CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, May 7, 2018 5:30 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to actual or probable litigation; consultation with legal counsel regarding matters requiring the provision of legal advice; discuss acquisition or disposition of publicly held property located at 7th and Market Street.) 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PROCLAMATION Mental Health Awareness Month CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment is provided for up to 16 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 8 spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. The number of speakers is unlimited at the end of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA*: (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.) a. Minutes for April 16, 2018 b. APPROPRIATION: Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant – $49,336 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Funds transfer from School HVAC Operations to School HVAC Capital Improvement Program – $130,000 (1st of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Funds for 2018-19 Community Development Block Grant – $389,291.49 (1st of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: Funds for the 2018-2019 HOME fund – $99,488.45 (1st of 2 readings) f. APPROPRIATION: Community Development Block Grant Account Amendment – Reprogramming of Funds for FY 18-19 (1st of 2 readings) g. APPROPRIATION: Amendment to HOME Investment Partnership Account – Reprogramming of Funds for FY 18-19 (1st of 2 readings) h. APPROPRIATION: State Assistance and Citizen Donation for Spay and Neuter Program at SPCA – $1,998.52 (1st of 2 readings) i. APPROPRIATION: Internal funds transfer designated for new Salt Storage facilities – $300,000 (1st of 2 readings) j. RESOLUTION: City-CRHA-PHA Revised Scope of Work for Strengthening Systems grant (1st of 1 reading) k. RESOLUTION: Accepting 2017 Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee Annual Report (1st of 1 reading) 2. PUBLIC HEARING / Approval of Five Year Consolidated Plan for FY 2018-19 – 2022-23 and REPORT*: FY 2018-19 Annual Action Plan (1st of 1 reading) – 20 mins 3. PUBLIC HEARING / Tree Designations for Three Historic Trees (1st of 1 reading) – 15 mins RESOLUTION*: 4. RESOLUTION*: 901 River Road Special Use Permit (1st of 1 reading) withdrawn by applicant 5. REPORT*: Hydraulic Small Area Plan – 20 mins  RESOLUTION*: Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Special Designation (1st of 1 reading)  RESOLUTION*: Incorporating Hydraulic/29 Improvement Plan (1st of 1 reading) 6. REPORT: SPCA Annual Report – 15 mins 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 Community Matters. Please follow these guidelines for public comment: • If you are here to speak for a Public Hearing, please wait to speak on the matter until the report for that item has been presented and the Public Hearing has been opened. • Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks. • Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you agree with them. • Please refrain from using obscenities. • If you cannot follow these guidelines, you will be escorted from City Council Chambers and not permitted to reenter. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434) 970-3182. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: April 16, 2018 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Areshini Pather, Commonwealth Attorney’s Office Staff Contacts: Areshini Pather, Commonwealth Attorney’s Office Title: Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant - $49,336 Background: The Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Community Services Coordinator assists in the efficient delivery of services and access to the court process for the victims of domestic violence in both Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Examples include helping in the preparation of domestic violence cases for prosecution and assisting victims in obtaining protective orders. The Coordinator serves as a case manager on behalf of victims in relation to their interactions with community agencies that deliver needed services such as shelter, civil legal assistance, and counseling. No other person in local government fills this specific function on behalf of victims of domestic violence. Discussion: The City of Charlottesville has been awarded $38,336 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Community Services Coordinator in the City’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. This grant requires that 25% of project funds must be provided by cash or an in-kind match. The City’s Commonwealth Attorney’s Office will provide a $5,000 cash match, and an in-kind match of $4,213. Albemarle County will provide a $6,000 cash match, and an in-kind match of $3,000. Graduate student and intern hours will provide an additional $1,062 in-kind match. The total anticipated cash and in-kind match of $19,275 is more than sufficient to meet the minimum requirement. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and contributes to their priority to: Provide a comprehensive support system for children. The program also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City, Objective 2.2 Meet the safety needs of victims and reduce the risk of re-occurrence/re-victimization and Objective 2.3 Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. The Domestic Violence Coordinator contributes to the health and safety of the community by connecting victims of domestic violence and their children to service providers for emergency shelter, medical and mental health services, housing resources, legal assistance and other services. Community Engagement: The Charlottesville/Albemarle Domestic Violence Services Coordinator is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with victims of domestic violence and stalking who access services through referrals from police, court services, social services and other allied agencies. The Coordinator works with over 300 individuals yearly and serves on several coordinating councils: the Albemarle/Charlottesville Domestic Violence Council, the Monticello Area Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team, and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Blue Print for Safety group. The Coordinator has actively been involved in the implementation of the Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) used by Charlottesville, Albemarle and University of Virginia Police Departments. Budgetary Impact: The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. The terms of the award require a local match of $5,000 which will be provided by the current City appropriation from the Commonwealth Attorney’s General Fund Operating Budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: In the event that the grant is not funded or that the funds are not appropriated, this position will cease to exist, as there are no other funds to support it. APPROPRIATION Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant $49,336 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, has received the Domestic Violence Services Coordinator Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $38,336 in Federal pass-thru funds, Albemarle County is to contribute an additional $6,000 in local cash match, and the City Commonwealth Attorney’s Office will contribute up to $5,000 cash match, as needed to meet salary and benefit expenses. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $49,336 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $38,336 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 430120 $ 6,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 432030 $ 5,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures $49,336 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414002000 G/L Account: 519999 Transfer $ 5,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 1401001000 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $38,336 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and $6,000 from the County of Albemarle, Virginia. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Requested: Approve Appropriation Presenter: Gerry Martin, HVAC Manager, Facilities Maintenance Division Staff Contacts: Gerry Martin, HVAC Manager, Facilities Maintenance Division Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst, Office of Budget and Performance Management Title: Transfer of funds designated for Buford Middle School automation system upgrades, from School HVAC Operations to the School HVAC Capital Improvement Program account - $130,000 Background: On December 18, 2017, City Council approved $130,000 for upgrades to outdated building automation systems at Buford Middle School as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. These funds were appropriated to the School HVAC Operations cost center in the General Fund and now need to be transferred to the School HVAC Capital Improvement Program account. Discussion: It was anticipated that the building automation upgrades at Buford Middle School would take place during the summer of 2018 with a purchase order being issued prior to June 30, 2018 to encumber the funds; however, the timing is such that Facilities Maintenance currently does not have in-house resources to move forward with the project at this time. The updated time frame for the work to be performed is now the summer of 2019. In order to ensure that funding for this project will remain available after the end of FY 2018, this funding will need to be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, which will allow funding to automatically carry over each year until the work is completed. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s “A Green City” vision. It contributes to Strategic Plan Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: No additional funding will be required. The request is a transfer of previously appropriated funds from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the transfer of the funds. Alternatives: If the funding is not moved to the Capital Improvement Fund prior to June 30, 2018, Facilities Maintenance will no longer have access to the funding for the building automation upgrades at Buford during the time frame it is needed. This would result in either having to use other existing funds to do work meaning other project would not be done or would result in this project not being able to be accomplished. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Transfer of funds designated for Buford Middle School automation system upgrades, from School HVAC Operations to the School HVAC Capital Improvement Program account $130,000 WHEREAS, City Council approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation funding in the amount of $130,000 in the School HVAC Operations budget in the General Fund, for the Buford Middle School building automation system upgrades. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $130,000 is to be appropriated in the following manner: General Fund: Transfer From: Expenditures - $130,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2422003000 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To: Expenditures - $130,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9803030000 G/L Account: 561426 Capital Projects Fund: Transfer To: Revenue - $130,000 Fund: 426 Funded Program: SH-070 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures - $130,000 Fund: 426 Funded Program: SH-070 G/L Account: 599999 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 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 2018-2019 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). To date, the City has not received its allocation letter from HUD. For the purpose of carrying out the FY 18-19 Action Plan on time, staff will estimate allocations using previous FY allocations. Discussion: In Fall 2017, the City of Charlottesville advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) based on the priorities set by Council on September 18, 2017. The priorities were microenterprise assistance, workforce development, access to quality childcare, affordable housing, down payment assistance, and homeowner rehab. The City received two applications totaling $218,520 for housing projects; four applications totaling $154,865 for public service projects; one application totaling $12,500 for economic development projects; and one application totaling $29,650 for public facilities projects. A summary of applications received is included in this packet. In January 2018, 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. On March 13, 2018, 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 2018-2019: The CDBG program total has an estimated $388,000 for the 2018-2019 program year. The 1 CDBG grand total reflects the $388,000 Entitlement (EN) Grant, $1,291.49 in Reprogramming, and $0 in previous years’ entitlement available after program income has been applied. The HOME total consists of an estimated $57,100 which is the City’s portion of the Consortium’s appropriation, in addition to $14,280 for the City’s 25% required match, $0 in Reprogramming and $20,000 in program income. No new match will be appropriated to HOME projects, however, a surplus of match from previous years will be applied equally to all projects. 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 2018-2019 Priority Neighborhood are the Belmont and Ridge Street Neighborhoods. The Task Force for these neighborhoods will recommend priority neighborhood improvement projects to be carried out with CDBG funds. Staff will request that Council identify how the funds will be allocated to each neighborhood. Economic Development – Council set aside FY 18-19 CDBG funding for Economic Development Activities. Members of the Strategic Action Team reviewed applications for Economic Development and made a recommendation via email. Funds are proposed to be used to provide scholarships to assist 20 entrepreneurs launch their own micro-enterprises through technical assistance. Public Service Programs – The CDBG/HOME Task Force has recommended several public service programs. Programs were evaluated based on Council’s priorities for workforce development, access to quality childcare, and affordable housing. Programs were also evaluated based upon metrics included in the RFP evaluation scoring tool. Funding will enable the organizations to provide increased levels of service to the community. Estimated benefits include childcare scholarships for 6-7 families; basic literacy instruction for 20 beneficiaries; increased capacity of a coordinated entry system for homeless services which will benefit 27-28 homeless persons; and one major homeowner rehabilitation. Administration and Planning: To pay for the costs of staff working with CDBG projects, citizen participation, and other costs directly related to CDBG funds, $77,600 is budgeted. HOME Funds: The CDBG/HOME Task Force recommended funding to programs that support down payment assistance. Estimated benefits include 9 - 10 newly supported affordable units. Program Income/Reprogramming: For FY 2018-2019, the City has $0 in previous CDBG EN that has been made available through the application of received Program Income (PI) to be circulated back into the CDBG budget. The City has $22,906.59 in HOME available after PI was applied to be circulated back into the HOME budget. There are also completed projects that have remaining funds to be reprogrammed amounting to $1,291.49 CDBG and $5,557.86 HOME. 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 will increase more than their initial funding request. 2 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 will be made by members who serve on the Priority Neighborhood 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. No new match will be appropriated to HOME projects, however, a surplus of match from previous years will be applied equally to all projects. 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. All Planning Commissioners present at the meeting voted. Staff also recommends approval of the appropriations. Funds included in this budget will not be spent until after July 1, 2018 when HUD releases the entitlement. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: 2018-2019 Proposed CDBG and HOME Budget Appropriation Resolution for CDBG funds Appropriation Resolution for HOME funds Appropriation Resolution for CDBG & HOME reprogrammed funds Summary of RFPs submitted Minutes from CDBG Task Force meetings 3 2018-2019 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 1/16/18 and 1/26/18 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: 3/13/2018 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: A. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Belmont and Ridge Street $200,000 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Scholarships $12,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $12,500 C. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $8,300 B. United Way – Childcare Scholarships $24,900 C. TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $25,000 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $58,200 (15% EN) D. HOUSING PROJECTS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $40,991.49 HOUSING PROGRAMS TOTAL: $40,991.49* E. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $77,600 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $389,291.49 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $388,000 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $0.00 REPROGRAMMING: $1,291.49 * Funding includes reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2018-2019 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. Habitat – Down payment Assistance $39,488.15* B. PHA – Down payment Assistance $39,488.15* C. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $20,868.15* GRAND TOTAL: $99,844.45 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $57,100 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $22,906.59 REPROGRAMMING: $5,557.86 REMAINING LOCAL MATCH FROM PREVIOUS ALLOCATIONS: $14,280** * Includes estimated EN available after program income applied ** Match surplus allocated from previous grant years APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE'S 2018-2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $389,291.49 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 2018-2019 fiscal year in the total amount of $389,291.49 that includes new entitlement from HUD amounting to $388,000, and previous entitlement made available through reprogramming of $1,291.49. WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG Task Force, the SAT, the Belmont and Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood Task Force (priorities to be determined at a later date) 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 Belmont and Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood $200,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $12,500 PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS United Way – Childcare Scholarships $24,900 TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $25,000 Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $8,300 HOUSING PROJECTS AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $40,991.49 ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: Admin and Planning $77,600 TOTAL $389,291.49 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $388,000 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 2018-2019 HOME FUNDS $99,488.45 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 2018-2019 fiscal year; WHEREAS, the region is receiving an award for HOME funds for fiscal year 18-19 of which the City will receive $57,100 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 a surplus of match from previous appropriations from the Charlottesville Housing Fund (account CP-0084 in SAP system) in the amount of $14,280. Project totals also include previous entitlement made available through program income of $22,906.59. The total of the HUD money, program income, and the local match, equals $99,844.45 and will be distributed as shown below. PROJECTS HOME EN MATCH OTHER TOTAL Habitat for Humanity-DPA $25,240 $4,760 $9,488.15 $39,488.15 PHA-DPA $25,240 $4,760 $9,488.15 $39,488.15 AHIP-Homeowner Rehab $6,620 $4,760 $9,488.15 $20,868.15 Total $57,100 $14,280 28,464.45 $99,488.45 * includes Program Income which does not require local match. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $57,100 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 AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACCOUNT Reprogramming of Funds for FY 18-19 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 16-17 P-00001-02-77 OAR Re-entry Services $1,287.03 16-17 P-00001-02-81 CAYIP $4.46 18-19 AHIP Homeowner Rehab $1,291.49 $1,291.49 TOTALS: $1,291.49 $1,291.49 $1,291.49 APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT TO HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT Reprogramming of Funds for FY 18-19 WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the appropriation of certain sums of federal grant receipts to specific accounts in the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) 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 HOME 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 16-17 1900266 AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $5,380.39 $0 1900247 $98.72 18-19 Habitat – DPA $1,859.29 $1,859.29 18-19 PHA – DPA $1,859.29 $1,859.29 18-19 AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $1,859.29 $1,859.29 TOTALS: $5,577.86 $5,577.86 $5,577.86 Applicant Score Request Operable Threshold TF Recommendation - Public Services TF Recommendation -Conditional PS TF Recommendation Housing/Public Facilities Lit Volunteers 93 $8,300 $5,000 $8,300 $8,300 AHIP 88 $50,000 40991 TJACH 85 $50,000 $25,000 UW 81 $30,000 $24,900 $30,000 COP 75 $17,065 $15,000 $15,000 Human Services 73 $12,000 $4,900 PHAR 72 $17,500 $10,000 OAR 71 $20,000 Arc 63 $29,650 Estimated Budget $58,200 $58,200 $40,991 $0 $0 $0 PHA 94 $58,520 $30,000 Habitat 90 $60,000 $30,000 AHIP 88 $50,000 $11,380 $71,380 $0.00 PY 2018-2019 APPLICANT SCORECARD APPLICANT: PHAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 42 Sarah Malpass 9 6 4 6 10 5 9 4 4 3 7 5 0 4 0 2 78 Kelly Logan 0 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 2 6 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 92 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 5 5 4 9 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 61 Taneia Dowell 9 6 4 7 10 2 9 4 3 5 5 6 5 4 5 3 87 Kathy Johnson Harris 360 72 APPLICANT: Dept of Human Services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(b) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 6 6 4 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 86 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 8 5 5 5 5 7 6 5 4 5 4 86 Kelly Logan 9 6 3 7 10 3 2 3 6 7 6 3 4 5 4 78 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 10 1 2 2 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 74 Howard Evergreen 9 3 3 3 5 3 2 6 6 0 6 5 2 2 2 57 Taneia Dowell 9 6 5 3 5 1 2 2 2 7 6 0 3 0 4 55 Kathy Johnson Harris 436 73 APPLICANT: City of Promise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(b) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 6 6 6 5 6 6 0 6 5 4 5 4 86 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 3 6 5 6 5 0 6 5 4 5 4 76 Kelly Logan 9 6 3 7 10 7 5 0 4 2 6 3 4 5 4 75 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 6 0 9 5 1 4 0 6 5 4 5 4 69 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 5 5 9 5 6 6 0 6 2 2 2 4 72 Taneia Dowell 9 6 2 7 10 3 5 5 6 0 6 5 4 0 4 72 Kathy Johnson Harris 450 75 APPLICANT: Literacy Volunteers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 5 5 6 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 93 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 10 6 8 5 6 6 6 6 5 4 5 4 98 Kelly Logan 9 6 4 5 10 6 9 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 5 4 94 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 5 4 97 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 7 5 6 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 95 Taneia Dowell 9 6 5 7 10 3 9 5 6 6 2 2 5 4 0 4 83 Kathy Johnson Harris 560 93 APPLICANT: OAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(b) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 0 5 3 9 4 6 6 0 6 5 4 5 4 72 Sarah Malpass 9 6 4 7 3 9 3 6 6 0 6 4 4 5 4 76 Kelly Logan 9 6 1 5 3 9 5 3 6 0 6 2 4 3 4 66 Kelsey Cox 9 6 0 5 3 9 5 5 6 0 6 5 4 0 4 67 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 5 10 6 2 6 6 4 6 0 0 2 2 69 Taneia Dowell 9 6 4 5 3 9 4 5 6 0 6 5 3 5 4 74 Kathy Johnson Harris 424 71 APPLICANT: TJACH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 5 6 9 5 6 6 0 6 5 4 5 4 88 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 5 5 6 4 6 5 4 5 4 96 Kelly Logan 9 6 4 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 4 6 4 4 5 4 95 Kelsey Cox 9 6 3 5 10 6 9 4 5 6 0 6 5 0 5 4 83 Howard Evergreen 9 3 3 3 5 6 3 2 3 6 0 0 5 4 5 4 61 Taneia Dowell 9 6 4 7 10 5 9 4 2 6 0 6 5 4 5 4 86 Kathy Johnson Harris 509 85 APPLICANT: United Way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(b) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 10 9 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 5 4 91 Sarah Malpass 9 6 0 7 6 8 4 6 6 4 6 3 4 4 4 77 Kelly Logan 9 6 0 7 0 9 5 6 6 2 6 5 4 5 4 74 Kelsey Cox 9 6 0 7 0 9 5 3 6 0 6 5 4 5 4 69 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 7 10 9 6 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 95 Taneia Dowell 9 6 0 7 3 6 8 6 6 2 6 5 4 5 4 77 Kathy Johnson Harris 483 81 APPLICANT: Arc of Piedmont 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(a) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 3 3 3 5 2 0 2 1 2 0 6 5 4 0 4 49 Sarah Malpass 9 6 4 7 8 6 5 5 6 5 4 6 5 4 5 4 89 Kelly Logan 9 6 1 7 10 5 5 4 3 3 2 6 2 4 5 4 76 Kelsey Cox 9 6 3 3 8 0 1 4 2 2 0 6 5 4 0 4 57 Howard Evergreen 9 3 5 3 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 6 5 0 5 4 48 Taneia Dowell 9 3 1 3 7 0 1 5 5 6 0 6 5 2 4 3 60 Kathy Johnson Harris 379 63 APPLICANT: AHIP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(b) 12(b) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 10 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 94 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 10 9 4 6 6 7 6 5 3 5 4 92 Kelly Logan 9 6 5 7 8 6 2 5 6 6 6 3 4 5 4 82 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 3 1 5 5 4 7 6 5 4 5 4 76 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 7 5 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 89 Taneia Dowell 9 6 5 7 9 9 5 6 7 7 6 5 4 5 4 94 Kathy Johnson Harris 527 88 APPLICANT: Habitat for Humanity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(b) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 100 Sarah Malpass 9 6 5 7 5 6 9 4 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 94 Kelly Logan 9 6 4 7 8 5 6 9 5 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 96 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 6 6 6 4 5 4 7 6 5 4 5 4 89 Howard Evergreen 9 3 5 3 5 6 3 5 6 6 7 0 0 4 4 66 Taneia Dowell 9 6 4 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 5 6 5 4 5 4 97 Kathy Johnson Harris 542 90 APPLICANT: PHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11(b) 12(a) 13 14 15 16 Sherry Kraft 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 100 Sarah Malpass 9 4 5 6 5 6 9 3 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 90 Kelly Logan 9 6 3 7 10 5 9 3 6 6 7 6 3 3 5 4 92 Kelsey Cox 9 6 5 7 10 6 9 2 5 4 7 6 5 4 5 4 94 Howard Evergreen 9 6 5 7 5 6 9 5 6 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 95 Taneia Dowell 9 6 3 7 10 6 9 5 6 6 4 6 5 4 5 4 95 Kathy Johnson Harris 566 94 CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Tuesday, January 16, 2018 3:00pm – 5:00pm 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 Kelsey Cox X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 3:00pm. Staff (Tierra Howard – TH) mentioned that she had a few items to discuss prior to beginning the discussion. She mentioned that there was an error with #5 on the evaluation score sheet template. TH allowed Task Force (TF) members to correct the scores due to the error. Taneia Dowell (TD) asked if she was missing the Community Investment Collaboration (CIC) application. TH explained that the CIC application is reviewed and approved by the Strategic Action Team since it is an economic development activity application. TH introduced Kelsey Cox (KC), the TF representative for the Belmont Neighborhood. Review of Average Scores for CDBG Proposals TH reviewed the average CDBG scores as submitted to her (as shown on the attached excel spreadsheet). TH explained that CIC and Offender Aid Restoration (OAR) forgot to submit their required supplemental materials. TH received the supplemental materials after the required application due date. TH asked the TF to decide whether or not each application should still be considered in the evaluation process. Howard Evergreen (HE) mentioned that Habitat for Humanity did not include their Board addresses in their application, which makes an incomplete application. TH explained that the TF had the opportunity to revise the evaluation tool and include a scoring category for application completeness. TH explained that the TF can add a scoring category next year for application completeness. Kelly Logan (KL) also expressed that upon her review, some 1 of the applications did not provide local data, as requested, which is why she provided a score of zero for particular categories on some applications. Sarah Malpass (SM) suggested that the agency Board member addresses may not be critical information. TH explained that the reason why Board member information is requested is due to conflict of interest concerns. TH explained that it is the Task Force’s decision to decide how to account for incomplete applications. SM mentioned that the 990 documents seem more important to her than Board addresses. Sherry Kraft (SK) mentioned that she would hate to see the incomplete applications be removed from being considered from the process. TH mentioned that CIC and OAR would both have to be considered in the decision to determine if each agency would be penalized for not submitting the supplemental materials by the deadline. HE asked if OAR’s application could fall under the economic development category. Staff mentioned that OAR’s application is considered a public service activity with a focus on workforce development. SM asked about where the economic development set-aside would be allocated if they are not allocated to an economic development project. TH explained that there are federally mandated allocation percentage caps on administrative and public service activities. TH explained that unallocated funds can be allocated toward housing activities (such as AHIP’s homeowner rehab project), public facility projects (such as the Arc of Piedmont’s floor repair project), or the priority neighborhood set-aside. KL asked if the Arc of Piedmont’s application was a public facility or public service project. TH stated that it is a public facility project. There was discussion about whether or not to fund the public facility project or housing project if they are the only applicant in the category. TH explained that HE suggested that as a matter of fairness, just because one application is submitted for a given category, should not automatically allow for the agency to be funded. On a motion by TD, seconded by SK, the CDBG Task Force unanimously approved the consideration of both OAR and CIC’s application in the FY 18-19 evaluation process. Public Service Projects  Staff mentioned that the estimated budget for public service projects is $58,200.  SM mentioned that Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) did not provide an operable budget threshold, but it appears as though they would need the position to be fully funded. SM stated that she was unclear if it would make sense to provide a funding recommendation for half of TJACH’s funding request. There was additional discussion about whether their funding request is meant to be fully funded or if it could operate with half funding. SM fully supports TJACH developing the position further, but she is not sure if CDBG would be appropriate for fully funding the position. SK stated that she does not feel comfortable fully funding the request because that would leave no funds for the other projects. KL mentioned that fully funding TJACH would fully fund the top two scorers (including Literacy Volunteers). HE brought up concerns about the sustainability of TJACH’s position and the ability to fund the position after one year. TH reviewed the applicant’s 2 response to the questions that were sent out. There was ongoing discussion about sustainability and the future of the TJACH position.  There was discussion about United Way and why some TF members provided low scores. TF explained that the timeline and the outcomes were not clear. TD mentioned that the budget mentioned County beneficiaries; however, other members mentioned that they were clear about the funds benefitting City residents.  KL stated that United Way’s application mentions that City Department Social Services (DSS) funds are available for childcare assistance. KL mentions that there is no waiting list (there used to be). The TF had a discussion about the process and the requirements for the DSS program. KL mentioned that if the TF decided not to fund United Way, there is another funding source available for childcare, however, the group discussed that there are different requirements/process for accessing the funds, which could potentially turn people away from wanting to get DSS childcare assistance due to the child support enforcement requirement. The TF discussed the benefits of having an alternative funding source for childcare. TD mentioned that too many City services discourage fathers from being active in their child’s life. KL mentioned that she is not aware of what the income requirements are for United Way to determine if they are higher than DSS. HE mentioned that if the TF decides not to fully fund United Way, it will only reduce the number of beneficiaries that it can serve, which is not similar to funding a position.  HE suggested that the TF make a recommendation to offer TJACH half of their funding request. If they are unable to use the funds, the funds can be allocated to the other agencies.  TD asked if the group decided whether or not to fully fund projects, which could help with the decision-making process.  On a motion by TD, seconded by SK, the CDBG Task Force unanimously made a recommendation to fully fund Literacy Volunteers based on their score being the highest score for their full funding request at $8,300.  SK mentioned that if there are additional funds for childcare through DSS, she supports not fully funding United Way.  SM mentioned that she’s curious about the idea of partially funding TJACH.  There was discussion about TJACH being able to fundraise for the other part of the funds if CDBG partially funds the project. HE suggested that the TF recommend funding TJACH for half, and then they can fund a half-time person which would serve about half of the beneficiaries. Staff suggested that the TF include conditional language in their motion/recommendation and then TJACH can then let staff know if they are willing to accept half of the funding prior to PC approving the TF funding recommendations. The TF can then provide a conditional budget if TJACH cannot utilize the funds.  TD suggested that the group cut off funding considerations using the average score of 79. TD suggested that the TF will not be able to consider all of the applications and the purpose of the tool is to consider those applicants that scored higher.  SK asked what the group thought about PHAR’s application. There was discussion about the budget being unclear. There was also discussion about City of Promise’s application scores. The TF mentioned that they did not score as high as usual (historically); however, the application is an improvement from the previous year. Staff mentioned that the TF should also consider other funding sources as listed on the application to assist with answering some of their questions. 3  SM mentioned that if a previous applicant fell short of their projected outcomes, and did not make a compelling argument to explain why, then that should be considered by the TF.  SM mentioned that she would be willing to make a motion to drop PHAR and OAR (the two lowest scores) off of the funding recommendation list.  On a motion by SM, seconded by HE, the CDBG Task Force unanimously made a recommendation to omit the two lowest scorers, OAR and PHAR from consideration.  SK mentioned that she has a hard time dropping City of Promise from the funding pool. She discussed that they have had a transition in leadership.  TD reminded the group that in determining whether or not to fund the lowest scorers, City of Promise and CAYIP, the TF needs to rely on the scores and scoring mechanism in order to justify the funding recommendations. HE mentioned that COP score is below average and the operable threshold is high. TD mentioned that the CAYIP application is similar. HE suggested that the TF consider what TD suggested and that is to focus on the applicants that scored above average.  HE suggested that the TF focus on the top scorers and fund United Way at about $25,000 and if TJACH cannot utilize their funds at an operable threshold at $25,000, then the funding can be allocated to City of Promise on a conditional basis. HE suggested that an applicant who scored the lowest should not get fully funded while an applicant who scored the highest also does not get fully funded (in regards to COP).  KC asked if the TF wanted to consider fully funding TJACH. HE mentioned that the only way that the TF could get fully funded is if the TF decides that United Way does not get funded. HE mentioned that there is a need for childcare and that United Way provides an important service. SM mentioned that United Way could be serving families who are not getting assistance from DSS. KL mentioned that the income requirements could be different, which means that the families who do not qualify for DSS assistance, could potentially qualify for United Way assistance. KL recommended that the TF provide some level of funding to as United Way earmarks certain funding for partners that they work with. TD mentioned that if a single parent goes to DSS for childcare assistance, and DSS requires that the mother goes to the division of child support, this is a critical component to the decision making process. United Way could serve a need.  HE suggested that TJACH should be funded at $25,000, United Way should be funded with the amount leftover $24,900, and if TJACH cannot support the position with half funding, then the remaining balance should go to COP at their full funding request and the remaining funds should go to human services at $10,000. TD suggested that the remaining amount should go to United Way and not human services.  Staff mentioned that since CAYIP’s program is a government/City program, Department of Human Services (DHS) has to justify a quantifiable increase in the number of beneficiaries served, per CDBG requirements. The current application proposes that DHS will serve 6 additional youth with the CDBG funds. SM discussed the benefits of having a CAYIP internship. TD questioned where the proposed outcomes are outlined in the application. KL mentioned that the proposed outcomes are listed in another place of the application. HE expressed that it’s not clear to him how $8,000 would help give them something that they can’t get somewhere else. 4  Staff mentioned that she asked COP to provide more details in regards to the budget. Staff expressed that COP can’t use funding for incentives and gift cards and she asked COP to explain how baby showers and celebrations connect to the program goals. COP did not elaborate further on how this ties to the goal of the program. Housing and Public Facility Projects Arc of Piedmont and AHIP Application  KL mentioned that it was difficult to score Arc of Piedmont’s application because the scoring tool was not as relative to the Arc of Piedmont project as the other applications. KL mentioned that Arc of Piedmont serves the very low-income population and the most underserved persons. SM mentioned that the project is important due to principles of dignity and safety and that their clients should be able to have the same living environment as others. KL mentioned that the flooring conditions are a safety hazard for clients who are wheel-chair bound.  SK asked if there are other funding sources for projects like the Arc of Piedmont. Staff was unable to identify any other funding sources for similar projects. HE suggested that perhaps Building Goodness could assist the Arc with a project similar to what being proposed. HE suggested that perhaps the materials could be funded through CDBG and Building Goodness could do the labor.  TD felt like what was being proposed did not fit within the criteria of the questions, which is why she scored the project low. This is the only time TD felt like someone with the lowest score should be considered.  HE felt like the Arc didn’t make the safety case strong enough in their application and the application appeared to highlight cosmetics versus safety. SM felt like the aesthetics of a living space is important and relates to community values. HE explained that if they could have provided pictures or a way to explain why the improvements were necessary, it would have been helpful. HE explained that they only provided one estimated cost and questioned if it was an accurate estimate of the funding that may actually be needed, however, he’d still like to support their application.  SK stated that it wasn’t a great application, they struggled to make the case, however, she still understands what the need is. The TF began discussing the number of bids that Arc could have potentially received for the project. Staff mentioned that the applicant is not required to submit three bids at this point in the process. Staff oversight at a later date is to ensure that the correct numbers of bids are submitted. Staff mentioned that perhaps that they did submit the lowest bid of three, however, at this point, the application process does not require them to submit bids.  TD mentioned that none of the applications were great even though all of the applicants attended the workshop and the guidelines were presented clearly.  SK felt like there were some good applications. SK had questions related to the Priority Neighborhood and the scoring tool and whether or not this question was fair to those agencies who serve those outside of the priority neighborhood. Staff mentioned that this is merely a preference question in line with Council’s desires to target funds in the selected priority neighborhood. Staff mentioned that historically, there is a preference for each priority neighborhood each year and that 5 the 10th & Page neighborhood was once a priority neighborhood where an agency who served in that neighborhood had the opportunity to gain additional points.  Kelsey Cox (KC) mentioned that it seems like the tool does a good job of ruling out deficits in the applications. With the Arc of Piedmont application, the scoring mechanism did a good job in scoring the application relative to what was submitted in the application.  In regards to AHIP’s application, staff mentioned that a substantial rehab typically ranges between $30,000 and $50,000.  In relation to the Arc’s application, HE mentioned that it appears as though $20,000 for floor repairs is a bit high.  HE mentioned it would be good if CDBG could finance the materials and if agencies like Building Goodness could install the materials. TH urged the TF to make funding recommendations based upon what is submitted in an application.  HE mentioned that asbestos, lead, and other issues can be uncovered when doing a rehab project which adds extra cost to a project. HE questioned whether or not this was taken into account in the Arc’s application.  The TF discussed that Arc’s proposal did not provide detail about what flooring is needed, how much flooring is needed and that the application omitted project details. The TF still felt like the project is still a worthy project. Arc’s application did not meet the average score threshold and funding the project seems to be inappropriate. KC mentioned that it seems as though the dollars are going further with AHIP’s project. KC mentioned that the scope of work in the Arc project is not provided and that there seems to be lot of unknowns due to the lack of detail in the submitted budget. The TF began to weigh the two projects during a discussion about fixing two homes versus fixing the flooring in one home. A TF member mentioned that the Arc project would serve more beneficiaries.  On a motion made by TD, seconded by KC, the CDBG Task Force unanimously recommended that AHIP receive funding in the amount of $40,991.  The group continued to discuss concerns about the quality of the Arc application and the cost of the project. HOME Applications  The TF mentioned that PHA scored the highest. The TF mentioned that PHA uses different income limits than Habitat along with a different down payment assistance structure and serves folks at a higher income threshold. HE stated that Habitat does not have to require a set down payment amount that he is aware of. There was some discussion about Habitat’s alternative funding sources.  The TF agreed that Habitat had a good application.  There was a discussion about funding persons who stay in the community long-term and the desire to fund projects that target the lower income population (persons who do not have a chance in homeownership versus funding persons at PHA, who serves a different need in the community. TD mentioned that PHA was the only applicant who mentioned that they use industry best practices.  On a motion by HE, seconded by SK, the CDBG Task Force unanimously approved the HOME funding recommendations as follows:  Fund Habitat for Humanity at $30,000; and  Fund PHA at $30,000;  Fund AHIP at $11,380; and 6  Because actual entitlement amounts for CDBG and HOME are not known at this time, the Task Force recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. The meeting adjourned at 5:00pm. 7 CDBG/HOME RFP SUBMISSIONS - FY 2018-19 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested Public Housing Association of Residents Brandon Collins Employment and Redevelopment Readiness $17,500 City of Charlottesville Dept of Human Services Misty Carpenter Community Attention Youth Internship Program $12,000 City of Promise Mary Coleman Enroll to Launch/Baby Academy $17,065 Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle Ellen Osborne Basic Literacy Instruction $8,300 OAR/Jefferson Area Community Corrections Patricia Smith Reentry Services $20,000 Coordinated Entry System for Homeless Services Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless Anthony Haro $50,000 United Way - Thomas Jefferson Area Barbara Hutchinson Childcare Scholarship Program $30,000 $154,865 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested Community Invest. Collaboration Stephen Davis Entrepreneurship-training $12,500 $12,500 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested The Arc of Piedmont John Santoski Shamrock House Floor Replacement $29,650 $29,650 Program Description Funding Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Jennifer Jacobs Block-by-Block Charlottesville (BXBC) - Belmont $100,000 Habitat for Humanity Annie Stup Project 20 - Downpayment Assistance $60,000 Affordable Homeownership with Downpayment Piedmont Housing Alliance Karen Reifenberger $58,520 Assistance $218,520 Economic Housing Social Public Facilities Development Programs This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Approval and appropriation Presenter: Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Staff Contacts: Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Maya Kumazawa, Budget and Management Analyst Title: State Assistance and Citizen Donation for Spay and Neuter Program at SPCA - $1,998.52 Background: The City has received State assistance in the amount of $1,998.52 from the Department of Motor Vehicles for sales of license plates bought to support spay and neutering of pets. The amount received in Fiscal Year 2017 was $1,012.62 and the amount received in Fiscal Year 2018 was $985.90. These funds are appropriated to the local agency that performs the local spay and neutering program, which in this case is the Charlottesville/Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Discussion: The City currently has a contractual obligation to support the SPCA to provide services that the City does not. Supporting the organization with additional funds will increase the level of service that SPCA can provide and potentially supplement the level of funding that is needed from the City each year. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: By keeping animals healthy and their populations under control, this contributes to Council’s vision to be “America’s Healthiest City.” In addition, by supporting a local community partner, this contributes Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City, Objective 2.3 Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: These funds will be appropriated into the General Fund and distributed to the SPCA. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: Return funds to the state. Attachments: Appropriation Appropriation State Assistance for Spay and Neuter Program at S.P.C.A. $1,998.52 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that a total of $1,998.52 is hereby appropriated to the Charlottesville / Albemarle SPCA in the following manner: Revenues - $1,998.52 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9713006000 G/L Account: 430080 Expenditures - $1,998.52 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9713006000 G/L Account: 540100 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Requested: Approve Appropriation Presenter: Mike Mollica, Facilities Development Manager, Public Works Staff Contacts: Mike Mollica, Facilities Development Manager, Public Works Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst, Office of Budget and Performance Management Title: Transfer of funds designated for new Salt Storage facilities, from Snow Removal Operations to the Facilities Lump Sum account- $300,000 Background: On December 18, 2017, City Council approved $300,000 to be used to replace the City’s salt storage facilities as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. These funds were appropriated to the Snow Removal Operations cost center in the General Fund and now need to be transferred to the Facilities Lump Sum Capital account in the Capital Improvement Fund. Discussion: It is anticipated that the bid process for the new Salt Storage facilities will take place during summer/fall of 2018, with a purchase order being issued after June 30, 2018 to encumber the funds. Given this timeline, the project logistics, and the Albemarle County site plan review process, a more expansive timeline is necessary. It’s likely that the updated time frame for this work to be performed could even extend into 2019. In order to ensure that funding for this project will remain available after the end of FY 2018, this funding will need to be transferred from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, which will allow funding to automatically carry over each year until the work is completed. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s “A Connected Community” vision. It contributes to Strategic Plan Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: No additional funding will be required. The request is a transfer of previously appropriated funds from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the transfer of the funds. Alternatives: If the funding is not moved to the Capital Improvement Fund prior to June 30, 2018, Public Works will no longer have access to the funding necessary for the new salt storage facilities during the time frame it is needed. This would result in a loss of operating efficiency and safety for our snow operations team. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Transfer of funds designated for new Salt Storage Facility, from Snow Removal Operations to the Facilities Lump Sum account- $300,000 WHEREAS, City Council approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation funding in the amount of $300,000 in the Snow Removal Operations budget in the General Fund, for the new Salt Storage Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $300,000 is to be appropriated in the following manner: General Fund: Transfer From: Expenditures - $300,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 2443002000 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To: Expenditures - $300,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 9803030000 G/L Account: 561426 Capital Projects Fund: Transfer From: Revenue - $300,000 Fund: 426 Funded Program: CP-018 G/L Account: 498010 Transfer To: Expenditures - $300,000 Fund: 426 Funded Program: CP-018 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Adoption of Resolution Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director, NDS Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Title: CITY-CRHA-PHAR Strengthening Systems Grant, Revised Scope of Work Background: The City of Charlottesville worked with CRHA and PHAR to apply for a Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF): Strengthening Systems Grant on June 8, 2016 and signed the grant agreement to receive $283,000 over three years. Discussion: On July 1, 2017, the Project Management Team (PMT) hired Enterprise Foundation to work with City of Charlottesville, Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) and Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR) to strengthen the relationship between the three institutions and build trust with public housing residents in preparation for redevelopment of CRHA properties. On March 14, 2018, at the request of PMT, the Enterprise Foundation submitted a revised scope of work (attached) to include; a) Resident Engagement Process Development, b) Strengthening CRHA Governance, c) Strengthening PHAR Capacity and Long-Term Sustainability, and d) Redevelopment Action Plan (attached). Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision Statements of: A great Place to Live for All of Our Citizens, A Connected Community, Smart, Citizen-Focused Government, Community of Mutual Respect, and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. Approval of this resolution also supports several goals and objectives in the 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan: Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options, Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, and Goal 5.4: Foster effective community engagement. Community Engagement: No community engagement has taken place; however, CRHA and PHAR engages the public housing residents on the project elements. The scope of work include extensive engagement with the residents and capacity building for CRHA Board and PHAR. Budgetary Impact: The project is fully funded with grant from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this resolution supporting the revised Scope of Work. Alternatives: The City Council may choose not to approve the resolution supporting the revised scope of work. Attachments:  Resolution supporting the revised Scope of Work.  Revised Scope of Work RESOLUTION In support of Revised Scope of Work for City-CRHA-PHAR Strengthening Systems Grant WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is committed to the provision of affordable housing and strengthening the capacity of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) and Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR), to act as active partners in the development of affordable housing, and redevelopment efforts; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville worked with CRHA and PHAR to apply for a Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF): Strengthening Systems Grant on June 8, 2016 and signed the grant agreement to receive $283,000 over three years; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, CRHA and PHAR formed a Project Management Team (PMT) to administer the grant, hire consultants as needed, and distribute the grant funding; and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2017 the Project Management Team (PMT) hired Enterprise Foundation to work with City of Charlottesville, CRHA and PHAR to Strengthen the relationship between the three institutions and build trust with public housing residents in preparation for redevelopment of CRHA properties; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2018 the Enterprise Foundation submitted a revised scope of work (attached) to include; a) Resident Engagement Process Development, b) Strengthening CRHA Governance, c) Strengthening PHAR Capacity and Long-Term Sustainability, and d) Redevelopment Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the PMT requests that each institution re-commit their organizations to the revised scope of work listed above; BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City of Charlottesville City Council hereby commit to support the revised scope of work of the Enterprise Foundation, and work to strengthen relationship with CRHA and PHAR. RESOLVED This _______ Day of May, 2018. Charlottesville: Strengthening Systems in Housing Redevelopment Re-Scoping Task #1: Resident Engagement Process Development Enterprise will support the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), the Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR), and City of Charlottesville in designing and overseeing the implementation of a resident led redevelopment planning process. Through support from the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF), Enterprise will research current resident assets and needs, channels for civic engagement that are currently underutilized and identify opportunities for new levers of engagement, and strengthen the capacity of the CRHA Board and long-term sustainability of PHAR through resident leadership. Enterprise Advisors will provide on the ground support in the design and implementation of an engagement strategy, focusing on process planning and designing engagement protocols. Consistent clear communication will be developed, communication with residents on proposals, projects with timelines, and resident services, to support broader engagement efforts. Enterprise will convene focus groups among residents, youth and outreach stakeholders to support the development of a resident-led redevelopment planning process, emphasizing resident perspectives and channels for meaningful engagement. A total of four focus groups will be held, including two with residents to gauge assets to support engagement efforts and understand neighborhood conditions and needs, one focus group will target youth between the ages of 18-25 to support the long-term viability of PHAR and develop the next generation of resident leaders, and lastly one focus group with outreach partners. Resident and youth focus groups will look to include a cross section of residents from various public housing communities. To support communication efforts, outreach partnerships will be established in conjunction with existing networks and groups, who will also assist in the identification of additional community stakeholders. Communication and outreach efforts will emphasize cultivating a culture of engagement that is ongoing, allowing relationships and trust to grow overtime. Establish protocols to effectively consult, engage and partner with residents and mobilize additional residents by tapping into community networks. Protocols will foster significant involvement and leadership of residents through clear routes for resident involvement with CRHA, PHAR, including methods to move engagement initiatives to decision making by residents. Roles and responsibilities for Enterprise:  Provide direct support in designing and overseeing the implementation of a resident engagement strategy. This will include an analysis of existing opportunities for civic engagement, resident assets, community needs and conditions, planning processes and redevelopment goals for housing investments.  Enterprise will support CRHA and PHAR in developing protocols and tools for engagement. Protocols will assess the level and type of desired engagement whether to consult, engage and partner with residents.  Civic engagement processes will be assessed for clarity to direct resident participation. In collaboration with CRHA and PHAR, Enterprise will assist in establishing protocols for PHAR to engage CRHA and the City during the redevelopment planning and construction process. ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS, INC. 10 G Street NE  Suite 580  Washington, DC 20002  202.842.9190  www.EnterpriseCommunity.org Engagement protocols between PHAR, CRHA and the City will emphasize transparency and provide clear roles and responsibilities for each entity.  Enterprise will assist CRHA and PHAR develop tools for communication and ongoing engagement of residents through survey questionnaires, sharing data analysis on neighborhood conditions, trends, and planned housing investments.  Enterprise will develop focus group questionnaires, with input from CRHA and PHAR, to facilitate conversations with each of the distinct groups encompassing residents, youth, along with advocates and stakeholders.  Enterprise will organize community socials with CRHA and PHAR on a quarterly basis for the duration of the project to share findings with residents interviewed, surveyed, or otherwise participated in the process towards the resident engagement redevelopment plan. Quarterly updates will allow residents to stay engaged for a sustained period, feel ownership in the process and value their participation. Roles and responsibilities for CRHA and PHAR:  PHAR and CRHA will be actively engaged in the development of protocols, tools and resources to support resident engagement.  PHAR members will assist in the development of culturally rooted strategies shaped by local context for public housing resident engagement.  Through active participation, PHAR will build capacity to facilitate focus groups with residents, collect and disseminate survey data, and communicate planning efforts and community strategic goals to public housing residents.  During the design process PHAR will clarify their role to the extent to act as a conduit between residents and community housing entities. PHAR will be actively involved in the development of a transparent process to allow for improved coordination between the City, CRHA and PHAR.  Members of PHAR will assist in establishing protocols for PHAR to engage CRHA and the City during the redevelopment planning and construction process.  Throughout the design process PHAR and CRHA will participate in planning and executing meetings, focus groups, and working sessions.  City, CRHA and PHAR will provide introductions to community partners, advocates and stakeholders to develop outreach partnerships to sustain engagement efforts. CRHA and PHAR will organize community socials with Enterprise on a quarterly basis for the duration of the project to share findings with residents interviewed, surveyed, or otherwise participated in the process towards the resident engagement redevelopment plan. Quarterly updates will allow residents to stay engaged for a sustained period, feel ownership in the process and value their participation. CRHA will provide logistical support in coordinating with community partners, scheduling meetings and reserving meeting spaces, etc. The City will actively participate in planning discussions and during meetings and workshops involving the full PMT. The PMT will encompass community development staff with the City, CRHA staff, PHAR and CACF staff. 2 Task #2: Strengthening CRHA Governance Enterprise will work with CRHA's board and executive director to strengthen CRHA's leadership to prepare the agency to not only set its own direction for achieving its mission in the community, but to also play a lead role in a system based collaborative network of community housing leaders in Charlottesville. Enterprise will coach members in fundamental leadership techniques based on local opportunities and challenges. This will include elements of effective communication and conflict resolution within and between organizations and building skills in creating and maintaining relationships with interconnected organizations and groups within the community, empowering members to affect systems change. Enterprise will build CRHA's board capacity to understand their role and responsibilities in serving a PHA to make effective decisions. This will include a focus on public housing redevelopment to help lead the agency's long-needed redevelopment efforts. Enterprise will provide training on housing redevelopment topics such as overall redevelopment strategies, financing, LIHTC, working with developers, and contracting. Enterprise will work with the current board and executive director to ensure the board has or will create and maintain a board with diverse skill sets to meet all needs of the agency, including redevelopment and resident engagement. CRHA has recognized a need and the benefits for ongoing resident engagement, as such the board should set the direction for the elements of this plan to directly serve its residents in collaboration with other resident advocacy organizations. Roles and responsibilities for Enterprise:  Enterprise will complete an assessment of the current knowledge and skills of the board to build off prior trainings and experience.  Enterprise will develop a communication plan between the board and residents. Enterprise will examine current board processes to understand the level of information that the board is provided from CRHA staff on an ongoing basis to conduct the business of the board.  Enterprise will develop and facilitate a board service workshop.  Enterprise will develop and conduct a PHA board best practices training covering fundamental topics such as the role of the board, creating and maintaining a board with a diversity of skill sets to serve the agency, and agency operations for the board. Enterprise will develop and conduct a board training focused on public housing redevelopment, including redevelopment models, financing options, and development partnerships to consider.  Enterprise will conduct public housing redevelopment information sessions for residents. Roles and responsibilities for CRHA:  CRHA will actively communicate knowledge and abilities to inform curriculum development and training facilitation.  CRHA will provide feedback to ensure the curriculum meets CRHA needs and objectives. CRHA will be actively engaged and participate in trainings. 3 Task #3: Strengthening PHAR Capacity and Long-Term Sustainability Enterprise will provide board development and assist PHAR establish clear priorities and actions for both rehabilitation and new development of assisted units based on resident needs and neighborhood conditions. Efforts will build local capacity and work toward building trust among partners through this process, so that the City, CRHA, and PHAR are better positioned to understand and address resident needs moving forward. Enterprise will work with PHAR to bridge the built environment with resident needs. Enterprise will assist PHAR in planning for ongoing resident engagement, including plans for resident engagement related to public housing redevelopment. An instrumental component of building PHAR capacity and long-term sustainability is through meaningful resident leadership opportunities of broad- based issues to improve quality of life. Enterprise will work with PHAR to develop leadership strategies that offer training to residents and other partners in strategic planning and visioning, redevelopment, and policy advocacy. Youth between the ages of 18-25 will be identified and brought into this process early to develop a new generation of leaders. Enterprise will assist PHAR clarify its role within the redevelopment process to bolster and build relationships to nature a reciprocal exchange among residents and community partners. Enterprise will coach members in fundamental leadership techniques based on local opportunities and challenges and build PHAR’s capacity to utilize the assets and skills of the community. This will include elements of effective communication and conflict resolution within and between organizations and building skills in creating and maintaining relationships with interconnected organizations and groups within the community, empowering members to affect systems change and seek community alignment among various efforts resulting in cohesive and deep impact. Enterprise will also work with PHAR to cultivate new leadership to ensure sustainability of the organization and its efforts. Enterprise will build PHAR's capacity to understand public housing redevelopment, to equip PHAR to effectively participate in housing redevelopment planning efforts, and participate in decision making utilizing innovative housing redevelopment strategies. Through understanding of affordable housing redevelopment opportunities and constraints and prioritizing resident services. Enterprise will provide training on housing redevelopment topics such as overall redevelopment strategies, financing, LIHTC, working with developers, contracting, and Section 3. Roles and responsibilities for Enterprise:  Enterprise will assess existing skills of PHAR members to build on past workshops and trainings. Based on the assessment of past trainings, Enterprise will develop the curriculum and implement a leadership and sustainability workshop. The curriculum will emphasize strengthening PHAR’s role in public housing redevelopment and developing pathways for resident involvement and leadership through planning and policy advocacy.  Enterprise will also tailor a training on affordable housing and public housing real estate development to build on current knowledge and skillset. Enterprise will assist PHAR build a shared vision for redevelopment and link assets and skills that already exist within the community.  Enterprise will guide PHAR in assessing stakeholder interests and their impact in areas where public housing resident needs and stakeholder interests intersect. A critical component of this will 4 include building PHAR’s capacity on the process for shaping local policy to effectively communicate between the City and CRHA and integrate resident input into the process. Roles and responsibilities for PHAR:  PHAR will be active in relaying experiences, knowledge and existing skills among PHAR members to inform the development of workshop and training curriculum.  PHAR will provide feedback on the curriculum to ensure trainings meet PHAR’s needs and desired outcomes.  PHAR will actively participate in scheduling calls and attend planning meetings. During workshops and trainings PHAR members will attend and be fully engaged and active. 5 Task #4: Redevelopment Action Plan Bringing together the City, CRHA, CRHA Redevelopment Committee and PHAR to collaboratively develop a redevelopment action plan for resident engagement that outlines roles, responsibilities and deliverables, to include communication and outreach protocols, data collection and analysis strategy, project details with number of units, public investments being made, and relocation processes and resources available to existing residents, with a clear and transparent process for residents to follow upon completion of construction. The Action Plan will provide the housing partners an opportunity to implement the 18-month engagement process developed with support from CACF. Enterprise will coach members in techniques to maximize collaborations to enhance the web of programs and services delivered to public housing residents. Coaching will include elements of effective communication, conflict resolution, and trust building among the core partners to develop a shared vision for strategy and implementation. The board development process will clarify CRHA and PHAR roles, setting redevelopment goals, resident services and workforce efforts through a guided visioning process. Enterprise will assist the City, CRHA, CRHA Redevelopment Committee and PHAR identify a relevant housing activity taking place or planned in the community and develop recommendations for coordination of activities and collective impact, leveraging the resident engagement process designed under Task 1 of this engagement. Enterprise will engage the City and the CRHA’s Development Committee, in addition to CRHA and PHAR, in the Redevelopment Action Plan for Resident Engagement, as they are key partners critical to successful redevelopment. Enterprise will assist the partners establish a working group across various sectors, including PHAR youth leadership, and coordinate among them to develop key recommendations, and assist in socializing the Action Plan to the community and leadership within the City, CRHA and PHAR. Roles and responsibilities for Enterprise:  Enterprise will assist the housing partners transition to implementation of a two-year engagement strategy with roles and responsibilities established for the duration of the plan.  Enterprise will support the development of a process map for the redevelopment process, resident services and roles and responsibilities for the City, CRHA, CRHA’s Development Committee and PHAR.  Enterprise will guide the City, CRHA and PHAR through a team building and conflict resolution workshop to cultivate working relationships between the partner members at the onset of planning. Enterprise will assist in providing framing for the Action Plan, including case studies for best practices for engaging residents in public housing.  Enterprise will assist the working group establish the infrastructure and protocols to ensure the Action Plan is operationalized by the City, CRHA, CRHA Development Committee, and PHAR, and socialize the Plan to the community, demonstrating the value added by resident participation. Through the Action Plan residents’ self-interest will be articulated and synergy across groups will be evident.  Enterprise will organize convenings on a quarterly basis for the duration of the project to share findings with residents interviewed, surveyed, or otherwise participated in the process towards the resident engagement redevelopment plan. Roles and responsibilities for the City, CRHA, CRHA Development Committee, and PHAR:  In collaboration the City, CRHA, CRHA Development Committee and PHAR will implement the resident engagement process through the development of a resident engagement Action Plan for redevelopment. 6  The Action Plan will be informed by strategic goals established by PHAR and CRHA for redevelopment of public housing, the resident engagement process with an emphasis on communication and outreach, along with clear roles and responsibilities for the City, CRHA, CRHA’s Development Committee and PHAR.  The Action Plan will outline PHAR’s channels for advocacy and communication with the City and CRHA. 7 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Report Only – no verbal presentation Presenter: Report Only– no verbal presentation Staff Contacts: Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities Melissa Orndorff Stephens, Stormwater Utility Administrator Title: 2017 Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee Annual Report Background: City Council established the Water Resources Protection Advisory Committee (WRPP-AC) by resolution in February of 2013. One of the duties of the WRPP-AC per the resolution is “to make an annual report to City Council”. Discussion: The WRPP-AC met throughout calendar year 2017 and prepared the attached annual report with minimal support from staff. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: The work of the WRPP-AC and therefore the Annual Report supports City Council’s mission that “We provide services that promote equity and an excellent quality of life in our community” and the vision “To be one community filled with opportunity.” The Committee and Report contributes to Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan, A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment. Community Engagement: Not Applicable Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. Recommendation: Not Applicable RESOLUTION Accepting the Charlottesville Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee (WRPP-AC) End-of-Year Report to City Council, CY2017 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville that the Charlottesville Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee (WRPP-AC) End-of-Year Report to City Council, CY2017 is hereby accepted. Charlottesville Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee (WRPP-AC) End-of-Year Report to City Council, CY2017 Executive Summary The Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP) was established to comply with federal and state stormwater regulations, rehabilitate the City’s aging stormwater system, address drainage and flooding problems and pursue environmental stewardship in an economically practicable and sustainable manner. The program implementation is proceeding as expected. The stormwater utility fee has been through eight biannual billing cycles and revenue generated by the fee continues to be invested in on-going drainage pipe rehabilitation and design and construction of capital improvement projects. The City offers a Stormwater Utility Fee Credit to reduce the stormwater utility fee for property owners that implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) on their property. Property owners are not responding to the Stormwater Utility Fee Credit Program, most likely due to the high cost of implementing a practice and the modest reduction in the fee that would be generated. While the Water Quality Incentive Program continues to attract limited attention the Memorandum of Agreement with the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) has been renewed. Potentially, a stewardship program, where property owners are recognized for their conservation efforts, would create more interest in BMP implementation by property owners. The City of Charlottesville is substantially in compliance with requirements for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) through the next permit cycle ending in 2023 and on track to meet final reduction goals for phosphorous and total suspended solids (TSS) by 2028. The remaining nitrogen reduction requirements may be more challenging to meet. Regulatory uncertainty persists with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Program and while the City’s TMDL Action Plan has been approved by DEQ, the 2017 Mid-Point Assessment may change the reduction goals. For the time being, with the water quality objectives apparently met, the immediate WRPP emphasis is turning to addressing drainage issues inherent in the comingled public/private drainage system. The recently completed city-wide Water Resources Master Plan will be utilized to identify, prioritize and select water quality drainage improvement projects going forward. 1 Background The Water Resources Protection Program Advisory Committee (WRPP-AC) was established to advise City Council and City staff on issues regarding continued development and implementation of the Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP) and the Stormwater Utility. The WRPP is designed to comply with federal and state stormwater regulations, rehabilitate the City’s ageing stormwater system, address drainage and flooding problems and pursue environmental stewardship in an economically practicable and sustainable manner. In February 2013, City Council established the stormwater utility fee to provide an adequate and stable source of funding for the WRPP. The stormwater utility fee is a "fee for service" based on the amount of impervious surface area on individual properties (impervious area is a basic representation of the amount of stormwater that drains from properties into the City’s regulated stormwater system). Revenue from fees are deposited in a dedicated Stormwater Utility Fund that can only be used for activities and services required to meet the objectives of the WRPP which include: • Meeting state and federal regulatory requirements contained in the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit; • Development of a City-wide Water Resources Master Plan to identify, select, and prioritize projects to accomplish the WRPP’s goals and objectives; and • Implementation of capital projects, including: o Rehabilitation, repair and replacement of the City-owned stormwater pipe systems; o Stormwater retrofits to attain mandated pollution reductions; o Drainage improvement projects to address local flooding and drainage issues; and o Stewardship projects to preserve, enhance, and restore the integrity of the City's water resources. To meet these objectives, the WRPP contains various program elements, as outlined below: • Stormwater Utility Fee: The stormwater utility fee is a “fee for service” based on the amount of stormwater that drains from individual properties into the City’s regulated stormwater system. This fee provides an adequate and stable funding source for the WRPP. • Stormwater Utility Fee Credit: As the operator of a municipal stormwater utility, the City is required by state law to offer a fee credit program. City property owners who own and maintain stormwater management facilities that provide permanent reductions in pollutants and/or stormwater runoff are acknowledged for their contribution to improved water quality through a reduction in their annual stormwater utility fee. • Water Quality Incentive Program: The City works with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) to operate a water quality incentive program, known as the Charlottesville Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP). This program provides one-time incentive grants for the construction of on-lot stormwater practices. 2 • Pipe Rehabilitation & Other Project Implementation: This includes work to-date through capital projects to replace or line City-owned clay and metal pipes; implementation of new stormwater practices as part of other Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), stand-alone stormwater retrofit projects, and the redesign and reconstruction of existing stormwater practices. • Public Education & Citizen Engagement: Includes WRPP efforts to educate, inform, and engage citizens in the program. In January of 2017 the Stormwater Utility/WRPP was split from the Department of Public Works to join the newly-formed Department of Public Utilities. WRPP Advisory Committee Overview WRPP-AC Duties As established by City Council resolutions dated February 19, 2013 and December 16, 2013, and specified in the advisory committee by-laws, the WRPP-AC is tasked with the following duties: • Engage in matters pertaining to the Water Resources Protection Program; • Monitor the formulation and implementation of the Water Resources Protection Program including, but not limited to, the following elements: o Master planning; o Progress with respect to pollutant reduction requirements established via the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) general permit; o Infrastructure rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance; o Capital drainage program. • Conduct periodic assessments of program priorities and funding needs, including recommendations for potential adjustments in the stormwater utility fee rate by City Council once specific program objectives or milestones have been satisfied; • Report to City Council from time to time on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the credits and incentives program; and • Make an annual report to City Council. Year 4 WRPP-AC Membership In 2017, the WRPP-AC was composed of the following seven (7) committee members: Brian Becker (Chair), Morgan Butler (Secretary), Dustin Greene, David Hirschman, Michael Ramsey, Trey Steigman, and Rebecca Quinn. Jeff Atkins joined the committee mid-way through the year, bringing membership on the Committee to eight (8). Members of City staff who regularly attended and contributed to WRPP-AC meetings during the year included: Dan Sweet (Stormwater Utility Administrator, who resigned from the position in September 2017), Lauren Hildebrand (Director of Utilities) and Bob Brown (Stormwater Technician). Year 4 WRPP-AC Activities 3 The WRPP-AC executed its duty to monitor the implementation of and engage in matters pertaining to the WRPP by holding three (3) meetings during CY2017: • WRPP-AC Meeting #13 – April 17, 2017 • WRPP-AC Meeting #14 – August 7, 2017 • WRPP-AC Meeting #15 – October 30, 2017. Summary of Year 4 WRPP Activities • Stormwater Utility Fee implementation, including the credits and incentives program: As the Stormwater Utility Program wraps up its initial business plan period, operations continue smoothly. The stormwater utility fee collection rate is exceeding 99% and the average annual residential bill ranges between $40 and $70 dollars. Actuals for the first two (2) years of the program, provided in CY2017 (Figure 1), show the program took in $4.7 million in fees, 44% went to Capital Funding, 27% was used for Salaries, Benefits, Operating Expenses and Debt Service, the remaining 29% of unspent revenue is reserved for future year design and construction of capital improvement projects. By mid-2017, approximately 10 miles of vitrified clay and corrugated metal pipes and 120 structures located in the City right of way and on City-owned parcels had been rehabilitated at an expenditure of $5.7 million. The full Stormwater Utility Program Update presented to City Council in September 2017 can be found here. For CY2018, staff has proposed the budget to remain flat with plans to evaluate in spring 2018 whether to advance a new four (4) or five (5) year business plan. Figure 1. Stormwater Utility Program actual expenditures of resources for the first two (2) fiscal years. Source: Stormwater Program Utility Update, September 8, 2017. State law requires all stormwater utilities adopted in Virginia to include a credit program. Charlottesville’s Stormwater Utility Fee Credit Program offers an ongoing partial reduction of the stormwater utility bill for property owners that own and maintain stormwater 4 management facilities that provide permanent reductions in pollutants and/or stormwater runoff volumes. Continuing the trend of recent years, there were no requests for credit adjustments made in CY2017 and only 13 have been approved since the program’s inception. The Water Quality Incentive Program offers cost-share for home owners to install stormwater BMPs on their property. The Charlottesville Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP) is a component of the Virginia Conservation Assistance Program (VCAP), and is administered locally by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD). CCAP funding is earmarked for Charlottesville residents and is leveraged by VCAP funding, as available. VCAP has been funded entirely through grants, so funding availability varies significantly. In 2017, the City reissued and executed the Memorandum of Agreement for the CCAP incentive program. While no CCAP applications were received in 2017 from Charlottesville property owners, the TJSWCD continues to work with property owners on applications made to the program in prior years. Additionally, TJSWCD staff have met recently with six (6) individuals to discuss potential applications to the program. The most popular practices in the incentive program have been conversion of turf grasses to native meadows or landscapes; however, there is also increasing interest in rain water harvesting and infiltration practices. The WRPP-AC discussed how to strengthen interest in and increase the public’s use of the Credits and Incentives programs. Consensus was that the utility fee is too low to stimulate consequential demand in the existing programs. The application process for the credit program is complex and usually requires the assistance of a stormwater professional to navigate, increasing the owner’s investment for what amounts to a relatively modest savings per billing cycle on an already low stormwater utility fee. While there is more interest in the Incentives program, the ten-year maintenance commitment required to receive CCAP or VCAP funding, may serve as a deterrent to participation. With little financial incentive to apply, some property owners are more likely to consider implementing BMPs or improving their properties simply because it is the “right thing to do” for the City’s water resources and the environment. Whether or not the City can “count” these practices toward WRPP objectives, the numerous, distributed stormwater BMPs across the City positively impact water quality in the region. The WRPP-AC continues to explore the idea of how a stewardship-orientated program can be developed within the existing WRPP framework. • Regulatory Compliance The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) approved the City of Charlottesville’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plan, which is a requirement of the City’s MS4 General Permit. The TMDL Action Plan was approved in 2016. The Action Plan describes the phased reductions of the three (3) pollutants of concern (POC) before the end of FY2028: total nitrogen (N), total phosphorous (P), and total suspended solids (TSS). With the approved Action Plan in place, the City is in compliance with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL through the next permit cycle ending in 2023. The City is also on track to meet 2028 reduction goals in phosphorous and total suspended solids, but still requires additional reductions in nitrogen (Table 1.) 5 In addition to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, the DEQ requires TMDL Action Plans for local impaired streams with approved waste-load allocations (WLAs). Overall, approximately 16 stream miles in the City are listed as “impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) and requires a TMDL.” Evaluating the WRPP is complicated by the regulatory uncertainty with DEQ and Chesapeake Bay Program models, regulations, and permits. While the City must meet specific pollutant reduction targets outlined in its MS4 permit, the numbers are subject to change when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program updates the Chesapeake Bay Model and issues the 2017 Mid-Point Assessment. This assessment will reallocate pollutant loads and reductions to land uses across the Watershed. Table 1. Progress towards compliance with the City of Charlottesville's pollution reduction goals, to be achieved by 2028. POC = pollutant of concern; N= nitrogen; P = phosphorus; TSS = total suspended solids. Source: Stormwater Utility Update, September 8, 2017. As DEQ responds to changes at the Chesapeake Bay Program, guidance to regulated MS4 permit holders on how to compute the specific reductions and the “credit” allocated to each type of practice are modified. It is anticipated that additional guidance and crediting modifications will occur in the coming years. While the City is currently on a sound trajectory for compliance with its 2023 and 2028 goals, these goals may shift, as will the methods of compliance. This uncertainty makes it difficult, at present, to fully evaluate the program, its funding and the rate of implementation. The WRPP-AC, with assistance from staff, plans to keep abreast of the regulatory framework and to evaluate program priorities and funding on an ongoing basis as additional information becomes available. • Capital program implementation City-Wide Water Resources Master Plan The City contract with AMEC Foster-Wheeler to develop the Water Resources Master Plan was completed in 2017. The purpose of the Water Resources Master Plan is to identify, prioritize, and select Capital Improvement Projects to improve water quality and address drainage issues across the City. The Advisory Committee provided input to program staff regarding the weighting factors (e.g., cost, pollution reduction, visibility in the community, etc.) that the decision support tool uses to rank potential projects. The CIP 1 (water quality) Master Plan had nitrogen reduction added as a factor considered in the ranking formula and 6 the most heavily weighted factors are: cost efficiency for Nitrogen removal and the extent to which a project addresses drainage issues (Figure 2). In the CIP 2 (drainage) Master Plan, the most heavily weighted factors are: potential for structural damage, public responsibility, public health/safety and the extent to which the project also addresses water quality (Figure 3). The project ranking tool is a deliverable of the Master Plan that the City can continue to use into the future as new projects are proposed. Figure 2. Selection criteria and findings for the CIP 1, focused on water quality. Source: Stormwater Utility Program Update, September 8, 2017. Figure 3. Selection criteria and findings for CIP 2, focused on drainage. Source: Stormwater Utility Program Update, September 8, 2017. Stormwater BMPs 7 Four (4) projects from CIP 1 have been issued for survey. These are: • WQ-07 – Cherry Avenue, this stream restoration project will provide drainage and water quality improvements; • PR-02 – Brookwood Drive, a water quality BMP retrofit project to modify an existing dry extended detention pond; • PR-03 – Woolen Mills (Franklin Street), this water quality BMP retrofit project proposes to modify an existing structure to create a constructed wetland; and • PR-04 – Birdwood Court, a water quality BMP retrofit project proposing to modify existing structures in an extended detention facility. Capital drainage projects Eight (8) projects from CIP 2 were issued for survey. These projects include: • DR-04 – Meadowbrook Road, a drainage project including water quality improvements. This project proposes to improve drainage through the use of grassed swales and stream restoration; • DR-10 – Moseley Drive, a drainage project including water quality improvements. The project is proposed to consist of a dry swale and check dams to improve drainage; • DR-14 – Cedar Hill Road, a drainage project including water quality improvements. The project proposes a pipe upgrade and grassed swale to improve drainage; • DR-15 – Rothery & Ivy Roads, a drainage and water quality improvement project proposing to improve drainage through stream restoration and pipe upgrades; • DR-16 – Forest Hill Road, a drainage and water quality improvement project. The project proposes to improve drainage through stream restoration and pipe upgrades; • DR-17 – Locust Lane, a drainage project with water quality improvements. This project proposes to improve drainage through the installation of a level spreader and vegetative buffer; • DR-18 – Druid Avenue, a drainage project which proposes to upgrade pipe to mitigate drainage problems; and • DR-19 – Cherry Avenue, a drainage and water quality improvement project proposing to install a grassed swale to improve drainage problems. Two other projects not included in the master plan are also moving forward, the Forest Hills Park bio-retention retrofit and the River Run/Pen Park stream restoration projects, are also underway. Infrastructure rehabilitation, repair, and maintenance Repair and rehabilitation of the 13 miles of City-owned clay and metal stormwater drains continues. By the end of CY2017, the City had lined or replaced approximately 10 miles of clay and metal pipe and rehabilitated 120 structures in the stormwater system. Charlottesville stormwater pipes are a complicated, comingled system, with two-thirds of the pipes being located on private land and under private ownership. The City cleans and flushes the pipes on a five to seven-year cycle and performs ongoing maintenance on the +/- 50 mile publicly owned system, as needed. 8 Public-Private and Market-Based Approaches The City had a kick-off meeting with EPA Region III on a joint program to promote public- private and market-based approaches to stormwater innovations. The City received a $50,000 grant for the program. Conclusions Program implementation continues as expected. The utility fee has been through eight (8) billing cycles and appears to be accepted by property owners. Property owners are not responding to the credit program, most likely due to the high cost of implementing a practice and the relatively modest reduction in the fee that would be generated. The incentives program continues to attract some attention. Potentially, a stewardship program, where property owners are recognized for their conservation efforts, would create more interest in implementation by property owners. The City of Charlottesville is substantially in compliance with requirements for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL through the next permit cycle ending in 2023 and is on track to meet final reduction goals for phosphorous and total suspended solids by 2028. However, regulatory uncertainty persists with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Program. While the City’s TMDL Action Plan was approved by the DEQ, the 2017 Mid-Point Assessment may change reduction goals. There has been a recent emphasis on addressing challenges arising from a comingled public/private drainage system. The completed Master Plan will continue to be used to guide water quality and drainage improvement project implementation. 9 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Public Hearing and Approval Presenter: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Staff Contacts: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Title: Approval of Five Year Consolidated Plan for FYs 2018-2019 – 2022- 2023 and FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan Background: Every five years, the City of Charlottesville and the regional HOME Consortium assess local housing and community development needs in the region and adopt a strategic plan to meet needs identified by the community. This “Consolidated Plan” is designed to help the region (City of Charlottesville and Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson) assess affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The Consolidated planning process serves as the framework to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus funding from the several federal sources. Each year localities are required to complete an Action Plan that details goals, objectives and specific activities to be carried out in the upcoming program year. This is the first Action Plan of the 2018-2019 Consolidated Plan. This document also serves as the City’s application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District’s application for HOME funds. It is due in its final form, tentatively on May 15th, however, HUD has instructed grantees that it must be submitted to HUD no later than thirty days after the City receives its allocation letter. To date, the City has not received its allocation letter. Much of the data and figures in the Consolidated Plan have been prepopulated from HUD with an opportunity to include further data from other sources. The format of the plan is focused on answering specific and targeted questions, in which the response fields have word/character limits. Needs were identified from consultations with government agencies, service providers, 12 community/stakeholder meetings, an analysis of local, state, and federal data sources, a thorough review of existing plans, and an online survey. The final plan will include additional data from the City’s Housing Needs Assessment and various other resources in addition to stakeholder meetings. 1 Discussion: Consolidated Plan Goals Consolidated Plan goals are responsive to the needs identified, while considering the limited HOME and CDBG resources available to carry out work under the Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans. The goals are as follows: • Preserve the Existing Supply of Affordable Housing (critical need for extremely low- income households (0-30% AMI) and high need for very-low income households (30%- 50% AMI) • Expand the Affordable Housing Stock (critical need for extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) and high need for very-low income households (30%-50% AMI) • Strengthen and Support Homeownership for First‐Time Homebuyers (critical need for extremely low (0-30% AMI) and high need for very-low income households (30%-50% AMI) • Ensure Housing Stock is Accessible for All Residents • Support Homeless and Transition to Independence • Enhance and Improve Access to Neighborhood Amenities and Infrastructure in Low/Moderate Income (income‐eligible) areas • Support Programs which Increase and Improve Employment Opportunities • Support Programs which Provide Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services • Foster Small and Local Business Development • Support Investments that Aid in Fair Housing Choice Action Plan - Priority Neighborhood Clarification On September 18, 2017, Council designated Belmont and Ridge Street as the priority neighborhoods for FY 18-19. The Task Force for these neighborhoods will recommend priority neighborhood improvement projects to be carried out with CDBG funds. Staff is requesting Council to identify how the funds will be allocated to each neighborhood. Below are a few scenarios and impacts of each. Potential scenarios are no limited to those listed. • Fund both neighborhoods equally in each FY within the three-year rotation cycle o Impact: each neighborhood would receive about $100,000 each year for the rotation cycle. $100,000 would not be sufficient to fund larger scale neighborhood projects, like previous Priority Neighborhood projects in previous FYs. Neighborhoods would have to identify smaller scale projects to fund. • Rotate and alternate funding for each neighborhood for the first two years in the three-year rotation cycle and then fund both in the final year of the cycle (for example: Belmont would be funded for FY 18-19, Ridge Street for FY 19-20, and funding would be split between both neighborhoods for FY 20-21). Belmont is technically the next neighborhood next in the rotation. o Impact: elimination or reduction decisions at the federal level are uncertain each year, one priority neighborhood may be impacted more by federal budget decisions 2 from year to year. • Council can choose to extend the funding cycle for priority neighborhoods (for example, Council can choose to fund both neighborhoods for more than a three-year cycle) It is not suggested that the City have funds accumulate from year to year due to the need to meet federal spending deadlines at the end of each fiscal year. Community Engagement: The Participation section of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan will detail all community engagement efforts, as well as all comments received and incorporated into the plan. To date, the following community engagement efforts have taken place: • Announcement of Consolidated Plan Updates in Fall 2017 • Public meetings were held between January 2018 and April 2018 o On March 13, 2018, the proposed FY 18-19 CDBG and HOME Action Budget/Action Plan came before the planning commission for a public hearing o Public Meeting on March 20, 2018 to share preliminary findings of needs and market analysis, review of survey results and stakeholder input, and provide an update on the 2018 Point-in Time Count of persons who are homeless in the region o Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Public Hearing on April 5, 2018 o City of Charlottesville Public Hearing on May 7, 2018 • An online survey was conducted between January 29, 2018 and March 13, 2018 to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs in the community over the next five years and to reevaluate goals previously set in the 2013 Consolidated Plan for continued relevance and to propose new goals for consideration • The Housing Director’s Council (Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium members) had an opportunity to make comments on the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan at their March 20 and April 17, 2018 meetings. • 12 stakeholder discussions were held • The draft Consolidated Plan and Action Plan have been advertised for a thirty-day comment period (March 28th – April 27th, 2018) before being sent to HUD for approval. The plan is in draft form pending approval from Council at the May 7th meeting. Comments received to date have been incorporated into the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. Any additional comments and data will be incorporated into the final plan to be available on the City’s website HERE. There has only been one comment to date – “this is a great report, so thorough!” Following approval of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan, data will be entered in the HUD database which will then create a final formatted version of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. A wide range of over eighty organizations were informed about the Consolidated Plan update process and kept informed of public meetings and draft reviews by email, public notice mailings, and during stakeholder meetings throughout the course of the update. These organizations include business groups, social service providers, neighborhood associations, the public housing community, real estate and housing organizations, anti-poverty organizations, and health and mental health 3 organizations, and organizations that represent the Latino and African American community. Many representatives from these groups attended meetings held for the Consolidated Plan update and staff sent out data requests to these groups, however, not all representatives opted to participate. Staff also coordinated with CRHA to include notices in billing inserts as well as to incorporate data from the CRHA Annual Plan into the Consolidated Plan. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Areas: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. It contributes to variety of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives including: Goal 1Enhace the self-sufficiency of residents;: 1.1 Promote education and training; 1.2 Reduce employment barriers; 1.3 Increase affordable housing options; 1.4 Enhance financial health; 1.5 Improve college/ career readiness of students.; 2.3. Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure; 3.1. Develop a quality workforce; 3.2. Attract and cultivate a variety of new businesses; and 3.3. Grow and retain viable businesses Budgetary Impact: The Consolidated Plan and Action Plan will have no additional budgetary impacts. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 2018 – 2022 Consolidated Plan and 2018-2019 Action Plan of the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan. Funds will not be available or eligible to be spent until HUD releases funds. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: 2018 – 2022 Consolidated Plan and 2018 – 2019 Annual Action Plan Draft Resolution – Approval of 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan and FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan Resolution – FY 18-19 Priority Neighborhood Funds for Belmont and Ridge Street Neighborhoods 4 FY18 - 22 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and FY 18 - 19 ACTION PLAN for the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE and the THOMAS JEFFERSON HOME CONSORTIUM Draft for Public Comment Comments accepted March 28 to April 27 Public Hearing Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission April 5, 2018, 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing City Council May 7, 2018, 7:00 p.m. 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Needs Assessment Summary .....................................................................................................................1 Market Analysis .......................................................................................................................................18 Non-Housing Community Development Assets ....................................................................................28 Consolidated Plan DRAFT Goals ...........................................................................................................31 Action Plan for Program Year 2018 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) ..................................................33 Attachments Stakeholder Discussion Notes Gap Analysis for Charlottesville MSA: Report for Virginia’s Housing Policy Advisory Committee Summary of Survey Results CRHA Resident Characteristics Report 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment Summary The Needs Assessment/Market Analysis sections of the Consolidated Plan provide the basis for drafting housing and community development goals to be achieved by the localities in the region over the next five years. The first section of this summary describes the identification of needs, and the next section describes how these needs have been prioritized. Public input is requested concerning all of this material. Needs Assessment/Market Analysis Summary This section presents an assessment of the region’s needs pertaining to affordable housing, disproportionate greater need, homelessness, public housing, special needs housing, and community development. Needs were identified from consultations with government agencies, service providers, eleven (11) community meetings, an analysis of local, state, and federal data sources, a thorough review of existing plans, and an online survey. The identified needs were compared to an inventory of programs and services currently available to meet the needs, in order to assess the degree to which the needs remain unmet in the community. Housing Problems The Needs Assessment analyzed the following housing problems: housing cost‐burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing that lacks kitchen and plumbing facilities. The data shows that High housing cost burden is the greatest housing problem in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPD), which was also confirmed in every Consolidated Plan community meeting. HUD defines cost‐burdened families as those “who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing” and “may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.” Severe rent burden is defined as paying more than 50 percent of one's income on rent. For renters, housing costs consists of contract rent plus utilities. Renters in the region have higher cost burdens than home owners. Renter Cost Burden by Income 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0‐30% AMI >30‐50% AMI >50‐80% AMI >80‐100% AMI >100% AMI Not cost burdened Cost burden > 30% <=50% Cost burden > 50% According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2009‐2013, over 22 percent of all households in the region are considered cost‐burdened. 11,739 renter households and 9,159 homeowner households earned below the median income and spent greater than 30 percent of their income on housing, and over half spent 50 percent of their income on housing. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 1 Populations who are most affected by these housing problems are households that are extremely‐low (up to 30% of the area median income ‐ AMI) and very‐low‐income and earn less than 50 percent of the AMI, renters in all low‐income categories that experience a housing problem, elderly homeowners with cost‐burdens in excess of 30 percent and 50 percent of their income and persons with special housing needs. The data shows that overcrowding and substandard housing problems are less of an issue than high housing cost burden, however, qualitative data from discussions with stakeholders reveal that issues related to accessibility for elderly persons and persons with disabilities remain an issue. A summary of comments from stakeholder discussions is included at the end of this draft plan. Owner Cost Burden by Income 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0‐30% AMI >30‐50% AMI >50‐80% AMI >80‐100% AMI >100% AMI Not cost burdened Cost burden > 30% <=50% Cost burden > 50% The Gap Analysis for the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) from A Report for Virginia’s Housing Policy Advisory Council released November 2017 indicates a high cost‐burden, and also notes that there is an insufficient supply of rental units affordable to households with incomes under 30% AMI. Additionally, households with higher incomes occupy the majority of units affordable to that income group. Although there are physically enough units for households in the 30% to 80% Area Median Income (AMI) range, households with higher incomes occupy many of the units. A significant percentage of units affordable in the 30% to 80% age range are also occupied by households with incomes lower than required to rent affordably. There are also a high number of vacant, for‐rent units among those affordable to households in the 30 to 80% AMI range, which may indicate issues with those units. A similar pattern exists for owned homes, with a shortage of units affordable to households under 50% AMI, and households with higher incomes occupying the majority of those homes. Households with incomes lower than required to own in the 80 to 100% AMI income range occupy a very high percentage of units that affordability range. The two‐page summary of the gap analysis from that report is included at the end of this plan. NOTE: The MSA does not include Louisa County. Housing Virginia developed maps of Virginia available through their Mapbook. The two maps on the following page show the change in the percentage of households in the region that were cost‐ burdened in 2000 and 2014. In 2000, a larger percentage of households in the City of Charlottesville and the northern urban ring were the most cost‐burdened than the region as a whole. In 2014, the percentage of households that were cost burdened increased in the region from 21 percent – 30 percent in 2000 to 31 percent to 40 percent over the past 14 years. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 2 Housing Cost Burden in 2000 Housing Cost Burden in 2014 In addition to cost‐burden, there are three other housing problems in the CHAS data: FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 3 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems. Renter Housing Problems 2009‐2013 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0‐30% AMI >30‐50% AMI >50‐80% AMI >80‐100% AMI Total Has a housing problem Does not have a housing problem The incidence of housing problems correlates with income. Households in the 0 to 30% and 30 to 50% AMI ranges have significantly higher incidence of housing problems than other households. This is true for both renters and homeowners. Owner Housing Problems 30,000 2009‐2013 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0‐30% AMI >30‐50% AMI >50‐80% AMI >80‐100% AMI Total Has a housing problem Does not have a housing problem Disproportionate Greater Need: HUD defines disproportionate greater need when there is greater than a 10‐percentage point difference between a racial group at an income level who experiences at least FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 4 one housing problem and the total population in that income category experiencing at least one housing problem. Housing Problems by Race 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0‐30 AMI 0‐30 AMI 30‐50 AMI 30‐50 AMI 50‐80 AMI 50‐80 AMI 80‐100 AMI 80‐100 AMI Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg problem problem problem problem problem problem problem problem White Black / African American Asian American Indian, Alaska Native Pacific Islander Hispanic 30‐50 30‐ 50‐80 50‐ 80‐100 80‐ 0‐30 AMI 0‐30 AMI AMI 50 AMI AMI 80 AMI AMI 100 AMI Housing Problems Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg Has a hsg No hsg problem problem problem problem problem problem problem problem Region as a Whole 79% 21% 63% 37% 48% 52% 29% 71% White 78% 22% 59% 41% 48% 52% 29% 71% Black / African American 78% 22% 73% 27% 45% 55% 30% 70% Asian 90% 10% 55% 45% 54% 46% 34% 66% American Indian, Alaska Native 100% 0% 59% 41% 0% 100% 17% 83% Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Hispanic 81% 19% 83% 17% 55% 45% 9% 91% Based upon the definition, the data does not show a significant disparity amongst Black/African American household (greater by 10%). The data does show a significant disparity amongst Hispanic household (greater by 20%) in the region who have a disproportionate share of households in the 30% to 50% AMI range who experience at least one housing problem. American Indian/Alaska Native and Pacific Islander also had more than a 10% difference. There was no disproportionate share of households who experienced Severe Housing Problems. It is likely that racial and ethnic groups across each income category are not showing a significant amount of disproportionate greater need due to the inclusion of University of Virginia students amongst cost‐burdened renter households. In Charlottesville specifically, there are clear disparities amongst census tracts that are majority‐minority residents (Black/African American and Hispanic) and those with a higher percentage of White residents (excluding the census tracts dominated by students). FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 5 Discussion Among extremely‐low income households (<30 percent of AMI), the data shows that Asians, American Indian and Alaska Native groups experience a disproportionately greater need than the jurisdiction as a whole (Table NA‐15.2), however, only a small number of persons in American Indian and Alaska Native racial group are reflected in the data across all income categories in the region. Among 30‐50 percent AMI households, Hispanics (83 percent) show a higher incidence of housing problems (20 percent difference) than the very‐low income population as a whole (63 percent) Blacks in the same income category experience severe housing problems 10 percent more than that the jurisdiction as a whole. Among households earning between 50‐80% AMI, there are no racial categories that experience a higher incidence of housing problems. Pacific Islanders show a higher incidence of housing problems than the jurisdiction as a whole, however, only four persons within the Pacific Islander category are reflected in the data. Among households earning between 80‐100% AMI, there are no racial categories that experience a higher incidence of housing problems. Based upon HUD’s definition of disproportionate greater need, no racial group, as a percentage of their population, spends significantly more on housing than the region wide average. The region’s white population makes up 80.5 percent of the total population. The lower incidences of disproportionate greater need amongst other racial groups may be the result of an influx of white young, entry‐level professionals, University of Virginia students and professors who select housing options in high cost areas of the region (City of Charlottesville). Poor Black households are much more likely to be long‐term residents, have low rents, and or receive subsidized housing assistance. All of these scenarios would decrease the rate at which households experience a housing problem and could result in skewed data results. Other Needs: In addition to affordable and accessible housing options, there is a need for greater educational attainment and employment opportunities through economic and workforce development initiatives as well as access to transportation that supports regional workforce development efforts and affordable quality childcare. The region must make connections to match the skills required to perform jobs within workforce development initiatives intended to serve households with a disproportionate greater need. Specific Areas or Neighborhoods: In the City of Charlottesville, African American population represents 49% of the population in the Fifeville and Ridge Street neighborhoods. The City’s largest Hispanic population resides in the Fry’s Spring, Fifeville, and Belmont neighborhoods. The lowest median rents are located in Census Tracts 4.01, 5.01, and 4.02 (these census tracts fall within the Fifeville, Ridge Street, and Belmont neighborhoods), which in part, could be due to the location of public or other assisted housing units. The concentrations of lower‐income households results in high shares of households with housing cost‐burdens, translating to high cost‐burdens for African American and Hispanic populations. Homelessness: Extremely Low‐income households in the region face numerous pressures that threaten them with homelessness. These include, but are not limited to: low wages, lack of education necessary for advancement, high housing costs, lack of transportation options, and limited childcare options especially for non‐traditional hours. These pressures interact with each other, initiating cycles that can be very difficult to counteract without assistance. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 6 The most common reason for losing shelter is the inability to pay rent, and in some cases the inability to pay utility costs. As documented in this assessment, there is a lack of rental options available for those earning not much above the Virginia minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in the region, rendering this population vulnerable to any fluctuations in either ability to pay or rents. The following circumstances may commonly trigger an eviction:  The rent was never affordable in the first place, and the unit was only acquired through a one‐time cash outlay, such as a tax refund.  A reduction of income occurs, especially a reduction of working hours or the stoppage of child support payments.  A job loss occurs.  A person sharing the unit, either a roommate or significant other, leaves without proper notice and is no longer sharing the cost burden.  Unexpected health care costs arise and are not fully covered by private insurance or public assistance.  Public assistance, such as food stamps or childcare assistance is reduced, either through a change in the household (such as a raise in income) or policy.  The rent and/or utility costs increase. Although less common than loss of income, currently homeless survey respondents have cited this reason for leaving their previous housing. There are rapid‐rehousing programs available to provide stable housing options for formerly homeless individuals and households. However, there are insufficient resources to support the transition out of these programs and into the broader housing market once the period of temporary support is completed. There is a need for individual housing counseling to ensure that clients are educated in personal financial management and select housing that will be continually affordable once the subsidy stops. High costs of rental units have been linked to housing instability for households at risk of homelessness. This is particularly true within the City of Charlottesville and urban ring of Albemarle County, where students are able to bid up the price of rental units. The Task Force to End Homelessness has considered a $550 apartment to be affordable housing, based on what could be acquired by a household earning a “living wage” of $10.17 an hour. A 2010 point‐in‐time count of advertised rental units showed that 0 out of 247 advertised 2‐bedroom apartments met these criteria, and 23 out 185 1‐bedroom apartments met these criteria. These prices typically do not include the cost of utilities. Households earning minimum wage or subsisting on SSI payments have little to no affordable housing options as defined above. There is an insufficient supply of rental housing in the region to meet the needs of the extremely low‐income. Social service providers have also found that public transportation access has limited the number of housing options available to their low‐income clients. Transit‐dependent populations, including many elderly and disabled individuals, will have limited access to jobs and services unless they live within the Charlottesville Area Transit service area. The rents in this area are higher than the regional average. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 7 The nationwide Point in Time (PIT) Homeless Count takes place annually on the last Wednesday in January. This effort offers a snapshot of homelessness by recording the number of people in an emergency shelter or who are unsheltered on a single night of the year. The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) coordinates the Point in Time Count, recruiting volunteers, developing survey materials and collating data. Volunteers administer surveys at area soup kitchens, day shelters, at campsites and on the street to determine the number of unsheltered homeless in our community. In addition, data is collected from area emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re‐ housing, and permanent supportive housing programs on that same data to determine the number of sheltered homeless. Together, these reports provide a snapshot of homelessness in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District including information on employment status, previous address, family characteristics, veteran status, and basic demographic information, in addition to data on the extent to which households struggle with serious mental illness, chronic substance abuse, domestic violence or HIV/AIDS diagnoses. The 2017 and 2018 PITs showed slight increase over 2016, but the trend has been downward since 2010. Total Count 250 228 213 204 191 195 200 185 176 157 160 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Count There is currently only one Transitional Housing (TH) program operating in the region. Emergency shelter is provided by the Salvation Army year‐round and seasonally by PACEM. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is provided by the non‐profit Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) at the Crossings at 4th and Preston supported by vouchers provided by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and scattered site housing by the Region Ten Community Services Board, funded through HUD:  Shelter + Care PSH $151,483.00  Supportive Housing Program PSH $136,603.00  Positive Places PSH $71,016.00 FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 8 The 2018 Count identified: • 13 Veterans experiencing homelessness • 41 Estimated Chronically Homeless persons (decrease from 55 in 2017) • 25% of adults experienced domestic violence at some point in their past • 30% of people reported a disabling condition Point In Time Count 2010 ‐ 2018 180 160 160 135 140 125 128 128 129 113 115 120 101 100 80 60 60 50 47 41 39 39 34 40 27 27 28 26 25 23 28 18 22 22 19 20 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ES TH Unsheltered Jurisdiction’s Rural Homeless Population: The homeless population in the rural areas of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is known predominantly through monitoring conducted by school administration. A Homeless liaison from each district keeps track of families who are believed to be homeless, based on interactions with students and their parents. Children who are 'doubled‐up' or living in a motel/hotel that is paid for by an agency or program are considered homeless under McKinney‐Vento. Adults (homeless children's parents or adult relatives) who are 'doubled‐up' are not considered literally homeless by the local Continuum of Care. School districts in the mostly rural counties of Greene, Louisa, and Nelson reported a collective total of 84 homeless children. The vast majority of these are children who are "doubled‐up" with friends of family, and a smaller number of living in hotel/motel rooms. Surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that a number of unsheltered homeless individuals originate from rural areas and may live without shelter temporarily within their home county. However, a majority will eventually migrate to Charlottesville or other major urban areas, where transportation access is greater, a community or peers is present, and a greater number of services are available. There are no homeless shelters outside of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County in our jurisdiction. In addition, for many years there have been no identified unsheltered persons living outside of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. As mentioned above, anecdotal evidence suggests that most people living in rural counties who are forced to live outside will migrate to the City of Charlottesville or other more populated areas to access services like emergency shelter. Because of FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 9 the lack of a local emergency shelter in the rural areas, most people who are facing homelessness are able to live “doubled up” with friends of families or in hotels to avoid living outside or in a car. Public Housing: The City’s public housing portfolio consists of approximately 376 units including five scattered site units. CRHA also administers 700 Housing Choice Vouchers that are funded by HUD. The waiting listed maintained by CRHA for Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing included 1,866 households in July 2017. Excluding overlap caused by households on both lists, there are 1,651 unduplicated households. The waiting lists for Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing have been closed for years. With low levels of turnover, this represents an eight‐year wait for a voucher or a seven‐year wait for public housing though the wait is significantly shorter for elderly and disabled individuals. This is indicative of the number of low‐income households in need of affordable housing options in the City. A Resident Characteristics Report for November 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018 is included in the Appendices. Special Needs Housing: Persons living with physical or cognitive disabilities, older adults, persons with severe mental illnesses, victims of domestic violence, and persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families were identified through the citizen participation process as special needs populations. Additional costs for medical, personal care, home modifications, or housing needs exacerbate challenges faced by these groups to remain stably housed and connected to care. Older populations face numerous housing challenges, including:  Affordability: The percentage of homeowners carrying mortgage debt has sharply increased over the last 30 years. The number and percentage of cost‐burdened senior households (paying over 30% of their incomes on housing) is increasing, largely due to lower incomes after retirement.  Physical accessibility  Access to medical and other services  Social isolation The Charlottesville region is a popular retirement destination due to its quality of life and excellent medical facilities. In the region, realtors report a fair number of retirees from the Washington, DC area and other locations with high prevailing home prices moving to the Charlottesville area and purchasing homes for cash. This trend creates additional pressure on the market, raising sales prices. There are a number of housing developments in the region specifically serving older adults and people with disabilities. The Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) reports that it generally has no vacancies for its own projects, typically has a waiting list, and the turnover rate is low. Typically, tenants only vacate their units due to a move to full time care (i.e. Assisted living or nursing home) or death. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 10 Inventory & Survey of Regional Affordable Senior Housing Facilities Wait Name Location Units Unit Types List Yes/No Timberlake Place Charlottesville 26 LI, 1 7 2BR/2BA, 3 1 BR, remainder Yes market 1.5BR Midway Manor Apartments Charlottesville 98 94 1BR 1BA, Four 2BR 1BA Yes Parkview at South Pantops Albemarle County 90 1BR 1BA, 2BR 1.5BA, 54 1BR Yes 36 2BRs (1BR) Woods Edge Apartments Albemarle County 96 77 1 BR 1BA, 20 2BR 2BA No Scottsville School Scottsville 34 1BR Yes The Meadowlands Crozet 30 1BR Yes Crozet‐Meadows Crozet 66 1BR Yes Epworth Manor Louisa County 61 16 Studios and 45 1BRs Yes Epworth Manor Phase II Louisa County 22 all 1br Yes Meadow Run Apartments Louisa County 43 all 1BR Yes Evergreen Place Louisa County 4 1BR Yes Ryan School Nelson County 26 25 1BR, 6 2BR, 1 studio No Community Development Needs: Non‐Housing Community Development Needs identifies public facilities, improvements, and services. Recent plans developed since the last consolidated planning period identify facility needs, including recreational facilities, libraries, schools, and senior centers, and should be referenced during this consolidated planning cycle. Public Facilities: Public facilities are critical to improving neighborhood quality and resident well‐being in the region. During this consolidated planning cycle, the City may direct a portion of CDBG resources toward public facilities, which may include enhanced access for persons with disabilities, substandard building upgrades, adding new amenities in underserved communities that have a demonstrated lack of public facilities, or investing in public facility projects which improves substandard housing facilities and quality of life such as parks and open space. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses the physical improvement, replacement, or new construction of City‐owned facilities. The City develops a comprehensive five‐year program through an annual capital budgeting process. To be included for funding, projects must support a priority objective and respond to a documented need. Public participation in decision‐making is robust, including meetings, consultations with residents and other stakeholders, budget forums, and public hearings. Public facility needs are also identified through Comprehensive Planning processes. The City of Charlottesville is currently undergoing a review and update of its 2013 Comprehensive Plan and public facility needs identified within the current process will inform identified needs. Public facility needs identified in this plan have been derived from focus groups with service providers in the region including community stakeholders and community residents. Additional input was determined by the results of the Consolidated Plan online survey. A summary of survey responses is included at the end of this document. Specific CDBG committees will prioritize needs as they relate to priority neighborhood funding. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 11 Public Improvements: Transportation infrastructure is critical to enable access to employment, health care, social outlets, and recreation. For low‐ to moderate income households, transportation alternatives to private ownership of vehicles can increase the amount of disposable income available for other essential needs. In this sense, transportation needs overlaps with housing needs as the financial pressures of both are brought to bear on the full affordability equation. A significant number of workers in the service‐sector need accessible transportation accommodations/options for due to non‐traditional work hours and varying work schedules. Relative to transportation, the need for streetscape improvements to enhance access and increase walking and biking opportunities are also identified as a need. Very‐low income households, the elderly, and people with special needs may not have access to a motorized vehicle at all. Those with limited mobility face a number of needs. There is a need for Expanded transportation options for non‐Medicaid funded medical purposes, transit availability during non‐traditional hours, greater access in rural areas, transit service that does not require excessive advanced notice, transit available for after‐school programs, transportation escorts to provide assistance as needed, and greater awareness of transit. Consultations with stakeholders also revealed the need for infrastructure improvements to support economic development and revitalization as well as access to grocery stores and fresh food. The Community Mobility Needs Assessment. Within the urbanized areas of the region, the Charlottesville‐Albemarle MPO sets a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that establishes transportation improvements Public improvement needs identified in this plan have been and will be derived from focus groups with service providers in the region including community stakeholders and community residents. Additional input was determined by the results of the Consolidated Plan online survey. Specific CDBG committees will prioritize needs as they relate to priority neighborhood funding. Public Services Housing Services: Many of the public service needs are tied to affordable housing needs. Service needs identified include the need for coordinated comprehensive services that support housing placement, housing stability, and improve access to services. There is a need for property tax relief programs that assist a variety of persons, including elderly persons and extremely low to low‐income households. Programs that assist with increasing access to affordable housing include programs that assist with housing application fees and security deposits as well as support for programs that assist persons with financial literacy as it relates to credit history, landlord tenant issues/evictions, as well as services for persons with a criminal history, including re‐entry services for ex‐offenders. Resources for unbanked clients, such as Banked‐On, should have continued support as well as services that provide access to emergency funds. Workforce Development, Childcare, and Transportation Services: As described above, in order to maintain affordable housing, there is a need for accessible transportation to accommodate varying work schedules as well as jobs that pay a sufficient wage, and quality childcare. Workforce development, including job training and employment preparation are needed in addition to the comprehensive services that are needed to enhance access to employment and training opportunities. In addition to workforce development, there is a need for job development and creation through the support of microenterprise assistance and services that support entrepreneurship as a means of employment. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 12 There is a need for quality affordable childcare options that meet the needs of low‐ and moderate‐ income families, particularly single‐family households or households with both parents in employment. Childcare options for those that work non‐traditional hours are very few, and a significant number of workers in the service‐sector or medical industry accept non‐traditional or variable work schedules. With limited childcare options, parents may have difficulty finding an available service in close proximity to either the place of employment or home. If this difficulty is combined with limited transportation access, then childcare provision may render employment prohibitive for certain families Human Services: A number of human services needs for persons, specifically for homeless persons, persons with disabilities, persons with special needs and persons who have mental health and substance abuse issues are needed. Housing placement, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and case management/life skills are among those identified as needs for homeless persons. The community also identified mental health services, counseling services, and maintained support for community health clinics as general community needs. Other services mentioned include support for services that assist with language and cultural barriers. Public services needs identified in this plan have also been derived from focus groups with service providers in the region including community stakeholders and community residents. Additional input was determined by the results of the Consolidated Plan online survey as well as the City of Charlottesville’s Growing Opportunities Report. Housing Needs Assessment Summary of Housing Needs: The purpose of this section is to present data on population, basic demographics, and housing needs, and to discuss how these needs are manifested and distributed in the City and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. In 2013, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District had 91,199 households with an average household size of 2.60 (Table NA‐10.1). The population increased 17% from 2000 to 2013. Household size has been decreasing since 1960, when it was 3.29. That trend appears to have stabilized, with a slight increase in household size between 2010 and 2013. Table NA‐10.1, Demographic Characteristics 2000‐2013 Demographics Base 2010 Most % Change Year: 2000 Recent 2000 to Year: 2013 2013 Population 199,648 234,712 236,963 17% Households 72,899 91,504 91,199 16% Household Size 2.57 2.57 2.60 Median Income $57,000 $73,800 $77,500 36% Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2009 – 2013 ACS (Most Recent Year) FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 13 In the region, Albemarle County has the largest population, and the fastest growth rate: 2017 estimated population is from the Weldon Cooper Center. Population and Households in the Region 120,000 100,000 Albemarle 80,000 60,000 Charlottesville 40,000 Louisa Fluvanna 20,000 Greene Nelson 0 2000 Census 2010 Census 2017 Estimate Albemarle Chville Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 14 The region is largely rural, with an urban core consisting of the City of Charlottesville and an urban ring in Albemarle County. Population is also clustered along the Route 29 corrido, with a concentration just over the Greene County boundary with Albemarle County. Other growth areas in Albemarle County include Crozet to the west and the Village of Rivanna on east Route 250. Lake Monticello is a densely populated area in Fluvanna County. Number of Households Table Table NA‐10.2, Number of households by HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI) 0‐30% >30‐50% >50‐80% >80‐100% >100% HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI HAMFI Total Households 12,683 9,570 15,203 10,015 43,729 Small Family Households 2,889 2,632 5,234 3,874 21,994 Large Family Households 479 623 1,163 684 3,153 Household contains at least one person 62‐74 years of age 1,958 2,366 3,134 2,197 9,512 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 1,711 1,843 2,034 673 3,638 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 1,431 1,283 2,366 1,219 5,033 Data Source: 2009‐2013 CHAS Cost Burden: The data shows that high housing cost burden is the greatest housing problem in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPD). According to the 2009 ‐ 2013 CHAS data presented above, over 22 percent of all households in the TJPD were considered cost‐burden. Households that paid between 30 percent and 50 percent of their monthly income on housing were considered moderately cost‐burdened. The data shows, 11,739 renter households and 9,159 homeowner households earned below the median income and spent greater than 30 percent of their income on housing, and over half spent 50 percent of their income on housing (Table NA 10.4‐5). Households that pay more than 50 percent of their monthly income are considered severely housing cost‐burdened. For renters, cost‐ burden is calculated as monthly gross rent plus renter‐paid utilities as a percentage of monthly household income. For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. A housing affordability index created by the Center for Housing Research and Housing Virginia shows that in 2016, the median household in the City of Charlottesville would have to spend 35 percent of their income to acquire a median priced house and 25 percent of their income to rent the median priced unit. In Albemarle County, the threshold is 29 percent of income to acquire a median priced house and 21 percent of income to rent a median priced unit. In the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) , the median household would have to spend 27 percent to acquire a median priced house and 22 percent to acquire the median priced unit. All figures, with the exception of renting in Albemarle, exceed the statewide index of 25 percent for buying a home and 21 percent to rent. NOTE: The MSA does not include Louisa County. High housing costs close to the core of the Metropolitan Area may be compelling some households to move further away from Charlottesville. These households are apparently willing to accept an extended commute and higher transportation costs in exchange for the lower housing prices that are possible in most rural areas. A Housing and Transportation Index developed by Center for Neighborhood Technology shows that a typical household in the metropolitan area would expect to FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 15 pay 48% of their income on housing and transportation costs combined. In many cases, the relative affordability of housing in rural areas is negated by the higher costs of travel to work, necessary services, and shopping. Overcrowded Households: Many households cope with the shortage of affordable units by squeezing a family into small units or doubling up with family or friends, often leading to overcrowded circumstances. Less than one percent (864) of the TJPD’s population is overcrowded (Table NA‐10.6), including 192 households that are severely overcrowded where the household has more than 1.5 persons per room (Table NA‐10.6‐7). The data trend does not show up prominently in the census data shown above, but it may be reasonably assumed that households who are doubling‐up may not report the additional residents as members of the household, and thus may not be counted as overcrowded, under the official definition. Meetings with service providers revealed shared experiences of clients doubling up within housing units, which supports the assumption that overcrowding may be an unreported problem in the region. Substandard Housing: Less than one percent (519) of all households across the TJPD lives in housing that lacks complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Housing with hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower is considered to have complete plumbing facilities; households with a sink, faucet, a stove or range, and a refrigerator are considered to have complete kitchen facilities. According to the data, 519 households in the City still live in substandard housing conditions by this standard and are in need of necessary improvements. These substandard housing conditions are more prevalent amongst renters who represent 75 percent of households lacking complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. Although the data shows that substandard housing is not as much as an issue, discussions with stakeholder groups emphasized the lack of accessible housing or lack of accommodations for disabled and/or elderly persons and the need for rehabilitation to preserve the older housing stock so that it does not become substandard in the future. Populations/household types that are more affected than others by these problems include: Extremely low‐income and Very Low‐income populations: Extremely low‐income households – from any age group, race, and household composition represents the largest share of the population with housing problems, specifically, housing cost‐burden. Housing issues disproportionately affect households who earn less than 50 percent of the AMI. These very low‐income households represent 81 percent of all households reporting a problem (Table NA‐10.3, 10.7). Renter Households : When looking at housing problems by tenure in the region, that data shows that renter households in all income categories, especially those within the 0 to 30 percent AMI category, experience a housing problem. For owner households, the data shows the same trend. In comparing renters to homeowners, the data shows that renter households have a larger share of housing problems than owner households. Overall, there are a greater number of renters than homeowners in all low‐to‐moderate income categories that experience a housing problem. The 2009 ‐ 2013 data shows that 11,739 low‐to‐moderate income renters are cost‐burdened, and over half of these are severely cost‐burdened. Specific Geographical Areas (Census Tracts): In the City of Charlottesville, geographically, the lowest median rents are located in Census Tracts 4.01, 5.01, and 4.02 (these census tracts fall within the Fifeville, Ridge Street, and Belmont neighborhoods), which in part, could be due to the location of public or other assisted housing units. The concentrations of lower‐income households results in higher shares of households with housing cost‐burdens. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 16 Elderly homeowners: The data also reveals a significant number of elderly homeowners with housing cost burdens. A total of 3,498 elderly homeowners pay in excess of 30% of income on housing, and almost half of the elderly homeowners pay in excess of 50% of income. The majority of these severely cost‐burden elderly homeowners are at extremely‐low to very‐low income levels. All localities in the region offer property tax relief to elderly or disabled homeowners, however, the issue of maintaining payments on a home with a fixed income continues to persist for this demographic. Special Needs Populations: Many residents with a disability have special housing needs, which may limit the number of available units and exacerbate already high housing costs. The 2016 American Community Survey estimates that 9.8% of the population in the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area has at least one disability. For people with disabilities, affordability tends to be the primary concern. Individuals and households are faced with the decision of finding less expensive housing in more rural areas, which can make access to services more difficult. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 17 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan Market Analysis This section overviews the entire regional housing market, including the numbers and types of units available in the region. Using this as a context, the section then discusses the number of supported units in the region, and how well this matches the gaps that currently exist between market‐rate homes and the identified needs of the region. All residential properties by number of units Property Type Cville Alb Fluv Greene Louisa Nelson TOTAL %age 1‐unit detached structure 9,823 26,555 9,624 6,744 13,821 7,603 74,170 68% 1‐unit attached structure 2,000 5,447 154 79 288 260 8,228 8% 2‐4 units 2,542 1,685 149 187 226 436 5,225 5% 5‐19 units 3,575 5,362 71 76 238 332 9,654 9% 20 or more units 1,955 3,073 0 115 103 227 5,473 5% Mobile Home 239 1,829 685 781 2,147 1,174 6,855 6% Total 20,134 43,951 10,683 7,982 16,823 10,032 109,605 100% Property Types 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Cville Alb Fluv Greene Louisa Nelson TOTAL 1‐unit detached structure 1‐unit attached structure 2‐4 units 5‐19 units 20 or more units Mobile Home On February 13, 2018, Albemarle County held a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and School Board to look at indicators across the County and consider impacts from those trends. This slide from that joint session shows the changes in the distribution of various types of units in the County. Over the 27 years between 1990 and 2017, there has been an increase in the percentage of attached housing and multi‐family unit, and a decrease in the percentage of single family detached homes and mobile homes. This is a trend that is responsive to changes in household size and composition. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 18 Albemarle County Unit Types – Change between 1990 and 2017 Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number % Number % No bedroom 81 0% 833 3% 1 bedroom 953 2% 5,823 19% 2 bedrooms 8,239 14% 11,340 38% 3 or more bedrooms 51,683 85% 12,247 41% Total 60,956 101% 30,243 101% Table 1 – Unit Size by Tenure Data Source: 2009‐2013 ACS Number and Targeting of Units A number of housing units are assisted with federal, state, and local funds from a range of sources and programs in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. However, the degree to which this funding remains with the unit for use by the next eligible occupant or is translated into equity for the current occupant or landlord varies between programs. Furthermore, many units that do retain affordability only do so for a certain period of time. Therefore, the affordable housing stock must be actively retained in order to continue to provide benefit to extremely low to moderate‐income households. City of Charlottesville Public Housing: The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) has an inventory of 376 public housing units – 371 in seven complexes as well as 5 units on scattered sites. CRHA administers 700 Housing Choice Vouchers that are funded by HUD. (Fifty‐one of these vouchers are committed to units in Friendship Courts. The vouchers allow extremely‐low‐income families, the elderly and disabled individuals to pay 30 percent of their income for rent with HUD making up the difference between what they pay and fair market rents. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 19 Totals Number of Units Program Type Certificate Mod- Public Vouchers Rehab Housing Total Project - Tenant - Special Purpose Voucher based based Veterans Family Disabled Affairs Unification * Supportive Program Housing # of units vouchers available 0 27 376 800 0 429 0 225 664 *includes Non‐Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One‐Year, Mainstream Five‐year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 2 – Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Public Housing Supply: CRHA has an inventory of 376 public housing units – 371 in seven complexes and 5 units on scattered sites. CRHA administers 700 Housing Choice Vouchers funded by HUD. Site Units Date Constructed Street Address # of Units Westhaven 3/65 801‐836 Hardy Drive 126 Crescent Halls 9/76 500 S. First St. 105 Riverside 9/80 309‐323 Riverside Ave. (odd #s) 16 Sixth St. 3/81 707‐713 Sixth St., SE 25 Madison Ave 9/80 1609‐1625 Madison Ave. 18 Michie Drive 9/80 2021‐2025 Michie Drive 23 South First St. 9/81 900‐1000 S. First St. 58 Scattered Sites 6/92 613 Hinton Ave. 1 6/92 905 Monticello Ave. 1 6/92 712 Elsom St. 1 9/95 715 Ridge St. 2 Physical Condition of Public Housing Units: The age of CRHA housing is a major issue as many units are reaching the end of their useful lives. The CRHA’s largest developments – Westhaven (126 units), Crescent Halls (105 units) and S. 1st Street (58 units) – were constructed in 1965, 1976 and 1979. Since that time, modifications to the public housing stock have been minimal and inadequate funding through the last decades has challenged the Authority’s ability to maintain these units properly. Strategy for Improvements: Per CRHA’s FY 18‐19 Annual Plan, CRHA intends to undertake the following new activities in 2018 – 2019 fiscal year. Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, demolition and/or disposition, non‐smoking policies, units with approved vacancies for modernization. Mixed Finance Modernization or Development: CRHA intends to build upon partnerships with the RAB and other stakeholders to continue planning for redevelopment of public housing properties. In the current Fiscal Year, CRHA anticipates that these activities will include redevelopment planning, community engagement, development services acquisition, environmental survey/study, potential plan development and related efforts. Demolition and/or Disposition – Single Family Residences: In the current Fiscal Year, CRHA intends to explore the possibility of disposition of its scattered site, single family residences in a manner FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 20 applicable to HUD and other fair housing laws. Disposition of these properties will only be pursued if certain requirements are met. Demolition and/or Disposition – 6th Street Site; Vacant Properties: Consistent with the recommendation provided to CRHA by the RAB, in the current Fiscal Year, CRHA intends to explore the demolition and redevelopment of its existing 6th Street housing development as well as its vacant property at Levy/Avon and South First Street in a manner applicable to HUD and other fair housing laws. The intent of such activity must include the suitable provision of elderly and disabled persons housing in quantities sufficient to replace the housing currently provided by CRHA’s Crescent Halls and 802 Hardy Drive facilities. Non‐Smoking Policies. In the current Fiscal Year, CRHA will work with the RAB and other community stakeholders to develop and implement HUD required Non‐Smoking policies at CRHA properties. CRHA intends to work with the RAB to develop an implementation approach that is sensitive to the challenges that such a policy may create for Residents, and seeks to support the personal health benefits inherent in such a policy. Section 3 Program Development. CHRA intends to work in conjunction with the RAB and stakeholders to design and implement a fully functional Section 3 employment and business development program. Units with Approved Vacancy for Modernization. Based upon the results of a pending Green Physical Needs Assessment and/or other conditions, CRHA may seek to place a certain number of units in an “off‐line” status for modernization. The CRHA Board has directed staff to use every effort to minimize any potential “off-line” period, with a goal of returning units to service within 6 months. Low Income Housing Developments: In the City, eleven developments that have received LIHTC funding from 1988 through 2014 continue to provide 720 affordable units. For those LIHTC developments where information is available on the mix of units, studios and one‐bedroom units constitute 37 percent of the supply, two‐bedroom units represent 40 percent, and three‐ and four‐ bedroom units are 23 percent of total units. Most of the LIHTC units were developed for households with incomes at 50 to 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). To date, the City’s Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance has resulted in more than $1.8 million being contributed to the CAHF and 14 homeownership ADUs being provided, with an additional five rental ADUs in the pipeline. The amount of CIP dollars allocated to the CAHF has increased 43 percent since FY2008, from $1.75 million to approximately $2.5 million. Combined with the other CAHF Funding sources, the total amount of City dollars allocated to the CAHF exceeds $20 million. Of this amount, more than $16 million (or 98 percent of total CAHF allocations) have been directly invested in affordable housing projects, creating or preserving an estimated 807 units of affordable housing since FY2008. In addition to CAHF funds, in fiscal year 2017, the HOME program supported a total of 29 housing projects in the city. Activities included: providing down payment assistance for 22 low‐ income homebuyers, rehabilitation of 23 owner‐occupied homes, and two rental housing projects. Other City housing programs include the Commissioner of Revenue’s four programs to increase housing affordability for low‐income homeowners and renters residing within the City. The Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly or Permanently Disabled Program forgives a percentage of the real estate tax assessed during a given taxable year for homeowners must be 65 years of age or older or FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 21 permanently disabled, with combined household incomes no greater than $50,000 and a net worth less than $125,000. The Disabled Veterans Real Estate Tax Exemption Program is available for any Veteran who: has a U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs confirmed 100% service‐related disability, owns the property for which they are seeking the tax exemption, and occupies that property as their primary place of residence. The tax exemption may apply to surviving spouses of disabled Veterans, under certain circumstances. In 2017, a total of 380 elderly/disabled and 10 Veteran households received an average of $1,299.38 of real estate tax relief and an average of $2,707.17 real estate exemptions per household respectively. Homeowners who do not qualify for these programs, may qualify for assistance through the Charlottesville Housing Affordability Tax Grant Program, or CHAP. CHAP serves non‐elderly/disabled households with annual incomes less than $50,000 and whose homes are valued at less than $365,000. In addition, homeowners applying for CHAP assistance must not owe any delinquent real estate taxes or own any other real estate. The program is subject to annual renewal by City Council and, each year the program is renewed, the Commissioner of Revenue mails application materials directly to all homeowners who may qualify for the CHAP grant. In 2017, a total of 707 homeowners received an average CHAP grant amount of $439.71 each. The Rental Relief Program for the Elderly or Permanently Disabled provides grants to qualifying renter households to help offset the costs of rental housing. To qualify, applicants must be 65 years of age or older, or permanently disabled, with combined household incomes no greater than $50,000 and a net worth less than $125,000. Assistance is provided as a grant with the grant amount based on the previous year’s total rent payments. The average grant amount awarded this fiscal year equals $607.24 per household. Albemarle County Total numbers of supported units have not been quantified in Albemarle County or the other counties in the region. In Albemarle County, a total of 629 units of Low Income Housing Tax Credits properties are in use. Roughly, 150 Housing Choice Vouchers are in use in the US 29 corridor or Albemarle County, and an additional 75 are in use in Pantops along US 250. An additional 450 units of HUD‐funded multifamily apartment buildings exist in Albemarle. There are also several units that have affordability restrictions as a result of Albemarle County’s affordable housing proffer policy. Units Expected to be Lost from the Affordable Housing Inventory In the City of Charlottesville, in the absence of further local investment in affordable housing or the availability of external funding sources, and no improvements are made to 376 public housing units, then 942 units of supported affordable housing that represent nearly one‐half of the City’s current stock of supported affordable housing would most likely be lost over the next 15 years. The existing inventory of assisted housing affordable to low‐income households includes 376 public housing units and 720 units of housing financed with Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits. Of those, 439 need to be replaced in the near future due to age and the growing cost to maintain them (PES). In Albemarle County, The LIHTC properties were initiated more recently, and many of their 30‐year periods of affordability will be in effect for the immediate‐term future, with the exception of one project with 144 units that will no longer be supported by the program in 2022. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 22 Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? The waiting lists for public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers have been closed for several years. They now number 1,651 unduplicated households. This represents an eight‐year wait for a voucher or seven years for a public housing unit. More than half of those on the waitlist are single people (PES). Given the high rate of housing cost burden among the population of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, as well as the state of the waiting lists for existing units, it is reasonable to conclude that there are an insufficient number of units to meet the present needs of the community. Need for Specific Types of Housing: The existing housing types in the region vary widely from urban to rural areas, and the needs are likewise specific to particular areas. However, like most other metropolitan areas in the United States, the housing stock is dominated by single‐family detached dwelling units, at roughly 69% of all existing housing units. Housing market research reveals that most homebuyers in the United States prefer this housing type, and the Charlottesville metro area is likely no different. However, pressures of affordability, demographic shifts toward smaller households, and a concurrent preference for compact neighborhoods and direct access to services are all impacting the housing choices residents of the area are seeking. These trends suggest that the single‐family detached housing type is currently overrepresented in the region. Smaller and attached units, whether for rent or for ownership, typically cost less, both in terms of land costs and energy costs. In addition to single‐family detached dwelling using, data suggests that more rental units to accommodate persons at or below 30 percent of AMI are needed to accommodate renter households who are most cost‐burdened. In addition to renter and homeowner units, is the need for housing units that meet the needs of senior‐headed renter households, and households who have a member with a disability. Homeownership units for first‐time homebuyers are also needed to accommodate first‐time homebuyers interested in purchasing a home. The need for more innovative group‐oriented or accessory housing types has also been raised by advocacy groups for people with disabilities and the elderly. Accessory dwelling units offer the potential for affordable rental units for elderly or young small households, as well as the opportunity to defray homeownership costs. Certain special needs groups may benefit from the social interaction available from group homes, or collections of private homes with caregiver living arrangements on premised or nearby. The University of Virginia’s (UVA’s) presence in the city is reflected in the 22.9‐percent share of the city’s population aged 20 to 24 and the 18.3‐percent share aged 25 to 34. UVA’s presence has a large impact on the market supply and demand imbalance. Students seek housing in private apartments and houses, typically within walking distance of grounds or on the UVA bus line. There is a large need for a supply of housing that adequately addresses impacts and pressures from the University. It is likely that additional units also will be needed to meet the needs of homeless individuals who need supportive services and to replace existing assisted housing units reaching the end of their useful lives Sufficiency of Housing Units Available FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 23 There is a shortage of physical rental units affordable to households with income at or below 30 percent of AMI. Households with higher incomes occupy more than half of the units affordable to this income group, further reducing the units available. There is an effective shortage of units affordable to households at 30 percent to 50 percent of AMI. Although there are physically enough units for this income range, both households with income greater than needed to afford these units and households with income lower than required to affordably rent these units occupy most of the available units. There are also a relatively high number of vacant for‐rent units affordable to the 30 to 50% income range and 50 to 80% household range. This may indicate that units are not well located or are otherwise inappropriate. For homes for sale, these is a shortage of physical units to accommodate owner with incomes less than 50% AMI. Households with higher incomes occupy the majority of these units. There is an effective shortage of units affordable to households with incomes between 50% and 80% AMI, with higher income households occupying the majority of these units. Cost burdens for both renter and owner households are high for households under 50% AMI. Renters are more cost‐burdened than owners. Populations most affected by housing cost‐burden are elderly homeowners with cost‐burdens in excess of 30 percent and 50 percent of their income as well as persons with special housing needs. It is difficult for private developers to provide units priced to serve households below 50 percent AMI, the population with the most need in the region. Developable land is limited within the City of Charlottesville and land costs are high in both the City and Albemarle County. Connection fees, zoning restrictions, and other development costs are also barriers to developing affordable housing for these households. Discussion: Housing affordability is a challenge for all income categories, but the needs are most pronounced for households at the lowest end of the regional income spectrum. Affordability of ownership is not expected to markedly improve in the next five years, and rental affordability could become more challenging. Condition of Housing The condition of housing in the region is not only an issue of quality of life, but also public health and safety. Although the number of homes that lack modern features, such as indoor plumbing, continue to drop every year, the challenge of deferred maintenance and structural deterioration of older homes may lead to substantial loss of property or threats to public health. This section defines substandard conditions, estimates lead hazard in the region, and assesses the need for rehabilitation and/or substantial reconstruction of housing units in the region. Definitions Housing in substandard condition is any housing that endangers the health, safety, property, or welfare of the occupants or the general public. Housing in substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation is any housing defined as substandard that may be rehabilitated to standard condition at a cost that does not exceed demolition of the unit and new construction of a functionally‐equivalent housing unit, and for which a current need exists. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 24 Condition of Units Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 15,108 25% 12,869 43% With two selected Conditions 183 0% 420 1% With three selected Conditions 28 0% 26 0% With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No selected Conditions 45,637 75% 16,928 56% Total 60,956 100% 30,243 100% Table 3 ‐ Condition of Units Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS Year Unit Built Year Unit Built Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 13,071 21% 4,812 16% 1980‐1999 23,594 39% 11,416 38% 1950‐1979 17,837 29% 9,889 33% Before 1950 6,454 11% 4,126 14% Total 60,956 100% 30,243 101% Table 4 – Year Unit Built Data Source: 2009-2013 CHAS Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Hazard Owner‐Occupied Renter‐Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 24,291 40% 14,015 46% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 7,998 13% 5,237 17% Table 5 – Risk of Lead‐Based Paint Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS (Total Units) 2009-2013 CHAS (Units with Children present) Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation Nearly half of the rental housing stock, and a quarter of the owner housing stock, have at least one "housing condition" deficiency recorded in the table above. However, as noted in the Needs Assessment, housing cost burden is the most common deficiency, by a significant margin. The traditional indicators of housing quality, such as the existence of complete plumbing facilities, are no longer helpful indicators. The predominant housing condition issue is no longer a lack of modern amenities, but rather the existing of health and safety hazards that due to neglect of maintained or simple decay over time in addition to accessibility features for the aging and/or disabled population. There are few measurable indicators for these conditions. The City of Charlottesville assessed housing conditions of all residential structures within the City in 2011, basing the assessment on a windshield survey of the building's exterior. Of all 11,000 housing units, 58% were considered "sound," 37% were considered "sound with minor repairs," 4% were considered to need "moderate repairs," and only a negligible number were considered "dilapidated." The City of Charlottesville has a property maintenance code that likely encourages property owners to FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 25 invest in their units. On the other hand, housing conditions in the rural areas of all counties in the region are much more likely to be substandard. In the City, of the existing inventory of assisted housing affordable to low‐income households, 376 units of public housing and 720 units of housing financed with Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits, 439 need to be replaced in the near future due to age, obsolescence and the growing costs to maintain them in good condition. According to City school data for 2017, 31 children out of 226 children of concern were identified as unsheltered or living in severely substandard conditions. Housing units occupied by low or moderate income families that contain lead‐based paint hazards The primary source of lead exposure is dust from lead‐based paint in homes built before 1978. Lead interferes with normal brain development and is associated with learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. The Virginia Department of Health has identified areas in Virginia at risk for lead exposure as those with more than 27% of homes built before 1950 and/or those with an increased prevalence of children with elevated blood levels. A map of these areas is shown above. Elevated blood lead levels are defined as greater than or equal to 5 μg/dL. Prior to 2016, Elevated Blood Lead Levels were defined as levels of 10 μg/dL or greater. The change in the standard has resulted in a higher number of cases than in previous years. The definition has increased the number of cases that the Thomas Jefferson Health District has seen. Given this, the incidence of elevated blood lead levels in children has increased in the region, at 50 cases per year. This has continued to be the case, despite a notable increase in the number of children who have been tested for lead exposure. Numbers for elevated blood lead levels in children ages 0‐15 for 2017 are as follows. The data below shows that elevated blood lead levels for children in Charlottesville are the highest in the region with Albemarle County following with almost half of the children in Charlottesville. Elevated Blood Lead Levels Ages 0‐15 Albemarle 14 Charlottesville 29 Fluvanna 0 Greene 1 Louisa 1 Nelson 5 Total 50 Discussion Poor housing conditions have a detrimental impact on both the occupants of the home, the surrounding neighborhood, and the community as a whole. Although the problem of substandard housing conditions is less prevalent than housing affordability, those at lowest income levels are the ones most likely to experience the detrimental effects. The problems are especially prevalent in rural areas as well as most prevalent in the rental housing stock. The negative effects to the occupants of substandard housing include respiratory infections, asthma, lead poisoning, injuries, and mental health. These conditions may be caused by pest infestations, mold, allergens, improper wiring or plumbing, carbon monoxide exposure from dysfunctional hearing systems, and other housing failure. Due to location of structural integrity, substandard housing may be more susceptible to larger‐scale natural hazards, such as floods, fires, and earthquakes. Barriers to Affordable Housing and Residential Investment FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 26 In the City, zoning policies such as minimum lot sizes, height restrictions, setback requirements and maximum residential densities has an impact on the development of affordable housing. Policies that prioritize preserving existing single‐family neighborhoods over the development of new affordable housing have an impact on the supply of affordable housing. Over 55 percent of the zoned land by area in the City is restricted to single‐family detached type housing. Minimum lot size limits on the minimum size of lots reduces the number of overall units on a parcel. The City limits new residential lots to at least 6,000 square feet in size and some areas of the City have pre‐existing lots smaller than 4,000 square feet. In addition, frontage/setbacks constrain the dimensions of new lots and the buildable lot area within those lots. The City requires new lots to have a minimum 50 feet of frontage on a public street. These frontage/set‐back requirements restrict large, deep lots from having more than one unit. Also, dimensional requirements limit building size to more expensive forms. Use Restrictions also act as a barrier to the development of affordable housing. Even when the land is available for “missing‐middle” housing types, zoning may prohibit those types. Residential density limitations can push developers to build larger units that rent for higher price. Parking minimums can increase the cost per unit as the cost of building parking is rolled into the cost/rent of a unit, which residents pay for regardless of their transportation choices. In addition to zoning policies, the development approval process can be time consuming and expensive to the total development costs of housing. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 27 2018-2022 Non-Housing Community Development Assets The purpose of this section is to evaluate the region job market, the needs of the business community, and the needs of workers in the region. This evaluation includes the skills and trainings currently possessed by the regions workforce, as well as training needs and opportunities and initiatives underway to training the existing workforce. Economic Development Market Analysis ‐ Business Activity Business by Sector Number Number Share of Share of Jobs less of of Jobs Workers Jobs workers Workers % % % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 85 16 1 0 ‐1 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 2,631 5,575 20 21 1 Construction 596 1,520 5 6 1 Education and Health Care Services 2,049 3,960 16 15 0 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 781 1,787 6 7 1 Information 440 1,403 3 5 2 Manufacturing 550 814 4 3 ‐1 Other Services 752 1,948 6 7 2 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 1,708 2,967 13 11 ‐2 Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Trade 1,839 3,372 14 13 ‐1 Transportation and Warehousing 284 325 2 1 ‐1 Wholesale Trade 385 615 3 2 ‐1 Total 12,100 24,302 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Table 6 ‐ Business Activity Labor Force Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 22,416 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 21,130 Unemployment Rate 5.74 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16‐24 15.00 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25‐65 3.65 Table 7 ‐ Labor Force Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less than high school graduate 1,154 89 965 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 3,143 291 1,113 Some college or Associate's degree 2,735 202 597 Bachelor's degree or higher 8,914 205 2,099 Table 8 ‐ Educational Attainment by Employment Status Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 28 Major Employment Sectors The Thomas Jefferson Planning District region has seen a net increase of nearly 19,000 jobs from 2006 to 2016, driven largely by high growth in Louisa, Charlottesville City, Greene, and Albemarle counties (all of which experienced 15% growth or greater). (GO Virginia Report) The Virginia Employment Commission provides this information on employment by sector in its Community Profile for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, last updated: 3/24/2018. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 29 Workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: An online survey conducted for the Consolidated Plan asked respondents to rank the top community development needs for the City. The top priorities were related to employment: There is a lack of jobs that pay a sufficient wage to support a family/household, and residents lack the training and job skills needed to access employment opportunities in the region. Workforce development, including job training and employment preparation are needed in addition to the comprehensive services that are needed to support retention. In addition to workforce development, there is a need for job development and job creation amongst employers. Existing Workforce Training Initiatives The Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development (CVPED) provides staff support for the Piedmont Workforce Network (PWN), including the local Workforce Investment Board and WIA service providers. The Virginia Workforce Center–Charlottesville provides a common resource area, meeting rooms, and training center for WIA partners and services through the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker program. Piedmont Virginia Community College Workforce Services offers programs for industry certifications, professional development and continuing education, and youth career education and learning. Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center serves as a regional technical education center which provides high school and adult education and training. The City supports Coming Home to Work to help recently released felons gain employment. It has also worked diligently over the past year to advance its Growing Opportunity (GO) workforce development initiatives to increase training and employment opportunities for City residents and reduce the number of households living in poverty in Charlottesville. Efforts include: continued support of the previously established Downtown Job Center; GO training programs (GO Driver, GO Electric, GO Clean, GO CNA, GO Utilities); continued support of GO Ride, a free bus pass program for individuals needing transportation to job interviews and to work; and the creation of GO Hire, a wage subsidy and incumbent worker training program for City businesses that hire low‐income City residents. A peer network model is also being piloted to connect community leaders with information relating to job openings and trainings are also available. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 30 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan DRAFT Goals The 5‐year goals in the Consolidated Plan will be used to guide housing and community development activities undertaken by localities in the region over the next five years. Methodology in Goal Setting Goals from the previous Consolidated Plan (2013‐2017) were used as the starting point for drafting new goals for 2018‐2022. Goals were reviewed by the Housing Directors at their March 20 meeting, noting goals to be retained, goals to be revised, and goals to be deleted. Participants at the public meeting held the evening of March 20 provided similar input on goals. Resulting goals are responsive to the needs identified, while considering the limited HOME and CDBG resources available to carry out work under this Consolidated Plan and annual Action Plans. Albemarle County: 2018‐2022 Goals Refine the County’s Affordable Housing Policy to promote creation of affordable units with long‐ term affordability requirements. Preserve and expand the supply of affordable rental properties; assist renters through rental assistance programs. Provide emergency repairs to 40‐50 homes per year. Promote job growth by encouraging affordable workforce housing in proximity to employment centers in designated growth areas. Encourage new housing with supportive services for individuals with physical and/or developmental disabilities. Leverage a variety of funds to rehabilitate 15‐25 owner occupied homes per year. Participate in development of state housing and community development programs and seek funding from federal and state sources. Promote energy‐efficiency measures and seek resources to fund Revitalize urban‐ring neighborhoods City of Charlottesville: 2018‐2022 Goals Preserve the Existing Supply of Affordable Housing Expand the Affordable Housing Stock Strengthen and Support Homeownership for First‐Time Homebuyers Among Extremely Low and Moderate‐Income Households Ensure Housing Stock is Accessible for All Residents Support Homeless and Transition to Independence Enhance and Improve Access to Neighborhood Amenities and Infrastructure in Low/Moderate Income (income‐eligible) areas Support Programs which Increase and Improve Employment Opportunities Support Programs which provide Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Foster Small and Local Business Development Support Investments that Aid in Fair Housing Choice FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 31 Fluvanna County: 2018‐2022 Goals Assist 1‐2 eligible families per year to become homeowners. Rehabilitate 1‐2 homes per year that are deemed substandard. Create new rental units affordable to very‐low/low income residents of Fluvanna County Greene County: 2018‐2022 Goals Support infrastructure improvements along Route 29 Business Corridor and the Stanardsville area. Address the needs of the elderly, disabled, victims of domestic violence, and single parents. Rehabilitate 2‐3 substandard homes per year with an emphasis on those lacking complete plumbing. Enable 1‐2 eligible families per year to become homeowners. Encourage development of 1‐2 affordable rental units per year. Louisa County: 2018‐2022 Goals Rehabilitate 1‐2 homes per year that are deemed substandard. Create new rental units affordable to very‐low/low income residents in Louisa County. Provide emergency repairs to 70‐80 homes per year. Assist 1‐2 eligible families per year to become homeowners. Continue operation of transitional home to meet emergency community needs. Nelson County: 2018‐2022 Goals Develop 1‐2 affordable rental units per year near community services at a scale consistent with the rural character of county. Rehabilitate 2‐3 substandard owner‐occupied homes per year with an emphasis on those without complete indoor plumbing. Assist first time homebuyers with an emphasis on those who have received home ownership counseling. Continue collaborative efforts with other agencies to fund local projects. Promote job opportunities and accessible housing for people with disabilities and the elderly. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 32 ACTION PLAN FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2018 (JULY 1, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2019) This Action Plan identifies specific activities to be undertaken with the funds during the program year from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 as a means of fulfilling the goals stated in the Consolidated Plan. The objectives and outcomes of the Annual Action Plan for 2018-2019 are linked to the priority 5-Year Goals for set forth in the Consolidated Plan. The member governments of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District agreed on an equal share basis of HOME funds available to each participating government (with towns included with their respective counties) with the exception of 15% of the total HOME funds, which are reserved for the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) set aside. The CHDO funds are rotated among the participating localities. For the 2018- 2019 Program Year, it is Greene County’s turn in the rotation to receive CHDO funds. The City of Charlottesville has been designated the lead agency for the HOME Consortium and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission the designated Program Manager for the Consortium. Summary of Local Goals from the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan and FY 18-19 Measurable Objectives Note: Unless otherwise designated, the Objective for 2018-2019 activities is “Decent Housing” and the Outcome is “Affordability” Locality: Albemarle Housing or Community 5 Year Broad Goal from 2017 - 2018 Source of Funds Development Need Strategic Plan: 1 Year Measurable to Achieve Goal: Addressed: Objective from Action Plan: Risk of homelessness, Refine the County’s Use demographic information Local Funds first-time homebuyers Affordable Housing Policy to and discussion from the Joint (HB), doubling up promote creation of affordable Meeting to revise the units with long-term County’s Affordable Housing affordability requirements. Policy. Risk of homelessness, Preserve and expand the Continue providing rental HUD’s Housing doubling up, supply of affordable rental assistance to approximately Choice Voucher discrimination properties; assist renters 425 households. Program through rental assistance programs. First-Time Provide homebuyer assistance Support the development of Local funds Homebuyers, cost- and below-market-rate affordable housing with long- burden mortgages to 7-10 lower- term affordability restrictions. income homebuyers per year who live and/or work in Albemarle County. Housing conditions are Provide emergency repairs to 40 emergency repairs. HPG, private substandard and not 40-50 homes per year donations, County energy efficient. funding Lack of Jobs paying Promote job growth by sufficient wages, cost- encouraging affordable burden, first-time HB, workforce housing in discrimination proximity to employment centers in designated growth areas FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 33 Insufficient housing Encourage new housing with options, homelessness, supportive services for discrimination individuals with physical and/or developmental disabilities. Housing conditions are Leverage a variety of funds to Rehabilitate 5 owner- HOME substandard and not rehabilitate 15-25 owner occupied homes. energy efficient. occupied homes per year Multiple Needs Participate in development of state housing and community development programs and seek funding from federal and state sources. Housing conditions are Promote energy-efficiency Work with the Local Energy substandard and not measures and seek resources to Alliance Program (LEAP) to energy efficient. fund promote homeowner projects Multiple Housing Needs Revitalize urban-ring Complete small area plans for County funds neighborhoods Rio+29 and Hydraulic Locality: Charlottesville Housing or 5 Year Broad Associated Goals 2017 - 2018 Source Community Goal from 1 Year of Development Strategic Plan: Measurable Funds Need Objective to Addressed from Action Achieve Plan: Goal: Affordable Preserve the Provide rehabilitative and/or emergency 1-2 major CDBG Housing Existing Supply of services to homes that are deemed homeowner HOME Affordable substandard (# TBD) rehabilitation Housing Continue partnerships with community s entities to maintain rental units for extremely-low to moderate income renters, with priority for extremely low to low income renters Support redevelopment of public and/or other subsidized housing to reintegrate those properties into existing neighborhoods. Affordable Expand the Continue partnerships with community Housing Affordable entities to establish rental units for Housing Stock extremely-low to moderate income renters, with priority for extremely low to low income renters Affordable Strengthen and Enable eligible families to become Provide HOME Housing Support homeowners (# to TBD) down Homeownership Preserve and increase programs to assist payment for First-time residents with housing needs assistance to Homebuyers Support housing programs that assist 8 Among Extremely residents aging in place, with disabilities, low/moderate Low and Moderate- and/or special needs income Income Households families FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 34 Affordable Ensure Housing Housing Stock is Accessible for all Residents Homelessness Support Homeless Support the expansion and coordination of Provide 27- CDBG and Risk of and Transition to rapid-rehousing, permanent supportive 28 homeless Homelessness Independence housing, and associated services for the persons homeless population and their transition to access to independence services Support re-entry services for ex-offenders through a coordinated entry system Infrastructure Enhance and Provide CDBG Improvements Improve Access to neighborhood and Neighborhood improvement Accessible Amenities and s in the Neighborhood Infrastructure in Belmont and Amenities Low/Moderate Ridge Street (Income-eligible) neighborhood neighborhoods s Workforce Support programs Assist 20 CDBG Development which increase and low/moderate improve job income opportunities persons with business development (technical assistance) Assist 20 low/moderate income persons with basic literacy instruction Assist 6-7 low/moderate income families with childcare scholarships Multiple Support programs Needs which provide (Mental mental health and Health, substance abuse Substance services Abuse, etc) FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 35 Workforce Foster Small and Assist 20 CDBG Development Local Business low/moderate Development income persons with business development (technical assistance) Affordable Support Housing Investments that Aid in Fair Housing Choice Locality: Fluvanna Housing or Community 5 Year Broad Goal from 2017 - 2018 Source of Funds Development Need Strategic Plan: 1 Year Measurable to Achieve Goal: Addressed: Objective from Action Plan: First-time HB Enable 1-2 eligible families Build new home for one First HOME per year to become Time Homebuyer homeowners. Multiple needs Monetary assistance to local State EmHR Promote the use of local funds volunteer groups for ten F/L HF Funds to achieve housing and housing repair or accessibility community development goals modification Housing conditions are Rehabilitate 2-3 homes per Perform Emergency Home F/L HF Funds substandard and not year that are deemed Repairs on 30 homes TJPDC-HPG energy efficient. substandard. State EmHR Risk of homelessness, Create new rental units Build two new rental unit F/L HF Funds housing options affordable to very-low/low homes in Fluvanna HOME income residents of Fluvanna County or Columbia. Locality: Greene Housing or Community 5 Year Broad Goal from 2017 - 2018 Source of Funds Development Need Strategic Plan: 1 Year Measurable to Achieve Goal: Addressed: Objective from Action Plan: Insufficient Support infrastructure Private funds transportation improvements along Route 29 infrastructure Business Corridor and the Stanardsville area. Insufficient housing Address the needs of the State EMHP options, child-care elderly, disabled, victims of funds, private options domestic violence, and single funds, Rural parents. Development, HOME funds Housing conditions are Rehabilitate 2-3 substandard HOME funds, substandard and not homes per year with an State IPR funds, energy efficient. emphasis on those lacking Program Income complete plumbing. First-time HB Enable 1-2 eligible families Regional loan per year to become Fund, HOME, homeowners. VHDA, Rural Development, Program Income FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 36 Risk of homelessness, Encourage development of 1-2 Acquire and rehabilitate a HOME/CHDO cost-burden affordable rental units per rental property to provide funds, private year. affordable rental units in funds, program Greene County. income Locality: Louisa Housing or Community 5 Year Broad Goal from 2017 - 2018 Source of Funds Development Need Strategic Plan: 1 Year Measurable to Achieve Goal: Addressed: Objective from Action Plan: Housing conditions are Rehabilitate 4-5 homes per Major Rehab on one home HOME substandard and not year that are deemed energy efficient. substandard. Risk of homelessness, Create new rental units Purchase lot and build one HOME cost-burden, doubling affordable to very-low/low new rental unit F/L HF Funds up income residents of Louisa County. Housing conditions are Perform Emergency Home State EmHR Provide emergency repairs to substandard and not Repairs on 100 homes TJPDC-HPG 5-6 homes per year. energy efficient. F/L HF funds First-time HB Enable 1-2 eligible families Complete new home for one Louisa County per year to become First Time Homebuyer HOME homeowners. F/L HF Funds Risk of homelessness, Continue operation of Continue operation of F/L HF funds housing options, ex- transitional home to meet Transition Home to meet offender re-entry emergency community needs. emergency community needs Locality: Nelson Housing or Community 5 Year Broad Goal from 2017 - 2018 Source of Funds Development Need Strategic Plan: 1 Year Measurable to Achieve Goal: Addressed: Objective from Action Plan: Risk of homelessness, Develop 1-2 affordable rental Develop one additional rental HOME and PI cost burden units per year near community unit on NCCDF land funds, CHDO loan services at a scale consistent with the rural character of county. Housing conditions are Rehabilitate 2-3 substandard Rehabilitate 4-6 substandard HOME funds, substandard and not owner-occupied homes per Owner-occupied homes, Program Income, energy efficient. year with an emphasis on emphasis on accessibility, NCCDF funds those without complete indoor lacking indoor plumbing plumbing. First time HB, cost- Assist First Time Homebuyers Assist 1 – 2 First Time HOME funds burden with an emphasis on those Homebuyers with closing who have received home costs assistance, home ownership counseling. ownership counseling Regional cooperation Continue collaborative efforts Explore public/private CHDO proceeds, with other agencies to fund cooperation to develop more NCCDF funds local projects. rental units on NCCDF land Housing options, Promote job opportunities and Seek private grants, other CACF, BAMA, discrimination accessible housing for people funds to install accessibility NCCF, VHDA with disabilities and the improvements for elderly, elderly. disabled. FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 37 I. RESOURCES A. Federal Allocations for 2018-2019 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) have not yet been released. This plan estimates funding based on the PY17 figures: Charlottesville’s FY 17-18 CDBG Entitlement Grant was $430,316.00 and HOME funds for the region were $456,906.00. Reductions or elimination of federal funding for some HUD programs are being considered. All proposed activities’ budgets will be proportionally increased or decreased from the estimated funding levels to match actual allocation amounts. The breakdown of Consortium estimated funds by locality, and by eligible Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) is as follows: Administrative Funds: (10%) $45,690.60 HOME Program Funds: $57,113.25 Albemarle: $57,113.25 Charlottesville: $57,113.25 Fluvanna: $57,113.25 Greene: $57,113.25 Louisa: $57,113.25 Nelson: $57,113.25 CHDO Set-Aside (15%) $68,535.90 Total: $456,906.00 The sub-recipients in the HOME Consortium currently have $104,800 in program income on hand. These funds are programmed for PY18 projects as follows. 2018-2019 HOME Projects Projected Use of Program Income Program Income Project on hand Albemarle Rehabilitation $8,000 Charlottesville First-time Homebuyers Charlottesville Substantial Rehab Fluvanna New Rental Units $28,000 Fluvanna Assistance to First Time Homebuyers $4,400 Greene Rental $30,000 Louisa Assistance to First Time Homebuyers $4,400 Louisa Rehabilitation $5,000 Louisa New Rental Units $7,000 Nelson Assistance to First Time Homebuyers $8,000 Nelson Rehabilitation $10,000 TOTAL $104,800 FY18‐22 Consolidated Plan and FY18‐19 Action Plan DRAFT for Public Comment 03‐28‐18 Page 38 Consolidated Plan Stakeholder Discussion Notes Staff held 10 stakeholder discussions between January 2018 and March 2018 to get feedback on the Consolidated Plan (community needs). Listed below are the reoccurring barriers and needs that resulted from the stakeholder discussions.  Stakeholders listed the following barriers to accessing affordable housing: o Limited income and wages and the cost of housing o Supply and demand o Evictions, criminal history, credit history, landlord tenant issues o Application fees and security deposits for rental units o Transportation (accessibility and accommodation of varying work schedules) o Elderly persons who are on a fixed-income (social security) o Section 8 waitlist is long o Increase in land and construction costs o Lack of available incentives o Increasing property taxes o Discrimination against persons with vouchers o Discrimination in the rental market against families with children and persons with disabilities (lack of accommodations) o Racial disparities o Economic and racial disparities amongst schools o Language and cultural barriers o Tax relief is limited to certain populations (most tax relief programs are limited to elderly populations) o Substandard housing  Stakeholders listed the following regulatory barriers to affordable housing: o Public housing regulations (such as the barment policy) o Requirements that limit services which are geared more towards families with children versus single persons (Children first approach) o Section 8 requirements limit the amount of rent that can be paid to a landlord o State requirements do not allow rent control and inclusionary zoning is limited o Current City incentives are not working – developers are buying out of providing affordable units o Zoning requirements that place restrictions on the number of persons who can live in a unit o Decrease in federal funding levels March 20, 2018  Stakeholders listed the following community needs: o Accessible Housing for elderly and disabled persons o Multi-family housing o Homeownership housing and down payment assistance o One-stop shop and education for navigating/accessing resources in the City o Preservation of existing affordable housing o Accessible workforce housing o Economic development/revitalization o Financial education o Landlord/Tenant education o Housing for refugees – housing needed on short-notice, housing to support larger families o Workforce development o Redevelopment of public housing o Good paying jobs and higher wages o Coordination of services and plans between state, local, and federal government o Rental housing for people below 30% of the area median income o Housing stability support o Accessible transportation to jobs, community services/resources as it relates to economic opportunity o Mental health services o Infrastructure needs – lack of responsiveness from local government o Access to grocery stores and fresh food o Resources for unbanked clients o Access to emergency funds o Services and housing for the homeless population o Affordable and quality childcare o Ongoing health clinics o Counseling and mental health services – August 12th events o Services for ex-offenders March 20, 2018 A REPORT FOR VIRGINIA’S HOUSING POLICY ADVISORY COUNCIL | NOVEMBER 2017 Charlottesville, VA Metro Area Rented/For‐Rent Housing Gap Source: VCHR tabulation of 2009‐2013 CHAS Data 18000  There is a shortage of units affordable to households with incomes less than 30% of AMI, and households with higher incomes occupy more than half of the units affordable to this income group. 16000  There are enough rental units to accommodate households with income between 30 and 80% of AMI, but households with incomes greater than needed to afford these units occupy many of the 14000 units.  Households with incomes lower than required to rent affordably in the 50-80% of AMI category occupy an unusually large percent of units in this category. Many of these households may be 12000 student households that are temporarily cost-burdened, or who are supported beyond their own means by their parents or other sponsors. 10000  There are also a relatively high number of vacant, for-rent units among those affordable to households with incomes between 30 and 80% of AMI, which may be evidence that some of these 8000 units are not well located or are otherwise inappropriate. 6000 4000 2000 0 Households with Stock affordable to Households with Stock affordable to Households with Stock affordable to Income <= 30% of households with income 30%‐50% of households with income 50%‐80% of households with AMI income <= 30% of AMI income 30%‐50% of AMI income 50%‐80% of AMI AMI AMI Households that are not cost burdened Cost Burdened Households Units Occupied by Renters with Household Income > Affordability Income Range Units Occupied by Renters within Affordability Income Range Units Occupied by Renters with Household Income < Affordability Income Range Vacant Virginia Coalition of Housing and Economic Development Researchers Addressing the Impact of Housing Affordability for Virginia’s Economy | 21 A REPORT FOR VIRGINIA’S HOUSING POLICY ADVISORY COUNCIL | NOVEMBER 2017 Charlottesville, VA Metro Area Owned/For‐sale Housing Gap Source: VCHR tabulation of 2009‐2013 CHAS Data 16000  There is a shortage of physical housing units to accommodate owners with incomes less than 50% of AMI. Further, households with incomes greater than 50% of AMI occupy most of the units affordable 14000 to this group. In addition, high levels of cost burden among this group may indicate owner costs such as utilities and taxes may be rising faster than the incomes of very-low income households.  There is an effective shortage of units affordable to households with incomes between 50 and 80% of 12000 AMI. Households with higher incomes occupy the majority of these units. Again, high levels of cost burden among this group may indicate owner costs, such as utilities and taxes, may be rising faster than the incomes for these households. In addition, financial hardship may result in cost-burden among 10000 owners.  Households with incomes lower than required to own in the 80-100% of AMI category occupy an unusually large percent of units in this category. Some of these households may be student households 8000 that are temporarily cost-burdened, or who are supported beyond their own means by their parents or other sponsors. These households may also be retirees whose homes may have become less affordable on lower, fixed retirement incomes. 6000 4000 2000 0 Households with Stock affordable to Households with Stock affordable to Households with Stock affordable to Income <= 50% of households with income 50%‐80% of households with income 80‐100% of households with AMI income <= 50% of AMI income 50%‐80% of AMI income 80%‐100% AMI AMI of AMI Households that are not cost burdened Cost Burdened Households Units Occupied by Owners with Household Income > Affordability Income Range Units Occupied by Owners within Affordability Income Range Units Occupied by Owners with Household Income < Affordability Income Range Vacant Virginia Coalition of Housing and Economic Development Researchers Addressing the Impact of Housing Affordability for Virginia’s Economy | 22 Resident Characteristic Report Page 2 Resident Characteristic Report Page 3 REGIONAL SURVEY – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON HOUSING QUESTIONS Received 507 Surveys across the region: o 77% described as residents, 16% as providers o 56% Albemarle, 31% City, 5% Fluvanna, 2% for each Greene, Louisa and Nelson CHALLENGES: o Housing is TOO EXPENSIVE (97%) o Worry about rent going up (56%) o Want to buy a home, but can’t afford down payment (56%) Most Critical RENTAL Housing Needs: o Rehab and preservation (81%) o Construction of new affordable housing (80%) o Rental Assistance Vouchers (50%) Most Critical HOMEOWNERSHIP Housing Needs: o Home repair and rehabilitation (69%) o Down payment assistance for FTHB (67%) o Energy Efficiency Improvements (36%) o Development of new homes (35%) Populations with high levels of need Weighted averages from high of 3.44 to low of 2.35 o Very low income: under 30% (3.44) o Chronically homeless (3.18) o Low to moderate income 51% - 80% (3.13) o Abused children (3.12) City only - Services o Housing assistance (70%) o Job training and employment preparation (54%) o Mental health and substance abuse services (50%) o Transportation (46%) City Only – Economic Needs o Job training and employment preparation (77%) o Job development/creation (65%) o Public Infrastructure (47%) City Only – Services o Housing assistance (70%) o Job training and employment preparation (54%) o Mental health and substance abuse services (50%) o Transportation (46%) City Only – Needs for People Who are Homeless Weighted averages from high of 3.48 to low of 2.41 o Housing placement (3.48) o Mental health care (3.48) o Substance Abuse Treatment (3.27) o Case management/life skills (3.26) A RESOLUTION PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD FUNDS FOR BELMONT and RIDGE STREET NEIGHBORHOODS FY 18-19 WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, Council of the City of Charlottesville named Belmont and Ridge Street as the priority neighborhoods for FY 18-19; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the funds for FY 18-19 shall be allocated as follows: RESOLUTION Approval of 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan and FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan BE IT RESOLVED, that the Charlottesville City Council hereby approves the 2018- 2022 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2018- 2019 Action Plan of the 2018-2019 Consolidated Plan as presented at the May 7, 2018, City Council meeting. All CDBG and HOME project estimates shall be increased or reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of actual entitlement. No agency’s EN amount will increase more than their initial funding request. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Public Hearing/Resolution Presenter: Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester, Parks and Recreation Brian Daly, Director, Parks and Recreation Title: Designation of Trees per the Tree Conservation Ordinance Background: On November 4, 2013 the City Council passed a tree conservation ordinance that permitted the designation of public or private trees as protected under one of four categories: 1. Heritage tree means any tree that has been individually designated by city council to have notable historic or cultural interest. 2. Memorial tree means any tree that has been individually designated by city council to be a special commemorating memorial. 3. Specimen tree means any tree that has been individually designated by city council to be notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for its particular species. 4. Street tree means any tree that has been individually designated by city council and which grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorized by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. Attached are three trees forwarded for designation under this program. The first tree is a large southern red oak (quercus falcata)at the front right of the main entrance of Venable Elementary School. This tree is proposed for designation as a specimen tree. This large, spreading oak at Venable will be the subject of Charlottesville’s Arbor Day celebration in 2018. Another proposed tree is the large shumard oak (quercus shumardii) in front of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library proposed for designation as a specimen tree. This large tree resides to the front right of the historic library downtown and was celebrated for Charlottesville’s Arbor Day in 2017. The last tree is a large basswood (tilia americana) in Emancipation Park proposed for designation as a heritage tree. This tree’s “sister tree” was removed two years ago in Emancipation Park and this is now the largest diameter tree in the park residing near the corner E. Market St. and 1st St. N in the southwest corner of the park. Pursuant to section 18-9(b)(2) Council is required to conduct a public hearing on these requests and pass an ordinance if the designation is to be given. The Tree Commission and City Arborist findings along with the original applications are included as attachments.. Discussion: In 2012 the Tree Commission began to work, in earnest, on a tree conservation ordinance that would afford protection to trees that had a unique or unusual set of attributes or conditions. After working extensively with the City Attorney, individuals and organizations such as the Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards and a careful and thoughtful review of the Commonwealth enabling legislation a proposed ordinance was forwarded to City Council and approved November 4, 2013. The program is voluntary in nature and requires that all public tree nominations originate with the Tree Commission while private trees may only be nominated only by the owner of the property on which the tree resides. The nomination then undergoes a review by the City Arborist as to condition and verification of species. The Tree Commission then considers all these findings and makes a determination whether or not to forward the nomination to the City Council on a quarterly basis. The nomination requested for consideration has been through this exhaustive process. The provisions of this ordinance, pursuant to the enabling legislation, shall not apply to: (1) Work conducted on federal or state property; (2) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property; (3) Routine installation, maintenance and repair of cable and wires used to provide cable television, electric, gas or telephone service; (4) Activities with minor effects on trees, including but not limited to, home gardening and landscaping of individual homes; and (5) Commercial, silvicultural or horticultural activities, including but not limited to planting, managing, or harvesting forest or tree crops. Upon designation the ordinance notes that: A property owner shall undertake reasonable efforts to preserve and protect any trees designated pursuant to this article. No heritage, memorial, specimen or street tree may be removed or intentionally damaged in a way that could destroy the tree unless authorized by city council. City council may authorize the removal or other action upon making a determination that: (i) there is an overriding need for public improvements which necessitate removal of the tree; or (ii) not removing the tree will cause severe hardship to the property owner. Any person or entity that knowingly violates any provision of this article shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) for each violation. Civil penalties shall be imposed by the issuance of a civil summons returnable in the general district court Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The initiative supports City Council’s “Green City” vision. It contributes to Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, objective 3.4, Be responsible stewards of natural resources, and objective 3.5, protect historic and cultural resources. Community Engagement: There has been no extensive community engagement on these proposed designations; however, during the submittal process there has not been public opposition. Budgetary Impact: There is no anticipated budgetary impact. Recommendation: The Tree Commission recommends and requests that these three trees be designated as requested and staff can find no reason that should not occur. Alternatives: Council could take no action on the designation of these trees. Attachments: Resolution Tree Nomination Forms and Evaluative Documentation RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville (the City) has adopted a Tree Conservation ordinance on November 4, 2013 to preserve certain significant trees within the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, per the adopted ordinance the City Forester and Tree Commission is shall make recommendations to Council to consider designation of said trees on a quarterly basis; and WHEREAS, city staff and the Tree Commission have reviewed applications and the Tree Commission has recommended that the following trees be afforded protection through the Tree Conservation Ordinance: 1. At Venable Elementary School, a Southern Red Oak (Quercus Falcata) as a Specimen Tree, 2. At the main branch of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library on Market Street, a Shumard Oak (Quercus Shumardii) as a Specimen Tree, and 3. At Emancipation Park, a Basswood (Tilia Americana) as a Heritage Tree. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to section 18-9(b)(2) of the City Code that Council has conducted a public hearing and designates the Southern Red Oak at Venable Elementary School and the Shumard Oak at the Jefferson Madison Regional Library Main Branch as Specimen Trees; and the Basswood located in Emancipation Park as a Heritage Tree. City Arborist’s Report prepared by Mike Ronayne ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5342-A March 26, 2018 Tree Nomination for Ordinance Protection: southern red oak (Quercus falcata) at 406 14th St. NW Venable Elementary School as a specimen tree Nominated by: Caitlin King, Esther Wells, Lucas Vincent, Xan Pincham and Cindy Cartwright Considerations Size- The southern red oak at Venable Elementary School was measured at diameter at breast height (4.5’ above ground) and found to be 66” in diameter. The tree is estimated to be 75’ in height with a 65’ crown spread. The tree has a live crown ratio of approximately 70% which is excellent. Species –– Southern red oak is listed in the Mid- Atlantic Species Rating Guide which is used as the industry standard for Tree Appraisal as having a species rating of 50-90. Oaks in general are valuable to the landscape due to their longevity, strong wood and tolerance of urban environments. It is unknown how old the southern red oak is. Southern red oaks are native to Charlottesville and are generally tolerant of native insects but can be prone to a vascular disease called bacterial leaf scorch. Due to these factors I believe a species rating of 80 out of 100 is appropriate. Condition – This tree has response growth from where the tree has healed over previous pruning cuts. The tree has generally good form with a large, expansive crown. The crown has only small deadwood (<1” diameter) and appears to be healthy. No visible cavities are observed from the ground. There are a few large seams along the trunk that indicate rot in the lower portion of the stem. Without further evaluation the extent of the rot cannot be determined. Response growth at base indicates decay and compensation for strength loss. Due to these factors the tree receives a condition rating of .85 out of 1 which is good. Location – This tree is located alone in the front of Venable Elementary School and accents the building architecture. The tree shades a portion of the school, sidewalk, front entrance and playground. This tree has adequate soil volume in this location. Aside from the sidewalk and flower bed in the area, there appears to have been limited soil disturbance to the tree’s root zone. Due to these factors the tree receives a location rating of .9 out of 1 which is excellent. D 11 Ve.nab~ SJool Sol1f"ht1ll'\ Reef DAK. Tree Conservation - Nomination Form Y2,_ In November 2013, Charlottesville City Council adopted the Tree Conservation Ordinance regulating the preservation and removal of Heritage, Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees, (Chapter 18 (Parks and Recreation), Article II, Tree Conservation) in order to secure protection for a portion of the City's urban forest and the ecosystem services that this forest provides. The ordinance can be used to protect individual trees on public land, or privately owned individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard. Individual property owners and the Tree Commission may nominate trees. Four categories of trees can be considered: specimen, heritage, memorlal, and street trees. As defined by Virginia State law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees can be designated to commemorate a person, group or life event. Street trees are those that have been planted by the City within a public right-of-way on public or private land. The Tree Commission reviews and City Council decides if nominated trees are worthy of this special status. Instructions: Please complete and fill in (spaces expand) all applicable and highlighted \:. :,.,:·, sections and mail or drop off to: Parks Division, Attn: Exceptional Tree Nomination, 1300 Pen Park Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22911, or emall to ehmand@charlottesvHle.org. Application Number: _ _ Date Received: Nominator: Name (Print) iQ,$tiw;'.{{mg.,J.!~fu~!'.@elb1:~$l@S-y4\~~~t.i:'XAAl!iiti~:P wtli:C~t Witli'in,pui.fi-om,at,me,2Mi-.Jtct-:1ib•~aricf'graduates'. ofVenabfo1 ~t§!@2bilW~ixi1l~§_gbQ.91s;P.ij ::~:~;;~s er~ E-Mail: ye> C/( (' de Sp1c 1/\( -Q.J 1"'1 C,t I,. Jn c: VM0 /IJ sche,,~ Tree to ~:;;::~;J;r;®.i~mw.~kLM A( QX~ \1 ~ J ( -' ? ~ ~ C ~ {t\ W\ Location description (if address unknown: Please include sketch bJow If heeded).Iii1rQttqjf l\ieiialjte:lit¢¥~~i6:@t.~t:~r~~ ~4:sj . . Common name or Latin name of tree (if known): Category ofTree (check one): Public: X Private (If selected see added requirements below) Q Designation Requested (check one): Heritage tree means a tree that has notable historic or cultural interest. :@1 Memorial tree means a tree that is intended to be a special commemorating memorial. '.Q 011 Z/z_ Specimen tree means a tree that is notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for lts particular species. ·x Street tree means a tree that grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorl2.ed by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. •~ Statement that supports requested designation (You may attach additional information) ~j-~~~:.-~:'t?iii:~'.miiliemli/o~ii?~•'a!P#kitf#:'V'~ij~ti;;l1-11,¢.~ro:~;.6.~~~:-~iiq~£.eii¾~-.gt:[q~•J¼ tL·~~~ 1 1i•~}1~~H~iif4'¥'1g~,i1:~~a~ti1:,'ghii1J~J.ii4t¢r:-1~-:§.§:m~~¥l,;ij{~f§{j,: '.i j~-:e_:,;iJJ,;it~mmg~11~:.fiili.:1 ~~~~~~ii~~1,~~;~ti~~~~~:1!~t~11:1~~::~~~~~~=:~ @J!i~..p~:i!kt9fci~i9Pfi~Y,~~i.i:M'~~;t~~i~!~,,.9fil'.;§9.,9i!l~nt~,§~iyif@ier.~ -:y;~li.l~ $~™I9{J 1 ollrJf~:~I~tPif.Pr2~t,i~i.ii[i~Qiit§Q·f~¢,t'!~ii::9'.~~-:~~lj;iw::ffi~E~~;1-~:Ji:1¥tt9iig), W.e~@iµ<,~i):~~~'J\~_~¢m~~j9i'ti¢}pr9t~R~~fii If Prh1ate Tree the following information must also be received or the nomination cannot be processed: Owner: Name (Print} <::·,d E•Mail: ;.... :·):.~ ~ --~t Phone: l .~.-: }i If Private Tree: Requested Received Owner Affidavit: NDS Review: Public Works Review: All Nominations: Assigned Returned Arborist Report Received: Commission Report Received: Recommendation Formulated: Action to Forward: Council Action Date: Nominator Notified: Owner Notified: Loaded in GIS: Conclusion The southern red oak in front of Venable School does have exceptional spread and diameter. While the extent of the internal rot is unknown the tree otherwise is in good general health. This tree is located ideally and invaluable to the property and landscape. Due to the proximity of other infrastructure and the building’s historic nature, this tree would further be protected against future site disturbances and would benefit from ordinance protection. Tree Conservation - Nomination Form In November 2013, Charlottesville City Council adopted the Tree Conservation Ordinance regulating the preservation and removal of Heritage, Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees, (Chapter 18 (Parks and Recreation), Article II, Tree Conservation) in order to secure protection for a portion of the City's urban forest and the ecosystem services that this forest provides. The ordinance can be used to protect individual trees on public land, or privately owned individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard. Individual property owners and the Tree Commission may nominate trees. Four categories of trees can be considered: specimen, heritage, memorial, and street trees. As defined by Virginia State law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees can be designated to commemorate a person, group or life event. Street trees are those that have been planted by the City within a public right-of-way on public or private land. The Tree Commission reviews and City Council decides if nominated trees are worthy of this special status. Instructions: Please complete and fill in (spaces expand) all applicable and highlighted _ _ sections_ and mail or drop off to : Parks Division, Attn : Exceptional Tree Nomination, 1300 Pen Park Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22911, or email to ehmand@charlottesville.org. Application Number: _ _ Date Received: Nominator: Name (Print) PAvl,. Jt>S'~ ~ c__aa,"lN\-.,.._, !.<:, C>-N -- • I E-Mail: __£,? v\ j - ~ ~ C) ~c!-J\.'. c-.;>--.. Phone: ___1:_~4 - 2:/,b - 1 z._oe Signature: :p (? ~ Tree to be nominated: Address:~ l4-h- S-\- . Location description (if address unknown: Please include sketch below if needed).~\--.+ ~?L\Jz. Common name or Latin name of tree (if known): ~ vcv s {z. \c? tr- 8~\'?7 Category of Tree (check one): Public: l}g' Private (If selected see added requirements below) D Designation Requested (check one): Heritage tree means a tree that has notable historic or cultural interest. D Memorial tree means a tree that is intended to be a special commemorating memorial. D Specimen tree means a tree that is notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for its particular species.~ Street tree means a tree that grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorized by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. D Statement that supports requested designation (You may attach additional information) <; pa,'<-~ ~J 6~ 0 ?vilflv? I ~l-to.,., S'~ .. ot J~wv~ 1 h.(,'l. \ ~ b~ (ovt~'°'-.:>""-S 2-..J. w~~.(...\ \or""". b, 7J.&,:-f-. ~ ¼-·s , ~ \-, ~ + ~ 1"2.e <>'-' c,:~ ~~. ~ ~~c:e-rts~,.\ c_:~ ~l-~.--.c. ......I If Private Tree the following information must also be received or the nomination cannot be processed : Owner: Name (Print) _ _ E-Mail: Phone: If Private Tree: Requested Received Owner Affidavit: NOS Review: Public Works Review: All Nominations: Assigned Returned Arborist Report Received : Commission Report Received: Recommendation Formulated: Action to Forward: Council Action Date : Nominator Notified: Owner Notified: l (I I Loaded in GIS: ... 1SV~ \1' ~y/ Venable Elementary School ! Legend ! Proposed Specimen Tree Photograph – Southern Red Oak – Venable Elementary School Tree Conservation - Nomination Form In November 2013, Charlottesville City Council adopted the Tree Conservation Ordinance regulating the preservation and removal of Heritage, Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees, (Chapter 18 (Parks and Recreation), Article II, Tree Conservation) in order to secure protection for a portion of the City's urban forest and the ecosystem services that this forest provides. The ordinance can be used to protect individual trees on public land, or privately owned individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard. Individual property owners and the Tree Commission may nominate trees. Four categories of trees can be considered: specimen, heritage, memorial, and street trees. As defined by Virginia State law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees can be designated to commemorate a person, group or life event. Street trees are those that have been planted by the City within a public right-of-way on public or private land. The Tree Commission reviews and City Council decides if nominated trees are worthy of this special status. Instructions: Please complete and fill in (spaces expand) all applicable and highlighted _ _ sections and mail or drop off to: Parks Division, Attn: Exceptional Tree Nomination, 1300 Pen Park Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22911, or email to ehmand@charlottesvllle.org. Application Number: J2.Qg -A- Date Received: - Nominator: Name (Print)·~ -·~" (_arn-rn .'S.S,01\ ~,u,-,,l So~td) E-Mail: -· ~c,St;;:f.\fYHL• \1 ~ Phone: Signature: . Tree to be nominated: S Address: l: · i C. fh M /te.-( · 'l. Location description (if address unknown: Please }Qflude sketch below if?.~eded). Common name or Latin name oftree (if known}: ~ (l~ 51,,1,,(.i,.u~f(;{;i Category of Tree (check one): Public: ,✓ Private (If selected see added requirements below) D Designation Requested (check one): Heritage tree means a tree that has notable historic or cultural interest. D Memorialtree means a tree that is intended to be a special commemorating memorial. 0 Spectmen tre~eans a tree that is notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for its particular species. Q/ Street tree means a tree that grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorized by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. 0 Statement that supports requested designation (You may attach additional information} If Private Tree the following inform~st also be received or the nomination cannot be processed: Owner: Name (Print) E-Mail: -;;,-- Requested Received All Nominations: Returned Arborist Report Received: Commission Report Received: Recommendation Formulated: Action to Forward: Council Action Date: Nominator Notified: Owner Notified: Loaded in GIS: Specimen tree means a tree that is notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for its particular species. D Street tree means a tree that grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorized by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. 0 Statement that supports requested designation (You may attach additional information) . lreet makes it an excellent candidate for tree conservation.. If Private Tree the following information must also be received or the nomination cannot be processed: Owner: Name (Print) _ _ E-Mail: Phone: If Private Tree: Requested Received Owner Affidavit: NDS Review: Public Works Review: All Nominations: Assigned Returned Arborist Report Received: Commission Report Received: Recommendation Formulated: Action to Forward: Council Action Date: Nominator Notified: Owner Notified: Loaded in GIS: Tree Conservation - Nomination Form In November 2013, Charlottesville City Council adopted the Tree Conservation Ordinance regulating the preservation and removal of Heritage, Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees, (Chapter 18 (Parks and Recreation), Article II, Tree Conservation) in order to secure protection for a portion of the City's urban forest and the ecosystem services that this forest provides. The ordinance can be used to protect individual trees on public land, or privately owned individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard. Individual property owners and the Tree Commission may nominate trees. Four categories of trees can be considered: specimen, heritage, memorial, and street trees. As defined by Virginia State law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees can be designated to commemorate a person, group or life event. Street trees are those that have been planted by the City within a public right-of-way on public or private land. The Tree Commission reviews and City Council decides if nominated trees are worthy of this special status. Instructions: Please complete and fill in (spaces expand) all applicable and highlighted ~ sections and mail or drop off to: Parks Division, Attn: Exceptional Tree Nomination, 1300 Pen Park Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22911, or email to ehmand@charlottesville.org. Application Number: Q09:- 0 Date Received: Nominator: Name (Print) --Ro. anne Simo E-Mail: 1tnon 96 a msn.co Phone: 977-3562 Signature: Ro~anne Simon Tree to be nominated: Address: Location description (if address unknown: Please include sketch below if needed)._ _ Common name or Latin name of tree (if known): -=------ Category of Tree (check one): Public: [g! Private (If selected see added requirements below) 0 Designation Requested (check one): Heritage tree means a tree that has notable historic or cultural interest. [gl Memorial tree means a tree that is intended to be a special commemorating memorial. D City Arborist’s Report prepared by Mike Ronayne ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5342-A November 27, 2017 Tree Nomination for Ordinance Protection: Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii) at 201 E. Market St. Regional Library as a specimen tree Nominated by: The Charlottesville Tree Commission Considerations Size- The shumard oak at the library was measured at diameter at breast height (4.5’ above ground) and found to be 51” in diameter. The tree is estimated to be 75’ in height with a 60’ crown spread. The tree has a live crown ratio of approximately 65% which is excellent. Species – Shumard oak is not listed in the Mid- Atlantic Species Rating Guide which is used as the industry standard for Tree Appraisal. Other oaks listed with similar characteristics have a species rating of 60-90 which would be applicable for this species as well. Oaks in general are valuable to the landscape due to their longevity, strong wood and tolerance of urban environments. Based on historical photographs of the Library this tree is believed to be approximately 80 years old. Due to the shumard oaks’ resilient nature in the Charlottesville area and resistance to insect and disease, I believe a species rating of 85 out of 100 is appropriate. Condition – This tree has response growth from where the tree has healed over previous pruning cuts. The tree has also been pruned away from the building throughout its life, while appropriate, has resulted in an asymmetrical crown. The tree has generally good form with the exception of the crown balance and some multiple branching structure. The crown has only small deadwood (<1” diameter) and appears to be healthy. No visible cavities are observed from the ground. Some small ribs are present indicating response growth on trunk. Small girdling roots are present at surface. Response growth at base indicates decay and compensation for strength loss. Due to these factors the tree receives a condition rating of .7 out of 1. Location – This tree is located downtown in a Historical district and contributes to shade for approximately half a block and part of the library. The Paramount uses this tree to hang banners for events across E. Market St. This tree does have limited soil volume on the steep slope in front of the library. There are likely environmental disturbances that have taken place here within the lifetime of tree. Visibly, there has been a sign installed, landscape lighting installed and pavers and stone dust put down in the root zone of this tree. Due to these factors the tree receives a location rating of .8 out of 1. Conclusion The shumard oak in front of the library does have an exceptional spread and diameter. It could be argued that this tree is not exceptional and does not meet specimen quality nationally, but locally to the Charlottesville area, I feel this specimen designation is warranted. Due to the proximity of other infrastructure, this tree would then further be protected against future site disturbances and would benefit from ordinance protection. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library ! Legend ! Proposed Specimen Tree Photograph – Shumard Oak Arbor Day 2017 – Main Library Tree Conservation - Nomination Form In November 2013, Charlottesville City Council adopted the Tree Conservation Ordinance regulating the preservation and removal of Heritage, Specimen, Memorial and Street Trees, (Chapter 18 (Parks and Recreation), Article II, Tree Conservation) in order to secure protection for a portion of the City's urban forest and the ecosystem services that this forest provides. The ordinance can be used to protect individual trees on public land, or privately owned individual trees that property owners voluntarily agree to safeguard. Individual property owners and the Tree Commission may nominate trees. Four categories of trees can be considered: specimen, heritage, memorial, and street trees. As defined by Virginia State law, specimen trees are those that are notable in their size and quality for their species. Heritage trees have historical or cultural interest. Memorial trees can be designated to commemorate a person, group or life event. Street trees are those that have been planted by the City within a public right-of-way on public or private land. The Tree Commission reviews and City Council decides if nominated trees are worthy of this special status. Instructions: Please complete and fill in (spaces expand) all applicable and highlighted _ _ _ sections and mail or drop off to: Parks Division, Attn: Exceptional Tree Nomination, 1300 Pen Park Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22911, or email to ehmand@charlottesville.org. Application Number: (d1__{} Date Received: Nominator: Name (Print)~_:,..()~""'-1M&s."o<\. {iJAi. ::S.*j) E-Mail:~ ( ~ l. ~ &°'L; Phone: _ Signature: _ _ Tree to be nominated: n "\ \J M" }(:__ Address: - t1.. 1' (.A \'c1,..1'v~ Location description (if address unknown: Please include sketch below if needed). Common name or Latin name of tree (if known):~ , «. C<.n~-lt-'tu.~~, Category of Tree (check one): Public:✓ Private (If selected see added requirements below) D Designation Requested (check one): / Heritage tree means a tree that has notable historic or cultural interest. [3/' Memorial tree means a tree that is intended to be a special commemorating memorial. 0 Specimen tree means a tree that is notable by virtue of its outstanding size and quality for its particular species. D Street tree means a tree that grows in the street right-of-way or on private property as authorized by the owner and placed or planted there by the local government. D Statement that supports requested designation (You may attach additional information) The Basswood located at the front corner of Emancipation Park and Market St. is an exceptional tree in both heritage and form. Possibly the oldest tree in the park, this tree has a unique connection to the beginnings of this local landmark. At first glance the basswood canopy may look sparse, but the tree has employed a deliberate strategy of energy investment into the more vital vascular cambium (ring outside the heartwood) that allows for better use of resources. The Basswood has a hollowed out center, but continues to exhibits healthy form for its age like many hollow-bearing trees. The exaggerated taper, large trunk and rapidly narrowing top, provides the tree with added stability for wind resistance. It is currently structurally sound (the cambium is completely intact and thriving) and due to the natural crown reduction over time, the size and health of its canopy show no pending structural concerns. Trees of all ages and sized offer a variety of habitat, the basswood in particular with its hollowing out center offers habitat niches unlike other trees around it. This basswood is a rare and exceptional tree that should be prized for its graceful aging and considerable history in the city. It should be noted the failing retaining wall behind the tree needs to be inspected to ensure the health of the tree. If Private Tree the following informatio~ust also be received or the nomination cannot be processed: Owner: Name (Print) / E-Mail: Phone: If Private rT ee: Re:uested Received Owner Affid · t: __ NDS Rev_.!9 : Publi Works Review: di'Nominations: Returned Arborist Report Received: Commission Report Received: Recommendation Formulated: Action to Forward: Council Action Date: Nominator Notified: Owner Notified: Loaded in GIS: City Arborist’s Report prepared by Mike Ronayne November 27, 2017 ISA Certified Arborist # MA-5342-A Tree Nomination for Ordinance Protection: Basswood (Tilia americana) at Emancipation Park as a heritage tree Nominated by: The Charlottesville Tree Commission Considerations Size- The basswood at the Emancipation Park was measured at diameter at breast height (4.5’ above ground) and found to be 76” in diameter. The tree is estimated to be 60’ in height with a 35’ crown spread. The tree has a live crown ratio of approximately 45% which is good. Species – Basswood is listed in the Mid- Atlantic Species Rating Guide which is used as the industry standard for Tree Appraisal as having a species rating of 60-85. Basswood, along with other lindens, are softer-wooded trees and can be prone to breakage. The age of the basswood is unknown. Due to the basswoods’ tendency to break in storm events and irregularity throughout the area, I believe a species rating of 70 out of 100 is appropriate. Condition – This tree has lost the main central leader and has a large cavity in the main trunk and base. The tree has large cavities in major limbs. There are branches on the tree that have poor form and branches with poor attachment. The trunk has multiple cavities visible but has shown significant response growth to compensate for strength loss. The remaining crown is relatively balanced. There are some sunken locations in the ground where decay has occurred in major roots around the root plate. Due to these factors the tree receives a condition rating of .1 out of 1. Location – This tree is located near downtown in a Historical district in planned park setting. Due to the tree’s limited canopy and general decline, this tree has reduced benefits but still shades a corner of the park along with part of the intersection and sidewalk. This tree stands by itself and is unique to others in the park as it is the largest diameter. The tree is located near a slope, stairs and sidewalk. Due to these factors the tree receives a location rating of .9 out of 1. Historical or Cultural Interest – This tree is the last originally planted tree from the park’s original design from 1924. It is a very large diameter tree which gives this tree some prominence. Conclusion This particular tree has a very large diameter for any tree in this part of the country. Since it was also an originally planted tree of the park, it does have some historical interest. It is also in an ideal location in Charlottesville. Unfortunately due to the lack of structural integrity of this tree, I do not recommend that it be protected under ordinance. This tree has showed significant decline and is towards the end of its life cycle. Also being a park, it is generally protected from lawful things and procedures that would intentionally harm the tree, which would create redundancy by the ordinance. Emancipation Park ! Legend ! Proposed Heritage Tree Photograph – Basswood – Emancipation Park CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Resolution Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director/Kimley-Horn, Consultant Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director, Tony Edwards, Development Services Manager, NDS Title: Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and UDA Designation Background: One of the proposed twelve Small Area Plan areas in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan was Emmet Street north of the 250 Bypass (Hydraulic-29). This area possesses considerable potential for new placemaking because of road network and traffic pattern changes, the development of the Stonefield commercial and residential development in the County, and future redevelopment of the Kmart site and Michie Drive CRHA site. This area provides an expanded opportunity for dense, urban development at a major gateway to the city. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County expressed interest in a joint Small Area Plan to address land use and transportation issues in the Hydraulic Road-Route 29 Intersection Area. Because of the inter-jurisdictional interests, the City, County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), expressed a mutual interest in establishing an agreeable framework for coordinating and providing planning and engineering studies necessary to provide a Transportation and Land Use Development Plan for this geographic area. This project is part of the 29 Solutions (www.route29solutions.org). The main area of study includes the Route 29 & Hydraulic Road Intersection, the Route 250 By-pass & Hydraulic Road Intersection, and the Hydraulic Road & Hillsdale Drive intersection and surrounding areas that directly influence current and future traffic, bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns within this portion of the Route 29 Solutions Program encompassing approximately 600 acres; 300 acres in the City and 300 acres in the County. The area is bounded by Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road in the North, US Highway 250 in the South, Meadow Creek in the East and North Berkshire Road in the West. Discussion: The Small Area Plan is designed to guide development in the area as well as inform goals and possible solutions for continued improvements to transportation facilities to support anticipated growth. The project has two phases: the Small Area Plan addressing land use, and the second phase, which focused on preliminary engineering that, addressed transportation needs for the project area. Land Use Element – Key Vision Statements  Strong Sense of Place (Create great streets and connected public spaces; establish an authentic urban form)  Vibrant, Dynamic Economy (A vibrant mixed-use destination for business; integrate a variety of housing and affordability options)  Equitable. Environmentally Sustainable Community (Promote housing within the core area; Create a multi-modal development system; Plan for environmentally sustainable stormwater management practices)  Connected by an Efficient, Multi-Modal Transportation Network, enhanced transit service; safe options for crossing Route 29; (Improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities; better neighborhood connectivity to the core area.) The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on April 10, 2018, and members of the Planning Commission were supportive of the plan and its provisions and voted unanimously to approve the plan as well as designate the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2223.1. The information and documents related to the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Public Hearing can be accessed at this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61479 Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision Statements of: A great Place to Live for All of Our Citizens, America’s Healthiest City, A Connected Community, A Green City, and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. The Plan also supports several goals and objectives in the 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan: Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options, Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, Goal 4.2: Attract and cultivate a variety of businesses; and Goal 4.3: Grow and retain viable businesses. Community Engagement: A Planning Advisory Panel of twelve members drove the community engagement process. The panel consist of representatives from the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, one County staff, City of Charlottesville City Council and Planning Commission, one City Staff, the Executive Director of Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Southern Environmental Law Center and property and business owners. The planning process was also informed by valuable public comment received during two public meetings and throughout the planning process via on-line project links through the Route 29 Solutions website. In addition, the CAMPO facilitated a series of neighborhood meetings during the process to target the specific needs and concerns of neighborhoods likely to be most affected by the plan. (A full account of the public engagement process is available at www.route29solutions.org). Five neighborhood meetings, a public input meeting, Charrette, and a Joint Work Session of the Charlottesville Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Planning Commission were held. Budgetary Impact: The successful outcome of this plan will depend on implementation and available resources. Staff will be working with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to submit Smart Scale applications for funding for the implementation of the transportation improvement projects. City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funds can be used to leverage additional Revenue Sharing money to enable implementation of the recommended projects. Recommendation: Commissioner Santoski moved to approve the Hydraulic Small Area Plan as recommended by the Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel and to append the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, dated April 10, 2018, along with the applicable goals, policies, projects, and maps, as an appendix to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. He further moved to designate the Area and related map as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with the Code of Virginia, section §15.2-223.1; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lahendro and passed by 7-0. The certified resolution is attached. Alternatives: The City Council has the following alternative actions: 1. by motion, vote to approve the attached resolution; 2. by motion, request changes to the attached resolution, and then approve it in accordance with the amended resolution; 3. by motion, defer action, or 4. by motion, deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments: 1. Proposed City Council Resolution 2. Certified Planning Commission Resolution 3. Link to Planning Commission/Council Public Hearing Documents: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61479 4. Direct Link to the Project Website: www.route29solutions.org). http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/hydraulic_small_area_plan_final_report_201 8-apr-03.pdf RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENMENT TO THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCORPORATION THE 2018 HYDRAULIC-29 SMALL AREA PLAN, AND DESIGNATING THE AREA AS AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, after notice was given as required by law, the Charlottesville Planning Commission and Charlottesville City Council conducted a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Charlottesville, to include the contents of the proposed 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, and designation of the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA); and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and certifying a copy of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council for its consideration; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City Council hereby adopts the 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City Council further designates the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA) in accordance with the Code of Virginia, section §15.2-223.1. The Neighborhood Development Services staff shall post on the City’s website notice of Council’s adoption of this Update, along with a copy of the approval Update. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: May 7, 2018 Action Required: Resolution Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director/Michael Baker International, Consultants Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director, Tony Edwards, Development Services Manager, NDS Title: Hydraulic Small Area Plan – Transportation Plan/Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Intersection of Hydraulic/Route 29 Background: One of the proposed twelve Small Area Plan areas in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan was Emmet Street north of the 250 Bypass (Hydraulic-29). This area possesses considerable potential for new placemaking because of road network and traffic pattern changes, the development of the Stonefield commercial and residential development in the County, and future redevelopment of the Kmart site and Michie Drive CRHA site. This area provides an expanded opportunity for dense, urban development at a major gateway to the city. The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County expressed interest in a joint Small Area Plan to address land use and transportation issues in the Hydraulic Road-Route 29 Intersection Area. Because of the inter-jurisdictional interests, the City, County and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (TJMPO) in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), expressed a mutual interest in establishing an agreeable framework for coordinating and providing planning and engineering studies necessary to provide a Transportation and Land Use Development Plan for this geographic area. This project is part of the 29 Solutions (www.route29solutions.org). The main area of study includes the Route 29 & Hydraulic Road Intersection, the Route 250 By-pass & Hydraulic Road Intersection, and the Hydraulic Road & Hillsdale Drive intersection and surrounding areas that directly influence current and future traffic, bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns within this portion of the Route 29 Solutions Program encompassing approximately 600 acres; 300 acres in the City and 300 acres in the County. The area is bounded by Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road in the North, US Highway 250 in the South, Meadow Creek in the East and North Berkshire Road in the West. Discussion: The Transportation Improvement Plan evaluated three options. The plan focused on preliminary engineering that addressed transportation needs, including recommending possible solutions for continued improvements to transportation facilities to support anticipated growth. . Key Transportation Elements  US 29 and Hydraulic Road Intersection Improvement (3 potential scenarios)  Hydraulic Road and District Avenue Roundabout  Hydraulic Road and Hillsdale Drive Roundabout  Zan Road Grade Separation-Connection over Route 29.  Angus Road Grade Separated Intersection with right turn only access and signalized US 29 South Bound U-Turn.  Hillsdale Drive Connection to Holiday Drive  Relocation of West Bound US 250 Ramps to Hillsdale Drive Extension.  Extend East Bound US 250 left-turn lane at Hydraulic Three potential scenarios were evaluated for the Hydraulic – Route 29 Intersection improvement; of which Scenario 1 was recommended by the Planning Advisory Panel for approval. Scenario 1 – Grade-Separated Intersection This scenario includes constructing bridges to carry US 29 thru traffic over Hydraulic Road. It provides a signalized intersection for Hydraulic Road and left-turning US 29 traffic. The left-turning US 29 traffic will exit the US 29 mainline via ramps that descend to Hydraulic Road. This intersection design allows US 29 thru traffic to flow freely, without having to be processed through a traffic signal. Left-turns from Hydraulic Road to US 29 would likely be prohibited at the signalized intersection under the US 29 bridges. Those left turns would need to be accomplished by proceeding thru the signal and making a U-turn at the roundabouts on either side of the Hydraulic Road/US 29 intersection. However, there is some potential to provide those left turns at the signalized intersection as well as to provide free-flow right turns from US 29 to Hydraulic Road. If this scenario is recommended, those potential provisions would be investigated in more detail. Estimated Construction Cost: $29 - $35 million (does not include Right of Way acquisition) Scenario 2 – Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI) This scenario processes all intersection movements through a series of signals at an at-grade intersection. The distinguishing feature of a CFI is that left turns crossing opposing thru traffic on the major street (US 29) are made upstream of the main intersection (known as a displaced left-turn). This effectively removes one or more critical lane maneuvers at the intersection, thus reducing delay at the main intersection. Right turns from all directions will flow continuously. The timing of the series of signals will be coordinated so that traffic in all directions will only have to stop for a red light a maximum of one time. Estimated Construction Cost: $9.5 - $12 million (does not include Right of Way acquisition) Scenario 3 – Grade-Separated Roundabout This scenario consists of constructing a roundabout above US 29, which allows US 29 thru traffic to flow freely. The roundabout is connected to US 29 via ramps and all turning movements from US 29 and the thru movements and turning movements from Hydraulic Road will all be processed via the roundabout. Estimated Construction Cost: $40 - $48 million (does not include Right of Way acquisition). The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on April 10, 2018, and members of the Planning Commission were supportive of the Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the plan. The information and documents related to the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Public Hearing can be accessed at this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61479 Commissioner Keller said this is a case where long range planning really works. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision Statements of: A great Place to Live for All of Our Citizens, America’s Healthiest City, A Connected Community, A Green City, and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. The Plan also supports several goals and objectives in the 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan: Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options, Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, Goal 4.2: Attract and cultivate a variety of businesses; and Goal 4.3: Grow and retain viable businesses. Community Engagement: A Planning Advisory Panel of twelve members drove the community engagement process. The community engagement process included 21 Advisory Panel meetings and work sessions over 13 months; six meetings facilitated Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO); three of which are on Transportation Scenarios; Charlottesville City Council 2-2-1 briefing, Transportation Scenarios briefing with CAT and JAUNT and Joint Charlottesville City Council-Planning Commission review. (A full account of the public engagement process is available at www.route29solutions.org). Budgetary Impact: The successful outcome of this plan will depend on implementation and available resources. Staff will be working with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to submit Smart Scale applications for funding for the implementation of the transportation improvement projects. City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funds can be used to leverage additional Revenue Sharing money to enable implementation of the recommended projects. Recommendation: Commissioner Dowell moved to approve the Hydraulic-29 Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection, as recommended by the Hydraulic Planning Advisory Panel and to append the Hydraulic-29 Transportation Plan, dated April 10, 2018, along with the applicable goals, policies, projects, maps and scenario to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan to include the scenario. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Keesecker and passed 7-0. Alternatives: The City Council has the following alternative actions: 1 by motion, vote to approve the attached resolution; 2 by motion, request changes to the attached resolution, and then approve it in accordance with the amended resolution; 3 by motion, defer action, or 4 by motion, deny the proposed Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection. Attachments: 1. Proposed City Council Resolution 2. Certified Planning Commission Resolution 3. Link to Planning Commission/Council Public Hearing Documents: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61479 4. Direct Link to the Project Website: www.route29solutions.org). http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/hydraulic_small_area_plan_final_report_201 8-apr-03.pdf RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENMENT TO THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCORPORATION OF THE 2018 HYDRAULIC-29 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES SCENARIO 1-GRADE SEPARATED INTERCHANGE AT THE HYDRAULIC & ROUTE 29 INTERSECTION WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, after notice was given as required by law, the Charlottesville Planning Commission and Charlottesville City Council conducted a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Charlottesville, to include the contents of the proposed 2018 Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval by the City Council of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and certifying a copy of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Council for its consideration; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City Council hereby adopts the proposed 2018 Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes Scenario 1-Grade Separated Interchange at the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 Intersection as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Development Services staff shall post on the City’s website notice of Council’s adoption of this Update, along with a copy of the approval Update. RESOLUTION OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE HYDRAULIC SMALL AREA PLAN WHEREAS, in joint cooperation with Albemarle County and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the City of Charlottesville has developed a proposed Small Area Plan referred to as the 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, which has been developed to serve as an Urban Development Area, as defined in Virginia Code §15.2-2223.1 ("Proposed Small Area Plan''); and WHEREAS, the Proposed Small Area Plan contains two elements: land use and transportation; WHEREAS, after notice given as required by law, the City's Planning Commission and City Council on April 10, 2018, jointly conducted a public hearing on the Proposed Small Area Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that it should adopt the 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan, designate the territory within the boundaries of said plan as an Urban Development Area, and incorporate it as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan is hereby certified to the City Council for its consideration in accordance with City Code Section 34- 27 (b). :::~:e~eszs;ommission, the I0th of April2018. day Secretari,haiOtteSViile Planning Commission Attachment: Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan http://www.route29solutions.org/documents/hydraulic small area plan final repo rt 20 18-apr-03 .pdf