER 98078 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT. 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 81031 110000 SALARIES $ 24,863.00 81031 210000 FICA 1,902.00 81031 310000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 275.00 81031 312300 ARCHITECT 17,000.00 81031 312800 AUDIT 3,215.00 81031 510000 UTILITIES 3,243.00 81031 530000 INSURANCE 5,294.00 81031 540000 RENT 5,251.00 81031 550400 TRAVEL-EDUCATION 2,390.00 8103~ 550402 TRAINING 1,127.00 8103~ 563100 AHIP 589,989.00 81031 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 5,572.00 81031 601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 2,868.00 81031 800000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 60,000.00 8103~ 800750 LAND ACQUISITION 48,000.00 TOTAL $ 770,989.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1224 33000 330009 CDBF-FEDERAL $ 770,989.00 TOTAL $770,989.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: HOUSING APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~fl~~'~~-~~ FISCAL YEAR: TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EMS FUNDING. APPROPRIATION REQUEST 98199 NUMBER 98080 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEVV YES NO X GENERAL EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 1000 32030 565202 SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD $ 1,004.67 1 1000 32030 565002 CH¥1LLE/ALB RESCUE SQUAD 1,004.67 1 1000 32030 565102 VVESTERN/ALB RESCUE SQUAD 1,004.66 TOTAL $ 3,014.00 REVENUE CC DE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 1000 24000 240415 EMS FUNDS $ 3,014.00 TOTAL $3,014.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE 79 APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: 98/99 NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW 98081 ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL DONATIONS AND GRANTS. YES NO X SCHOOL/GRANT EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 2206 61101 601300 INSTIREC SUPPLIES $ · 2,000.00 1 2302 61411 155000 SUB-WAGES 3,500.00 1 2302 61411 601300 INST. SUPPLIES 1,900.00 1 2252 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 15,992.38 1 3104 60214 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 2,000.00 1 3104 61311 312000 OTHER PROF. SERVICES 1,485.00 1 3126 63328 111400 SALARIES-OTHER MANAG. 1,800.00 1 3126 63328 210000 FICA 138.00 I 3126 63328 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE 300.00 I 3126 63328 601300 INST/REC SUPPLIES 4,537.00 TOTAL $ 33,652.38 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION $ 2,000.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 5,400.00 2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION 15,992.38 2 3104 18000 181232 SOUTHLAND CORP 2,000.00 2 3104 24000 240353 VA. COMM. OF THE ARTS GRANT 1,485.00 2 3126 24000 240306 LEARN & SERVE GRANT 6,775.00 TRANSFERS TOTAL $33,852.38 REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation JAUNT Transportation Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation # 98077in the amount of $183,120.00 for continued funding of the JAUNT Transportation Initiative. AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGEN DA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes Tucker, White, Armstrong, Betts REVIEWED B _: BACKGROUND: In November 1997, Albemarle, Charlottesville, and Fluvanna Departments of Social Services in conjunction with JAUNT, a community transportation system in central Virginia, received a Transportation Initiatives grant from the State. Thanks to the grant, the employment barrier of transportation has been completely removed for all VIEW participants in Charlottesville, Fluvanna County, and Albemarle County since November 1997. From November to May, more than 6,300 trips have been provided by JAUNT and 4,450 fixed route bus passes have been issued. For the 181 clients participating in the program, transportation services are vital to maintaining employment. A recent extension of State funding has provided for services through September 1999. DISCUSS ION: The JAUNT grant funds the direct costs of transportation as well as a fu II-time Project Coordinator position and the costs of cellular phones for off-hours transportation arrangements. It covers employment-related rides for VIEW participants to and from the initial VIEW evaluation, job readiness classes, employment searches, employment, daycare for employment purposes, Community Work experience, and approved educational activities. JAUNT is a community transportation system in central Virginia covering the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Nelson, Louisa and Fluvanna. Services are generally provided on weekdays from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM. The grant enables JAUNT to expand its services to meet the needs of every VIEW participant who lacks transportation, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. JAUNT has donated the use of its fleet for providing this service, but an additional van is needed to carry out the service. In addition to its fleet of over 55 vans, JAUNT uses private taxis to provide service. Since the VIEW program started, the ridership of small children has increased, and JAUNT purchased 15 additional child car seats. JAUNT expects to transport even more children in the future as new clients participate in VIEW. It is obvious as new VIEW clients register in the program and as current clients continue to work that the need for the transportation program is great. If the program is allowed to continue, Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Fluvanna will continue to make welfare reform succeed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of appropriation # 98077 in the amount of $183,120 all of which represents State funds and extends the grant through September, 1999. 99.100 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Community Development Block Grant 98-07 SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation 98078 in the amount of $770,989. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; Ms. White, McDonald AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: ,CONSENT AGEN DA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHM.~ENT.....~S: REVIEWED BY:~ ~ 7 BACKGROUND: The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has approved a $770,989 multi-year grant for the Porters Road/Yancey School neighborhood in Southern Albemarle County. The grant will: Rehabilitate 27 owner occupied homes, Substantially reconstruct 1 owner-occupied home, Rehabilitate t rental home, Purchase the site and develop 5 new homes for first-time home buyers, Demolish and remove 5 abandoned and dilapidated structures, Begin to develop a community park, and Improve the W.D. Ward Community Center DISCUSSION: This grant is part of a $1,762,084 program consisting of: CDBG grant Federal Home loans AHIP funding Private mortgage funding $770,989, 224,058, 415,381, and' 351,656 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appropriation #98078 in the amount of $770,989. 99.103 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: VRS Debt Service SU BJ ECT/P ROPOSAL/REQU EST'. Request approval of Appropriation #98079 in the amount of $39,233.00 to adjust the VRS Early Retirement debt payment. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: In 1992 the County of Albemarle incurred a debt with the Virginia Retirement System for the cost of providing early retirement benefits to school employees. This debt is funded in the school budget and transferred to the School Debt Service Fund in the annual appropriation ordinance. DISCUSSION: The FY 1998/99 payment due of $295,925 was funded in the School Budget and has been transferred to the School Debt Service Fund. The appropriation in the School Debt Service Fund was initially approved for $256,692. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98079 to increase the School Debt Service appropriation to $295,925, an increase of $39,233.00. No additional funds are required. 99.105 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: General Fund - Rescue Squads SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98080 in the amount of $3,014.00 for additional Two-For-Life funds for the three volunteer rescue squads. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The County of Albemarle receives funds each year from the State Office of Emergency Medical Services. The amount is based on $2.00 per passenger vehicle, pickup and panel truck registered and is a portion of the State vehicle registration fee. State law requires that 25% of the fees collected be returned to the locality in which the vehicle is registered. The use of these funds is restricted for emergency medical services. The County received $3,014.00 more in FY 98/99 than was appropriated to the three rescue squads. The County has traditionally appropriated the total received to the three rescue squads. This request is to adjust the FY 98/99 appropriation to pass the additional funds on to the rescue squads. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #98080 in the amount of $3,014.00 as detailed on the attached form. 99.106 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education / Grant SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #98081 in the amount of $33,652.38 to receive donations and grant monies for Education. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: At its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation from Mr. and Mrs. George Neff in the amount of $2,000.00. These funds will be used to purchase cork stripping for the school. Western Albemarle High School received donations from the Western Albemarle Band in the amount of $3,500.00 and the Western Albemarle Band Boosters in the amount of $1,900.00. The funds will be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms for an assistant for the marching band. Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PATSO in the amount of $15,992.38. The funds will be used to assist in the purchase of computers fora new computer lab. Cale Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corporation in the amount of $2,000.00. This program entitled, People Who Read Achieve, will fund the Accelerated Reader software program at Cale. This program will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills. Albemarle County Schools has received a grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $1,485.00. This grant will help fund Theatre IV Performances within the school system. Albemarle County Schools received a grant in the amount of $6,775.00 from the Virginia Department of Education. This grant will provide funding for the project: Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pair second and third graders with preschool children to ease transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the appropriations totaling $33,652.38 as detailed on Appropriation #98081. 99.107 Chmlot~e ~. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMA.Rt F Office of Boa,,~l of Sui~m~o~ 401 Mcl~fim Road Chaflottes-,/lle, Vn*ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX {804) 296-5800 July 29, 1999 Charlas S. Marlin Waiter E l:L, rkins ~ lt. Thomas George F. and Elizabeth M. Neff PO Box 82 Free Union, Va 22940 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Neff: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donation to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. These funds will be used to purchase cork stripi~ing for the school Again, thank you for your support of the Albemarle County School system. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ewc CC: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner PHnted on recycled paper David P. B°w~mrnan Charlotte Y. Humphfis Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF Al REMARI F_ Of'rice of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'm~inia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 July 29, 1999 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sall9 H. Thomas Western Albemarle Band Boosters 5941 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Sir: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your recent donations to the band at Western Albemarle. These funds will be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms for an assistant for the marching band. Again, thank you for your support of the Albemarle County School system. ~' Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/ewc cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Castner Printed on recycled paper to the of, HENLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL PARENT TEACHER'S SUPPORT ORGANIZATION ROUTE 1, 80X 519 CROZET, VA 22932 759 1704 CROZEr, VIRGINIA i~or _ "'000 ? 5 q,' m:O 5 & m, O0 50 ?m: & 20:~ 50 &O,' Date: 05/24/99 Re: Donation for Computer Purchase ~lease accept the attached check in ~c amount of $15,992.38 as a donation to ~iMiddle School from our Parent Organization, PATSO. We are requesting on to be transferred to the Henley account #1-2252-61101-800700 to the purchase of computers for a new computer lab. Thank you for your ~let me know if there are any additional questions. Sincerely, Don Vale Principal Henley Middle School ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: June 15, 1999 TO. bert W. Tucker,' Jr., County Executive F~Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent RE./~-~Request for Appropriation At its meeting on June 14, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $2,000.00. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation from Mr. & Mrs. George Neff in the amount of $2,000.00. The funds will be used to purchase cork stripping for the school. o Appropriation of $5,400.00. Western Albemarle High School received donations from the Western Albemarle Band in the amount of $3,500.00 and the Western Albemarle Band Boosters in the amount of $1,900.00 The funds will be used to offset the cost of new band uniforms for an' assistant for the marching band. o Appropriation of $15,992.38. Henley Middle School received a donation from the Henley Middle School PATSO in the amount of $15,992.38. The funds will be used to assist in the purchase of computers for a new computer lab. o Appropriation of $2,000.00. Cale Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corp in the amount of $2,000.00 This program entitled, People Who Read Achieve, will fund the Accelerated Reader software. Program at Cale. This program will help motivate students to read more'and help improve their reading comprehension skills. o Appropriation of $1,485.00. Albemarle County Schools has received a grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $1,485.00. This grant will help fund Theatre IV Performances within the school system. Request for Appropriation Page 2 o Appropriation of $6,775.00. Albemarle County Schools received a grant in the amount of $6,775.00 from the Virginia Department of Education. This grant will provide funding for the project: Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This project will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pair second and third graders with preschool children to ease transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide second and third graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance To receive and disbursed these funds as displayed on the attachment. smm xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey Page 3 Donation - Meriwether Lewis Elementary School Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2206-61101-601300 Donation Inst/Rec Supplies $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Donation - Western Albemarle Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Donation High School Expenditure: 1-2302-61411-155000 -601300 Donation Sub-Wages Inet Supplies Henley Middle School Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Donation Expenditure: 1-2252-61101-800700 ADP Equipment Southland CorD Grant Revenue: 2-3104-18000-181232 Expenditure: 1-3104-60214-601300 Southland Corp Grant Inst/Rec Supplies $5,400.00 $3,500.00 $1,900.00 $15,992.38 $15,992.38 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Va. Commission for the Arts Revenue: 2-3104-24000-240353 Expenditure: 1-3104-61311-312000 Va. Comm Arts Grant Other Prof Svcs $1,485.00 $1,485.00 Learn & Serve Virqinia Grant Revenue: 2-3126-24000-240306 Expenditure: 1-3126-63328-111400 -210000 -550100 -601300 Learn & Serve Grant Salaries-Other Manag. FICA Travel-Mileage Inst/Rec Supplies $6,575.00 $1,800.00 $138.00 $300.00 $4,537.00 $6,775.00 TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: ,~,BE~ COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum Sandy Morris Sue Fortune Meriwether Lewis School May 11, 1999 Deposit of Check Please deposit the attached check in the amount of $2,000.00 to our school account # 1 :-: -:. - i ~ Mr. & Mrs. Neff would like to use this donation as a tax write off. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this transaction i TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Sandy Morris Sue Fortune Meriwether Lewis School May 11, 1999 Deposit of Check ALBEMA~W.~'- COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum Please deposit the attached check in the amount of $2,000.00 to our school account # 1 - ::- ! - . I - Mr. & Mrs. Neff would like to use this donation as a tax write off. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this transaction GEORGE F. NEFF 4179 ELIZABETH McCAW NEFF Private Bank TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: ALBE~ .COUNI~ PUBUC SCHOOLS Sandy Morris Sue Fortune Meriwether Lewis School May 11, 1999 Deposit of Check Memorandum o~~ ~oO0 Please deposit the attached check in the amount of $2,000.00 to our school account # 1 ~ - . ~ '- : '- Mr. & Mrs. Neff would like to use this donation as a tax write off. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this transaction GEORGE P. NEFF 4179 EUZABETH McCAW NEFF F'.C). BOX 82 FREE UNION, VA ~940 /-")'~'//,,-~//~,~ ~-1151~ VA PAY d~1, ~ .,~1 /'~.~ DATE~,//~/2'~_ - ~OI _ b - '7' ~" DOLLARS .~.,,.-- '.ldaiionsBank. ~~ N~ ~te B~k Inv Date Acco:.tnt Invoice Amount 05/05/99 H-8010.00 3, 500.00 Discount 0.00 Remittance 500. 00 Number Invoice Amount 24885 3,500.00 Di$count 0.00 Remittance 3, 500.00 WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH .~CHOOL 5941 ROCKFISH GAP TURNPIKE CROZET, VIRGINIA 22932 804-823-4314 RREF VIRGINIA BANK-CENTRAL CROZE~, VIRGINIA 22932 68-136/514 024885 :='4885 PAY 500 DOLLARS AND 00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 CENTS DATE AMOUNT · 05/05/99 ******5, 500.00 VOID IF Nor CASHEDW 180 DAYS ,..- Date 12/99 Numbep Account H-8010.00- Invoice Aaount 1 ~ 900.08 Invoice Amount ' 1,980.00 Discount 0, 00 Discount 0.00 Remittance 900. 00 Remittance 1 ~ 900. 00 WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH 8CHOOL 804~14 ~8-13~/514 '024935. TOTHE ORDER OF ******1,900 DOLLARS AND 00 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA CENTS DATE AMOUNT · 05112199 ******1,900. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUN'I~ PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: June 29, 1999 Ro~ Tucker, Jr., County Executive I . fl / K~tner, DiviSion Superintendent Reqd~st for Appropriation At its meeting on June 28, 1999, the School Board approved the following appropriations: o Appropriation of $4,500.00. Stone Robinson ~lementary School received a donation from the Stone Robinson PTO in the amount of $4,500.00. The funds will be used to cover expenses for the Volunteer Coordinator position at Stone Robinson. o Appropriation of $34.64. The Albemarle Education Association has donated $17.32 to Henley Middle School and $17.32 to Brownsville Elementary School. These donations came as a result of a fundraiser the AEA held with book stores in the area to donate monies for school libraries. o Appropriation of $1,000.00. Woodbrook Elementary School received a grant award from the Southland Corp in the amount of $1,000.00. This program entitled, People Who Read Achieve, will fund the purchase of instructional materials to be developed into kits for students in grades K/l-5 to directly support the Virginia Standards of Learning and the Albemarle County Reading Curriculum. This program will help motivate students to read more and help improve their reading comprehension skills. It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation ordinance to receive and disbursed these funds as displayed on the attachment. simll xc: Melvin Breeden Ella Carey Page,2 Donation - Stone Robinson Elementary Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2210-61101-135000 -210000 Donation Part-time Wages FICA School $4,500.00 $4,162.00 $338.00 $4,500.00 Donation - Henley Revenue: 2-2000-18100-181109 Expenditure: 1-2203-61101-601300 1-2252-61101-601300 Middle & Brownsville Elementary Schools Donation Inst/Rec Supplies Inst~Rec Supplies $34.64 $17.32 $17.32 Revenue: 2-3104-18000-181232 Southland Corp Grant Southland Corp Grant $1,000.00 Expenditure: 1-3104-60212-601300 Inst/Rec Supplies $1,000.00 albemarle asso 'd u 'catiOniatlon * 804/977-4370 1924 Arlington Blvd, Suite 222, Charlottesville, Va. 22903 Last year we'did a fundraiscr with book stores in thc area to donate monies tbr school libraries in Albemarle. We collected enough money to distribute a small amount for each. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $34.64 tkotn Albemarle Education BoOk Blast 1998. We scm all Albemttrle Schools a check in the amount of $17.32. AH school libraries received and depasited the mount except for Brownsville check # 1151 and Henley check # 1156. Would you please see that they receive $17.32 in their account. This year all monies will be sent directlv to'Albemarle County School. Thank You for your cooperation. Treasurer, AEA ALBEMARLE COUlqTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum TO: Jackson Zimmermann Fiscal Services FROM: Laurie McCulloug~~ Stone. Robinson~-/. ~ DATE: .lune 7, 1999 PTO Check for Volunteer Position Enclosed is a check in the amount of.$4,500.00 from the Stone- Robinson PTO to cover expenses'for our Volunteer Coocdinator posiUon. This should be Included in code :t-2210-6110 !: 13.500. you have questions or concerns please call me. David P. Bowerman Charlol~ y. Hmphr~ ?otrest R. Mn~h~ll, Jr. COUNTY OF Office of Board of Supervism,s 401 M~In~ire Road Ch~o~e, V~ 22~2~ (~) 2~ F~ (~) 2~5~ Charles S, Martin W~lter E Perkins Sall~ H. Thomas Mr. John Halliday Executive Director Jefferson-Madison Regional Library 201 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Halllidav: At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved allocating surplus funds from the Jefferson-Madison Regional Librarv's FY 98 budget in the following manner: $5,700 to remain at the library for their architectural assessment; $30,000 to restore the County's share of the library's automation project and the remaining $58,883 to be returned to the library's CIP account for other uses to be determined and recommended by the CIP Technical Committee. /EWC Sincerely, Ella W. Carey;"'CMC, C~k / / / CC: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Roxanne W. ~Pnite Printed on recycled paper APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 NUMBER 99013 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND: GENERAL-CIP PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF PRIOR YEAR LIBRARY REFUND. CODE 1 9010 7302O EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 999999 LIBRARY CONTINGENCY $58,883.00 TOTAL $58,883.00 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9010 19000 190303 LIBRARY REFUND $58,883.00 TOTAL $58,883.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY98 Library Carry-Over Funds SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/RECIU EST: Request approval to allocate $94,583 in FY98 library carry- over funds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Jefferson Madison Regional Library has notified the county that they have an audited budget surplus of $94,583 in Albemarle County funds from FY98. DISCUSSION: In discussing the allocation of the FY98 carry-over funds with the Library Director, John Halliday, there are several o~)tions for the distribution of this surplus: The first option would be to allow the library to keep $5 700 of the carry-over to use towards their architectural assessment, a FY00 budget request that was not funded in the County's adopted budget. The County recommended that they find the money for the assessment out of one-time funds. The second option is to use $30,000 of the carry-over to restore full funding for the library's automation upgrade. Although the County had originally budgeted $344,438 for the upgrade, at the end of FY98 the library's allocation was reduced by $30,000 as a way of addressing the County's revenue shortfall due to the reduced personal property collections in that year. Those funds have never been restored to the library automation project. The third option is to designate the remaining $58,883 in carry-over funds to the library's ClP account where the funds can be used to help fund the remaining $47,500 in computer upgrade costs scheduled for FY01 or to provide further computer enhancements at the County's branch libraries. The best use of these remaining funds for library capital projects can be reviewed by the ClP Technical Committee as it prepares the FY00/01- FY04/05 Capital Improvements Program this fall. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allocating the County's surplus funds from the Jefferson Madison Regional Library's FY98 budget in the following manner; $5,700 to remain at the library for their architectural assessment, $30,000 to restore the County's share of the library's automation project and the remaining $58,883 to be returned to the library's CIP account for other uses to be determined and recommended by the CIP Technical Committee. 99.110 pc: Mr. Melvin A. Breeden Mr. John Halliday COUNTY OF ALBEMARI,E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jack Kelsey Chief of Engineering Ella W. Carey, C~~C July 16, 1999 Meadow Creek Parkway- Agreement for Highway Project Administration At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to execute the project administration agreement for the Meadow Creek Parkway. /ewc Attachment cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Juan Wade RESOIJJJTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, desires to execute an "Agreement For Highway Project Administration", with the Virginia Department of Transportation, to administer the Meadow Creek Parkway project from Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Route 29. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to execute the above-described agreement. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero on July 7, 1999. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Meadow Creek Parkway - Agreement For Highway Project Administration SU BJECTIPROPOSAL/RECIU EST: BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute the "Agreement For Highway Project Administration" between VDOT and the County. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Kelsey BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: July7,1999 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: ~ent REVIEWED BY: Development is occurring and/or being planned within the future corridor of the Meadow Creek Parkway, specifically within the critical area between Rio Road, Free State Road, and the South Fork Rivanna River. There is clearly a need to take action to reserve and/or acquire land necessary to assure an adequate route for the construction of the MCP. Staff has concluded that this can only be accomplished by working with developers to reserve or donate right-of-way and/or road improvements, or by the County acquiring the right-of-way. VDOT has determined that delineating the necessary right-of-way requires the preparation of environmental impact documents, preliminary engineering of the road, and the road location and design and their approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Due to the pending development activity, there is a need to expedite the project by authorizing the County, by agreement, to administer the project for VDOT. DISCUSSION: An Agreement has been drafted and reviewed by Staff, the County Attorney, and VDOT, and has been forwarded to the Attorney General for review. A copy of the Agreement is attached. This Agreement provides the County with the authority to hire a consultant and administer the Meadow Creek Parkway project from Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Route 29. Appendix C of the referenced Agreement limits the current scope of the work to the location/environmental study, preliminary engineering, and right-of-way acquisition. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, the scope may be expanded and/or redefined by executing a supplement to the "agreement." With the pending expansion of the Dunlora Subdivision, it is crucial to give the highest priority to the initial (Rio Road to Free State Road) portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway. For this reason the Agreement has been divided into three mutually dependent projects. The projects are briefly described below. They are also described in the Agreement in the section entitled "Attachment To Appendix C - Page 2' and displayed on the "Project Map." Free State Connector Road: Will provide for a connector road 0.5 miles in length, from Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651), in lieu of the "Free State Road Bridge Replacement" project currently listed in the Secondary Road Improvements 6-year Plan. AGENDA TITLE: Meadow Creek Parkway - Agreement For Highway Project Administration July 7, 1999 Page 2 Meadow Creek Parkway Study: Will provide the environmental documents and preliminary engineering necessary to obtain Commonwealth Transportation Board approval of the parkway location & design from Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) to St. Rte. 29 (approx. 3.3 miles). Meadow Creek Parkway Extension: Will provide for the final design and construction of the parkway from Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) to St. Rte. 29 (approx. 3.3 miles). A fee proposal has been received from Whitman, Requardt & Associates LLP for the design services. This proposal has been reviewed by Staff and forwarded to VDOT for their review. Upon execution of the Agreement, Staff is prepared to finalize the design services contract, route it to the necessary offices for signature, and provide the consultant with a "Notice to Proceed". RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution to authorize the County Executive to execute the project administration Agreement. 99.108 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, desires to execute an "Agreement For Highway Project Administration'', with the Virginia Department of Transportation, to administer the Meadow Creek Parkway project from Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Route 29. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to execute the above-described agreement. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to on July _, 1998. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY PROJECT ADMINISTRATION BY PROJECT NUMBER UPC ID LOCAL REFERENCE R000-002-259-PE-101 i 00052392 i Meadow Creek Parkway Study R000-002-259-C-501 i 00052393 i Free State Connector R000-002-259-C-502 i 00052394 _i Meadow Creek Parkway Extension This Agreement, made this day of ., , between the County of Albemarle (hereafter "Locality") and the Virginia Department of Transportation (hereafter "Department" or "VDOT"), is to: Establish one or more improvements to the secondary system of state highways to be managed by the Locality, detailed in Appendix C, which, either collectively or individually according to context, is hereafter referred to as the "Proj eot," · Enumerate the responsibilities of the parties hereto in regard to the scope of services and the obligations each is to bear, as set out herein and in Appendix C, and · Provide a means and the limitations for reimbursing the Locality for eligible costs incurred in managing the scope of services defined by this Agreement and detailed in Appendix C. WlIEREAS, the Locality desires to undertake and develop the Project phases identified in Appendix C in accordance with the provisions described herein; and WHEREAS, the Locality and the Department desire to expedite project construction and feel it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to allow the Locality to administer the work defined herein; and W-~REAS, each project identified in Appendix C has either been adequately funded or funds have been otherwise assured and are deemed by the Department sufficient to proceed with project development; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree that the provisions of this agreement shall govern the development and f'mancing of each project described in Appendix C, except as otherwise indicated therein. PROJECT MANAGEMENT The following items establish the general responsibilities of the parties under this agreement: A. The Department agrees: 1. To cooperate with the Locality in all reviews of the project design, right-of-way documents, construction documents, construction cost estimates, review of bids, etc., as required for each Project under this Agreement, approving each when the Department deems the subject item is consistent with its standards and practices. STD AGR1 3/27/1999 1 To coordinate all submissions of project information required to seek Federal Highway Administration (hereafter FHWA) concurrence or that required of any other agency or agencies of the Federal or State government, consistent with the procedures followed by the Department. To complete the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) and coordinate the preparation of the environmental document with the locality. After the SERP, the Department will determine, based in part on the locality's desire and capability to assume responsibility for the work, which party will be responsible for completing the environmental work. However, if VDOT administers construction of the project, it will obtain all required water quality permits, and develop and monitor any required wetland mitigation sites. To ensure compliance with all environmental laws and regulations, if the locality does not assume responsibility for the environmental work. The Locality agrees, unless the Department otherwise agrees in writing, as incorporated herein (Appendix C -Project Narrative) or by subsequent revision hereof (Standard Supplemental Agreement: 1. To comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Virginia Fair Employment Contracting Act, §§ 2.1-374 through 2.1-376, Code of Virginia, in performing the responsibilities set out herein to the extent these laws apply. 2. That any transportation corridor amprovement or new road created by a project under this Agreement, other than a local access road to an industrial, airport, or recreational site, is part of its approved comprehensive plan, adopted pursuant to apphcable sections of Title 15.2, Code of Virginia. 3. That the project has been included in all appropriate local, regional, and statewide long range planning and funding doucments. 4. To implement project accounting procedures that are acceptable to the Department, are Y2K compliant, and, if applicable, the Federal Highway Administration. Said procedures shall identify the accrued costs of each project by type of expenditure, amounts previously billed, and the identification of any costs inehgible for Department participation. 5. To develop the project in accordance w/th this Agreement and, if applicable, the: a. "Guide to the Industrial Access Roads Program of the Virginia Department of Transportation" (Memorandum SR-49-92 or as amended) in effect at the time of the allocation made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (hereafter CTB). b. "Guide to the Recreational Access Program of the Virginia Department of Transportation" (memorandum SR-47-91 or as amended) in effect at the time of the allocation made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). STD AGR1 3/27/1999 2 In the event the Locality provides Preliminary Engineering services, a, To procure design services in accordance with the scope of the Project pursuant to the Public Procurement Act and other applicable statutes and regulations. b. To obtain the Department's concurrence with any and all fee proposals for third party services provided hereunder, including the rates and costs set forth therein, prior to the initiation of each Project development phase. c. To obtain the Department's approval of a preliminary design and to base the final design on that approval. d. To base the design according to the functional classification of the facility, the traffic volume to be served and the character of the terrain and land use traversed. e. To develop all necessary construction plans, public hearing documents, construction specifications, contract documents, and construction estimates, consistent with those standards and practices used by the Department and consistent with the scope of services undertaken for the project. f. To be responsible for all environmental work, except as identified in I.A.3 and I.A.4 or the project narrative (Appendix C), and to comply with the requirements of Appendix A. 1. g. To carry out all commitments made through the SERP, National Environmental Policy Act (hereafter NEPA), Section 106 and water quality permitting processes except as identified in I.A.4. h. To obtain all required water quality permits and develop and monitor any required wetland mitigation sites, if the locality is to advertise and construct the project. i. To carry out all commitments made through the SERP, NEPA, and water quality permitting processes. j. To consult with VDOT to determine appropriate models and methods for assessing air quality and noise ~mpacts. In the event the Locality provides the right of way, including the adjustment of utilities, a. To provide the right of way at no cost to the Department for: (1) Local access roads to an industrial, airport, or recreational site, or (2) Any Project that creates a new road developed as part of a transportation corridor improvement, unless the Department otherwise agrees. STD AGR1 3/27/1999 3 b. For all other projects, to acquire the right of way as follows: (1) Provide all services necessary to assure the provisions of Appendix A are met and (2) To use its staff counsel for all legal proceedings or, if services other than its staff counsel are to be used, to use the services of an outside counsel appointed by the Office of the Attorney General in consultation with the Department. In the event the Locality advertises the project for bids or manages construction: a. To coordinate advertisement of the construction contract with the Department to assure that all necessary right-of-way acquisition and the adjustment of utilities managed by VDOT, if any, and that all other pre-construction project development items are completed prior to the advertisement of the project for contract or the award of a contract for construction. b. To obtain the Department's approval of all contract documents and construction estimates prior to advertising the project for bids or otherwise awarding a contract and beginning construction, and c. To limit the award of work under this Agreement to a contractor, including subcontractors and material suppliers, qualified to participate in contracts administered by the Department. d. To obtain the Department's concurrence in the amount of the award prior to awarding a contract for construction of a project under this Agreement. e. To assure, prior to issuing any notice to proceed, that the Contractor has obtained a Department Land Use Permit, as required for work to be performed within right of way under Department jurisdiction. f. For projects financed with funds administered by an agency of the United States, to not award a construction contract for a project under this Agreement until the Department's Construction Division recommends it and the Commonwealth Transportation Board has concurred. g. To make the work and all records available for inspection at any time by the Department and, if federally administered funds are involved, the Federal Highway Administration (hereafter "FHWA"). h. To provide construction inspection services as necessary to assure compliance with all applicable provisions of the plans, specifications, and contract documents. i. To perform a joint final inspection with the Department of the work performed and arrange for any deficiencies to be corrected prior to accepting the work. j. To obtain the Department's concurrence, in accordance with the procedures established in its construction specifications, prior to agreeing STD AGR1 3/27/1999 4 II. to any settlement of a claim initiated by a contractor. Further, if such settlement is disputed, the Locality agrees that the decision shall be appealed to the Commissioner, whose determination regarding settlement shall be final. To abide by the provisions and liabilities associated with failure to obtain the necessary approvals outlined in Appendix B. These shall include but are not limited to forfeiture of Department participation and reimbursement of costs for work implemented without its concurrence and, if appropriate, that of the FH~A. The Locality acknowledges that, subject to its appropriations process, it will bear the full expense of such costs from resources other than those administered by the Department, including but not limited to its own general funds. FUNDING, BILLING, AND PAYMENTS The parties hereto mutually agree: 1. That payments made under this Agreement shall be subject to available funds allocated in accordance with the amounts and limitations set forth for each Project, as enumerated herein and set forth in Appendix C. 2. That the aggregate amount of payments made under this Agreement for any s~ngle project shall not exceed the "Maximum Reimbursement Amount" shown in Appendix C and as may be subject to limits imposed on cost participation items under the policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 3. That the "Maximum Reimbursement Amount" shown for any individual Project in Appendix C may only be increased by a revision to this Agreement, in a format approved by the Department. 4. To allocate additional funds from eligible resources to meet project costs in the event the Total Projected Funding for a project is less than the actual costs incurred in its development, including but not limited to the following situations: a. In the event its actions or its failure to act causes a forfeiture of federal funds for the project, b. In the event the policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board require the local government to participate in the funding of certain construction features, such as but not limited to sidewalks, storm sewers, bicycle lanes, etc., or c. In the event project costs exceed the combined amounts of State and Locality administered for projects financed under §33.1-75.3, §33.1-221, or §33.1-223, Code of Virginia. 5. That nothing in the Agreement shall obligate the Locality to expend any funds in excess of funds akeady appropriated by the Locality for this Agreement. In addition, The Board of Supervisors shall not be obligated to appropriate any additional funds for the purpose of any project under this Agreement or revision thereof. STD AGR1 3/27/1999 5 Bo The Locality agrees: 1. To bear the cost of any project item or portion thereof that is deemed by the Department ineligible for its participation and to keep the costs and funding of such items separate and apart from other Project costs and funding. For the purposes of this Agreement, in addition to the costs aforementioned, ineligible costs shall include costs in excess of the Maximum Reimbursement Amount established in Appendix C for projects requiring allocations by formal action of the Commonwealth Transportation Board under the revenue sharing program, the recreational access program, and the industrial and airport access program. 2. To bill the Department not more often than monthly for actual, eligible project costs incurred or, in the event of an overpayment, to repay such amounts within 30 days of the Department's request or discovery of the overpayment. 3. For projects associated with access to a qualifying industrial site and funded pursuant to §33.1-221, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended: a. To bill the Department for the lesser of the following amounts, for projects where an existing industry is expanding or a new industry is under firm contract to build (Regular Industrial Access Project), (1) one-tenth of the industry's qualifying investment, (2) the actual costs incurred, (3) the allocation approved by the CTB, or (4) the maximum reimbursement amount shown in Appendix C. b. To provide a surety instrument acceptable to the Department that will cover the cost of the road where no industry is under contract to build (Bonded Industrial Access Project) in accordance with Appendix C, and, if the project is developed by the Locality, to bill the Department in accordance with provision ll.B.4.a. 4. For projects associated with access to a qualifying recreational sites and funded pursuant to §33.1-223, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to bill the Department for aggregate engineering and construction costs as follows, whichever is the least: a. the actual costs incurred, b. the allocation.approved by the CTB, or c. the maximum reimbursement amount shown in Appendix C: 5. In the event improvements to an existing road incorporating features funded under §33.1-221 or §33.1-223, to distinguish those costs from other project costs and bill the Department for the cost of those features so that reimbursement may be made under the appropriate project funding source. For the projects financed by combined funding sources, the costs for preliminary engineering shall be prorated by funding source, based on the estimated construction costs for design features in relation to the total estimated construction cost of the project. STD AGR1 3/27/1999 6 Vo Co The Department agrees: That a progress billing, submitted no more often than monthly, may be used for such invoices. To reimburse the Locality within 30 days of receiving an invoice for expenses incurred, the aggregate mount of which shall not exceed the Maximum Reimbursement Amount set forth for the Project after considering limits regarding cost participation. To remm any surety bond required of the Locality at such time as the conditions of the surety have been satisfied in accordance with the pohcies requiring the instrument. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS The source(s) of Project financing ~s identified in Appendix C and discussed in Appendix B. At such time as costs for a project funded pursuant to §33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, are forecast to exceed identified financing and the Locality w/shes to proceed with the project, the Locality agrees to make the project a part of the six-year plan for improvements to the secondary system in the Locality, in accordance w/th §33.1-70.01. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK In general terms, Appendix A outlines the work generally addressed in each project development phase of a typical highway improvement. There may be additional elements umque to a given project which, once identified shall be addressed by the parties hereto and may be subject to supplemental agreement. PROJECT ACCEPTANCE A. The Locality agrees: 1. In the event the Locality manages the construction of the project, to seek the Department's approval of the work performed prior to its final acceptance from the contractor. 2. To consult with the Department in regard to the changes (additions, discontinuances, and abandonments) to the secondary system of state highways that are required as a result of the project and to take the legislative actions, if any, that are appropriate to implement such changes. B. The Department agrees: 1. To accept, as part of the secondary system of state highways or the State Highway System, if applicable, projects administered by the Locality (except in the Counties of Arlington and Hen_rico), including responsibility for environmental mitigation sites, that are developed in accordance with this Agreement and which meet the Department's satisfaction based on a final inspection conducted jointly with the Locality, and 2. To incorporate the roadway as part of the secondary system of state highways upon receipt of and in accordance with the Locality's governing body's resolution that makes appropriate adjustments to that highway system as set out in the statutes, including §33.1-229. STD AGR1 3/27/1999 7 This Agreement may be mod/fled from time to time, by formal amendment, subject to the mutual consent of the parties hereto. Such modifications may include changes to the scope of services performed, estimated costs, maximum reimbursement mounts, and funding allocations for each Project included in Appendix C. Modification of this Agreement does not include the addition of any project that is not identified in the heading of the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these things aforesaid; and Pursuant to the authority of §33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, or §33.1-75.3, Code of Virginia, or both, as applicable according to the source or sources of funds used to finance the Project, and In consideration of an affidavit or other authorization provided by the Locality, attached hereto and incorporated herein, establishing authority to execute this agreement on its behalf, the authorized agents of the parties hereto set their hands as of the date first written above. For the County of Albemarle Locality Legal Review Attest By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive For the Virginia Department of Transportation Std/s JJBeall, Jr. 1/5/1999 VDOT Legal Review Std/s EHGibson 1/4/1999 VDOT Fiscal Review Attest By: David R. Gehr, Commissioner STD AGR1 3/27/1999 8 Appendix A -- General Scope of Project Development Phases Thc following enumerates in general terms the scope of work customarily associated with the development of a highway construction project. Other rcquirernents unique to a given project may also apply. A. Preliminary Engineering shall include, consistent with the Department's practices: 1. Preliminary Project Field Inspection The parties hereto, including representatives of any consultant to the Locality, shall participate in a project field inspection to review the improvements set forth in Appendix C. The Department shall approve a general, preliminary scope of improvements identified in this field inspection prior to the initiation of the design phase. 2. Design Phase The design phase of the project, if applicable, shall include the following: a. Studies and mapping of the transportation comdor as required to identify the most feasible and appropriate alignment for the project considered. b. Development of a preliminary and final design according to the functional classification of the facility, the traffic volume to be served and the character of the terrain and land use traversed, including all necessary construction plans and specifications to manage the acquisition of right-of-way, adjust utilities, and build the design. c. Identification of all necessary right-of-way to be acquired, including residents, businesses, or non-profit organizations to be relocated, placement of existing utilities, identification of utilities to be relocated, the estimated costs to acquire the right-of-way, relocation of displacees, and adjustment and relocation of utilities. This work shall include determining the time tim-ne required for acquisition of and making the right-of-way ready for construction. To establish said time frame and to make the right-of-way ready for construction, all utility owners shall be consulted and participate in coordinating the work with the Project. d. Performance of all emdronmental and mitigation studies and obtain approvals as required by law, including but not limited to NEPA documentation, water quality permits, hazardous materials identification and remediation/mitigation, and any and all cultural resource investigations necessary for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. e. Development of the constmction plans, special prov/sions, copied notes, and contract documents necessary to advertise, award, and construct the project in compliance with the procedures practiced by the Department. 3. Location and Project Design Approval Phase When plans are sufficiently detailed to illustrate the proposed improvement and its impact on the community, the project shall be submitted to the Department for location and design approval, following any necessary public involvement meetings held in accordance with the Department's public involvement and project Appendix A -- General Scope of Project Development Phases adoption and approval processes. The party responsible for designing the project shall conduct such meetings following the Department's review and concurrence with the preliminary plans. The design approval phase shall include a review of any potential cost participation items. Department participation in such items shall be concurred in before project development continues. The Right-of-Way Phase shall only be initiated with the Department's written consent after normal location and design approval is obtained and Department officials have approved the necessary plans and given authorization to proceed. Adjustment of utilities and the acquisition of land shall be managed consistent with the Department's practices as established in the Department's Right-of-Way Manual, which is fully incorporated herein by reference. All conflicts that may arise in the right-of-way phase shall be brought to the Department's attention and the Department's solution shall govern. Management of the right-of-way phase shall be based on engineering plans sufficiently complete to construct the project and which indicate the rights-of-way and easements needed, names of landowners affected, drainage, pavement, utility placements and relocations, etc. Details of proposed settlements shall be provided the Department for its concurrence, either before an Attorney has been assigned or after such appointment has been made. When monetary settlements are proposed that exceed the approved appraisal, the Department's written concurrence is to be secured prior to completing negotiations. If the Locality desires to acquire right-of-way using the legal services of a counsel from other than the Office of the Attorney General, legal services shall be provided by fee counsel appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Department. The right-of-way phase shall include the acquisition of all lands and property rights necessary to construct the improvements, the mitigation of environmental concerns, the relocation of displaced parties, the adjustment and relocation of utility installations, and more specifically the following: 1. In the acquisition of right of way, the responsible party shall: a. Acquire the real property interests, in the name of (1) the Commonwealth or, (2) if the property interests associated with the road or street being improved are vested in the name of a city, county, or town, either by deed or operation of law, the real property interests may be acquired in the name of that entity upon the Department's written concurrence. Where the existing right-of-way exists as an easement or prescriptive right, the entire right-of-way shall be secured in fee simple in the name of the Commonwealth unless otherwise approved by the Department. b. Identify and perform all necessary relocation assistance in accordance with Title 25 - Chapter 6 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. Appendix A- General Scope of Project Development Phases c. Schedule and acquire all rights of way, including easements in accordance with the Department's Right-of-Way Manual. d. Provide the Department with a detailed, verified summary of the rights of way costs, as mutually agreed, for the following: (1) Land and easements, if any (2) Buildings and other improvements (3) Damages (4) Cost of title examination (5) Costs for appraisals - fcc and/or staff (6) Costs for negotiations (7) Costs of closing, title and transfer fees (8) Legal expenses - staff/fee counsel appointed by the Attomey General to represent the Locality or the Department to conclude acquisition by deed or litigation, including assessed legal costs, witness fees, and other costs of litigation. (9) Relocation assistance 2. The Department shall: a. Be responsible for all rights of way acquisition costs including necessary easements, as well as all costs and expenses of any condemnation matter that may be dismissed, except as may otherwise be subject to a policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and provided the Department has previously concurred in the estimates for these costs. b. Provide all utility relocations and engineering drawings necessary to perform the work, or otherwise concur in such drawings prepared by the Locality. c. Approve all proposed settlements in writing and consider possible redesign of issues or the appeal of any adverse court rulings. The Department shall have the final decision making authority in consultation with the Locality. The Construction Phase shall include, consistent with Department practices: 1. Advertisement of the project for bids and award of a contract for project construction to a prequalified fa'm, or joint venture. 2. Materials testing and certification. 3. Inspection of work performed under the contract. 4. Resolution of disputes and claims initiated by the Contractor. 5. Posting of final plans. Appendix A.1 -- Environmental Process The following general requirements pertain to all projects, regardless of funding. In some cases, certain steps may not be applicable. For projects involving a federal action, the Department is responsible for being integrally involved in the performance of the study and adopting the final environmental document as a VDOT product. In order to ensure the technical adequacy and legal sufficiency of the document, the Locality must, at a minimum, comply with the requirements of this appendix. Specific attention is called to the following sections, which are associated with federal actions: A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7, A. 10, A. 11, A. 12, A. 13, and, in the event the Locality participates in the environmental processes, sections B.2(b, g, h, i), B.9, B.12, and B.13. In order to ensure the opportunity to use federal funds, the NEPA document must be prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 1500-1508 and 23 CFR 771. No work beyond that necessary to prepare the document can be accomplished before approval of the environmental document. Regardless of funding, the State Environmental Review Process must be completed prior to advertisement in order to satisfy the requirements of the Code of Virginia 10.1-1188. If the Locality agrees to assume responsibility for environmental studies in accordance with section I.A.3, the following items establish the general responsibilities of the parties under this agreement: The Department will: 1. Process the project through the SERP. 2. Provide the results of the SERP to the Locality. 3. Conduct a field review the project with a member of the Locality's staff after the initial project meeting described in BI. The purpose of this meeting is to compile enough project information to identify the level of environmental document required, and gather preliminary water quality permit data. 4. Identify a VDOT representative for environmental decisions if that is not the resident engineer. 5. Recommend a level of NEPA documentation to the lead federal agency after field review. 6. Confirm the level of NEPA document with the lead federal agency and solicit participation of that agency in the study. This will entail notifying the federal agency of project development milestones and inviting the federal agency to attend key technical meetings. 7. Coordinate with the lead federal agency to publish the notice of intent in the case of Environmental Impact Statements. 8. Review the following items to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state requirements: a. Review, and approve the scope of work. Including the rexaew and approval of the man-hours allotted for the study if the Locality uses the services f a consultant. b. Review and approve the qualifications of personnel responsible for conduct of environmental work. 9. Approve the project specific compliance with the Department's public involvement procedures as outlined in The YDOT Location and Design Public Involvement Policy and Procedures Manual (1991) as it relates to the environmental process. 10. Review the preliminary environmental documents, provide comments to the Locality, and, if appropriate, coordinate with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 11. Indicate approval of the environmental document by signing and adopting the document as a VDOT product. Appendix A.1 -- Environmental Process Be 12. Recommend lead federal agency approval of the document. 13. Confirm the appropriateness of the document during preparation of the Plans, Specifications, And Estimates (PS&E), prior to project advertisement. 14. Confirm, with Locality assistance, compliance with all environmental commitments during construction. The Locality will: 1. Initiate the SERP by submitting the Early Notification information to the Department. 2. Meet with Department personnel (and other agency personnel at the Department's discretion) to scope the project prior to selection of a consultant or the commitment of any resources. Scoping will include discussion of: a. Description of the proposed action; b. Purpose and need for the study; c. TIP information for projects in non-attainment areas; d. Project schedule; e. Study team composition; f. Preliminary environmental issues; g. Level of NEPA documentation required; h. Number of document copies required; i. Logical termini and independent utility; j. Public involvement requirements; k. Water quality permits; 1. Appropriate VDOT, Locality and agency contacts; m. Required technical studies. 3. Provide qualified staff to manage the environmental process. 4. Provide the Department an opportunity to review and approve the consultant to perform the environmental studies. 5. Provide the Department an opportunity to review and approve scope of work for the study. 6. Schedule meetings with the Department at appropriate benchmarks in the study as identified during scoping to review study progress and adequacy. 7. Provide all requests to VDOT for technical and coordination assistance from Locality staff and not from the Locality's consultant. 8. Provide the Department with a proposed project-specific public involvement plan prior to public involvement activities. This plan will demonstrate compliance with all items identified in The VDOT Location and Design Public Involvement Policy and Procedures Manual (1991) as required by environmental regulation. The public hearing notice will include all appropriate references to environmental notifications such as NEPA document availability, Section 106 compliance, and compliance with the Agricultural and Forestal District Act. 9. Provide the Department an electronic preliminary review draft of the CE, Draft EA, Draft EIS, Final EA or Final EIS. Appendix A.1 -- Environmental Process 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Ensure that results of the environmental study and public hearing information is considered in the location and design decisions for the project. Provide the Department with a copy of the public hearing transcript and responses to comments with the review copy of the environmental document. Provide the Department with the appropriate number of copies of the approved document as identified during project scopang. Provide a letter of certification when the project is submitted for PS&E approval that the project description has not changed since approval of the environmental document, or if any changes have occurred prepare a re-evaluation of the environmental document for Department consideration. Identify control measures to ensure compliance during construction with commitments contained in environmental documents and permits. If the Locality constructs the project, ensure that all environmental commitments are achieved, during and after construction. Appendix B - Funding Resource Requirements The following outline is intended to briefly describe principles governing the application of funds to finance the cost of Projects developed under this Agreement. Specific requirements and obligations associated with each source of funds shall apply, as established by the particular program from which funds are derived. I. Access Funds, including industrial and airport access projects, and recreational access projects Funds for Access Projects shall have been approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, pursuant to: A. §33.1-221, Code of Virginia, for projects meeting the provisions of Secondary Roads Division Memorandum SR-49-92, Guide to the Industrial Access Roads Program of the Virginia Department of Transportation. B. §33.1-223, Code of Virginia, for projects providing roads and bikeways to public recreational areas and historical sites, pursuant to Secondary Roads Division Memorandum SR-47-91, Guide to the Recreational Access program of the Virginia Department of Transportation. II. Secondary Construction Funds Projects funded partially or entirely by allocations made pursuant to §33.1-23.1, Code of Virginia, or §33.1-23.1:1, Code of Virginia, shall be a part of the six-year plan for secondary highways adopted pursuant to § 33.1-70.01, Code of Virginia. III. Revenue Sharing Funds A. Projects funded partially or entirely by allocations made pursuant to §33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, shall have been established in accordance with Secondary Roads Division Memorandum SR-48-92, Guide to the Revenue Sharing Program of the Virginia Departtnent of Transportation. B. At such time as the estimated cost exceeds identified financing, Projects funded pursuant to §33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, shall be made a part of the six-year plan for improvements to the secondary system of state highways within the Locality, pursuant to §33.1-70.01, Code of Virginia. IV. Federal Funds Projects partially or entirely financed with federal funds, including but not limited to Regional STP and safety funds, shall be subject to the privileges, obligations, and Imitations of the program from which the funds are derived. Authorization by the Federal Highway Administration to proceed is required for each phase separately prior to the initiation of the work under any given phase. Failure to obtain such approval may cause forfeiture of federal participation in the cost of the project. By executing the agreement of which this appendix is a part, the Locality, in the event it is deemed responsible for such forfeiture, acknowledges that it will bear such costs following appropriation of the necessary funds from sources other than those administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia. A. Regional STP Funds Projects funded partially or entirely by funds identified under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) shall have been established in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) of the encompassing region and funded. B. Hazard Elimination (Safety) Funds Projects funded partially or entirely by funds identified as safety or hazard elimination funds shall have been approved for funding under an appropriate program and shall be subject to the limitations of said program. Commonwealth Transportation Board policy, February 18, 1988, requires local governments to participate in the cost of providing right of way and constructing sidewalk and storm sewer facilities, which policy is fully incorporated herein by reference. Appendix B.1 - CTB Cost Participation Policy Items Commonwealth Transportation Board policy, December 20, 1990, requires local governments to participate in certain costs related to construction of bicycle trail facilities, which policy is fully incorporated herein by reference. Said policy provides that the Department may consider and financially participate in the construction of bicycle facilities that meet the following criteria: 1. The bicycle facility will not impair the safety of the bicyclist, motorist, or pedestrian, and is designed to meet current AASHTO and/or VDOT guidelines. 2. The bicycle facility will be accessible to users and will form a segment located and designed pursuant to a comprehensive bicycle plan that has been adopted by the local jurisdiction or is part of the AASHTO approved Interstate Bicycle Route System. 3. The bicycle facility is expected to have sufficient use in relation to its cost to justify expenditure of public funds for its construction and subsequent maintenance, or else the bicycle facility constitutes a significant link in a comprehensive bicycle system that is needed for route continuity. 4. The local governing body has requested the construction of the bicycle facility or else the facility constitutes a link in the AASHTO approved Interstate Bicycle Route System. 5. The bicycle facility design plans must be coordinated with the affected local government and approved by the Department prior to any official implementation by the Department. 6. The bicycle facility is to be constructed concurrently with a highway construction project except as otherwise set out in the referenced policy. The aforementioned policies establish, by a formula set out therein, the basis for the Department's cost participation, according to the necessity of the feature, as determined exclusively by the Department, and the status of the project feature more generally described as initial or as replacement construction. The aforementioned policies further establish the Department's participation in sidewalks and/or bicycle trails shall be based upon the necessity for the facility, as determined exclusively by the Department by appropriate traffic studies or as required for the safety of those using the facility. For the purposes of this Appendix and the Agreement for which it is a part, the term 'approved sidewalk' or 'approved bikeway' shall identify costs for sidewalk or bicycle facilities that the Department has determined appropriate for its participation. 'Unapproved sidewalk' and 'unapproved bikeway' shall identify facilities desired by the local governing body but which the Department has determined is not appropriate for its participation. The following CTB Cost Participation Policy Items: Participation Worksheet, establishes the approximate amounts to be incurred, as prescribed by said policies. Prior to incurring any such costs, a separate cost participation agreement is required for the project. Appendix B.1 - CTB Cost Participation Policy Items Construction Feature A Estimated Cost X B = C X D = E F CE&C Estimated State Cost Basis State Funding Allowance Construction Participation for State Approved Factor Cost Factor Participation G=C-F Funding Required of Locality Sidewalk Right of Way for Unapproved sidewalks Approved sidewalks Initial Construction Unapproved sidewalks Approved sidewalks Replacement $0 $o $0 $o $o $0 $o N/A $ 0% None. 100% Locality Cost "-R7-A--- $ - 100% $0 $ 0% None. 100% Locality Cost $ 50% $0 $ lOO% $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Storm Sewer Initial construction Replacement $ $0 $ lOO% 50 Bicycle/Trail Facilities Right of Way for Unapproved facilities Approved facilities Initial Construction Unapproved facilities Approved facilities Replacement $0 N/A $ 0% None. 100% Locality Cost $0 ~ $ - 100% $0 $0 $ 0% None. 100% Locality Cost $0 $ 50% $o $0 $ 100% $0 Estimated Total Locality Participation (Right of Way and Construction) Note: Column C (Estimated Construction Cost) is determined by multiplying Column A (Estimated Cost) by Column B (the Department's Construction Engineering and Contingency {CE&C} Allowance Factor for the project). Multiplying Column C by Column D (State Participation Factor) yields Column E (Cost Basis for State Participation). Colunm G (Funding Required of Locality) is determined by deducting Column F (State Funding Approved) from Column C (Estimated Construction Cost). For revenue sharing projects, funded pursuant to §33.1-75.1, Code of Virginia, the amount of Column F shall not exceed (i) one- half of the mount in Column E or (ii) the amount in Column F (amount approved for state participation); whichever is the least amount. Amounts in Columns A, F, and G are subject to adjustment based on the actual cost of the work performed. Appendix B.2 - Project Development Checklist CHECKLIST: Necessary Items for the Construction Division to Process the Project for Advertisement The following information must be certified before VDOT can provide authorization to advertise a project for construction bids. Project Number: FHWA Project Number: Recipient Contact Number: VDOT Central Office Contact Phone Number: VDOT District~esidency Contact(s): ~l Item I Yes I No Recipient Responsibility - The following information must be provided to VDOT to process necessary permits, certifications, and clearances. Contact the District Office or Resident Engineer to determine individual project requirements, including permits. · Approved Environmental Document Environmental Commitments Satisfied Hazardous Waste/Material Been Identified and Removed or Specific Bid items included in contract Right of Way information submitted Utility Agreement information submitted Raikoad Information submitted (if necessary) Public hearing requirements been satisfied Plans, Proposal, and Engineer's Estimate (Opinion) Submitted for Review First Submission Second Submission Have all design exceptions been approved by VDOT VDOT Responsibility - The following items will be submitted to the Construction Division for processing to the Federal Highway Administration (FI-IWA), based on the information above. Approved Environmental Document Date Approved Right of Way Certification to Advertise Appropriate Utility Certification Railroad Certification / Agreement Approval in TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) Approval in SYP (Six-Year Program) Have all design exceptions been re~,iewed and approved Public hearing requirements been satisfied Review of Plans, Proposal, and Estimate by Construction Division Authorized for Advertisement Date Authorized: Second Submission Date of Commonwealth Transportation Board Meeting Appendix B.2 - Project Development Checklist FORMS NECESSARY IN CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS The following forms, identified according to project funding source, are required elements of construction bid documents. Additional forms not currently identified may also be required. These forms, including any additional forms subsequently required, may be obtained from the Construction Division by calling (804) 786- 5274. Form Name 100% Non-Federal Funds Federal Funds Participating Form C-100 Sworn Statement Required Required Form C-104 Sworn Statement Required Form C-105 Affidavit of Non-Collusion Required Federal Provisions Required Wage Rates Required Copied Notes - Immigration Reform Required Required Copied Notes - SECT 108B Subcontracting Required Required Copied Notes - 110B Labor rate forms Required Required Special Provision 10 - FHWA Form 1273 Required Special Provision 20 - Attachment A - Appalachian projects only Required Special Provision 30 - Affirmative Action (Projects over $10,000.00) Required Required Special Provision 102C - Use of Domestic Required Required Material Special Provision 110 - DBE Requirements Required Required Appendix C - Project Details UPC: 00052392 Project: R000-002-259-PE-101 County: Albemarle Scope: Location study, preliminary engineering, environmental study sufficent to achieve CTB location approval of a 4-lane divided roadway, approx. 3.3 miles in length From: Free State Road - State Route 651 To: State Route 29 (North of the South Fork Rivanna River) The following project phase services will be provided by the Department: Estimated Eligible Project Costs Services Performed by the Last Original or New County Reimbursement Reimbursement >1.15 x (New Reimbursement Amount) (Official to 4' & Initial) Amount Amount Preliminary Engineering $749,000.00 [] $0.00 Right-of-Way & Utilities $3,745,000.00 [] $0.00 Construction $26,765,000.00 [] $0.00 Total Estimated Cost $31,259,000.00 Subtotal $0.00 A Less local funds dedicated for the project and retained by the County ($0.00) B Balance to complete thc project (Subtotal less Row A) $31,259,000.00 C Maximum Expenditure Authorized by the CTB $479,902.00 Total Maximum Reimbursement (Row B or C, whichever is least) a $479,902.00 By its execution, the County acknowledges the Department's reimbursement obligation shall not exceed authorized, eligible expenditures. Access l~unds ** Fiscal Year To Date 99-00 00-01 Revenue Sharing Program (§33.1-75.1) z County CTB Funds Funds Allocated to Received Project 239951.00 239,951.00 [] Induslml 3 [] Recreational $0.00 $0.00 Secondary Construction Funds $750,000.00 Yearly Aggregate (B+C+D+E+F) $1,229,902. 00 ** Access Project Funded Pursuant to §33.1-221 or §33.1-223 Date of CTB Resolution Qualifying Expenditure County Matching Funds For Bonded Projects, Minimum Surety Amount Surety Expiring This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties of this agreement Authorized County Official and date Resident Engineer's Recommendation and date Appendix B, citing special funding reslrictions, shall apply to projects financed with federal funds. CTB Funds Approved may be less than County funds pledged or received and shall only be allocated after the County's funds have been received, unless otherwise approved by the Commissioner. Allocations and funds budgeted beyond the current fiscal year are not assured and are not considered in the Department's authorization to proceed with the development of any project phase. Approved Industrial Access Fund amounts are based on VDOT's review of (a) eligible capital inveslment of a qualifying induslxy and/or (b) provision of surety. Matching Funds, if allocated, are authorized upon documentation of the County's expenditure of eligc'ble costs to be matched. STD AGR1 1/5/1999 Appendix C - Project Details UPC: 00052393 Project: R000-002-259-C-501 County: Albemarle Scope: Locate and design, acquire right-of-way, and construct a connector road 0.5 miles in length (ancestor is ID 52392) From: Rio Roar/- State Route 631 To: Free State Road - State Route 651 The following project phase services will be provided by the Department: Estimated Eligible Project Costs Services Performed by the Last Original or New County Reimbursement Reimbursement > 1.15 x (New Reimbursement Amount) (Official to 4'& Initial) Amount Amount Preliminary Engineering $113,500.00 [] $0.00 Right-of-Way & Utilities $567,500.00 [] $0.00 Construction $4,055,000.00 [] $0.00 Total Estimated Cost 154,736,000.001 Subtotal[ $0.00 A Less local funds dedicated for the project and retained by the County (0) B Balance to complete the project (Subtotal less Row A) $4,736,000.00 C Maximum Expenditure Authorized by the CTB $0.00 Total Maximum Reimbursement (Row B or C, whichever is least) 3 $0.00 By its execution, the County acknowledges the Department's reimbursement obligation shall not exceed authorized, eligible expenditures. A B C D E F G Revenue Sharing Program ({}33.1-75.1) 2 Access Funds ** Fiscal I ~, ~,~ ,~ Secondary Yearly ~ ~ ~:~I County CTB Funds [] Industrial 3 Consmaction Aggregate i~l~/it~ ~ I~!~ Funds Allocated to ~ ~;,~ ,~,:~; ~, ~; [] Recreational Funds (B+C+D+E+D ~ ~;! Received Project To Date !~:~g"~i~ :~,~ ~ ~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 99'00!,~ ~' ~;:!~ :iii ......... ii;i!~!i $102,641.00 $102,641.00 00-01 i~,~,~ ~ ~'; ~i ~;::;~ $497,359.00 $497,359.00 ** Access Project Funded Pursuant to §33.1-221 or §33.1-223 For Bonded Projects, Date of CTB Qualifying County Matching Funds Minimum Surety Amount Resolution Expenditure ................................................. Surety Expiring This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties of this agreement Authorized County Official and date Resident Engineer's Recommendation and date t. Appendix B, citing special funding restrictions, shall apply to projects financed with federal funds. x CTB Funds Approved may be less than County funds pledged or received and shall only be allocated after the County's funds have been received, unless otherwise approved by the Commissioner. Allocations and funds budgeted beyond the current fiscal year are not assured and are not considered in the Department's authorization to proceed with the development of any project phase. 3. Approved Industrial Access Fund amounts are based on VDOT's review of (a) eligible capital inveslment of a qualifying industry and/or (b) provision of surety. Matching Funds, if allocated, are authorized upon documentation of the County's expenditure of eligible costs to be matched. STD AGR1 1/5/1999 Appendix C - Project Details UPC: 00052394 Project: R000-002-259-C-502 County: Albemarle Scope: Design final construction plans, acquire right-of-way, and construct a 4-lane divided roadway, approx. 3.3 miles in length (ancestor is ID 52392) From: Free State Road - State Route 651 To: State Route 29 (North of the South Fork Rivanna River) The following project phase services will be provided by the Department: Estimated Eligible Project Costs Services Performed by the Last Original or New County Reimbursement Reimbursement >1.15 x (New Reimbursement Amount) (Official to 4'& Initial) Amount Amount Pre 'hminary Engineering $749,000.00 [] $0.00 Right-of-Way & Utilities $3,745,000.00 [] $0.00 Construction $26,765,000.00 [3 $0.00 Total Estimated Cost I $31,259,000.00 I Subtotal I $0.00 A Less local funds dedicated for the project and retained by the County (0) B Balance to complete the project (Subtotal less Row A) $0.00 C Maximum Expenditure Authorized by the CTB $0.00 Total Maximum Reimbursement (Row B or C, whichever is least) s $0.00 By its execution, the County acknowledges the Department's reimbursement obligation shall not exceed authorized, eligible expenditures. A B [ C D E F G Rev~ue S~g Pro~m (§33.1-75.1) 2 Access Funds ** Fiscal ji !ii~ ii~,ii Construction Aggregate Received Project ~/ [] Recreational Funds tB+C+D+E+F) ** Access Project Funded Pursuant to §33.1-221 or §33.1-223 Date of CTB Qualifying ~ For Bonded Projects, Resolution Expenditure County Matching Funds Minimum Surety Amount Surety Expiring This attachment is certified and made an official attachment to this document by the parties of this agreement Authorized County Official and date Resident Engineer's Recommendation and date t Appendix B, citing special funding restrictions, shall apply to projects financed with federal funds. 2. CTB Funds Approved may be less than County funds pledged or received and shall only be allocated after the County's funds have been received, unless otherwise approved by the Commissioner. Allocations and funds budgeted beyond the current fiscal year are not assured and are not considered in the Department's authorization to proceed with the development of any project phase. 3. Approved Industrial Access Fund amounts are based on VDOT's review of (a) eligible capital investment of a qualifying industry and/or (b) provision of surety. Matching Funds, if allocated, are authorized upon documentation of the County's expenditure of eligible costs to be matched. STD_AGR1 1/5/1999 Attachment to Appendix C - Page 1 Meadow Creek Parkway: From Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to State Route 29 Project: R000-002-259-C-501 PPMS ID: 52393 Free State Connector: From Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) Scope: Locate and design, acquire right-of-way, and construct a connector road 0.5 miles in length Project Financing (Table Continued) Fiscal Revenue~ ~Sharing Program Access Funds Secondary Year . Yearly Construction Funds Aggregate 01-02 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 02~03 03 ~04 04-05 Balance To Complete $3,736,000.00 Project: R000-002-259-C-502 PPMS ID: 52394 Meadow Creek Parkway: From Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) to St. Rte. 29 Scope: Design final construction plans, acquire right-of-way, and construct a 4-lane divided roadway, approx. 3.3 miles in length Project Financing (Table Continued) I ! Fiscal " R6venue~ ~Sharing Program Access Funds Secondary Year Construction Yearly Funds Aggregate 01-02 $891,837.00 $891,837.00 02-03 $1,610,550.00 $1,610,550.00 03-04 $1,497,787.00 $1,497,787.00 04-05 $1,497,787.00 $1,497,787.00 Balance To Complete $22,834,161,00 Attachment to Appendix C - Page 2 Meadow Creek Parkway: From Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to State Route 29 Services to be performed by the Locality and Department shah be further defined as follows: 1. This section of the Meadow Creek Parkway shall be divided into three projects as provided below (refer to the attached project map): Project: R000-002-259~PE-101 PPMS ID: 52392 Meadow Creek Parkway Study: From Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) to St. Rte. 29 Scope: Location study, preliminary engineering, environmental study sufficent to achieve CTB location approval of a 4-lane divided roadway, approx. 3.3 miles in length. Project: Free State Scope: R000-002-259-C-501 PPMS ID: 52393 Connector: From Rio Road (St. Rte. 631) to Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) Locate and design, acquire right-of-way, and construct a connector road 0.5 miles in length. Project: R000-002-259-C-502 PPMS ID: 52394 Meadow Creek Parkway Extension: From Free State Rd. (St. Rte. 651) to St. Rte. 29 Scope: Design final construction plans, acquire right-of-way, and construct a 4-lane divided roadway, approx. 3.3 miles in length. The Locality and the Department agree that the projects shall be pursued concurrently and are mutually dependent in regard to each element of Appendix A, described as Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-Way Phase, and Construction Phase. Project 52393 (Free State Connector) shall be provided as an alternative to the Freestate Road Bridge Replacement project. The location and design of this section shall provide for the ultimate design of the Meadow Creek Parkway/Rio Road intersection. Until modified by a formal amendment, in accord with the Agreement, the scope of services for Project 52393 (Free State Connector) performed by the Locality under this Agreement shall not include final design of construction plans and construction. Until modified by a formal amendment, in accord with the Agreement, the scope of services for Project 52394 (Meadow Creek Parkway Extension) performed by the Locality under this Agreement shall not include final design of construction plans and construction. 6. Right-of-way acquisition costs associated with the project shall be paid from the project funds and shall not be charged directly to the Locality. End Road Extension State Road ~ject COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Juan Wade Transportation Planner Ella W. Carey, Cler~/~ July 16, 1999 Pantops CTS Bus Route At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved a CTS Pantops bus service route based on the proposal from Great Eastern Management Company. This approval does require the transfer of $50,000 fi:om the reserve fund set aside for that purpose and an additional $4,000 from the fund balance (advertising costs borne by Great Eastern have reduced the Original $56,000 request by $2,000). /ewc cc: Roxanne White FISCAL YEAR: APPROPRIATION REQUEST 99~00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CTS BUS CONTRACT. CODE 1 1000 89000 1 1000 95000 NUMBER ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER X NEW YES NO X GENERAL 99012 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 580406 CTS BUS CONTRACT $54,000.00 999990 CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJ. -50,000.00 CODE 2 1000 51000 TOTAL $4,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $4,000.00 TOTAL $4,000.00 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Pantops CTS Bus Route SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of the Pantops Bus Route STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Wade AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes //~ ,-.--- REVIEWED BY: During the FY00 budget worksessions, the County approved $50,000 in reserve funds for a new CTS bus route to Pantops, that would include stops at the Pantops Shopping Center, State Farm and Wilton Farms. The Board approved funding the new route on two conditions: one, that the Wilton Farm residents wanted and would use the bus service; and two, that the business community would contribute the remaining $6,000 of the required funds. The contribution required to initiate the bus service is $56,000. DISCUSSION: In response to the first condition, CTS distributed surveys to all of the 144 occupied units at Wilton Farms, of which 51 completed the surveys. To the first question, "If CTS provides bus service to Wilton Farm Apartments would you use it?", all 51 said yes. Of these 51,16 said they would use it every day and 31 said they would use it at least three times a week. When asked if other members of the household would utilize the bus service, 46 responded yes with a total of 87 additional passengers. A copy of the survey is attached. In response to the second condition, staff contacted Great Eastern Management, management company for the Pantops Shopping Center. Great Eastern had submitted 937 signed petitions requesting bus service to Pantops prior to the FY00 budget worksessions. After several phone discussions and a meeting attended by CTS and Juandiego Wade, the County's Transportation Planner, Great Eastern Management submitted the attached letter outlining their proposal for a public/private partnership to implement the neW bus service. Great Eastern Management Company did not feel that it was the private sector's responsibility to pay for ongoing operations, nor did they feel they should be singled out when many other businesses along the Pantops route would benefit from the service. Although the shopping center owner did not agree to support the bus route with a cash contribution, nor was he interested in soliciting support from their other tenants, Great Eastern Management was eager to support the bus route by making the following commitments: · Provide initial advertising for the route, which would save CTS approximately $2,000 and reduce the County's contribution by the same amount. · Offer existing covered spaces for bus stops. · Maintain the bus stops with trash removal service and benches if appropriate. · Provide substantial asphalt repair each year due to additional load from heavy buses. · Provide park and ride spaces at no extra charge. · Construct a walkway from the east side of the shopping center to the area between Advanced Auto and the Day Care Center. Should the Board not wish to accept the proposal from Great Eastem Management, staff would need to identify and solicit the remaining funds from other businesses that would benefit from a Pantops bus route. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the CTS Pantops bus service route based on the proposal from Great Eastern Management Company. This approval would require the transfer of $50,000 from the reserve fund set aside for that purpose and an additional $4,000 from the fund balance (advertising costs borne by Great Eastern have reduced the original $56,000 request by $2,000). 99.111 GREAT EASTERN MANAGEMENT COMPANY Via Fax 972-4012 Via email JWADE~exch.co.arlemarle.va.us June 22, 1999 Mr. Juandiego R. wade, Transportation Planner County of Albemarle Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Re: Pantops Bus Service Dear Juan: At last it seems that all your hard work on lobbying on behalf of and planning for bus service to the eastern side of Charlottesville in Albemarle County is about to pay off! As you know, for over ten years, Great Eastern Management Company has supported the initiation of bus service to ~he Pantops area and h~s done everything within its power to encourage the local jurisdictions to · mplement service, including the collection of hundreds and hundreds of signatures on supportive petitions. Now that the eastern corridor of the county is growing, establishing bus service makes sense to alleviate congestion so that employees and shoppers alike can benefit from the new service about to be offered. In our meeting two weeks ago with you and Helen Poore, we outlined several consessions which the Landlord was willing to make at no additional cost to the ~axpayer to initiate bus service to pantops. It became apparent, however, ~hat there was a shortfall in necessary funds for s=artup of this service in ~he amount of $6,000.00 over and above the $50,000 that the county plane to invest and expected_income from ridership. Because bus service is public transportation and not funded by the private sector, we believe that the Board of Supervisor's request that the landlord of Pantops Shopping Center shoulder the burden for the additional $6,000 is an unfair practice, especially as the projected bus route will be stopping at other business locations that are not expected no kick in money for the service. The Landlord, however, is eager to make the following major concessions (the cost of which is estimated to be approximately $6,500 per year) to insure that the Pantops bus route becomes a reality: Initial advertising of the bus route for which CTC has budgeted up ~o $2,000. P.O. 8oxS$26~C~LO~£SWLL£,Vt~C~N~22905-5526 · GE~ER^LOF~IC£(804) 296-4141 · PROPER~ M~^G~£~T (804) 296-4~09 · F^C$1M~LE [804) 293-5197 · 1~03 4. 5. Offer existing covered areas in the Pantops Shopping Center for bus stops so that passengers maybe shielded from the elements~' Bear the cost of maintainin~ =he bus stops, including removal of trash, and the placement of benches (if appropriate). Yearly asphalt repair due to the additional load of the heavy busses ~n the center Provide Park and Ride spaces at no charge to the County of Albemarle within the center. Create a walkway from the east side of the center across the street to the area between Advance Auto and the Day Care Center. It is our desire, as managers and agents of the landlord of Pantops Shopping Center, to cooperate in every way possible with all local government agencies and ~o work as hard as we can to insure that public transportation becomes a reality in Albemarle county this year. We are encouraged that the Board of Supervisors has see aside-the funds to take the first step in this endeavor. We thank the County Planning and Community Development Department and CTS for the hours and hours of tireless work to make public transportation a viable option for employees and shoppers alike, and we know that the time is ripe for bus service to be implemented in Albemarle County. Should you have any further questions about this mafter, please feel free to call me. I look forward to working with you and Helen to firm up this exci~ing new project. Kristin P. Peura, Manager commercial Administration cc: Pantops Bus File:~ Correspondence Reading File ESH Helen Poore, C~S via small (poore@ci.charlottesville.va.us) WILTON FARMS APRATMENTS BUS SERVICE SURVEY RESULTS There are 144 units at Wilton Farms. Surveys were distributed to all occupied umts. Fifty one surveys were completed and returned to CTS. 1. If CTS provides bus service to Wilton Farm Apartments would you use it? All 51 respondents said YES. How often would you use the bus? Every Day = 16 5 times/week = 10 4 times/week = 7 3 times/week = 14 2 times/week = 2 Once/week = 2 o Where would you like for the bus to take you? Pantops = 34 Downtown area = 34 U. VA. = 32 Fashion Square Mall = 20 5th Street area = 16 PVCC = 8 Barracks Rd. Shopping Center = 7 29 north area = 3 Albemarle Square = 1 Martha Jefferson Hospital = 1 K-Mart = 1 Are there other members of your household who wouM ride the bus? Yes = 46 No= 4 If yes, how many others would ride the bus? 1 other = 10 ~c,¢ 2 other = 17 :5'~ 3 other = 6 15~ 4 other = 5 2.© 5 other = 1 '5 Page Two Wilton Farm Survey Rsults April 12, 1999 How do you currently travel? Friends = 29 Taxi -- 17 Own Vehicle = 14- Walk = 10 JAUNT = 8 Carpool = 1 C:~Data\Office 97~Wilton Farm Survey Results Compiled 4/12/99 CHAR MARLE Close · Convenient · Connected June 14, 1999 Mr. Charles S. Martin, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 200 Pineridge Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 Re: "Draft" Public Information Booklet - Route 649 Design Public Hearing Dear Mr. Martin: I am pleased to submit for your information a copy of the above document. This has been filed with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and will be utilized as a resource to further advise and educate the public on this project. VDOT will finalize this document and make it available to the public prior to and during the Public Hearing scheduled for August 12, 1999 at Sutherland Middle School. If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. .Sincerely, Ar.A.E. pc: Robert W. Tucker, County Executive Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority 201 Bowen Loop · Charlottesville, VA 22911 · 804~973-8342 · Fax 804-974-7476 · www. gocho.com CHARL MARLE DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING ROUTE 649 ALBEMARLE COUNTY LOCATION: MORTIMER Y. SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL 2801 POWELL CREEK DRIVE ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 12, 1999 TIME: 5:30 PM- 7:30 PM VDOT PROJECT NO. Project: 0649-002-158, C501 From: U.S. 29 To: Route 606 Project Length: 1.22 km (0.76 miles) JU~-lO~lD~ 1~:~ FROM DELT~ ~IRPORT CONSULTANTS TO C UILLE P~81 AIRPORT PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF' CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARL~ COUNTY 1 O, 000 1"=10,000' SCALE 10,000 20,000 I FEET HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 649 PROJECT .NUMBER: 06,49-002-158, C601 FROM: ~ RTE 29 TO:. STATE RTE 606 LENGTH: 1.19 KM (0.74 MILES) DELTA TOTAL P.01 I I I ! ! I i ! I I I 1 I ! ! I I ROLITE 64'? WBL PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIOfl .rtl INTRODUCTION The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority welcomes you to the Design Public Hearing for the Route 649 project. The purpose of this Design Public Hearing is to provide a formal public opportunity for persons acting on their behalf or representing a group or governing body to offer comments or submit written material for the record relative to the design features presently proposed for the project. We encourage your input and have included a comment sheet for your use. All comments received both orally and written, will be in the Public hearing transcript for review. Questions and concerns will be resolved prior to a final decision by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). IVIETRIC PLANS The plans have been developed in metric units for all projects such as the ones being discussed at this meeting. In order to aid in the understanding of our proposed project, all information provided at this meeting will be given in metric units. PROJECT HISTORY Route 649 is the main access corridor from US 29 to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Existing Route 649 is currently a narrow, winding, 2-lane facility. With the increasing congestion and traffic flow from Route 606 and the Airport, the intersection of'Route 649 with Route 606 becomes a safety concern. The number of passengers served by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is expected to increase over 50% by the year 2005 to over 400,000 and more than double by the year 2010 to over 620,000, which will significantly impact the already congested travel-~vay. In addition, existing entrances staggered along this section of Route 649 increase traffic congestion and make movements into and out of the Deerwood Subdivision, Industrial Park, U.S. Postal Service Distribution Center and other existing businesses on Route 649 unsafe. This project has been included in the County of Albemarle Secondary Road Pro,am for the past nine years and is included in the County of Albemarle Comprehensive Plan It is also addressed in the Transportation Improvement Plan and Charlottesville Area Transportation Study as prepared by the Charlottesville Metropolitan Planning Organization. A Location Public Hearing for this project was held on January 29, 1998. During this hearing, two alignments were presented for consideration. As a result of the hearing and input provided by the public, a third alternative was developed and coordinated which follows the existing roadway alignment from U.S. Route 29 to the southeast comer of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority property line. At this point the road alignment turns northwest to connect to the relocated portion of RoUte 606 and the Airport Access Road. On July 17, 1998 the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved this modified alternative ali=m-tn'tent. On December 3, 1998 an informational meeting was conducted with property owners, located along this alignment, to review 30 percent complete plans. On April 29, 1999 another meeting was conducted to provide an opportunity for adjoining property owners to review and comment on 70 percent complete plans. The Airport Authority has attempted to address issues and concerns, raised during these meetings, in the plans presented during both project information forums PROJECT DESCRIPTION Route 649 is being designed as a four lane roadway with landscaped raised medians. Partial funding from The Enhancement Grant Pro, am has been awarded by the Commonwealth Transportation Board for construction ofbikelanes and sidewalks for this project. It' subsequent allocations from this progrmn are provided, these elements of this project will be completed via this program; otherMse, Secondary Road Funds will be utilized for their construction. The existing intersection of Route 649 and Route 606 is being relocated to the northeast and will include traffic signals. TRAFFIC DATA Currently, Route 649 carries approximately 14,500 vehicles per day (1994) in the project area. By the 2022 design year, the projected traffic volumes on Route 649 will be approximately 25,000 vehicles per day. ENVIRONMENTAL VDOT has completed a State Environmental Review Process (SERP) for the Route 649 project. This analysis included a review of the project corridor to determine any social, economic, and environmental impact of the proposed project upon the community and surrounding area. As a result of this study, it has been determined that no significant impact will result with the construction of this project. Statement for Stortmvater i~lanagement During construction, all reasonable eflrbrts will be made to protect the environment with respect to dust control, siltation and erosion. Stormwater management facilities will be incorporated into this project. Construction will conform to the nationwide best management practices (BMP), VDOT specifications and special provisions, and the Virginia Department of' Soil and Water Conservation regulations. FLOOD PLAIN IMPACTS This project is not expected to generate any negative flood plain impacts. RIGHT OF WAY While efforts have been made to minimize the impact to adjoining properties, construction of these' planned improvements will require acquisition of 11.4 acres of right of way. Construction of this project ,,viii displace The Airport Road Auto Center. No families or non-profit organizations will be displaced as a result of the proposed improvements. As we further coordinate and finalize project development, additional easements for utility relocations may be required beyond the proposed right of' way shown on the public hearing plans. The property owner will be informed of the exact location of the easement during the right of way acquisition process and prior to construction. Access to all properties will be maintained during construction. ANTICIPATED COST The anticipated cost (1999 dollars) for engineering, roadway construction, right of way acquisition, and utility relocations/adjustments is approximately $5.8 million. This project is listed in the Virginia Department of Transportation's current Secondary Six-Year Improvement Plan. SCHEDULE The following actions remain for the project: 1. Review and evaluate comments received from the Design Public Hearing. 2. Presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Fall 1999). 3. Begin right of way acquisition (Fall 1999). 4. Advertise for construction (Fall 2000). 5. Begin Construction (Spring 2001). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Project information, including drawings relevant to the proposed project and comments made at this hearing, are to be a part of the official record and will be available for public review at the following locations'. Albemarle Co. Dept. oI' Planning & Conununity Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottes¥ille-Albemarle Airport Authority 201 Bowen Loop Rd. Charlottesville. VA 22911 Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 WRITTEN COMMENTS In order to be a part of the official transcript of the public hearing written comments or questions should be submitted within ten days (August 22, 1999) of the public hearing and should be mailed to: Mr. Bryan Elliott, A.A.E., Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority 201 Bowen Loop Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION In formation regarding right of way acquisition procedures may be obtained from: Mr. Bryan Elliott, A.A.E., Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority 201 Bowen Loop Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING ROUTE 649 ALBESIARLE COUNTY Date: August 12, 1999 CO~XckM]ENT AND QUESTION SHEET (Please Print) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: 1. Do you support this project? Yes __ With modifications (explain)? No 2. Please provide us with any comments, which you would like considered in the development of this project. 3. Were project representatives able to answer your questions? Please leave this comment sheet at the designated location or mail your comments within 10 days. VDOT PROJECT NO, 0649-002-158, C501 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: State Compensation Board Reimbursement of Expenses Related to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Accept and file the second and final reimbursement request from the Finance Department for administrative costs associated with the implementation of the PPTRA. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: × Yes BACKGROUND: The Virginia General Assembly enabled legislation reimbursing localities 100% of the administrative costs associated with the implementation of the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA). This reimbursement process is through the State Compensation Board. DISCUSSION: Earlier this fiscal year, a budget was submitted to the State Compensation Board for Albemarle Countys anticipated expense associated with the PPTRA in the amount of $29,185.00. In April 1999, the first reimbursement request, in the amount of $26,678.28, was submitted. Attached is the second and final reimbursement request, in the amount of $2,506.72, which was recently submitted to the Compensation Board. As required, a copy of this reimbursement request is being provided to the Board of Supervisors. The County has completed all required changes to its assessments and collections process required for implementation of the PPTRA. RECOMMENDATION: This is provided for the Board's information only and does not require any action. PPTRA C~st Reimbursement Page 1 of 1 Your Reimbursement Request Has Been Received for Processing You have 1 Pending Reimbursement Request Locality: 003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of the Treasurer Approved Budgeted Pending Reimbursements FY Funds ' Reimbursement to Date Remaining Personnel Il 2,945.0011 o.ooll 1,849.1511 1,095.851, Hardware II 2,986.°°II °.°°Il 18,691.2°11-15,7°5.2°1i Software Programmingl122,930.001[ 2,506.721{ '$,980.2511 14,443.0311 Other I{ 324'0011 0.0011 157.6811 166.32{, Totals [[29,185.0011 2506.7211 26,678.2811 .OOll FICA 141.00 (Not Included 0 0.00 0 in Totals) Exit the PPTRA System to the Compensation Board Home Page_ http://www, cns. state, va.us/compboard/pptraadd, cfm 6/10/99 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: April 1999 Financial Report SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: April 1999 Financial Report for the General, School, and Capital Funds STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White, Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: / BACKGROUND: Attached are the April 30, 1999 Monthly Financial Reports for the General, School, and Capital Funds. General Fund revenue projections were last revised as part of the 1999/2000 budget process. General Fund expenditure projections have not been revised at this time. Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect the final ADM. State revenues should exceed budget by $63,000. Local and federal revenues should be approximately equal to budget. Education expenditure projections reflect a 4.0% operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. The holdback was released on May 10, 1999 and will be reflected in the May Financial Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the April 1999 Financial Report. 99.104 ALBEMARLE COUNTY OPERATIONS MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT APRIL 30, 1999 REVENUES: LOCAL(GENERAL FUND) LOCAL(SCHOOLS) SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS STATE FEDERAL TOTAL REVENUES TRANSFERS IN TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS EXPENSES: GENERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS NON-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS SUBTOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT SCHOOL FUND OPERATIONS SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS SUBTOTAL SCHOOL DIVISION TOTAL EXPENSES BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES ADOPTED MID-YEAR BUDGET APPROPS. $92,242,287 $25,733 612,099 32,383 6,746,260 312,610 30,960,497 262,465 3,554,282 ~412 134,115,425 684,603 1,305,563 1~371,791 135,420,988 2,056,394 35,352,278 1,658,081 6,049,666 (140,407) 9,881,748 0 51,283.692 1,517,674 77,391,036 226,110 6.746.260 312,610 84,137,296 538,719 135,420,988 2,056,394 137.477.382 3.605.694 i;i;i:.i;!ii;iii::!~!;ii~;~;;iii::;:i;iii3~8~i~!i~860 iiiiii i ii i i i! i!!i:.ii?:i2::i1500;i823 ~~ 2.677,354 ~:~:~:~i~i~i:!~!:~:~:~:~:~:::~::!:!::i:i!i!:!:!i!:!:~:~:~i~i~i~i~i~:i:~:!~:!~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:~:::~::::::: PERCENT YTD/BUD 55.75% 66.40% 70.79% 76.14% 69.36% 61.68% 52.41% 61.49% 81.63% 95.15% 89.16% 84.55% 73.54% 79.80% 74.06% 78.09% Totals may not balance due to rounding ALBEMARLE COUNTY GENERAL FUND MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT APRIL 30, 1999 REVENUES: LOCAL STATE FEDERAL TOTAL REVENUES TRANSFERS IN TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS EXPENSES: GENERAL GOVT ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PARKS/RECREATION/CULTURE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NONDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES ADOPTED BUDGET MID-YEAR APPROPS, $92,242,287 $25,733 5,410,678 150,150 2,607~834 (30,000) 100,260,799 145,883 69,916 1,371,791 100,330,715 1,517,674 5,779,233 168,636 2,106,855 99,991 11,113,901 113,100 2,289,742 325,673 7,632,929 451,668 49,047,023 0 3,751,919 10,103 2,677,699 488,912 6,049,666 (140,407) _9,881,748 _0 100,330,715 1,517,674 55.75% 69.06% 73.14% 56,93% 97.92% 57.51% 78.36% 84.10% 84.46% 78,76% 83.39% 66;67% 74.40% 82,46% 95.15% 89.16% 75.94% Totals may not balance due to rounding ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL FUND MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT APRIL 30, 1999 REVENUES: LOCAL-SCHOOLS STATE FEDERAL TOTAL REVENUES TRANSFERS IN TOTAL WITH TRANSFERS EXPENSES: INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, ATTENDANCE, HEALTH PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FACILITIES OPERATION/MAINTAINANCE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATIO TRANSFERS TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES BALANCE OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES ADOPTED MID-YEAR BUDGET APPROPS. $612,099 $32,383 25,549,819 112,315 946.448 81,412 27,108,366 226,110 50,282.670 0 77,391,036 226,!10 59,998,552 227,568 3,543,079 9,830 5,064,906 (1,288) 7,746,337 (86,735) 25,600 0 1,012.562 76,735 77,391,036 226,110 PERCENT YTD/BUD 66.40% 77.68% 59.88% 76.74% 65.02% 69,15% 72.56% 83.01% 75.15% 81.94% 253.20% 25.86% 73.54% Totals may not balance due to rounding ALBEMARLE COUNTY OPERATIONS FUND BALANCE REPORT APRIL 30, 1999 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL GENERAL SCHOOL FUND CAPITAL EDUCATION AUDITED FUND BALANCE 06-30-98 APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS: BUDGETED ANTICIPATED FUND BALANCE CARRYOVER REAPPROPRIATIONS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SOIL CONSERVATION STAFFING BAILIFF JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT SHERIFF'S OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES $14,874,757 (69,916) (354,130) (463,314) (72,250) (10,834) (25,733) (8,439) (407,091) $4,126,767 (365,OOO) (3,761,653) $1,908,647 (1,035,~12) $10,698,652 (100,000) (9,873,332) TOTAL APPROVED APPROPRIATIONS (1,411,707) (4,126,653~ (1,035,512) (9,973,332) FUND BALANCE $13,463,Q50 $114 $873.135 Totals may not balance due to rounding FINANCIAL SERVICES. INC. June 9, 1999 P:O. Box 8 ( :i ~Ut<CHVlLLE. MARYLAND 21028 410-87%9918 FAX 410-838-5360 Ms. Arlene Hernandez 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 May 1999. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Sheila H. Moynihan Project Monitor /shm enclosure CC: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 BOARD OF'SUPERVISORS MONTHLY REPORT PURSU~/~T TO SECTION 7 (a) OF THE DEED INSTRUCTIONS TO: ABG Financial Services, Inc. P.O. Box 8 Churchville, MD 21028 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Charlottesville, VA 21202 Pursuant to Section 7(a)of the Deed Restrictions (the "DEED B~strictions"), as defined in an Indenture of TRUST DATED ~S OF April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authorit~ of Albe~m~rle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as t~ustee, 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 "PROJECT"), that as of the date shown below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The number of units in the Project occupie~by lower income tenants is 14. The number of units in the Project unoccupied and held available for Lower Income Tenants is 0. THE number of units rented and the number of units held available for rental other than as described in (1) and (2) is 52. The percentage that the number of units ~escribed in (1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of units in the Project is 21%. The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof As of the date hereof, the P~rchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restriotion or in an Agreen~nt 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 June 4, 1999. RIC~MOND-~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A VIR~INIA limited partnership Property: Location: BOND PROGRAM REPORT For May 1999 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Project #: 051-35371 Charlottesville, VA Number of Units: 66 Submitted by: Community Director June 4, 1999 (Date) ...~, _[..OWER INCOME Total Occupied: 65 Bond Occupied: 14 The following units have been designated as "lower income' units 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17. 18. 19. 20. 1 Arbor Crest Ddve Betty N. Meador 4 Arbor Crest Ddve Bevedy T. Lane 6 Arbor Crest Ddve Wilma M. Atkinson 7 Arbor Crest Drive Ruth M. Jones 9 Arbor Crest Drive Virginia Burton 14 Arbor Crest Drive Lennie P. Leake 18 Arbor Crest Drive Ann S. Kemp .30 Arbor Crest Drive Mary Cox Allen 56 Arbor Crest Drive Helyn E.O'Boyle 76 Arbor Crest Drive Ann G. Saylor 84 Arbor Crest Drive Juanita Boliek 88 Arbor Crest Ddve Nancy G. Foley 90 Arbor Crest Ddve Betty B. Elliott 94 Arbor Crest Ddve M. Eileen Knick The changes from previous report reflected in the above listing are: Deletions 1 1 2 2 3 .3 4 4 5 5 Additions Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-$823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Developmem June 17, 1999 Albemarle County Planning Commission- 1998 Annual Report Attached please find a copy of the 1998 Annual Report approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission at their meeting on June 15, 1999. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to comact me. VWC/jof ATTACHMENT 1998 ANNUAL REPORT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION I. INTRODUCTION The Code of Virginia states that local Planning Commissions shall, make recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of planning within the jurisdiction. This report is a brief summary of what the Albemarle County Planning Commission accomplished during 1998 and some of the issues which are being addressed during 1999. H. PERSONNEL The Commission is composed of seven members, one member from each of the six magisterial districts, and one member "at large." The Commission members during 1998 were: Hilda R. Lee-Washington Rivanna 2/7/96 - 12/31/99 William W. Finley White Hall 1/3/96 - 12/31/99 Dennis Rooker Jack Jouett 1/7/98 - 12/31/01 William J. Nitchmann Scottsville 1/8/92 - 12/31/99 Willliam D. Rieley Samuel Miller 1/7/98 -12/31/01 David Tice (resigned) Rio 1/3/96 - 8/1/98 Rodney S. Thomas 8/19/98- 12/31/01 Jared Loewenstein, At-Large 2/7/96 - 12/31/99 Chairman III. EXPENSES The Commission does not have a separate budget. Expenses for commission members were a total of $24,600.00, all of which was spent on commissioner salaries. IV. REGULAR ITEMS The Planning Commission held 45 regular meetings development proposals. A total of 182 items were reviewed in 1998 primarily to review Major zoning/special use permit reviews included: ZMA-97-12 Robert & Ann Savage - Request to rezone approximately 53.02 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development to R-4, Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. ZMA-98-13 S0rin~ridge (PRD~ - Request to rezone 75 acres from R-l, Residential and Rural Areas to PRD,-Planned Residential Development. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. ZMA-98-18 Wa¥1ands Grant - Request to rezone 19.20 acres from R-6, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. ZMA-98-20 Pantops PD-MC - Petition for approval of an application plan for general development of 49.24 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. SP-98-12 Charlottesville Catholic School - Request to construct a private school for 600 students on a 17 acre parcel of land along Rio Road. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPR 0 VAL. SP-98-18 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate 5 soccer fields, an approximately 2,000 square foot storage building and 216 parking spaces on approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. SP-98-40 North Garden Fire Department - Request to allow for conforming use of a fire station on property zoned VR, Village Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. SP-98-47 Limited Service Hotel - Request to construct a 75 to 100 room hotel with a restaurant. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. Zoning text amendments addressed such issues as: ZTA-98-03 Lighting Ordinance - Amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations of the Code of Albemarle, Virginia by adding a new section, 4.17 Outdoor Lighting. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. ZTA-98-05 Mountain Overlay District - Proposal to amend Chapter 20, Zoning of the Code of Albemarle, by adding Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and related provisions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. An important procedural measure implemented in March, 1988 was the Consent Agenda. In 1998, the Planning Commission authorized approval of all of the items which appeared on the Consent Agenda, resulting in an agenda time savings of about 6 hours or the equivalent of about 3 meetings. The Commission also discussed revisions to its Rules of Procedure, although action was not taken in 1998. The Commission also took action on other proposals outside of the development review area. These included: Agricultural/Forestal Districts - Review: Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District 9,004.16 acres continued. Approved September 9, 1998. Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District - 5,633.52 acres continued. Approved September 9, 1998. Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District - 265.40 acres continued. Approved September 9, 1998. Free Union Agricultural/Forestal District - 1,379.27 acres continued. Approved September 9, 1998. Additions: Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District - 11.97 acres. Approved May 13, 1998. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan (15.2-2232 Reviews): May 6, 1998 - Ellis Sprouse (Beaver Mobile Home Park) - Proposal to provide limited sewer service to Tax Map 57, Parcel 8 to forty-three mobile home spaces only. PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMEND ED AP P R 0 VAL. June 9, 1998 - Esmont Recreational Facilities - Proposal to create a community park on approximately ten acres. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: September 8, 1998 - CPA-97-02 N & S LLC (South Pointe) - Request to change the designation of land located in the southwest quadrant of the 5t~ Street/I-64 interchange from Transitional to Regional Service. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. May 19, 1998 - CPA-98-O1 Mountains - Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two, Natural Environment Section to include a section on Mountains and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. V. ACTION SUMMARY The number of actions considered by the Commission during 1998 and in each of the previous four years is shown by category in the following table. Consent agenda items are listed separately. Comprehensive Plan Amendments/5 Year 2 1 1 4 4 Review Zoning Text Amendments 8 2 2 7 5 Subdivision Ordinance Amendments 2 0 0 1 0 Comprehensive Plan Compliance Reviews 3 2 0 1 4 Zoning Map Amendments 26 15 34 32 27 Special Use Permits 74 57 52 48 40 Preliminary Site Plans 9 8 6 3 9 Final Site Plans 1 5 0 2 0 Preliminary Plats 12 5 12 6 3 Final Plats 3 3 5 0 1 Site Plan Extensions 0 0 0 0 0 Site Plan Amendments 6 3 3 3 7 Final Plat Extensions 0 0 0 0 0 Subdivision Waiver 2 2 1 0 1 Agricultural/Forestal Districts 8 4 3 8 9 Preliminary Site Plans 0 2 2 4 5 Final Site Plans 0 8 9 9 4 Site Plan Waivers 23 8 5 2 0 Preliminary Plats 3 4 0 3 0 Final Plats 0 0 4 3 0 Agricultural/Forestal Districts 5 3 0 6 9 (Referral of application) Planning Commission Annual Report I I 1 [ 1 I 1 1 VI. OTHER PLANNING ACTIVITIES The Commission discussed a number of immediate and long-range planning issues in 1998. Nine work sessions, typically of 1.5 - 2 hours' duration, were held in addition to regular items to address the folloWing: -Six Year Secondary Road Plan -Comprehensive Plan (Biodiversity; Natural Environment) -Residential Density Bonus Provisions -Development Department's Roundtable -Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA-97-02 N & S LLC; CPA-97-05 Brass; CPA-98-02 Dunlora South; CPA-98-03 Post Office Land Trust) -Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Considerations -Springridge Proposed Residential Development (PRD) (2 work sessions) Planning Commission members also served on the following committees: Bill Nitchmann: CIP Technical Committee City/County/University Planning & Coordination Council (PACC Tech) Fiscal Impact Committee Mountain Protection Committee William Finley: Rural Area Transportation Study (RATS) Jared Loewenstein: Historic Preservation Committee Hilda Lee-Washington: Bypass Design Committee Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee Dennis Rooker: Meadow Creek Parkway Design Committee Fiscal Impact Committee Will Rieley: Design Standards Handbook Committee Mountain Protection Committee David Tice: Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee Mountain Protection Committee Purchase of Development Rights Committee VII. PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR 1998: These activities are over and above the normal case workload and annual projects. · DISC Recommendations - Receive and consider recommendations of Development Area Initiatives Committee (DISC). · Brass, Inc (CPA-97-05) - Recommendation to Board of Supervisors regarding this large scale commercial proposal. · Rural Areas Analysis - Coordinated considerations by Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of possible changes to Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. C:\JANICE~PC Info\1998 pc anual report, doc EMILY COURIC 2S'TH SENATOF~AL DISTRICT CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTIES Of A~lBEMArLE. G[?EENE. MADISON AND NELSON PArT OF Ot~ANGE COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 54~;2 CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22905 SENATE OF VIRG! N IA COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: AgrlCULTUFtE. CONSERVATION AND NATURAL NF. SOURCE$ EDUCATION AND HEALTH The Honorable James S. Gilmore III Office of the Governor The State Capitol Richmond, VA 23219 Dear Governor Gilmore: June 18, 1999 The Virginia Department of Transportation has begun survey work relating to the construction of several wireless communication towers in Albemarle County. I understand that these towers are to be built within the Commonwealth's right-of-way and that the space on these towers will be leased to private companies. However,. many of my constituents as well as the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors have shared with me their concerns about the placement of these towers. Specifically, they have raised questions regarding the towers' proximity to residential areas, the lack of public comment on their location, and their height. Enclosed is a resolution from the county's Board of Supervisors, which I support, clearly stating its strong opposition to the construction of these towers. As you will see, the Board of Supervisors makes reference to a forthcoming Virginia Supreme Court case and asks that VDOT take no further action until that case has been decided. The case challenges the authority of VDOT to construct such towers without local approval. Pending the Court's decision, I am requesting you issue an executive order placing a moratorium on the construction of wireless communication towers and VDOT monitoring towers that are to be built in the Commonwealth's rights-of- way. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Honorable James S. Gilmore III June 18, 1999 Page Two As you mav recall, during the 1999 General Assembly session I sponsored Senate Bill 1283, which would have subjected the construction of telecommunications towers placed on state land to local zoning and comprehensive plan requirements. The Senate Committee on Local Government narrowly defeated the bill by a 7-7 vote. Delegates Mitch Van Yahres and Paul Harris, both of whom represent Albemarle County, co-sponsored this legislation. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. I look forward to your favorable response. ,ely, _ ,,. ~milySuric~ c.__--- Senator, 25th District Cc' The Honorable Mitch Van Yahres The Honorable Paul Harris Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Media RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE PLAN OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD TO ALLOW TALL VV1RELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 64 RiGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, this Board has the authority to regulate the private use of land through the planning, zoning and subdivision powers granted it by Virginia Code §§ t 5.2-2200 et seq.; and WHEREAS, over the past 31 years this Board has strived to improve the health, safety and general welfare, of the community, through good planning and zoning practices; and WHEREAS, this Board has been notified that the Virginia Department of Transportation ~"VDOT") and the Commonwealth Transportation Board ("CTB") plan to allow up to seven wireless telecommunications towers, each 250 feet in height, to be erected in the County within the Interstate 64 right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Interstate 64 is an entrance corridor within Albemarle County, and the Board has adopted special regulations contained in an overlay zoning district to protect the corridor and to preserve it~ natural, scenic, historic, architectural and cuttural resources, $o as to attract tourists and other visitors, sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism, and to otherwise promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto; and WHEREAS, tall towers such as those proposed to be allowed by VDOT and the CTB are not necessary for the purposes of VDOT or for the provision of, personal wireless services, have significant visual fmpacts that mar the landscape, destroy the natural and scenic resources of Albemarle County, irreparably damage the attractiveness of the County to tourists and other visitors, and are otherwise not consonant with the general welfare of the citizens of the County and visitors thereto; and --,~ WHEREAS. this Board supports wireless telecommunications and the erection of wireless telecommunications facilities that are consistent with good planning and zoning practices, and it has approved 29 of 35 applications for specie use permits for such facilities since 1990; and WHEREAS, as a result of the many public hearings on special use permits for wireless facilities, the wireless studies conducted by the County's staff and the County's wireless consultant, and the valuable information provided by some wireless service providers, this Board knows that wireless technology is constantly changing and improving so that wireless service may be provided today by less intrusive and destructive means than through the erection of tall towers, and that such alternatives are reasonable and feasible as evidenced by the wireless infrastructures being pursued by some wireless service providers Jn this County; and £0'a 8~:~ 66, Z~ ua£ 008S-96~-~08:xe3 Ii,q03 3q;!CdNSaqU WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2293 expressly grants to this Board the authority to regulate the private use of land owned by the Commonwealth; and, this Board has not been requested to consider or approve any privately owned or occul~ted towers or related facilities within the Interstate 64 right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-183.1 requires that before the OTB may sell or lease the airspace superjacent to any highway in the Commonwealth it must obtain this Board's approval and comply with zoning regulaticns and take such other steps as this Board deems proper to regulate the type and use of the improvements to be erected in the airspace; and, this Board has not been requested to consider or grant such approval or to impose such regulations; and WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expressly preserves local zoning authority over the placement and construction of wireless telecommunications facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that this Board condemns the plan of VDOT and the CTB to allow tall wireless telecommunications towers to ba erected within the Interstate 64 right-of-way as an unlawful usurpation and circumvention of the planning and zoning authority delegated to this Board; and, this Board demands that VDOT, the CTB and the wireless service providers that plan to locate on the proposed towers comply with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2293 and 33.1.183. t; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, even though this Board, VDOT and the CTB are each instrumentalities of the Commonwealth, this Board must condemn VDOT and the CTB for refusing to cooperate with this Board and the citizens of this County on this · important land use issue which is properly within the authority of this Board, not VDOT or the CTB; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT and the CTB for proposing to take such actions without first soliciting comments from~the County in a timely manner by failing to allow County staff even the 30 day' review period provided by, VDOT's own guidelines, and demands that VDOT extend the review pedod and conduct properly noticed public hearings for each of the s~ven proposed towers to allow citizen input into ~hese important local land use decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board condemns VDOT~s "Shared Resources Program," which combines wireless telecommunications facilities with proposed Intelligent Transportation System facilities, because the combination results in towers much taller than necessary to serve VDQT's public purposes, to the detriment of the general welfare of the citizens; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board demands that VDOT and the CTB take no action on the proposed towers until the Virginia Supreme Court decides the ~0'd 6g:E$ 66, ~ un£ 008s-g65-~08:xe~ A±Nno3 3]~NZ83U case, Boat~ of Supervisors o? Faiffax County v, Washington, D.C. SMSA, a case challenging the authority of VDOT to construct such towers without local approvals; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board will pursue any and all legal remedies, if necessary, to assure that VDOT, [he CTB. and the wireless service providers proposing to erect or lease such towers and related wireless facilities comply with Virginia Code §§ 15,2-2293 and 33,1-183.1. and all other applicable requirements. t, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervlsors of Albemarle County by vote of 4 to 0. as recorded below, at a meeting held ..o..n. June 16, 1999 ...... '---~ ~.~"-.~...-.-~/'-" . ., _.. _,----,.. ,..-_,~.~..,,.c_,, ,, "' -Clerk, Board of ~2ounty supei~is~r'~ Ave Nay Mr, Bowerman x Mr. Perkins x Ms. Humphris x Ms. Thomas x Mr, Marshall (absent) Mr, Martin (absent) S0'd 0£:~ 66, ZI un£ 008S-96E-?08:xej A£NFI03 39~dN3BgU The Honorable Jeme$ S, Gilmore, Iii The Honorable John W. Warner The Honorable Charl~= ,S. Robb The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. Tho Honorable Virgil H. Goode, Jr. The Honorable Emily Courtc The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres The Honorable Paul C. Harris Commissioner David R Gehr Commonwealth Transportation Board Albsm~.rle County Board of Supervisors FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE [804) 296-5832 B(,:~ ,-,,~:.~- OF SUPERVISORS TYD [804} 972-4012 June 17,1999 Linda Lloyd C/o Fred Oesch 108 South 2nd Street NW Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1 Tax Map 126, Parcel 31 (Property of Mitchell O. Carr) Dear Ms. Lloyd and Mr. Oesch: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the above- noted property. It is my official determination supported by the County Attomey's advisory opinion, that parcel 31 consists of three (3) separate parcels which are numbered below by dividing the parcel from the northwest to the southeast. The acreages listed are estimates based on the current total assessment and divided by simple visualization of the maps. Parcel '! - approximately 116 acres northwest of the former track-bed of the Nelson and Albemarle Railway Company, and, northeast of the location of former Rt. 6 (5 development rights) Parcel 2 - approximately 3 acres which is the former track-bed of the Nelson and Albemarle Railway Company (1 development right) Parcel 3 - approximately 38 acres on the northwest side of Rt. 800, up to the former track- bed of the Nelson and Albemarle Railway Company and excepting parcels 33F, 34B and 34C. (5 development rights) Each of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to the noted associated development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are only hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres allowed to be created by right. The aggregate acreage of the development right lots may not exceed 31 total acres. In addition to the development right lots, a "parent parcel" may create as many parcels with a minimum of 21 acres as it has land to make, This determination is based on the deed that you submitted from the Albemarle County clerk's office. Unfortunately, the descriptive clauses of the deed describing the off-conveyances were not supported by plats and could not be conclusively relied upon to determine acreage or additional parcels. For this determination, ownership and use of the land were used to define the parcels for the purposes of determining development rights. Parcel Determination, TMP126-3 lA 2 June 28, 1999 The most recent deed for this property prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10, 1980) is the one you submitted, Deed Book 602, page 225. It is dated August 9, 1976 between The Georgia Marble Company, Mitchell O. Carr and S. Vance VVilkins, Jr. That deed conveyed a "parcel 1" which was cited as "1599.78 acres, more or less", and "being part of the property conveyed by deed dated March 19, 1883, from Daniel J. Carroll and others to Albemarle Soapstone Company". There are then multiple pages of descriptions and off- conveyances. This deed also conveyed "its right, title and interest.to all property which was a part of the Nelson and Albemarle Railway Company." This is a 66-foot wide strip that contains the former track-bed of the railway company. This strip was previously mapped incorrectly on tax map section 126, but will be corrected as a result of this and a prior determination of the adjoining parcel 31A. The separate railroad parcel is identified as parcel 2 noted above, and divides tax map 126 parcel 31 into two pieces: Parcels 1 and 3, also noted above. There have been no new parcels created from this tract since 1980 so all the development rights remain in tact. The acreages listed on page one are estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of one development dght per two acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) 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 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. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of. this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. Sincerely, Janice D. Sprinkle Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: Maynard Sipe, Planning Department Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading File, TMP 126-31A Mitchell O. Carr, Owner NOTE: One (1) parcel by Tax Map, three (3) parcels by determination = two (2) additional parcels C:~JAN'S~JANL TRt 126-31. doc FAX (804) 972.-4126 COUNTY OF ^1 _REMARLE Department of Buildin§ Code and Zonin§ Services 401 M¢Infire Road, Room 227 Charloffesville, Vir§inia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TIT) (804] 972-4012 REVISED LETTER July 1, 1999 Jeff Dise, CLS Kirk Hughes and Associates 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels and Development Rights - Miller School Property containing the Main School Grounds (Tax Map 72, Parcel 32) Dear Mr. Dise: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information and plat that you have submitted for the above-noted property. The plat is titled "Composite Survey of The Miller School of Albemarle" dated February 15, 1999. It is the Assistant County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination, that these properties consist of the following separate parcels: TAX MAP 72, PARCEL 32 containing 1,066 acres Tract 1 (147.48 acres) This tract is subdivided by Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) and Miller School Road (Rt. 635). These public roads divide it into a total of four (4) lots. Lot lA (84.65 acres) - 5 development rights Lot lB (62.00 acres) - 5 development rights Lot 1C (0.68 acres) - No additional development rights. This parcel may not be. buildable. Lot 1D (0.15 acres) - No additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. 07/01/99 Page 2 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) Tract 2 (360.76 acres) This tract is subdivided by Miller School Road (Rt. 635) and has frontage on the Mechums River. The public road divides it into a total of two (2)lots. Lot 2A (270.91 acres) - 5 development rights Lot 2B (89.85 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 3.(3.67 acres) This tract is internal to the main school grounds. It has no additional development rights. Lot 3 (3.67 acres) - 1 development right, no additional rightS Tract 4 (0.50 acres) This tract fronts on Dick Woods Road and is adjacent to Tract 2A. Lot 4 (0.5 acres) - 1 development right, no additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. Tract 5 (160.37 acres) - This tract is subdivided by Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) and Miller School Road (Rt. 635). These roads divide it into five (5) lots. Tract 5A (81.96 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 5B (20.10 acres) - 5 development rights Tract' 5C (46.26 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 5D (1.83 acres) - 1 development right Tract 5E (10.22 acres) 5 development rights Tract 6 (134 acres) -This tract is within the main school grounds and contains a large lake. It consists of one tract. Tract 6 (134 acres *including water surface) - 5 development rights Tract 7 (58.5 acres) - This consists of one tract internal to the main school grounds and adjacent to the lake. Tract 7 (58.5 acres) -5 development rights Tract 8 (68.75 acres) - This tract includes a portion of the lake and has frontage on Rt. 689 (Pounding Creek Road). Tract 8 (68.75 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 9 (26 acres) - This tract is adjacent to TM 85, Parcel 27G and TM 86, Parcel 17A. It includes a pipestem out to Pounding Creek Road. Tract 9 (26 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 10. (115.7 acres) -This tract has frontage along Pounding Creek Road. Tract 10 (115.7 acres) -5 development rights *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 07/01/99 Page 3 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) Tract '11 ('1 acre) -This tract has frontage on Burch's Creek Road. Tract '1'1 has no additional development rights. It may not be buildable without the addition of other land. In summary, this is the total number of separate parcels: 4 (Tract 1: lots A-D) 2 (Tract 2: lots A and B) I (Tract 3) 1 (Tract 4) 5 (Tract 5: lots A-E) 1 (Tract 6) 1 (Tract 7) '1 (Tract 8) 1 (Tract 9) 1 (Tract 10) 1 (Tract 11) '19 parcels Each of these lawfully separate parcels is entitled to the noted associated development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are only hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, {a} "parent parcel{s}" referred to as a "tract" or a "lot" by this letter, may create as many parcels with a minimum of 21 acres in area as there is land available. This determination primarily considered two means by which the property would be considered "separate parcels of record." First, I considered the history of acquisition of the property and the language of the deeds. The tracts were originally acquired by separate deeds dating back to the middle of the last century. Since that time, there were several off-conveyances for easements, etc. Based on what you submitted, there is no transaction which combined the properties. Finally, I considered the findings of Anne H. Sanford v. Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals in recognizing separate parcels created by Virginia Department of Transportation's maintenance of roads with either prescriptive easements or fee simple ownership. This is reflected when separate "lots" are listed within a "tract." It is possible that the County Real Estate Department combined this property into one parcel number for the efficiency of sending one tax ticket. *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 07/01/99 Page 4 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) 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 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. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator Cc: The Miller School of Albemarle Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board Reading File by Tax Map I by tax map, 19 by determination *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TTD (804) 972-4012 June 29,1999 Jeff Dise, CLS Kirk Hughes and Associates 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels and Development Rights - Miller School Property containing the Main School Grounds (Tax Map 72, Parcel 32) Dear Mr. Dise: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information and plat that you have submitted for the above-noted property. This is the plat titled "Composite Survey of The Miller School of Albemarle" dated February 15, 1999. It is the County Attomey's advisory opinion and my official determination, that these properties consist of the following separate parcels: TAX MAP 72, PARCEL 32 containing 1,066 acres Tract 1 (147.48 acres) This tract is subdivided by Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) and Miller School Road (Rt. 635). These roads divide it into a total of four (4) lots. Lot lA (84.65 acres) - 5 development rights and 3 parcels of minimum 21 acres Lot 1B (62.00 acres) - 5 development rights and 2 parcels of minimum 21 acres Lot 1C (0.68 acres) - No additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. Lot 1D (0.15 acres) - No additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. 06/29/99 Page 2 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) Tract 2 (360.76 acres) This tract is subdivided by Miller School Road (Rt. 635) and has frontage on the Mechums River. The road divides it into a total of two (2) lots. Lot 2A (270.91 acres) - 5 development rights and 12 parcels of minimum of 21 acres Lot 2B (89.85 acres) - 5 development rights and 3 parcels of minimum 21 acres Tract 3 (3.67 acres) This tract is internal to the main school grounds. It has no additional development rights. Lot 3 (3.67 acres) - 1 development right, no additional rights Tract 4 (0.50 acres) This tract fronts on Dick Woods Road and is adjacent to Tract 2A. Lot 4 (0.5 acres) - 1 development right, no additional development rights. This parcel may not be buildable. Tract 5 (160.37 acres) - This tract is subdivided by Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) and Miller School Road (Rt. 635). These roads divide it into five (5) lots. Tract 5A (81.96 acres) - 5 development rights and 3 parcels of minimum 21 acres Tract 5B (20.10 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 5C (46.26 acres) - 5 development rights and 1 parcel of minimum 21 acres Tract 5D (1.83 acres) - 1 development right Tract 5E (10.22 acres) 5 development rights Tract 6 (134 acres) -This tract is within the main school grounds and contains a large lake. It consists of one tract. Tract 6 (134 acres *including water surface) - 5 development rights and 5 parcels of minimum 21 acres Tract 7 (58.5 acres) - This consists of one tract internal to the main school grounds and adjacent to the lake. Tract 7 (58.5 acres) - 5 development rights and 2 parcels of minimum 21 acres *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of I development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 06/29/99 Page 3 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) Tract 8 (68.75 acres) - This tract includes a portion of the lake and has frontage on Rt. 689 (Pounding Creek Road). Tract 8 (68.75 acres) - 5 development rights and 2 parcels of minimum 21 acres Tract 9 (26 acres) - This tract is adjacent to TM 85, Parcel 27G and TM 86, Parcel 17A. It includes a pipestem out to Pounding Creek Road. Tract 9 (26 acres) - 5 development rights Tract 10 (115.7 acres) - This tract has frontage along Pounding Creek Road, Tract 10 (115.7 acres) - 5 development rights and 5 parcels minimum 21 acres Tract 11 (1 acre) - This tract has frontage on Burch's Creek Road. Tract 11 has no additional development rights. It may not be buildable without the addition of other land. In summary, this is the total number of separate parcels: (Tract 1: (Tract 2: (Tract 3) (Tract 4) (Tract 5: (Tract 6) (Tract 7) (Tract 8) (Tract 9) (Tract 10) (Tract 11 ) lots A-D) IotsA and B) lots A-E) 19 parcels If you are aggrieved by thiS determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) 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 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. In order for an appeal to be *This acreage ~s estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of I development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 06/29/99 Page 4 of 4 Determination of Parcels (TM 72, P32) considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the Same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator Cc; The Miller School of Albemarle Ella Carey, Clerk to.the Board Reading-File-by Tax Map I by tax map, 19 by determination *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of I development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. 'Box 1OO9 ;168~ SPOTNAP nD. (}HAi~LOTTEsVILLE VA 22902· (804)977)4511 .FAX (804) 979-O698 ': Bt ' - June 10, 1999 Albemarle ~erwsors ~ :: ' Please find enclosed a cOpy of the Albemarle County Service:Authority'S operating budget for the :fiscal year beginning July 1:~ 1999. If You have any questions concerning the bUdget Please do in0t hesitate to give usa call'.: ' ' : : Executive Dii-eCtor Albemarle County Service Authority Operating Budget for the FY Beg~rming July 1, t~999 THIS ITEM WAS SCANNED UNDER FINANCIAL REPORTS 1999 DAVID Ro GEHR COMMISSIONER a' et) oF S VlSOR 6 COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22911 June 30, 1999 A. G. TUCKER RESIDENT ENGINEER Board of Supervisors Meetings April 7, May 5, June 2, 1999 Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC Clerk, Albemarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: We have the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the April 7, May 5 and June 2, 1999, Board meetings. I have provided a verbal update on most items; however, I want to confirmthese in writing to assist in communicating with constituents. The Rio Road guardrail project is proceeding on schedule and is expected to finish before August 29, 1999. We continue to monitor traffic signals along the detour route to accommodate the increased traffic volumes during this road closure. The Bellair entrance project is complete. The traffic signal was fully operational on Wednesday, June 23ra. We will monitor this signal, in addition to the signals east and west, to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow along this corridor. · The Rio Road West project is scheduled for completion this fall. The tentative completion date is late September. The McIntire Extension/Meadowcreek Parkway project public hearing summary should be available to the Board of Supervisors and City Council within the next several weeks. The City held a public hearing on the Rieley alternative on Monday, June 21, 1999. Approximately 75 persons spoke at the hearing. · The Department and County staff will reassess the Georgetown Road improvements during this year's revision to the Secondary S ix Year Plan. I have contacted Dr. Hoel to discuss this project. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Ms. Ella W. Carey, CMC Board of Supervisors Meetings April 7, May 5, June 2, 1999 Page 2 June 30, 1999 · Guardrail has been installed near Duner's Restaurant on Route 250 west. Guardrail at Rome 676 (Tilman Road) and Route 250 has been shortened (removed) to improve sight distance. · We have stabilized the erosion along Mr. Marshall's property on Route 20 south. · The turn lane into NationsBank on Route 240 has been remarked. · The brush has been trimmed along Route 680 (Brown's Gap Turnpike). · The Department applies calcium chloride on gravel roads throughout the year to control dust. At least two applications of chemicals have been applied this summer. Rome 600 (Stoney Point Pass) has been covered. · The cross pipe at Indian Springs Road and Route 854 (Carrsbrook Drive) has been replaced. · We have requested a review for signs on 1-64 to alert slow vehicles to use the right lane only. We will advise when this review and installation is complete. · Signs indicating that ROAD NARROWS at each bridge approach on Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) are in place. We have requested a review for additional ONE LANE BRIDGE signs. If you have any questions, I will be prepared to discuss these at the July 7 Board meeting. Sincerely, ~ AGT/smk Cc: J.S. Hores To: Members, Board of Supervisors r,~ ! ~/ From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, ~~ Subject: Reading 13st forJuly 7, 1999 Date: July I, ~999 March I 0 (A), 1997 Ms. Thomas June 3, 1998 - Mr. PerkJns July I, 1998 - Mr. Martin March 3, 1999 - Ms. Huml~hris March 15(A), ~999 - Mr. Bowerman April 7, ~999 - Mr. Martin April 2 I, 1999 - Ms. Thomas MayS, ~999 Mr. Marshall June 22 (A), ~999 Ms. Humphris /ewc March 15, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 15, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. Room 235, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from March 10, 1999 PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 2:13 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Deputy County Executive Richard E. Huff, II, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 1999-2000 County Operating Budget. Budget Overview of Maior Issues - General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Mr. Tucker handed out information on a slide presentation he would be showing Board members. He would make some brief comments regarding the overall budget, and then Mr. John Baker, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, and Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent of Schools, would make comments about the school division's budget. Mr. Tucker commented that the real estate revenues have increased almost six percent compared to 4.7 percent in th~ .c..~r[ent fiscal, year, which reflects the reas~s~,,ame~3, for this year of three and one-half ~~0Perty-r-ev--'~es-ha~c~ncrease~.c~,~o percent compared to ~ ,,~rrc~.~~ ~~:,'.~ c~,,¢d'~ec~l._~.~er, cem~. ~S'~s remain stable at .2 percent, but the t,,,.m, eals tax has gener~-dditional local revenue over the $2,300,000 projected, which ~llces--amaf~cent increase. Overall, local revenues increased by $5,200,000 or 5.7 percent. Categorical state aid increased by $1,200,000 primarily due to the additional funding received for law enforcement (599 funds). Categorical federal revenues increased by $400,000 or 15 percent mainly for additional social services categorical needs. He then mentioned the per capita real proPerty tax where there is a declining reassessment incr~e~'s~.~- It-h~§~tilTinC'reased by three and One-half percent, but compared to 1991 when it was 22 percent, it is a fairly significant change over the last nine years. Per capita personal property is relatively the same, and althOugh there was a two and one-half percent ~ncrease, it has leveled out again due to the market. Sales tax is also level and although there was a significant increase in 1997-98, since then it has remained fairly level. There are some bench marks in state revenues. In 1994, there was a good increase due to the recordation fees, and it has increased fairly steadily through 1998 with social services Juvenile Justice funds. He also mentioned that the major increase in 1999-2000 is primarily due to the 599 funds. Local government's contribution to constitutional officers funding is increasing at a faster rate than the state's funding, and federal revenues have increased primarily due to social services funding. Mr. Tucker next referred to other revenue sources The Fund Balance for the year beginning in July will start with $14,800,000, less mid-year reappropriations of $1,400,000, which makes a current Fund Balance of $13,400,000. He noted that a commitment has been made to the acquisition of conservation easements (PDRs) of approximately $1,500,000, and there is $300,000 plus committed for tourism funding. The estimated Fund Balance now is approximately $12,900,000 which the Director of Finance believes is necessary for the County's cash flow, so at the current time, there is no unallocated fund balance. This will change at the end of the fiscal year, and there will be some additional revenues over projections as well as savings in expenditures, so there will be additional Fund Balance monies at the end of June, 1999. Mr. Tucker next discussed reserves in one time savings that can be allocated. He has put in reserve $200,000 that is unallocated at the current time. He said approximately $150,000 in one time energy savings has also been identified from the school budget, and the school division has already reserved in its budget almost $59,000. He then mentioned that if the Board would like to consider a rate decrease in real or property taxes, one penny on the real property tax equates to approximately $600,000 and on personal property taxes, one penny equates to approximately $50,000. Each $50,000 increase or decrease in real estate value equates to about $5.00 in taxes for each penny increase or decrease. If a person has a $200,000 home, it would involve a $20 change for each penny rate increase or decrease. For a $250,000 home, there would.be a $25 change. (Mr. Marshall arrived at 2:13 p.m.) Mr. Tucker next talked about drivers of the base line costs. The primary budget drivers involve the four percent performance pool which is equivalent to over $600,000 as well as increases for constitutional officers of four percent and 9.3 percent totaling $114,000,000. There were also full year costs of positions that were added in midyear at $185,000, and a revenue loss of $56,000 at the federal March 15, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) level for the COPS program that will have to be picked up by the County. The County gets funding for the COPS program over a three year period, but each year the federal revenues decrease, and the local government picks up the remainder of the funding, He stated that anticipation of health insurance increases will be about $56,000 for the local share, and it is a five percent increase for the agencies at $347,000. There is also an increase in the transfer of funds to the Tourism and Bright Stars Programs of $190,000. He emphasized that these are the major categories driving the County's budget increases. Mr. Martin inquired about the transfer of funds to the Bright Stars prOgram. He asked if this involves only one other school. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. There are also some increases in committed costs such as the capital program. He said $146,000 has been added to the capital program, and the school division's Debt Service has also increased almost $900,000. This year a Debt Service Reserve Fund has been created for general government projects such as the Juvenile Court expansion and other capital projects. He felt a Debt Service Reserve should be started if this Board, as well as the voters, approve going forward with borrowing money for this project. He has $200,000 already allocated to this item. In addition, revenue sharing increased by $267,000. Mr. Bowerman asked if the $200,000 allocated to the Debt Service Reserve is to determine the County's bond rating, etc. Mr. Tucker replied that it would not totally cover the cost because it would depend on what is approved in a bond referendum. The reserve is there to start paying on the Debt Service, and this amount will help reduce the funding needed, if certain projects are approved. If any revenue is left in the Board's Budget Reserve Fund that is not allocated, he would recommend it be allocated to this Debt Service Reserve. Ms. Thomas asked if the amount in the Reserve Fund would reduce the bond referendum by $200,000. Mr. Tucker answered that it could reduce it for Debt Service. Ms. Thomas stated that this amount could be regarded as a source of operating funding for this year. Mr. Tucker concurred. The revenues can be moved around at this point as the Board members so choose. Mr. Tucker then continued with his presentation by stating that a physical overview of total revenues indicate an increase of approximately $10,000,000, and total expenditures have increased by the same amount. Included in the Board members' information is tl~e breakout between general government and the school division as well as self-sustaining and non-departmental funds. Mr. Tucker said the County's mission is to promote general well-being and enhance the quality of life for its citizens. The County's goals involve a high performance organization focUsed on quality improvement with the belief that there should be a strong customer service focus as well as an active and effective leadership development model, which has been initiated, and a highly recognized and satisfied well compensated workers. The major areas of emphasis linking to the County's strategic plan include contiguous quality improvement, customer service, public safety and human development. Growth and land use management has been addressed as well as funding of technology needs. Ms. Thomas noted her appreciation of having the Strategic Plan included with the budget. Mr. Tucker stated that he would end his presentation at this point, so the school division representatives could discuss their budget. School Division Mr. John Baker, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, referred to Ms. Thomas' comment that she was pleased to have the Strategic Plan included with the budget presentation. The Strategic Plan is one of the components of the School Board's budget, as it always has been, and the basis of the School Board's budget is the Six Year Strategic Plan. The School Board's and Superintendent's priorities involve looking at the short term, or one year, requirements of the school division and developing the priorities that the Superintendent and the School Board are going to be focusing on for that year. These are reviewed semi-annually, and then the school system rates itself, and the results are published. The last component incorporated in the budget is the School Improvement Plan. This gives school officials an opportunity to hear the community, teachers and parents in the schools with the School Board members participating. The School Board gets the idea that the citizens in each magisterial district feel the schools are improwng. He reiterated that the basis of the School Board's budget is the Standards of Quality, which is the law for operating schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia; the Strategic Plan, the School Board's and Superintendent's priorities; and the School Improvement programs for each one of the schools. If the Superintendent cannot justify that the requests being made apply to any or all of the things on which the budget was predicated, then the requests did not receive very much credibility in the eyes of the School Board members. Anything being presented to the Board of Supervisors can be tied to any of the foundations he has mentioned. It is important for the Supervisors to understand this fact because this is how the school system is presented to the community. Mr. Baker said he is not going to talk about money amounts this afternoon, because the Supervisors already have this information. He is going to talk about the philosophy, and he will discuss how the budget process is developed. Staff reports begin in June, and there is a Board retreat in July. At this retreat Board members review the short term or annual priorities. They ask the question as to how March 15, 1999 (Adiourned Meeting) (Page 15) Ms. White explained that the base line total amount shows expansions, and the others do not. Ms. Thomas noted that the state's share is decreasing in the Public Safety category, also. Mr. Bowerman inquired about recommendations for the Sheriff's category. Mr. Huff responded that the recommendation is to make the bailiff's position, which was added in the current year, permanent. Mr. Bowerman referred to the suggestion of funding deputies for hunting purposes. Mr. Martin noted that_J~_ this is already included. Mr. Tucker agreed that some funding for this purpose has already been i_i.iLqF, kd~, but the suggestion was to double the funding. Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Bowerman would like to put this on the list of unfunded prior~ties. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks this item should be included on the list of unfunded pr'~onsidering . the success of the program. He was pleased with the feedback he has gotten on thell~ting.,O'perations. It is a way to deal with the most dangerous infractions which are the most prosecutable and carries the heaviest fines. Spotlighting and hunting from the road are the most dangerous situations. Mr. Martin suggested that this item be put on a list to be discussed later, and by that time, a decision can be made about the dollar amount. Ms. Humphris commented that she would like to see a record of the prosecutions. Mr. Huff stated that 56 percent of the dollars spent in the PUBLIC SAFETY category goes for police activities, and 22 percent involves fire and rescue. There are 98 patrol officers patrolling 740 square miles, and there were over 40,000 police calls for service m 1998, which increased 9.7 percent from 1997. He noted that there were 2,300 motor vehicle accidents last year, making an increase of 4.1 percent. There are seven volunteer fire companies, three volunteer rescue squads and nine paid firefighters providing daytime coverage at three of the volunteer county fire stations. There were 12,525 fire and rescue calls for service in 1998 which is up 9.4 percent from 1997, but the total fire loss was down 48 percent from 1997. He reported that there were 50,000 County prisoner days at the regional jail, and there ~s a projection next year of 57,400. The critical issues for the police department are the need for greater specialization and expertise in areas of accident reconstruction and forensics, etc., and the extension of efforts to concentrate resources at the neighborhood level. The community policing initiative, where the goal is to try to slow down the number of repetitive calls for the same thing and stem the increase-ofcallsfor service. He believes there has'been success in th-at area~-Wi~the increasir~g growth related traffic problems there is the demand for traffic enforcement. Police pay issues have to be addressed, and there ~s a request for two additional traffic officers. The recommendation is to fund one community policing traffic officer. However, a second one has now been authorized, if this Board is supportive of adding it. There has been additional overtime for specialized training. He emphasized that the market equity adjustment of $141,500 was in response to the AON recommendation, since AON recommended that the range for police officers be increased 7.5 percent to make sure the County's police officers remain competitive with their comparable market. The staff's recommendation is a market equity adjustment, which involves moving employees horizontally along the existing scale rather than a reclassification vertically within the organization. He noted that police officers are a Grade 11 and AON has recommended that they be taken to a Grade 12. He pointed out that there are corporals, sergeants, and lieutenants involved and if this recommendation was followed it Would make these people out of line with everybody else in the organization. Another way to accomplish the same thing is to move the existing people horizontally in the Grade 11 range. The recommendation is to involve the four percent merit pool, as well as a three and one-half percent market equity adjustment to make police officers comparable with their market. This amounts to the same seven and one-half percent increase. The recommendation is that everybody below the rank of captain participate in the market equity adjustment, which includes everybody except the Captain and the Chief. Mr. Bowerman asked if this salary adjustment is outside of compression. Mr. Huff answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman then inquired as to the acronym, "AON." Mr. Huff referred to the salary presentation done last fall where theCe was a recommendation that four Or five positions needed to be moved to remain competitive in the market place, and police officers were the largest group. Mr. Marshall noted that he does not disagree with the recommendation. He wondered, though, if this arrangement will aggravate the compression issue. Mr. Huff stated that it will actually move existing officers further from the beginning step of the scale and quicker toward the midpoint. It will also get the people who are 15 and 20 year officers, who are above midpoint, closer to the three-quarter point or the top of the range. Mr. Tucker explained that the three year phasing of the compression is still being done for those individuals who meet the criteria. Ms. Thomas inquired about the overtime for specialized training as compared to tuition for other employees. She added that other people have to take courses and they have to pay for them. The police are not paying for them plus they are being paid overtime. She asked why this is the case. Mr. Huff responded that he is unable to speak for teachers. However, if a County employee is required to take training, they are doing it for the benefit of their employer, and they have to be paid for the time they go to school. If an employee is asked to learn a new assignment such as accident reconstruction, it benefits the employer, and employees cannot go to school on their own time. The County has to pay them to go, as well as incur a great deal of overtime in doing so. March 15, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Martin wondered if compensatory time could be given to the employees. Mr. Huff answered that in this system, the employee can be given compensatory time, or they have to be paid. He added that Chief Miller is trying to pay these officers, because a lot them already have compensatory time. The difference between these people and other employees is that other people may want to take a class that is not required for their job, nor is it being done at the direction of their employer. In these cases they would not be paid to go to school. He mentioned, though, that education is being encouraged through the tuition stipends. Mr. Martin mentioned that he has comments and notes marked on individual pages of the budget. It might be more helpful to let the Board members go through the pages and ask questions. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman responded that they are not prepared to handle the work session in this manner. Mr. Martin then asked if the budget indicates that only two additional police officers are being funded. Mr. Huff replied that now the recommendation is for two additional officers. The position that has been approved by the COPS grant will go into the traffic unit. Mr. Martin explained that one position is being shown in the budget currently, but a second one will be put on the list for discussion. Mr. Tucker noted that the staff did not find out about funding fo[ the second position from the COPS Program until after the budget was printed. Ms. Thomas asked if the cost to the County for picking up the second officer is $36,000. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Martin referred to Page 125. He started with the Emergency Communications Center and went down the lines of cost centers until he finished with the Fire Department. He noted that the total for these fire and rescue cost centers is $2,700,000, and he wondered if this is the correct way to arrive at this figure. Mr. Huff responded that there is some state money involved, so this figure does not just involve local money. Mr. Martin asked if the $2,700,000 figure is correct, but some of it is flowing through the County from the state. Mr. Huff replied that a small amount is coming from the state. Mr. Martin also mentioned that he took out the school system's budget as well as revenue shanng and everything else that is not used specifically to run County government. He was trying to develop a percentage for fire and rescue activities, and although he didn't complete his computation, he determined that the amount is substantial. Next, Mr. Martin remarked that the position for Fire Prevention Inspector is mentioned in several Places in the budget, and he asked if. it is the same position in every case. Ms. VVhite answered "yes." staff. Mr. Huff verified that there was only one such position requested, but it is not recommended by Mr. Marshall wondered why Mr. Martin had singled out the total fire and rescue budget amounts. Mr. Martin replied that he was not trying to make a particular point. He was only trying to relate a figure~e this category of the budget, since there has been so much interest shown in this area recently. Mr. Huff said the recommendation for the Emergency Communications Center is to fund one new communications officer, as well as the County's share of the regional Crime Information Network Coordinator position, which is a City, County and University position The recommendation also involves adding the additional hours for the Emergency Services Coordinator to the unfunded priority list. The City and University have already funded their shares to increase that position from 20 to 32 hours. As far as the Fire and Rescue category is concerned, Mr. Huff explained that there were three recommendations to fund three additional career firefighters to be hired in October which would put a fourth person in each of the three stations. This was at their request, and it would give a lot more coverage. He said $6,100 is the amount to re-supply the Hazardous Material Response Unit at the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station with needed equipment and supplies. Mr. Bowerman inquired if this item is operational and an ongoing expense. Mr. Huff responded that once the item is built in, it will be reoccurring. He went on to say that last year $50,000, which was half of the request, was funded for vehicle maintenance for fire and rescue vehicles and this year the othe half of the request is being recommended. Another recommendation involves funding $40,000 of their fuE expense in trying to work toward reducing their dependency on fund raising to meet their operational expenses. Ms. Thomas noted that there was recently a suggestion that some of these things be tied to increasing levels of training. She asked if this is a possibility. Mr. Bowerman stated that if less time is spent in fund raising, he assumes they will spend more time training. Mr. Martin remarked that he has been discussing using different levels of incentives. For instance, a certain amount of funding might be received from the County in exchange for a particular fi, group to raise their driving standards. He noted that there are different people driving with different level.~ of standards. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is true. Mr. Tucker answered that volunteers are sometimes COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Advance Mills Bridge, Rt. 743 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To discuss issues regarding possible historic designation of the Advance Mills Bridge. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Ms. Pickart AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes The BOS discussed the Advance Mills Bridge on April 7, 1999, and asked staff to investigate historic designation. The Board also requested additional information from VDOT concerning the long-term cost of maintenance of the existing bridge design in its existing alignment. VDOT's response to this question is provided in Attachment A. DISCUSSION: The Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages (1995) identified the Advance Mills Bridge and 8 other structures as significant historic resources in Advance Mills. The report called the bridge "one of the best-preserved metal truss bridges in Albemarle County." As a result of the survey, the VA Dept..of Historic Resources (VDHR) established that the Advance Mills HistOric District, which includes the Advance Mills Bridge, is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Listing is primarily a tool for recognition. It recognizes a property's importance and invites its preservatiOn. It encourages local governments and private property owners to take the property's historic and architectural signifiCance into account in planning and decision making. By law, an environmental impact study is required for federally funded projects, and this may result in a project being redesigned to lessen the negative impacts on a historic property. Also, under a state agreement, VDOT is required to consult with the VDHR on state-funded projects that affect historic resources. As a Register-eligible property, this would include the replacement of the Advance Mills Bridge, whether or not it is actually listed on the National Register. Consequently, listing the bridge on the National Register would have no additional impact on the ability to upgrade or replace the bridge in the future. For more information on the National Register and the nomination process, see Attachment B. Other Issues 1) PrOteCtion of the County's historic and cultural resources has been a long-standing goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Listing of the Advance Mills Historic District would help meet the County's objective of identifying and recognizing the value of structures and districts, which have historical, architectural, and cultural significance. 2) VDHR policy is to work with VDOT to acquire consent for listing on the National Register. 3) The area adjacent to the bridge is thought to have been the site of the mill or mill-related buildings, Other sites along the river may have historic significance. Consequently, choosing a location for a new bridge will require careful consideration and possible mitigation of negative impacts. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Because it is one of few remaining structures of its type in the County, and a good example of this type of structure, maintain the Advance Mills Bridge so that it retains its historic significance. 2) Because the bridge is one element of a significant group of related historic resources, nominate the Advance Mills Historic District for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 3) If it is determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety requirements, close the historic Advance Mills Bridge to vehicular traffic and maintain it for pedestrian traffic. Thoroughly study alternate alignments that will not compromise the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District. 4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district, proceed with nomination of the bridge as an individual resource. Cc: Angela Tucker 99.109 ATTACHMENT A David Benish From: Sent: To: Subject: Tucker, Angela G [Tucker_AG@vdot. state.va, us] Thursday, April 29, 1999 4:05 PM 'David Benish' FW: Route 743 Albemarle County .... Original Message ..... From: Tucker, Angela G Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 4:02 PM Cc: Mills, H William; Caywood, Richard L; Shifflett, John H; Howe, James R; Sprinkel, D Brent Subject: FW: Route 743 Albemarle County David, This is in reference to your request regarding the funding involved to upkeep the Advance Mills Bridge on Route 743 in perpetuity. The idea of continuing to expend funds on a bridge that does not adequately serve the traveling public is in conflict with current Department directives. We could also be questioned relative to safety concerns. During recent discussions with the County, we developed a cost estimate to repair the bridge in an attempt to keep the bridge open to traffic with a weight limit of 8 tons. This estimate called for repairs at a cost of approximately $200,000 and was contingent upon several scenarios. These repairs may provide an additional service life for the bridge of 10 to 15 years. Any attempt to provide a cost estimate to keep this bridge open to traffic in perpetuity is at best a wild guess. Using the previous cost information results in expenditures of $15,000 to $20,000 per year. If perpetuity means we want the bridge to remain in service for a total of 100 years (1943 to 2043) and using a cost of $20,000 per year, we could expect to spend about $860,000 between now and the year 2043 without adjusting for inflation. Extreme caution should be used to provide any cost information under the perpetual maintenance scenario. Consideration should be given to obtaining alternative funding to preserve the bridge in kind and have it removed from service. While this will be difficult at best, it makes better sense than trying to keep the existing bridge in service forever. If you have any questions, please let me know. Angela -COMMONWEALTH VIRQINIA Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensin~on Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 1 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES In early 1966, the Virginia General Assembly established the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, one of the first preservation offices in the country. Later that year, the U.S. Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act. The Act created the National Register of Historic Places as the official list of structures, sites, objects and districts that embodies the "historic and cultural foundations of the nation." It named the National Park Service, in thc Department of Interior, to manage the Register. To carry out i~s provisionz, thc Act authorized the creation of a State Historic Preservation Officer and a State Review Board in every state and territory. In Virginia, the day-to-day activities of the State Historic Preservation Officer were carried out by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission and its staff. Since 1989, the State Historic Preservation Officer and a professional staff of architectural historians, historians and archaeologists have comprised the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the successor to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. The Governor appoints the State Historic Preservation Officer, who in turn appoints the members of the State Review Boar& Since 1966, approximateIy 70,000 historic buildings, sites, su~ctures, objects and districts have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places nationwide, frequently on the initiative of their owners. In Virginia alone, approximately 2,000 resources of all types are listed in the National Register. National Register listing does not restrict or prevem an owner from altering, tearing down or otherwise disposing of the property. Rather, listing recognizes the property's importance and invites its preservation. The National Register of Historic Places continues to reflect the desil~ of Americans, as expressed in the Nation Historic PreserVation'Act, that "the h/storical and cultural foundation of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order give a sense of orientation to the American people." VIRGINIA LANDMARKS REGISTER The Virginia General Assembly created the Virginia Landmarks Register when it established the Virginia Historic Landmark Commission in 1966, and authorized the Commission to list eligible properties in the Register. Today, the Historic Resources Board, the successor to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, has that authority. ~;.~ISIORIC RESOURCES 804 · The Historic Resources Board and the State Review Board use the same criteria to evaluate properties for eligibility. Each property that the State Review ]Board considers for the National Register of Historic Places is likewise considered by the Historic Resources Board for listing in the Virgini. a'Landmark Register. The same form is used to nominate a property to both registers. Listing in the Vikginia Landmark Register conv~ys information, confers honor and heightens awareness. It gives owners access to the Virginia Preservation Easement and Technical Assistance programs. Like the National Register listing, it does not restrict or prevent an owner ~om altering, tearing down or otherwise disposing of the property. Rather, listing recognizes the property's importance and invites its preservation. The Department of Historic Resources actively seeks the early participation of'owners in the 'registration process. At each step in any proposed nomination, the Depa~//uent writes owners and local officials, as well as owners of adjacent properties, to keep them apprised. The notification is required by state law. The Virgin/a, Landmarks Register was established to recognize the significant historic buildings, sites and disu-icts in the Commonwealth. In the words of the Virginia Supreme Court, listing in the Virginia Landmark Register is a "hortatory" act - that is, it recognizes the importance of our resources and encourages owners to care for them. It is an official list of buildings, structures, districts, objects and sites which constitute the principal historical, architectural and archaeological resources of the Commonwealth. Ordinarily, properties eligible for listing in the Virginia Register qualify for listing in the National Kegister of Historic Places. There are no restrictions on an owner, When using private money, of a property that is listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register. However, a property that is recognized officially in the Register is eligible for certain State preservation grants, when available. Owners are eligible to apply for such funds if their properties are listed individually in the Register or are considered contributh2g structures or sites with/n a listed historic d/strict, The General Assembly also awards grants ~o owners of historic properties for operations and renovations. These grants require that the properties be listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register, Owners are eligible re donate to the State preservation easements on their properties, in return for which they receive tax benefits. Historic dislricts and individually listed properties receive a certificate from the Department elt Historic Resources in recognition of their listing. An attractive official plaque can also be purchased by thc owner. Owners of recognized historic prol~rties arc also eligible for technical assistance from the staff of the Department of Historic Resources. Professional architects, architectural historians and archaeologists are available to provide technical guidance in the care and rehabilitation of buildings and sims. Designation of a property by the State Review Board and Historic Resources Board is intended to educate the public about the significance of the designated resource. It encourages local governments and proper~ owners to take the registered property's historic, architectural, archaeological and cultural significance into account in the planning and decision making. However, such designation does not regulate or control the action of the local government or property owners with regard to the designated property. -2- RESOURCES The Department of Historic ResoUrCes gives written notice of nomination proposals to fie interested local officials and to all owners of property included wittgn or adjacent to file boundaries of the area proposed for designation, Prior to the Board's designation of a historic district, the Department holds a public hearing with/n the commun/ty of the proposed district. The purpose of the hearing is to provide information on the designation proposal and to receive public cerement'and additional information, RI~$ULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Eligibility for Federal tax provisions: If property is listed in the National Register, certain federal tax provisions apply. Tho Tax Reform Act of 1986 revises the historic preservation tax incentive authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 and as of January 1, 1987, provides for a 20 percent investment tax credit with a full adjustment to basis for rehabilitation historic, commercial, industrial ~nd residential rental buildings. The former 15 percent and 20 percent investment tax credits for rehabilitation of older commercial buildings are combined into a single 10 percent investment ~ax credit for commercial or industrial buildings built before 1936. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deduction for charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures. Whether these provisions are advantageous to a property owner is dependent on a particular circumstance of the property and the owner. Became tax aspects outlined above are cornpiex, individuals should consult legal counsel or the appropriate local Internal Revenue Service office for assistance in determining the tax consequences of the above provisions. FACTS .REGARDING NATIONAL P~GISTER HIST,O, RIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION 1. National Register designation officially recognizes the cultural, architectural and landscape features of an historically significant area, bring/ng thegn to the attention of the community, state and nation. Ideally, the increased public awareness stemming from registration acts as a catalyst in furthering community efforts to preserve the area's historic and natural features. 2. National Register historic district designation does not restrict an owner's use of his or her property in any way as long as private, non-federal funds are used. It does not, for example, prohibit an owner from altering or demolishing and building, nor does it resir/ct subdivision or sale. 3. National Register designation can help lessen the negative imp~t on a historic area from government-funded projects. By law, an environmental impact study is required for any Federally funded projects--such as road building, utility installation and public housing. Also, certain state projects are reviewed for their impact on historic resources. If any project is deemed to have an averse effect on historic buildings, archaeological sites or landscape features within a historic district, the project may be redesigned to lessen that effect. 4. National Register designation confers two types of financial benefits on historic district property owners. First, it allows the owner of a contributing building within the registered district to claim investment tax credits for certified rehabilitations if the building is used for income-producing purposes. A "contributing building" contributes to the historic character of the district~ It must be at least 50 years old and retain sufficiem architectural integrity. -3- .............. ~ u~-~ .HI~IUNIC RESOUI~CES 80~I 3~72~2~ P.O,~ · 5. For additional information on the investment tax credit program, contact the Department of Historic Resources, 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, VA. 23221 (804) 367-2323. RIGHTS OF OWNERS T.O COlYI1M~ENT AND/OR OBJECT TO LISTING IN THE NATIONPzL REGISTER Owners of private properties nominated to the National Register have an opportunity to concur with or object to listing in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Any owner or partial owner of private property who chooses to object to listing may submit, to the State Historic Preservation Officer, a ngtm-ized statement certifying that the party is the sole or partial owner of the private property and objects to listing. Each owner or partial owner has one vote regardless of the portion of the property that the party owns. If a majority of private owners object, a property will not be listed. However, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for determination of eligibility of the property for listing on the National Register. If the property is then determined eligible for listing, although not formally listed, Federal agencies will be required to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment before the agencies may fund, license or assist a project which will affect the property. If you choose to 9bj.eet to the listing of a property, the notarized objection must be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Historic Resources, 2801 Kensington Avenue, Rie'hmond, VA 23221, before the scheduled meeting of the State Review Board noted in your letter; If you wish to comment on the nomination ora property to the National Register, please send your comments to the State Historic Preservation Officer, 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, VA 23221, before the State Review Board considers the nomination. A copy of the nomination and information on the National Register and the Federal Tax provisions are available from the above address upon request. -4- COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjlNIA Department of Historic Resources ATTACHMENT B PAGE 5 RESETS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF FI'I~TORIC PLACF.~ Eligibility for Federal tax provisions: If a prope~ is listed in the National Register, certain federal tax provisions may apply. 77te Tax Reform Act of I986 revises the historic preservation tax incentives authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, The ]'ax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recovery lax Act of 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and as of January 1, 1987, provides for a 20percent investment tax credit with a full adjustment to basis for rehabilitating historic, commercial, industrial, and residential rental buildings. The former 15 percent and 20 percent investment tax credits for rehabilitation of older commercial buildings are combined' into a single 10 percent investment tax credit for commercial or industrial buiMing$ built before 1936. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charital~le contributions for conservation purl~ses of partial interests in' historically important land areas or structure. Whether these provision~ ar~ advanlageous to a properg~ owner is dependent upon the parti~lar circumstances of the property and the owner, l~ca~ tax aspects outlined above are complex, individuals should consult legal counsel or the appropriate local Internal · R~venue Service office for assislance in determining the tax consequences of the a0ove provisions. For further information on certification requirements, please refer to 36 CFR 67. Consideration in planning for Federal, Federally Hcensed, and Federally assisted projects: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that Federal agencies allow for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to have an opportunity to comment on all projects affecting historic properties listed in the National Register. For further information, please refer to 36 CFR 800. Consideration in issuing a surface coal mining permit: In accordance with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977, them must be consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is located. For further information, please refer to 30 CFR 700 et seq. Qualification for Federal grants for historic preservation when funds are available: Funding is unavailable at present. ATTACHMENT B NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING PAGE 6 Two options exist for recognizing the Advance Mills Bridge: 1) Nominate the Advance Mills Historic District to the National Register, with the bridge as a contributing resource. 2) Nominate the Advance Mills Bridge to the National Register as an individual resource. Steps for Nomination (in brief) 1) Complete the Preliminary Information Form (Attachment C). NOTE: This is complete for the Historic District. 2) VDHR determines that the resource is eligible for listing. NOTE: This is complete for the Historic District. 3) Complete the National Register Nomination Form. (A sample nomination form is included as Attachment D.) 4) VDHR, the State Review Board, the VA Board of Historic Resources review and approve the nomination. 5) The Keeper of the National Register reviews and approves the nomination. 6) The nomination process requires a minimum of approximately 4 months following submission of an acceptable nomination form. u~.HISTORIC ~ESOURCES 80,~ 3~ ATTACHMENT B PAGE 7 FOR STA'I~ AND NATIONAL REG~TER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA (m denotes complctod step in the process) Preliminary Iaformatiou Form received and ravimv~l, additional informaUon requastad if r~ by R~ Rv~uatian Team at smni-mont~y .--vamano~ Team ar s~m-mcratlgy ~ C~ Owue~$) sad officials notified of rectum of ~de ~ad my additimml ~ C:{ Ownings) and ofligi~ iaforamd of tram ~ Off~s amffmd of review tenm r~.o~ mgmding ,~,/m~ 106 M'o. teots [f app,.~. ,e _l~.ts to pm r~a.~istra~..n, applicant comm~ .w:m _t.,~,tn~nt sta~ .re~m~._' ~ criteria. ,area~ ot a~Smra~ace, penoa of siknifieia~ and ~ Detmrtmem staff reviews uom,"-'iOu drafts ulxm r~uest and ptovict~ tecbnie..al a~;stance ~ Degartmem staff reviews compietm;l aomma~On [] Copies of nora seat to members of bota Boards two weeks prior co meetmg r'l C>w~:ens), officials, and consultant notified of ~ ~ ~s togg~ m at Nau~ Regz~ o~ ~ ~r, co--mt ~ l~ offi~s ~nfi~ of K~r's d~:mou ~ Owum'(s) and officials notiiied of Board's decision Keeper of the Na~onal R~d~smr: nominations p.r,a~nt~ ~o v~a ~ of His~c R~ ir ~~ ~ o~ obj~tton wdl ~ on ~e Vi~m ~~ Reg~s~ on ~y of p~~ N~ ~ m W~u. D.C. TOTAL P.07 COUNTY OF, ALBEMARLE TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Bill Mawyer, Director Engineering and Public Works Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CI~~ July 16, 1999 Board Actions of July 7, 1999 At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors discussed funding of the Minor Ridge Area Stormwater Control Project. The Board supported Alternative #2 which is to defer construction of the Bimam, Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects one year (until FY 2000/2001) and reallocate those funds to Minor Ridge. Purchase of the land for the Bimam project will continue to be funded in FY 99/00. Additional funding for the deferred projects will be requested in the FY 00/01 CIP program. In addition, the Board indicated that if year-end operating funds are available, that those funds be used to pay for the delayed projects. /ewc CC.' Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Thomas Foley COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Control Project, Minor Ridge Area SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposal to Allocate Program Funding STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: IN FORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: 1. REVIEWED BY: Description of Stormwater Projects 2. ~~oject Loc~_ations The Stormwater Fund was established.in the CIP program to pay for the purchase, construction and repair of permanent stormwater and drainage control facilities throughout the County. Stormwater control facilities include collection and conveyance structures such as ponds, basins, underground pipes and aboveground channels and ditches. These structures are part of stormwater management systems designed to detain runoff, prevent downstream flooding, minimize soil erosion and improve the water quality in our streams. Sustained growth in the development areas has created a complex environment in which control of flooding, drainage and stream health are becoming increasingly important issues. Stormwater systems address these concerns, but require continued and diligent maintenance to ensure proper performance. In a sense, the County is crossing a development threshold where these issues are increasingly critical to the well being of citizens and businesses, and also increasingly costly. In the older parts of the development areas an aging stormwater infrastructure contributes to the rising costs of the program. At present, a lengthy list of regional stormwater control needs will cost in excess of $1 M. Creation of a "Stormwater Utility", possibly funded by public utility fees, is one way other localities deal with the significant costs of this program. We will continue to anticipate these costs in future ClP requests. A review of the priorities for the projects listed below as "Proposed for Construction" is before the Board at the request of Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Tucker. DISCUSSION: The Stormwater Management program currently includes the following projects: (A brief description and location map for these projects is included in attachments A. Proposed for Construction, in Priority Order Budget 1. Birnam Basin (includes land purchase) 2o Minor Ridge Piping Replacement 3. Westmoreland Court Piping Replacement 4. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs 5. Ricky Road Drainage Repairs 6. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs 1 and 2.) Funds Available $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 10,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 ,$ 8o,ooo $ o Subtotal $720,000 $400,000 Agenda Title: Stormwater Control Project, Minor Ridge Area Agenda Date: July 7, 1999 Page Two B. In Progress Budgeted and Funded 7. Four Seasons Pond Repairs $140,000 8. Peyton Basin Repairs $ 80,000 9. Monticello H.S./Lakeside Dam Repairs $ 40,000 10. Georgetown Court Basin Repairs $ 30,000 11. Rio Hill Basin Repairs $ 28,000 12. Drainage Basin Study $ 50,000 13. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs (design only) $ 18,000 14. Birnam Basin (design only) $ 20,000 15. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement (design only) $ 17,000 16. Westmoreland Court (design only) $ 7,000 17. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs (design only) $ 20,000 Subtotal $450,000 C. Recently Completed Cost 1. Doyles River Stream Repairs $ 45,000 2. West Pine Dr. Drainage Repairs $ 4,500 Subtotal $ 49,500 Total Program Cost $t ,219,500 Alternatives to fund the Minor Ridge project and complete the work this fall include: 1. Appropriate an additional $240,000 to the Minor Ridge project and continue with the Bimam, Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects as scheduled for FY 99/00. An additional appropriation could be provided from year-end operating funds, if available. 2. Defer construction of the Birnam, Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects one year (until FY 00/01 ) and reallocate those funds to Minor Ridge. Purchase of the land for the Birnam project will continue to be funded in FY 99/00. Additional funding for the deferred projects will be requested in the FY 00/01 ClP program. 3. Defer purchase of the land and construction of the Birnam basin one year (until FY 00/01) and reallocate those funds to Minor Ridge. The Westmoreland Court, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects will continue to be funded in FY 99/00. The remaining alternative is to defer construction of the Minor Ridge project for one year until the fall of 2000. Funds will be requested in the FY 00/01 ClP program for Minor Ridge as well as other stormwater projects and drainage area studies. RECOMMENDATION: The Engineering Division recommends the alternatives be considered in the order shown above. Additional funding will allow all of these important stormwater projects to be addressed in a timely manner. If additional funds are not available, alternative #2 is preferred since: · Construction of the Birnam basin could be delayed until July 2000 since negotiations for purchase of the land have not been completed. · Construction of the Minor Ridge project will address a long-standing drainage problem, which has a greater impact on more properties than the Westmoreland, Brookmill and Ricky Road projects. 99.114 Attachment #1: Description of Stormwater Projects A. Proposed for Construction in Priority Order Birnam Basin: A major project to purchase land and construct a stormwater control basin located in the Birnam Woods/Whitewood Road area. This project was identified in the 1984 Albemarle County Urban Drainage Report as a means of detaining stormwater to prevent flooding in the Branchlands drainage channel located on the east side of Hillsdale Drive. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement: A major stormwater pipe replacement project to provide additional capacity and prevent flooding in and around 20 residences. The Minor Ridge area is located in the Wynridge subdivision, north of Greenbrier Drive and west of Commonwealth Drive. Westmoreland Court: Replace underground piping and rebuild a drainage channel in the Westmoreland subdivision. Failure of the existing system has been an erosion concern on two properties since the mid 1980s. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs: Rebuild an eroded stream bank of the Meadow Creek to protect ten residences adjacent to the river and reduce downstream sedimentation. 5. Ricky Road Drainage Repairs: Provide a storm pipe system to convey drainage from the road. The project is located in the Hessian Hills area. 6. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs: A pipe replacement project to provide additional capacity and prevent flooding of Iow elevation properties (Teague Funeral Home). B. In Progress 7. Four Seasons Pond Repairs: Drain two stormwater control ponds, remove sediment and replace the outfall structure. 8. Peyton Basin Repairs: Repair the outfall pipe and regrade the basin located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives. 9. Monticello H.S./Lakeside Dam Repairs: Provide a blanket drain on the lower face of the dam to control and stabilize leaks through the dam. 10. Georgetown Court Basin Repairs: Repair the outfall pipe and regrade the basin located off of Georgetown Road. 11. Rio Hill Basin Repairs: Modify the outlet structure in the basin located in Rio Hill ShoppingCenter. Repair a portion of the conveyance channel in Woodbrook subdivision. 12. Drainage Basin Study: Address stormwater issues identified by the Moore's Creek and Meadow Creek drainage area study. 13. Brookmill Stream Bank Repairs (design only): described above 14. Birnam Basin (design only): described above 15. Minor Ridge Piping Replacement (design only): described above 16. Westmoreland Court (design only): described above 17. Ivy Road Drainage Repairs (design only): described above C. Recently Completed 1. Doyles River Stream Repairs: Rebuilt an eroded stream bank of the Doyles River to protect the Brown's Cove Methodist Church and protect residences adjacent to the river from flooding. 2. West Pine Dr. Drainage Repairs: Rebuilt a riprap lined drainage channel in the West Wood subdivision located on Old Ballard Road. C.? ROSLYN FOREST LN $ EARLYSVILLE ALBERT CT SEASONS DR .WYNRIDGE LN ( SOU [ I~E HI GEORGE POND 2? H ILLSD~LE Df / ASHLEY CT / CHATHAM CT~ SUMTER.~T~ ...~"iCHT ........ EXETER CT.''/ ......... WALDEN CT / .<"' MANCHESTER CTj ... ........ , HILLSDALE DR ...--' SOMERSET C KLJN GEORGE POND BENNINGTON CT BE RK SH I F~'~:'""~ L D '~Q-.. I NGLEWOOD D I~"-... ~-~URN CT ~ CT GLOUCESTER __ RD O0q' ..-- ............ 3 David R Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humpl~b COUNTY OF Al REMARLE Office of Board of Supen~ors 401 Mdn~re Road C, harlottes~e, Vh'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296.5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 July 16, 1999 Charles S, Martin Walter E Pefldns Sally H. Thomas Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chairman Purchase of Development Rights Committee PO Box 20 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Sherry: At its meeting on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors received the Purchase of Development Rights Committee Report and requested that the Committee run some sample properties utilizing the criteria developed for the proposed program. Sincerely, ~~ Ella W. Carey, Clerk, ~C /ewc cc: Roxanne White Steve AIIhouse Printed on recycled paper ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROGRAM ALBEMARLE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Definition: A purchase of development rights program is a program in which individual landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with the County to sell the right to convert their land to non-rural uses. Some additional building and division may occur, especially on larger parcels. This legal agreement is a deed of conservation easement. Legislation: The Open-Space Land Act (10.1-1700 et seq.) of 1966 gives Virginia counties the needed authority to purchase and hold conservation easements. No additional authority is needed. Easement Holder: Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Criteria: The program proposed protects open- space. It is not limited to farmland. Farm and forest land as well as other natural (watershed, habitat), historic, and scenic resources as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan are included in the program's scope. Ranking: A ranking sheet (in report appendix) assigns points for natural resources occurring on the property. Also ranked are financial need (to discourage negative impact on gift of easement program) and ability to leverage funds. Eligibility: Maintaining the property in long-term rural use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The terms of the easement must be perpetual and consistent with the program's guidelines for terms of easement. The property must obtain a minimum total score to ensure that the easement protects land with significant public value. Organization of Program: ACE Commission of approximately 10 citizens serving without compensation oversee the program. Board of Supervisors approves project list and funding allocations. Staff: One half time position housed within the Planning Department is recommended for the first two years. Valuation of Easements to be Purchased: this assessment of value is performed by the County Assessor with assistance of an Assessment Review Committee. Funding Level: Minimum of $1 million per annum. Funding Source: For the upcoming fiscal year, the County Executive has determined that funding will come from the Carry-over Fund Balance ($650,000) and from the Transient Lodging Tax ($350,000). General points onACE Program: 1. The Purchase of Development Rights should always be considered one arrow in the quiver of arrows addressing rural land use which also include zoning, overlay districts, Agricultural and Forestal Districts and gift of easement program through Virginia Outdoors Foundation. 2. It is important that a secure .source of funding be developed. A minimum of 2-3 years' commitment to fund the program is needed initially. 3. It is important for Albemarle to support state initiatives to create a fund enabled to make grants to localities to purchase easements. ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROGRAM: PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In a purchase of conservation easements program, landowners voluntarily enter into agreements with a public agency or private organization to sell the development rights on their properties. In turn, the agency pays the landowners the difference between the value of the land for agricultural, forest, open-space or estate (i.e. rural) use and the value of the land for its "highest and best" (generally residential) use. The owner sells the right to convert the land to a non-rural use. The legal mechanism used to restrict development is a conservation easement. In the last decade, an increasing number of programs, federal, state, and local, have been created to purchase conservation easements that protect farmland, forest land and other open-space lands. There has been increasing interest in such programs because of the accelerating rate at which farmland and other open-space is being lost. In the period between 1959 and 1992, for example, 37% of Virginia's farmland was lost. In Albemarle County, 25,000 acres of farmland were lost from 1974 to 1992, and 12,898 acres in the decade from 1982 to 1992. At present, 31.7% or 89,208 acres of the 283,652 acres of forest land in Albemarle County is considered by the Department of Forestry to be too densely populated for long term timber production. The TJPDC Build-Out Analysis indicates that at the build-out permitted by the present zoning ordinance, only 4% of the Rural Areas of the County will have a density of less than one housing unit per 21 acres. Regulatory land-use planning tools acceptable to citizens and elected officials have not been able to stem the tide of land conversion. The purchase of conservation easements represents an alternative to reliance solely on regulation, while keeping the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. There is increasing recognition that farm and forest land, clean water and airsheds, scenic vistas and rural character have public value as well as private value. The Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program proposed in this report provides a method of attaining a balance between landowners' rights and responsibilities, between the private and public values of rural land. The Purchase of Development Rights Committee and its work: On April 9, 1997, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appointed a ten member Purchase of Development Rights Committee to develop a purchase of development rights program consistent with the Albemarle County. The Committee met monthly and in sub-committee for a over a year. The Committee presented its initial report outlining recommendations for an Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program to the Board of Supervisors on 2 September 1998. At that time, the Board approved the concept of the program as outlined in the Phase I Report and directed the Committee to continue developing a program as outlined in that Report and to proceed to community outreach and comment. The Committee has spoken to many interested groups and citizens in the last nine months and sought to encourage public comment. In addition, the Committee has tested the ranking sheet with specific sample parcels of land and developed a recommendation for the valuation of easements to be purchased. The Department of Planning and Department of Real Estate Assessment have aided the Committee in developing a methodology for determining the number of usable development rights on a given parcel. Consultation with the County Attorney and Director of finance have assisted in preparing a funding recommendation consistent with Virginia law. The Planning Department has also assisted in providing comment on the selection criteria as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. The County Executive and Assessor have aided in developing a method by which to value easements to be purchased. The Committee wishes to express special thanks to Diane Mullirts in the County Executive's office for her cheerful assistance throughout its work. Committee Members: Sherry Buttrick, Chairman; Edward Bain, Vice-Chairman; Walter Perkins, Board of Supervisors' liaison; Gregory. Edwards, Wayne Elliott, Daniel P. Jordan, Babette Thorpe (replaces C. Timothy Lindstrom), Joe j'ones, Stephen McLean, Joseph Samuels, William Finley (replaces David A. Tice). Proposed Schedule of events to complete the Committee's charge: To fulfill its charge to develop An Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program containing the greatest degree of public consensus possible, the Committee proposes the following public meetings: I. Landowners' meeting: In conjunction with the Farm Bureau and the Extension Service, the Committee is presently organizing a landowners' workshop on the concept of purchase of development rights and use of such programs elsewhere. At that meeting, Bill Powel, dairy farmer and Program Administrator of the Carroll County, Maryland purchase of easements program will describe his experience as participant in a purchase of easements program and discuss existing programs such as Carroll County's. This meet- ing is scheduled for July 20 at the Cooperative Extension Service Building. II. Public Worksession: The Committee proposes to hold public work session(s) on the program as outlined in this report. The suggestions received at that time may indicate a consensus on final changes in specifics of the program before presenting a final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in early September. III. Public Hearing: The Committee suggests that the Board hold a public hearing on the program in September or October. Such public hearing would be based on a final recommendation to be completed following the above public work session. The Committee will be available to assist staff in an explanation of the program for that hearing if desired. 1. DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Description: The Acquisition of conservation easements may be described as the purchase of perpetual conservation easements which have the effect of extinguishing development rights on parcels of land. The easement is offered voluntarily by the landowner. The locality is not legally' obligated to accept any application for purchase. The landowner is not obligated to accept the County's offer to purchase. The Board of Supervisors makes the final determination to accept each proposal to purchase made by a landowner and the individual purchase must reflect the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of acceptance of the proposal to purchase an easement. LeEal Authority: Existing legislation, The Open-Space Land Act (1966) (Code of Virginia Sections 10.1-1700-1705, gives authority for a county or its Public Recreational Facilities Authority to purchase conservation easements on land for conservation purposes. A conservation easement is the legal document used to purchase development rights. It is recommended that the easements be held by the existing Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority. More specifically, the Open Space Land Act enables any public body to acquire title to, or any interests or rights of not less than five years' duration in real property that will provide a means for the preservation of open-space land. Acquisition may be by purchase, gift, devise, bequest or grant, but not by eminent domain. The use of the real property for open space shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan. No further enabling legislation is needed for the purchase of development rights. Purpose and Application: The purpose of Albemarle County's program to acquire conservation easements is to serve as one tool among the several tools available to the County to protect and efficiently use County resources by emphasizing the importance of protecting those open-space elements outlined in the Open-Space Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time. Use of an Acquisition of Conservation Easements' program to protect diverse natural resource elements such as these rather than exclusively farmland immediately sets apart the ACE program from many PDR programs around the country. Most PDR programs focus exclusively on preservation of agricultural lands. Albemarle County's history of according weight in its public policy to the protection a broad spectrum of the natural resource values as outlined in the Open-Space Plan leads the PDR committee to recommend a broader open- space protection program rather than a program directed solely at farmland. It was a governing assumption that an Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program will always be one arrow in the quiver of arrows available to protect the rural areas of Albemarle County. It is intended to supplement rather than replace protective planning efforts of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, donation of conservation easements, and acquisition of park land and natural areas. Acquisition of conservation easements can never do the job alone. Program's Relation to the Comprehensive Plan Among the goals of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan are protection of the County's natural, scenic and historic resources, promotion of the continuation of a viable agricultural and forestal industry and resource base, and protection of the County's surface water and ground water supplies. The Albemarle County Open-Space and Critical Resources Plan (1992), a part of the Comprehensive Plan, lists Purchase of Development Rights as a Potential Technique recommended for further study or implementation. The Ranking System for establishing order of priority for participation in the program is intended to reflect the natural resource values as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan. The Ranking System therefore will need to be reviewed by the ACE Commission when revisions to the Comprehensive Plan occur. 2, ELIGIBILITY AND RANKING OF LANDS FOR ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS' PROGRAM ~ Minimum criteria for eligibility to participate in the ACE program are: 1) the property's remaining in permanent open space is consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan, and, 2) the proposed easement terms are consistent with the ACE Criteria for Easement Terms. Information and Application: The program administrator located within the Department of Planning answers landowners' questions about the program and supplies information. The landowner applies to participate in the program by filling out an application form containing basic information to include name, address, acreage, tax map parcel number and zoning of parcel. Ranking: The ranking of properties applying for purchase of conservation easement is achieved through a point system. The point system ranks the natural resources of the property as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan and Open-Space Plan and the development potential and pressure on the property. The ranking system favors the protection of land owned by landowners of modest income. At present, the gift of easement program currently provides substantial tax incentives for donation of easements, but provides little financial incentive to landowners of modest means. The ranking system provides a minimum overall total points earned in order to assure significant natural resources and open space. The program administrator in consultation with the landowner fills out a ranking sheet which supplies information needed to assign points and relative rankings to the properties. See Ranking Sheet in Appendix. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF ACE PROGRAM Criteria: The ACE Commission annually reviews criteria for evaluation of properties for use in ACE program. The criteria should be derived from the Comprehensive Plan and Open-Space Plan in effect at the time of the review. The Ranking Sheet provides a scoring mechanism by which each applicant property is evaluated for its natural resource value. Amendments to the criteria and hence the Ranking Sheet will be needed over time to reflect changes in the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan, and as the actual performance of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements' program is able to be measured over time. Easement Holder: The Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority is recommended as the legal holder of easements generated through the ACE program. This entity was created by the Board of Super- visors for the purpose of holding easements on December 13, 1989. The Public Recreational Facilities Authority has indicated its willingness to hold such easements if requested by the Board of Supervisors to do so. In some cases, it may be advisable for easements to be jointly held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or other entity. The Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund, for example, is enabled to re-imburse for expenses and/or .purchase easements which are jointly held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and a co-holder such as the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. Acquisition of Conservation Easements' (ACE) Commission: The follow- ing organizational structure is recommended. The Board of Supervisors appoints an Acquisition of Conservation Easements' Commission of approximately 10 citizens to serve without compensation. This Commission is similar to the Agricultural Advisory Commission in the Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program. The ACE commission will have general oversight over the ACE program and should include members knowledgeable in relevant areas such as farm/estate real estate professional, rural land appraiser, farmer or forester, representatives of Farm Bureau, Piedmont Environmental Council, Virginia Outdoors Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. It will review the program's criteria for eligibility and ranking on an annual basis and recommend to the Board of Supervisors any changes needed to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or, based on the experience of the previous year, to make the program more workable. The ACE Commission will also review the prioritization of applications for acquisition of conservation easements developed by staff and foreword its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The ACE Commission will also work with staff to develop methods to promote the program. Valuation of Easement for Purchase: The County Assessor performs appraisals on those properties identified for purchase by the ACE Commission through the:.ranking system. The County then makes the resulting offer to the landowner. If one or more landowners decline the offer, the property or properties ranking just below these are appraised and offers made. An Assessment Review Committee will be established consisting of three real estate professionals, including the County Assessor and at least one member of the ACE Commission. The ACE Commission may reserve the right to establish guidelines for maximum individual payments in any given year. Administration of Program: The program is recommended to be housed within the Planning Department of the County government for at least the first two years of the program. The program administrator should explore ways to move the program toward maximizing private participation and investment in this public program. Additionally, staff should research ways to use State or Federal programs to leverage County funding. The citizen ACE Commission assists with increasing this participation. Administrative duties of the ACE Program include day-to-day operations such as responding to inquiries from landowners, educating and informing interested landowners of the program, processing applications, and marketing the program. Additionally, staff should be prepared to educate landowners about other land protection tools such as Agricultural and Forestal Districts, the tax benefits of donation of conservation easements and riparian easement programs offered by state or federal agencies. Determination of number of usable development rights contained on applicant properties will be made by the Department of Planning. Staffing Level: It is anticipated that one part-time position will be required to serve in the position of Program Administrator. Virginia Beach reports that they hired one additional staff person to administer the program and that the program does not demand 100% of that position's time. That program is experiencing two to three new inquiries per month. Following the model of the Virginia Beach program, the Committee anticipates that the legal work of preparing an letter of offer, performing title search and handling the easement closing would be handled by the County Attorney's Office. The Assessor's Office anticipates that it will be able to handle the anticipated increase in workload with present staffing levels. Administrative Process: Steps a landowner follows to participate in program: 1. Landowner learns of Acquisition of Conservation Easements' program available through newspaper or private organization newsletter, outreach programs conducted by staff and ACE Commission members. 2. Landowner completes application prior to semi-annual deadline. 3. ACE staff completes ranking sheets on applicant properties and submits a prioritized list of easement proposals to ACE Commission. 4. Board of Supervisors approved priorities for easement proposals. 5. The County Assessor performs appraisals of properties and easements on those properties in order of priority and offers made to the landowner. 6. Board of Supervisors approves funding for easement proposals. 7. The landowner decides whether to accept the County's offer. 8. The landowner and County sign an easement which is recorded in the Clerk's Office. Easement Terms: Easements funded with public money should be perpetual in their duration. This policy is consistent with the philosophy of the Internal Revenue Service and federal government to grant tax deductions and exclusions only for easements that are perpetual in duration. Guidelines for permitted subdivision of a property under the terms of an easement: Under 100 acres: no subdivision. 100-200 acres: no more than one subdivision into a maximum of two parcels, one of which shall be at least 100 acres. 200 to 300 acres may be divided into three parcels, two of which must be at least 100 acres each, etc.. The remaining terms should follow the Virginia Outdoors Foundation model easement (See Appendix) in areas of the use of property, improvements, forest management, easement inspections, etc.. Recommended Guidelines for Allocation of Funds: In order to ensure the pubic benefit and fiscal responsibility of the ACE program, the following targets are recommended to guide the allocation of funds: 1. Strive to protect at least 1,000 acres per 1 million dollars of funding. 2. Strive to fund at least three separate projects in any one year. 3. Strive toward geographic diversity of properties protected. If the natural resource values of a single property.are sufficiently compelling, the ACE Commission should be empowered to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that these Guidelines be overridden by the overwhelming public value attained in the single property. 4. FUNDING OF PROGRAM FinanCin~ Plan: The Committee initially recommended that Albemarle follow the same installment purchase financing plan developed by Howard County, Maryland, and adopted by Virginia Beach. This program was developed by Evergreen Capital Advisors, Princeton N.J,, as consultant to · Howard County, Md., and adapted by them for Virginia Beach. The Albemarle County Attorney's Office has determined that this method of funding is not available to a county in Virginia, for the reason that Virginia counties are not enabled to incur long-term debt. A lease-purchase arrangement was determined by the County Attorney to be inapplicable to the purchase of conservation easements. For that reason, it is contemplated that the purchase of easements would be on a cash payment basis until other options become available to Virginia counties. In the initial two years of the program, this constraint should not be a significant obStacle in that the newness of the program will likely mean that participation will grow over time. Funding Level: The Committee has presented to the Board of Supervisors its recommendation to begin funding the ACE program at the level of one million dollars per annum. It must be understood that the program needs to be securely and adequately funded in order to be attractive to landowners and to be effective in its purpose. Sources of Funding: The Board of Supervisors has determined that funding for the upcoming year shOuld be derived from the Fund Carryover Balance and the Lodging Tax. The Virginia Beach 'City Council member who met with representatives of the ACE Committee in Virginia Beach emphasized that a designated source of funding was crucial to a successful program. Without such a stable source of funding, the program is subject to annual changes in political climate and is not conducive to the predictability that makes the program able to achieve its goals. It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee that a designated source of funding be pursued in the first two years of the program. MARKETING OF PROGRAM Marketing of the program will be the responsibility of the staff administrator and the ACE Commission. The Farm Bureau has indicated a willingness to assist in the marketing effort and it is hoped that additional organizations mav volunteer to assist in spreading the word to their members. The public outreach undertaken by the Committee to date will be continued through presentations to interested groups and discussions with individuals. Education and outreach through the press will be undertaken in consultation with Lee Catlin in the County Executive's Office. 6. PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS' PROGRAMSIN OTHER VIRGINIA LOCALITIES AND OTHER STATES A 1998 survey, "Purchase of Development Rights Through Permanent Conservation Easements," (Jane C. Koontz, Richmond, Va.) indicates that 21 states have initiated state or local PDR programs. The first such program began in Suffolk County, New York, in 1977. Neighboring Maryland has the most well-established PDR programs in the country and serves as a model to states and localities developing programs. Enabled in 1977, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation has purchased easements on 1,052 farms comprising 152,288 acres. Like Virginia, Maryland also has an active gift of easement program administered by the Maryland Environmental Trust. Ann Arundel County, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County are the most active local programs. These programs work in conjunction with the state program and receive state funds to augment local funding. Pennsylvania made its first easement purchase in 1989 and has protected 123,500 acres as of August 1998. Purchase of Development Rights Programs in Virginia Open Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund: In 1997, the General Assembly created the Open Space Lands Preservation Trust FUnd. The fund's purposes are to assist landowners with costs associated in giving an easement and to purchase all or part of the value of an easement from an individual landowner. The program is designed to re- imburse individual landowners who apply for cost re-imbursement. It does not make grants to localities. Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program: Begun in 1995, this program has protected 4000 acres and an additional 2800 in process with a budget of $ 3.5 million annually. Virginia Beach is the first locality to develop a PDR program. Their goal is to purchase the vast majority of the 20,000 acres stilI in farming use south of the city. The purchase price of their easements is proportionately higher than Albemarle is expected to experience because there is little demand for estate parcels. Virginia Beach has been extremely helpful to Albemarle and has expressed willingness to continue to do whatever they can to assist this locality. Albemarle's committee has worked extensively with staff at Virginia Beach and is extremely grateful to Louis Cullipher, Director of Agriculture, and members of City Council for their time and assistance. Representatives of their program have twice come to Albemarle and members of Albemarle's committee have taken a field trip to learn the details of their program and to tour several farms and meet with their owners in the program. Virginia Beach serves as a model to other lOcalities in Virginia developing programs and has been generous in its assistance. Virginia Localities in the process of developin~ PDR Pro~rams: A number of other Virginia localities, responding to similar citizen interest in reducing sprawl development associated with rapid growth pressure, are in the process of developing PDR programs. Loudoun County: Report of PDR Committee to be presented on July 7th will recOmmend imPlementation of PDR Program. Fauquier County: Board of Supervisors has passed resolution authorizing public opinion poll preparatory to considering development of PDR Program. Tames City County: A County Committee is in process of developing public consensus on a program designed in concept. The Board of Supervisors has earmarked $500,000 as seed money for the program. I-Ienrico and Hannover Counties are also exploring the feasibility of PDR programs. ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE ACE PROGRAM, A PROPERTY MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERA: Eligibility for ACE Program: Land in permanent open space is consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan yes__ no__ The proposed easement terms are consistent with The ACE Criteria for Easement Terms yes no__ Minimum score for eligibility: 15 points. RANKING PRIORTY POINT SYSTEM I. OPEN-SPACE CRITERA: Points Points Avail. Earned 1. Land adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, National, State, local park or other protected open space (one point for every 500 ft. of boundary) 2. Size of property: (1 point for each 50 ac.) II. THREAT OF CONVERSION: 1. Property is threatened with forced sale: Other hardship (explain) .... 5 3 2. Number of usable development rights on the property: * 1/2 point for each development right, incl. 21 ac. Rights * Albemarle County Planning department will provide number of usable development rights by determining with Zoning Department the number of theoretical development rights and estimating potential for loss as result of slope or wetlands. Applicants may provide alternative documents from a Certified Land Surveyor. Pg. 2 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET III. NATURAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE CRITERA 1. Mountain protection afforded: (One point for each 1000 ft. of Mountain ridge) As designated On Alb. Co. Mountain Overlay maps Points Avail. Points Earned 2. Working family farm (includes forest): At least one family member's principal occupation (income) (51% or greater) is farming this farm/forestland At least one family member is producer of farm products 5 3 3. a. Designated Scenic road protection (County or Va.): One point for every 600 ft. of road frontage o__r 3. b. Scenic vista protection: One point for every 1000 ft. of public road frontage 4. Historic resource protection: Within a National or Va. Rural Historic District: Individual structure on or eligible for National or Va. Register 3 Land lies in primary viewshed of Monticello (maximum possible points for # 4.: 5 points) 5. Natural habitat protection: Land contains an occurance of a plant or animal species as listed on Va. Natural Heritage Inventory as rare or endangered* 5 6. Soils 1 point for every 50 ac. of acreage in class I-III soils (NRCS Classifications) 5 *This Inventory provides a good proxy for biologically diverse habitat. A County Biological Inventory may supply additional data and categories for ranking in the future. Pg. 3 ACE PROGRAM RANKING SHEET points points Avail. Earned 7. Public Drinking Water Supply Watershed Protection a. Property in the Watershed 3 b. Riparian frontage: Ivy Creek, Mechum, Moormans, Doyle, Buck Mt. Creek, & Rivanna R. Hardware R., Jacob's Run frontage (one-half point for every 1000 ft. of river boundary) 8. Designated Scenic Rivers protection: Property contains frontage on State Scenic River (one-half point for every 1000 ft. of river boundary) IV. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: If you would like financial need to be considered and your income is equal to or below the current median income for Albemarle County in previous tax year: If your income is less than median income minus 20% If your income is less than median income plus 20% 10 15 5 V. LEVERAGING OF COUNTY FUNDS State, Federal, or Foundation funding exist to assist landowner with funding of purchase of easement (ex's: Open-Space Preservation Trust Fund, CREP, Farmland Protection Program, Forest Legacy) The following extra points are given to those applicants who make use either of one of the above options or bargain sale to provide leverage for the County's funding: For each 10% of leveraged funds: 1 point 10 Total Points in this Ranking sheet: points This Ranking Sheet provides a priority ranking among the Applicants for Albemarle County's consideration. Notes for tabulation: Fractional points to the first decimal rounded should be tabulated. SAMPLE FORM for Deed of Easement Exempted from recordation tax under the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, Section 58.1-811 (A) (3), 58.1-811 (D) and 10.1-1803 THIS DEED OF GIFT EASEMENT, made this day of ,1999, between , herein called the Grantors, the VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION, an Agency of the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, herein called the Grantee, whose address is 203 Governor Street, Suite 316, Richmond, Virginia, 23219, and , herein called the Bank. WHEREAS, the Open Space Land Act of 1966 (Chapter 17, Title 10.1, SS 10.1-1700 to 10.1-1705 of the Code of Virginia, as amended) declares that the preservation of open-space land serves a public purpose by promoting the health and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth by curbing urban sprawl and encouraging more desirable and economical development of natural resources, and authorizes the use of easements in gross to maintain the character of open-space land; and WHEREAS, Chapter 18, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia (SS 10.1-1800 to 10.1-1804', as amended) declares it to be the public policy of the Commonwealth to encourage preservation of open- space land and authorizes the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to hold real property or any estate or interest therein for the purpose of preserving the natural, scenic, historical, scientific, open-space and recreational lands of the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, [INSERT DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES AND SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC VALUES]; WHEREAS, [INSERT OTHER STATUTORY REFERENCES OR REFERENCES TO CITY OR COUNTY PUBLIC LAND USE PLAN, IF APPLICABLE] WHEREAS, the Grantors are the owners of the fee of real property hereinafter described which they desire preserved as open space land in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of the foregoing and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein and the acceptance by Grantee, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the Grantee an open-space easement in gross over, and the right in perpetuity to restrict the use of the real estate consisting of acres described below and located in Magisterial District of County, Virginia, near and 'fronting on state route(s and hereinafter referred to as the "Property:'! [PROPERTY DESCRIPTION] AND SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the restriction that the Grantee or its successors and assigns may not transfer or convey the open-Space easement herein conveyed to the Grantee unless the Grantee conditions such transfer or conveyance on the requirement that (1) all restrictions and conservation purposes set forth in the conveyance accomplished by this deed are to be continued zn perpetuity, and (2) the transferee is an organzzation then qualifying as an eligible donee as defined by section 170(h) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. This conveyance is further made subject to all matters of record which may affect said parcel of land. Restrictions are hereby imposed on uses of the property pursuant to the public policies set forth above. The acts which the Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns, covenant to do and not to do upon the Property, and the restrictions which the Grantee is hereby entitled to enforce, are and shall be as follows; Accumulation of trash, refuse, junk, or any other unsightly material is not permitted on the Property. Display of billboards, signs, or other advertisements is not permitted on or over the Property except to state the name and/or address of the owners, to advertise the sale or lease of the Property, to advertise the sale of goods or services produced incidentally to a permitted use of the Property or to provide notice necessary for the protection of the Property and for giving directions to visitors. No such sign shall exceed three by three feet in size. o Subdivision of the Property in any manner is prohib- ited. (See VOF Guidelines for variations based on parcel size.) Management of forest resources shall be in accord with a forest stewardship plan approved by the Grantee. All forestry activities shall be carried out so as to maintain biodiversity and preserve the environmental/scenic quality of the area. Best Management Practices, as defined by the Department of Forestry, shall be used to control erosion and protect water quality. The Grantor, or its successors and assigns shall notify the Grantee no later than 30 days prior to the start of any such activity as well as within 7 days of its completion. o Grading, blasting or earth removal shall not materially alter the topography of the Property except for dam construction to create private conservation ponds or lakes, or as required in construction of permitted buildings and connecting private roads described in paragraph 6, below. Mining on the Property is prohibited. o NO permanent or temporary building or structure shall be built or maintained on the Property other than (i) a single family dwelling and non-residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, (ii) secondary dwellings and non- residential outbuildings commonly and appropriately incidental thereto, and (iii) farm buildings or structures. Farm buildings or structures exceeding 4,500 square feet in ground area may not be constructed on the PrOperty unless prior written permission for said building or structure is obtained in writing from Grantee. In the event of subdivision of the Property as provided in Paragraph 3, above, permitted buildings and connecting private roads may be constructed on each subdivided parcel. o Industrial or commercial activities other than the following are prohibited: 1. agriculture, silviculture or horticulture, 2. temporary or seasonal activities which do not permanently alter the physical appearance of the Property and which are consistent with the conservation values herein protected, 3. activities which can be and in fact are conducted within permitted buildings, without material alteration to the external appearance thereof. Temporary outdoor activities involving 100 people or more shall not exceed seven days in duration unless approved by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. [Optional additional language: Notwithstanding any other provision of this easement, no commercial recreational use (excep~ for de minimis commercial recreational uses) shall be allowed on the Property.] Representatives of the Grantee may enter the Property from time to time for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of the terms of this easement after permission from or reasonable notice to the owner or the owner's representative. o Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns shall notify Grantee in writing prior to closing on any proposed transfer or sale. of the Property. In any deed conveying all or any part of the Property, this easement shall be referenced by Deed Book and Page Number in the deed of conveyance. · herein, the Bank, is the Note holder under a certain Deed of Trust dated and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of County, Virginia in Deed Book at page which subjects the Property to the Bank's lien. The Bank and the Trustee (under the Deed of Trust), hereby consent to the terms and intent of this Easement, and agree that the lien represented by the Deed of Trust shall be held subject to this Deed of Gift of Easement. Although this easement in gross will benefit the public as described above, nothing herein shall be construed to convey to the public a right of access to or use of the Property. Grantors, their heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns hereby retain exclusive right to such access and use, subject to the terms hereof. Acceptance of this conveyance by the Grantee is authorized by Section 10.1-1801 of the Code of Virginia and is evidenced by the signature of its Executive Director hereto. Assignment of this easement is governed by Section 10.1-1801 of the Code of Virginia. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. ,Grantor ,Grantor Bank: By: Its~ ,Trustee Accepted: VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION, By: (SEAL) Tamara A. Vance, Executive Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA· CITY/COUNTY OF · TO WIT: I, , a Notary Public for the Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that · Grantor, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of , 1999. Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF , TO WIT: I, , a Notary Public for the Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that T~m~r~ A, V~n¢¢ , Executive Director of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation· personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this ,1999. day o f Notary Public My commission expires: (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF I, Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify that , TO WIT: · a Notary Public for the , as of day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this of ,1999. personally appeared before me this day My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF I, Commonwealth aforesaid, hereby certify Trustee, personally · TO WIT: a Notary Public for the that , as appeared before me this day and acknowledged the foregoing instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of ,1999. My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public CHARGE TO COMMITTEE: To develop a draft policy consistent with existing legislation and authority regarding purchase of development rights for the Board of Supervisors' possible implementation. The Committee's scope of work should include: *develop program goals consistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. Identification of resources that it would be desirable to protect by means of this program. *develop criteria for eligibility to participate in the program and ranking system(s) for such lands~ *develop possible funding mechanisms, including State, federal and private sources. *develop consensus among local interest groups and interested citizens. *develop recommendations for administration of the program. *develop informational literature on the program for the public's use. *develop recommendations to encourage voluntary sale and gifts of conservation easements and to maximize the effectiveness of the program and the protection of identified resources; and *provide periodic progress reports to the Board of Supervisors. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Baker, Chairman SChool Board Ella W. Carey, Clerk, C~ July 16, 1999 School Board Report After receiving your report on July 7, 1999, the Board of Supervisors, the following comments were made: Mr. Perkins said one way to balance the number of students in the high schools would be to allow-students who drive to school some flexibility in choosing the high school they attend, as long as the school is not at capacity. This may reduce some of the need for mobile classrooms. Ms. Thomas mentioned that some areas (i.e., cosmetology) are turning out more students with skills than the community need, and then there are other areas where the need is not being met. She asked if you could get some infommtion on whether this was true. /ewc cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS Also available at http://k12.albernarle, org "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: IUNE 14, 1999 BOARD ACTIONS The Board voted to expel a middle school student for the t999-2000 school year for being in possession of a look-alike weapon, drug paraphernalia, and tobacco products on school grounds. The Board voted to expel a high school student for the remainder of the school year and revoke his second- semester credits for being under the influence of a controlled substance on school grounds. Mrs. Diantha McKeel was appointed to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) Board for a three-year term beginning July 1, 1999, replacing Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, who will resign effective June 30. The Board approved the Year-to-Date Financial Report, April 30, 1999. Board members deferred discussion of proposed revisions of Policy I, Instruction, until the June 28 meeting. The Board received the Superintendent's decision that a book challenged by a parent, Bright and Early Thursday Evening by Audrey Wood, would remain in elementary school media centers but not on easy- reading shelves. The decision may be appealed to the Board within the next 10 working days. FEES FOR 1999-2000 SCHOOL YEAR APPROVED In accord wkh Policy JN, Student Fees, Fines, and Charges, the Board reviewed proposed student fees for the 1999-2000 school year. Of the 23 student fees charged, 11 will be increased (most by $.50, $.75, or $1.00) to cover rising costs. The Board approved the proposed fees but noted that the list was not all-inclusive, as it did not include fees for individual school activities such as field trips. Board members asked staff to clarify this fact when providing the list to schools for inclusion in student handbooks. The list of fees is available in the School Board office (9724055) and on the division Web site. ANNI~REPORT: NUTRITION PROGRAM The Bo-"al'~received the annual report of the Albemarle County Schools Child Nutrition Program (CNP), a self- sustaining business serving over 5,500 student lunches and over 700 student breakfasts daily. AB County schools except Albemarle High School participate in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program ('NSLP). The CNP currently provides $25,000 in annual revenue to the School Board's Operating Budget. The CNP is currently financially solvent but faces significant challenges, such as increases in labor and food costs, the need to maintain nutritional integrity while offering appealing menus, and replacement of costly equipment, especially refrigeration units, over the next few years. Fiscal pressures, including the opening of the Northern Elementary School and major capital equipment upgrades, led to the following recommendations: · A 25-cent increase in lunch prices to address ming costs and anticipated capital purchases. This increase (the first in 11 years) would raise elementary lunches to $1.50 and breakfasts to $.75 and middle and high school lunches to $1.75 and breakfasts to $1.00. · Return of Albemarle High School to the NSLP to decrease lunch prices and increase federal revenue to support the CNP. Board members believed that the increased lunch prices were justified but agreed that the public needed to be better informed about the price changes before the Board approved them. A media release will be issued, and the price changes will also be posted on the division Web site at kl2.albemarle.org, with an opportunity to provide feedback. The Board will hear public testimony on this issue at its June 28 meeting before taking action. Delta Kaooa Awards for exoerti~e and dedication were presented to several County staff members: Donna Rehorn, K-5 music teacher at Woodbmok and Brownsville, Outstanding Elementary Teacher Alison Dwier-Selden, K-5 Language Arts Teaching Specialist, Central Virginia's Outstanding Educator Unda Hutson, second-grade teacher at Woodbrook Elementary, Outstanding Phi Delta Kappa Member Susan Gilkey, Outstanding High School Teacher (presented posthumously) · IVlONTICELLO HIGH SCHOOL'S FIRST YEAR Mr. Irving Jones, principal, described Monticello's successful first year, characterized by active a~.d enthusiastic student, staff, and commumty involvement. Staff developed an effective interdisciplinary model of instruction using student teams anci curriculum mapping while emphasizing st,a~f, development, particularly in technology. The school s Student Council Association is very active, and students participated in senior services learning projects, senior internships, the Teacher Cadet Program, and Junior Achievement. Students in the Fine Arts program produced music competitions, one-act plays, and a spring musical, "Man of La Mancha." Golf and baseball players at Monticello were district champions, and students brought home first-place awards in both the Odyssey of the Mind and History Day competitions. Monticello graduated 115 students on June 11. Monticello also benefited from an actzve Parent- Teacher-Student Organization and music and athletics boosters, while the Albemarle community used Monticello's facilities for events such as "Relay for Life" benefiting the American Cancer Society, "Senior Day" sponsored by Senator Emily Couric, and United Way meetings. Mr. Jones noted that the new building required some repairs as it settled. NOTES AND EVENTS Individual Standards of Learning results for the 1998-99 school year are now being distributed to parents; statewide results will be available in late summer. State School Performance Report Cards for 1997-98 have been delivered to individual schools and can also be viewed on the division Web site. Dr. Jean Murray, recently appointed as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, and Mr. Bruce Benson, Director, the newly named Director of Technology, were welcomed by the Board. The Board-to-Board presentation on July 7 will include information about the School Safety Hotline and related school safety issues. The Board Retreat will be held June 17 from 4 - 9 p.m. at the Virginia High School League facility; Board members will review the 1998-99 Board/Superintendent Priorities and consider their priorities for 1999-2000. ~ The Western Albemarle Bands and Choir I !1 participated in the Ovation New York Music = I il Festival, April 30 -'May 2. The ensembles 1 II received the following awards: Concert Band, gold I II medal; Jazz and Marching Bands, silver medals; 1 II Woodwind Quartet, silver medal; and Concert 1 II Choir, bronze medal. Steve Layman and Jeanne · H Newton directed the ensembles. I Piedmont Regional Science Fair on Mamh 12: Peter King. Hollymead. 1st Place, Physics C: Electricity & Magnetism; Emma Kirschnick. Walton. 1st Place. Non- Human Vertebrate Studies; Abigail Davis, Jack Jouett, 2nd Place, Chemical Botany; Hannah Ayers. Walton, 3rd Place, Microbiology, Medicine. & Invertebrate Zoology; Logan Mills; Walton. 3rd Place, Environmental Botany; Jeff Centini & Steve Walston, Hollymead. 3rd Place, Team Projects; Heather Austin, Albemarle, 1st Place. Environmental Science; Karen Adler, Albemarle. 2nd Place. Behavioral & Social Sciences; Jeffrey Boyd, Albemarle, 3rd Place, Earth & Space Sciences -k The Albemarle High School Bands (Mamhing, Concert, Symphonic, and Jewz), directed by Greg Thomas, won several awards at the Music Festival in Montreal, Canada (May 5-9): · 1st Place, Jazz Ensemble (Triple A Category) · 1st Place, Parade (Marching Band) (Double A Category) · 1st Place, Symphonic Band - Superior Rating · Outstanding Flute Section in a Symphonic Band · Outstanding Rhythm Section in a Jazz Band · Outstanding Brass Section in a Jazz Band · Outstanding Auxiliary (Marching Band flags) · Outstanding Drum Section in a Concert Band · Award for Best Parade (Marching Band) · 3rd Place, Concert Band - excellent rating · Overall award for Best Jazz Ensemble GIFTED ADVISORY I:kEPORT The Gifted Advisory Committee submitted ks annual report on the education of gifted students to the Board. The Committee (1) advises the School Board, through the Superintendent, of the educational needs of gifted students, (2) reviews the division's biennial Gifted Plan and assesses plan implementation, and (3) makes recommendations concerning the gifted program to the Board. This year, the Committee focused on pare.hr .and community involvement-- improving commumcatmn regarding available gifted services (adding a Gifted Education Web.page to the division Web site and developing a model e- mail list for parent updates in two schools), and increasing attention to student in transition years (Grades 4/5 - 6, Grade 8 - 9). Differentiated staffing r, emains a priority. Initial pl, nnlng for a regional Governor s School ftr gifted students from seven school divisions is underway. The Committee supports the five-year budget initiative designed to extend gifted services and increase staffing at all schools and recommends that the division assure the consistency of gifted services and · ' ; flni ' "' " opportumty m all schools. Expanding the deft' taCh of gifted beyond intellectual and academic aptitude is an important next step; the Committee recommends developing strategies for supporting students gifted in the visual and performing arts. The Board recei.ved the report , for information. ~998-99 BOAKD/SLrPERIN'I~NDENT PKIORITIES At its July 27, 1998 meeting, the Board adopted the 1998-99 Board/Superintendent Priorities. On May 13, 1999, the Board received copies of the following documents: · mission and vision statements · the 1998-99 End-of-Year Superintendent/Board Priorities Assessment · Pt~licy BBA, Role and Evaluation of the School Board · Policy CBA, Role, Qualifications, and Evaluation of the Superintendent · the End-of-Year Annotated Summary (to be discussed at the Board Retreat on June 17, 1999) These documents provide the cornerstone for the school division's long-range improvements; they also support the Virginia Standards of-Quality, providing accountability to the public. A successful performance-driven learning system depends upon eight factors: vision, strategy, clear expectations, organization, staff development, resources, monitoring, and evaluation. As Board members work on the 1999-2000 Priorities and plan for future goals, they will focus on the importance of an organizational structure supporting student achievement as the key to the division's continuous improvement process. CONGRATULATIONS! to Kirsti Potter and Noah Cates, both juniors at Western Albemarle High School, who each scored a perfect 1600 on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). Nationally, of 1,200,000 students taking the SAT, only 673 students earned a perfect score. It is notable to have one perfect score in a school; to have two students in one school achieve this recognition is extraordinary. UPDATE: DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE APPRAISAL PLAN On May 24, staff presented the Board with a Draft Administrative Appraisal Plan and recommended that it be piloted in fall 1999 with the 12 committee members who researched and developed it. Since the state Department of Education is currently developing guidelines for teacher, administrator, and superintendent evaluations in order to comply with legislation passed by the General Assembly, staff recommended at this point that the Board delay adopting a revised appraisal plaan until the 2000-2001 school year. The Board concurred with staff recommendations and agreed that a final version of the proposed plan would be presented to the Board ia March/~kpri12000 for discussion and possible adoption. ~LITERACY TASK FORCE REPORT The Literacy Task Force was formed ia July 1998 when the Board expanded its priorities to include a goal of 100% literacy for all students after second grade in Albemarle County Schools. Since its preliminary report to the Board in January 1999, the Task Force subcommittee has met weekly to continue its research and to provide the details for the original recommendations. Components of the Albemarle County Literacy Program include the following: · Focused, dearly delineated reading program and delivery system · Benchmarks for Language Arts instruction Grades K-5 · Support reading program for grades 6-12 · Training for new middle/high school reading program (language) · Summer school curriculum · Comprehensive Staff Development Plan · Job description for Literacy Specialists/Coordinators Roles of Literacy Council, Intervention Teams, Division Level Steering Committee · Computer support report · Computer management system for teachers · Role of support services--Special Education, Tide I, and ALPS · Early Intervention Recommendations · Whole school reform plans for Scottsville and Yancey The Superintendent noted that the Task Force's work was still in its early stages, and the recommendations will have budgetary implications. The Board received the report for information. -k The CharlottesvillelAIbemaHe Commission on Children and Families sponsored a logo contest for local public and private high schools. Albemarle High School students placed 1st (Kirsten Harper), 2nd (Bo Li), 3rd (Jezmyn Kimelman), 4th, and 5th in the contest, supported by teacher Kathy Burg. .k Several Murray High School students won awards in the Walton's Mountain Museum Art & Photography contest. Lucy Larsen, first place, high school photography, Matt Lang, second place, high school photography, and KHstin Reinicke, People's Choice Award, high school photography. Teacher Annie Jacobs received third-place recognition in adult art. -k In honor of their school volunteers, school representatives accepted books which will be placed in school media centers. Elementary schools received This Land is Your Land by Woody Guthrie; middle schools received Optical Tricks by Walter Wick; and high schools received To Everythin,q There is a Season by Leo and Diane Dillon. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC' SCHOOLS BOARD BRIEFS Also available at http:?/k12.albemarle, org "WE EXPECT SUCCESS" SCHOOL BOARD MEETING: JUNE 28, 1999 BOARD ACTIVITY The Board voted to terminate the employment of a middle school teacher for breach of contract. Board members asked staff to make further changes to proposed revisions of Policy I, Instruction, to clarify terminology and to ensure alignment with Virginia's Standards of Quality. The revised policies will 'be scheduled on the cbnsent agenda of the July 12 Board meeting for second reading and possible action. On July 12, the School Board will meet with the Board of Supervisors and local legislators to discuss health insurance concerns. The meeting will be held at 4:30 p.m. in Room 235. The Chairman's Board-to-Board presentation to the Board of Supervisors on jUly 7 will focus on issues raised during the June 14 and 28 School Board meetings and the June 17 Retreat, as well as the Governor's proposed safety program. The Virginia School Boards Association (VSBA) will hold ks Governor's Conference on July 20 in Richmond. O VOCATIONAL/TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT The Joint Vocational and Technical Education Advisory Council presented its Annual Report (1998- 99) to the Board. The AdvisoryCouncil (1) advises Albemarle County Schools on the relevance of courses being offered within the division, current trends in bu,dness, technological demands, and job requirements and (2) advises and assists in the development of the annual Vocational Plan. Mr. Phil Crocker, Chairman of the Council, noted that 2,343 high school students enrolled in vocational education programs in the 199809 school year, showing an increase of over 500 from the prior year. The council is focusing primarily on helping graduating students create, portfolios to help them enter the business world and on recruitment. INCREASE IN FEES APPROVED After hearing public testimony, the Board voted to approve the following recommen~tions of Child Nutrition Program (CNP) staff: A 25-cent increase in lunch prices. This increase (the first in 11 years) will raise elementary lunches to $1.50 and breakfasts to $.75 and middle and high school lunches to $1.75 and breakfasts to $1.00. Return of Albemarle High School to the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program (NSLP) to decrease lunch prices and increase federal revenue to support the CNP. While the CNP is currently f'mancially solvent, it faces challenges such as increasing labor and food costs, the need to offer nutritional integrity as well as appealing menus, and replacement of costly equipment, especially refrigeration units, over the next few years. Fiscal pressures, including the opening of the Northern Elementary School and major .capital equipment upgrades, led staff to recommend these mcreases. ( UPDATE: IVY CREEK SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Staff reported to the Board that construction of the Ivy Creek School is progressing on schedule, and staff will begin moving into the new facility on July 26. The school will serve students enrolled in the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) and is scheduled to open in fall 1999. PREP serves school divisions in the city of Charlottesville and in the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson. 1999-2000 BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITI]~S At its July 12 meeting, the Board will continue its discussion of the proposed content and format of the 1999-2000 Board/Superintendent Priorities. Board members also discussed the possibility of seeking public input on the priorities each year, between the end of the yearly budget cycle and the .Board's semiannual, retreat in June. 19984999 BOARD/SUPERiNTENDENT ~ERFORMANCE REPORT Each. year, the Albemarle School Board evaluates itself and the Superintendent ina public meeting~ based on how well annual prionues were met, using the following rating scale: 1 = Well Below Expectations 2 -- Below Expectations 3 -- Meets Expectations 4 = Exceeds Expectations 1998-99 SCHOOL BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITIES 1998-99'PRIORITY RATING PRIORITY RATING ENROLLMENT & FACILITIES CONTINUOUS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 1. Long-Range 'planning Committee 3.50 1. School Improvement Process 3.50 2. Piedmont Regional Education Program 3.67 2. At-Risk and Spedal Populations 3.33 3. Monticello High School 3.83 3. flwlmlnl.utr~ve ~ Teacher Evaluation Process 2.60 4. New School Operating Schedule 2.67 4. Staff Development 3.00 CURRICULUM & ASSESSMENT 5. Standards of Accreditation Action Plan 3.33 1. Standards of Learning/Accreditation 3.50 6. Akemadve Programs Evaluation 2.50 Refinement 2. High School Performance Standards 2.83 COMPENSATION 3. Mkidle School Performance Standards 3.17 1. Classified Employee/Teacher Salaries 2.83 4. ELementary School Performance Standards 3.33 IMPROVING & STREAMLINING OPERATIONS 5. Foreign Language Program Assessment 3.17 1. Policy Manual Revision 3.00 TECHNOLOGY 2. Cooperation with Board of Supervisors 3.50 1. TechnologY Plan 3.83 3. Charter Schools Polic~ 4.00 2. Expansion of TechnologY ' 3.33 4. Comm*mications Plan 3.50 CAREER PREPARATION 1. Career Education Programs' Integration 3.67 SCHOOL BOARD ROLE SCHOOL BOARD AS A COLLECTIVE BODY RATING 1. Vision & Mission 3.50 2. School Laws 3.50 3. Conducts Public School Business 3.33 4. Property of the School Division 4.00 5. Consolidation of Schools N/A 6. Operation of the School Division 3.50 7. Instructional & M,n~ement priorities 3.67 8. Polio/Making 3.50 9. Superintendent 3.83 10. Budget AdoPdon 3.33 11. Financial Authority 3.50 12. Personnel 2.83 13. Appointment of Staff 3.67 14. Communicating with Various Constimendes 3.50 15. Commttnicating with Board of Supervisors and Legislative Offidals 3.50 16. Commtmicating with School Division Employees 3.50 17. Adjudi,'cation 3.67 18. Office Protocol 3.67 19. Responsive to Ghar~ Needs of School Division ' 3.33 20. Respect of School Board ,as an Institution 3.67 Comment ~rom the Chairman: "We are happy to report that thanks to the strong partg_ ership between the School Board and the Supefint_' endent and the continued support of the comrrnmity, our performance reflects an outstanding school division that is the pride of our comImmity." . , COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board Larry W. Davis, County Attorney ~ Mark A. Trank, Deputy County Attorney June 29, 1999 Freedom of Information Act Changes The 1999 General Assembly substantially revised the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (the "Act"). This memorandum summarizes the most important changes affecting local governments and school boards that will take effect on July 1, 1999. A detailed written overview of the 1999 amendments to the Act is attached for your reference. A. Exemptions. Under the Act, all meetings of a public body continue to be open, unless a specific exemption applies. These exemptions (set forth in Va. Code § 2.1-344) have been narrowed from previous law, and permit a public body to exclude the public under more limited circumstances. As of July 1a, the Act refers to such sessions as "closed meetings", as the term "executive session" has been deleted. The open meeting requirement continues to apply not only to meetings of the public body but also to committees and subcommittees "created to perform delegated functions of the public body or to advise the public body." Several exemptions regularly used by public bodies have also changed. The so-called "real estate" exemption set forth in § 2.1-344(A)(3) now permits discussions in closed meetings only about the acquisition and disposition of real property. The condition or use of the property is no longer a proper subject for a closed meeting. Furthermore, a discussion relating to the acquisition and disposition of real property may be closed to the public only where discussion in open session would jeopardize or "adversely affect" the public body's bargaining position or negotiating strategy. The "litigation" exemption set forth in § 2.1-344(A)(7) has been modified as well. This exemption allows a public body to go into a closed meeting for consultations with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to "actual or probable litigation." The term "probable litigation" has been defined to mean litigation that has been specifically threatened or Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board June 29, 1999 Page 2 about which the public body or its legal counsel has a reasonable basis to believe will be filed. The litigation exemption continues to permit closed meetings for consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body "regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel." The exemption has also been rewritten to clarify that a public body may not exclude the public and close a meeting merely because an attorney representing the body is in attendance or is consulted on a matter up for discussion. Rather, the attorney must be a participant in the discussion in the closed meeting. Exemptions pertaining to "specific public officers, appointees or employees" of the public body (§ 2.1-344(A)(1)) and student disciplinary and admission matters (§ 2.1-344(A)(2)) remain unchanged in the new Act. However, a recent opinion of the Attorney General concluded that the Act does not permit a local school board to hold a closed meeting to appoint its officers for the coming year. According to the Attorney General, closed meetings under this exemption may be held only for discussion of personnel matters involving individuals that the public body appoints or empl.o, ys, and thus a public body may not hold a closed meeting to discuss the appointment or performance of individual board members. According to informal discussions with representatives of the Virginia School Boards Association, legislation may be introduced in the 2000 General Assembly to reverse this ruling. B. Procedure for Closed Meetings. The Act clarifies existing law pertaining to the procedures that must be followed by a public body when going into a closed meeting. § 2.1-344.1 spells out the three requirements for a closed meeting: 1. the subject matter must be identified; 2. the purpose of the closed meeting must be identified; and 3. the specific code section authorizing the closed meeting must be identified. While newly spelled out in the Act, it is our view that these requirements reflect existing practice in Albemarle County, and will not have a major impact on how the two Boards go into closed meetings. C. Notice of Meetings. The Act has been changed to require a minimum of three (3) days' notice of every meeting of the public body. The exceptions involve special or emergency meetings, where notice must be given at the same time as notice is provided to members of the public body conducting the meeting. The notices must be posted in the clerk's office and in a "prominent public location at which notices are regularly posted." A bulletin board for this purpose will be placed on the first floor of the County Office Building to meet this requirement. Notices may also be posted electronically. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board June 29, 1999 Page 3 The Act also clarifies the rules concerning informal "gatherings" of public bodies. § 2.1- 343(G) continues to provide that a gathering of 2 or more Board members is not a meeting "at any place or function where no part of the purpose of such gathering or attendance is the discussion or transaction of any public business, and such gathering or attendance was not called or prearranged with any purpose of discussing or transacting any business of the public body." In addition, new language has been added dealing with public forums and candidate debates. These are not considered meetings ofthipublic body where the purpose is to "inform the electorate and not to transact public business or to hold discussions relating to the transaction of public business, even though the performance of the members individually or collectively in the conduct of public business may be a topic of discussion or debate at such public meeting." D. Minutes and Board Agendas. The revised Act retains the existing requirement that minutes be taken at all open meetings of the public body. Minutes are not required in closed meetings (this was proposed in an earlier draft of the legislation but subsequently dropped in the final version). However, a new requirement is that draft minutes of open meetings are deemed public records and are available for inspection, as are audio or audio/visual records of open meetings. The Act clarifies that, at the same time the public body distributes agenda materials to its members, it must provide at least one copy for public inspection, except for any exempt records that may be included as part of the packet. E. Public Records. Rules concerning access to public records have also changed in important respects. When a citizen asks for public records, the custodian of records for the locality is required under § 2.1-342(B) to respond in writing within five (5) working days in one of the following 4 ways by: 1. disclosing all of the requested records; 2. withholding all of the requested records; 3. releasing part of the record, while withholding another part; or advising the requester that the records cannot be provided within the required 5-working day time period and an additional seven days is needed. If this response is chosen, it must "specify the conditions which make a response impossible." When a public record or any portion of a record is being withheld, the custodian must provide a written explanation identifying which records are being withheld and why. The specific FOIA statute (or other legal authority) justifying the decision to withhold records must be cited. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County School Board June 29, 1999 Page 4 Act specifically provides that failure to respond in one of the four ways discussed above is considered a denial of access and a violation of the FOIA. Penalties for violating the Act have been increased to a minimum of $100 and maximum of $1000 for a willful violation. For a second or subsequent violation, the penalties range from $500 to $2500. The 1999 amendments to the Act also clarify that a public body is not required to create a document in order to respond to a request. For example, if a citizen asks for a transcript of a board meeting and the public body only has the meeting on tape, the Act does not require the creation of a transcript. However, the public body is required to produce a copy of the tape. There are now two instances that will not be characterized as creating new records: (1) when converting an electronic record from one format to another and (2) when excising or deleting exempt fields firom a database. A related and significant change to the Act involves electronic records. Effective July 1 ~, public records maintained in an electronic data processing system, computer database or any other "structured collection of data" must be made available at reasonable cost under § § 2.1-342(G) and (H). The locality may post the requested records on a web site or through e-mail, and a requesting citizen is entitled to receive electronic records in the same format used by the custodian. The Act continues to reflect that public bodies may reasonably charge for copying, search time and computer time in responding to a request for public records. However, the costs may not exceed the locality's actual costs incurred, and the Act does not permit the imposition of any extraneous, intermediary or surplus fees or expenses to recoup costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the business of the public body. A public body may also require a deposit for requests that will cost more than $200 to process. The amended Act now contains 69 separate exemptions from the mandatory disclosure of document requirement. Exemptions relating to criminal records, writings protected by the attorney- client privilege, records compiled for use in litigation or as part of an active administrative investigation, records compiled exclusively for use in a closed meeting and working papers, memoranda and correspondence of the County Executive and Superintendent ("chief executive officer") have been modified. We realize that the 1999 amendments contain a substantial amount of new information that will require the County and School Division to modify their practices and procedures in dealing with meetings of public bodies and requests for information under the Act. Our office is fully prepared to advise both Boards as well as local government and school staff as to these requirements. Please let us know if'you have any questions concerning these matters. Attachment c: Bob Tucker (w/att.) Kevin C. Castner (w/att.) MAT/county. gen/foi a99. mm1 The Freedom of Information Act An Overview Illll May, 1999 Sponsors: Virginia Administrative Law Advisory Committee VCginia Press Association Virginia Municipal League Virginia Association of Counties Virginia Bar Association Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police Division of Legislative Services ~Virginia Coalition for Open Govermnem Local Governmem Attorneys of Virginia Office of the Attorney General Virginia Association of Broadcasters § 2.1o340 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 Virginia Freedom of Information Act 2.1-340. Short rifle. Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Commentar~ The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted July 1, 1968. The statute ensures citizen access, with certain exceptions, to government records and meetings. In FOIA's 30-plus years, numerous amendments have been added and changes made..The 1999 General Assembly gave FOIA a major overhaul in an effort to clarify previously ambiguous provisions. Besides making substantive changes, the 1999 amendments also reorganized portions of the statute and stripped out some of FOIA's cumbersome lang~age, ail in an attempt to make FOIA more accessible to the Commonwealth's citizens and its government employees. As must be admitted, even the most accessible, "user-friendly" statute can be difficult to administer. This pubIication, therefore, is designed as a tool for getting to know the ins and outs of FOIA. The statute is reprinted section by section. The commentary following each section will explain the policy behind the provisions, spell out procedures, delineate mandatory requirements, or describe relevant exceptions. Each section closes with a series of questions & answers that should respond to some of the day-to- day issues government employees and ci~zens encounter when putting FOIA into practice. May 1999 § 2.1-340.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 26 '27 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2.1-340.1. Policy of chapter. By enacting this chapter the General Assembly ensures the people of the Commonwealth ready access to records in the custody of public officials and free entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business of the people is being conducted. The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government. Unless a public body or public official specifically elects to exercise an exemption provided by this chapter or any other statute, every meeting shall be open to the public, and all public records and meetings shall be available for inspection and copying upon request. All public records and meetings shall be presumed open, unless an exemption is properly invoked. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to promote an increased awareness by all persons of governmental activities and afford every opportunity to citizens to witness the operations of government. Any exemption from public access to records or meetings shall be narrowly construed, and no record shall be withheld or meeting closed to the public unless specifically made exempt pursuant to this chapter or other specific provision of law. This chapter shall not be consumed to discourage the flee discussion by government officials or employees of public matters with the citizens of the Commonwealth. All public bodies and public officials shall make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with a requester concerning the production of the records requested. Any ordinance adopted by a local governing body which conflicts with the provisions of this chapter shall be void. Commentary FOIA's objective, as declared by the General Assembly, is to ~mmrantee access to public records and the meetings of government officials. The pre-1999 statute directed that FOIA be interpreted liberally to improve citizen understanding of government workings. The I999 amendments bolstered this general policy by adding an affirmative statement that all public records and meetings are presumed open. Furthermore, the law emphasizes statements requiring that exemptions invoked to deny access to public records or public meetings are to be narrowly interpreted. Exemptions can be made only pursuant to this statute or specific provisions elsewhere in the Virginia Code. FOIA encourages cooperation between citizens and government representatives, and it voids local government ordinances that conflict with its provisions. (guestions & Answers 1. Why is a Freedom of Information Act necessary? Government business is the business of the people. A Freedom of Information Act ensures that citizens have the right to see public documents and go to public meetings. 2. If a statutory exemption exists, do I have to withhold a public document or close a public meeting? Generally, no. Exemptions are not mandatory. They are to be narrowly construed to favor citizen access. There is no penalty for releasing public documents or opening public meetings that an exemption could have barred. 2 May 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 § 2.1-340.1 There are, however, a select few records that statutes outside FOIA expressly prohibit disclosure of, such as juvenile records (§ 16.1-305) and tax records (§ 58.1-3). There are not very many of these prohibitive statutes, and the documents they seek to protect are not public records. 3. May a local government enact an ordinance that includes requirements more or less restrictive than those in FOIA? No. Local ordinances that conflict with FOIA are void. 3 May 1999 § 2.1-341 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2.1-341. Definitions. As used in this chapter unless the context requires a different meaning: "Closed meeting" means a meeting from which the public is excluded. "Emergency meeting" means an unforeseen circumstance rendering the notice required by this chapter impossible or impracticable and which circumstance requires immediate action. "Meeting" or "meetings" means the meetings including work sessions, when sitting physically, or in the case of universities and other entities, through telephonic or video equipment pursuant to §2.1-343.1, as a body or entity, or as an informal assemblage of (i) as many as three members, or (ii) a quorum, if less than three, of the constituent membership, wherever held, with or without minutes being taken, whether or not votes are cast, of any public body. The gathering of employees ora public body shall not be deemed a "meeting" subject to the provisions of this chapter. "Open meeting" or "public meeting" means a meeting at which the public may be present. "Public body" means any legislative body; any authority, board, bureau, commission, district or agency of the Commonwealth or of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, including citi~, towns and counties; municipal councils, governing bodies of counties, school boards and plaaning commissions; boards of visitors of state institutions of higher education; and other organizations, corporations or agencies in the Commonwealth supported wholly or principally by public funds. It shall include any committee or subcommittee of the public body created to perform delegated functions of the public body or to advise the public body. It shall not exclude any such committee or subcommittee because it has private sector or citizen members. Corporations organized by the Virginia Retirement System are "public bodies" for purposes of this chapter. "Public records" means all writings and recordings which consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of dam compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. "Scholastic records" means those records containing information directly related to a student and maintained by a public body which is an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution. Commentary The definitions section furnishes the ftrst glimpse at how the 1999 General Assembly went about reaching its goal of a more logically written and organized statute. The definition of "criminal incident information" has been moved from the definitions section to the new subsection on criminal records [see § 2.1-342.2]. Now, all issues related to criminal and "noncriminal" [aw-enforcement records are in one place. The definition of "public body" may look more extensive, but it is really the same defirfition that formerly existed. Previously, "public body" was partially defined in the definitions section and partially defined in § 2.1-343. Both halves are now together in this section. The phrase "emergency meeting" is used frequently in the subsections dealing with access to public meetings. A term has been defined now in this section. "Public records" is the new name for what used to be called "official records." The definition of "public records" has also been expanded to incorporate present-day methods of keeping, recording and storing information. Finally, what was alternately known as "executive meeting" and "closed meeting" is now defined only as "closed meeting." 4 May 1999 § 2.1-341 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Ouestions & Answers I. Have any new terms been added to FOIA? Yes. A definition of "emergency meeting" has been added to describe a meeting where unforeseen circumstance render the stamte's notice provisions [see § 2.1-343] impossible or impracticable and where circumstances require immediate action. 2. Have any terms been deleted from FOIA? No. The definition of"crlminal incidem information" has been moved from the definitions section to the new subsection dealing with all criminal records [see § 2.1-342.2]. 3. Does the definition of a "public body" apply to both records and meetings? Yes. The only definition for a "public body" is now in the definitions section. 4. What are "public records" and "closed meetings"? "Public records" is the name now used for what was called "official records." "Closed meeting" is the name now used for what was called "executive meeting." 5. Does any meeting of various members of a public body constitute a "meeting" under FOIA? No. This section and § 2.1-343 specifically provide that the mere gathering of a public body's members--for instance, at a picnic or other social function--is not a "meeting" subject to FOIA if the purpose of the gathering is not to discuss or transact public business and the galhering is not organized for that purpose. 6. Does the act cover meetings of committees and subcommittees? Yes. Committees and subcommittees are covered if they are created to perform delegated functions of the public body or to advise the public body. 5 May 1999 § 2.1-341.1 1 2 3 4 6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 '17 18 19 20 2.1-341.1. Notice of' chapter. A. Any person elected, reelected, agpointed or reappofnted to any body not excepted ~rom this chapter shall be furnished by the public body's administrator or legal counsel with a copy of this chapter within two weeks following election, reelection, appointment or reappointment. B. Public officials shall read and familiarize themselves with the provisions of this chapter. Commentar~ This section requires that any person elected, reelected, appointed or reappointed to any public body be given a copy of FOIA by the public body's admin~s'a~or or legal counsel within two weeks of election, reelection, appointment or reappoinmaent. The 1999 amendments added subsection (B) to place an ~ative duty on public officials to read and familiarize themselves with FOIA and how it works. Ouestions & Answers None. 6 Ma¥1999 11 12 13 14 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 '27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2.1-341.2. Public bodies and records lo which chapter inapplicable; voter registration and elec..tion records. ~ A. The provisions of this chapter shall not be applicable to: 1. The Virginia Parole Board, '~'xcept that (i) information from the Virginia Parole Board providing the number of inmates considered by the Parole Board for discretionary parole, the number of ir, maes grallted or denied parole, and the number of parolees returned to the custody of the Department of Corrections solely as a result of a determination by the Board of a violation of parole, shall be open to inspection and available for release, on a monthly basis, as provided in § 2.1-342, and (ii) all records concerning the finances of the Virginia Parole Board shall be public records and subject to the provisions of this chapter. The information required by clause (i) shall be furnished by offense, sex, race, ye of the inmates, and the locality in which the conviction was obtained, upon the request of the party seeking the information; 2. Petit juries and grand juries; 3. Family assessment and planning teams established pursuant to § 2.1-753; and 4. The Vir~nia State Crime Commission. B. Public access to voter registration and election records shall be governed by the provisions of Title 24.2 and this chapter. The provisions of Title 24.2 shall be controlling in the evem of any conflict. .C. ornm~ntar~ Section 2.1-341.2 (which was in § 2.1-345 in previous versions of the statute) specifically exempts four entities from FOIA: the Virginia Parole Board, petit and grand juries, the family assessment and planning teams, and the Virginia. State .Crime Commission. Financial records of the Virginia Parole Board, however, are considered public records. The section also affimas that some voter registration and election records are open records, but only if their release does not conflict with Title 24.2. Questions & Answers 1. Is this a new provision? The' 1999 amendments combined two provisions formerly found elsewhere in FOIA. The Virginia Parole Board, petite and grand juries, the family assessment and planning teams, and the Virginia State Crime Commission continue'To be excepted from FOIA, as do certain voter registration and election records. .7 May 1999 § 2.1-342 1 2_ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOTE: THIS REPRINTED VERSION OF THE SECTION DOES NOT INCLUDE ~ LANGUAGE FROM HB 2368'THAT SAYS "INCLUDING, WHERE THE PUBLIC BODY HAS THE CAPABILITY, THE OPTION OF POSTING TI-IE RECORDS ON A WEB SITE OK DELIVERING THE RECORDS TI-IKOUGH AN ELECTP, ONIC MAIL ADDRESS PROVIDED BY TI-IE REQUF, STEtL" THE AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN A CODE-NUMBER ASSIGNMENT THAT COMPOKTS WITH TI-IE OTHEK RECODIFICATIONS. 2.1-342. Public records to be open to inspection; procedure for requesting records and responding to request; charges. A. Except as otherwise apeeifieally provided by law, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizens of the Commonwealth during the regular office hours of the 11 custodian of such records. Access to such records shall not be denied to citizens of the 12 Commonwealth, representatives of newspapers and maga2~nes with circulation in the Commonwealth, 13 and representatives of radio and television stations broadcasting in or into the Commonwealth. The 14 custodian of such records shall take all necessary precautions for their preservation and safekeeping. 15 B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records with reasonable 16 specificity. The request need not make reference to this chapter in order m invoke the provisions of 17 this chapter or to impose the time limits for response by a public body. Any public body which is 18 subject to this chapter and which is the custodian of the requested records shall promptly, but in all 19 cases within five working days of receiving a request, make one of the following responses: 20 1. The requested records will be provided to the requester. 21 2. The requested records will be entirely withheld because their release is prohibited by law 22 or the custodian has exercised his discretion to withhold the records in accordance with the chapter. 23 Such response shall (i) be in writing, (ii) identify with reasonable particularity the volume and subject 24 matter of withheld records, and ('dj) cite, as to each category of withheld records, the specific Code 25 section which authorizes the withholding of the records. 26 3. The requested records will be provided in pan and withheld in part because the release of ' 27 part of the records is prohibited by law or the custodian has exercised his discretion to withhold a 28 portion of the records in accordance with this chapter. Such response shall .(i) be in writing, (ii) 29 identify with reasonable particularity the volume and subject matter of withheld records, and (iii) cite, 30 as to each category ofwithheld records, the specific Code section which authorizes the withholding of 31 the records. When a portion of a requested record is withheld, the public body may delete or excise 32 only that portion of the record to which an exemption applies and shall release the remainder of the 33 record. 34 4. It is not practically possible to provide the requested records or to determine whether they 35 are available within the five-work-day period. Such response shall be in writing and specify the 36 conditions which make a response impossible. If the response is made within five working days, the 37 public body shall have an additional seven work days in which to provide one of the three preceding 38 responses. 39 C. Any public body may petition the appropriate court for additional time to respond to a 40 request for records when the request is for an extraordinary volume of records and a response by the 41 public body within the time required by this chapter will prevent the public body from meeting its 42 operational responsibilities. Before proceeding with the petition, however, the public body shall make 43 reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with the requester concerning the production of the records 44 requested. 45 D. Subject to the provisions of subsections G and H, no public body shall be required to 46 create a new record if the record does not already exist. However, a public body may abstract or 47 summarize information under such terms and conditions as agreed between the requester and the 48 public body. 49 E. Failure to respond to a request for records shall be deemed a denial of the request mad shall 50 constitute a violation of this chapter. $ May 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 § 2.1-342 F. A public body may make reasonable charges for its actual cost incurred in accessing, duplicafin~ supplying, or searching for the requested records. No public body shall impose any extraneous, intermediary or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body. Any duplicating fee' charged by a public body shall not exceed the actual cost of duplication. The public body may also make a reasonable charge for the cost incurred in supplying records produced from a geographic information system at the request of anyone other than the owner of the land that is the subject of the request. However, such charges shall not exceed the actual cost to the public body in supplying such records, except that the public body may charge, on a pro ram per acre basis, for the cost of creating topographical maps developed by the public body, for such maps or portions thereof, which encompass a contiguous area greater than fifty acres. All charges for the supplying of requested records shall be estimated in advance at the request of the citizen. In any case where a public body determines in advance that search and copying charges for producing the requested records are likely to exceed $200, the public body may, before continuing to process the request, require the requester to agree to payment of.a deposit not to exceed the mOunt of the advance determ'mation. The deposit shall be credited toward the final cost of supplying the requested records. The period within which the public body shall respond under this section shall be toiled for the mount of time that elapses between notice of the advance determination and the response of the requester. O. Public records maintained by a public body in an electronic data processing system, computer database, or any other structured collection of data shall be made available to a requester at a reasonable cost, not to exceed the actual cost in accordance with subsection F. When electronic or other databases are combined or contain exempt and nonexempt records, the public body may provide access to the exempt records if not 6therwise prohibited by law, but shall provide access to the nonexempt records as provided by this chapter. H. Every public body of state government shall compile, and annually update, an index of compumr databases which contains at a minimum those databases created by them on or after July 1, 1997. Computer database means a structured collection of data or records residing in a computer. Such index shall be a public record and shall include, at a minimum, the following information with respect to each database listed therein: a list of data fields, a description of the format or record layout, the date last updated, a list of any data fields to which public access is restricted, a description of each format in which the database can be copied or reproduced using the public body's computer facilities, and a schedule of fees for the production of copies in each available form. The form, context, language, and guidelines for the indices and the databases to be indexed shall be developed by the Director of the Depa,tment of Information Technology in consultation with the State Librarian and the State Archivist. The public body shall not be required to disclose its software security, including passwords. Public bodies shall produce nonexempt records maintained in an electronic database in any tangible medium identified by the requester, including posting the records on a website or delivering the records through an electronic mall address provided by the requester, if that medium is used by the public body in the regular course of business. No public body shall be required to produce records from an electronic database in a format not regularly used by the public body. However, the public body shall make reasonable efforts to provide records in any format under such terms and conditions as agreed between the requester and public body, including the payment of reasonable costs. The excision of exempt fields of information from a database or the conversion of data from one available format to another shall not be deemed the creation, preparation or compilation of a new public record. 9 May 1999 § 2.1-342 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 Commentary The 1999 amendments significantly altered § 2.1-342, which guarantees the right to inspect and copy public records. This section used to form the bulk of FOIA because it included both the procedures for obtaining records and all public-records exemptions. Now, this section remains dedicated to procedures for accessing public records, while the public-record exemptions have been moved into a section of their own [see § 2.1-342.01]. This section sets out the steps both the records requester and the record custodian must follow. After a citizen asks to see a record, describing it with reasonable specificity, the custodian must act promptly, and always before the end of five business days. The custodian can make one of four responses to the requester: (1) disclose the entire public record; (2) withhold the entire record; (3) release part of the record, while withholding another part; or (4) advise the requester that the request cannot be processed within the time limit and an additional seven days is needed. When a record or any portion of a record is withheld, the custodian must provide a written explanation identifying which records are being withheld and why. The custodian must explain which specific FOIA section (or other statutory provision) perraits confidentiality. The '1999 amendments added the requirement that in order to benefit from the seven-day extension of (4), the custodian must state in writing, within the original five days, why the extra time is needed. Failure to respond in one of the four ways within five days is considered a denial of access and a violation of FOIA. Custodians are. allowed to charge a fee for finding and copying public records; however, this fee is not to exceed the actual cost. Overhead cannot be recovered by fees from processing FOIA requests. A public body may require a deposit for requests that will cost over $200 to process. The deposit cannot exceed the final cost, and the. deposit will be applied to the total. Public records maintained in electronic format received particular attention in the 1999 General Assembly. A custodian can post any information it wants on a Web site or through e-mall. A requester is entitled to receive electronic records in the same format used by the custodian, and the custodian can agree to provide the records in a different format for a reasonable fee. A custodian is still not required to create a new record for a requester, but the 1999 amendments now specifically state that there are two instances that will not be characterized as creating new records: (I) when converting an electronic record from one format to another, and (2) when excising exempt fields from a database. Questions & Answers 1. This section used to contain all the public-records exemptions to FOIA. Where are they now? All of the public-records exemptions .are found in §§ 2.1-342.01 and 2.1-342.2. 2. When someone asks for public records, how long does the public body have to respond7 A response is required within five working days. 3. If the number of records requested is too large to handle, do I have a total of 12 days to complete the request? 10 May 1999 § 2.1-342 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 15 16 I7 I8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 Yes,but only if you give the requester a written notice wi~fin the first five days of the request. The notice must explain Why it is impossible to fulfill the request within the five-day period. It is a violation of the statute if you do not nolSXy the requester within fiv. e days before taking seven more days to complete the request. 4. What happens if the public body does not respond within five days? A failure to r~spond is considered a violation of FOIA. 5. Ail of the records the requester asked for are exempt. Do I have to do anything? Yes. You must still respond to the requester within five days. Give the requester a written explanation, describing which records are exempt, and citing either a FOIA exemption from § 2. I-342.01, or another state or federal law that prohibits the records' release. 6. Can I charge a requester for the computer hardware, software or extra electricity it takes to process his request? No. A records custodian can charge only for the actual cost of accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the records. 7. The requested records will cost $500 to duplicate. What can we do to ensure that we recoup our costs? For requests of $200 or more, the public body eau ask the requester to pay .a deposit. In this ease, the deposit cannot be more than $500, and any mount deposited will be credited to the $500 total. 8. A requester asked me to summarize several records. What do I do? Under FOIA, you are not required to summarize, abstract, or cream a new public recor& However, the statute encourages government officials to make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with the requester. 9. We have an electronic database that has some exempt information on il. The requester wants me to delete those fields and give him the rest. Isn't that the same as creating a new record? No. The act specifically states that the excision of exempt fields of information from a database is not considered to be the creation of a new record. 10. A r~qu¢~ter gave me her e-mall address. Can I send her the records she requested via e-mall instead of making copies? Yes. The statute allows dissemination of public records by e-mail. You may al.so post the information on a Web site. If the public body does not use e-mail or a Web site, the requester cannot require that the information be provided in ~ch a way. 1,1 May 1999 § 2.1-342.01 NOTE: TI-IE LAST TWO EXEMPTIONS IN THIS SECTION HAVE YET TO BE GIVEN A NUMBER THAT COMPOKTS WITH THE NEW STATUTOKY SCHEME. 1 2 3 4 § 2.1-342.01. Exclusions to application of chapter. 5 A. The following records are excluded fxom the provisions of this chapter but may be 15 disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law: 7 I. Confidential records of all investigations of applications for licenses and permits, and ail 8 licensees and permittees made by or submitted to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the State 9 Loitery Deparunent, the Virgim'a Racing Commission, or the Charitable Gaming Commission. ] 0 2. State income, business, and estate tax returns, personal property tax returns, scholastic and l ! confidential records held pursuant to § 12 3. Scholastic records containing information ~onceming identifiable individuals, except that 13 such access shall not be denied to the person who is the subject thereof, or the parent or legal guardian 14 of the student. However, no student shall have access to (i) financial records of a parent or guardian or 15 (ii) records of instructional, supervisoD,, and administrative personnel and educational personnel 115 ancillary thereto, which are in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or 17 revealed to any other person except a substitute. 18 The parent or legal guardian of a student may prohibit, by written request, the release of any 19 individual information regarding that student until the student reaches the age of eighteen years. For 20 scholastic records of.students under the age of eighteen years, the right of access may be asserted only 21 by his legal guardian or parent, including a noncustodial parent, unless such parent's parental rights 22 have been terminated or a court of competent jurisdiction has restricted or denied such access. For 23 scholastic records of students who are emancipated or attending a state-supported institution of higher 24 education, the right of access may be asserted by the StUdent 25 Any person who is the subject of any scholastic record and who is eighteen years of age or .26 older may waive, in writing, the protections afforded by this subdivision. If the protections are so 27 waived, the public body shall open such records for inspection and copying. 28 4. Personnel records containing information concerning identifiable individuals, except that 29 access shall not be denied to the person who is the subject thereof. Any person who is the subject of 30 any personnel record and who is eighteen years of age or older may waive, in writing, the protections 31 afforded by this subdivision. If the protections are so waived, the public body shall open such records 32 for inspection and copying. 33 5. Medical and mental records, except that such records can be personally reviewed by the 34 subject person or a physician of the subject person's choice. However, the subject person's mental 35 records may not be personally reviewed by such person when the subject person's treating physician 36 has made a part of such person's records a written statement that in his opinion a review of such 37 records by the subject person would be injurious to the subject person's physical or mental health or 38 well-being. 39 Where the person who is the subject of medical records is confined in a state or local 40 correctional facility, the administrator or chief medical officer of such facility may assert such 41 confined person's right of access to the medical records if the administrator or chief medical officer 42 has reasonable cause to believe that such confined person has an infectious disease or other medical 43 condition from which other persons so confined need to be protected. Medical records shall only be 44 reviewed and shall not be copied by such administrator or chief medical officer. The information in 45 the medical records ora person so confined shall continue to be confidential and shall not be disclosed 46 to any person except the subject by the administrator or chief medical officer of the facility or except 47 as provided by law. 48 For the purposes of this chapter statistical summaries and statistical data concerning patient 49 abuse as may be compiled by the Commissioner of the Departmem of Mental Health, Mental 50 Retardation and Substance Abuse Services shall be open to inspection and copying as provided in § 12 May 1999 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 § 2.1-342.01 2.1-342. No such summaries or data shall include any patient-identifying information. Where the person who is the subject of medical and mental records is under the age of eighteen, his right of access may be asserted only by his guardian or his parent, including a noncustodial parent, unless such parent's parental rights have been terminated or a court of competent jurisdiction has restricted or denied such access. In instances where the person who is the subject thereof is an emancipated minor or a student in a public institution of higher education, the right of access may be asserted by the subject person. 6. Working papers and correspondence of the Office of the Governor; Lieutenant Governor;, the Attorney General; the members of the General Assembly or the Division of Legislative Services; the mayor or chief executive officer of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; or the president or other chief executive officer of any public institution of higher education. However, no record which is otherwise open to inspection under this chapter shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been attached to or incorporated within any working paper or correspondence. As used in this subdivision: "Working papers" means those records prepared by or for an above-named public official for his personal or deliberative use. "Office of the Governor" means the Governor; his chief of staff, counsel, director of policy, Cabinet Secretaries, and the Director of the Virgi~'nia Liaison Office; and those individuals to whom the Governor has delegated his authority pursuant to §2.1-39.1. 7. Written advice of the county, city and town attorneys to their local government clients and any other records protected by the attorney-client privilege. 8. Legal memoranda and other work product compiled specifically for use in litigation or for use in an active administrative investigation concerning a matter which is properly the subject of a closed meeting under §2.1-344. 9. Confidential letters and statements of recommendation placed in the records of educational agencies or institutions respecting (i) admission to any educational agency or institution, (ii) an application for employment, or (iii) receipt of an honor or honorary recognition. 10. Library records which can be used to identify both (i) any Iibrar7 patron who has borrowed material from a library and (ii) the material such patron borrowed. 11. Any test or examination used, administered or prepared by any public body for purposes of evaluation of (i) any student or any student's performance,' (ii) any employee or employment seeker's qualifications or aptitude for employment, retention, or promotion, or (iff) qualifications for any license or certificate issued by any public body. As used in this subdivision, "tea or examination" shall include (i) any scoring key for any such test or examination and (ii) any other document which would jeopardize the security of such test or examination. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall prohibit the release of test scores or results as provided by law, or limit access to individual records as provided by law. However, the subject of such employment tests shall be entitled to review and inspect all documents relative to hiS performance on such employment tests. When, in the reasonable opinion of such public body, any such test or examination no longer has any potential for future use, and the security of future tests or examinations will not be jeopardized, the test or examination shall be made available to the public. However, minimum competency tests administered to public school children shall be made available to the public contemporaneously with statewide release of the scores of those taking such tests, but in no event shall such tests be made available to the public later than six months afar the administration of such tests. 12. AppIications for admission to examinations or for licensure and scoring records maintained by the Depa~uaent of Health Professions or any board in that department on individual licensees or applicants. However, such material may be made available during normal working hours for copying, at the requester's expense, by the individual who is the subject thereof, in the offices of 13 May 1999 § 2.1-:~42.01 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 · 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 the Department of Health Professions or in the offices of any health regulatory board, whichever may possess the material. 13. Records of active investigations being conducted by the Department of Health Professions or by any health regulatory board in the Commonwealth. 14. Kecords recorded in or compiled exclusively for use in closed meetings lawfully held pursuant to § 2.1-344. However, no record which is otherwise open to inspection under this chapter shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been reviewed or discussed in a closed meeting. 15. Reports, documentary evidence and other information as specified in §§ 2.1-373.2 and 63.1-55.4. 16. Proprietary information gathered by or for the Virginia Port Authority as provided in § 62.1-132.4 or § 62.1-134.1. 17. Contract cost estimates prepared for the confidential use of the Deparmaent of Transportation in awarding contracts for construction or the purchase of goods or services and records, and automated systems prepared for the Department's Bid Analysis and Monitoring Program. lg. Vendor proprietary information software which may be in the official re~ords of a public body. For the purpose of this section, "vendor proprietary software" means computer programs acquired from a vendor for purposes of processing data for agencies or political subdivisions of the Commonwealth. 19. Financial statements not publicly available filed with applications for industrial development financings. 20. Data, records or. information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of state institutions of higher learning, other than the institutions' flnanciaI or administrative records, in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the institution alone .or in con. junction with a governmental body or a private concern, where such dat__~, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented. 21. Lists of reg/stered owners of bonds issued by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, whether the lists are maintained by the political subdivision itself or by a single fiduciary designated by the political subdivision. 22. Confidential proprietary records, voluntarily provided by private business pursuant to a promise of confidentiality from the Department of Business Assistance, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership or local or regional industrial or economic development authorities or organizations, used by the Department, the Partnership, or such entities for business, trade and tourism development; and memoranda, working papers or other records related to businesses that are considering locating or expanding in Virginia, prepared by the Partnership, where competition or bargaining is involved and where, if such records are made public, the financial interest of the governmental unit would be adversely affected. 23. Information which was filed as confidential under the Toxic Substances Information Act (§ 32.1-239 et seq.), as such Act existed prior to July 1, 1992. 24. Confidential records, including victim identity, provided to or obtained by staff in a rape crisis center or a program for battered spouses. 25, Computer software developed by or for a state agency, state-supported institution of higher education or political subdivision of the Commonwealth. 26. Investigator notes, and other correspondence and information, furnished in confidence with respect to an active investigation of individual employment discrimination complaints made to the Depa~iment of Personnel and Training. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit the disclosure of information taken fi.om inactive reports in a form which does not reveal the identity of charging parties, persons supplying the information or other individuals involved in the investigation. 14 May 1999 § 2.1-342.01 1 27. Fisheries data which ~ould permit identification of any person or vessel, except when 2 required by court order as specified in 9 25.2-204. 3 28. Records of active investigations being conducted by the Department of Medical 4 Assistance Services pursuant to Chapter 10 (9 32.1-323 et seq.) of Title 32.1. 5 29. Records and writings furnished by a member of the General Assembly to a meeting of a 6 standing cornraittee, special committee or subcommittee of his house established solely for the 7 purpose of reviewing members' annual disclosure statements and suppor~ng materials filed under 9 8 2.1-639.40 or of formulating advisory opinions to members on standards of conduct, or both. 9 30. Customer account information of a public utility affiliated with a political subdivision of 10 the Commonwealth, including the customer's name and service address, but excluding the amount of ! ! utility service provided and the amount of money paid for such utility service. 12 31. Investigative notes and other correspondence and information furnished in confidence 13 with respect to an investigation or conciliation process involving an alleged unlawful discriminatory 14 practice under the Virginia Human Rights Act (9 2.1-714 et seq.). However, nothing in this sect/on ! 5 shall prohibit the distribution of information taken from inactive reports in a form which does not 16 reveal the identity of the parties involved or other persons supplying information. 17 32. Investigative notes; proprietary information not published, copyrighted or patented; 1 g information obtained from employee personnel records; personally identifiable information regarding 19 residents, clients or other recipients of services; and other correspondence and information furnished 20 in confidence to the Department of Social Services in connection with an active investigation of an 21 applicant or licensee pursuant to Chapters 9 (9 63.1-172 et seq,) and 10 (9 63.1-195 et seq.) of Title 22 63.1. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit disclosure of information from the records of 23 completed investigations, in a form that does not reveal the identity of complainants, persons 24 supplying information, or other individuals involved in the investigation. 25 33. Personal information, as defined in § 2.1-379, (i) filed' with the Virginia Housing · 26 Development Authority concerning individuals who have applied for or received loans or other 27 housing assistance or who have applied for occupancy of or have occupied housing financed, owned 28 or otherwise assisted by the Virginia Housing Development Authority, (ii) concerning persons 29 participating in or persons on the .waiting list for federally funded rent-assistance programs, or (iii) 30 filed with any local redevelopment and housing authority created pursuant to 9 36-4 concerning 31 persons participating in or persons on the waiting list for housing assistance programs funded by local 32 governments or by any such authority. However, access to one's own information shall not be denied. 33 34. Records regarding the siting of hazardous waste facilities, except as provided in 9 10.1- 34 144 I, if disclosure of them would have a detrimental effect upon the negotiating position of a 3 5 governing body or on the establishment of the terms, conditions and provisions of the siting 36 agreement. 37 35. Appraisals and COst estima~s of real property subject to a proposed purchase, sale or 3 8 lease, prior to the completion of such purchase, sale or lease. 39 36. Records containing information on the site specific location of rare, threatened, 40 endangered or otherwise imperiled plant and animal species, natural communities, caves, and 41 significant historic and archaeological sites if, in the opinion of the public body which has the 42 responsibility for such information, disclosure of the information would jeopardize the continued 43 existence, or the integrity of the resource, This exemption shall not apply to requests from the owner of 44 the land upon which the resource is located. 45 37. Records, memoranda, working papers, graphics, video or audio tapes, production models, 46 data and information of a proprietary nature produced by or for or collected by or for the State Lottery 47 Department relating to matters of a specific lottery game design, development, production, operation, 4-8 ticket price, prize structure, manner of selecting the winning ticket, manner of payment of prizes to 49 holders of winning tickets, frequency of drawings or selections of winning tickets, odds of winning, 50 advertising, or marketing, where such official records have not been publicly released, published, May 1999 § 2.1-342.01 1 copyrighted or patented. Whether released, published or copyrighted, all game-related information 2 shall be subject to public disclosure under this chapter upon the first day of sales for the specific '3 lottery game to which it pertains. 4 38. Records of studies and investigations by the State Lottery Department of (i) lottery 5 agents, (ii) lottery vendors, (iii) lottery crimes under §§ 58.1-4014 through 58.I-4011~, (iv) defects in (5 the law or regulaions which cause abuses in the administration and operation of the lottery and any ? evasions of such provisions, or (v) use of the lottery as a subterfuge for organized crime and illegal 8 gambling where such official records have not been publicly released, published or copyrighted. All 9 studies and investigations referred to under subdivisions (iii), (iv) and (v) shall be subject to public i0 disclosure under this chapter upon completion of the study or investigation. 11 39. Those portions of engineering and construction drawings and plans submitted for the sole 12 purpose of complying with the building code in obtaining a building permit which would identify 13 specific trade secrets or other information the disclosure of which would be harmful to the competitive lz[ position of the owner or lessee. However, such informaion shall be exempt only until the building is 15 completed. Information relating to the safely or environmental soundness of any building shall not be 1 (5 exempt from disclosure. 17 40. Records concerning reserves established in specific claims administered by the 18 Department of General Services through its Division of Risk Management as provided in Article 5.1 19 (§ 2.1-$26.1 et seq.) of Chapter 32 of this title, or by any county, city, or town. 20 41. Information and records collected for the designation and verification of trauma centers 21 and other speCially care centers within the Statewide Emergency Medical Services System and 22 Services pursuant to Article 2.1 (§ $2.1-I 11.I et seq.) of Title 32.I. 23 42: Keports and court documents required to be kept confidential pursuant to § 37.1-67.3: -24 43; Investigative notes, correspondence and information furnished in confidence, and records 25 otherwise exempted by this chapter or any Virginia statute, provided to or produced by or for the (i) -2(5 Auditor of Public Accounts; (ii) Joint Legislative Audit and Keview Commission; (ii~ Department of 27 the State Internal Auditor with respect to an investigation initiated through the State Employee Fraud, 28 Waste and Abuse Hotline; or (iv) the committee or the auditor with respect to an inv.estigation or audit 29 conducted pursuant to § 15.2-825. Records of completed investigations shall be disclosed in a form 30 that does not r~veal the identity of'complainants or persons supplying information to investigators. 31 Unless disclosure is prohibited by this section, the records disclosed shall include, but not be limited 32 to, the agency involved, the identity of the person who is the subject of the complaint, the nature of 33 the complaint, and the actions taken to resolve the complaint If an investigation does not lead to 34 corrective action, the identity of the person who is the subject of the complaint may be released only 3 5 with the consent of the subject person. 3 6 44. Dam formerly required to be submitted to the Commissioner of Health relating to the 3 7 establishment of new or expansion of existing clinical health services, acquisition of major medical 3 8 equipment, or certain projeCts requiring capital expenditures pursuant to former § 32.1-102.3:4. 3 9 45. Documentation or other information which describes the design, function, operation or 40 access control features of any security system, whether manual or automated, which is used to control 41 access to or use of any automated data processing or telecommunications system. 42 46. Confidential financial statements, balance sheets, trade secrets, and revenue and cost 43 projections provided to the Deparlment of Pail and Public Transportation, provided such information 44 is exempt under the federal Freedom of Information Act or the federal Interstate Commerce Act or 45 other laws administered by the Surface Transportation Board or the Federal Rail Administration with 46 respect to data provided in confidence to the Surface Transportation Board and the Federal Railroad 47 Administration. 48 47. In the case of corporations organized by the Virg~ia Retirement System, (i) proprietary 49 information provided by, and financial information concerning, coventurers, partners, lessors, lessees, 50 or investors, and (ii) records concerning the condition, acquisition, disposition, use, leasing, 16 May1999 § 2.1-342.Ol 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 development, coventuring, or management of real estate the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse impact ou the value of such real estate or result in a competitive disadvantage to the corporation or subsidiary. 48. Confidential proprietary records related to inventory and sales, voluntarily provided by private energy suppliers to the Depa, i~ent of Mines, Minerals and Energy, used by that Deparuuent for energy contingency planning purposes or for developing consolidated statistical information on energy supplies. 49. Confidential proprietary information furnished to the Board of Medical Assistance Se~wices or the Medicaid Prior Authorization Advisory Committee pursuant to Article 4 (§ 32.1- 331.12 et seq.) of Chapter l0 of Title 32.1. 50. Proprietary, commercial or financial information, balance sheets, trade secrets, and revenue and cost projections provided by a private transportation business to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the DepazLtment of RalI and Public Transportation for the purpose of conducting transportation studies needed to obtain grants or other financial assistance under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (P.L. 105-178) for transportation projects, provided such information is exempt under the federal Freedom' of Information Act or the federal interstate Commerce Act or other laws administered by the Surface Transportation Board or the Federal Rail Adm~ni.~cation with respect to data provided in confidence to the Surface Transportation Board and the Federal Railroad Administration. However, the exemption provided by this subdivision shall nor apply to any wholly owned subsidiary of a public body. 51. Names and addresses of subscribers to Virginia Wildlife maga~ne, published by the Depa~uuent of Game and Inland Fisheries, provided the individual subscriber has requested in writing that the Department not release such information. 52. Information required to be provided pursuant to § 54.1-2506.1. $3. Confidential information desi~m~ated as provided in subsection D of § 11-52 as trade secrets or proprietary information by any person who has submitted to a public body an application for prequal~ication to bid on public construction projects in accordance with subsection B of § 11-46. 54. All information and records acquired during a review of any child death by the State Child Fatality Review Team established pursuant to § 32.1-283.1. 55. Financial, mediCal, rehabilitative and other personal information concerning applicants for or recipients of loan funds submitted to or maintained by the Assistive Technology Loan Fund Authority under Chapter 11 (§ 51.5-53 et seq.) of Title 51.5. 56. Confidential proprietary records which are voluntarily provided by a private entity pursuant to a proposal filed with a'public entity under the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995 (§ 56-556 et seq.), pursuant to a promise of confidentiality from the responsible public entity, used by the responsible public enfi~:y for purposes related to the development of a qualifying transportation facility; and memoranda, working papers or other records related to proposals filed under the Public- Private Transportation Act of 1995, where, if such records were made public, the financial interest of the public or private entity involved with such proposal or the process of competition or bargaining would be adversely affected. In order for confidential proprietary information to be excluded from the provisions of this chapter, the private entity shall (i) invoke such exclusion upon submission of the data or other materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, (ii) identify the data or other materials for which protection is sought, and ('fii) ~se the reasons why protection is necessary. For the purposes of this subdivision, the terms public entity and private entity shall be defined as they are defined in the Public-Private Transportation Act of 1995. 57. Records of law-enforcement agencies, to the extent that such records contain specific tactical plans, the disclosure of which would jeopardize the safety or security of law-enforcement personnel or the general public; or records of emergency service agencies to the extent that such records contain specific tactical plans relating tn anti-terrorist activity. § 2.1-342.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 58. All records of the University of V'n'ginia or the University of Virginia Medical Center which contain proprietary, business-related information pertaining to the operations of the University of Virginia Medical Center, including its business development or marketing strategies and its act/v/ties with existing or future jo/hr venturers, partners, or other parties with whom the University of Virgim'a Medical Center has formed, or forms, any arrangement for the delivery of health care, if disclosure of such information would be harmful tn the competitive position oi'the Medical Center. 59. Patient level data collected by the Board of Health and not yet processed, verified, and released, pursuant to § 32.1-276.9, to the Board by the nonprofit organization with which the Commissioner of Health has contracted pursuant to § 32.1-276.4. 60. Records of the Medical College of Virginia Hospitals Authority pertaining to any of the following: an individual's qualifications for or continued membership on its medical or teaching staffs; proprietary information gathered by or in the possession of the Authority from third parties pursuant to a promise of confidentiality; contract cost estimates prepared for confidential use in awarding contracts for construction or the purchase of goods or services; data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for the Authority or members of its medical or teaching staffs; financial statements not publicly available that may be filed with the Authority from third parties; the identity, accounts or account status of any customer of the Authority; consulting or other reports paid for by the Authority to assist the Authority in connection with its strategic planning and goals; and the determination of marke6ng and operational strategies where disclosure of such strategies would be harmful to the competitive position of the Authority; and data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for employees of the Authority, other than the Authority's financial or administrative records, in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the Authority alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or a private concern, when such data, records or information have not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented. 61. Confidential proprietary information or trade secrets, not publicly available, provided by a private person or entity to the V'trginia Resources Authority or to a fund administered in connection with financial assistance rendered or to be rendered by the Virginia Resources Authority where, 'if such information is made public, the financial interest of the private person or entity would be adversely affected, and, after June 30, 1997, where such information was provided pursuant to a promise of confidentiality. 62. Confidential proprietary records which are provided by a franchisee under § 15.1-23.1 to its franch/sing authority pursuant to a promise of confidentiality fi.om the franchising authority which relates to the franchisee's potential provision of new services, adoption of new technologies or implementation of improvements, where such new services, technologies or improvements have not been implemented by the franchisee on a nonexperimental scale in the fi.anch/se ama, and where, if such records were made public, the competitive advantage or financial interests of the franchisee would be adversely affected. In order for confidential proprietary information to be excluded from the provisions of this chapter, the franchisee shall (i) invoke such exclusion upon submission of the data or other materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, (ii) identify the data or other materials for which protection is sought, and Cdi) state the reason why pmte~on is necessary. 63. Records of the Intervention Program Committee within the Department of Health Professions to the extent such records may identify any practitioner who may be, or who is actually, impaired to the extent disclosure is prohibited by § 54,1-2517. 64. Records submitted as a grant application, or accompanying a grant application, to the Commonwealth Neurotrauma Initiative Advisory Board pursuant to Article 12 (§ 32.1-73,1 et seq,) of Chapter 2 of Title 32.1, to the extent such records contain(i) medical or mental records, or other data identifying individual patients or (ii) proprietary business or research-related information produced or collected by the applicant in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, rehabilitative, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, when such information has not been publicly 18 May 1999 § 2.1-342.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 released, published, copyrighted or patented, if the disclosure of such information would be harmful to the competitive position of the applicant. 65. Information wh/ch would disclose the security aspects of a system safety program plan adopted pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Parr 659 by the Commonwealth's designated' Rail Fixed Guideway ~ystems Safety Oversight agency; and information in the possession of such agency the release of which would jeopardize the success of an ongoing investigation of a rail accident or other incident tba-eatening railway safety. 66. Documents and other information of a proprietary nature furnished by a supplier of charitable gaming supplies to the Charitable Gaming Commission pursuant to subsection E of § 18.2- 340.34. 67. Personal information, as defined in § 2.1-379, provided to the Board of the Virginia Higher Education Tuition Trust Fund or its employees by or on behalf of individuals who have requested informaton about, applied for, or entered into prepaid tuition contracts pursuant to Chapter 4.9 (§ 23-38.75 et seq.) of Tide 23. Nothing in thi~ subdivision shall be construed to prohibit disclosure or publication of information in a statistical or other form which does not identify individuals or provide personal information. Individuals shall be provided access to their own personal information. 68. Any record copied, recorded or received by the Commissioner of Health in the course of an examination, investigation or review of a managed care health insurance plan licensee pursuant to §§ 32.1-137.4 and 32.1-137.5, including books, records, files, accounts, papers, documents, and any or all computer or other recordings.. 69. Engineering and architectural drawings, operational, procedural, tactical planning or training manuals, or staff meeting minutes or other records, the disclosure of which would reveal surveillance techniques, personnel deployments, alarm systems or technologies, or operational and transportation plans or protocols, to the extent such disclosure would jeopardize the security or employee saf.ety of (i) the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts or any of its warehouses; (ii) any government store or warehouse controlled by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (iii) any courthouse, jail, detention or law-enforcement facility; or (iv) any correctional or juvenile facility or institution under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or the Department o£ Juvenile Justice. [70.] Records submitted as a grant application, or accompanying an applicaton for a grant, donation or other assistance, to the Commonwealth Health Research Authorit7 pursuant to Chapter 24 (§ 23-291 et seq.) of Title 23, to the extent such records contain: (i) medical records or other data identifying individual patients or (ii) proprietary business or research related information produced or collected by the applicant in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical or scholarly issues, when such information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented, if the disclosure of such information would be harmful to the competitive position of the applicant. [7I'.] Records and reports related to Virginia apple producer sales provided to the Virginia State Apple Board pursuant to §§ 3.1-622 and 3.1-624. B. Neither any provision of this chapter nor any provision of. Chapter 26 (§ 2.1-377 et seq.) of this title shall be construed as denying pubIic access to (i) contracts between a public official and a public body, other than con,'acts settling public employee employment disputes held confidential as personnel records under subdivision 4 of subsection A; (ii) records of'the position, job classification, offcial salary or rate of pay of; and to records of the allowances or reimbursements for expenses paid to, any public officer, official or employee of a public bod~, or (iii) the compensation or benefits paid by any corporation organized by the Virginia Retirement System or its officers or employees. The provisions of this subsection, however, shall not apply to records of the official salaries or rates of pay of public employees whose annual rate of pay is $10,000 or less. C. No provision of this chapter shall be construed to afford any rights to any person incarcerated in a state, local or federal correctional facility, whether or not such facility is (i) located 19 May1999 {} 2.1-342.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 in the Commonwealth or (ii) operated pursuant to the Corrections Private Management Act (§ $3.1- 261 et seq.). However, this subsection shall not be consu-ued to prevent an incarcerated person from exercising his constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to, his rights to call for evidence in his favor in a criminal prosecution. The 1999 amendments removed the public-records exemption section from the section on procedures for obtaining records [see § 2.1-342] and made them into a stand-alone provision. There are still 71 total exemptions, as in the previous version of FOIA, but some exemptions have been deleted, new ones added and others collapsed into one another or rearranged. The 1999 amendments also stripped out some superfluous language, updated references to other code sections and public laws, and divided some exemptions into smaller subsections. The substantive highlights of the 1999 amendments include: (I) The exemption for certain criminal records information has been moved out of the exemptions section into a new subdivision, § 2.1-342.2. (2) The working papers exemption [(A)(6)] has been narrowed by defining what is meant by "working papers" and the "Office of the Governor." It now includes a statement that an otherwise public record is not turned into an exempt working paper by virtue of the fact that it has been attached to or incorporated into personal correspondence. Exemption (A)(69) combines three previous exemptions for certain safety or tactical planning- related records have been combined into one The new exemption appIies to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, ABC stores, courts and jails, and institutions under the Depa[hx~ent of Corrections or the Department of Suvenile Justice. Two brand new exemptions [(A)(70) and (71)] were added: one for certain medical records required to be filed with the Commonwealth Health Research Authority, and another for sales by apple producers. O) (4) Subdivisions (B) and (C) are much the same as they were. Except when salaries are under $10,000, there is no exemption for certain public contracts, salary rates and expenses, or compensation paid by a Virginia Retirement System corporation. Further, a federal or state inmate cannot use FOIA except when exercising the constitutional right to gather evidence for trial. Ouestions & Answers 1. Does the mayor have to disclose personal letters that come to the office? No. The working papers exemption includes correspondence for the mayor's personal use. However, a personal letter attached to an otherwise public record does not tuna the public record into an exempt one. 2. The former statute exempted certain criminal records. What happened to that exemption? Al1 statutes relevant to the release and withholding of certain criminal records have been combined into a new subdivision, § 2.1-342.2. 3. What happened to the exemptions for the security plans of the Department of Juvenile Justice? 20 May 1999 § 2.1-;342.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Instead of three separate exemptions for security phns, there is now one that applies to the same entities: (a) the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and its warehouses; (b) stores and warehouses controlled by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (c) courthouses, jails, detention centers and law-enforcement facilities; and (4) facilities run by the Department of Corrections and the Dep~u,,ent of Juvenile Justice. 4. Ifa particular record falls under an exemption, is disclosure of the record protu'bited~ Some other law may prohibit disclosure, but none of the FOIA exemptions prohibit disclosure. 5. An inmate in a Virginia prison made a request for a list of the county attorneys in our office. Do we have to disclose Public-employee salaries exceeding $I0,000 are specifically mentioned as public records; however, a person incarcerated ina Commonwealth or federal correctional facility cannot request records under FOIA unless the records are to be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. 21 M~y 1999 § 2.1-342.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 3O 31 32' 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 §2.1-342.2. Disclosure of criminal records; limitations. A. As used ia this section: "Criminal incident information" means a general description of the criminal activity reported, the date and general location the alleged crime was committed, the identity of the investigating officer, and a general description of any injuries suffered or property damaged or stolen. "Law-enforcement official" includes the attorneys for the Commonwealth. B. Law-enforcement officials shall make available upon request criminal incident information relating to felony offenses. However, where the release of criminal incident information is likely to jeopardize an ongoing investigation or prosecution, or the safety of aa individual; cause a suspect to flee or evade detection; or result in the destruction of evidence, such information may be withheld until the above-referenced damage is no longer likely to occur from release of the information. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the release of those portions of such information that are not likely to cause the above-referenced damage. C. Information in the custody of law-enforeemen~ officials relative to the identity of any individual, other than ajuvenile, who is arrested and charged, and the status of the charge or arrest shall be released. D. The identity of any victim, witness or undercover officer, or investigative techniques or procedures need not but may be disclosed unless disclosure is prohibited or restricted under §19.2-11.2. E. The identity of any individual providing information about a crime or criminal activity under a promise of anonymity shall not be disclosed. F. The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter, but may be ' disclosed by the custodian, ia his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law: 1. Complaints, memoranda, correspondence and evidence relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution, other than criminal ia¢ident information as defined in subsection A; 2. Adult arrestee photographs when necessary to avoid jeopardizing an investigation in felony cases until such time as the release of the photograph will no longer jeopardize the investigation; 3. Reports submitted in confidence to (i) state and local law-enforcement agencies, (ii) investigators authorized pursuant to §53.1-16 or §66-3.1, and (iii) campus police departments of public institutions of higher education established pursuant to Chapter 17 (§23-232 et seq.) of Title 23; 4. Portions of records of local government crime commissions that would identify individuals providing information about crimes or criminal activities under a promise of anonymity; 5. Records of local law-enforcement agencies relating to neighborhood watch programs that include the names, addxesses, and operating schedules of individual participants in the program that are provided to such agencies under a promise of anonymity; and 6. All records of persons imprisoned in penal institutions in the Commonwealth provided such records relate to the imprisonment. G. Records kept by law-enforcement agencies as required by §15.2-1722 shall be subject to the provisions of this.section except: 1. Those portions of noncriminal ineideut or other investigative reports or materials containing identifying information ora personal, medical or fmaacial nature provided to a law-enforcement agency where the release of such information would jeopardize the safety or privacy of any person; M~1999 § 2.1-342.2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 2. Those portions of any records containing information related to plans for or resources dedicated to undercover operations; or 3. Records of background investigations of applicants for law-enforcement agency employment or other confidential administrative investigations conducted pursuant to law. H. In the event of conflict between this section as it relates to requests made under this section and other provisions of law, this section shall control. This section was added by the 1999 amendments, creating a section to deal exclusively with criminal records. It provides that for the purposes of the section, "lawenforcement official" includes attorneys for the Commonwealth. The section states affmnativety the inform~on that shall be released rather than listing required information in the body of an exemption. The existing exemptions were reorganized, and expanded to provide that "mug shots" of adult arrestees need not be released if necessary to avoid jeopardizing an investigation in felony eases. The photograph must be released when such threat no longer exists. Ouestions & Answers 1. Does this new section consist of new exclusions? With the exception of subdivision 2 of subsection F, all of the exemptions were formerly found in § 2.1-342 of FOIA. The only new exemption applies to "mug shots~ of arrestees, and these may be withheld only so long as releasing such photographs would jeopardize an investigation in a felony case. 1999 § 2.1-343 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 I1 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 NOTE: TI{IS REPRINTED VERSION OF THE SECTION INCLUDES LANGUAGE FROM SB 806. § 2.1-343. Meetings to be public; notice of meetings; recordings; minutes; A. All meetings of public bodies shall be open, except as provided in § 2.1-344. B. No meeting shall be conducted th~.ough telephonic,, video, electronic or other communication means where the members are not physically assembled to discuss or transact public business, except as provided in § 2.1-343.1, § 2.1-343.1:1, or as may be specifically provided in Title 54.1 for the summary suspension of professional licenses. C. Every public body shall give notice of the date, time, and location of its meetings by placing the notice in a prominent publie location at which notices are regularly posted; in the office of the clerk of the public body, .or in the ease of a public body which has no clerk, in the office of the . chief administ~or. Publication of meeting notices by electronic means shall be encouraged. The notice shall be posted at least three working days prior to the meeting. Notices for meetings of state public bodies on which there is at least one member appointed by the Governor shall state whether or not public common will be received at the meeting and, if so, the approximate point during the meeting when public comment will be received. D. Notice, reasonable under the circumstance, or special or emergency meetings shall be given contemporaneously with the notice provided members of the public body conducting the meeting. E. Any person may annually file a written request for notification with a public body. The request shall include the requester's name, address, zip code, daytime telephone number, and organization, if anY. The public body receiving such request shall provide notice of .all meetings direction to each person. Without objection by the person, the public body may provide electronic notice of all meetings in response to such requests. F. At least one copy of all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members cfa public body for a meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the public body. G. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to make unlawful the gathering or attendance of two or more members of a public body (i) at any place or function where no part of the purpose of such gathering or attendance is the discussion or ..transaction of any public business, and such gathering or attendance was not called or prearranged with any purpose of discussing or transacting any business of the public body or (ii) at a public forum, candidate appearance, or debate, the purpose of which is to inform the electorate and not to transact public business or to hold discussions relating to the transaction of public business, even though the performance of the members individually or collectively in the conduct of public business may be a topic of discussion or debate at such public meeting. The notice provisions of this chapter shall not apply to informal meetings or gatherings of the members of the General Assembly. H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. The public body conducting the meeting may adopt roles governing the placement and use of equipment necessary for broadcasting, photographing, filming or recording a meeting to prevent interference with the proceedings. I. Minutes shall be recorded at all open meetings. However, minutes shall not be required to be taken at deliberations of (i) standing and other committees of the General Assembly, (ii) legislative interim study commissions and committees, including the Virginia Code Commission, (iii) study committees or commissions appointed by the Governor, or (iv) study commissions or study committees, or any other committees or subcommittees appointed by the governing bodies or school boards of counties, cities and towns, except where the membership of any such commission, committee or subcommittee includes a majority of the governing body of the county, city or town or school board. Minutes, including drat~ minutes, and all other records of open meetings, including audio or audio/visual records shall be deemed public records and subject to the provisions of this M~1999 § ~.1-343 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 · 47 48 49 50 chapter. Audio or audio/visual records of open meetings shall be public records which shall be produced in accordance with § 2.1-342. Commentar~ This section requires that all public meetings be open to the public. The 1999 amendments altered many subdivisions of § 2.1-343. The definitions of meetings and public meetings was moved to § 2.1-34I. An explanation that certain informal gatherings are not comidered meetings was moved from the definitions section into subsection G of this section. Also, notice provisions were clarified and expanded, as were the requirements for minutes taken at a public meeting. There are now specific provisions for public bodies to follow to publicize public meetings. At least three working days before the meeting, the public body should post notice of the meeting's date, time, and place in at least one of three places: (I) a prominent location where notices are posted regularly; (2) in the office of the public body's clerk; or, (3) in cases where a public body does not have a clerk, in th6 office of the body's chief administ~or. Notices also may be posted electronically. To receive' regular notice of meetings, a citizen must submit a written request that includes the citizen's name, address, zip code, telephone number during the day, and the organization he or she may be representing, if any. At the same time the public body distributes agenda materials to its members, the public body must provide at least one copy of the same materials, except for any exempt public records, for public inspection. When the public body records its minutes, those tapes are considered public records. The public has the right to photograph, film or record open meetings, but the public body conducting the meeting may impose limitations to prevent interference with the meeting. Questions & Answers 1. Our office regularly posts notice of upcoming meetings on our bulletin board. Do we also have to post notice in our clerk's office? No. You may post notice at both places, but the statute requires only that notice be posted at one of three places: (1) a prominent location where notices are posted regularly, such as a bulletin board; (2) in the office of the public body's clerk; or, (3) in cases where a public body does not have a clerk, then in the office of the body's chief administrator. You may also post notice on the public body's Web site or distribute notice via e-mail. 2. May a citizen make a standing request to be notified of all meetings cfa public body? Yes. These requests must be made at least once a year in writing and must include the name, address, zip code, daytime telephone number, and orga~imfion (if any) or the requester. Notice by e-mail is allowed if the requester has provided an e-marl address. 3. Does the public body have to disclose records included in its agenda that are exempt under § 2.1- 342? 25 May 1999 § 2.1-343 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 No. When providing at least one copy of the agenda for public inspection, a public body may withlaold exempt records that may be included in the materials. 4. Some of our public body members chanced to meet each other at the movies. Is this a meeting covered by FOIA? Chance encounters of two or more members of a public body are not considered meetings as long as the members did not arrange to meet and they do not talk about public business. 5. A citizen has requested an audio/visual tape the public body made of its las~ meeting. Is the tape subject to FOIA? Yes. One of the 1999 amendments specifically made audio, audio/visual, draft minutes and final minutes public records subject to disclosure under § 2.1-342. 26 May 1999 § 2.1-343.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 .44 45 46 47 48 49 50 § 2.I-343.1. Electronic communication meetings. A. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any political subdivision or any governing body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district or agency of local government or any committee thereof to conduct a meeting wherein the public business is discussed or transacted through telephonic, video, electronic or other communication means where the members are not physically assembled. Nothing in this section shall be consmaed to prohibit the use of interactive audio or video . means to expand public participation. B. For purposes of this section, "public body~ means any public body of the Commonwealth, but excludes any political subdivision or any governing body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district or agency of local government State public bodies may conduct any meeting, except closed meetings held pursuant to §2.1-344, wherein the public business is discussed or transacted through telephonic or video means. Where a quorum of a public body of the Commonwealth is physically assembled at one location for the purpose of conducting a meeting authorized under this section, additional members of such public body may participate in the meeting through telephonic means provided such participation is available to the public. C. Notice of any meetings held pursuant to this section shall be provided at least thin3t days in advance of the date scheduled for the meeting. The notice shall include the date, time, place and purpose for the meeting and shall identify the locations for the meeting.. All locations for the meeting shall be made accessible to the public. All persons attending the meeting at any of the meeting locations shall be afforded the same opportunity to address the public body as persons attending the primary or central location. Any interruption in the telephonic or video broadcast of the meeting shall result in the suspension of action at the meeting until repairs are made and public access restored. Thirty~y notice shall not be required for telephonic or video meetings continued to address an emergency as provided in subsection F or to conclude the agenda of a telephonic or video meeting of the public body for which the proper notice has been given, when the date, time, place and purpose of the continued meeting are set during the meeting prior to adjournment The public body shall provide the Director of the Department of Information Technology with notice of all public meetings held through telephonic or video means pursuant to this section. D. An agenda and materials which will be distributed to members of the public body and which have been made available to the staff of the public body in sut'fi¢ient time for duplieation and forwarding to all locations where public access will be provided shall be made available to the public at the time of the meeting. Minutes of all meetings held by telephonic or video means shall be recorded as required by §2.1-343. Votes taken during any meeting conducted through teIephonic or video means shall be recorded by name in roll-call fashion and included in the minutes. In addition, the public body shall make an audio recordIng of the meeting, if a telephonic medium is used, or an audio/visual recording, if the meeting is held by video means. The recording shall be preserved by the public body for a period of three years following the date of the meeting and shall be available to the public. E. No more than twenty-five percent of all meetings beld annually by a public body, including meetings of any ad hoc or standing committees, may be held by telephonic or video means. Any public body which meets by telephonic or video means shall file with the Director of the Depa~iment of Information Technology by July 1 of each year a statement identifying the total number of meetings held during the preceding fiscal year, the dates on which the meetings were held and the number and purpose of those conducted through telephonic or video means. F. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by subsection E, a pubIic body may meet by telephonic or video means as often as needed if an emergency exists and the publie body is unable to meet in regular session. Public bodies conducting emergency meetings through telephonic or video means shall comply with the provision of subsection D requiring minutes, recordation and preservation of the 27 May 1999 § 2.1-343.1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 audio or audio/visual recording of the meeting. The nature of the emergency shall be slated in the minutes. Commenm~ The 1999 revisions to this section included local government committees among those bodies prohibited from holding an electronic meeting where the members of the body are not physically assembled. The definition for "emergency" has been moved to § 2.1-341, the section dealing with general definitions. chapter 704 of the 1999 Acts of Assembly authorizes any public body (a) in the legislative branch of state government or (b) responsible to or under the supervision, direction, or control of the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, the Secretary of Technology, or the State Board for Community Colleges to hold meetings via electronic communications means. The Act requires that, except in an emergency, notice of a meeting must be provided no less than seven days before the meeting. The Actalso requires that notice for emergency meetings be given contemporaneously with notice provided to members of the public body or board. For purposes of establishing the participation requirement, the Act requires that ever7 location where a member of the public body or board is physically present must be in Virgi~'nia and open and accessible to the public. Members of the body not physically present may participate by electronic means only if three members or a quorum is physically present. The Act is not codified, and requires those using such electronic meetings to file reports with the appropriate Cabinet Secretary or the Joint Rules Committee of the General Assembly by October 15, 2000. The Act expires on July 1, 2000. Ouestions & Answers None. 28 May 1999 § 2.1-34~.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 § 2.1-343a2. Transaction of public business other than by votes at meetings prohibited. Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, no vote of any kind of the membership, or any part thereof; of any public body shall be taken to authoriz~ the transaction of any public business, other than a vote taken at a meeting conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. No public body shall vote by secret or written ballot~ and unless expressly provided by this chapter, no public body shall vote by telephone or other eleclronic communication means. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall be cons'm~e.d W prohibit separately contacting the membership, or any part thereof; of any pubiic body for the purpose of ascertaining a members position with respect to the Wansaction of public business. ¢ommenta~ This section requires that any vote a public body takes must be in a public meeting. This section also clarifies a provision under the former statute that secret and written ballots are prohibited, and that vo~es by telephone or el~u'onic means are limited by FOIA's provisions regulating elec~nic meetings. Ouestions & Answers NOlle, 29 May 1999 § 2.1-344 1 § 2.1-344. Clos. ed meetings authorized for certain limited purposes. 2 A. Public bodies may hold closed meetings only for the following purposes: 3 1. Discussion, consideration or interviews of prospective candid~s for employment; 4 assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplinin§ or resignation of 5 specific public officers, appointees or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance 6 of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluations will 7 necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be 8 permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a 9 disciplinary matter which involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter 10 is present, provided the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the 11 appropriate board. 12 2. Discussion or consideration of admission or disciplinary matters concerning any student of 13 any public insti~-tion of higher education or any state school system. However, any such 14 student, legal counsel and, if the student is a minor, the student's parents or legal guardians shall be 15 permitted to be present during the taking of testimony or presentation of evidence at a closed meeting, .16 if such student, parents or guardians so request in writing and such request is submitted to the 17 presiding officer oft he appropdate board. 18 3. Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of 19 the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely 20 affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. 21 4. The protection of the privacy of individuals in personal matters not related to public 22 business. 23 5. Discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing 24 business or- industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's 25 interest in locating or expanding its faeilities in the community. - 26 6. The investing of public funds where competition or bargaining is involved, where, if made 27 public initially, the financial interest of the governmental unit would be adversely affected. 28 7. Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to 29 actual or probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely 30 affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body; and consultation with legal counsel 31 employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal 32 advice by such counsel. For the purposes of this subdivision, "probable litigation" means litigation 33 which has been specifically threatened or on which the public body or its legal counsel has a 34 reasonable bakis to believe will be commenced by or against a known party. Nothing in this 35 subdivision shall be construed to permit the closure of a meeting merely became an attorney 36 representing the public body is in attendance or is consulted on a matter. 37 8. In the case of boards of visitors of public institutions of higher education, discussion or 38 consideration of matters relating to gills, bequests and fund-raising activities, and grants and contracts 39 for services or work to be performed by such institution. However, the terms and conditions of any 40 such gifts, bequests, grants and contracts made by a foreign government, a foreign legal entity or a 41 foreign person and accepted by a public institution of higher education shall be subject to public 42 disclosure upon written request to the appropriate board of visitors. For the purpose of this 43 subdivision, (i) foreign government means any government other than the United States government 44 or the government of a state or a political subdivision thereof; (ii) foreign legal entity means any legal 45 entity created under the laws of the United States or of any state thereof if a majority of the ownership 46 of the stock of such legal entity is owned by foreign governments or foreign persons or if a majority 47 of the membership of any such entity is composed of foreign persons or foreign legal entities, or any 48 legal entity created under the laws of a foreign government; and (iii) foreign person means any 49 individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States or a trust territory or protectorate 50 thereof. 3O M~ 1999 §2.1-3~ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 I0 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 9. In the case oft. he Ix)arch ofmmees ofthe Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and The Science Museum of Virginia, discussion or consideration of matters relating ~o specific gifts, bequests, and 10. Discussion or consideration of honorary degre~ or special awards. 1I. Discussion or consideration of tests, examinations or other records excluded from this chapter pursuant to § 2.1-342.01 A 11. / 12. Discussion, consideration or review by the appropriate House or Senate ¢ommiRee.s of' possible discipIinary action against a member arising out of the possible inadequacy of the disclosure statement filed by the member, provided the member may request in writing that the committee meeting not be conducted in a closed meetin§. 13. Discussion of strategy with respect to the negotiation of a siting a~reement or to consider the terms, conditions, and provisions of a siting alFeement if the governing body in open meeting finds that an open meeting will have an adverse effect upon the negotiating position of the governing body or the establishment of the terms, conditions and provisions of the siting a~reement, or both. All discussions with the applicant or ks representatives may be conducted in a closed meeting. 14. Discussion by the Governor and any economic advisory board reviewing forecasts of economic activity and estimating §eneml and nongeneral fund revenues. 15. Discussion or consideration of medical and mental records excluded from this chapter pursuant to § 2.1-342.01 A 5, and those portions of disciplM~ry proceedingS by any.reguiatory board within the Department of Professional and Occupational Kegulation or Department of Health Professions conducted pursuant to § 9-6.14:11 or § 9-6. I4:12 during which the board deliberates to reach a decision. 16. Discussion, consideration or review of State Lottery Depariment matters related to propriei2ry lot~'y game information and studies or investigations exempted from disclosure trader subdivisions 37. and 35 of subsection A of § 2.1-342.01. 17. Those portions of meetings by local government crime commissions where the identity- of, or information tending to identify, individuals providin§ information about crimes or criminal activities under a promise of anonymity is discussed or disclosed. l g. Discussion, consideration,' review and deliberations by local community corrections resources boards regarding the placement in community diversion pro,-ams of individuals previously sentenced to state correctional facilities. 19. Those porlions of meetings in which the Board of Corrections discusses or discloses the identity o6 or information tending to identify, any prisoner who (i) provides information about crimes or crlmln,! activities, (ii) renders assistance in preventing the escape of mother prisoner or in the apprehension of an escaped prisoner, or (iii) voluntarily or at the instance of a prison official renders' other extraordinary services, the disclosure of which is likely to jeopardize the prisoner's life or safety. 20. Discussion of plans to protect public safety as it relates to terrorist activity. 21. In the case of corporations ort~anized by the V'n~lia Retirement System, discussion or consideration of (i) proprietary information provided by, and financial information concerning, coventurers, partners, lessors, lessees, or investors, and (ii) the condition, acquisition, disposition, use, leasing, development, coventuring, or manageme~ of real estate the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse impact on the value of such real estate or result in a competitive disadvantage to the corporation or subsidiary. 22. Those portions of meetings in which individual child death cases are discussed by the State Child F~mlity Review Team established pursuant to § 32,1-2~3.1. 23. Those portions of meetingS of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors and those portions of meetings of any persons to whom management respOnsibilities for the University of V~ Medical Center have been deletl~ted, in which there is discussed proprietary, business-related information pertaining to the operations of the University of Virginia Medical Center, including its 31 May 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 business development or marketing strategies and its activities with e~xisting or future joint venturers, parmers, or other parties with whom the University of Virginia Medical Center l~s formed, or forms, any arrangement for the delivery of health care, if disclosure of such information would adversely affect the competitive position of the Medical Center. 24. In the case of the Medical College of Virgi~'nla Hospitals Authority, discussion or consideration of any of the following: the acquisition or disposition of real or personal property where disclosure would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Authority; operational plans that could affect the value of property, real or personal, owned or desirable for ownership by the Authority; matters relating to gifts, bequests and fund-raising activities; grants and contracts for services or work to be performed by the Authority, marketing or operational strategies where disclosure of such su'a~gies would adversely affect the competitive position of the Authority; members of its medical and teaching staffs and qualifications for appointments thereto; and qualifications or evaluations of other employees. 25. Those portions of the meetings of the Intervention Program Committee within the Department of Health Professions to the extent such discussions identify any practitioner who may be, or who actually is, impaired pursuant to Chapter 25.1 (§ 54.1-2515 et seq.) of Title 54.1. 26. Meetings or portions of meetings of the Board of the Vir~nia Higher Education Tuition Trust Fund wherein personal information, as defined in § 2.1-379, which has been p.m..vided to the Board or its employees by or on behalf of individuals who have requested information about, applied for, or entered into prepaid tuition contracts or savings trust account agreements pursuant to Chapter 4.9 (§ 2323~g.75 et seq.) of Title 23 is discussed. B. No resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion adopted, passed or agreed to in a closed meedng shaIlbec0me effective unless the public body, following the meeting, mconvenes in open meeting' and takes a vote of the membership on such resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion which shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting. · . C- Public officers improperly selected due to the failure of the public body to comply with the other provisions of this section shall be de facto officers and, as such, their official actions am valid until they obtah notice of the legal defect in their election. D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the holding of conferences between two or more public bodies, or their representatives, but these conferences shall be subject to the same procedures for holding closed meetings as are applicable to any other public body. E. Th~'Section shall not be constnmd ~o (i) require the disclosure of any contract between the Intervention Program Committee within the Department of Health Professions and an impaired practitioner entered into pursuant to Chapter 25.1 (§ 54.1-2515 et seq.) of Title 54.1 or (ii) require the board of directors of any authority created pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act (§ 15.1-I373 et seq.), or any public body empowered to issue industrial revenue bonds by general or special law, to identify a business or industry to which subdivision A 5 applies. However, such business or industry must be identified as a matter of public record at least thirty days prior to the actual date of the board's authodmtion of the sale or issuance of such bonds. Commentar~ This section reaffirms the General Assembly's policy that a public body is not required to close a meeting to the public. The body may close the meeting, but only if one of the 26 exemptions listed in this section applies. Most of the section remains the same as in the former statute. Two major changes, however, were made by the 1999 General Assembly: (1) a change to the exemption for real estate discussions, and (2) a change to the exemption for advice from legal counsel. 32 May 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 The real estme exemption [§ 2. I-344(A)(3)] applies now only to the acquisition of real property for a public purpose or for disposition of government-owned real property. The exemption no longer applies to discussions of the condition or use of the property. Further, discussions of real property disposition may be closed to the public only where the discussion would jeopardize the public body's bargaining or negotiating posture. Section 2.1-344(AX7) further details what situations involving legal counsel permit closing a meeting to the public. The subdivision still allows a public body to close a meeting for discussions of "actual or probable litigation." The 1999 amendments clarify that closed-door discussions are limited to discussions that may jeopardize the public body's negotiating or litigating posture. The subdivision goes on to define what is meant by ~robable litigation": "-litigation which has been specifically threatened or on which the public body or its legal cotmsel has a reasonable basis to believe will be commenced by or against a known party." Finally, the section codices a Supreme Court of Vir~nia ruling that the legal exemption cannot be invoked just because the public body's attorney is at the meeting or has been consulted on a matter up for discussion. A section that singled out the Intervention Program Committee of the Department of Health ProfesSions and authorities created under the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act from the open megting provisions was broken out from one subdivision and given a subsection of its own [§ 2.1-344(E)]. Questions & Answers 1. Is a pUblic body ever rcquL-ed to close a meeting to the public? . No. A Public body is never required to close a meeting. It may do so, but only if one of the 26 exemptions of § 2.1-344 applies. 2. May a public body close a meeting to discuss what color to paint a ne~ school? No. The new real estate exemption of § 2.1-344(A)(3) applies only to discussions about the acquisition and disposition of real property. The condition or use of the property is not a proper subject for a closed meeting. 3. What is meant by the "probable litigation" phrase in the legal counsel exemption? "Probable litigation," as used in § 2.1-344(AX7), has been defined to mean litigation that has been specifically threatened by, or that the public body or its attorney has a reasonable basis to believe will be fried by, a known parry. 4. Our attorney sits in on almost every meeting. May we close those meetings when the attorney is present? An attorney's mere presence at a meeting does not justify closing a meeting under the legal counsel exemption. § 2.1-344.1 2 ' 2.I,344.1. Closed meetings procedures; certification of proceedings. 3 A. No closed meeting shall be held unless the public body proposing to convene such 4 meeting has taken an affirmative recorded vote in an open meeting approving a motion which (i) 5 identifies the subject matter, (ii) slates the purpose of the meeting and (itl') makes specific reference to 6 the applicable exemption from open meeting requirements provided in § 2.1-343 or subsection A of § 7 2.1-344. The matters contained in such motion shall be set forth in detail in the minutes of the open 8 meeting. A general reference to the provisions of this chapter, the authorized exemptions from open 9 meeting requirements, or the subject matter of the closed meeting shall not be sufficient to s~sf'y the 10 requirements for holding a closed meeting. 11 B. The notice provisions of this chapter shall not apply to closed meetings of any public body 12 held solely for the purpose of interviewing candidates for the position of chief administrative officer. 13 Prior to any such closed meeting for the purpose of interviewing candidates the public body shall 14 announce in an open meeting that such closed meeting shall be held at a disclosed or undisclosed 15 location within fifteen days thereafter. 16 c. The public body holding a closed meeting shall restrict its discussion during the closed 17 meeting only to those matters specifically exempted from the provisions of this chapter and identified 18 in the motion required by subsection A. 19 D. At the conclusion of any closed meeting, the public body holding such h~eeting shall 20 mediately reconvene in an open meeting and shall take a roll cai1 or other recorded vote to be 21 included in the minutes of that body, certifying that to the best of each member's knowledge (i) only 22 public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under this chapter and (ii) 23 only such public business mailers as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was 24 convened were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting by the public body. Any member of the 25 public body who believes that there was a departure from the requirements of subdivisions (i) and (ii), '26 shall so state prior to the vote, indicating the substance of the departure that, in his judgment, has 27 taken place. The stateroom shall be recorded in the minutes of the public body. 28 E. Failure of the certification required by subsection D to receive the _affirmative vote of a 29 majority of the members of the public body present during a meeting shall not affect the validity or 30 confidentiality of such meeting with respect to matters comidered therein in compliance with the 31 provisions of this chapter. The recorded vote and any statement made in connection therewith, shall 32 upon proper authentication, constitute evidence in any proceeding brought to enforce the provisions of 33 this chapter. 34 F. ^ public body may permit nonmembers to attend a closed meeting if such persons are 35 deemed necessary or if their presence will reasonably aid the public body in its consideration of a 36 topic which is a subject of the meeting. 37 o. Except as specifically authorized by law, in no event may any public body take action on 38 matters discussed in any closed meeting, except at an open meeting for which notice was given as 39 required by {}2.1-343. 40 H. Minutes may be taken during closed meetings of a public body, but shall not be required. 41 Such minutes shall not be subject to mandatory public disclosure. 42 43 44 ' 45 46 47 48 49 50 Commentarv This section establishes the procedures a public body must follow before convening a closed meeting. The 1999 amendments reworded and reworked the section. Before a public body can close a meeting to the public, it must make a detailed motion in the open meeting's minutes that identifies (1) the meeting's subject matter, (2) the meeting's purpose, and (3) the specific exemption under §§ 2.1-343 or 2.1-344(A) that applies. General references to FOIA or to 34 May 1999 § 2.1-344.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 '27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 the subject matter of the meeting do not suffice. Only the matters identified in the motion are to be discussed in the closed meeting. Minutes may be taken in the closed meeting, but they do not have to be, and they do not have to be released for an open records request. When the public body comes out of its closed meeting, this section requires the body to reconvene in open session. Each member of the body is to affmn by roll call or recorded vote that only those matters identified in the motion close the meeting were discussed. Any member who believes m~ers outside the scope of the motion were discussed is to say so prior to the vote. Failure to certify the contours of the closed meeting does not affect the validity or confidentiality or ma~ers discussed in the closed meeting. A public body cannot take any action in the closed meetings. The body cannot take action until it has reconvened in an open meeting. Questions & Answers 1. What-does a public body have to do before it can close, a meeting? A public body in an open meeting must make a detailed motion in the minutes, and take a vote a~rm~rtg the motiqn, before the body may dose the meeting. The motion must include: (1) the meeting's subject matter, (2) the meeting'.s purpose, and (3) the specific exemption under §§ 2.1-343 or 2.!-344(A)-that applies. General references to FOIA or to the subject matter are not acceptable. 2. For convenience, may the public body in a closed meeting discuss public business outside the scope of the moti0n to close?' No. Only those matters identified in the motion to close may be discussed. When the public body reconvenes in an open .meeting, the members each must certify that only matters identified in the motion to close were discussed. 3. Are the members of the public body the only people who may participate in the closed meeting? No. A nonmember may Mrtend if that person is necessary or may aid the public body in its discussion about the matters identified in the motion to close. 4. Our body received an open records request for the minutes we took in a closed meeting. Do we have to disclose those minutes? No. You may disclose the minutes because FOIA does not prolu'bit disclosure. However, § 2.1- 344.1(H) confirms that minutes, if they are taken at all, dO not have to be released. May 1999 § 2.1=346 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 5O 2.1-346. Proceedings for enforcement of chapter. A. Any person, including the attorney for the Commonwealth acting in his official or individual capacity, denied the fights and privileges conferred by this chapter may proceed to enforce such rights and privileges by filing a petition for mandamus or injunction, supported by an affidavit showing good cause, addressed to the general district court or the court of record of the county or city from which the public body has been elected or appointed to serve and in which such rights and privileges were so denied. Failure by any person to request and receive notice ofthe time and place of meetings as provided in § 2.1-343 shall not preclude any person from enforcing his or her fights and privileges conferred by this chapter. B. Any petition alleging denial of rights and privileges conferred by this chapter by a board, bureau, commission, authority, district or agency of the state government or by a standing or other committee of the General Assembly, shall be addressed to the general district court or the circuit court of the residence of the aggrieved party or of the City of Richmond. In any action brought before a general district court, a corporate petitioner may appear through its officer, director or managing agent without the assistance of counsel, notwithstanding any provision of law or Rule of the Supreme Court of Virginia to the oontrary. C. The petition for mandamus or injunction shall be heard w~thln seven days of the date when the same is made. However, any petition made outside of the regular terms of the circuit court of a county which..is._in, cluded in a judicial circuit with another county or counties, the h~g on the petition shall be given precedence on the docket of such court over ali cases which are not otherwise given preeedence~:.by law. D. The petition shall allege with reasonable spee~city the circnm~-tances of the,denial of the rights and privileges conferred by this chapter. A single instance of denial of the rights ~md privileges conferred by this chapter shall be sufficient to invoke the remedies granted herein. If the court finds the denial to be in violation of the provisions of tiffs chapter, the petitioner shall be entitled to 'recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the public body if the petitioner substantially prevails on the merits of the case, unless special circumstances would make an award unjust. In making this determination, a court may consider, among other things, the reliance of a public body on an opinion of the Attorney General or a decision of a court th~ substant~y supports the public body's position. E. In any action to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the public body shall bear the burden of proof to establish an exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. Any failure by a public body to follow the procedures established by tiffs chapter shall be presumed to be a violation of this chapter. This section details how a citizen goes about enforcing the rights guaranteed by FOIA. A cit~n or an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation may file a petition for mandamus or injunction with the general district court or circuit court in the county or city where the petitioner's rights were denied or in the City of RichmoncL The section lays out the requirements of a petition, and confirms that even a first-time denial of rights under the chapter, may be corrected in a judicial proceeding. Attorney's fees and costs may be awarded to a petitioner at the court's discretion. The court is to give the petition an expedited hearing. At the hearing, the public body has the burden of proof to defend why FOIA procedures were not followed. The General Assembly made this change to reflect an implicit presumption that had developed in the courts. May 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O~es-t/on.v & Ans~r~ 1. In what venue can a citizen file a petition ag~ a public body? A petition to enforce the provisions of FOIA may be filed in the general district court or the circuit court of the city or county where the alleged violation occurred, or in the City of Kichmond. 2. Does a corporation that has filed a petition have to represented by an attorney? No. A 1999 amendment clarified that as long as no Supreme Court of Virginia Rule conflicts, a corporation can be represented in court by its officer, director or managing agent instead of by an attorney. 3. What happens in court when the petitioner is seeking mandamus to have public records released but the public body maintains that an exemption applies? The public body carries the burden of proof to show why a particular exemption, either from the public records or the open meetings section of FOIA, applies. 4. If the court finds that a public body violated FOIA, what can the court do? The cour~ may issue the injunction or order mandamus. The cour~ may rule that the public body should pay attorney's fees and/or reasonable costs to the p~itioner. The court also may impose a fine, as provided in § 2.1-346.1. 37 May 1~ § 2.1-346.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14 .I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 2.1-346. I. Violations and penalties. In a proceeding commenced against members of public bodies under § 2.1-346 for a violation of§§ 2.1-342, 2. I-342.01, 2. I-342.2, 2. I-343, 2.1-343.1, 2.1-343.2, 2.1-344 or § 2.1-344.1, the court, if it finds that a violation was willfully and knowingly made, shall impose upon such member in his individual capacity, whether a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief is awarded or not, a civil penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, which amount shall be paid into the State Literary Fund.. For a second or subsequent violation, such civil penalty shall be not less than $500 nor more than $2,500. The fees a court may impose for violations of FOIA were increased by the 1999 General Assembly. If the court finds a willful and knowing violation of FOIA, it may impose of fine between $100 and $I,000. Second and subsequent violations may be fined at $500 to $2,500. I. If the court finds that a public body violated FOIA, what can the court do? In addition to granting mandamus or ordering an injunction, the court may impose a fine, ~om $100 to $1,000 for one willful and knowing violation, and from $500 to $2,500 for subsequent'and similar violations. The court may also rule that the public body should pay attorney's fees and/or reasonable costs to the petitioner, as provided in § 2.1-346. 2. Does money paid in fines go to the petitioner? No. Fines imposed under this section are paid into the State Literary Fund. COUNTY EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Year 2000 Legislative Proposals SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Legislative Proposals to Submit to VACO AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: July 7, 1999 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: IN FORMATION: A AC.ME. S: Tucker, White, Davis, Blank REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: VACO has requested that the County submit legislative proposals that we would like to see addressed in VACO's 2000 Legislative Program. The following proposals are submitted for the Board's consideration and transmittal to VACO for discussion in their summer steering committee sessions. DISCUSSION: Albemarle County potential VACO legislative submittals: Request legislation to provide Counties with enabling language to operate farmers' markets. There has been local interest in exploring the possibility of operating a farmers' market in Albemarle, but a recent Attorney General opinion ruled that counties do not have the expressed legislative authority to do so. Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas. Request legislation to preclude VDOT from erecting towers in the middle of the right of way without permission from the locality. Currently, VDOT allows cellular companies to erect towers on their right of way with rental fees accruing to the state. VDOT also uses these towers for their own equipment, such as cameras and road monitoring equipment. GROVVTH MANAGEMENT: Provide high-growth jurisdictions with management tools for coping with residential development. Such enabling legislation includes 1) the authority to impose school and road impact fees 2) the authority to adopt adequate public facilities ordinances and 3) provide statewide funding for a Purchase of Development Rights program for localities who establish and locally fund such a program Request legislation from the state to broaden the revenue sources available to localities in the form of a local option sales tax, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions and a local option income tax. RECOMMENDATION: This information is provided for the Board's review and comment prior to communicating our legislative proposals to VACO. Although VACO solicits our proposals at this time, so they can begin to develop their legislative program over the summer, this does not prevent the County from identifying other proposals to submit to our legislators should other legislative issues arise later in the summer or fall. The above suggested items reflect only the major priorities for VACO's attention - other broad legislative items supported by the County during prior legislative sessions will continue to be part of VACO's agenda. DRAFT July 6, 1999 § 15.2 .....Visual Quality and Tourism Enhancement Districts Policy and Purpose It is the policy of the Commonwealth to protect and enhance the quality of its visual resources, such as its rivers, streams, coastlines, mountains, and cultural resources, which distinguish Virginia as one of the most beautiful states in the country; which contribute to its communities' character and sense of place; which contribute tangible and intangible benefits such as an improved quality of life for its citizens and a rich legacy for future generations; and which strengthen the economic base of the Commonwealth and its communities by encouraging tourism and attracting new businesses. It is the purpose of this section to provide a means for localities to protect and enhance the quality of its visual environment as an aesthetic and economic resource of major importance. Creation of a Visual Quality and Tourism Enhancement District Any locality [Any county with a population of no less than --- and no more than ---] may adopt an ordinance setting forth the visual resources and areas of scenic value such as Virginia Byway and other scenic road corridors, Virginia Scenic River and other river and stream valleys, mountain ridges, or other scenic areas as established in the locality's comprehensive plan, amending the existing zoning ordinance and delineating one or more visual quality and tourism enhancement districts encompassing such visual resources and scenic areas. An amendment of the zoning ordinance and the establishment of a district or districts shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (§ 15.2-2280 et seq.) of this chapter. Effects of Districts Within visual quality and tourism enhancement districts aesthetics may he regulated to ensure the visual quality of the district. A plan of development may be required to he approved for any development subject to such regulation. Such plan may be approved administratively or by a review board appointed by the governing body upon complying with the guidelines or standards adopted by the governing body. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :, ..... ' AGENDA TITLE: CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby Tract] SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Work Session to discuss CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc., a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan to change the designation of property consisting of 53.89 acres from Industrial Service to Regional Service, for develop merit of a shopping center. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish; Ms. Thomas AGENDA DATE: July 7, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~'"'"'"'~ / .BACKGROUND: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of Fifth Street Extended (State Route 531 ) and north of Interstate 64, within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the property from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support the eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-1, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing development of a regional shopping center, with a maximum of 210,000 square feet to be occupied by a big box anchor store, with 90,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of 300,000 square feet. DISCUSSION: Brass, Inc. has been before the Planning Commission on nine occasions: initial meeting to adopt a resolution of intent to consider amending the Comprehensive Plan on November 13, 1997; work sessions on March 31, June 30, December 15, 1998, and February 23, 1999; public hearings on March 30 and April 27, 1999; May 11,1999 meeting; final vote, June 1, 1999. The June 30, 1998 meeting was a joint work session with the Charlottesville Planning Commission, who also was invited to attend the December 15, 1998 work session at which the applicant's consultants made a presentation. At the February 23, 1999 work session, staff proposed an alternative to the applicant's request, in the form of a Community Service (mixed use) designation. The Commission subsequently asked staff to draft specific language for both the Community Service alternative [proposed by staff] and for the applicant's requested Regional Service alternative, for its review and consideration. A third proposal was later drafted by two Commissioners, and it was this proposal ("Rooker/Rieley Alternative Community Service Designation") that was recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors by a 4-3 vote at the Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 1999 The recommended proposal generally supports the concept proposed by the applicant, but limits the total size of the big box anchor and imposes certain design requirements on the site and structures. The following materials are included as attachments to this summary: II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX . X. Xl. June 3, 1999 Planning Commission action letter (includes Rooker/Rieley Alternative) Staff's Community Service (mixed use) alternative Applicant's [original] Regional Service proposal Applicant's response/counter proposal to Rooker/Rieley Alternative Staff's comparison of RookedRieley, applicant's counter proposal, and staff's Community Service (mixed use) alternative February 23, 1999 staff report Size Comparisons for Commercial Developments Related Articles Public Comment Fiscal Im pact Analysis February 5, 1999 letter from Charlottesville Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Designation Proposal (Attachment II). RookedRieley Alternate Community Service 99.113 Community Service Designation Square Footage Example 300,000 total sq. ft. of building results in 225,000 roofline/foundation sq. ft. 150,000 one story = 150,000 sq. ft. building 75,000 two story = 150,000 sq. ft. building 225,000 total foundation sq. ft. First floor space 150,000 sq. ft. (1 story building) +75,000 sq. ft. (first floor of 2 story building) 225,000 sq. ft. (total first floor sq. ft.) 3. Usage examples: 225,000 first floor retail 25,000 second story office 50,000 second story residential 300,000 total useable sq. ft. WILLOUGHBY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Original Proposal Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. Planning Commission Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. Revised Proposal · Site design to maintain positive relationship with surrounding community. No reference to mixed use. Mixed use plan is encouraged. Mixed use plan is encouraged. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood residents. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood residents. Open space/recreation uses for shoppers and neighborhood residents. Master Plan (PD-SC) Master Plan (PD-SC) Master Plan (PD-SC) 300,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. 310,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. 310,000 sq. ft. limit on all development. - No limit on retail uses, other than the 300,000 sq. ft. total limit 250,000 sq. ft. max. on retail uses 250,000 sq. ff. max. on retail uses No limits on particular building sizes. 65,000 sq. ft. limit on individual buildings. Any building in excess of 65,000 sq. ft. shall be designed to easily subdivide into 65,000 sq. ft. bays and must possess architectural facades and massing to present appearance of a building of 65,000 sq. ft., or less No limit on single user size. No parking design proposal. A single user may not occupy more than 160,000 sq. ft. (including outside displays/sales). Parking shall be internalized to the extent possible. A single user may not occupy more than 160,000 sq. ft.; provided that addtitional 10% of building allowed for outside storage and display. Parking shall be internalized to the extent possible. No minimum roof/foundation requirements. 113 of roof and foundation to be two-story (or greater). Two-story buidings and facades shall be encouraged. \\CHA~536~.588~Willoughby Project~ocs~.Prooosal Comparisons,xts COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 ATTACHMENT June 3, 1999 Steven W. Blaine P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: CPA-97-05 Brass, Inc (Willoughby) Dear Mr. Blaine: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 1, 1999, by a 4-3 vote, recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the "Alternate Proposal" for Community Service designation crafted by Commissioners Rooker and Rieley for CPA-97-05 and presented at the May 1 I, 1999 Planning Commission meeting (copy attached). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, // Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/jcf Cc: Ella Carey ALTERNATE COMMUNITY SERVICE DESIGNATION PROPOSAL Community Service Designation: The Community Service area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of 1-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creak Road, is intended to serve as a retail, office, research and residential center within Neighborhood Four. Because of its location at the corner of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall seek to continue the scale and existing character of the proposed Community Service (mixed retail, office, research and residential,) use and surrounding uses. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville- Albemarle community because of, in part, the access opportunity provided by the 1-64 interchange. The land uses along this road establish the first image and impression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by or visit from other areas in the region. Building Limitations: Because of the large size of the site and because of the specific topographic and demographic conditions of the site, the limits on allowable building square footage for the site will be altered from the normal Community Service designation as follows: · Maximum total square footage of buildings: 310,000 s.f. · There is no maximum limit on residential use subject to the overall maximum s.f. limit of 310,000. · Maximum total square footage of buildings for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office and research uses: 250,000 s.f. · While mixed use is encouraged within the 250,000 s.f., there are no specific levels of uses required. · All buildings in excess of 250,000 s.f. must be residential. · To make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users, the size of any individual building will be limited to no more than 65,000 s.f. Individual buildings are defined as being sub-dividable at a future date with minimal physical changes, so that they may function as individual businesses. Individual buildings may be attached and interconnected. A single user may not occupy more than 160,000 s.f. of buildings, outside displays, sales and storage areas. Expectations for this area include development under a master plan which incorporates the following general principles: Site Design: Site design shall maintain a positive relationship with the surrounding community, acknowledging the proximity of the Willoughby residential neighborhood and historic districts within the City of Charlottesville through the use of appropriate materials, architectural features, color, internal and external lighting, and other design elements; · A mixed use plan of development is encouraged; · All facades of commercial buildings visible from a public road shall continue design elements found on the front of the buildings; Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall be incorporated into the design of building(s) so that they are not visible; · Areas of open space/recreation shall be provided for shoppers and Neighborhood residents; Buildings should not appear monolithic; articulation (massing, architectural features) should be used to reduce the overall size of large buildings; uninterrupted facades shall be avoided in the design of the principal structures by incorporating windows, recessed areas, projections, awnings, arcades and other features which vary the visual impact of the buildings; Roof design shall mitigate the visual impacts of the large scale structures and associated buildings, with special attention directed to visibility from areas of higher elevation. Rev. 5/11/99 -2- Parking shall be internalized to the greatest extent possible, with parking areas distributed throughout the site in front of and behind the commercial structures, and trees and other landscaping material used to minimize visual impact (parking orchard concept). Principals of environmentally responsible and energy efficient design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, for example: Minimize impervious pavement: To minimize impervious pavement, any paved parking areas in excess of those spaces required by code, are to be composed of pervious surfaces, such as grass pavers or stabilized turf. Energy efficient building: Insulation, provision for day-lighting, and other energy conscious elements should be incorporated into the design. Minimize roof and foundations: To minimize roof and foundation areas, a minimum of 1/3 of the roof and foundation areas are to be occupied by two-story (two floor), or greater, buildings. Master Plan: Prior to re-zoning a master plan for the entire property showing the layout, grading, character and scale of the project will be developed and submitted. · Space will be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square foot limits). Appropriate Uses: · Service stations are not considered to be a compatible Community Service use for this site. Environmental Protection: A publicly accessible greenway shall be constructed along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land use Plan, Neighborhood Four; Rev. 5/11/99 -3- Exemplary specimen or old growth trees, 24" or larger DBH, will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; particular care will be given to protection of existing stands of trees that provide screening from adjacent streets and highways; · A vegetative buffer shall be maintained along Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek undisturbed by site development. Because of the proximity of Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, and the potential impacts resulting from a large amount of impervious cover, an on-site mitigation plan that exceeds standard BMPs, detention standards, and water quality standards shall be incorporated into the site design. The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water quality; parking areas, roads and other impervious areas shall meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p.21). Transportation: Site development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continuous walkway and travelway must be provided from Fifth Street to and throughout the site. Rezoning of the property will be timed with any required road improvements, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to,.. one or all of the following: · improvements to Bent Creek Road, Fifth Street northbound (a continuous right turn lane northbound o.n Fifth Street from the 1-64 westbound off ramp to Bent Creek Road), · improvements to the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning), and · improvements to Fifth Street southbound (installation of a continuous right turn lane). Rev. 5/11/99 -4- I ATTACHMENT II [ Community_ Service designation · The Community Service area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north of 1-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed v~a Bent Creek Road, is intended to serve as a residential, retail and office/research center for the Neighborhood. Because of its location at the corner of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of hig]a aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall seek to continue the scale and existing character of the proposed Community Service (mixed residential, retail and office/research) use and surroundifig uses. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community because of, in part, the access opl?ommity provided by the 1-64 interchange. The land uses along this road establish the fn'st tmage and impression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by or visit from other areas in the region. Approval of the rezoning of the site will be timed to follow the development of a definition of fi-fixed use and associated development guidelines/, stan,d~ar~s,~,curr,en-fly~!n.p, rogress by both the Development Area Inifiauves Study Comnnttee (L~IbqZ) anct start. However, expectations for this area include development under a master plan which incorporates the following general prindples: Ske Design Site design shall maintain a positive relationship with the surrounding community, acknowledging the proximity of the Willoughbz residential neighborhood and historic districts within the City of Charlottesville through the use of appropriate materials, architectural features, color, internal and external lighting, andother design elements; The ske shall reflect a mixed use plan of development, to include Urban Density Residential, Community Service (including retail anchors of moderate size), and Industrial/Office Service uses. The Residential use shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total approved square footage of the ske, at full build-ont; Site development shall relate to the surrounding properties and public streets; All facades of commercial bnildings visible from a public road shall continue design elements found on the front of the buildings; Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall be incorporated into the design of building(s) so that they are not visible; Areas of open space/recreation shall be provided for shoppers and Neighborhood residents; Principles of sustainable design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development. Appropriate Uses Service stations are not considered to be a compatible Community Service use for this site. Environmental Protection A greenway shall be constructed along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Four; Exemplary specimen or old growth trees will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water q[uality; parkingareas, roads and other impervious areas shall meet ont7 the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p. 21). Transportation All improvements to Bent Creek Road within the corporate limits of the City of Charlottesville must be approved by the Ciw, Ske development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continous walkway and travelway must be provided from Fifth Street to and throughout the site. Willoughby tract comprehensive plan amendment application THIS ITEM WAS SCANNED UNDER LAND USE REPORTS 1999 ATTACHMENT IV I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Susan Thomas Steven W. Blaine May 21, 1999 CPA- 97- 05; Brass, Inc. At its May 1 l meeting, the Albemarle County Planning Commission considered an Alternate Community Service Designation Proposal developed by Commissioners Reiley and Rooker, (the "Mav 11 Proposal"). Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the Applicant's response to the May 11 Proposal. The Applicant's response is black-lined to show the changes to the May 11 Proposal, in order to facilitate your review. The following is a summary of the Applicant's response: 1. Regional Service Designation. The Applicant's proposal is entitled, "Regional Service/ Entrance Corridor." This designation is more in line with the Comprehensive Plan's existing Interstate Interchange Policy which identifies this parcel for Regional Service. As pointed out by staff,, the development criteria contained in the May 11 Proposal may be achieved in either the Community Service or the Regional Service designations. Certain developCent criteria within the May 11 Proposal however are inconsistent with the general criteria for Community Service under the existing Comprehensive Plan (e.g., permitting up to 310,000 square feet of~development instead of only 250:000 s.f.). The Applicant's suggested designation preserves the integrity of the Community Service designation, yet at the same time incorporates the development criteria of the May 11 Proposal. 2, Building Area Limitation. The May 11 Proposal restricts the size of any individual building to 65,000 square feet of building area. This effectively precludes the shopping center from attracting a major anchor tenant and therefore would likely render the project infeasible. Not only would this preclude a major, general discount operator, such as a Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or Target, it would not likely attract any of the specialty discounters either, (e.g., Circuit City, Home Depot, Builder's Square, or Staples), or value grocery stores such as Ukrops, or Harris Teeter. In order to attract smaller retail shops, it is critical to anchor the center with a major tenant which will draw shoppers to the center. Many of these major tenants will seek a market presence in excess of 65,000 s.f. The May 11 Proposal states that the 65,000 s.f. limitation is intended to "make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users..." The Applicant submits that this objective may be achieved without being so restrictive on the size of the buildings at the outset. Thus the Applicant proposes to require the developer to design any building in excess of 65,000 s.f', to readily accommodate a redivision into smaller stores of up to 65,000 s.f. Charlottesville has had a number May 21, 1999 Page 2 of successful conversions of this type. An example is the former Roses, at Barracks Road. That store was divided to form Bed, Bath and Beyond, and Harris Teeter. The Applicant asks the Commission to bear in mind that the existing Light Industrial zoning contains no limitation on the size of the buildings which may be constructed. The Cox Company analysis lfiresented at the December 15 work session indicated that the site would sustain LI buildings of up to 1,640,000 square feet. The PD-SC ordinance, (which pertains to planned shopping centers, and which is the zoning designation that the Applicant would seek) will permit up to 700,000 s.f(with an FAR of approximately 0.30). In contrast, the Applicant's proposal would limit the total density for commercial uses to 250,000 s.f., (for a 0.10 FAR). The Applicant's proposal contemplates over 29 acres of open and green space, to include pedestrian trails, a green way, and soccer field. It is important to bear this in mind when making comparisons to big box sites such as Lowe's on 29 North, which only contains the building and parking lot. There is no difference ifi4and use impacts-between the Applicant's proposal and the May 11 Proposal. If three retail establishments of 65,000 s.f. each may occupy three separate buildings which also may be interconnected, (as allowed in the May 11 Proposal), how is there any greater traffic impact, lighting, noise, storm water management considerations, etc. with one single building of 195,000 s.f.? The answer is: there is none. In fact, the larger single building will employ an economy of building systems which will more efficiently use the density allocated to this site. The Applicant proposes to limit the single user to 195,000 s.f., but would' require the developer to design a building to accommodate three 65.,000 s.f. smaller stores ifredivision became necessary. Discount retailers are able to offer the discounts in the products they sell based in part upon volume, and upon the merchandising and sales systems that employ a large, simple building footphnt. The Applicant's market analysis demonstrates a need for a discount store at this location. Ifa discount operator is precluded by the restrictive 65,000 s.f. limit, what the community is left with is simply another strip center like what already exists across 5th Street at the Food Lion Center. Moreover, a smaller scale center, with small specialty shops, is more likely to compete directly with businesses in the downtown area. The May 11 Proposal would allow a single user to occupy a total of 160,000 s.f. albeit in separate buildings The Applicant challenges the Commission to identify any successful retailer that occupies separate structures. 3. Second Story Buildings. The May 11 Proposal requires a minimum of 1/3 of roof and foundation areas to be occupied by two-story buildings. In contrast, the Applicant's proposal encourages, but does not require second story buildings. Retailers are not attracted to second story locations. Experience reveals that such locations do not take advantage of'Toot traffic" or May 21. 1999 Page 3 "walk-in" business that single floor locations attract. Retail experts cite the recent failure of the MJ Design location as prime example. Second floor locations may be appropriate for office, or residential uses. Since the May 11 Proposal does not require such uses, it would be inconsistent to require a two story design that is only compatible with such uses. 4. Traffic Improvements, The Applicant's proposal reflects the transportation improvements that a developer will proffer during a rezoning. There is no traffic .analysis that would indicate the need, as a result of the development of this project for a contiguous right turn lane on 5th Street southbound. In fact, the City has expressed hostility toward such improvements. This recommendation, together with the original recommendation for a contiguous right turn lane on 5th Street northbound, came from VDOT. As you know, VDOT does not have jurisdiction over City streets. Moreover, when pressed on this issue at our meeting with the resident engineer, Ms. Tucker conceded that as a consideration of future development along this corridor, the City ought to require property owners with abutting property on 5th Street to plan extensions of a right turn lane. That recommendation should not have been interpreted as a requirement for such improvements to be timed with the rezoning of the Willoughby property. In conclusion, we request [hat you forward the Applicant's response to the Planning Commission. We believe that the planning principles and objectives presented by the two proposals are essentially the same. However. while preserving these principles and objectives, the Applicant's proposal at the same time assures that the p,roject will be successful. Therefore, we urge the Commission to adopt the language submitted.. The Applicant will have representatives available between now and the next meeting of the Commission. We respectfully request any opportunity to discuss the matters presented here with the Commission. cc: Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. Mr. Frank Cox This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Kedliner, shows the differences between - original document : V:L2588kBRASSkDOC99\ALTERNATE COMMUNITY SERVICE DESIGNATION PROPOSAL.DOC and revised document: V:k2588kBRASSkDOC99\ALTERNATE COMMUNITY SERVICE DESIGNATION COUNTER PROPOSAL.DOC CompareKite found 26 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text surrounded by { } Additions appear as Bold text surrounded by [] r~r~ ~ ~ r,,rr'rv eco ·rrrm ~ [REGIONAL SERVICE/ENTRANCE CORRIDOR] DESIGNATION PROPOSAL (t- ......;.., c .... ;~ [Regional Service/Entrance Corridor] Designation: The ...... ;"' ~ {C ............ ~ ), [Regional] Service area located south of the Willoughby residential development and north ofi-64 between Fifth Street Extended and Avon Street Extended, accessed via Bent Creek Road, is intended to serve as a retail{-)-~-[,] office, [and] research Jrarid ............ . center within Neighborhood Four. Because of its location at the comer of two Entrance Corridors, this site is of high aesthetic and environmental sensitivity and importance. Development of the site shall [seek ......,. ,,,.......,.,,)*; .... ~ [remain compatible with] the scale and existing character of the proposed'ti r-,~,...._,....::...)~ [Regional] Service (mixed retail, office, ;~ ..... ~ .~;.~.+;.~ ~ ~.~ ........ a:.~.~ [and research) use and nearby residential] USES. Fifth Street functions as one of the gateways to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community because off in part, the access opportunity provided by the 1-64 interchange. The land uses along this road establish the first image and impression of both the larger urban area and this particular neighborhood to those who pass by or visit from other areas in the region. Building Limitations: Because of the large size of the site and because of the specific topographic and demographic conditions of the site. the limits on allowable building square footage for the site will be altered from the normal I Cc,'n:,nunityl [Regional] Service designation as follows: · Maximum total square footage of buildings: 310,000 s.f. Maximum total square footage of buildings for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office, research and residential uses: 250,000 s.f. While mixed use is encouraged within the 250,000 s.f., there are no specific levels of uses required. · All buildings in excess of 250,000 s.f. must be residential. To make the buildings as reusable as possible by future users, +t-he-~ze-e~ any indi idual building {:;'ill ~'~ a~c.-~ .~ ;,~; ..... ;- ~:-':~"~ "+ ~ ~" .... ~"'~ J[in excess of 65 000 s.f. should be designed such that at a future date such building may be subdivided] with minimal physical changes, so that ~ [each sub-divided portion] may function as [an] individual ~ ]business, occupying up to 65,000 s.f]. Individual buildings f 1 ,~t3 fl/Ifil ma3' be attached and interconnected. A single user may not occupy more than ~ ,,.,,,,,,,,, [I95,000] s.f of~"';~'~:~~,~,,,~,,,~.,f [building area]. Expectations for this area include development under a master plan which incorporates the following general principles: Site Design: Site design shall maintain a positive relationship with the surrounding community, acknowledging the proximity of the Willoughby residential neighborhood and historic districts within the City of Charlottesville through the use of appropriate materials, architectural features, color, internal and external lighting, and other design elements. · A mixed use plan of development is encouraged. All facades of commercial buildings visible from a public road t-shag-}- [should] continue design elements found on the front of the buildings. Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities shall be incorporated into the design of building(s) so that they are not visible. Areas of open space/recreation shall be provided for shoppers and Neighborhood residents. Buildings should not appear monolithic; articulation (massing, architectural, feature~) should be used to reduce the overall size ofla'rge buildings; uninterrupted facades shall be avoided in the design of the principal structures by incorporating windows, recessed areas, projections, awnings, arcades and other features which vary the visual impact of the buildings. Roof design shall mitigate the visual impacts of the large scale structures and associated buildings, with special attention directed to visibility from areas of higher elevation. Parking shall be internalized to the greatest extent possible, with parking areas distributed throughout the site in front of and behind the commercial structures, and trees and other landscaping material used to minimize visual impact (parking orchard concept). ~ [Principles] of environmentally responsible and energy efficient design will be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, for example: · Minimize impervious pavement: To minimize impervious pavement, any paved parking areas in excess of those spaces required by code, are to be composed of pervious surfaces, such as grass pavers or stabilized mfr. · Energy efficient building: Insulation, provision for day-lighting, and other energy conscious elements should be incorporated into the design. Minimize roof and foundations: To minimize roof and foundation areas, aca ..,,,;~; ...... .~' '~/~ ,,.,e.h .... .~.~ ,c .... ~.; ......~ ~ *"' ~' ....... ;~ ~""~ t'Wo-stor~ (two. floor), or greater, buildings [should be encouraged, particularly for mixed uses, including residential]. · Master Plan: Prior to re-zoning a master plan for the entire property showing the layout, grading, character and scale of the project will be developed and submitted. · Recycling Center: Space will be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square foot limits). · Appropriate Uses: Service stations are not'considered to be a compatible Community Service use fOr this site. Environmental Protection: A publicly accessible greenway shall be ~ [reserved] along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run as recommended in the Land Use Plan, Neighborhood Four.' Exemplary specimen or old growth trees, 24" 'or larger DBH, will be preserved to the extent practicable during site development; particular care will be given to protection of existing stands of trees that provide screening from adjacent streets and highways. A vegetative buffer shall be maintained along Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, undisturbed by site development. Because of the proximity of Biscuit Run and Moore's Creek, and the potential impacts resulting from a large amount of impervious cover, an on-site mitigation plan that ~ ,~,~,.~ o.,......,~*~-~ ~,,~ [implements] BMPs, detention standards, and water quality standards shall be incorporated into the site design. The plan of development shall include features to minimize impacts from impervious surfaces on water quality; parking areas, roads and other impervious areas shall meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed uses (see General Land Use Standards, p.21). Transportation: 4 Site development must include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a continuous walkway and travelway must be provided from Fifth Street to and throughout the site. Rezoning of the property will be timed with any required road improvements, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to one or all of the following: · improvements to Bent Creek Road; Fifth Street northbound (a continuous right turn lane northbound on Fifth Street from thet ~- -,~A ..... ....o~,,,.,.,,.,+*' .... ~ .,..^~,,.,,,~,~ [bridge at Moore's Creek] to Bent Creek Road); · improvements to the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning); and improvements to Fifth Street southboundt~":"'*'""*;~-~,,,,,---,,-----,,, cf a ,,,,,....,,,,,,,,~^"+; ....... ~ae)+[(extension of the left turn lane into Bent Creek Road)]. \\CHA~$36~25811\bras.s\doc9,9~altemate community service designation [counter] proposal.doc ATTACHMENT V COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Susan E. Thomas, Senior Planner June 1, 1999 CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. At the meeting of May 11, 1999, the applicant was invited to respond to the Alternative Community Service Designation Proposal [5:00 pm revisionl ("Alternative Proposal") offered by Commissioners Rooker and Rieley. The applicant's response ("Applicant's Response") is attached, as well as staff's original recommendation ("Staff Recommendation") and the Alternative Proposal. Also attached are letters fi.om the public and a memorandum from DISC. Staff has set forth below a comparison of those elements of our original recommendation for Community Service which were carried over to the Alternative Community Service proposal, and from there to the applicant's response. Community Service Designation [introductory paragraphsl Staff Recommendation. In describing this Community Service area as a residential, retail and office/research center for the Neighborhood, staff emphasized continuation of the existing scale and character of the surrounding uses. Timing of the rezoning was tied to DISC and staff development of standards. Alternative Proposal. Commissioners Rooker and Rieley retained the general wording of the first two paragraphs from the staff proposal, but deleted the reference to timing of the rezoning to DISC and/or staff standards. Applicant's Response. The area is designated for Regional Service rather than Community Service; residential use is deleted from the described mix of uses; the concept of"compatibility with" is substituted for "continuation of" the scale and existing character of the proposed uses and surrounding uses; and, the role of the 1-64 interchange is discussed in establishing the first image and impression of the larger urban area and this neighborhood. Building Limitations Staff Recommendation. Staff proposal did not include this element as a separate catagory. The allowable limit under Community Service is 250,00 SF. Alternative Proposal. Mixed retail/office and research limited to 250,000 SF; 60,000 SF additional allowed if it is residential. Mixed use encouraged but not mandatory. Size of individual buildings limited to 65,000 SF; defined as being subdividable at a future date with minimal physical changes; may be attached and interconnected; no single user may occupy more than 160,000 SF, including outside display, sales and storage areas; master plan of site required. Applicant's Response. Maximum total square footage for mixed retail (including outside display, sales and storage areas), office, research and residential uses of 250,000 SF; mixed use encouraged but no required levels of uses; 60,000 SF allowable if it is residential. Individual buildings in excess of 65,000 SF should be designed so that may be subdivided at a future date with minimal physical changes; and may function as an individual business, occupying up to 65,000 SF. Master plan of site required. Site Design StafRecommendation. 1/3 each Urban Density Residential, Community Service (including retail anchors of moderate size), and Industrial/Office Service uses, Residential not be less than 1/3 of site at full build out. Alternative Proposal. Includes staff language with a few changes: encourages rather than requires mixed use [residential]. New language introduced: adds "energy efficient" to principles of sustainable design, as well as reference to minimizing impervious pavement, incorporating energy efficient building elements, requiring 1/3 of roof and foundation to be 2-story or greater, master planning site prior to rezoning; making space available for recycling center. Applicant's Response. Continues much of Alternative Proposal language. However, substitutes "should" for "shall" in language regarding faqade design continuing elements found on front of building. Encourages rather than requires 2-story design, "particularly for mixed use, including residential." Deletes requirement for 1/3 of total roof and foundation area to be 2 stories or greater. Appropriate Uses Same language under all three proposals. Environmental Protection Staff Recommendation. Establishment of greenway and maintenance of buffer along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run. Preservation of old speciment or old growth trees to the extent practicable; minimize impervious pavement impacts on water quality; avoid excessive parking, roads and other impervious surfaces. Alternative Proposal Elaborates on tree preservation and screening; requires on-site mitigation plan that exceeds standard BMP's, detention standards, and water quality standards incorporated into site design. Same language for greenway and maintenance of riparian buffer. Applicant's Response. Substitutes "reserved" for "constructed" regarding greenway along Moore's Creek and Biscuit Run; substitutes "implements" for "exceeds standard" BMP's. Transportation Staff Recommendation. States that all improvements to Bent Creek Road within corporate limits must be approved by City. Requires pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and continuous walkway and travelway from Fifth Street to and throughout the site. Alternative Proposal States that rezoning will be timed with required road improvements, which may include but are not necessarily limited to one or all of the following: improvements to Bent Creek Road; continuous right turn lane northbound for 1-64 westbound off ramp to Bent Creek Road; improvements to the 1-64 eastbound offramp and intersection with Fifth Street (signalization and double laning); and improvements to Fifth Street southbound (installation of a continous fight turn lane). Applicant's Response. Substitutes "bridge at Moore's Creek" for "I-64 offramp" in defining extent of continuous right turn lane northbound; substitutes "extension of the left turn lane into Bent Creek Road" for "installation of a continuous right turn lane." [The first change addresses a misconception staff had regarding the extent to which the applicant was willing and/or able to construct the continous right turn northbound lane on Fifth Street, in that the bridge functions as a construction constraint on widening of Fifth Street. The continous fight turn lane southbound is a feature VDOT identified as desirable, but all parties acknowledge that the grade differential poses design problems.] Attachments: A - Staff Community Service Designation B - Rooker/Rieley Alternative Proposal C - Applicant's Response D - Letters from the Public E - Memorandum from DISC t ATTACHMENT VI [ STAFF REPORT CPA 97-05 BRASS, INC. STAFF PERSON: SUSAN E. THOMAS PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 REQUEST: CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby] - Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for property consisting of approximately 53.89 acres located in Urban Neighborhood 4, described as Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2A and 2B, lying east of 5th Street Extended (State Route 631) and north of Interstate 64, Within the Scottsville Magisterial District. The proposal seeks to change the designation of the area from Industrial Service to Regional Service, to support a future rezoning from LI, Light Industrial, to C-l, Commercial, or PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Work sessions on this project has been held on March 31, June 30 (in joint session With the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission), and December 15, 1998. It is anticipated that this will be the final work session, and a public hearing has been scheduled for March 9, 1999. At the work session of December 15, the Commission indicated to staff a desire that the final work session discussion should focus on comprehensive plan/land use issues, set forth below. HISTORY: The property is part of the original Willoughby farm, and in the 1960's and 1970's was designated for a major shopping center. From 1975 - 85 it was part of the Willoughby Planned Unit Development. In 1985, the County approved ZMA 85-14 with proffers, rezoning 49.377 acres to LI. In 1989, ZMA 89-14 was approved, with proffers, adding 4.516 acres of residue to the LI district. During the 1995/1996 review and update of the Land Use Plan, the recommendation for industrial service remained unchanged. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The north side of the 1-64/5th Street interchange is subject to the Interstate Interchange Development Policy (p. 64, Land Use Plan). The 5th Street corridor as currently developed provides Regional Service as well as Community Service scale uses (Holiday Inn, Willoughby Shopping Center, fast food restaurant and gas stations), while addressing to a large degree the goals of the Entrance Corridor district. At full build-out, 'its appearance will undoubtedly take on a more urbanized appearance. Nonetheless, with two substantial properties anchoring the northwest and northeast comers (the former Virginia Power office building and the Holiday Inn), this interchange benefits visually from the absence of the common proliferation of small highway oriented businesses characteristic of these locations and thus visual impacts from future development take on added significance. The Land Use Plan recommends that a buffer along the Interstate be maintained or established to protect the visual character of the area as seen from the roadway, and that development plans along Route 29 South, 1-64 and 5th Street/Route 631 be sensitive to their status as Entrance Corridor Roadways. STAFF ANALYSIS: Location Opportunities (factors favorable to this requesO: · Neighborhoods 4 and 5 are relatively undersupplied with this type of retail, and Brass would enlarge the retail inventory. The site's proximity to 1-64 is convenient and efficient for the large proportion of regional (non-local) shoppers who are expected to visit the site. A big box development in this location may attract and/or intercept retail traffic that would otherwise use Route 29 North, thereby improving the traffic congestion on that major corridor. · The property abuts commercial uses, some of which are located between it and 1-64. It appears to be consistent with the Interstate Interchange policy. Constraints (factors unfavorable to this request) : · The applicant's proposal is not a neighborhood oriented development, and in fact would be an importer of shoppers, many of Whom would be from outside the local area. It may negatively impact and ultimately disrupt the prevailing commercial development pattern, which is more of a Community Service and smaller scale Regional Service nature. The site shares a substantial boundary with the Willoughby residential development, its closest existing neighbor. Because of the scale, size, and lay-out of the proposed development, as well as the elevations of the two sites (Willoughby is higher and will comparatively be higher still after the Brass site is graded), it can be expected to create substantial visual and noise impacts for those residents. It also would visually impact to some degree 1-64 and Fifth Street, both of which are zoned as Entrance Corridors. Although, the applicant indicates a commitment to a neighborhood oriented design concept, the potential size of the big box anchor is difficult to mitigate from a visual standpoint. The applicant's assertion that a big box commercial development at this location would divert traffic from Route 29 North, thereby improving congestion and growth patterns there, is difficult if not impossible to verify. An equally strong argument might be made that discount shoppers will shop this location in addition to shopping the existing superstores on the Route 29 Corridor. It is also difficult to predict with any certainty that shoppers who want to reach the site from the 29 Corridor would use the 29/250 by-pass to reach 1-64, and then take 1-64 east to Fifth Street. City and County neighborhoods lying between Brass and the 29 Corridor may feel substantial pressure from shoppers driving from one site to the other. Environmental Opportunities: · Development of the site under a unified plan allows for a coordinated approach to mitigating impacts, particularly water quality and quantity issues created by the large building footprint 2 and parking area. The applicant has indicated a willingness to incorporate public amenities such as a greenway and playing field into the site design. Constraints: The site may not be appropriate for development with a single footprint of this size. The very substantial impacts to Moores Creek and Biscuit Run (and the resulting BMP's) anticipated from the Brass proposal might be avoided or reduced under by-fight development. Although the existing Light Industrial zoning permits uses which also require large structures, a review oft he May 15, 1985 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes as well as marketing efforts during the last fourteen years indicates that office/research park uses were consistently envisioned for the site. A single Light Industrial structure as large as this one (up to 210,000 square feet for the big box anchor, with 90,000 square feet additional retail also likely to have a single footprint) appears to be unlikely. Staff agrees that a unified plan of development allows for better coordination and oversight in constructing required improvements, but reiterates that some or many of those improvements might not be necessary under a less intensive type of use which by definition creates fewer impacts. Furthermore, the County's engineering regulations are intended to address impacts from a wide variety of development activity, and assuming they are properly administered, they should effectively do so regardless of the type of use. (See Attachment A, Memorandum from Water ResoUrces Manager) Transportation Opportunities: · Fifth Street currently has the capacity to handle projected traffic from this Regional Service development. The applicant is willing to make substantial transportation improvements, including installation of a signal at the 1-64 eastbound off ramp and Fifth Street Extended, a northbound right mm lane into the Brass site, and improvements to Bent Creek Road. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to consider improvements to Fifth Street southbound. Constraints: · Bent Creek Road is the single point of access to the site, a serious limitation for a use generating such a high volume of traffic. The ability of Bent Creek Road to accommodate needed improvements (widening, etc.) is constrained by the presence of existing businesses (Hardees and Exxon) at the intersection with Fifth Street, and the fact that at least in the case of Hardees, access is exclusively from Bent Creek Road. The distance between Fifth Street and Moores Creek is short, making stacking and turning movements more difficult to address. The City of Charlottesville controls the intersection of Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road, and has indicated its opposition to certain improvements (widening and installation of a median) that might mitigate traffic congestion at the entrance to the site. The Southern Connector and Altemative D identified in the Southem Cities study both would enhance access to the site and its benefits to Neighborhoods 4 and 5. However, it is not clear that either or both of these transportation linkages will be constructed. The latter is conceptual at best; the former has had past support from the Board of Supervisors but no information exists as to when it might actually be built. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment request has been submitted (but was deferred) to remove the Southern Connector from the Six Year Plan; without additional connections between the Route 20 South corridor and Fifth Street, or an interstate interchange on Avon Street Extended, it seems inevitable that City neighborhoods will .see increased traffic as shoppers attempt to access the site from these areaso Infill Opportunities: · This is one of a few parcels sufficiently large to accommodate a regional shopping center close to the existing population center. It would serve the existing residential development in the area, as well as future growth projected for Neighborhoods 4 and 5. It utilizes land that has not successfully developed in a Light Industrial use. The applicant has indicated a willingness t° provide public amenities in the form of recreational features that are recommendations in the Land Use Plan (greenway) and/or well established community needs (sOccer field). · The proposal would convert a development area parcel from one designation to another, rather than expand the development area boundaries. Constraints · The concept of infill is linked nationally and locally to the effort to control sprawl. Generally the term refers to the development of parcels within the urban ring or core which previously have been by-passed as development has moved further out to cheaper rural land. Current thinking emphasizes the desirability of developing these vacant parcels, which benefit from existing infrastructure and markets, before extending costly services to neWly expanded growth areas. Infill means more than simply building on empty parcels within the urban area. Implicit to the concept is the appropriate fit of a proposed Use to the property. When properly done, infill development should make full use of the site's capacity while minimizing the land disturbance associated with the project. The Brass proposal attempts to super-impose a large "footprint" use on a site which has a variety of environmental constraints. The scale of the proposed development makes it unlikely that a mixed use (commercial/residential, commercial/office/residential) would be 4 successful on the site. It does not address the goal of locating employment close to housing. For these and other reasons, it does not represent infill development as it has been implemented elsewhere or articulated by the DISC. Elements of infill design (currently under discussion by the DISC) that would better use the site's inherent assets might be: - use of a greater percentage of the site for the proposed development itself (versus filling the site with landscaping or public amenities to compensate for impacts); - minimization ofgrading through a series of smaller "footprints" (development pads) which can better accommodate existing contours and allow for filtering of m-off; - size, scale and massing of structures appropriate to the surroundings, which relate visually to nearby residential as well as other commercial properties; - opportunity to mix housing with commercial, including affordable housing; - selection of uses which avoid the need for high volumes of parking area, emphasizing those which can share parking; - 'fit the use to the area, respecting the existing land use pattern, adjacent uses, and function of the location and neighborhood to the larger area. By definition this type of retail development requires and perpetuates the emphasis on vehicular travel. Because of its .location, surrounding land use, and proximity to the urban core, on this particular site optiofls exist to reduce automobile usage or at least to develop pedestrian, bicycle and transit alternatives to more cars. These opportunities are mostly lost or at least greatly reduced with Regional Service development, based on its shopper mix (high percentage of non-local), nature of goods sold, required development pattern (size and scale makes walking difficult), among other factors. Although the public amenities suggested by the applicant are desirable, the County WOuld attempt to get the greenway designation as a part of any development plan for the site. Floodplain and water quality regulations make it highly unlikely that it could be used for other purposes. The soccer field would be a community asset, but must be considered against the lost oppommity to use that portion of the site for development which, assuming demand exists, can eventually be expected to create pressure for expansion of commercial or other development into the Rural Area. It seems highly preferable to develop a site like this one to its maximum capacity, and look to other sites for land-intensive amenities such as playing fields. Existing Land Use Opportunities: · The 1996 Land Use Plan indicates that the southern urban area (Neighborhoods 4 and 5) is projected to accommodate sizable residential growth. It has access to Neighborhood and Community Service, which will increase when South Pointe is developed, but little Regional Service exists in the area. The Brass proposal would provide Regional Service in a designated Development Area, along a corridor characterized by small commercial establishments oriented to Fifth Street which exhibit a traditional site by site pattern of. development. The residential development adjoining the site is separated by a natural buffer formed by Moores Creek and the associated floodplain. At the December 15 work session, the applicant provided sketch plans which suggested an intent to create a "center" as envisioned by Neo-Traditional development, which could provide a focal point for the Neighborhoods and larger area as well. Constraints: · The introduction ora use of this nature, scale and intensity will disrupt an established land use pattern which over time has achieved an equilibrium with the City's central business district, the downtown mall, and the old and new residential neighborhoods in close proximity to this site. Although existing commercial uses along Fifth Street may not reflect the kind of development standards the County and the City now encourage~ these smaller businesses do serve residents' needs. It has been suggested that market forces and public policy should be combined to promote redevelopment of older commercial centers, through cautious approval of new commercial developments and emphasis on compact development. Impacts from a retailer so much greater in size than any other retail use in the area, with the possible exception of the Route 29 North business corridor, are potentially profound and: significant over time. Although. the regional shoppers attracted to this supercenter may also visit and patronize downtown bt~sinesses, thereby contributing economically to revenues, the complete dominance of the big box in terms of size and financial strength means that any business decision its parent corporation makes potentially will reverberate throughout the southern urban area as a whole. In contrast to the Route 29 corridor, where there has developed a sort of parity among mega-retailers who may impact each other more than they do the mid-size and small retailers, the Fifth Street corridor - and in fact Neighborhoods 4 and 5 - are unlikely to support more than one superstore due to the limited land available for such a use. In this sense, it is unlikely that a balance will develop that might over time stabilize the land use pattern as characterized by the 29 corridor. Development of the site as Regional Service will generate employment, as would Industrial Service. However, the nature of the jobs created is likely to differ widely. Industrial Service employment may offer greater long-term career potential for residents of the Neighborhoods, City and County. Furthermore, this area can and may be redeveloped in a more attractive, efficient fashion as the market dictates - and land use planning policy permits - in the furore. It is as desirable to disburse employment centers as it is to spread retail. Conversion of this site from an industrial/office park to a regional retail center may mean a lost oppommity for the New Urbanism/infill development goal of residential land use matched with employment opportunities that are close to it, reducing commuting distances and encouraging walking and public transportation. Summary_: The Industrial Service designation has not lead to successful development of this site over the past 14 years, and the applicant is seeking a Regional Service designation to develop a regional "big box" shopping center with other associated retail. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 currently do not have a surplus of retail to serve their growing residential populations, and Fifth Street already has an established commercial character. Redesignation from Light Industrial zoning to a commercial district would not expand the Development Area, but simply change the use of the property. Transportation capacity exists, and the site is well located for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation access. The proximity of the Interstate is convenient for many local and regional shoppers. However, the Regional Service designation is overly intensive for the property and area. The large amount of grading and parking required for the proposed development would negatively impact the two streams and wetlands on the property, and the superstore would be out of scale with surrounding residential and commercial development. An opportunity exists on this site to develOP a successful mix of commercial/residential/office service uses consistent with the infill model currently under development by the DISC. A mixed use development would provide an opportunity to address several issues identified in the Land Use Plan: 1) the need for additional residential holding capacity in the existing designated Development Area; 2) provision of office/industrial employment oppo~ties south of town, thereby creating more of a balance of land uses in the Neighborhood 4/5 area; and, 3) provision for some level of additional commercial in keeping with the desired character, scale and need of the southern Neighborhoods. Infill development on this site would take advantage of the proximity to the Interstate and Fifth Street corridor, better utilize access tomon-vehicular forms of transportation, allow for increased design flexibility relative to the topography, coexist compatibly with adjacent residential use, and establish parity with surrounding uses. Staff accepts the conclusions of the applicant's retail market analysis, that adequate market demand exists to support a Regional Service facility of this type. However, the applicant's study does not address the potential infrastructure requirements and other land use impacts that might result from the requested development. Similarly, the Shils Report forwarded to staff by the City of Charlottesville Planning Department offers various projections regarding the negative effects that a superstore can have on existing businesses and economies. Whether those projections would affect Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville as they have other communities is difficult to assess without a more comprehensive study. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brass site be redesignated for Community Service, but with specific language amended into the Neighborhood 4 profile to describe the desired range and mix of uses. A residential element will be a mandatory component of mixed use for this site. The amended language in the Land Use Plan will address the desired mix of Urban Density Residential, Community Service, and Office/Industrial Service intended for this location, as well as other site specific considerations. Approval of the rezoning of the site, however, will be timed to follow the development of a definition of mixed use and associated development guidelines/standards, currently in progress by both the DISC and staff. Among other elements, site development will incorporate establishment of the greenway along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run. Rezoning of the property will be timed with improvements to the Interstate Interchange, Fifth Street, and Bent Creek Road (improvements to City streets will require approval by the City). Should the Commission disagree with staff's recommendation for Community Service and recommend redesignation to Regional Service, staff suggests that specific language be incorporated into the Plan amendment addressing issues and concepts discussed and proposed during the course of review of this project. The site will be developed under a neo-traditional design concept reflecting a scale which relates to the surrounding residential and commercial land uses and provides for pedestrian, bicycle and public transportation. Parking area design will incorporate trees and other landscaping material to minimize visual impacts. The site plan will incOrporate establishment of the greenway along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run and the other public recreational amenities/areas proposed by the applicant at the December 15, 1998 work session. Rezoning of the property will be timed with improvements to the Interstate Interchange, Fifth Street, and Bent Creek Road (improvements to City streets will require approval by the City). Attachments: A - 2/11/99 Memorandum from Water Resources Manager B - 2/17/99 Letter from'Applicant A:\Brass 2-23-99.doc 8 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Susan Thomas - Senior Planner .t David Hirschman - Water Resources Manager~~ / February 11, 1999 Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek You have asked for comments regarding the Brass, Inc. application and impacts to Moores Creek from grading and site runoff. In order to address this issue, it is important to highlight what is currently known about Moores Creek and its watershed. Moores Creek & Its Watershed The Moores Creek watershed encompasses 35 square miles and drains approximately half.of the City of Charlottesville and a portion of southern and western Albemarle County. The watershed is comprised of wide variety of land uses, from highly urbanized in and around the City to very rural sections in the headwaters. The headwaters of the main stem of Moores Creek are found in the Route 29 South area in the vicinity of Arrowhead. Biscuit Run is a major tributary that drains a section of southern Albemarle County. Morey Creek, another significant tributary, drains from the northwest, and receives runoff from the Birdwood Golf Course in its headwaters, the Buckingham Circle area, and the Fontaine Research Park. Other tributaries include Rock Creek and Lodge Creek in the City, and Cows Branch, the "Lake Reynovia/Mill Creek" stream, and the "Monticello High School/Piedmont Community College" stream in the County. Ragged Mountain Reservoir is also within the Moores Creek watershed. The Brass, Inc. property includes the confluence o£Biscuit Run with Moores Creek. From this point, the watershed is approximately 28 square miles. In 1996, Dewberry & Davis released the "Moores Creek Watershed Study," Which was a joint effort of the City, County, and University. The study contains hydrologic, flood plain, and water quality information for the watershed. The study also includes an action plan for watershed improvements and suggestions for regional stormwater management facilities. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 11, 1999 Page Two The water quality section of the report is enlightening because it portrays existing conditions in Moores Creek. Moores Creek is characterized by relatively high sediment and nutrient levels during storm flows. Several heavy metals were also detected in elevated levels during storm events. Sources of these pollutants include: streambank erosion; runoff from construction sites; runoff from roads, parking lots, and yards; and atmospheric deposition. Empirically, we know that sedimentation is a major issue in Moores Creek, as much of the streambed is covered with sand and silt deposits from current and historic uses. However, the prognosis for Moores Creek is not completely bleak, as biological monitoring has turned up stream organisms that can only survive in relatively clean water. This evidence would seem to point out that Moores Creek may be a good candidate for habitat and streambank restoration projects. The Dewberry & Davis study also identified flooding and "hydraulic capacity'' problems with Moores Creek. The action plan includes bridge and culvert replacements to alleviate flooding, restoration projects, debris.removal, flood plain policies, continued monitoring, and public education. Aside from these hard technical figures,it is important to note that Moores Creek and its stream valley provide for recreational and habitat values in the midst of the urban complex. Much of the stream valley in close proximity to the City is wooded. Both County and City greenway and greenbelt plans call for enhancement to trail systems along the creek. In addition, the Rivanna Trails Foundation is planning further extensions to its network, including paths along Moores Creek. Three City parks lie immediately adjacent to Moores Creek. These wooded valleys, path systems, and parks are important refuges in an otherwise urban landscape. Interstate 64 and its interchanges encroach very close to the creek in several locations. Other features of Moores Creek include the City's old landfill west of AvOn St., the Moores Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (which provides wastewater treatment for the City and most of the County's sewered areas), and the old Woolen Mills complex at the Rivanna River confluence. A major restoration project is planned for Moores Creek in Azalea Park to address historic problems with streambank erosion. In summary, Moores Creek cannot be considered one of the area's pristine ecosystems, as the watershed has seen much urban and infrastructure development through the years. However, Moores Creek and its stream valley are critical for their habitat and recreational values. It is important to protect Moores Creek through careful site design, as well as to improve the stream through restoration projects, such as the one planned for Azalea Park. Much of the Moores Creek and Biscuit Run watersheds are within County-designated Development Areas. It will be a challenge to try to meet the infill objectives of the Land Use Plan while considering and striving for the protection and restoration of the creeks and rivers within the ecosystem. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 11, 1999 Page Three The Brass~ Inc. Proposal Current zoning for this property is LI, which would allow for a wide range of commercial and industrial uses. It is difficult to compare the impacts of the current rezoning request without knowing the particular development design and a particular by-fight use. However, several general statements can be made: Impacts to Moores Creek will include construction-related impacts of erosion and sedimentation, as well as long-term stormwater runoff impacts involving sediment, nutrients, metals, and other water quality constituents associated with urban runoff. With regard to construction impacts, the "big-box" concept will necessarily involve a huge amount of ~ading in order to provide a building site for structures and parking lots. Sediment control for these projects relies primarily on "perimeter" measures, such as silt basins, to control mass movement,of sediment off-site. In general, more grading requires more and larger facilities, and more chances for sediment delivery into streams, especially during large storms. Smaller development envelopes that are developed at different times would be easier to control, since grading would be phased into smaller units and less contiguous land would be disturbed at any one point in time. This concept would probably involve much less overall site grading than the big-box approach. Once the site is constructed, the concern becomes "day-to-day" site runoff. Research generated in this field makes a strong link between the quality of water resources and, impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, rooftops, and driveways. As watershed imperviousness increases, we can expect degradation in water quality and stream habitat, and an increase in stream scour and bank erosion. For this reason, Albemarle County's Water Protection Ordinance utilizes a site's impervious cover to calculate the water quality treatment requirement for runoff'. Best management practices (BMPs) are required to treat site runoffbased on the removal rate expressed in the calculations. In general, as impervious cover increases, the removal rate -- and the number, complexity, and/or size of BMPs -- also increases. The big-box design would generate more pollutants than smaller development envelopes. One would also think that the pollutant removal/BMP requirement would also increase. However, this may not be the case. With individual development envelopes, each individual site would be treated as a separate unit with regard to the calculations. Site imperviousness wculd be based on the property boundaries of each envelope, instead of the entire 54 acre parcel. For this reason, each site would likely require a fairly high rate of BMP treatment, equal to or surpassing the treatment required for the big box. The result would be more numerous BMPs, and probably a higher level of overall treatment when the entire parcel is considered. MEMORANDUM Brass, Inc. Application & Moores Creek February 1 I, 1999 Page Four There are several positive sides to having one large site and a unified stormwater program. Fewer BMP facilities would create less of a long-term maintenance issue. Also, a single site BMP plan may be better able to incorporate larger BMP facilities, perhaps with innovative design concepts, that could be effective in reducing pollutant loads. These favorable factors could help balance 'the fact the big box will generate a higher overall pollutant load. Efforts could also be made to reduce and/or disconnect impervious cover by design (see below). Another important factor with site design that relates to pollutant loads is the extent to which impervious surfaces are connected. As an example, consider two sites that each have 20 acres of impervious cover. The first is a large building with attached parking lot and access roads. On this site, all the pavement is connected, and all of the site runoff is directed through storm sewer collection pipes to several outlet points. The second site has several detached buildings surrounded by turf grass, several smaller parking areas, and access roads. While the length of roadway is probably more than site #I, there are more oppommities to "disconnect" impervious surfaces: roofmnoffcan be filtered by grass, grass swales can intercept parking and~roadway runoff, etc. It stands to reason (and is supported by the literature), that the more that a site's impervious cover is disconnected, the lower the resulting pollutant load. The Water Protection Ordinance also contains a stream buffer requirement. The buffer areas along Moores Creek and Biscuit Run must be protected. There are also opporamities to enhance the existing buffers through additional planting of riparian vegetation, and, as the applicant has shown conceptually in the application materials, restoration of existing eroding streambanks. Regardless of the development concept (big box or separate envelopes), the stream buffer area can and should be protected. The one main caveat is that concentrated runoff should not cut through the buffer in stormwater channels or pipes, because this eliminates the "buffer" part of the stream buffer, BM/:' facilities should be outside of the buffer, and runoff should be spread out before it enters the buffer zone. Whether or not this rezoning appliCation is approved, this site is likely to see development and intensification of use under existing zoning. In either case, additional pollutants and other stream impacts will be generated that must be managed and mitigated. At this point, I cannot quantify the impacts to Moores Creek for a rezoned parcel versus a by-right use. Qualitatively, we know that impacts are related to the amount of overall grading, ultimate impervious cover, and the extent to which impervious surfaces are connected. I hope this information is helpful in the review of this proposal. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. DJH/ctj File: hirschman/brass Steven W. Blaine swblaine~nwbb, com McGtm WooDs Court Square Building Post Office Box 1288 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288 Telephone/TDD (804)977-2500 · Fax (804)980-2222 February 17, 1999 ATTACHMENT B Direct Dial: (804)977-2588 Direct Fax: (804)980-2251 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Susan Thomas Albemarle County Planning and Community Development Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: CP 97-505; Willoughby Proiect Dear Susan: This letter is in response to a memorandum from the City Planning Commission, dated February 5, 1999. Attached is a point-by-point response. In keeping with the County Planning Commission's directive at its December 15 work session, our response is in the context of the Comprehensive Plan considerations. I would appreciate it if you would make arrangement t/cvi?clude the attachment with your staff report to the Planning Commissioners for their ne~/w6rk session to be held on February 26. ~ Very tru/~/~/~rs, SWB:hll Enclosure cc: Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. (w/eno.) Mr. Frank D. Cox, Jr. (w/enc.) Mr. Ronald Higgins (w/enc.) www. mwbb.com ~ · A!LaNTA · BALT~Om! - BRVSS~LS · CHARlOTtE - OiARLOTTESVlX~E · CHICAGO- J^CKSONVELE · MOSCOW · NORFOLK · RICHMOND - TrSONS CORNER · W~smNGTON · ZL!RI~ (OF COt~) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WILLOUGHi~Y SITE CP-97-05 L REGIONAL PLANNING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A commercial use with regional focus at 5th Street and 1-64 better implements the County's regional planning goals than the current industrial use designation. This location will attract shoppers from south of the City. It also will serve as a point of interception for the many residents of the southern portion of the City, the County and adjoining communities whose current patterns are to travel to Route 29 North. The close proximity of the Interstate makes this an ideal location for a commercial use with a regional draw. This will in turn reduce congestion on roads supplying access under current consumer patterns to regional shopping destinations on 29 North such as Lowe's, Sears, K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Attached is a map depicting the projected relevant market area which will be served by the Willoughby location. Census data shows that there are an estimated 139,000 people living within this relevant market area. These potential customers who must now shop on Route 29 North will have an improved access to shopping off 1-64 at the Willoughby location. The existing County Land:Use Plan does not adequately support the projected market needs for regional commercial service Market data indicates that the County already enjoys significant attraction for regional shoppers. The Charlottesville MSA has an average of $22,878 per household in annual retail sales. This is 25% higher than the State average of $18,200. The projected retail annual sales in this area is expected to rise from $1,400,000,000 (in 1997) to $1,800,000,000 in ten yearS. According to the "Retail Market Analysis for the Willoughby Tract," conducted by The Cox Company, the projected retail space demand over the next ten years will require an additional 240 acres. Neighborhoods 4 and 5 (in the County's Urban Ring) have a combined 21 acres of commercially-zoned land. Moreover, there are no significantly sized parcels anywhere in the County south of Route 250 to support regional commercial, yet this is the area projected to be the fastest growing in the next ten years. Therefore, the Land Use Plan does not adequately serve the projected need, nor does it align regionally-focused commercial uses with current growth patterns. A commercial use designation for this location will have an extremely positive fiscal impact for the County. Attached is a copy of the County's summary of the fiscal impact of the proposal. The County's analysis shows a net yearly benefit of $845,000.00. The additional revenue generated by this proposal can be used by the County for additional capital investment, such as school -1- improvements, which are being deferred under current budget constraints. The proposed change is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan for Interstate Interchange Developmen~ The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that Regional Service at the 5th Street and 1-64 location is appropriate as part of its plan for Interstate Interchange Development. See Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, page 101. H. MARKET STUDIES; RESPONSE TO USE OF SHILLS REPORT. EMsting market conditions and trends support the proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan and a regional shopping center at the Willoughby sit& The City Planning Commission has provided comment to the proposal in a memo dated February 5, 1999. The City Planning Commission's primary objection to the Comprehensive Plan change is based upon the argument that a discount retail store located at the Willoughby site will lead to a "disinvestment" (sic) and erosion of existing retail businesses in the County, as well' as in the City. The City Planning Commission provides no market data in support of this position. Instead, the City Planning Commission cites a study conducted by an Edward B. Shils to support its argument. The market picture portrayed by the Shils report bears little resemblance to the Charlottesville/Albemarle region which will be served by the Willoughby site. The Shils report has no applicability to the regional focus of this Comprehensive Plan request. The Shils report apparently relates the views of retailers from a few smaller downtown areas which, unlike Charlottesville, had no previous experience with large, discount retail competition. The'only towns mentioned in the Shils report specifically were: East Aurora, Arkansas, Glendora, California, Ventura, California, Hesperia, California, and Springvale, New York. (The report also mentions a large french store that failed somewhere "northeast of Philadelphia.") The phenomenon described in the Shils report has not and will not occur in Charlottesville. Critics of the Willoughby proposal can point to no evidence whatsoever that the existence of K-Mart, Sears, J. C. Penney, and the more recent emergence of Sam's Club, Wal- Mart, Lowe's, and Goody's outside the Downtown shopping area have reduced the tax base for either locality. In fact, the tax bases for both localities have increased since the first introduction of these businesses. Charlottesville's Downtown has sought for three decades to define and reach its unique market niche. This niche clearly does not include (nor does it seek) large department and -2- discount stores within the downtown business districts. Few, if any retailers in the Downtown currently compete with the discount retailers. This niche in downtown specialty retailing has been cultivated in an environment and during a period of time when discount retailing has matured. The Cox Company "Retail Market Analysis" and the consumer surveys submitted as part of the CP-97-05 application refute the suggestion that Charlottesville/Albemarle possesses a weak marketplace prone to suffer the kinds of effects described in the Shils report. The City's shopping centers have some of the strongest retail establishments in the state. Buying power and per square foot sales bear this out. The Downtown, while not having the capacity nor the identity to serve the day-to-retail needs of the area consumers, still maintains a high regional profile for tourism, cultural events, students, businesses and professionals. The facts in The Cox Company's Retail Market Analysis and consumer surveys clearly reinforce the strength of the regional market and refute the City Planning Commission's position: Stren~h of Demo~aphic Support: A discount retail store at the Willoughby site will intercept a primary market area for regional discount store retailing which contains 139,000 persons (52,000 households) today and will grow to 146,500 by 2003. $~rong Household Purchasing Power: Per capita income in the primary market area is over $19,000, with the 1998 average household income equal to $50,700. The average household sales.in the marketplace are roughly $23,000 (as compared to $18,200 statewide). K¢~onal Consumer Spending: Today, the marketplace generates $1.4 billion in annual retail purchases, with this level predicted to reach $1.8 billion by 2010. Charlottesville as a Re~onal Retail Marketplace: Consumer surveys indicate that 45% to 48% of local discount superstore shoppers live outside of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. ~ N~w Retail Opportunities: Growth-driven retail demand over the next decade will support 1.8 to 2.2 million square feet of gross floor area. This translates into a land area requirement of roughly 240 acres for new commercial locations. Willou_mhby v. Route 29 North: Both the Retail Market Analysis and consumer preference surveys reveal that for a majority of the region's population, the Willoughby site would be a more convenient location over the Route 29N "strip" for regional discount shopping. Route 29N Retail Shoppers: 6 out of 10 Route 29N shoppers indicated that Willoughby would be a more convenient place to shop for super discount and regional goods. Fifty percent indicated they would be more likely to shop "downtown" if a discount superstore was located at Willoughby on the City's designated southern "gateway" entrance. However, 7 out of 10 of those interviewed shop in the downtown less than six times per -3- year. FiSh Street Shoppers: In-city consumers who shop at the 5th Street/Willoughby Shopping Center (Food Lion) are the least likely of all the regional shoppers included in our survey to frequent the downtown. These same shoppers would prefer a retail center at the Willoughby in-fill site to those existing on 29N. Downtown Shoppers: 8 out of 10 downtown mall "shoppers" frequent Rt. 29N 4 to l0 times per month, while 7 out of 10 come downtown less than 6 times per year. When queried as to What new stores were needed, not a single shopper interviewed indicated "boutique" or "specialty retail" shops were desirable. 100% of those interviewed identified "large department stores" and "discount superstores" as being most needed in the "downtown." The Shils report was based upon a limited survey that was not grounded in statistical legitimacy. Sampling deficiencies, biases, etc., apparently were not sorted out prior to the publishing of the document. For example, Shils only received a 9% response rate out of 6,000 surveys. The data taken in the Shils report is from only four states (New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California). Thus_ the results clearly do not reflect any trends for Virginia. In essence, the conclusions drawn from the report cannot be applied specifically to any one community. At best, the statistical findings of the Shils report lead to conjectural application, particularly for Willoughby. On the other hand, the Retail Market Analysis and consumer surveys conducted for this project bring us "right to the site" (with a very strong response rate and demographic coverage) and offer verifiable and statistically conclusive information about the Charlottesville/Albemarle marketplace. ill. TRAFFIC IMPACTS. The Applicant has responded to all traffic issues presented by the applicatior~ . Responses to comments from the V'trginia Department of Transportation and the City's Engineering Department can and will be incorporated into any Rezoning request in the form of proffers. The City Planning Commission's memo of February 5 reflects a lack of understanding of the traffic analysis and planning to date. The applicant has met every request of VDOT, the County and the City's Engineering Department in analyzing the projected traffic and needed improvements for this site. Attached is a copy of a letter from Ramey Kemp, traffic engineer, dated February 1, 1999, describing the traffic analysis as relates to City street improvements. Contrary to the City's memo, the VDOT position is now consistent with the applicant's regarding 5th Street widening: extension of the right turn lane on the east side of 5th Street, and -4- extension of the left turn lane, southbound are all that is warranted by this proposal. The applicant has never advocated, and the projected traffic, including background traffic for the next 10 years does not warrant, widening the entirety of 5th Street. (No one has even suggested any need to widen Ridge Street.) The statement by the City Planning Commission that they will ensure that 5th Street and Bent Creek Road are never widened is out of sync with the City's own engineers' recommendations. The City Planning Commission's statement also is out of sync with the Southern Charlottesville Transportation Study which has served as an important planning document for both the City and the County since 1995. The Study recommends the connection of 5th Street and Avon Street at the Bent Creek Road location. The applicant's intent is to preserve this planning option, while it is the City Planning Commission's apparent intent to frustrate it. The applicant asks the County to take a more regional approach to long-range planning than that exhibited by the _current City Planning Commission in this matter. IV. COMMERCIAL AREAS AND ~ COMPREI~IENSIVE PLAN. The proposal will serve to reduce sprawl, rather than encourage it_ As the current market trends and growth patterns discussed above indicate, there are strong demand and market conditions to support a regional shopping center at this Southern location. If the most logical location for this type of use, at the 1-64 interchange, is not utilized, will that not place greater pressure for this type of development on less suitable areas (in terms of transportation and utilities infrastructure) south of Charlottesville7 The result of not fully realizing the regional potential at this location in turn will contribute to sprawl, not reduce it. A Neighborhood or Mixed Use Designation is not the best use for this location- It has been suggested that a smaller scale, or neighborhood-type development may be preferred to the Industrial Service or Regional Service uses. Again, this is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's clear statement that Regional Service at the 5th Street and 1-64 location is appropriate as part of its plan for Interstate Interchange Development. The County is well on its way to approving a neighborhood shopping center at SouthPointe. There has been no evidence presented that the market can support two SouthPointes. Moreover, in the twelve years or more that this property has been marketed, not a single developer has been interested in developing a mixed office, retail, or residential project. The zoning history of this property also proves this point: a planned unit development never materialized despite PUD zoning being in place over a period of 10 years (1975-1985). It is now time for the land use designation to become aligned with the realities of the marketplace -- realities recognized by the County's own Interstate Interchange Development policy. -5- The proposed change in land use supports the County's policy toward in-filL The parcel is tucked in between the commercial strip of development in the City, along 5th Street, behind Taco Bell and the Waffle House, and 1-64. The proposed change in land use will relieve pressure to develop this type of use outside the Urban Ring, and thus eliminates pressure for further urban sprawl. This is an ideal location in part because it is circumscribed by an Interstate, an industrial warehouse, existing strip development along 5th Street, and natural features, such as Moore's Creek. There is no evidence for the proposition that a regional shopping center will open the door for another 29 North along 5th Street. The area south of the interchange has already an established pattern of development. The area to the north, up 5th Street, has an established residential development pattern. There is no basis for the argument that the current, industrial use designation, or a mixed use designation for that matter, will have a lesser impact on the natural, or environmental characteristics of the.site than the proposed regional use. In fact, as The Cox Company illustrations for potential site development indicate, a piece-meal development will likely lead to more site degradation than implementing an overall site development plan. Any mixed use for the site will likely be built out in piece-meal fashion in order to match absorption. V. CONCLUSION. The applicant has addressed the land planning issues presented by the request. For the reasons stated above, and based upon the information presented by the applicant in its previous submissions on this project, the applicant respectfully requests recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission. -6- I XTTACHMENT VIi [ SIZE COMPARISONS for Commercial Developments Albemarle County, Virginia Business Fashion Square Mall Proposed 20-plex Theatre New Lowe's Sam's Club Wal-Mart Bradlee's (now Office Depot, Marshall's, and former Drug Emporium) Old Lowe's Rose's (Pantops) Kroger (Pantops) Kroger (Rio Hill) Harris-Teeter, Bed Bath & Beyond, Goody's Super K-Mart (existing K-Mart + planned expansion into adjacent Food Lion) Square Footage 500,000 180,000 165,000 139,000 114,500 [ 134,000 allowed] 84,000 82,500 65,300 60,000 79,000 96,000 University Hall 175,000 [all floors] A second story for retailers --. _Aa. nm Busin... Page 1 of 3 [ATTACHMENT VIII March 17, 1997 A second story for retailers As land prices escalate, developers build up, not out BrendanMurray Staff Writer Developers in metro Atlanta are taking retailers to new heights. Spurred to build skyward by population density and escalating land prices, retail developers here plan several multilevel, open-air shopping centers -- once considered too complicated to build and too tricky for shoppers to navigate. On Marcti, 7, Atlanta developer Kim King Associates bought 10 acres in the Platinum Triangle business district to develop a 200,000-square-foot shopping center. The center will have two levels and a two-tier parking deck. Architectural designs for King's project are being prepared, ' and construction on the yet-unnamed project is expected to begin in june. The center, which likely will have a cinema and several national tenants, could open in April 1998. Building small neighborhood centers has long been a strategy developers used to pack mom-and-pop tenants on one site. But constructing large-scale retail centers, anchored by convenience-oriented "big box" tenants, was, until recently, a developer's dream and a retailer's nightmare. "There used to be a basic rule -- that open-air, two-story retail centers don't work," said Roman Stankus, vice president of Ogram/Ozell Architects Inc., an Atlanta architecture firm. "Most of them weren't able to find financing. As architects, we've seen a lot of concepts that never got built." Until now. In metro Atlanta, and in other cities where high-visibility property is scarce, multilevel retail centers once considered dead on arrival are now springing to life. http://www.amcity.com/atlanta/stories/031797/story6.html 6/1/99 A second story for retailers --, .danta Bush... Page 2 of 3 "Tenants are finding out that it works," said JeffFuqua, vice president of The Sembler Co. in Atlanta. Sembler is close to announcing three anchor tenants in a 400,000-square-foot "vertical power center" on 10 acres across the street from Phipps Plaza in Buckhead. "There aren't too many cornfields left to spread out and build a big shopping center," Fuqua said. Developers usually devote 10,000 square feet of retail space for every acre of land at their disposal. Sembler's project, called Lenox Marketplace, will have 40,000 square feet of retail space for every acre. For tenants, a vertical strip center might be the last chance to enter a lucrative urban market. But such developments come with a hefty price tag -- especially in Atlanta, where an acre of commercial property can cost $1 million, observers said. Development costs on a multilevel center can be twice what they would be to build a one-story shopping center, Fuqua said. For example, parking decks can cost between $5,000 and $9,000 per parking space, he said. In Atlanta, a handful of multilevel shopping centers built in the 1990s have been successful: · Perimeter Expo, the 175,000-square-foot center that faces Perimeter Mall, has two levels and a 98 percent occupancy rate. Cousins MarketCenters Inc. opened Perimeter Expo in 1993. · Buckhead Station, the 230,000-square-foot center on the Buckhead Loop, opened in December to much fanfare. It has several high-profile tenants on each of its two levels and a multilevel parking deck. · The Peach, a 156,000-square-foot shopping center in Buckhead, has two levels. Since opening in 1993, The Peach's occupancy rate has fluctuated, but it now stands at 97 percent. · Peachtree Battle Promenade, a 45,000-square-foot project completed in 1985, has three levels and is currently 96 percent occupied. It was built as an expansion of Peachtree Battle shopping center on Peachtree Road. Realizing Atlanta's real estate scarcity, retailers hre beginning to conform to the new shopping center mold. Target Stores Inc., a unit of Minneapolis-based Dayton Hudson Corp., in December opened a two-level store, encompassing 123,000 square feet, in a multilevel shopping center near Miami. The store is Target's third http://www.amcity.corn/atlanta/stories/031797/story6.html 6/1/99 A second story for retailers --, .danta Busin... multilevel location in its 752-store chain. "Our stores are usually pretty sprawled out, but as we go into markets where the land just isn't available, we have to learn to operate a multilevel format," Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter said. "The challenge for us is to figure out how to get people in and out of the stores easily, especially in densely populated areas," she said. A change in retailing habits requires a change in consumer habits, said Stankus, whose architecture firm designed Perimeter Expo, The Peach and Lenox Marketplace. 'Shoppers like to park close tO a store and with few encumbrances, he said. Architects try to counter the misperception that multilevel shopping centers are difficult to maneuver, he said, by easing the vertical flow of foot traffic. "As more multilevel centers come on line, it won't take long for shoppers to figure out just where they are going to park and how they are getting to the door," Stankus said. " Week of March 17~ 1997 1 Leading Stories I Top of the page Page 3 of 3 http://www.amcity.com/atlanta/stories/031797/story6.html 6/1/99 Strategies Small Sites Don't Stop Big Retailers From Squeezing In By' STg~,~tl~Ig STO~3OHTO~ ff;ashington Post Staff 1grlter giant sign~ And from the major routes, it sticks out like a monmn~ Now by to find Home Depot's ~ore h Falk Chu~, where large chunks of land can't be found as e~u~y. From Route 7, turn into the Drive ~ Best Bu~ and ~ Food Warehouse, make a hairpin right turn at the Ross Dress for Less clothing outlet and pass Barnes & shog~ center, is a hardware store tucked beneath a parking deck. It's no wouder that oue of the most co,,,.,on questions to Home Depot Anxious to open stores in the some of the close4n and tight real estate markets in the Washington area. fist-growing retailers like Home De~t have been discan~ hi/~r stores, and they're gra~g prop~es that they wouldn't have touched five years ago. Linens 'N Thin.'for example, buikl a store in the Fr{endsh{p Hei~ section of Washington. k Harrk Teeter k bmMing a twostory st~i,eaket. And Borders Boo~ & space in Wldte l~lint Mail in Kensing- ~s is a mutant store,~ joked Fair~ Count~ and Rockv~ Rke, pereent in 199~ to 5.4 percmt in 1996 and then 3.5 percent in 1997, real estate services farm in Alex~ high-tr~ locatior~ yin'ye got to be Creative Spaces Wooed by the Washington area's most popu~us and wealthiest communities but unable lo find enough space, chain retailers are increasingly willing to move away from their big-box, suburban formats. Here are a few examples: · Grocer Harris Teeter not only plans to squeeze onto a 3.9-acre property in the Ballston community of Arlington with limited parking but also intends to build a two-story supermarket. · The Home Depet, right, at Seven Corners In Falls Church appears to tucked underneath a parking deck. The store, which opened in late 1997, is behind a shopping center and difficult to find if you're unfamiliar with the area. al [Imms 'W ]M~lS opened an underground store last year across the street from Mazza Gallerie in the Washington neighborhood of Friendship Heights. Customers can take the escalator or el6vator downstairs. · There wasn't enough space in Germantown, so two years ago, rival discounters Wal-Mmt and Ta~et cozied up to each other in the same shopping center. Typically, two discounters won't locate in the same center. · Beliers Books & Music moved into White Flint Mall at Kensington four years ago by occupying space on the second and third levels of the center. The mall broke the tradition of being a home for small, one- level bookstores. · REI has been one of the smaller leaders in "creative space." Its recreational equipment store at Baileys Crossroads in Fairfax County faces away from the main highway and has little parking. But the store, which opened in the early 1990s, has long been a profitable one. See STORES, Page 16 Ret ' Sq all,rsneeze SFORF~, From Peg, 15 ready to compromise.' It's not all about changing sizes and shapes. Sometimes grudgingly, retailers are signing less-than-optimal leases. In Germantown, for example, discounters Target and Wal-Mart ended up in the same shopping centers. The two retailers don't mind being down the street from each other, but they rarely get as cozy as they did in Gennantown. The combined clout of Target, the Gap and other big-name retailers had little effect on Commonwealth ^flantic Properties, the owner of Alexandria's Potomac Yard Center, which opened in 1007. The owner wants to keep its' options open, so it told retailers they'd have to sign an agreement to vacate in about 20 years. Re~'l chains typically demand 40-year leases with extension options. [ Strategies I Into Small Sites 'Target fought on that imie for many months, and it wasn't going away, so they finally caved in," said David Ward, vice presi- dent of H&R Retail Inc. in Chevy Chase. Among the toughest markets to find suitable space are the Tysons area and the Rockville P~e corrldor~pulous places with higher. than-average incomes for the Washington area. About 298,000 residents with an average household income of $104,000 live in the Tysons, Reston, Hemdon area, according to figures from KLNB. The Rockville Pike market has 329,000 people with an average household income of $114,000. Retailers crave these markets, not only for their dense populations and wealth but also for their high traffic counts and reputations as established retail hubs. Although chains like Wal-Mart and Circuit City dearly have more trouble finding proper- ties large enough to fit their big box-like stores, even merchants that operate smaller stores can be frustrafed in their search for space in the Washington area. "It's a very:tight market; there's no question about that," said Brian Caunard, a real estate manager for Recreational Equipment Inc. (RED. Cennard said he recently has been looking for sites in Columbia, where he expects to have fewer frustrations. His search for space along Rockville Pike continued for four. years, "and there aren't many places in the nation where we've spent that much time doing that." In the Balleys Cro,&qroads community of Falffax County, REI settled for what many Other retailers would eschew. The retailer, which is a cooperative and specifically seeks low-cost leases, rented a warehouse with no electric and heating systems, and converted it into a store. The location is far from ideal; it faces away from the main road and has little parking. But, adds Cannard, this is what counts: The rent is low, and the store makes money. The idea of a two-story grocery store may have made Harris Teeter officials nervous at first. But Sonya Elam, a sl~kcswoman for the Matthews, N.C., chain, said shoppers have warmed to the concept. The retailer's first two-level store in' ^tlanta opened last year. Downstairs, it keeps the standard grocery items. The upstairs mezz~anine section has a wine section and a sit-down coffee bar. 'It has been really successful for us, and customers seem to like it," Elam said. For their part, customers don't seem to mind when retailers have compromised. They'd rather have something nearby than nothing at all. "i don't like driving to the suburban stores," said Mark Woods, a property manager who was shopping last week at the Home Depot in Arlington. "i do my work right here? The store is a 'little bit weird," said Woods, a McLean resident. '~ut I don't think anyone cares. The fact that it's' close to where people need it is more important." $95 per day '1 wk. min." ,~,a, per Day ~ mo. min. Many Hotels & Apartments Arlington/Courthouse Metro COURTLAND TOWERS at COURTHOUSE METRO · The Right Choice l, umy Furnished HokI-Style Apartments Immediate M0ve4ns Available- I, 2 & 3 · Free Cable TV · Health Club · Racquetball Courts · Indoor/Outdoor Pools · Free Garage Parking · Free Local Phone · 24 Hour Front Desk · LinenS, Dishes · Housewares · Whirlpool Baths · Washer & Dryer · Microwave/Dishwasher · Weekly Maid Service · All Utilities Paid CORPORATE HOUSING All the Colnflorls & Cont,eniences of Home in s~ernl No. Va.; DC MD locations 1, z, and 4 Bedrooms · fully fumlshed and acce~qodzed apartments * 30 day minimum slay * co~orate billing & maDr credit cards accepled Unfurnished Apadmenl~ AI~o Availabb CALL TOLL FREE 1-877-707-9807 e-mail: ~mvnnmet~Oaol.co~ Check Out Apartment Living January 15th! BELTWAY LOC/College Park Exit 25B Details Make Afl The Oifference! When Wal-Mart Says 'Uncle' A few places are staring down the big box retailers. By Sylvia Lewis Talking to local officials throughout the country, you hear a lot of bra- vado about communities facing down Wal-Mart and the other 'big box' chain stores and winning a variety of conces- sions. Some towns .have taken the even more extreme step of turning the big retailers away in an effort to protect existing But a real David-and-Goliath struggle? Hardly. Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer with over $67 billion in sales last year, is still growing, and usually on its own terms. Last year alone, the company opened 147 new Wal-Marts and 163 Sam's Clubs in the U.S., and it bought up 122 Woolco stores in Canada in January. This sum- LOT1 tOTS SOUTH RE~NL Compromise was the name of the game in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. BLOCK 5 10.03 AC RES PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMEHT (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) Wal-Mart Stores agreed to change both the location and the facade of the store it proposed to build in Greenfield, Massachusetts. The town approved the project--but voters d~n ' it announced that it's forging into and Argentina, the first U.S. re- Similar chains--including Kmart, Home and Price Costco--are building as well. Their facilities range 50,000 to 200,000 square feet or and they're typically situated at a mile from downtown and sur- by acres of parking. Even if one community rejects a big store, the chances are good that it try to locate nearby, possibly drain- away business and sales taxes from town. 'They'll go to the next That's the tune they sing,' Christopher Duerksen of Clarion in Denver, which performs economic and market analyses for cli- I.S. Only in the few parts of the country regional planning has some teeth in a position to say, 'We dare you to try moving next door.' ~? Vermont, whose Act 250 allows envi- =~'00 Rrna ~ ~lp ar~sl, e~ ~ef opine ~tt:teWi.lBt~ /~ ~a.' tion without a Wal-Mart or Sam' s Club, .~;although two Wal-Mart proposals are pend- Ing_there. In Massachusetts, the Cape ~ Commission, which controls devel- 10,000 square feet in the of Barnstable County, has re- an application from Price Costco for a 120,000-square-foot warehouse store in Sandwich, citing heavy traffic impacts, water usage, and degradation of commu- nity character. The f'mn is now challeng- ing that decision in the Massachusetts superior court. Most often, however, local governments seeking to control commercial develop- ment must rely on planning and zoning codes. Both can be useful tools, as cities as farflung as Greenfield, Massachusetts, and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, have come to learn. 'W~nen you have the power to rewrite zoning, you have the power to negoti- ate,' says John Mullin, AICP, o£ the De- partment of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst--and a con- sultant for a dozen cities in Massachu- setts and.several elsewhere that are deal- ing with proposals from big box retailers. Mullin notes that communities that have, say, 50 undeveloped acres zoned for retail within 15 minutes of a major 'highway shouldn't be surprised if a big box retailer comes to call. 'These guys come because you set the laws that allow them to come,' Mullin tells his clients. Last-minute switch They also come when the zoning isn't in place--as in Greenfield, Massachusetts {pop. 19,000). In late 1992, Wal-Mart's real estate agent met with the town's planning staff to inquire about a rezoning of a 63-acre working sand-and-gravel pit on the east side of town. All but eight acres was zoned industrial; those eight are rural residential. According Greenfield planner Teri Anderson, the town council asked the staff to rewrite the zoning code to accommodate the Wal-Mart proposal. Greenfield offered a rezoning scheme that would allow 27 acres of the site to be developed for a Wal-Mart and two other big stores--a total of 265,000 square feet. The rest of the site--except the eight residential acres--would be devoted to parking and landscaping. Wal-Mart had an option on the land, and the purchase was contingent on the firm getting the needed permits. While the town was busy rewriting its zoning code, the firm was busy with impact reports. Because of the size of the project, the state required an environ- mental impact report. And Greenfield had required Wal-Mart to pay for an independent consultant's study of the development's economic impacts on the town. Satisfied with the answers, Greenfield's 27-member town council approved a planned commercial district for the area in July 1993. It included provisions for sign controls, ridge and slope protection, and design guidelines. The town won other concessions, too. Because the gravel pit is the site of an ancient Indian settlement, Wal-Mart agreed to pay for .an archeological dig and to create a mobile exhibit of the findings for local schools. The firm also agreed to donate $50,000 to the town for down- town enhancement. And the current land- owner said he would donate to the town a separate, 75-acre parcel so that Greenfield could expand its industrial park. Teri Anderson says Greenfield approved the project for several reasons: the eco- nomic benefit {though slight), the negoti- ated 'agreements, and 'the opportunity to send a message to downtown merchants, who haven't been keeping in step with the times.' It was a done deal in the town coun- cil-but not among the voters. Despite the concessions, a citizens group called the Greenfield Community Pres- ervation Coalition, led by local business owners, got enough signatures to require a referendum on the rezoning. Soon, 'Stop the Wal' bumper stickers appeared all over town, and the anti-Wal-Mart'cam- paign became the leading topic of Con- versation in gatherings on the town com- mon. Finally, last October, came the vote. Voters repealed the planned commercial district by a slim margin--and the Wal- Mart deal was dead. Now, says Teri Anderson, the town has no Wal-Mart, no archeological dig, and no easy way to expand its industrial park. But at least it's got the zoning down pat i/another big retailer comes to town. 'The one thing I fear is that the site is still up for grabs,' she says. 'If another 16 Planning August 1994 Price Costco wants to ¢on~ert an old U.S. Steel warehouse into a wholesale outlet in Portland, Oregon. developer came to town, we'd go through the same thing all over again. Still, we have the technical parts in place; we'd only have to go through the political part. ' Taj Mahal The circumstances--and the outcome-- were somewhat different in Steamboat Springs, Colorado Ipop. 6,7001, a ski re- sort about 150 miles northwest of Den- ver. There, a smallish Wal,Mart--55,000 square feet--is one of two anchor stores in a commercial development called Cen- tral Park Plaza, located about a mile from the ski lifts and just over a mile from downtown. This store doesn't look like most other Wal-Marts. Besides being small for its type, it shares a shopp'mg center with other stores instead of being a stand-alone. Its design and landscaping conform to the rest of the plaza, and its sign is half the size the company had requested. The result: 'I find our center is far more attractive than comparable Wal- Mart-anchored centers,' says Timothy Greene, director of real estate for Steam- boat Ski and Resort Corporation, the firm that developed Central Park Plaza. More neutral observers agree. Randall Arendt, author of APA's new book, Rural by Desi871, is no fan of big box retailers in general. 'They're building in the most expensive way, in the most town-destroy- ing way,' he said in an interview. But he makes an exception for the Wal-Mart at Central Park Plaza--because of the project's overall site design--and cites it as a posi- tive example of commercial development in his book. As in Greenfield a few years later, the Steamboat Springs Wal-Mart wasn't a shoo-in. Central Park Plaza had been approved as a planned unit development in 1986--with a 52,500-square-foot su- permarket as an anchor. In October 1988, the city council approved the developer's request for a revised PUD to accommo- date the Wal-Mart and another, smaller retail area. But the store didn't open for another four years. What intervened was, first, a citizen petition for a referendum on the Wal- Mart building permit, then a lawsuit over the referendum, and finally the vote it- self, held in June 1991. The vote was 56 percent for Wal-Mart, 44 percent against, and the store opened in September of the following year. According to a newspaper account of the weeks leading up to the 1988 council meeting, a Wal-Mart spokesman said that the firm had 'never had opposition like this in any way, shape, or form .... This will be the Taj Mahal of WE-Marts.' Among the 17 provisions the city the developer negotiated in these: The Wal-Mart could have 107-square-foot back-lit sign on its cade, comparable to the sign on permarket. The developer would vide a master signage plan center and would donate $100,000 to city over four years for provements. No rezoning was required for vised PUD, says Ann Muhme, the planning director. But the lng, 'commercial resort,' makes thing in that district a except single-family tion encouraged decision--and opened the way to the erendum, She says. 'lt was situation. It was divisive to the nity,' she adds. and open, and it's not as expected.' Hard ball Several other cities are ne big box retailers as well. which already has four stores in the is currently applying to the land, Oregon, for a conditional mit to convert a vacant U.S. house, built in 1927, into a square-foot store. The firm spot, about a hal/-mile from downtown, because it's in the center of its trade area, according to Jack Frank, Price Costco's director of development. 'We have an opportunity to [adapt] a historic building that lends itseff to our use,' Frank said during a panel discus- sion at APA's conference in San Fran- cisco last April. 'When I first walked into this building, it took mir breath away,' he added. 'Here was a Price Costco waiting to happen.' The firm has already jumped through a few hoops. Its first application for a conditional use permit was turned down in 1989. The property is located in an 'industrial sanctuary,' where commer- cial uses are not allowed unless it can be proved that industrial workers would shop there, says Michael Hayakawa, a senior planner with the Portland Plan- ning Bureau. But in 1991, the city decided to ex- empt landmark buildings from that rule. Price Costco then applied for landmark designation, and the Landmarks Com- mission approved the proposal in Janu- ary. In June the firm applied for design review--required for all local landmark buildings. That process could take a few months, says Jeff Joslin, also a planner with the city. 18 ~'tanmn8 auifust What's behind it Some of the resistance to the huge new stores stems from a preservationist im- pulse. Constance Beaumont, director of state and local policy at the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Wash- ington, D.C., says her organization is trying to show communities they don't have to roll over and play dead when a big box retailer comes to town. They can negotiate instead, or they can decide to have no store at all. That is the theme of her new report, How Superstore Sprav~l Can Harm Commu- nities {120 pp., $16 from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Mas- sachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20036}, published in June. 'We see a distinct new Phase of supersprawl led by superstores,* Beau- mont says. 'There's almost an arms race. If one company builds large stores close together, others feel compelled to compete." The trust is concerned about big boxes for several reasons, Beaumont says. First, with 200,000 square feet or more per store and their outlying locations, they tend to drain business away from an established town core. 'That's a meta- phor for a larger problem--the hollowing out of the city,' she says. Second, they generate a lot of traffic (900 or more trips per hour, she says}. And third, they're boxes (read 'ugly'). The trust hopes to persuade the chains to build downtown or in established com- mercial centers--ffthey fit into their con- text. 'We're calling on retailers to show some initiative and leadership,' Beau- mont says. She applauds Price Costco's Portland project, for example, while criti- cizing the firm's proposal to build in Sandwich, Massachusetts, despite oppo- sition from the Cape Cod Commission. Beaumont also points to several model projects in her new report. Among them are Home Depot's Tulsa store, which preserved the facade of the city's historic Warehouse Market, and a 175,000-square- foot Target store located in a converted department store in downtown Pasadena. Gift horse Another reason that communities are ther negotiating with big box retailers opposing them is skepticism about purported financial benefits. Will firms bring more jobs and a broader base, or merely ¢ Above all, discount retailing is a ume business, says John Ronzetti, president of information resources at the National Retail Merchants Association.- These firms must sell massive quantities of items to keep their prices low. In~ contrast, he says, traditional departmen stores sell fewer items, but their prices are higher on average. Part of the opposition to a Greenfield stemmed from a 1993 shire, and LandUse, Inc. of Hadley, Mas. sachusetts. The report--which Wal-Mart paid for--concluded that the city would be slightly better off with a Wal-M~.t~ because it would add 177 retail jobs over~! 10 years and $ 51,000 to $100,000 in prop~I erty taxes annually. However, the con~!~ Home Depot's store in downWwn Tulsa, opened this summer, incorporates the facade of the city's historic Warehouse Market. A seconal, unrelated store is under construction on the same site. 19 ; z estimated that the Wal-Mart 000 of the town's ~f retail space. Greenfield, as elsewhere, local mer- question whether a big national is being predatory. Why locate a store in a region whose popuia- is fiat, they ask, and where in the same chain are rela- ~ close? surprised that they will go flat markets,' says John Mullin of University of Massachusetts. 'They a tremendous market means that customers fickle if the price is right. 'The key Mullin says, 'is that the [big re- I steal from surrounding businesses.' studies have come to differ- conclusions on this point. A 1989 conducted for Wal-Mart by the of Missouri College of Busi- md Public Admires' tration concluded the firm had a positive effect on number of retailers, :oun- ties where Wal-Marts opened between 1983 and 1987. 'Almost all showed growth or revitalization after the opening of Wal- Mart,' the study concluded. On the other hand, Kenneth Stone, a professor of economics at Iowa State Uni- versity, studied five years of sales data from 30 Iowa towns and concluded in a 1992 report that total sales in towns with Wal-Marts had increased at the expense of other retailers. In a typical town, Wal- Mart made $.17 million a year, but other merchants lost $10 million. Stone also found that towns within a 20-mile radius of a Wal-Mart had lost 25 percent of their sales through fiscal 1991. One caveat: 'These results apply to a state that has had static population, re- suiting in a fixed size retail 'pie,', Stone noted. 'In areas of growing population and in cities, the retail pie is typically expanding, thereby diluting these effects.' In other words, growing areas can more easily absorb a big store without harm to other businesses. Grinch Yet another cause for concern in some quarters is the story of what happened in Hearne, Texas {pop. 5,100~. The Wal- Mart there opened during the 1980 Christ- mas season--and closed 10 Christmases later. According to news reports, a Wal- Mart spokesman said that the 46,000- square-foot store had never turned a profit and was one of only about a half dozen stores that the firm had shut down. It is still empty, 'an eyesore' on the edge of town, 'says Cynthia Wallace, manager of the local Chamber of Commerce. Local people apparently feel that Wal- Mart not only stole Christmas but virtu- ally killed off Hearne's downtown. 'It was a negative experience,' Wallace says. 'It left a real bad taste in everyone's mouth.' Local sales taxes also took a hit. Hearne had over $267,000 in sales taxes in 1990 and only $219,000 in 1991--an Ig percent drop. Yet Wallace points out that many busi- nesses survived, including the two local pharmacies and a Western Auto. In a recent survey of the four square blocks of downtown, she found only six vacant stores. 'People talk about 'all those empty buildings,' but it's just perception,' she says. 'There is life after Wal-Mart.' The loyalists Not everyone is unhappy with the big boxes. 'The National Trust is stuck on Wai-Mart,' says Bllzabeth Miller, who is the manager of the Main Street project for the city of Bryan, about 25 miles south of Hearne. 'We Texans resent that because we've had Wal-Mart here for- ever. It's a nonissue for us.' Texas has 214 Wal-Marts, almost twi~e as many as any other state. Bryan also has an empty Wal-Mart. Last fall, the firm closed up its original 84,000-square-foot store and opened a superstore 1202,000 square feet} two miles away. This is an ongoing strategy. 'We believe in keeping our stores fresh for our customers,' says the firm's 1994 an- nual report, 'and therefore we will ex- pand or relocate 70 to 75 Wal-Marts' in fiscal 1995, now under way. As a planner, Miller sees no inherent Problem with big box retailers. Nor does John Gann, AICP, head of Gann Associates in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, whose clients include communities of various sizes in the Great Lakes region. In a piece published in the Wall Street]our- hal last August, Gann said that Wal- Mart is being unfairly criticized for its business practices--especially by the National Trust. 'Facts are unimportant when a scape- goat is needed,' he wrote. 'And the truth is that older downtowns in both rural communities and metropolitan suburbs went into decline long before Wal-Mart came on the scene.' Competition is the American way, Gann added in a phone conversation. 'If there's no growth in population or income [in a particular locale], and if a Wal-Mart or someone else big comes in, then sales will come out of someone else's hide. But that's our economic system, isn't it?' In fact, there'.s some evidence that the threat of a big box can inspire local mer- chants. Teri Anderson says that's what happened in Greenfield, Massachusetts. 'One of the positive results from the Wal- Mart experience is that it galvanized down- town,' she says. A couple of new stores have opened in downtown Greenfield since last October's referendum reject- ing a rezoning, Anderson says, and local businesses have put together a streetscape improvement plan. The lessons she learned: 'First, it's important for communities to anticipate this kind of development, [and] . . . to have some control up front. In places where large-scale retail is allowed as of right in industrial districts, communities haven't fared so well. I understand that Wal-Mart doesn't negotiate on site plan- ning0 landscaping, design, and mitigation impacts unless they have to.' Sylvia Lewis is Planning' s editor and associate publisher. AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION APRIL 1996 Site Planning for Large-Scale Retail Stores By Christopher Duerksen The meteoric rise of large-scale retail stores such as Wal-Mart has been one of the headline planning stories of the 1990s. Commonly called big box retailers, these enterprises typically occupy more than 50,000 square feet and derive their profits from high sales volumes. They seem to be everywhere; no be it a rural town or urban neighborhood, can ignore the planning impacts big box retail stores can have on the of a community. Big box retailers vary greatly in size--some now have reached ~. gargantuan proportions in excess of 150,000 square feet. Their market niches also vary. There are the discounters like Wal- ' Mart, the warehouse dubs like Pace, category killers like Toys R Buy (that offer a comprehensive selection of' merchandise in relatively narrow categories), and manufacturer's , outer stores; But they have some common single-story buildings with standardized facades, reliance on auto-borne shoppers who are accommodated by acres of parking, and no-frills site ' · development that often eschews any community or pedestrian amenities. Some cities and towns, worried about the economic impact of big-box retailers on existing downtown merchants or the sprawl-inducing impacts of such developments, are saying no to these leviathans. But for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of out the welcome mat or at least given grudging approval. Big box retailers do offer low prices and great convenience for an increasingly time-deprived society. And for those local governments that rely on sales tax revenues to finance local services, big box retailers are like manna from heaven. The critical question for these communities is, On what terms should the big boxes be welcomed? On one end of the scale, communities that are unaware of their options or feel they have little leverage in negotiating with these retailing giants, the results can be plain vanilla rectangular boxes of industrial quality construction coated with corporate color schemes and surrounded by acres of asphalt with nar/a bush or tree in sight. On the other end, a growing number of jurisdictions are requiring a higher level of architectural treatment and taking steps to ensure that the superstores relate better m their environs and neighbors. In Fort Collins, Colorado, the city council had this to say in adopting new regulations for large-scale retail establishments: These standards and guidelines are a response to di~arisfaction with corporate chain marketing strategy dictating design that is indifferent to local identity and interests. The main goal is to encourage development that contributes to Fort Collins as a unique place by reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. Others also believe that quality begets quality. As John Johnson, planning director in fast-growing Douglas County, Colorado (south suburban Denver), pointed out in defending his jurisdicdon's new big box development standards, ~It wouldn't be wise to snub the rules. It's an investment that gives returns. When you maintain a lower image you're not going to be able to bring other quality businesses that will improve the economy"( Rocky Mountain News, July 10, 1995). While there are indications that the tidal wave of big box retail stores may have peaked in the mid-1990s just as shopping malls did in the 1980s, it is dear that they will continue to pose challenges to communities well into the next century. Much of the growth for some big box chains is coming as a result of forays Site plans )~r large retail stores in Fort Collins must now incorporate patios, seating areas, bus shelters, or other amenities to create an amenable pedestrian environment. into new markets, and this hunting will continue as retailers search for markets that were overlooked or bypassed or new ones that are emerging because of growth in places like Douglas County, Colorado, one of the fastest growing jurisdictions in the nation. In more mature markets, chains will fight for market share, opening, new stores in hopes of heading off customers before they reach those of their competitors--a phenomenon known as cannibalization. The slowing and consolidation of the big.box market should also strike a cautionary note with poten- How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities and What Citizens Can Do About It, Constance Beaumont, National Trust For Historic Preservation (Washington, D.C. 1994). Tree Conservation Ordinances, PAS Report 446, August 1993. Preparing a Lanthcape Ordinance, PAS Report 431, December 1990. Designing Urban Corridors, PAS Report 418, September 1989. The Aesthetics of Parking, PAS Report 411, November 1988. Aesthetics and Land Use Controls, PAS Report 399, December 1986. tial host communities. How marketable will a standardized big box shell and parking lot be when the store is dosed. Will it be a long-term eyesore in the neighborhood? This PAS Memo offers tips and advice to the growing number of communities that want .to accommodate big box retailers, but in a fashion that is sensitive to community impacts and will help ensure that these superstores remain community assets for years to come. It focuses on the recent experience of Fort Collins, Colorado, which has adopted some of the most comprehensive guidelines and standards to shape the appearance and impact of large-scale retail establishments. Case Study: Fort Collins, Colorado In several important ways, Fort Collins was an ideal proving ground for new guidelines and standards for big box retail stores. It already had on the book~ detailed regulations addressing signage and landscaping, the typical first line of defense communities employ in dealing with the superstores. Trouble is, experience across the United States has Chris Duerksen is the managing editor of Clarion Associates LLC of Denver. He is the author or'Tree Conservation Ordinances (PAS Report 446) andAesthetics and Land Use Controls (PAS Report 39R), among other books and reports. Initial research )Cbr this article was per~rmed by ~Cbrmer Clarion Associates attorney Richard Paik and appeared in an article in Planning Matters, a publication of the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association. The author would also like to recognize the ~rts of the Ci{y of Fort Collins, Colorado, planning and legal staff, especially Claudia Benedict, Ted Shepard, Clark Mapes, Tom Vosburg, and Paul Eckman, in shaping the concepu that are discussed here. demonstrated that while controlling signage.and requiring tree planting can help soften the impact, they are only first steps in an effective program. Thus Fort Collins was ready to move beyond standard approaches. The city also has a very strong economic base and occupies an enviable central position in the regional economy so that elected officials were not drooling over the prospect of adding more superstores at any cost. Couple this with strong, well-educated neighborhood groups (Fort Collins is the home of Colorado State University) and a sophisticated planning staff with years of experience with the city's well- known Land Development Guidance System and strong design credentials, and the stage was set for some innovative thinking. Importantly, because it operates under home rule in Colorado, Fort Collins has broad land-use regulatory authority. Facing a continuing influx of large-scale retail stores, Fort Collins adopted a moratorium on superstores to allow the staff to study the community impacts and to formulate clear and enforceable policies to mitigate those impacts. The staff SOUTH ELEVATION Scale 1/8'= 1'-0' AnchorA organized an informal advisory committee composed of neighborhood representatives, real estate professionals, and interested citizens to assist the planning and zoning board in evaluating new approaches. Clarion Associates of Denver was brought in to provide advice on experience in other communities and to assist in drafting new standards. Early in the process, the inquiry focused on the following key issues: · Architectural character of the building. · Color and material of the primary structure. · Relationship to the surrounding community, including civic amenities. · Pedestrian flows. · Parking. Drawing on its own experience with retail design standards and on a survey of innovative measures adopted in other communities such as Bozeman, Montana; Jackson, Wyoming; and Rancho Cucamonga, California, the consultant presented a menu of potential guidelines and regulations to the city. After several months of deliberation, the planning commission and city council unanimously adopted a comprehensive set of standards based on recommendations of the advisory committee and city staff. These regulations apply to new ~large~ retail establishments defined to mean a "retail establishment or any combination of retail establishments in a single building, occupying more than 25,000 gross square feet of lot area~ or an addition to an existing large retail establishment that would increase the gross square feet of floor area by 50 percent. Architectural Character. Probably the most ftequendy voiced is that they look like big, boxes. With blank, windowless facades, fiat roofs, lack 'architectural detail, and minuscule, hard-to-see entries, big are boring at best and future eyesores at worst. Fort adopted a range of strong standards to encourage better design that goes beyond the prototypical off-the- The new regulations: Forbid "uninterrupted length of any facade" in excess of 100 horizontal feet. Facades greater than 100 feet in length must incorporate recesses and projections along at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. Windows, awnings, and arcades must total at least 60 percent of the facade length abutting a public street. Require that smaller retail stores that arc part ora larger principal building have display windows and separate outside entrances. Such smaller stores are encouraged by the city. Color a'ndMat~rials. Building color and materials, as much as architectural detail, can make or break a big box from an aesthetic perspective. For some big box chains, especially the warehouses and deep-discounters, concrete blocks or tilt-up concrete panels seem to be the material of choice, ones that are more suitable for industrial parks. Others use bold color schemes and neon tubing as attention-getters, so that the buildings become one giant billboard to attract attention. Fort Collins adopted several standards to encourage higher-quality materials that would fit in better with existing commercial development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. · Predominant exterior building materials must be of high quality. These include brick, wood, sandstone, other native stone, and tinted/textured concrete masonry units. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or pre- fabricated steel panels are prohibited as the predominant exterior building materials. smaffer in scale Ihe anchor stores, use covered etc. use different f~'e~ ~o d~,g~h themselves,anti different en~nce t~e~ I~line Retail Shops A~chor B ~ Fort Collins now requires big box structures to incorporate awnings, windows, and other architectural ~atures (above). ~Big faceless boxes~ (le~) are what Fort Collins seeks to avoid. · Encourage greater architectural interest in the main structure by directing the use of a repeating pattern of change in color, texture, and material modules. ~At least one of these dements shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than 30 feet, either horizontally or vertically." · Dictate variations in roof lines to reduce the massive scale of these structures and add visual interest. Roofs must have at least two of the following features: parapets concealing flat roofs and rooftop equipment, overhanging eaves, slopes roofs, and three or more roof slope planes. m Require that each principal building have a clearly defined, highly visible customer entrance with features such as canopies or porticos, arcades, arches, wing walls, and integral planters. · Facade colors must be of"low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black or fluorescent colors is prohibited.~ · Building trim may feature brighter colors, but neon tubing is not allowed as an accent material. Relationship to Surrounda'ng Community/Streets. An often- ignored feature ofsuperstores is how they relate and interact with the surrounding community and public streets. The standard approach at times seems to be to throw up a six-foot high wooden fence between adjacent residential areas and to use a chain link fence with slats to screen trash loading areas. Neighbors in Fort Collins demanded more. The new regulations require that: · "Ail facades ora building that are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should contribute to the pleasing scale features of the building and encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to a front facade." This policy is implemented by requiring architectural treatment as discussed above. · "Ail sides of a principal building that directly face an abutting public street shall feature at least one customer entrance. Where a principal building directly faces more than two abutting public streets, this requirement shall apply only m two sides of the building..." · The minimum setback of any building facade is 35 feet. Where the facade faces adjacent residential uses, an earth berm of at least six feet in height and planted with evergreen trees at intervals of 20 feet on center, or in clusters is required. · Loading docks, trash collection, outdoor storage and similar facilities and functions "shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets." Use of screening materials "that are different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape is prohibited." No delivery, loading, trash removal, or similar operations are permitted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., except in special circumstances and where steps are taken to reduce noise impacts. · Each retail establishment must ~contribute to the establishment or enhancement of the community and public spaces" by providing at least two community amenities such as a patio/seating area, water feature, dock tower, and pedestrian plaza with benches. Pedestrian Floras. Pedestrians are usually the forgotten waifs of big box retailing until the customer actually walks in the store. They are typically expected to dodge cars, wind-blown shopping carts, and other obstacles to find their way into the store. Fort Collins adopted an array of requirements in an attempt to make the superstores more attractive and safer for pedestrians. · Sidewalks ~at least 8 feet in width shall be provided along all sides of the lot that abut a public street," and a continuous internal pedestrian walkway must be provided from the perimeter public sidewalk to the principal customer entrance. This internal walkway must feature landscaping, benches, and other such materials/facilities for no less than 50 percent of its length. · Sidewalks must be provided "along the full length of the building along any facade featuring a customer entrance and along any facade abutting public parking areas. Such sidewalks shall be located at least six feet from the facade of the building to provide planting beds for foundation landscaping..." · Internal pedestrian walkways must provide a weather protection feature such as an awning within 30 feet of all customer entrances. · The internal pedestrian walkways must be distinguished from driving surfaces through the use of special pavers, bricks, or scored concrete to enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walk-ways. Parking Lots. In addition to the requirements regarding walkways through parking lots, Fort Collins grappled with the issue of the size and location of the hundreds and sometimes thousands of parking spaces that typically provide the foreground for big box superstores. The ordinance encourages structures to be located closer to streets and that parking areas be broken up into modules separated by landscaping and other features. The primary mandatory standard is that ~no more than 50 percent of the off-street parking area for the entire property shall be located between the front facade of the principal building and the primary abutting street." Putting the New Standards to Work Fort Collins adopted its big box standards early in 1995. The new guidelines and standards are integral parts of the city's Land Development Guidance System, a flexible approach to development review that allows locational latitude for developments if they mitigate external impacts. The standards are applied by staff in the site plan review process working closely with project design consultants. Since adoption, two major developments have begun winding their way through the development review process and the results, at least so far, are posidve from the city's perspective. According to staff, the proposals are of much higher quality than before the regulations were enacted. They feel the community's demand for responsive design provides a dimate in which competing objectives of communio design and large ,;~ retailing can be addressed by planning professionals as propo~ah'~ are put together. For the most part, developers and big box retailers are pay~ng~ attention and are making a good faith effort to meet the desires of the community. For example, the designers ora Wal-Mart ~ submitted plans that represented a marked improvement . . the average company store. However, negotmnons have slowed somewhat as national officials have become involved. A second major proposal is even more promising. The developer has proposed an excellent plan that shows a great deal of creativity in meeting the goals of the big box standards. Each facade of d~ building has interesting architectural features, parking is spread around the main structures instead of being stacked in front, and loading areas are integrated into the building design and tucked discreetly away from view. Time will tell if this plan finds acceptance in the marketplace. Conclusion ~ Fort Collins's bold efforts to accommodate major retail establishments in a manner that respects community character ~.:~ and mitigates adverse impacts holds great promise. But as a '. work in progress, it bears careful watching. Other communifi~ went into this effort, bu~; ~ can benefit from the thinking that - t be careful to tailor their approaches to their unique ~~ must and political realities as well as.the perceived local impacts~t''~o .~ retail supersrores. The PAS M~o ~ a mon~ly publi~tion a ~ub~rlption ~rch ~ice of the ~erim Planning ~ccutive Di~mr; ~lliam ~ ~ein, Dirgtor of R~. The PAS M~ is pr~u~ by D~mmmt ~: Ma~ Morris, ~itor. P~u~ion b~ Cynthia ~. ~is~t ~itor~ ~ Barton, ~sign ~a~. Copyri~t 01996 by ~eri~n Planning ~ation, 122 S. Ghi~. IL ~60~. Th~ ~efi~n PNnning M~ch~m Ave., N.W.. W~hln~n, DC 2~36. ~1 ri~ ~d. No pan of thi, ~b~tion or by any mmm, de~onic or mechaniC, including ~eri~n P~nlng ~ation. Printed on rec~led paper, including 50-70% re~ded fiber · nd 10% ~tcon~umer I ATTACHMENT IX[ Statement CPA-97-05 Brass, inc. delivered to the Planning March 9, 1999 Commission We are concerned about changing the designation on this property to regional service for two reasons: 1)' the County needs more information on the impact of this use on the region's economy and traffic; and 2) the County's long-range planning goals would be better served by using some of this property for residential development. We have heard the merits of the.applicant's marketing analysis and the Shils report debated in this community. What appears to be lacking is an independent and objective economic analysis of this use on our regional economy, an analysis specifically tailored to Albemarle, Charlottesville and the surrounding counties. We've also heard that this use may divert traffic from Route 29 North. Nothing would make us happier than to see traffic on Route 29 North reduced without building a new road. We wonder, however, whether placing a superstore south of Charlottesville would accomplish that worthy goal. If the proposed superstore is a major discounter other than Walmart, such as Target or K-Mart, customers are likely to travel to both stores to compare prices. If the proposed superstore is Walmart, the store on Route 29 North may close or convert to another use, which means that customers from northern Albemarle, Greene and Orange will continue to drive down Route 29 to reach this site. The County needs objective, expert analysis of the economic and transportation impacts before acting on a development of this scale. The County should also consider its own long-range planning needs when it reviews amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, rather than limit its review to the land use proposed by the applicant. Your Planning staff has offered an alternative which would include residential development. That makes sense, given the shortage of available land in that category versus the relative surplus of land in the commercial, office and industrial categories. The consultant hired by the County to help improve the design and density of growth areas has suggested that the County consider using some of its commercial and industrial surplus for residential development. Unless the County begins such measures soon, it will have to expand the growth area sometime before 2015. For these reasons, the lack of data to justify a change and the long-range need for more residential capacity in the growth areas, we ask that you recommend denial of CPA-97-05. P.O. Box 460 · Warronl()n. \'irgJrlia · 2() 18,'6 · 54()-/5,1.7-2:-I~4 · l:ax G4X)-34.9-.~gX)3 I I I I Rose Hill Drive · Statement to the Albemarle County Planning Commission From: Date: Re: Citizens for Albemarle March 9, 1999 CPA-97-05 Brass, Inc. [Willoughby] A land-use designation in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, by definition, closes the door on certain types of uses for a particular area. As a result, there is a tangible relationship between the distribution of various designated uses and the total area required to provide adequate capacity for each type of use. Citizens for Albemarle has strongly advocated that any changes in the total county area designated for intensive development be based on the results of a. thorough assessment ef cur capacity to absorb population growth through infill of existing development areas. The results of such an assessment are at hand as the county's Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee, DISC, nears the end of its collaboration with a county-funded land-use-planning consultant. We fimaly supported the county's aim in creating the DISC to study and recommend steps for coping with the land-use pressures arising from our continuing exponential level of population growth. Therefore, we oppose CPA-97-05 at this time and recommend that its consideration be postponed until it can be reviewed in light of the forthcoming recommendations from the DISC. To make a change of this magnitude prior to the DISC report undermines due consideration of this county-sponsored committee's analysis and recommendations. With a piecemeal approach to comprehensive plan amendment, we risk discovering too late that a shortage of one type of land use, for example, residential, forces expansion of the development area, despite the existing area having an over-supply of lands in other uses. If careful thought is given up front to the distribution of uses within exisitng development areas, their expansion may never be necessary. The promise of this possibly beneficial result for our community clearly warrants that every effort be made now to examine the data and recommendations for the best mix of uses within existing development areas. To commit a significant area to a different use before an informed consideration of Albemarle's total development area wastes a rare and county-supported oppommity for proactive planning. Furthermore, the regional implications of this proposed amendment call for a deliberate approach on the part of Albemarle County. Our neighbor within has already expressed serious reservations about the negative potential impacts of this amendment. For our neighbors to the south, anticipating the impact on their ability to maintain and create viable local markets requires a regional market study on the scale of the Planning District Commission's residential buildout analysis. Given the above concerns and oppommities, Citizens for Albemarle opposes CPA-97-05." March 9, 1999 Planning Commission Albemarle County Office Building Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED Planning Dept. The Ridge Street Neighborhood Association is made up of residents and property owners in the area of the city that is bounded on the south by the Willoughby subdivision and Moore's Creek, on the east by Sixth Street SE, on the north by the CSX railroad, and on the west by Ridge Street - Fifth Street Extended. We have met with representatives of Brass, Inc. on two occasions over a period of several months to discuss plans for new development on Bent Creek Road. Being city residents, we greatly appreciate their overtures. The majority of the city's planning commissioners have expressed opposition to Brass Inc.'s proposal for a regional shopping center. However, this conclusion was drawn without an opportunity for input from Chariottesville's public. The neighborhood asso~ation would like to share with you its consensus of opinions and concerns during your public hearing process.' The current land use designation should be changed, for *it is inappropriate for the curreht and future surrounding residential neighborhOods. No nearby neighborhood will welcome the noise and congestion produced by large industrial trucks and tractor trailers; and, traditionally, only cheap housing will be developed near industrial sites. The proposal by county slafl for community service with mixed use is undesirable for both the county and the city. Currently, there is not enough demand for this type of retail to prevent vacant storefronts throughout the county and along the city's downtown and midtown retail corridor. There will have to be Page I of 3 substantial growth in the area for this type of shopping center to be successful. Mixed use will. also compete with housing proposed along the city's retail corridor. Also, this type of development will not provide the tax revenue needed to cover the costs for additional county school facilities and programs resulting from the new housing. A regional shopping center on the site is a desirable aitema#ve, however. It will provide a viable option for shoppers who travel to Route 29 North for their main purchases, thereby reducing the pressure for that' area to become a mega-shopping area with ever-increasing traffic congestion and road expenditures. Also, it will reduce the-pressure for the further development of Pantops Mountain and the'urbanization of' the Crozet area. A discount mega-store, as anchor, is welcomed by many Iow and moderate income residents of-. both the city and county who mainly~reside on the southern end of the city and county. It will provide.* much*~needed revenues for county coffers without placin{taheavy burden on county services, particularly schools. It will also help maln~'n the county's posi~on as the major shopping area of the region that includes the counties of Rockingham, Augusta, Nelson, Amherst, Louisa, Fluvanna, -Greene and Madison. Any of these counties would probably welcome this type of development. Hopefully, with ,greater shopping opportunities, residents of the region will be less likely to shop in the metropolitan areas of Richmond and northern Virginia. The inevitable growth along the Rfth Street SW cor#dor with i~s access to Interstate 64 and to the heart of the city will necessitate road network modifica#ons. Any substantial development on this particular tract will-require alterations to Bent Creek Road and additional subdivisions built along the corridor will require a southern connector between Fifth Street and Avon Street Extended. Page 2 of 3 Because of its far-ranging implications for the character and economic health of the region, it is a very complex iSSue requiring a great deal. of thought. We agree with you that, in the long run, strong, successful development in the urban ring is of great interest and benefit to both jurisdictions. It is the hope of our association-that you will consider the above points when making your recommendation. We thank you for soliciting city input and hope you will do so again. Respectfully, Kenneth A. Martin President, RSNA 222 1 ankford AV Charlottesville, VA22902 cc: Nbemarle County Board"of Supervisors Page 3 of 3 RECEIVED Planning Dept. April 21, 1999 TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission Planning Dept. RE: Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal by Brass, Inc. (Willoughby site) Dear members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission: I write to voice my very serious concerns about the proposal by Brass Inc. for a big-box commercial development on Fifth street, south of the City. As a long time resident of the County, and someone who teaches urban planning, there are a number of things about this proposal which greatly concern me. Much of my own research and writing over the years has focused on. strategies for creating sustainable communities, both here in the U.S. and in Europe. For a variety of reasons this proposal seems to me to move our community and region in precisely the opposite (unsustainable) direction. Let me elaborate a bit about my concerns. First, it seems to me that the proposal, as I understand it, would be of a scale and size inappropriate to the location and site. One can't help but be struck by the excessive amount of commercial space being considered here and its single-Use emphasis. I believe it will be difficult to support this building footprint and at the same time ensure (given the grading and site disturbance that would be required) that the site's sensitive environmental conditions will be respected and protected. Furthermore, given its proximity to the City and the urban Core of our region, the proposed project has an unfortunate suburban, auto-orientation to it. Its size, location and types of stores envisioned will, as the County staff report accurately predicts, almost ensure that it "perpetuates the emphasis on vehicular traffic." We should be doing everything we can, to the contrary, to get people out of their cars, to minimize the numbers and amount of auto travel, and to encourage walking and bicycling. Perhaps a creatively designed, scaled-down mixed-use project on this site might help to achieve this, but the present development concept will simply reinforce our dispersed car- dependent landscape and lifestyles. I fear that such a large, auto-oriented suburban style development will have sprawl-indUcing effects and serve as a terrible precedent for other development in the area. The location of the Willoughby property, in close proximity to downtown and along an important gateway to the City, suggests the need for special care in designing whatever development occurs here. Ideally, proposals such as the present one should fit within a comprehensive development vision for the 5th Street corridor. As I have not seen such an integrated vision (and the present proposal would not likely fit into any version of such that I could support), I wonder if the development of such a corridor-wide, gateway plan should not occur first. In any event, the corridor should be viewed in its entirety. I strongly support the County's efforts at promoting infill development. Indeed, nationally there is growing consensus about the need to build new development and accommodate future growth within already urbanized areas first, before committing greenfield and peripheral sites. But, this simply doesn't mean that any form ofinfill is appropriate or acceptable. I concur with others who have questioned the extent to which this proposal represents the best we can expect from this site. Infill development is a necessary and worthy goal, but what is being proposed falls far short in my mind. Every new development of this sort ought to include a creative mixing of housing, office and commercial. This is one of the clear lessons from the Europeans: integrate housing and other uses and you substantially cut down on the automobile dependence ad create walkable and enjoyable places and spaces. Many positive examples of such mixed-use projects from Europe and around the U.S. can be cited and used as inspiration for what could be designed and built here. We need to set our sights higher. And, while it may be a number of years before transit becomes a real option for the county (and region), it requires us to think ahead and make land use decisions that contribute to the density and compactness essential for making transit work over the long haul. We need to begin contributing to land use and density patterns that will at least not foreclose these creative transit options in the future (e.g. light-rail, highspeed buses). The potential economic impacts on other existing businesses are also of concern. What impacts the project right have on the economic viability of the Charlottesville downtown is, of course, uncertain, but I am especially concerned that it may serve to siphon-off energy and activity from downtown. The city's downtown, and the downtown mall in particular, represent unique and special resources of importance to all of us here in the region and I believe that every future development project should be judged by the extent to which it serves to strengthen or reinforce the City's downtown, downtown mall and surrounding businesses. As an aside, I can tell you that in visiting a variety of pedestrianized spaces in numerous European cities, our downtown mall can hold it own against almost any of them. There are few urban spaces like it and we should do all we can to appreciate and strengthen it. We should do everything we can to avoid drawing energy and activity away from it. I fear this will be the unfortunate result of the proposal before you. It is difficult not to imagine how such a project will shift the economic landscape, mostly in negative ways, I fear, and in many ways we probably don't currently understand. To be sure, residents in this part of the County deserve access to adequate retail. The retail demands of residents of this part of the county could, however, clearly be accommodated through a number of smaller establishments and there are apparently a number of other commercially-zoned parcels that might serve this need. Emphasizing the neighborhood-oriented commercial aspects, rather than creating an additional regional commercial magnet would seem to be a more sensible way to go. Many communities around the country have taken a similar approach: planning for and distributing smaller-scale commercial centers that provide opportunities for daily shopping and services are available within a short distance of housing and residential neighborhoods, but guiding regional commercial and business activity into one or a few regional centers. County residents south of the City should have access to neighborhOod shopping, but I believe strengthening our existing regional centers (including the downtown) should be emphasized over creating new ones. I have recently read Prof. Edward Shils' (of the Wharton School) report documenting the impacts of big-box commercial, and his findings (as well as those of others) are troubling, to say the least. Such superstores have been shown to undermine the economic viability of smaller retailers, and many of the purported benefits of such stores (lower product prices and additional employment) have proven to be illusory. While it may be unwise to generalize about the impacts of big-box in any specific case, the possibilities are alarming. The economic impacts of such big-box development are certainly worthy of additional study. If this is our idea of economic development, we need some fundamentally re-thinking. It will generate few jobs, will likely undermine existing businesses and economic activity, and in the long run make our community less attractive and livable--the latter representing perhaps the most important factors in supporting healthy local and regional economies. My own preference would be much greater attention given to smaller, locally- oriented businesses and economic endeavors. There are a variety of creative economic development strategies which could and should be emphasized (e.g. small business incubators, waste-based industries, efforts at import-substitution). Re-circulating local income, rather than sending it out of the community, is in the long run a more successful strategy. I find, by the way, many of the arguments made about the potential of the project to reduce auto traffic to 29-North to be unsupportable and improbable. For better or worse, the businesses on the 29 North corridor will remain important trip destinations. My hunch is that people will continue to travel to the great many stores and businesses there (including the Wal,mart, Lowes, Fashion Square Mall...); there are simply too many commercial, entertainment, and other establishments there already. Finally, I might note that there are in fact many American communities that have faced similar development challenges and from which the Charlottesville/Albemarle community might learn. Cities like Davis, California, for example, with similar population size, and presence of a university community, represent models of community planning innovation that would be helpful to analyze and understand. (This community has implemented an impressive land use strategy, emphasizing a strong primary retail core in the city-center and a series of smaller neighborhood shopping centers throughout the city). The town of Chapel Hill (NC), home to another major university, and experiencing substantial growth and development pressures there, did an interesting thing this past fall. They invited representatives from four similar communities from around the country (Davis, CA; Burlington VT; Boulder, CO; and Annapolis, MD) to a public forum. The representatives were asked to describe what their communities were doing to address growth pressures and what innovative ideas and practices seemed to be working successfully there to create sustainable, livable communities. I attended this forum and though t to myself that a similar meeting might have a useful energizing function here. Much can be learned about the potential here at 'home by understanding how other places have creatively dealt with and confronted change there. Perhaps a similar forum might be considered here. It seems to me that we need as a community and region to set our sights much higher; to .envision and imagine a cityscape much more fundamentally uplifting, forward-looking and inspirational in nature, and to accept such significant development changes only when they further these goals. What we want, I think and hope, is a built environment equal to the phenomenal natural environment we have been blessed with here: compact, green, walkable and bikable, and where environmentally sustainable landscapes and lifestyles are taken seriously. So, for all of the reasons cited above I would strongly encourage you to vote against changing the Comprehensive Plan designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service. Should some plan designation change be inevitable, I agree with the County staff report recommendations: change to Community Service, and push for mixed-use, with a mandatory residential element. I thank you for your consideration and would be happy to elaborate on any of these points should this be helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Tim Beatley ~ 133 Oak Forest Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-973-7346 tb6d@virginia.edu cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors APR--2?--99 84:0? PM The ~l(~i I~ Prog~'ess 8814 9?8 7217 P.02 To the Albemarle County Planning Commission: As a ten year resident of'the Willoughby subdivision, I welcome the idea oFm~or shoppin~ center as proposed by Brass, lnc.. Thc benefits of'such a center are enormous not only to my neighborhood, but to the surrounding areas and communities. One of'the largest complaints I hear From my neighbors is having to travel to the other side of'town to shop for groceries, clothing and other necessities. Having to do this also adds congestion to ~ads and I~ghways already congested to the maximum. Progress is a natural occun'ence as our community continues to grow. Our population is expanding rapidly and the need to service this growth is growing with it. It is said that the new shopping center would have ~t negative impact on the Downtown Mall. I disagree. The mall is ma~e up ofhoutiques, specialty shop and a large number of'restaurants that are all aimed to ~ttract a particular clientele. These shops have already shown that they can prosper as competitive retailers and merchants as the7 vie for business against such areas as Barracks Road, Albemarle Squm'e and Fashion Square. Tor~ght you will hear From people opposed to the shopping center. That is fine; their opinions are respected. But remember, the7 are a ~ The hundreds of' signatures gathered on petitions represents the ~ of the people in favor of'thc same shopping center. Their sisnatures on Ihose petitions speak as loudly and clearly as anyone in attendance at this meeting. I urge you to approve this project, tonight, as proposed by Brass, inc. 8'26 Harris Road 84/27/lggg i6:0~ 804~6936~8 NEW AGE BUILDERS INO ~-~G~ 81 Sussn Thom~s Albemarl~ P~ Commission De~ 1~ Thomas, Please receive this letter concerning the proposed zouing chanse of the Willoughby proper~y owned by Brass incorporated. Many of'us living south of Charlottesville would greatly benefit by having ~ superstore on the: southside. This would relieve us from having ~o drive 29 north in order to access ~hi~ type of facility, thereby reducing ci~ty traffic and reducing automobile air pollution. Thi~ propo~-d sile use would also r~aove the pos~ibilit'y of industrial pollution within the area. We also understand that a commercial property would inciude a sportsfield and environmental improv~ to Morris Creek. Therefore, we are requesting that this property be re. zoned to allow for commercial retail development. Thank you for your consideration. May 1 O, 1999 Alexis Zeigler 1125 Little-High St. Charlottesville VA 22902 804-245-8759 lexus51 .C__w~iuno.com Dear Commissioners, Regarding the Brass Inc. proposal for the development of land off of Fifth Street, I would like to make a very brief comment regarding the new Community Service lang~mge drafted by Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley. I spoke to Ms. Thomas and remain somewhat uncertain regarding the exact meaning of the square footage limitations of the new language. If my understanding is correct, a single retailer could occupy 160,000 square feet provided their superstore did not have the appearance of a "big box," and some advance consideration is given to future subdividing of such a large space. Although I have not had time to consult with our coalition leaders, I think I speak for them when I say that what i$ desired is mixed use, not mixed aesthetic. A retailer of 160,000 square feet is still a superstore, and will ~draw an enormous amount of traffic that will in mm spur sprawl throughout the area..~ The point of mixed use, as I understand it, is for people to be able to shop, recreate, and otherwise conduct their business in a local area that has the services they desire -- thus reducing the amount of driving necessary to conduct daily activities. A 160,000 square foot big box is clearly not intended to encourage local pedestrian or community activity, but rather would be a regional trip attractor. If we are not willing to pursue the higher ideals of new urbanism and mixed us~ here and now, then when will we? Sincerely, Alexis Zeigler Department of Planning and Community Development 401 McIntire Rd., Room 218 Charlottesville VA 22902 May 18, 1999 To the Planning Committee, The compromise plan for the proposed 'q)ig box" development of the Brass property on Fifth Street is a sham. Giving it the politically benign designation of "Community Service" development while applying a maximum square footage for retail development of 160,000 can only be interpreted as a political slight of hand. 160,000 square feet is larger than anything on 29 North (except for Lowes, at 165,000 sq. ft.),;~this ceiling does nothing to prevent the type of mega mall the community so articulately opposes. By adopting the community service designation the Planning Commission is tacitly admftting that big box development is politically unpopular and inappropriate to the site. "Limiting~' the ceiling to 160,000 square feet is being deceptive--but please do not deceive yourselves into believing the community will not notice or remember on election day. Commissioners, you have the opportunity to do' something brave and definitive. This is not just a decision about a shopping mall it is an indication of the future of Charlottesville and Albemarle COunty. Sincerely, Karen Peabody O'Brien Resident of Albemarle County 1682 Colle Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 RECEIVED MAY 2 U 1999 PLANNING AND OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT X TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Susan Thomas, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner April 12, 1999 CPA 9%05 (Brass, Inc.) I ran three separate scenarios for Brass, Inc. The first scenario involved the development that could take place under the existing comprehensive plan. As per your instructions, I assumed a one-year build-out 0f215,000 square feet of industrial space. Below is the CRIM average cost model's projected net annual fiscal impact from this development: Fiscal Impact (Current Comp. Plan) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal hnpaet $146,000 539,000 $685,000 ($586,000) ($197,000) ($783,000) ($98,000) This scenario indicates that development under thepresent Comprehensive Plan would result in a n~t cash ou~tTow from the County. Keep in mind that industrial d~ve. lopmcnt sometimes does not pay for itseff. This situation can arise when a project brings in n~v residents to fill factory jobs, The increase in new households translates into increased school enrollmonts. Since school-related expenditures represent such a large portion the County's costs, increases in enrollments typically lead to negative fiscal impact numbers. In the present ease, CRIM estimated that an industrial site of 215,000 square feet would bring in 55 new students, of whom 28 would be in elementary school, 13 in middle school CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Two and 14 in high School. In terms of the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), CRIM estimated that, after build-out, the industrial development of the property under the current Comprehensive Plan would have the net annual impact shown below. CH' Impact (Current Comp. Plan) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CH' Impact ($0) ($217,000) ($217,000) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($217,000) This negative $217,000 net annual CIP impact figure accounts for a significant portion of the $783,000 annual public expenditures related to the development of the Brass; Inc. property under the current Comprehensive Plan. The second scenario I ran involved the proposed development of the Brass, Inc. property. As per your instructions, I assumed a one-year build-out of 300,000 square feet of retail space. CRIM estimated the following annual net fiscal impact, after build-out, for this project. Fiscal Impact (Proposed Project) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $159,000 987,000 $1,145,000 ($211,000) ($89,ooo) ($300,000) $84~000 CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Three The proposed development of the Brass, Inc. property, in contrast to the development that could take place under the current Comprehensive Plan, would result in a net cash inflow to the County. Note that even though CRIM estimated that the proposed development would result in an additional 20 students in the Albemarle public schools (10 at the elementary level, 5 at the middle school level, and 5 at the high school level) the additional revenue generated from this project would more than make up for the additional school-related expenses. In terms of the County's CIP, CRIM estimated that, after build-out, the proposed development of the Brass, Inc. property would have the net annual impact shown below. CH' Impact (Proposed Dev.) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP Impact Net Annual CH' Impact ($0) ($78,000) ($78,00o) ($0) ($0) ($78,000) ($7s,ooo) Note that the net annual CIP impact of the proposed development is significantly ($139,000) less than that associated with the development that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan. This difference stems largely from the smaller number of students who, theoretically, would enroll in the County's schools under the proposed development than under the development that could take place currently. Fewer students translates into less pressure for capital projects. A comparison of the development that could occur on the Brass, Inc. property under the present Comprehensive Plan and that which would happen under the proposed development gives an idea of the differential impact of approving CPA 97-05. Under present zoning, the net annual fiscal impact would be a negative $98,000 while, under the proposed amendment, the impact would be apositive $845,000. According to CRIM's estimates, the approval of CPA 97-05 would lead to a differential net annual fiscal impact of $943,000. From a fiscal impact perspective, the approval of this proposed CFA makes sense. Note, however, that this positive differential fiscal impact does not necessarily mean that CPA 97-05 should be approved. The County can and should consider other factors associated with the development of this property (e.g., potentially increased CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Four traffic congestion, potential environmental degradation, etc.) as it decides whether or not to apprOve this CPA. As you and David Benish mentioned to me recently, a third, viable, scenario might exist for the development of this property. Under this alternate development scenario, there would be a one-year build-out of 100 mulfifamily dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of retail space, and 100,000 square feet of taxable office space.~ I ran this scenario through CRIM and obtained the following results. Fiscal Impact (Alternate Dev.) Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expend. Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $255,000 1,036,000 $1,291,000 ($864,000) ($277,000) ($1,141,000) $150,000 Under this alternate development scenario, the County would benefit, as it did under the proposed development scenario, from a net cash inflow. The size of the inflow under the alternate scenario, however, would be substantially less than that under the proposed scenario ($150,000 vs. $845,000, or a difference of $695,000). A large portion of the difference in the fiscal impact of these two scenarios has to do with the higher number of students who, theoretically, would enroll under the alternate development of the Brass, Inc. property than who would enroll as a result oftheproposed development of the land. Under the alternate scenario, the County's schools would have an additional 81 students (44 in elementary school, 18 in middle school, and 19 in high school). In terms of the County's CIP, CRIM estimated a net annual impact of negative $322,000. The breakdown of this figure appears on the next page. Recall that the net annual CIP impact of the proposed development was negative $78,000. The differential CIP impact between the alternate and the proposed scenarios, then, is $244,000. The relatively favorable numbers associated with the proposed project do not necessarily mean that the development of 300,000 square feet of retail space is better than the type of hypothetical project that you and David devised. As mentioned previously, the County of Albemarle can and should consider a number of different factors as it decides whether or not to approve CPA 97-05. CPA 97-05 April 12, 1999 Page Five Impact (Alternate Dev.) Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total County CIP ImPact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) ($322,000) ($322,000) ($o) ($o) ($o) ( 22,ooo) The following table summarizes the fiscal impacts of the three different development scenarios involving the Brass, Inc. property. Scenario Net'Annual Fiscal Impact Net Annual CIP Impact Current ($98,000) ($217,000) Proposed $845,000 ($78,000) Alternate $150,000 ($322,000) SAA/saa MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT XI TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Planning Commission Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council Brass, Inc. Charlottesville Planning Commissio~ February 5, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests by Brass, Inc. Thank you for your continued interest in a full consideration of issues surrounding the proposal to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan on the southern boundary of the City by Brass, Inc. Several members of the City Planning Commission and staff attended your December 15 work session, and we have been able to consider additional data and feedback from the public since that time. On August 14, 1998, the Charlottesville Planning Commission sent a memorandum outlining our position regarding the amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan requested by Brass, Inc. We have attached a copy of this memorandum for your review. Since writing that memorandum, additional evidence has come to our attention. We are motivated to write this new memorandum in light of further consideration of the impact and implications that this significant change in the Comprehensive Plan will have on the City and County. As you will see in the following comments, the Brass, Inc. proposal has serious negative implications for the County and the City, and in our estimation these factors argue strongly for the denial of the applicant's request. Economic Impacts Projections offered by the applicant suggest that this development will be a great economic benefit to the County in the form of increased tax revenues. This is not necessarily true. A recent study by Professor Edward B. Shils of the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania (entitled "Measuring the Economic and Sociological Impact of the Mega-Retail Discount Chains on Small Enterprise in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Communities, February, 1997) reveals the full range of economic issues involving deep discount stores. The study demonstrates that historically, the introduction of a mega-retail discount store in a small city surrounded by a suburban and rural community can actually reduce the tax base of not ordy the city, but also the suburban/rural government entity surrounding the city,. Professor Shils' exhaustive research and analysis shows that the predatory pricing strategies utilized by mega- retail discount chains to grab market share can lead to a reduction in overall tax revenues generated by localities, and to a reduction in the number and size of smaller business, as well as employment opportunities for citizens of the community. While we are deeply concerned about the economic impact that a 300,000 square foot mega-retail discount chain would have on the City of Charlottesville's economy, the Shils report demonstrates that the construction of this development will lead to same kind of "disinventment" and erosion of existing retail businesses in the County as well. The strategy used by mega-retail discount chains that Professor Shils identifies in his report follows a consistent pattern throughout the United States. Mega-retail discount chains lower prices on well-known items until they are at or below cost. The smaller stores in the area cannot compete with the prices and consumers flock to the mega-retail discotmt store. Smaller retailers shut down, move out of the area or reduce staff and inventory in order to survive on reduced sales, thus causing a large scale "realignment" of job opportunities for citizens who own and work in small and mid-sized retail businesses. After the mega-retail discount store has established dominant market share, it increases prices to make up for past lost revenue. The end result is near monopoly status for the mega-discount retail store and many empty storefronts in what were once th.riving shopping centers. The prospect of empty stores in Albemarle Square~ Fashion Square, Seminole Square, Shoppers World, Pantops, and Barracks Road Shopping Center to name only a few, should be enough to chill your interest in approving this project. Empty storefronts mean reduced shopping traffic, rundown stores, reduced tax revenues, and increased crime and vagrancy. Traffic Impacts In the first joint work session that we attended, the applicant's private traffic consultant disagreed with the VDOT assessment of serious traffic problems that would be produced by this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Since that time, the private consultant has reviewed the data, and he now agrees with VDOT that the dramatic change in traffic load produced by an extremely large regional shopping center in such dose proximity to limited capacity roads in the City will cause a serious downgrading in service levels throughout the area. Therefore they suggest that the only way to "resolve" these problems(problems that are the direct result of this possible development) involves widening Fifth Street and Bent Creek Road. It is important to reiterate that the City of Charlottesville has no plans to widen either Fifth Street or Bent Creek Road. The City Council and City Planning Commission have stated repeatedly that such widening projects of Fifth Street Extended, Bent Creek Road, as well as of historic Ridge Street will not be supported. As a matter of prudent planning, and in the interest of.protecting public welfare and safety of the Ridge Street and Fifth Street neighborhoods, we have and will continue to consistently ensure that neither Ridge Street, Fifth Street nor Bent Creek Road are widened. Shopping Opportunities The developers state that the Southern residents of the city and county desperately need this shopping center. We agree that city and county residents south of downtown Charlottesville need to have places to buy groceries, flowers and pharmaceuticals, get a hair cut, and be seen by a doctor or dentist. We do not agree, however, that a mega-retail discount store like a Super Walmart or Target on Fifth Street is the best way to provide these services to the residents of the City and County. The lower neighborhood scale of development at Southpointe should go a long way toward providing the retail shopping needed by residents of this area. In addition, with proper planning new businesses could be located in the City on Fifth Street, downtown, Cherry Avenue and on West Main Street to further augment the current and planned retail available to residents who live on the south side of Charlottesville. Commercial Areas and the Comprehensive Plan A Comprehensive Plan change allowing a regional shopping center on Fifth Street is opening the door to the development of a southern "29 North," loaded with "big boxes," fast food chains, uncrossable eight-lane highways and unused sidewalks. Both the City and County are struggling to counteract zoning policies of the past that resulted in exclusively automobile oriented shopping, (i.e. sprawl). For example, the County is promoting "in.fill development", restricting development to designated growth areas, developing out parcels, building sidewalks and investing in landscaping. However, by approving Brass, Inc.'s application, the County would be taking a step that flies in the face of all of the above examples. You would encourage commercial development outside the current area of designated commercial growth. The argument can and has been made that additional acreage for commercial development is needed. However the County's build-out analysis shows that there are nearly 1000 acres currently available under the County's Comprehensive Plan for commercial developments. Therefore, additional acreage for commercial development is not needed in the near or distant future: Amending the County's Comprehensive Plan to generate additional acreage would be bad planning and bad policy because it would generate sprawl. Such sprawl in the southern part of the County should be resisted. The best way to protect against additional sprawl in this case is to retain the current designation of this property within the Comprehensive Plan. Brass, Inc. has attempted to avoid having the sprawl label attached to its development. They have offered a few graphic renderings somehow suggesting a "town center" or as they put it a "main street" type development. The reality is quite different. First, they are not bound by any drawings presented to you at this stage. Second the size of the development is approximately equal to two Lowes, two K-Marts, three Sam's Clubs or three Walmarts. Third, the proposed parking lot is the size of nine or ten football fields. No architect, no matter how experienced in so-called "new-urbanism," can make a retail facility this huge and a parking lot this expansive into a town center. Instead, they will produce one of the most powerful engines for automobile oriented suburban sprawl in the Charlottesville region. This is direct threat to the care that the County has exercised in managing its growth and will impact the beauty of the southern part of Albemarle County. Although the applicant has made superficial reference to "new urbanism", there is no way of getting around the fact that the County's approval of this amendment would open the door to essentially more of the same problems that are currently contributing to sprawl within our community. Smaller Scale Development and Mixed-Use If a change in the current designation of this property under the County's Comprehensive Plan is in the public interest, this change should not allow the large scale, mega-retail, regional shopping that is requested by the applicant. A smaller scale and intensity of use would al/ow for greater sensitivity, to the environmental issues of this site with its extensive border on Moore's Creek. In addition, smaller scale would encourage a "mixing" of uses, including commercial, retail and residential. The combination of these uses would serve to soften the extreme impact of purely big box commercial use. The applicant has brought forward the concept of "new urbanism" for this site. Notwithstanding their lofty claims, absent the careful and integrated design of housing with the retail functions, the vision of "main street" that they imagine will only be a cartoon. Conclusion As we indicated at the beginning of our August 14 memorandum, Comprehensive Plan Amendments should not be driven by an individual property owner's desire to upgrade the value or marketability of his or her property. Rather, it is the purpose of a comprehensive plan to ensure that the use of a parcel of land is in line with the overall public interest. The adverse economic impact that this proposed development will have on existing retailers in the City and County, the probability that no mega-retail discount chain will buy into the project because of the lack of sufficient access, and the nearly unanimous sense throughout our community that more sprawl is not wanted, lead to the conclusion that this proposed change to the County's Comprehensive Plan should be denied. We sincerely appreciate the serious care that you are exercising in this critically important community-wide issue, and we look forward to continued collaboration and consultation on this matter. 4 C¥ILLE COH DEV Fax:80z~-970-3~59 Feb 8 '99 11:$1 P. 06 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Plax~ng Commission Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council Brass, Inc, Southpointc Charlottesville Plavning Commission August 14, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests by Brass, Inc. a ad $outhpointe The joint city and county planning commission work session that y~ 1998, was a productive opportun2y for both commissions to hear p.resenta and consider the implications of each application. We appreciate being inc and thank you for the opportunit7 to participate. The purpose of this memorandum is fo offer our observations, anal the respective applications. )u hosted on June 30, tions by the applicants [uded in the process ~sis and opinion as to Brass, Inc. requests that the designation of ks property be changed from "industrial service" to "regional service" under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Th e justification for this request is primarily that the property has been difficult, if not impossible, tc market under its current designation. The applicant further argues that changing the design~tion to allow a "regional service" shopping center will provide additional revenue for the q;ounty, additional services to southern residents of the County and City, and additional jobs t~ the inhabitants of the City and County. First, amendments to a locality's Comprehensive Plan should not be driven by the desire of an applicant to sell or increase the value of its property. Landowners are aJ their land to a "higher use." It is the purpose of a comprehensive plan to e: parcel of land is in line with the overall public interest. This leads to our second poin~. The applicant's assertions regurdin, application to the welfare of both the County and City, cai! to take into con: important mitigating factors. While a regional shopping center will increas County, it will also increase: (1) the toad ou the Ci~'s infrastructure (e.g. runoff`at a sensitive point in the Moore's Creek basin; and (3) the costs to providing services to Re new employees of this shopping center (e.g. soho adversely affect existing businesses in the City. Consequently, the l;iscal Ir in the County's work session package of materials does not paint an accurl ways seeking to put tsure that thc usc of a the benefits of its deration several e tax revenues ['or the roads); (2) the water :he City and County of ,Is), It will also ~pact Analysis.included .re picture of the costs CVILLE COM DEV Fax :804-970-:5559 Feb 8 '99 11 :;52 P. 07 and benefits of this application. Therefore, the weight given to its findings discounted. Third, the discrepancy between the Virginia Departmem of Tra~pc the access needs of the proposed "regional service" shopping center and t~ traffic consultant demonstrates that there is a major unresolved issue as to, take~ to deal with the inevitable increased traffic on Fii~ Street Ext~ded a center is completed, FounlL the City has no plans to widen hs portion of Fiih Street and stated that it will not ~onsider such plans in thc future. The applicant has st service" shopping ~nter will compete with those on Route 29 North and cb north of the proposed development. This will result in in~rea~d traffic on t and Main Street that the City will be unable to alleviate. should be greatly ~tation's analysis of t of the applicant's ~hat steps must be Ret the shopping has consistently ~ted that this "regional ~w shoppers from idge-Mclntire Road For the above reasons the applicant's Comprehe~ive Plan Amendm, h is not in the best interest of the County or the City lo have a "regional ser (i.e. another Route 29 "big box")just outside the City limits on an entrance downtown Charlottesville. Tl~is does not mean that we are against the development of this parc are truly impossible, it may be appropria:e to explore an alternative desigoat County's transitio~ designation. This would allow the incorporation of re,, and smaller scale retail and office functions that more closely resemble the c~ the vidnity of the applicant's property. SOLTH~. OINTE Southpointe's application requests :hat the County's Comprehensive allow thc development of a "regional service" shopping cen~er on its propert property is ~rrently designated as "transitional service." The applicant is to its efforts in exploring and designing a retail development which is "outside 1 contemporary large scale, anonymous, national chain models. should be rejected. 4ce" shoppin& center, ;orridor to historic ,,1. Ii'industrial uses .on, namely, the idential development trent development in Plan be amended to F. The applicant's be commended for he box" of Our major concern involves the development's emphasis on its proxi~ As noted in the sta~report, "It]he applicanfs request got Regional Service d results from & desire for interstate oriented facilities (hotel, motel, food ~our~ Route 64. This can be distinguished from the proposed uses for',.he remaind which reflect Community Service more closely than Regional Service." nity to Route 64. esignation primarily r of the large parcel The applicant's intent is to have the interstate oriented ~acilities prov le services to travelers oftLoute 64 This will greatly increase the number of vehicles usin~ the Route 64 Luterchange. This inc'reased traffic wiliadversely ~ the value of the pr,op .~. in.~. vi,cini~ of the interchange and have other serious negative Lmpacts on the County ancl C~ity ne~lp~oornooas near this interchange, CVILLE CO~l DEV Fax:804-970-5559 Feb 8 '99 11:52 P. 08 In addition, the owners of the proposed interstate oriented faciliti~ exclusive design comrol over their buildings. Consequently, each will des attract as many customers as possible. This means that a premium will be recognition. This will inevitably Icad the owners of the interstate oriented structures that draw attention away from the hazy Blue Ridl~e Mountains, historic lalldmarks of our community, and make the Charlottesville area a~ travelers merely pass through on their way to somewhere else. As with Brass, Inc., we are impressed by the opportunities for mix, this location that incorporates housing with retail and. office uses, at a seal, ~cture, that can support pedestrian uses. Therefore, we suggest th~ senerally retain n their facility to placed on visibility arid facilities to build :lear steams and in to places that ;d-use development in and with a site this property retain its tran~tional designation. This would still allow the applicant to folio',,,- thio ~gh on its vision of developing a retail space in line with its architectural renderings, promote z~xed-use development and protect the beauty of our community from anonymous, national roadsi~te chain motels and restaurants that can be found on interstates across the county. P~R~ ~6. IDDD ~: I~PM ,~ E~D~FOUMD&POL]CY MO~ ~6 P. 171 4~tgg Dear Board of Supervisors: I suppose the Brass, Inc. project of a megs store sounds on the surface as a great idea and with politics and money playing such a large part in these Icinds of endeavors, the Board will probably sell their souls to the developer, However, I would like to interject a few comments on this, even though I am probably wasting my time end energy. FirSt of ali, the notion that all growth is not good, is not where ! am coming from. The notion of uncontrolled and un.needed growth is where i am coming from. The reasoning by some that urban sprawl will take over our 13eautiful Albemarle countryside is valid.. I am from Hampton, VA (Tidewater area) and I have seen firsthand, large shopping centers being almost completely abandoned and [and beir~g purged for new centers close Dy. WI3at a wastel I live in the area of this proposed project and cannot see where this type of project [s worth destroying more land making more congestion. Some say that the elderly are afraid to go to 29 north. Well if this me[~a project is built, the traffic will probably be worse than 29. Right now, it is idea[ for shopping by elderty people in this area. There is little congestion and there are a variety of stores to shop in. Besides, the elderly can afford to be short sighted, becau~ they are not concerned about the future of the aethethice of the county and quali~y of life here, Seif-centerednese, selfishness, and greed seem to be the order of the day. I am delighted to see and hear of so many young people who are interested in things other than material and recognize the importance of wise growth decisions (not big profits). I realize that growth is bevitable but wise and concentrated growth should be the ultimate concern. Please ¢onsicler the future generations before unleashing indiscriminate growth. Let Albemarle shew the way in their ability to shun the temptation for the quick buck and opt for the long-term benefits to our environment. Thank you for reading my letter, (I have an exam and cannot he at the board meeting.) I hope and pray it has given acme insights that you may not have thought about. Since rely '(,1~'~..~,..,~,._ Donna F;~'~u m " Charlof~esville, VA April 21, 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVIgORS ~DISWRI~'UT~.D TO t~OAP. D A~/~RS TO: Albemarle County Planning Commission RE: Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal by Brass, Inc. (Willoughby site) Dear members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission: I write to voice my very serious concerns about the proposal by Brass Inc. for a big-box commercial development on Fifth street, south of the City. As a long time resident of the County, and someone who teaches urban planning, there are a number of things about this proposal which greatly concern me. Much of my own research and writing over the years has focused on strategies for creating sustainable communities, both here in the U.S. and in Europe. For a variety of reasons this proposal seems to me to move our community and region in precisely the opposite (unsustainable) direction. Let me elaborate a bit about my concerns. First, it seems to me that the proposal, as I understand it, would be of a scale and size inappropriate to the location and site. One can't help but be struck by the excessive amount of commercial space being considered here and its single-use emphasis. I believe it will be difficult to support this building footprint and at the same time ensure (given the grading and site disturbance that would be required) that the site's sensitive environmental conditions will be respected and protected. Furthermore, given its proximity to the City and the urban core of our region, the proposed project has an unfortunate suburban, auto-orientation to it. Its size, location and types of stores envisioned will, as the County staff report accurately predicts, almost ensure that it "perpetuates the emphasis on vehicular traffic." We should be doing everything we can, to the contrary, to get people out of their cars, to minimize the numbers and amount of auto travel, and to encourage walking and bicycling. Perhaps a creatively designed, scaled-down mixed-use project on this site might help to achieve this, but the present development concept will simply reinforce our dispersed car- dependent landscape and lifestyles. I fear that such a large, auto-oriented suburban style development will have sprawl-inducing effects and serve as a terrible precedent for other development in the area. The location of the Willoughby property, in close proximity to downtown and along an important gateway to the City, suggests the need for special care in designing whatever development occurs here. Ideally, proposals such as the present one should fit within a comprehensive development vision for the 5th Street corridor. As I have not seen such an integrated vision (and the present proposal would not likely fit into any version of such that I could support), I wonder if the development of such a corridor-wide, gateway plan should not occur first. In any event, the corridor should be viewed in its entirety. I strongly support the County' s efforts at promoting infill development. Indeed, nationally there is growing consensus about the need to build new development and accommodate future growth within already urbanized areas first, before committing greenfield and peripheral sites. But, this simply doesn't mean that any form ofinfill is appropriate or acceptable. I concur with others who have questioned the extent to which this proposal represents the best we can expect from this site. Infill development is a necessary and worthy goal, but what is being proposed falls far short in my mind. Every new development of this sort ought to include a creative mixing of housing, office and commercial. This is one of the clear lessons from the Europeans: integrate housing and other uses and you substantially cut down on the automobile dependence ad create walkable and enjoyable places and spaces. Many positive examples of such mixed-use projects from Europe and around the U.S. can be cited and used as inspiration for what could be designed and built here. We need to set our sights higher. And, while it may be a number of years before transit becomes a real option for the county (and region), it requires us to think ahead and make land use decisions that contribute to the density and compactness essential for making transit work over the long haul. We need to begin contributing to land use and density patterns that will at least not foreclose these creative transit options in the. future (e.g. light-rail, highspeed buses). The potential economic impacts on other existing businesses are also of concern. What impacts the project right have on the economic viability of the Charlottesville downtown is, of course, uncertain, but I am especially concerned that it may serve to siphon-off energy and activity from downtown. The city's downtown, and the downtown mall in particular, represent unique and special resources of importance to all of us here in the region and I believe that every future development project should be judged by the extent to which it serves to strengthen or reinforce the City's downtown, downtown mall and surrounding businesses. As an aside, I can tell you that in visiting a variety of pedestrianized spaces in numerous European cities, our downtown mall can hold it own against almost any of them. There are few urban spaces like it and we should do all we can to appreciate and strengthen it. We should do everything we can to avoid drawing energy and activity away from it. I fear this will be the unfortunate result of the proposal before you. It is difficult not to imagine how such a project will shift the economic landscape, mostly in negative ways, I fear, and in many ways we probably don't currently understand. To be sure, residents in this part of the County deserve access to adequate retail. The retail demands of residents of this part of the county could, however, clearly be accommodated through a number of smaller establishments and there are apparently a number of other commercially-zoned parcels that might serve this need. Emphasizing the neighborhood-oriented commercial aspects, rather than creating an additional regional commercial magnet would seem to be a more sensible way to go. Many communities around the country have taken a similar approach: planning for and distributing smaller-scale commercial centers that provide opportunities for dally shopping and services are available within a short distance of housing and residential neighborhoods, but guiding regional commercial and business activity into one or a few regional centers. County residents south of the City should have access to neighborhood shopping, but I believe strengthening our existing regional centers (including the downtown) shoUld be emphasized over creating new ones. I have recently read Prof. Edward Shils' (of the Wharton School) report documenting the impacts of big-box commercial, and his findings (as well as those of others) are troubling, to say the least. Such superstores have been shown to undermine the economic viability of smaller retailers, and many of the purported benefits of such stores (lower product prices and additional employment) have proven to be illusory. While it may be unwise to generalize about the impacts of big-box in any specific case, the possibilities are alarming. The economic impacts of such big-box development are certainly worthy of additional study. If this is our idea of economic development, we need some fundamentally re-thinking. It will generate few jobs, will likely undermine existing businesses and economic activity, and in the long run make our community less attractive and livable--the latter representing perhaps the most important factors in supporting healthy local and regional economies. My own preference would be much greater attention given to smaller, locally- oriented businesses and economic endeavors. There are a variety of creative economic development strategies which could and should be emphasized (e.g. small business incubators, waste-based industries, efforts at import-substitution). Re-circulating local income, rather than sending it out of the community, is in the long run a more successful strategy. I find, by the way, many of the arguments made about the potential of the project to reduce auto traffic to 29-North to be unsupportable and improbable. For better or worse, the businesses on the 29 North corridor will remain important trip destinations. My hunch is that people will continue to travel to the great many stores and businesses there (including the Wal-mart, Lowes, Fashion Square Mall...); there are simply too many commercial, entertainment, and other establishments there already. Finally, I might note that there are in fact many American communities that have faced similar development challenges and from which the Charlottesville/Albemarle community might learn. Cities like Davis, California, for example, with similar population size, and presence of a university community, represent models of community planning innovation that would be helpful to analyze and understand. (This community has implemented an impressive land use strategy, emphasizing a strong primary retail core in the city-center and a series of smaller neighborhood shopping centers throughout the city). The town of Chapel Hill (NC), home to another major university, and experiencing substantial growth and development pressures there, did an interesting thing this past fall. They invited representatives from four similar communities from around the country (Davis, CA; Burlington VT; Boulder, CO; and Annapolis, MD) to a public forum. The representatives were asked to describe what their communities were doing to address growth pressures and what innovative ideas and practices seemed to be working successfully there to create sustainable, livable communities. I attended this forum and though t to myself that a similar meeting might have a useful energizing function here. Much can be learned about the potential here at home by understanding how other places have creatively dealt with and confronted change there. Perhaps a similar forum might be considered here. It seems to me that we need as a community and region to set our sights much higher; to envision and imagine a cityscape much more fundamentally uplifting, forward-looking and inspirational in nature, and to accept such significant development changes only when they further these goals. What we want, I think and hope, is a built environment equal to the phenomenal natural environment we have been blessed with here: compact, green, walkabte and bikable, and where environmentally sustainable landscapes and lifestyles are taken seriously So, for all of the reasons cited above I would strongly encourage you to vote against changing the Comprehensive Plan designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service. Should some plan designation change be inevitable, I agree with the County staff report recommendations: change to Community Service, and push for mixed-use, with a mandatory residential element. I thank you for your consideration and would be happy to elaborate on any of these points should this be helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Tim Beatley "~ 133 Oak Forest Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 804-973-7346 tb6d@ virginia.edu cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors David P. Bowerman C~ado~ Y. Humphris Forrest R. Id,a~h~ Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARt F. Office of Board of Supemisor~ 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, V~inia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 APril 16, 1999 Charle~ S. Martin W~lter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas The Honorable Virginia Daugherty, Mayor City of Charlottesville P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Virginia: I have received your letter, dated April 14th, regarding the possibility of funding a joint study to examine the impacts of the proposed Brass, Inc. development. I have discussed the matter with my fellow Board members and we have decided not to pursue the option of hiring a consultant at this tim& As you may be aware, the County of Albemarle has a full-time Fiscal Impact Planner, Steve Allshouse, who has performed both a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Brass, Inc. project, as well as a separate study of retail sales data from our two jurisdictions for the years 1988 through 1997. I have enclosed copies of both reports. We believe that since the County has essentially already paid for these analyses, it would not make sense to pay for another study. Should the City decide to undertake its own study of the impacts of the Brass, Inc. proposal, we offer our cooperation in such study, and we hope that the analyses we are providing would lessen the cost of any study you may pursue. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/dbm 99.009 Enclosure pc: )~t'fbemarle County Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper BOARD:OF3UPE~V~ORS CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of the Mayor P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone (804) 970-3113 April 14, 1999 Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22902 Dear Charles: As you know, the City Council and Charlottesville Planning Commission have expressed strong doubts about the wisdom of changing the County Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the Brass, Inc. proposal. At our April 5th Council meeting a number of citizens spoke in opposition to the "big box" proposal. Following that, Council discussed the rezoning request and the need for further information on the impact a super discount store might have on Charlottesville. We agreed to ask the Board of Supervisors to join us in securing an outside economic impact study of the Brass, Inc. project. Such a study could include impacts on the City's commercial areas as well as the County's. The report could include other issues such as jobs, wages and consumer opportunities. Since a project of this magnitude would bring about permanent change in the appearance, traffic and economy of the City and the Coumy, it is important for the two governmental bodies to work together as the plan is considered. We believe that funding a jo'mt study would be a good approach. Please call or write me to discuss this possibility as soon as you can. Sincerely yours, Virginia Daugherty Mayor ,JULY 7, 1999 CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO CONSIDER THE ACQUISITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES FOR SCHOOL SITES; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSUbT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO THE TRANSITION OF CHARLO]-FESVILLE TO TOWN STATUS AND REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO AN INTERd URISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk /~ July 2, 1999 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through September 30, 1999. Unless you indicate that you would either like to reappoint the same person, if eligible, or select your own magisterial appointment without advertising, these vacancies will be advertised in the Daily Progress on July 18 and 25. Applications for new vacancies, which will then be due no later than August 25, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on September 1, 1999. cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Ch'ville Regional Chamber of Commerce David P. Bowerman Charlotte Y. Humphris J~k Jou~ Forint R. Mamhall, &. COUNTY OF Al REMARI F. Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (804) 296.-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 MEMORANDUM Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins WhiteHall Salty H. Thomas Samuel Miller TO: FROM: Board of Supervisors Laurie Hall Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: July 2, 1999 Applications for Boards and Commissions On the attached I have provided a list of applicants interested in current vacancies on Boards and Commissions which have been advertised. Attachments: CC: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL NEW TERM RE- APPOINTMENT? BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? (Api~lications sent under separate Karen L. P owell 12-31-01 Moved Jack Jouett COVer.) Juandiego Wade 09-30-99 09-30-02 Yes Clifford R. Buys 09-30-99 09-30-02 Yes Dan M. Manpin 09-01-99 09-01-01 Yes Fred W. Shields, Jr. 09-01-99 09-01-01 Yes Montie Pace 09-01-99 09-01-01 Yes Rick Huff N/A N/A Resigned Tom Foley BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW, EXPIRE INCUMBENT IF DATE SCHEDULED Elizabeth D. McIvor Gene E. Smith County of Albemarl%o 401 Mc~ ~ C~o~o, VA 22902~596 (8~} 296-5843 ~PLICA~ON TO S~ ON BO~ / CO~SSION / CO~E ~le~ ~ or p~nt) B~/~hsion/~~ee ~o~ o~' Soe~a~ S~v~ee~ f~om ~ae~ ~o~e~ AppH~t'sN~e ~ ~abo~ Sm~h (~ss o~ ~,} Home Phone ~0b-97~-~38 HomeAd~ess ~6 ~~n~ Ro~ ~h~obb~sv~ V~rg~n~a ~2901 M~i~e~ Di~ ~ w~ch yo~ home ~siden~ is l~d ~aa~ ~o~ Employer. ~0~e Phone ~ob B~ess Add.ss - ~o~ D~eof~plo~ent ~o~ ~_p~q~ a~h3 ~ Occup~on/Title ~~ T~aeh~/ ~o~v~ Vo~b~ Ye~s~sident~bem~leCo~ 20~' y~s: Previous Residence ~r~ao ~ou~ S~use's N~ ~o~ N~r of Chil~en .... Educa~on (Degrees ~dG~u~on Da~s) E~o~p.h-~eon Wo~~ s. ~oZ~ge~ U~v~s~by of.' ~ oenlor ~eaGe~s~lp ~rogram Boars Head Sport~ Club~ Country Club of Virginia (Richmond) Public, Civic and Charitable Office and / or Other Activities or Intere~ At pr e sent: JE?FERS0 N AREA BO ARD FOR AGING--Board of Directors--, Executive Committee, Chair of Program Evaluation 3EFFERqQN ~w~ ~n ~oM A~T~G~ INC.(th~ for-~rofit arm)Secretary ~d all above JEFF~SON ~T~-C-0UNCIL--member; NORT~EST~N VIRGIN'~A HEALTH SYSTEMS AGE,ICY ~I SEM!0R C!TIZEM~--viee-P~d~ut~ S~IOR STATESt~N-of VIROINIA~ INC.~-President~ . Presiden~rEleot. ~though I only had 6 hours, of sociology at R~C my volunteer ac~zv~szes have always~ been in social ~rv~ces. In Ric~ond I served on ~ne Doard of Governors' C~p. aiEn (2) and Budget (7). I also s;erved on the Board'~ of' Directors'~ of the ~ic~nd~ Commp~itE Action PrQ~ram for 7~ears on Fl~ning ~ Evalum~ion Co~itt'-e~ e ~o~o~ p~vme~ o~"~s ~pnc~on ~l~e rele~ed:o ~e public upon toqueS. At the University 8f' Va. I studied and received credits'~ in Accounting--Fin~cial, Managerial) Cos:t, Lif~ Cycle Assets% Intermediat=~ W~8~vn] Tnxntion. and ElementarM & Adv~ced Auditi~ and Finance; Quantitative ~alysi~mmerci~l Law..; Economics.;: M~ement$ ~arketin~: ~omputin~ J_ Cqbol& Bas~ ~.~~~ ~.__ ~ ~ ~etu~ to: ~]erk, Boar~ of CoUn~ Su~e~sors ~~ ,~y~-- / ADDENDUM to G.E. SMITH'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY Qualifications listed are (1) an interest in the social issues affecting citizens. (2) Ability to make community contacts for input. (3) An involvement in or knowledge of other agencies helpful. As one of the founders of the Senior Statesmen of Virginia, I have applied my interest in the issues of our community to bringing state and national leaders and experts in the issue field to Albemarle County to discuss both sides of the issues in programs and forums which are always free and open to the public. ! participated in a Welfare Reform discussion leadership program led by Nancy O'Brien and Hannah Twaddell and an outside organization prior to the local welfare program implementation, but Senior Statesmen of Virginia responsibilities and meetings prevented me from participating in the "Brown Bag Lunch Program of Discussions~i I worked with Wilma Hartung, a SSV member, City of Charlottesville resident and MSW retired social worker, to create a~free, public program with Buz Cox, Director of the Charlottesville Department of Social Services, and Chip Coleman, Director of the Culpeper Department of Social Services (which had a two year pilot program advance) to discussing "Welfare Reform Experience in Culpeper and Plans in Charlottesville and Planning District 10". Afterward at my request, Buz Cox sent me a copy of his speech, and Wilma Hartung and I spent an afternoon in Culpeper with Chip Coleman visiting the social services sites. (Culpeper had turned an abandoned school building into a one stop service building housing child care, Head Start, Employment Counseling, etc. where young mothers bring their children and then board a bus to school. We also visited an afterschool program in a school.) In my two years on the campaign trail as Chair of the residential campaign in Richmond, Henrico and Chesterfield and Chair of the Women's Campaign (Residential, Clergy, Shopping Centers, & Special Gifts) for the Greater Richmond Area 'United Way I visited ALL the agencies. In my seven years on the Budget Committee I annually reviewed the budgets of all the agencies, although I was only responsible each year for in depth analysis and defense of three different agencies on a rotation basis. I know the difficulties involved in raising money and the thoroughness required by the public in evaluating programs and budget requests. In my seven years as a member of the Board of Directors Program Planning and Evaluation Committee for the Richmond Community Action P.rogram I reviewed Grant Proposals and Grant Evaluations as well as proposed budgets. I visited all the RCAP centers and program sites. As Chair of the JABA/JABA Inc. Program Evaluation Committee I have visited all the Senior Wellness Centers in the Region and have accumulated an in depth knowledge of JABA's and JABA Inc.'s services and the needs of the aging population in Albemarle County. I have traveled all over the County. I know the state and national legislative leaders in our area, and I know my way around the halls of government and government services and information in both Richmond and Washington. (I served as a senior intern in the office of Senator Charles Robb.) I have met many Albemarle County staff members through the Neighborhood Leadership Institute and the Citizens Police Academy. Through the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency, Inc. Board of Directors I work with many members of the health services organizations in our quadrant of the state. I can attend meetings on the 4th Thursday of the month. David R ~ Chm~o~ ~ H~mp~ COUNTY O~ ALBEMARI F. Office of Board of Supemisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Vh'ginia 229024596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 W~lter E Perkim S~ll~ H. Thorn,s July 9, 1999 Mr. Thomas Foley Albemarle County Assistant County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Foley: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, the Board appointed you to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Planning & Coordination Council - Technical Committee, to replace Mr. Rick Huff. I have enclosed a copy of the committee roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this.opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James Camblos Larry Davis Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Ch~lotl~ Y. Humph~is Formst R. Marshall, Jr. COUntY Of ^i _b~ Office of Board of SUl~rvisors 40! Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'~inia 22902-459~ (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 July 9, 1999 Mr. Dan M. Maupin Rt. 2, Box 220 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Maupin: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the Land use Classification Appeals Board, with said term to begin on September 2, 1999 and expire on September 1,2001. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowennan Charlotte Y. Humphris jad~ JouSt - Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. COUNTY Of aLB~i E Office of Board of Super~sors 401 Mdn~re Ro~d Chaflo~e, Vn'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas July 9, 1999 Mr. Fred W. Shields, Jr. P.O. Box 271 Keene, VA 22946 Dear Mr. Shields: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the' Land use Classification Appeals Board, with said term to begin on September 2, 1999 and expire on September 1,2001. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell Printed on recycled poper David P. Bow~mn Ch~do~ ¥. Humphri~ Forrest P~ Marshall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARI.E Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, t/a'ginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 2965800 Charles S. Martin Walt~r E Perkins ~ It. Thomas July 9, 1999 Mr. Montie Pace Rt. 4, Box 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Pace: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the Land use Classification Appeals Board, with said term to begin on September 2, 1999 and expire on September 1, 2001. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Bruce Woodzell Printed on recycled paper CO~ OF aLB~i_f_ 401 Mclnfir~ Road (S04) 296-,SS43 FAX (S04) July 9, 1999 Ms. Elizabeth D. McIvor 103 Franklin Ct. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. McIvor: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, the Board appointed you to the Board of Social Services, with said term effective July 7, 1999 and to expire December 31,2001. I have enclosed a copy of the committee roster for your assistance. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to serve the County ifitthis capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James Camblos Larry Davis Kathy Ralston County of Albemarle Office of Board of Coun_ty S.upervisors 401 M¢Intire R~a Charlott~s'vill¢, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE (please type or print) ~oa~/Commission/Comn~t~ ' /~~~ ~ ~ D~e of ~plo~ent /e ~ ~ &cu~on / Title ~~ Mem~m~P~ i~ Fmtem~. Business, Churc~d/or soci~ ~roups I~ Si~m Return to: ~l~rk, Bgar~ of ~oun~ Supe~sors ~jp~. ~o~n~. ~ h~Res~le,~ 22902-4596 D~v~d R COUNTY Of Office of Board of SupenAsors 401 McIntire Road Charlo~e, V'L,~jinia 22902-4596 (~)4) 296-5~,3 FAX (804) 2965800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Sally H. Thomas July 9, 1999 Mr. Clifford R. Buys 3381 Piperfife Ct. Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Mr. Buvs: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the JAUNT Board, with said term to begin on October 1, 1999 and expire on September 30, 2002. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/Ibh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Donna Shaunesey Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Chmtotte Y. Humphris Pon'est R. Marshalt, Jr. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, V'~jinia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Pe~kim Sall~ H. Thomas July 9, 1999 Mr. Juandiego Wade 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Wade; At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 7, 1999, you were reappointed to the JAUNT Board, with said term to begin on October 1, 1999 and expire on September 30, 2002. I have enclosed the Board's updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this"opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Charles S. Martin Chairman CSM/lbh Enclosure cc: James L. Camblos, III Larry Davis Donna Shaunesey Printed on recycled paper H P A ARD! Leadership Forum Galvanizing Support for Expanded Passenger Rail Service in Virginia To Benefit Communities in Central, Southern & Western Yirginia ~04RD OF SUPERVISORS 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Dillard Fine Arts Center Lynchburg College 1501 Lakeside Driw, Lynchburg, V'uginia ................... Sch~luled Speal~erslnclude The Hotr tF'dliam C~ IFampler, Jr. vhg~a~ B~l,Vchafer, Director, Corporate Affairs Norfolk Southern Corporation Ray/.ang, Managor, Govornmeat Mered~ R/chards, Vic~ Mayor City of Charlotteavalo Leo J. Bevon, Diroctor Virginia Dopt. of Rail and Publi~ Transportation Hugh D. Keogh, Prosideat V~ Chamber of Commerce Lt. Gen. Samue/E ~F'dson, Pr~ideat Hampdm-Sydn~ Coll~ R.S.V.P. (8O4) S45-5966 LYNCHBI G Cbawl v, oF. Cowwegce 06-25~99A05:05 RCv? Dear Leadership Forum Invitees: The Greater Ly~chburg community and many other localifi~ in Ca~m'al, Southern & Western Virginia are interested in axpanded pessenger rail service for the citiz~ of our rc~ioll. The Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce is pleased to sponsor a Leadership Forum from 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. on Mogday, July 12, at Lynchburg College in the Dillard Fine Arts Center. Dir~ions to our campus are enclosed. The purpose of the session is to bring together le/islators, chairs of the various county boards of supervisors and administrators, mayors and city managers, Chamber of C0r~-nerce leaders, cofl~g'~'~residents and opinion leaders from communities in the regions of the Commonwealth who could benefit from expanded passenger rail service in the 21 st Through this Leadership Forum, "Galvanizing Support for Expanded Passenger Rail Service in Virginia," we hope to learn more about the feasibility of expanded rail service along the 1-81 and U.S. 29/U.S. 460 corridors from Bristol to Washington and to Richmond. We believe that now is the time for those who would benefn from the expanded passenger service to get together, educate ourselves and make plans to work in harmony to improve rail transportation in IArginia. I hope you will be able to attend the Leadership Forum. You are welcome to bring other decision makers with you. We look forward to seeing at Lynchburg College on July 12. Following the formal presentations, you are invited to stay for a brief reception in the Daura Gallery of the Dillard Fine Arts Center. We are featuring a collection of paintings of rural Virginia by the Catalan-American artist Pierre Daura. These are scenes that you could see today, riding the rails through Central, Southern & Western Virginia. Sincerely youn, Charles Warren Chair, Greater Lynchburg Chamber of Commerce President, Lynchburg ~2oHege Office · 2015 Memorial Avenue · P.O. Box 2027 · Lvnchburg, VA 24501 · (8041-845-5966 · FAX (804} 522-9592 URL:www. lynchburgchamber, org · E-mail:info@lynchburgchamber. org ALBEMARLE COUNTY P.O. BOX 1OO9 168 SPOTNAP i'~D. CHARLOTTESVILLE, SERVICE AUTHORITY VA 22902 · (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698- June 3, 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ms. Deborah Murray Ms. Kay Slaughter Southern Environmental Law Center 201"West Main Street, Suite 14 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Murray and Ms. Slaughter: I have read your letter of May 20, 1999 to Mr. Jack Marshall concerning the water supply study being undertaken by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Your obvious omission of any reference to the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) prompts me to comment and to inform you of some of our programs. First, I would like to offer some background information on ACSA. In 1964 the County Board of Supervisors created ACSA to operate water and,sewer systems in specified areas of Albemarle County. ACSA~ is governed by a six member board of directors appointed by the Board of Supervisors. We receive no subsidy from Albemarle County (or any other source); this authority is entirely self-supporting on revenues from our 12,500 customers. The six directors are active community leaders who are knowledgeable of the water supply planning process and its ramifications for the community and our customers. In 1973, the City of Charlottesville, ACSA, and Albemarle County agreed to create the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA). In that agreement.the City and ACSA sold their water treatment facilities and leased the water supplies to RWSA. Future water projects are to be undertaken by RWSA at the request of the City and ACSA. In your letter to Mr. Marshall you voiced concern over the perceived lack of effort to extend our existing water resources. For this reason I would like to inform you of some of ACSA's efforts in this regard. We have developed a customer education program which, in part, includes a redesigned water bill showing a 13 month history of water consumption and space for conservation tips, informational mailings, new customer information packets, and direct customer contact. ACSA also provides the educational materials used in all Albemarle County public schools in the water conservation curriculum required by Virginia's new standards of learning. Our conservation program does include a trial toilet retrofit program (customers are paid $150 per toilet to replace their old ones). Toilet leak detection kits are mailed annually to all customers and upon request. An ongoing leak survey of underground pipes is conducted (including the customers' service lines). Our billing sot~ware searches for unusual water consumption and customers are advised by phone or mail of a possible leak. If meter readers observe obvious leaks or high consumption they leave doorknob hangers advising the customer of the problem. Over the past decade we have changed from a declining block rate schedule to a two tier rate (only one customer is in the second tier). We essentially have a flat rate schedule. The Board of Directors recently appropriated more than $300,000 to replace all water meters over 12 years old. While this will not result in any water savings it will reduce the~,- amount of unaccounted for water. Although federal law now dictates Iow flow devices in all new construction, we have undertaken a trial program with a homebuilder to determine if further water reductions can be achieved in new homes. We are working with the VPI Extension Service to promote xeriscaping in our O' ~ community (please note the extension a~ent s column in today's Daily Progress.) We will be working with the extension service on demonstration projects to promote Iow water landscaping. If you would like to know more about the Albemarle County Service Authority and any of our programs I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you. Ve~,,..t,.r~y yours~5~ ~xe~;~irector . JWB/lbt c.c: ~,~ih!rd or Directors Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Regina Poeske, EPA Region III Joe Hassell, Department of Environmental Quality Pam Painter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers