September 19, 2011 (with background material)

Transcription

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 19, 2011
6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code
(Second Floor Conference Room)
TYPE OF ITEM
SUBJECT
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Infant Mortality Awareness Month; Celebrate 250!
MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC
Public comment will be permitted for the first 12 speakers to sign up in advance of the
meeting (limit of 3 minutes per speaker) and at the end of the meeting on any item,
provided that a public hearing is not planned or has not previously been held on the matter.
COUNCIL RESPONSES TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC
1. CONSENT AGENDA*
(Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular
agenda.)
a.
b.
Minutes of September 6
APPROPRIATION:
c.
APPROPRIATION:
d.
APPROPRIATION:
e.
f.
g.
APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION:
h.
APPROPRIATION:
i.
j.
k.
RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION:
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
RESOLUTION:
ORDINANCE:
ORDINANCE:
ORDINANCE:
RESOLUTION:
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant (VJCCCA) – $452,704
nd
(2 of 2 readings)
st
FY2012 Friendship Court Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage (1
Quarter) – $22,130.50 (2nd of 2 readings)
McIntire Park Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Transportation Enhancement Funding Grant
Phase I and II - $517,500 (1st of 2 readings)
st
Donation for Riverview Park Improvement – $2,000 (1 of 2 readings)
st
Recycled Railroad Steel Income - $1,870 (1 of 2 readings)
2012 Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia Highway Safety Grant – $30,386
(1st of 2 readings)
2011 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) – $37,336
(1st of 2 readings)
st
Honorary Street Name Designations (1 of 1 reading)
Support of Restoration of State Funding for Aid to Localities (1st of 1 reading)
Paving of School Bus Parking Lot - Transfer of Funds to Facilities Repair Fund st
$85,122.99 (1 of 1 reading)
st
Buford Cooling Tower Replacement – Transfer of $40,165 (1 of 1 reading)
nd
Spot Blight Abatement – 704 Montrose (2 of 2 readings)
nd
Infrastructure Maintenance Bonds (2 of 2 readings)
nd
IPP for 104 Stadium Rd. (2 of 2 readings)
Contribution to the Piedmont Council for the Arts (PCA) for Support of City Space
Exhibits - $3,000 (1st of 1 reading)
2. PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION*
Sublease to Martha Jefferson Hospital at Jefferson School (1st of 1 reading)
3. REPORT
NDS Infrastructure & Development Project Updates
4. REPORT
CAT Services
5. REPORT
TJPDC Legislative Package
6. REPORT
TJPDC Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
OTHER BUSINESS
Limit of 3 minutes per speaker.
*ACTION NEEDED
Reasonable accommodations will be provided for persons with disabilities upon request.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE
HELD ON Tuesday, September 06, 2011, AT 6:00 p.m. IN THE Second Floor
Conference Room.
THE PROPOSED AGENDA IS AS FOLLOWS:
Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code
BY ORDER OF THE MAYOR
BY Paige Barfield
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – September 6, 2011
Council met in regular session on this date with the following members present:
Mr. Norris, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Huja, Ms. Szakos, Dr. Brown.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Norris read a proclamation regarding Truancy Prevention. Mr. Rory
Carpenter, the Juvenile Justice Coordinator for JJAC, was present to accept.
Mr. Norris read a proclamation in honor of National Payroll Week. Mr. Darrell
Kozuch from the UVA Human Resources department was present to accept the
proclamation.
The Jefferson School Partners groundbreaking will be September 14th at 11:00
a.m. on the Jefferson School site. Mr. Martin Burks and Mr. Steve Blaine were present to
speak about the event. The group is also raising money for the Heritage Culture Center.
Mr. Norris announced that Jennifer Luchard, the City’s Procurement and Risk
Manager, received the National Purchasing Manager of the Year. Ms. Luchard thanked
Council for the recognition and the opportunity to work for the City.
Ms. Szakos announced the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 at the Pavilion on the
Downtown Mall at 5:00 p.m. on September 11th. She also announced the Our Town
meeting on Thursday, September 8th for North Downtown/Martha Jefferson
neighborhood at CitySpace and September 22nd at Burley School for the Rose Hill and
Kellytown neighborhoods.
Mr. Huja announced Shrek in 3D Friday, September 9th at Forest Hill Park. Also,
the Master Planning for the East Side of McIntire Park has three meetings beginning
September 26th at the MLK Performing Arts Center. He also announced the Community
2
Job Fair on Thursday, September 29th 10am-3pm at John Paul Jones Arena. Call Ms. Lee
at 970-3117 for more information.
Ms. Edwards announced the start of the 2011-12 school year. She encouraged
parents to read the Parent Information Guide. Contact your child’s teacher or school
principal if you have questions. Please stay involved with your child’s schooling. Also,
all 11th graders received letters regarding their graduation status. Contact your child’s
guidance counselor or school principal if you have questions. Please be mindful of the
school busses on the roads, and drive carefully.
Ms. Edwards asked to speak on several items during Other Business.
Mr. Norris said Friday September 30th is our 2011 Government Services Day on
the Downtown Mall from 10am-2pm.
Mr. Norris announced Lighthouse Studio 10th Annual Film Festival Friday
September 9th at the Jefferson Theatre. Charlotte Cherry introduced a clip from her
documentary on Winneba.
Mr. Paul Long, 1410 Grady Ave., spoke on job creation in the City and
surrounding areas. He asked Council to take the initiative to create new jobs through a
Public Works/Public Jobs program, to be funded by a special tax on City banks. The City
should share its growth with all segments of the community.
Ms. Joanna Salidis, 129 Goodman St., asked Council to give appropriate feedback
to AECOM regarding their water demand forecast, specifically to reduce the resident
water use per resident, per year.
Mr. Robert McAdams, 2211 Williamsburg Rd., said he represents a broad
coalition of civic organizations who want to make the International Day of Peace a
recognizable day on the calendar. He asked Council to officially commemorate an
International Day of Peace through a resolution and designate someone from staff to
facilitate communications.
Mr. Mark Kavit, 400 Altamont St., thanked Council for the neighborhood grant
money they made available early this year. The neighborhood association used the funds
to create a newsletter, redo the roundabout at Park Lake, revamp their website, and
update their RSS feed. They also created a Beautification Award and have given out
three so far. They were awarded to Citgo Station in Stockton Oak for their relandscaping of their entranceway, Queen Charlotte for maintaining their property, and
Fellini’s restaurant for the maintenance they do around their block.
3
Mr. Rick Turner, 1663 Brandywine Dr., is the president of the Alb/Ch’ville
NAACP. On August 7th, the Daily Progress printed a letter to the editor from Mr. Eugene
Williams, “Radical Experiences Still Going On”. There are times when the Downtown
Mall seems to be for white people only. He said the community and the Chamber of
Commerce is silently sanctioning things the way they are. The City should take the
Dialogue on Race to the downtown mall and open a conversation with offices, merchants
and businesses to offer employment opportunities for black citizens to create a more open
environment for all.
Mr. Brandon Collins, 536 Meade Ave., said he shares Dr. Turner’s sentiments.
There are a lot of people who are unemployed and cannot make ends meet. Public Works
is a way to get people employed in the City. He urged Council to get involved with the
Living Wage Campaign at UVA and asked for a more aggressive stance towards the
living wage.
Ms. Nikuyah Walker, 503 Druid Ave., sent a letter on August 30th regarding the
Region 10 Community Services Board. She outlined some of the issues at Region 10 and
asked Council to intervene.
Mr. Richard Lloyd, 1825 Locust Shade Ct., said he was asked to look at the
Belmont Bridge by several citizens. The bridge was built in a different era for different
reasons to a different set of constraints. Please examine why it is so long. The exit side
on Belmont is confusing and blocks traffic. Consider building a smaller, shorter, lower
bridge.
COUNCIL RESPONSES TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC
Mr. Huja said the idea of an International Day of Peace is a worthy topic to
support and looks forward to doing so at the next meeting.
Ms. Szakos said she concurred, and we should think about peace not only in terms
of wars but also how we treat each other locally. She thanked Mr. Lloyd for his
interesting history on the Belmont Bridge. She addressed Mr. Collins and said there are
some ways in which the City is looking at the Reentry Program, which is the sort of
project he is advocating.
Dr. Brown thanked Dr. Turner for bringing his comments to Council. Mr. Eugene
Williams has a history of bringing important issues to the white community. Good will
come out of it now that it has been brought to attention.
Ms. Edwards said African Americans have the perception of not being welcomed
on the mall. The Dialogue on Race gives us another opportunity for open dialogue within
the Downtown Business Association. She asked Mr. Jones to follow up on how this can
be added to the agenda for the next DOR meeting. She said the City should follow up
with Ms. Walker’s concerns, because we fund Region 10, and perhaps there are ways we
4
can ask some accountability questions. She thanked her for coming forward publically.
Regarding Workforce development, we are all well-aware of the workforce issues that
affect us, and even though Charlottesville may have lower unemployment rates, there is
still a large part of our population that is excluded. It is important to implement a policy
like Section 3. She thanked Ms. Salidis for her presentation. She thanked Mr. Lloyd for
the history lesson on the Belmont Bridge.
Nr. Norris thanked Mr. McAdams for coming forward about the International Day
of Peace. He thanked Ms. Walker for coming forward to point out issues we need to
address. Regarding Mr. Collins’ event yesterday, he said he was taken aback by the way
his sentiments were characterized. He said many positive things about the issues
Councilors have brought forward. He said Dr. Turner and Mr. Williams made some
excellent points, and the issue goes beyond the Downtown Mall. There is a real issue in
our community regarding representation within our workforce and our class of
professionals. We have a long way to go to become a true community of choice for
professionals of color, and we should step up our efforts to engage the private and public
sectors for retaining and recruiting a more diverse workforce.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dr. Brown asked to pull item l, Street Naming Policy. Mr. Huja asked to pull
item j, Acquisition of Property.
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Dr. Brown, the following consent agenda
items were approved with exception of item l and item j: (Ayes: Mr. Huja, Ms. Edwards,
Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos; Dr. Brown; Noes: None.)
Mr. Norris read Burley res.
a. Minutes of August 1
b. APPROPRIATION:
c. APPROPRIATION:
d. APPROPRIATION:
e. APPROPRIATION:
f. APPROPRIATION:
g. APPROPRIATION:
h. APPROPRIATION:
$97,500 – Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
Neighborhood of Promise Grant (2nd reading)
$65,000 – CASASTART Truancy Prevention Program (2nd
reading)
Workforce Development Program Carryover Funding for
FY 2012 (2nd reading)
$182,500 – Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug
Treatment Court Grant Award (2nd reading)
$65,000 – Teens GIVE Service-Learning and Life Skills
Program (2nd reading)
$452,704 – Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control
Act Grant (VJCCCA) (carried)
$22,130.50 – FY2012 Friendship Court Sponsorship
Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage (1st Quarter)
5
i. RESOLUTION:
j. RESOLUTION:
k. RESOLUTION:
l. RESOLUTION:
m. RESOLUTION:
n. RESOLUTION:
o. RESOLUTION:
p. RESOLUTION:
q. RESOLUTION:
r. RESOLUTION:
s. ORDINANCE:
t. ORDINANCE:
u. ORDINANCE:
v. ORDINANCE:
w. ORDINANCE:
(carried)
Temporary Grading & Construction Easement – Jefferson
School
Acquisition of 4.515 Acres of Meadow Creek Stream
Valley Land
Acceptance of Hillsdale Dr.
Honorary Street Naming Policy
Honorary Street Name – Jackson P. Burley on Rose Hill
Drive from Preston to Madison
Fiscal Year 2012 Performance Contract between Region
Ten and the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation & Substance Abuse Services
Transfer of Funds to Wayfinding Account in the Capital
Projects Fund - $43,113.09
Silverbacks Donation
Transfer of Funds in the Capital Projects Fund - ClearPoint
Performance Measurement Scorecard Software - $12,000
Police Locker Room Project – Transfer of $12,365.40
Transfer of Elliott Lot to Habitat for Humanity (2nd reading)
RWSA Easement for Schenk’s Branch Interceptor (2nd
reading)
Grant of Utility Easement under Jefferson Park Avenue and
West Main Street to the University of Virginia (2nd reading)
Infrastructure Maintenance Bonds (carried)
IPP for Stadium Rd. (carried)
PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION: PRIORITIES FOR CDBG PROGRAM YEAR
12-13
Ms. Thackston presented to Council. She reviewed the decisions staff asked
Council to make, including setting priorities for CDBG & HOME programs, determining
if a Priority Neighborhood should be designated, determining the percentage for Social
Programs (up to 15%), administration and planning, and any additional guidelines
Council may wish to give in determining how funds should be spent.
Ms. Szakos asked about the Fifeville Task Force composition.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Brandon Collins, 536 Meade Ave., said current priorities should remain the
same. We could go for another SRO. We should provide infrastructure upgrades for
people with disabilities to accommodate an aging population.
Having no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
6
Ms. Szakos asked if there is any thought about trying to figure out how to make
sure groups understand the staff time necessary to put together a grant before making a
small monetary request. She asked if there is a way to collectively take on the reporting
onus so small groups can get money for their contracting. Ms. Thackston said that is a
possibility, but HUD requirements make it difficult.
Mr. Norris asked if adding a priority regarding people with disabilities is an
eligible CDBG activity.
Ms. Edwards said the area that’s growing in our community is health care
services.
Mr. Huja said there is money for ADA requirements, so we do not have to spend
CDBG money for that.
On motion by Mr. Huja, seconded by Dr. Brown, the resolution passed. (Ayes:
Mr. Huja, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos; Dr. Brown; Noes: None.)
Dr. Brown asked what we are looking for in a priority neighborhood, and why we
should focus on Fifeville rather than other neighborhoods.
Mr. Huja said it takes a fair amount of money to make an impact on a
neighborhood. Ms. Szakos said she does not want to lose track of the clinic in subsequent
years.
PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION: APPROVAL OF OUTSIDE FINANCING FOR
BLUE RIDGE COMMONS
Ms. Allyson Davies presented to Council. Staff recommends Council approve the
issuance of bonds to fund financing for the renovation of units for low and moderate
income families within Charlottesville. These bonds will not be considered a debt for the
City by virtue of the City’s consent.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Ln., thanked Council for their clarification that
the City is not responsible to pay back bonds. She asked why Waynesboro wants to
invest in Charlottesville.
Having no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Huja asked if Waynesboro was charging a fee. Ms. Davies said yes, it is a
source of income for them.
7
Ms. Szakos asked if Charlottesville should be looking at this as a possible revenue
stream, as there is a need for it in this community. Ms. Davies said looking at this project
is a good starting point for assessing.
On motion by Ms. Szakos, seconded by Mr. Huja, the resolution passed.
(Ayes: Mr. Huja, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris, Ms. Szakos; Dr. Brown; Noes: None.)
Mr. Huja asked if this project could provide the neighborhood job opportunities.
Ms. Edwards asked if this is strictly rehabilitation, not additional units. Ms.
Davies said that was correct. Ms. Edwards said she wants to be sure residents are aware
of the process and their right to return.
Ms. John Bolton, with Community Housing Partners, Richmond VA, spoke about
resident involvement in the project. Ms. Szakos encouraged them to use apprenticeships
on this project. Ms. Edwards asked how it would affect children and asked if there was
sensitivity to people who used English as a second language.
Mr. Brown said staff will transmit the will of Council in the cover letter.
REPORT/RESOLUTION: VDOT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
FOR SCHENK’S BRANCH INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION
Ms. Angela Tucker presented to Council. VDOT has tentatively agreed to issue a
change order to their McIntire Road Extended construction contract so that a portion of
the interceptor can be relocated and replaced as a part of the contract. Staff recommends
approval of the temporary construction easement to VDOT for the relocated Schenk’s
Branch Interceptor.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Huja, the resolution passed
unanimously. (Ayes: Mr. Huja, Ms. Edwards, Ms. Szakos, Mr. Norris, Dr. Brown; Noes:
None.)
REPORT/RESOLUTION: HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT – USE
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE HOUSING FUND
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council and reviewed the items outlined in the materials.
Staff will take items that have support to Council and others back for more HAC
discussion. He outlined the work that has been done on existing projects.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Szakos, the resolution passed
unanimously. (Ayes: Mr. Huja, Ms. Edwards, Ms. Szakos, Mr. Norris, Dr. Brown; Noes:
None.)
8
REPORT/ORDINANCE: SPOT BLIGHT ABATEMENT – 704 MONTROSE (carried)
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council and refreshed them on the issue, which was
originally presented on July 5, 2011. He described what had taken place since that date.
Staff recommends demolition of the building, in agreement with the Planning
Commission’s decision. There is a possible interested buyer, but passing this on a first
reading would not prevent a sale, should one come to fruition.
Ms. Edwards said she is sorry we have to make this decision, and the bottom line
is safety.
Mr. Norris invited Mr. Rogers to speak. Mr. Rogers said he has the funds to have
the house demolished and will not need the City’s funds to do so. He wanted to remove
some belongings from the home before demolition.
Mr. Norris asked Mr. Tolbert when the demolition would be required. Mr.
Tolbert said the end of October would be a reasonable time. Staff will follow up as
required with Mr. Rogers.
Ms. Szakos clarified that the home has not been lived in for 30 years. Mr. Tolbert
said this property will still belong to Mr. Rogers after the house is demolished.
On motion by Dr. Brown, seconded by Ms. Edwards, the ordinance carried.
REPORT: LOCAL CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING PROCESS REPORT
Ms. Riddervold presented a slide show to Council. She outlined the process, the
LCAPP Steering Committee work, products that came from the LCAPP, and other
Community Co-Benefits of Climate Action, Recommended Principles, recommended
next steps, and concurrent community activities.
She thanked Dr. Brown for his long-term involvement and commitment to this
project. She turned the presentation over to Dr. Brown. He said he would like to figure
out a way to keep the community involved and committed. He thanked Ms. Riddervold
and her staff for their work.
Mr. Norris thanked Dr. Brown for his leadership and thanked Ms. Riddervold for
her work.
Ms. Szakos asked if there is a reporting mechanism in place for seeing what the
results of the planning process are. Ms. Riddervold said there is. Ms. Szakos said
employment is an ancillary benefit within the community.
9
REPORT: COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT UPDATE
Mr. Jones presented to Council on their decision to update the vision statement.
He reviewed the changes, including the addition of a ninth focus, “Community of Mutual
Respect”. These changes came primarily at the suggestion of the Dialogue on Race work
group.
Ms. Shephard spoke and thanked Council for their consideration and revisions.
On motion by Mr. Huja, seconded by Ms. Szakos, Council approved the revised
Vision Statement. (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Norris, Mr. Huja, Ms. Szakos;
Noes: None.)
REPORT: MCINTIRE ROAD EXTENDED BRIDGE
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council on design information obtained from VDOT
regarding the bridge.
Mr. Huja asked if the bridge could be modified for certain pedestrian activity use.
Mr. Tolbert said anything is possible, but there would be design issues and moving the
trail to the other side was discussed at length by Council. Mr. Grant Sprinkle with VDOT
said it would be problematic to make the change at this time. There will be a flat area
under the bridge on the south side that should be wide enough for pedestrian activity. A
full ten foot trail would be difficult, but an informal trail could be done.
Mr. Norris asked how construction of the bridge might affect the way the whole
project is constructed, especially regarding truck routes. Mr. Sprinkle said there will be a
temporary crossing at that location.
REPORT: WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Mr. Tolbert presented to Council regarding staff’s meetings with AECOM and
RWSA. Although projecting population so far into the future is difficult, all parties
agreed that the original population projection of 71,000 was too high. The parties devised
a revised projected population figure of 63,482. The numbers were developed by
AECOM for the purpose of the Water Demand Analysis and will not be used for any
other purpose by City staff at this time.
Troy Kinser from AECOM was present to answer questions.
Mr. Norris asked if we should also consider this projection when considering
other City services. Mr. Tolbert said consistency is important. Staff is beginning the
comprehensive planning process and will review the numbers and be as consistent as
possible. Typically you do not use a 50-year projection in comprehensive plans.
10
Mr. Norris asked what the revised demand projection was based on the population
reduction. Mr. Kinser said the current projection with the revised figures is 16.96 mgd
for the urban service area. Last time it was 17.2. Mr. Norris asked if those figures
included Crozet. Mr. Kinser said this was only for water in the urban area. Mr. Norris
asked for the 2055 projection. Mr. Kinser said it was 16.17 for 2055 for the urban area.
Mr. Norris said the current supply plan generates 18.7 per day for 2055. The number
from DEQ states 16.8 gpd, which would be more than sufficient.
OTHER BUSINESS: MS. EDWARDS’ “BUCKET LIST”
Ms. Edwards said one thing we talked about at our retreat is an apology for
Vinegar Hill. She asked for this to be placed on an upcoming agenda. She requested a
forum regarding Race, Place and Redevelopment. The apology could be tied in with this
conversation.
She asked for a follow up on previous poverty work sessions in October or
November, but she would like to address it in a different way. We have systemic
strategies to address poverty, including an update on the “Bank On” initiative and an
update on the Promise Neighborhood initiatives. Mr. Norris also asked for a report from
the Reentry Workshop from last week. Dr. Brown asked for these reports to occur at
Council meetings in order to reach a wider audience. Ms. Szakos said we could have a
televised work session in Chambers. Mr. Jones will follow up on possible dates for a
work session.
Ms. Edwards said she wanted to examine the idea of an elected mayor. She spoke
with several members of the political community to see what the feeling is on this topic.
She asked for the conversation to be as inclusive as possible, with an opportunity for
public input. It is important to have a transparent process.
Ms. Edwards said there was a lack of African American representation on the
ballot for the Democratic primary. This is an opportunity for the Dialogue on Race
(DOR) to explore how we can have a meaningful conversation in our City about
participation. It is important to examine how we define a “minority”. The Souls of Black
Folks was an important book that came up during the DOR reentry summit.
We do not have a sign in our hometown that says “Home of the Charlottesville
Black Knights”, and it is important to support our home team.
The “MLK Performing Arts Center” should have Martin Luther King, Jr. spelled
out.
Ms. Szakos said The Souls of Black Folks should be required reading for Council.
Regarding the Black Knights sign, she asked of the boosters for the high school could
help with funding for this project. She asked staff to compile a list of people who lived in
11
the Vinegar Hill area and owned businesses in order to invite them to the apology and
make it personal.
Mr. Huja said we should pursue Ms. Edwards’ ideas as soon as possible. Mr.
Jones said we will bring Vinegar Hill to Council in October. We are looking at design
sketches for the Home of Black Knights signs. We have run into procurement issues, but
we are still working on it, including appropriate location of the signs.
OTHER BUSINESS: STREET NAMING POLICY
Dr. Brown said he is concerned that we are not setting the bar high enough for
honoring people by naming a street for them. We set a good precedent by naming one for
Jackson Burley, but we should not lessen the importance by subsequently using such
weak criteria.
Also, the policy should be limited to honoring people, not entities or events.
Additional language should say “Honorary street names should be limited to individuals
who have made important and lasting contributions to the City.” Also, the street being
named should have some connection to the individual. We should reserve the recognition
for someone who has not already been recognized in some other way.
Mr. Huja said Dr. Brown’s ideas are an excellent improvement to the policy. Mr.
Norris agreed. Ms. Szakos said if someone has received a previous honor, it may have
been small and should not disqualify them.
Dr. Brown asked staff to revise the policy and bring it back to the next meeting.
Mr. Tolbert will do so.
OTHER BUSINESS: ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
Mr. Huja asked why the City is trying to acquire the property in question. Mr.
Daly said this is a mutual agreement between the City and the seller. The ownership
group is the Cannon/Hearthwood Limited Partnership. The price is based upon an
independent appraisal. The portion of the parcel is the floodplain portion of the parcel
and is a critical portion of the stream restoration project. Mr. Huja objected that there was
not an opportunity to discuss this in closed session.
Ms. Szakos said she did not see a problem. Mr. Jones said it was not put on a
closed session agenda because the price was not as significant as with other transactions.
Mr. Huja said he wants the process to include a closed session discussion for the future.
On motion by Mr. Huja, seconded by Dr. Brown, the resolution passed
unanimously (Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Huja, Mr. Norris, Ms. Edwards, Ms. Szakos; Noes:
None.)
12
Ms. Colette Hall, 101 Robertson Ln., requested that money amounts be published
on the consent agenda, including resolutions that include a monetary aspect. She said she
takes numbers for population projections with a grain of salt, because it is not possible to
project so far into the future.
Mr. Richard Lloyd said the Weldon Cooper Center does forecasts. They are
trained, experienced, and credentialed to do so. Mr. Jones said we asked Weldon Cooper
to do the projection, and they declined.
Mr. Stratton Salidis, 704 Graves St., said a flyer sent out by the Monticello
Business Alliance supporting Mr. Huja and Ms. Galvin for Council and should be
denounced by Mr. Huja and Ms. Szakos because it contained misleading information
about the water supply plan.
Ms. Nikuyah Walker, 503 Druid Ave., said she wanted to address her motivation
for requesting community regulation and oversight of Region 10. There were seven items
on the agenda related to substance abuse. Care citizens should receive is not there. Do
not simply have this conversation with Region 10 and the leadership team, but speak with
community partners such as OAR and other state offices, current and former employees,
and DSS agencies in the City and surrounding counties. Substance abuse is a problem
that impacts all groups in our community.
Mr. Norris thanked her for sharing with Council.
The meeting was adjourned.
_____________________________
President
_____________________________
Clerk
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 6, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Presenter:
Rory Carpenter, Community Attention
Staff Contact:
Rory Carpenter, Community Attention
Leslie Beauregard, Director, Budget and Performance Management
Title:
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant
(VJCCCA) - $452,704
Background: In July 2010, the City of Charlottesville became the fiscal agent for the
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds for both Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. This funding stream was established by the 1995 Virginia
General Assembly to create balanced, community-based systems of sanctions,
programs and services for juvenile offenders. These funds are used to support the
Community Attention programs. In FY 2012, $292,058 in VJCCCA funds will be received
from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. The grant period is from July 1, 2011
through June 30, 2012.
Discussion: The terms of the award require local maintenance of effort by contributing
$52,231 from Albemarle County, and a $108,415 contribution from the City.
Budgetary Impact: The required contribution has already been appropriated as part of
the FY 2012 Council Adopted Budget so no new funds are required to cover the match.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds.
Alternatives: If the VJCCCA funds are not appropriated, Community Attention would
have to serve less youth and eliminate programs and staff.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act Grant (VJCCCA)
$452,704
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $292,058 from the
Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and $52,231 from Albemarle County;
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to operate the VJCCCA Programs. The grant
award covers the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $452,704 is hereby appropriated in the following
manner:
Revenue – $452,704
$292,058
$52,231
$108,415
Fund: 220
Fund: 220
Fund: 220
Cost Center: 3523001000
G/L Account: 430080
G/L Account: 432030
G/L Account: 498010
G/L Account: 530010
Expenditures - $452,704
$452,704 Fund: 220
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the
receipt of $292,058 from VA Department of Juvenile Justice, and $52,231 from
Albemarle County.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 6, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
Tim Longo, Chief of Police
David Shifflett, Police Department
Presenter:
David Shifflett, Police Department
Title:
FY2012 Friendship Court Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced
Police Coverage (1st Quarter) - $22,130.50
Background: Friendship Court housing complex has entered into a Sponsorship
Agreement for the 1st quarter of Fiscal Year 2012, whereby a donation will be made to the
Charlottesville Police Department totaling $22,130.50, to support enhanced police
coverage within and adjacent to Friendship Court from July 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011.
In Fiscal Years 2005 through 2011, Friendship Court entered into yearlong sponsorship
agreements. In FY2012, Friendship Court requested to initially enter into an agreement for
the first quarter to allow for time to evaluate funding alternatives for the agreement.
Discussion: Enhanced coverage involves police officers being assigned to public patrol
duties in the sponsored coverage area in additional to those officers who could be assigned
within normal budgetary constraints. Acceptance of the donation under this arrangement
will not require officers to be pulled away from other areas of coverage within the City.
The “enhanced coverage” that is the subject of the Sponsorship Agreement will be
provided by officers looking for additional work opportunities outside their normal shift.
Even in these circumstances the Chief will have full authority to deploy the officers
elsewhere to meet operational necessities. This agreement was successfully implemented
and administered in fiscal years 2005 through 2011.
The donations will be used to provide enhanced police coverage to the coverage area
within and adjacent to Friendship Court, including salary, equipment, technology and
related administrative expenses associated with provisions of such enhanced coverage. We
believe this arrangement will be of substantial public benefit, in that it will allow for
services to be focused on a high-crime area of the City, without detriment to the availability
of City-wide police coverage.
Budgetary Impact: Funding for the enhanced coverage area for the 1st quarter of Fiscal
Year 2012 will come from a $22,130.50 donation by Friendship Court and will be
appropriated into Internal Order 2000005 within the Police Department’s General Fund
budget.
Recommendation: Appropriate donated funds.
Alternatives: The alternative is not to approve this appropriation, which would result in
the inability to provide enhanced coverage to the sponsored coverage area.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
2012 Friendship Court Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage
(1st Quarter)
$22,130.50
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received a donation from Friendship
Court to fund enhanced police coverage for the areas defined in the Sponsorship
Agreement, including salary, equipment, technology and related administrative expenses
associated with provisions of such enhanced coverage, for the period of July 1, 2011 to
September 30, 2011.
NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $22,130.50, to be received as a donation from
Friendship Court, is hereby appropriated in the following manner, and is conditioned upon
receipt of $22,130.50 from Friendship Court.
Revenues - $22,130.50
Fund: 105
Internal Order: 2000005
G/L Account: 451999
Expenditures - $22,130.50
Fund: 105
Internal Order: 2000005
G/L Account: 510060
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
Chris Gensic – Parks and Recreation Trails Planner
Leslie Beauregard, Director, Budget and Performance
Management
Presenter:
Title:
McIntire Park Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Transportation
Enhancement Funding Grant Phase I and II - $517,500
Background: The City has been awarded Transportation Enhancement Funding from
VDOT in the amount of $414,000 to design and construct a bicycle and pedestrian
bridge over the railroad tracks to join the two sides of McIntire Park and to support travel
along the 250 bypass commuter trail soon to be constructed. This is a two-phase grant
and project. A local match is required (20%) in the amount of $103,500 for a total award
of $517,500.
Discussion: This bridge has been proposed in many versions of McIntire Park planning
over the years and will be a key part of making the east and west sides of the park more
accessible. A map of the general location for the bridge is attached. There will be public
involvement in the design of the bridge to ensure it fits into McIntire Park and is a visual
asset when viewed from the 250 bypass.
Budgetary Impact: Matching funds in the amount of $103,500 are required and will be
allocated from already appropriated funds in the from the Capital Improvement Program
Trails account (PR-001).
Alternatives: If not appropriated, the City will not be able to use the grant, and does not
have enough funding to complete this project without the grant.
Attachments: McIntire Railroad Bridge Map
APPROPRIATION
McIntire Park Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Transportation Enhancement Funding Grant
Phase I and II
(Grant # EN09-104-114, P101, C501)
$517,500
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded funds through the
Virginia Department of Transportation’s Enhancement Grant program,
WHEREAS, the grant award covers the cost of both design and construction of
the proposed bridge; and
WHEREAS, the City must appropriate the funding and provide 20% match in the
amount of $103,500;
Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $414,000 is hereby appropriated as follows:
Revenue
$414,000
Fund: 426
WBS Element: P-00673
G/L Account: 430120
Expenditures
$414,000
Fund: 426
G/L Account: 599999
Transfer From
$103,500
Fund 426
Funded Program: PR-001
G/L Account: 599999
Transfer To
$103,500
Fund 426
G/L Account: 599999
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the
receipt of funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
McIntire Park East-West
Bicycle & Pedestrian Bridge
ou
te
29
t
u
250
Existing Trail/Bridge
to CHS
Ra
er
n
(
Trail
ass
Byp
So
uth
250
West
McIntire
Park
Fu
tur
e
Me
ad
ow
c re
ek
Pa
rk w
1)
201
No
rf o
lk
re
Futu
Charlottesville
High School
ay
To
R
ilr o
ad
<-
Proposed Bridge
East
McIntire
Park
Current 250 bridge
- no walkway-
Future 250
Interchange
Private
School
t
u
nw
ee
Gr
's
nk
he
Sc
/
ay
(2
00
6)
<To
Do
w
nt
ow
n
250
City of Charlottesville - SAFE-TEA/LU grant application - 2010
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
Management
Presenter:
Chris Gensic, Parks and Recreation Trails Planner
Title:
Donation for Riverview Park Improvement - $2,000
Background and Discussion: The City has received $2,000 from Robin Hanes in
order to improve Riverview Park with invasive vegetation management and a staircase
access to the river.
Budgetary Impact: This donation will be appropriated into a capital improvement
program fund.
Alternatives: If not appropriated, the City will not be able to use the donation, and does
not have enough funding to complete this project without the donation.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
Donation for Riverview Park Improvement
$2,000
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received a $2,000 donation from
Robin Hanes in order to improve Riverview Park with invasive vegetation management
and a staircase access to the river; and
WHEREAS, the donation will be used to hire a private firm to supplement City
staff and to provide materials for an Eagle Scout to build a staircase;
Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $2,000 received from Robin Hanes is hereby
appropriated in the following manner:
Revenue - $2,000
Fund: 426
Project: PR-001
G/L Code: 451020
Fund: 426
Project: PR-001
G/L Code: 599999
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
Management
Presenter:
Chris Gensic, Parks and Recreation Trails Planner
Title:
Recycled Railroad Steel Income - $1,870
Background and Discussion: The City has received $1,870 from recycling leftover
steel beams that were donated by Norfolk Southern when the Proffitt Road bridge was
replaced. The City has cut and cleaned all the steel worth building footbridges out of, and
the remainder was not structurally sound enough to use, and was sent to Cycle Systems
as scrap metal. This income will offset the costs of hiring a crane and flatbed to transport
the free steel.
Budgetary Impact: This income will be appropriated into the trail capital improvement
program fund.
Alternatives: If not appropriated, the trail fund will not be reimbursed for the costs of
transporting the useful steel, and the money will go into the general fund instead.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
Recycled Railroad Steel Income
$1,870
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received $1,870 from Cycle System
for recycling scrap steel that was donated by the railroad to build footbridges; and
WHEREAS, the income will be used to balance the costs of transporting, cutting,
and cleaning the useful steel;
Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $1,870 received from Cycle Systems is hereby
Revenue - $1,870
Fund: 426
Project: PR-001
G/L Code: 451999
Fund: 426
Project: PR-001
G/L Code: 599999
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
David Shifflett, Police
Presenter:
Title:
2012 Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia Highway Safety Grant $30,386
Background: The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the
City of Charlottesville $25,321 through a Virginia Highway Safety Grant, with a required local
in-kind match of $5,065.
Discussion: The Virginia Highway Safety Grant is administered by the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to provide funding for programs which are designed to
reduce the number of fatalities, injuries and related economic losses resulting from traffic crashes
on Virginia roadways.
The Charlottesville Police Department will utilize awarded grant funds in the following areas:
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Speeding and Aggressive Driving
• Occupant Protection
• Alcohol and Impaired Driving
• Highway Safety Training and Equipment
Budgetary Impact: These funds will be appropriated into a grants fund. The required local
match will be satisfied through highway safety related expenditures that are already appropriated
in the Police Department’s General Fund budget, thus requiring no additional City funds to meet
the match.
Recommendation: Appropriate grant funds
Alternatives: The alternative is to not approve this project.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
2012 Department of Motor Vehicles Virginia Highway Safety Grant
$30,386
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Police Department, has received a
Virginia Highway Safety Grant award from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles in the amount of $25,321, to be used for overtime, equipment, and training
related to highway safety and the City of Charlottesville, through the Police Department, will
utilize highway safety related expenditures as an in-kind match in the amount of $5,065.
Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $25,321, received from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles (2011 Virginia Safety Grant) is hereby appropriated in the
following manner:
Transfer Local Match of $5,065 from Fund: 105 CC: 3101001000, G/L: 5199999
Revenue
$25,321
$ 5,065
Fund: 209
Fund: 209
Expenditure
$ 4,706
$ 8,182
$ 877
$14,421
$ 2,200
Fund: 209
Fund: 209
Fund: 209
Fund: 209
Fund: 209
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
IO: 1900177
G/L: 430120 State (Federal Pass-thru)
G/L: 498010 Transfer from Other Funds
G/L: 510010 Full Time Salaries
G/L: 510060 Overtime
G/L: 511010 Social Security – FICA
G/L: 520900 Machine/Equip/Furn.
G/L: 530210 Training
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt
of $25,321 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (2011 Virginia
Safety Grant).
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Appropriation
Staff Contacts:
Presenter:
Title:
2011 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) - $37,336
Background: The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program’s Bureau of Justice
Assistance has awarded the City of Charlottesville a 2011 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) in the amount of $37,336, with no local match required.
Discussion: The U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) provides funding for the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant to assist state and local law enforcement with a broad range of
activities to prevent and control crime and improve the criminal justice system. The
Charlottesville Police Department will utilize the funding for approved law enforcement.
Budgetary Impact: There is no ($0) impact on the General Fund. Funds will be appropriated
into a grants fund. This is a 100% federal grant with no local match required.
Recommendation: Appropriate grant funds
Alternatives: The alternative is to not approve this project and not purchase the equipment.
Attachments: N/A
APPROPRIATION
2011 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Grant # 2011-DJ-BX-2484
$37,336
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Police Department, has received the
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance 2011
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in the amount of $37,336 to be used for
approved law enforcement equipment.
WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from period October 1, 2010 through
September 30, 2014,
Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $37,336, received from the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance, is hereby appropriated in the following
manner:
Revenue
$ 37,336
Fund: 211
I/O: 1900176
G/L: 431110 Federal Grants
Expenditure
$ 37,336
Fund: 211
IO: 1900176
G/L: 520990 Other Supplies
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt
of $37,336 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice
Assistance.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Adoption of Policy
Presenter:
James E. Tolbert, AICP, Director of NDS
Staff Contacts:
Title:
Honorary Street Name Designations
Background: The City has been approached by citizens interested in designating a
portion of a road in the community in honor of an individual. They do not want to
change the name on the road officially, because they do not want to inconvenience
residents and business owners who would have to change their address, but rather
they would like simply to have an alternative name that would honor the individual.
Because staff realizes that if one of these requests is approved, we would probably
receive more, it was determined that a policy to guide the process would be
appropriate. Research was done to determine if any other community had done this
and the proposal below reflects a successful program in Champaign, Illinois.
At the last Council meeting, Dr. Brown raised several issues that staff was asked
to explore. These are addressed in item “A” in the memo and in the attached
policy. One suggestion made by Dr. Brown was that an honorary designation be
limited to individuals and not include “organizations, entities, and events”. You
will notice that the attachment has removed the terms organization and entities
but left events. This will give Council some flexibility when reviewing future
requests.
Discussion: Below is a proposed policy outline to guide creating honorary street
names if Council feels inclined to do so.
1.
The following restrictions and process for honorary street name designations
shall apply.
a. Honorary street name designations should be limited to
individuals, or events that have made an important and lasting
contribution to the City of Charlottesville or represent a key part of
its history.
The street to be designated should have a connection to the
individual/event and his/its contribution.
This designation should not be used for an individual or event
already recognized in some significant manner.
b. The application form (see Attachment 1) should be submitted directly to
the Clerk of City Council.
c. The application can be completed and submitted by any individual or
group in Charlottesville.
d. The completed application will be circulated to Council before formal
Council action is taken.
e. A Council Resolution will be prepared, outlining the proposed
designation and providing an estimate of cost impacts including sign
manufacture and installation and any other costs that might be incurred.
f. Upon approval, the Public Works Department will implement the
honorary street name designation.
2.
Application Form. Attachment 1 is a proposed application form for requesting
honorary street name designation. The forms will be made available at City
Hall and can be downloaded from the City’s website. The forms require
submission directly to the Clerk of the City Council.
3.
Proposed Process. The proposed procedure includes the following steps.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Individuals or groups wishing to propose honorary street name
designation will complete application form and submit it to the Clerk of
City Council.
The Clerk will determine if there is sufficient support on Council for
the request to be considered by Council.
NDS will prepare a brief memo to Council that identifies any cost
impacts associated with the request.
A Council Resolution will be prepared.
Upon approval by City Council, the Public Works Department will
install the signs.
Alternatives:
1. Establish the Council policy and procedure for honorary street name
designations as recommended in the previous paragraphs.
2. Do not approve the Council policy and procedure for honorary street
name designations and provide alternative direction to staff.
Discussion of Alternatives:
Alternative 1 would approve the Resolution, establishing the Council policy
and the process for honorary street name designations.
a.
Advantages
•
Allows for honorary recognition of persons, organizations or
events of local significance to Charlottesville.
•
Provides additional opportunity to build community or
neighborhood identity in Charlottesville.
•
Attractive honorary signs can tie in with neighborhood
recognition and corridor/entryway signage goals.
b.
Disadvantages
•
There is some cost associated with Council consideration
and staff implementation of honorary street name
designations.
•
Having two signs on streets may result in some confusion.
Alternative 2 would result in Council’s deciding not to adopt a policy
establishing honorary street name designations, and providing alternative
direction to staff.
a.
Advantages
•
If no program is implemented, no new costs will be incurred.
b.
Disadvantages
•
Eliminates an opportunity to market the community and
assist a neighborhood that is attempting to build its identity.
One concern that was investigated was whether the use of honorary street name
signs might create a public safety concern. Staff did extensive research in
putting together this policy and found no cases where that was identified as a
problem. One of the reasons to use a different color, and to include honorary
on the sign is to make it clearly different. Several of the communities have
operated a similar program for years without incident.
In further thinking about how to make the program work most efficiently, staff
has added a step to notify all public safety agencies as well as owners and
residents on the street when there is a designation. This notice will also include
an explanation that the street name has not changed.
Budgetary Impact: Staff estimates that the cost of materials and labor to
manufacture and install honorary street name signs is approximately $75 per sign.
These costs are not included in the current or proposed budget. The budget impact
will be outlined in the reports provided to City Council when honorary street name
designations are considered for final approval.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the policy. The cost is minimal
and can be absorbed in existing budgets. The only concern is that there may be more
requests than anticipated for honorary street names.
Attachments: Application Form
Resolution to establish policy
Photograph of the type of sign that might be used
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that this Council
hereby adopts an Honorary Street Name Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto, to honor
individuals or events of local significance to Charlottesville.
Honorary Street Name Policy
1.
The following restrictions and process for honorary street name designations shall
apply.
a.
Honorary street name designations should be limited to individuals,
or events that have made an important and lasting contribution to
the City of Charlottesville or represent a key part of its history.
The street to be designated should have a connection to the
individual/event and his/its contribution.
This designation should not be used for an individual or event
already recognized in some significant manner.
b.
The application form (see Attachment 1) should be submitted directly to the
Clerk of City Council.
The application can be completed and submitted by any individual or group in
Charlottesville.
The completed application will be circulated to Council before formal Council
action is taken.
A Council Resolution will be prepared, outlining the proposed designation and
providing an estimate of cost impacts including sign manufacture and
installation and any other costs that might be incurred. NDS will prepare the
appropriate staff memo.
Upon approval, the Public Works Department will implement the honorary
street name designation.
c.
d.
e.
f.
2.
Application Form. Attachment 1 is a proposed application form for requesting
honorary street name designation. The forms will be made available at City Hall and
can be downloaded from the City’s website. The forms require submission directly to
the Clerk of City Council.
3.
Proposed Process. The proposed procedure includes the following steps.
a. Individuals or groups wishing to propose honorary street name designation will
complete application form and submit it to the Clerk of City Council.
b. The Clerk will determine if there is sufficient support on Council for the request
to be considered by Council.
c. NDS will prepare a brief memo to Council that identifies any cost impacts
associated with the request and background on the individual nominated for the
honor.
d. A Council Resolution will be prepared.
e. Upon final approval by City Council, the Public Works Department will install
the sign.
f. Upon approval, NDS staff will send notice to all impacted properties and to
public safety agencies.
City of Charlottesville
Request for Honorary Street Name Designation
Applicant Name: ______________________________________________
Applicant Address: _____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Applicant Telephone: ___________________________________________
(Daytime)
(Evening)
1.
2.
Honorary Street names are restricted to:
Individuals
Organizations
Entities
Events
Of local significance to Charlottesville
A.
For whom/what are you recommending this designation?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
B.
What is the reason for this recommendation? (Applicants should
complete a short essay of approximately 500 words that provides
justification for the proposed honorary designation. The completed
essay should be attached to this application form).
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Location of Proposed honorary street name designation:
A.
Street Name ____________________ (Example: Kirby Avenue)
B.
Between ________________ and _________________________
(example: between Neil and Wright)
OR
All of the street ________________________
C.
What is the proposed designation?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Please complete and mail the attached form to:
Clerk of City Council
P. O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
September 1, 2011
Chief Tim Longo
Chief Charles Werner
Tom Hansen
Margie Thomas
Resident/Property Owners
RE:
Honorary Street Name Designation
______________________________
The City Council of the City of Charlottesville recently designated a stretch of
______________ from ____________ to ___________________ with the honorary
name of _______________________. This is an honorary designation only and does
not change the official name of this street. For all official purposes (mail, emergencies,
etc.) the name of the street is _________________________.
Please call (434) 970-3182 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
James E. Tolbert, AICP
Director
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Approved Resolution
Presenter:
Staff Contacts:
Title:
Support of Restoration of State Funding for Aid to Localities
Background: Since FY 2009, cities and counties have been required to either elect to take reductions
in particular state aid programs, or to send a check to the state for the amounts determined by the
Virginia Department of Planning and Budget. This resolution asks Gov. McDonnell to cease this
requirement and fully restore funds that are designated for mandated core programs that localities have
no option but to fund. For the FY 11-12 fiscal years, the total across the board costs statewide is $60
million.
Discussion: The services included in the menu of programs are core public services: public safety,
jail administration, social services, Constitution Officers and courts, Comprehensive Services Act, etc.
With few exceptions, these services are mandated by the State and local governments do not have the
authority to default to the state these business areas. In addition, while funds are reduced, the state does
not reduce or shift service requirement or standards. All these cuts do is shift the cost from the state to
the local government.
These reductions were first implemented when the state revenues and economy were in decline.
However, state revenues are in recovery and for a second year in a row, the state will have a surplus.
There is no longer any reason to continue these reductions and this resolution asks the Governor to
reverse the $60 million a year reduction for the current year and eliminate the requirement in future
budgets.
Budgetary Impact: This has a significant budget impact each year on the City’s General Fund
Budget:
FY 11 Aid to Locality Reductions: $547,533
FY 12 Aid to Locality Reductions: $571,493
Recommendation: Approve attached resolution that will be sent to Gov. McDonnell.
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Letter to Gov. McDonnell from the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia
Association of Counties asking for restoration of state funding.
Resolution
Support of Restoration of State Funding for Aid to Localities
WHEREAS, state financial assistance for mandated and high priority programs, including
public education, health and human services, public safety and constitutional officers, is $800
million less in FY12 than in FY09; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties must balance their budgets during a time in which future
state assistance is unreliable, federal stimulus dollars are dwindling, and other local revenues are
unpredictable; and
WHEREAS, the Appropriation Act contains $60 million in across-the-board cuts to cities
and counties for both FY11 and FY12, under which localities are required to either elect to take
reductions in particular state aid programs, or to send the State a check for the amounts determined
by the Department of Planning and Budget (“Local Aid to the State”); and
WHEREAS, the reductions are applied to essential services, including law enforcement, jail
administration, foster care and child protection services, election administration and social services;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville does not have the authority to unilaterally decide to
discontinue providing services such as election administration or to refuse to house and care for
State prisoners in local and regional jails; and
WHEREAS, the state budget cuts are not accompanied by any reductions in state-imposed
mandates, standards and service requirements, nor do they provide any administrative flexibility for
local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville remitted $547,533 in FY11 and will be required to
remit another $571,493 in FY12; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties will have provided the State with $220 million by the close
of FY12 for this “Local Aid to the State” program; and
WHEREAS, these reductions shift State costs to local taxpayers and artificially increases
the amount of state surplus revenue; and
WHEREAS, State revenues have begun to recover and the State is expecting to have a
revenue surplus for the second year in a row; and
WHEREAS, the State should not shift its share of the costs for mandates and
responsibilities to local governments.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville asks Governor Bob McDonnell to submit a budget amendment to the 2012 session
of the General Assembly to reverse the $60 million-a-year reduction for the current year, FY12, and
to eliminate the aid to localities reduction in the budget submitted for FY13 and FY14.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the General Assembly support a
budget amendment to the 2012 session of the General Assembly to reverse the $60 million-a-year
reduction for the current year, FY12, and to eliminate the aid to localities reduction in the budget
submitted for FY13 and FY14.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Approve Authorizing Resolution
Presenter:
Judy Mueller, Director, Public Works
Staff Contacts:
Bill Watterson, Transit Division Manager
Scott Hendrix, Project Manager
Title:
Paving of School Bus Parking Lot - Transfer of Funds
to Facilities Repair Fund - $85,122.99
Background: The Pupil Transportation school bus lot is located at the Public Works
Facility on Avon Street and houses all of the City’s school buses. It was determined
by Pupil Transportation, and confirmed by Facilities Development, that the Pupil
Transportation school bus lot was in need of repaving. In order to be prepared for
upcoming school year and to minimize the service disruption, the lot was to be paved
after the completion of summer school and prior to the start of the new school year.
The cost of this project was to be split between the Facilities Repair Fund (Fund 107)
and the Pupil Transportation operating budget in the General Fund (Fund 105).
Discussion: The paving of the school bus lot was completed by the City’s current
paving contractor, SL Williamson, and the final cost of the repaving project was
$135,122.99. Of this amount it was agreed that $50,000 was to be provided by the
Facilities Repair Fund, with the balance of the necessary funding ($85,122.99) to be
provided by the Pupil Transportation operating budget. The FY 2012 Pupil
Transportation operating budget contains funding up to the amount of $137,000 that
was budgeted specifically for the purposes of repaving the school bus lot. Since the
full payment for this project ($135,122.99) was made from the Facilities Repair Fund,
it is requested that $85,122.99 be transferred from the Pupil Transportation operating
budget in the General Fund to reimburse the Facilities Repair Fund for the portion of
the project for which Pupil Transportation is responsible.
Budgetary Impact: None, as the funds are already appropriated in the Pupil
Transportation Operating Budget in the General Fund and need to be transferred to the
Facilities Repair Fund.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: N/A
RESOLUTION
Paving of School Bus Parking Lot – Transfer of Funds to
Facilities Repair Fund
$85,122.99
WHEREAS, $85,122.99 in the Pupil Transportation Operating Budget in the
General Fund is designated for the paving of the School Bus Lot at Avon Street.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville that funds be transferred to the Facilities Repair Fund as follows:
Transfer From:
Amount
Fund
Cost Center/Project
G/L Account
$85,122.99
105
2491001000
530670
Transfer To:
$85,122.99
105
9803030000
561107
Transfer To:
Amount
Fund
Cost Center/Project
G/L Account
Revenue:
$85,122.99
107
FR-001
498010
Expenditure:
$85,122.99
107
FR-001
530670
ESVILLE, VIRGINIA
V
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
CITY
Y COUNCIIL AGENDA
A
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Approve Reesolution
Staff Conttacts:
Leslie Beau
uregard, Direector, Budgeet and Perforrmance Mannagement
Gerry Martiin, HVAC Manager,
M
Pubblic Works
Presenter:
Gerry Martiin, HVAC Manager,
M
Pubblic Works
Title:
Buford Coo
oling Tower Replacemennt – Transferr of $40,165
Backgrou
und:
During thee summer off 2011, the co
ooling towerr at Buford M
Middle Schoool was replaaced as part oof
programm
med efforts to
o ensure the consistent
c
an
nd energy-effficient provvision of HV
VAC service tto our
city schoolls. In normaal circumstan
nces, we would have sett the new coooling tower iin the same
location ass the existing
g equipment. However, conceptual ddesigns for tthe school syystem
reconfigurration – whicch would briing all City 6th graders too Buford – reequire expannsion of the
school. Th
he cooling to
ower would have to be moved
m
as parrt of that rennovation, at a significantlly
higher cost than would
d be necessarry to do the work at this time.
At the direection of the School’s Su
uperintenden
nt, Dr. Atkinns, we were aasked to procceed with thhe
cooling tow
wer relocatio
on, School’ss Large Cap CIP funds (S
SH-011) aree to be used ffor this workk.
City staff were
w able to determine the costs direectly associaated with plaacing the new
w tower in thhe
alternate lo
ocation, totaaling $40,165
5. Those cossts included::
•
•
•
Ad
dditional eng
gineering feees
Excavation and
d piping exteension
d reconstruction of distu
urbed sidewaalks
Deemolition and
Discussion
n:
The $40,16
65 commitm
ment from thee Schools Laarge Cap proogram, once approved, w
will completeely
fund the co
ost of relocaating the cooling tower.
y Impact:
Budgetary
The funds will be transsferred into the Schools HVAC Equuipment Repllacement lum
mp sum accoount
(SH-060).
Recommeendation: Approve
A
the requested
r
ap
ppropriation..
ves: N/A
Alternativ
Attachmeents: N/A
RESOLUTION
Buford Cooling Tower
Transfer of $40,165
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville Facilities Development Division has committed
additional funding in the amount of $40,165.00 to the Buford Cooling Tower Project to cover
relocating the cooling tower.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia that the sum of $40,165 received from the Facilities Development Division is hereby
Transfer To - $40,165
Fund: 424
Project: P-00504-18 (SH-060)
Fund: 424
Project: P-00504-18 (SH-060)
G/L Account: 498010
G/L Account: 599999
Transfer From - $40,165
Fund: 426
Project: P-00602-01-01 (SH-011)
G/L Account: 561424
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 6, 2011
Action Required:
Final Determination of Spot Blight Abatement
Presenter:
Patty Armstrong, Propelty Maintenance Inspector
Staff Contacts:
James E. Tolbert, AICP, Director ofNDs()
Patty Armstrong, Property Maintenance Inspector
Title:
Spot Blight Abatement
Background:
This proposed spot blight abatement concerns a building that has been vacant
since approximately 1978. This propelty has been repeatedly cited for propelty
maintenance violations since 1993. The plumbing system, electrical system and
furnace are in need ofreplacement, and the house is currently used, according to
the owner, for storage purposes only. According to a 2004 letter from the owner
to the City, extensive termite infestation was discovered in 2002. The owner is
an elderly man and has a fixed income. He also owns several propelties that are
also not being maintained.
On July 5, 2011, this item appeared on the City Council agenda with a Planning
Commission recommendation that the propelty be demolished. After a public
hearing, the Council directed Mr. Rogers to submit in writing, within 30 days a
letter of intent from a buyer to purchase the property and bring it up to code
compliance or a contract from a contractor to bring the house up to code
compliance. The contract was to contain a detailed listing of all work to be
performed with dates work was to statt and a date for the completion. One of
Cily COl/ncil Agenda Memo
RE: Spot Blight Abatement
Page I of8
these alternatives was to be submitted with projected dates of completion no
later than 4 p.m. on August l ih, 2011 to the Department of Neighborhood
Development Services.
On August 12, 2011 Mr. Rogers did not meet the directives ofwhat city Council
set forth on July 5, 2011. On this date, he delivered to Neighborhood
Development Services a letter asking for more time (attached).
On August 18, 2011, staff was to meet with Mr. Rogers at 704 Montrose
Avenue at 11:00 a.m. However, at 9:33 a.m. that same day, Mr. Rogers
telephoned us stating we could not meet over there due to a disaster had
occurred there (his words). He said that the second stOly ceiling collapsed into
the main floor area and that it was the demise ofthis building; he would need to
demolish it because it would not be economical to rehabilitate it. He was
adamant that we could not meet that day as scheduled and would meet the
following day on August 19,2011.
Due to concern for the safety of the surrounding properties and citizens staff
drove over to 704 Montrose Avenue to inspect the building based on Mr. Rogers
statements. From the exterior the building seemed to be in the same state of
condition. From the public right of way or window over the front door, no
collapse was visible. Therefore, staffdrove over to the residence ofMr. Rogers.
At that point, Mr. Rogers was still upset about the collapse and concerned he
would have to demolish the structure. He was also adamant that we could not
go in until the next day.
On August 19,2011, staff was able to meet with Mr. Rogers at 704 Montrose
Avenue to inspect the interior. Once inside the front foyer you could see that
the second story bedroom had collapsed into the front room area. (See Photos
attached). We were able to go upstairs where much of the ceiling tiles and
molded insulation was visible from the roofleaking. We were not able to enter
that second story bedroom on the West side due to the collapsed floor.
It is staffs opinion for the safety ofthe owner and surrounding community that
City CouncH Agenda Memo
Page 2 of8
this building and detached structures be demolished and violations abated. Any
further attempt to elicit the property owner's cooperation and follow-through
with a plan for the repair and rehabilitation of this property would be futile.
Over the past seventeen years he has failed to address the identified and cited
violations, despite the City giving him ample time, chances, and leniency to do
so.
All information below is a repeat of the July 5, 2011 agenda memo;
On December 6, 2010, a preliminary determination that the above referenced
property is a "blighted property" was made pursuant to City Code §5-193, and
the owner of the property was notified.
On January 18,2011 response from Mr. Charles Rogers, indicated that he uses
this structure for storage. He also indicated that ifhe could afford to demolish
it, he would.
On February 22, 2011, staff met with Mr. Rogers at 704 Montrose Avenue. At
that time a letter was delivered indicating that his plan of intention was not
accepted as it did not address the specific violations identified on the building,
and that a hearing would be held before the Planning Commission in April in
order to seek a recommendation for abatement of the blighted property. His
response was that he would get as much ofthe exterior violations completed as
he could before April when we went to the Planning Commission.
Discussion: Since the Planning Commission Meeting in April 2011 NDS had
the chance to meet again on April 28, 2011, with the owner ofthe property, Mr.
C. W. Rogers, Jr. We also had representatives from Intrastate Service Company
for pest inspection and the owners of Alloy, a local Construction and Design
Firm, present at that time. Mr. Rogers unlocked the front door to the main
residence and all three of the detached storage buildings for our inspection.
Once all doors were unlocked no one could gain access into the main residence
or the storage buildings because the amount of items inside prohibited our
ability to enter. We found black mold/mildew on the interior walls and ceiling
City COl/neil Agenda Memo
Page 3 of8
areas that were visible. Also, the floor system appeared to have been
significantly compromised by water damage, weight of interior items and
termite damage.
Below are excerpts from the Alloy report:
At your request, I met with you on Thursday, April 28, 2011 to evaluate
the physical conditions and make recommendations for the property at
704 Montrose Avenue. The owner ofthe property, Mr. C. W. Rogers, Jr.,
was also present and unlocked the front door for our inspection. The front
entry room was full from floor to ceiling and I was only able to enter the
building the depth of the door swing. Although my interior inspection
was limited, what I observed was very telling. The floor system appears
to be severely comprised as evidenced by the settling of the floor by 2-3
inches. The ceiling in this room had also settled 4-6 inches and water
damage was visible in the form of stained ceiling tiles. Black
mold/mildew was also visible on the exterior wall.
I also conducted a visual inspection of the exterior of the structure. The
majority of the structure is painted stucco with painted wood trim and a
metal roof all of which were in decent condition, with the following
exceptions. The north wall ofthe building is visibly bowed and the front
porch ceiling has holes and is rotted throughout. A larger portion of the
stucco on the east side of the building has been removed and is being
protected by aged roofing felt paper. The south wall of the building
appears to be an enclosed porch which has been clad in painted wood lap
siding. The roofline along the south wall of the building has also failed
and settled significantly on the east side ofthe chimney. The west side of
the building is covered with vines which have infiltrated the building
through the windows and woodwork.
While no standing water is present, the crawl space had no vapor barrier
or exterior venting and was very damp. A visual inspection in the crawl
space reveals that the building has collapsed and the floor system has
City Council Agenda Memo
Page 4 01'8
failed at the south wall ofthe building (photo g). This failure seems to be
the result ofthe combination of termite damage, water damage and over
loading of the structure. For further assessment ofthe structure, I would
refer you to the report by Intrastate Pest Control based on their walk-thru
on the same date.
Although my access to the interior of the building was limited, I can
confidently state that this structure, in its current condition, is not safe as a
habitable structure. It is also questionable as to whether the contents of
the building could be safely removed.
When considering any renovation project, it is our practice to evaluate the
economic, physical, architectural, historical and cultural factors as well as
the goals of our clients. With a building such as this, which has been
unoccupied for 30 years, all of the systems within the building will need
to be replaced (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, insulation). It is our
experience that work ofthis scope can be economically feasible, provided
that there are significant portions ofthe building which can be salvaged or
reused. In this case however, the only salvageable building components
are some of the painted exterior wood trim and the stucco on the west
wall. The building is so significantly damaged that the cost associated
with stabilizing and repairing the structure outweigh its value.
Based on what I observed, my experience and the above guidelines, it is
my recommendation that the structure at 704 Montrose Avenue not be
renovated and for safety, be demolished. This recommendation is
primarily based on the significant damage to the physical structure
observed, and the cost associated with its repair as outlined above.
While on location Intrastate went into the crawl space area. Mr. Linwood
Shifflett who performed that inspection stated that he saw live termites
approximately an inch long. See excerpts of the report from Intrastate.
Our inspection found the property to have a termite infestation at the
City CouncN Agenda Memo
Page 5 of8
current time. The cost to treat the structure for termites will be $450.00.
This treatment will include a one year warranty, which is renewable after
the first year for an annual renewal fee of $89.00.
Our inspection also revealed evidence of mold in the crawl area. The cost
to remediate mold from the crawl area will be approximately $3,000. The
mold remediation can ONLY be done after the structure is repaired to
malce the entire crawl area safe. The main beam located in the crawl area
towards the front ofthe structure has already collapsed, and this will need
to be repaired/replaced before any remediation work can commence
We were unable to make an inside inspection when we were there, but we
feel that the entire front part of the floor system will need to be removed
from the structure and adequately repaired. It is very likely that further
mold may be found once the floor system is removed, and once a
complete interior inspection is rendered. We suspect mold will also be
found on interior walls, due to the length of time that the house has been
closed up and unused. If a complete interior remediation for mold is
indeed needed, the cost would probably be somewhere between $10,000$15,000.
Findings of the Planning Commission
1. Is this a blighted property? City Code §5-192 defines a blighted property
as follows:
"Any property with buildings or improvements which, by reason of
dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary
facilities, deleterious land use, or any combination ofthese or other
factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, or welfare of the
community."
Since 1993, the City's Property Maintenance Inspectors have cited the
property owners with approximately 40 violations of City or State
propeliy maintenance codes pertaining to the exterior of the structure
City Coul1cH Agenda 1I1emo
RE: Spot Blight Ahatement
Page 6 of8
including inoperable vehicles, trash and overgrowth. Over those years,
when Mr. Rogers asked for extensions in which to make repairs and/or
corrections the City worked with him and granted him those extensions
more than 6 times. He has continually failed to abate the housing
violations at 704 Montrose Avenue.
2. Has the owner, after reasonable notice, failed to cure the blight, or to
present a reasonable plan to do so? The owner did not cure the violation
nor did he present a reasonable plan to cure the blight after notice was
given. The determination of Blighted Property notice was sent by
certified mail to the owner on December 6, 2010. The certified receipt
card was returned indicating that he received the notice on December 8,
2010. His response arrived on January 18,2011 which was late and failed
to include the requested information. His letter did not address the
abatement ofviolations in a detailed time frame in which the work would
be completed and there was no report on the structural integrity of the
property by a licensed professional. On February 22,2011 staffmet with
Mr. Rogers at 704 Montrose Avenue. He stated that he understood that
this has been on-going for more than 15 years, that the City has worked
with him and that he would get done what he could before April when the
Planning Commission met.
3. Is this property currently occupied for residential purposes? What is/are
the other current land uses? This structure has been vacant for
approximately 30 years.
4. Has this property been condemned for human habitation? What is the
status of any outstanding Building Code Violations? Because there are no
utilities currently on, no one can live in the structure. In his letter dated
January 28, 2011 the owner indicated that the house is not in habitable
condition and that he does not have the finances to make it habitable.
5. Is the Director's plan reasonable, and is it in accordance with the
requirements of the City's comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and
City Council Agenda Memo
Page 7 of8
other applicable City ordinances or regulations? The Planning
Commission made the recommendation to demolish. This property is
assessed by the Real Estate Office for $142,100. Broken down, the land is
$63,800 and the building $78,300. It could cost more to bring the
structure up to code compliance than the current assessment.
6. Is this propeliy listed on the National Register, or locally designated a
protected property? This property is not listed on the National Register or
locally designated as a protected propeliy.
Budgetary Impact:
No direct impacts.
Recommendation: Mr. Keesecker moved to recommend that City Council
designate 704 Montrose Avenue as a blighted property as defined in City code
section 5-192 and a nuisance and reasoning that the owner has failed to cure the
blight or to present a reasonable plan to do so. It was further recommended that
City Council consider the sale ofthe property as abatement to the blight within 6
months. Motion was seconded and all commissioners voted in favor.
It remains staffs opinion that any further attempt to elicit the property owner's
cooperation and follow-though with a plan for the repair and rehabilitation of
this property would be futile because over the years he has not been able to
follow through on his commitments for abatement of any violations cited for
this or other properties. Based on this history the staff recommends the
demolition of the building, as did the Planning Commission.
Attachments: Materials from April 2011 Planning Commission packet
Photos dated August 19,2011 oflimited interior views
Ordinance
City Council Agenda A1emo
Page 8 of8
(,
o
0
(=)
(=)
D D
1=)
~
D D
(=)
~
\
\
(=)
(9:0)
l::::::::.
~
(§)
l::::::::.
IN§)
(=J
~
~
=:!!l
=:!!l
a a
~
,.
D D
(=)
~
'.';
~
'". --~ .
AN ORDINANCE
DECLARING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 704 MONTROSE AVENUE
TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville , Virginia, pursuant to
Sec. 5-198 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville:
IT APPEARING TO THIS COUNCIL, based on information presented by the Director
of Neighborhood Development Services (“Director”) and the Planning Commission, pursuant to
Sections 5-193 through 5-195 of the City Code, THAT the property located at 704 Montrose
Avenue (City Tax Map 59, Parcel 189), hereinafter the “Property”, constitutes a Blighted
Property, as defined within City Code Sec. 5-192; and
IT APPEARING FURTHER THAT the Owner of the Property, despite having full notice
and an opportunity to be heard and to present a plan for curing the blight, has failed to cure, or
present a reasonable plan to cure, the conditions constituting the blight; now, therefore
THIS COUNCIL hereby declares the Property at 704 Montrose Avenue to be a nuisance
and orders the Director to proceed with demolition and removal of the building located on the
Property following the abatement process specified in City Code Sec. 5-198.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 6, 2011
Action Required:
Approval of Ordinance
Presenter:
Staff Contacts:
Title:
Infrastructure Maintenance Bonds
Background: During the most recent session of the Virginia General Assembly,
legislation was passed at the request of City Council to allow the City to require
small performance bonds for development projects. The intent is for projects
where the development has been completed and bonds returned to the
developer, that bonds can be posted for individual home building to insure that
City infrastructure is protected.
Discussion: City Council initiated study of this item at its June 20, 2011 meeting.
Because the enabling legislation is very specific, the ordinance must be drafted as
written to be compliant. The intent of the provision is to protect City
infrastructure after a developer has been released from their bond and lots are
still vacant. Homebuilders will be required to post small bonds, no more than
$5,000, until after the completion of their project. Engineering staff will photo
document site conditions prior to the start of construction so there is no
confusion upon project completion.
City staff was assisted by both the local homebuilders and Virginia Homebuilders
Association in writing this legislation and in working through the General
Assembly.
Budgetary Impact: None.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the text
amendment.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REORDAINING SEC. 34-1104 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED,
RELATED TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE BONDS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that Section 1104 of
Article IX (Generally Applicable Regulations) of Chapter 34 (Zoning) of the Charlottesville City Code,
1990, as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
ARTICLE IX. GENERALLY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Division 6. Buildings and Structures — Generally
Sec. 34-1104. Compliance with building code.
(a) No building or structure shall be used or occupied except in accordance with a valid certificate
of occupancy issued by the city's building code official.
(1) Upon receipt of a zoning application proposing a change in use of the property, the
employee or official receiving the application shall forward it to the city's building code
official for review. The building code official will determine whether the property in
question has previously been issued a certificate of occupancy and whether any certificate
of occupancy or equivalent approval is required by the state building code.
(2) The zoning administrator's signature on a certificate of occupancy shall constitute his
certification that the use that is the subject of the certificate is lawful under the provisions
of the city's zoning ordinance.
(b) Within any development containing more than one (1) building or structure, where any
buildings or structure have been completed, and are ready for occupancy, prior to the completion of all of
the improvements required by the approved site plan for the development, the owner may provide a bond
with surety adequate to guarantee the completion of the remaining improvements by a date certain. Upon
the provision of such bond, and upon payment of any fee required by the most recent fee schedule adopted
by city council, then a certificate of occupancy may be issued by the city's building code official to allow
occupancy of buildings or structures already completed.
(1) The city attorney may approve any of the following substitutes for the required surety
bond: letter of credit, joint savings account or other like surety.
(2) In any case in which any other escrow agent (such as an attorney for a mortgage lender) is
holding funds to ensure compliance with the terms of other regulations or agreements, and
such funds are in an amount sufficient to ensure compliance both with the terms of this
chapter and such other regulations or agreements, the developer shall make arrangements
for the city attorney to become a party to such other escrow agreement, as escrow agent for
the city; provided, that such other escrow agreement must contain provisions satisfactory to
the city attorney to ensure compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(c) The Director of Neighborhood Development Services may require a public infrastructure
maintenance bond from the developer and property owner of a single-family or two-family home at the
time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy in instances where the home is (1) not subject to the
provisions of Chapter 29 of this Code, and (2) all other required performance and maintenance bonds
posted have been fully released. A public infrastructure maintenance bond required shall not exceed an
amount reasonably necessary to maintain and repair publicly owned streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure
depicted or provided for in the approved plan, plat, permit application, or similar document for which such
bond is applicable, on site or immediately adjacent to the construction, and shall not be used for the
purpose of repairing infrastructure damage that preexisted the construction, unless otherwise agreed upon
by the developer, property owner, and the City, but in no case shall the bond requirement exceed five
thousand dollars ($5,000.00). Upon notification from the developer or property owner that all bonded
improvements are complete, an inspection will be conducted by the Department of Neighborhood
Development Services within five (5) business days. Any remaining portion of the performance guarantee
shall be released within five (5) business days of a satisfactory inspection.
State Code reference—Code of Virginia § 15.2-2209.2.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: September 6, 2011
Action Required: Yes
Presenter: Jim Tolbert
Staff Contacts: Jim Tolbert, Mary Joy Scala
Title: 104 Stadium Road - Individually Protected Property (IPP) Designation
ZT-11-07-08 and ZM-11-07-09
Background and Discussion: City Council required IPP designation of this property as a
condition of the sale of 409 Stadium Road (an abutting vacant parcel) to the owners of 104
Stadium Road, Woodrow Too, LLC. On May 16, 2011 City Council initiated the IPP process.
Council’s intent is that 104 Stadium Road will be designated as an IPP, and that 409 Stadium
Road will be protected by a restrictive covenant, prohibiting development and requiring the
parcel to remain as treed green space. The property owner is agreeable to the designation.
On July 19, 2011 the BAR unanimously recommended that City Council should designate 104
Stadium Road building and property as an Individually Protected Property. On August 9, 2011
the Planning Commission recommended (4-0-1) that City Council should approve the rezoning
to designate 104 Stadium Road as an Individually Protected Property.
Alternatives: City Council could choose to designate (or not designate) 104 Stadium Road
property with an IPP overlay district by voting to approve (or deny) this application.
Recommendation: This property meets the criteria for designation. It is an exceptionally wellpreserved example of a 1927 English Tudor Revival style residence built for a University
professor, Malcolm M. McLeod. The property includes a rare example of a historic landscape,
with rock terraces in good condition. 104 Stadium Road and the other dwellings of the historic
Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood are linked by stone building materials, time period of
significance, and connection to the University of Virginia. In staff’s opinion, City Council
should designate 104 Stadium Road building and property as an Individually Protected Property.
Attachments: Planning Commission staff report and historic survey
Proposed Ordinance
Resolution adopted by Council on May 16, 2011
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING AND REENACTING THE ZONING MAP INCORPORATED
WITHIN SECTION 34-1 OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE,
1990, AS AMENDED, BY THE REZONING OF 104 STADIUM ROAD TO ADD AN
HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO THE PROPERTY, AND ALSO
AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 34-273 OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE
CITY CODE TO ADD THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY’S LIST OF INDIVIDUALLY
PROTECTED PROPERTIES.
WHEREAS, at its meeting on May 16, 2011, City Council directed the Board of
Architectural Review (BAR) and the Planning Commission to research and pursue individually
protected property designation for the property at 104 Stadium Road (City Real Estate Tax Map
Parcel 16-2); and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2011, the BAR considered the factors set forth within Sec. 34274 of the City Code and unanimously recommended the designation of 104 Stadium Road as an
individually protected property, hereinafter the “Subject Property,” and rezoning of the Subject
Property to add an historic overlay district designation to the Subject Property on the City’s
Zoning Map, and to include the Subject Property on the City’s list of individually protected
properties identified within Sec. 34-273(b) of the Charlottesville City Code (together, the
“Proposed Rezoning”); and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on the Proposed Rezoning was held before the City
Council and Planning Commission on August 9, 2011, following notice to the public, to the
property owner, and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2011 the Planning Commission voted to recommend the
Proposed Rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that:
(1) The Proposed Rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the purpose
and intent of Chapter 34, Article II, Division 2 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Historical
Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts), including Sec. 34-273
thereof (Individually Protected Properties); and
(2) Upon consideration of the criteria set forth within Sec. 34-274 of the City Code, the
Subject Property is suitable and appropriate for designation as an individually protected
historic property; and
(3) The public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires the
Proposed Rezoning, and granting the Proposed Rezoning will further the goals and
objectives set forth within Sections 34-271 and 34-273 of the City Code; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that:
1.
The Zoning District Map incorporated by reference within Chapter 34, Article I, Division
1, Section 34-1 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, is hereby amended
and reenacted, to designate 104 Stadium Road as an Individually Protected Property and minor
design control district.
2.
Section 34-273 of Article II of Chapter 34 (Zoning) of the Charlottesville City Code,
1990, as amended, is hereby amended and reordained, as follows:
Sec. 34-273. Individually protected properties.
(a)
….
(b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city’s major design
control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or
architectural value (each, individually, a “Protected Property”). Each parcel containing a
protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district.
1.
2.
3.
xx
759
123
1102
...
104
...
...
Belmont Avenue
Bollingwood Road
Carlton Avenue
...
Stadium Road
...
...
Tax Map 58
Tax Map 7
Tax Map 56
Parcel 172
Parcel 22
Tax Map 16
Parcel 2
Parcel 86, Lots 1, 2, 3
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY
104 Stadium Road – The MacLeod House
To add Individually Protected Property designation
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE OF HEARING: August 9, 2011
APPLICATION NUMBERS: ZT-11-07-08 and ZM-11-07-09
Project Planner Mary Joy Scala, Preservation and Design Planner
Applicant City of Charlottesville
Application Information
Property Street Address: 104 Stadium Road
Tax Map/Parcel #: 160002000
Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 0.229 acres
Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Multi-family
Current Zoning Classification: R-3 Multi-family
Proposed Zoning Classification: R-3 Multi-family and Individually Protected Property
Overlay District
Tax Status: N/A
Executive Summary:
The Planning Commission is being asked for a recommendation to designate 104 Stadium Road
building and property as an individually protected property.
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on July 19, 2011 unanimously recommended (7-0)
designation of the MacLeod House building and property as an Individually Protected Property.
City Council must consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the BAR as
to the proposed designation.
1
S
R
ON
LLO
13T
CT.
T
ST
13 S
12 1/2
SP
LA
E
CA
W STE
AY R
ROE
AV.
NE
TT
JE
A
MON
D ON
WOOD
ST
ST
ST
BING
ST
NCIS
FRA
.
FIFE
WAY
LER
ER
LEY
NUN
²
ST
OV
HAN
R.
ID
DAV
ST
RD
BRA
N
AV
GILDERSLEE
VE
BE
LL
O
TI
ON
M
HS
OO
D
IEW
ELL
MIN AVE
OR
RD
T
N CE
CHA
MA
B
OM
WC
NE
RD
.
D
OA
NR
MA
ER
E
H
10T
ST
ALD
E
ES
JO N
ST
KING
T
KER
NS
PATO
D
YR
O
LE
TH
S
MA
ST
R
L D
PEL
CRIS
T
VE S
G RO
ST
KING
N BA
L
VA
M ROCK
L A ND
G
ST
KE
N
T
CA E R T
Y
T E RR R
WA ROVE ST
O
R
AIL
G EXT
L LTON
K
R
R
R
RN
HE
UT SHA
LE
LA
N
IN
SPR
AY
W
LA OO
NE D
ER
WERT
PARK
Y
HILL ST
ST
ST
AVE
E
LL
VA
C IR
E
AV
ON O
RS S
JE
M
EA
PA
T
E
FF
VA
Y
KE
C
SAD
L
University of
Virginia
CIR
LE
AV.
LAW
N
DR
DR
OAKHURST
L
VA
ST
ON
N
RM
TO
HA
.
NG
AV
HI
AS
W V.
Y RD
A
OR
AT
RV
MAURY
PRICE
LA
R
NO
LS
CHEDR
SE
OB
C
EAS
T
JEFFERSON
DO
STADIUM
Y
D
CIR
ADC
T
RO
SIT
LA
N
R
R
Mc CO
DR
ED
G
University of
Virginia
HEAD
ER
K
MIC
TE R
EM
RD
WHITE
UN
IV
RD
HO
ICK
D IS
T ST.
BON
N
DRIV YCAST
LE
E
K
OC
NC
HA
ON
T
RM
EMM
E
RD
E
AV
Mc
CO
RD.
LA
Vicinity Map
S ON
DR
T HO M
NO SCALE
Background:
Local historic districts and individually protected properties
A property may receive local historic designation in one of three ways:
as part of an architectural design control or ADC District;
as an individually protected property (IPP), or
as part of a historic conservation district.
Both the IPP and ADC designations are subject to the same Board of Architectural Review
(BAR) review procedures. Designation ensures that a property cannot be altered on the exterior
or demolished unless it first goes through a review process. It also ensures that new
development built on the designated property will be compatible with the character of the
district.
Charlottesville currently has eight ADC Districts and 68 IPP’s that are not included in ADC districts.
The process to designate individual properties may be initiated by City Council, the Planning
Commission, or the property owner. In this case, on May 16, 2011 City Council initiated the process to
designate 104 Stadium Road as an IPP. The designation consists of a zoning map amendment and a
zoning text amendment. The IPP designation is a type of overlay zoning, so that the underlying zoning (in
this case, R-3 Multi-family) remains the same.
Standard of Review:
The Planning Commission must make an advisory recommendation to the City Council. Council
may amend the zoning district classification of this property upon finding that the proposed
amendment would serve the interests of “public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good
zoning practice.” To advise Council as to whether those interests would be served, the Planning
2
Commission should inquire as follows: (1) The initial inquiry should be whether the existing
zoning of the property is reasonable; (2) the Commission should then evaluate whether the
proposed zoning classification is reasonable. One factor relevant to the reasonableness of a
particular zoning district classification is whether that classification is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property.
Section 34-274 of the Zoning Ordinance under Historical Preservation and Architectural Design
Control Districts, provides that City Council may, by ordinance, designate individual buildings,
structures or landmarks as protected properties. City Council must first consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the BAR as to the proposed designation. A
joint public hearing will be held, as with any zoning map amendment or zoning text amendment,
and City Council will make the decision whether to designate the properties as individually
protected.
The BAR and the planning commission must address the following eight specific criteria found
in Section 34-274(b) when making recommendations regarding additions to and deletions from
districts or the protected property list:
Criteria
(1)The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or
site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the
Virginia Landmarks Register;
The property at 104 Stadium Road is an exceptionally well-preserved example of a 1927 English
Tudor Revival style residence built for a University professor. The growth of the University of
Virginia in the early twentieth century spurred the growth of residential neighborhoods near its
campus to house professors and students, such as the adjacent Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve
neighborhood. The terraces with the rock steps and low garden walls are in good condition,
though overgrown, offering a rare example of historic landscape.
(2) The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or
with a renowned architect or master craftsman;
This house was built for Malcolm M. MacLeod, an English literature professor at the University
of Virginia. Mr. Edward Stettinius was a frequent visitor to the Stone House and was a good
friend of the original owner, Mr. MacLeod. Stettinius attended UVA in the early 1920’s and
went on to become the U.S. Secretary of State under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In
addition, Mr. Stettinius served on the UVA Board of Visitors and as rector.
(3) The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is, or would
be, an integral part of an existing design control district;
This building is a well-maintained and interesting looking stone dwelling. The prominent
location of the house off Emmet Street makes 104 Stadium Road a landmark of the street.
3
This property at 104 Stadium Road could have been included in the Oakhurst/Gildersleeve ADC
District, as the house is part of the same period of development in the city’s history and is
located just across Jefferson Park Avenue.
(4) The age and condition of a building or structure;
The structure was built in 1927. It is in good condition and has been well-preserved.
(5) Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material;
This 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage has a cross-gable plan. The exterior walls are stone
with stucco and false half-timbering. The interior of the one story section of the house has
cathedral ceilings and full cement basement, while the rest of the home has no basement under it.
The windows openings vary in size and have fixed metal frame panes most of which appear
original.
(6) The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building,
structure or site have been retained;
The character-defining features of the main structure and site are intact. In addition to the main
dwelling, the stone foundation of a one-story garage in place by 1929 remains today. The garage
was removed by 1950.
Surrounding the property are numerous trees. Two sloping terraces on the back of the property
are marked with low stone walls. A stone planter sits at the head of a series of stone steps leading
from the Woodrow Street entrance down the terraces. This terraced garden and stone steps are
likely original as the stone matches the house.
(7) Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the
first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city.
Stone buildings are unusual in Charlottesville; stone site walls are more commonly found. But
there are several examples of stone residences in the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood.
(8) Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within
which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures
that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or
within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically
but linked by association or history.
104 Stadium Road and the other dwellings of Oakhurst-Gildersleeve neighborhood are linked by
building materials, time period of significance, and connection to the University of Virginia.
The Comprehensive Plan:
4
The City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan includes the following goal and objectives:
GOAL V: Provide the fullest protection to the City of Charlottesville’s historic resources.
Objective B: Based on architectural and historic survey results, consider additional properties
outside existing ADC Districts for designation as individually protected properties.
Public Comments Received:
No comments have been received.
Staff Recommendation:
This property meets the criteria for designation as an individually protected property. In staff’s
opinion, the Planning Commission should recommend that City Council designate 104 Stadium
Road, the MacLeod House, building and property as an Individually Protected Property.
Suggested Motion:
“I move to recommend that City Council approve this petition on the basis that the
rezoning would serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, general welfare or
good zoning practice, and would meet the historic criteria of Sec 34-274(b), including:
1. ZT-11-07-08 - An ordinance to amend and reordain Section 34-273(b) of the Code of
the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended (Zoning Ordinance) relating to Individually
Protected properties by creating an “overlay” zoning restriction without affecting the
underlying zoning district designation. This ordinance would create minor design control
district status for the following:
The structure and property at 104 Stadium Road (The MacLeod House), Tax Map 16,
Parcel 2.
2. ZM-11-07-09 - An ordinance to amend and reordain the Zoning District Map
incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of
Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, by adding a minor Architectural Design Control
District for the following:
The property located at 104 Stadium Road, further identified on City Real Property Tax
Map #16 as Parcel 2 having approximately 90 feet of frontage on Emmet Street and
containing approximately 9,975 square feet of land (0.229 acres). The general uses called
for in the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan are for Multi-family. The current
underlying zoning, which will remain, is R-3, Multi-family.
(OR)
5
“I move to recommend that City Council deny this application to rezone this property by
adding an Individually Protected Property Overlay District designation.”
ATTACHMENT
ZT-10-12-31 Actual text language change:
ARTICLE II. OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Sec. 34-273. Individually protected properties.
…
(b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city's major design
control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or
architectural value (each, individually, a "Protected Property"). Each parcel containing a
protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district.
TABLE INSET:
1.
759
Belmont Avenue
Tax Map 58
Parcel 172
2.
123
Bollingwood Road
Tax Map 7
Parcel 22
3.
1102
Carlton Avenue
Tax Map 56
Parcel 86, Lots 1, 2, 3
4.
133--155
Carlton Road
Tax Map 57
Parcel 157 (portion)
5.
907
Cottage Lane
Tax Map 2
Parcel 54.3
6.
908
Cottage Lane
Tax Map 2
Parcel 25
7.
909
Cottage Lane
Tax Map 2
Parcel 54.4
8.
513
Dice Street
Tax Map 29
Parcel 63.1
9.
402
Dice Street
Tax Map 29
Parcel 124
10.
406
Dice Street
Tax Map 29
Parcel 122
11.
410
Dice Street
Tax Map 29
Parcel 119
12.
412
Dice Street
Tax Map 29
Parcel 118
13.
210
Eighth Street, NE
Tax Map 53
Parcel 173.23
14.
901
Emmet Street
Tax Map 1
Parcel 1 (portion)
15.
200
Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Tax Map 9
Parcel 71
16.
205
Fifth Street, S.W.
Tax Map 29
Parcel 69
17.
217
Fifth Street, S.W.
Tax Map 29
Parcel 66
18.
301
Fifth Street, S.W.
Tax Map 29
Parcel 104
19.
418
Fifth Street, S.W.
Tax Map 29
Parcel 161
20.
201
Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Tax Map 9
Parcel 73
21.
233
Fourth Street, NW
Tax Map 32
Parcel 89
22.
223
Fourth Street, SW
Tax Map 29
Parcel 42
23.
1602
Gordon Avenue
Tax Map 9
Parcel 13
24.
946
Grady Avenue
Tax Map 31
Parcel 60 (portion)
6
25.
1022
Grove Street (formerly 1212)
Tax Map 23
Parcel 38
26.
700
Harris Street
Tax Map 35
Parcel 132
27.
204
Hartman's Mill Road
Tax Map 26
Parcel 38
28.
208
Hartman's Mill Road
Tax Map 36
Parcel 36
29.
801
High Street, East
Tax Map 53
Parcel 194
30.
1404
Jefferson Park Avenue
Tax Map 11
Parcel 112
31.
2115
Jefferson Park Avenue
Tax Map 17
Parcel 88
32.
1201
Jefferson Street, East
Tax Map 54
Parcel 212
33.
800
Tax Map 53
Parcel 173.22
34.
901
Tax Map 53
Parcel 261
35.
1615
Keith Valley Road
Tax Map 41A
Parcel 46
36.
114
Lankford Avenue
Tax Map 26
Parcel 10
37.
214
Lankford Avenue
Tax Map 26
Parcel 1
38.
459
Locust Avenue
Tax Map 53
Parcel 234 (portion)
39.
810
Locust Avenue
Tax Map 51
Parcel 74
40.
700
Lyons Avenue
Tax Map 52
Parcel 26
41.
610
Lyons Court
Tax Map 52
Parcel 78
42.
706
Lyons Court Lane
Tax Map 52
Parcel 77
43.
1118
Market Street, East
Tax Map 54
Parcel 150
44.
1512
Market Street, East
Tax Map 56
Parcel 40.4
45.
1819
Market Street East
Tax Map 55A
Parcel 146
46.
1901
Market Street, East
Tax Map 55A
Parcel 149
47.
224
Ninth Street, SW
Tax Map 30
Parcel 65
48.
501
Ninth Street, SW
Tax Map 30
Parcel 169
49.
1105
Park Street
Tax Map 47
Parcel 7
50.
1108
Park Street
Tax Map 47
Parcel 49
51.
1112
Park Street
Tax Map 47
Parcel 50
52.
608
Preston Avenue
Tax Map 32
Parcel 14
53.
722
Preston Avenue
Tax Map 31
Parcel 38 (portion)
54.
1010
Preston Avenue
Tax Map 4
Parcel 41
55.
605
Preston Place
Tax Map 5
Parcel 111
56.
611
Preston Place
Tax Map 5
Parcel 112
57.
620
Prospect Avenue (formerly 620 7 1/2 Street)
Tax Map 25
Parcel 2
58.
752
Ridge Street
Tax Map 25
Parcel 79
59.
212
Rosser Avenue
Tax Map 3
Parcel 107
60.
818
Ridge Street
Tax Map 25
Parcel 102
61.
1328
Riverdale Drive
Tax Map 50
Parcel 5
62.
202
Riverside Avenue
Tax Map 55A
Parcel 148
63.
1204
Rugby Road
Tax Map 38
Parcel 134
64.
1314
Rugby Road
Tax Map 38
Parcel 92
7
65.
204
Seventh Street, SW
Tax Map 29
Parcel 73
66.
208
Seventh Street, SW
Tax Map 29
Parcel 74
67.
201
Sixth Street, NW
Tax Map 32
Parcel 124
68.
327
Sixth Street, SW
Tax Map 29
Parcel 188
69.
209-211
Sprigg Lane
Tax Map 8
Parcel 28
70.
104
Stadium Road
Tax Map 16
Parcel 2
71.
214
Stribling Avenue
Tax Map 18A
Parcel 33
72.
134
Tenth Street, N.W.
Tax Map 31
Parcel 56
73.
309
Twelfth Street, NE
Tax Map 54
Parcel 211
74.
1
University Court
Tax Map 9
Parcel 44
75.
603
Watson Avenue
Tax Map 47
Parcel 43
76.
212
Wine Street
Tax Map 33
Parcel 32
8
104 Stadium Road
Date: 1927
Architect: Unknown
Tax Map: 16 Parcel Number: 2
Original Owner: Malcolm M. MacLeod
Material: Stone and wood
Use: Private Residence
Date of Survey: June, 2011
By: Kristin Rourke
Architectural Description:
This 1 ½ story, English Tudor style cottage has a cross-gable plan. The exterior walls are stone with stucco and
false half-timbering on the upper gable of the side facing Emmet Street, the shed entry, dormer, and gable on
the Woodrow Street elevation and the three dormers on the northwest elevation. The dormer on the Emmet
Street side of the house is painted wood cladding.
According to the tax assessment in 1955 the roof is asbestos shingle, and the walls are wood and stone frame.
The interior has hardwood floors, softwood framed partitions with plaster walls and ceilings. The interior of the
one story section of the house has cathedral ceilings and full cement basement, while the rest of the home has
no basement under it. In 1955, the metal fire escape or “metal stoop with steps” was added on the west end of
the house. Two bathrooms were also added and the windows on the northwest side of the house replaced. The
windows openings vary in size and have fixed metal frame panes most of which appear original excluding those
already noted as being replaced in 1955.
On the 1929 Sanborn Map, there is a small one-story garage located at the northwest corner of the lot. The
garage was demolished by 1950, but the stone foundation remains today. A carport with a dirt floor and flat roof
was constructed and stayed in place from 1955 to the mid-1970s, likely located where the gravel drive is today.
The gravel drive on the side of the house that faces Emmet Street is likely a more recent addition.
Surrounding the property are numerous trees and overgrown plantings. There are two sloping terraces on the
back of the property leading to what is now a parking lot. These terraces are marked with low stone walls. A
stone planter sits at the head of a series of stone steps leading from the Woodrow Street entrance down the
terraces. This terraced garden and stone steps are likely original as the stone matches the gold brown stone of
the house.
Building History:
This house was built for Malcolm M. MacLeod, an English literature professor at the University of Virginia.
Mr. Edward Stettinius was a frequent visitor to the Stone House and was a good friend of the original owner,
Mr. MacLeod. Stettinius attended UVA in the early 1920’s and went on to become the U.S. Secretary of State
under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In addition, Mr. Stettinius served on the UVA Board of Visitors and as
rector.
MacLeod bought the property from John S. and Mary H. Nicholas on June 25, 1927 for $6,000. By the time the
lot was sold again, the value of the land had increased to $16,500 showing that the house must have been built
around 1927. The property had several deed covenants when MacLeod purchased it:
1) Said lot is not to be sold to anyone not of the Caucasian race
2) Said lot is not to be sold or used as a commercial property
3) No dwelling erected at a cost of less than $5000 and which is not in line with the dwellings on the other
adjoining lots. Proper outhouses may be erected provided they would not injure nearby property.
MacLeod lived in the house with his wife Margaret until 1954 when the couple sold the house to Sterling
Decker, a physician at the UVA Hospital, who only owned the house for a year. Decker did not live in the house
but rented it out to Paul Weis. The deed covenants were still in place in the 1954 deed, including the racial
covenant. Such segregationist covenants were common during the first half of the twentieth century in
residential neighborhoods throughout the South. The university itself was segregated at the time.
The house was sold in 1955 to Henry C. and Annie M. Lowry. In 1955 two bathrooms were added to the house
and a metal fire escape was added to the exterior to convert the building into a multi-family home. Henry
worked as a salesman at Collins Inc, a men’s clothing company. Both he and his sister, Annie, lived in the
house, technically making it a two family dwelling. The Lowrys owned the house until 1960, when they sold it
to William H. Brown, a lawyer, who lived there with his wife, Brady F. Brown, until 1963 when Murray O.
Clark and Betty B. Clark purchased the property and rented it out to UVA students, such as William W. Bennett
who rented the house in 1964. The Clarks then sold the home to Alfred C. Proulx, an assistant professor at
UVA. Proulx owned the house until 1968 when it became the property of the trustees of Evalyn M. Galgan. In
1976, Russell C. Winder and Patricia S. Winder purchased 104 Stadium Road.
Overall, the house has been home to several professors and students, it has been converted into a two-family
unit (though even after this alteration it was still used as a single family home by successive owners). 104
Stadium Road has changed hands many times, and was owned the longest by the original owner, Malcolm
MacLeod.
Neighborhood History:
104 Stadium Road was built during the development of the Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood located
slightly west of the house and across Jefferson Park Avenue. Many of the homes in that neighborhood were
built for University of Virginia professors and there are several similar examples of English Tudor revival style
dwellings that may be by the same builder/architect. For example, 3 Gildersleeve Wood (1928) is another stone
Tudor structure, and 1616 Jefferson Park Avenue (1925) is a stucco and false half-timbered Tudor that was
constructed by English professor, Armistead C. Gordon Jr. 1616 Jefferson Park Avenue is across the street from
104 Stadium Road. Gildersleeve/ Oakhurst neighborhood contains several examples of stone buildings and site
walls similar to that of 104.
In 1919, the University of Virginia had an increase in enrollment which facilitated construction of more housing
for the students and staff of the school. Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve neighborhood developed as a result of this.
Because of the transience of university students, many homes like 104 Stadium Road also changed hands
multiple times, and were divided into multiple family or apartment dwellings to market them to student renters.
Statement of Significance
The property at 104 Stadium Road is an exceptionally well-preserved example of an English Tudor revival style
residence. The growth of the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century spurred the growth of
residential neighborhoods near its campus to house professors and students, such as Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve
neighborhood. This property at 104 Stadium Road could have been included in the Oakhurst/ Gildersleeve
Neighborhood ADC District, as the house is part of the same period of development in the city’s history and is
located just across Jefferson Park Avenue. The terraces with the rock steps and low garden walls are in good
condition, though overgrown, offering a rare example of historic landscape. Additionally, the prominent
location of the house on Emmet Street makes 104 Stadium Road a landmark of the street.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Actions Required:
Approve Resolution
Presenter:
Maurice Jones, City Manager
Staff Contacts:
Management
Title:
Contribution to the Piedmont Council for the Arts (PCA) for
Support of City Space Exhibits - $3,000
Background: Piedmont Council for the Arts (PCA)’s new office location at CitySpace
(as of July 1, 2011) has come with the opportunity and responsibility for PCA to program
exhibits in the CitySpace Gallery. The management of exhibits has considerably
increased PCA’s program expenses (see below), however PCA’s City funding has not
increased. With this proposal, PCA seeks $3,000 in Council Priorities Funding to help
cover related expenses for CitySpace exhibits that will highlight and provide learning
opportunities for children – one of City Council’s current priority areas.
Discussion:
Exhibition Plan
PCA’s programming of the CitySpace Gallery will build on our successful Arts Access
Project (AAP), which seeks to connect groups serving low-income youth with arts
resources, engage a broader segment of the community in artistic activity, and provide
increased exposure to the arts. Exhibits will feature local initiatives that expand area arts
audiences or use the arts to improve the quality of life in Charlottesville. In support of
Virginia’s upcoming Minds Wide Open campaign, “Children and the Arts,” PCA will
curate exhibits in 2011-2012 that actively address and engage children.
Examples of exhibit topics include: Storyline 2011, an exploration of PCA’s ongoing
Storyline Project which brings together local artists and writers to guide Charlottesville
Parks & Recreation campers on creative journeys through our city; Rising Stars, a
celebration of local high school students who excel in all genres of the arts; and, the
expansion of PCA’s current Arts Grow initiative through the addition of a teaching artist
workshops for youth in after-school programs.
The exhibits will focus on providing opportunities for underserved and low-income
students, thus helping close the achievement gap. Exhibit-related programs will also
support learning outside of schools and expand community activities for children and
youth by offering hands-on workshops, field trip opportunities, and family events.
Rationale
One of the greatest barriers to arts participation is lack of exposure to the arts at a young
age. Underserved youth in Charlottesville will benefit from PCA’s use of the CitySpace
Gallery through increased access to arts experiences and community recognition at the
exhibits. Youth will also be able to engage in a greater number of inspirational arts
activities, thus expanding and diversifying our “arts community.” Additionally, the
related programs will build on and enhance PCA’s connections with teachers and
students that have been established through the AAP’s Arts Grow initiative as well as the
annual publication of the Community Arts Education Handbook.
Impact and Measurement
Charlottesville youth will benefit from this project by taking part in hands-on arts
experiences led by professional artists as well as receiving community recognition at the
exhibitions and encouragement to continue participating in the arts. Families and friends
of participating youth will be invited to exhibition openings and related events,
expanding and diversifying our “arts community.” Exhibition-related workshops will also
foster collaboration between arts organizations and groups serving low-income citizens.
The impact of the exhibitions will be measured by: counting attendance numbers at
openings and throughout exhibitions, surveying artists and community partners about the
exhibiting experience, gathering feedback forms from visitors, and through moderated
discussion at Creative Conversations.
Annual Exhibitions Budget*
Income:
PCA overhead
Corporate sponsorships
In-kind and volunteer support
Council Priorities Fund
Total exhibitions income
$4,875
$4,000
$1,250
$3,000
$13,125
Expense:
Management (5 hrs/wk @ $18.75/hr for Program Director)
Printing exhibition materials
Installation
Exhibit lighting
Promotional postcards
Opening receptions
Total exhibitions expenses
$4,875
$4,800
$1,200
$150
$600
$1,500
$13,125
*PCA estimates that 6-9 of the 12 monthly exhibits at CitySpace each year will focus on
youth and the arts.
2
Alignment with Council Vision/2011-2012 Priorities: America’s Healthiest City:
Support children learning outside of school; expand community activities for children
and youth.
Budget Impact: $3,000 will be allocated from already appropriated Council Priority
Initiative funding in the FY 12 Adopted Budget. No new funds are required.
Recommendation: Approve resolution allocating funds.
Alternatives: Council can choose to not fund/support this initiative.
Attachments: N/A
3
RESOLUTION
Contribution to the Piedmont Council for the Arts (PCA) for Support of City Space
Exhibits
$3,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of up to $3,000 is hereby paid from currently
appropriated funds in the Council Priority Initiatives Account in the General Fund to
support City Space exhibits that highlight and provide learning opportunities for children:
Fund: 105
4
Payment History for Pride of VA Lodge RPC 15632 Date Amount 11/17/2008 $918.18 7/25/2008 $92.58 6/17/2008 $2,539.24 12/5/2007 $1,000.00 6/4/2007 $200.00 4/26/2007 $400.00 9/11/2006 $170.00 7/17/2006 $170.00 6/14/2006 $165.00 12/5/2005 $640.61 10/5/2005 $200.00 9/1/2005 $200.00 7/20/2005 $200.00 6/23/2005 $200.00 11/27/2004 $568.98 5/17/2004 $568.98 10/30/2003 $490.85 5/20/2003 $500.00 11/25/2002 $468.00 6/5/2002 $468.98 12/19/2001 $321.74 5/23/2001 $292.49 11/15/2000 $278.61 6/13/2000 $306.47 12/5/1999 $313.42 7/19/1999 $325.00 12/1/1998 $286.93 5/26/1998 $286.94 Total $12,573.00 check # 6149
6134
6128
6115
1685
1678
1639
1627
1621
1582
1566
1560
1554
1551
1503
1468
1414
1379
1336
1307
1256
1196
1141
1106
1074
1068
unknown unknown 5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Approval of Resolution Authorizing Sublease to Martha Jefferson
Hospital at Jefferson School
Presenter:
Brian Daly, Director of Parks & Recreation
Staff Contacts:
Brian Daly, Director of Parks & Recreation
Francesca Fornari, Assistant City Attorney
Chris Engel, Assistant Director of Economic Development
Title:
Resolution Authorizing Sublease to Martha Jefferson Hospital at Jefferson
School
Background and Discussion: The Jefferson School facility located at 233 4th St. NW in the City of
Charlottesville is undergoing extensive renovations by the Jefferson School Community Partnership,
LLLP. As part of the overall redevelopment plan, the City agreed to lease back a portion of the
building for use as a recreation center. City Council approved this lease at its February 7, 2011
meeting.
Also, at the time it, was contemplated that the City would sublease a small portion of that space to
Martha Jefferson Hospital for use as a health clinic.
A copy of the proposed sublease between the City and Martha Jefferson Hospital is attached. The
term of the lease is 60 months (5 years) (Section 1). The base rent for the first year is $44,275
(Section 2 a). In subsequent years the base rent is adjusted annually by 3% or the change in the
Consumer Price Index, whichever is less (Section 3). The amount of rent is based on a rentable area
of 1,771 square feet (Section 1).
The lease also requires Martha Jefferson Hospital to fully reimburse the City for costs of the up-fit
work as shown upon the agreed upon plans and descriptions in exhibits B & C (Section 2 b).
Alternatives: City Council may adopt the Resolution or decline to do so.
Budgetary Impact: No additional funds will be needed beyond those already identified in the parks
recreation budget to cover the lease costs at the Jefferson School.
Recommendation: City staff recommends adoption of the attached signature resolution which
authorizes the City Manager to execute the attached Sublease Agreement, in form approved by the
City Attorney.
Attachments:
Proposed resolution for Council approval
Proposed Sublease Agreement (Exhibit A is not included due to its length and prior approval by
Council)
THIS SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (this “Sublease”) is made as of this September ___,
2011 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
(hereinafter, “Landlord” or “City”), whose address is P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22902, and MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL, a Virginia non-profit, nonstock corporation, whose address is 500 Martha Jefferson Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia
22911 (hereinafter, “Subtenant”).
1. DEMISED PREMISES; SUBLEASE TERM.
A. This Sublease is made pursuant to the Lease Agreement dated March 1, 2011
by and between Jefferson School Community Partnership, L.L.L.P. and the
City of Charlottesville, Virginia and is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”. The
covenants, terms and conditions of that Lease Agreement applicable to the
Premises, are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim, except
to the extent they conflict with this Sublease, in which case the covenants,
terms, and conditions of this Sublease shall control.
B. In consideration of the promises and covenants herein, Landlord hereby
subleases to Subtenant a portion of that property located in the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia known as 233 4th Street, N.W. (the “Building”)
comprising approximately 1,771 square feet and shown in the plans attached
hereto as EXHIBIT “B” (hereinafter, the “Premises”).
C. Subtenant shall have nonexclusive access to the parking structure for staff and
visitor use, together with nonexclusive use of all common areas of the
Building, including but not limited to corridors, stairwells, entrance ways,
restrooms and surrounding grounds, which shall be maintained by Landlord in
a good, clean, secure and safe condition as more particularly set forth in the
Lease Agreement.
D. The Term of this Sublease shall commence within 30 days of the City’s
receipt of a certificate of occupancy, upon delivery of the Premises to
Subtenant (“Commencement Date”) and shall end, if not sooner terminated,
five (5) years thereafter, expiring automatically at midnight (“Expiration”). In
the event that the Commencement Date does not occur within twenty-four
(24) months of the Effective Date, Subtenant may, by written notice to
Landlord, terminate this Sublease, which shall have no further force or effect.
2. BASE RENT AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR UP-FIT COSTS.
A. Commencing as of the Commencement Date, Subtenant agrees to pay to the
Landlord rent in the annual amount of Forty-Four thousand and Two Hundred
and Seventy Five dollars ($44, 275.00) for the first year. The Subtenant shall
pay the Landlord the rent, in advance, in twelve (12) equal monthly
installments on the fifteenth day of each calendar month for the duration of
the Term of this Sublease.
B. Commencing as of the Effective Date, Subtenant agrees to reimburse the
Landlord for the costs of the up-fit work shown in the plans attached in
EXHIBIT “B” and the description of work and cost estimates attached hereto
as EXHIBIT “C”. Landlord shall regularly invoice Subtenant, providing
copies of Landlord’s itemized contractor invoices or receipts marked “paid,”
and Subtenant agrees to pay to the Landlord the amount of the invoice within
thirty (30) days of receipt until the total costs of the up-fit have been
reimbursed to the Landlord. Landlord will obtain Subtenant’s advance
approval of any material deviations from the plans attached in EXHIBIT “B”
and of any costs or charges that exceed the estimates attached in EXHIBIT
“C”. The total approved cost of the up-fit must be reimbursed to the Landlord
prior to the Commencement Date.
3. RENT ADJUSTMENT. The Base Rent shall be adjusted by the lesser of (a) three
(3) percent annually after the first year during the Term of this Sublease, or (b) the
change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Earners and Clerical Workers, United
States and Selected Areas, All Items (CPI-W) for the preceding 12-month period, as
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor,
using the most current data available as of each anniversary of the Commencement
Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no case shall the annual adjustment be less
than zero percent. Landlord shall notify Subtenant of the rent increase percentage and
the net adjusted amount of the annual base rent no less than thirty (30) days prior to
the effective date of the rent increase. Failure to notify will not result in abatement of
the increase, and the increased rate shall be due and payable notwithstanding failure
to notify per the above terms.
4. SUBLET; USE OF PREMISES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
A. The Premises shall be used by the Subtenant primarily as a health clinic
providing routine medical advice, vaccinations and laboratory testing,
medications for patients (not a commercial pharmacy) and preventive care,
but not including any on-site surgical, radiological, hospital or emergent care
services.
B. Subtenant may not sublet any portion of the Premises.
5. SUBTENANT ALTERATIONS. Any permanent alterations, additions and
improvements to the Premises must be approved in writing by Landlord prior to the
commencement of construction. All such alterations, additions, and improvements to
the Premises, excluding any trade fixtures that may be removed by Subtenant
provided any damage to the Premises occasioned by removal is repaired, shall inure
to the benefit of and shall be the property of the Landlord.
6. LANDLORD INSPECTIONS; RIGHT OF ENTRY. Landlord shall have the right
to enter the Premises at reasonable times to make inspections of the condition of the
Premises, repairs, alterations or improvements, and to show the Premises to
prospective purchasers, tenants, workers and/or contractors. Except in emergencies
2
or when circumstances otherwise render advance notice impractical the Landlord will
give Subtenant reasonable notice (no less than 24 hours) of Landlord's intent to
exercise this right of entry. Landlord’s agents shall check-in with Subtenant’s on-site
personnel upon entering the interior of the Premises. Subtenant reserves the right to
escort Landlord’s personnel or contractors, at Subtenant sole cost, while on the
Premises. During the performance of this Sublease, Landlord may have access to
patient healthcare, billing, or other confidential patient information (“Patient
Information”). Patient Information, as the term is used herein, includes all “Protected
Health Information,” as that term is defined in 45 CFR 164.501. With respect to
Patient Information observed or obtained from Subtenant or on the Premises,
Landlord shall comply with all laws, rules and regulations relating to the
confidentiality of such Patient Information, including the applicable provisions of
state law and the privacy regulations promulgated pursuant to Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), to the extent such laws, rules
and regulations are applicable to Landlord. Landlord understands and acknowledges
that it is fully responsible for ensuring compliance with these obligations by its
employees, agents, representatives and subcontractors.
7. LANDLORD’S COVENANTS.
A. Landlord covenants and agrees to:
1. Comply with the requirements of applicable building and housing
codes materially affecting health and safety;
2. Pay electric, water, sewer and HVAC utility bills assessed to the
Premises.
3. Pay any applicable property taxes and insurance costs pursuant to
Section 2(b) of the Lease Agreement, attributable to the Premises.
4. Provide for routine maintenance and repairs of HVAC systems,
plumbing, structural systems, including the roof, exterior walls,
windows and doors of the Building, and electrical distribution system
within the Premises.
5. Provide for exterior keying sequence.
B. Landlord further covenants that the Subtenant, on paying the rent and
performing the covenants and conditions contained in this Sublease, may
peaceably and quietly have, hold and enjoy the leased Premises, subject to the
other terms of this Sublease.
C. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Landlord agrees to release,
indemnify, protect, and hold the Subtenant, its officers, agents and employees
harmless from any loss, liability or obligation of any nature whatsoever,
which may occur by reason of the Landlord’s negligent acts or omissions in
the performance of this Sublease or its use or occupancy of the Building. This
indemnification shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the
termination of this Sublease.
3
8. SUBTENANT’S COVENANTS.
Subtenant covenants and agrees to:
A. Pay any and all costs associated with IT, cable and network connections, and
telephone service.
B. Reimburse the Landlord for the full amount of the up fit costs/alterations, as
agreed to in writing by separate agreement and signed by the Landlord and
Subtenant.
C. Purchase lost keys from the Landlord, and reimburse the Landlord for the cost
of re-keying the exterior doors.
D. Keep and maintain the Premises in good, clean, secure and safe condition,
including:
1. Subtenant shall comply with obligations imposed upon subtenants by
applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and
safety;
2. Subtenant shall use all appliances, and all electrical, plumbing,
sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning and other systems, in a
reasonable and safe manner;
3. Subtenant agrees to pay all costs resulting from the intentional or
negligent destruction, damage or removal of any part of the Premises
by the Subtenant or its invitees;
4. Subtenant agrees to provide for all janitorial tasks of the Premises;
5. Subtenant agrees to maintain laboratory equipment and special fixtures
related to Subtenant’s health care activities;
6. Subtenant agrees to be responsible for interior painting and routine
maintenance within the Premises such as maintaining light fixtures;
7. Subtenant agrees to dispose of medical waste pursuant to applicable
regulations and laws;
8. Subtenant agrees to secure all medications, vaccinations and
prescription pads in locked and secure areas.
E. Subtenant shall immediately notify the Landlord of any condition on the
Premises that constitutes a fire hazard or other serious threat to the life, health
or safety of the occupants of the Premises. Additionally, the Subtenant shall
provide prompt written notice to the Landlord of any defects or malfunctions
in the Premises or in any of the equipment, appliances or parts thereof, as soon
as the Subtenant becomes aware of them.
F. Subtenant covenants and agrees that upon the expiration or termination of this
Sublease: (i) the Subtenant will deliver the Premises in the same condition in
4
which they were received, ordinary wear and tear excepted; and (ii) the
Premises shall be thoroughly cleaned. In the event any of the above
conditions have not been met by Subtenant prior to its vacation of the
Premises, the Subtenant agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the
Landlord to do so.
G. Subtenant agrees to release, indemnify, protect, and hold the Landlord, its
officers, agents and employees harmless from any loss, liability or obligation
of any nature whatsoever, which may occur by reason of the Subtenant’s use
of the Premises, unless caused by the negligent acts or omission of Landlord
or its agents. This indemnification shall continue in full force and effect
notwithstanding the termination of this Sublease. The Subtenant shall
maintain in force comprehensive general liability insurance coverage in a
minimum amount of $4,000,000 in respect to injury or death and $1,000,000
in respect to any instance of property damage, with an insurer authorized to do
business in Virginia. Such policy shall name the City as an additional insured
and shall provide that such coverage shall not be cancelled without thirty (30)
days written notice to the City. The Subtenant shall submit evidence of such
insurance coverage to the Charlottesville City Attorney for approval prior to
the Commencement Date of this Sublease.
H. The Subtenant shall not deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage,
impair or remove any part of the Premises or permit any other person to do so.
Subtenant shall be liable for all costs and expenses necessary to repair or
replace the Premises, or any portion thereof, as a result of such deliberate or
negligent acts.
I. Subtenant shall not commit or permit any waste or nuisance on or about the
Premises, nor do anything that might create a hazard of fire on or within the
Premises.
9. DAMAGE TO PREMISES
A. In the event the Premises are destroyed or substantially damaged by fire or
other casualty, and thereby rendered unfit for occupancy, the Term of this
Sublease shall, at the option of either party upon reasonable notice to the
other, terminate as of the date of such damage. Under those circumstances,
accrued rent shall be paid up to the time of such damage. If neither party
desires to terminate the Sublease, the Landlord shall enter and repair the
Premises with reasonable speed and rent shall be waived during any period in
which the Premises remain unfit for occupancy. Once the Premises have been
restored to a condition which is suitable for occupancy, the Subtenant’s rental
obligation shall re-commence, but may be reduced by a reasonable amount for
any period during which repairs continue, until such repairs have been
completed.
B. The Landlord shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the
Premises in an amount deemed adequate by the Director of Finance for the
City of Charlottesville.
5
C. The Subtenant shall, at its own cost and expense, obtain adequate coverage for
insuring the contents of the Premises against fire, theft or other peril, and the
City expressly disclaims any liability for damages or loss of any nature
whatsoever which may occur to the property of the Subtenant, its employees,
or invitees while such property is located on the Premises.
10. HOURS OF OPERATION. Subtenant shall establish regular hours during which
the Premises will be open to the public. At a maximum, the Premises shall be open from
7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and shall be closed on holidays.
11. DEFAULT; TERMINATION.
A. The following shall constitute events of Default by Subtenant: (i) any
material breach of this Sublease by Subtenant, including, without limitation,
any breach that substantially endangers the health or safety of any person; (ii)
Subtenant’s abandonment of the Premises; (iii) Subtenant’s failure to make
any payment of past-due rent under this Sublease for a period of fifteen (15)
days after written notice; (iv) use of the Premises by Subtenant, its employees
or agents to intentionally violate federal, state or local law; (v) Subtenant’s
denial of any right reserved in this Sublease to the Landlord; (vi) filing by the
Subtenant or against the Subtenant in any court pursuant to any statute of a
petition of bankruptcy or insolvency or for reorganization or for the
appointment of a receiver or trustee of all or a portion of Subtenant’s property
or an assignment by the tenant for the benefit of creditors, provided that such
proceedings are not dismissed within 90 days after the commencement of
same; (vii) failure by the Subtenant to maintain its status as a non-profit, nonstock organization, and (viii) the institution of legal proceedings by or against
Subtenant to levy upon or dispose of Subtenant's leasehold interest in the
Premises.
1. If Subtenant is in default for non-payment of rent, and such default
continues for thirty (30) days following written notice from the Landlord
demanding possession of the Premises or the payment of rent, then the
Subtenant shall thereby forfeit its right to possession of the Premises. In
such case, Subtenant’s possession may, at the Landlord’s option, be
deemed unlawful and the Landlord may proceed to recover possession
through all lawful means and proceedings.
2. In the event of a default for reasons other than failure to pay rent, the
Landlord shall serve Subtenant with a written notice stating the acts or
omissions constituting the default and stating that the Lease will terminate,
as set forth within the notice, upon a date not less than 30 days after
Subtenant receives the notice, unless the default is remedied within 21
days. If the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of damages,
and Subtenant adequately remedies the breach within 21 days or such
longer period of time as Landlord may specify in writing, the Sublease
shall not terminate.
6
3. In the event the Landlord pursues any remedies referenced above, the
Subtenant shall be liable as follows: (a) for all installments of rent and
other charges that are past due, (b) for all installments of rent and other
charges that are due and owing for the remainder of the Term of this
Sublease, in an amount not to exceed twelve (12) months of the thencurrent base rent, as fixed, agreed and liquidated damages; (c) for any
court costs incurred by the Landlord for possession of the Premises and for
collection of unpaid rent or other charges under this Sublease; and (d) for
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the Landlord to obtain possession of
the Premises or to collect rent, damages, or other charges under this
Sublease.
B. The following shall constitute events of Default by Landlord: (i) any material
breach of this Sublease by Landlord, including, without limitation, any breach that
substantially endangers the health or safety of any person; (ii) Landlord’s failure
to enforce the material obligations of Jefferson School Community Partnership,
L.L.L.P., as landlord under the Lease Agreement with respect to the Premises or
common areas of the Building; and (iii) Landlord’s failure to comply with any
federal, state or local law pertaining to this Sublease.
1. In the event of a Default by Landlord the Subtenant shall serve a written
notice to the Landlord specifying the acts or omissions constituting the
Default and stating that this Sublease will terminate on a specific date not less
than 30 days after receipt of the notice if such breach is not remedied within
21 days. If the breach can be remedied by payment or repairs, and the
Landlord adequately remedies the breach prior to the date specified in the
notice, this Sublease shall not terminate.
2. The Subtenant may not terminate this agreement for a condition caused by the
deliberate or negligent act of the Subtenant, or its invitees.
3. The Subtenant may recover damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and may
obtain any other action or remedy permitted by law for Landlord’s failure to
abide by the provisions of this Sublease. The Subtenant’s recourse to any
particular remedy shall not deprive him of any other action or remedy.
C. Prior to Expiration, if the Subtenant deserts the Premises, the Landlord may deem
the Sublease in default and the Premises to be abandoned. The Landlord shall
post in a conspicuous area on the Premises a notice declaring the Premises
abandoned. Thereafter, the Landlord may enter and secure Premises and, after
compliance with any applicable provisions of state law, the Landlord shall be
entitled to possession.
D. Upon termination or expiration of this Sublease, Landlord shall have the right to
reenter and repossess the Premises and may dispossess the Subtenant and remove
the Subtenant and all other persons and property from the Premises. Subtenant
shall leave the Premises in good and clean condition, ordinary wear and tear
excepted.
12. NOTICES. All notices required by this Sublease, and all correspondence concerning
7
this Sublease, shall be sent by first class United States mail (postage prepaid) and
effective two (2) business days after mailing or by reputable overnight courier and
effective one (1) business day after deposit with such courier, to the following
individuals:
A. To Landlord: to the attention of the City Manager for the City of
Charlottesville, addressed as follows: P. O. Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902.
B. To Subtenant, to the address appearing on the first page of this Sublease, or
such other address as the Tenant may designate in writing from time to time.
13. HEADINGS. The headings of the sections of this Sublease are inserted for
convenience only and do not alter or amend the provisions that follow such headings.
14. GOVERNING LAW. This Sublease shall be construed, interpreted and applied in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
15. SEVERABILITY. Any provision of this Sublease which is prohibited by, or
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable under
Virginia law shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or declaration; the
remaining provisions of this Sublease shall remain in full force and effect.
16. NO WAIVERS. Failure of the Landlord to insist, in any one or more instances, upon
a strict performance of the covenants of this Sublease, or to exercise any option herein
contained, shall not be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment of such right, but the
same shall continue and remain in full force and effect. No waiver by the landlord of any
provision hereof shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and
signed by the Landlord.
17. AMENDMENTS. This Sublease may not be amended or modified except by written
agreement signed by both parties.
18. BENEFITS. This agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of all the
respective parties hereto, their respective successors, legal representatives and assigns.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Sublease shall constitute the full and complete
agreement between the parties, and no other prior or contemporaneous writings or
statements shall be of any consequence or have any legal effect.
20. COUNTERPARTS. This Sublease may be executed in multiple original
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and
the same agreement.
[Signatures on following page]
8
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
LANDLORD
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
________________________________
SUBTENANT
MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL
_________________________________
By:
Name:
Title:
EXHIBIT “A”
Lease Agreement
(attach here)
EXHIBIT “B”
Space Plan for Premises
(attach here)
EDGE OF EXISTING OPENING
GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES
1. THIS BUILDING CONTAINS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO: ASBESTOS, LEAD BASED PAINT, MERCURY. CONSULT WITH THE
OWNERS INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST REGARDING THE ABATEMENT AND/OR
TREATMENT OF ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL PRIOR TO START OF
DEMOLITION. REPORT ANY MATERIAL SUSPECTED OF CONTAINING
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TO THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER. MATERIALS
CONTAINING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TO BE HANDLED BY QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL ONLY. BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE TREATMENT OR REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
4'-0"
EXPAND MASONRY
OPENING FOR NEW DOOR
D255
REMOVE CHALK &
BULLETIN BOARD
1'-4"
REMOVE CHALK & BULLETIN BOARD
2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS. EXISTING MATERIALS AND
FEATURES TO BE PRESERVED ARE SIGNIFICANT AND SHALL BE
PROTECTED IN PLACE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. CHARACTER
DEFINING FEATURES NOTED TO BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE ARE TO BE
CAREFULLY REMOVED, PROTECTED DURING STORAGE AND RESTORED AS
SPECIFIED PRIOR TO RE-INSTALLATION AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS.
CONTRACTOR SHALL OBSERVE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S
STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE
"STANDARDS" AND GUIDELINES MAY JEOPARDIZE PROJECT ELIGIBILITY
FOR CERTIFIED REHABILITATION TAX CREDITS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ADHERE TO STANDARDS.
D253
NEW MASONRY OPENING 7' 'H
3. STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE PROJECT MANUAL AND BY THE OWNERS
INDUSTRIAL HYGENIST SHALL APPLY.
4. SEE MEP SET FOR DEMOLITION OF MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL
AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS.
NEW MASONRY OPENING 7'H
REMOVE FURRED
CHASE OVER EXISITNG
w/ CHUBBIE HOLES
5. COORDINATE SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR MEP
WITH NEW STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS.
6. CUTTING AND PATCHING AS REQUIRED TO LET IN NEW MEP
SYSTEMS AND INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENT ON
FINAL DESIGN IS NOT IDENTIFIED/SCOPED ON THIS DRAWING.
REMOVE CHALK & BULLETIN BOARD
4'-8"
REMOVE CASEWORK
7. CUTTING, PATCHING AND THE TREATMENT OF PAINT AND
TRANSPARENT FINISH AS RELATED TO THE HISTORIC
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC DOORS AND WINDOWS IS NOT
IDENTIFIED AND SCOPED ON THIS DRAWING.
8. ROOM NUMBERS ON DEMOLITION PLAN DO NOT CORROLATE
WITH DESIGN DRAWINGS.
10. SALVAGE ALL REMOVED WINDOWS FOR USE AS PARTS
DURING HISTORIC TREATMENT.
11. SALVAGE AND STORE ALL METAL HOPPER WINDOWS FOUND
IN THE BUILDING FOR REINSTALLATION WHERE MISSING.
DEMOLITION PLAN
0
4'
8'
3/16" =
1'-0"
12'
3
TI-1.1
12. SALVAGE CERAMIC WALL TILE THAT MATCHES TILE
WAINSCOTING IN 50s CORRIDOR FOR REUSE FOR REPAIR.
13. SALVAGE EXTERIOR BRICK TO BE REMOVED FOR REUSE IN
RESTORATION AT GARAGE DOOR.
14. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE RETAIN & PROTECT EXISTING
CASEWORK, CHALK/CORK BOARD ASSEMBLIES AND TRIM.
15. REMOVE ALL EXISTING WINDOW SHADES AND BLINDS.
16. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED REMOVE DISPLAY PANELS IN
CORRIDOR.
17. UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY OWNER'S INDUSTRIAL
HYGIENIST. EXISTING WOOD TRIM, INCLUDING BASE TRIM TO
REMAIN.
18. REMOVE & SALVAGE & STORE ALL LOOSE ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY
OWNER PRIOR TO START OF DEMO. COORDINATE w/ OWNER FOR
STORAGE OR DELIVERY OF ITEMS THAT CANNOT BE STORED ON SITE.
EXTG. STL.
BEAMS
SOFFIT FOR DUCTWORK
SOFFIT FOR PARTITION STORAGE
PARTITION TRACK
LOW
PROFILE
UNDER
CABINET
LIGHTING
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
0
4'
8'
3/16" =
1'-0"
12'
2
TI-1.1
WALL TYPE M2 w/R1
FURRING CMU
10'-5"
7'-5"
255.1
R1
8'-0"
NP OFFICE
253.3
14'-10"
NURSE
253.4
17
TI-1.2
M2
TOILET
253.2
17
TI-1.2
253.3
WAITING
255.1
RECEPTION
253.1
253.2
253.1
M.A
M3
17
TI-1.2
SHARED OFFICE
255.3
P2
13
TI-1.2
13
TI-1.2
SHELF (SEE DETAIL)
M1 HALL
MOVABLE GLASS PARTITION
W/ STATIONARY SWING
PANEL; SEE DOOR SCHED.
M3
253.8
P2
PARTITION STACK AREA
N1
M1
TREATMENT 2
253.5
BLOCK AT OPENING
ALIGN w/ FACE OF CMU
AS REQ. TO MOUNT
CABINETS AND PLAM
BACKING PANEL.
SEE DETAIL
5
TI-1.2
253.6
5
TI-1.2
TREATMENT 1
253.6
P2
253.7
9'-1 1/2"
253.5
DIRECTOR
253.7
M1
P2
WOMAN'S INITIATIVE WAITING
255.4
255.5
17
TI-1.3
EDUCATION
255.2
MEETING 2
255.5
MEETING 1
255.6
THE PROJECT MANUAL.
233 4TH STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903
JEFFERSON SCHOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, 08061
FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS.
CENTER WALL ON
EXISTING WINDOW
2
MULLIONS
TI-2.02
TYP
0
PROGRESS PRINT
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERFORMED TO THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN
P2
TENANT IMPROVEMENT FLOOR PLAN
BUSHMAN DREYFUS ARCHITECTS PLC
820 EAST HIGH ST
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
GENERAL NOTE:
ALL PROCEDURES AND CONSTRUCTION TO BE
12"D SHELVES
19
TI-1.3
JEFFERSON SCHOOL RENOVATION
255.6
255.2
M1
R1
P2
SHELF (SEE DETAIL)
255.3
255.4
253.4
M3
5' MIN. TO
OUSTIDE
OF FINISH
8'-6"
9'-4 3/4"
8'-6"
HINGED SHUTTER w/
PIN-UP SURFACE
FACING WAITING
ROOM (SEE DETAIL)
M.B
1
TI-1.2
RUN LOWER DESK SURFACE INTO CLOSET;
CABINET DOOR ABOVE & BELOW, WOOD SHELVES
ABOVE. DO NOT REPLACE HOLLOW MTL. FRAME
AFTER DEMOLITION, CLEAN OPENING, SEE DETAIL
4
TI-1.2
4'
8'
12'
POWER
3/16" =
1'-0"
1
TI-1.1
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED 8'-0" O.C. (TYP.)
MARTHA JEFFERSON PLAN
TI-1.1
EXHIBIT “C”
Tenant Up-fit Description and Estimates
(attach here)
Spreadsheet Report
Martha Jefferson
Project name
Estimator
Martha Jefferson
JW
Job size
1771 sf
Bid date
3/1/2011
Notes
Page 1
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
tenant upfit revised to reflect no shelving in Meeting1,2,and Director's
Office. Carpet in lieu of vct in meeting 1,2 women's waiting area.
Spreadsheet Report
Page 2
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
Martha Jefferson
Phase
Description
Takeoff Quantity Total Cost/Unit
Total Amount
SITEWORK
2060.00
Interior Demolition
Saw-cut Masonry
Remove masonry partition
Dust Partitions
Debris Removal
50
160
150
1
lf
sf
sf
lds
3.15
4.20
5.50
467.82
Interior Demolition
158
672
826
468
2,123
SITEWORK
2,123
MASONRY
4200.00
Masonry
Rework Openings
2 ea
525.38
Masonry
1,051
1,051
MASONRY
1,051
WOOD &
PLASTICS
6123.00
Blocking
Blocking 2 x 8
200 lf
6.90
Blocking
6410.00
1,381
1,381
Millwork & Cabinets
Base Cabinet
Wall Cabinets
Counters
Counter Tops
Reception Counter
Shelving
Special 7' high cabinet with
5 shelves
30
30
9
30
10
98
8
lf
lf
lf
lf
lf
lf
LF
255.17
220.65
165.61
94.06
400.27
23.52
434.29
Millwork & Cabinets
7,655
6,619
1,490
2,822
4,003
2,304
3,474
28,368
WOOD &
PLASTICS
29,749
DOORS &
WINDOWS
8110.00
HM Doors & Frames
Single Frames
Metal Frame with Sidelight
Window Frames
Unload and Distribute
10
2
2
14
ea
ea
ea
ea
251.47
390.96
223.95
11.21
2,515
782
448
157
Notes
Spreadsheet Report
Page 3
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
Martha Jefferson
Phase
Description
HM Doors & Frames
8200.00
3,901
12 ea
12 ea
471.62
11.21
Wood Doors
5,794
246 sf
140 sf
0.55
113.60
Entrances &
Storefronts
135
15,904 Modernfold 100SR-G
16,040
HardWr - Finishing
Finish Hardware Set
Sort, Unload, and Distribute
12 ea
12 ea
501.03
14.01
HardWr - Finishing
8800.00
5,659
134
Entrances & Storefronts
Clean Glass and Aluminum
NanaWall
8710.00
6,012
168
6,180
Glass and Glazing
Glaze Hollow Metal Frames
78 sf
15.76
Glass and Glazing
1,229
1,229
DOORS &
WINDOWS
33,145
FINISHES
9250.00
Gypsum Drywall
Int. Part. 3 5/8" stud w/ 5/8"
Gyp ES
Sound Insulation
2,600 sf
4.47
2,600 sf
1.31
Gypsum Drywall
9500.00
608 sf
3.15
1,917
1,917
Resilient Treatment
Vinyl Base
400 lf
1.58
Resilient Treatment
630
630
Carpet
Carpet Tiles
46 sy
16.81
Carpet
9900.00
3,415
15,026
Acoustical Treatment
9680.00
11,611
Acoustical Treatment
2 X 2 Acoustical Ceiling
9650.00
Notes
Wood Doors
Wood Doors
Unload and Distribute
8400.00
Total Amount
773
773
Painting
Paint GWB
Paint Wd Door & Metal
Frame
2,600 sf
14 ea
0.53
78.81
1,366
1,103
Spreadsheet Report
Page 4
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
Martha Jefferson
Phase
Description
Painting
Total Amount
2,469
FINISHES
20,816
SPECIALTIES
10440.00 Interior Signage
ADA Signage
1 ea
35.92
Interior Signage
36
36
10800.00 Toilet Accessories
Grab Bar - 18"
Grab Bars - 36"
Grab Bars - 42"
Toilet Paper Dispenser Single
Soap Dispenser- Wall
Towel Dispenser/Waste
Receptical
Sanitary Napkin Disposal
Coat Hook
Handicap Tilt Mirror
Baby Changing Station
Unload, Sort, Distribute
1
1
1
1
ea
ea
ea
ea
120.38
147.89
158.91
65.04
120
148
159
65
1 ea
1 ea
48.53
202.93
49
203
76.05
20.81
313.01
313.02
9.81
76
21
313
313
98
1
1
1
1
10
ea
ea
ea
ea
pcs
Toilet Accessories
1,565
SPECIALTIES
1,601
FURNISHINGS
12530.00 Window Treatments
Horizontal Blinds Sub
504 sf
9.38
Window Treatments
4,728 CDI
4,728
FURNISHINGS
4,728
MECHANICAL
15300.00 Sprinkler
Heads
14 ea
157.61
Sprinkler
2,207
2,207
15400.00 Plumbing
Floor Demo/Patch
Water Closets
1 ls
1 ea
525.38
2,101.52
525
2,102
Notes
Spreadsheet Report
Page 5
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
Martha Jefferson
Phase
Description
Total Amount
15400.00 Plumbing
Lavatory Sink
Exam Rm Sink
Piping For Fixtures
1 ea
3 ea
5 ea
2,626.89
2,101.52
525.38
Plumbing
2,627
6,305
2,627
14,185
15500.00 HVAC Systems
HVAC Systems Sub.
Exhaust Fan
1 lsum
1 ea
5,253.79
1,260.91
HVAC Systems
5,254
1,261
6,515
MECHANICAL
22,907
ELECTRICAL
16200.00 Power
Additional Receptacles
Light Switches
40 ea
14 ea
105.08
105.08
Power
4,203
1,471
5,674
16300.00 Lighting
Additional lights
Exit Light
18 ea
4 ea
194.39
210.15
Lighting
3,499
841
4,340
16400.00 Special Systems
Phone Box & Empty Conduit
Data Box w/ Empty Conduit
Special Systems
ELECTRICAL
14 ea
14 ea
68.30
68.30
956
956
1,912
11,926
Notes
Spreadsheet Report
Page 6A
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
Martha Jefferson
Estimate Totals
Description
Labor
Material
Subcontract
Equipment
Other
License Tax - Generic
Builders Risk Insurance
2003 C G L Insurance
Building Permit Other
nstruction Contingency
Estimating Contingency
Contractor's P&P Bond
CM @ Risk Fee
Total
Amount
9,999
36,402
78,719
2,926
128,046
Totals Hours
Rate
Cost Basis Cost per Unit
5.646 /sf
20.555 /sf
44.449 /sf
1.652 /sf
72.302 /sf
128,046
230
206
578
645
1,659
0 180
0 140
0 450
0 500
129,705
2 594
2,594
132,299
6 615
6,615
138,914
1 355
1,355
140,269
7 013
7,013
147,282
%
$/
%
%
T
100 T
T
T
2 000 %
T
1 465 /sf
74.703 /sf
5 000 %
T
3 735 /sf
78.438 /sf
B
0 765 /sf
79.203 /sf
T
3 960 /sf
83.163 /sf
5 000 %
147,282
0 130
0 116
0 326
0 364
73.238
/sf
/sf
/sf
/sf
/sf
83.163 /sf
Spreadsheet Report
Martha Jefferson
Percent of Total
6.79%
24.72%
53.45%
1.99%
86.94
86.94%
0 16%
0 14%
0 39%
0 44%
1.13
88.07%
1 76%
1.76
89.83%
4 49%
4.49
94.32%
0 92%
0.92
95.24%
4 76%
4.76 100.00%
Page 6B
3/4/2011 10:15 AM
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
Report Only
Presenter:
Staff Contacts:
Title:
NDS Power Point Infrastructure and Development
Projects
Background & Discussion: There will be a power point presentation at the
September 19, 2011 Council meeting showing infrastructure projects
managed by Neighborhood Development Services and major development
projects in review.
Recommendation: None.
Attachments:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required:
To be determined
Staff Contact:
Bill Watterson, Transit Manager
Presenter:
Bill Watterson
Title:
Charlottesville Area Transit on Holidays and Sundays
Background and Discussion: The purpose of this item is to provide information about the cost
of providing Charlottesville Area Transit service on additional holidays and/or providing
additional service on Sundays.
CAT is in service on the following City of Charlottesville holidays (date observed in FY 2012):
Day after Thanksgiving
(Friday, November 25, 2011)
Lee-Jackson Day
(Friday, January 13, 2012)
M.L. King Jr. Day
(Monday, January 16, 2012)
Presidents’ Day
(Monday, February 20, 2012)
Jefferson’s Birthday
(Friday, April 13, 2012)
The pattern of service on the dates above is to provide the same level of service as is provided
on the day of the week when the holiday is observed by the City of Charlottesville. CAT has
three different levels of service: (1) weekday; (2) Saturday; and (3) Sunday.
Additional CAT holidays in FY 2012 are:
Thanksgiving
(Thursday, November 24, 2011)
Christmas Day (observed) (Monday, December 26, 2011)
New Year’s Day (observed) (Monday, January 2, 2012)
Sunday before Memorial Day (Sunday, May 27, 2012)
Memorial Day
(Monday, May 28, 2012)
If City Council decides to fund holiday service on the dates above, then the only remaining CAT
holidays in FY 2012 would be:
Christmas Eve – daytime only(Saturday, December 24, 2011)
Christmas Day
(Sunday, December 25, 2011)
Easter
(Sunday, April 8, 2012)
During the development of the FY 2013 CAT budget, a decision on service would need to be
made for these dates:
Independence Day
(Wednesday, July 4, 2012)
Sunday before Labor Day
(Sunday, September 2, 2012)
Labor Day
(Monday, September 3, 2012)
CAT is scheduled to provide service every Sunday in FY 2012 except:
Sunday before Labor Day
(Sunday, September 4, 2011)
Christmas Day
(Sunday, December 25, 2011)
Easter
(Sunday, April 8, 2012)
Sunday before Memorial Day(Sunday, May 27, 2012)
CAT operates only the FREE Trolley and Route 7 on Sundays. Sunday service was introduced
in August 2007.
Budget Impact: In FY 2012, the cost associated with providing CAT service on additional
holidays and/or providing additional service on Sundays is dependent on the effective date of
any service additions, the number of additional service days, and the level of service to be
provided. For example, at the low end of cost would be to provide a Sunday level of service on
Thanksgiving, Christmas Day (observed), New Year’s Day (observed), Sunday before Memorial
Day, and Memorial Day. Sunday service on these dates would cost $12,500 plus an added cost
to be determined by JAUNT for the provision of Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA)
paratransit service on these dates. The high end of cost would be in excess of $500,000.
Because FY 2012 is underway, any added costs this year may be lower than they will be in FY
2013 because of the possibility that there will be more added service days in a full year than in a
partial year. Again, for example, the low end of cost in FY 2013 might include a Sunday level of
service on Independence Day, Sunday before Labor Day, and Labor Day in addition to the
dates listed above for FY 2012. Thus, a full year cost would be approximately $20,000 for this
type of change.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that a decision on whether to fund CAT service on
additional holidays and/or provide additional service on Sundays be part of the FY 2013 budget
process. In this way, these possible service revisions could be considered at the same time as
the Transit Development Plan service improvements recommended for FY 2013, and other
potential improvements. Major additions to Sunday service would require the addition of new
positions. The number would be dependent on the level of service.
Alternatives: (1) In FY 2012, provide a Sunday level of service on Thanksgiving, Christmas
Day (observed), New Year’s Day (observed), Sunday before Memorial Day, and Memorial Day.
Work with JAUNT to determine the amount of additional funding required for ADA services and
appropriate $12,500 additional to CAT. (2) Determine whether to fund CAT service on
additional holidays and/or provide additional service on Sundays as part of the FY 2013 budget
process. (2) Direct staff to develop an implementation plan for both the Sunday level of service
listed in Alternative 1 and an increased level of service on Sundays.
September 12, 2011
Mr. Dave Norris, Mayor
Box 911, City Hall
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mr. Norris:
I soon will be developing the first draft of the 2012 Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program. Accordingly, I would like
to appear before Council to explain the process for developing the
program, to highlight some of the issues being considered for inclusion in
the program, and most importantly, to receive input from Council
concerning items it would like to see in the program. For your
information, I have attached a summary of the priority items from this past
year.
Specifically, I would like to come before Council at its September
19th meeting. My presentation would be very brief, to be followed by any
suggestions/discussion Council members may wish to have. I plan to
circulate a copy of the draft program to you (early October) and will
request to come before Council again in November to seek concurrence
with the program.
Thank you for your attention to this request. I look forward to seeing
you soon.
Sincerely,
David C. Blount
Legislative Liaison
Thomas Jefferson Planning District
2011 Legislative Priorities
(Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson &
Charlottesville City)
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
• The state and federal governments must provide major and reliable forms of financial and
technical assistance for comprehensive water quality improvement strategies.
• We support fairness in applying requirements for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading
across source sectors, along with accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors to meet
such requirements.
• We will oppose actions that impose monitoring, management or similar requirements on
localities without providing sufficient resources.
STATE/LOCAL FUNDING and REVENUES
• The state should honor its funding obligations to localities and resist cost-shifting to localities.
• In the face of continuing state budget woes and funding reductions to localities, the state
should relax state requirements or provide flexibility for meeting requirements, and should not
further restrict local revenue authority.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
• The state should fully fund its share of realistic costs of the Standards of Quality (SOQ)
without making formula changes that shift the funding burden to localities.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
• We request separate and dedicated state revenues for all transportation modes.
• The state should restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction.
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
• We request additional tools to manage growth without preempting or circumventing existing
local authorities in this area.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
• We urge a better partnership between the state and localities in containing the costs of CSA,
and in balancing CSA responsibilities. We support additional state funding for administering
CSA, as localities foot the bill for most of these costs.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date:
September 19, 2011
Action Required: YES
Staff Contacts:
Judith M. Mueller, Director of Public Works
Presenter :
Erin Yancey, TJPDC
Title:
Regional Solid Waste Management Plan
Background: The state of Virginia is requiring all localities to update their solid
waste management plans.
Discussion : The City of Charlottesville has joined together with the Counties of
Albemarle, Greene, and Fluvanna and the towns of Columbia, Scottsville and
Stanardsville to form the Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Planning Unit (TJSWPU)
to meet the planning requirements of 9VAC20-130-30. The recommendations of
the plan are to take a regional approach, increase materials recovery, reduce our
total waste and increase outreach.
Budgetary Impact: None at this time.
Attachment : Draft 2011 TJSWPU Solid Waste Management Plan
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Adoption & Amendment History .................................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 2 2 Profile of the Solid Waste Planning Unit .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 Population and Growth Projections ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Development Patterns and Geographic Conditions ......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Economic Growth and Development.................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Transportation Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Markets for the Reuse and Recycling of Materials .......................................................................................... 6 3 Current & Historical Solid Waste Management Systems ......................................................................... 8 3.1 Current Waste Generation Rates ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Existing & Planned Solid Waste Management Programs............................................................................ 11 Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Planning Unit .................................................................................................... 11 City of Charlottesville ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Albemarle County ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) ............................................................................................................. 12 Fluvanna County ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Greene County ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 University of Virginia (UVa) .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Historical Waste Generation ............................................................................................................................. 16 4 Future Solid Waste Management Systems ......................................................................................... 28 4.1 Estimates of Future Needs .................................................................................................................................. 28 4.2 System Capacity for the 20-Year Planning Period ...................................................................................... 30 Long-Term Disposal Capacity ............................................................................................................................... 31 4.3 Strategic Plan & 20 Year Timeline ................................................................................................................... 32 Introduction and Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................... 32 Integrated Waste Management Framework & Implementation Plan .......................................................... 32 4.4 Meeting 25% Recycling Rate ............................................................................................................................ 37 4.5 Future Treatment Options ................................................................................................................................... 37 4.6 Public Outreach Programs .................................................................................................................................. 38 4.7 Funding Arrangements & Options ..................................................................................................................... 38 4.8 Solid Waste Systems Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 39 5 Summary & Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 40 Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 44 2011 Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Planning Unit Committee & Commissioners ......................................... 44 Locality Recycling Rate Calculations ........................................................................................................................ 45 2006 20-Year Implementation Plan Progress Log ............................................................................................... 46 Letter from BFI .............................................................................................................................................................. 49 Advertisement for October 6, 2011 Public Hearing............................................................................................ 50 Extract from Public Hearing & Adoption, October 6, 2011 .............................................................................. 51 2011 TJSWPU Solid Waste Management Plan DRAFT
Draft for consideration October 6, 2011
List of Figures
Figure 1. Population density in the SWPU ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Solid waste management facilities: Active and closed ............................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Reuse Facility in Fluvanna County (Left) & Zion CrossRoads Recycling Center (Right).................... 15 Figure 4. Recycling rate trends ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Per capita waste generation trends ........................................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. The estimated component parts of the national MSW stream.............................................................. 29 Figure 7. Recycling and reuse facilities in SWPU (a subset) ................................................................................. 31 Figure 8. Glass Recycling in Fluvanna County and recycling event held in 2009 ............................................ 37 List of Tables
Table 1. Population History and Projections ................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Number of Households ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Unemployment Rate ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Median Household Income, in dollars ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 5. Existing Solid Waste Management Facilities in the TJSWPU: Active & Closed by Locality............. 9 Table 6. TJPDC 2010 Estimated Current Waste Generation Rates (in tons) ..................................................... 10 Table 7. TJPDC 1993 Waste Generation Rates (in tons) ...................................................................................... 17 Table 8. TJPDC 1995 Waste Generation Rates (in tons) ...................................................................................... 18 Table 9. TJPDC 2001 Waste Generation Rates (in tons) ...................................................................................... 19 Table 10. TJPDC 2002 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 20 Table 11. TJPDC 2003 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 21 Table 12. TJPDC 2004 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 22 Table 13. TJPDC 2005 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 23 Table 14. TJPDC 2006 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 24 Table 15. TJPDC 2007 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 25 Table 16. TJPDC 2008 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 26 Table 17. TJPDC 2009 Waste Generation Rates (in tons).................................................................................... 27 Table 18. TJPDC 2030 Estimated Future Waste Generation Rates (in tons)..................................................... 28 Table 19. Solid Waste Management System Capacity (public facilities) .......................................................... 30 Table 20. TJSWPU waste handled through private sector facilities (Tons)........................................................ 30 Table 21. TJSWPU Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................................. 33 2011 TJSWPU Solid Waste Management Plan
E x e c u t iv e S u m m a r y
This document is an update to the Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Management Plan. It includes a
description of existing and projected solid waste needs and facilities, as well as a plan for management of
the solid waste generated by residential, industrial and commercial activities of the Thomas Jefferson Solid
Waste Planning Unit (TJSWPU). This document serves as the regional plan for the TJSWPU, which is made
up of the Counties of Albemarle, Greene, and Fluvanna, the City of Charlottesville, and the towns of
Columbia, Scottsville, and Stanardsville. The plan meets the solid waste planning requirements of 9VAC20130-120 for each locality participating in the planning unit by describing existing and proposed solid
waste management systems that support the hierarchy of source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource
recovery, incineration, and landfilling, as set forth in 9VAC20-130-30.
The committee of citizens and public and private sector representatives met regularly over the course of a
year to amend this plan both to satisfy the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality requirements,
and to serve as a basis for strategic planning for solid waste in the longer term. The group reviewed data
and trends on waste generation, recycling, reuse, and disposal, comparing it with data available about
solid waste management systems capacity to determine future needs. While some elements of the plan will
require additional study, the group recommends the following basic strategies:
1. Regional approach: Regional efforts will yield better results than localized solutions, especially with
high costs and capital needs for operations. Cooperative contracting, collection, disposal and recycling
operations can provide budget and resource savings, and allow the region to join markets at a
competitive level with larger cities.
2. Increased recovery: Recovery of a larger percent of valuable material, such as recyclables and organic
matter, leads to a better balance sheet and longer disposal facility lifetimes.
3. Reduce total waste: Source reduction, reuse, and recycling decrease the need for landfilling, which is
generally not considered a desirable option. In order to limit the negative impacts our communities
have on others, the total volume of waste disposed of should be kept to a minimum.
4. Increased outreach: Increased recovery and reduced total waste can only be achieved by an aware
citizenry, institutions, and business community.
Ad o p tion & Ame nd me n t H is to ry
The Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) on June 29, 2004. Further planning work was required beyond 2004 because the planning unit
did not achieve the required 25% recycling rate. The plan was considered final by the DEQ in 2006 when
the planning unit reached the required recycling rate. A progress log on the 2006 plan can be found in
the Appendices. [The required five-year update of the plan was adopted by the TJPDC on October 6, 2011.]
Page 1 of 51
2011 TJSWPU Solid Waste Management Plan DRAFT
1 In tr o du ctio n an d B ack gr o u nd
In 1990, the Virginia Department of Waste Management published regulations for the development of
Solid Waste Management Plans. The regulations established minimum solid waste management standards
and planning requirements applicable to all cities, counties, towns, or designated regions in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
The first regional solid waste plan undertaken by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) was adopted in 1983 in response to the Virginia Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act of
1979. Another plan was developed and adopted by all member governments in 1989. The TJPDC
adopted its first plan required under the new regulations in 1991. Amendments to Virginia’s solid waste
regulations required that the region submit a new plan in 2004 (the TJSWPU’s was considered finalized
by the DEQ in 2006), and update the plan every five years. At the time of the original plan, the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District, Virginia Planning District 10, was designated as the “region” for purposes of
solid waste management planning.
The Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Planning Unit (TJSWPU) now includes the Counties of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, and Greene, the City of Charlottesville, and the Towns of Columbia, Stanardsville, and
Scottsville. The region has the same boundaries as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (Planning District
10) with the exclusion of Louisa and Nelson Counties, and the Towns of Louisa and Mineral. The City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County created the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) for waste
management, operation and reporting. The University of Virginia (UVa) is also located within the SWPU.
RSWA and UVa maintain representation on the TJSWPU’s committee to contribute to planning activities for
the unit. Both contributed to the content of this plan. Louisa County and its towns have their own solid waste
management plan. Nelson County is taking part in the Region 2000 solid waste management plan.
This plan is designed to meet state planning requirements and to assist member governments with planning
and decision making for solid waste management issues over the next 20 years. It includes a summary of
the findings and recommendations of a steering committee composed of local staff and members of the
public appointed by localities, and private sector individuals. In 2006, members of the committee
recommended strategies to implement the goal and objectives related to solid waste management found in
the 1998 Sustainability Accords, a document endorsed by all TJPDC localities that has served as a guide
for long-term viability of economic, environmental, and social resources and institutions in the region. Many
of the strategies in the 2011 update carry over from the 2006 plan as ongoing activities. The dispositions
of strategies from the 2006 plan are included in a progress report found in the Appendices. New
strategies developed by the committee respond to other recent planning initiatives involving solid waste
management, and accomplishments and changes since 2006 that provide new opportunities to accomplish
plan goals.
Feedback was incorporated into the updated plan through a review process that included the committee,
locality planning staff and administrators, TJPD Commissioners, other local elected officials, and the public.
Economic, environmental, social, transportation and feasibility concerns were taken into account in
developing the recommendations in the plan. Short and long term goals are included, as well as specific
projects and timelines for implementation.
Page 2 of 53
2011 TJSWPU Solid Waste Management Plan
2 Profile of the Solid Waste Planning Unit
2 .1 Po p ulatio n and Gro wth P ro je ction s
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District is located roughly in the geographic center of the Commonwealth.
The counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene, the City of Charlottesville and the incorporated towns of
Columbia, Scottsville and Stanardsville make up the Solid Waste Planning Unit. The City of Charlottesville
and the urban portions of Albemarle County, including the University of Virginia, constitute the economic,
educational and cultural hub of the region.
As the following population figures show, the region has grown by approximately 15% from 2000 to
2010. While each locality has grown steadily over the past decade, most showed a decreased rate of
growth from the previous decade, excluding the City of Charlottesville, whose growth rate increased from
2000 - 2010.
TABLE 1. POPULATION HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS
Locality
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
Solid Waste Unit
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
40,341
68,040
12,429
10,297
131,107
40,099
84,186
20,047
15,244
159,576
43,475
98,970
25,691
18,403
186,539
44,125
110,725
32,654
22,002
209,505
45,036
123,779
41,008
25,950
235,773
Source: US Census (1990 ‐ 2010); Virginia Employment Commission (2020, 2030 ‐ adjusted projections based on the % error between 2010 VEC projections and 2010 decennial census) TABLE 2. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Locality
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
Solid Waste Unit
1990
2000
2005 - 2009
% Change from
2000
16,099
24,387
4,495
3,737
50,708
16,851
31,876
7,387
5,574
63,688
17,037
36,894
9,276
6,741
69,948
1%
16%
26%
21%
10%
Source: US Census American Community Survey (2010 Census data not yet released) Page 3 of 51
2011 TJSW
WPU Solid Waste Management Plan DRAFT
D
Draft for considerration October 6, 2011
2 . 2 Dev el o p m en t P a t t e rn s a n d Geog r a p h i c C o n d i t io n s
Census da
ata and local comprehensivve planning information shoow the major population ceenters and groowth
areas. The
e City of Charlottesville and the surround
ding urban rinng in Albemarle County arre home to rouughly
half the population of the
t SWPU. Fluuvanna and Greene
G
grew at a faster thhan average rate from 200
00 –
mpared to other Virginia co
ounties. The Ro
oute 29 corrid
dor and the I--64/250 corrridor are the m
major
2010 com
residential, commercial, and industria
al areas outsiide of the cityy and small toowns. Most loccalities have
policies in effect to perrsuade growthh around existing centers a
and reduce thee potential foor sprawling
ment over time
e.
developm
FIGURE 1. POPULATION
N DENSITY IN THE SWPU
Page 4 off 53
A LBEMARLE
Albemarle County has defined development areas around the City of Charlottesville and north of the City
along the Route 29 corridor, in the area of Crozet to the west of Charlottesville, and along Route 250 to
the east of Charlottesville. The western side of the County is bounded by the Blue Ridge Mountains and
Shenandoah National Park. Outside the development areas, the remainder of the County is rolling
Piedmont landscape dotted with a mix of residential, agricultural and minor commercial uses. Residential
growth has occurred both inside and outside of the development areas, but in recent years the balance has
tipped to the development areas. The major commercial corridors are Route 29, particularly north of
Charlottesville, and Route 250 east. The Town of Scottsville is located in the southeastern corner of
Albemarle on the James River. A small portion of the town is in Fluvanna County.
C HARLOTTESVILLE
The City of Charlottesville is essentially “built-out” at this point. Infill and redevelopment have started to
occur. The City is entirely surrounded by the County of Albemarle and can expand no further. Much of the
City is residential, with major commercial areas located in the Main Street area (Business Route 250 and
the downtown pedestrian mall) and along Route 29. The University of Virginia is the major employer in the
City and straddles the City/County’s western boarder. The City features a rolling landscape and is
bounded by the Rivanna River and Moore’s Creek on its east and south sides, respectively.
F LUVANNA
Fluvanna County experienced a high rate of population growth through the 1990s and maintained higher
than average growth rates through the following decade. Most of this growth has been centered on the
Lake Monticello development in the western portion of the County, to the northwest of the county seat of
Palmyra. This has brought minor amounts of commercial development to serve the residents; however,
Fluvanna residents still largely commute to Charlottesville and Albemarle County for employment, goods
and services. Fluvanna County terrain is relatively flat compared to the counties to the west, and becomes
increasingly gentle as one moves east. The Rivanna River bisects the County running northwest to southeast,
and the James River forms its southern boundary. The small town of Columbia is found at the confluence of
the two rivers in the southeast.
G REENE
Greene County has also experienced rapid growth, primarily in the southeast along the Route 29 corridor.
The rapid residential growth in this area is primarily made up of commuters to Albemarle County and
Charlottesville. Increasing employment opportunities coupled with rising housing costs in Albemarle have
made Greene County an increasingly attractive option for potential homeowners. Some commercial
development has occurred along the Route 29 corridor as well, but county residents still travel to
Albemarle for many goods and services. Greene County is bounded on the west by the Blue Ridge
Mountains and Shenandoah National Park. Similar to Albemarle, the terrain of Greene County falls away
into foothills eastward from the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Town of Stanardsville serves as the County Seat
and is a hub for residential development.
2 .3 E co no mic Growth and D e v e lo pme n t
The overall economic growth for the region in the 1990s and early 2000s was very healthy, with various
indicators showing positive trends. Despite the 2008 nationwide recession, each locality, and the region
maintain lower unemployment rates than those of the state and nation. Median income also grew steadily
in each jurisdiction.
Page 5 of 51
TABLE 3. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Locality
1994
2000
2010
Charlottesville
3.3%
2.6%
6.0%
Albemarle
2.4%
1.7%
5.0%
Fluvanna
Greene
Solid Waste Unit
Virginia
National
3.8%
3.9%
3.4%
4.9%
6.1%
1.9%
1.9%
2.0%
2.2%
3.7%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
6.9%
9.3%
Source: Virginia Employment Commission TABLE 4. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, IN DOLLARS
Locality
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
Solid Waste Unit
1990
$24,190
$36,886
$31,378
$29,799
$30,563
2000
$32,903
$53,263
$46,630
$46,882
$44,920
2009
$38,369
$64,306
$62,163
$54,153
$54,748
% Change
from 2000
17%
21%
33%
16%
22%
Source: US Census American Community Survey
Reflecting national trends, the greatest increases in jobs in the SWPU have been in the service, retail,
wholesale, and government sectors, while farm and manufacturing jobs have been on the decline. Major
employers in the area include the University of Virginia, Martha Jefferson Hospital, State Farm, GE Fanuc,
Dominion Virginia Power, Lexis Publishing, Crutchfield Corporation, FIC Staff Services, Piedmont Virginia
Community College, Klockner-Pentaplast, and the Virginia Department of Corrections.
2 .4 T ran sp o rtatio n C o nd ition s
Transportation within the SWPU revolves around Interstate 64 on the east-west axis and Route 29 on the
primary north-south axis. Other major transportation corridors include Route 15 through Fluvanna County,
which travels roughly north-south, and Route 6, which passes through southern Fluvanna County and into
northern Nelson County to the west. Route 33 cuts through Greene County on an east-west axis. Corridors
other than Route 29 and Interstate 64 do not have the capacity for heavier volumes of traffic. Narrow
roads and hilly conditions characterize rural areas that are traversed by county owned, state maintained
secondary routes. The secondary system is more challenging for larger trucks to travel and occasional snow
in winter can cause transportation delays of several days at times. Rail service runs both north-south and
east-west through the region, including through Charlottesville and many small towns.
2 .5 Marke ts fo r the R eu s e an d Re cyclin g o f Mate rials
Reuse of household materials is common in the area, and markets include used clothing, sporting goods,
and pawn shops, yard sales, rummage sales, the Habitat Shop, and other building supply recovery
operations. Reuse of inert fill is generally accomplished locally. Non-profits accept donations of old cars,
Page 6 of 53
appliances, equipment, eyeglasses, and other useful items. Online options include Freecycle and Craigslist,
which are online message board where items to be given away can be posted and claimed.
Most materials destined to be recycled are shipped out of the region, since there are few local processors
or markets. For example, cardboard collected by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority goes to Georgia.
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) and paper products are exceptions, however. The van der Linde
Recycling facility recycles local CDD at a rate exceeding 90%, and Weyerhaeuser recycles a portion of
the regions waste paper. National markets affect pricing at the local level, and some materials, like green
glass, have been steadily losing national markets, and therefore value. Processing fees for separation of
aluminum from steel affect the profitability of recycling metals. Cycle Systems, Inc. and other scrap dealers
accept metals to be recycled. Waste oil and antifreeze are collected for recycling by contractors that
service the region.
Organic wastes are readily consumed by a number of public and private mulching operations. Public
operations include Charlottesville’s leaf collection and Christmas tree programs offered by Charlottesville
and Albemarle. Panorama Farms in Albemarle County accepts organic material to be composted, and a
new composting facility is expected to open late in 2011. The new facility will be the first to offer postconsumer food waste composting to the region.
Page 7 of 51
2011 TJSW
WPU Solid Waste Management Plan DRAFT
D
Draft for considerration October 6, 2011
3 Currrrent & Historical Solid Waste Management Syysstems
FIGURE 2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMEENT FACILITIESS: ACTIVE AN D CLOSED
Page 8 off 53
The following table details the existing and closed waste management facilities in each locality. The table
identifies those that have been permitted through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and
does not provide a complete inventory of closed landfill sites that were either used informally or were not
permitted. The closed facilities identified on this table are those for which the locality or authority is
responsible for any necessary remediation.
TABLE 5. EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE TJSWPU: ACTIVE & CLOSED BY LOCALITY
Locality
RSWA
Facility name
Type
Status
Permit Year
Ivy Material Utilization Ctr.
Transfer Station
Active
1997
Ivy Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1997
RSWA Compost Facility
MSW Composting
Facility
Closed (2001)
1998
Albemarle
Keene Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1974
Charlottesville
Eldercare Gardens
Regulated Medical Waste
(RMW) Incineration
Permitted by Right
(PBR) prior to 1994
HCMF Heritage Hall
RMW Storage Only
PBR prior to 1994
Martha Jefferson Hospital
RMW Incineration
PBR prior to 1994
University of Virginia
RMW Incineration
PBR prior to 1994
Virginia Ambulatory Surgery
Center
RMW Storage only
Active
1998
Old 5th Street Landfill
Unlined landfill
Closed
1960’s
BFI Fluvanna County
Transcyclery
Fluvanna Correctional
Unit#5
Fluvanna County Sanitary
Landfill
Fluvanna County Sanitary
Landfill
Zion Crossroads Recycling
Center (MSW MRF) & Van
der Linde Recycling (CDD
MRF)
Greene County MRF & Co Compost
Greene County Transfer
Station
Greene County Sanitary
Landfill
Greene County Sanitary
Landfill
Materials Recovery
Facility
Active
1995
RMW Steam Sterilization
PBR prior to 1994
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1974
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1983
MSW and CDD
Materials Recovery
Facility
Active
CDD: 2007
MSW: 2009
Materials Recovery
Facility
Closed
1994
Transfer Station
Active
1994
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1974
Sanitary Landfill
Closed
1978
Fluvanna
Greene
Source: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and local governments
Page 9 of 51
3 .1 Cu rre n t Was te Ge n e ratio n R ate s
The following table provides a breakdown of waste generated by type, as reported to the DEQ in 2011.
TABLE 6. TJPDC 2010 ESTIMATED CURRENT WASTE GENERATION RATES (IN TONS)
Municipal Solid Waste Disposed
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Other (non-industrial)
Primary Recyclable Materials
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Yard Waste (composted or mulched)
Waste wood (chipped or mulched)
Textiles
Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Electronics
Inoperative Motor Vehicles
Other - fat, bone, grease
Other - composted sludge
Other - Auction Waste
Solid Waste Reused
Reclaimed MSW (Encore Shop)
Building material (Habitat Store)
UVA Move-Out
Non-MSW Recycled
MERCI
Ash
Base Recycling Rate
Adjusted Recycling Rate
Total Waste Generated
Population
Per capita waste production
Expected waste
RSWA*
6,9199.58
69,198
2
0
0
23,345
5,415
601
354
635
6,874
3,513
671
455
351
1,350
39
71
36
170
Fluvanna
3,372.04
3,372
0
0
0
1,214
62
39
0
0
1,100
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.5%
Greene
24,431
16,346
8,085
0
0
6,463
3,160
2,382
65
45
0
340
110
163
105
63
0
1
2
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.9%
Region
97,002.62
88,916
8,087
0
0
31,022
8,637
3,021
419
680
7,974
3,853
781
618
457
1,423
39
72
40
197
0
397
397
2,413
2,413
17
17
1,427
1,427
10
10
1,400
1,400
17
17
10,535
10,535
29
29
10,506
10,506
25.2%
24.2%
29.2%
104,507
4,586
30,894
139,987
137,676
25,732
18,421
181,829
0.76
0.18
1.68
0.77
EPA ave. tons per capita not available at time of plan
adoption.
Source: 2010 TJSWPU Recycling Rate Report
*The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority reports the recycling numbers for Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville,
and Town of Scottsville as a combined number.
**Adjusted recycling rates incorporate credits for reuse and source reduction.
***TJPDC estimates the 2010 tonnages to be approximately 25% underreported, and the actual 2010 regional recycling rate to
be approximately 31.1%. Refer to Appendix A for explanation.
Page 10 of 53
3 .2 Ex is tin g & P lan n e d So lid Was te Man age me n t P rograms
Thomas Jefferson Solid Waste Planning Unit
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) acts as the central clearinghouse for solid waste
planning and reporting on behalf of the local governments that make up the TJSWPU. TJPDC is the
designated central archive for receiving and recording information on solid waste generation, recycling,
facilities, and to calculate and submit the annual regional recycling rate report to the DEQ. The TJPDC is
also responsible for implementation of plan strategies. The TJPDC maintains a recycling website for the
TJSWPU to serve as a centralized resource for citizens of the planning unit and participates in public
education/outreach events to engage citizens. The TJPDC has also developed environmentally preferable
procurement guidelines for use by member localities.
Localities in the planning region use similar strategies to promote proper waste disposal, waste reduction,
reuse, and recycling, with more densely populated localities offering additional services. In general,
localities in the planning unit encourage citizens to reduce, reuse, and recycle by charging for MSW
disposal, while providing recycling options free of charge. On-going litter control is provided by a
combined effort of law enforcement, trash cans in public spaces, the Virginia Department of
Transportation’s Adopt-a-Highway program, and by annual river clean-up events organized by the
Rivanna Conservation Society.
Additionally, a number of recycling services are available to the region’s residents from local retailers.
Businesses such as Best Buy, Crutchfield, Home Depot, Whole Foods, Carpet Plus, Target, and Goodwill
Industries provide recycling for a number of special wastes on an on-going basis. As mentioned previously,
the region is also home to the Zion Crossroads Recycling Center, a Materials Recovery Facility that
separates recyclables from the MSW stream it receives. A number of private haulers from around the
region use this facility.
A recent planning initiative of partners in the region called the Local Climate Action Planning Process
(LCAPP) also makes recommendations for responsible solid waste management. The City of Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and UVa undertook an 18-month planning and public engagement process between
2009 and 2011 to address the role of energy and climate resiliency issues for their communities. Out of
this process, governing bodies of the City, County and UVa will consider several recommendations on how
to reduce the impact of materials utilization on climate change. The recommendations directly related to
solid waste reduction are included as strategies in this Plan.
The following sections provide a comprehensive description of systems and programs administered in the
TJSWPU that support and promote the solid waste hierarchy set forth in 9VAC20-130-30.
COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION
Weekly residential curbside collection includes source separated recycling, contracted through Republic
Services, and household trash, contracted through Waste Management, Inc. Commercial corridors receive
daily trash and recycling (newsprint, mixed paper, glass, metals, plastics, cardboard) pick-up. The
program is a “pay as you throw” program, where trash stickers and decals are purchased by customers,
and recycling is free. Curbside customers may choose to use private haulers who also collect from
commercial and multifamily dumpsters. Individuals can also drive to the Ivy MUC or McIntire recycling
center. Each resident may request two bulky item pick-ups per year for appliances, large branches, and
other over-sized items for $25 per appointment. Construction and demolition debris must be transported
privately. Private companies also service cardboard recycling bins at private businesses. Recycling bins
Page 11 of 51
located at many larger apartment complexes, particularly near the University, are serviced by the same
contractor that runs curbside pick-up.
STORAGE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
All of the City's MSW goes to the Zion Crossroads Recycling Center where recyclables are pulled from the
waste stream and shipped to recycling markets. MSW that is not separated for recycling is taken to a
permitted landfill in Amelia County for final disposal. All source separated recyclables are taken to the BFI
Fluvanna County Transcyclery in Zion Crossroads where it is trucked to a Chester, Virginia MRF where it is
processed and shipped to recycling markets. Christmas trees are ground into mulch, which is available free
to citizens. Leaves and yard waste are ground into mulch by a private composter.
WASTE REDUCTION AND REUSE
The City encourages citizens to reduce waste by charging for trash removal by the bag, while recycling
pick up is free. Leaves are picked up in the fall in a special free program, and Christmas trees are also
picked up free curbside citywide. Trash cans help reduce litter in the City, and recycling cans are
collocated with trashcans on the pedestrian mall downtown. Additionally, the City promotes proper
disposal of household hazardous waste and electronics recycling on its website.
Albemarle Coun ty
Businesses, industries, and individuals are responsible for making their own waste collection and recycling
arrangements, with curbside collection contracts available in the more developed areas of the county.
Curbside collection activity can be inefficient and disruptive when multiple individual contracts exist along
one road. Self-delivery to the Ivy MUC, the McIntire Recycling Center, or the three county
newspaper/glossy paper bins (located in the parking lots near Sam’s Club on route 29, Roses at Pantops,
and the Community Center in Scottsville) is the only option for those in the rural areas and available to all
others. The McIntire Recycling (described below) accepts a variety of recyclable materials. The Ivy MUC
accepts MSW and limited recycling at the convenience center portion of the facility.
Private haulers deliver waste to one of several transfer stations in the region. The majority of waste is
handled through the RSWA’s Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC), the Zion Crossroads Recycling Center,
and the BFI Fluvanna County Transcyclery. Sludge from the RWSA treatment plant at Moore’s Creek is
composted and sold.
The County partially funds waste reduction and reuse initiatives administered by the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (described below). Additionally, two departments of the local government administer
Environmental Management Systems programs that include source reduction and recycling components.
The County also maintains a Green Resource Map on the County web site as a resource for residents.
Rivanna Solid Was te Authority (RSWA)
RSWA was established jointly by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County to administer solid
waste services to the citizens of each.
RSWA offers no collection services. RSWA contracts with private haulers to transport wastes accumulated
at the Ivy MUC and the McIntire Recycling Center to a variety of final destinations.
Page 12 of 53
The Ivy MUC operates a waste transfer station, vegetative (stumps, brush, etc.) waste mulching operation,
collection centers for white goods, pallets, tires, and the Encore Shop for collection of reusable items. The
citizens’ convenience center, just outside the scales for the transfer station, includes easy drop-offs for trash
in bags or receptacles, and recyclable materials, including cardboard, newspaper, and waste motor oils.
The Ivy MUC is open weekdays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Waste collected at the MUC that is not
separated at the convenience center for recycling is sent to Amelia County for disposal in a permitted
landfill.
The RSWA transfer station accepts municipal solid waste from private citizens and private haulers servicing
the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County at $66/ton, with a $5 minimum, plus a service fee for
each visit to the scales of $1 for county users and $10 for City users on all transactions. Small pick-up
trucks, 8-foot bed or equivalent, with CDD are also accepted for the same tipping fee. Larger loads of
CDD will be directed to the other facilities in the area. Clean fill, stumps, and brush are accepted at the
MUC as well. RSWA also provides confidential document destruction. Vegetative debris and wooden
pallets are ground into chips/mulch for resale.
RSWA also operates the McIntire Recycling Center located on McIntire road in Charlottesville. It is open for
use by City and Albemarle County residents. The Center is open five days per week, closing at 5:20 p.m.
each day with varying opening times. The center accepts boxboard, file stock, corrugated cardboard,
newspapers, glossy paper, phone books, glass, #1 and #2 plastics in separate bins as well as #3 - #7 in
comingled bins, and metal and aluminum cans. RSWA contracts with Weyerhaeuser for the paper goods
collected. Glass, metals and plastics are sold to the various buyers based on market conditions.
The Encore Shop, part of the Ivy MUC, provides a protected area where people can leave reusable items
and pick up items for re-use. Mulch from the grinding of stumps and brush is sold there as well. Household
hazardous waste and amnesty days (furniture, mattresses, appliances, and tires) are held at the Ivy MUC
during advertised special events. A book exchange is offered at the McIntire Recycling Center.
Fluva nna County
Individuals, businesses and industries are generally responsible for waste hauling and recycling activities
via either contract with a private firm or self-delivery to the convenience center located in Fork Union. The
convenience center is open to the public Tuesday from 9:00am to 4:00pm, Thursday from 11:00am to
7:00pm, and Saturday - 8:00am to 5:00pm. It accepts newspaper, cardboard, telephone books,
aluminum cans, plastic bottles, glass and used motor oil free of charge, and MSW at $57/ton, with an $8
minimum. Tires and appliances are also accepted at a charge. The convenience center is closed to any
commercial waste. The Zion Crossroads Recycling Center accepts construction and demolition debris and
MSW. At Lake Monticello, a private hauler collects MSW; curbside recycling is included for plastics, glass,
metal and newspaper.
The BFI Fluvanna County Transcyclery private transfer station is located on 250 at Zion Crossroads.
Fluvanna County contracts with BFI to transfer convenience center waste to this facility where recyclables
are sent to a variety of markets, and MSW is hauled to the Amelia County landfill for disposal. This facility
is not open to cash customers. The Zion Crossroads Recycling Center operates as a materials recovery
facility, hauling processed materials to secondary market recyclers and unacceptable materials to the
Amelia County landfill. RSWA has a contract with Fluvanna to bring its wood grinding operation to
Fluvanna on an as-needed basis.
Page 13 of 51
Fluvanna encourages citizens to recycle by offering recycling collection at the convenience center for free,
while charging for MSW collection. The County also oversees a low maintenance reuse facility consisting
of a covered lot where citizens can leave reusable items that others are free to pick up, free of charge.
Additionally, the County has considered establishing an EMS, but the initiative was put on hiatus because of
budget concerns.
Greene County
Individuals, businesses, and industries are generally responsible for waste hauling and recycling activities
via either contract with a private firm or self-delivery. County residents may use the transfer station and
recycling center located off Route 33 at 358 Mays Road, southeast of Stanardsville. The facility is open
Monday through Saturday from 8 am to 4 pm. Recyclables collected include plastic, glass, paper
(newsprint, magazines, and phone books), metals and corrugated cardboard. White goods, appliances,
tires, furniture, and construction and demolition debris are also accepted. The transfer station accepts
MSW from county residents, private haulers, and commercial sources.
In addition to MSW and recyclables generated within the county, the transfer station accepts residential
and commercial MSW that originates in neighboring localities. The relatively lower tipping fee charged at
this transfer station makes it an attractive option for haulers and individuals in the vicinity. This additional
business is welcomed by the County because the additional revenue from tipping fees covers the entire
cost of operating the transfer station. Because MSW originating from outside the County is not accounted
for as such, the entire tonnage received at the transfer station is used in calculating Greene County’s
annual recycling rate. This results in an artificially low rate for recycling taking place in the County.
Recyclables accumulated at the transfer center are shipped to a variety of markets. The transfer station
operator contracts with private haulers to transport accumulated MSW to the Amelia County landfill.
A volunteer run waste exchange program makes clothing and other re-usable items available to the public
at no charge. A retailer periodically takes a truck to the County containing off-merchandise for people to
take items free of charge. Trash cans help reduce litter in the Town of Stanardsville, and a major volunteer
county-wide road cleanup is held every spring.
University of Virginia (UVa)
Facilities Management is responsible for all solid waste activities. A private company is under contract for
collection and shipping of MSW. Recyclables are collected in bins and other systems in dorms and office
areas, brought to a central collection point by the Division of Recoverable and Disposable Resources
employees, and picked up by a private firm.
MSW is to be transported to the Zion Crossroads Recycling Center for additional sorting and possible
reclamation under a new contract beginning August 1, 2011. The Zion Crossroads Recycling Center sends
any waste that is not recoverable for recycling to a permitted landfill in Amelia County. Hazardous and
medical wastes are handled through the Office of Environmental Health and Safety, and are either sent to
a hazardous waste facility or sterilized (deemed “Special Waste”) and hauled directly to a special waste
cell at a regulated landfill. UVa participated in an electronics recycling pilot program with RSWA in 2003
and 2006 and again with Crutchfield and a local nonprofit in 2009. Additionally, inkjet/laser cartridges
Page 14 of 53
2011 TJSW
WPU Solid Waste Management Plan
D raft for consideration October 6,, 2011
are collected by in house staff, and then collected
d by a local ssmall business for recycling/refurbishment.
Cell phone
es batteries and
a small elecctronics are se
ent to recyclerrs.
WASTE REDDUCTION AND REUSE
E
UVa administers severa
al waste reduction and reuse initiatives tthat serve thee campus community. They
include:
•
Chhuck It For Cha
arity: The colllection of genttly used items students donaate to local noonprofits to help
tho
ose less advantaged.
•
MEERCI: A program started annd run by opeerating room nnurses and vollunteers to reddeploy equipm
ment
back into the hosspital and / or
o send to clinics, animal sheelters, and 3rd world countriees for use.
•
Foo
od waste reduuctions are cenntered around composting aand limiting traay use at dininng facilities.
Co
omposting effo
orts divert 3.5
5 to 5 tons of food
f
waste froom landfills eaach year. Faccilities Manageement
invvolves studentss in tracking, testing
t
and rep
porting to VaD
DEQ from twoo of the large dining facilitiies on
gro
ounds. Dining
g Services’ initiative to limit tray usage alsso reduced thee overall foodd preparation and
eveentual waste associated
a
withh dining opera
ations by limitiing the amounnt of food that customers caan
carrry at one timee.
•
Co
oal ash is colleected and used
d as beneficial fill or sent to make cementt / cinder bloccks.
•
UV
VA participateed in the EPA sponsored
s
“Ga
ame Day Challlenge 2010” in an effort too show spectators
of large sporting
g events (e.g. home footballl games, etc) what is produuced in the wayy of disposables by
patrons. This is a national com
mpetition betweeen colleges aand universities.
•
Alll new construction and majo
or renovation projects
p
are coommitted to a chieving LEED
D certification.
CD
D&D is collecteed from even the smallest off projects andd sent to a CD&
&D MRF and have receivedd
rep
ports exceedinng 90% reclamation/recyclling rates.
•
UV
VA holds regullar auctions op
pen to the pub
blic for the re--use of discardded items.
FIGURE 3. REUSE FACILLITY IN FLUVA
ANNA COUNTY
Y (LEFT) & ZIO
ON CROSSROA
ADS RECYCLIN
NG CENTER (RIIGHT)
Page 15 of 51
3.3 Historical Waste Generation
Historical waste generation rates are useful for tracking progress and can be used to predict future needs.
The following figures and tables illustrate waste management data available from 1993, 1995, and
2001-2010. Despite RSWA and Greene County spikes in 2001 and 2008, respectively, the per capita
waste generation has not changed significantly since the inception of data collection. Likewise, there has
not been significant change in the regional recycling rate since 1993. Figures 4 and 5 show trends in the
recycling rate and per capita waste generation in the region over time.
Recycling Rates in the Region
1993, 1995, 2001 - 2010
60%
Recycling Rate
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
RSWA
Fluvanna
Greene
Region
FIGURE 4. RECYCLING RATE TRENDS
Per Capita Waste Generation in the Region
1993, 1995, 2001 - 2010
Per capita waste (tons)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Year
RSWA
Fluvanna
FIGURE 5. PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATION TRENDS
Page 16 of 53
Greene
Region
2010
1993 Wa ste Gener ation by Type
The following figures are based on the report made to the Department of Environmental Quality by the
TJPDC in 1994.
TABLE 7. TJPDC 1993 WASTE GENERATION RATES (IN TONS)
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Primary Recyclable Materials (PRM)
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Waste Wood (chipped or mulched)
Textiles
Commingled/Other
Secondary Recyclable Materials (SRM)
Used Oil & Antifreeze
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
White Goods
Abandoned automobiles removed
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Recycling Rate
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
1993 Population
Per capita
RSWA
78,822
Fluvanna
6,331
1,172
5,159
Greene
2,943
Region
88,096
29,971
13,524
10,493
662
4,301
514
0
383
0
5,172
75
0
0
0
0
0
4,288
0
30.8%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113,965
114,200
0.998
3,608
233
2,890
7
125
0
0
353
0
113
51
18
40
0
0
0
0
0
37.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,052
14,300
0.703
816
84
594
20
118
0
0
0
0
22
12
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
22.2%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,781
12,200
0.310
34,395
5,307
31.1%
0
0
127,798
140,700
0.908
Source: Local facility operators; Weldon Cooper Center
Page 17 of 51
The following figures are based on reports submitted by member localities to the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission in 1997.
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Textiles
Commingled/Other
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
White Goods
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Recycling Rate
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
1995 Population
Per capita
RSWA*
62,939
Fluvanna
5,818
5,818
Greene
7,632
Region
76,389
*
2,187
45
1,258
5
21
0
0
858
0
2.0
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.3%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,007
15,900
0.504
3,353
606
2,364
41
215
0
15
112
0
57
36
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
30.9%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,042
12,900
0.856
--
*
38%
*
*
101,704
117,400
0.866
--
36.7%
--
--
120,753
146,200
0.826
Source: Local facility operators; Weldon Cooper Center
*The report from RSWA only included totals for recyclables and waste. The total tonnage of recyclables reported
was 38,765.
Page 18 of 53
The following figures are based on reports submitted by localities to DEQ in 2002.
Municipal Solid Waste
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Waste Wood (chipped / mulched)
Textiles
Yard Waste (composted / mulched)
Commingled/Other
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Other
Recycling Rate
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
2001 Population
Per capita
RSWA
Fluvanna
114,370
6,612
31,125
*
31.0%
*
94,270(CDD)
302,565
125,600
2.41
4,890
414
358
207
0
3,910
0
0
0
18
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,520
21,400
0.538
Greene
11,353
6,244
5,109
Region
132,335
3,437
1,540
475
1,250
60
75
17
20
0
691
57
3
21
0
600
0
0
0
26.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,481
15,800
0.980
39,452
--
31.2%
--
--
94,270
329,566
177,200
1.86
Source: local facility operators, DEQ; Weldon Cooper Center
*RSWA did not separate SRM recycling from SRM reuse in their report. The combined tonnage was 62,800.
Page 19 of 51
Municipal Solid Waste
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Textiles
Commingled/Other
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Other
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Recycling Rate
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
2002 Population
Per capita
RSWA
126,915
48,484
4,914
41,799
131
1,062
50
60
0
468
4,754
500
100
177
0
700
3,043
0
234
12,566
0
7,918
4,648
0
0
34.1%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192,719
126,400
1.52
Source: Local facility operators, DEQ; Weldon Cooper Center
Page 20 of 53
Fluvanna
7,213
3,606
2,885
721
7,805
515
203
224
181
6678
5.2
0
0
17
12
4.7
0
0.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,035
22,500
0.668
Greene
12,738
7,643
5,095
Region
146,866
3,357
1,583
60
1,166
108
410
20
10
0
633
51
7
75
0
500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.9%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,728
16,200
1.03
59,646
5,404
12,566
34.6%
0
224,482
165,100
1.36
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Textiles
Commingled/Other
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Other
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Recycling Rate
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
Population
Per capita
Expected waste
(Based on EPA .566 avg. per capita)
Greene
18,085
9,585
8,500
Region
131,770
28,334
8,210
9,139
130
1,168
770
25
8,576
316
6,762
1,168
13
209
28
1,100
3,048
10
1,186
718
0
0
0
0
718
25.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
139,974
127,900
1.09
Fluvanna
9,525
4762
3810
952
1,774
565
314
244
134
0
5.7
512
0
7,069
20
4.9
31
2.2
0
0
0
7,011
0
0
0
0
0
0
48.1%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,368
23,800
.772
3,602
1,710
75
1,050
90
620
35
22
0
522
56
6
60
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,209
16,600
1.337
33,710
180,551
168,300
1.073
72,391
13,471
9,396
95,258
RSWA*
104,160
104,160
14,353
718
27.0%
0
Source: Local facility operators; DEQ; Weldon Cooper Center
Page 21 of 51
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Textiles
Commingled/Other
Used Oil, Oil Filters & Antifreeze
Batteries
Waste Tires
Electronics
Sludge (composted)
Tree Stumps >6”
Other
SRM Reuse
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Recycling Rate
Other wastes
Hazardous
Agricultural
Mining
Regulated. Medical
Spill residue
Other
Total Waste
Population
Per capita
Expected waste
RSWA*
101,502
101,502
33,793
11,289
10,025
168
1,324
1,840
13
9,058
76
7,525
1,349
210
208
4
800
3,820
0
1,134
23
0
0
0
0
23
28.9%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
142,843
129,600
1.10
73,354
Fluvanna
9,972
5,534
4,427
11
1,794
408
235
329
585
2
8
228
0
45
30
7
5
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
15.6%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,814
24,300
0.49
13,754
Greene
30,495
18,297
12,198
4,145
2,200
425
75
110
1,220
65
50
0
1,117
78
9
105
0
925
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.7%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,757
16,700
2.14
9,452
Region
141,969
8,687
26
25.5%
0
190,414
170,600
1.12
96,560
Source: Local facility operators; DEQ; Weldon Cooper Center
Page 22 of 53
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Secondary Recyclable Materials
Waste Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Sludge (composted)
Electronics
Tree Stumps (>6" diameter)
Other
SUBTOTAL
Secondary Recyclable Materials Reused
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Recycling Rate
Total Waste
Population
Per Capita (tons/year)
Expected waste
RSWA*
93,891
93,891
0
0
34,487
14,558
12,032
236
871
865
5,906
0
19
7,169
219
690
18
73
1,450
210
3,893
0
10
606
7,169
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.7%
93,891
129,600
0.72
110,455
Fluvanna
13,162
3,052
10,063
47
5,798
467.5
32.1
13.8
282.6
751.9
0.0
4,250.0
0.0
34
7.1
17.5
0.0
0.6
8.5
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.7%
13,162
24,300
0.54
20,710
Greene
32,923
19,753
13,170
0
3,418
1,516
415
75
96
0
66
1,200
50
1,066
85
72
0
2
900
7
0
0
0
0
1,066
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.0%
32,923
16,700
1.97
14,233
Region
139,976
116,696
23,233
47
43,703
16,542
12,479
325
1,250
1,617
5,972
5,450
69
8,269
311
779
18
76
2,350
226
3,893
0
10
606
8,269
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.0%
139,976
170,600
0.82
145,398
Source: Locality facility operators; DEQ; Weldon Cooper Center
*The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority reports the recycling numbers for Albemarle County, the City of
Charlottesville, and Town of Scottsville as a combined number.
**Nelson County data was included in the 2006 regional recycling rate. This is the rate that was reported to the
DEQ and is thus recorded here.
Page 23 of 51
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Secondary Recyclable Materials
Waste Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Sludge (composted)
Electronics
Tree Stumps (>6" diameter)
Other
Secondary Recyclable Materials Reused
Construction Waste
Demolition Waste
Debris Waste
Ash
Other
Base Recycling Rate
Total Waste
Population
Per Capita
Expected Waste
(Based on EPA .84 tons avg. per capita)
RSWA*
94,339
94,339
0
0
43,868
21,091
13,350
619
760
1,716
5,225
987
120
14,054
250
1,192
254
63
0
210
11,158
114
83
730
0
0
0
0
0
0
38.0%
Fluvanna
14,735
3,684
10,896
155
6,662
316.5
8.4
28.9
531.1
777.1
0.0
4,999.7
0.0
30
5.5
12.6
0.0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.2%
Greene
40,096
24,026
16,070
0
5,833
3,584
643
30
45
0
516
920
95
3,261
91
83
0
3
3,080
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.5%
152,261
133,596
1.14
21,426
24,783
0.86
49,190
17,638
2.79
Region
149,170
122,049
26,966
155
56,363
24,991
14,001
678
1,336
2,493
5,741
6,907
215
17,345
346
1,288
254
67
3,080
225
11,158
114
83
730
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.8%
35.2%
222,877
176,017
1.27
112,154
20,805
14,807
147,766
10.8
Source: Local facility operator; Weldon Cooper Center
***Nelson County data was included in the 2006 regional recycling rate calculations. This is the rate that was
reported to the DEQ and is thus recorded here.
Page 24 of 53
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Electronics
Other - cooking oil and grease
Other - sludge compost
Solid Waste Reused
Crushed Concrete
Clothing, etc.
Flooring, Joists & Other Wood
UVA Equipment Auction Waste
Encore Shop Ivy
UVA Move-Out
Housing Material
Freecycle
Base Recycling Rate
Population
Per capita
Expected waste
RSWA*
94,129
94,129
0
0
63,429
9,541
35,290
237
854
2,297
6,565
258
396
176
441
0
100
10
253
0
813
6,198
718
0
0
0
10
3
60
585
60
40.3%
Fluvanna
14,745
3,686
10,971
88
8,739
324.6
107.9
27.2
718.5
809.8
0.0
6,713.7
0.0
7.5
21.7
0.0
0.4
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.2%
Greene
37,746
20,760
16,986
0
8,383
4,437
1,993
32
76
0
531
990
106
108
98
0
2
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.2%
158,276
134,395.0
1.18
113,315
23,483
25,253
0.93
21,292
46,129
18,017
2.56
15,191
Region
146,620
118,575
27,957
88
80,551
14,303
37,391
296
1,648
3,107
7,096
7,962
502
292
561
0
102
27
253
0
813
6,198
718
0
0
0
10
3
60
585
60
34.1%
36.5%
227,888
177,665
1.28
149,798
***Nelson County data was included in the 2006 regional recycling rate calculations. This is the rate that was
reported to the DEQ and is thus recorded here.
Page 25 of 51
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Electronics
Other - sludge compost
Solid Waste Reused
Building material
Reclaimed MSW (Encore Shop)
UVA Move-Out
Non-MSW Recycled
Ash
Base Recycling Rate
Population
Per capita
Expected waste
RSWA*
99,219
99,219
Fluvanna
7,915
7,915
Greene
52,915
27,516
25,399
36,004
8,164
4,818
405
1,123
3,184
5,512
902
1,015
181
716
12
51
6
525
0
745
8,645
377
345
6
26
4,947
4,947
26.6%
3,656
175.5
23.8
13.2
0
12,151
5,641
3,840
64
84
0
601
1,620
110
120
55
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
31.6%
18.7%
11,571.4
25,544
0.5
20,978
65,066.0
17,964
3.6
14,752
140,546.6
136,112
1.0
111,782
894.9
2,500.0
0.2
44.3
0.9
3.3
Page 26 of 53
Region
160,049
134,650
25,399
0
51,811
13,980
8,682
482
1,207
4,079
6,113
5,022
1,125
301
815
13
58
18
525
0
745
8,645
377
345
6
26
4,947
4,947
24.5%
28.3%
217,183.9
179,620.
1.2
147,512
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Electronics
Other - composed sludge
Solid Waste Reused
UVA Move-Out
Non-MSW Recycled
MERCI
Ash
Base Recycling Rate
Population
Per capita
Expected Waste
(Based on EPA .79 tons avg. per capita)
RSWA*
74,002
66,534
Fluvanna
7,241
7,241
Greene
43,909
26,345
17,564
3,289
75
63
11,134
5,712
3,991
71
90
Region
125,152
100,120
17,564
7,468
0
44,519
15,342
5,198
468
1,075
5,487
3,320
2,747
394
285
1,136
23
69
12
88
0
449
8,426
947
915
32
8,933
7,468
30,096
9,555
1,144
397
985
3,650
2,700
1,088
292
172
1,055
23
65
6
88
1,837
1,300
3
11
620
359
102
110
70
1
3
6
0
0
449
8,426
947
915
32
8,933
29
8,904
28.9%
0
0
28.9%
28.9%
113,979
137,676
0.83
10,530
25,732
0.41
55,043
18,421
2.99
8,904
28.9%
31.2%
179,552
181,829
0.99
109,046
20,381
14,590
144,018
Source: Local facility operator; US Census American Community Survey
Page 27 of 51
4 F u t u r e S o lid Was t e Man age me n t S y s te ms
4 .1 Es timate s o f Fu tu re Nee d s
2030 P ROJECTED W ASTE G ENERATION BY T YPE
Estimates in Table 7 are based on reported 2009 totals divided by 2009 population estimates and
multiplied by the projected population for 2030. Adjusted 2030 populations, as described in Table 1,
were used to estimate future needs.
TABLE 18. TJPDC 2030 ESTIMATED FUTURE WASTE GENERATION RATES (IN TONS)
Household
Commercial
Institutional
Paper
Metal
Plastic
Glass
Commingled
Textiles
Tires
Used Oil
Used Oil Filters
Used Antifreeze
Batteries
Electronics
Other - composed sludge
Solid Waste (reused)
UVA Move-Out
Non-MSW Recycled
MERCI
Ash
2009 Populaton
2030 Population
Albemarle &
Fluvanna &
Greene &
Scottsville
Charlottesville
Columbia
Stanardsville
66,837
24,207
11,525
61,526
60,092
21,764
11,525
36,915
0
0
0
24,611
6,745
2,443
0
0
0
0
0
0
27,182
9,845
5,236
15,601
8,630
3,126
120
8,004
1,033
374
100
5,592
359
130
0
99
889
322
0
126
3,297
1,194
2,924
0
2,439
883
0
869
982
356
2,069
503
264
96
0
143
155
56
5
154
953
345
17
98
21
7
0
0
59
21
1
4
5
2
0
8
80
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
406
147
0
0
7,610
2,756
0
0
1,456
0
0
804
281
0
0
370
0
0
Region
164,095
57,864
1,456
Unable to project: no figures exist on which to base the growth of these
programs
102,891
37,255
16,761
77,127
234,035
95,474
42,218
25,815
18,788
182,295
124,345
45,036
41,091
26,326
236,798
Source: Local facility operators; US Census; VEC
*Localities separated out of RSWA by defining a rate of generation (2009 generation/2009 population of Charlottesville,
Albemarle, and Scottsville) and multiplying the rate by 2030 populations of each locality separately.
**UVA Move-out was projected based on an average growth of student population of 0.73%/year, a 30-year average.
***2009 populations of Stanardsville, Scottsville, and Columbia are included in the 2009 and 2030 population figures for the
county in which they are located. No projected figures are available for towns.
Page 28 of 53
Growth will impact solid waste generation in the region. Since predominantly residential growth is
expected, MSW associated with residential development, as well as commercial and institutional growth
that serve residential growth is expected to grow congruently. Figure 6 shows the components of MSW as
fractions of the entire waste stream. Recommendations in this plan seek to make solid waste management
in the region more efficient and sustainable by exploring avenues of cost avoidance and revenue that
support the diversion of materials from the MSW stream.
Wood
6.5%
Rubber, leather, and textiles
8.3%
Yard trimmings
13.7%
Plastics
12.3%
Food scraps
14.1%
Other
3.5%
Metals
8.6%
Glass
4.8%
Paper
28.2%
FIGURE 6. THE ESTIMATED COMPONENT PARTS OF THE NATIONAL MSW STREAM
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
With future land development, vegetative waste from land clearing and residential landscape
maintenance will increase, adding to annual vegetative waste generation. Land clearing debris may be
burned on-site with a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). There are also
composting and mulching operations in the region to handle this waste stream. Construction and demolition
debris (CDD) will also increase as a result of land development. As previously mentioned, the Zion
Crossroads Recycling Center recycles CDD at a rate above 90%, which reduces this waste stream very
effectively.
Electronics are a major part of the information industry in the region, and a higher than normal amount of
this waste is expected, particularly in the urban and university area. This unique waste stream has been
difficult and expensive to divert from the landfill, and tight budget conditions have reduced the
availability of publicly funded recycling options for electronics, batteries, and other special wastes.
However, inexpensive and free options are now being offered by some retailers to individuals for
recycling of computers, electronics, batteries, compact fluorescent lights, and cell phones.
Recommendations in this plan seek to make the public aware of these options.
Page 29 of 51
4 .2 Sys tem C ap acity fo r th e 2 0 -Y e ar P lan n in g P e rio d
TABLE 19. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CAPACITY (PUBLIC FACILITIES)
Annual
Capacity at
2030 (Tons)
2030
Population
Estimate
(persons)
2030 Total
Projected
Annual
Waste
(Tons)
25%
Minimum
Recycled1
(tons)
Net
Annual
2030
Waste
(Tons)
RSWA's Ivy
MUC3
(Albemarle)
123,779
102,891
25,723
77,168
300
93,600
16,432
Greene
County MRF
(Greene) 25,950
77,127
19,282
57,845
480
149,760
91,915
Permitted
Annual
Capacity Capacity2
(Tons/day)
(Tons)
(Annual Capacity
- Net Waste)
Sources: Virginia Employment Commission; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
NOTES
This Plan establishes a goal of maintaining at least 25% recycling
1
2
Assuming disposal of full permitted capacity 6 days/week
3
Calculated for all residents of Albemarle County. The TJPDC estimates that approximately 25% of Albemarle
County’s MSW is taken to the Zion Crossroads Recycling Center. However, the actual amount could not be
confirmed. Thus this is a conservative estimate of the Annual Capacity at 2030.
The Fluvanna County Convenience Center is not a permitted facility, and its capacity is constrained only by
physical space at the facility. Fluvanna County estimates that between 3 and 4 tons of waste is handled
at the convenience center daily. The BFI Fluvanna County Transcyclery and the Zion Crossroads Recycling
Center also receive waste from the TJSWPU. However, waste received from this planning unit constitutes
only a fraction of the waste handled by these facilities. Thus, it is not possible to calculate the capacity of
those facilities based on waste received from this region. Table 9 describes information available about
the capacity and TJSWPU waste handled by these facilities.
TABLE 20. TJSWPU WASTE HANDLED THROUGH PRIVATE SECTOR FACILITIES (TONS).
2030
Net
Projected
Annual
Annual Waste
25%
received from Minimum 2030
TJSWPU
Recycled1 Waste
Daily
Permitted Annual
Capacity Capacity2
Annual Waste
Received from
TJSWPU at 2030
as % of permitted
capacity
Zion Crossroads
Recycling Center1
49,930
12,483
37,448
1,000
312,000
12%
BFI Fluvanna County
Transcyclery2
26,606
6,652
19,955
950
296,400
7%
1
Figures represent Charlottesville (MSW only) and Albemarle (25% of total waste)
2
Figures represent Fluvanna (total waste) and Charlottesville primary recyclable materials only
Page 30 of 53
2011 TJSW
L o n g - Te r m D i s p os a l C a p a c i t y
The Amelia County land
dfill currently receives the region’s solid waste from ttransfer statioons. According
g to
the DEQ, in
i December of 2010, the Amelia Countty landfill had
d 31 of its 43
3 million cubic yards of dessign
capacity available
a
for future solid waste
w
disposal. The landfilll’s annual ma
aximum permittted intake is
1,156,000
0 tons. Over the next 20 years,
y
the landfill could recceive a maxim
mum of 23,12
20,000 tons frrom
1
all sourcess (roughly 15,,606,000 cub
bic yards, if asssuming one t on = 0.675 ccubic yards ). By taking thee
difference
e of today’s capacity and the
t maximum volume the la
andfill can recceive over thee next 20 yea
ars, at
2030, the
e landfill will have
h
a minimuum of 15,394,000 cubic ya
ards of capaccity remaining
g. Based on 2
2030
projectionns of MSW ge
eneration, and
d assuming no
o change in TJSWPU solid w
waste progra
ams, the Ameliia
County lanndfill will be receiving
r
164
4,095 tons (~110,764 cubiic yards) annuually from thee TJSWPU in
2030. This constitutes 9.6%
9
of the la
andfills annua
al permitted ccapacity.
dfill has sufficcient capacity over the 20--year horizon of this Plan too accommoda
ate
The Amelia County land
solid wastte from the TJSWPU. Addittional capacitty may be seccured from thee BFI Henrico County landffill,
based on a letter from BFI dated De
ecember 3, 20
004, included
d in the Appenndices.
photoo
photo
photoo
FIGURE 7. RECYCLING AND
A
REUSE FA
ACILITIES IN SWPU (A SUBSEET)
1
Bell, Pam
mela and Melvinn Burke (2005)) “Waste Mana
agement in Ma ine: The West Old Town Land
dfill.” Universityy of
Maine Orono, Oro
ono, Maine.
Page 31 of 51
4 .3 Strate gic P lan & 2 0 Y ear T ime lin e
Introductio n and Guiding Princ iples
Sustainability Accords
The following goals, objectives, and strategies address the
waste management hierarchy of Source Reduction and
Reuse, Recycling, Resource Recovery and Incineration, and
Landfilling as defined by the Virginia DEQ. The 1998
Sustainability Accords, endorsed by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission and its member localities:
Albemarle, Charlottesville, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and
Nelson, address waste management with one broad goal
and five measurable objectives. They are the guiding
principles for this Plan.
Retain the natural habitat
Goal: The wasteful use of resources and the creation of nonrecyclable waste by-products are reduced and, wherever
possible, eliminated.
Objective 1: Increase recycling of usable materials.
Objective 2: Minimize the use and unsafe disposal of
hazardous material.
Objective 3: Promote a sense of individual
responsibility for limiting waste.
Objective 4: Increase individual and cooperative efforts
to reduce waste.
Objective 5: Increase the understanding and practice of
the six-step approach to waste reduction: rethink,
reduce, reuse, buy recyclables, recycle, and material
exchange.
Ensure water quality and
quantity are sufficient to
support people and ecosystems
Optimize the use and re-use of
developed land and promote
clustering
Promote appropriate scale for
land uses
Retain farm and forest land
Develop attractive and
economical transportation
alternatives
Conserve energy
Provide educational and
employment opportunities
Increase individual
participation in neighborhoods
and communities
Strive for a size and distribute
the human population in ways
that preserve vital resources
Integrated Waste M anagemen t Fra mewo rk & I mple menta tion Plan
Each of the following goals and objectives support the Sustainability Accords and strengthen them with a
more in depth examination of how they may be achieved. The goals, objectives, and strategies in this plan
were developed by the Solid Waste Committee, which is composed of representatives from each locality.
Committee membership is listed in the Appendices. This update to the 2006 Solid Waste Management
Plan is consistent with contemporary solid waste issues, and the local political and economic climate. The
update also includes a tracking mechanism to document progress toward meeting each goal. The
appendices contain the 2006 20-Year Implementation Plan and progress report. Documentation of
completed strategies can be found there. Table 21 shows the goals, objectives, and strategies that the
TJSWPU will implement pursuant to the solid waste management hierarchy contained in 9VAC20-130-30.
A 20-year implementation timeline is also included.
Page 32 of 53
TABLE 21. TJSWPU STRATEGIC PLAN
Responsible Party
2012
Timeline
Status*
2014 ‐ 2016 ‐ 2020 ‐ Ongoing: Ongoing: Progress 2013
All
1+
made
2015 2020 2030
To Do
Planning
Goal Maintain an efficient and effective solid waste management system.
Objective 1
Develop efficient, coordinated, and fiscally sound solid waste management contracts.
Strategies
Use Request for Proposals when soliciting contracts, as opposed to Invitations to Bid.
Include cooperative procurement language in contracts that would allow the other members of the SWPU to use the contract services under the same cost, terms, and conditions.
Localities
Localities, RSWA, UVA
Encourage public‐private partnerships for TJPDC, RSWA, waste management when cost efficiencies Localities
can be achieved.
Maintain a regional centralized archive at the TJPDC for reporting to DEQ and TJPDC, RSWA, cataloging all locality waste management Localities
contracts. Objective 2
Prepare for future system capacity needs.
Strategy
Review waste streams, markets, programs, TJPDC, RSWA, and system capacity regularly.
Localities
Objective 3
Realize economies of scale through regional collection, disposal, and recycling opportunities.
Strategies
Identify and reduce barriers to regional coordination of contracts. Coordinate contracts for special waste collection.
Jointly sponsor convenience centers for communities straddling jurisdictional lines, or for adjacent communities in separate jurisdictions.
TJPDC, Localities
TJPDC, RSWA, Localities
Localities
* Status Definitions: Ongoing ‐ the need is met but requires upkeep; "All" and "1+" refer to localities in the SWPU Progress made ‐ some work has been done to address the need, but more is needed To Do ‐ the need is unmet
Page 33 of 51
Responsible Party
2012
Source Reduction and Reuse
Goal
To reduce the quantity of waste generated through source reduction, reuse, and other waste reduction techniques.
Objective 1
Support and expand reuse infrastructure and culture in the region.
Strategies
Expand the reuse of building materials.
HOME, Habitat for Humanity, Localities
Promote online tools, such as Freecycle, Terracyle, and Craigslist that facilitate the TJPDC, RSWA, reuse of materials before they enter the Localities
solid waste stream.
Educate public on the importance of, and services available for source reduction, reuse, and recycling through a variety of media: website, brochures, fair display, social media, etc.
Promote home composting through workshops and educational materials.
Reach out to the private sector on waste reduction issues and environmentally preferable purchasing.
Establish Environmental Management Systems or source reduction initiatives in localities where they do not currently exist in the region.
TJPDC, Localities
VCE, TJPDC, Civic groups
TJPDC
Localities, TJPDC
Objective 2
Consider how reuse may contribute to the local economy.
Strategy
Assess opportunities to facilitate industrial symbiosis between existing public and private facilities, or through recruitment of industries that can use waste generated in the region as raw material for production.
Page 34 of 53
Localities, TJPED, TJPDC, private sector
Timeline
Status*
All
1+
made
2015 2020 2030
To Do
Responsible Party
2012
Timeline
Status*
All
1+
made
2015 2020 2030
To Do
Recycling
Goal 1
Continually improve recycling rate to meet the state mandated rate and maintain a regional rate that is competitive with the national rate.
Objective 1
Achieve a minimum 25% recycling rate in each participating locality, while aiming for a minimum of 30% as a region.
Strategies
Maintain a map of all recycling facilities in the region. Identify services offered by each; make available to public.
Ensure local government comprehensive plans and ordinances consider issues related to siting of recycling facilities.
Promote electronics recycling opportunities available to the community.
Develop recycling programs in those schools where they do not currently exist.
Improve existing recycling facilities and locate new facilities, as need and opportunities arise. Expansion should include options for reuse.
TJPDC
TJPDC, Localities
TJPDC, Localities
TJPDC, Localities, Schools
Objective 2
Divert organic waste from the landfill.
Strategies
Continue to support and promote annual Participating Christmas Tree and leaf collection localities, programs.
TJPDC
Establish a commercial‐scale composter to serve region.
Encourage the use of commerical composting by schools, institutions, and the private sector
TJPDC, Localities, private sector
Localities, TJPDC
Goal 2
Stimulate demand for recyclable materials.
Objective Use local government purchasing power to increase demand for products manufactured with post‐consumer recycled material.
Strategies
Abide by environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) guidelines whenever possible.
Expand EPP guidance.
Localities
TJPDC
Adopt EPP policies.
Page 35 of 51
Responsible Party
2012
Resource Recovery and Waste to Energy
Goal
Address the disposal and energy needs of the region.
Objective Determine synergies between waste disposal and energy production.
Strategy
Monitor emerging technologies, including bio‐fuels and agricultural by‐products, designed for reduction, disposal and TJPDC, RSWA
resource recovery; issue periodic status reports to the public.
Landfilling and Waste Disposal
Goal Provide environmentally sound solid waste disposal facilities that are convenient to the region’s residents.
Objective 1
Maximize the efficiency of, and anticipate the future need for additional or expanded transfer stations.
Strategies
Use the recommended regular solid waste systems review to inform the creation of new transfer station capacity or other solid waste management facilities/programs.
RSWA, Localities, private sector
Wherever possible, staff convenience centers to ensure proper use of facility services.
Localities, RSWA
Objective 2
Minimize the need for future transfer stations and landfills.
Strategies
Minimize the amount of waste generated through implementation of the waste management hierarchy applied in the SWMP.
TJPDC, Localities, RSWA
Objective 3
Maintain compliance with state and federal regulations on closed landfills.
Strategy
Continue to monitor and report on closed landfills as required by the DEQ.
Page 36 of 53
RSWA
Timeline
Status*
All
1+
made
2015 2020 2030
To Do
2011 TJSW
4 . 4 M e e t i n g 2 5% R e c y c l i n g R a t e
Participating localities and the regio
on shall attain or exceed a minimum recyycling rate off 25% of the ttotal
g
annnually in acco
ordance with V
Virginia regullations (see Appendix for
municipal solid waste generated
method off rate calculattion). This rate
e will be met through the coontinuation off existing prog
grams, and thhe
implementtation of the above
a
strateg
gies. Keys to meeting the rregional rate include:

Providing conveniennt drop off loccations for cit izens

Public/
/private partnnerships

Businesss, school, and
d industry parrticipation

Regionnal contract co
ooperation

Increassed waste red
duction, recycling, and reusse education a
and outreach

Increassed recycling of electronicss and other noonconventiona
al waste

Comme
ercial and home compostinng/mulching a
and yard wastte managemeent

Increassed or improvved monitoring
g of sites wheere recyclablees are collecteed

Improvved data colle
ection and tra
acking of wastte
FIGURE 8. GLASS RECYCLING IN FLUV
VANNA COUN
NTY AND REC
CYCLING EVEN
NT HELD IN 200
09
4 . 5 F ut u re T r e at m e n t O p t io n s
Current tre
eatment activvities expected
d to continue include compoosting sludge,, mulching veg
getative wasttes,
and grinding wooden pallets.
p
Other future treatm
ment options innclude volumee reduction acctions, such ass tire
paction.
splitting and trash comp
Z Crossroa
ads Recycling Center will exxpand its MSW
W recycling ooperation to
It is expeccted that the Zion
recover hiigher volumess of recyclable
e materials, and
a expand thhe types of m
materials recyccled through
investmentt and further development of MRF technnology. This m
may include seeparation of some wastes to be
utilized att a waste to energy
e
facility
y if favorable
e contract term
ms can be neg
gotiated betw
ween facilities.
New state
e regulations have
h
also clea
ared the way
y for further uttilization of oorganic waste.. Now, postconsumer food waste can be compossted at permitted facilities,, clearing the way for majoor reductions in the
MSW stre
eam. As Figurre 3 depicts, food
f
waste co
onstitutes 14.1
1% of MSW. It is expected that the private
sector willl provide food
d waste comp
posting service
es to public annd private cusstomers in thee future.
Page 37 of 51
Public/private partnerships are also expected to continue increasing in the future, as solid waste
management has proven to be a profitable enterprise for entrepreneurs. Localities recognize the value of
services provided by retailers such as Best Buy, Whole Foods, and Goodwill Industries, who offer recycling
services to the public within the planning unit.
4 . 6 Pu b l ic O u t re ac h P ro gra m s
Outreach programs in most localities generally include descriptions of waste management services
available to residents on the website, in annual county services brochures, postings at the courthouse and
county office buildings, and in ads and articles for special events (waste amnesty days, Christmas tree
collection, etc.) in local newspapers. In the RSWA service area, outreach also includes an RSWA specific
website, public forums, flyers at the recycling center, radio advertisements, and inserts in local newspapers.
General public service announcements on radio and television also help educate the public. Adopt-a-Street
programs and highway signs promote litter control. The TJPDC also maintains a recycling website as a
resource to citizens of the solid waste planning unit, and displays solid waste reduction/reuse/recycling
information and resources at fairs and other public events.
Public participation in solid waste management and planning occurs at advertised meetings of public
bodies that discuss and act on the issues. RSWA has a Citizens Advisory Committee, which meets regularly
to discuss budgetary, operational, and environmental issues, and makes recommendations to the Board of
Directors. “Keep the County Clean” programs in Fluvanna and Greene promote recycling and waste
reduction as well as periodic clean-up days. The TJSWPU staffs an advisory committee to maintain and
implement the Solid Waste Management Plan. Citizen members of this committee provide vital input and
feedback in development and implementation of the Plan. The TJSWPU also holds legally required public
hearings for 5-year updates to the plan and if any major changes are made to the plan.
4 .7 Fu n din g Arran ge me n ts & Op tion s
E XISTING F UNDING A RRANGEMENTS
Each locality determines the ratio of general revenue funds and tipping fees used to fund solid waste
management activities. Each locality has tipping fees for disposal at transfer stations or convenience
centers. General revenue funds are often used to cover costs of additional facilities, including reuse
facilities, and recycling centers. A portion of the cost of recycling is covered by revenue from sales of
recyclable materials. Individual localities are also responsible for long-term liabilities, landfill closure, and
post-closure costs, which must be built into locality budgets.
Transfer stations in the region operate with a tipping fee that covers much of the cost of collecting,
transporting, disposing of wastes, and making up the cost of recycling programs at times when recycling
revenue fails to cover the cost of administration. General fund tax revenue is often used to cover costs
above those that are covered by tipping fee revenue. In the City of Charlottesville, trash stickers must be
purchased to participate in curbside pickup. RSWA sells trash stickers that citizens must use for selfdelivery of MSW to the Ivy MUC. The income from trash stickers is used to help pay for operations and
administration.
Recyclables are generally collected for free, and the locality may or may not break even on collection
and distribution after receiving market value for the materials. Some materials are dealt with at little or no
cost to the community, while the markets are less favorable for others. However, market fluctuation is
common for all recyclable material. This is also true of re-use items. The Encore Shop at the Ivy MUC sells
items for reuse at a low cost to help recover the time and resources needed to store and sell them.
Page 38 of 53
Grants are another source of funding, and are often used for special waste events such as household
hazardous waste and bulky waste amnesty days. State funds assist in tire cleanup and recycling.
Closed landfills in Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene Counties have closure plans and local funds allocated
for proper closure and maintenance that comply with DEQ regulations. Funding options include setting
aside a portion of tipping fees and allocation of tax revenue.
F UTURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
Currently, transfer stations operate within permitted capacity, and none are under significant pressure of
reaching capacity by 2030, as described in Tables 8 and 9. The region has increasingly relied on private
sector facilities to receive MSW and recyclables from private haulers, citizens, and locality contractors. As
demand for recycled materials increases, private sector operations are expected to increase, further
reducing expansion pressure on public facilities. If new facilities are needed, it is expected that localities
will continue to use a mix of tipping fees and general funds to support them. Until the time that future
recycling markets yield sufficient revenue to fully support recycling operations, local funds will subsidize
these programs.
4 .8 Solid Was te Sy s te ms Ev alu ation
P ROGRAMS
Localities with permitted solid waste facilities and joint locality authorities prepare Solid Waste
Information and Assessment reports and submit copies to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and TJPDC by March 31 of each year. Localities will also submit recycling rate reports to the PDC prior to
the April 30 deadline for submission of a regional recycling rate report to DEQ, which the PDC will
prepare and submit. The regional recycling rate is the figure used for the solid waste planning unit (all
localities in the designated planning region), and is binding for the purposes of the recycling rate mandate
and solid waste plans. As provided in §10.1-1411 of the Code of Virginia as amended in 2006, the
mandatory recycling rate for the region is 25%. Should the mandatory recycling rate not be met, the PDC
will prepare a Recycling Action Plan for the region.
The PDC staffs a committee of local designees, which meets quarterly, to review solid waste data collected
to include in the above referenced reports, and compare it to growth trends, plan goals, and other
relevant issues to monitor compliance with this plan and applicable codes, policies, and regulations.
Committee members will report progress back to their elected officials annually.
C OLLECTION
Two solid waste collection systems are available in the region: curbside collection by private haulers, and
collection at the transfer stations and convenience centers from individuals who drop it off. Procedures for
evaluating transfer stations include tracking the weight of material processed over time at each station in
order to gauge usage by residents and to plan for additional permitted capacity, as needed. The data
used for these evaluations is collected to draft annual Solid Waste Information and Assessment reports,
and is therefore available to be reviewed annually.
The City of Charlottesville’s curbside collection is provided by contract with the City and thus is available to
all residents. Collection operations are evaluated over the course of the contract term, and new contracts
reflect changes made as a result of the analysis. In evaluating efficiency, the County of Albemarle has
concluded that a joint contract with the City may be desirable in urban areas of the County. Residents in
the City and counties are free to use the private hauler of their choosing, or deliver their own solid waste
to transfer stations individually.
Page 39 of 51
5 Summary & Conclusion
The TJSWPU is committed to serving the citizens of the planning region with fiscally sound solid waste
management systems that ensures sanitary conditions in our communities, proper disposal of waste, and
seeks to further reduce the region’s solid waste footprint on the environment. In this pursuit, the region will
implement the strategies in this plan to build upon the consistent success in exceeding the mandated 25%
recycling rate, and to support the goals of the Sustainability Accords. Implementation will continue to focus
on regional cooperation, cost efficiency, and targeting easily recyclable or particularly environmentally
damaging wastes. Another cornerstone strategy of the plan is to provide outreach, education, and
resources to citizens and business to promote greater utilization of waste reduction, reuse, and recycling
services available in the region. The Solid Waste Committee will continue to track progress on plan
implementation and ensure that solid waste needs of the region are met.
Page 40 of 53
Glo ssary
Agricultural Waste: solid waste produced from farming operations, or related commercial preparation of
farm products for marketing.
Commingled: refers to the collection of recyclable materials in a manner so that the producer does not
have to separate the materials by type; this is done after collection.
Commercial Waste: solid waste generated by establishments engaged in business operations other than
manufacturing or construction. This category includes, but is not limited to, stores, markets, offices buildings,
restaurants, and shopping centers.
Compost: a stabilized organic product produced by the controlled aerobic decomposition of organic
material so that the product can be handled, stored and applied to the land. Compost can be utilized in a
number of different applications, allowing for the beneficial reuse of organic wastes.
Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD): solid waste produced during construction, remodeling, repair
or destruction of pavements, houses, commercial buildings, and other structures. CDD includes, but is not
limited to, lumber, wire, sheetrock, broken brick, shingles, glass, pipes, concrete, paving materials, and
metals and plastics if they are part of the construction material or empty containers for such materials.
Paints, coatings, solvents, asbestos-containing material, any liquid, compressed gases, or semisolids and
garbage are not CDD.
Debris Waste: waste resulting from land clearing operations, including, but not limited to, stumps, wood,
brush, leaves, soils and road spoils.
Domestic (or Household/Residential) Waste: any waste material, including garbage, trash and refuse
from households, such as single and multiple residences, hotels, and motels.
Disposal: discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or any constituent of it may enter
the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters.
Hazardous Waste: is defined by the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulation, 9VAC20-60-12
et seq.
Incineration: controlled combustion of solid waste for disposal.
Industrial Waste: any solid waste generated by manufacturing or industrial processes that is not a
regulated hazardous waste, including waste from the following manufacturing processes: electric power
generation; fertilizer/agriculture chemicals; food and related by-products; inorganic chemicals’ iron and
steel manufacturing; nonferrous metals/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins; pulp and paper
manufacturing; rubber; stone, glass, clay and concrete products; textile manufacturing; transportation
equipment; and water treatment. Industrial waste does not include mining waste or oil or gas waste.
Inert Waste: solid waste that is physically, chemically, and biologically stable, including dirt, concrete, and
rock, which are not regulated. Metal, construction debris, stumps, logs, and scrap lumber are regulated as
of 1994 and must be disposed in a single-lined cell.
Integrated Solid Waste Management: the practice of managing solid waste using several complementary
components, including source reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery, and incineration.
Landfill: an area of land where solid waste is buried.
Leachate: the liquid resulting from precipitation percolating through landfills and containing soluble or
suspended degradation products of waste.
Page 41 of 51
Litter: all non-biodegradable material discarded illegally on public or private land.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): a solid waste facility for the collection, processing and recovery of
material such as metals from solid waste or for the production of fuel from solid waste.
Monitoring Well: a well point below the ground surface at a landfill site used for obtaining periodic water
samples from groundwater for analysis.
Mulch: woody waste consisting of stumps, trees, limbs, branches, bark, leaves and other clean wood waste
that has undergone size reduction by grinding, shredding, or chipping.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW): waste that is normally composed of residential, commercial and institutional
solid waste and residues derived from the combustion of these wastes.
Non-Regulated Landfill: a landfill accepting certain inert materials not regulated by the state, including
rubble, concrete, broken bricks, and bricks and blocks.
Principal Recycled Material (PRM): paper, metal (except automobile bodies), plastic, glass, yard waste,
wood, and textiles. This does not include large diameter tree stumps.
Recycling: the process of separating a given waste material from the waste stream and processing it so
that it may be used again as a raw material for a product, which may or may not be similar to the original
product. Recycling does not include processes that only involve size reduction.
Resource Recovery: the creation of usable energy from solid waste through the burning of solid waste to
produce steam or electricity or other fuels.
Re-use: the practice of repeating use of a material rather than disposing of or recycling it.
Sanitary Landfill: an engineered land burial facility for the disposal of solid waste which is so located,
designed, constructed and operated to contain and isolate the solid waste so that it does not pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment.
Septage/Sludge: Any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste with similar characteristics and effects generated
from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, air
pollution control facility, or any other waste producing facility.
Solid Waste: any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or
contained gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations, and
from community activities, but not including (i) solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, (ii) solid or
dissolved material in irrigation return flows or in industrial discharges which are sources subject to permit
from the State Water Control Board, or (iii) source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by
the Federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Solid Waste Management: Systematic administration of activities which provide for the collection, source
reduction, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste or resource
recovery.
Source Reduction: reducing the amount of waste generated by an activity at the point of creation. This
may occur through the design, manufacture, and sale of products and packaging with minimal volume and
toxicity and longer lifetimes.
Source Separation: the segregation of various materials from the waste stream at the point of generation
for recycling. For example, household glass and newsprint collection apart from trash.
Supplemental Recyclable Material (SRM): waste tires, used oil, used oil filters, used antifreeze,
automobile bodies, construction waste, demolition waste, debris waste, batteries, ash, sludge or large
diameter tree stumps.
Page 42 of 53
Tipping Fee: a fee levied in the disposal of solid waste, generally at a landfill. The fee is usually on a
per-ton basis, but can be on other units of measure, such as per-truck.
Transfer Station: any solid waste storage or collection facility at which solid waste is transferred from
collection vehicles to haulage vehicles for transportation to a central solid waste management facility for
disposal, incineration, or resource recovery.
Treatment: Process designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological nature or composition of any
waste to render it more stable, safer for transport, or more amenable to use, reuse, reclamation, or
recovery.
Vegetative Waste: decomposable materials generated by yard and lawn care or land-clearing activities
and including, but not limited to, leaves, grass trimmings, and woody wastes such shrub and tree prunings,
bark, limbs, roots, and stumps.
White Goods: stoves, refrigerators, water heaters, and other large appliances.
Yard Waste: decomposable waste materials generated by yard and lawn care and including leaves,
grass trimmings, brush, wood chips, and shrub and tree trimmings. Yard waste shall not include roots or
stumps that exceed six inches in diameter.
Terms not defined above have the meanings assigned to them by RCRA, EPA and/or DEQ.
Page 43 of 51
Appendices
2 0 1 1 T hom a s J e ffe rs o n So li d W a s te P l a n n i n g U n i t
C o mmitte e & C ommis s ion e rs
S OLID W ASTE C OMMITTEE
C OMMISSIONERS
John Robins
Director of Public Works
Joe Chesser, Chair
Keith Smith
GREENE COUNTY
Allen Morris
Solid Waste Manager
Carl Schmitt
Andrea Wilkinson, Vice Chair
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE
Kristel Riddervold
Environmental Administrator, Public Works
Satyendra Huja
Genevieve Keller
Michael Freitas
Chief of Public Works
Ann Mallek
Dennis Rooker
FLUVANNA COUNTY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Andy Lowe
Environmental Compliance Manager
UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA
THOMAS JEFFERSON
PLANNING DISTRICT
COMMISSION
PRIVATE SECTOR
Sonny Beale
Recycling Programs Director
Billie Campbell
Chief Operating Officer
Erin Yancey
Environmental Planner
Bruce Edmonds
Environmental Research Solutions
Eric Walter
Black Bear Composting
Chad Freckmann
Blue Ridge Clean Fuels
Page 44 of 53
Locality Recycling Rate Calculations
Example: 2009 Recycling Rate Report Calculation
Each year, the regional recycling rate is calculated using regional totals for Primary Recyclable Materials
(PRMs), Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Disposed, and credits from the categories described in Step 2,
below. A 2% credit is given for source reduction programs (SRP), of which the TJSWPU has several.
Credit may account for a maximum of 5 percentage points above the region’s base recycling rate.
Step 1: [(PRMs) / (PRMs + MSW Disposed)] X 100 = Base Recycling Rate %
/
44,519
+
44,519
x 100 =
125,152
%
26.2
Step 2: CREDITS calculation:
a. Total Recycling Residue
0 tons
b. Total Solid Waste Reused
947 tons
c. Total Non-MSW Recycled
8,933 tons
CREDITS
9,881 tons
Adjusted
Step 3: [(PRMs + CREDITS) / (PRMs + CREDITS + MSW Disposed)] x 100 = Recycling Rate #1*
44,519
Step 4:
+
9,881
/
44,519
+ 9,881
+
x 100
=
125,152
30.3
%
Source Reduction Program (SRP) Credit does not apply; or
x
Adjusted Recycling Rate #1 + 2% SRP Credit = Adjusted Recycling Rate #2*
32.3
30.3
%
+ 2%
=
Step 5: Final Recycling Rate* for Solid Waste Planning Unit =
%
31.2
%
* Total credits resulting from Steps 3 and 4 may not exceed 5 percentage points above the Base Recycling Rate
achieved by the Solid Waste Planning Unit.
Page 45 of 51
2 0 0 6 2 0 -Y e a r I m pl e m e n t a t io n P la n P ro gre s s L o g
Status Code
T = Not Done/To Do
C = Complete
O = Ongoing
P = In Progress
Implementation Plan Year
D = Discarded due to Irrelevance
or Infeasibility
Responsible Parties
Status
O
TJPDC's HOME Consortium,
Localities
T
T
RSWA, TJPDC
P
Monitor daily tonnages received at the region’s transfer stations
and compare against existing capacity. Monitoring conducted on
an ongoing basis.
O
Establish TJPDC as regional centralized archive for reporting to
DEQ and create format for annual review of waste stream,
market, and programs.
O
Community members, Civic
Groups
P
RSWA, UVA, Private
Sector
P
TJPDC, Localities
C
TJPDC, Localities
C
TJPDC
C
Localities
C
TJPDC
T
TJPDC, RSWA, Localities,
Civic Groups
C
Complete development of methods to expand existing recycling
facilities and determine the location of new facilities in order to
achieve or exceed a 25% recycling rate.
P
Study the feasibility of using a portable wood chipper to be
rotated among all the region’s landfills and transfer stations.
C, D
Year 1
Study the feasibility of coordinating contracts for special waste
collection and make recommendations to local governments.
Study means of expanding the reuse of building materials.
Identify methods to increase the reuse of collected solid waste
material.
Determine how best to encourage private-sector mulch
manufacturing operations.
Support Freecycle, an online community reuse program, as a way
to increase reuse without increasing storage capacity for items to
be reused.
Establish regular electronics recycling opportunities.
Develop and distribute brochure to inform area residents of
recycling program details.
Develop unified recycling information website.
Develop recycling display that can be used at fairs.
Establish one documented public entity Environmental Management
System including source reduction and reuse strategies.
Year 2
Improve economies of scale by finding ways to set the parameters
for future contracts.
Develop educational materials that specifically identify ways to
purchase goods that support source reduction and reuse.
Page 46 of 53
Explore the possibility of providing adequate landfill disposal for
waste collected at transfer stations within the region.
Promote home composting through workshops and educational
materials.
Review local codes to determine possible impediments to
implementation of plan goals.
Develop radio public service announcements about recycling.
Explore means of print advertising, including newspapers and
phone books.
Year 3-5
Define the source reduction and reuse criteria best suited for
large-scale procurement contracts.
Provide information on the source reduction and reuse criteria best
suited for large-scale procurement contracts to public and private
procurement officials.
Coordinate the timing and parameters of all solid waste
management contracts in the region.
Study the possibility of establishing manufacturing facilities within
the region that will reuse the region’s recyclable materials.
Assuming it has been found cost effective, identify possible
location(s) for siting a materials recovery facility (MRF) with an
emphasis on locations(s) that already have solid waste
management facilities.
Study potential markets for recyclables collected regionally
and/or through a MRF, based on estimates of tonnages collected
at the MRF.
Site convenience centers in designated growth areas as shown in
local comprehensive plans.
Study the feasibility of rail service as an option to trucks for the
hauling of solid waste from transfer stations to disposal facilities.
Establish speakers’ bureau for recycling topics.
Develop recycling and composting programs in those schools
where they do not currently exist.
Explore ways to increase interest in recycling among local
businesses.
Establish five documented public entity Environmental Management
Systems including source reduction and reuse strategies.
Year 10
Establish a MRF within the region, if proven cost-effective.
Study emerging technologies designed for reduction, disposal and
resource recovery.
Responsible Parties
Status
D
VCE, TJPDC, Civic Groups
O
TJPDC, Localities
D
T
TJPDC
T
TJPDC, Locality
Procurement Officers
T
TJPDC
T
T
Localities, Economic
Development Orgs., &
Private Sector
T
C
TJPDC, RSWA
D
RSWA, Localities
T
TJPDC, RSWA
C, D
TJPDC, Civic Groups
D
TJPDC, Localities, Schools
T
TJPDC, Localities, Civic
Groups
P
Localities
C
RSWA, Localities, Private
C
TJPDC, RSWA
O
Page 47 of 51
Responsible Parties
Status
Year 20
New facilities for solid waste disposal and recycling proposed in
this plan are in place and fully operational.
Regional recycling rates exceed 25% annually.
P
O
Per capita tonnages reduced through source reduction and reuse.
O
Page 48 of 53
2011 TJSW
Draft for consideration October 6,, 2011
Letter from BFI
Page 49 of 51
Advertisement for October 6, 2011 Public Hearing
Page 50 of 53
E x t ra c t fro m P ub l ic H e a ri ng & A d op t i o n , O ct o b e r 6, 2 0 1 1
Page 51 of 51