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:
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your
name and address before beginning your remarks.
ï‚· Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you
agree with them.
ï‚· Please refrain from using obscenities.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#7] TD explained that some of the needs were identified in other areas,
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#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.
ï‚· [#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 “Xâ€
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
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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:
ï‚· Fund United Way at $24,000; and
ï‚· Fund CoP at $17,000; and
ï‚· 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)
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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.
ï‚· 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
ï‚· Fund PHA with the remaining balance at $38,520; and
ï‚· 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,
(“Charlottesvilleâ€); and THE COUNTY OF FLUVANNA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia (“Fluvannaâ€).
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.â€
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 “ūtilitÄs†which means “usefulâ€. 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 rateâ€) 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 gasâ€) 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 gasâ€) 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 customersâ€), 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.â€
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.â€
“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.â€
“He Paid the Awful Penaltyâ€
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 Outrageousâ€
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.â€
"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.â€
“Result of Coroner‟s Inquestâ€
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 Eyewitnessâ€
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 Subjectâ€
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 Lawâ€
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.â€
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 “Planâ€); 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 (“Projectâ€) 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
Planâ€) 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.
beneï¬ts 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
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY, 2014
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
(
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
( ÂÂ
Â
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
 (
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂ
Â
Â
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
 (
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
< (
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ Â
<Â
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
( Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
<
ÂÂ
( Â Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
(
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
 ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
 ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ ÂÂ
<
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
 (
Â
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Q ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
 (
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂ
ÂÂ Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
Â
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
 ÂÂ
<
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
 ÂÂ
Â
(
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
 ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ <
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
<
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
(
< <
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
<
<
(
Q
Q
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
<
ÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
(
(
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
Â
ÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
<
<
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂ
Â
<
<
ÂÂ
(
Â
<
ÂÂ
Â
¡¡¡¡¡
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
(
¡ ¡
ÂÂ
 (
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
Â
ÂÂ
¡ ¡
Q
ÂÂ
Â
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
ÂÂÂ
(¡
¡ ¡
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
Â
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
ÂÂ
Â
¡ ¡
Â
¡ ¡
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
¡ ¡
Â
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
<
ÂÂ
Â
¡ ¡
ÂÂ
Â
(
 ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
<
ÂÂÂ
<
<
ÂÂÂ
(
(
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂ
\
<
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
<
7 May 2017 | Design Report
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
<
ÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
< (
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂ
 Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
<
(
(
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
\
< (
<
( (
ÂÂ
Â
< (
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( (
ÂÂÂ
(
(
Â
ÂÂ ( (
<<
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
 Â Â Â ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< Â
ÂÂÂ
(
Q
< <
<
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
(
EXISTING TREES overlaid on OPTION 1 & EXISTING SURVEY
(
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
<
ÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
< (
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂ
 Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
<
(
(
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
\
< (
<
( (
ÂÂ
Â
< (
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( (
ÂÂÂ
(
(
Â
ÂÂ ( (
<<
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
 Â Â Â ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< Â
ÂÂÂ
(
Q
< <
<
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
(
EXCELLENT, GOOD, & FAIR to GOOD TREES IN THE PUBLIC R.O.W overlaid on OPTION 1 & EXISTING SURVEY
(
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
<
ÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
< (
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂ
 Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
<
(
(
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
\
< (
<
( (
ÂÂ
Â
< (
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( (
ÂÂÂ
(
(
Â
ÂÂ ( (
<<
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
 Â Â Â ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< Â
ÂÂÂ
(
Q
< <
<
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
?
ÂÂÂ
?
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
(
EXCELLENT, GOOD, & FAIR to GOOD TREES IN THE PUBLIC R.O.W to remain for SCHEMATIC DESIGN
(
8 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
|
ANALYSIS MAP 1
• Reviewed the current state of street tree planting along West
Main Street. Determined species, health, planting conditions,
canopy and trunk size, indications of disease, damage, and
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂ
Â
hazards to adjacent infrastructure.
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
• Assessed locations of existing trees in relation to proposed
Â
ÂÂ
(
(
ÂÂÂ
Option 1 layout.
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
( ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
• Fair and Poor trees in the public right-of-way, totaling 32,
Q
ÂÂÂ
Â
Q
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( ( (
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
 ÂÂÂ
with low to minimal annual growth and already in a state of
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ < ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
(
ÂÂ
(
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
decline, should be viewed as being removed altogether.
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ <
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ (
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
( ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ <
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
< Â (
These trees either conflict with proposed Option 1 layout, will
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
not survive through construction processes, and have no or
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
limited remaining aesthetic and ecological beneï¬t.
(
ÂÂ
|
ANALYSIS MAP 2
• Trees shown here include Excellent, Good, and Fair to Good
in the public right-of-way, totaling 48, which have average
to strong growth rates, make up the majority of West Main
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Street’s canopy, and have at least 15 years before they enter
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
an irreversible state of decline.
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
• These trees should be viewed as having the potential for
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
(
ÂÂÂ
being saved, permitting no conflicts with the layout and
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
construction of Option 1 and ensuring the possibly for
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
( ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
substantially increased rooting zone volumes in the proposed
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
Â
Q
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
design.
ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( ( (
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ < ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
(
ÂÂ
(
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ <
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ (
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
( ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ <
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ANALYSIS MAP 3
ÂÂ
< Â (
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
• Excellent, Good, and Fair to Good trees in the public
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
right-of-way to remain, totaling 36 (45% of total canopy), 14
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
of which may still require removal, have been vetted through
an analysis consistent with the same process above.
|
• Trees selected for removal either impede normal pedestrian
trafï¬c flow in the proposed Option 1 layout or will have
rooting zones severly impacted by construction processes that
normal tree protection efforts cannot prevent. Trees outside
(
ÂÂ
Â
the public R.O.W have been maintained but may require
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
special tree protection efforts in order to save.
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
BREAKDOWN OF TREES FOR POTENTIAL
(
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
TO REMAIN
Â
ÂÂ
(
(
ÂÂÂ
?
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
50
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
( ÂÂ
27.8%
ÂÂÂ
SPECIES DIVERSITY
ÂÂÂ
Â
FAIR TO GOOD
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(10 trees)
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Q
40 22.2%
ÂÂÂ
Â
EXCELLENT
Q
ÂÂ
(8 trees)
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
30
ÂÂÂ Â Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( ( (
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ < ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
20
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
TREE HEALTH
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
(
ÂÂ
(
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ <
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
10
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ (
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
( ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ <
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
0
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
< Â (
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
st
elm
ar
d
k
ee
n
e
k
ak
elm
va
a
ÂÂÂ
Q
oa
oa
ca
ov
tre
bu
Â
cu
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
pe
lko
do
etr
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Pe
lk
ylo
d
ne
low
se
Pin
an
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
d
ffe
Re
Ze
Ze
Re
ine
for
pla
eric
ne
Wil
Co
ÂÂÂ
N.
ad
Ho
Ch
L.
Am
K.
Br
50%
ÂÂÂ
GOOD
(18 trees)
ÂÂÂ
Public R.O.W trees to remain (36)
( Private trees to remain (59)
ÂÂ
REMOVED 55%
(44 trees)
CANOPY
COVERAGE
9 May 2017 | Design Report 45%
REMAINING
(36 trees)
STREET TREE PLANTING ANALYSIS
soil volume requirements and goals
Urban trees face numerous challenges, but the biggest
roadblock for healthy, sustainable trees that reach their
proper mature canopy, and thus greatest ecological beneï¬ts,
is the adequacy of abundant soil volume and preventing
soil compaction. Multiple studies suggest that trees need
1 to 2 cubic feet of soil volume for every square foot of
crown area spread (Casey Trees). Charlottesville’s Streets
that Work Design Guidelines (adopted September 6, 2016) 42’
recommends 400 cf of soil per tree for medium and large
3’
deciduous trees. Tree roots will spread up to twice the width
of the tree’s canopy and penetrate areas where soil is not
4’
highly compacted, which are abundant in air and water.
Urban trees in small tree boxes rarely reach their full growth
potential due to the highly compact subgrade that tree roots
inhabit. The recommended minimum soil volume for urban
trees is 400 cubic feet with an optimal range being between
700 and 1000 cubic feet for full maturity.
TRADITIONAL OPEN SOIL TREE BOX VS. SILVA CELL TREE BOX
DESIGN METHODS: HOW TO ACHIEVE SOIL VOLUME
Open Soil Area
Managed Root Paths
Structured Subgrade Soil Area
Continuous Soil Planters with Reinforced Slabs
ESTIMATED MATURE CROWN SPREAD
TREE BOX DESIGN MATRIX PARAMETERS = 40 FEET DIAMETER
Sidewalk Width
Tree Space Soil Volume - 500 cuft Design Goal
Minimum Tree Space Width
Minimum Open Soil Area Soil Volume = 504 cubic feet
Charlottesville’s Streets that Work Guidelines - 400 cuft Standard Minimum
10 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
200 200 200 200
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
180 180 180 180
160 160 160 160
AMOUNT OF TREES
AMOUNT OF TREES
140 140 140 140
Analysis Map 1: 120 120 120 120
Existing Tree Planting 100 100 100 100
vs 400% Increase 80 80 80 80
60 60 60 60
40 40 40 40
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
Trees (80) Existing Trees (80)
Existing Canopy Coverage (32,907 sq ft)
Canopy Coverage w/o Condition Analysis (65,118 sq ft)
400% Resulting Trees (105)
Canopy Coverage w/ Condition Analysis (32,907 sq ft)
400% Canopy Coverage Increase (131,628 sq ft)
200 200 200 200
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
180 180 180 180
SILVA CELL SUBGRADE
SUB
160 160 160 160
OPEN SOIL ZONE
ZO
AMOUNT OF TREES
AMOUNT OF TREES
140 140 140 140
Analysis Map 2: 120
3.3’ 120 120 120
Traditional Tree Planting 100 100 100 100
vs 400% Increase 80
80 80 80
60 60 60 60
10’ 20’ 40 40 40 40
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
Trees (131) Proposed Trees (131)
Canopy Coverage (164,536 sq ft) Proposed Canopy Coverage (164,536 sq ft)
400% Resulting Trees (105)
400% Canopy Coverage Increase (131,628 sq ft)
SILVA CELL
= 20 cu ft
260 260 260
260
240 240 240
240
220 220
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
220 220
CANOPY COVERAGE (SQ FT x1000)
200 200 200
4’ 200
AMOUNT OF TREES
AMOUNT OF TREES
180 180 180 180
8’ Analysis Map 3: 160 160 160 160
140 140
Silva Cell Tree Planting 140 140
120 120
vs 400% Increase 120 120
100 100 100 100
80 80 80 80
60 60 60 60
ESTIMATED MATURE CROWN SPREAD 40 40 40 40
= 40 FEET DIAMETER
20 20 20 20
0 0 0 0
Soil Volume = 505 cubic feet Trees (197)
Canopy Coverage (247,432 sq ft)
Proposed Trees (197)
Proposed Canopy Coverage (247,432 sq ft)
400% Resulting Trees (105)
400% Canopy Coverage Increase (131,628 sq ft)
11 May 2017 | Design Report
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ <
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
<
ÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
< (
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂ
 Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
<
(
(
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
\
< (
<
( (
ÂÂ
Â
< (
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( (
ÂÂÂ
(
(
Â
ÂÂ ( (
<<
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
Â
 Â Â Â ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< <
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< Â
ÂÂÂ
(
Q
< <
<
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Q
Q
ÂÂÂ
(
EXISTING TREES overlaid on EXISTING SURVEY
(
42’ On-Center Spacing;
Typical
TRADITIONAL OPEN SOIL STREET TREE LAYOUT overlaid on OPTION 1
30’ On-Center Spacing;
Typical
SILVA CELL STREET TREE LAYOUT overlaid on OPTION 1
12 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
|
ANALYSIS MAP 1
• There are 139 existing street trees, however, only 80 of those trees
in the public right-of-way contribute to the effective West Main Street
canopy coverage. The existing trees within the public-right-of way are
ÂÂ
Â
(
planted in either 4’ x 4’ or 4’ x 6’ tree boxes where the designed soil
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
volume only equals 48 to 72 cubic feet. Existing trees in these
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
Â
conditions will underperform anywhere from 20% - 50% their
(
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
expected mature size.
Â
ÂÂ
(
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
CALCULATIONS
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
Â
( ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Without Condition Analysis assumes 100% live canopy for all trees.
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Q
ÂÂÂ
Â
Q
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
<
With Condition Analysis:
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
( ( (
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ ÂÂÂ
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
<
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ < ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
(
Excellent and Good trees = 100% live canopy
ÂÂÂ
Â
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
Â
Â
(
ÂÂ
(
Â
Â
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ <
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Fair to Good trees = 75% live canopy
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ (
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
( ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
< ÂÂÂ ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
Â
ÂÂÂ
(
ÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
 ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
(
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ <
<
ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
< Â (
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Fair trees = 50% live canopy
Â
(
ÂÂÂ
Q
Â
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Â
ÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
Poor trees = 25% live canopy.
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
ÂÂÂ
(
400% CANOPY INCREASE
ÂÂ
• 400% multiplied by the existing canopy coverage of 32, 907 sq ft
results in an expected canopy of 131,628 sq ft, which equals
approximately 105 (40’ dia.) trees.
|
ANALYSIS MAP 2
• Using a traditional open soil tree box, placed continuously alongside
one another, West Main Street can feasibly maintain 131 street trees,
each using 504 cu ft of soil. This hypothetical layout requires a
continuous open soil zone and cannot accomodate amenity areas for
site furnishings. Any increase in soil volume per tree would mean less
trees can be sustained and their spacing would be farther apart.
ASSUMPTIONS
No soil volume is shared
All existing trees are removed
42’ on-center tree spacing (40’ is City standard)
40’ average canopy based on good sandy-loam soil and species variation
COMPARISON TO A 400% CANOPY INCREASE
• 400% multiplied by the existing canopy coverage of 32, 907 sq ft
results in an expected canopy of 131,628 sq ft, which equals
approximately 105 (40’ dia.) trees.
• The proposed canopy coverage for traditional tree pits equals
164,536 sq ft, which equals 131 (40’ dia.) trees.
|
ANALYSIS MAP 3
• Using a silva cell tree box, West Main Street can feasibly maintain
197 street trees, each using 495 cu ft of soil. This hypothetical layout
allows room for increasing soil volume per tree (thus increasing
canopy coverage), and alterning tree spacing to allow for structured
amenity areas for site furnishings.
ASSUMPTIONS
No soil volume is shared
All existing trees are removed
30’ on-center tree spacing (40’ is City standard)
40’ average canopy based on good sandy-loam soil and species variation
COMPARISON TO A 400% CANOPY INCREASE
• 400% multiplied by the existing canopy coverage of 32, 907 sq ft
results in an expected canopy of 131,628 sq ft, which equals
approximately 105 (40’ dia.) trees.
• The proposed canopy coverage for traditional tree pits equals
247,432 sq ft, which equals 197 (40’ dia.) trees.
13 May 2017 | Design Report
The stormwater management techniques and utility relocation
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS and under-grounding often have competing spatial
existing and conceptual utility layout requirements and needs. The strategy for effectively integrating
stormwater management with utility relocation requires a strong
understanding of these needs and their associated
associated easements
and off
offsets. The grgra
aphics presented
presented help
help to illustra
illustrate the existing
condition along West Main StrStreet
eet and a conceptual
conceptua condition in
an effor
effortt to help explain
explain and see the competing ne needs that are
occurring underg
underground.
EXISTING UTILITIES
1 Electric
2 Communication
s
3 Water Main
4 Storm Sewer Ma
in
5 Gas
IONS
6 Communication
s
7 Electric
EXISTING CONDIT
PIT
TRADITIONAL TREE
6'L
4'W X 4'L OR 4'W X
6 7
1 3 4 5
2
E SIDEWALK
TRAVEL LANE PARKING + BIKE LAN
E TRAVEL LANE 8'
SIDEWALK PARKING + BIKE LAN 11'
10'-6"
10'-6"
11'-6"
7'-6"
14 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
EXISTING UTILITY LAYOUT VS.
CONCEPTUAL UTILITY AND SWM LAYOUT
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE
Traditional Tree Box Silva Cells
Electric, Communications, and Gas Utilities Bioretention Tree Box and Underdrain
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer and Water Utilities Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Utilities
Private Utility Ductbank
Gas and Service line Relocation
LAYOUT
PROPOSED UTILITIES
1 Storm Sewer
Main
2 High Pressure Gas
M
3 Sanitary Sewer
W
4 Water Main
ctbank
S
5 10-Way Private
Du
6 Bioretention Un
derdrain
IT Y A N D
NCEPTUAL UTIL
EE PIT
BIORETENTION TR
4'W X 8'L
5
SILVA CELLS (2X) 2 4
4'L X 40"H
ONE UNIT = 2'W X 1 6
3
SIDEWALK
CO
TRAVEL LANE BIKE LANE
NE TRAVEL LANE
SIDEWALK PARKING + BIKE LA 5' 10'
11'
11'
13'
10'
D
BIORETENTION AN
PERMEABLE PVMT
IMPERMEABLE ZONE
PERMEABLE PVMT
BIORETENTION &
ADDITIONAL TREE
SOIL VOLUME IN PARKING LANE TER RUNOFF
PERMEABLE PVMT CT ~30% STORMWA
VIA ROOT PATHS SIDEWALKS COLLE
TER RUNOFF
ROADWAY COLLE CTS ~70% STORMWA
15 May 2017 | Design Report
STREETSCAPE CHARACTER ANALYSIS
design language matrix
West Main Street is a place between two very historic and CONTENTS/RESEARCH
storied landscapes; the University of Virginia and the historic
downtown pedestrian mall. The materiality of these two places OPTION 1 PREFERRED STREET CONFIGURATION, 2016
has evolved, albeit stringently, within the visions of Thomas
RHODESIDE & HARWELL MASTER PLAN, 2014
Jefferson and Lawrence Halprin respectively; and by those Streetscape & Urban Design Framework
people upholding their visions. The materials and furnishings Value Engineered Corridor Improvements
palette and typologies of each of these places expresses
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
consistency, visual appeal, cohesiveness, and simplicity. Ofï¬ce of the University Building Ofï¬cial - Facility Design Guidelines
Ofï¬ce of the Architect - Landscape Typologies and Standards
West Main Street is a very historic and culturally important place
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
in itself. However, the street suffers from being un-imageable, Architectural Design Control (ADC) Guidelines
otherwise described as lacking characteristics and qualities City Standards and Design Manual
that help deï¬ne the image of a place in a person’s minds-eye. Streets That Work Design Guidelines
This is largely the result of an incoherent palette of streetscape DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN MALL
elements and improperly organized collection of materials, Halprin design elements
furnishings, and other street features. Furthermore, the City of
THE CHARLOTTESVILLE DOWNTOWN MALL
Charlottesville streetscape standards aren’t expressive enough Video by Paul Josey & Karl Krause
of design and construction qualities that would foster a vision
for West Main. The question then becomes, what should West MATERIAL STANDARDS
}
Art
Main Street look like? Furnishings
Lighting
Paving
Seating
Site Features
Wayï¬nding
16 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
}
ON ART:
Offers a place-making role in celebrating and
communicating history and culture.
• Develop relationship between artworks’
Art materials, scale, and surrounding environment
• Murals’ appearance, materials, colors, size, and
scale should be compatible with building/context
• Sculpture should be accessible to public
ON FURNISHINGS:
Furniture should be durable, free-standing, and
matching.
• Litter receptacles should be metal and match
Furnishings other street furniture
• Should be of compatible design, materials,
and color with other street furniture
ON LIGHTING:
Of a character to complement land-use, sense of
place, existing context and street typology.
• Fixture selection to create hierarchy of streets
Lighting and spaces
• Consider special lighting of key landmarks to
provide a focal point in evening hours
• Traditional, pole mounted for historic places
ON PAVING
Materials selected on intent of reinforcing the
existing character.
• Traditional materials: brick, stone, concrete
Paving • Concrete and permeable pavers are appropriate
in new construction and if applicable
• Avoid variation in color, texture, tooling
• Traditional patterns laid to match historic context
ON SEATING:
Design and location of seating should respond
to how surrounding space is used.
• Use design constructed of wood and/or metal
Seating • Should be of compatible design, materials,
and color with other street furniture
}
}}
• Relates to historic character of district
ON SITE FEATURES:
Walls and Fences should respect scale, materials
MASTER PLAN VALUE ENGINEERED ITEMS and context of site and adjacent properties.
WEST MAIN STREET • Stone, wrought-iron, wooden pickets, brick
• Bridge Deck site features removed
Site Features • Medians and Median Planting removed
EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS • Not to exceed 4’ height in public r.o.w
• Not standards; for visual reference only • Take design clues from historic precedents
• Sidewalk changed to Poured-in-Place Concrete
• Curbs changed to Concrete
• Crosswalks changed to Painted Asphalt
ON WAYFINDING:
Maintain city-wide informational public sign
system.
• Add distinctive street sign system for historic
Wayï¬nding districts
• Can be plaques, pole-mounted, or interpretive
17 May 2017 | Design Report
}
Art
Furnishings
Lighting
Paving
Seating
Site Features
Wayï¬nding
18 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
STREETSCAPE CHARACTER
LEARNING FROM THE MALL
design principles from lawrence halprin
1 GROUNDPLANE AS URBAN FLOOR 2 TREE BOSQUES AS LANDSCAPE ROOMS
3 MATERIAL AND FURNISHING SIMPLICITY 4 CHOREOGRAPHED LAYOUT CREATES ‘EPISODES’
Social Space (12’)
Personal Space (4’)
Intimate Space (1.5’)
THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN MALL IS...
“A Durable Mallâ€
“A Flexible Mallâ€
“An Interactive Mallâ€
20 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
WEST MAIN STREET DESIGN
key principles
1 Create ‘green gateways’ along West Main Street at 5 Maximize areas for diverse activity along West Main
1) Ridge-McIntire Road (east terminus) Street, particularly where land use suggest gathering
2) Jefferson Park Avenue (west terminus) of people. Create a rhythm of active and calm spaces
3) the Bridge (center) along the corridor
2 Create bosques of trees that are irregular in length 6 Create a central, identiï¬able place for adjacent
and diverse in species neighborhoods and City residents
3 Try to save existing trees that are in excellent and 7 Build upon the history of West Main Street and the
good condition where possible cultural identity of the City
4 Maintain visibility of signiï¬cant features along 8 Incorporate lessons learned from the Downtown
West Mains Street (e.g. First Baptist Church) Pedestrian Mall
21 May 2017 | Design Report
OPTION ‘1’ PLAN UPDATE
revised streetscape plan
10 1//2 St. NW
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
13th St.
11th St. SW
v e.
r kA
Pa
n
erso
ff
Je
22 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
Roosevelt
Brown Blvd.
10th St. NW
9th St. NW
23
May 2017 | Design Report
N
8th St. NW
W
Cream St.
7th St. NW
7th St. SW
24
West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
6th St. NW
5th
LEGEND
SIDEWALK CROSSWALK BIKE LANE
RAISED PERMEABLE TRAVEL
STREET CROSSING PARKING LANE LANE
LIMITS OF
WORK
Ridg Rd.
e-Mc
Intire
St.
er
at
W
4th St. NW
Sou
th S
t.
Ridge St.
W
h St. S
N
25 May 2017 | Design Report
STREET TREE DESIGN
conceptual street tree layout
JPA Bridge
Gateway Activity Bosques Gateway
26 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
Downtown Pedestrian Mall Tree Layout
Ridge-McIntire
Gateway Activity Bosques Gateway
27 May 2017 | Design Report
BOSQUE CONCEPT
GOALS
1) CREATE ‘ROOMS’ FOR ACTIVITY AREAS
2) EXPOSE HISTORIC AND SIGNIFICANT FEATURES
3) SCREEN UNSIGHTLY ADJACENCIES
28 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
REINFORCED PAVING
(ABOVE)
UNCOMPACTED
SOIL ZONE (BELOW)
3’
SILVA CELL SUBGRADE
OPEN SOIL ZONE
3.3’
102’
56’
8’
4’
SILVA CELLS
= 44 TOTAL
FOR 3 TREE
CLUSTER
4’
8’
ESTIMATED CANOPY SPREAD WHEN CLUSTERED ESTIMATED CANOPY SPREAD WHEN CLUSTERED
= 84 FEET (3 TREES @ 22’ O.C.) = 84 FEET (3 TREES @ 22’ O.C.)
Soil Volume = 1,200 cubic feet Soil Volume = 1,197 cubic feet
SOIL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS
SHARED SOIL VOLUME
1) RESULTS IN 15%-25% DECREASE IN SOIL VOLUME PER TREE WHEN CLUSTERED
2) DESIGN ASSUMES 20% DECREASE
3) RESULTING SOIL VOLUME GOAL PER TREE WHEN CLUSTERED EQUALS 400 CU FT
29 May 2017 | Design Report
STREET TREE DESIGN
types of street tree planting
30 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
N
TREE TOTALS
23
EXISTING TREES
42
TRADITIONAL
89
SILVA CELL
= 131
NEW TREES
TO REMAIN TREES TREES
31 May 2017 | Design Report
PROGRAMMATIC DESIGN UNDERSTANDING THE PROGRAM
understanding the program WHAT IS WEST MAIN STREET?
...a vibrant pedestrian experience
...a cultured place for arts and knowledge
West Main Street should ï¬rst be understood as a place of
...a connector for neighborhoods
intermingling experiences before any design or material ...a storied place with a rich history
suggestions are made. The efforts taken to describe the ...an evolving corridor
...a place for transit
character of a place will ultimately lead to the choice of speciï¬c
spatial form, pattern, and design technique that will help WHAT ARE THE EXISTING LAND USES?
manifest the character trying to be achieved. ...residential
...restaurants
...retail
When programming West Main Street, there were four main ...ofï¬ces
questions that needed to be asked (see list on right). The ...educational institutions
...hotels
answers to these questions help determine the expected uses
of the street, the expected users of the street, the anticpated WHEN DO EVENTS TAKE PLACE AND WHERE?
experiences along the street, and the types of spaces required ...Midtown Street Fair
to provide for all the above. The space use and experience
WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS AND USERS?
typologies indicated in the following diagrams are laid out City of Charlottesville
along West Main Street as they relate to the existing land use Business owners
Residents
and as an attempt to begin deï¬ning the pedestrian experience.
Civic groups
Character images help explain in visual terms what each of the Community organizations
programmatic zones are and how they function. University of Virginia
SPACE USE & EXPERIENCE TYPOLOGIES
}
Gather
Dine
Relax
Learn
Stroll
Bike
Play
Celebrate
32 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
}
Gather Dine Stroll Play
Relax Learn
L Bike Celebrate
33 May 2017 | Design Report
SERIES OF EXPERIENCES
GOALS
1) COMPLEMENT ADJACENT LAND USES
2) PROVIDE TRANSITIONS TO SIDE STREETS
3) USES BOSQUES TO ORGANIZE SPACE
34 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
STACEY HALL
UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH BALKIN BISTRO
UVA FACILITIES SWEET HAUS
MARRIOT COURTYARD HOTEL THE STANDARD
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
DPR
ASIAN EXPRESS
ARIANA GRILL HOUSE
DINSMORE HOUSE UVA HEALTH
reet
et
t
Stree
10 1/2 Street
t
12th Stre
th Stree
12 1/2 St
10th
13th
e
d.
Av
ark
wn Blv
t
Stree
nP
9th Street
r so
ffe
Je
elt Bro
11th
L L
v
Roose
HAMPTON INN
THE FLATS
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BATTLE BUILDING KANES
EL JARIPEO UVA CREDIT UNION
SYCAMORE HOUSE
STUDIO ART SHOP
UKULELE LODGE 1000 MAIN
MEL’S CAFE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
ONE MEATBALL PL
MOTO PHO COMPANY
L’ETOILE ETERNITY NAILS RESIDENCE INN
GUS TAYLORING PEARL’S BAKE SHOP QUEST BOOKSHOP MSB COACH
CONTINENTAL BELLA’S COTTAGE ANTIQUES
TOBEY’S PAWN NATRE’AL HAIR
STARR HILL BEN AROUND WEST MAIN
DELL TAX OFF BEAT GALLERY FARROW & BALL LEWIS & CLARK CONDOS
HORSE & HOUND SHENANIGANS ELOISE
GRAND MARKET
L
MAYA
CENTURY LINK
L tre
et
Cream Street
erS
8th Street
at
6th Street
W
4th Street
L
L
7th Street
Strreet
5th Street
L
Ridge
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ABC
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
STUDIO 500 SALON
MAIN ST. MARKET
UNIVERSITY TIRE & AUTO COMCAST GREYHOUND
MINI MART
BLUE MOON DINER
FOCAL ZONES STONEKING
WATERMARK
RED STAR
35 May 2017 | Design Report TO THE DOWNTOWN MALL
PROGRAMMATIC DESIGN
program and activity layout
L
L L
L
36 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
L
L
L L
N
Gather Relax Dine Stroll Play Learn
L
37 May 2017 | Design Report
MATERIALS ANALYSIS
hardscape and surfacing options
The character of materials chosen will work to create a
consistent, unifying element that cohesively ties the corridor
together. The proposed palette of materials should ï¬t within the
context of Charlottesville and help deï¬ne the various uses that
comingle throughout the corridor. Materials are the foremost
design element that gives a street its sense of place, and should
be given considerable thought.
MATERIALS CHARACTER
STYLE & AESTHETICS
Neutral and warm ground plane
Simple, consistent patterning
Uniform ï¬eld
MANAGING INTRICACIES
Material or pattern differentiation
Change in size, texture
SPECIAL ZONES
Permeable paving areas
Activity areas
Driveways and cross streets
Building edges
38 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
D
B
A
C
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
GOALS
1) LONG-TERM DURABILITY
2) MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE COSTS
3) CONTEXTUAL AND HISTORICAL CONISTENCY
39 May 2017 | Design Report
A
40 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
B
41 May 2017 | Design Report
C
42 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
D
43 May 2017 | Design Report
FURNISHINGS ANALYSIS
seating, lighting, and amenity options
The character of furnishings chosen will also work to create FURNISHINGS CHARACTER
a consistent, unifying element. The proposed palette of
furnishings and their locations will help to deï¬ne zones of STYLE & AESTHETICS
activity and should be activitating and dynamic themselves. Contains timeless qualities
Includes variety of materials (e.g. metals, woods)
Two of the most important factors for great public places are Evokes warmth, artfulness
numerous places to sit and safety at night-time via lighting.
Various different types of seating and engaging lighting at the A VARIETY OF AMENITIES
Street furnishings and signage
pedestrian scale will help create a more inviting place at all Art and murals
times of the day. Lighting
Banners and logos
Neighborhood gateway features
Building awnings and signage
Container plants / moveable planters
TECHNOLOGICAL AND SUSTAINABLE
Wiï¬ opportunites
Mobile recharging
Recyclable materials
FLEXIBILITY
Maximize limited sidewalk space
Multi-functional use of furnishings
Fixed and moveable options
LIGHTING
Heirarchical
Pedestrian and Vehicular Zones
Mid-block vs End-of-block
Responsive to activities
Responsive to tree planting
Nodes for special lighting
Holiday, catenary, and facade lighting
44 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
A SEATING B DINING
C AMENITIES D LIGHTING
45 May 2017 | Design Report
A SEATING
46 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
B DINING
47 May 2017 | Design Report
C AMENITIES
48 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
D LIGHTING
49 May 2017 | Design Report
STREETSCAPE CHARACTER
conceptual rendering and modeling
The in-progress conceptual rendering shows the block along
West Main Street looking east from 7th Street towards 6th Street.
The visualization begins to deï¬ne the various paving zones
and lighting hierarchy, the nodes of seating, and the street tree
clustering.
50 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
51 May 2017 | Design Report
52 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
53 May 2017 | Design Report
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLAN
illustrative rendering
54 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
55 May 2017 | Design Report N
56 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
LEGEND BIKE LANE
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
RAISED STREET CROSSING BUILDINGS
CROSSWALK
STREET TREE
ST
57 May 2017 | Design Report N
STREETSCAPE EXPERIENCE
visualization at 7th street and west main
58 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
59 May 2017 | Design Report
PAVING AND SURFACING
materials and pattern
WARM CONTEMPORARY PALETTE
DEEP, RICH COLORS WITH SUBTLE CHANGES OF TONE,
TEXTURE, AND PATTERN
Paved surfaces include concrete unit pavers, and exposed
aggregate concrete. The images below illustrate warm toned
SIDEWALK PAVING
pavers that evoke a continuous and timeless appearance. The
developed paving patterns are simple to create a balanced
and harmonious ground plane.
DRIVEWAY PAVING
60 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
UNILOCK UNILOCK UNILOCK CONCRETE
IL CAMPO BRUSHED FINISH ENDURACOLOR SMOOTH ENDURACOLOR SMOOTH EXPOSED AGGREGATE
Granite Color Warm Grey Color Almond Grove Color French Grey Color
3†x 12†x 2.5†3†x 12†x 2.5†3†x 12†x 2.5†Poured in Place
PRECEDENT IMAGE: Worpswede, Germany GMBH Landscape Architecture PRECEDENT IMAGE: Brown University !MELK Landscape Architects
61 May 2017 | Design Report
UNILOCK UNIT PAVERS
SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN PAVING
25% Granite / 50% Warm Grey / 25% Almond Grove
ASPHALT
ROADWAY PAVING
Drive Lanes and Parking Lanes
P.I.P CONCRETE
EXPOSED AGGREGATE
6†Curb, Flex Zone, and
Driveway Aprons
ENNIS FLINT COMPANY
THERMOPLASTIC BIKE LANES
High Visibility Green
62 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
PRIMARY CIRCULATION
HERRINGBONE
VEHICULAR PAVING
INTERSECTING PATTERNS
DRIVEWAY CROSSING DETAIL
PRIMARY CIRCULATION
RANDOM RUNNING BOND
PEDESTRIAN PAVING
63 May 2017 | Design Report
STREET TREE PLANTING
tree planting conditions and techniques
TREE PLANTING WITH SILVA CELLS
STREET TREE PLANTING WITH SILVA CELLS
AND GRATED OPENINGS
Tree planters that incorporate tree grates and silva cells and can allow for
narrow tree openings that maximize usable pedestrian space while still
providing adequate water and oxygen to trees. Tree grates will require
proper maintenance to ensure openings are widened to accommodate
tree growth.
4’ X 8’ IRONSMITH
Tree Grate
Curb cut opening
Paver band
around tree grate
• typical silva cell planter cross section •
PAVING CONDITION AT TREE GRATE
64 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
TREE PLANTING WITH REINFORCED PAVEMENT
STREET TREE PLANTING WITH REINFORCED PAVING,
UNCOMPACTED SOIL AND IRONSMITH PAVER-GRATE SYSTEM
Reinforced paving and pavers held above uncompacted soil, via
Ironsmith’s Paver-Grate Tray system, can provide adequate volumes for
water and oxygen to sustain tree growth. These methods allow paving
to be extended in close proximity to and/or above the tree root ball to
maximize pedestrian space.
2’ Square
12†Square
4’ X 4’ extents of IRONSMITH
Paver-Grate Tray system
• typical traditional tree planter cross section •
PAVING CONDITION AT TREE GRATE
65 May 2017 | Design Report
4’ Width
ACCESSORIES URBAN
TREE GRATES
4 Panels @ 2’ Width
GOALS
1) EASE OF MAINTENANCE FOR TREE GROWTH
2) PANELS FOR EXPANDABILITY AND EASE OF REMOVAL
3) CONSISTENT WITH MATERIALS PALETTE
8’ Total Length
IRONSMITH IRONSMITH
METRO Tree Grate PAVER-GRATE Tray System
4’ W. x 8’ L. METRO Tree Grate
}
} MATERIALS + FINISHES
Cast Ductile Iron - no ï¬nish
Colors: Natural patina with age
2’ W. x 2’ L.
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Cast Ductile Iron - no ï¬nish
Colors: Natural patina with age
MOUNTING OPTIONS MOUNTING OPTIONS
Concrete Anchorage with Steel Frame Concrete Anchorage with Steel Frame URBAN ACCESSORIES
66 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
STREET TREE PLANTING
tree species selection
Over 130 new trees will be planted along West Main Street TREE SPECIES
which will result in a 500% increase in the tree canopy.
Unlike the monoculture of trees that exist along the street
today, the proposed pallete of street trees will comprise of GENERAL SELECTION CRITERIA
a dynamic mix of tree species. Proposed street trees will Bioretention Suitability (BIO)
proovide critical shade, emphisize gateways and areas of Tough, Rugged, Drought Tolerance
interest, and add seasonal intersest. Tolerant of Salt, Roadway Pollution
Not Shallow Rooted
Not Disease Prone
Seasonal Interest
GATEWAY TREE SELECTION CRITERIA
Single Species
Dense, Upright Branching
Great Fall Color & Winter Interest
Creates Dappled Light in Sun
ACTIVITY BOSQUE TREE SELECTION CRITERIA
Diversity of Species
Broad-leafed for Shade
Possibly Mixed Forms (i.e. Round, Vase, Columnar)
Great Bark Characteristics & Winter Interest
67 May 2017 | Design Report
SPECIES SELECTION
GOALS
1) MAXIMIZE NATIVES
2) REINFORCE DIVERSITY
3) MAINTAIN VISUAL LEGIBILITY
68 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
MARCH
}
Taxodium distichum
Celtis occidentalis
Acer x freemanii
Gymnocladus dioicus
Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, ‘Yarwood’, ‘Liberty’, ‘Columbia’
Quercus palustris AP
Acer rubrum RIL
Liquidambar styraciflua ‘Rotundiloba’
A large trees Quercus michauxii
Quercus bicolor
Quercus phellos
Ulmus americana var. ‘Jefferson’
Ulmus parvifolia
Ginkgo biloba
Quercus acutissima
Quercus shumardii
Tilia tomentosa
}
Carpinus caroliniana
MA
Nyssa sylvatica
Y
Betula nigra
Ostrya virginiana
B medium trees Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’
Acer miyabei
Prunus x incamp ‘Okame’
Maclura pomifera
Zelkova serrata
}
Cercis canadensis
Magnolia virginiana
Maackia amurensis
Acer tataricum ssp. ginnala
Lagerstroemia indica var.
C small trees Cornus florida var. “Appalachian Spring†or “Cherokee Princessâ€
Syringa reticulata ‘Ivory Silk’
JUNE
Stewartia pseudocamellia
Oxydendrum arboreum
Acer buergerianum
RY
FEBRUA
JULY
Y
AR
AU
NU
GU
JA
ST
ER SE
PT
MB EM
ECE BE
D R
BER OCTO
NOVEM BER
69 May 2017 | Design Report
A LARGE TREES
SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER
Bald Cypress - Taxodium distichum (BIO) Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus (BIO) Red Maple - Acer rubrum (BIO)
SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER
Common Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis (BIO) London Plane Tree - Platanus acerifolia ‘Bloodgood’, Roundleaf Sweet Gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
‘Yarwood’, ‘Liberty’, ‘Columbia’ (BIO) ‘Rotundiloba’ (BIO)
SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER
Freeman Maple - Acer x freemanii (BIO) Pin Oak - Quercus palustris (BIO) Swamp Chestnut Oak - Quercus michauxii (BIO)
SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPRING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER SPRING
SPR ING FALLL
FAL WINTER
WIN TER
Willow Oak - Quercus phellos (BIO) Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor (BIO) American Elm - Ulmus americana var. ‘Jefferson’
70 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
B MEDIUM TREES
SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SPRING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER
American Hornbeam - Carpinus caroliniana (BIO) Black Gum - Nyssa sylvatica (BIO) River Birch - Betula nigra (BIO)
SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SPRING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER
European Hornbeam - Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’ Eastern Hop-Hornbeam - Ostrya virginiana Okame Cherry - Prunus x incamp ‘Okame’
SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SP RING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER SPRI
SPRING
NG FALL
FA LL WINT
WI NTER
ER
Miyabe Maple - Acer miyabei Osage Orange - Maclura pomifera Zelkova - Zelkova serrata
71 May 2017 | Design Report
C SMALL TREES
SPRI
SP RING
NG SUMM
SU MMER
ER FALL
FA LL SPRI
SP RING
NG SUMM
SU MMER
ER FALL
FA LL SPRI
SPRING
NG SUMM
SU MMER
ER FALL
FA LL
Eastern Redbud - Cercis canadensis (BIO) Crape Myrtle - Lagerstroemia indica var. Flowering Dogwood - Cornus florida var.
“Appalachian Spring†or “Cherokee Princessâ€
SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL SPRI
SPRING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL
Sweetbay Magnolia - Magnolia Amur Maackia - Maackia amurensis Amur Maple - Acer tataricum ssp. Trident Maple - Acer buergerianum
virginiana (BIO) ginnala
SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL SPRI
SP RING
NG/S
/SUM
UMME
MER
R FALL
FA LL
Japanese Stewartia - Stewartia Ivory Silk Tree - Syringa reticulata Sourwood - Oxydendrum arboreum
psuedocamellia ‘Ivory Silk’
72 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
STREETSCAPE FURNISHINGS
selection and organizational strategies
The incorporation of street furnishings along the corridor will provide
places for neighborhood residents and visitors to enjoy the renewed
public space. Recommended furnishings are artful, warm, inviting,
multi-functional, diverse in size and use, and constructed of lasting
materials such as coated hardwood, powder-coated aluminum/steel,
and reinforced cast stone or concrete.
73 May 2017 | Design Report
LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS
}
PARALLEL 42 Bench FGP Backless Bench FGP Backed Bench MultipliCITY Tables and Benches
18†H. x 18†W. x 67†L. 21†H. x 23†W. 28†H. x 30†W. 35†H. x 25†W. x 95†L. Table
}
Straight or Angular Units 6 Foot and 10 Foot Lengths 6 Foot and 10 Foot Lengths 18†H. x 23†W. x 95†L. Bench
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Jarrah hardwood - no ï¬nish
High Performance Proprietary Powdercoated Metal
Colors: Mercury Ocean Flambe MATERIALS + FINISHES
Jarrah hardwood - no ï¬nish
Powdercoated Cast Aluminum and Metal
Colors: Stormcloud
MOUNTING OPTIONS MOUNTING OPTIONS
Freestanding or Surface Mount Surface Mount
74 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS
PARC CENTRE Tables and Chairs JESSIE Standing Rail METRO 40 Sitting/Leaning Rail MultipliCITY Bike Rack
24†Round & 28†Rectangular 42†H. x 12†W. Sitting: 18†H. x 7†W. x 45†L. 36†H. x 24†W.
}
}
}
}
Armed and Armless Chairs 50†Lengths with Expansions Leaning: 30†H. x 6†W. x 45†L. 6†Wood shelf for setting items
MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES
Powdercoated Metal Powdercoated Metal Jarrah hardwood - no ï¬nish Jarrah hardwood - no ï¬nish
Colors: Mercury Ocean Colors: Stormcloud Powdercoated Cast Aluminum Powdercoated Cast Aluminum
Colors: Stormcloud Colors: Bumblebee Parrot Green
Flambe Stormcloud MOUNTING OPTIONS
Embedded MOUNTING OPTIONS Stormcloud
Surface Mount
MOUNTING OPTIONS
Freestanding; Moveable MOUNTING OPTIONS
Surface Mount
75 May 2017 | Design Report
FORMS AND SURFACES BASIS OF DESIGN: BASIS OF DESIGN: BASIS OF DESIGN:
DISPATCH Trash Receptacle ESCOFET ESCOFET CATOCTIN GREENSTONE
43†H. @ 36 or 45 Gallon LEVIT Cast Stone Bench EMILIANA Cast Stone Planter Natural Boulders
}
}
}
}
Litter and Recycling Available 17†H. x 28†W. x 158†L. 45-87 Cubic Feet Capacity Variable Size and Shape
MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES MATERIALS + FINISHES
Powdercoated Metal Reinforced Cast Stone Reinforced Cast Stone Greenstone breccia
Colors: Slate Colors: Calgary Beige Colors: Calgary Beige Natural Colors: Green, Grey,
Dark Purple
MOUNTING OPTIONS Mist Mist
Surface Mount MOUNTING OPTIONS
Freestanding
MOUNTING OPTIONS MOUNTING OPTIONS
Embedded; Custom Freestanding
76 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
BASIS OF DESIGN:
CUSTOM BUS SHELTER
Translucent Canopy with Recessed Lighting
Double Post with Integral Bench
BUS SHELTER: Night-time Rendering
travel
77 May 2017 | Design Report
relax
gather
78 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
watch
engage
79 May 2017 | Design Report
STREETSCAPE LIGHTING
opportunities and ï¬xtures
LIGHTING OPPORTUNITIES
DYNAMIC LIGHTING IN GATHERING AND DINING AREAS
Additional lighting elements at particular nodes of activity will provide
distinction between spaces and create a vibrant atmosphere along the
street. Catenary, in-ground, facade, and integrated lighting ï¬xtures
will provide intriguing night-time visual appeal and foster a sense of
safety and activity.
80 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
ROADWAY & PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
GOALS
1) ESTABLISH THE FIXTURE AS AN ARCHITETCURAL STATEMENT
2) MAXIMIZE SPACING WHILE MINIMIZING CONFLICTS
3) INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGY AND LATEST INNOVATIONS
LANDSCAPE FORMS LANDSCAPE FORMS IGUZZINI BEGA
A Ashbery Luminaire B FGP Luminaire C Fiamma Luminaire D 84-120 Luminaire
81 May 2017 | Design Report
LANDSCAPE FORMS LIGHTING
A ASHBERRY Luminaire
}
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Cast Aluminum
Pangard II Polyester Powdercoat Finish
Colors: Stormcloud
OPTICS + MOUNTING
LED - 3500K
Surface Anchorage with Base Cover
82 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
LANDSCAPE FORMS LIGHTING
B FGP Luminaire
}
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Cast Aluminum
Pangard II Polyester Powdercoat Finish
Colors: Stormcloud
OPTICS + MOUNTING
LED - 3500K
Surface Anchorage with Base Cover
83 May 2017 | Design Report
IGUZZINI LIGHTING
C FIAMMA Luminaire
}
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Die-Cast Aluminum
Polyester Powdercoat Finish
Colors: 15 Grey
OPTICS + MOUNTING
LED - 3000K
Surface Anchorage with Base Cover
84 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
BEGA LIGHTING
D 84-120 Luminaire
}
MATERIALS + FINISHES
Die-Cast Aluminum
3 mil Polyester Powdercoat Finish
Colors: Black
OPTICS + MOUNTING
LED - 4000K
Surface Anchorage with Base Cover
85 May 2017 | Design Report
STREETSCAPE EXPERIENCE
visualization at 7th street and west main at night
86 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
87 May 2017 | Design Report
INTERPRETATION OPPORTUNITIES
telling the story of Charlottesville
CREATE A DYNAMIC STREET
Most people move from thing to thing as they walk, always looking
for “the next thingâ€. This strolling along the street can be encouraged
by creating a series of interesting nodes or “bread crumbs†that mo-
tivate visitors to keep on going. As a means to promote tourism or
enourage civic pride, the project could create a very memorable and
highly photographable moments that brand West Main Street and
Charlottesville.
88 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
TOPO MAP ORIENTATION
ENGAGE PASSERSBY WITH MAPS OF THE REGION’S TOPOGRAPHY AND THE TOWN
W
10 1/2 St. NW
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
v
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
A
5th St. S
P
J.
TACTILE TABLETOP MAPS
Map 1 shows the relation of the city to the Tidewater region and the Blue Ridge Mountains and Three Notch’d Road as the path west.
Map 2 shows the colonial street network of the city and prominent early buildings and civic features.
Map 3 shows contemporary Charlottesville with an indication of areas which have been substantially altered (e.g., Vinegar Hill and the Downtown Mall).
89 May 2017 | Design Report
CHANGEABLE DIRECTORY and COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD
PROVIDE GATEWAY AT STARR HILL PARK THAT ORIENTS VISITORS, HELPS BUSINESSES AND CREATES COMMUNITY
W
10 1/2 St. NW
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
Av
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
5th St. S
P
J.
COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD
may be casual or curated, informal or formal, use chalkboard, CHANGEABLE DIRECTORY OF STORES AND RESTAURANTS
corkboard or enclosed weatherproof case advertise the street’s offerings and point the way
90 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
STREET CORNER MARKERS
PROVIDE STREET NAMES, HIGHLIGHT NEARBY CULTURAL AND HISTORIC HOTSPOTS, AND FEATURE VINTAGE PHOTOS OF WEST MAIN
10 1/2 St. NW
W
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
Av
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
5th St. S
P
J.
IDENTIFICATION OF NEARBY SITES HISTORIC PHOTOS WITH QUOTE STREET NAMES
with interpretation as incentive to visit and explore convey street’s people and past identiï¬ed in paving or at top of marker
91 May 2017 | Design Report
“GET AROUND†TRANSIT INTERPRETATION
PROVIDE A GLIMPSE OF PAST TRANSIT OPTIONS AT BUS STOPS
10 1/2 St. NW
W
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
v
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
A
5th St. S
P
J.
QUOTES, FUN FACTS OR MAP ARTWORK
at bench extend the interpretation
INTERPRETATION AT BUS STOPS STREETCAR RAIL IN PAVING REPRESENTATION OF PLANK ROAD
show transit options of the past in addition to route information accompanies panel on streetcars accompanies panel on 19th c. street
92 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
BRIDGE BUILDERS COMMEMORATIVE WALK
PROVIDE UPLIFTING EXPRESSIONS OF COMMUNITY AT THE BRIDGE
W
10 1/2 St. NW
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
Av
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
5th St. S
P
J.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT PAVING PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE
enhance appreciation of honorees through shadows, quotes, etc...
HONOREE’S NAMES DISPLAYED IN A MORE ARTFUL WAY DRAMATIC LIGHTING ABOVE AND BELOW
so that they are visible day and night brings the bridge to life at night and creates safe-feeling public space
93 May 2017 | Design Report
MEMORY MARKERS
COMMEMORATE SPECIAL PLACES LIKE VINEGAR HILL, THE INGE STORE, AND ALBEMARLE HOTEL
W
10 1/2 St. NW
12 1/2 St. NW
12th St. NW
W
6th St. NW
8th St. NW
7th St. NW
4th St. NW
10th St. N
ge
id
Br
e.
9th St. SW
7th St. SW
11th St. SW
W
.
v
Ridge St.
R-B Blvd
A
5th St. S
P
J.
QUOTATIONS AND TEXT STATEMENTS DIMENSIONAL NAMES NAME PAVERS
debossed or embossed text etched into paving alternate to pavers at Vinegar Hill for all Vinegar Hlll families relocated
at Vinegar Hill, Inges’s Grocery Store, Albemarle Hotel and Gaslight Restaurant and select businesses
94 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
MIDWAY PARK
history and interpretation
Lewis and Clark Statue
LEARNING FROM HISTORY AND HALPRIN TO RE-CREATE MIDWAY PARK
EXPRESSING VERNACULAR THROUGH GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Halprin’s Mall design contained something every great street needs, an identiï¬able
beginning and ending. The plaza and market designs were a divergence in form
from the formal bosques along the Mall, artfully created urban places that reflected
aspects of nature. For Midway Park, which has been an identiï¬able place along West
Main since at least 1917, there is an opportunity to mark the gateway onto West
Main and to interpret the local context and rich history this road embodies.
Catoctin Greenstone Formation Map
C&O Plaza Charlottesville Pedestrian Mall, Lawrence Halprin Appalachin Mountain Ridges and Valleys
95 May 2017 | Design Report
CELEBRATE THE REGION’S GEOGRAPHY- PRECEDENTS FROM OTHER PLACES
TEARDROP PARK, NY BAILEY PLAZA, NY
MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH
BARANGAROO PARK, AUSTRALIA
PETER WALKER
TEARDROP PARK, NY
MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH
KELLER FOUNTAIN, OR COURTHOUSE PLAZA, MN
LAWRENCE HALPRIN MARTHA SCHWARTZ
NOVARTIS CAMPUS, SWITZERLAND
PETER WALKER
96 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
B’
A
i n St.
Ma
st
We
Ridge St.
B
‘A’
Midway Park plan enlargement
97 May 2017 | Design Report
SECTION A - A’ : SECTION THROUGH PARK LOOKING NORTHEAST
SECTION B-B’ : ELEVATION OF PARK LOOKING SOUTH
98 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
Visualization of Midway Park at the Ridge Street and West Main Street intersection
99 May 2017 | Design Report
DESIGN EVOLUTION
shaping the schematic design
Throughout the 11-month design process, the design team met CITY COUNCIL
with key City staff, City Council members, stakeholders, and the The design team engaged City Council at critical junctures during the
general public. Feedback gained from these meetings were used to design process. These engagement sessions included four “2+2+1â€
continually shape critical plan elements including: work sessions. A public hearing will be held on May 15th to review
and approve Schematic Design plans.
• Overall streetscape character and proposed site features
• Management of existing site features (e.g. street trees and BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BAR)
relocation of the Lewis & Clark Statue) Two work sessions were held with the Board of Architectural Review
• Stormwater management strategies to provide an overview of design progress and to gain feedback on
• Parking management and loading recommendations project recommendations.
• Underground and overhead utilities management (water, gas,
electric, and private utilities) PUBLIC UTILITIES
• Maintenance and constructibility West Main Street includes numerous utilities both public and private.
• Roadway geometry (e.g. lane conï¬gurations, trafï¬c management, The design team met with utility owners including Dominion Virginia
intersection pillows and turning radii) Power, Comcast, Century Link, and Lumos to understand their current
• Public and private utilities (e.g. water, gas, electric and and future needs as well as to coordinate general project progress.
telecommunications)
• Funding and budget management PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
West Main Street has been an important street both for its
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM surrounding neighborhoods and for the City as a whole. In
The design team met with the Project Implementation Team on a designing streetscape improvements for West Main, the design team
monthly basis to review design progress, receive feedback on project investigated ways that the street can remain an important place for
recommendations and to guide the overall project process. The the communities living adjacent to it. To gain insights into the needs
Project Implementation Team was comprised of representatives from of adjacent communities, a public session was held to provide a
pertinent City departments including Neighborhood Development general project update and to explore the meaning of West Main
Services, Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), Parks & Recreation, Street for its neighboring communities, and how this can relate to
Public Works, City Manager’s Ofï¬ce, Economic Development, Fire “making places†along the corridor.
Department and Police Department. As a critical stakeholder, the
University of Virginia was also an integral member of the Project
Implementation Team as well.
100 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
project process
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
PROJECT RESEARCH SCHEMATIC
KICK-OFF &ANALYSIS DESIGN
JUNE 2016 JUL - SEPT OCT - APR
2016 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Monthly City BAR City Focus City BAR City
Staff Council Meeting Council Group Council Meeting Council
Meetings Update Update Meeting Update Update
101 May 2017 | Design Report
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: TREE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY
provided by...
Wolf | Josey Landscape Architects
with Pitchford Associates
APPENDIX B: CONCEPTUAL UTILITIES LAYOUT PLAN
provided by...
Timmons Group
APPENDIX C: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
provided by...
Timmons Group
APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
provided by...
Rivanna Archaeological Services
APPENDIX E: INTERPRETATION STRATEGIES
provided by...
Howard + Revis
102 West Main Street | City of Charlottesville
MEMORANDUM
To: Ron Sessoms, Rhodeside & Harwell
From: Nelson\Nygaard Project Team
Date: April 10, 2017
Subject: West Main Street Traffic Analysis
West Main Street is a corridor in demand. It is in demand as a business address, a residential
home, an employment opportunity, a connection between destinations, and a destination unto
itself. Bicyclists, bus riders, business patrons and pedestrians all compete for space to move, park
and linger.
Yet the corridor has only 60 feet of right of way in which to meet these demands. It lacks direct
parallel alternative corridors and has limited perpendicular connections that penetrate to the
larger city.
The highly valued historic buildings along the corridor were built in eras before automobile
dominance. What they have in rich character, they lack in off street parking – a feature still very
much in demand by the businesses that occupy these quaint storefronts.
West Main Street is one of the few relatively flat connections between the University and the
downtown, making it a highly attractive route for cyclists. It is the shortest and most direct
driving route as well and the primary connection for the city’s most productive bus routes. And it
is a place where pedestrians jockey with strollers and joggers to meet, mingle, look and linger.
As such the corridor has been the subject of a detailed West Main Street Master Plan which
recommended the following from a transportation perspective:
x Balanced street that preserves:
o As much parking as possible.
o As much vehicular capacity and flow as possible.
x While...
o Creating an inviting, attractive and safe pedestrian environment
o Enhancing transit rider amenities and accommodation.
o Improving bicycle facility safety.
o Accommodating street trees and green features.
Traffic Analysis Context
Based on the West Main Street Master Plan a number of roadway alternatives were recommended
for implementation. Through the design and implementation phase of this study, additional
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
traffic analysis was scoped into order to further detail the potential impacts and mitigation of the
proposed recommendations.
Traffic Evaluation Assumptions
The following outlines the assumptions included for evaluating changes to traffic operations along
West Main Street based on current and the proposed configuration for future conditions.
Traffic Data
ƒ All traffic data counts included: vehicles, heavy vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles
ƒ Traffic counts were undertaken during the Fall of 2016 while UVA was in session and no
special events were scheduled that would unduly impact West Main Street traffic
patterns.
Synchro Modeling
The following settings and assumptions were used for traffic evaluation using Synchro Version 9:
ƒ Traffic volumes for the existing conditions were utilized from Fall 2016 traffic counts.
ƒ For future analysis, the peak hour factor was set in Synchro as per the existing
intersection approaches for all future scenarios.
ƒ Synchro enables multiple signal timing optimizations; for existing conditions signal
timings were provided by the City. For future scenarios, existing signal timings were
utilized and optimized as appropriate and will be field adjusted by the City upon build
out.
ƒ Since this analysis is for the area in and around the downtown area, the “area typeâ€
selected for analysis was “CBD†for “central business districtâ€.
ƒ Pedestrian volumes from the traffic counts were included as “conflicting pedestriansâ€
volumes in the model.
ƒ Traffic volumes entering the study area were based on existing counts. For the future
configuration a 1% additional background traffic growth was assumed along with the
detailed trip generation from three approved developments. Pedestrian trips were
assumed to grow at 3% annually for a period of 5 years. The forthcoming development
growth along the corridor is centered around the demand for proximity to downtown as
well as the University of Virginia campus with minimal need for automobile travel.
ƒ Under the future scenario right-turn on red was prohibited throughout the network to
accommodate the proposed bicycle boxes at intersections.
Data Collection: Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Counts
Nelson\Nygaard contracted with Peggy Malone & Associate, Inc to count the following conditions
during the AM and PM peak periods as well as the Saturday midday peak period:
ƒ Vehicles volumes and turn movements;
ƒ Vehicle classification to determine cars, trucks, and buses;
ƒ Pedestrian and bicycle volumes; and
ƒ Determination of the peak hour.
Data was counted and analyzed for the following 12 intersections.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
West Main Street Intersections
ƒ Ridge McIntire at West Main St.
ƒ 4th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 5th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 6th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 7th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 8th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 9th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 10th/Roosevelt at West Main St.
ƒ 11th St. at West Main St.
ƒ 12th St. at West Main St.
ƒ Jefferson Park Ave at West Main St.
ƒ Ridge McIntire at Monticello Ave.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Conditions
Utilizing the traffic count data, the existing signal timing data, and the modeling assumptions, a
Synchro model was developed for existing conditions of the study area. The Synchro results for
the existing conditions are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
LOS is used to analyze roadways and intersections by categorizing traffic flow and assigning
quality levels of traffic based on performance measure like speed, density,etc. The Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) defines Level of Service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized
intersections as a function of the average vehicle control delay utilizing letters A through F, with A
being the best and F being the worst. The City of Charlottesville has approved LOS D as their
design objective for intersection level of service.
Signalized Unsignalized
Intersection (average Intersection (average
LOS vehicle delay) vehicle delay) Condition
A ”VHF ”VHF Minimal Delays
B 10 – 20 sec 10-15 sec Low levels of delay & queuing
C 20-35 sec 15-25 sec Intermittent queuing, traffic
flow stable & acceptable
D 35 – 55 sec 25-35 sec Delays & queuing with enough
clearance to prevent backups
E 55- 80 sec 35-50 sec Longer queues & delays with
vehicles waiting through more
than one cycle
F >80 sec >50 sec Over capacity with significant
delays & queuing
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Figure 1 Existing Vehicular Conditions Level of Service and Delay
AM AM PM PM Saturday
Average
Intersection Average Average Signal
Signal Delay Signal Delay LOS Delay
LOS (seconds) LOS (seconds) (seconds)
Ridge McIntire at West Main St. C 33.1 C 30.9 C 29.4
4th St. at West Main St. B 12.2 C 28.1 B 13.3
5th St. at West Main St. A 1.6 A 2.3 A 1.8
6th St. at West Main St. A 0.6 A 1.8 A 0.7
7th St. at West Main St. B 14.8 B 15.3 B 15.9
8th St. at West Main St. A 1.2 A 2.0 A 1.1
9th St. at West Main St. A 1.2 D 31.7 A 1.2
10th/Roosevelt at West Main St. D 37.3 C 33.9 C 26.7
11th St. at West Main St. A 8.9 B 19.7 B 14.9
12th St. at West Main St. A 1.1 A 0.8 A 1.0
Jefferson Park Ave at
B 16.4 B 17.3 B 17.0
West Main St.
Ridge McIntire at Monticello Ave D 35.9 C 32.5 C 28.4
Figure 2 Existing Crosswalk Conditions Level of Service
AM PM
Intersection
LOS LOS
Ridge McIntire at West Main St. B B
4th St. at West Main St. B B
5th St. at West Main St. B B
6th St. at West Main St. n/a n/a
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
AM PM
Intersection
LOS LOS
7th St. at West Main St. B B
8th St. at West Main St. E F
9th St. at West Main St. B C
10th/Roosevelt at West Main St. B B
11th St. at West Main St. B B
12th St. at West Main St. B B
Jefferson Park Ave at
B B
West Main St.
Ridge McIntire at Monticello Ave B B
The key indicator used to analyze the road network is Level of Service (LOS). Level of service
(LOS) is a qualitative measure used to relate the quality of traffic service. The City generally
recognizes that urban areas are likely to have more congestion than rural areas as this reflects the
different characteristics of land use and transportation in these areas. As such Level of Service D
is deemed appropriate for the West Main Street corridor particularly when improvements to
overall mobility such as bicycle facilities and an enhanced pedestrian environment are being
made.
The analysis also enabled review of queue lengths and volume to capacity ratios. Under existing
conditions, drivers along the West Main Street corridor currently experience minimal delays with
some exceptions including at the intersection of West Main Street at 10th Street/Roosevelt
Boulevard and at West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road. It is noted that in the PM peak hour
the intersection of 9th Street at West Main Street experiences notable delays from the southbound
parking driveway. From a pedestrian perspective, the signalized intersections have a pedestrian
crosswalk Level of Service of B or better but the unsignalized intersections within the middle of
the corridor do show poor crosswalk LOS. This poor crosswalk LOS at 8th Street stems from its
location within the middle of the corridor and the lack of adjacent traffic signals (specifically to
the west) to adequately provide acceptable gaps in traffic during the peak periods.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Figure 3 Existing Capacity and Queuing
Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft) LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft)
95th % 95th %
Ridge McIntire EB D 52.9 0.88 260 D 35.7 0.76 205
at West Main WB C 34.1 0.72 154 D 46.4 0.82 159
Street
NB C 24.0 0.68 197 C 20.8 0.47 247
SB C 28.6 0.83 265 C 24.9 0.53 238
Intersection C 33.1 0.88 - C 30.9 0.80 -
West Main EB B 10.3 0.37 218 A 6.9 0.73 206
Street at 4th
Street WB A 8.7 0.54 92 A 6.5 0.37 159
NB C 21.3 0.07 20 D 36.6 0.30 20
SB C 28.6 0.54 58 F 108.6 1.05 216
Intersection B 12.3 0.54 - C 28.1 1.05 -
Ridge Street at EB B 19.2 0.06 10 C 24.0 0.02 5
Monticello
Avenue WB D 54.6 0.89 358 D 51.8 0.87 336
NB C 34.8 0.78 535 C 33.0 0.68 534
SB C 26.2 0.78 261 B 18.4 0.64 373
Intersection D 35.9 0.89 - C 32.5 0.87 -
West Main
Street at EB C 26.2 0.60 287 C 23.8 0.73 313
10 /Roosevelt
th
WB C 27.3 0.53 265 C 30.2 0.62 232
NB D 53.8 0.91 315 D 42.4 0.70 325
SB D 42.0 0.76 277 D 41.8 0.72 342
Intersection D 37.3 0.91 - C 33.9 0.73 -
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft) LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft)
95th % 95th %
West Main
Street at
Jefferson Park EB B 16.1 0.54 190 B 19.0 0.45 221
Avenue
WB C 20.0 0.52 106 B 17.0 0.43 173
NB B 12.1 0.47 106 B 16.1 0.54 187
Intersection B 16.4 0.54 - B 17.3 0.54 -
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
FUTURE CONDITIONS
To assess future conditions along West Main Street, the Synchro model was modified to reflect
the proposed design of the corridor including the intersection of Ridge McIntire Road at West
Main Street (see Figure 4) and the inclusion of bicycle boxes at the corridor intersections which
prohibit right-turn on red maneuvers. Under future conditions, it was assumed that there would
be an overall 1% vehicular traffic growth rate along the corridor as well as the specific vehicle trips
from planned developments. Additionally, a 3% annual pedestrian trip growth rate for 5 years
was included for future analysis to reflect the proximity to downtown as well as the University of
Virginia campus with increased pedestrian and bicycle activity.
Figure 4 – Proposed West Main Street/Ridge McIntire Road Intersection Traffic Configuration
West Main Street/Ridge McIntire Road
With the proposed intersection configuration at West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road the
following changes were made to signal and lane operations.
- Closing the separate right-turn lane from eastbound West Main to Ridge Street and
moving it to the north side of the Lewis & Clark statue.
- The removal of the right-turn spur lane from West Main Street enabled lane
reassignments for the eastbound approach to include a right-turn lane and a thru/left
lane.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
- The removal of the double left turn lane from West Main Street allows for the east-west
signal phases to run concurrently rather than split phasing as they are currently. The
concurrent phasing provides for more efficient use of the available signal time to reduce
overall delay for both vehicles and pedestrians.
- The removal of the right-turn spur lane from Water Street to enable the westbound
approach to include a right lane and shared thru/left-turn lane.
- The addition of bicycle lanes and bicycle boxes with right-turn on red maneuvers
prohibited.
- Retention of the existing contraflow bike lane on South Street.
Background Growth & Development
To assess the potential impacts of the proposed development projects, an analysis of the future
scenario is determined to include the following considerations:
• A 1% vehicle traffic growth rate;
• Inclusion of the specific developments of recently filed, permitted, or completed
projects within the Study Area (identified by City staff as 860 West Main Street,
Sycamore House Hotel, 600 West Main Street); and
• A 3% annual pedestrian trip growth rate for 5 years. The forthcoming
development growth along the corridor is centered around the demand for
proximity to downtown as well as the University of Virginia campus with
increased pedestrian and bicycle activity.
The specific development projects within the study area that would have peak hour traffic impacts
are highlighted below in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Study Area Development Projects and Trip Generation
AM PM
Development Location Type Daily Peak Peak
Hour Hour
1106 W.
Sycamore
Main Hotel 1,226 80 90
House Hotel
Street
600 W.
600 West Main
Main Mixed-Use 229 13 22
Street
Street
860 W.
The Standard Main Mixed-Use 118 48 70
Street
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
The future conditions were initially modeled for the Ridge McIntire Road/West Main Street to
ensure that the proposed configuration operated acceptably and then the remaining intersections
along the corridor were modeled to ensure that no subsequent impacts were initiated.
The Synchro results for the future condition scenario are shown below in Figure 5.
Synchro Results
The future conditions were initially modeled for the Ridge McIntire Road/West Main Street to
ensure that the proposed configuration operated acceptably and then the remaining intersections
along the corridor were modeled to ensure that no subsequent impacts were initiated.
The Synchro results for the future condition scenario are shown below in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Future Conditions Level of Service and Delay
AM AM PM PM Saturday
Average Average Average
Intersection Signal Signal Signal
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
(seconds) (seconds) (seconds)
Ridge McIntire at West Main St. C 28.0 C 27.2 C 27.1
4th St. at West Main St. B 17.1 C 26.3 B 18.0
5th St. at West Main St. A 1.6 A 2.3 A 1.9
6th St. at West Main St. A 0.9 A 2.1 A 0.7
7th St. at West Main St. B 18.7 B 16.6 B 17.6
8th St. at West Main St. A 1.4 A 2.3 A 1.1
9th St. at West Main St. A 5.0 C 20.0 A 1.2
10th/Roosevelt at West Main St. D 37.3 D 36.6 C 27.9
11th St. at West Main St. B 12.9 C 23.9 B 16.1
12th St. at West Main St. A 1.1 A 0.8 A 1.0
Jefferson Park Ave at
B 15.3 B 17.9 B 17.3
West Main St.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
AM AM PM PM Saturday
Average Average Average
Intersection Signal Signal Signal
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
(seconds) (seconds) (seconds)
Ridge McIntire at Monticello Ave D 38.0 D 35.3 C 29.5
Figure 7 Future Crosswalk Conditions Level of Service
AM PM
Intersection
LOS LOS
Ridge McIntire at West Main St. B B
4th St. at West Main St. B B
5th St. at West Main St. C C
6th St. at West Main St. C D
7th St. at West Main St. B B
8th St. at West Main St. F F
9th St. at West Main St. B F
10th/Roosevelt at West Main St. B B
11th St. at West Main St. B B
12th St. at West Main St. B B
Jefferson Park Ave at
B B
West Main St.
Ridge McIntire at Monticello Ave B B
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Under the proposed conditions, drivers along the West Main Street corridor would continue to
experience minimal delays with similar exceptions at the intersection of West Main Street at 10th
Street/Roosevelt Boulevard and at West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road.
From a pedestrian perspective, the signalized intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk Level of
Service of B or better but the unsignalized intersections within the middle of the corridor do show
poor crosswalk LOS. The poor crosswalk LOS at 8th Street and in the future at 6th Street stems
from their location within the middle of the corridor and the lack of adjacent traffic signals
(specifically to the west) to adequately provide acceptable gaps in traffic during the peak periods.
As mitigation it is recommended that these crosswalks be reviewed for implementation of high-
visibility crosswalk markings and signage to be more easily detected by all users and to achieve
higher compliance.
Figure 8 Future Capacity and Queuing
Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft) LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft)
95th % 95th %
Ridge McIntire EB C 32.1 0.77 303 C 31.1 0.73 237
at West Main
Street WB C 24.0 0.40 127 C 29.7 0.71 159
NB C 26.1 0.68 228 C 23.5 0.51 241
SB C 28.8 0.61 228 C 25.7 0.56 264
Intersection C 28.1 0.77 - C 27.2 0.73 -
West Main
EB A 8.7 0.42 178 A 9.0 0.56 236
Street at 4th
Street WB B 18.8 0.67 146 C 21.6 0.59 241
NB C 27.5 0.06 24 C 28.7 0.28 21
SB D 38.8 0.57 92 E 78.3 0.97 181
Intersection B 17.1 0.67 - C 26.3 0.97 -
Ridge Street
EB C 27.8 0.06 13 C 23.6 0.02 6
at Monticello
Avenue WB E 56.7 0.91 385 D 51.7 0.89 364
NB D 43.7 0.87 581 D 39.9 0.77 593
SB C 23.2 0.86 151 C 21.2 0.70 544
Intersection D 38.0 0.91 - D 35.3 0.89 -
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Intersection Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft) LOS Delay V/C Queue(ft)
95th % 95th %
West Main
EB D 35.9 0.76 360 C 30.5 0.78 466
Street at
10th/Roosevelt WB D 37.3 0.65 332 C 30.2 0.62 275
NB D 36.6 0.73 277 D 42.9 0.70 337
SB D 41.4 0.74 289 D 46.7 0.77 386
Intersection D 37.3 0.76 - D 36.6 0.78 -
West Main
Street at EB B 16.7 0.55 200 C 20.5 0.49 237
Jefferson Park
Avenue WB B 16.2 0.55 177 B 17.4 0.43 183
NB B 12.6 0.52 106 B 16.6 0.60 186
Intersection B 15.3 0.55 - B 17.9 0.60 -
QUEUING ANALYSIS
In order to further analyze the impacts of the proposed intersection reconfiguration at West Main
Street and Ridge McIntire Road, a queuing analysis was undertaken to examine the changes
between the existing conditions and future conditions at the adjacent intersections (West Main
Street at 4th Street, Ridge Road at Monticello Ave and West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road.
The analysis summarized the queue lengths from Figure 3 and Figure 8 along with two additional
scenarios that considered; the future No Build condition (no roadway changes but future growth),
and No Build Optimized (optimized traffic signals with future growth but no roadway changes).
During the AM and PM peak hours the following total queue lengths were calculated from the
Synchro software.
Figure 9 Queuing Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Queue Length (ft) Total Queue Length (ft)
Existing Conditions 2456 2698
Future Conditions 2518 3087
Future No Build 2648 2913
Future No Build (Optimized) 2579 3001
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Figure 10 AM Peak Hour Queuing Summary
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 14
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
Figure 11 PM Peak Hour Queuing Summary
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 15
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
The analysis shows that in the AM peak hour the total queue length will increase by
approximately 62-ft from the existing to future conditions. This would be equal to approximately
two (2) additional vehicles over the three intersections. It is noted however, that the future
roadway configuration at West Main Street and Ridge McIntire Road would improve the total
queue over the future no build condition (i.e., if traffic growth continues under the existing
roadway operations).
Under the PM peak hour conditions the total queue length would increase by approximately 390-
ft from the existing conditions (an additional 16 vehicles over the three intersections). However,
over the future conditions without any roadway changes the change in queue length is much
smaller at approximately 165-ft.
In both the AM and PM peak hours the three intersections would continue to operate acceptably
and within the City’s desired level of service under the future conditions, as shown in Figure 3 and
Figure 8. The queuing analysis however does highlight that the City’s traffic signal system
operates as a network and that changes to one intersection can have impacts on both the adjacent
intersection and the network as a whole. The City currently does not have dedicated staff to
undertake periodic review and maintenance of the traffic signal system, which comprises over 75
traffic signals. In order to ensure that the West Main Street corridor and the City’s roadway
network continues to operate efficiently and effectively under existing and future conditions,
dedicated city staff should be considered.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
As recommended in the City’s recently approved parking study of 2016, the establishment of a
Transportation Demand Management Program and Transportation Management Association was
a key recommendation to address both parking and mobility challenges within the City including
West Main Street.
A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization
(TMO) should be created in concert with the establishment of the Parking Department and be a
program of that department. A TMA can help to disseminate information about alternative
commuting options, run events and campaigns to encourage workers to try alterative commutes,
and develop tailored programs for both employers and employees that meet their needs. The TMA
can work closely with the Visitor’s Bureau to enhance the visitor experience as well.
TMAs provide an economy of scale and more consistent, pervasive, and impactful message and
program compared to TDM programs operated by individual employers or residential buildings.
TMAs have demonstrated the ability to positively and substantially increase the awareness and
use of alternative commuting options, increase worker satisfaction while decreasing household
transportation costs, and enhance the appeal and competitiveness of cities and their downtowns.
The TMA could be funded through parking revenue funds and the required participation of new
development projects. TMAs are also eligible for federal transportation funding (granted through
the regional planning body) and work closely with area transit providers. In Charlottesville, the
TMA could and should be a partnership between the City, University and transit provider and
support both populations and their needs.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 16
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
The City recently hired a parking manager and it is envisioned that a Citywide TDM program is to
be established under their direction in conjunction with an overall City parking strategy.
BIKE BOXES
The proposed streetscape and roadway plan includes bike boxes at all six (6) signalized
intersections along West Main Street. A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane
at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of
queuing traffic during the red signal phase. The box is often utilized where the facilitation of
bicyclist left-turns and/or vehicle right-turns are required due to the volumes experienced.
The proposed bike boxes locations along West Main Street include the following intersections:
x West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road
x West Main Street at 4th Street
x West Main Street at 7th Street
x West Main Street at Roosevelt Brown/10th Street
x West Main Street at 11th Street
x West Main Street at Jefferson Park Avenue
All of these locations with the exception of 7th Street have separate left-turn lanes with the
associated desire to accommodate left-turn bicycle movements as they provide access to the
adjacent communities. Additionally, the bike boxes at Ridge McIntire Road, 10th Street and
Jefferson Park Avenue all provide priority for bicyclists as they cross major streets.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 17
WEST MAIN STREET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
City of Charlottesville, VA
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing data and analyses, this memorandum has outlined the projected traffic
impacts related to the future configuration of the West Main Street corridor as proposed within
the West Main Street Master Plan. The evaluation found that the proposed recommendations
including the new lane configurations and signal timings at West Main Street and Ridge McIntire
as well as bicycle accommodations and future growth along the corridor would enable the
corridor to continue to operate acceptably with minimal capacity impacts.
Principal findings are as follows:
- Existing overall Levels of Service at the study area intersections are at LOS D or better.
- With the proposed recommendations the corridor intersections would continue to
operate at LOS D or better with minimal capacity and queuing impacts with the
anticipated development growth along the corridor.
- Signal timing optimization at West Main Street at Ridge McIntire Road during both peak
periods would enable concurrent eastbound and westbound movements. Further signal
optimization along the corridor would continue to enhance vehicular flow.
- Intersections along the corridor would prohibit Right-Turn On Red maneuvers to
accommodate bicycle boxes.
- Unsignalized intersections at 8th Street and 6th Street are recommended for
implementation of high-visibility crosswalk markings and signage to be more easily
detected by all users and to achieve higher compliance.
- The implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program within both the
West Main Street corridor and Citywide is recommended as per the 2016 City of
Charlottesville Parking Study.
- The City’s transportation system would benefit from dedicated city staff to review and
perform maintenance on the traffic signal network that totals over 75 signals in the City.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 18
APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX B – SYNCHRO OUTPUTS
West Main Street Corridor
Improvements
Charlottesville, VA
100% SD Documents
Dated February 16, 2017
ROM Revised Estimate
Dated 4-24-17
West Main Street Corridor Improvements
Charlottesville, VA
Assumptions and Clarifications
The following Assumptions and Clarifications are provided to convey the basis of the estimate
and general approach taken by Kohnen-Starkey, Inc. in the preparation of this estimate. The
detailed estimate backup provided for each area of the project shall serve as a reference for all
scope of work (work activity, assumed quantity and level of quality) which has been taken into
account in this estimate. Work not specifically indicated in this detailed backup should be
considered Not Included (NIC).
This ROM estimate has been prepared in accordance with 100% SD Documents, entitled, West
Main Street Streetscape and Roadway Improvements, dated February 16, 2017, as prepared by
Rhodeside & Harwell.
General Clarifications
1. Sole-Source Products - The estimate makes no provisions for sole-source specified items or
products. All items are assumed to be openly specified to allow competitive
subcontractor and supplier bidding.
2. Off Hours Work – It is assumed that some off hours work will be required, however the
majority of the work will be completed during normal working hours. This estimate does
not include a labor premium for off-hours work.
3. Wage Rates – Wage rates are calculated based on Davis Bacon Predetermined Wages,
General Decision Numbers VA160034 and VA160138, for Heavy and Highway
Construction, dated January 6, 2017, and for Charlottesville County in state of Virginia.
4. Sales Tax – Sales tax has been included in the unit pricing of this estimate.
5. Bonds & Insurance – Contractor and Subcontractor Bond Cost have been included in this
estimate.
Page 1 of 4 Kohnen-Starkey, Inc. 4/24/2017
6. General Contractor OH & Fee – Contractors G&A cost have been calculated at 3% of the
cost of work, and the Contractor’s Fee at 5%.
7. Subcontractor OH & Fee - A 21% overhead and fee has been included on all new
Subcontractor scopes of work as applicable.
8. Design Contingency – A design contingency has been included at 18% for this estimate.
9. Construction Contingency – No construction contingency has been included in this
estimate.
10. Escalation - The material and labor cost in this estimate is subject to escalation. Escalation
has been included at a rate of 2.5% per year to the mid-point of construction.
11. Owner’s Cost – This estimate does not include right-of-way acquisition costs or cost to
relocate existing underground utilities, specifically private utilities or sanitary sewer
laterals.
12. Owner’s Cost – This estimate does not include Design Cost, Professional Liability
Insurance Cost, Construction Contingency, Owner’s Supervision, Inspection & Overhead
Cost (SIOH), or Tap Fees.
General Requirements
1. General Conditions – General Conditions cost have been included in this estimate, and are
calculated at a rate of 10%.
2. Safety – This estimate assumes that the Project Superintendent will perform the duties of
the on-site Safety Officer, and that an independent full time Safety Officer with no other
duties is not a requirement of this project.
3. Quality Control – This estimate assumes that the project manager or superintendent will
perform the duties of the on-site Quality Control Officer, and that an independent full
time Quality Control Officer with no other duties is not a requirement of this project.
4. Testing and Inspections – An allowance for third party testing and inspections of
construction materials, (ie., soils, concrete, masonry, steel), has been included in this
estimate and has been calculated at 1% of construction cost.
5. Construction Schedule – This estimate and the general conditions cost for this estimates is
based on an anticipated 9month construction schedule for each area of work. Assuming a
total of 36 months for four phases of construction.
Page 2 of 4 Kohnen-Starkey, Inc. 4/24/2017
6. Permits / Tap Fees – This estimate assumes that all cost for impact and development fees,
tap/water connection fees and any other fees assessed by City/State agencies are to be the
responsibility of the Owner. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining and paying
for the building permit, and all trade permits, licenses and fees for its work.
Demolition
1. Building Demolition – No building demolition cost are included.
2. Site Demolition – Site demolition is included for all hardscape within the project
boundaries of the site
Sitework
1. Site Demolition – Site demolition has been included for the removal of existing trees,
pavements, walks, and curbs within the boundaries of the project site.
2. Earthwork – Earthwork is limited to regrading subgrades to match design to elevations.
3. Undercutting – A 2’ undercutting of unsuitable materials is included beneath proposed
subgrade elevations. An allowance for disposal on contaminated materials has been
included for up to 2000 cy.
4. Site Utilities – Site Utility costs are included for new and re-route of existing storm,
sanitary, water, and gas.
5. Hardscape – Hardscape is included to the extent identified on drawings.
6. Landscape – Landscape is limited to new trees as indicated by drawings. No shrubs,
ground cover, or lawns are included.
7. Irrigation – No Irrigation cost are included.
Site Furnishings
1. Site Furnishings – Site furnishings are included in quantities and as identified within the
body of the estimate.
Page 3 of 4 Kohnen-Starkey, Inc. 4/24/2017
Site Electrical Lighting and Power to Parking Meters
1. General- The electrical site lighting estimate (section G4020) estimate is primarily based
on document sheets E001, E101, E102, E103, E104, E105, E106, E107, E108 , and E501
by Rhodeside & Harwell (100% SD submission dated 16 FEB 2017).
2. Electrical Distribution- The estimate includes underground branch circuit conduit,
trenching, and cabling for electric distribution to the street lights. Two exterior lighting
control cabinets with panels and devices have been included per detail E501. An
allowance has been included for underground branch circuits to electric parking meters
TBD.
3. Exterior Lighting- The estimate includes the cost to furnish and install exterior LED site
light fixtures, including poles with base; as scheduled per E-001.
Traffic Signalization
1. Phase 1 & Phase 2 – The estimate includes allowances for complete traffic signalization,
posts, lights, and controllers for the three following intersections with West Main Street:
7th Street NW/SW, Park Avenue, 4th Street NW, and at Ridge Street/South Street/Water
Street.
2. Phase 3 & Phase 4 – The estimate includes allowances for complete traffic signalization,
posts, lights, and controllers for the three following intersections with West Main Street:
Jefferson Park Avenue/13th Street NW, 11th Street SW, and 10th Street NW/Roosevelt
Brown Blvd.
Estimate Qualification:
Consultant exercises no control over fluctuating market conditions. Consultant shall employ
their best judgment in analyzing the subject project and assignments, however, Consultant cannot
and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the
opinions provided by Consultant from this or subsequent estimates
Page 4 of 4 Kohnen-Starkey, Inc. 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA Dated 2-16-17
Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 TotalPhases1Ͳ4
6thStreetto Bridgeto RooseveltBrownBlvd JeffersonParkAve JeffersonParkAveto
Ridge/McIntireRoad 6thStreet toBridge toRooseveltBrownBlvd Ridge/McIntireRoad
935 LFofRoad 925 LFofRoad 1,045 LFofRoad 845 LFofRoad 3,750 LFofRoad
SCOPEOFWORK U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount
KSI STREETSCAPESURFACEIMPROVEMENTS 6,217.40 5,813,270 4,352.38 4,025,951 4,403.13 4,601,266 5,232.83 4,421,740 5,029.93 18,862,227
KSI UTILITYWORKͲ(Storm) 148.00 138,377 132.11 122,200 169.74 177,374 131.30 110,945 146.37 548,896
Timmons UNDERGROUNDINGOVERHEADUTILITIES 5,749.13 5,375,437 4,838.31 4,475,436 0.00 0 2,101.43 1,775,708 3,100.42 11,626,581
SUBTOTAL(ECC) 12,115 11,327,084 9,323 8,623,586 4,573 4,778,640 7,466 6,308,393 8,277 31,037,703
Timmons UTILITYWORKͲ(RoutineImprovements) 820.27 3,076,000
SUBTOTAL(ECC) 3,076,000
TOTALESTIMATEDCONTRACTCOST(ECC) 12,115 11,327,084 9,323 8,623,586 4,573 4,778,640 7,466 6,308,393 9,097 34,113,703
Split Contr, Loaded Sum by PH
Page 1 of 1 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA Dated 2-16-17
WestMainStreetCorridorImprovements
PROJECTPHASE&SECTOR Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 TotalProject
6th Street to Roosevelt Brown Blvd to Jefferson Park Ave to
Bridge to 6th Street AreasA&B
Ridge/McEntire Rd Bridge Roosevelt Brown Blvd
935 LFofRoad 925 LFofRoad 1,045 LFofRoad 845 LFofRoad 3,750 LFofRoad
SCOPEOFWORK U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount U/P Amount
KSI STREETSCAPESURFACEIMPROVEMENTS 4,132.72 3,864,095 2,839.73 2,626,754 2,820.35 2,947,266 3,290.46 2,780,442 3,258.28 12,218,556
KSI UTILITYWORKͲ(Storm) 98.37 91,979 86.19 79,730 108.72 113,614 82.56 69,764 94.69 355,087
Timmons UNDERGROUNDINGOVERHEADUTILITIES 3,821.46 3,573,066 3,156.78 2,920,023 0.00 0 1,321.40 1,116,586 2,029.25 7,609,675
SubtotalCostofWork(COW) 8,052.56 7,529,140 6,082.71 5,626,507 2,929.07 3,060,880 4,694.43 3,966,791 5,382.22 20,183,318
***GeneralConditions***
GeneralConditions 10.00% 752,914 10.00% 562,651 10.00% 306,088 10.00% 396,679 10.00% 2,018,332
Testing&Inspections 1.00% 75,291 1.00% 56,265 1.00% 30,609 1.00% 39,668 1.00% 201,833
***GeneralConditions*** 828,205 618,916 336,697 436,347 2,220,165
***Bonds/Insurance***
ͲPerformance&PaymentBond 1.05% 87,752 1.05% 65,577 1.05% 35,675 1.05% 46,233 1.05% 235,237
ͲBuilder'sRiskInsurance 0.33% 27,869 0.33% 20,826 0.33% 11,330 0.33% 14,683 0.33% 74,708
ͲGeneralLiabilityInsurance 0.46% 38,976 0.46% 29,126 0.46% 15,845 0.46% 20,535 0.46% 104,482
***Bonds/Insurance*** 154,597 115,530 62,849 81,451 414,426
***DesignContingency*** 18.00% 1,532,150 18.00% 1,144,971 18.00% 622,877 18.00% 807,226 18.00% 4,107,224
***Overhead&Fee***
Contractor'sG&A 3.00% 301,323 3.00% 225,178 3.00% 122,499 3.00% 158,754 3.00% 807,754
Contractor'sFEE 5.00% 502,205 5.00% 375,296 5.00% 204,165 5.00% 264,591 5.00% 1,346,257
***Overhead&Fee*** 803,527 600,474 326,664 423,345 2,154,011
SubtotalCostofWork 11,602 10,847,619 8,764 8,106,398 4,220 4,409,967 6,764 5,715,160 7,754.44 29,079,144
***ConstructionEscalation***
ͲEscalationat2.5%/year: 4.42% 479,465 6.38% 517,188 8.36% 368,673 10.38% 593,234 6.74% 1,958,560
Anticip.MidPtofConstruction 1ͲJanͲ19 1ͲSepͲ19 1ͲJunͲ20 1ͲMarͲ21
***ConstructionEscalation*** 479,465 517,188 368,673 593,234 1,958,560
ESTIMATEDCONTRACTCOST(ECC) 12,115 $11,327,084 9,323 $8,623,586 4,573 $4,778,640 7,466 $6,308,393 8,277 $31,037,703
Summary, Streetscape
Page 1 of 1 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
6thStreettoRidge/McEntireRoad 935 LFofRoad
G BUILDINGSITEWORK 8,052.56 $7,529,140
G10 SitePreparations 1,018.16 $951,977
G1005 ProjectSetUp/Mobilization 195.78 $183,050
Mobilization 2.67 $2,500
EquipmentMobilization 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Erosion/SedimentControl 37.70 $35,250
Erosion/Sedim.Control
ͲSiltFence 3,500 LF 4.00 $14,000
ͲInletProtection 15 EA 250.00 $3,750
ͲConstructionEntrance 5 EA 3,500.00 $17,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TrafficControl 134.36 $125,627
TrafficBarricades
ͲConc.JerseyBarriers,(500lfx4locx4mo/loc) 2,000 LF 10.04 $20,086
ͲTempChainLinkFencing 2,000 LF 5.00 $10,000
ͲTrafficBarrels 40 EA 8.53 $341
ͲTrafficCones 250 EA 3.45 $862
0.00 $0
FlagmenͲ(2menx4mox4locatx1/2time) 2,768 MH 20.57 $56,938
0.00 $0
Pedest.AccesstoActiveBusinesses 1,870 LF 20.00 $37,400
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
ProtectExistingStructures 21.04 $19,673
ProtectAdjacentBuildings 4,000 SF 2.72 $10,890
0.00 $0
ProtectAdjacentStructures 0.00 $0
ͲFencing 468 LF 6.05 $2,828
ͲPlanters 468 LF 8.17 $3,818
ͲCurbs/Sidewalks 468 LF 3.33 $1,556
0.00 $0
ProtectExistingTreestoRemain 6 EA 96.80 $581
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1020 SiteDemolitionandRelocations 371.80 $347,628
TreeRemoval 16.04 $15,000
Street, Ph 1
Page 1 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
RemoveExistingTrees 10 EA 1,500.00 $15,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
AboveGroundSiteDemolition 221.69 $207,276
PavementDemo
ͲSawcutExistingPavement 1,000 LF 5.00 $5,000
ͲDemoExistAsphaltPavement 38,600 SF 0.92 $35,497
ͲDemoExistingWalks(Brick/Conc) 33,023 SF 1.88 $61,935
ͲDemoExistCurb/Gutter 2,250 LF 3.33 $7,487
ͲDisposalofDebris 1,710 CY 55.00 $94,051
0.00 $0
Misc.SiteDemo 0.00 $0
ͲDemoExist.SiteFurnishingsAllowance 50 EA 41.14 $2,057
ͲDemoExist.SignageAllowance 1 LS 1,250.00 $1,250
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofHardSurfaceDemo 71,623 sf 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherSiteDemolition&Relocations 134.07 $125,352
DemoBuriedTrolleyTracks 935 LF 26.62 $24,890
RelocateLewis&ClarkStatue
ͲRemove/SalvageStatue 1 EA 13,552.00 $13,552
ͲProtect/CrateStatue 1 LS 1,936.00 $1,936
ͲDismantle/SalvageStoneBase 1 EA 6,776.00 $6,776
ͲProtect/CrateStoneBase 1 LS 1,936.00 $1,936
ͲDemoFoundations 1 EA 1,258.40 $1,258
ͲNewFoundations 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000
ͲReͲinstallStoneBase 1 EA 7,502.00 $7,502
ͲReͲInstallStatue 1 EA 7,502.00 $7,502
ͲMisc.RepairsAllowance 1 LS 50,000.00 $50,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1030 SiteEarthwork 450.59 $421,299
Excavation/Grading 439.89 $411,299
UndercutUnsuit.Materials
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atAsphRds,30"dpth 3,574 CY 4.24 $15,136
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atWalks,30"dpth 3,058 CY 4.24 $12,949
ͲDisposalofMaterials,OffͲSite 6,632 CY 20.00 $132,635
ͲPlace/CompactSelectFill,Import,24"dpth 5,305 CY 39.14 $207,672
ͲFineGrade 71,623 SF 0.25 $17,906
Street, Ph 1
Page 2 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
Contamin.SoilsDisposalAllowance 500 CY 50.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TemporaryDewatering 10.70 $10,000
LocalizedDewatering 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G20 SiteImprovements 2,152.79 $2,012,856
G2010 Roadways 387.02 $361,865
Curbs&Gutters 34.94 $32,670
ConcreteCurb/GutteratRoads 2,250 LF 14.52 $32,670
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
PavedSurfaces 295.11 $275,930
NewAsphaltPavement 38,600 SF
Ͳ2"VDOTSMͲ12.5D,SurfaceCourse 476 TN 103.82 $49,391
Ͳ2"VDOTIMͲ19.0A,IntermediateCourse 476 TN 96.80 $46,052
Ͳ3"VDOTBMͲ25.0A,BaseCourse 700 TN 89.78 $62,814
Ͳ8"VDOT21B,AggregateBase 4,289 CY 8.83 $37,884
ͲMobilizationCharges 15 EA 3,000.00 $45,000
AsphPvmtTieͲInatExist.Roads
ͲMillExistAsphaltPaving 10,000 SF 2.00 $20,000
Ͳ2"AsphaltSurfaceCoursOverlayatTieIn 123 TN 120.00 $14,790
**EndofSection**
Marking&Signage 56.97 $53,265
TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 528 LF 1.50 $792
Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 3,455 LF 2.00 $6,910
Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 1,047 LF 3.00 $3,141
Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 374 LF 8.00 $2,992
Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) 100 LF 8.00 $800
ͲArrowSymbol 8 EA 250.00 $2,000
ͲBikeLaneSymbol EA 0.00 $0
BikeLaneSpecialCoating(GreenBikeBoxesonly) 2,442 SF 15.00 $36,630
**EndofSection**
G2030 PedestrianPaving 535.86 $501,028
Street, Ph 1
Page 3 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
PavedSurfaces 533.19 $498,528
PCCͲ1PCConcretePavers
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 20,300 SF 10.41 $211,242
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 20,300 SF 1.00 $20,300
Ͳ4"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 20,300 SF 4.00 $81,200
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 2,256 SY 5.13 $11,572
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 1,575 LF 15.00 $23,625
ͲThickenedSlabAdjacenttoPAVͲ1 340 LF 10.00 $3,400
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,A 176 LF 10.00 $1,760
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,B 528 LF 10.00 $5,280
0.00 $0
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 500 SF 10.41 $5,203
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 500 SF 1.00 $500
Ͳ5"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 500 SF 5.00 $2,500
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 56 SY 5.13 $285
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 288 SF 10.00 $2,880
0.00 $0
PCCͲ2PCConcretePavers 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x4"PCPaver(HerringbonePattern) 980 SF 15.97 $15,653
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 980 SF 1.00 $980
Ͳ6"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 980 SF 6.00 $5,880
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 109 SY 5.13 $559
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 140 LF 15.00 $2,100
ͲConcreteTransitionStrips 700 SF 10.00 $7,000
0.00 $0
ConcreteHCRamps 900 SF 20.00 $18,000
0.00 $0
Misc.ConcretePavements/Infills 340 SF 10.00 $3,400
0.00 $0
ConcreteSidewalk 3,500 SF 6.00 $21,000
0.00 $0
PAVͲ1,ResinBoundAggregateSurfacing 0.00 $0
ͲDecomposedGraniteSurfacing,ResinBound 4,500 SF 10.00 $45,000
ͲGeotextileFilterFabric 5,400 SF 1.23 $6,645
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 500 SY 5.13 $2,565
TotalSqftofNewPedest.Paving 33,023 sf
**EndofSection**
OtherWalks,Steps&Terraces 2.67 $2,500
Misc.RepairsatSteps/Ret.Walls 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
Street, Ph 1
Page 4 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
**EndofSection**
G2040 SiteDevelopment 529.82 $495,384
ExteriorFurnishings 310.29 $290,125
SiteBenches
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA(Single) EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA("Z"Pattern,Triple) 1 EA 8,167.50 $8,168
ͲBenchTypeB,BTB EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeC,BTC EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeD,BTD 6 EA 1,512.50 $9,075
ͲBenchTypeE,BTE 7 EA 8,228.00 $57,596
0.00 $0
BicycleRack,TypeA,CTA 5 EA 726.00 $3,630
0.00 $0
LitterReceptacle,TypeA,LTA 3 EA 2,934.25 $8,803
0.00 $0
Planter,TypeA,PTA 7 EA 5,033.60 $35,235
0.00 $0
SiteTables 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeA,TTA EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/SglChair 1 EA 1,324.95 $1,325
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(2ea)Chairs 8 EA 1,712.15 $13,697
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(3ea)Chairs 6 EA 2,099.35 $12,596
0.00 $0
BusSheltors 2 EA 60,000.00 $120,000
ͲFoundations 4 EA 5,000.00 $20,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Signage 219.53 $205,259
StreetSignage
ͲPost/Footing 29 EA 90.75 $2,632
ͲPedestrianSign 4 EA 43.86 $175
ͲDirectionalArrow 5 EA 37.81 $189
ͲNoParkingSign 11 EA 55.96 $616
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 11 EA 25.71 $283
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 17 EA 25.71 $437
ͲOneWaySign EA 0.00 $0
ͲBikeLaneSign 8 EA 62.01 $496
ͲStopSign 2 EA 43.86 $88
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA 37.81 $151
ͲDeadEndSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA 68.06 $68
ͲReservedParkingSign 2 EA 31.76 $64
ͲDoNotEnterSign 2 EA 55.96 $112
Street, Ph 1
Page 5 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲBeginTurningSign 2 EA 98.31 $197
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 2 EA 74.11 $148
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 35,000.00 $35,000
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding EA 0.00 $0
ͲCornerMarkers 2 EA 23,000.00 $46,000
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 15,000.00 $30,000
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge EA 0.00 $0
ͲMemoryMarkers 168 EA 328.00 $55,104
ͲArtPanel 1 EA 30,000.00 $30,000
ͲRemembranceQuotes 10 EA 350.00 $3,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2050 Landscaping 700.08 $654,578
Plantings 78.22 $73,140
TraditionalShadeTrees
ͲTMD 14 EA 500.00 $7,000
ͲTSM 2 EA 350.00 $700
ͲTLG 1 EA 800.00 $800
0.00 $0
SilvaCellShadeTrees 0.00 $0
ͲTMD 4 EA 500.00 $2,000
ͲTSM 3 EA 350.00 $1,050
ͲTLG 13 EA 800.00 $10,400
0.00 $0
Plantings 0.00 $0
ͲSmall 19 EA 25.00 $475
ͲMedium 9 EA 35.00 $315
ͲLarge 3 EA 50.00 $150
0.00 $0
LandscapeBoulders 60 EA 800.00 $48,000
OrnamentalGrases 1,125 SF 2.00 $2,250
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Planters 621.86 $581,438
SilvaCellTreePits,(11countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 70.1 CY 9.68 $678
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 2,244.0 SF 1.92 $4,304
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 8.6 CY 34.97 $301
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 4.3 CY 41.75 $180
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 4.3 CY 47.80 $206
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 22 EA 219.31 $4,825
Street, Ph 1
Page 6 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 880 SF 7.56 $6,655
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 34.2 CY 54.45 $1,863
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 88.0 LF 12.00 $1,056
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $242
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 30.0 LF 10.00 $300
ͲMisc.Backfill 14.7 CY 23.60 $346
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 66.8 CY 20.00 $1,336
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(17countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 27.1 CY 9.68 $262
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 867.0 SF 1.92 $1,663
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 3.3 CY 34.97 $116
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.7 CY 41.75 $69
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.7 CY 47.80 $79
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 17 EA 219.31 $3,728
ͲRootBarrier 340 SF 7.56 $2,571
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 13.2 CY 54.45 $720
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 68.0 LF 12.00 $816
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $182
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 22.5 LF 10.00 $225
ͲMisc.Backfill 5.7 CY 23.60 $134
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 25.8 CY 20.00 $516
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(18countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 28.7 CY 9.68 $277
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 918.0 SF 1.92 $1,761
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 3.5 CY 34.97 $123
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.8 CY 41.75 $73
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.8 CY 47.80 $84
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 18 EA 219.31 $3,948
ͲRootBarrier 360 SF 7.56 $2,723
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 14.0 CY 54.45 $762
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 72.0 LF 12.00 $864
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $194
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 24.0 LF 10.00 $240
ͲMisc.Backfill 6.0 CY 23.60 $142
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 27.3 CY 20.00 $547
Street, Ph 1
Page 7 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(20countcluster) 5 EA
ͲExcavation 796.3 CY 9.68 $7,708
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 25,500.0 SF 1.92 $48,905
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 97.8 CY 34.97 $3,419
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 48.9 CY 41.75 $2,041
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 48.9 CY 47.80 $2,337
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 100 EA 219.31 $21,931
ͲRootBarrier 10,000 SF 7.56 $75,625
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 10.4 CY 23.60 $245
ͲPlantingSoil 388.9 CY 54.45 $21,175
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 1.0 CY 41.75 $42
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 400.0 LF 12.00 $4,800
ͲOverflowRiser 9 EA 121.00 $1,101
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 136.5 LF 10.00 $1,365
ͲMisc.Backfill 166.7 CY 23.60 $3,933
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 759.3 CY 20.00 $15,185
ͲTreeGrates 160.0 SF 98.31 $15,730
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(21countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 33.4 CY 9.68 $324
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,071.0 SF 1.92 $2,054
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 4.1 CY 34.97 $144
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.1 CY 41.75 $86
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.1 CY 47.80 $98
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 21 EA 219.31 $4,606
ͲRootBarrier 420 SF 7.56 $3,176
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 16.3 CY 54.45 $889
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 84.0 LF 12.00 $1,008
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $230
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 28.5 LF 10.00 $285
ͲMisc.Backfill 7.0 CY 23.60 $165
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 31.9 CY 20.00 $638
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(22countcluster) 3 EA
ͲExcavation 315.3 CY 9.68 $3,052
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 10,098.0 SF 1.92 $19,366
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 38.7 CY 34.97 $1,354
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 19.4 CY 41.75 $808
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 19.4 CY 47.80 $925
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 66 EA 219.31 $14,475
Street, Ph 1
Page 8 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 3,960 SF 7.56 $29,948
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 6.2 CY 23.60 $147
ͲPlantingSoil 154.0 CY 54.45 $8,385
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.6 CY 41.75 $25
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 264.0 LF 12.00 $3,168
ͲOverflowRiser 6 EA 121.00 $726
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 90.0 LF 10.00 $900
ͲMisc.Backfill 66.0 CY 23.60 $1,557
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 300.7 CY 20.00 $6,013
ͲTreeGrates 96.0 SF 98.31 $9,438
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(24countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 38.2 CY 9.68 $370
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,224.0 SF 1.92 $2,347
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 4.7 CY 34.97 $164
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.3 CY 41.75 $98
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.3 CY 47.80 $112
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 24 EA 219.31 $5,264
ͲRootBarrier 480 SF 7.56 $3,630
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 18.7 CY 54.45 $1,016
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 96.0 LF 12.00 $1,152
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $266
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 33.0 LF 10.00 $330
ͲMisc.Backfill 8.0 CY 23.60 $189
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 36.4 CY 20.00 $729
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(25countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 159.3 CY 9.68 $1,542
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 5,100.0 SF 1.92 $9,781
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 19.6 CY 34.97 $684
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 9.8 CY 41.75 $408
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 9.8 CY 47.80 $467
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 50 EA 219.31 $10,966
ͲRootBarrier 2,000 SF 7.56 $15,125
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 77.8 CY 54.45 $4,235
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 200.0 LF 12.00 $2,400
ͲOverflowRiser 5 EA 121.00 $545
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 67.5 LF 10.00 $675
ͲMisc.Backfill 33.3 CY 23.60 $787
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 151.9 CY 20.00 $3,037
Street, Ph 1
Page 9 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(28countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 44.6 CY 9.68 $432
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,428.0 SF 1.92 $2,739
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 5.5 CY 34.97 $191
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.7 CY 41.75 $114
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.7 CY 47.80 $131
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 28 EA 219.31 $6,141
ͲRootBarrier 560 SF 7.56 $4,235
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 21.8 CY 54.45 $1,186
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 112.0 LF 12.00 $1,344
ͲOverflowRiser 3 EA 121.00 $303
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 37.5 LF 10.00 $375
ͲMisc.Backfill 9.3 CY 23.60 $220
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 42.5 CY 20.00 $850
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(30countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 47.8 CY 9.68 $462
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,530.0 SF 1.92 $2,934
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 5.9 CY 34.97 $205
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.9 CY 41.75 $122
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.9 CY 47.80 $140
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 30 EA 219.31 $6,579
ͲRootBarrier 600 SF 7.56 $4,538
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 23.3 CY 54.45 $1,271
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 120.0 LF 12.00 $1,440
ͲOverflowRiser 3 EA 121.00 $327
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 40.5 LF 10.00 $405
ͲMisc.Backfill 10.0 CY 23.60 $236
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 45.6 CY 20.00 $911
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(34countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 54.1 CY 9.68 $524
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,734.0 SF 1.92 $3,326
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 6.6 CY 34.97 $233
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 3.3 CY 41.75 $139
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 3.3 CY 47.80 $159
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 34 EA 219.31 $7,457
Street, Ph 1
Page 10 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 680 SF 7.56 $5,143
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 26.4 CY 54.45 $1,440
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 136.0 LF 12.00 $1,632
ͲOverflowRiser 3 EA 121.00 $375
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 46.5 LF 10.00 $465
ͲMisc.Backfill 11.3 CY 23.60 $267
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 51.6 CY 20.00 $1,033
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
TotalSilvaCellTreePitClusters 19 EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
TypicalTreePlanter 11 EA 0.00 $0
ͲExcavation 26 CY 9.68 $252
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 220 SF 1.23 $271
ͲRootBarrier 704 SF 7.56 $5,324
ͲPlantingSoil 26 CY 54.45 $1,420
ͲTreeGrates 176 SF 158.81 $27,951
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
IrrigationSystems 0.00 $0
IrrigationSystemsAllowanceͲNone 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G30 SiteCivil/MechanicalUtilities 98.37 $91,979.47
G3020 SanitarySewer 6.42 $6,000
SanitarySewerPiping 6.42 $6,000
SanitarySewerModificationsAllowance
AdjustSanitSewerMHtoGrade 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000
(fromprevestimate)
**EndofSection**
G3030 StormSewer 91.96 $85,979
StormSewer 79.82 $74,636
NewStormSewer
ͲExcavation 342 CY 6.53 $2,236
ͲTrenchBox 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000
ͲPipeBedding 57 CY 36.91 $2,105
Ͳ15"StormPipe 260 LF 40.54 $10,539
Ͳ18"StormPipe LF 0.00 $0
Ͳ24"StormPipe 125 LF 59.29 $7,411
ͲCurbInlets 5 EA 3,000.80 $15,004
Street, Ph 1
Page 11 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲManholesComplete 7 EA 4,259.20 $29,814
ͲBackfill 342 CY 7.38 $2,526
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherStormSewer 12.13 $11,344
RemoveExistingStormSewer
(Assumesimilarquantitiesasnew)
ͲExcavate/RemoveExistingPipe 385 LF 18.15 $6,988
ͲDemo/RemoveExistingStructures 12 EA 363.00 $4,356
**EndofSection**
G40 SiteElectricalUtilities 4,783.24 $4,472,327.37
G4010 UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 3,821.46 $3,573,066
UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 3,821.46 $3,573,066
Timmons DuctBankEstimate(SeeTimmonsDetailedBackup)
DominionVirginiaPowerUndergroundingInfrast. 1 LS 2,906,272.00 $2,906,272
ComcastUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 208,117.00 $208,117
LumosUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 267,477.00 $267,477
CenturyLinkUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 191,200.00 $191,200
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4020 SiteLighting 300.81 $281,261
ExteriorLightingFixtures&Controls 300.81 $281,261
Powerconduit/wireforparkingmeters/spareͲallow 2,200 LF 16.17 $35,574
LightingControlCabinetAssemblyLPͲB
ͲLightingpanel120/240v 1 EA 3,291.20 $3,291
ͲFusedsafetyswitch200a 1 EA 1,306.80 $1,307
ͲNEMA4Cabinet72x31x24 1 EA 2,613.60 $2,614
ͲMetersocket 1 EA 1,125.30 $1,125
ͲDuplexWP 1 EA 151.25 $151
ͲTelephonejack 1 EA 127.05 $127
ͲPhotocell 1 EA 580.80 $581
ͲGroundrod10' 1 EA 580.80 $581
ͲPVCconduitstubouts 40 LF 21.78 $871
ͲConcretepad43"x36"x30" 1 LS 919.60 $920
ͲAnchorbolts 4 EA 84.70 $339
SiteLighting
ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 30 EA 344.85 $10,346
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 25 EA 2,289.32 $57,233
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 8 EA 2,474.45 $19,796
Street, Ph 1
Page 12 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH1ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1b,65wLED,singlehead/arm 2 EA 1,357.62 $2,715
ͲLightfixturepole,aluminum,18' 35 EA 1,252.35 $43,832
ͲLightingpolebases 35 EA 1,167.65 $40,868
ͲLightingconduit,1" 5,090 LF 4.21 $21,435
ͲLightingwire#6 10,180 LF 1.91 $19,487
ͲLightingwiregnd#10 5,090 LF 0.89 $4,521
ͲTrenching/backfill 5,090 LF 2.66 $13,550
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4090 OtherSiteElectricalUtilities 660.96 $618,000
Signalization 660.96 $618,000
RemoveExist.TrafficSignalizationͲPhase1 2 EA 5,000.00 $10,000
NewTrafficSignalization.Ͳ(@4th4dir.) 1 EA 248,000.00 $248,000
NewTrafficSignalization.Ͳ(@7th4dir.) PH2 0.00 $0
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@Ridge5dir.) 1 EA 310,000.00 $310,000
NewPedestrianSignalizationͲPhase1 2 EA 25,000.00 $50,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
SubtotalͲBuilding&Site 8,052.56 $7,529,140
Street, Ph 1
Page 13 of 13 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
Bridgeto6thStreet 925 LFofRoad
G BUILDINGSITEWORK 6,082.71 $5,626,507
G10 SitePreparations 777.17 $718,881
G1005 ProjectSetUp/Mobilization 197.36 $182,562
Mobilization 2.70 $2,500
EquipmentMobilization 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Erosion/SedimentControl 38.11 $35,250
Erosion/Sedim.Control
ͲSiltFence 3,500 LF 4.00 $14,000
ͲInletProtection 15 EA 250.00 $3,750
ͲConstructionEntrance 5 EA 3,500.00 $17,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TrafficControl 135.38 $125,227
TrafficBarricades
ͲConc.JerseyBarriers,(500lfx4locx4mo/loc) 2,000 LF 10.04 $20,086
ͲTempChainLinkFencing 2,000 LF 5.00 $10,000
ͲTrafficBarrels 40 EA 8.53 $341
ͲTrafficCones 250 EA 3.45 $862
0.00 $0
FlagmenͲ(2menx4mox4locatx1/2time) 2,768 MH 20.57 $56,938
0.00 $0
Pedest.AccesstoActiveBusinesses 1,850 LF 20.00 $37,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
ProtectExistingStructures 21.17 $19,585
ProtectAdjacentBuildings 4,000 SF 2.72 $10,890
0.00 $0
ProtectAdjacentStructures 0.00 $0
ͲFencing 463 LF 6.05 $2,798
ͲPlanters 463 LF 8.17 $3,777
ͲCurbs/Sidewalks 463 LF 3.33 $1,539
0.00 $0
ProtectExistingTreestoRemain 6 EA 96.80 $581
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1020 SiteDemolitionandRelocations 216.97 $200,695
TreeRemoval 16.22 $15,000
Street, Ph 2
Page 1 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
RemoveExistingTrees 10 EA 1,500.00 $15,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
AboveGroundSiteDemolition 174.13 $161,072
PavementDemo
ͲSawcutExistingPavement 1,000 LF 5.00 $5,000
ͲDemoExistAsphaltPavement 33,000 SF 0.92 $30,347
ͲDemoExistingWalks(Brick/Conc) 22,738 SF 1.88 $42,645
ͲDemoExistCurb/Gutter 1,915 LF 3.33 $6,372
ͲDisposalofDebris 1,335 CY 55.00 $73,401
0.00 $0
Misc.SiteDemo 0.00 $0
ͲDemoExist.SiteFurnishingsAllowance 50 EA 41.14 $2,057
ͲDemoExist.SignageAllowance 1 LS 1,250.00 $1,250
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofHardSurfaceDemo 55,738 sf 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherSiteDemolition&Relocations 26.62 $24,624
DemoBuriedTrolleyTracks 925 LF 26.62 $24,624
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1030 SiteEarthwork 362.84 $335,623
Excavation/Grading 352.02 $325,623
UndercutUnsuit.Materials
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atAsphRds,30"dpth 3,056 CY 4.24 $12,940
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atWalks,30"dpth 2,105 CY 4.24 $8,916
ͲDisposalofMaterials,OffͲSite 5,161 CY 20.00 $103,219
ͲPlace/CompactSelectFill,Import,24"dpth 4,129 CY 39.14 $161,613
ͲFineGrade 55,738 SF 0.25 $13,935
0.00 $0
Contamin.SoilsDisposalAllowance 500 CY 50.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TemporaryDewatering 10.81 $10,000
LocalizedDewatering 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G20 SiteImprovements 1,468.50 $1,358,361
G2010 Roadways 318.60 $294,709
Street, Ph 2
Page 2 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
Curbs&Gutters 30.06 $27,806
ConcreteCurb/GutteratRoads 1,915 LF 14.52 $27,806
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
PavedSurfaces 267.54 $247,475
NewAsphaltPavement 33,000 SF
Ͳ2"VDOTSMͲ12.5D,SurfaceCourse 407 TN 103.82 $42,225
Ͳ2"VDOTIMͲ19.0A,IntermediateCourse 407 TN 96.80 $39,371
Ͳ3"VDOTBMͲ25.0A,BaseCourse 598 TN 89.78 $53,701
Ͳ8"VDOT21B,AggregateBase 3,667 CY 8.83 $32,388
ͲMobilizationCharges 15 EA 3,000.00 $45,000
AsphPvmtTieͲInatExist.Roads
ͲMillExistAsphaltPaving 10,000 SF 2.00 $20,000
Ͳ2"AsphaltSurfaceCoursOverlayatTieIn 123 TN 120.00 $14,790
**EndofSection**
Marking&Signage 21.00 $19,429
TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 169 LF 1.50 $254
Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 2,990 LF 2.00 $5,980
Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 1,805 LF 3.00 $5,415
Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 35 LF 8.00 $280
Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) LF 0.00 $0
ͲArrowSymbol EA 0.00 $0
ͲBikeLaneSymbol EA 0.00 $0
BikeLaneSpecialCoating(GreenBikeBoxesonly) 500 SF 15.00 $7,500
**EndofSection**
G2030 PedestrianPaving 411.67 $380,793
PavedSurfaces 411.67 $380,793
PCCͲ1PCConcretePavers
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 18,600 SF 10.41 $193,552
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 18,600 SF 1.00 $18,600
Ͳ4"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 18,600 SF 4.00 $74,400
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 2,067 SY 5.13 $10,603
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 1,650 LF 15.00 $24,750
ͲThickenedSlabAdjacenttoPAVͲ1 LF 0.00 $0
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,A 256 LF 10.00 $2,560
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,B 600 LF 10.00 $6,000
Street, Ph 2
Page 3 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 700 SF 10.41 $7,284
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 700 SF 1.00 $700
Ͳ5"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 700 SF 5.00 $3,500
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 78 SY 5.13 $399
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 288 SF 10.00 $2,880
0.00 $0
PCCͲ2PCConcretePavers 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x4"PCPaver(HerringbonePattern) 710 SF 15.97 $11,340
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 710 SF 1.00 $710
Ͳ6"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 710 SF 6.00 $4,260
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 79 SY 5.13 $405
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 90 LF 15.00 $1,350
ͲConcreteTransitionStrips 750 SF 10.00 $7,500
0.00 $0
ConcreteHCRamps 300 SF 20.00 $6,000
0.00 $0
Misc.ConcretePavements/Infills 400 SF 10.00 $4,000
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofNewPedest.Paving 22,738 sf
**EndofSection**
OtherWalks,Steps&Terraces 0.00 $0
Misc.RepairsatSteps/Ret.WallsͲAreaB LS 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2040 SiteDevelopment 328.71 $304,060
ExteriorFurnishings 230.36 $213,080
SiteBenches
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA(Single) 2 EA 2,722.50 $5,445
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA("Z"Pattern,Triple) 2 EA 8,167.50 $16,335
ͲBenchTypeB,BTB EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeC,BTC 16 EA 2,178.00 $34,848
ͲBenchTypeD,BTD 3 EA 1,512.50 $4,538
ͲBenchTypeE,BTE 2 EA 8,228.00 $16,456
0.00 $0
BicycleRack,TypeA,CTA 5 EA 726.00 $3,630
0.00 $0
LitterReceptacle,TypeA,LTA 3 EA 2,934.25 $8,803
0.00 $0
Planter,TypeA,PTA 8 EA 5,033.60 $40,269
Street, Ph 2
Page 4 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
SiteTables 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeA,TTA 4 EA 2,299.00 $9,196
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/SglChair EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(2ea)Chairs 5 EA 1,712.15 $8,561
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(3ea)Chairs EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
BusSheltors 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000
ͲFoundations 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Signage 98.36 $90,981
StreetSignage
ͲPost/Footing 26 EA 90.75 $2,360
ͲPedestrianSign 6 EA 43.86 $263
ͲDirectionalArrow 6 EA 37.81 $227
ͲNoParkingSign 12 EA 55.96 $672
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 14 EA 25.71 $360
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 19 EA 25.71 $489
ͲOneWaySign 1 EA 31.76 $32
ͲBikeLaneSign 4 EA 62.01 $248
ͲStopSign 1 EA 43.86 $44
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA 37.81 $151
ͲDeadEndSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲToIͲ64Sign 2 EA 68.06 $136
ͲReservedParkingSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲBeginTurningSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA 0.00 $0
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap EA 0.00 $0
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding 1 EA 25,000.00 $25,000
ͲCornerMarkers 2 EA 23,000.00 $46,000
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2050 Landscaping 409.51 $378,799
Plantings 23.35 $21,600
TraditionalShadeTrees
ͲTMD 2 EA 500.00 $1,000
ͲTSM 2 EA 350.00 $700
Street, Ph 2
Page 5 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTLG 13 EA 800.00 $10,400
0.00 $0
SilvaCellShadeTrees 0.00 $0
ͲTMD 12 EA 500.00 $6,000
ͲTSM 10 EA 350.00 $3,500
ͲTLG EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Planters 386.16 $357,199
SilvaCellTreePits,(7countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 11.1 CY 9.68 $108
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 357.0 SF 1.92 $685
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 1.4 CY 34.97 $48
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 0.7 CY 41.75 $29
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 0.7 CY 47.80 $33
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 7 EA 219.31 $1,535
ͲRootBarrier 140 SF 7.56 $1,059
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 5.4 CY 54.45 $296
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 49.0 LF 12.00 $588
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $121
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 15.0 LF 10.00 $150
ͲMisc.Backfill 2.3 CY 23.60 $55
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 10.6 CY 20.00 $213
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(10countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 15.9 CY 9.68 $154
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 510.0 SF 1.92 $978
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.0 CY 34.97 $68
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.0 CY 41.75 $41
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.0 CY 47.80 $47
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 10 EA 219.31 $2,193
ͲRootBarrier 200 SF 7.56 $1,513
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 7.8 CY 54.45 $424
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 70.0 LF 10.00 $700
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $169
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 21.0 LF 10.00 $210
ͲMisc.Backfill 3.3 CY 23.60 $79
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 15.2 CY 20.00 $304
Street, Ph 2
Page 6 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(11countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 17.5 CY 9.68 $170
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 561.0 SF 1.92 $1,076
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.2 CY 34.97 $75
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.1 CY 41.75 $45
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.1 CY 47.80 $51
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 11 EA 219.31 $2,412
ͲRootBarrier 220 SF 7.56 $1,664
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 8.6 CY 54.45 $466
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 77.0 LF 10.00 $770
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $194
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 24.0 LF 10.00 $240
ͲMisc.Backfill 3.7 CY 23.60 $87
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 16.7 CY 20.00 $334
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(13countcluster) 4 EA
ͲExcavation 331.3 CY 9.68 $3,207
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 10,608.0 SF 1.92 $20,345
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 40.7 CY 34.97 $1,422
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 20.3 CY 41.75 $849
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 20.3 CY 47.80 $972
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 52 EA 219.31 $11,404
ͲRootBarrier 4,160 SF 7.56 $31,460
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 8.3 CY 23.60 $196
ͲPlantingSoil 161.8 CY 54.45 $8,809
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.8 CY 41.75 $34
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 364.0 LF 10.00 $3,640
ͲOverflowRiser 7 EA 121.00 $895
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 111.0 LF 10.00 $1,110
ͲMisc.Backfill 69.3 CY 23.60 $1,636
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 315.9 CY 20.00 $6,317
ͲTreeGrates 128.0 SF 98.31 $12,584
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(14countcluster) 3 EA
ͲExcavation 200.7 CY 9.68 $1,942
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 6,426.0 SF 1.92 $12,324
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 24.6 CY 34.97 $862
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 12.3 CY 41.75 $514
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 12.3 CY 47.80 $589
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 42 EA 219.31 $9,211
Street, Ph 2
Page 7 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 2,520 SF 7.56 $19,058
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 6.2 CY 23.60 $147
ͲPlantingSoil 98.0 CY 54.45 $5,336
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.6 CY 41.75 $25
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 294.0 LF 10.00 $2,940
ͲOverflowRiser 6 EA 121.00 $726
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 90.0 LF 10.00 $900
ͲMisc.Backfill 42.0 CY 23.60 $991
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 191.3 CY 20.00 $3,827
ͲTreeGrates 96.0 SF 98.31 $9,438
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(16countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 101.9 CY 9.68 $987
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 3,264.0 SF 1.92 $6,260
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 12.5 CY 34.97 $438
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 6.3 CY 41.75 $261
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 6.3 CY 47.80 $299
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 32 EA 219.31 $7,018
ͲRootBarrier 1,280 SF 7.56 $9,680
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 49.8 CY 54.45 $2,710
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 224.0 LF 10.00 $2,240
ͲOverflowRiser 5 EA 121.00 $557
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 69.0 LF 10.00 $690
ͲMisc.Backfill 21.3 CY 23.60 $503
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 97.2 CY 20.00 $1,944
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(17countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 27.1 CY 9.68 $262
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 867.0 SF 1.92 $1,663
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 3.3 CY 34.97 $116
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.7 CY 41.75 $69
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.7 CY 47.80 $79
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 17 EA 219.31 $3,728
ͲRootBarrier 340 SF 7.56 $2,571
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 13.2 CY 54.45 $720
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 119.0 LF 10.00 $1,190
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $290
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 36.0 LF 10.00 $360
ͲMisc.Backfill 5.7 CY 23.60 $134
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 25.8 CY 20.00 $516
Street, Ph 2
Page 8 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(20countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 127.4 CY 9.68 $1,233
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 4,080.0 SF 1.92 $7,825
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 15.6 CY 34.97 $547
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 7.8 CY 41.75 $327
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 7.8 CY 47.80 $374
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 40 EA 219.31 $8,773
ͲRootBarrier 1,600 SF 7.56 $12,100
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 62.2 CY 54.45 $3,388
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 280.0 LF 10.00 $2,800
ͲOverflowRiser 6 EA 121.00 $690
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 85.5 LF 10.00 $855
ͲMisc.Backfill 26.7 CY 23.60 $629
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 121.5 CY 20.00 $2,430
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
0.00 $0
TotalSilvaCellTreePitClusters 15 EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
TypicalTreePlanter 16 EA 0.00 $0
ͲExcavation 38 CY 9.68 $367
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 320 SF 1.23 $394
ͲRootBarrier 1,024 SF 7.56 $7,744
ͲPlantingSoil 38 CY 54.45 $2,065
ͲTreeGrates 256 SF 158.81 $40,656
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
IrrigationSystems 0.00 $0
IrrigationSystemsAllowanceͲNone 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G30 SiteCivil/MechanicalUtilities 86.19 $79,729.90
G3020 SanitarySewer 6.49 $6,000
SanitarySewerPiping 6.49 $6,000
SanitarySewerModificationsAllowance
AdjustSanitSewerMHtoGrade 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000
(fromprevestimate)
**EndofSection**
G3030 StormSewer 79.71 $73,730
Street, Ph 2
Page 9 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
StormSewer 67.05 $62,023
NewStormSewer
ͲExcavation 449 CY 6.53 $2,933
ͲTrenchBox 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000
ͲPipeBedding 75 CY 36.91 $2,761
Ͳ15"StormPipe 30 LF 40.54 $1,216
Ͳ18"StormPipe 475 LF 49.01 $23,277
Ͳ24"StormPipe LF 0.00 $0
ͲCurbInlets 5 EA 3,000.80 $15,004
ͲManholesComplete 2 EA 4,259.20 $8,518
ͲBackfill 449 CY 7.38 $3,313
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherStormSewer 12.66 $11,707
RemoveExistingStormSewer
(Assumesimilarquantitiesasnew)
ͲExcavate/RemoveExistingPipe 505 LF 18.15 $9,166
ͲDemo/RemoveExistingStructures 7 EA 363.00 $2,541
**EndofSection**
G40 SiteElectricalUtilities 3,750.85 $3,469,535.40
G4010 UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 3,156.78 $2,920,023
UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 3,156.78 $2,920,023
Timmons DuctBankEstimate(SeeTimmonsDetailedBackup)
DominionVirginiaPowerUndergroundingInfrast. 1 LS 2,442,228.00 $2,442,228
ComcastUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 141,595.00 $141,595
LumosUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 195,100.00 $195,100
CenturyLinkUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 141,100.00 $141,100
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4020 SiteLighting 293.53 $271,512
ExteriorLightingFixtures&Controls 293.53 $271,512
Powerconduit/wireforparkingmeters/spareͲallow 2,200 LF 16.17 $35,574
LightingControlCabinetAssemblyLPͲB(SEEPHASE1)
ͲLightingpanel120/240v PH1 0.00 $0
ͲFusedsafetyswitch200a PH1 0.00 $0
ͲNEMA4Cabinet72x31x24 PH1 0.00 $0
ͲMetersocket PH1 0.00 $0
ͲDuplexWP PH1 0.00 $0
ͲTelephonejack PH1 0.00 $0
Street, Ph 2
Page 10 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH2ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲPhotocell PH1 0.00 $0
ͲGroundrod10' PH1 0.00 $0
ͲPVCconduitstubouts PH1 0.00 $0
ͲConcretepad43"x36"x30" PH1 0.00 $0
ͲAnchorbolts PH1 0.00 $0
SiteLighting
ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 33 EA 344.85 $11,380
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 31 EA 2,289.32 $70,969
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 4 EA 2,474.45 $9,898
ͲLightfixturepole,aluminum,18' 35 EA 1,252.35 $43,832
ͲLightingpolebasesͲ 35 EA 1,167.65 $40,868
ͲLightingconduit,1" 5,090 LF 4.21 $21,435
ͲLightingwire#6 10,180 LF 1.91 $19,487
ͲLightingwiregnd#10 5,090 LF 0.89 $4,521
ͲTrenching/backfill 5,090 LF 2.66 $13,550
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4090 OtherSiteElectricalUtilities 300.54 $278,000
Signalization 300.54 $278,000
RemoveExist.TrafficSignalizationͲPh2 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@7th4dir.) 1 EA 248,000.00 $248,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@4th4dir.) PH1 0.00 $0
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@Ridge5dir.) PH1 0.00 $0
NewPedestrianSignalizationͲPhase2 1 EA 25,000.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
SubtotalͲBuilding&Site 6,082.71 $5,626,507
Street, Ph 2
Page 11 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
RooseveltBrownBlvdtoBridge 1,045 LFofRoad
G BUILDINGSITEWORK 2,929.07 $3,060,880
G10 SitePreparations 788.00 $823,459
G1005 ProjectSetUp/Mobilization 180.30 $188,415
Mobilization 2.39 $2,500
EquipmentMobilization 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Erosion/SedimentControl 33.73 $35,250
Erosion/Sedim.Control
ͲSiltFence 3,500 LF 4.00 $14,000
ͲInletProtection 15 EA 250.00 $3,750
ͲConstructionEntrance 5 EA 3,500.00 $17,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TrafficControl 124.43 $130,027
TrafficBarricades
ͲConc.JerseyBarriers,(500lfx4locx4mo/loc) 2,000 LF 10.04 $20,086
ͲTempChainLinkFencing 2,000 LF 5.00 $10,000
ͲTrafficBarrels 40 EA 8.53 $341
ͲTrafficCones 250 EA 3.45 $862
0.00 $0
FlagmenͲ(2menx4mox4locatx1/2time) 2,768 MH 20.57 $56,938
0.00 $0
Pedest.AccesstoActiveBusinesses 2,090 LF 20.00 $41,800
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
ProtectExistingStructures 19.75 $20,638
ProtectAdjacentBuildings 4,000 SF 2.72 $10,890
0.00 $0
ProtectAdjacentStructures 0.00 $0
ͲFencing 523 LF 6.05 $3,161
ͲPlanters 523 LF 8.17 $4,268
ͲCurbs/Sidewalks 523 LF 3.33 $1,739
0.00 $0
ProtectExistingTreestoRemain 6 EA 96.80 $581
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1020 SiteDemolitionandRelocations 221.90 $231,889
TreeRemoval 14.35 $15,000
Street, Ph 3
Page 1 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
RemoveExistingTrees 10 EA 1,500.00 $15,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
AboveGroundSiteDemolition 180.93 $189,071
PavementDemo
ͲSawcutExistingPavement 1,000 LF 5.00 $5,000
ͲDemoExistAsphaltPavement 46,300 SF 0.92 $42,577
ͲDemoExistingWalks(Brick/Conc) 21,959 SF 1.88 $41,184
ͲDemoExistCurb/Gutter 2,195 LF 3.33 $7,304
ͲDisposalofDebris 1,631 CY 55.00 $89,698
0.00 $0
Misc.SiteDemo 0.00 $0
ͲDemoExist.SiteFurnishingsAllowance 50 EA 41.14 $2,057
ͲDemoExist.SignageAllowance 1 LS 1,250.00 $1,250
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofHardSurfaceDemo 68,259 sf 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherSiteDemolition&Relocations 26.62 $27,818
DemoBuriedTrolleyTracks 1,045 LF 26.62 $27,818
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1030 SiteEarthwork 385.79 $403,155
Excavation/Grading 376.22 $393,155
UndercutUnsuit.Materials
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atAsphRds,30"dpth 4,287 CY 4.24 $18,156
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atWalks,30"dpth 2,033 CY 4.24 $8,611
ͲDisposalofMaterials,OffͲSite 6,320 CY 20.00 $126,406
ͲPlace/CompactSelectFill,Import,24"dpth 5,056 CY 39.14 $197,918
ͲFineGrade 68,259 SF 0.25 $17,065
0.00 $0
Contamin.SoilsDisposalAllowance 500 CY 50.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TemporaryDewatering 9.57 $10,000
LocalizedDewatering 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G20 SiteImprovements 1,542.54 $1,611,950
G2010 Roadways 345.02 $360,551
Street, Ph 3
Page 2 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
Curbs&Gutters 30.50 $31,871
ConcreteCurb/GutteratRoads 2,195 LF 14.52 $31,871
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
PavedSurfaces 301.49 $315,057
NewAsphaltPavement 46,300 SF
Ͳ2"VDOTSMͲ12.5D,SurfaceCourse 571 TN 103.82 $59,243
Ͳ2"VDOTIMͲ19.0A,IntermediateCourse 571 TN 96.80 $55,239
Ͳ3"VDOTBMͲ25.0A,BaseCourse 839 TN 89.78 $75,344
Ͳ8"VDOT21B,AggregateBase 5,144 CY 8.83 $45,441
ͲMobilizationCharges 15 EA 3,000.00 $45,000
AsphPvmtTieͲInatExist.Roads
ͲMillExistAsphaltPaving 10,000 SF 2.00 $20,000
Ͳ2"AsphaltSurfaceCoursOverlayatTieIn 123 TN 120.00 $14,790
**EndofSection**
Marking&Signage 13.04 $13,623
TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 295 LF 1.50 $443
Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 3,015 LF 2.00 $6,030
Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 940 LF 3.00 $2,820
Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 100 LF 8.00 $800
Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) LF 0.00 $0
ͲArrowSymbol 3 EA 250.00 $750
ͲBikeLaneSymbol 2 EA 250.00 $500
BikeLaneSpecialCoating(GreenBikeBoxesonly) 152 SF 15.00 $2,280
**EndofSection**
G2030 PedestrianPaving 358.40 $374,524
PavedSurfaces 353.61 $369,524
PCCͲ1PCConcretePavers
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 18,100 SF 10.41 $188,349
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 18,100 SF 1.00 $18,100
Ͳ4"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 18,100 SF 4.00 $72,400
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 2,011 SY 5.13 $10,318
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 1,838 LF 15.00 $27,570
ͲThickenedSlabAdjacenttoPAVͲ1 LF 0.00 $0
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,A 176 LF 10.00 $1,760
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,B 456 LF 10.00 $4,560
Street, Ph 3
Page 3 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 300 SF 10.41 $3,122
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 300 SF 1.00 $300
Ͳ5"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 300 SF 5.00 $1,500
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 33 SY 5.13 $171
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 213 SF 10.00 $2,130
0.00 $0
PCCͲ2PCConcretePavers 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x4"PCPaver(HerringbonePattern) 600 SF 15.97 $9,583
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 600 SF 1.00 $600
Ͳ6"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 600 SF 6.00 $3,600
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 67 SY 5.13 $342
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 58 LF 15.00 $870
ͲConcreteTransitionStrips 975 SF 10.00 $9,750
0.00 $0
ConcreteHCRamps 600 SF 20.00 $12,000
0.00 $0
Misc.ConcretePavements/Infills 250 SF 10.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofNewPedest.Paving 21,959 sf
**EndofSection**
OtherWalks,Steps&Terraces 4.78 $5,000
Misc.RepairsatSteps/Ret.WallsͲAreaA 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2040 SiteDevelopment 503.07 $525,711
ExteriorFurnishings 272.01 $284,251
SiteBenches
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA(Single) 12 EA 2,722.50 $32,670
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA("Z"Pattern,Triple) 1 EA 8,167.50 $8,168
ͲBenchTypeB,BTB 11 EA 1,633.50 $17,969
ͲBenchTypeC,BTC 5 EA 2,178.00 $10,890
ͲBenchTypeD,BTD 2 EA 1,512.50 $3,025
ͲBenchTypeE,BTE EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
BicycleRack,TypeA,CTA 6 EA 726.00 $4,356
0.00 $0
LitterReceptacle,TypeA,LTA 4 EA 2,934.25 $11,737
0.00 $0
Planter,TypeA,PTA 13 EA 5,033.60 $65,437
Street, Ph 3
Page 4 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
SiteTables 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeA,TTA EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/SglChair EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(2ea)Chairs EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(3ea)Chairs EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
BusSheltors 2 EA 60,000.00 $120,000
ͲFoundations 2 EA 5,000.00 $10,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Signage 231.06 $241,461
StreetSignage
ͲPost/Footing 18 EA 90.75 $1,634
ͲPedestrianSign 2 EA 43.86 $88
ͲDirectionalArrow 3 EA 37.81 $113
ͲNoParkingSign 10 EA 55.96 $560
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 10 EA 25.71 $257
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 14 EA 25.71 $360
ͲOneWaySign EA 0.00 $0
ͲBikeLaneSign 3 EA 62.01 $186
ͲStopSign 1 EA 43.86 $44
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA 37.81 $151
ͲDeadEndSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA 68.06 $68
ͲReservedParkingSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲBeginTurningSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA 0.00 $0
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 35,000.00 $35,000
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding EA 0.00 $0
ͲCornerMarkers 1 EA 23,000.00 $23,000
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 15,000.00 $30,000
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge 1 EA 150,000.00 $150,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2050 Landscaping 336.04 $351,163
Plantings 16.08 $16,800
TraditionalShadeTrees
ͲTMD 5 EA 500.00 $2,500
Street, Ph 3
Page 5 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTSM 6 EA 350.00 $2,100
ͲTLG EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
SilvaCellShadeTrees 0.00 $0
ͲTMD 4 EA 500.00 $2,000
ͲTSM 4 EA 350.00 $1,400
ͲTLG 11 EA 800.00 $8,800
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Planters 319.96 $334,363
SilvaCellTreePits,(12countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 76.4 CY 9.68 $740
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 2,448.0 SF 1.92 $4,695
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 9.4 CY 34.97 $328
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 4.7 CY 41.75 $196
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 4.7 CY 47.80 $224
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 24 EA 219.31 $5,264
ͲRootBarrier 960 SF 7.56 $7,260
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 37.3 CY 54.45 $2,033
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 96.0 LF 12.00 $1,152
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $266
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 33.0 LF 10.00 $330
ͲMisc.Backfill 16.0 CY 23.60 $378
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 72.9 CY 20.00 $1,458
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(14countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 89.2 CY 9.68 $863
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 2,856.0 SF 1.92 $5,477
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 11.0 CY 34.97 $383
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 5.5 CY 41.75 $229
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 5.5 CY 47.80 $262
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 28 EA 219.31 $6,141
ͲRootBarrier 1,120 SF 7.56 $8,470
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 43.6 CY 54.45 $2,372
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 112.0 LF 10.00 $1,120
ͲOverflowRiser 3 EA 121.00 $303
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 37.5 LF 10.00 $375
ͲMisc.Backfill 18.7 CY 23.60 $440
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 85.0 CY 20.00 $1,701
Street, Ph 3
Page 6 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(15countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 23.9 CY 9.68 $231
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 765.0 SF 1.92 $1,467
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.9 CY 34.97 $103
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.5 CY 41.75 $61
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.5 CY 47.80 $70
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 15 EA 219.31 $3,290
ͲRootBarrier 300 SF 7.56 $2,269
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 11.7 CY 54.45 $635
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 60.0 LF 10.00 $600
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $169
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 21.0 LF 10.00 $210
ͲMisc.Backfill 5.0 CY 23.60 $118
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 22.8 CY 20.00 $456
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(20countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 31.9 CY 9.68 $308
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,020.0 SF 1.92 $1,956
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 3.9 CY 34.97 $137
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.0 CY 41.75 $82
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.0 CY 47.80 $93
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 20 EA 219.31 $4,386
ͲRootBarrier 400 SF 7.56 $3,025
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 15.6 CY 54.45 $847
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 80.0 LF 10.00 $800
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $218
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 27.0 LF 10.00 $270
ͲMisc.Backfill 6.7 CY 23.60 $157
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 30.4 CY 20.00 $607
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(23countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 146.5 CY 9.68 $1,418
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 4,692.0 SF 1.92 $8,999
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 18.0 CY 34.97 $629
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 9.0 CY 41.75 $376
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 9.0 CY 47.80 $430
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 46 EA 219.31 $10,088
Street, Ph 3
Page 7 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 1,840 SF 7.56 $13,915
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 71.6 CY 54.45 $3,896
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 184.0 LF 10.00 $1,840
ͲOverflowRiser 4 EA 121.00 $508
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 63.0 LF 10.00 $630
ͲMisc.Backfill 30.7 CY 23.60 $724
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 139.7 CY 20.00 $2,794
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(24countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 38.2 CY 9.68 $370
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,224.0 SF 1.92 $2,347
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 4.7 CY 34.97 $164
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.3 CY 41.75 $98
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.3 CY 47.80 $112
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 24 EA 219.31 $5,264
ͲRootBarrier 480 SF 7.56 $3,630
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 18.7 CY 54.45 $1,016
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 96.0 LF 10.00 $960
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $266
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 33.0 LF 10.00 $330
ͲMisc.Backfill 8.0 CY 23.60 $189
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 36.4 CY 20.00 $729
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(25countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 39.8 CY 9.68 $385
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,275.0 SF 1.92 $2,445
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 4.9 CY 34.97 $171
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.4 CY 41.75 $102
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.4 CY 47.80 $117
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 25 EA 219.31 $5,483
ͲRootBarrier 500 SF 7.56 $3,781
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 19.4 CY 54.45 $1,059
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 100.0 LF 10.00 $1,000
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $278
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 34.5 LF 10.00 $345
ͲMisc.Backfill 8.3 CY 23.60 $197
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 38.0 CY 20.00 $759
Street, Ph 3
Page 8 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(26countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 41.4 CY 9.68 $401
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,326.0 SF 1.92 $2,543
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 5.1 CY 34.97 $178
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.5 CY 41.75 $106
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.5 CY 47.80 $122
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 26 EA 219.31 $5,702
ͲRootBarrier 520 SF 7.56 $3,933
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 20.2 CY 54.45 $1,101
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 104.0 LF 10.00 $1,040
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $290
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 36.0 LF 10.00 $360
ͲMisc.Backfill 8.7 CY 23.60 $204
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 39.5 CY 20.00 $790
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(28countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 178.4 CY 9.68 $1,727
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 5,712.0 SF 1.92 $10,955
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 21.9 CY 34.97 $766
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 11.0 CY 41.75 $457
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 11.0 CY 47.80 $523
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 56 EA 219.31 $12,282
ͲRootBarrier 2,240 SF 7.56 $16,940
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 87.1 CY 54.45 $4,743
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 224.0 LF 10.00 $2,240
ͲOverflowRiser 5 EA 121.00 $617
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 76.5 LF 10.00 $765
ͲMisc.Backfill 37.3 CY 23.60 $881
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 170.1 CY 20.00 $3,401
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(44countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 70.1 CY 9.68 $678
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 2,244.0 SF 1.92 $4,304
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 8.6 CY 34.97 $301
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 4.3 CY 41.75 $180
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 4.3 CY 47.80 $206
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 44 EA 219.31 $9,650
Street, Ph 3
Page 9 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 880 SF 7.56 $6,655
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 34.2 CY 54.45 $1,863
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 176.0 LF 10.00 $1,760
ͲOverflowRiser 4 EA 121.00 $484
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 60.0 LF 10.00 $600
ͲMisc.Backfill 14.7 CY 23.60 $346
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 66.8 CY 20.00 $1,336
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
TotalSilvaCellTreePitClusters 14 EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
TypicalTreePlanter 11 EA 0.00 $0
ͲExcavation 26 CY 9.68 $252
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 220 SF 1.23 $271
ͲRootBarrier 704 SF 7.56 $5,324
ͲPlantingSoil 26 CY 54.45 $1,420
ͲTreeGrates 176 SF 158.81 $27,951
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
IrrigationSystems 0.00 $0
IrrigationSystemsAllowanceͲNone 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G30 SiteCivil/MechanicalUtilities 108.72 $113,613.94
G3020 SanitarySewer 5.74 $6,000
SanitarySewerPiping 5.74 $6,000
SanitarySewerModificationsAllowance
AdjustSanitSewerMHtoGrade 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000
(fromprevestimate)
**EndofSection**
G3030 StormSewer 102.98 $107,614
StormSewer 88.91 $92,912
NewStormSewer
ͲExcavation 489 CY 6.53 $3,194
ͲTrenchBox 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000
ͲPipeBedding 81 CY 36.91 $3,007
Ͳ15"StormPipe 35 LF 40.54 $1,419
Ͳ18"StormPipe 40 LF 49.01 $1,960
Ͳ24"StormPipe 475 LF 59.29 $28,163
ͲCurbInlets 7 EA 3,000.80 $21,006
Street, Ph 3
Page 10 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲManholesComplete 6 EA 4,259.20 $25,555
ͲBackfill 489 CY 7.38 $3,608
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherStormSewer 14.07 $14,702
RemoveExistingStormSewer
(Assumesimilarquantitiesasnew)
ͲExcavate/RemoveExistingPipe 550 LF 18.15 $9,983
ͲDemo/RemoveExistingStructures 13 EA 363.00 $4,719
**EndofSection**
G40 SiteElectricalUtilities 489.82 $511,857.44
G4010 UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 0.00 $0
UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 0.00 $0
Timmons DuctBankEstimate(SeeTimmonsDetailedBackup)
NoneinPhase3 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4020 SiteLighting 223.79 $233,857
ExteriorLightingFixtures&Controls 223.79 $233,857
Powerconduit/wireforparkingmeters/spareͲallow 1,800 LF 16.17 $29,106
LightingControlCabinetAssemblyLPͲA
ͲLightingpanel120/240v 1 EA 3,291.20 $3,291
ͲFusedsafetyswitch200a 1 EA 1,306.80 $1,307
ͲNEMA4Cabinet72x31x24 1 EA 2,613.60 $2,614
ͲMetersocket 1 EA 1,125.30 $1,125
ͲDuplexWP 1 EA 151.25 $151
ͲTelephonejack 1 EA 127.05 $127
ͲPhotocell 1 EA 580.80 $581
ͲGroundrod10' 1 EA 580.80 $581
ͲPVCconduitstubouts 40 LF 21.78 $871
ͲConcretepad43"x36"x30" 1 LS 919.60 $920
ͲAnchorbolts 4 EA 84.70 $339
SiteLighting
ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 34 EA 344.85 $11,725
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 19 EA 2,289.32 $43,497
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 8 EA 2,474.45 $19,796
ͲLightfixturepole,aluminum,18' 27 EA 1,252.35 $33,813
ͲLightingpolebases 27 EA 1,167.65 $31,527
ͲLightingconduit,1" 4,529 LF 4.21 $19,070
Street, Ph 3
Page 11 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH3ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲLightingwire#6 9,058 LF 1.91 $17,339
ͲLightingwiregnd#10 4,529 LF 0.89 $4,022
ͲTrenching/backfill 4,529 LF 2.66 $12,056
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4090 OtherSiteElectricalUtilities 266.03 $278,000
Signalization 266.03 $278,000
RemoveExist.TrafficSignalizationͲPh3 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@JPA4dir.) PH4 0.00 $0
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@11th4dir.) PH4 0.00 $0
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@10th4dir.) 1 EA 248,000.00 $248,000
NewPedestrianSignalizationͲ 1 EA 25,000.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
SubtotalͲBuilding&Site 2,929.07 $3,060,880
Street, Ph 3
Page 12 of 12 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
JeffersonParktoRooseveltBrownBlvd 845 LFofRoad
G BUILDINGSITEWORK 4,694.43 $3,966,791
G10 SitePreparations 843.44 $712,703
G1005 ProjectSetUp/Mobilization 211.43 $178,661
Mobilization 2.96 $2,500
EquipmentMobilization 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Erosion/SedimentControl 41.72 $35,250
Erosion/Sedim.Control
ͲSiltFence 3,500 LF 4.00 $14,000
ͲInletProtection 15 EA 250.00 $3,750
ͲConstructionEntrance 5 EA 3,500.00 $17,500
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TrafficControl 144.41 $122,027
TrafficBarricades
ͲConc.JerseyBarriers,(500lfx4locx4mo/loc) 2,000 LF 10.04 $20,086
ͲTempChainLinkFencing 2,000 LF 5.00 $10,000
ͲTrafficBarrels 40 EA 8.53 $341
ͲTrafficCones 250 EA 3.45 $862
0.00 $0
FlagmenͲ(2menx4mox4locatx1/2time) 2,768 MH 20.57 $56,938
0.00 $0
Pedest.AccesstoActiveBusinesses 1,690 LF 20.00 $33,800
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
ProtectExistingStructures 22.35 $18,884
ProtectAdjacentBuildings 4,000 SF 2.72 $10,890
0.00 $0
ProtectAdjacentStructures 0.00 $0
ͲFencing 423 LF 6.05 $2,556
ͲPlanters 423 LF 8.17 $3,451
ͲCurbs/Sidewalks 423 LF 3.33 $1,406
0.00 $0
ProtectExistingTreestoRemain 6 EA 96.80 $581
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1020 SiteDemolitionandRelocations 230.69 $194,936
TreeRemoval 17.75 $15,000
Street, Ph 4
Page 1 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
RemoveExistingTrees 10 EA 1,500.00 $15,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
AboveGroundSiteDemolition 186.32 $157,442
PavementDemo
ͲSawcutExistingPavement 1,000 LF 5.00 $5,000
ͲDemoExistAsphaltPavement 37,650 SF 0.92 $34,623
ͲDemoExistingWalks(Brick/Conc) 18,734 SF 1.88 $35,136
ͲDemoExistCurb/Gutter 1,650 LF 3.33 $5,490
ͲDisposalofDebris 1,343 CY 55.00 $73,886
0.00 $0
Misc.SiteDemo 0.00 $0
ͲDemoExist.SiteFurnishingsAllowance 50 EA 41.14 $2,057
ͲDemoExist.SignageAllowance 1 LS 1,250.00 $1,250
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofHardSurfaceDemo 56,384 sf 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherSiteDemolition&Relocations 26.62 $22,494
DemoBuriedTrolleyTracks 845 LF 26.62 $22,494
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G1030 SiteEarthwork 401.31 $339,107
Excavation/Grading 389.48 $329,107
UndercutUnsuit.Materials
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atAsphRds,30"dpth 3,486 CY 4.24 $14,764
ͲExcav.UnsuitMtrls,atWalks,30"dpth 1,735 CY 4.24 $7,346
ͲDisposalofMaterials,OffͲSite 5,221 CY 20.00 $104,415
ͲPlace/CompactSelectFill,Import,24"dpth 4,177 CY 39.14 $163,486
ͲFineGrade 56,384 SF 0.25 $14,096
0.00 $0
Contamin.SoilsDisposalAllowance 500 CY 50.00 $25,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
TemporaryDewatering 11.83 $10,000
LocalizedDewatering 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G20 SiteImprovements 1,557.67 $1,316,235
G2010 Roadways 387.98 $327,847
Street, Ph 4
Page 2 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
Curbs&Gutters 28.35 $23,958
ConcreteCurb/GutteratRoads 1,650 LF 14.52 $23,958
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
PavedSurfaces 320.83 $271,103
NewAsphaltPavement 37,650 SF
Ͳ2"VDOTSMͲ12.5D,SurfaceCourse 464 TN 103.82 $48,175
Ͳ2"VDOTIMͲ19.0A,IntermediateCourse 464 TN 96.80 $44,919
Ͳ3"VDOTBMͲ25.0A,BaseCourse 682 TN 89.78 $61,268
Ͳ8"VDOT21B,AggregateBase 4,183 CY 8.83 $36,951
ͲMobilizationCharges 15 EA 3,000.00 $45,000
AsphPvmtTieͲInatExist.Roads
ͲMillExistAsphaltPaving 10,000 SF 2.00 $20,000
Ͳ2"AsphaltSurfaceCoursOverlayatTieIn 123 TN 120.00 $14,790
**EndofSection**
Marking&Signage 38.80 $32,786
TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 860 LF 1.50 $1,290
Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 2,285 LF 2.00 $4,570
Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 735 LF 3.00 $2,205
Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 102 LF 8.00 $816
Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) LF 0.00 $0
ͲArrowSymbol 10 EA 250.00 $2,500
ͲBikeLaneSymbol EA 0.00 $0
BikeLaneSpecialCoating(GreenBikeBoxesonly) 1,427 SF 15.00 $21,405
**EndofSection**
G2030 PedestrianPaving 372.50 $314,767
PavedSurfaces 372.50 $314,767
PCCͲ1PCConcretePavers
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 15,950 SF 10.41 $165,976
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 15,950 SF 1.00 $15,950
Ͳ4"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 15,950 SF 4.00 $63,800
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 1,772 SY 5.13 $9,092
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 1,365 LF 15.00 $20,475
ͲThickenedSlabAdjacenttoPAVͲ1 LF 0.00 $0
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,A 304 LF 10.00 $3,040
ͲThkdSlabatPerim.OfTreeGrates,B 384 LF 10.00 $3,840
Street, Ph 4
Page 3 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 300 SF 10.41 $3,122
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 300 SF 1.00 $300
Ͳ5"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 300 SF 5.00 $1,500
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 33 SY 5.13 $171
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 250 SF 10.00 $2,500
0.00 $0
PCCͲ2PCConcretePavers 0.00 $0
Ͳ3"x12"x4"PCPaver(HerringbonePattern) 435 SF 15.97 $6,948
Ͳ1"UnilockChipStoneSettingBed 435 SF 1.00 $435
Ͳ6"Reinf.ConcreteSlab 435 SF 6.00 $2,610
Ͳ4"AggregateBase 48 SY 5.13 $248
ͲPerimeterSlabTurnDown/Up 34 LF 15.00 $510
ͲConcreteTransitionStrips 725 SF 10.00 $7,250
0.00 $0
ConcreteHCRamps 300 SF 20.00 $6,000
0.00 $0
Misc.ConcretePavements/Infills 100 SF 10.00 $1,000
0.00 $0
TotalSqftofNewPedest.Paving 18,734 sf
**EndofSection**
OtherWalks,Steps&Terraces 0.00 $0
Misc.RepairsatSteps/Ret.WallsͲAreaA LS 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2040 SiteDevelopment 437.38 $369,583
ExteriorFurnishings 217.91 $184,131
SiteBenches
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA(Single) EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeA,BTA("Z"Pattern,Triple) EA 0.00 $0
ͲBenchTypeB,BTB 4 EA 1,633.50 $6,534
ͲBenchTypeC,BTC 8 EA 2,178.00 $17,424
ͲBenchTypeD,BTD 6 EA 1,512.50 $9,075
ͲBenchTypeE,BTE 7 EA 8,228.00 $57,596
0.00 $0
BicycleRack,TypeA,CTA EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
LitterReceptacle,TypeA,LTA 3 EA 2,934.25 $8,803
0.00 $0
Planter,TypeA,PTA 3 EA 5,033.60 $15,101
Street, Ph 4
Page 4 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
0.00 $0
SiteTables 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeA,TTA 2 EA 2,299.00 $4,598
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/SglChair EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(2ea)Chairs EA 0.00 $0
ͲTableTypeB,TTBw/(3ea)Chairs EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
BusSheltors 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000
ͲFoundations 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Signage 219.47 $185,453
StreetSignage
ͲPost/Footing 26 EA 90.75 $2,360
ͲPedestrianSign 6 EA 43.86 $263
ͲDirectionalArrow 6 EA 37.81 $227
ͲNoParkingSign 17 EA 55.96 $951
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 17 EA 25.71 $437
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 15 EA 25.71 $386
ͲOneWaySign 1 EA 31.76 $32
ͲBikeLaneSign 8 EA 62.01 $496
ͲStopSign 3 EA 43.86 $132
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 3 EA 37.81 $113
ͲDeadEndSign 1 EA 55.96 $56
ͲToIͲ64Sign EA 0.00 $0
ͲReservedParkingSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲBeginTurningSign EA 0.00 $0
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA 0.00 $0
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 35,000.00 $35,000
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding EA 0.00 $0
ͲCornerMarkers 5 EA 23,000.00 $115,000
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 15,000.00 $30,000
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G2050 Landscaping 359.81 $304,038
Plantings 23.55 $19,900
TraditionalShadeTrees
ͲTMD 9 EA 500.00 $4,500
Street, Ph 4
Page 5 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTSM 8 EA 350.00 $2,800
ͲTLG 2 EA 800.00 $1,600
0.00 $0
SilvaCellShadeTrees 0.00 $0
ͲTMD 3 EA 500.00 $1,500
ͲTSM 2 EA 350.00 $700
ͲTLG 11 EA 800.00 $8,800
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
Planters 336.26 $284,138
SilvaCellTreePits,(10countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 15.9 CY 9.68 $154
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 510.0 SF 1.92 $978
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.0 CY 34.97 $68
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.0 CY 41.75 $41
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.0 CY 47.80 $47
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 10 EA 219.31 $2,193
ͲRootBarrier 200 SF 7.56 $1,513
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 7.8 CY 54.45 $424
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 60.0 LF 10.00 $600
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $121
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 15.0 LF 10.00 $150
ͲMisc.Backfill 3.3 CY 23.60 $79
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 15.2 CY 20.00 $304
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(12countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 19.1 CY 9.68 $185
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 612.0 SF 1.92 $1,174
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.3 CY 34.97 $82
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.2 CY 41.75 $49
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.2 CY 47.80 $56
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 12 EA 219.31 $2,632
ͲRootBarrier 240 SF 7.56 $1,815
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 9.3 CY 54.45 $508
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 72.0 LF 10.00 $720
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $145
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 18.0 LF 10.00 $180
ͲMisc.Backfill 4.0 CY 23.60 $94
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 18.2 CY 20.00 $364
Street, Ph 4
Page 6 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(14countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 22.3 CY 9.68 $216
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 714.0 SF 1.92 $1,369
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 2.7 CY 34.97 $96
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.4 CY 41.75 $57
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.4 CY 47.80 $65
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 14 EA 219.31 $3,070
ͲRootBarrier 280 SF 7.56 $2,118
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 10.9 CY 54.45 $593
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 84.0 LF 10.00 $840
ͲOverflowRiser 1 EA 121.00 $169
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 21.0 LF 10.00 $210
ͲMisc.Backfill 4.7 CY 23.60 $110
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 21.3 CY 20.00 $425
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(16countcluster) 3 EA
ͲExcavation 229.3 CY 9.68 $2,220
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 7,344.0 SF 1.92 $14,085
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 28.2 CY 34.97 $985
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 14.1 CY 41.75 $588
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 14.1 CY 47.80 $673
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 48 EA 219.31 $10,527
ͲRootBarrier 2,880 SF 7.56 $21,780
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 6.2 CY 23.60 $147
ͲPlantingSoil 112.0 CY 54.45 $6,098
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.6 CY 41.75 $25
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 288.0 LF 10.00 $2,880
ͲOverflowRiser 5 EA 121.00 $581
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 72.0 LF 10.00 $720
ͲMisc.Backfill 48.0 CY 23.60 $1,133
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 218.7 CY 20.00 $4,373
ͲTreeGrates 96.0 SF 98.31 $9,438
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(18countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 28.7 CY 9.68 $277
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 918.0 SF 1.92 $1,761
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 3.5 CY 34.97 $123
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 1.8 CY 41.75 $73
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 1.8 CY 47.80 $84
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 18 EA 219.31 $3,948
Street, Ph 4
Page 7 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲRootBarrier 360 SF 7.56 $2,723
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 14.0 CY 54.45 $762
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 108.0 LF 10.00 $1,080
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $218
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 27.0 LF 10.00 $270
ͲMisc.Backfill 6.0 CY 23.60 $142
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 27.3 CY 20.00 $547
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(23countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 36.6 CY 9.68 $355
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,173.0 SF 1.92 $2,250
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 4.5 CY 34.97 $157
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.2 CY 41.75 $94
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.2 CY 47.80 $107
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 23 EA 219.31 $5,044
ͲRootBarrier 460 SF 7.56 $3,479
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 17.9 CY 54.45 $974
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 138.0 LF 10.00 $1,380
ͲOverflowRiser 2 EA 121.00 $278
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 34.5 LF 10.00 $345
ͲMisc.Backfill 7.7 CY 23.60 $181
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 34.9 CY 20.00 $699
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(25countcluster) 2 EA
ͲExcavation 159.3 CY 9.68 $1,542
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 5,100.0 SF 1.92 $9,781
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 19.6 CY 34.97 $684
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 9.8 CY 41.75 $408
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 9.8 CY 47.80 $467
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 50 EA 219.31 $10,966
ͲRootBarrier 2,000 SF 7.56 $15,125
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 4.1 CY 23.60 $98
ͲPlantingSoil 77.8 CY 54.45 $4,235
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.4 CY 41.75 $17
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 300.0 LF 10.00 $3,000
ͲOverflowRiser 5 EA 121.00 $605
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 75.0 LF 10.00 $750
ͲMisc.Backfill 33.3 CY 23.60 $787
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 151.9 CY 20.00 $3,037
Street, Ph 4
Page 8 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲTreeGrates 64.0 SF 98.31 $6,292
0.00 $0
SilvaCellTreePits,(28countcluster) 1 EA
ͲExcavation 44.6 CY 9.68 $432
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 1,428.0 SF 1.92 $2,739
ͲAggregateSubbase,4" 5.5 CY 34.97 $191
Ͳ#8,#89StoneChokerLayer,2" 2.7 CY 41.75 $114
ͲSandChokerLayer,2" 2.7 CY 47.80 $131
Ͳ2xSilvaCells 28 EA 219.31 $6,141
ͲRootBarrier 560 SF 7.56 $4,235
ͲCompactedFillBeneathTree 2.1 CY 23.60 $49
ͲPlantingSoil 21.8 CY 54.45 $1,186
ͲWashedRiverRockoverRootBall 0.2 CY 41.75 $8
Ͳ6"UnderDrain 168.0 LF 10.00 $1,680
ͲOverflowRiser 3 EA 121.00 $339
Ͳ4"DistributerPipe 42.0 LF 10.00 $420
ͲMisc.Backfill 9.3 CY 23.60 $220
ͲHaulOffSurplusMaterials 42.5 CY 20.00 $850
ͲTreeGrates 32.0 SF 98.31 $3,146
0.00 $0
TotalSilvaCellTreePitClusters 11 EA 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
TypicalTreePlanter 19 EA 0.00 $0
ͲExcavation 45 CY 9.68 $436
ͲGeotextileFabricatBottofExcav 380 SF 1.23 $468
ͲRootBarrier 1,216 SF 7.56 $9,196
ͲPlantingSoil 45 CY 54.45 $2,452
ͲTreeGrates 304 SF 158.81 $48,279
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
IrrigationSystems 0.00 $0
IrrigationSystemsAllowanceͲNone 0.00 $0
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G30 SiteCivil/MechanicalUtilities 82.56 $69,763.54
G3020 SanitarySewer 7.10 $6,000
SanitarySewerPiping 7.10 $6,000
SanitarySewerModificationsAllowance
AdjustSanitSewerMHtoGrade 1 LS 6,000.00 $6,000
(fromprevestimate)
**EndofSection**
G3030 StormSewer 75.46 $63,764
StormSewer 63.97 $54,053
Street, Ph 4
Page 9 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
NewStormSewer
ͲExcavation 369 CY 6.53 $2,410
ͲTrenchBox 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000
ͲPipeBedding 61 CY 36.91 $2,269
Ͳ15"StormPipe 55 LF 40.54 $2,229
Ͳ18"StormPipe 360 LF 49.01 $17,642
Ͳ24"StormPipe LF 0.00 $0
ͲCurbInlets 3 EA 3,000.80 $9,002
ͲManholesComplete 3 EA 4,259.20 $12,778
ͲBackfill 369 CY 7.38 $2,723
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
OtherStormSewer 11.49 $9,710
RemoveExistingStormSewer
(Assumesimilarquantitiesasnew)
ͲExcavate/RemoveExistingPipe 415 LF 18.15 $7,532
ͲDemo/RemoveExistingStructures 6 EA 363.00 $2,178
**EndofSection**
G40 SiteElectricalUtilities 2,210.76 $1,868,089.07
G4010 UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 1,321.40 $1,116,586
UndergroundingOverheadUtilities 1,321.40 $1,116,586
Timmons DuctBankEstimate(SeeTimmonsDetailedBackup)
DominionVirginiaPowerUndergroundingInfrast. 1 LS 922,260.00 $922,260
ComcastUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 63,800.00 $63,800
LumosUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 71,774.00 $71,774
CenturyLinkUndergroundingInfrastructure 1 LS 58,752.00 $58,752
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4020 SiteLighting 231.36 $195,503
ExteriorLightingFixtures&Controls 231.36 $195,503
Powerconduit/wireforparkingmeters/spareͲallow 1,800 LF 16.17 $29,106
LightingControlCabinetAssemblyLPͲA(SEEPHASE3)
ͲLightingpanel120/240v PH3 0.00 $0
ͲFusedsafetyswitch200a PH3 0.00 $0
ͲNEMA4Cabinet72x31x24 PH3 0.00 $0
ͲMetersocket PH3 0.00 $0
ͲDuplexWP PH3 0.00 $0
ͲTelephonejack PH3 0.00 $0
ͲPhotocell PH3 0.00 $0
Street, Ph 4
Page 10 of 11 4/24/2017
West Main Street Corridor Improvements ROM Estimate
for 100% SD Documents
Charlottesville, VA
Dated 2-16-17
PH4ͲSTREETIMPROVEMENTS QTY UNIT $/UNIT TOTAL
ͲGroundrod10' PH3 0.00 $0
ͲPVCconduitstubouts PH3 0.00 $0
ͲConcretepad43"x36"x30" PH3 0.00 $0
ͲAnchorbolts PH3 0.00 $0
SiteLighting
ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 4 EA 344.85 $1,379
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 25 EA 2,289.32 $57,233
ͲLightfixturepole,aluminum,18' 25 EA 1,252.35 $31,309
ͲLightingpolebasesͲ 25 EA 1,167.65 $29,191
ͲLightingconduit,1" 4,080 LF 4.21 $17,180
ͲLightingwire#6 8,160 LF 1.91 $15,620
ͲLightingwiregnd#10 4,080 LF 0.89 $3,624
ͲTrenching/backfill 4,080 LF 2.66 $10,861
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
G4090 OtherSiteElectricalUtilities 657.99 $556,000
Signalization 657.99 $556,000
RemoveExist.TrafficSignalizationͲ 2 EA 5,000.00 $10,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@JPA4dir.) 1 EA 248,000.00 $248,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@11th4dir.) 1 EA 248,000.00 $248,000
NewTrafficSignalizationͲ(@10th4dir.) PH3 0.00 $0
NewPedestrianSignalizationͲPh4 2 EA 25,000.00 $50,000
0.00 $0
**EndofSection**
SubtotalͲBuilding&Site 4,694.43 $3,966,791
Street, Ph 4
Page 11 of 11 4/24/2017
PROJECTBUDGET
WESTMAINSTREETǦOVERALLSCHEMATICDESIGNDUCTBANKESTIMATE
CITYOFCHARLOTTESVILLE,VA
2/13/2017
PHASEI PHASEII PHASEIV
CONSTRUCTIONBIDCOSTS
DOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE $2,906,272 $2,442,228 $922,260
COMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE $208,117 $141,595 $63,800
LUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE $267,477 $195,100 $71,774
CENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE $191,200 $141,100 $58,752
SubͲTotal: $3,573,066 $2,920,023 $1,116,586
TOTAL: $3,573,066 $2,920,023 $1,116,586
Notes:
PROJECTBUDGETǦPHASEIDETAILEDBREAKDOWN
WESTMAINSTREETǦOVERALLSCHEMATICDESIGNDUCTBANKESTIMATE
CITYOFCHARLOTTESVILLE,VA
ENGINEER'SOPINIONOFPROBABLECOSTS
Item Quantity Unit UnitPrice Total
DOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE
2"PVCConduit 484 LF $8.00 $3,872.00
4"PVCConduit 8085 LF $12.00 $97,020.00
6"PVCConduit 5855 LF $16.00 $93,680.00
8"PVCConduit 3561 LF $20.00 $71,220.00
Opentrenching/backfill 2266 LF $30.00 $67,980.00
Terminalpoleconnections 5 EA $3,000.00 $15,000.00
SpliceBoxes 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000.00
ConcreteVault 7 EA $20,000.00 $140,000.00
ConcreteClassA3(concreteencasement) 400 CY $1,200.00 $480,000.00
preͲcastconcreteslabforpadͲmountedequipment 11 EA $3,500.00 $38,500.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyDVP 1 LS $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 23 EA $15,000.00 $345,000.00
SubǦTotalforDOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE: $2,906,272.00
COMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 1,671 LF $ 12.00 $20,052.00
Opentrenching/backfill 1671 LF $15.00 $25,065.00
Handholes 13 EA $1,000.00 $13,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyComcast 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 23 EA $5,000.00 $115,000.00
SubǦTotalforCOMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $208,117.00
LUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 1,351 LF $ 12.00 $16,212.00
Opentrenching/backfill 1351 LF $15.00 $20,265.00
Handholes 6 EA $1,000.00 $6,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyLumos 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 23 EA $5,000.00 $115,000.00
SubǦTotalforLUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $267,477.00
CENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 600 LF $ 12.00 $7,200.00
Opentrenching/backfill 600 LF $15.00 $9,000.00
Handholes 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyCenturyLink 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 23 EA $5,000.00 $115,000.00
SubǦTotalforCENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $191,200.00
PROJECTBUDGETǦPHASEIIDETAILEDBREAKDOWN
WESTMAINSTREETǦOVERALLSCHEMATICDESIGNDUCTBANKESTIMATE
CITYOFCHARLOTTESVILLE,VA
ENGINEER'SOPINIONOFPROBABLECOSTS
Item Quantity Unit UnitPrice Total
DOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE
2"PVCConduit 0 LF $8.00 $Ͳ
4"PVCConduit 6809 LF $12.00 $81,708.00
6"PVCConduit 3370 LF $16.00 $53,920.00
8"PVCConduit 2636 LF $20.00 $52,720.00
Opentrenching/backfill 996 LF $30.00 $29,880.00
Terminalpoleconnections 3 EA $3,000.00 $9,000.00
SpliceBoxes 6 EA $1,000.00 $6,000.00
ConcreteVault 3 EA $20,000.00 $60,000.00
ConcreteClassA3(concreteencasement) 300 CY $1,200.00 $360,000.00
preͲcastconcreteslabforpadͲmountedequipment 4 EA $3,500.00 $14,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyDVP 1 LS $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 15 EA $15,000.00 $225,000.00
SubǦTotalforDOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE: $2,442,228.00
COMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 985 LF $ 12.00 $11,820.00
Opentrenching/backfill 985 LF $15.00 $14,775.00
Handholes 5 EA $1,000.00 $5,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyComcast 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 15 EA $5,000.00 $75,000.00
SubǦTotalforCOMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $141,595.00
LUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 300 LF $ 12.00 $3,600.00
Opentrenching/backfill 300 LF $15.00 $4,500.00
Handholes 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyLumos 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 15 EA $5,000.00 $75,000.00
SubǦTotalforLUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $195,100.00
CENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 300 LF $ 12.00 $3,600.00
Opentrenching/backfill 300 LF $15.00 $4,500.00
Handholes 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyCenturyLink 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 15 EA $5,000.00 $75,000.00
SubǦTotalforCENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $141,100.00
PROJECTBUDGETǦPHASEIVDETAILEDBREAKDOWN
WESTMAINSTREETǦOVERALLSCHEMATICDESIGNDUCTBANKESTIMATE
CITYOFCHARLOTTESVILLE,VA
ENGINEER'SOPINIONOFPROBABLECOSTS
Item Quantity Unit UnitPrice Total
DOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE
2"PVCConduit 0 LF $8.00 $Ͳ
4"PVCConduit 2035 LF $12.00 $24,420.00
6"PVCConduit 940 LF $16.00 $15,040.00
8"PVCConduit 740 LF $20.00 $14,800.00
Opentrenching/backfill 200 LF $30.00 $6,000.00
Terminalpoleconnections 3 EA $3,000.00 $9,000.00
SpliceBoxes 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000.00
ConcreteVault 4 EA $20,000.00 $80,000.00
ConcreteClassA3(concreteencasement) 100 CY $1,200.00 $120,000.00
preͲcastconcreteslabforpadͲmountedequipment 4 EA $3,500.00 $14,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyDVP 1 LS $500,000.00 $500,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 7 EA $15,000.00 $105,000.00
SubǦTotalforDOMINIONVIRGINIAPOWERUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE: $922,260.00
COMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 400 LF $ 12.00 $4,800.00
Opentrenching/backfill 400 LF $15.00 $6,000.00
Handholes 3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyComcast 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 7 EA $5,000.00 $35,000.00
SubǦTotalforCOMCASTUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $63,800.00
LUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 362 LF $ 12.00 $4,344.00
Opentrenching/backfill 362 LF $15.00 $5,430.00
Handholes 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyLumos 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 7 EA $5,000.00 $35,000.00
SubǦTotalforLUMOSUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $71,774.00
CENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE
4"PVCConduit 176 LF $ 12.00 $2,112.00
Opentrenching/backfill 176 LF $15.00 $2,640.00
Handholes 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00
IncidentalItems(tracerwire,conduitbracing,shoring,etc.) 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Cable/EquipmentinstallationbyCenturyLink 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
PrivateServiceConnectiontoeachproperty/building 7 EA $5,000.00 $35,000.00
SubǦTotalforCENTURYLINKUNDERGROUNDINGINFRASTRCTURE: $58,752.00
WEST MAIN STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: GAS LINE REPLACEMENT WEST OF JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2017
DATE: 02/14/2017
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Job Set-Up
Maintenance of Traffic 2,000 LF 80.00 $ 160,000
Erosion Control
Inlet Protection 30 EA 250.00 $ 7,500
Clearing/Grading
General Excavation/Earthwork 1 LS 5,000.00 $ 5,000
Demolition
Demo Asphalt 750 SY 18.00 $ 13,500
Demo Curb and Gutter 150 LF 10.00 $ 1,500
Demo Sidewalks 200 SY 54.00 $ 10,800
Vehicular Paving - Asphalt
Saw Cut Existing Pavement 15,000 LF 15.00 $ 225,000
Asphalt Concrete Surface 2" (SM-9.5A) 65 Ton 120.00 $ 7,800
Asphalt Concrete Base 2.5" (IM-19.0D) 80 Ton 110.00 $ 8,800
Asphalt Concrete Base 3.5" (BM-25.0) 125 Ton 100.00 $ 12,500
Aggregate Base Material 8" (No. 21B) 275 Ton 25.00 $ 6,875
Concrete Curb 100 LF 20.00 $ 2,000
Pedestrian Paving
Sidewalk-Poured In Place Concrete 150 SF 8.00 $ 1,200
Aggr. Base Material 6" (No. 21B) 10 Ton 25.00 $ 250
Betterment Utilities (Gas Relocation)
4" PE Gas Main 2,100 LF 40.00 $ 84,000
1:42 PM
2" PE Gas Main 3,700 LF 30.00 $ 111,000
Main Line Excavation 1,600 CY 65.00 $ 104,000
Tie-in To Existing Main 9 EA 5,000.00 $ 45,000
Valves 21 EA 2,000.00 $ 42,000
1/2" Service Connections 45 EA 1,500.00 $ 67,500
Test Stations 6 EA 2,500.00 $ 15,000
Select Backfill 1,600 CY 40.00 $ 64,000
Subtotal: $ 995,000
Design Contengency (10%) $ 99,500
Additional Costs (Betterment Utilities):
Construction Contingency (20%) $ 199,000
PROJECT A (BETTERMENT UTILITIES) TOTAL: $ 1,294,000
1:42 PM
WEST MAIN STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: WATER AND GAS REPLACEMENT EAST OF JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2017
DATE: 02/14/2017
Betterment Utilities (Water & Gas Relocation)
WATER
12" DI Water Main 3,250 LF 80.00 $ 260,000
Main Line Excavation 2,200 CY 75.00 $ 165,000
Tie-in To Existing Main 23 EA 6,500.00 $ 149,500
12" Valves 18 EA 2,500.00 $ 45,000
Service Connections 53 EA 1,500.00 $ 79,500
Relocate Water Meters 3 EA 1,200.00 $ 3,600
Fire Hydrant Assemblies 19 EA 3,000.00 $ 57,000
Select Backfill 2,200 CY 40.00 $ 88,000
Water Improvements Subtotal: $ 848,000
GAS
4" PE Gas Main 3,650 LF 40.00 $ 146,000
Main Line Excavation 1,100 CY 65.00 $ 71,500
Tie-in To Existing Main 24 EA 5,000.00 $ 120,000
Valves 43 EA 2,000.00 $ 86,000
Service Connections 27 EA 1,500.00 $ 40,500
Test Stations 6 EA 2,500.00 $ 15,000
Select Backfill 1,100 CY 40.00 $ 44,000
On Site Gas Subtotal: $ 523,000
Subtotal Betterment Utilities Cost: $ 1,371,000
Design Contengency (10%) $ 137,000
Additional Costs
Construction Contingency (20%) $ 274,000
BETTERMENT UTILITIES TOTAL: $ 1,782,000
1:40 PM
Maintenance Estimate - Parks & Recreation
WESTMAINSTREETMAINTENANCETAKEOFF April282017
Task Frequency Occurances Durationperunit Units StaffHoursperOccurrence TotalHours CostPerHour TotalCost
TrashRemoval Daily 365 0.12 10 1.20 438.0 $26.00 $11,388
Blowing Daily 365 1.50 1 2.00 730.0 $26.00 $18,980
Sweeping Daily 365 1.50 1 2.00 730.0 $26.00 $18,980
TreeWatering WeeklyDuringSeason 30 0.12 151 18.12
543.6 $26.00 $14,134
TreeGrateMaintenance Annually 1 1.00 144 144.00 144.0 $26.00 $3,744
Planters WeeklyDuringSeason 40 0.12 86 10.32
412.8 $26.00 $10,733
BenchInspection&Repair WeeklyDuringSeason 52 0.25 1 0.25 13.0 $26.00 $ 338
Plantingbeds WeeklyDuringSeason 40 2.00 1 2.00 80.0 $26.00 $2,080
PaverRepairs AsNeeded 250 0.50 1 0.50 125.0 $26.00 $3,250
TableInspection&Repair WeeklyDuringSeason 52 0.25 1 0.25 13.0 $26.00 $ 338
TreePruning Annually 1 0.50 151 75.50
75.5 $26.00 $1,963
TravelTime Daily 365 1.00 3 3.00 1,095.0 $26.00 $28,470
TOTALHOURS 4,399.9 TotalAdditionalSalary $114,397
ANNUALHOURS 1,272.0 FICA $8,751
ADDITIONALFTE 3.46 Benefits(38%ofFTSalary) $43,471
CustodialSupplies $7,500
OtherSupplies $7,500
Fuel $2,000
TotalSalary&Operations $183,620
AdditionalEquipmentRequired(InitialCapitalExpense)
CrewVehicle $55,000
WaterTruck $60,000
AdditionalSweeper $75,000
SmallEngineEquipment $20,000
TotalEquipment $210,000
Total1stYearExpense $393,620
WestMainStreetProjectͲMaintenanceCostEstimates
PublicWorksInfrastructureResponsibilities
SummaryͲAllPhases
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE
Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 ALLPHASES
MarkingandSignage $4,680.53 $4,165.87 $2,874.13 $5,137.60 $16,858.13
RaisedCrosswalks $Ͳ $Ͳ $Ͳ $Ͳ $Ͳ
TransitAmenities $ 530.67 $ 165.83 $1,125.00 $2,250.00 $4,071.50
Signage $ 840.00 $1,470.00 $1,050.00 $1,260.00 $4,620.00
ExteriorLightingFixtures $10,773.00 $10,443.00 $7,920.00 $2,305.80 $31,441.80
Total $16,824.20
$16,244.70
$12,969.13
$10,953.40
$56,991.43
NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 ALLPHASES
MarkingandSignage $14,990.67 $5,914.27 $3,832.75 $9,342.93 $34,080.62
RaisedCrosswalks $2,329.50 $2,953.80 $1,504.80 $1,603.57 $8,391.67
TransitAmenities $20,000.00 $7,000.00 $14,000.00 $7,000.00 $48,000.00
Signage $21,490.40 $9,320.00 $25,240.00 $20,310.00 $76,360.40
ExteriorLightingFixtures $14,850.00 $12,130.02 $9,493.92 $8,584.95 $45,058.89
Total $73,660.57
$37,318.09
$54,071.47
$46,841.45
$211,891.57
VARIANCESUMMARY
Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 ALLPHASES
MarkingandSignage $10,310.13 $1,748.40 $ 958.62 $4,205.33 $17,222.48
RaisedCrosswalks $2,329.50 $2,953.80 $1,504.80 $1,603.57 $8,391.67
TransitAmenities $19,469.33 $6,834.17 $12,875.00 $4,750.00 $43,928.50
Signage $20,650.40 $7,850.00 $24,190.00 $19,050.00 $71,740.40
ExteriorLightingFixtures $4,077.00 $1,687.02 $1,573.92 $6,279.15 $13,617.09
Total $56,836.37
$21,073.39
$41,102.33
$35,888.05
$154,900.14
PERCENTCHANGESUMMARY
Phase1 Phase2 Phase3 Phase4 ALLPHASES
MarkingandSignage 220% 42% 33% 82% 102%
RaisedCrosswalks 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
TransitAmenities 3669% 4121% 1144% 211% 1079%
Signage 2458% 534% 2304% 1512% 1553%
ExteriorLightingFixtures 38% 16% 20% 272% 43%
Total 338% 130% 317% 328% 272%
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase1
6thStreettoRidge/McIntireRoadͲ 935LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
TrafficMarkings** TrafficMarking
4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 1714 LF 6 $1.50 $2,571.00 $0.15 $ 257.10 $ 685.60 Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 528 LF 6 $1.50 $ 792.00 $ 0.15 $ 79.20 $ 211.20
4"DoubleYellow 877 LF 6 $3.00 $2,631.00 $0.30 $ 263.10 $ 701.60 Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 3455 LF 6 $2.00 $6,910.00 $ 0.20 $ 691.00 $ 1,842.67
StopBar 7 EA 6 $500.00 $3,500.00 $50.00 $ 350.00 $ 933.33 Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 1047 LF 6 $3.00 $3,141.00 $ 0.30 $ 314.10 $ 837.60
Crosswalk 6 EA 6 $850.00 $5,100.00 $85.00 $ 510.00 $ 1,360.00 Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 374 LF 6 $8.00 $2,992.00 $ 0.80 $ 299.20 $ 797.87
ArrowSymbol 9 EA 6 $250.00 $2,250.00 $25.00 $ 225.00 $ 600.00 Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) 100 LF 6 $8.00 $ 800.00 $ 0.80 $ 80.00 $ 213.33
BikeLaneSymbol 6 EA 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 $25.00 $ 150.00 $ 400.00 ͲArrowSymbol 8 EA 6 $250.00 $2,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 200.00 $ 533.33
ͲBikeLaneSymbol 13 EA 6 $250.00 $3,250.00 $ 25.00 $ 325.00 $ 866.67
ͲBikeBoxes 2,422 SF 6 $15.00 $36,330.00 $ 1.50 $ 3,633.00 $ 9,688.00
$17,552.00 $ 1,755.20 $ 4,680.53 $56,215.00 $ 14,990.67
RaisedCrosswalks RaisedCrosswalks
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 500 SF 10 $10.41 $5,205.00 $ 2.08 $ 1,041.00 $ 1,561.50
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 288 SF 15 $10.00 $2,880.00 $ 2.00 $ 576.00 $ 768.00
$ Ͳ $ 2,329.50
TransitAmenities TransitAmenities
BusBench 2 EA 15 $995.00 $1,990.00 $199.00 $ 398.00 $ 530.67 BusShelters 2 EA 15 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $12,000.00 $20,000.00
$ 530.67 $ 20,000.00
Signage Signage+
StreetSignage
ͲPedestrianSign EA
ͲDirectionalArrow EA ͲPedestrianSign 4 EA $43.86
ͲNoParkingSign 10 EA ͲDirectionalArrow 5 EA $37.81
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 8 EA ͲNoParkingSign 11 EA $55.96
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 14 EA ͲTowAwayZoneSign 11 EA $25.71
ͲOneWaySign EA ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 17 EA $25.71
ͲBikeLaneSign 8 EA ͲOneWaySign EA $ Ͳ
ͲStopSign 2 EA ͲBikeLaneSign 8 EA $62.01
Ͳ2HourParkingSign EA ͲStopSign 2 EA $43.86
ͲDeadEndSign EA Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA $37.81
ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA ͲDeadEndSign EA $ Ͳ
ͲReservedParkingSign EA ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA $68.06
ͲDoNotEnterSign 2 EA ͲReservedParkingSign 2 EA $31.76
ͲBeginTurningSign EA ͲDoNotEnterSign 2 EA $55.96
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 1 EA ͲBeginTurningSign 2 EA $93.81
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 2 EA $74.11
TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 28 EA 10 150 $4,200.00 $15.00 $ 420.00 $ 840.00 TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 51 EA 10 150 $7,650.00 $ 15.00 $ 765.00 $ 1,530.00
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 20 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 3,500.00
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding EA $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲCornerMarkers 2 EA 20 $23,000.00 $46,000.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 4,600.00
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 20 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge EA $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲMemoryMarkers 168 EA 20 $328.00 $55,104.00 $ 16.40 $ 2,755.20 $ 5,510.40
ͲArtPanel 1 EA 20 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00
ͲRemembranceQuotes 10 EA 20 $350.00 $3,500.00 $ 17.50 $ 175.00 $ 350.00
$4,200.00 $ 420.00 $ 840.00 $207,254.00 $ 21,490.40
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase1
6thStreettoRidge/McIntireRoadͲ 935LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
ExteriorLightingFixtures*** ExteriorLightingFixtures
DominionͲOwnedStreetLight 5 EA 0 0 0 $108.60 $ 543.00 $ 543.00 ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 25 EA 20 $2,800.00 $70,000 $ 280.00 $7,000.00 $10,500.00
CityͲOwnedPedLight 31 EA 20 $2,200 $68,200
$220.00 $6,820.00 $10,230.00 ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/a 8 EA 20 $3,000.00 $24,000 $ 300.00 $2,400.00 $3,600.00
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1b,65wLED,singlehead/a 2 EA 20 $2,500.00 $5,000 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 $ 750.00
$ 10,773.00 $99,000.00 $ 14,850.00
$ 16,824.20 $ 73,660.57
*Total/YR=AnnualMaintenanceͲUtilitiesCost+(ReplacementValuedividedbyLifeCycle)
**MarkingsAnnualMaintenanceCostͲ10%assumedtorefreshadvancedwearingandrepairfollowingstreetcutsͲͲacceleratedbyheavywintersnowhauling
***LightFixturalAnnualMaintenanceCostͲDominionlights=unitcostperVEPGAcontractͲͲCitypedlights=10%relamping,painting,repairs
+StandardSignMaintenance10%ͲͲFixedsitesignage5%
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase2
Bridgeto6thStreetͲ 925LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
TrafficMarkings** TrafficMarkings
4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 1,774 LF 6 $1.50 $2,661.00 $0.15 $ 266.10 $ 709.60 TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
4"DoubleYellow 887 LF 6 $3.00 $2,661.00 $0.30 $ 266.10 $ 709.60 Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 169 LF 6 $1.50 $ 253.50 $ 0.15 $ 25.35 $ 67.60
StopBar 4 EA 6 $500.00 $2,000.00 $50.00 $ 200.00 $ 533.33 Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 2990 LF 6 $2.00 $5,980.00 $ 0.20 $ 598.00 $1,594.67
Crosswalk 8 EA 6 $850.00 $6,800.00 $85.00 $ 680.00 $1,813.33 Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 1805 LF 6 $3.00 $5,415.00 $ 0.30 $ 541.50 $1,444.00
ArrowSymbol EA 6 $250.00 $Ͳ $25.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 35 LF 6 $8.00 $ 280.00 $ 0.80 $ 28.00 $ 74.67
BikeLaneSymbol 6 EA 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 $25.00 $ 150.00 $ 400.00 Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) 0 LF 6 $8.00 $ Ͳ $ 0.80 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArrowSymbol 0 EA 6 $250.00 $ Ͳ $ 25.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲBikeLaneSymbol 11 EA 6 $250.00 $2,750.00 $ 25.00 $ 275.00 $ 733.33
ͲBikeBoxes 500 SF 6 $15.00 $7,500.00 $ 1.50 $ 750.00 $2,000.00
$15,622.00 $1,562.20 $4,165.87 $ 11,929.00 $2,217.85 $5,914.27
PavedSurfaces PavedSurfaces
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 700 SF 10 $10.41 $7,284.00 $ 2.08 $1,457.40 $2,185.80
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 288 SF 15 $10.00 $2,880.00 $ 2.00 $ 576.00 $ 768.00
$Ͳ $ 10,164.00 $2,033.40 $2,953.80
ExteriorFurnishings ExteriorFurnishings
BusBench 1 EA 15 $995.00 $995.00 $99.50 $ 99.50 $ 165.83 BusShelters 1 EA 15 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,000.00
$995.00 $ 99.50 $ 165.83 $ 60,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,000.00
Signage Signage+
ͲPedestrianSign 2 EA StreetSignage
ͲDirectionalArrow EA ͲPost/Footing 26 EA $90.75 $2,360.00
ͲNoParkingSign 11 EA ͲPedestrianSign 6 EA $43.86 $ 263.00
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 12 EA ͲDirectionalArrow 6 EA $37.81 $ 227.00
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 12 EA ͲNoParkingSign 12 EA $55.96 $ 672.00
ͲOneWaySign 1 EA ͲTowAwayZoneSign 14 EA $25.71 $ 360.00
ͲBikeLaneSign 6 EA ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 19 EA $25.71 $ 489.00
ͲStopSign 1 EA ͲOneWaySign 1 EA $Ͳ $ 32.00
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA ͲBikeLaneSign 4 EA $62.01 $ 248.00
ͲDeadEndSign EA ͲStopSign 1 EA $43.86 $ 44.00
ͲToIͲ64Sign EA Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA $37.81 $ 151.00
ͲReservedParkingSign EA ͲDeadEndSign 0 EA $Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA ͲToIͲ64Sign 2 EA $68.06 $ 136.00
ͲBeginTurningSign EA ͲReservedParkingSign 0 EA $31.76 $ Ͳ
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA ͲDoNotEnterSign 0 EA $55.96 $ Ͳ
ͲBeginTurningSign 0 EA $93.81 $ Ͳ
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 0 EA $74.11 $ Ͳ
TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 49 EA 10 $150.00 $7,350.00 $15.00 $ 735.00 $1,470.00 TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 69 EA 10 $150.00 $10,350.00 $ 15.00 $1,035.00 $2,070.00
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 0 EA 20 $35,000.00 $ Ͳ $1,750.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding 1 EA 20 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00
ͲCornerMarkers 2 EA 20 $23,000.00 $46,000.00 $1,150.00 $2,300.00 $4,600.00
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 1 EA 20 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 150.00
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge 0 EA 20 $Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲMemoryMarkers 0 EA 20 $328.00 $ Ͳ $ 16.40 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArtPanel 0 EA 20 $30,000.00 $ Ͳ $1,500.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲRemembranceQuotes 0 EA 20 $350.00 $ Ͳ $ 17.50 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$7,350.00 $1,470.00 $ 82,850.00 $3,625.00 $9,320.00
ExteriorLightingFixtures*** ExteriorLightingFixtures
DominionͲOwnedStreetLight 5 EA 0 $Ͳ $Ͳ $108.60 $ 543.00 $ 543.00 SiteLighting
CityͲOwnedPedLight 30 EA 20 $2,200.00 $66,000.00 $220.00 $6,600.00 $9,900.00 ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 33 EA $344.85 $11,380.00
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 31 EA 20 $2,289.32 $70,969.00 $ 228.93 $7,096.89 $10,645.34
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 4 EA 20 $2,474.45 $9,898.00 $ 247.45 $ 989.78 $1,484.68
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase2
Bridgeto6thStreetͲ 925LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT Cycle(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1b,65wLED,singlehead/arm 0 EA 20 $1,357.62 $ Ͳ $ 135.76 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$66,000.00 $ 10,443.00 $ 92,247.00 $8,086.67 $ 12,130.02
$89,967.00 $ 257,190.00 $ 37,318.09
*Total/YR=AnnualMaintenanceͲUtilitiesCost+(ReplacementValuedividedbyLifeCycle)
**MarkingsAnnualMaintenanceCostͲ10%assumedtorefreshadvancedwearingandrepairfollowingstreetcutsͲͲacceleratedbyheavywintersnowhauling
***LightFixturalAnnualMaintenanceCostͲDominionlights=unitcostperVEPGAcontractͲͲCitypedlights=10%relamping,painting,repairs
+StandardSignMaintenance10%ͲͲFixedsitesignage5%
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase3
RooseveltBrownBlvdtoBridgeͲ1,045 LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
TrafficMarkings** TrafficMarkings
SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 1,426 LF 6 $1.50 $2,139.00 $0.15 $ 213.90 $ 570.40 TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
DoubleYellow 713 LF 6 $3.00 $2,139.00 $0.30 $ 213.90 $ 570.40 Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 295 LF 6 $1.50 $ 443.00 $ 0.15 $ 44.25 $118.08
Crosswalk EA 6 $ 850.00 $Ͳ $85.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 3015 LF 6 $2.00 $6,030.00 $ 0.20 $ 603.00 $1,608.00
StopBar 7 EA 6 $ 500.00 $3,500.00 $50.00 $ 350.00 $ 933.33 Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 940 LF 6 $3.00 $2,820.00 $ 0.30 $ 282.00 $752.00
ArrowSymbol 5 EA 6 $ 250.00 $1,250.00 $25.00 $ 125.00 $ 333.33 Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 100 LF 6 $8.00 $ 800.00 $ 0.80 $ 80.00 $213.33
BikeLaneSymbol 7 EA 6 $ 250.00 $1,750.00 $25.00 $ 175.00 $ 466.67 Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) 0 LF 6 $8.00 $ Ͳ $ 0.80 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArrowSymbol 3 EA 6 $250.00 $ 750.00 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $200.00
ͲBikeLaneSymbol 10 EA 6 $250.00 $ 500.00 $ 25.00 $ 250.00 $333.33
ͲBikeBox 152 SF 6 $15.00 $2,280.00 $ 1.50 $ 228.00 $608.00
$10,778.00 $1,077.80 $2,874.13 $ 13,623.00 $1,562.25 $ 3,832.75
PavedSurfaces PavedSurfaces
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 300 SF 10 $10.41 $3,122.00 $ 2.08 $ 624.60 $936.80
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 213 SF 15 $10.00 $2,130.00 $ 2.00 $ 426.00 $568.00
$ Ͳ $5,252.00 $1,050.60 $ 1,504.80
ExteriorFurnishings ExteriorFurnishings
BusShelter 1 EA 10 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $375.00 $ 375.00 $1,125.00 BusShelters 2 EA 15 $60,000.00 $ 120,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $ 14,000.00
$7,500.00 $ 375.00 $1,125.00 $ 120,000.00 $6,000.00 $ 14,000.00
Signage Signage+
ͲPedestrianSign EA StreetSignage
ͲDirectionalArrow 4 EA ͲPost/Footing 18 EA $90.75 $1,634.00
ͲNoParkingSign 10 EA ͲPedestrianSign 2 EA $43.86 $ 88.00
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 10 EA ͲDirectionalArrow 3 EA $37.81 $ 113.00
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 5 EA ͲNoParkingSign 10 EA $55.96 $ 560.00
ͲOneWaySign EA ͲTowAwayZoneSign 10 EA $25.71 $ 257.00
ͲBikeLaneSign 2 EA ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 14 EA $25.71 $ 360.00
ͲStopSign 1 EA ͲOneWaySign 0 EA $Ͳ $ Ͳ
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 2 EA ͲBikeLaneSign 3 EA $62.01 $ 186.00
ͲDeadEndSign EA ͲStopSign 1 EA $43.86 $ 44.00
ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA Ͳ2HourParkingSign 4 EA $37.81 $ 151.00
ͲReservedParkingSign EA ͲDeadEndSign 0 EA $Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA $68.06 $ 68.00
ͲBeginTurningSign EA ͲReservedParkingSign 0 EA $31.76 $ Ͳ
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA ͲDoNotEnterSign 0 EA $55.96 $ Ͳ
ͲBeginTurningSign 0 EA $93.81 $ Ͳ
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 0 EA $74.11 $ Ͳ
TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 35 EA 10 $ 150.00 $5,250.00 $15.00 $ 525.00 $1,050.00 TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 48 EA 10 $150.00 $7,200.00 $ 15.00 $ 720.00 $1,440.00
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 20 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $3,500.00
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding 0 EA 20 $Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲCornerMarkers 1 EA 20 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $2,300.00
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 20 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $ 750.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge 1 EA 20 $150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $ 15,000.00
ͲMemoryMarkers 0 EA 20 $328.00 $ Ͳ $ 16.40 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArtPanel 0 EA 20 $30,000.00 $ Ͳ $1,500.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲRemembranceQuotes 0 EA 20 $350.00 $ Ͳ $ 17.50 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$1,050.00 $ 248,661.00 $ 25,240.00
ExteriorLightingFixtures*** ExteriorLightingFixtures
DominionͲOwnedStreetLight 0 EA 0 $Ͳ $Ͳ $108.60 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ SiteLighting
CityͲOwnedPedLight 24 EA 20 $2,200.00 $52,800.00 $220.00 $5,280.00 $7,920.00 ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 34 EA $344.85 $11,725.00
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 19 EA 20 $2,289.32 $43,497.00 $ 228.93 $4,349.71 $6,524.56
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase3
RooseveltBrownBlvdtoBridgeͲ1,045 LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(YRS) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 8 EA 20 $2,474.45 $19,796.00 $ 247.45 $1,979.56 $2,969.36
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1b,65wLED,singlehead/arm EA 20 $1,357.62 $ Ͳ $ 135.76 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$7,920.00 $ 75,018.00 $6,329.27 $ 9,493.92
$ 12,969.13 $ 462,554.00 $ 54,071.47
*Total/YR=AnnualMaintenanceͲUtilitiesCost+(ReplacementValuedividedbyLifeCycle)
**MarkingsAnnualMaintenanceCostͲ10%assumedtorefreshadvancedwearingandrepairfollowingstreetcutsͲͲacceleratedbyheavywintersnowhauling
***LightFixturalAnnualMaintenanceCostͲDominionlights=unitcostperVEPGAcontractͲͲCitypedlights=10%relamping,painting,repairs
+StandardSignMaintenance10%ͲͲFixedsitesignage5%
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase4
JeffersonParktoRooseveltBrownBlvdͲ845 LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
TrafficMarkings** TrafficMarkings
SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 3296 6 $1.50 $4,944.00 $0.15 $ 494.40 $1,318.40 TrafficMarkings(ThermoPlastic)
DoubleYellow 824 6 $3.00 $2,472.00 $0.30 $ 247.20 $ 659.20 Ͳ4"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 860 LF 6 $1.50 $1,290.00 $ 0.15 $ 129.00 $ 344.00
Crosswalk 6 6 $850.00 $5,100.00 $85.00 $ 510.00 $1,360.00 Ͳ6"SingleWhiteLine(SolidandStriped) 2,285 LF 6 $2.00 $4,570.00 $ 0.20 $ 457.00 $1,218.67
StopBar 9 6 $500.00 $4,500.00 $50.00 $ 450.00 $1,200.00 Ͳ4"DoubleYellowSolidLines 735 LF 6 $3.00 $2,205.00 $ 0.30 $ 220.50 $ 588.00
ArrowSymbol 8 EA 6 $250.00 $2,000.00 $25.00 $ 200.00 $ 533.33 Ͳ24"SolidWhiteLine(StopBar) 102 LF 6 $8.00 $ 816.00 $ 0.80 $ 81.60 $ 217.60
BikeLaneSymbol 1 EA 6 $250.00 $250.00 $25.00 $ 25.00 $ 66.67 Ͳ24"SolidYellowLine(Goring) Ͳ LF 6 $8.00 $ Ͳ $ 0.80 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArrowSymbol 10 EA 6 $250.00 $2,500.00 $ 25.00 $ 250.00 $ 666.67
ͲBikeLaneSymbol 9 EA 6 $250.00 $2,250.00 $ 25.00 $ 225.00 $ 600.00
ͲBikeBox 1,427 SF 6 $15.00 $21,405.00 $ 1.50 $2,140.50 $5,708.00
$19,266.00 $1,926.60 $5,137.60 $ 35,036.00 $3,374.60 $9,342.93
PavedSurfaces PavedSurfaces
PCCͲ1PCConcretePaversatRaisedCrossWalks
Ͳ3"x12"x2Ͳ1/4"PCPaver 300 SF 10 $10.41 $3,123.00 $ 2.08 $ 624.60 $ 936.90
Ͳ2'5"Widex8"ThickConcTransitionStrips 250 SF 15 $10.00 $2,500.00 $ 2.00 $ 500.00 $ 666.67
$ Ͳ $5,623.00 $1,124.60 $1,603.57
ExteriorFurnishings ExteriorFurnishings
BusShelter 2 EA 10 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $375.00 $ 750.00 $2,250.00 BusShelters 1 EA 15 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,000.00
$15,000.00 $ 750.00 $2,250.00 $60,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,000.00
Signage Signage+
ͲPedestrianSign EA StreetSignage
ͲDirectionalArrow EA ͲPost/Footing 26 EA $90.75
ͲNoParkingSign 12 EA ͲPedestrianSign 6 EA $43.86
ͲTowAwayZoneSign 10 EA ͲDirectionalArrow 6 EA $37.81
ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 8 EA ͲNoParkingSign 17 EA $55.96
ͲOneWaySign 1 EA ͲTowAwayZoneSign 17 EA $25.71
ͲBikeLaneSign 6 EA ͲEmergencySnowRouteSign 15 EA $25.71
ͲStopSign 2 EA ͲOneWaySign 1 EA $Ͳ
Ͳ2HourParkingSign 2 EA ͲBikeLaneSign 8 EA $62.01
ͲDeadEndSign EA ͲStopSign 3 EA $43.86
ͲToIͲ64Sign 1 EA Ͳ2HourParkingSign 3 EA $37.81
ͲReservedParkingSign EA ͲDeadEndSign 1 EA $Ͳ
ͲDoNotEnterSign EA ͲToIͲ64Sign 0 EA $68.06
ͲBeginTurningSign EA ͲReservedParkingSign 0 EA $31.76
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign EA ͲDoNotEnterSign 0 EA $55.96
ͲBeginTurningSign 0 EA $93.81
ͲRtLaneMustTurnRightSign 0 EA $74.11
TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 42 EA 10 $150.00 $6,300.00 $15.00 $ 630.00 $1,260.00 TOTALALL(averagedcost/sign) 77 EA 10 $150.00 $ 11,550.00 $ 15.00 $1,155.00 $2,310.00
SiteSignageAllowances
ͲCustomConcreteTopographicalMap 1 EA 20 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $3,500.00
ͲCommunityBoard/WayFinding 0 EA 20 $Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲCornerMarkers 5 EA 20 $23,000.00 $ 115,000.00 $1,150.00 $5,750.00 $11,500.00
ͲTransitInterpretationatBusStop 2 EA 20 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $ 750.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
ͲCommemorativeWalkatBridge 0 EA 20 $Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲMemoryMarkers 0 EA 20 $328.00 $ Ͳ $ 16.40 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲArtPanel 0 EA 20 $30,000.00 $ Ͳ $1,500.00 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲRemembranceQuotes 0 EA 20 $350.00 $ Ͳ $ 17.50 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$6,300.00 $ 630.00 $1,260.00 $ 180,000.00 $9,000.00 $ 20,310.00
ExteriorLightingFixtures*** ExteriorLightingFixtures
DominionͲOwnedStreetLight 3 EA 0 $Ͳ $Ͳ $108.60 $ 325.80 $ 325.80 SiteLighting
CityͲOwnedPedLight 6 EA 20 $2,200.00 $13,200.00 $220.00 $1,320.00 $1,980.00 ͲRemoveexistingfixtures,poles,baseͲallow 4 EA $344.85 $1,379.40
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1,115wLED,dualhead/arm 25 EA 20 $2,289.32 $57,233.00 $ 228.93 $5,723.30 $8,584.95
WestMainStreetProjectCostEstimates
Phase4
JeffersonParktoRooseveltBrownBlvdͲ845 LFofRoad
EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE NEWDESIGNINFRASTRUCTURE
REPLACEMENT MAINTͲUTILITIES/YR TOTAL/YR* REPLACEMENT MAINT/YR TOTAL/YR*
ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL ITEM QTY UNIT CYCLE(Yrs) $/UNIT TOTAL $/UNIT TOTAL TOTAL
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1a,130wLED,dualhead/arm 0 EA 20 $2,474.45 $ Ͳ $ 247.45 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
ͲLightfixture,typeKX1b,65wLED,singlehead/arm 0 EA 20 $1,357.62 $ Ͳ $ 135.76 $ Ͳ $ Ͳ
$13,200.00 $1,645.80 $2,305.80 $58,612.40 $5,723.30 $8,584.95
$10,953.40 $ 339,271.40 $ 46,841.45
*Total/YR=AnnualMaintenanceͲUtilitiesCost+(ReplacementValuedividedbyLifeCycle)
**MarkingsAnnualMaintenanceCostͲ10%assumedtorefreshadvancedwearingandrepairfollowingstreetcutsͲͲacceleratedbyheavywintersnowhauling
***LightFixturalAnnualMaintenanceCostͲDominionlights=unitcostperVEPGAcontractͲͲCitypedlights=10%relamping,painting,repairs
+StandardSignMaintenance10%ͲͲFixedsitesignage5%
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: May 15, 2017
Action Required: Amendments to Retirement Plan
Presenter: Maurice Jones, City Manager
Staff Contacts: Allyson Manson Davies, Deputy City Attorney
Chris Cullinan, Finance Director
Jason Vandever, City Treasurer
Title: Retirement Fund Sustainability Recommendations
Background:
The City of Charlottesville offers two retirement plan options to regular employees working at
least 20 hours per week, 36 weeks per year. The plan options are a Defined Contribution 401a
(DC) and a Defined Benefit Pension Plan (DB). Upon hire, employees have 30 days to elect
either the DC or DB Plan.
A Defined Contribution (DC) 401a plan by definition is a plan in which fixed contributions are
paid into an individual's account by the employer. The contributions are then invested and
returns on the investments (which can be positive or negative) are credited to the individual's
account. Upon retirement, the employee's account balance is used to provide retirement benefits.
A Defined Benefit (DB) Pension plan by definition is a traditional pension plan that pays a
monthly benefit in retirement using a defined formula based on the employee's earnings, tenure
of service, and age.
A voluntary Deferred Compensation 457 Plan is available for employees to invest their own
monies for additional retirement savings. Deferred Compensation Plans allow contributions on a
tax-deferred basis as savings toward retirement.
Recently, due to national attention focused on the underfunding of pension and retirement
systems in the public sector, the City committed to ensuring that there are sufficient funds
available to meet promised obligations made to City employees. Rising health
care costs and improved life spans over the past decades have made employer retirement costs
rise dramatically. This has in many cases negatively affected the retirement funds
that are established to assist employers meet their long term obligations.
In an effort to ensure the City is taking necessary steps now, so that in the future, our employees’
retirements will be secure, the Retirement Commission, whose duty as outlined by City Code is
to administer the City retirement plan, commissioned a Retirement Sustainability Study in 2015
to review the City’s Defined Benefit (DB) Plan benefits and funding strategies, and to offer
recommendations for future investments.
Most financial experts consider a funded status of 80% for public pensions to be a healthy
funding level. The City’s plan was funded at 54.4% prior to the study. After an initial review of
the Sustainability Study in early 2016, the Retirement Commission and City Manager committed
to reaching an 80% funded status in the next 10 years.
In the summer of 2016, the City Manager and members of the Retirement Commission held 13
meetings with over 420 employees to discuss the options for reaching sustainability. Ideas
generated during those discussions were reviewed by representatives from SageView Consulting
to determine feasibility and impact.
Discussion:
In October, the Retirement Commission met to discuss several options before voting on a
preferred plan. On February 6th, the City Manager presented three options to City Council for
consideration. The City Manager recommended the following changes to the retirement plan to
promote the plan’s sustainability:
ï‚· Phased in 2% Contribution for Plan 1 employees (hired before 7-1-12)
ï‚· 5% Employee contribution for new hires starting 7/1/17
ï‚· Retiree COLA requires 15 years of service
ï‚· COLA requires retirement from the City and becomes effective after 1 full year of
retirement
ï‚· Capping the public safety supplement at the estimated full Social Security benefit for all
Public Safety Employees
ï‚· Capping the public safety supplement at 17 years prior to Social Security eligibility
(current benefit)
City Council agreed with the City Manager’s proposal and directed staff to return to Council at a
later date for approval of the necessary ordinance changes. This proposal is projected to meet the
Retirement Commission’s goal of reaching 80% funded status in the next ten to twelve years.
Each approved change can be found in the following sections of the attached ordinance:
(1) The phased in 2% Contribution for employees hired before 7-1-12 is located in Sec. 19-
92(a)(1) in the attached ordinance. This section applies the new contribution rate to all
participating employees including police officers, firefighters, sheriffs or sheriff's
deputies. After July 1, 2018, all employees in this class will contribute two-percent each
pay period.
(2) A 5% Employee contribution for new hires starting 7/1/17 can be found under Sec. 19-
92(a)(3). This section establishes the five percent contribution rate for city employees
hired after June 30, 2017.
(3) The amendment to require 15 years of service and retirement from the city to be eligible
for cost of living increases can be found in Sec. 19-107(a).
(4) The one year delay in eligibility for a cost of living adjustment is established in Sec. 19-
107(c).
(5) The change to capping the public safety supplement at the estimated full Social Security
benefit for all Public Safety Employees can be found in Sec. 19-96(c). This section makes
it clear that the effective date is delayed until after June 30, 2020.
(6) The change to capping the public safety supplement at 17 years prior to Social Security
eligibility can be found under Sec. 19-96(c). This is the current practice and it is now
expressly established by ordinance.
Since Council addressed this issue in February, some additional administrative updates have
been made to Chapter 19, Article IV of the Supplemental Retirement and Pension Plan as
follows:
ï‚· Several code updates are included in order to comply with the most recent tax
determination letter received for the plan from the Internal Revenue Service. These
updates are required by the IRS and can be found in Section 19-63; Section 19-95; and
Section 19-111.
ï‚· Pursuant to a review of the actuarial standards currently being applied to the defined
benefit retirement fund, the city was advised to amend Section 19-92 (d), (e), & (f) to
reflect the current method for establishing contribution rates for that plan.
ï‚· Sec. 19-94 (a) now clarifies the components of the contribution rate in that section.
 A three year “grandfathering†clause has been added to the provision that caps the public
safety supplement at the estimated full Social Security benefit level for employees who
were hired before July 1, 2012 (“Plan 1†employees). Public safety employees who were
hired before July 1, 2012 who retire before July 1, 2020 will not be subject to this new
provision. This can be found in Sec. 19-96(c) as discussed above.
Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan:
Smart, Citizen-Focused Government
The delivery of quality services is at the heart of Charlottesville’s social compact with its
citizens. This action is consistent with Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan – Be a Well-Managed and
Successful Organization, by maintaining strong fiscal policies and helping to recruit and cultivate
quality employees.
Budgetary Impact:
There will be no impact on the General Fund. It is anticipated that the savings created in the
Retirement Sustainability Plan would be reinvested in the City’s Defined Benefit (Pension) Plan
to help the City reach its goal of an 80% funded status for its retirement fund.
Recommendation: Approval of the ordinance changes.
Alternatives: Council could decide to not support the proposed changes and request that the
staff and Retirement Commission return with other alternatives in the future.
Attachments: Ordinance
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 19-63 OF ARTICLE III, AND
SECTIONS 19-92, 19-93, 19-94, 19-95, 19-96, 19-98, 19-104, 19-104.1, 19-107 AND
19-111 OF ARTICLE IV, OF CHAPTER 19 (PERSONNEL), OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO
CHANGES TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT OR PENSION PLAN
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that
Section 19-63 of Article III, and Sections 19-92, 19-93, 19-94, 19-95, 19-96, 19-98, 19-
104, 19-104.1, 19-107 and 19-111 of Article IV, of Chapter 19 of the Charlottesville City
Code, 1990, as amended, are hereby amended and reordained, as follows:
ARTICLE III. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMISSION
Sec. 19-63. Retirement fund generally.
All of the funds and assets of the city’s supplemental retirement or pension plan shall be
maintained by the commission in a fund to be known as the retirement fund. In the
retirement fund shall be accumulated all contributions made by the city pursuant to the
provisions of section 19-92 and all income from the invested assets of the retirement
fund. From the retirement fund shall be paid the retirement allowances and other benefits
provided for under the terms of the retirement plan as set forth in article IV of this
chapter and reasonable expenses therefore. The fund and the retirement plan shall be
maintained for the exclusive benefit of employees or their beneficiaries.
ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT OR PENSION PLAN
Sec. 19-92. Contributions and members’ contribution account.
(a) Each member, including a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy,
shall contribute a percentage of his creditable compensation each pay period as follows:
(1) Each member, except a person who becomes a member after July 1, 2012 as
defined in Section 19-91, shall contribute one percent (1%) of his creditable
compensation each pay period beginning on or after July 1, 2017, until the
first pay period beginning on or after July 1, 2018. For each pay period
beginning on or after July 1, 2018, said member shall contribute two percent
(2%) of his creditable compensation.
(2) Each person who becomes a member after June 30, 2012 and who is hired or
rehired before July 1, 2017 shall contribute three percent (3%) of his
creditable compensation each pay period.
1
(3) Each person who becomes a member after June 30, 2012 and who is hired or
rehired after June 30, 2017 shall contribute five percent (5%) of his creditable
compensation each pay period.
(a) Beginning June 30, 2012, each person who becomes a member after June 30, 2012
including a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy, shall contribute 3% of
his creditable compensation each pay period. No contributions shall be deducted from the
compensation of any member who is not a person who became a member after June 30,
2012.
The city and any other employer adopting the plan shall deduct the applicable
contribution payable by the member and every employee accepting or continuing
employment shall be deemed to consent and agree to any deductions from his creditable
compensation required by this section.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the employee contributions, although designated
as employee contributions hereunder, will be paid by the city and any other employer
adopting the plan and shall be treated as employer contributions pursuant to Section
414(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and shall not be included as
gross income of the employee until such time as they are distributed or made available to
the employee. The city and any other employer adopting the plan shall “pick-up†the
employee contributions by reducing the amount payable to each employee by the amount
of his required employee contribution on a salary reduction basis.
(b) Beginning July 1, 1992, the city council shall appropriate, and the city shall
contribute annually to the retirement fund established pursuant to section 19-63, an
amount equal to the sum of the normal contribution, and the accrued liability
contribution, if any.
(c) The normal contribution for any year shall be determined as a percentage,
equal to the normal contribution rate, of the total creditable compensation of the members
for such year. Similarly, the accrued liability contribution rate for any year shall be
determined as a percentage, equal to the accrued liability contribution rate, of such total
creditable compensation. In determining the amount of any contribution, a reasonable
approximation to the exactly computed amount may be used.
(d) The normal contribution rate shall be determined as the percentage of the
total annual creditable compensation of the members that is represented by the sum of the
annual service cost determined under the projected unit credit funding method, computed
in accordance with recognized actuarial principles on the basis of methods and
assumptions approved by the commission. The normal contribution rate shall be
determined from the results of each valuation which shall be made as directed by the
commission not less frequently than biennially.
2
(e) The accrued liability contribution rate shall be determined as the percentage
of the total annual creditable compensation of the members that is represented by the
level annual contribution necessary to:
(1) Amortize the unfunded actuarial accrued liability as of July 1, 1992 over
thirty (30) years from July 1, 1992 with payments increasing four (4) percent
each year, as a level percentage of covered payroll over a closed period not to
exceed thirty (30) years as directed by the Commission; and
(2) Amortize any increase or decrease in the actuarial accrued liability due to the
plan changes, actuarial gains, and/or actuarial losses incurred after January 1,
1992 over twenty (20) years from the date of the actuarial valuation first
recognizing such increase or decrease with payments increasing four (4)
percent each year.as a level percent of covered payroll over a closed period
not to exceed thirty (30) years as directed by the Commission.
The unfunded actuarial accrued liability as of any valuation date shall be
determined in accordance with the projected unit credit funding method, in accordance
with recognized actuarial principles on the basis of methods and assumptions approved
by the commission.
The accrued liability contribution rate shall be determined from the results of each
valuation, which shall be made as directed by the commission not less frequently than
biennially.
(f) The commission shall certify to city council the normal contribution rate, the
accrued liability contribution rate and every change made from time to time in any of
such rates.
(g) All members’ contributions and interest allowances shall be credited to the
member’s contribution account. Accumulated contributions required to be returned to the
member or required to be paid on account of the member’s death shall be paid from the
member’s contribution account. As of each June 30, the member contribution account of
each active member shall be credited with interest at a rate to be determined annually by
the retirement commission. Initially, the rate shall be three percent (3%) annually.
Interest shall accrue on any contribution beginning on the first day of the fiscal year
following the year in which the contribution was made. No interest shall be credited to
the member contribution account after the effective date of the member’s retirement.
Sec. 19-93. Membership; cessation.
(a) Membership in the plan as of any date shall consist of the following:
(1) All employees at such date, inclusive of those on authorized leave from
service.
3
(2) All former employees who have not retired under the provisions of the plan
and who either:
a. Have five (5) years or more of creditable service and were in service at
some time after June 30, 1975, and who have not received a refund of
such member’s accumulated contributions pursuant to section 19-104.1
or
b. Have twenty (20) years or more of creditable service and were included
in the membership of the plan on June 30, 1975.
(b) The membership of any person in the plan shall cease upon:
(1) Termination of service as an employee prior to the completion of five (5)
years of creditable service, or in the case of a person who becomes a member
after June 30, 2012, the refund of such member’s accumulated contributions
pursuant to section 19-104.1; or
(2) Retirement; or
(3) Death.
(c) When membership ceases, except in the case of retirement or of death under
circumstances calling for the payment of benefits hereunder, an employee shall thereafter
lose all right to any retirement allowance or benefits under this article arising from
service prior to the date of such cessation of membership except for any vested deferred
retirement benefits such employee might be entitled to receive, provided that if any such
employee should subsequently again be in service, his previous period or periods of
creditable service shall be reinstated. In the case of a person who becomes a member
after June 30, 2012, if Any such person that received a refund of his accumulated
contributions pursuant to section 19-104.1, he shall be treated as a new member upon
subsequent reemployment. If no refund was made, his all previous period or periods of
creditable service shall be reinstated.
Sec. 19-94. Participation in defined contribution and deferred compensation plans.
(a) The city manager may approve the withdrawal from membership in the plan of
any employee who is exempt from the personnel appeals system as set forth in section
19-36(b) and may execute an agreement for such employee to participate in an optional
defined contribution plan approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a qualified plan
within the meaning of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Such agreement may provide that the city shall contribute to such plan an annual amount
no greater than the total amount which the city would contribute to the city plan on behalf
of such employee for such year pursuant to section 19-92(b). The contribution shall not
include any contribution made to fund the City’s post-employment benefits trust in
accordance with section 19-141. Any employee who enters into such an agreement shall
be deemed to have terminated all membership in the supplemental retirement or pension
4
plan of the city and to have waived any rights whatsoever to any benefits thereunder.
Upon execution of any such agreement, the retirement plan commission is authorized to
make the payments called for therein, but in no event shall the payment for any period
exceed the amount contributed by the city to the city plan for such employee for such
period. A copy of such plan shall be kept on file in the city's personnel department, and it
may be amended from time to time.
(b) The city council may likewise approve participation by the city manager in a
supplemental defined contribution plan approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a
qualified plan within the meaning of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, in which case the city's annual contribution thereto shall likewise
equal the amount which would have been contributed to the city plan, unless the council
shall determine a greater or lesser amount. A copy of such plan shall be kept on file in the
city's personnel department, and it may be amended from time to time.
(c) Effective July 1, 2001, the city manager may approve the withdrawal from
membership in the plan of any employee and may execute an agreement for such
employee to participate in an optional defined contribution plan approved by the Internal
Revenue Service as a qualified plan within the meaning of Section 401(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Such agreement may provide that the city shall
contribute to such plan an annual amount determined by the retirement commission with
the approval of the city manager on behalf of such employee for such year. Any
employee who enters into such an agreement shall be deemed to have terminated all
active membership in the supplemental retirement or pension plan of the city and to have
waived any rights whatsoever to accrue additional benefits thereunder. Upon execution of
any such agreement, the retirement plan commission is authorized to make the payments
called for therein. A copy of such plan shall be kept on file in the city's personnel
department, and it may be amended from time to time.
(d) Effective November 1, 1987, all regular city employees, including city council
members, who work at least twenty (20) hours per week shall be eligible to participate in
a deferred compensation plan, whether or not they participate in the supplemental
retirement or pension plan of the city or the defined contribution plans described in
subsections (a) through (c) of this section. Such new plan shall enable employees to defer
part of their compensation if they choose to do so to provide for their retirement.
Participation in this new plan shall have no effect on eligibility for participation in the
supplemental retirement or pension plan of the city or the defined contribution plans
described in subsections (a) through (c) of this section. A copy of such plan shall be kept
on file in the city's human resources department, and it may be amended from time to
time.
Sec. 19-95. Service retirement--Mandatory retirement dates.
(a) Any member who is in service at his normal retirement date may retire then
or at any time thereafter, provided he has completed five (5) or more years of creditable
service, upon written notification to the commission made by the member or by his
5
appointing authority setting forth at what date the retirement is to become effective. Such
effective date shall be after the member's last day of service and shall not be more than
ninety (90) days prior to the filing of such notification.
(b) No member who is a police officer, fire fighter or sheriff's deputy shall be
permitted to continue in service after his normal retirement date, unless the member's
appointing authority, upon a determination that organizational needs so require, grants
the member an exemption from such mandatory retirement requirements. Any such
member who continues in service under such an exemption from the appointing
authority, may be retired by that authority at any time thereafter. Such retirement shall be
initiated by the appointing authority by notification to the commission setting forth at
what date the retirement is to become effective. Such effective date shall be after the
member's last day of service and shall not be more than ninety (90) days prior to the
filing of such notification.
(c) The commissioner of revenue, city treasurer, city sheriff, clerk of the circuit
court and commonwealth's attorney may continue in service so long as they hold office.
(d) The appointing authority of any member not listed in subsection (b) or (c) of
this section, subsequent to the member's normal retirement date, upon a determination
that age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal
operation of the city, and that such member has reached the age limit, or upon a
determination that such member is incapable of performing his duties in a safe and
efficient manner, may require the service retirement of such member upon written
notification to the commission setting forth at what date the retirement is to become
effective. Such effective date shall be after the member's last day of service and shall not
be more than ninety (90) days prior to the filing of such notification. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if such member lacks five (5) years of creditable service, such member shall
be discharged and shall be ineligible for a retirement allowance.
(e) Any member who is in service and who has completed five (5) or more years
of creditable service may retire at any time after the fifty-fifth (55th) birthday of the
member or, in the case of a person who becomes a member after June 30, 2012 other than
a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy, after the sixtieth (60th) birthday of
the member, or at any time thereafter, upon written notification to the commission, made
by the member, setting forth at what date the retirement to become effective. Such
effective date shall be after the member's last day of service and shall not be more than
ninety (90) days prior to the filing of such notification.
(f) Any member who terminates service after completing five (5) or more years
of creditable service may retire under the provisions of either subsection (a) or subsection
(c) of this section; provided, that the requirement as to such member being in service
shall not apply.
(g) Any member who is in service and who has completed thirty (30) or more
years of creditable service may retire at age fifty (50), or, in the case of a person who
6
becomes a member after June 30, 2012, at age sixty (60), or at any time thereafter, upon
written notification to the commission, made by the member, setting forth at what date
the retirement is to be effective, without suffering the penalty imposed by section 19-
96(d). Such effective date shall be after the member's last day of service and shall not be
more than ninety (90) days prior to the filing of such notification.
(h) Any member who is a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy,
and has completed twenty-five (25) or more years in service may retire at age fifty (50),
or at any time thereafter until the mandatory retirement date is reached, without suffering
the penalty imposed by section 19-96(e).
(i) Notwithstanding the forgoing, on or after January 1, 1989, the retirement
allowance of a member who has terminated employment shall begin no later April 1 of
the calendar year following the later of (i) the calendar year in which the member attains
seventy and one-half (70 1/2) years of age, or (ii) the calendar year in which the member
terminates employment.
(j) Upon attaining normal retirement age and completion of the required years of
service, each employee’s interest shall be fully vested.
...
Sec. 19-96. Same--Allowance.
(a) Upon service retirement on or after July 1, 2000, a member with creditable
service which commenced prior to July 1, 2000, shall receive an annual retirement
allowance payable monthly to him for life commencing on the first day of the month
coinciding with or next following his date of retirement, in an amount computed as the
larger of (1) and (2) following:
(1) The excess, if any, of 2% of such member's average final compensation
multiplied by the number of years of his creditable service, over 2.5% of
such member's annual primary social security benefit, multiplied by the
number of years of his creditable service up to a maximum of twenty (20)
years.
(2) 1.60% of such member's average final compensation multiplied by the total
number of years of his creditable service.
(b) Upon service retirement after July 1, 2000, a member whose employment
commenced after June 30, 2000, shall receive an annual retirement allowance payable
monthly to him for life commencing on the first day of the month coinciding with or next
following his date of retirement, in an amount computed as follows:
(1) 1.60% of such member's average final compensation multiplied by the total
number of years of his creditable service.
7
(c) In addition to the retirement allowance to which a member is entitled under
the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, a retired member who at the date
of his retirement was in service as a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy
and who has completed twenty (20) years or more of creditable service shall receive an
additional annual allowance, payable monthly, during the period after the member's date
of retirement and until his attainment of full retirement age, as in effect on July 1, 2005,
for purposes of qualifying for unreduced social security benefits, equal to one (1) percent
of average final compensation multiplied by the number of years of his creditable service.
In no event shall a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy receive both the
supplement under this section and social security benefits. Effective for service
retirements after June 30, 2017, the additional annual allowance shall be limited to a
period of time that does not exceed seventeen (17) years prior to social security eligibility
and effective for service retirements after June 30, 2020, this additional annual allowance
shall be limited to the estimated unreduced primary social security benefit determined
under section 19-97.
Notwithstanding the foregoingHowever, a person who becomes a member after
June 30, 2012, shall be entitled to this additional, supplemental annual allowance only if
such person has completed at least twenty (20) years of creditable service in a position of
a police officer, firefighter, sheriff or sheriff's deputy and such person shall not be
entitled to a supplement for a period of time that exceeds 17 years prior to social security
eligibility. This additional annual allowance shall be limited in the case of a person who
becomes a member after June 30, 2012, to his estimated unreduced primary social
security benefit determined under section 19-97.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section to the contrary
notwithstanding, if the retirement date of a member with less than thirty (30) years of
creditable service precedes his normal retirement date, the retirement allowance amount
as computed in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section, as appropriate,
shall be reduced by one-half (0.5) percent for each complete month in the period between
the member's retirement date and the earlier of his normal retirement date or the date on
which the member would have completed thirty (30) years of creditable service had he
remained an employee continuously until such date.
(e) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section to the contrary
notwithstanding, if the retirement date of a member who is a police officer, firefighter, or
sheriff's deputy with less than twenty-five (25) years of creditable service precedes his
normal retirement date, the retirement allowance amount as computed in accordance with
subsections (a) and (b) of this section, as appropriate, shall be reduced by 0.5% for each
complete month in the period between the member's retirement date and the earlier of his
normal retirement date or the date on which the member would have completed twenty-
five (25) years of creditable service had he remained an employee continuously until such
date.
8
Sec. 19-98. Determination of retirement allowance.
(a) For the purposes of any provision of this article, the retirement allowance of
any member shall be determined on the assumption that the retirement allowance is
payable to the member alone and that no optional retirement allowance is elected.
(b) After a member has retired, and the amount of his retirement allowance has
been determined under the provisions of this article, the amount of the member's
retirement allowance shall be unaffected by any changes in the actual amount of the
primary social security benefit to which the member is or becomes entitled under the
federal Social Security Act.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, the annual benefit under
the supplemental retirement or pension plan of the city of any member and any related
death or other benefit, shall, if necessary, be reduced to the extent required by Section
415(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as adjusted by the Secretary of
the Treasury pursuant to Section 415(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this article, for plan years beginning
before January 1, 2000, if a member participates in both the supplemental retirement or
pension plan of the city and a qualified defined contribution plan maintained by the city,
the annual benefits under the supplemental retirement or pension plan of the city and the
annual additions to any qualified defined contribution plan maintained by the city shall
not exceed the combined limit test described in Section 415(e) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended. If necessary, the annual additions under the qualified defined
contribution plan shall be reduced before benefits under supplemental retirement or
pension plan of the city are reduced in order to comply with such combined limit test.
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this article to the contrary, benefits and service
credit with respect to qualified military service will be provided in accordance with
section 414(u) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(f) To the extent required by Section 401(a)(37) of the Internal Revenue Code for
purposes of determining a member’s entitlement to a retirement allowance or death
benefits under the Plan, in the event a member ceases to be an employee in order to
perform qualified military service within the meaning of section 414(u) of the Internal
Revenue Code and dies on or after January 1, 2007 while performing qualified military
service, the member’s death shall be considered to have occurred while the member was
an employee so that his beneficiaries are entitled to any additional benefits provided
under the Plan (other than benefit accruals relating to the period of qualified military
service), including without limitation any additional or enhanced vesting or death
benefits, had the member resumed employment with the employer and then terminated
employment on account of death.
...
Sec. 19-104. Optional benefits.
...
9
(g) Effective January 1, 1993, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this article,
but subject to any de minimis or other exceptions or limitations provided for under
Section 401(a)(31) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, any prospective
recipient any prospective recipient (whether a member, a surviving spouse, a current or
former spouse who is an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order or
any other person eligible to make a rollover) of a distribution from the plan which
constitutes an "eligible rollover distribution" (to the extent otherwise includible in the
recipient's gross income) may direct the commission to pay the distribution directly to
an "eligible retirement plan". For purposes hereof, the following terms have the
meanings assigned to them in Section 401(a)(31) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, and, to the extent not inconsistent therewith, shall have the following
meanings:
...
Sec. 19-104.1. Refund of accumulated contributions before retirement.
(a) Any member hired after June 30, 2012 who has five (5) or more years of
creditable service, who ceases to be a member other than by death or retirement may
request and receive a refund of the balance in the member's contribution account
reduced by the amount of any retirement allowance previously received by him under
the provisions of this article.
(b) Any person who becomes a member hired after June 30, 2012 who has less
than five (5) years of creditable service who ceases to be an employee other than by
death shall be paid the balance in the member's contribution account in a mandatory
cash-out as soon as administratively practical following his ceasing to be employed
by the City or any other employer adopting the plan.
(c) Upon receipt of a refund of the balance in the member's contribution account,
pursuant to (a) and (b) herein,:
(1) Any person who becomes a member hired after June 30, 2012 the member
shall cease to be a member and shall not be entitled to any future benefits. If
the person again becomes a member, no creditable service attributable to the
refund shall be counted in determining the benefit to be accrued following
rehire; and
(2) Each member, except a person who becomes a member after July 1, 2012 as
defined in Section 19-91, shall not be entitled to any benefit attributable to
creditable service or increases in average final compensation after June 30,
2017.
Sec. 19-107. Post retirement supplements.
(a) In addition to the monthly allowances payable under sections 19-96, 19-101,
19-104, 19-105 and 19-152 post retirement supplements shall be payable in
accordance with the provisions of this section to the recipients of such allowances.
10
Such supplements shall be subject to the same conditions of payment as are such
allowances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of monthly allowances that
begin after June 30, 2017, post retirement supplements shall be payable pursuant to
the provisions hereof only if the member is credited with at least fifteen (15) years of
credible service and the monthly allowance begins immediately following
termination of employment in the case of a service retirement or upon the cessation
of disability benefits.
(b) The amounts of the post retirement supplements provided for hereunder shall
be determined as percentages of the allowances then being paid, including any
applicable previous supplements.
(c) Amounts of post retirement supplements shall be determined initially as of
July 1, 1976, and subsequently as of any July 1 as of which the city council shall
have determined a further adjustment to be needed, provided an amount sufficient to
pay the cost of any necessary increase in the amount of the post retirement
supplements being paid shall have been appropriated. No change in the amount of
any post retirement supplement shall be effected between determination dates except
as necessary to reflect changes in the amount of the allowance being supplemented,
to the end that any post retirement supplement shall remain a constant percentage of
the respective allowance being supplemented, nor shall any new post retirement
supplement be commenced except as of a determination date. The post retirement
supplement determined shall become effective as of the payment date next following
such determination date for members who have retired on or before the determination
date, except that, in the case of monthly allowances that begin after June 30, 2017,
the post retirement supplement shall not be effective earlier than the first anniversary
of the payment commencement date.
(d) The city council shall make an annual review of the post retirement
supplements being paid in accordance with this section and shall determine whether
or not the following July 1 shall be a determination date as of which the amounts of
such supplements shall be recomputed.
...
Sec. 19-111. Alteration, amendment or repeal.
(a) The city council reserves the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of
this article or any application thereof to any person; provided, however, that the amount
of benefits which at the time of any alteration, amendment or repeal shall have accrued
for the members or beneficiaries shall not be affected thereby, except as otherwise
provided under subsection (c) of this section.
(b) If the city council repeals the provisions of this article, the commission shall
continue to administer the plan in accordance with the provisions of this article for the
sole benefit of the then members, any beneficiaries then receiving retirement allowances
11
and any person, entitled to receive benefits in the future under one (1) of the options
provided for in this article, who is designated by any of such members.
(c) In the event of repeal as provided in subsection (b) of this section, if the plan is
not to be replaced by another retirement program, the assets of the retirement fund shall
be allocated by the commission in an equitable manner to provide benefits for the persons
designated in subsection (b) of this section in accordance with the provisions of this
article, and in the following order:
(1) For the benefit of the beneficiaries and persons already designated by former
members who are then beneficiaries under one (1) of the options provided for
in this article to the extent of the then actuarial value of their retirement
allowances. If any funds remain; then,
(2) For the benefit of members and persons, if any, designated by the members
under one (1) of the options provided for in this article, to the extent not
provided under paragraph (1) above, of the then actuarial value of their
accrued retirement allowances, based on years of creditable service, average
final compensation and anticipated social security benefits as of the date of
repeal. The allocation under paragraph (2) shall be on the basis of the oldest
ages first method.
In the event the assets at such date of repeal are insufficient to provide all of the benefits
of paragraph (1) above, then the city shall contribute to the assets from time to time, as
and when required, the amount necessary to make up such insufficiency.
(d) The allocation of assets of the retirement fund provided for in subsection (c) of
this section shall be carried out through payment by the commission of the benefits
provided for in this section as they become due. Any funds remaining in the retirement
fund after all of the vested benefits provided by this section have been paid shall revert to
the city.
(e) Any allocation of assets made in accordance with the provisions of subsection
(c) of this section shall be final and binding on all persons entitled to benefits under such
provisions.
(f) In the event of repeal as provided in subsection (b) of this section, if the plan is
to be replaced by another retirement program, the assets of the retirement fund shall be
transferred to such other program.
(g) In the event of repeal, or termination or complete discontinuance of
contributions under the plan, the rights of all employees to benefits accrued to the date of
such repeal, termination or discontinuance, to the extent then funded, or the amounts then
credited to the employees’ accounts, shall be non-forfeitable.
12
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: May 15, 2017
Action Required: None
Presenters: Paul Josey, Chair, Tree Commission
Staff Contacts: Doug Ehman, Parks Division Manager & Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester
Title: Annual State of the Forest Report
Background:
The Tree Commission Chair will provide an update on activities over the past year and some thoughts on
issues the Commission intends to work on in the coming year.
Discussion:
The Tree Commission has continued to be the City’s advocacy voice for trees and the urban forest,
responding to citizen inquiries/concern and weighing in when tree related issues arose in the community.
Highlights this year include implementation and update of Charlottesville’s Master Tree List and
continued advocacy for the need of trees in a larger citywide effort by exploring potential to plant trees on
Charlottesville Redevelopment Housing property and underutilized right-of-way among other projects.
Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan:
The Tree Commission activities support the City Council’s “Green City†vision.
Charlottesville City Council Vision 2025: A Green City :
“Charlottesville citizens live in a community with a vibrant urban forest, tree-lined streets, and lush
green neighborhoods. We have an extensive natural trail system, along with healthy rivers and streams.
We have clean air and water, we emphasize recycling and reuse, and we minimize stormwater runoff.
Our homes and buildings are sustainably designed and energy efficient.â€
Community Engagement:
Tree Commission meetings are open to the public.
Budgetary Impact:
This report has no impact on the General Fund.
Recommendation:
Report only
Attachments:
Tree Commission Activities for the past year
Charlottesville Tree Commission
Highlights of 2016 Activities
Tree Protection and Planting
• Updated the Charlottesville Master Tree List to the city website and Tree Packet for all new
development. This places emphasis on diversifying our city canopy and planting regional species while
•
also including more information regarding species for urban and utility conditions.
• Surveyed and identified tree planting opportunities on Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority property and started talks with CRHA for possible planting opportunities in areas
with insufficient tree canopy. Advocated for the city to create a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with
•
CRHA to allow future tree planting opportunities to be installed as early as this fall.
• Continued coordination on a long-term tree planting plan with the Public Works and Parks & Rec
staff. Based on the 2015 Urban Canopy Study, initial results suggest conservatively space for over 8,000
•
new trees within public right of way that we hope to start guiding future plantings as early as this fall.
• Reviewed Mall tree report with UVA: Met with design advocates for the preservation of the downtown
mall, Beth Meyer (Architecture school) and Mary Hughes (Office of the Architect) from the University of
•
Virginia, to gain their input from the Mall Tree Report recommendations. (see attached)
• Partnered with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Tree Stewards, Monticello, VDOT, National Guard and
the Journey Through Hallowed Ground to design and plant the final 60 of 70 new trees in the Route 20
•
entrance corridor from Monticello to the city limits last fall.
• Installation of 40 new trees within the median of 29/250 interchange near Best Buy ramp went in
this spring that was a design collaboration between the Tree Commission, VDOT and city staff.
Tree Advocacy
• Participated in the recent Belmont Bridge Redesign meetings advocating for a smaller bridge to
create more at grade public space to allow for greater shade and connectivity between Belmont and the
•
downtown Mall.
• Commented on the Ridge St. rezoning proposal, advocating for larger setbacks concurrent with
existing Ridge St setbacks that would allow continued planting of large shade trees at this vital
•
intersection.
• Commented on city sidewalk maintenance practices that lead to a great discussion and new
Sidewalk and Tree Recommendations handbook for the Department of Public Works that prioritizes tree
•
health and safety in sidewalk repair.
• Requested and received from staff a breakdown of projected expenses annually for new trees to
•
help assist staff communicate financial implications of new tree maintenance.
• Advocated for $ 125,000 for urban forest management in this year’s Capital Improvement budget to
be begin implementing needed tree care and maintenance on the Mall and increase current annual tree
planting (100/year).
Other items and Next Steps for trees in our community
• Welcomed 3 new members after the final terms of 3 original exceptional members, Bitsy Waters,
Maynard Ferguson and Dorothy Smith, were complete. New members Peggy Van Yahres, Brian
Menard, Lynn Rush and Mark Rylander bring a significant level of experience in architecture, landscape
architecture, public policy, and arboriculture that we are excited to have on the commission.
• Support Cultural Landscape Report for downtown Mall to create a clear stakeholder group made up
of business owners, NDS, Parks & Rec DPW and others to assist with vital maintenance and funding
decisions.
• Advocate for an increased goals of new tree planting in city performance measures from 100 new
plantings/year to 200 new plantings/year.
April 30, 2017
To: Members of Charlottesville City Council
From: Charlottesville Tree Commission
Subj: Summary of Mall Report review meeting with UVA representatives
Last September, the Tree Commission met with University of Virginia representatives Mary Hughes,
Campus Landscape Architect at the University of Virginia, and Elizabeth Meyer, active faculty and former
dean of University of Virginia School of Architecture to review the proposed 2015 Mall Tree Report . A
summary of their comments are included below.
As the primary economic driver and identity of the downtown district, the importance of planning for the future
health of the groves of trees is vital to the continued success of the downtown Mall. The below comments were the
summary of our discussion with Mary Hughes and Elizabeth Meyer. Both have a significant knowledge of the
Lawrence Halprin designed downtown Mall and interest in its preservation.
Summary of comments, September 2016:
1. Request for the 2015 Mall report to be consolidated into a clear action plan and schedule that is presented to
council for approval.
2. Agreement with the report findings in regards to tree health and recommendations, particularly the primary
assessment that the metal grates should be removed (see attached for specific report reference).
3. In favor of a proposed 15 year grove replacement model over individual tree removals.
4. Replacement of the Norway maples within Central Place to be studied with multiple options of single species
replacements for further approval. Preferable species to have a unique fall color to the willow oaks, similar size to
red maples and compaction tolerance.
5. If advisable, suggest raising rents on the mall seating.
6. Request earmarking the current Mall seating rental revenue to be spent on mall maintenance and tree
care/replacements rather than having it revert to general city fund.
Kind regards,
Paul B. Josey, RLA, ISA
Chair, Charlottesville Tree Commission
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: May 15, 2017
Action Required: None
Presenter: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies
Staff Contacts: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies
Title: Growing Opportunities Update & Apprentice Resolution Review
Background: In July 2013, staff issued a report to City Council on workforce development
entitled, Growing Opportunity: A Path to Self-Sufficiency in Charlottesville (often referred to as
the GO report). Now, almost four years later, significant progress has been made towards many
of the action items recommended in this report. The update provided includes highlights of major
accomplishments that have taken place, with particular focus on the City’s Growing
Opportunities (GO) programs. The full 2017 update is available online by clicking HERE or
visiting (https://issuu.com/2012oedannualreport/docs/2017_workforce_development_update_0).
Hard copies have been provided to Council.
One example from the update is the City’s efforts to promote skilled trades workforce training to
City residents as means of helping them obtain career ladder employment opportunities. On
December 5, 2016, Council passed a resolution to expand career pipelines and paid
apprenticeships in infrastructure building and repair within the City of Charlottesville for local
residents. Staff was asked to explore this possibility, as well as other options to ensure that
residents have access to skilled trades apprenticeships. A report analyzing various options is also
included.
Discussion: In regards to the apprenticeship resolution, four options are explored in detail in the
attached report. These include: 1.) Skilled Trades Training & Apprenticeships through City
Infrastructure Projects, 2.) a City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Program, 3.) GO Programs
with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks, and 4.) a GO Skilled Trades Academy. Of these four
options, staff believes that the most economical, effective, and sustainable option would be to
continue offering GO programs with on-the-job apprenticeship tracks (such as GO Utilities).
Other options were not recommended based on factors related to: budgetary impact/cost, impact
on existing workforce, job sustainability, program length, number of City residents served,
overall lack of program viability, etc.
Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: This agenda item aligns with
Council’s vision for Economic Sustainability. It also addresses two goals in the City’s Strategic
Plan that were recently adopted by Council: Goal 1: Enhance self-sufficiency of residents and
Goal 4: Have a strong and diversified economy.
Community Engagement: Practically all of the SAT’s workforce development efforts involve
community engagement. From the Workforce Advisory Council (WAC), which is comprised of
15 community partners and guides the City on its workforce development initiatives, to the
Downtown Job Center, which is a satellite of the Virginia Workforce Center – Charlottesville
and relies on more than 30 workforce services providers for referrals and collaboration, to the
City’s various employment training programs, such as GO Driver, which is supported by more
than 10 agencies and organizations, none of the work that is currently being done could be
possible without strong community engagement.
Budgetary Impact: There is no budget impact or request associated with this update unless
Council would like to move forward with an apprenticeship program option that requires
additional funding.
Recommendation: In regards to the apprenticeship resolution, staff recommends Option #3 –
GO Programs with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks for the following reasons:
1. GO program model has proven to be successful over the last three years in getting City
residents the training they need to obtain jobs paying a self-sufficient wage.
2. Ability to customize GO programs based on specific industries determined by employer
demand (e.g., GO Utilities, GO Electric, etc.).
3. Development of job candidates with basic level training in a specific skilled trades
industry that is in high demand.
4. Ability to place individuals into jobs that pay a self-sufficient wage because they have
industry specific training.
5. Clear career ladder for individuals as they progress from entry level to journeyman in a
specific industry over a four-year period through participation in a registered
apprenticeship program.
6. A workforce for employers that is progressively improving its knowledge, skills, and
abilities.
7. A more loyal workforce for employers who invest in the growth and development of their
staff.
Alternatives: Council could choose one or more of the other options to implement.
Attachments: 1.) Growing Opportunities: Workforce Development Update – Spring 2017
2.) Review of City Council Resolution: Expand Career Pipelines and Paid
Apprenticeships in Infrastructure Building and Repair within the City of
Charlottesville for Local Residents
2
REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION:
Expand Career Pipelines and Paid Apprenticeships in Infrastructure Building
and Repair within the City of Charlottesville for Local Residents
Submitted by the Office of Economic Development
May 1, 2017
BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2016, Charlottesville City Council passed a resolution to explore expanding career pipelines and
paid apprenticeships in infrastructure building and repair within the City of Charlottesville for local residents. Across
the United States, there has been a similar push to explore such opportunities in communities as a means of
bridging employment, poverty, and skills gaps concerns. As outlined in the report released by the U.S. Department
of Labor in 2014, 21st Century Registered Apprenticeship: A Shared Vision for Increasing Opportunity, Innovation,
and Competitiveness for American Workers and Employers,1 a registered apprenticeship program provides
advantages for an increasing number of businesses and industries by creating valuable post-secondary pathways
to rewarding careers, promoting growing opportunities to diverse populations, and addressing economic and
workforce challenges. These challenges oftentimes include, but are not limited to: worker skill shortages, gaps in
educational attainment, credentialing deficits, and aging workforces. Therefore, from a workforce development
standpoint, an apprenticeship program can be instrumental in reducing the unemployment rate among the least
educated and skilled residents in a community, as such programs provide upward mobility through on-the-job
learning and education – a method more amenable to this demographic.
Additionally, from an economic development perspective, businesses also benefit greatly from registered
apprenticeships, especially those needing workforce in high-demand jobs that do not require higher education
and those experiencing the loss of experienced workforce as they age out employment. To illustrate this point, in
2015, Virginia Executive Order 49 – Expanding Registered Apprenticeships2 estimated that by 2022 nearly 500,000
new jobs will be created in the Commonwealth, thus producing a workforce of about 930,000 workers to replace
the current aging workforce. Approximately 50% to 60% of these jobs will require training in trade skills. Today, rising
costs of higher education and the lack of skills available in the employment sector have opened opportunities for
a robust apprenticeship model to be applied in localities across the country. Still, many companies in the area are
in need of workers who are willing to learn the skills necessary in these high-demand careers. In general,
apprenticeship programs not only help to develop a skilled workforce, but also provide employers with the tools to
help them grow.
OVERVIEW
After the abovementioned resolution was passed by Council, City staff from various departments including the
City Manager’s Office, the Office of Economic Development, Neighborhood Development Services, Public
Works, Public Utilities, Facilities Maintenance, and the Division of Procurement & Risk Management met to discuss
options for apprenticeships within the City of Charlottesville. At this meeting, the following topics were discussed: 1.)
What employment opportunities will result from upcoming City projects? 2.) What is the need for and turnover of
1 Seleznow, E. M. (2014, January 2). 21st Century Registered Apprenticeship: A Shared Vision for Increasing
Opportunity, Innovation, and Competitiveness for American Workers and Employers. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEN/TEN_18_13.pdf
2 McAuliffe, T. R. (2015, October 6). Executive Order 49: Expanding Registered Apprenticeships in Virginia.
Retrieved April 28, 2017, from https://governor.virginia.gov/media/4664/eo-49-for-apprenticeship-program.pdf
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 1
workforce in skilled trades jobs that currently exist within City departments? 3.) What would be the impact of an
apprenticeship program (either stand alone or linked to capital improvement projects) on the City’s existing
workforce? Additionally, staff from City departments engaging most heavily in the skilled trades had another
meeting with a representative from the Virginia Department of Labor & Industry (VDOLI) and Piedmont Virginia
Community College (PVCC) to discuss the City’s current participation in the VDOLI registered apprenticeship
program and how a more formal apprenticeship program approach could benefit the City as an employer. After
these meetings, Office of Economic Development (OED) staff then conducted research into various programs
available in the area and across the state.
In Virginia, there are 167 active registered apprenticeship programs, from painting, electrical, and bricklaying, to
cooking, cosmetology, and meat cutting; all of which range from 2,000 to 10,000 hours. Currently, in the City of
Charlottesville, there are 72 registered apprenticeship programs, with the City of Charlottesville being a registered
apprenticeship provider for plumbing (Facilities Maintenance), building maintenance repair (Parks & Recreation),
and maintenance mechanic (Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Association (CRHA)). In recent years, the
City has had two employees who have completed a registered apprenticeship program, with one individual
actually completing two apprenticeships. In the meetings, there did not seem to be too much knowledge of the
City’s participation in the VDOLI registered apprenticeship program, and in fact, most people were not aware
that they City is a registered apprenticeship provider in several industries already. Overall, a majority of the
registered apprenticeship providers in Charlottesville are in the private sector (e.g., Design Electric, Beck-Cohen,
Robertson Electric, W.E. Brown, Albemarle Heating & Air, Michael & Sons, Colonial Webb, etc.), and none of the
programs appear to be ―formal‖ training programs. Employees who work at the companies enter the registered
apprenticeship program if they are interested, and the classroom training is provided by either Charlottesville
Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) or PVCC.
However, one example of a formal apprenticeship program that could potentially be used as a model for the
City is offered through the University of Virginia Facilities Management. Established in 1982, UVA Facilities
Management offers a highly competitive apprenticeship program to individuals who are willing to learn a skilled
trade in plumbing, electrical, carpentry, masonry, plastering, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC). As the first apprentice program to be started by a state agency in Virginia, this program today employs
diverse and responsible employees who provide an environment that supports learning, research, and growth at
the University. Each year, typically six to nine individuals are accepted into the apprenticeship program. Each of
these employees receives full-time salary and benefits from the University. Apprentices train with skilled and
licensed journeymen, mentors, and supervisors who help them gain the skills and knowledge that they need to be
successful. The apprenticeship program takes about four years, and in that time, participants are able to learn a
select skill through on-the-job training, technical education, and classroom instruction. The application process is
somewhat formal; interested applicants are asked to attend a job fair where they learn about the job
requirements and opportunities. Individuals fill out an application and if selected are asked to interview with the
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 2
University. As of June 2015, nearly 26 apprentices have been hired from a pool of nearly 300 to 500 individuals that
have applied for the program.3
The following section provides an overview of four options for apprenticeship programs that have been analyzed
by City staff and could potentially address the Council’s resolution to expand career pipelines and paid
apprenticeships in infrastructure building and repair within the City of Charlottesville for local residents. These
options include:
1. Skilled Trades Training & Apprenticeships through City Infrastructure Projects
2. City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Program
3. Growing Opportunities (GO) Programs with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks
4. Growing Opportunities (GO) Skilled Trades Academy
Benefits and challenges for the options are provided, and a recommendation is made regarding each based on
factors such as: budgetary impact/cost, impact on existing workforce, program length, and job sustainability.
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM OPTIONS & STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Option #1: Skilled Trades Training & Apprenticeships through City Infrastructure Projects
The resolution requests an exploration of how major public infrastructure projects could allow for workforce training
and potentially the development of a full City apprenticeship program. (Please note that a full City apprenticeship
program is explored in detail under Option #2 as it relates to the overall skilled trades work of the City – not just
public infrastructure projects.) For most public infrastructure projects, the City typically contracts with a single
general contractor following a solicitation of bids. This is to the benefit of both parties, as there is a clear
understanding of the project requirements and responsibilities and the compensation for completing these tasks.
General contractors commonly engage sub-contractors that have a particular trade or expertise to work on the
project, and it is not unusual for large projects to have a series of sub-contractors. The City’s contractual
relationship remains with the general contractor, and the City has limited ability to determine who the sub-
contractors will be or how they are selected. This process follows Virginia’s proscribed procurement process and
provides the City with the most qualified and available contractor at the most advantageous price.
Option #1 Benefits
1. Opportunity for City residents to obtain a position with the City of Charlottesville that provides skilled trades training
and a self-sufficient wage.
Option #1 Challenges
1. Most public infrastructure projects (structures, roads, bridges, etc.) require specific skill sets and experience levels in
order to be completed on time and on budget. As such, these projects do not lend themselves to be done by City
employees who typically have more general skills that are focused on project management and performing basic
maintenance on existing infrastructure.
Continued on Page 4
3UVA Facilities Management Apprenticeship Program. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from
https://www.fm.virginia.edu/depts/humanresources/apprenticeship/index.html
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 3
2. Major infrastructure projects last for many years, and as a result, only need replacement on a set schedule that can
be every 20 to 30 years or more. This leads to a very cyclical level of demand which is most efficiently met by private
sector contractors that have the expertise and can more easily flex the size of their workforce to meet project
demands.
3. While City staff could conceivably perform some of the work needed to complete these types of projects,
attempting to mix private sector contractor employees with City employees or apprentices, raises at a minimum,
legal, liability, and safety concerns.
4. Very costly and will require a significant budgetary commitment from City Council for personnel (i.e., the creation of
new positions and increased compensation for incumbent staff to account for any inequities in pay). (Please note
that potential budgetary impacts of a City apprenticeship program are explored in more detail under Option #2.)
Option #1 Staff Recommendations
Staff does not believe it is feasible to create an apprenticeship program that connects directly to major City infrastructure
projects. An option the City does have, if the contractor is amenable, is to provide funding above the contract amount to
allow the contractor to hire additional staff for the purpose of a workforce development project. This approach was used on
the Downtown Mall renovation project completed in 2009. In this case, a change order for an additional $50,000 was
allocated to hire six employees to help the construction manager complete the $7.5 million dollar project. It was also believed
that the individuals employed would gain useful skills and some work experience as part of the process. Five laborers and one
bookkeeper were employed in this manner for the duration of the six month project, but these individuals are no longer
employed with the contractor, and there is no evidence that the laborers received structured, skilled trades training.
It should be noted that this process typically cannot be required, or mandated, as part of the procurement process, but only
entered into by agreement of both parties. Another shortfall of this approach is that absent a formal apprentice program or
process, very limited skill development can occur within the normal duration of a public infrastructure project. While a few
individuals do benefit from some earned income and work experience during the project, it does not lead to sustainable
employment. In fact, it can serve to perpetuate the cyclical nature of employment that many low skilled individuals can
experience. Given the additional cost and limited benefit for participants, staff does not recommend further consideration of
this option as a viable path forward.
Option #2: City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Program
As mentioned above, another option would be to explore the creation of a city-wide apprenticeship program
that is not directly tied to public infrastructure projects. The City of Charlottesville is currently a registered
apprenticeship provider through VDOLI for the following industries: building maintenance repair, maintenance
mechanic, and plumbing. Additionally, the City can become a registered apprenticeship provider in other
industries that are in high demand within the organization (e.g., positions that tend to be difficult to fill, positions
where there is currently a shortage and new apprenticeship opportunities could be created, and/or positions that
are estimated to become vacant in the future due to an aging/retiring workforce). Therefore, a second option
would be to create an apprenticeship program similar to that of UVA Facilities Management (see description on
page 2). For this option, City residents would be accepted into the Apprenticeship Program through a
competitive application process. Due to the smaller size of the City compared to UVA Facilities Management, the
number of apprentices selected and hired during each cycle would be approximately two to four with the
process taking place on a biennial basis.
Selected individuals would be hired by the City as apprentices (full-time with benefits) and then trained under an
experienced journeyman or master in the various skilled trades most utilized by the City. This would require
participation from City departments that engage in skilled trades activities as part of their regular work including:
Public Works, Public Utilities, Facilities Maintenance, and Parks and Recreation. There would also be great benefit in
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 4
partnering with CRHA as a possible apprenticeship provider in the Apprenticeship Program. While receiving on-
the-job training from seasoned City staff, apprentices would also begin the classroom portion of a specific
registered apprenticeship through PVCC. Again, the industries from which they could chose would be based on
identified City needs. The timeline for the program would be approximately four and half to five years, with the
basic overview of the City’s skilled trades positions being provided during the first six to eight months of
employment (one month per field) and individuals working towards their 8,000 hours of on-the-job training and 576
hours of classroom work over a four-year period. Once the apprentices complete the registered apprenticeship
and receive their journeyman’s license, they would retain their employment within the City, moving out of
apprenticeship/entry level jobs into higher level positions. (Please see Figure 1.1 for a progression timeline for the
Apprenticeship Program.)
Figure 1.1 – City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Program Pathway
On-the-Job Registered
Selection of City Selected Overview of Skilled Apprenticeship Journeyman's Promotion from
Residents into the Participants Hired Trades Jobs in the Program License in Apprenticeship into
Apprenticeship by the City & City Selected Skilled Higher Skilled
Program through Begin Full-Time (8,000 Hours On- Trades Needed by Employment in
Application Process (1 Month/Industry - The-Job & 576 the City Specific Trade
Employment ~6 to 8 Months) Hours Classroom)
4 ½ to 5–Year Time Period
Option #3 would obviously be costly and require a significant budgetary contribution by City Council. First, there
would be the cost associated with putting those accepted into the program through a registered apprenticeship
program. As is the case with other options that have a registered apprenticeship component, the cost per
individual would be approximately $6,500. However, with VDOLI’s Registered Apprenticeship Related Instruction
Incentive Program (ARIIP) for employers which provides $1,000 per year for each year of the apprenticeship, the
cost could be reduced to $2,500. Second, there would be substantial cost associated with creating two to four
full-time, benefited apprenticeship positions every other year. If apprentices are full-time employees with benefits
making the minimum wage allowed by the City, presently $13.52 but increasing to $13.79 on July 1, 2017, each
position would potentially cost the City around $35,000 annually. Related to this, there could also be increased
costs due to compression if apprentices are hired in at the same wage as incumbent employees who have
higher level skills and seniority over the apprentices. These employees’ wages would possibly need to be
readjusted to address any inequities in pay. Along these same lines, there could be additional costs associated
with increasing the compensation for existing City employees who will be providing the on-the-job apprenticeship
training, as it would be difficult to assign such responsibilities to staff without providing adequate compensation for
higher level work. Finally, the establishment of a City Apprenticeship Program would more than likely require the
creation of a new position to staff the program. (Please note that UVA Facilities Maintenance has at least three
staff persons who have the management/oversight of the apprenticeship program as part of their job duties.) This
individual would be responsible for coordination of the program including such things as participant recruitment
and selection, case management of apprentices over the program time period, instruction of a bi-monthly
workplace readiness training class for apprentices, and coordination across departments for the initial six to eight
month industry overviews. A full-time position of this nature could cost the City up to about $60,000 (including base
pay and benefits).
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 5
Option #2 Benefits
1. Provides City residents entry into employment with the City of Charlottesville in a skilled trades position.
2. Provides a clear career path for City residents seeking employment that will move them towards self-sufficiency.
3. Addresses City workforce needs for skilled trades positions that are hard to hire, experiencing a shortage, or facing a
loss of senior staff due to aging/retirement.
4. Although the process is long for this option, participants will receive a full-time, benefited job paying a self-sufficient
wage throughout the entire five-year timeline.
Option #2 Challenges
1. Lack of existing master level staff to train apprentices hired through the program.
2. Very costly and will require a significant budgetary commitment from City Council for personnel (i.e., the creation of
new positions and increased compensation for incumbent staff to account for any inequities in pay).
3. Requires a significant amount of time to plan and implement (e.g., coordination among key City departments,
training of City staff that will be providing training to apprentices, development of on-the-job training curriculum,
registered apprenticeship certification by VDOLI in additional skilled trades industries, etc.).
4. Serves a relatively low number of City residents when compared to other options that will are detailed below.
Staff Recommendations
While creating a city-wide apprenticeship program focusing on the City’s overall skilled trades work would be a better option
than creating a program linked entirely to public infrastructure projects, staff believes that an option of this magnitude would
require further study and analysis before being formally recommended. In both City meetings held about the apprenticeship
resolution, concerns were immediately raised by staff across all departments about the impact that such a program would
have on existing workforce, and in particular, compression issues associated with hiring in apprentices at the same rate of
more senior workers and concerns about a lack of master level staff to actually provide the on-the-job training. Additionally,
as mentioned above, the budgetary impact would be significant due to the creation of new positions and increased
compensation of incumbent workers. Therefore, at this time, staff does not recommend this option unless further analysis is
conducted regarding the human resources and budgetary impacts of such a program.
Option #3: Growing Opportunities (GO) Programs with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks
Since 2014, the City of Charlottesville has been offering Growing Opportunities (GO) jobs-driven workforce
development training programs in order to help City residents get the skills and training they need in order to
obtain employment paying a self-sufficient wage. Over the past two and half years, almost 100 individuals have
graduated from one of twelve GO training programs, and several of these programs have focused on skilled
trades. The most recent example of this is GO Utilities, which ran Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 1:00pm for
six weeks from February 13, 2017 to March 23, 2017 and offered 147 hours of training in the area listed below.
Training was provided through PVCC Workforce Services.
 National Center for Construction Education and Research (NCCER) Pipefitting Certification—40 hours
 Flagger Certification and OSHA 10 Certification—20 hours
 Department of Motor Vehicles Class A Learner’s Permit—40 hours
 Virginia Career Readiness Certificate—15 hours
 Workplace Readiness/Working in Teams Training—32 hours
GO Utilities consisted of four male, City residents between the ages of
27 and 50. All were employed but looking for better employment;
three had entry level experience in the construction field. These
individuals were recruited primarily through word-of-mouth from past
GO program participants and/or family members. All four individuals
successfully graduated from the program and obtained full-time,
GO Utilities Graduation – March 27, 2017
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 6
benefited Maintenance Technician II positions with the City of Charlottesville Department of Public Utilities. Each
has started employment at a rate of $13.52 per hour and is under a six-month probationary period with eligibility for
an increase up to 3% at the end of the probationary period as long as it does not affect internal equity.
For those who are interested in further pursuing their education and training, the City, as an employer, will offer
these individuals the opportunities to enter into a registered plumbing apprenticeship program offered through
PVCC. (Please note that plumbing is the most closely aligned apprenticeship with utilities work.) In order to
complete the program, participants will have to complete 8,000 on-the-job hours and 576 hours of classroom
coursework over a four-year period. Since GO Utilities graduates have already completed 40 hours of NCCER
pipefitting training, the number of classroom hours will be reduced to 536 hours over four years. In order to better
serve the needs of the employer, the curriculum can be customized to include more pubic/commercial utilities
related topics. After completing the on-the-job and classroom hour requirements, individuals will then earn their
journeyman’s license in plumbing, thus resulting in better employment opportunities for the individual and higher
skilled employees for the employer (i.e., the City of Charlottesville Department of Public Utilities). (Please see Figure
1.2 for a progression timeline for this option.)
Figure 1.2 – GO Program with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Track Pathway
Registered
GO Pre-Employment
Apprenticeship
Training Program Entry Level Journeyman's Higher Skilled
Program
(150 Hours of Industry Employment in the License in the Employment in the
Trageted Industry (8,000 Hours On-The- Targeted Industry Targeted Industry
& Workplace
Job & 576 Hours
Readiness Training)
Classroom)
4–Year Time Period
The cost of GO Utilities was $3,560 per student ($14,240 for all four students), which includes pre-program drug
testing and physicals and training. The cost for this program was relatively high due to the fact that the NCCER
pipefitting curriculum was not approved by the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) for the Workforce
Credential Grant, which reduces the cost for in-demand credentialed training by two-thirds. If GO Utilities (or a
similar skilled trades program) is run again, PVCC will attempt to get the credential certified to reduce training
costs. Now that the four GO Utilities graduates are employed, they will be given an option to enter into a plumbing
apprenticeship program offered through PVCC. The estimate cost per individual for the four-year apprenticeship
program is $6,500. However, in an effort to encourage more apprenticeships in both the public and private
sectors, Virginia Executive Order 49 provides the Registered Apprenticeship Related Instruction Incentive Program
(ARIIP), which is administered by the VDOLI. VDOLI may reimburse the sponsor/employer and state agency, up to
a maximum of $1,000 annually, per apprentice, for a maximum of 10 apprentices per sponsor. With this incentive,
the cost per individual for participating in the four-year apprenticeship program will be approximately $2,500. This
expense is generally paid for by the employer.
Option #3 Benefits
1. Ability to customize GO programs based on specific industries determined by employer demand (e.g., GO Utilities,
GO Electric, etc.).
2. Development of job candidates with basic level training in a specific skilled trades industry that is in high demand.
3. Ability to place these individuals into jobs that pay a self-sufficient wage because they have industry specific training.
Continued on Page 8
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 7
4. Clear career ladder for individuals as they progress from entry level to journeyman in a specific industry over a four-
year period through participation in a registered apprenticeship program.
5. A workforce for employers that is progressively improving its knowledge, skills, and abilities.
6. A more loyal workforce for employers who invest in the growth and development of their staff.
Option #3 Challenges
1. Cost of program if the training needed by the employer is not approved by VCCS for the Workforce Credential
Grant.
2. Lack of private sector employers interested in partnering with the City to provide employment for GO program
graduates.
3. Employer must be an approved apprenticeship provider or willing to become one.
4. Responsibility of the employer to pay for each individual’s participation in an apprenticeship program once they are
on-the-job. (This could possibly be subsidized through the City of Charlottesville Office of Economic Development’s
GO Hire program, which provides funding to City businesses for incumbent worker training.)
Option #3 Staff Recommendations
The City’s GO programs use a jobs-driven workforce development model that has proven to be successful. As illustrated with
GO Utilities, there was expressed need for qualified candidates in a hard-to-hire, skilled trades position within the City of
Charlottesville. Program participants were trained on exactly what the employer indicated it wanted, and as a result, all four
individuals who successfully completed the program were ultimately hired by the City. With the added element of the
registered plumbing apprenticeship program, there will be a clear career path for those interested in pursuing further
education and training. In light of this, and the grants and incentives available for program costs, staff recommends this
option to help improve City residents’ access to apprenticeship opportunities.
Additionally, staff recommends this option because people who successfully complete the skilled trades GO programs will
automatically be placed into high-demand jobs paying a self-sufficient wage, thus lessening the chance that they will get
low level, general labor employment that is simply not sustainable.
Option #4: Growing Opportunities (GO) Skilled Trades Academy
The GO Skilled Trades Academy would be designed as a potential pre-cursor to Option #3 (GO Programs with
On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks) and would be intended more for individuals who are unsure about which
skilled trades industry would be the best fit for them. With this option, City residents would begin by receiving a
basic overview of the skilled trades instead of training in one specific industry (e.g., pipefitting, electrical, carpentry,
etc.). In recent months, the NCCER Core Craft skills curriculum has been accepted as an approved, in-demand
credential by VCCS for the Workforce Credential Grant. This curriculum would serve as the foundation for the GO
Skilled Trades Academy, as Core Craft is focused specifically on the skilled trades and offers 60 hours of classroom
and lab training in nine modules. These modules include:
1. Basic Safety
2. Introduction to Construction Math
3. Introduction to Hand and Power Tools
4. Introduction to Construction Drawing s
5. Basic Rigging
6. Basic Communication Skills
7. Basic Employability Skills
8. Introduction to Material Handling
9. Basic Communication Skills and Employability Skills
In addition to Core Craft, the Academy would include an introduction to various high-demand skilled trade
occupations in the Charlottesville area such as: electrical, plumbing, heating and air, carpentry, and facilities
maintenance. Approximately two hours would be spent on each industry, with participants receiving an overview
and possible tour/site visit to a local business specializing in these areas. Upon completion of the Academy,
participants would be placed into basic entry level, general labor positions not requiring specific industry
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 8
knowledge. At this time, individuals could continue with their employment or identify a specific industry in which
they have the most interest and then enter into a GO program offering more technical training in this industry.
Upon completion of the GO program they could then potentially be placed into new employment offering the
opportunity to be in an apprenticeship program or stay with the same employer if that employer is a registered
apprenticeship provider in their industry of choice. Essentially, the Academy offers pre-GO program training to
create a basic foundation in skilled trades work, thus allowing individuals to get a better idea about the industry
that most interests them. (Please see Figure 1.3 for a progression timeline, which is estimated to be approximately
five years but would be dependent upon the individual and the availability of GO programming.)
Figure 1.3 – GO Skilled Trades Academy Pathway
GO Skilled Trades GO Pre-Employment Registered Apprenticeship
Academy Training Program Entry Level Program Journeyman's License Higher Skilled
General Labor
(80 Hours of Core Craft (150 Hours of Industry & Employment in the in the Targeted Employment in the
Employment (8,000 Hours On-The-Job &
Training & Employer Workplace Readiness Trageted Industry Industry Targeted Industry
Tours) Training) 576 Hours Classroom)
5–Year Time Period
For the Academy, the cost will be approximately $1,500 per individual, as the cost for Core Craft alone is $1,100
per person based on minimum of seven individuals and includes books and tests. However, with the Workforce
Credential Grant, the cost per person would be reduced to about $768 upon successful completion of the
program. If individuals decide to continue on the pathway illustrated in Figure 1.3, additional costs would be
incurred when entering into a GO program and ultimately a registered apprenticeship program through an
employer. The total investment for the Academy pathway could range anywhere between $4,500 and $10,000,
depending upon whether or not the Workforce Credential Grant and/or the state ARIIP incentive for employers
applies to the credentialing and apprenticeship respectively.
Option #4 Benefits
1. Provides entry into the skilled trades despite being at a general labor level.
2. Opportunity for individuals to get introduced to the skilled trades and determine which industry they prefer.
3. Cost of Academy training alone is relatively inexpensive due to the fact that Core Craft is an approved Workforce
Credential Grant curriculum.
4. Potential pipeline of candidates for GO programs.
Option #4 Challenges
1. Employment after completion of the GO Skilled Trades Academy will result in low level jobs, which will more than
likely not pay a self-sufficient wage (estimated wage $9 to $11/hour).
2. Employment at this level will be more unstable and require transportation to and from jobsites, thus impacting job
retention. (This was a significant issue with GO Electric in which people were hired by the employer partner but could
not maintain employment because jobsites were constantly changing and well outside of the Charlottesville area.)
3. May be a significant wait time to entire into an industry specific GO program (such as GO Utilities or GO Electric) if
there employer demand does not exist upon completion of the Academy.
4. The entire pathway for this option is long (approximately five years) and could potentially be costly based on
eligibility and availability of grants and incentives.
Option #4 Staff Recommendations
The GO Skilled Trades Academy would be a good opportunity for individuals within the community to learn about the various
fields within the industry. At the same time, participants who successfully graduate from the program would obtain some form
of employment, even if it is a lower wage, general labor position. The Academy is also fairly low in cost relative to the other
options due to grant availability. For those wanting to pursue their training and education beyond the Academy, a GO
program specializing in one particular field could be an option. The main concern with this is that GO programs will only be
Continued on Page 10
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 9
offered when there is employer demand, and therefore, the wait could be long. This in turn could lengthen the entire
pathway timeline, which is already estimated to be about five years. For these reasons, staff recommends the Skilled Trades
Academy option only in situations where GO programs will be offered in the near future (no more than one year out).
However, an issue still remains with this suggestion – the GO program or programs being offered might not be in the skilled
trades field that the individual prefers after having gone through the Academy.
CONCLUSION
Since City Council passed the apprenticeship resolution in December, City staff from all departments engaging
the skilled trades work has met on at least two occasions to discuss possible options to expand career pipelines
and paid apprenticeships within the City of Charlottesville for local residents. Additionally, OED staff has
researched other programs across the Commonwealth of Virginia to determine if there is a best practice that
could be replicated in Charlottesville. As part of this report, four options were presented in detail including: 1.)
Skilled Trades Training & Apprenticeships through City Infrastructure Projects, 2.) a City of Charlottesville
Apprenticeship Program, 3.) GO Programs with On-the-Job Apprenticeship Tracks, and 4.) a GO Skilled Trades
Academy. Of these four options, staff believes that the most economical, effective, and sustainable option would
be to continue offering GO programs with on-the-job apprenticeship tracks (such as GO Utilities). In light of this,
OED staff will continue its outreach to employers in both the public and private sector to determine need, and in
turn, GO programs within the skilled trades that could potentially be offered in the future. Additionally, staff will work
with PVCC to get credentials for the most in-demand skilled trades occupations approved for the Workforce
Credential Grant so that when the time comes to offer the training, the curriculum will already be grant eligible.
Finally, there will be a continued effort by staff to encourage City residents’ interest in the skilled trades, as there is
typically not as much interest in GO programs offering this type of instruction. Alerting individuals to a clear career
pathway through participation in an apprenticeship program will be critical.
City of Charlottesville Apprenticeship Resolution Review – 10
This page intentionally left blank