CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, May 1, 2017 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS Bike to Work Week (May 15-May 19); Mental Health Awareness Month; Kids to Parks Day ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Public comment is provided for up to 15 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 10 of these spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. An unlimited number of spaces are available at the end of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA* (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.) a. Minutes for April 11 and April 17, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: Reimbursement from RWSA for Paving Costs to Ragged Mountain Roadway - $11,796.48 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant - $49,336 (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: CDBG-HOME Funding for FY 2017-2018 (1st of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: Clark Elementary School – Safe Routes to School Grant - $13,992 (1st of 2 readings) f. RESOLUTION: Hydraulic Road/29 North Small Area Planning Agreement and Funding - $30,000 (1st of 1 reading) g. RESOLUTION: Initiate Zoning Text Amendments to Planning Commission for Solar Energy Systems (1 st of 1 reading) h. RESOLUTION: Opt Out of Virginia Transit Liability Pool Membership (1st of 1 reading) i. ORDINANCE: Homeowner Tax Relief Grant Program (1st of 2 readings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING Approval of CDBG and HOME Action Plan for FY2017-2018 (1st of 1 reading) – 10 min RESOLUTION* 3. RESOLUTION* Authorize Issuance of General Obligation Bonds - $15,250,000 (1st of 1 reading) - 10 min 4. APPROPRIATION* Use of Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau Fund Balance for Marketing - $100,000 (1st of 2 readings) – Deferred 5. ORDINANCE* Increase in Salary Compensation for City Council Members (2nd of 2 readings) - 10 min 6. REPORT PLACE Design Task Force Annual Report – 20 min OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *ACTION NEEDED GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT We welcome public comment; it is an important part of our meeting. Time is reserved near the beginning and at the end of each regular City Council meeting for Matters by the Public. Please follow these guidelines for public comment:  If you are here to speak for a Public Hearing, please wait to speak on the matter until the report for that item has been presented and the Public Hearing has been opened.  Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks.  Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you agree with them.  Please refrain from using obscenities.  If you cannot follow these guidelines, you will be escorted from City Council Chambers and not permitted to reenter. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434)970-3182. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 17, 2017 Action Required: Approve Appropriation of Reimbursement Presenter: Doug Ehman, Parks Division Manager Staff Contacts: Doug Ehman, Parks Division Manager Title: Appropriation of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reimbursement for Paving of The Ragged Mountain Access Road ($11,796.48) Background: The City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the management and improvements to City recreational sites. The Department recently paved a gravel roadway at Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority’s Ragged Mountain Dam. This roadway provides access to the dam, serves as an impoundment access point, and is used by recreational users for parking. Paving the road will eliminate the high levels of maintenance needed and help ensure accessibility and user and staff safety. In addition, rain bars were installed to divert sheet flow into an existing stormwater collection system. Discussion: Since the roadway at the Ragged Mountain Dam serves additional purposes other than recreational use, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will reimburse the City 50% of the total projects costs for the paving project. An appropriation of these funds is necessary to replenish the Parks and Recreation Small Cap Lump Sum Account (FR-001/P-00482) for project related expenses. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This request supports City Council’s “Smart, Citizen-Focused Government “vision. It contributes to Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, to be a well-managed and successful organization, and objective 4.1, to align resources with the City’s strategic plan. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: Funds have been expensed from the Parks and Recreation Small Cap Lump Sum Account (P-FR- 001/P-00482) and the reimbursement is intended to replenish the project budget for the County’s portion of those expenses. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of the reimbursement funds. Alternatives: If reimbursement funds are not appropriated, the Facilities Repair Small Cap Lump Sum Account (FR-001/P-00482) will reflect a deficient balance. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Reimbursement for the Paving of the Access Road at Ragged Mountain WHEREAS, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was billed by the City of Charlottesville in the amount of $11,796.48 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $11,796.48 from Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $11,796.48 Fund: 107 Funded Program: FR-001 (P-00482) G/L Account: 432030 Expenditures - $11,796.48 Fund: 107 Funded Program: FR-001 (P-00482) G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $11,796.48, from Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 17, 2017 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Areshini Pather, Commonwealth Attorney’s Office Staff Contacts: Areshini Pather, Commonwealth Attorney’s Office Maya Kumazawa, Budget and Management Analyst Title: Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant - $49,336 Background: The Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Community Services Coordinator assists in the efficient delivery of services and access to the court process for the victims of domestic violence in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Examples include helping in the preparation of domestic violence cases for prosecution and assisting victims in obtaining protective orders. The Coordinator serves as a case manager on behalf of victims in relation to their interactions with community agencies that deliver needed services such as shelter, civil legal assistance, and counseling. No other person in local government fills this specific function on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has been awarded $38,336 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Community Services Coordinator in the City’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. This grant requires that 25% of project funds must be provided by cash or an in-kind match. The City’s Commonwealth Attorney’s Office will provide a $5,000 cash match, and an in-kind match of $4,213. Albemarle County will provide a $6,000 cash match, and an in-kind match of $3,000. Graduate student and intern hours will provide an additional $1,062 in-kind match. The total anticipated cash and in-kind match of $19,275 is more than sufficient to meet the minimum requirement. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and contributes to their priority to: Provide a comprehensive support system for children. The program also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 2: Be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community, Objective 2.4 Ensure families and individuals are safe and stable. The Domestic Violence Coordinator contributes to the health and safety of the community by connecting victims of domestic violence and their children to service providers for emergency shelter, medical and mental health services, housing resources, legal assistance and other services. Community Engagement: The Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Services Coordinator is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with victims of domestic violence and stalking who access services through referrals from police, court services, social services and other allied agencies. The Coordinator works with over 300 individuals yearly and serves on several coordinating councils: the Albemarle/Charlottesville Domestic Violence Council, the Monticello Area Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team, and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Blue Print for Safety group. The Coordinator has actively been involved in the implementation of the Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) used by Charlottesville, Albemarle and University of Virginia Police Departments. Budgetary Impact: The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. The terms of the award require a local match of $5,000 which will be provided by the current City appropriation from the Commonwealth Attorney’s General Fund Operating Budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: In the event that the grant is not funded or that the funds are not appropriated, this position will cease to exist, as there are no other funds to support it. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant $49,336 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, has received the Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $38,336 in Federal pass-thru funds, Albemarle County is to contribute an additional $6,000 in local cash match, and the City Commonwealth Attorney’s Office will contribute up to $5,000 cash match, as needed to meet salary and benefit expenses. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $49,336 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $38,336 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 430120 $ 6,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 432030 $ 5,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures $49,336 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 519999 Transfer $ 5,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 1401001000 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $38,336 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and $6,000 from the County of Albemarle, Virginia. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation and Approval Presenter: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Staff Contacts: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Title: Approval and Appropriation of CDBG & HOME Budget Allocations for FY 2017-2018 Background: This agenda item includes project recommendations, action plan approval, and appropriations for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds to be received by the City of Charlottesville from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In a memo provided to Council on March 17, staff informed Council that the President’s FY (fiscal year) 18 budget proposal proposes $6 billion in cuts to the HUD budget which would eliminate the CDBG & HOME Programs. To date, the City has not received its allocation letter from HUD and is currently unaware of what the impacts (if any) will be to the City’s FY 17-18 budget. For the purpose of carrying out the FY 17-18 Action Plan on time, staff will estimate allocations using previous FY allocations. Discussion: In Fall 2016, the City of Charlottesville advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) based on the priorities set by Council on September 19, 2016. The priorities were microenterprise assistance, workforce development, access to quality childcare, down payment assistance, and homeowner rehab. The City received two applications totaling $98,520 for housing projects; four applications totaling $80,600 for public service projects; one application totaling $12,500 for economic development projects; and one application totaling $10,000 for public facilities projects. A summary of applications received is included in this packet. In January and February 2017, the CDBG/HOME Task Force reviewed and recommended housing and public service projects for funding and the Strategic Action Team reviewed and recommended economic development projects for funding. The 10th and Page Priority Task Force met over the course of late 2016 and early 2017 and made recommendations for 1 neighborhood improvements. On March 14, 2017, these items came before the Planning Commission and Council for a joint public hearing. The Planning Commission accepted the report and unanimously recommended the proposed budget for approval by City Council. CDBG and HOME Project Recommendations for FY 2017-2018: The CDBG program total has an estimated $371,309 for the 2017-2018 program year. The CDBG grand total reflects the $371,309 Entitlement (EN) Grant, and $42,268.31 in Reprogramming. The HOME total consists of an estimated $58,520 which is the City’s portion of the Consortium’s appropriation, in addition to $14,630 for the City’s 25% required match, $19,357.13 in HOME EN available after PI applied, and $3,214.26 in program income carry forward. Minutes from the meetings are attached which outline the recommendations made. It is important to note that all projects went through an extensive review by the CDBG/HOME Task Force as a result of an RFP process. Priority Neighborhood – The FY 2017-2018 Priority Neighborhood is the 10th and Page Neighborhood. The 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood Task Force has recommended several projects to improve the streetscape and pedestrian safety along the 10th Street Corridor and within the 10th & Page Neighborhood. The Task Force has set the following as priorities, thus far: 1) Pedestrian improvements at the 10th St NW and West St intersection; 2) Pedestrian improvements at the 10th St NW & Page St intersection; 3) Beautification efforts at 8th Street and Hardy Drive; and 4) Lighting improvements on the west end (dead end) of Page Street. The Task Force will continue to meet on an as needed basis to discuss additional priorities and improvement projects as needed. Economic Development Projects – Council set aside FY 17-18 CDBG funding for economic development Activities. Members of the Strategic Action Team reviewed applications for economic development. Projects recommended for funding include: • Community Investment Collaborative: funds are proposed to be used to provide scholarships to assist 20 entrepreneurs hoping to launch their own micro-enterprises. Public Service Programs – The CDBG/HOME Task Force has recommended several public service programs. Programs were evaluated based on Council’s priority for workforce development and quality childcare. Funding will enable the organizations to provide increased levels of service to the community. Projects recommended for funding include: • City of Promise - Enroll to Launch Program: Estimated benefits include increased participation in parenting education and support, access to quality childcare and preschool enrollment and access to quality after-care for 20 families; • OAR – Re-entry Services: Estimated benefits include supportive services for 100 recently released offenders to assist with recidivism; and • United Way Childcare Scholarships: Estimated benefits include childcare scholarships for 2-3 families. Housing Projects: The CDBG/HOME Task Force recommended funding to programs that support down payment assistance. Estimated benefits include 11-13 newly supported affordable 2 units. Administration and Planning: To pay for the costs of staff working with CDBG projects, citizen participation, and other costs directly related to CDBG funds, $74,261 is budgeted. Program Income/Reprogramming: For FY 2017-2018, the City has $19,357.13 in HOME EN available after PI applied and $3,214.26 in HOME PI carryforward to be circulated back into the HOME budget. There are also completed projects that have remaining CDBG funds to be reprogrammed amounting to $42,268.31. These are outlined in the attached materials. Adjusting for Actual Entitlement Amount: Because actual entitlement amounts are not known at this time, it is recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro- rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency’s EN amount will increase more than their initial funding request. Community Engagement: A request for proposals was held for housing, economic development, public facilities and public service programs. Applications received were reviewed by the CDBG Task Force or SAT. Priority Neighborhood recommendations were made by the 10th and Page CDBG Task Force. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. Budgetary Impact: Proposed CDBG projects will be carried out using only the City's CDBG funds. The HOME program requires the City to provide a 20% match (HOME match equals ¼ of the EN amount). The sum necessary to meet the FY 2017-2018 match is $14,630, which will need to be appropriated out of the Charlottesville Housing Fund (CP-0084) at a future date. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CDBG and HOME projects as well as the reprogramming of funds. Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed budget with any percent changes to the estimated amounts being applied equally to all programs and also recommended that if less funding is available, than estimated, then the funding be deducted from PHA’s funding allocation and if more funding is available that it be added to PHA’s funding allocation (so that Habitat for Humanity is fully funded). HOME program income will also be applied to FY 17-18 projects. All Planning Commissioners present at the meeting voted. Staff also recommends approval of the appropriations. Funds will not be available or eligible to be spent until HUD releases funds on July 1, 2017. If the funds are not released on that date, funds included in this budget will not be spent until HUD releases the entitlement. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. 3 Attachments: 2017-2018 Proposed CDBG and HOME Budget Appropriation Resolution for CDBG funds Appropriation Resolution for HOME funds Appropriation Resolution for HOME PI funds Appropriation Resolution for CDBG reprogrammed funds Summary of RFPs submitted Minutes from CDBG Task Force meetings 4 2017-2018 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 1/10/17, 1/11/17, 1/19/17, and 1/25/17 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: 3/1/2017 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: I. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. 10th and Page $271,120.31* II. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $12,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $12,500 III. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. City of Promise – Enrolled to Launch $17,000 B. OAR – Re-entry Services $14,696 C. United Way – Child Care Subsidies $24,000 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $55,696 (15% EN) IV. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $74,261 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $413,577.31 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $371,309 REPROGRAMMING: $42,268.31 * Funding includes program income/reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2017-2018 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. Habitat – Down payment Assistance $50,000 B. PHA – Down payment Assistance $45,721.39* TOTAL: $95,721.39 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $58,520 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $19,357.13 PI CARRY FORWARD TO BE APPLIED TO PROJECTS: $3,214.26 LOCAL MATCH: $14,630 * Includes estimated EN available after program income applied and program income carry forward APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE'S 2017-2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $413,577.31 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the 2017-2018 fiscal year in the total amount of $413,577.31 that includes new entitlement from HUD amounting to $371,309.00, and previous entitlement made available through reprogramming of $42,268.31. WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG Task Force, the SAT, the 10th and Page Priority Neighborhood Task Force and the City Planning Commission; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sums hereinafter set forth are hereby appropriated from funds received from the aforesaid grant to the following individual expenditure accounts in the Community Development Block Grant Fund for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between and among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD 10th and Page – Pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements $271,120.31 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $12,500 PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS United Way – Childcare Subsidies $24,000 City of Promise – Enrolled to Launch Program $17,000 OAR Re-entry Services $14,696 ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: Admin and Planning $74,261 TOTAL $413,577.31 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $371,309 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (sub-recipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE’S 2017-2018 HOME FUNDS $92,507.13 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding for the 2017-2018 fiscal year; WHEREAS, the region is receiving an award for HOME funds for fiscal year 17-18 of which the City will receive $58,520 to be expended on affordable housing initiatives such as homeowner rehab and downpayment assistance. WHEREAS, it is a requirement of this grant that projects funded with HOME initiatives money be matched with local funding in varying degrees; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the local match for the above listed programs will be covered by the Charlottesville Housing Fund (account CP-0084 in SAP system) in the amount of $14,630; the resolution for this appropriation with come forward after July 1, 2017. Project totals also include previous entitlement made available through program income of $19,357.13. The total of the HUD money, program income, and the local match, equals $92,507.13 and will be distributed as shown below. PROJECTS HOME EN % MATCH MATCH OTHER TOTAL Habitat for Humanity, DPA $40,000 20 % $10,000 $50,000 PHA, DPA $18,520 20 % $4,630 $19,357.13 $42,507.13 * includes Program Income which does not require local match. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $58,520 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subreceipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. APPROPRIATION HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM $3,214.26 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville has received $3,214.26 from Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority as repayment for loans made through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) program in prior years; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $3,214.26 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: $3,214.26 Revenue Fund: 210 IO: 1900280 HOME PI Carry-forward G/L: 451070 HOME PI $3,214.26 Expenditures Fund: 210 IO: 1900280 HOME PI Carry-forward G/L: 530670 Other Contractual Services APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACCOUNT Reprogramming of Funds for FY 17-18 WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the appropriation of certain sums of federal grant receipts to specific accounts in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and WHEREAS, it now appears that these funds have not been spent and need to be reprogrammed, and therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that appropriations made to the following expenditure accounts in the CDBG fund are hereby reduced or increased by the respective amounts shown, and the balance accumulated in the Fund as a result of these adjustments is hereby reappropriated to the respective accounts shown as follows: Program Account Code Purpose Proposed Proposed Proposed Year Revised Revised Revised Reduction Addition Appropriation 14-15 P-00001-05-03 C4K Websites $37,340.08 15-16 P-00001-05-08 Seedplanters $150.29 15-16 P-00001-02-72 City of Promise $2,624.77 15-16 P-00001-05-12 ReadyKids Facility Project $1,556.12 16-17 P-00001-02-79 OED GO Driver $597.05 16-17 P-00001-05-19 Priority Neighborhood $42,268.31 $42,268.31 TOTALS: $42,268.31 $42,268.31 $42,268.31 CDBG/HOME RFP SUBMISSIONS - FY 2017-18 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Applicant Requested City of Promise Sarad Davenport Enroll to Launch $20,000 OAR Pat Smith Reentry Services $20,000 PACEM Dawn Grzegorczyk Shelter to Home $12,000 United Way Barbara Hutchinson Child Care Scholarships $28,500 $80,500 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Applicant Requested Community Invest. Collaboration Stephen Davis Entrepreneurship-training $12,500 $12,500 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Applicant Requested Crescent Halls sidewalk connection City of Charlottesville Dept of Parks & Recreation Chris Gensic $10,000 $10,000 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Applicant Requested Habitat for Humanity Ruth Stone Project 20 - Downpayment Assistance $40,000 PHA Karen Reifenberger Downpayment Assistance $58,520 $98,520 Economic Housing Social Public Facilities Development Programs CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:00pm – 3:00pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Kathy Johnson Harris X Joy Johnson X Sherry Kraft X Kelly Logan X Sarah Malpass X Megan Renfro X Matthew Slaats X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 2:00pm. The group members began introductions. Task Force Questions Staff provided asked the Task Force (TF) if there were any questions before reviewing scores. Tierra Howard (TH) explained that the SAT reviews the economic develop proposals and that they would be reviewing the CIC proposal. Sherry asked for an explanation of question #5 regarding how the point system works. TH explained that recipients of FY 15 funds could get up to 10 points on #5, non-recipients or new applicants would receive 5 points (neutral score) and then would have the opportunity to gain 5 additional points in the next question (posed to non-recipients of FY 15 funds). There was discussion about how many of the proposals received (from applicants that received FY 15 funds) did not answer #5 or report on FY 15 outcomes. TH explained that she has the data on FY 15 outcomes, however, TH expressed that it is up to the TF to decide if it would like to provide a score based solely on the application response versus scoring on additional information provided by staff or other group members. Howard Evergreen (HE) explained that he would like to have additional information from staff on outcomes because he would not like to penalize an applicant on a misunderstanding. Sarah Malpass (SM) explained that OAR and PACEM answered the question fully but she did not see the information from City of Promise. TH explained that she could share the information. Taneia Dowell (TD) asked if the TF is supposed to utilize the beneficiary information that was included in the staff report. TH explained that some of the information in relation to beneficiaries was unclear in the proposals, therefore questions about the number of those to be served were sent out as applicant questions and responses were distributed to the 1 group. TH explained that as the TF reviews the applications, she can share the responses with the group. SM explained that for item #7 on the evaluation, she was unsure how to evaluate the proposals based on key words of “evidence-based practices” and “best practices and/or research) because many of the proposals did not include the key words. TH explained that difference between best practices, solid research on the effectiveness of strategies, and evidence-based strategies. She explained that evidence-based strategies would be strategies in which there are proven scientific (specific) results and best practices would be using models from other programs/places that were successful (more of a general consensus). Matthew Slaats (MS) explained that evidence-based strategies would have numbers to support the strategies whereas best practices would be more of a verbal suggestion or idea. TH explained that next year it would be helpful to have the questions of clarification from the TF when the evaluation tool is sent out so that the tool can be revised or staff can provide clarification prior to the evaluation of proposals. The TF agreed that the evaluation tool improved from the previous year. HE stated that it is difficult to determine organizational capacity on paper. Kelly Logan (KL) explained that some of the items on the evaluations are hard to quantify into a number, however, she was in hopes that the discussion would help with quantifying a score. TH explained that meeting with the organization is an option. HE explained that he thinks that the group has enough information to make an informed decision. Review of Preliminary Scores for Public Service Proposals City of Promise – Enrolled to Launch Proposal The group shared preliminary scores for items #1 – 10 on the evaluation tool and discussed why certain scores were given.  [#2] Sherry Kraft (SK) explained that the domain of the program and what it is trying to accomplish is broader than childcare and the program has proven to fit within the goals of the Consolidated Plan and priority neighborhood and the goals are very broad for the families (children and parents) and it is hitting the mark. HE stated that the broadness of the response made it more difficult to provide a high score. TD explained that she looked at the Council Priority, however, SK explained that the specific question is asking about the high priority need. HE explained that the question asks the applicant to demonstrate how the program will address the need and it was so broad that he was unable to determine how the program would meet the need. TD disagreed and stated that they explained what they were going to do and how they would meet the needs (help enroll children) and that the program is helping the City schools in meeting their goals. MS explained that he scored low because he was confused. TH explained that the question is specifically related to the high priority need and not consolidated plan goal (in previous question). SM asked what the reasoning is for asking if it meets a consolidated plan goal, TH explained that the program has to meet a consolidated plan goal to be eligible for CDBG. SM explained that the TF should not be so rigid in scoring because the program ties to supporting job improvement and quality childcare. HE explained that he had difficulty identifying what the broader CoP programming was, TD explained that the proposal did a good job in identifying what it offers and the 2 successes. MS explained that there was no place on the evaluation to evaluate grammatical errors and TD stated that that issue does not give her heartburn.  [#3] SK explained that she was confused because the timeline was not clear. TH explained that she believes that the dates are an oversight error. KL explained that she did not see as much detail. The group decided that they would like to stick to providing an average score versus a consensus score.  [#4] MS explained that the proposal did not clearly describe the answer to the question. KL agreed. SK asked the group, how is performance indicators being define and she suggested that the TF is probably not defining it in the same way. SK stated that the application provided specific answers related to reading benchmarks (reading assessments) and no children will enter kindergarten with less than 15 hours/week of preschool. SK stated that she may have a biased view because she reviews reports that have the information in them so she knows it but CoP did not explain it in their proposal. SM explained that the application did a good job in showing how CoP is shifting the bar. HE explained that he felt that the discussion is important for someone who does not know about CoP.  [#5] TD explained that she was unable to identify actual outcomes from the application, however, the staff report provided the actuals. TD asked if were are supposed to go by what is provided in the application versus what the staff report provided. HE stated that he thinks that other information should be included in the evaluation process and that we should not be so rigid. Kathy Johnson Harris (KJH) stated that the group could have asked staff to find out the actual outcomes from CoP, however, staff provided the information upfront therefore the information should be used. KL stated that it was not reported, so she gave a score of a 0. TH explained that they were not the only applicant that missed the question. TD stated that she agreed with KL. She stated if we are only using what was provided in the application, then the score for her is a 0. TD suggested that the group provide a decision on what information to use to provide a score. SM stated that maybe we should provide some flexibility because they were not the only applicant who missed the question, she suggested that perhaps there was confusion about the question. SM stated that she would provide a higher score due to the fact that they did meet their goals, however, she suggested that next year it should be made clear to the applicant that if the applicant does not provide an answer as to how it met its goals and of outcomes of the previous funding, perhaps they should be penalized/disqualified from the process. SM stated that CoP did not answer the question but they did provide outcome data in other sections. KJH asked if staff can provide the applicants feedback to brush up on skills so that if applicants apply for other grants, they will have that knowledge.  [#7] TD explained that some of the needs were identified in other areas,  [#8] HE stated that he could not identify the rigorous evaluation score in the application. SK stated that they did adequately explain their evaluation system. KL stated that it was hard to determine the rigorous nature of the evaluation system in the application. TD explained that they did provide outcome information under question #19. SK stated that they explained how they are using a data system similar to other promise neighborhood programs and also working with City schools to report on data/evaluate. KL stated that she fully supports CoP’s efforts and if it was a yes or no of whether or not to provide funding, she would say yes, however, she felt as though the application did not answer a lot of the questions. KL stated that there is a lot of information that they could provide, but it is not being 3 provided in the application. MS feels that the application perhaps was not written by an experienced grant writer (weak application). SK stated that perhaps the group was looking at different things but she felt as though they described their data collection system but others felt it was not adequate as a description of their evaluation system. TH stated that perhaps the source of confusion amongst the group is that the question asked them how the evaluation system informs their program and that information was not clear.  [#9] SK stated it’s hard to assess the financial benefits as they are long-term. HE stated that the conversation has helped increase his score. MS stated that it is hard to assess financial benefits in this program because benefits occur long term, however, other applications were able to assess the financial benefits (where this application was lacking that information). TD stated that the program budget leverages 16 percent of alternative funds, which does not seem like a lot of funding from other sources, however, she stated that she can see how the program could assist with generating revenue for the City long-term but the application did not answer the question or provide enough detailed information. SM explained that she felt like the application did not use key words from the question to answer the questions.  [#10] SM stated that the application did not mention MOU or formal partnership agreement. SK stated that they do work with ReadyKids and the school system, which was mentioned in the application.  [#11] SM stated that since the program is targeted outside of the SIA, she did not know how to answer it. KJH stated that it is outside of the SIA, however, the majority of the kids that they are serving are transient. SM suggested that for next year we may want to change the question. SK asked if this question was in place to differentiate the SIA from the priority neighborhood. TH explained that when Council set priorities they specifically stated that they wanted to see workforce development funds tied towards PHA and CRHA residents within the SIA area. There was a discussion about whether the other applications specifically stated that they would assist beneficiaries living within the SIA area. SM stated that OAR did specifically discuss doing outreach in the SIA area. HE stated that OAR’s application stated that OAR did not describe that it would be using the funds to specifically target residents within the SIA area. KL stated that we had an intense discussion about how to score applications based on specific facts and information provided. She stated that she had framed her scoring based upon last year’s discussion regarding using facts and information provided in the proposal. She stated that this year, it seems as though we are not providing scores based on the information provided in the proposal (more flexible). She stated that the group needs decide what approach it will be taking to score the evaluations (we are not being consistent). SM stated that she believes that we have not ever decided on an approach. MS stated that it would be helpful for staff to take the averages and focus on numbers that the group does not agree on. KJH stated that she agrees with KL, however, when you have an open end to discuss, it allows you to be flexible. TD stated that she is trying to leave out her personal knowledge about the organization and she is using the proposal to score. SM asked if we can submit out scores based upon the application submissions and then discuss flexibility about the scores that have major differences. SK asked if any of the groups requested technical assistance. TH stated that PACEM was the only organization that she met with. SK stated that she is okay with the approach that SM stated. SK stated that she 4 was looking for the answer in the application under different questions. TH stated that she will tabulate all TF member scores, distribute them to the TF, point out the major point differences (3-4 points), and then the TF can focus discussion on areas where scores differed and then TF members who wish to change their scores can do so. TD stated that we just ask if we can go off of the information that was provided. KJH stated that when she evaluated the applications, that she used what was provided in the application. She stated that if we submit forms to TH and she tabulates them (based on the submission), then we can discuss the areas where there are differences and that should satisfy TD and KL’s concerns. MS stated that the larger concern is that the estimated budget is $55,696 and we have requests of up to $80,000. He stated that we should move quickly through the evaluations and focus more on funding amounts/recommendations. The meeting adjourned at 3:15pm. 5 CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Thursday, January 19, 2017 2:00pm – 3:30pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Kathy Johnson Harris X Joy Johnson X Sherry Kraft X Kelly Logan X Sarah Malpass X (via phone) Megan Renfro X Matthew Slaats X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 2:00pm. Taneia Dowell (TD) suggested that staff provide the Task Force (TF) with a map of the SIA next year. Review of Preliminary Scores for Public Service Proposals Tierra Howard (TH) reviewed the preliminary scores. After discussion, the scores were as follows: United Way 86 City of Promise (CoP) 86 OAR 84 PACEM 71 TD stated that she struggled with the identifying answers to the budget-related questions. TD expressed that some of the proposals did not provide a clear/detailed line item budget. Howard Evergreen (HE) stated that United Way’s budget is straightforward because they are requesting funding for childcare scholarships. HE agreed that it was difficult to identify what the CDBG funding would be used for in many of the proposals. HE stated that he could not identify what PACEM wanted the funding for other than to use CDBG to supplement the organizational budget. Sherry Kraft (SK) questioned if CDBG funds are supposed be target a discreet activity and if it is legitimate to fund a position for “X” number of hours with CDBG funds. TH stated that using CDBG funds to fund a position that is providing a direct service to eligible beneficiaries is an eligible activity under the HUD regulations. HE stated that he would be more inclined to fund applicants who can demonstrate specifically “how” the CDBG funds will be used. 1 SK stated that the scoring criteria related to outreach and services provided to residents within the Strategic Investment Area (SIA) puts CoP at a disadvantage because their services are limited to a specific geographic area. SK suggested that maybe the request for proposal should state that the City will not provide funding to organizations that do not serve or do outreach to residents within the SIA. TH explained that the application was not limited to only those serving or doing outreach to residents within the SIA, however, the evaluation tool allowed for an applicant to gain additional points. HE explained to SK that the scoring criterion allows the applicant to gain bonus points. Sarah Malpass (SM) asked TH if she could elaborate on City Council’s push for targeting funds to SIA residents, which she explained is different from how applications were evaluated last year. She stated that in previous years, applicants were encouraged to target funds towards residents who live in the 10th & Page Neighborhood which was the current priority neighborhood. TH stated that City Council sets the CDBG & HOME priorities every year and that for FY 17-18, Council set a priority that emphasized the targeting of economic development and workforce development activities to CRHA and PHA residents that live in the SIA. TH explained that the priorities are used as directives/guidance that the TF must follow. Kelly Logan (KL) stated that it appears as though the scores reflect expectations of where each of the applicants should have scored. She stated that she felt as though PACEM did not meet the requirements, therefore the TF should not recommend funding for PACEM. She suggested that the TF should focus on funding amounts for the top three scoring organizations (United Way, CoP, and OAR). The TF agreed with KL. Kathy Johnson Harris (KJH) and HE agreed with KL and stated that they also felt like the scores came out as expected. HE stated that PACEM’s application indicates that the organization has $175,000 in cash. HE also stated that PACEM had the lowest scoring application. SK agreed that PACEM’s application was an outlier. The TF agreed to not consider PACEM’s application for funding. SK inquired about the number of beneficiaries to be served by United Way. TH explained that initially, United Way proposed to serve over 20 beneficiaries by subsidizing childcare costs for each child, however United Way could fully fund three scholarships for three beneficiaries if they received the requested amount. TH explained that she had one concern with CoP being able to expend the amount of requested funds ($20,000) within the required timeframe. She stated that CoP had funds leftover from FY 15-16 and unlike other CDBG categories, public services funds cannot be rolled over to the following year due to the annual budget cap on public service activities. TH stated that she was unclear on how many total hours would be charged to CDBG within the fiscal year. TH explained that she sent a question to CoP requesting that they outline the details on total CDBG hours, however, she did not receive the appropriate response. HE stated that he feels that if CoP cannot explain how they will budget to expend the full funding request at $20,000, then perhaps the reduction from CoP could be used to increase the funding amount for United Way. KJH explained that she feels that OAR is going to receive funding no matter what. She stated that the funding should be divided in three ways in accordance with the ranking scores. 2 HE stated that according to the application, the CoP did include other funding sources (other than CDBG) for the Enrolled to Launch Program. He stated that OAR may be able to find other funds, however, for CoP, he does not know how they would be able to function if their funding amount was reduced by $4,000 or $5,000. KL stated that she would like to fully fund United Way because there is a high need for childcare. TD stated that if you don’t have childcare, then you are unable to work and childcare is tied to workforce development. She stated that she feels like OAR may be able to identify alternative funding. KJH stated that she feels like United Way can find alternative funding (not OAR - as she previously suggested). HE stated that United Way always has a waiting list and if the TF makes a recommendation to fully fund United Way, then it’s possible that they will be able to serve three more beneficiaries from the waiting list. KL stated that the Department of Social Services (DSS) has a waiting list for childcare assistance as well and that if clients can’t get the childcare assistance from DSS, then United Way is the only other option. TD stated that if you invest into childcare, then you are preventing the need for OAR services in the long run. HE asked the group about the average cost of childcare. The TF stated that it is very expensive. TD stated that childcare costs more than college tuition. KJH stated that she believes that childcare is very important. SM stated that she agrees that United Way can find alternative funding sources. She stated that she scored OAR as the highest because they had a good application. She stated that all of the services by each of the applicants are valuable to the community. She added that when she looks at the difference between fully funding United Way and CoP, that she would be inclined to fully fund CoP because wrap around services are so important and that if the TF does not recommend fully funding United Way, United Way will most likely be able to still fully fund the scholarships. TH reviewed CoP’s outcomes from previous years in relation to the proposed outcomes and the amount of requested funding for FY 17-18. TH explained that if the group decided to reduce the funding amount for CoP , then CoP would probably still be able to operate the program, but may not be able to serve as many beneficiaries as proposed. KL stated that she feels like CoP did not demonstrate the need in the application and did not report on outcomes. SK stated that she feels that the three proposals have worthy requests and that we should fund them to some extent. SK stated that CoP is trying to grow with the Enroll to Launch program, OAR is trying to sustain their services, and United Way has been a great asset with providing childcare scholarships. SK suggested that the TF consider not fully funding all of the requests, but reducing the requests by some amount. TD stated that she recalls a discussion from last year about fully funding requests and KL added that the discussion was about whether or not organizations can provide the proposed service with reduced funding. TH suggested that the group come up with options for voting on how to divide the funding amounts. 3  TH asked the group to raise hands and/or vote yes if they would like to equally divide the $55,696 by three and each agency would receive $18,565. There were no “yes” votes out of six votes for this option.  TH asked the group if the top two scoring agencies should be fully funded. There were two “yes” votes out of six votes for this option.  TH asked the group to vote on a proportional reduction with some reduction for the top two agencies and more of a reduction for the lowest scoring organization. There were three “yes” votes (HE, SM, SK) out of six for this option. KL stated that the scores are so close that she suggests splitting the funding equally amongst the three. SK stated that the group would be eliminating more funding from United Way if the group decided to equally divide the funding. TD asked if the TF recommends reducing funding from CoP, then would CoP be able to still operate the Enroll to Launch program. TH suggested that the TF review CoP’s budget. She stated that if the TF recommends reducing CoP’s request, then, there would be a reduction of CDBG hours for the Enroll to Launch coach and/or the community connections coordinator. On a motion by SK, seconded by TD, the CDBG Task Force unanimously approved the CDBG public services funding recommendations as follows:  Fund United Way at $24,000; and  Fund CoP at $17,000; and  Fund OAR at $14,696. TH stated that if the City receives less funding than estimated, then, each organization’s funding recommendation will be reduced equally (proportionately). The TF agreed. TD suggested that staff inform each applicant that it is very important for them to answer the questions. TD stated that the TF puts a lot of hard work into the applications to make funding recommendations. KJH asked TH if she could help the applicants by providing technical assistance. She also suggested that staff provide helpful grant writing tips to the applicants. TH mentioned that she provided a mandatory technical assistance workshop to all of the applicants. HE suggested that TF members attend the mandatory workshop and provide feedback about their experience. The meeting adjourned at 3:30pm. 4 CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:00pm – 2:30pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Kathy Johnson Harris X Joy Johnson X Sherry Kraft X Kelly Logan X Sarah Malpass X Megan Renfro X Matthew Slaats X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 2:00pm. The Task Force (TF) decided not to fund the City of Charlottesville Department of Parks and Recreation proposal as the project scored very low at a 27. There was discussion about the proposal not being strong and not fitting in with the priorities. Tierra Howard (TH) explained that the City has an extra $20,000 of program income or recaptured funds to be added toward the estimated budget of $58,520. Review of Preliminary Scores for Housing Proposals Habitat for Humanity and Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)  Tierra Howard (TH) stated that the score for Habitat is 90 and the score for PHA is 84.  TH shared Sarah Malpass’ (SM) email to the group that if all other things are equal, her preference is to prioritize funding for programs that address the needs of Charlottesville’s lowest-income residents. TH stated that maybe SM was indicating the maximum area median income (AMI) eligibility thresholds for those being served by Habitat is up to or below 60% of the AMI and the maximum area median income (AMI) eligibility thresholds for those being served by PHA is up to or below 80% of the area median income.  Taneia Dowell (TD) stated that Habitat does receive some down payment assistance (DPA) from PHA. TH stated that specifically for their HOME DPA FY 17-18 project, the sources of funding are proposed to be $40,000 from CDBG and $64,000 from the Federal Home Loan Bank for DPA.  Sherry Kraft (SK) stated that last year the City gave Habitat $139,460 last year. TH stated that the reason why Habitat received that amount is because they were able 1 to show how they would commit the $105,400 of recaptured funds by the July 21, 2016 deadline and the TF agreed that they outlined a specific plan/projects for how they would be able to do that.  TD stated that she had a question about Habitat beneficiaries to be served. She stated that Habitat has proposed to assist 8 families with $40,000 in HOME funds this year but they requested $80,000 last year to assist 8 families in the previous year (more than half of the FY 17-18 request). Howard Evergreen (HE) stated that this year, Habitat is incorporating the Federal Home Loan Bank as an additional source of funding. TH also stated that the DPA amount per family is based upon need and is determined on a case by case basis.  HE stated that Habitat has the ability to serve families that go below the 60% AMI and possibly serve families that make up to 40% AMI whereas PHA would probably not be able to do that given the different mortgage streams that they work with. He stated that when it comes to serving lower income families, Habitat is most likely able to do that.  HE suggested that the TF fully fund Habitat and give PHA the amount of funding that is leftover (about $38,000). SK agreed. On a motion by TD, seconded by Kathy Johnson Harris (KJH), the CDBG Task Force unanimously approved the HOME funding recommendations as follows:  Fully fund Habitat’s request at $40,000; and  Fund PHA with the remaining balance at $38,520; and  If less funding is available, the TF recommends that the funding be deducted from PHA and if more funding is available that it be added to PHA. The meeting adjourned at 3:15pm. 2 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Request for Appropriation – Clark Elementary Safe Routes to School Appropriation Presenter: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Staff Contacts: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Title: Clark Elementary Safe Routes to School Appropriation - $13,992 Background: In 2013, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) awarded the City $190,000 to reconstruct the Monticello Avenue and 6th Street intersection, as well as the Monticello and Rialto intersection, to increase visibility, shorten crossing distances, and provide access as part of a Safe Routes to School project for Clark Elementary. The grant also funded curb ramp and crosswalk improvements at the Belmont Avenue and Meridian intersection. The city awarded the construction contract to Vess Excavating and construction was completed in November 2016. This appropriations is part of the VDOT project closeout process and seeks to reallocate VDOT project charges to construction costs. Discussion: As part of the original contract with VDOT the City was allowed to use up to $174,800 for actual project construction expenses with the remaining balance estimated to cover VDOT’s grant administration costs. Upon project closeout, VDOT charges were significantly less than originally budgeted ($1,208 compared to $15,200). This appropriations seeks to revise the original grant appropriation to allow the City to utilize an additional $13,992 in grant funding (a total amount of $188,792) to cover the actual construction costs. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Safe Routes to School supports Council’s Vision to be a “Connected Community” and “America’s Healthiest City and contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan. It further implements recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan (2013) and supports the City's Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Resolution Community Engagement: Not applicable. Budgetary Impact: This appropriation will allow the City to reimburse VDOT for an additional $13,992 to cover construction costs. Local CIP funds have been spent to cover the increased construction costs and a portion of these local funds will be reimbursed with this appropriation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of the grant funds. Alternatives: If funds are not appropriated, the City would spend $13,992 of local CIP funds to pay for construction costs. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Clark Elementary Safe Routes to School Appropriation $13,992 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Neighborhood Development Services, was been awarded $190,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the Safe Routes to School program; and WHEREAS, $174,800 of the grant funding was to be used for construction and $15,200 was to go towards the administrative expenses from the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the administrative expenses from the Virginia Department of Transportation were $13,992 less than anticipated, resulting in additional funding for actual project construction. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $13,992 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $13,992 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00801 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures $13,992 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00801 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $13,992 from the Virginia Department of Transportation. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Approve Resolution Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Hydraulic-Route 29 Area Joint City-Albemarle County Small Area Plan Background: The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have expressed interest in a joint Small Area Plan to address land use and transportation issues in the Hydraulic-Route 29 Intersection Area. Because of the inter-jurisdictional interests, the City, County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (TJMPO) in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), have expressed a mutual interest in establishing an agreeable framework for funding, coordinating and providing planning and engineering studies necessary to provide a Transportation and Land Use Development Plan for this geographic area including the Route 29 Hydraulic, Route 250 By-pass and Hillsdale highway intersections and surrounding that directly influence current and future traffic, bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns within this portion of the Route 29 Solutions Program. The project area is approximately 600 acres; 300 acres in the City and 300 acres in the County. The area is bounded by Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road in the North, US Highway 250 in the South, Meadow Creek in the East and North Berkshire Road in the West. Discussion: The project would have two phases. The first phase of the Project will consist of the development of a report addressing land use and the second component will focus on preliminary engineering that will focus on addressing transportation needs for the Project Area. Phase 1 is scheduled to be completed by September 29, 2017. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This project aligns with the Council Vision in several aspects: Economic Sustainability, Quality Housing Opportunities for All, America’s Healthiest City, a Connected Community and a Green City. It also contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, to be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community; Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan, to foster strong connections, and objective 5.3, to promote community engagement. Community Engagement: Kimley-Horn has been hired by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to prepare the Small Area Plan. The TJMPO will be responsible for the local coordination. The Route 29-Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel composed of twelve members has been set to help coordinate the project. The City is represented on the Panel by Councilor Kathy Galvin, Kurt Keesecker, Chair of the Planning Commission, and Alex Ikefuna, Neighborhood Development Services Director. The Panel has started meeting and neighborhood association meetings are also taking place. There is additional opportunity for public input through the project website: www.route29solutions.org. Budgetary Impact: There is no additional budgetary impact to the City as the City’s share of the Phase I project cost would come from previously appropriated dollars in the Small Area Plan CIP project. Phase I of this project would cost $451,096. The TJMPO, working with VDOT has established a mechanism for funding and delivery of a Small Area Plan. The cost obligation to the City and County is $60,000, with each jurisdiction paying $30,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution allowing the usage of $30,000 in previously appropriated Small Area Plan CIP funds for the project; as well authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City, County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization. Alternatives: Council may choose not to approve the request and recommend an alternative funding source. Attachments: 1. City, County and Thomas Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2. Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel List 3. Hydraulic-29 Study Area Map RESOLUT ION Sm allA reaP lanfund ingo f$30 ,000fo rth eHyd rau lic -Rou te29Sm allA reaP lanP roj ect NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by th e Counc ilo f the C ity of Cha rlo ttesv il le ,V irginiatha tp rev iouslyapp rop ria tedSm al lA rea Planfundinginth esumo f $30 ,000isavai labletob eusedtofundtheC i tyo fChar lot tesv ill e’spor tionofthecos tfo rPhas eI ofthe Hydr auli c-Rou t e29Sm a llA reaPlanP roj ect .W ealsoauthor izetheC i ty M anage rto execu tetheM emo randumo f Under stand ingb e tweentheC i ty, Coun tyandth e Ch arlot tesv il le- Alb em a rleM e tropo litanPlanningOrganiz ation. F und :426 WBSE lem ent :P- 00818 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAND ING BETWEEN COUNTYOF ALBEMARLE C ITYOFCHARLOTTESV ILLE CHARLOTTESV ILLE -ALBEMARLEMETROPOL ITAN PLANN INGORGAN IZAT ION ROUTE29SOLUT IONSHYDRAUL ICPLANN INGSTUDY THISMEMORANDUM OFUNDERSTAND ING( "MOU "}is made andenteredinto this_ _ day o f __ _ _ ,2017byandbetweentheCoun tyo fAlbemar le,Vi rgin ia ( "COUNTY " ),theC ityof Char lot tesv il le,V irg inia( "CITY ") ,andtheChar lot tesvi l le-Albemar le Me tropo li tan Plann ingOrgan iza tion ("MPO " ). Whereas, COUNTY,CITYandtheMPO ( "thePa r ties" )inpa r tnershipwiththeV irg iniaDepa r tmen to f Transportat ion(VDOT } ,haveexp ressedamu tual interestinestabl ishinganag reeableframewo rkfor funding,coord inat ingandp rovid ingp lanningandeng ineer ings tudiesnecessarytop idea rov Transportat ionandLandU se Developmen tPlan fo rasma llgeographicareainc ludingtheRoute29 Hydraul ic te 2 , Rou 50By-passandH illsda le highwayin te rsectionsandsu r roundinga reas( "SmallArea" ) thatdi rec t lyinf luencecurrentandfu turetraf fic ,bicycleandpedes tr iantravelpatternswithin this port iono ftheRoute29So lutionsP rogram( the"P ro jec t ");and Whereas, thefirs ttwophase softheProjec tw i ll cons istofthedeve lopmen tofarepor taddress ingland useandp rel iminaryeng ineer ingadd ressingtranspo r tat ionneedsforthePro jectA rea( "Smal lArea Plan "},andw i thinthisMOU theCOUNTY,CITYandtheMPO des i retoestabl ishamechanism forfund ing anddeliveryofaSmallAreaP lan("PhaseI"} ;and Whereas, thePa rt iesacknowledgetheirin tent toper formtherequiremen tso fPhase IP rojec tplann ing inadherencetoal lapp licab lefederal ,state ,andloca llaws ,regu lat ions,po l icies,andmanuals,asthey per tainto thepu rposeofthisMOU; Nowtherefo re,in considerat ionofthemu tualp romiseshere inconta inedandothe rgoodandva luab le cons ide rat ion ,thesuf ficiencyofwh ichisherebyacknowledged,thePa rt iesag reeasfo llows : I . SCOPEOF MOU TheCITY , theCOUNTY , andtheMPO he rebyse tforththe irunde rstand inga stothe irrespec tive respons ibi li tiesfo rpa rt icipa tioninPha seIo ftheP rojec t. TheVi rgin ia Depa r tmen to fTransportat ion(VDOT }wi ll becon tract ingwithaplann ingconsul tant Kim leyHornandA ssoc iatestoperfo rmsma l la reaplanningforthepro jecta tanapp rox imatePhaseI cos tof$460 ,000.00("VDOT'sBudgetedFunds") .S ix ty- thousanddolla rs($60,000 }ofthoseVDOT ted Fund~ mus Budge t becont ribu tedbytheC ITYANDCOUNTY . MPO wil l manage VDOT 'sBudgetedFunds ,guidedbytheRou te29So lu tionsHydrau l icAdviso ry Panelcons ist ingoftwelvee lec tedoff ic ials ,staf f,c it izenp lannersandcommun i tybu s ine ss repres entat ives . Thescopeoftheplann ingeffo rtistodeve lopaconcep tua llandusep lanfor thede fineds tudyarea tore flectp refe rredmodels fo rgrowthandurbanfo rminthisa rea ,andtoinfo rmt ranspo rta tion solu tionsto suppo r tth isprojectedgrow th.TheHyd raulicSma l lA reaP lans tudya reai s experiencings teadygrow th,inc reaseddeve lopmen tin tensity ,andp ressureto growin adenser, mixed~use de ve lopmen tpa tterntha tisuniqueto thispo r tionoftheCoun tyandtheC i ty. Unde rstand ingtheimpac tandin teractionofnewdeve lopmen tontheUS Rou te29co rridorand pr ima rycollectorst reetsw i th inthea reaiscrit icaltoin form futurelandu sep lans,localcodesand pol icydocumen tsguidingdeve lopmen tin thisarea.Thes tudya reai s locatedw i thintheju r isdic tions ofbo ththeC ityo fCharlot tesv i l leandA lbema r leCoun ty. Bothju r isd ict ions,togethe rw ith theMPO , seekto developaconcep tualapp roachto guid ingdeve lopmen tin thea reaand toha vethes tudy informgoa lsandposs ibleso lutionsfo rcont inuedimp rovemen tstot ranspo rtat ionfacil it iesto suppo rtantic ipatedg row th. Thea ttachedconsu lt ings copeo fserv i cesdescribesthese r v icestha t wi ll bep rovidedbyVDOT 'sconsu ltanttocomp letethes tudy. TheP ro jectstudyareacon s istsofthegene ra lareaanchoredbytheHydraul icRoad -US Rou te29 developmen tnode .Thes tudyareai s definedasana reaofapprox ima ly600a te c res(approx imately 300area sinci tyandapp roximately300a cre sinthecounty)wi th bounda riesgenera l lylocateda s fol lows: • No r thern bounda ry=GreenbrierDiveI r Wh itewood Road • Ea s ternbounda ry=Meadow C reek • Sou thernbounda ry=US2 50Bypass • Wes tern bounda ry=N.Be rkshi reRoad Thefina lPro jec tboundaryw il l bedef inedbytheHydraul ic P lanningAdv iso ryPane lbu tisno t expec tedtobeveryd if feren tf romtheabove -desc ribedboundary. I I. PURPOSE Thepu rposeofth isMOU i stoprov ideamechan ism tomanage VDOT 'sBudge tedFund sfo r the del iveryoftheSmallA rea Plandirec tingat ranspo r tationp lantobeu sedtoapplyfor t ransporta tion fundingbySeptembe,2 r 018.TheMPO ,C it y,Coun tyandVDOTw i ll beadv isedthroughou tbythe Hydraul icPlann ingAdvisoryPanel .TheVDOTBudge tedFundswil l beappl iedto managemento fthe Smal lA rea P lann ingcontractanda ssoc iatedplanningo ftranspo rtat ionimprovemen tso fthe Pro ject ,commun i tyengagemen t,andstaff ingfo rplanningconsu lt ingserv ices . I ll . RESPONS IBIL ITIESOFTHEPART IES Tothebes to fthe irknow ledge ,thePa r tiesrep resen tthattheexecu tionandper formanceo fthis MOU doesnotcont raveneanylaw,governmen talru leorregulat ion,o ranyprov isiono fanyothe r MOU orAgreemen tstowhich C ITY ,COUNTYandtheMPO a reapa r ty. ThePa rt iesag reetotherespons ibi l itiesse tfo rthbe low . Respons ibi l itieso ftheMPO 1 . Work w ith inthegu idel inesoutl inedw ith inbytheS copeofWo rk ofthecontract betweenVDOTandK imley Ho rnandA ssociate sfo r theHyd raulicSmallAreaPlan . 2 . TheMPO w i ll manage al ldirectandconsu lt ingwo rkfo rPhaseIo fthePro jec t( theRoute 29Hyd rau licStudy,land~use e lemen t-Sma l lA rea P lan) .P rovidePha seISmallArea P lan projectmanagemen tasrequ i redfo rthedeliverableofaSma llA reaPlanfortheRoute 29~Hydraulic a rea . 3 . Providema tching fundsands taffas si !»tanceto VDOTandcon tractua lconsul tantsin deve lopmen tandcomp let iono fPhaseIHyd raulicSmallAreaP lan. 4 . Programma ticandf inancia lcommun icationbetwe enVDOT ,theHyd raul icP lanning AdvisoryPane l,Ci tyandCoun tys taff ,electedo ff icialsandp lanningc omm issions. 5 . Del iverf inalSmallAreaP landocumen tto C ITYandCOUNTY . 6 . Manage a l lVDOTBudge tedFund sfo rexpend i turein accordancew ithth isMOU , and keepandma intain adequa tereco rdsdocumen t ingexpend i tureso ftheVDOTBudge ted Funds,consistingof$400 ,000p rovidedbyVDOT ,$30 ,000p rov idedbytheC ITY,and $30,000p rovidedbytheCOUNTY . Expend i tureo fCITYandCOUNTYfundsp rovidedin accordancew ithth isMOU w i ll beexpendedinamanne r thatdrawsonsu chfundsonan equal(50% /50% }ba s iswheneve rloca lcontribut ionsa reu sedto cove rProjectcostsand expenditures. Respons ibi li tieso fCOUNTY . App 1 rop r iateandcontr ibute$30,000ofCITYfundingtobeincludedaspartoftheVDOT Budge tedFundsfortheSmal lAreaP lan . 2 . Providerepresen tat ives,as sis tanceandgu idancetotheHyd raulicPlann ingAdviso ry Panel. 3 . Reviewandcommen tbythe CountyPlann ingComm iss ionofd raf tsma l lareaplanwo rk. 4 . Rev iew ,commen tandcons ide rat ionfo rrecommenda tiontotheBoa rdo fSupe rviso rs bytheCoun tyP lann ingComm iss iono fthef ina lsma l lareap lan. Respons ibi li tieso fCITY 1 . App rop ria teandcon tr ibu te$30 ,000o fCOUNTYfund ingtobeInc ludeda spa rto fthe VDOTBudge ted Fund sfo rtheSma l lAreaP lan . 2 . P rov iderep resen tat ives ,as sis tan ceandgu idancetotheHyd rau l icP lann ingAdv iso ry Pane l . 3 . Rev iewandcommentbytheC ityPlann ingCommiss ionofdra ftsma l lareap lanwo rk. 4 . Rev iew ,commentandcons idera tionforrecommenda tiontotheC ityCounc i lbytheCity P lann ingComm iss iono fthef ina lsma l lareap lan . IV . PAYMENTS TheMPO wil linvo iceCITYandCOUNTYono raf terMa rch 1 ,2017intheamounto f$30,000each . Upon rece iptoftheMPO 's invo ice ,theCITYandtheCOUNTYw il l ea chdelive rpaymen tto theMPO intheamoun tspeci fiedbytheinvoice . AnyC ITYorCOUNTYfundsno texpendedbytheMPO fo rtheP rojec twil l bere turnedbytheMPO to theC ITYo rCOUNTY, respec tive ly,w ith in 30da ysofthef ina lcomplet ionoftheSmal lAreaPlan . Bytheirsignatu restoth isMemo randum ofUnde rstand ingtheau thor izedagentso ftheCITYand COUNTYandMPO con fi rm( i}theirunders tandingo fthetermshereinsta ted,establ ish ingamechan ism forfundingandmanagemen to ftheProject(PhaseISma l lAreaPian) ,and( i i}theirdes ireto pa rt icipa te intheplanningPro jectinaccordancewiththete rmshe reinsta ted. PART IES : Coun tyo fAlb ema rle ,Vi rgi nia Cha rlo tte svil le-A lbem arl eMe tropo li tan P lann ing Org ani zation B yItsAu tho rized Agen t: B yItsAu tho rizedAgen t: DougWalke r Da te Cha r£( '.2 --- Inte rimCountyExecu tive Execu tiveD irec tor C ityo fCh arlo tte svi lle ,Vi rgin ia B y:I tsAu tho rizedAgen t: Maur ice Jone s Date C ityManager K imley>>>Ho rn Feb rua ry25 ,2017 Mr.Robe rtBenfan t i V irg iniaDepar tmentofTranspo rta t ion 1401Eas tB roadSt reet R ichmond, VA23219-2000 RE : TaskKHA -002Hyd rau licSma llA reaP lan M r. Robe rtBen fan t i, K im ley-HornandA ssocia tes, Inc.("K im ley -Hom" ,We"o r"theCon su ltant")ispleasedtosubm itth i s letteragreemen t(the "Agreemen r)to theVirginiaDepa rtmentc lTran spor tat ion( "VDO r" ro the C lient")forprovid ingon -ca lltechn i calexper tisein landuseplanninganda s socia tedcon ceptleve l transporta tionnetwor1>>Horn Page2 1 . S tudyAreaAssump tions :Thes tud yareaw i ll bea sshowninF igu re1anda sfu rthe rde scr ibed w i thin . Thi sdo cumentoutl inesthescopeofwor kfo rthedeve lopmen to faSma l lA reaP lan a sso c ia ted w ith thedef inedstudyan redb cho ytheHyd raul ic Road-US Rou te 29developmentnode .The s tud yareaisde finedasanareaofapprox imately600acre sthatcanbede s c ribedasfollows : • Nor thernboundary=G reenbr ierDr ive!Wh itewoodRoad • Eas ternbounday=MeadowC r reek • Sou thernboundary=US250B ypa ss • Wes tern bounda ry N = . Be rksh ireRoad Thee xa c tstud yareaboundariesma y bere f inedinrespon setoear1yfind ing stocap tu rearea s , orremo vea rea s ,ba seduponthe i rantic ipatedimpa c toolandu seandt ranspo r tationscenario outcome s.Thes tudyareai sin tended tocapturelanduseinpu tsfrome x ist ingde velopment patte rn sassociatedwi ththeUSRou te29co rr idorincludingpr ivatee xpand ingcomme rcia l developmen tea standwe s tofthe co r r idor,andre s identiallandusesandde velopmen tpattern s westo fthecomme rc ia la reas .Thes tudyareain c lude s arangeo fe x ist inglandu sesin c luding retai l ,p ro fess iona lserv ices,lodging,s inglefam i lyres iden t ialde tached,mu l t i-fam i ly re s ident ial andpub licschools. TheH il lsdale Dr iveE x tens ionpro jec tisasigni f i cantinpu tto thes tudyareaandwil linfo rm potent ialde ve lopmen tscena r ios ,part icu lar lyea stofUSRou te29.TheR ioRoadimp rovement s northofthes tudyareaarenotadi rec tinputbutwil l bereviewedasapo in tofrefe rencerela t ive toob servedsu cce s sesandcha l lengesresu lt ingf romthosecompletedimprovement s. 2 . Scopeassump tions : • Studya reabounda r ie smay bere f ineddu r ingthep lann ingpha seso fthewor k ,w i tha core areade f ineda swell thatrep resentsamo rede tailedfo cu sonthelandu se potent ial . • Basemapp ing w i ll bede velopedf rompub li cl ya vai lab lemap da ta(G IS)toservea sthe basis fo r ana lys is,planning,andrepo rtexhibit s. • Nonewcodede velopmen ti sincluded.Howe ver , therepo rtwi l l in cludehighle ve l commen ta r yone x ist ingcode sandre commenda tion sfo raddi tion sormod i ficat ions toe x ist ingcode stosuppo rtproposedde ve lopmen tmode ls. • Thep rodu c tw i ll beonede liverablewhichw i ll befo rma ttedforpo tent ialadop t ionin to both Ci t yandCoun typo li c ydocumen ts . • AMa rket Analysisis notin c luded inthisscopeo fwo r k . • TheC l ientw i llmaintain ap rojectweb s ite. TheCon sultantw i l lp rov idecon tentonly. • TheCon su ltantwill per forml imited p lanning-levelana ly s iso ftherequ iredtransportat ion faci li t ie sneededtosuppo r tthep rel im inarylandp lann inga c tiv it ie stoin formtheland use p lanningp ro cess . Th iswil lbel im itedtothe intern a lt ran sportat ionne tworkon l y.A speci fiednumbe ro fmee t ing swith ath ird -pa rtycon sultanttocoo rdinateinternal transporta tionnetwo rk t . ••a •., . .. .~ D • wmf!\l-¥m~· 1100W1 low La l vmD r1 te 200 R ve Su1 ichmond VA 2323p 8046733882 K imley>>>Horn Page3 concep tsw ith theex ternaltran spo rta t ionimp rovemen tsa rein cluded wi th inou rscopeo f ser vice s(seese c t ion4.2.2) . 3 . ln fonna tiontobep rov idedbyVDOTo rothe rs Iti sassumedthatthe fol low ingin format ionw i llbepro videdtoKimle y-HombyVDOTo rothe rs, andwi l lbep ro videdtoKim ley -Homa f tertheno t ice -to -proceedisissued : • Re levan ts tud iesinprog ressorcomp letedinthep roje ctvicin it y • Pub l i cinf rast ructu reorpr iva tedeve lopmentpro jec tsre cent lyapp roved,inagen cyre view , orunderconst ruct ion . • Ex is tingtraf fi cdataasprov idedbytheVDOTw i ltbeobtainedandre v iewed . F IGURE1 :',~!!:'::JGriflltt:tlet ~•I I l )AKfORES1 ~~ • :" l . / l t»ANCH IAND~ ' • 0 l f, ' 8046733882 K imley>>>Horn Page4 SUBTASK1-PROJECTMANAGEMENT ANDCOORD INAT ION Th ista skcons is tsoftimerequi redbyKim ley-Homtoadm ini sterthepro jectaddre ssingcontra ct ma tters ; inte rnal pro jectcoo rdina tion ;coord inat ionwi ththeClien t;superv isionandgeneralqual ity cont rol ;andp ro jec tmanagement respon sib il it iescons is tingofpro jectorgani ionands za t chedu lingfo r thepro ject . Subtask1Del iverab les :Mon th lyprog ressrepor ts.D raftde l ive rab les . Upda ted pro jectschedu les,comple tedandopentaskssummary . SUBTASK2 -SITEINVENTORYANDANALYS IS Th istaskinc lude sanasses smentofphy sica lsitecond i tionsandcha rac ter is ti csa swe l lasthe regu la toryen vi ronmen tguid ingcur ren tdevelopmentpa ttern sinthea rea . 2 .1Ex ist ingCond it ionsAssessmen t Thistas kwi l l inc lude are v iewofexi st ingcond i tionswi th inthestudya rea ,in clud ingkeyinte rsec tions andpubl icst reet sinf luen cingthep lann ingofc ircu lat ionanda cce s stothestudyarea .We w i l l prepa reasumma ryo fthosecondi t ionsandident i fyhowspec if iccond it ionsmight in fluen ceplan so r const ruc tab il it y. 2 .2BaseMap deve lopmen t We w il l de velopproje ctba semapsfrompub l icl yava i lab lemap da ta(G IS)tose rvea stheba sisfo r ana lys is ,planning ,andrepote r xh ib it s. 2 .3Rev iewRe levan tPlansandS tud ies We w il lconductadesk toprev iewofCoun tyandCi tylandusep lans ,zoningord inances ,recen t zon ingapp lica t ionsandappro val s,pro jec tsunde rcons truc t ion,andan yp rev iousplann inge ffo rts re la tedtothestud yarea . We w i llalsore v iewan ya vai lab letra ff iccountda ta(inc lud ingpedes tr ianandbi cyclecoun ts) ,previou s p ings lann tudie s,andprogrammedroadwa y ,tran si t,andb icyc le/pedes tr ianimprovemen tsforthe s tudyareaprov idedbyVDOTo rothe rs. 2 .4T ranspo rta tionCond it ions Dur ingou rAdv iso ryPanelmeet ing s, wewil l ob ta inin format ionregard ingthei rpe rcep tion sofe xis t ing tra ffi ccondi t ions ,broadgoal s,the ire xpecta tion sofpo tent ia limp rovementscena r ios ,andan approachtomu lt imodal imp rovemen tsw ith inthestud yarea . Sub task2Del iverab les:Graph ic exh ibi tsandwri ttensumma ryo fex ist ingland usecond it ions ,challenges ,andoppo r tun it ies . SUBTASK3 :PUBL ICMEET INGS TheConsu ltan twil lplanandass isttheMPO in faci l ita tingtwo(2)pub licmeet ings. 1 . Publ icMeet ing #1 :intendedtop rov idein format ionrega rdingtheproces s,s chedu leand stud ydeli verab les ,andtore ce ivepub l icinpu tregard ingissuesandopportuni tieswi th inthe s tud yareatoin formthep lann ingp roce ss. 1700W ilow LawnD l rrve Su1 te 200 .Ri . VA2323 chmond 0 8046733882 K imley>>>Ho rn PageS 2 . Pub licMeet ing #2:w il linclude pre sen taiono t fconcep tsfo rrespon seandfeedba ck 3 . Pre sen iono ta t fFina lPlanatoneA lbema r lePlann ingCommis sionmeet ing. . P 4 re sen iono ta t fFina lPlanatoneCha rlo ttesv i llePlann ingCommiss ionmeet ing Subtask3Del iverab /es :Meet ing agendas ,mee tingp resen tat ions ,exh ibi tsand repor ts,andpos t-meet ingsummaries . SUBTASK4 :LANDUSEPLANDEVELOPMENT 4.1LandU seP lan Thelandplanningta skwi l l beani te ra tive processandult imatelyy ieldaCon ceptual LandU sep lan w ith suppo rt ingna rrat ive,exhib its ,anddo cumentat ionsuitab lefo rpub l icre v iewandadop tionb ythe CountyandtheC i tyi ftheysochoo setodosoa sapo l icyguidefo rdevelopmentw i th inthes tudy area .TheLandU seP lanw i l lbein formed bythef indingsandre commenda t ionsofthein ventory, publ icengagemen t ,andt ranspor tationassessmenta c t ivi t ie s ,andgene ral lyil lustra tethefol low ing p lanelement s : • Lo ca t ionandl imi t s ofpropo sedLandU sede s ignat ion s • Con ceptualpub l icstree tne tworkandpo tent ia limp ro vemen tstotheexist ing tran sporta tionfac ili t iestosuppo rtthep lan Inadd i tiontop ropo sedlandu ses ,thep lanw i lliden t ify the fol low ingfea ture s: • Keya c tiv i tyareade ve lopmentnodes Oppor tuni tysites • Mul timoda l faci l it ies(bi ke,pedes tr ian ,transi tand greenway )G reen Inf rast ruc tureinc lud ingpub li copen spaceandgreenwa ys 4 .2T ranspo rtationInpu tst oTheLandUseP lan 4.2 .1ln tema lTranspo rtat ionInpu ts :Th roughani te rati veprocess ,tripgenera tion ca l cula tion sw illb ede tenn inedu singITET ripGenera tion. Deve lopmento fpass-b yand internalcapturerate swi l l beba sedonITET r ipGenerat ion standa rdindu st r y rate s,aswe l l as ,d iscu ss ion sw iththeC l ien t.A slanduses cena r iose vo lve,separatetr ipgenera tion analyse swi ll beperformedtoa s sesshowchangesintheland useplanpotent ial lyimpac tthe in te rnaltranspor tationnetwork . U singthetripgenera t ionvolume s ,traf fi cvolumesw il lbeu t il izedtodeterminethein terna l t ranspor tat ionnetworkneededtosupporttheland use.Thi si san tic ipatedtobeaniterat ive p rocesstote s tvar ioustranspo rta tionne two r krequ iredtosuppor tant icipa tedlanduse s cenar ios. 4 .2.2E xtema lTransporta tionInputs :TheConsul tantw i llcoord inatelandusep lanning effor tswi thtranspo rta t ionplann ingef for tsbyM ichae l Ba ker(athi rd-par tyconsu l tant ).During de ve lopmentoftheSmal lAreaP ,wew lan i l lmeetwithM ichae l Bakertoreviewthe landu se fl ·;m .; .ilji\('9i~-"'! ~ntJ dh l t.CI ! ':.>>Horn Page6 addit iontopro jectmeet ings definedinSubtas k3abo ve,aspe c if iednumbe rofmeet ingswith M ichae l Bakerarein c luded w i thinours copeo fserv ice sasfo llows: • Mee t ing #1 :In i t ialmee ting toreviewe x ist ingcond i tionsandbroade rgoalsandobje cti ves fortra ff icopera tionsw ithinthestudya rea • Mee t ing#2:wo rksess iontore v iewprel im inarylandu sep lanalterna ti ves, recommendeds t reetnetwork,andimpa ctstoex is tingfa c i li ties • Mee ing #3 t :re v iewofre f inedlandusep lanandre commendedt ranspor tat ionimprovement s 4 .3S iteP lanI llus tra tive Acon cep tua lma sterplanw il lbede ve lopedforadef inedde ve lopmen tnodeto i llust ratehowthea rea m ight deve lopcon sis tentw i ththeo ve ral lvis ion .Thisconceptwil l bedevelopeda sanenlargemen tof thefocu reaandi sa l lustratepoten tia lde ve lopmentpa tte rns,inten s i ties andden si tiestoa ss is tthe C lientandstakeholderswithv isua li iono za t fpo tent ia ldevelopmen t .Thisplanwi llfo cusaroundthe Hydrau licRoad intersect ion w ith USRoute29andbegene ral lyboundedb yDi str ictAvenue,M i chie Dr ive,andShelbyD r ive. Thee xa ctlimi t o sftheMas terPlanillust rat ivew i llbede ve lopedfo l lowing rev iewandgene ralcon sen susfromthe Adv iso ryPanel . Theillus trat iveplanwi l l depic tpo ten tia lde ve lopmentpatte rnscons istentw iththedesi redurbanform andre f lec tstablee x is tingdevelopmentsa swe llasunde ru ti l izedsi teso rarea so fpo tent ia lchange. Theillus trat iveplanwi l lbeve r ycon ceptua linnatureandin c lude con cep tualbu ild ingmasses and par kingfields ,in te rna lstree tnetwo r ks,greenspaces,brand ingopportun it iesandmul ti -modal fac i lit ies. 4 .4CodeRev iewandRecommenda tions K imle y -Homwi ll commentone xis tingCountyandC itydeve lopmen tordinance stoiden t i fyex ist ing codee lementsthatmaydi scourageoren couragethepre fer redde velopmentpattern sproposedfor thes tudya rea.We wil lp repa reabrie fw r i tten summa r yofcommen taryandre commendat ionsfor poss ib lyamendinge x is tingcode sorwr it ingnewcode stobet terpromo teandsuppo r ttheSmallArea P lan.Dra ft ingnewcodep rovis ionso red it ingex is tingcodesisno tinc ludedinthisscopeofwork . 4 .5C lien tWo rk Sess ionsandIn ter imP lanRev iews TheCon sul tantwi llpa rti cipa teinaspe c if iednumbe ro fClientworkse ss ionsandrev iewsforplansin progress(twoat tendeesf romConsul tantteam parmee ting. Ing ) ene ral ,theC l ien twi l l bere sponsib le forcoord inat ionlogi s ticsforeachses s ionindudingno ti fi cations ,meeting da tes ,timesandvenue s . TheCon sul tantwi ll de ve lopanagendaandp rovideit totheC l ien tp r iortoeachsess ion .Kimle y -Hom w il la s sis ttheClien tw ithfa ci li tat ionofeachmeet ing andwil lp rov ideaw r it tensumma ryofdecis ion s andta lk ingpo intsfollowingea chevent . Pr imarydi rect iontotheConsu ltantteamwi l lcomef romtheMPO andVDOTw ithinputf romthe Adv isoryPane lformedspe c i fica ll yforth isp roject .Thei rroleisadviso ryinnatureandadvanc ingthe pro jec tbetweenmeet ings doesnotrequ irea vo tefromthePane l.Thegene ra lpublicw il lha ve accestoobser s veAdv isoryPanelmeet ing p roceeding sbutthe semee ting sa renotintendedtobea fo rumfo ropenpub l icd iscu ssion . 1700W il low LawnDnve Su1 ichmond VA2 te200 R 323I0 8046733882 K imley>>>Horn Page 7 Spe ci fi cal ly ,the fol low ingwo rk se ssion sandre view sarein cluded wi th in th iss copeo fwo rk: 1 . K ick-OffMeeting: AC l ientkick -of fmeet ing wil l beconduc tedwiththeAdvi so r yPane lto rev iewthep rojectschedule ,gatherex is tingba ckg rounddataandin fo rmation,conf irmcl ien t goa l s andexpe c tat ions,ande s tab lishprojec tcommun ica t ionproto col.A s spa rtofthis mee t ,w ing ew i ll inv itethec lien tteamto joinusfor asitereconna issancetour toobse rve ex is ting condi tions. . Adv 2 isoryPanelWo rk Sess ions{upto12total ):TheConsu l tantwi llmee tw i ththe Adviso ryPanel normal lytwiceamonth th roughpro jec tcomple t iontoreviewwo rkin progressandpresentd raftplan s.I tisas sumedthe semee t ingswi ll behe ldintheimmed iate Char lot te s vi llearea . 3 . Cl ientChare tte : TheCon sul tantwi l lp lanandfa c il i teone(1 ta ),two-dayCharettewi ththe Adv isoryPane l.Thiseventma y in cludep resentat ionsoffindings ,si tetou rs ,re v iewof conceptp lans ,andcon ceptua lplanningexer cise.A s spartofthetwo -daywor kse s sion ,the Consu ltan twi llalsobea va ilab leto meetwi th selec tedstakeholdersasiden t ifiedbythe Adv isoryPane ltore ce ivecommen toni ssues ,goalsorcon cernsaboutthe stud ya rea. 4 . Pub licRe lat ionsSupport :TheConsu ltantw il l pa rt ic ipateinupto two,loca lpub li cmedia in terv iew stohelpedu catethecommuni tyandpromotepub licawa renes so fthep roje ct . 4 .6F ina lPlanCoo rdina tionw ithEx terna lTranspo rta tionInpu ts It is ant ic ipatedthatfol lowingdel i veyo r ftheD raf tSma l lA reaPlandocuments,theth ird -par t y t ran spor tat ionconsultan twi llcon t inuetore f inethe irrecommendationsfo rimp ro vementstothe pr ima rynetworkw ithin andsurroundingthestudya rea. Thistaskpro videsforsomecoord inat ion e ffortstoensurethattheSmallA reaP lanandthethi rd-part yrecommendationsa reproper ly coordina tedandan yne cessar yad jus tmentsmade accord ingly . Sub task4Deliverab les:Comple tedD raf tSmallA reaP lanDocumentincluding ove rviewofplandevelopmentprocess ,meet ings agendasandsumma r ies,and suppor tgraphicexhib its . One il lust rat ive maste rp lanforcorefocusa rea . SUBTASK5 :FINALPLANDEL IVERABLES F ina ldo cument swlb i l epro v idedinbo thd ig italandhardcopyforma ts(4boundcopies ). The fo l lowingdocumen tsw i ll beprodu cedasde liverab lesdur ingthecou rseofthisp roje ct : D raf tSma llArea P lan-Dra ft repor tinc ludingExecu tiveSumma ry ,e xi st ingcond it ionsana lys is , andpre liminaryrecommendat ions.Thedo cumentwilb l esubmi ttedtotheAdv iso ryPanelfor rev iew. F ina lSma llAreaP lan-Fina lH ydrau li cSma l lA reaPlanreportw i ll inc ludea llf ind ingsand recommendationsaswe ll asasumma ryoftheplande ve lopmentproce ssandkeydecis ion s usedtogeneratethef ina lplan . P rojec tAbs trac t-Aone -pie cep roje cto ver viewsu i tab lefo rhandou torpub l icd is tr ibu t ion I IT1 Im" 'r " o fthe 8046733882 K imley>>>Horn PageB Schedu le Kimley~Horn w i llp rov ideou rse rv ice sa sneededandreque stedbytheVDOTTa s kManage r.I tis the Department'sgoa ltocomp leteth isef for twi thin s ixmon thsfromNot icetoP roceed(NTP) . C losu re TheCon sul tantw i l l perfonnthese r vicesdes cr ibedintheS copeo fServi ce sforalump sumamount of$451,096.00.Thefeee s timateisbasedonthelabo r rateclass i fica tions,e s t imatedhou r s,fi xed bi l lablerate sande xpenses .Effor treque s tedbeyondthes copedserv i ceswi ll beconside red addi t ionalse rvi cesandw il l requi reanewta skorde r.Theb reakdowno fthe feeisshownon At tachmen tA . Thefeei sbasedonane s timateofthehourstob eexpendedus ingContrac tYear1 rate s. fo On beha l fKimley~Hom andA ssoc ia te,w s e app rec iateyou rcont inuedbus inessandthankyoufor a l ingu low stopro videou rserv ice sfo rth isp rojec t.Shou ldtherebeques t ion s,pleasedonothesi tate tog iveme acal lat(804 )672-4718. S ince rel y, K IMLEY~HORN ANDASSOC IATES , INC . Sa lMusa rra , PLA Tas kManager C c: M i lJ chae .Harr is,CCM DeanGus taf son PaulS zat kow s ki ~ I 1700W II IowLBwnD r l' .le , Su1 le200 Ru : ::hmond VA2 :12 . :;0 8046733882 K imley>>>Ho rn Page9 VDOTITSP lann ingOn-Ca l lTa skKHA- 002 Hyd rau l icSmallAreaP lan Consu ltan t ITS! ITS/ Cont ract Opero tions Ope ratoons ITS/ Manager Prog ram P rojec t Opera tions S r.sys tems S r Admin Task Ta sk/SubTa sk/De scnpuon (CCM) Manager Manager Ana lyst Eng inee r Ass is tant Hrs TaskBudge t $283 $215 $ l71 $ 127 $214 $87 Sub task1 :Prq jec t Managemen t Labo r 5 0 7 5 2 5 0 9 25 184 $ 38,651.0 0 - --- · --- · To tallabo r 50 75 25 0 9 2 5 184 $ 38 ,65LOO task2 Sub :Inven tory&Analys~ Labo r 40 40 0 40 20 0 140 $ 29,280. 00 To tallabo r 40 40 0 40 20 0 l40 $ 29 .280.00 Sub task3 :Pub l icMee tings Labo r 100 100 20 20 0 20 2 60 $ 57 ,500 .00 To tallabo r 100 100 20 20 0 20 2 60 $ 57 ,500 .00 Subt ask4 :LandU se P lann ing Labo r 422 408 193 204 70 33 1330 $ 283 ,908 .00 To talLabo r 422 408 193 204 70 3 3 1330 $ 283 ,908 .00 Sub tas k5 ina :F IDe l lve rab les Labo r 24 60 30 65 0 18 1 97 $ 34 ,643 .00 To talLabo r 24 60 30 65 0 18 197 $ 34 .643.00 To talHoursandLabo rCo sts 636 6 8 3 268 32 !1 99 96 2111 $ 443,982 To talE lCpenses $ 7,114 To talCos t $ 451 .096 Expenses Co stp er Cost Number Item S tanda rdCarRenli l l(day s) 48 $ 45.08 $2,163 .84 Es timated Fue lCostPe rDay 48 s30 .00 $1 , 440 .00 Mea ls( 3perday) 18 $ 69.00 $1,242 .00 Lodging(nigh t s ) 18 126 .00 $2 ,268 . 00 To talE l lpenses $7 ,113 .84 1700W rl low LawnDn ve Su ite200 R rch rnond VA23230 8046733882 ! Hyd rau li cPlann ingAdv iso ryPan elM emb ers , Ma rch1 ,2017 ChipBoyles KurtKeesecker Execut iveD i recto r Arch itect CAMPO /TJPDC BRWA rch itec ts cboyles@tjpdc .org kkeesecker@brw-a rch itec ts.com 434-422-4821 434-971-7160 MorganBu t ler D iantha McKee l,Chair SouthernEnvironmenta lLawCen ter A lbemarleCountyBoardofSupe rviso rs mbut ler@selcva.org dmckee l@a lbemar le.o rg 434-977-4090 434 -305-0113 V itoCe t ta John O’Connor Arch itec t Sen iorV icePres iden t WeatherHi llHomes,LTD O ’Conno rCapita lPar tners v itocet ta@mac .com john.oconnor@oconno rcp.com 434-531-2192 212-308-7700 Kathy Ga lvin Cha r les“Chuck”Rotgin ,Jr . C ityofCha rlo ttesv il leCityCounc i l Grea tEas tern ManagementCompany kgalv in@cha r lottesv il le.o rg crotgin@gemc.com 434-979-2890 434 -296 -4141 Mark G raham De lSande rs A lbema r leCoun tyD irecto rofCommun ityDeve lopmen t Genera l Manager mgraham@a lbemar le.o rg Char lot tesvi lleHo lidayInn 434-296-5832 de l@h icvi l le.com 434-977-7700 A lexIkefuna A lanTaylo r C ityofCha r lot tesvi lleDi recto rofNe ighbo rhood R ive rbendDeve lopment Development a lan@riverbenddev .com ikefuna@charlo ttesv il le.o rg 434 -245-4970 434-970-3182 A lte rna tes PeterBe rgner( forJohn O ’Connor) David M itchel l(fo rChuckRo tg in) Pres iden tO’ConnorProper ty Managemen t GreatEastern ManagementCompany pbergne r@oconnorcp .com david@southern-c lass ic.com 212-308 -7700 434-296-4141 RobbySaady(forAlanTay lor ) R iverbendDevelopment rs@rive rbenddev .com 804 -387-3882 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Resolution to Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment Presenter: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Staff Contacts: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability Manager Title: Request to Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment for Solar Energy Systems Background: The City‟s current zoning code does not reference solar energy system installations directly. Therefore, City Environmental Sustainability Division staff recommends certain revisions and the addition of a new section to the zoning code to clarify allowable locations and heights for solar energy systems. The recommendations are based on national best practices, a review of the existing zoning code for structures and uses of similar sizes and forms, and input from the local solar industry. This proposal aims to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed as by-right accessory uses in all zoning districts and provide some clear guidance on how and where these systems are installed in the city. This proposal maintains that solar energy systems will remain subject to any additional design controls as applicable (e.g. entrance corridor properties and protected historic properties will continue to require review from the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review). This work supports the Streets That Work Code Audit, responds to recommendations from the 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance assessment, and is consistent with the cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment. While City staff has received limited community concerns regarding our solar PV practices and processes, SGA described the lack of reference in the code text as a barrier due to the potential ambiguity it presents. Furthermore, the City is participating in the national SolSmart program (SolSmart). The City has been awarded Bronze level designation as a „solar-friendly community‟ and is pursuing Silver level, which requires that zoning code clearly allows solar energy systems as an accessory use by- right in all major zoning districts. SGA and SolSmart both recommend that solar PV be clarified in the zoning code. Background on the SolSmart Program: In March 2016, the City of Charlottesville earned SolSmart Early Adopter status and began pursuing „solar-friendly community‟ designation. By participating in the SolSmart program, Charlottesville‟s primary aims are to: 1) Receive national recognition for the good work that Charlottesville does as a Green Leader 2) Move forward on the solar photovoltaic (PV) Smart Growth America recommendations and the Code Audit portion of “Streets That Work” 3) Improve our processes and policies where it makes sense SolSmart is funded by the US Department of Energy and is supported by – amongst other organizations – the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association. SolSmart assists localities to adopt local government best practices and policies that contribute to reducing the soft costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations. Solar PV systems use solar panels to generate electricity. While the hardware costs (e.g. equipment costs) for solar PV have reduced significantly over the past 5 years, nationwide studies have shown that soft costs (e.g. permitting, inspections, and financing costs) can amount to 60% of a solar PV system‟s installation costs. As a result of a successful joint application from the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, the localities have been awarded free technical assistance in the form of an on-site SolSmart Advisor for a period of up to 6 months through the beginning of August to assist both the City and the County in achieving their SolSmart designation goals. One of the primary focuses of the SolSmart Advisor‟s work with the City has been to assist staff in reviewing local zoning code and drafting proposed updates related to solar energy systems. Discussion: Environmental Sustainability staff worked cooperatively with the SolSmart Advisor, NDS, and the City Attorney‟s office to draft the proposed revisions. Considerations included: - current conditions accepted for installations - existing zoning code allowances for related items, such as appurtenances and accessory structures - best practices specific to solar PV (rather than other types of mechanical equipment) - experienced-based feedback from the local solar installation industry - sample model codes from SolSmart and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality The full text of the proposed ordinance amendments is attached to this report. The specific recommended changes to the ordinance are: Sec. 34-1101. Appurtenances Proposed edits to this section aim to improve clarity on allowable placement of solar energy systems in relationship to building height maximums and minimum required yards. Also proposed is eliminating the use of the unclear term appurtenance. Sec. 34-1108: Standards for solar energy systems This is a new section being proposed to provide clear standards for solar energy systems, which are currently not directly addressed in the code. This section proposes height maximums, location restrictions, safety requirements, and references to other applicable codes – such as the state building and fire code – for solar energy systems. Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. The proposed changes aim to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed on nonconforming buildings or structures. Sec. 34-1147. Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. The proposed changes provide clarity on the consideration of solar energy systems for expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 34-1200. Zoning—Definitions The definition of Accessory building, structure, or use currently lists common examples of accessory buildings and structures, but does not clarify examples of accessory uses. The proposed changes include adding examples of common accessory uses, which include heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, and solar energy systems. Furthermore, a definition of solar energy systems is added to clarify the use of the term throughout the Zoning Ordinance. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This action aligns with: - City Council Vision: A Green City - Strategic Plan Goals 2, 3, and 4 - Comprehensive Plan o Chapter 4, Goal 5 o Chapter 4, Goal 6 (Strategies 1, 2, and 4) o Chapter 5, Goal 8, Strategy 7 o Community Value 3 and Value 5 Additionally, it is consistent with the City‟s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the previously referenced cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment, Streets That Work Code Audit, and 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance recommendations. Community Engagement: To Date: Growing demand and interest in local solar PV installations has been observed over the past 3 years as demonstrated through the popular Solarize Charlottesville campaigns led by the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) and subsequent increased market activity and requests for solar PV electrical permits. Staff has received comments observing that allowance of solar energy systems is not clear in the zoning ordinance. Local solar PV industry practitioners who have aligned themselves as members of the recently-launched Charlottesville Renewable Energy Alliance (CvilleREA) have reviewed the proposed zoning text amendment and supported the current draft without concern. Budgetary Impact: No additional funding is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council initiate a zoning text review for solar energy systems. Alternatives: Council can choose maintain the current zoning code and not initiate a text review. Attachments:  Resolution  Proposed Zoning Text Amendments: Solar Energy Systems – marked-up copy with language to be removed and language to be added RESOLUTION INITIATING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS GOVERNING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville that City Council hereby initiates a zoning text amendment for consideration of amending certain zoning ordinance definitions and regulations pertaining to the installation and use of solar energy systems on land, buildings and structures within the city, and hereby refers the attached proposed zoning text amendment to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS: SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS Section 34-1200: Zoning--Definitions Accessory building, structure or use means a building, structure or use located upon the same lot as the principal use, building, or structure, the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. Garages, carports and storage sheds are common residential accessory buildings and structures. Heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, solar energy systems, and related equipment, are all considered to be uses accessory to the use of the building, structure or use being served; for purposes of the city’s zoning ordinance, they are not considered to be buildings or structures. Solar Energy System means equipment used primarily for the collection and use of solar energy for water heating, space heating or cooling, or other application requiring an energy source. Sec. 34-1101. – Exclusions from building height and minimum yard requirements Appurtenances. (a) None of the following An appurtenance to a building or structure shall not be counted in measuring the height of a building or structure: (1) rooftop solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of 34-1108; (b) (2) rooftop heating, electrical, and mechanical equipment, and elevator returns, which are necessary for or in connection with the proper operation of a building in accordance with USBC requirements, provided that no such equipment or elevator return, as installed No rooftop appurtenance shall: (i) itself measure more than eighteen (18) feet in height above the building, or (ii) cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area of a building ; (3) Telecommunications equipment, subject to the provisions of 34-1070 et seq.; (4) Chimneys constructed or attached to the side of a building, which extend above the level of the roof deck of a building to a height required by the USBC or VSFPC; (c) (5) Other equipment or structures constructed or installed above the roof deck, so long as they: (i) comply with the height and area requirements set forth in paragraph (1) above, and (ii) contain no Within a rooftop appurtenance, no enclosed space that is shall be designed for or that can be used as any type of habitable residential space. The provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude open-air space on a building rooftop from being used accessory to the primary use of the building. (b)(d)Each of the following appurtenances may encroach into minimum required yards as specified: (1)Window sills, roof overhangs, belt courses, cornices and ornamental features may encroach into a required yard by no more than twelve (12) inches. (2)Open lattice-enclosed fire escapes, fireproof outside stairways, and the ordinary projections of chimneys and flues may encroach into a required rear yard by no more than five (5) feet. (3)Chimneys or flues being added to an existing building may encroach into a required side yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to the side lot line. (4)Elevator shafts, and heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, which are if screened in accordance with the requirements of Section 34-872, may encroach into a required side or rear yard. (5)Handicapped ramps meeting ADA standards may encroach into a required yard. (6) Solar energy systems may encroach into a required yard, subject to the provisions of paragraph (8), following below, and the provisions of sec. 34-1108. (6)Except as otherwise provided above: (7) a. Uncovered and unenclosed structures (such as decks, porches, stoops, etc.) attached to a building, and appurtenances which have a maximum floor height of three (3) feet above the finished grade, may encroach into any required yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to any lot line and no more than ten (10) feet into a required front yard; however, no such structure or improvement appurtenance, shall occupy more than thirty (30) percent of a rear yard. (8) b. Any appurtenance to a For any single- or two-family dwelling, a structure attached to the façade of the dwelling, and having a height greater than three (3) feet above finished grade, may encroach into a required front yard by up to ten (10) feet, but no closer than five (5) feet to a front lot line.; however, Any such structure such appurtenance shall comply be in compliance with the applicable side yard setback (s). A solar energy system may be incorporated as part of any such structure. (c) c. No enclosed structure that is attached to any building appurtenance, regardless of height (including but not limited to a screened-in porch), shall encroach into any required yard. NEW Sec. 34-1108. Standards for solar energy systems The following requirements apply to solar energy systems: (1) Solar energy systems shall be installed in compliance with applicable provisions of the USBC and the VSFPC. (2) A solar energy system may be installed on the roof of any building or structure, whether principal or accessory. (3) The height of a solar energy system installed on the roof of a single- or two-family dwelling, or on the roof of an accessory building or structure on the same lot as such dwelling, may extend up to five (5) feet above the highest point of the roof of the building or structure on which it is installed. (4) Within the city’s low-density residential districts: (i). solar energy systems less than five (5) feet in height may encroach into a required front yard by up to ten (10) feet, but no closer than five (5) feet to any lot line; however, (ii). on lots where the front building setback exceeds the minimum required front yard, solar energy systems may be placed in a location that is: between the front building façade and the front lot line, outside the minimum required front yard, and outside any required side yard. (5) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), above, a solar energy system, together with its support, shall not itself exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet unless otherwise required by the USBC or VSFPC for a specific use. Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. (a) A nonconforming structure may be changed, altered, repaired, restored, replaced, relocated or expanded only in accordance with the provisions of this section and of sec. 34-1147, and subject to all approvals required by law…… ….(e) A solar energy system may be placed on or attached to on a nonconforming building or structure. Sec. 34-1147. - Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. (a) Nonconforming uses or structures may expand only in accordance with the provisions of this section . Whenever a percentage limitation is placed on expansion, that limitation shall be the total expansion allowed, in increments of any size that add up to the total, or all at once. All expansion shall occur on the lot occupied by the nonconforming use or structure, inclusive of any permitted consolidations or re-subdivisions. (b) Nonconforming uses, other than structures, may be expanded on an area of a lot not originally devoted to the nonconforming use, provided such expansion meets all current requirements of this chapter applicable only to the expansion. The placement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming use. (c) Nonconforming structures. (1) Nonconforming single-family dwelling. The structure may be expanded as provided within this subsection. New or expanded residential accessory structures (such as storage sheds, garages, swimming pools, etc.) may be permitted. Expansion of the dwelling, and new or expanded accessory structur es, shall meet all zoning ordinance requirements, including height, yard and setbacks, for the zoning district in which located; except that extension of an existing front porch that encroaches into a front yard required by this ordinance shall be permitted to the side yard(s), so long as such extension will not result in an increase in the front yard encroachment. A single-family detached dwelling that is nonconforming because it encroaches into any required yard(s) may be expanded as long as the expansion will not result in an increase in the yard encroachment(s). However, expansions in height to existing nonconforming single - family dwellings, which do not meet current setback requirements, shall be permitted only if: (i) the dwelling is only being increased in height, and (ii) the footprint of the dwelling will remain unchanged by the proposed expansion in height. Such expansion will not required to meet more restrictive setbacks enacted since the date the dwelling became nonconforming; however, all other zoning regulations for the district in which the dwelling is located shall apply. (2) Nonconforming structures, other than single-family dwellings. Where the use of a nonconforming structure is permitted by right, or with a special use or provisional use permit, in the zoning district in which the structure is located, then expansion of a nonconforming structure may be approved provided that: (i) yard, setback, screening and buffering, and height standards applicable to the proposed expansion are met; (ii) all applicable sign regulations are met, and (iii) such expansion does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. For any proposed expansion exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure, all development standards applicable to the property as a whole shall be met. (3) Theplacement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming building or structure, and the area occupied by any such system shall not be included within the calculation of percentages of expansion pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) or (e) of this section. (4) Where a nonconforming structure is utilized for or in connection with a nonconforming use , then no expansion of the nonconforming structure shall be approved unless the zoning administrator certifies that: (i) expansion of the nonconforming structure would not result in expansion of the nonconforming use, or (ii) expansion of the nonconforming structure would result in expansion of the nonconforming use, but expansion of the nonconforming use would meet the requirements of section 34-1147(b), above. (5) (4)Prior to the approval of any expansion of a nonconforming use or structure, nonconforming status shall be verified by the zoning administrator. (d) In the event of any permitted expansion of a nonconforming structure, all signs located on the property shall be brought into full compliance with current zoning ordinance requirements. (e) Permitted expansions for nonresidential, nonconforming uses that require special or provisional use permits are required to obtain special or provisional use permits only when such expansions exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Approve Resolution Authorizing Withdrawal of Membership form Virginia Transit Liability Pool Presenter: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance Staff Contacts: Jessica Rice, Risk Management Specialist. Andrew Gore, Assistant City Attorney Title: Resolution: Authorizing Withdrawal of Membership from the Virginia Transit Liability Pool Background: In 1987, Charlottesville City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the City to join with other political entities to establish and become a member of the Virginia Transit Liability Pool (VTLP). The purpose of VTLP was for entities that were operating transit systems to pool resources that would provide levels of insurance that were otherwise unaffordable or unavailable. At that time, many insurance carriers would not provide coverage due to the level of risk associated with operating transportation systems. Since then, additional insurance pools and carriers have entered this market and there now exists a competitive environment to secure appropriate coverage. The City recently received insurance proposals from Virginia Transit Liability Pool (VTLP) - the incumbent carrier, Virginia Municipal League (VML) - the current insurer for The City on other lines of coverage, and Virginia Association of Counties (VaCORP), for the purposes of evaluating insurance coverage regarding Charlottesville Area Transit. Recommendation: Staff and the City’s third party Risk Advisor recommend that the City switch insurance carriers from VTLP to VML. The Discussion section below lists the rationale for the recommendation. Switching insurance carriers requires authorization for the City Manager to withdraw the City of Charlottesville from membership in the VTLP as the City originally joined via City Council resolution in 1987. Discussion: There are two rationales for switching insurance carriers for Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT): 1. Insurance Premium Savings: The recommendation reduces CAT’s annual insurance premium resulting in savings of $132,592 for the upcoming fiscal year (a 59% savings from the current year premium with VTLP). 2. Eliminates Conflict Between Current Insurance Policies: The City currently has two "towers" of coverage for Transit: (1) auto, general liability, and excess with VTLP (specific to Transit) and (2) general liability and excess with VML (who cover all City departments including CAT as it is a division of the City and not a separate entity). Each carrier has an "other insurance" clause in their policy form that excludes coverage in the event that Transit is carrying another insurance policy in the same line of coverage. In any instance where a general liability claim is filed with one of the insurance carriers, there is the potential for that carrier to invoke the "other insurance" clause (a copy of which is attached). In other words, each insurance carrier could deny the City’s claim by pointing to coverage provided by the other insurance carrier. To date, neither insurer has taken this action, however this is the likely outcome in the event that there is ever a high-dollar loss. The recommendation eliminates the City’s risk exposure created by carrying dual general liability policies for CAT. Additional Information: VaCORP was excluded from further consideration regarding insurance placement because pricing was not significantly lower than the incumbent and the placement would not have alleviated the issue of general liability exclusions. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: The risk exposure that is eliminated and the cost savings realized from placing Transit insurance with an alternate insurance pool aligns with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be a Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. It contributes to Goal 1- Enhance the self-sufficiency of our residents, and Goal 4- Be a well-managed successful organization, of the Strategic Plan.. Specific application pertains to 1.2, Reduce employment barriers and 4.2, Maintain strong fiscal policies. Budgetary Impact: The insurance premium for Transit operations will result in savings of $132, 592 for FY 2018. This is a 59% savings from the FY 2017 premium with VTLP. The Transit insurance premium is paid from the Risk Management operating budget and is a direct dollar for dollar allocation to Charlottesville Area Transit each year. Alternatives: The City can retain membership of and purchase insurance through Virginia Transit Liability Pool (VTLP), with the understanding that CAT will be subject to risk exposure resulting from coverage exclusions triggered by dual liability policies and not realize cost savings. Attachments: Recommendation from the City’s third party Risk Advisor Proposed Resolution. Marsh& Mclennan Agency IL<.. MARSH& McLENNAN '1900 Libbie MillEat Boulevard. Suite 100 AGENCY Richmond, VA 23230 II804 7800611 April 18, 2017. rax 1 1804 788 8944 www mma-midatlanlie.com Ms. Jessica Rice. Risk Management Specialist. City of Charlottesville. 325 4th St NW. Charlottesville, VA 22903. Regarding: Charlottesville Area Transit. Insurance Coverage Comparison. Dear Jessica; At your direction, I have reviewed 3 proposals for coverage, for CAT. We reviewed proposals from Virginia Trans it liability Pool (VTLP) - the incumbent carrier, Virginia Municipal League (VML) - the current insurer for The City on other lines of coverage and Virginia Association of Counties (VaCORP). In our recent meeting, we determined that we would exclude VaCORP from further consideration for two reasons; • Their pricing alt hough lower than VTLP, was not such that it would be a major consideration in moving the program to them; and. • Moving coverage to them would create the same "other insurance" situation we now have with VTLP and VML. As we discussed, it is important that we put the premiums quoted aside for the purpose of reviewing the exposure to The City in two areas of importance. The "other insurance" clause that each carrier has in their policy form and the fact that we currently have two "towers" of coverage for Transit - Auto, Genera l liability and Excess with VTLP (specific to Transit) and General liability and Excess with VML. The General liability with VML also includes Transit. Since Tra nsit is a division of The City and not a separate Authority, the VML cannot exclude it from their policy since the named insured is The City of Charlottesville (thereby including all divisions of The City). The City is buying high limits on CAT in the event of a catastrophic event. I think that were that to happen and the claim was determined to be general liability (as opposed to auto liability),the reinsurers for both the VML and VTLP would require that each of them - at least initially to evoke the "other insurance" clause, a copy of which is included here. In addition to the financial aspect (The City is current ly paying for the same coverage from 2 different carriers), the coverage issues can be dramatic. This form of insurance is never recommended. Program Analysis. From a coverage and forms aspect, both VLTP and VML are comparable with no appreciable differences in the actual coverages that they provide, so this analysis willfocus on services and pricing. WURLL>CI AS t oe Al IOllC t Ms. Jessica Rice April 18, 2017 Page 2 VTLP Program. This program has been in effect for 30 years and The City is one of the founding members. Their experience in transit exposures cannot be disputed - it is all they write. A summary of the services that they have made available to The City is included here. They did not provide a list of all of the services and training programs that they offer to their members, but feel sure based on our meeting with John that he is pleased with what they have to offer and he feels that the training and loss control needs of The City are being well cared for. VML Program. Do to the fact that we are not currently insured for transit with VML, we did have to look deeper into their experience with this class of business. • They currently insure the following transit accounts: o Blacksburg Transit. o City of FairfaxCUE BusSystem. o Danville Transit System. o Fredericksurg Regional Transit {FRED). o Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). o City of Radford Transit. o Suffolk Transit. o Winchester Transit System. • Loss Control and Training availability. o Where The Rubber Meets the Road Program, where members who sign up for the program are given loss control and safety benchmarks that when met provide a 5% premium credit. Provides train the trainer instruction to provide National Safety Council Courses DDC-4 training include Transit Operator Development Course, Personal Consequences of Unsafe Driving among others; o On line access to "VML University" for many training programs, although not specific to transit. Premiums. Currently, transit carries a $20,000,000 total limit of liability with VLTP. Their premium for the policy term to begin 7-1-17 is $211,631. This premium includes a limit for medical payments of $5000. This is a coverage that transit is not currently insuring. A decision would need to be made so far as if this coverage should be carried or not, due to the way the coverage part responds. The VML is offering a $1,000,000 primary layer and $20,000,000 excess for a total per occurrence limit of $21,000,000 for a premium of $79,039 which includes medical payments at $5000. Ms. Jessica Rice April 18, 2017 Page 3 There was discussion inthe meeting concerning VML cancelling coverage for HarrisonburgTransit. This occurred 10 to 12 years ago, and it is unknown ifthe cancellation was due to a large loss or a lack of perceived loss contro l which contributed to the loss. It is my opinion that with reinsurance changes combined with the cyclical insurance market, it is not of value in the present day to determine how an insurance carrier would act/react now, compared to what actions they took so long ago. Anytime a carrier and client decide to part ways, there are many variables that come into play -as Iam sure were considerations when GRTC left VTLP a few years back. Also discussed was the perception that VML underpriced business and then at renewal would considerably increase their pricing. Ihave several clients that purchase coverage from VML (although no transit clients), and have not found this to be the case. Isee their pricing reflect the standard markets combined with increases and decreases that we see in the reinsurance market (which drives both theirs and VTLP's excess charges). Although this is a theory ("buy" the business) that we often hear insurance buyers say in actuality it rarely happens. Insurance policies are only in effect for one year, and if carriers did this the account would just change carriers. Although Irecognize, and have a great respect for the long-term relationship between the VTLP and CAT,Imust recommend that you move the coverage on renewal to VML,for the following reasons: o Insures The City's liabilities with one carrier so we have no duplicate coverage issue or an issue as to if a claim is General or Auto liability in nature; o VML insures enough transit that they should have availability to provide what is needed from a loss control, safety and training standpoint; o VML provides an additional $1,000,000 in coverage due to the way the program is structured; o $132,592 in premium savings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Je ni er Z.L Sr Vice President. Attachments; Other Insurance. VTLP training 2016 year. COVERAGE A. BODll1Y INJURY AND PROPERTY PAMAGE UABD .ITY. COVERAGE B.PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY LIABILITY. "Other Insurance Clause" from VTLP's policy. 4. Other Coverage. If other valid and collectible coverage is available to the CQvered person for a loss wecover under Coverase's A or B of thili CoveragePart, our t1bligations are limited as follows: a. Primilf}' Coverage. This oove111ge is primary except when b.below applies if this coverage is primmy, our obligations arenot affected unless anyoftheother oovcra,ge is alsoprimary . Thi..".Jl,we will sharewith all that other coverage by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Cove.rage. Thiscoverage is excess over any of the other coverage, whether primary,excess, contingent or on any other basis: (I) That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, InstaUation Risk or similar coverage for ''your wQrk;". (2) Thal is Fire coverage for premises rented to you; or. (3) 1f the loss ariseN out of the maintenance or use of airorafi, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject toExclusion g. ofCoverage A (Section I). When this coverage is excess, we will have no duty under CoverageA or B to defend any claim or 'suit" that any other insurer has a duty to defend. Ifno other insurer defends, we will undertake to do s.-0, but we will be entitled to the covered person's rights against all those o-ther insurers. When this coverage is excess over other coverage.we will pay oDly our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum of: (1) The total amount that all such other coverage would pay for the loss in the absence of this coverage; and. (2) Thetotal of all deductibleand self-insuredamounts underall thatother coverage. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other coverage that is not described in this Excess Coverage provision and was not 'bought specifically to apply in cx.ooss of the Limits of C-0verage shown in the Declarations of this Coverage Part. c.MethodofSharing. If all of the other coverage pennits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach each insurer contributes equal amounts until ithll.$ paid its applicable limit of coverage or none of the loss r