CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, May 15, 2017 6:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (Appointments to Boards and Commissions; Consultation with legal counsel regarding litigation – CPC v. City) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL th AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS Albemarle Amateur Radio Club; Flicker the Flame 10 Birthday; Damage Prevention Leadership ANNOUNCEMENTS Award to Utilities Board Appointments 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 May 1, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: CDBG-HOME Funding for FY 2017-2018 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Clark Elementary School – Safe Routes to School Grant - $13,992 (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Trees for Clean Water Grant - $5,500 (1st of 2 readings) e. RESOLUTION: Reimbursement Agreement with Fluvanna County for Share of Circuit Court Judge’s Administrative Costs (1st of 1 reading) f. ORDINANCE: Homeowner Tax Relief Grant Program (2nd of 2 readings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING Utility Rates for FY2018 (1st of 2 readings) – 15 min ORDINANCE* 3. REPORT* Blue Ribbon Commission on Monuments – Recommendations – 30 min 4. RESOLUTION* Approval of West Main Streetscape Design Plans (1st of 1 reading) – 30 min 5. ORDINANCE* Retirement Plan Amendments (1st of 2 readings) – 15 min 6. REPORT State of the Forest – 20 min 7. REPORT Workforce Development Update – 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: 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 15, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Mike Ronayne, Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Mike Ronayne, Parks and Recreation Title: Virginia Trees For Clean Water - $5,500 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has been awarded a $3,500 grant from Virginia Trees for Clean Water. This grant is administrated through the Virginia Department of Forestry. There is a required local match of at least $3,500. A cash match of $2,000 will be provided from the Parks Division operational budget and an in-kind match of $2,250 will be provided by volunteer labor. Discussion: The grant will assist with ongoing efforts to manage invasive, undesirable plants in Pen Park by removing them and replacing the area with appropriate native trees and plants. Goats have been used in the past as part of the eradication process and large progress has already been made at Pen Park. This project is limited by manpower and funding, and this grant will help accelerate this ongoing project. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s “Green City” vision by providing funds to replace undesirable trees and creating a more sustainable and healthy urban forest canopy in efforts to preserve and enhance the forested area of the City. The Pen Park Invasive Canopy Replacement Project satisfies several components of the Urban Forest Master Plan. It contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, to be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community, and objective 2.5, to provide natural and historic resources stewardship. Community Engagement: Charlottesville Parks and Recreation will be able to provide opportunities for the public to volunteer to plant trees with this grant. The Parks Division will be installing signage in this work area that explains the importance of removing invasive species and replacing them with native tree species and the impact it has on forest health and water quality in the community. Budgetary Impact: The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. The balance of funding, $2,000, for the project will be transferred from the Parks Division. to pay for a Tree Maintenance Contract. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation of the grant funds. Alternatives: If grant funds are not appropriated, the Pen Park Canopy Replacement Project will be decelerated and will have to be funded entirely with local funds. APPROPRIATION Virginia Trees for Clean Water Grant $5,500 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received $3,500 from the Virginia Department of Forestry through the Virginia Trees for Clean Water Grant in order to contribute to the Pen Park Canopy Replacement Project; and WHEREAS, the City will contribute $2,000 in funds from the Parks Department for cash-match, with the remainder match supplied by in-kind volunteer labor; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $3,500 received from the Virginia Department of Forestry is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $3,500 Fund: 209 IO: 1900281 GL: 430120 $2,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900281 GL: 498010 Expenditure $5,500 Fund: 209 IO: 1900281 GL: 599999 Transfer $2,000 Fund: 105 CC: 3671001000 GL: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $3,500 from the Virginia Department of Forestry. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: May 15, 2017. Action Required: Approve Reimbursement Agreement. Presenter: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Staff Contacts: Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Title: Reimbursement Agreement with Fluvanna County for Portion of Circuit Court Judge’s Administrative Costs. Background: The Charlottesville Circuit Court is a part of the 16th Judicial Circuit of Virginia. In addition the City, the Circuit includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, and Orange Counties. Five judges cover the Circuit. As a result of growing caseloads, the Chief Judge has had to reassign judges to cover the various courts in the Circuit. In the past, one judge covered primarily Culpeper and sat on occasion in Fluvanna. As a part of this arrangement, Fluvanna reimbursed Culpeper for a portion of the judge’s administrative costs. Due to growing caseload in Culpeper, the judge is now covering Culpeper full time. To cover the needs of Fluvanna, Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore has been sitting in Fluvanna as well as Charlottesville since July 1, 2016. On average, Judge Moore has been sitting one to two days a week in Fluvanna. Discussion: As noted above, Fluvanna had been reimbursing Culpeper for a portion of the judge’s administrative costs. For the current fiscal year, the administrative budget for Judge Moore totals $76,700. This includes the salary and benefits for his administrative assistant and operational costs. Through discussions between staff for the City and Fluvanna, Fluvanna has agreed to pay to the City twenty five percent (25%) of the administrative assistant’s salary and benefits and ten percent (10%) of operational costs. The Fluvanna Board of Supervisors approved this reimbursement agreement as a part of their Consent Agenda during their regular meeting on April 19, 2017. Recommendation: Approval of the reimbursement agreement with Fluvanna County for a portion of the Circuit Court Judge’s administrative costs. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This agreement aligns with Goal 4- Be a well-managed successful organization, specifically 4.2, Maintain strong fiscal policies. Budgetary Impact: Based on past budget and actual totals for the Circuit Court Judge’s administrative costs, Fluvanna’s reimbursements to the City would average $20,000 per year. Alternatives: The City can elect to not be reimbursed for these costs and subsidize the judge’s administrative costs for time spent in Fluvanna. Attachments: Reimbursement Agreement RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the following document, attached hereto, in form approved by the City Attorney or his designee. Reimbursement Agreement between the City and Fluvanna County for a portion of the administrative costs incurred by the Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge’s office in performing judicial duties for the Fluvanna County Circuit Court. This agreement, made this _______ day of __________, 2017, by and between THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTTESVILLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, (“Charlottesville”); and THE COUNTY OF FLUVANNA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Fluvanna”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the City of Charlottesville and Fluvanna County are both located in the 16th Judicial Circuit of the Commonwealth and are served by the circuit courts thereof; and. WHEREAS, by the current assignment of the judges of the 16th Judicial Circuit, the City of Charlottesville and Fluvanna are served by the Honorable Judge Moore; and. WHEREAS the City of Charlottesville and Fluvanna have determined that Judge Moore needs secretarial services and that it is lawful and appropriate that they provide for such secretarial services for Judge Moore; and. WHEREAS secretarial services includes the salary, benefits, and operating expenses of the Judge’s secretary as enumerated in the City’s annual adopted budget; and. WHEREAS, based upon the existing caseload, it has been determined that it is most efficient that Judge Moore have his principal office in the City of Charlottesville, and the City of Charlottesville is willing and able to provide appropriate office space and to provide for secretarial services for Judge Moore; and. WHEREAS the City of Charlottesville and Fluvanna have determined that based upon the time and resources spent on Fluvanna County cases, Fluvanna should contribute to a portion of the cost of providing such secretarial services; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth hereinafter, and pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.2-1300, the parties hereby agree as follows: (1) City of Charlottesville agrees to provide for secretarial services for Judge Moore. Such services may be provided in any manner which may be determined to be acceptable by Judge Moore and the City of Charlottesville; provided, however, that the City of Charlottesville covenants that the manner of providing for such services shall be at all times lawful under the laws of the Commonwealth and of the United States. (2) Fluvanna agrees to pay to the City of Charlottesville twenty five percent (25%) of the administrative assistant’s salary and benefits and ten percent (10%) of operational costs providing for such services, as determined hereinafter. (3) In each year during which this agreement shall remain in effect, the City of Charlottesville shall provide to Fluvanna a proposed budget setting for Fluvanna’s share of the estimated amount necessary for the provision of such secretarial services. Such proposed budget shall be provided to Fluvanna prior to the adoption of Fluvanna’s annual budget, and in no event later than February 1 of each year. A final budget showing Fluvanna’s share shall be provided to Fluvanna not later than June 20 of each year. (4) Thereafter, the City of Charlottesville shall bill Fluvanna for its share of costs no later than September 30 in each year. Payment shall be due to the City of Charlottesville on or before January 1 of the following year. (5) This agreement shall be effective upon the execution hereof by both parties and shall thereafter remain in effect unless and until the parties, or either of them, shall terminate the same. Notice of such termination shall be made not later than June 1 in each year, to be effective for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st of July next succeeding. No such termination shall affect the obligations of the parties with respect to the fiscal year during which such notice is given. Notice shall be effective when mailed or delivered to the office of the County Administrator of the other party. (6) The obligations of the parties set forth hereinabove shall be subject to annual appropriation by each of them, respectively, in amounts sufficient to satisfy the same. Witness the following signatures and seals the date first above written. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. BY: Its Mayor. ATTEST: Maurice Jones, City Manager. THE COUNTY OF FLUVANNA. BY: Its Chairman. ATTEST: Steven M. Nichols, County Administrator. APPROVED AS TO FORM: S. Craig Brown, City Attorney. Frederick W. Payne, Fluvanna County Attorney. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 1, 2017 Action Required: Approval of Homeowner Tax Relief Grant Program Presenter: Todd D. Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Staff Contacts: Todd D. Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Title: Homeowner Tax Relief Grant – 2017 Background: Attached is an ordinance for Council’s consideration for the Homeowner Tax Relief grant program for Calendar Year 2017, for certain low-and moderate-income homeowners. The program allows the owners of eligible homeowner-occupied properties grant amounts to be applied to real estate taxes due on the property for the second half of calendar year 2017. Discussion: Grant amount is tied to the adjusted gross income of the applicant. An applicant with a household income of $0 - $25,000 may receive a grant of $525. An applicant with a household income of $25,001- $50,000 may receive a grant amount of $375. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This aligns with the City Council’s Vision “…to be flexible and progressive in anticipating and responding to the needs of our citizens.” Budgetary Impact: Cost of this program is funded with the annual budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 2018 approved by Council. Recommendation: Approve proposed ordinance AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A GRANT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE AND PRESERVE HOMEOWNERSHIP BY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2006, §50.7 of the Charter of the City of Charlottesville authorizes City Council to make grants and loans of funds to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in the purchase of a dwelling within the City; and WHEREAS, this City Council desires to offer a monetary grant for Fiscal Year 2018, to aid low- and moderate-income citizens with one of the ongoing expenses associated with the purchase of a dwelling, i.e. real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, public funding is available for the proposed grant; NOW, THEREFORE, effective July 1, 2017 and for calendar year 2017, the Charlottesville City Council hereby ordains: Grant—provided. (a)There is hereby provided to any natural person, at such person’s election, a grant in aid of payment of the taxes owed for the taxable year on real property in the city which is owned, in whole or in part, and is occupied by such person as his or her sole dwelling. The grant provided within this section shall be subject to the restrictions, limitations and conditions prescribed herein following. (b)If, after audit and investigation, the commissioner of revenue determines that an applicant is eligible for a grant, the commissioner of revenue shall so certify to the city treasurer, who shall implement the grant as a prepayment on the applicant’s real estate tax bill due on December 5, 2017. (c)The amount of each grant made pursuant to this ordinance shall be $525 for taxpayers with a household income of $0-25,000, and shall be $375 for taxpayers with a household income from $25,001-$50,000, to be applied against the amount of the real estate tax bill due on December 5, 2017. Definitions. The following words and phrases shall, for the purposes of this division, have the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1)Applicant means any natural person who applies for a grant authorized by this ordinance. (2)Dwelling means a residential building,or portion such building, which is owned, at least in part, by an applicant, which is the sole residence of the applicant and which is a part of the real estate for which a grant is sought pursuant to this ordinance. (3)Grant means a monetary grant in aid of payment of taxes owed for the taxable year, as provided by this ordinance. (4)Spouse means the husband or wife of any applicant who resides in the applicant’s dwelling. (5)Real estate means a city tax map parcel containing a dwelling that is the subject of an grant application made pursuant to this ordinance. (6)Taxes owed for the current tax year refers to the amount of real estate taxes levied on the dwelling for the taxable year. (7)Taxable year means the calendar year beginning January 1, 2017. (8)Household income means (i) the adjusted gross income, as shown on the federal income tax return as of December 31 of the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year, or (ii) for applicants for whom no federal tax return is required to be filed, the income for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year: of the applicant, of the applicant’s spouse, and of any other person who is an owner of and resides in the applicant’s dwelling. The commissioner of revenue shall establish the household income of persons for whom no federal tax return is required through documentation satisfactory for audit purposes. Eligibility and restrictions, generally. A grant awarded pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (1)The household income of the applicant shall not exceed $50,000. (2)The assessed value of the real estate owned by the applicant shall not exceed $365,000. (3)The applicant shall own an interest in the real estate that is the subject of the application (either personally or by virtue of the applicant’s status as a beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which the real estate is an asset) and the applicant shall not own an interest in any other real estate (either personally or by virtue of the applicant’s status as a beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which the real estate is an asset). (4)As of January 1 of the taxable year and on the date a grant application is submitted, the applicant must occupy the real estate for which the grant is sought as his or her sole residence and must intend to occupy the real estate throughout the remainder of the taxable year. An applicant who is residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical or mental care shall be deemed to meet this condition so long as the real estate is not being used by or leased to another for consideration. (5)An applicant for a grant provided under this ordinance shall not participate in the real estate tax exemption or deferral program provided under Chapter 30, Article IV of the City Code (Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Persons) for the taxable year, and no grant shall be applied to real estate taxes on property subject to such program. (6)An applicant for a grant provided under this division shall not be delinquent on any portion of the real estate taxes to which the grant is to be applied. (7)Only one grant shall be made per household. Procedure for application. (a)Between July 1 and September 1 of the taxable year, an applicant for a grant under this ordinance shall file with the commissioner of revenue, in such manner as the commissioner shall prescribe and on forms to be supplied by the city, the following information: (1)the name of the applicant, the name of the applicant’s spouse, and the name of any other person who is an owner of and resides in the dwelling. (2)the address of the real estate for which the grant is sought; (3) the household income; (4)such additional information as the commissioner of revenue reasonably determines to be necessary to determine eligibility for a grant pursuant to this ordinance. (b)Changes in household income, ownership of property or other eligibility factors occurring after September 1, but before the end of the taxable year, shall not affect a grant once it has been certified by the commissioner of the revenue, in which case such certified grant shall be applied to the subject real estate. (c)Any person who willfully makes any false statement in applying for a grant under this division shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $25 nor more than $500 for each offense. This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: May 15, 2017 Action Required: Public Hearing for Utility Rates- Proposed Adoption is June 5, 2017 Presenter: Lauren Hildebrand, Director, Public Utilities Sharon O’Hare. Assistant Finance Director, City of Charlottesville Staff Contacts: Christopher V. Cullinan, Director of Finance Lauren Hildebrand, Director, Public Utilities Sharon O’Hare, Assistance Finance Director Teresa Kirkdoffer, Senior Accountant Title: Proposed Utility Rates for FY2018 Background: The City of Charlottesville owns and operates public utilities for water, wastewater, natural gas, and stormwater. The word “utility” comes from the Latin word “ūtilitās” which means “useful”. The usefulness of the City’s utilities includes:  Convenience – Service is delivered directly to or from your home or business.  Reliability – Service is provided within reach 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with few or no interruptions in service.  Quality – The City has taken the lead in promoting projects to enhance the quality of utility services provided. Examples include replacement of the water distribution and wastewater collection pipelines, use of granular activated carbon to improve water quality and odor reduction improvements at the Moores Creek Advanced Water Resource Recovery Facility.  Safety - Protecting public health and safety is a core part of the City’s utility service. The City (in conjunction with our partners at the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority) has an exceptional track record of providing water that meets or exceeds all federal and state standards for public health. The Natural Gas Division has a robust safety program for our customers and the public to be cautious working around natural gas pipelines and how to detect gas leaks.  Sustainability – The City promotes conservation of natural resources through a number of programs including water conservation kits, low flow toilets, rain barrels, and programmable thermostats. The success of these programs is evident by the trend of reduced water and natural gas consumption per customer. Conservation is good for both the environment and customer’s wallets as lower usage lowers utility bills. Utility services are essential and invaluable on a daily basis to us as both individuals and a community. Thoughtful, deliberate planning and sufficient financial resources ensures efficient and orderly maintenance and operation of these systems. This need for investment in our utility systems is not without cost but must be balanced with affordability. The budgets for each of the utilities have been thoroughly examined for opportunities to reduce costs without sacrificing service. Reductions are based on either historic spending patterns or sufficient monies already on hand as a result from carrying funds forward from previous fiscal years. As a result of cost reductions and an expanding customer base, water rates are remaining unchanged and wastewater rates are increasing by only 0.25%. The cost of natural gas is increasing after several years of decline. As a result, rates for natural gas are increasing 3%. For City residential customers who receive water, wastewater, and natural gas (approximately 87% of City residents), their total utility bill is projected to increase by a little more than 1%. Each of the City’s utilities is accounted for separately as enterprise funds. Enterprise funds are operated on a self-supporting basis, meaning that they are required to cover the full costs of providing its services. The City’s utilities are funded solely through their rates and related fees and charges and are not subsidized with general tax revenues. The utilities do not operate on a for-profit basis. Utility rates are calculated annually to bring each fund to a break-even point. However, given variable factors, such as weather, usage, and number of customers, the utilities can generate either an operating surplus or deficit during any given year. Any annual surpluses or deficits are accounted for and remain within their respective fund. The City of Charlottesville will adopt water, wastewater, and natural gas rates for the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017 (FY2018). This is the public hearing for the proposed utility rates which are scheduled to be adopted by City Council on June 5th, 2017. Discussion: The City is proposing the following rates in the water, wastewater, and gas utility:  $54.51/1,000 cubic feet (cf) of water,  $74.83/1,000 cf of wastewater, and;  $72.09/8,000 cf of natural gas. Utility customers continue to conserve water and natural gas which is both good for the environment and their utility bill. The average residential water customer is using 422 cf per month compared to 427 cf per month last year. Similarly, the average residential gas customer is using 4,611 cf compared to 4,878 cf last year. Based on these usage figures and the proposed utility rates, the average residential customer is projected to spend the following per month: Current Proposed $ Change % Change Water $27.00 $27.00 $0.00 0.00% Wastewater $35.49 $35.58 $0.09 0.25% Gas $45.99 $47.37 $1.38 3.00% TOTAL $108.48 $109.95 $1.47 1.36% For City residential customers who receive water, wastewater, and natural gas (approximately 87% of City residents), their total utility bill is projected to be rise by $1.47 per month. For residential customers who receive just water and wastewater service, their utility bill will increase by less than $0.09 per month. Budgetary Impact: Not adopting the recommended rates would impact both the Utility Funds and the General Fund. The Utility Funds are self-sustaining and they are supported 100% by self-generated revenues. Not adopting the full rates would result in unbalanced budgets for the Utility Funds. In addition, City Council has adopted the General Fund budget for FY2018, which includes transfers from the Utility Funds in the form of payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) and indirect cost allocations. Not adopting the proposed rates would result in decreased revenues to the General Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rates. Alternatives: Maintaining existing rates will results in under a $50,000 loss within the Water Fund and over $600,000 loss within the wastewater fund. This would tax available fund balances for water and exhaust fund balances for wastewater, which would violate the City’s long term financial policies by not meet the working capital requirements. Keeping FY2017 gas rates will result in a loss within the gas utility. If the utilities are not self-sustaining, the funds would either require subsidies from other City funds to maintain levels-of-service or reduced reliability and performance of the utility systems. Attachments: Operations Overview, At a Glance, Press Release, Ordinance. L O T T E SV Operations Overview CH A R I LL 62- E -VI R G I NIA - 1 7 Public Utilities Water Distribution System The City’s water distribution system contains over 1,047 fire hydrants, 3,366 water valves and 180 miles of water main line ranging in size from 2” to 18” in diameter. A Water Prioritization Study was completed in 2009, which identified 48 projects totaling $7 million to be completed. Since 2009, additional projects were identified and added to the list and work has been completed on 58 water projects. These projects aim to improve fire protection, reduce main breaks, improve overall water quality and address the undersized lines. Total length of pipe replaced to date for water projects is approximately 11.4 miles (60,177 linear feet) averaging about 2 miles (10,000 linear feet) per year. This work is continuing in FY2018. Additional projects include the following: 1. 17th Street NW Water Main Extension 2. Rugby Road Water Meter Replacements/ Gentry Lane Water Main Installation 3. Emmet Street/ Ivy Road Water Main Replacement 4. High Street Water Main Replacement 5. West Main Street Water Main Replacement (Summer of 2018) The City has implemented a meter testing, recalibration, and replacement project that addresses all size meters at assessment frequencies determined by the meter size. Also as part of the meter replacement program, the City is evaluating customer consumption to verify that the meters are appropriately sized. Since regular water meters less accurately measure low flow rates, extra-sensitive “low-flow” ultrasonic meters will be installed in all applications. The City has also performed annual system wide leak detection surveys. Leak audit surveys were completed in twelve of the past fourteen years and will continue annually. In 2016, the City of Charlottesville was recognized for their water conservation efforts supporting the WaterSense program and for the second time in a row, received the 2016 Partner of the Year Award for the excellent water conservation efforts performed in 2015. The water conservation program was also recognized for their excellence in public information and communication with their use of social media from AWWA’s Virginia Chapter. Wastewater Distribution System Charlottesville’s sanitary sewer system extends to most areas of the City and consists of about 170 miles of pipe and 5,700 manholes. In 2009, the City awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract for sewer repair and rehabilitation. The work encompasses the rehabilitation of sewer manholes and sewer lines. In addition, crews have been performing CCTV (closed circuit televising) and smoke testing throughout the City system. Any deficient pipes or structures are immediately added to the list for rehabilitation/replacement under the same contract. • To date, 39.7 miles or 209,627 linear feet of sewer lines have been replaced or rehabilitated. • For FY2016, $3,187,395 was spent on City wastewater projects. • DEQ Consent Order that originated in August 5, 2011 has been terminated since terms have been met. Stormwater Conveyance System Charlottesville’s stormwater conveyance system is integrated throughout the City’s municipal boundary and consists of approximately 130 miles of pipe and approximately 8,250 structures. Approximately 33% of the stormwater pipes and 28% of the stormwater structures located within the municipal boundary are City owned. Approximately 13 miles of the stormwater conveyance system carry streams that have been piped. The City has had an active Stormwater Conveyance System Rehabilitation Program since 2010. The work encompasses the rehabilitation, replacement, and repair of vitrified clay and corrugated metal pipes and associated structures located in the City right of way and on City owned parcels. To date, approximately 10 miles of pipe have been rehabilitated. 90% of the pipes rehabilitated were vitrified clay and corrugated metal pipe. Approximately 120 structures have been rehabilitated For FY2016, $1,751,357 was spent on Stormwater Utility capital infrastructure improvements. The City-wide Water Resources Master Plan was initiated in 2016. The goal of the plan is to apply criteria to select and prioritize capital projects that improve water resources and/or drainage issues. The final product, to be completed in 2017, is a drainage improvement capital improvement plan (CIP) and a water quality CIP. Projects included in the drainage CIP address a combination of historic and recent drainage issues. Projects in the water quality CIP focus on stormwater management retrofits. Operations Overview 02 Gas System It has provided residents of Charlottesville and urban areas of Albemarle County with safe, efficient, reliable, and economical service for over 150 years. Charlottesville Gas currently has over 21, 000 customers and maintains 330 miles of gas lines and 270 miles of gas service lines. The Virginia Division of Utility and Railroad Safety has recently announced Charlottesville Gas as this year’s winner of the annual Damage Prevention Leadership Award. The Damage Prevention Leadership Award was established to recognize individuals, companies or stakeholder groups who have demonstrated a significant impact on damage prevention in Virginia though different leadership roles. Recipients are voted on by the Damage Prevention Advisory Committee before being presented to the Commission for approval. Charlottesville Gas’ damage prevention program took off in 2014 with the implementation of the outreach program “Dig with Care” and the outsourcing of its gas line location operation. The program includes a series of “Marty’s Minute” radio spots, annual VA811 Day celebrations, excavation safety training workshops, distributing VA811 kits to local contractors, and outsourcing the utility location process to improve its accuracy. Charlottesville Gas’ mascot, Flicker the Flame, also contributed to spreading awareness about safe digging and calling VA811. Since the program’s start, there has been a 75% reduction in gas line damage caused by third party excavators. Gas Marketing and Gas Public Awareness Programs Operations Overview 03 At A Glance L O T T E SV FY2018 CH A R I LL City of Charlottesvile E Utility Rate Report 62- -VI R G I NIA - 1 7 The following material provides a brief summary of the rate and fee recommendations for water, wastewater, and natural gas for FY2018. All rates will go into effect July 1, 2017. For a thorough explanation and details of the recommendations please consult the complete Proposed Utility Rate Report FY2018. The City is proposing the following changes in the water, wastewater, and gas utility. The rates are based on average single family household usage per month (422 cf water and wastewater, 4,611 cf of gas): Current Proposed Change Percent Water $27.00 $27.00 $0 0.00% Wastewater $35.49 $35.58 $0.09 0.25% Gas $45.99 $47.37 $1.38 3.00% Total $108.48 $109.95 $1.47 1.36% As a result of water and energy conservation, in conjunction with the proposed FY2018 rates, the average customer’s total utility bill (for customers receiving all three utilities) will be lower than last year and the lowest in three years. Total Monthly Utility Bill for Average Customer Total Monthly (water, Utility Bill wastewater, for Average gas) Customer Residential (water, wastewater, gas) $140.00 $132.08 $120.44 $118.69 $120.00 $109.00 $111.36 $109.95 $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 At A Glance Water City Rates of Charlottesville Utility Rate Report FY2018 The following materialcomposite The proposed provides a brief ratesummary of thefor for FY2018 rate and fee 1,000 recommendations cubic feet of waterfor water, wastewater, and natural gas for FY2018. All rates will go into effect July 1, 2017. For a thorough explanation and details of is unchanged the recommendations from please consult theFY2017 completeand remains Proposed Utilityat $54.51. Rate Report FY2018. The City is proposing the following changes in the water, wastewater, and gas utility. The rates are based on average single family household usage per month (422 cf water and wastewater, 4,611 cf of gas): Current Proposed Change Percent Water Impact on the Customer $ 27.00 $ 27.00 $ - 0.00 % Wastewater 35.49 35.58 0.09 0.25 The average Gassingle-family household uses 422 cf/month47.37 45.99 (3,157 gallons/month; 1.38 approximately 3.00 105.2 gallons/ day). To the extent an individual customer’s Total $ 108.48usage$ differs from the 109.95 $ average 1.47 will determine 1.36 %the impact of the proposed rate on their bill. • The monthly bill for the average single-family customer will remain $27.00. WATER• The RATESmonthly bill for the customer who uses 1,000 cubic feet of water per month (and including the The proposed composite rate for FY2018 for 1,000 cubic feet of water is unchanged from FY2017 and remains at $54.51.$4.00 monthly charge) will remain unchanged at $58.51. Impact on the Customer Factors Influencing The average the Water single-family Rate uses household 422 cf/month (3,157 gallons/month; approximately 105.2 gallons/day). To the extent an individual customer’s usage differs from the average will determine the impact of the proposed The impact ofrate on component each their bill. on the final rate is depicted below.  The monthly bill for the average single-family customer will remain $27.00.   • The Increasing monthly wholesale rate from bill for the customer whoRWSA uses increased 1,000 cubicthe feetCity’s rateper of water bymonth $1.07.(and including the $4.00  • monthly charge) The $50,000 will remain increase unchanged in the at $58.51. use of rate stabilization funds reduces the rate by $0.36.  Factors• The $25,000the Influencing increase in debt service resulted in an increase of $0.18. Water Rate  The impact • Theofchange in operating each component expenses on the final rate and revenue is depicted caused an increase in the rate of $1.61. below.   Increasing wholesale rate from RWSA increased • The increase in volume and number of customers that the City’s rate by $1.07. resulted in a $2.32 reduction in the rate.  The $50,000 increase in the use of rate stabilization funds reduces the rate by $0.36.  The These factors $25,000 resulted increase in an in debt increase service in rate resulted in antoincrease $54.51, of which $0.18.is the same rate as FY2017.  The change in operating expenses and revenue caused an increase in the rate of $1.61.  The increase in volume and number of customers that resulted in a $2.32 reduction in the rate. These factors resulted in an increase in rate to $54.51, which is the same rate as FY2017. Impacts on Water Rate (per 1,000 cf) $60.00 FY2018 $56.83 $55.58 $55.22 $55.40 $55.00 $54.51 $1.61 $54.51 $0.18 ($0.36) $1.07 ($2.32) $50.00 $45.00 City of Charlottesville Utility Rate Report FY 2018 02 Wastewater Rates The proposed rate for 1,000 cubic feet of wastewater FY2018 is $74.83, a 0.29% change. Impact on the Customer • The average monthly wastewater bill for the single-family customer, who uses 422 cubic feet of water, will rise from City$35.49 to $35.58, an Utility of Charlottesville increase of $0.09 Rate or 0.25%. Report FY2018 • The monthly bill for the customer who uses 1,000 cubic feet of water per month (and including the $4.00 monthly charge) will rise from $78.61 to $78.83, an increase of $0.22 or 0.28%. WASTEWATER RATES Factors Influencing theforWastewater The proposed rate Rate 1,000 cubic feet of wastewater FY2018 is $74.83, a 0.29% change. Impact on the Customer The impact of each Thecomponent onwastewater average monthly the finalbill rate is depicted for the single-familybelow. customer, who uses 422 cubic feet of water, will rise from $35.49 to $35.58, an increase of $0.09 or 0.25%.  • The increase in thebilltreatment  The monthly ratewho for the customer from RWSA uses increases 1,000 cubic theper feet of water City’s monthrate (andan additional including $2.75 to $77.36. the $4.00 monthly charge) will rise from $78.61 to $78.83, an increase of $0.22 or 0.28%.  • The use of an additional $100,000 in rate stabilization funds produces a decrease in the wastewater rate by $0.73 Factors to $76.63. Influencing the Wastewater Rate The impact of each component on the final rate is depicted below.  • A $15,000  Therise in debt increase in theservice treatmentwill rate cause theincreases from RWSA rate to the increase City’s rate$0.10 to $76.73. an additional $2.75 to $77.36.  The use of an additional $100,000 in rate stabilization funds produces a decrease in the wastewater  • Changesrate in City expenses by $0.73 to $76.63. and revenue results in an increase in the rate of $0.63 to $77.36/cf.  A $15,000 rise in debt service will cause the rate to increase $0.10 to $76.73.  • The change  Changesin treatment volume in City expenses and number and revenue ofincrease results in an customers causes in the rate a to of $0.63 decrease $77.36/cf. in the rate of $2.53  The change in treatment volume and number of customers causes a decrease in the rate of $2.53 for a for a final rate per 1,000 cf of $74.83, which is 0.22% higher than FY2017. final rate per 1,000 cf of $74.83, which is 0.22% higher than FY2017. Impacts on Wastewater Rate (per 1,000 cf) FY2018 $80.00 $77.36 $77.36 $76.63 $76.73 $2.75 $0.63 $74.61 $(0.73) $0.10 $74.83 $75.00 ($2.53) $70.00 $65.00 City of Charlottesville Utility Rate Report FY 2018 03 Gas Rates Proposed firm rates for July 1, 2017 are (3.31%) higher for the typical firm customer using 8,000 cf than the rates for March, 2016. Firm customers include all types of customers (residential, commercial and industrial) for whom gas supplies are guaranteed to be available all year long without interruption. Impact on the Customer City of Charlottesville Utility Rate Report FY2018 • For a representative residential monthly consumption of 8,000 cf, the monthly bill will increase GAS RATES from $69.78 to $72.09, an increase of 3.31%. Impact on Average Customer Proposed firm rates single-family • The average for July 1, 2017household, are (3.31%) higher for the typical who consumes firm customer 4,611 using cf of gas, will8,000 cf than see the the monthly bill rates for March, 2016. Firm customers include all types of customers (residential, commercial and industrial) for whomincrease from gas supplies are $45.99 to $47.37, guaranteed an increase to be available of 3.00%. all year long without interruption.  For a representative residential monthly consumption of 8,000 cf, the monthly bill will increase from Factors Influencing thean $69.78 to $72.09, Gas Rateof 3.31%. increase  The average single-family household, who consumes 4,611 cf of gas, will see the monthly bill increase from $45.99 to $47.37, an increase of 3.00%. Continued growth in our customer base and a changing gas wholesale market contribute to the 3.31% increase Factors Influencing the Gas Rate to firm customers. Continued growth The in ourproposed customer baseincrease to firm customers and a changing gas wholesaleismarket due tocontribute the following: to the 3.31% increase  to • The total non-gas operating budget increased by $147,294 from FY2017 to FY2018, or 1.83%, firm customers. The proposed increase to firm customers is due to the following:  resulting The total innon-gas a $3.03 increase operating due to budget increased increased operating by $147,294 fromexpenses. FY2017 to FY2018, or 1.83%,  • Fund balance is used to defray the cost of capital, resulting in a $1.05 decrease. resulting in a $3.03 increase due to increased operating expenses.  Fund balance is used to defray the cost of capital, resulting in a $1.05 decrease.  •FundFundbalance balance is usedtoto is used help help stabilize stabilize rates, rates, which the which reduced reduced rate bythe rate by $1.74 $1.74.  The sales volume for firm customers decreased in • The sales volume for firm customers decreased in FY2018 by 95,180  FY2018 by 95,180 dth causing the gas rate dth causing to rate to the gas decrease by $0.26. decrease  The totalby gas$0.26. supply costs resulting in a $2.33 increase and a new rate of $72.09.  • The total gas supply costs resulting in a $2.33 increase and a new rate of $72.09. Impacts on Gas Rate (per 8,000 cf) $75.00 $72.81 $71.76 $72.09 $70.02 $2.33 $70.00 $69.78 $3.03 $69.76 ($1.05) ($1.74) ($0.26) $65.00 City of Charlottesville Utility Rate Report FY 2018 04 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA - The City of Charlottesville announced today that staff will present the FY 2018 Utility Rate Recommendations to City Council at their regular meeting on May 15, 2017, at 7pm in City Council Chambers. The City is proposing the following changes in the water, wastewater, and gas utility. The rates are based on average single family household usage per month: Current Proposed Change Percent Water $ 27.00 $ 27.00 $ - 0.00 % Wastewater 35.49 35.58 0.09 0.25 Gas 45.99 47.37 1.38 3.00 Total $ 108.48 $ 109.95 $ 1.47 1.36 % For Customers using water, wastewater, and gas the monthly charge will increase by $1.47 or 1.36% of the combined charges for the average single family residential house using 422 cubic feet of water and 4,611 cubic feet of gas. The rates charged to our customers are derived from wholesale charges from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), BP Gas, operating expenses of the City utilities, and debt service cost. The entire Utility Rate Report recommendation can be found on the City website, www.charlottesville.org/ubo. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING CHAPTER 31 (UTILITIES) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, TO ESTABLISH NEW UTILITY RATES AND SERVICE FEES FOR CITY GAS, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: 1. Sections 31-56, 31-57, 31-60, 31-61, 31-62, 31-153, 31-156 and 31-158 of Chapter 31, of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: CHAPTER 31. UTILITIES ARTICLE II. GAS DIVISION 2. TYPES OF SERVICE; SERVICE CHARGES Sec. 31-56. Rates - Generally. The firm service gas rates based on monthly meter readings shall be as follows: Basic Monthly Service Charge $ 10.00 First 3,000 cubic feet, per 1,000 cubic feet $ 8.0201 $8.2781 Next 3,000 cubic feet, per 1,000 cubic feet $ 7.5389 $7.7814 Next 144,000 cubic feet, per 1,000 cubic feet $ 6.7369 $6.9536 All over 150,000 cubic feet, per 1,000 cubic feet $ 6.5765 $6.7880 Sec. 31-57. Same--Summer air conditioning. (a) Gas service at the rate specified in this paragraph (“air conditioning rate”) shall be available to customers who request such service in writing and who have installed and use air conditioning equipment operated by natural gas as the principal source of energy. The air conditioning rate will be $7.1571 $7.3171 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet of gas used per month. (b) The director of finance may, when it is impracticable to install a separate meter for air conditioning equipment, permit the use of one (1) meter for all gas delivered to the customer, in which instance the director of finance shall estimate the amount of gas for uses other than air conditioning and shall bill for such gas at the rates provided in applicable sections of this division. ... Sec. 31-60. Interruptible sales service (IS). 1 (a) Conditions. . . . (b) Customer's agreement as to discontinuance of service. . . . (c) Basic monthly service charge. The basic monthly charge per meter for interruptible sales service (“IS gas”) shall be sixty dollars ($60.00). (d) Rate. For all gas consumed by interruptible customers the rate shall be $5.6652 $5.8319 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet for the first six hundred thousand (600,000) cubic feet, and $4.3750 $4.5763 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet for all volumes over six hundred thousand (600,000) cubic feet. (e) Annual Minimum Quantity. Interruptible rate customers shall be obligated to take or pay for a minimum quantity of one million two hundred thousand (1,200,000) cubic feet of gas annually. Each year, as of June 30, the director of finance shall calculate the total consumption of each interruptible customer for the preceding twelve (12) monthly billing periods, and shall bill any customer that has consumed less than the minimum quantity for the deficient amount at the rate of $4.3750 $4.5763 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet. Any new customer shall be required to enter into a service agreement with the City prior to the start of service. If an interruptible customer terminates service the annual minimum requirement shall be prorated on the basis of one hundred thousand (100,000) cubic feet per month for each month the customer has received service since the last June 30 adjustment. (f) Contract required. . . . Section 31-61. Interruptible Transportation Service (TS). (a) Generally. ... (b) Rates. The rates for interruptible transportation service (“TS gas”) shall be as follows: (1) $3.6347 per decatherm for a combined IS and TS customer, and (2) $3.1808 $3.2827 per decatherm for a customer receiving only TS gas, and (3) $1.8869 $1.9569 per decatherm, for customers who transport 35,000 or more decatherms per month (“large volume transportation customers”), regardless of whether such large volume transportation customer receives only TS gas, or also receives IS service. (c) Basic Monthly Service Charges. … (d) Special terms and conditions. … 2 (e) Extension of facilities. . . . (f) Billing month. . . . (g) Lost and unaccounted-for gas. . . . (h) Combined IS and TS customer using more than provided or scheduled by customer.... (i) TS Customer providing more gas, or less gas, than customer’s usage. … (j) Other terms and conditions. . . . Section 31-62. Purchased gas adjustment. In computing gas customer billings, the basic rate charges established under sections 31-56, 31-57, 31-60 and 31-61 shall be adjusted to reflect increases and decreases in the cost of gas supplied to the city. Such increases or decreases shall be computed as follows: (1) For the purpose of computations herein, the costs and charges for determining the base unit costs of gas are: a. Pipeline tariffs; b. Contract quantities; and c. Costs of natural gas, in effect or proposed as of March 1, 2016 2017. (2) Such base unit costs are $3.2613 $4.412 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet for firm gas service and $1.9814 $3.1235 per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet for interruptible gas service. (3) In the event of any changes in pipeline tariffs, contract quantities or costs of scheduled natural gas, the unit costs shall be recomputed on the basis of such change in accordance with procedures approved by the city manager. The difference between the unit costs so computed and the base unit costs shall represent the purchased gas adjustment to be applied to all customer bills issued beginning the first billing month after each such change. ARTICLE IV. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ... Sec. 31-153. Water rates generally. (a) Water rates shall be as follows: May-September October-April (1) Monthly service charge. $4.00 $4.00 (2) Metered water consumption, per 1,000 cu. ft . $62.78 $48.29 (b) This section shall not apply to special contracts for the consumption of water which have been authorized by the city council. ... 3 Sec. 31-156. Sewer service charges generally. (a) Any person having a connection directly or indirectly, to the city sewer system shall pay therefor a monthly charge as follows: (1) A basic monthly service charge of four dollars ($4.00). (2) An additional charge of seventy four dollars and sixty one cents ($74.61) seventy four dollars and eighty three cents ($74.83) per one thousand (1,000) cubic feet, of metered water consumption. (b) Any water customer not discharging the entire volume of water used into the city's sanitary sewer system shall be allowed a reduction in the charges imposed under this section, provided such person installs, at his expense, a separate, City-approved water connection to record water which will not reach the City sewer system. The cost and other terms of City Code section 31-102 shall apply. For customers with monthly water consumption in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) cubic feet, where the director of finance considers the installation of a separate meter to be impracticable, the director may establish a formula which will be calculated to require such person to pay the sewer charge only on that part of the water used by such person which ultimately reaches the city sewers. ... Sec. 31-158. When bills payable; delinquent accounts. (a) ... (b) ... (c) ... (d) The director of finance shall establish administrative procedures to ensure that any applicant for service or customer who wishes to dispute any bill, deposit requirement, refusal of service, charge or termination notice imposed under this section is entitled to an administrative review of such dispute by a designated person or persons within the finance department, other than the person or persons within the finance department, other than the person who made the initial determination in such dispute. 2. The foregoing amendments shall become effective July 1, 20167. 4 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 15, 2017 Action Required: Update Presenters: Maurice Jones, City Manager Staff Contacts: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Kaki Dimock, Director Human Services Charlene Green, Manager, Office of Human Rights Title: Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces Recommendations follow-up Background: Council created an ad-hoc blue ribbon commission on May 2, 2016 to address the questions and concerns brought before council regarding race, memorials and public spaces in Charlottesville. Eleven commission members were appointed after an application process. They were charged with providing Council with options for telling the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race relations and for changing the City’s narrative through our public spaces. The Chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), Don Gathers, presented a final report to Council on December 19, 2016. A total of 9 recommendations were made based on the charge from City Council. Action has been taken on several of the recommendations, with considerable attention given to the statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson. A master planning process for the downtown area parks is underway with staff planning to issue a RFP. The Vinegar Hill Park concept has advanced and designs are being planned. Significant support for the African American Heritage Center was incorporated into the FY 2018 City of Charlottesville Budget. Funds from Council pledge support for rent and common area costs for a period of five years, in addition to dollars for a development officer to build fundraising capacity. The BRC report applauds the work of the Bridge Builders Committee and encourages Council to encourage these efforts. Council will be weighing a number of factors in the development plans for West Main Street. Historical interpretation is a key feature of the plan the consultant and team will continue to work on in coordination with community partners. The West Main Street plan also calls for improved visibility and other enhancements to the Drewary Brown Bridge. Staff will benefit from additional direction and information on the remaining action steps. Discussion: The following recommendations from the BRC may require additional consideration: Recommendation Status Court Square Slave Auction Block While the draft RFP for the North Downtown Master Plan includes clear instructions for a legible plaque, it is unclear whether it includes instructions or expectations for the design of a new memorial for Charlottesville’s enslaved population Daughters of Zion Cemetery The BRC report recommends funds beyond those initially appropriated by Council. $80,000 has been allocated to support cemetery improvements. Should additional resources be required, requests for financial support in FY19 should be considered in October 2017 as part of the budget development process. Vinegar Hill Community Vinegar Hill Monument The BRC report recommends funds be appropriated for the fabrication and installation of the designed Vinegar Hill Monument. No action has been taken to date. Highlight and Link Historic Places The BRC plan calls for financial and planning support for historic resource surveys of African American, Native American and local labor neighborhoods and sites, seeking National Register listings, and zoning and design guideline protections. The Historic Resources Committee and staff have $50,000 that was appropriated in the FY 2018 CIP Budget. However, these resources are not adequate to complete the neighborhoods and areas already prioritized and take on the work recommended by the BRC. Place Names BRC recommended that the city consider naming new streets, new bridges, new buildings or other new infrastructure after people or ideas that represent the city’s history in consultation with affected neighborhoods, Albemarle County Historical Society and the African American Heritage Center. No new recommendations have been made to date nor has the development process been changed to prompt additional consideration. New Memorials The BRC recommended that the City Council should not pursue adding new memorials to individuals at this time. City staff would benefit from additional discussion on new and different ways to recognize city leaders and hidden heroes. Other Option/Recommendation included: Recommend Charlottesville City School This is a matter that would require students learn the fuller history of our policy and implementation changes community including the difficult history by the Charlottesville School Board of slavery and racism. and staff. Ensure that courses in African American This is a matter that would require and Native American history are included policy and implementation changes in the curriculum for Charlottesville City by the Charlottesville School Board School students and staff. Participate in the Equal Justice Initiative's Staff has provided an attachment Memorial to Peace and Justice acknowledging prepared by Jane Smith on this the lynching in Albemarle County of incident. There have been requests John Henry James by community members to consider the City’s participation. It would seem that recognition by the Board of Supervisors in Albemarle County is appropriate under the circumstances. Designate March 3rd as either Liberation This requires input from Council. Day or Freedom Day Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The blue ribbon commission reflects the City’s vision to be a “Community of Mutual Respect.” This also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Foster Strong Connections, and the initiative to respect and nourish diversity. Budgetary Impact Any budget impact would be determined based on the particular item to be advanced. Staff believes some of the potential items that would require additional financial resources could be considered in the FY 2019 Budget process. Recommendation: Council may elect to instruct staff to provide additional information on particular recommendations, provide guidance on direction, or take no further action at this time. Attachments: The lynching of John Henry James The Lynching of John Henry James at Wood‟s Crossing on July 12, 1898 “The lynching of John Henry James will be far more damaging to the community than it will be to the alleged criminal. His troubles are o’er; those of the community have just begun.” Richmond Planet, July 16, 1898 “John Henry James is not a resident of Charlottesville. He came here a tramp, but has been around the city for five or six years. He has been in various occupations, and possibly several times a valued member of the chain- gang. As far as we can learn he has no relatives or friends in this section.” “When the train was nearing Wood‟s Crossing, about four miles west of this city, the officers noticed a crowd at the station . . . As soon as the train slowed up, a number of men, unmasked, boarded the platforms, front and rear all were armed with pistols and there seemed to be about 150 in the crowd. . . . a rope was thrown over his head and he was carried about 40 yards to a small locust tree near the blacksmith shop. . . . As soon as he was elevated the crowd emptied their pistols into his body, probably forty shots entering it.” “He Paid the Awful Penalty” Daily Progress, Tuesday July 12, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076186/view#openLayer/uva-lib:2076187/5207.5/1513.5/3/1/0 Wood's Crossing was on the C&O railroad, 0.3 mile west of Farmington and 2.9 miles east of Ivy Depot, according to an old table of Virginia railroad stations. http://www.railwaystationlists.co.uk/pdfusarr/virginiarrs.pdf “She described her assailant as a very black man, heavy-set, slight mustache, wore dark clothes, and his toes were sticking out of his shoes. "About noon a negro named John Henry James was arrested in Dudley's barroom as answering somewhat the description of Miss Hotopp's assailant. . . . “. . . It is said that the young lady resisted the fellow to the extent of scratching his neck so violently as to leave particles of flesh under her fingernails and so effective was the resistance that he failed of accomplishing his foul purpose." “Atrocious and Outrageous” Daily Progress, Monday July 11, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076181/view#openLayer/uva-lib:2076182/5396/1283.5/3/1/0 1 Reports in the Richmond Planet: "They Lynched Him: A Brutal Murder--Mob Makes No Efforts at Disguise" Richmond Planet, 16 July 1898 page 1 http://tinyurl.com/zxym3wf “The lynching of John Henry James, (colored) was as dastardly in its conception and as heinous in its execution as the crime with which he stood charged. . . . The lynching of John Henry James will be far more damaging to the community than it will be to the alleged criminal. His troubles are o‟er; those of the community have just begun.” "Another Virginia Lynching" Richmond Planet, 16 July 1898, page 4 http://tinyurl.com/zdouovf More reports in the Daily Progress: “Being asked as to his guilt or innocence, he admitted that he was the right man . . . the crowd thought there was no reason for delay, and they decided to lynch the prisoner, who then begged for his life and protested his innocence but without avail. . . . The fact that there is no doubt of his guilt makes the people of Charlottesville heartily approve the lynching, as in this way the innocent victim is spared the terrible ordeal of being a prosecuting witness.” “Result of Coroner‟s Inquest” Daily Progress, Wednesday July 13, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076191/view#openLayer/uva-lib:2076192/5550/1072.5/4/1/0 “From an Eyewitness” Daily Progress, Saturday July 16, 1898 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076206/view#openLayer/uva-lib:2076207/5562/3508.5/4/1/0 “The Lynching of James: The Staunton „Spectator‟ Has Somewhat to Say on the Subject” Daily Progress, Thursday July 21, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076226/view#openLayer/uva-lib:2076227/5607/2983.5/4/1/0 Reports in the Staunton Spectator and Vindicator: “Mob Law” Staunton Spectator and Vindicator, July 21, 1898, page 2 http://tinyurl.com/hubvtjz “The exact reason why the Sheriff of Albemarle, took the local train instead of the fast train to Charlottesville with his prisoner, James, who was lynched was not considered a material question before the coroner.” Staunton Spectator and Vindicator, July 21, 1898, page 2 http://tinyurl.com/zu4aqfk 2 3 This page intentionally left blank CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 15, 2017 Action Required: Approval or Disapproval of Schematic Streetscape Plan Presenter: Carrie Rainey, Urban Designer, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Alex Ikefuna, Director, Neighborhood Development Services Missy Creasy, Assistant Director, Neighborhood Development Services Carrie Rainey, Urban Designer, Neighborhood Development Services Tony Edwards, Development Services Manager, Neighborhood Development Services Martin Silman, City Engineer, Neighborhood Development Services Brennan Duncan, Traffic Engineer, Neighborhood Development Services Brian Daly, Director, Parks & Recreation Paul Oberdorfer, Director, Public Works Lance Stewart, Facilities Maintenance Manager, Public Works Chris Engel, Director, Office of Economic Development Rick Siebert, Parking Manager, Office of Economic Development Miriam Dickler, Director, Office of Communications Title: West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan Background: On March 21, 2016, Council approved the conceptual West Main Street Streetscape Plan Option 1 as the guiding document for executing streetscape improvements to the West Main Street corridor. Council established itself as the West Main Street Streetscape project’s review body, and directed the City Manager, his staff and consultants (led by Rhodeside & Harwell) to proceed immediately with construction documents needed to bid and execute the work and secure all necessary approvals. The West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan provides the next step of detailed design necessary to produce construction documents as directed by Council. Discussion: Subsequent to Council direction to proceed with construction documents, a staff implementation team was formed to provide guidance and input on the next phases of design necessary to complete construction documents. The team includes representatives from the City Manager’s Office, Neighborhood Development Services (Planning, Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and 1 Urban Design), Public Works, Public Utilities, Fire Department, Parks & Recreation, Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), Office of Economic Development, and Office of Communication. Monthly meetings have been held with representatives from the consultant team led by Rhodeside & Harwell to discuss issues such as coordination, design, best practices, and maintenance. Additional coordination meetings have been held as necessary to discuss specific areas of design, such as the undergrounding of all utilities, Fire Department access and maneuverability, and CAT bus stop locations and amenities. Schematic Design Details on the work undertaken subsequent to the Council approval of the conceptual West Main Street Streetscape Plan are provided in the Project Initiation and Schematic Design Report (Attachment 2). The report outlines the progression of the schematic design from the approved conceptual plan (Option 1) to the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Drawings, which can be viewed at: http://gowestmain.com/project-documents/. The Project Initiation and Schematic Design Report includes several appendices providing greater detail on work performed for tree assessment, utility design, archaeological assessment, and interpretation strategies. The full Project Report with appendices can be viewed at: http://gowestmain.com/project-documents/. A summary of work follows: Streetscape Character x Establishment of key principles to guide design: o Create green gateways o Create groupings of trees that are irregular in length and diverse in species o Save existing trees in good or excellent condition where possible o Maximize areas for diverse activities o Create a central, identifiable place for adjacent neighborhoods and City residents o Build upon the history of West Main Street and the cultural identity of the City o Incorporate lessons learned from the Downtown Pedestrian Mall x Analysis of materials options to fit the context of the City and define the various uses that comingle on West Main Street: o Neutral and warm ground plane with simple and consistent patterning o Exploration of permeable pavement, paving for special activity areas, painted bike lanes and bike boxes o Consistent furniture palette with variety and flexibility o Proposed bus shelters maximize access and movement, provide lighting and seating o Tree planting details with root growth protection and maintainable grates o Pedestrian and roadway lighting provides visibility, safety, and distinction of spaces Historical Interpretation x Archaeological assessment undertaken to provide a historical overview and identify potential types and locations of buried archaeological resources on West Main Street x Analysis of interpretation opportunities to tell the story of West Main Street and the City x Proposed elements include: o Tactile maps to illustrate the evolution of West Main Street and surrounding neighborhoods o Street corner markers to highlight nearby cultural and historical hotspots o Changeable directory and community message board to orient visitors 2 o Information provided at bus stops illustrating transit options of the past o Bridge Builders commemorative walk with enhanced honoree recognition through more visible display of names, special lighting and paving o Memory markers for locations such as Vinegar Hill, the Inge Store, and the Albemarle Hotel o Midway Park at Ridge Street/McIntire Road acts as a gateway, creates public gathering space, and provides additional opportunities to share information on the history of West Main Street Street Trees x Detailed analysis of existing streets trees’ vitality and expected lifespan x Analysis of required soil volumes, planting structures, and design methods to ensure vitality of proposed trees while achieving the Council directive to provide a 400% increase in canopy x Proposed tree selection chosen to provide shade, durability, seasonal interest, and bioretention abilities Utilities x Development of a coordinated design strategy to integrate utility relocation with stormwater management components, street trees, and access points x Coordination with and review by Dominion Power and private utility companies The staff implementation team has reviewed the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Drawings. Staff has recommended approved the general concepts and layouts proposed, but will continue to review and provide input on further refinements. Such refinements include the final location of a bus pull-off area in the vicinity of 11th Street, raised crosswalks, proposed driveway modifications, and other engineering details. Staff will also continue review of subsequent phases of design and construction documents. Traffic Analysis An updated traffic analysis was performed during the schematic design phase (Attachment 3). The full West Main Street Traffic Analysis Memorandum with appendices of collected traffic data and Synchro outputs can be viewed at: http://gowestmain.com/project-documents/. Traffic Engineering has reviewed the traffic study for the West Main Street project and is satisfied with its findings with the following conditions. Traffic along the corridor is nearly at capacity now and the new plan laid out by the consultant team is predicated on an optimized signal corridor. In order for this not only to run smoothly when it is first installed, but well into the future, as well as help deal with bleeding of West Main traffic into surrounding neighborhood, Traffic Engineering will be asking for an additional employee whose primary role will be signal timing and synchronization throughout the City. This will allow for a more regular analysis of how not only this corridor is functioning, but others throughout the City, and hopefully gain capacity on our streets through better efficiency of our in-place infrastructure. The other condition that has already been added to the City budget is upgraded signal cabinets. The City will be updating our software and hardware over the next few years in an effort to modernize our facilities to again be able to provide more efficiency on a real time basis. Parking Accessible and available parking is critical to the long-term success of the design plan and the corridor. As the pre-construction process moves into the next phase, Staff is actively exploring 3 several viable options to replace the expected loss of on-street parking and add new capacity to the parking supply on West Main Street. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Council Vision Areas Each of the Council Vision Areas is addressed through the West Main Street Streetscape Plan. The following Areas will be particularly impacted by the project. Economic Sustainability The Plan seeks to retain and grow the patrons of the corridor by creating a pleasant and usable space for all users, thereby sustaining the customer base for local businesses. C’ville Arts and Culture The Plan proposes the commission and installation of new public art along the corridor. The Plan also recommends celebrating the unique history of the adjacent neighborhoods through informational plaques and commemorative art at locations such as the bridge across the railroad tracks. A Green City The Plan proposes a 400% increase in street trees along the corridor. In addition, a variety of large-canopy, medium-canopy, columnar, and small trees are proposed to create an interesting and healthy plant culture. Species are proposed for both their visual interest and their ability to adapt and thrive in the West Main Street environment. The Plan also establishes several areas for Low Impact Development where green infrastructure practices could be utilized and highlighted. Recommendations for technologies to preserve tree root zones prevent compaction, a deadly force upon many urban trees. The Plan also proposes undergrounding overhead utilities, which are limiting to the health and canopy of large trees due to the regular trimming or removal of branches to prevent conflicts with utility lines. America’s Healthiest City The Plan encourages physical activity by creating a safe and welcoming place to walk or bike. The Plan’s proposed increase in tree canopy discussed above may also have a positive impact on the environmental quality of the immediate area through carbon dioxide reduction, although the exact effect is currently unknown. A Connected Community The Plan improves the walkability and bikeability of a vital corridor connecting neighborhoods, downtown, and the University of Virginia. The Plan also improves bus service on the City’s busiest route by adding shelters and amenities and creating access to the Jefferson School on Fourth Street, a highly desired connection. The 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ranked West Main Street as the second highest priority project for bicycle infrastructure. Portable counters have been installed on West Main Street since May 2015 in order to measure bicycle traffic in the corridor. Well over 50,000 bicycle trips have been recorded from May 2015 until January 2016. Further information on the 4 data collected can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/transportation/bicycle-and- pedestrian/data Strategic Plan Goals The West Main Street Streetscape Plan meets many of the aspects of Council’s Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community 2.1. Provide an effective and equitable public safety system: The West Main Street corridor is an important route for emergency response personnel. The Plan maintains effective movement through the corridor by providing elements such as dedicated bicycle lanes wherein motorists may pull over to allow emergency vehicle passage and reconfiguring intersection geometry to increase emergency vehicle turning capacity. 2.2. Consider health in all policies and programs: The Plan provides a pleasant and safe atmosphere for walking and biking; activities which improve citizen health in a variety of ways. 2.3. Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure: The Plan recommends reorientation of public and private utilities in locations that reduce conflicts with elements such as tree roots. Undergrounding utilities also minimizes potential outages due to the increased protection. Implementation of the Plan will call for new technologies to improve longevity of streetscape elements, including Silva Cells to reduce sidewalk upheaval and deterioration from tree roots. 2.4. Ensure families and individuals are safe and stable: The Plan improves safety for all users by providing wider sidewalks where pedestrians can safely pass one another, and dedicated bike facilities to minimize conflicts with vehicular traffic. 2.5. Provide natural and historic resources stewardship: The Plan proposes locations for art and installations providing education on the history of the West Main Street area and adjacent neighborhoods. 2.6. Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning: The Plan is the result of extensive public engagement, Steering Committee efforts, and the collaboration of a variety of disciplines to create a comprehensive plan for the corridor. The Plan takes into account the existing features of the corridor, the historic resources, and the vibrant commercial fabric. Goal 3: Have a strong diversified economy 3.2. Attract and cultivate a variety of new businesses: The Plan provides a pleasant and safe atmosphere for walking and biking; the potential changes in travel modes may encourage businesses geared towards these groups (i.e. cycling shops, etc.) 3.3. Grow and retain viable businesses: The Plan improves the quality of the experience for users on the street, encouraging patrons to linger on the corridor and potentially visit multiple businesses. The Plan also improves access to the businesses on West Main Street for all users. 3.4. Promote diverse cultural tourism: The Plan improves the quality of the experience for users 5 on the street, attracting visitors who desire to walk and bike in pleasant locations while traveling. At the time of this report, one hotel is under construction on the corridor, and another is under review. These projects have the potential to greatly increase the number of tourists spending time on West Main Street. Community Engagement: The West Main Street Streetscape project has included extensive community engagement activities, which were detailed in the August 17th, 2015 Council materials. These materials can be downloaded at: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=34075 Subsequent to the Council approval of the conceptual West Main Street Streetscape Plan Option 1 on March 21, 2016, City staff and the consultant team led by Rhodeside & Harwell conducted two (2) work sessions with the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on October 10, 2016 and February 28, 2017. At both work sessions, the BAR was generally supportive of the schematic design materials presented, and provided guidance on streetscape elements such as lighting fixtures and historic interpretation components. City staff and the consultant team led by Rhodeside & Harwell conducted a community meeting with adjacent neighborhoods on December 8, 2016 to explore ways West Main Street can remain an important place for the neighboring communities. Attendees discussed elements such as street trees, public bench and seating area locations, and locations of historical importance on the corridor. Attendees expressed a desire to illuminate the history of West Main Street with carefully placed interpretation opportunities that would not overwhelm the corridor. City staff notified 11 property owners whose property may be affected by proposed driveway modifications on March 27, 2017, requesting further discussion. The modifications proposed include driveway consolidation, the narrowing of driveways, and the shifting of driveway locations. At the date of this report, staff has discussed the proposed driveway modifications with three (3) property owners, and will continue outreach and coordination. Budgetary Impact: The West Main Street Streetscape Plan is estimated to cost approximately $31,037,700 to install, plus the cost of routine gas and water utility betterment (approximately $3,076,000 provided from utility betterment funds). $548,896 of the streetscape cost is attributed to stormwater utility work. Approximately $225,000 of that cost will be provided by the utility betterment fund, resulting in an approximate total of $30,812,700 to be covered using Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds or funds from federal and state programs. It has not been determined how the $225,000 will be applied to project costs (whether provided evenly amongst the four (4) proposed phases or through a different system). Therefore, the costs provided in the phasing breakdown below have not been reduced to reflect the anticipated contribution from the stormwater utility fund. The detailed estimate is provided as Attachment 4. The estimated cost has risen from the previous estimation at approximately $30,000,000 due to further refinement of details, as well as the necessary inclusion of unanticipated signalization work to optimize vehicular traffic. 6 These costs could be greatly offset by federal and state funding opportunities. However, many funding sources require projects to be either shovel-ready, or substantially ready in order to qualify for funds. In 2016, City staff and the consultant team led by Rhodeside & Harwell applied for state funds through the SmartScale program for transportation projects (formerly known as HB2). Funding was not awarded to the West Main Street Streetscape Plan in this round. To facilitate new application in the next round of SmartScale funding (as cost is a factor for consideration) to be awarded in 2019 and potentially available in 2022, as well as other funding opportunities such as Revenue Sharing, City staff and the consultant team have recommended the Plan be installed in five (5) phases: Gas and Water Utility Improvements (provided from betterment funds): $3,076,000 Phase 1 Streetscape (Ridge Street/McIntire Road to 6th Street): $11,327,084 Phase 2 Streetscape (6th Street to Bridge): $8,623,586 Phase 3 Streetscape (Bridge to Roosevelt Brown Boulevard): $4,778,640 Phase 4 Streetscape (Roosevelt Brown Boulevard to Jefferson Park Avenue): $6,308,393 Design fees to complete schematic and final designs, prepare construction documents, and consultant assistance with bidding and construction phases were previously estimated to cost approximately $3 million. Approximately $1,370,000 ($1.37 million) was spent on schematic design, including detailed surveying necessary to complete the project. Consultant fees to complete final design and prepare construction documents for Phase 1 are in development. The parking strategies will have associated costs that are difficult to determine until negotiations begin with property owners. CIP Funds The following funds have been committed or projected for the West Main Streetscape Plan in the CIP process. Please note design work and construction document creation subsequent to schematic design approval will utilize CIP funds. CIP FY2017 Approximately $3,260,000 ($3.26 million) is still available. CIP FY2018 $3,250,000 ($3.25 million) has been adopted for West Main Street. CIP FY2019 $3,250,000 ($3.25 million) has been projected for West Main Street. Maintenance Costs Major streetscape improvement projects such as the West Main Street project typically include an increase of fixtures and other elements that will require regular maintenance and associated additional maintenance costs. City staff has prepared estimations of the costs for maintenance associated with the improvements proposed in the West Main Street Schematic Design Plan (Attachment 5). Public Works has provided an estimate of annual maintenance costs associated with traffic markings, raised crosswalks, signage, lighting fixtures, and transit amenities. The proposed improvements will result in a maintenance cost increase of approximately $154,900 per year (in FY 2017 dollars) once all four (4) phases are installed. The existing maintenance cost is approximately $57,000, while the proposed maintenance cost will be approximately $211,900. 7 Parks & Recreation has provided an estimate of annual maintenance costs associated with sidewalk paving, street trees, and other plantings. The proposed improvements will result in a maintenance cost of approximately $183,600 per year (in FY 2017 dollars) once all four (4) phases are installed. An initial additional capital expense of $210,000 (in FY 2017 dollars) during the first year of maintenance will be required to procure additional equipment. The combined annual maintenance total is expected to be approximately $395,500 (in FY 2017 dollars) once all four (4) phases are installed. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the general concepts and layouts of the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan and initiation of the next phase of design necessary to progress to the completion of construction documents. Alternatives: BY MOTION, City Council may take action on this agenda item. Council’s alternatives include the following: 1. Provide direction on modifications to the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan and direct staff to present modifications at a later date. 2. Disapprove the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan and direct staff to cease further work on the corridor. 3. Defer the decision on approval of the West Main Street Schematic Streetscape Design Plan until a later date. Attachments: 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Project Initiation and Schematic Design Report dated May 2017 3. West Main Street Traffic Analysis Memorandum dated April 10, 2017 4. Rough Order of Magnitude (cost estimate) dated April 24, 2017 5. Maintenance Estimates dated April 28, 2017 8 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, by vote taken on March 21, 2016, City Council adopted the West Main Streetscape Improvement Plan (Option 1) (the “Plan”); and WHEREAS, as part of its adoption of the Plan, directed the City Manager, his staff, and consultants to proceed with construction documents, and Council retained the right and authority to review the construction plans as they are developed; and WHEREAS, a Schematic Design, dated February 17, 2017, for the West Main Streetscape Improvement Project (“Project”) has been completed and is consistent with the concepts and components of the Plan, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL that the Schematic Design for the Project is hereby approved and City Council authorizes the City Manager, City staff, and the City’s design consultants to proceed with the next phase of development of construction plans, the production of 35% construction documents. DESIGN REPORT PROJECT INITIATION and SCHEMATIC DESIGN LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Department of Neighborhood Development Services Carrie Rainey, Project Manager 610 E. Market Street Charlottesville, Va 22902 CONSULTANTS RHODESIDE & HARWELL 510 King Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, Va 22315 in association with... Timmons Group Bushman-Dreyfus Architects Nelson/Nygaard Kimley-Horn Rivanna Archaeological Services Wolf/Josey Landscape Architects 2 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville INTRODUCTION project overview Wertland Street Historic District 10th & Page Univerrsity of Virginiia Starr WE ST M Hill AIN STR E ET Dow wntown Mall Fif ill & Tonsler Fifeville T l Historic District West Main Street is an important commercial corridor that provides services to adjacent neighborhoods and serves as a vital connector between the Downtown Mall and the University of Virginia. 3 May 2017 | Design Report BASIS OF DESIGN option 1 plan Typical Condition West of Bridge Typical Condition East of Bridge 4 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville RESOLUTION TO ADOPT WEST MAIN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT BE IT RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council hereby adopts the West Main PLAN OPTION 1 (for March 21, 2016) Street Streetscape Plan Option 1, as the guiding document for executing streetscape improvements to the West Main Street Corridor, and WHEREAS, The West Main Street Streetscape Plan Option 1 (herein referred to as “The Plan”) seeks to retain and grow the patrons of the corridor by creating a safe, active, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Charlottesville City Council shall henceforth pleasant and usable space for all users, thereby sustaining the customer base for local serve as the West Main Street Streetscape project’s review body during the construction businesses and promoting a sense of well-being for local residences, and documents phase, availing itself of the expertise of its advisory groups as needed, and WHEREAS, The Plan proposes a 400% increase in street trees along the corridor in a BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville through its variety of large-canopy, medium-canopy, columnar, and small trees for their visual representatives on the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) and key staff shall interest, their ability to adapt and thrive in the West Main Street environment, and their engage with the University of Virginia to identify shared investment opportunities within positive impact on the environmental quality of the immediate area through carbon three (3) months of passing this resolution, and dioxide reduction, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Charlottesville City Council directs the City WHEREAS, The Plan establishes several areas for Low Impact Development where Manager, his staff and consultants to within six (6) months of passing this resolution: green infrastructure practices could be utilized and highlighted and recommends technologies to preserve tree root zones that prevent compaction, a deadly force upon x Authorize the design and engineering team of Rhodeside Harwell to proceed many urban trees, and immediately with Construction Documents needed to bid and execute the work and secure all necessary approvals, inclusive of undergrounding utilities but WHEREAS, The Plan also proposes undergrounding overhead utilities, which are without the use of a Pilot Project; and limiting to the health and canopy of large trees due to the regular trimming or removal of x Develop an Implementation “Action” Plan inclusive of the following; branches to prevent conflicts with utility lines, and prone to failure during heavy snow R Parking plan (including but not limited to developing a parking garage on and wind storms thereby disturbing the well-being of both businesses and residences, and City-owned property within the West Main Street corridor, on-street parking meters, restriping spaces and enhanced enforcement); WHEREAS, The Plan encourages physical activity by creating a safe and welcoming R Cost Estimate based on more accurate Design Development drawings; place to walk or bike by improving the walkability and bike-ability of a vital corridor that R Funding and financing strategy (including but not limited to Tax connects neighborhoods, downtown, and the University of Virginia and improves bus Increment Financing-TIF strategies, parking meter revenue dedicated to service on the City’s busiest route by adding shelters and amenities and creating infrastructure maintenance, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds and access to the Jefferson School on Fourth Street, and applicable State and Federal Grants); R Phasing Plan (based on a critical path sequence), and Timeline; and WHEREAS, Execution of The Plan will meet several objectives of the City’s Strategic R Construction Mitigation Plan (that identifies strategies and timeframe for Plan Goal 2: Be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community and Goal 3: Have a informing west main residents and businesses about construction, strong diversified economy; alternative routes, appropriate signage); R Property Owner Outreach Plan (inclusive of meetings with owners about WHEREAS, The Plan is the product of three (3) public meetings with over 100 citizens the streetscape improvement plan); in attendance at each meeting, several focus group sessions, two parking surveys and R Coordinated, timely community Engagement/Information Strategy; meetings with the planning commission, board of architectural review, tree commission, R Project management strategy for pre- and post ground breaking to ensure Mid-Town Business Association and the University of Virginia over several years proper coordination of the above, and contract monitoring and beginning in December, 2013, and R Quarterly progress reports to City Council, and Charlottesville City Council ‘Resolution to adopt WHEREAS, The West Main Street Citizen Steering Committee has provided valuable BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Charlottesville City Council directs the City West Main Street Streetscape Improvement Plan input throughout the multi-year planning process and has fulfilled its duties as charged Manager to conduct an analysis of jobs required by the West Main Street Improvement for which the Charlottesville City Council is grateful; Project that can be performed in-house by city departments (such as sidewalk installation, Option 1’- March 21, 2016 laying pipe, others) and linked to the Growing Opportunity GO apprenticeship programs for the benefit of local residents within nine (9) months of passing this resolution. Submitted to Mayor Signer and City Manager Jones by Councilor Galvin 3/21/16 Option ‘1’ Plan 5 May 2017 | Design Report STREET TREE ANALYSIS existing conditions summary Great streets maintain a consistent, healthy, and diverse street CONCLUSIONS The current street tree conditions evidence a lack of species tree canopy. West Main Street features large canopy trees, diversity and planting conditions which inhibit the healthful and providing shade and marked viewsheds, but suffers from a sustained growth of vigorous, productive trees. monoculture of species and poor rooting volumes to sustain • 62% of street trees along West Main St. are Zelkova; a monoculture its existing trees. In order to be a great street, West Main with increased susceptibility for widespread disease. Street must plant more trees, increase diversity, and develop techniques to increase soil volume for sustained tree growth. • Limited rooting space has created inhospitable conditions for tree growth, limiting life expentency to approximately 10 years for the Doing so, as it relates to implementing the Option 1 design majority of trees before an irreversible stage of decline occurs. layout, may mean removing many existing trees. The challenge for justifying removing trees entails quantifying the costs and • Opportunities to save trees are limited to considerably expanding the available rooting zone. benefits of tree removal versus new tree planting. 6 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY WEST MAIN ST. STREET TREES (139) • Public R.O.W street trees = 80 (black) • Private Property street trees = 59 (red) GOOD TO EXCELLENT STREET TREES (15) • 100% live canopy TRY TO SAVE & PRESERVE • Strong annual growth and healthy condition • 20-30+ year healthy lifespan before decline GOOD STREET TREES (29) • 100% live canopy • Strong to average annual growth rate • 15-20+ years before irreparable decline FAIR TO GOOD STREET TREES (49) • 50-100% live canopy • Average to low annual growth rate • 10-15 years before irreparable decline FAIR STREET TREES (32) • Less than 50% live canopy TO REMOVE • Low annual growth • Less than 10 years before irreparable decline POOR TO REMOVE STREET TREES (14) • Less than 50% live canopy • Minimal annual growth • In state of irreparable decline OPTION 1 PREFERRED STREET CONFIGURATION, 2016      EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY, 2014                         (  (     (  (             ( (  <      (        (   (         (     <    (     (  (                                 < (     (       <        (        Q    (           <  (    <                        (        (                     (                             (      (                                <                   (      Q   (          (                                       Q                               <    <         <               (                                    