The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-10-24 PacketCHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~a`~`°~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~. ` ` y~` AGENDA ,_ hec~~a Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 2.A. Subject: County Administrator's Report County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The County Administrator will update the Board on the progress of various projects as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Preparers Louis G. Lassiter Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Assistant County Administrator ~;. County Administrator's Top 40's List I. Critical Proiects/Activities 1. ARWA Reservoir Project 2. Community Risk Analysis/Emergency Service Coverage 3. Countywide Comprehensive Plan/Public Facilities Plan 4. Eastern Midlothian Re-development - Chippenham Square - Spring Rock - Stonebridge (future phases) - Streetscaping (future phases) 5. GRTC Service (matching funds in FY13 State Budget) -Funding for FY14 6. Irrigation Policies/Demand Management for Water Use 7. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - (next phase) - in process 8. Recycling Committee Recommendations 9. Private Sewer Treatment Facility 10. Sports Quest/River City Sportsplex 11. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Presentation to Board 12. Utilities Policies and Managed Growth II. Ongoing Proiects/Activities 1. 2013 Legislative Program 2. Airport Master Plan 3. Animal Welfare Issues 4. Capital Improvement Program 5. Capital Regional Collaborative Focus Group 6. Cash Proffers 7. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Future Phases -Phase II started 3/2012 8. Citizen Budget Advisory Committee 9. Efficiency Studies -Countywide 10. Federal Stimulus Package - Energy Block Grant - Economic Development - Police Department 11. Financial/Budget Issues 12. Five Story/Three Story Building Renovations 13. Fort Lee Expansion 14. High Speed Rail/Ettrick Train Station 15. Joint Meetings of Board of Supervisors/School Board 16. Magnolia Green CDA 17. RMA Work Group 18. RRPDC -Large Jurisdiction Committee 19. RRPDC -Transportation Strategies Work Group (work on hold) 20. Sports Tourism Plan Implementation 21. UASI (Regional) 1 Updated 10/16/2012 0~~.;~ County Administrator's Top 40's List III. 2 Completed Projects/Activities 1. Airport Entrance Improvements - 7/2012 2. Board's Appointments Process - 8/2008 3. Bow Hunting Restrictions - 2/24/2010 4. Business Climate Survey - 7/2008 5. Business Climate Survey - 4/2010 6. Business Fee Holiday (Extension) - 9/2010 7. CBLAB Discussions -12/2009 8. Census 2010/Redistricting - 6/2011 9. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Phase 1 - 5/2011 10. Citizen GIS - 5/2010 11. Citizen Satisfaction Survey -12/2008 12. Citizen Satisfaction Survey - 12/2010 13. COPS Grants 14. DCR Erosion & Sediment Control Program - 3/11/11 15. Eastern Midlothian Re-development - Stonebridge (Phase 1) -Groundbreaking 10/25/11 - Streetscaping (Phase 1) - 12/2011 16. Efficiency Studies -Fire Department and Fleet Management - 6/2008 17. Efficiency Study -Quality/Chesterfield University Consolidation - 7/2009 18. Electronic Message Centers - 9/2011 19. Electronic Signs -1/2010 20. Board's Emergency Notification Process 21. Employee Health Benefits -Contract Rebid - 8/2011 22. Financial/Budget Issues - Adoption of 2011 Budget - 4/2011 - Adoption of County CIP - 4/2011 - Adoption of School CIP - 4/2011 - Bond Issue/Refinancing - AAA Ratings Retained 23. 457 Deferred Comp Plan (Approved) 24. Hydrilla Issue 25. Hosting of Hopewell Website 26. Impact Fees for Roads - 9/2008 27. In Focus Implementation - Phase I - 8/2008 28. In-Focus Implementation -Phase II (Payroll/HR) -12/2009 29. Insurance Service Upgrade (ISO) for Fire Department - 9/2009 30. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - 5/2010 31. Leadership Exchange Visits with City of Richmond 32. 2011 Legislative Program -adopted 11/30/2011 33. Low Impact Development Standards 34. Mass Grading Ordinance (canceled) 35. Meadowdale Library -11/2008 36. Meadowville Interchange -Ribbon Cutting 12/15/2011 37. Midlothian Turnpike/Courthouse Road Streetscape Improvements (Towne Center) 38. Minor League Baseball (new team) - 2/2010 Updated 10/16/2012 ~'~~~~ County Administrator's Top 40's List 3 39. Multi-Cultural Commission (Quarterly Reports due to Board) -11/2008 40. Planning Fee Structure (General Increases) - 6/2009 41. Planning Fee Structure (Reductions for In-Home Businesses) -1/2009 42. Planning Fees (Holiday for Commercial Projects) - 8/2009 43. Police Chase Policy (Regional) - 5/2010 44. Postal Zip Codes -Changes approved 4/2011, LISPS date of implementation 6/2011 45. Potential Legislation -Impact Fees/Cash Proffers -1/2009 46. Property Maintenance -Proactive Zoning Code Enforcement (countywide) - 2/2009 47. Property Maintenance -Rental Inspection Program 48. Public Safety Pay Plans Implemented (Phase I) - 9/2008 49. Redistricting 2011 Calendar/Process Report 50. Regional Workforce Investment Initiative 51. Results of Operations -11/19/2010 and 11/2011 52. Sign Ordinance 53. Southwest Corridor Water Line - Phase I - 7/2008 54. Sports Tourism Plan -1/2010 55. Sports Tourism Program with Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers - 8/2009 56. Streetlight Policy -12/1/10 57. Ukrops Kicker Complex -soccer fields -Opened 8/2009 58. Upper Swift Creek Plan (Adopted) - 6/2008 59. Upper Swift Creek Water Quality Ordinances 60. VDOT Subdivision Street Acceptance Requirements - 7/2009 61. VRS Benefits for New Employees - 7/2010 62. Walk Through Building Permit Process -10/2009 63. Water Issues/Restrictions 64. Website Redesign - 6/2009 65. Wind Energy Systems - 3/10/2010 66. Wireless Internet Access in County Facilities - 9/2008 67. Watkins Centre 68. Woolridge Road Reservoir Crossing Project - 5/2010 69. Ukrops Kicker Comples/GRAP Swimming Pool -Stratton Property -Pool opening March, 2012 Updated 10/16/2012 r,,, ~ .~ ~~ ~~o,,,,. ~gmeto~~ 0 ~a a~ n_ ~2 ~RGIN~j' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 2.8. Subject: Richard Bland College Update County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Summary of Information: Dr. Debbie Sydow, President of Richard Bland College, will provide an update on activities at the college. Preparers Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # ~, ~~ ^ ~ ~- ~~~'°°~y CHESTERFIELD COUNTY `'~"` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~, ~ 1749 ~ AGENDA hRGIN~' Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 2.C. Subject: Model County Government Program County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Recognize the young people and the teacher sponsors who are participating in Model County Government. Summary of Information: Each year, Chesterfield County Public Schools, Chesterfield Youth Planning and Development and Chesterfield Cooperative Extension host the Model County Government program for high-school government students. The high- school students participating in the program will have a first-hand look at our local government. In addition to attending today's board meeting, students have also attended a school board public-engagement session and each student will shadow a county or school leader. Youth Planning and Development, the school's Instructional Specialist for Social Studies and Chesterfield Cooperative Extension have partnered to support this year's program. Preparers Jana D. Carter Title Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No Director. Juvenile Services ~~~ ~~ b "~;. ~:<v ~RCi!1~` CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 5.A. Subject: Resolution Recognizing the Achievements of Defense Logistic Agency Richmond's Department of Fire and Emergency Services' Assistant Chief, Mark Shreve County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Mr. Elswick requests that the recognizing the professional Richmond's Department of Fire Shreve. Summary of Information: Board of Supervisors adopt this resolution achievements of Defense Logistic Agency and Emergency Services' Assistant Chief, Mark Assistant Chief Shreve has been named as the Defense Logistics Agency's Fire Officer of the Year for 2011. This is the third time he has earned this national award. Additionally, in an even more rigorous competitive process, Assistant Chief Shreve has been selected as the Fire Officer of the Year for 2011 for the Department of Defense. Preparers Don Kappel Title: Director, Public Affairs Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # N r ~-.~-.~ RECOGNIZING ASSISTANT CHIEF MARK SHREVE, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY RICHMOND FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, FOR HIS OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHEREAS, Chesterfield County, Virginia, is proud to be the home of Defense Logistics Agency Richmond; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County's Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services maintains a close professional relationship with Defense Logistics Agency Richmond's Fire and Emergency Services Department; and WHEREAS, the two departments have an Automatic Response Agreement for structure fires; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and DLA Richmond also share resources for dealing with Hazardous Material incidents; and WHEREAS, firefighters from the Defense Logistics Agency Richmond participate in Chesterfield County's Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department's In-Service training; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is pleased to note that Defense Logistics Agency Richmond's Fire and Emergency Services Department has been selected as the 2011 Defense Logistics Agency Fire Department of the Year; and WHEREAS, the department's Assistant Chief, Mark Shreve, is a recognized leader in his profession, serving on the executive board of the Federal Military Section, Virginia Fire Chief's Association; and WHEREAS, he also has served as a member of the Metro Richmond Operations Officers Group; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Shreve has more than 23 years of professional experience, including 17 years with the Defense Logistics Agency, and six years as a firefighter in the U.S. Air Force; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Shreve serves as the Accreditation Manager for his department; and WHEREAS, his many responsibilities include overseeing the department's training, fire prevention and public education programs; and WHEREAS, Assistant Chief Shreve has been named the 2011 Defense Logistics Agency Fire Officer of the Year; and WHEREAS, this award marks the third time that Assistant Chief Shreve has been selected for this distinguished national honor; and .~ ~~ WHEREAS, in an even more rigorous competitive process, Assistant Chief Shreve has been selected as the Fire Officer of the Year for 2011 for the Department of Defense. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 24th day of October 2012, hereby congratulates Assistant Chief Mark Shreve on his outstanding professional accomplishments, on his selection for his third award as DLA Fire Officer of the Year, and for his selection as the 2011 Department of Defense Fire Officer of the Year, and extends best wishes for continued success. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Assistant Chief Shreve, and that this resolution be recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. ~~~~° CHESTERFIELD COUNTY . y'~, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~ ,~49~ AGENDA ~RGIN~' Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 7.A. Subject: Deferred Item - Consider Amending Section 14-11(b) of the County Code Relating to Possessing Firearms Near County Schools and Parks County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Amend Section 14-11(b) of the County Code to clarify its application to hunters. Summary of Information: County Code § 14-11(b) currently prohibits all "persons" from possessing a loaded firearm within 100 yards of the property line of a County public school or park. However, the state enabling legislation applicable to this County Code provision only applies to hunters; it does not have general application to all persons. Discharging firearms within 100 yards of these properties and carrying firearms on school property are already prohibited elsewhere in the County Code and by state law. It is necessary to change the language of Section 14-11(b) from "no person" to "no hunter" to ensure that the County Code is consistent with state law. This change has been reviewed by the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the Police Department; both support the amendment. Preparers Jeffrey L. Mincks Title: County Attorney 1305:88664.3(88701.1 & 88701.2) Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA At the public hearing held on September 19, 2012, the Board received comments from citizens who proposed alternative language for the Board's consideration and the possibility of repealing Section 14-11(b) was also discussed. After closing the public hearing, the Board deferred consideration of the ordinance amendment to the October 24, 2012, meeting. Staff originally recommended adoption of the ordinance which is attached as Ordinance Alternative A. The attached Ordinance Alternative B which incorporates changes raised by speakers at the public hearing is, however, acceptable to staff. If the Board wanted to consider the wholesale repeal of X14-11(b), however, as was suggested at the public hearing, the Board would have to hold a new public hearing and readvertise the public hearing since a repeal option was not previously advertised. Alternate Ordinance A AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-11 RELATING TO POSSESSING LOADED FIREARMS NEAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR PARKS AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 14-11 of the Code of the Count~o Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 14-11. -Same-Hunting or carrying a loaded firearm near public schools or parks. (a) No person shall shoot, hunt or attempt to hunt with a firearm within 100 yards of any property line of any county public school or county park. (b) No ~ hunter shall transport, possess or carry a loaded firearm within 100 yards of any property line of any county public school or county park, except as otherwise permitted by state law. (c) This section shall not apply to lands within a national or state park, state forest or wildlife management area. (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of a firearm for the killing of deer pursuant to Code of Virginia, § 29.1-529. This exemption shall apply on land of at least five acres that is zoned for agricultural use. (e) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. ~~~ F 1305:88701.1 Alternate Ordinance B AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-11 RELATING TO POSSESSING LOADED FIREARMS NEAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR PARKS AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 14-11 of the Code of the County o Chester geld, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 14-11. -Same-Hunting or carrying a loaded firearm near public schools or parks. (a) No person shall shoot, hunt or attempt to hunt with a firearm within 100 yards of any property line of any county public school or county park. (b) '`T^ „°r~^^'~~•^+°r Except for handguns carried lawfullypursuant to Virginia Code ~ 18.2-308(B~6 , no person while hunting shall transport, possess or carry a loaded firearm within 100 yards of any property line of any county public school or county park, ° °r+ ., ^+~,°,..,,;~° ,. ,.,,,;++°,a ~.., ~+.,+° i,,.,, (c) This section shall not apply to lands within a national or state park, state forest or wildlife management area. (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of a firearm for the killing of deer pursuant to Code of Virginia, § 29.1-529. This exemption shall apply on land of at least five acres that is zoned for agricultural use. (e) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1305:88701.1 ~~ ~'~ f' ._ ~~~oG CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~,, ~"~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 =.~~ .. AGENDA 1749 h ~~~ Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 7.8. Subject: Action on The Plan for Chesterfield, Moving Forward... The Comprehensive Plan For Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Re Take action on the comprehensive plan amendment, The Plan for Chesterfield, Moving Forward...The Comprehensive Plan For Chesterfield County. Summary of Information: On October 10, 2012, the Board held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. Following the public hearing, the Board directed staff to address four areas: • Police Department's position on proposed amendments by Mrs. Jaeckle to Police section of The Public Facilities chapter regarding the Chester Police Station • General Services' position on proposed amendments by Mrs. Jaeckle and Mr. Elswick to the Fleet Management section of The Public Facilities chapter • Mr. Elswick's request for Board guidance to the county administrator relative to the Implementation chapter regarding staffing for the implementation steps • Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan recommendations and the Draft Plan recommendations as a result of public hearing input. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Director of Planning f Cv\ „ ~v~~~s~ ~. ~~', ~~ ~'~~1744 ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 provides responses to these four items. To date, individual Board members have offered several amendments for consideration. Those proposals are shown in Attachment 2. Since the Commission's action, staff has identified an error in the Economic Development chapter (Chapter 5) relative to the acreages listed for the Opportunity Zones, Enterprise Zones on page 24. Therefore, staff requests that when the Board takes action on the Plan, the corrections as shown in underline and strikethrough text be approved. (Attachment 3) Also, since the Commission acted on the Draft Plan, the School Board, at a work session on September 28, 2012, made a recommendation on the school component of The Public Facilities Plan chapter (Attachment 4) Based upon this action, staff recommends amendments to the neighborhood parks component of The Public Facilities Plan chapter. (Attachment 5) Background Information-Planning Commission's Recommendation Following a public hearing on September 10, 2012, the Planning Commission, on September 18, 2012, unanimously recommended approval of a comprehensive plan amendment on a motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded jointly by Drs. Brown and Wallin. The Commission recognized that information regarding timing of school facilities would be addressed by the School Board and Administration prior to the Board's consideration of the Plan. Attached is a synopsis of the Commission's discussion leading up to their action on the amendment (Attachment 6). A listing of detailed changes in underline and strikethrough text made by the Commission subsequent to the original advertisement of the Plan is provided (Attachment 7) A complete Plan document which includes the Planning Commission's recommended changes was provided in the prior Board agenda item. The Board of Supervisors has scheduled the Plan amendment for action on October 24, 2012. r'~; ~ ~ r- :. . s ~'" v.~...;~ ATTACHMENT 1: Four Areas Identified by BOS on 10/10/12 Needing Staff Response Following the public hearing on October 10, 2012, the Board directed staff to provide responses to four areas of suggested changes by individual Board members. STAFF'S RESPONSE to ITEM 1: Mrs. Jaeckle's recommended Changes 2, 3 and 4 shown as follows relative to The Public Facilities Plan chapter, Police: THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THIS CHANGE AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A. - CHANGE 2-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, POLICE, PAGE 162, FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS, 2013-2017, 3~d bullet, amend as follows: Q^'^^~*° ~"°°*^~ Benslev District Station• ~ ^^*'••'^^~+^,~ ; ^+ ,.^„+r•~i +^ ..,+.-^i no^,~~. This station should be ,relocated {~r~+"^,..,^,-+" +^ in the vicinity of Route 1 and Dundas Road. +^ "^ .,., .,+..,i +^ +"o .,,+,-^i ., . CHANGE 3-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, POLICE, PAGE 162, FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS, 2018-2022, add the following bullet: • Upon completion of the Enon and Beasley Districts Stations, the Chester District Station should be closed. - CHANGE 4-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, POLICE, PAGE 163, REPLACE MAP AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON PAGE 162: Police Facility Recommendations • Existing Facility New Faclllty Mldlothlan liaw l+xWathua •.Dktrict s[atlan Dk1ACt Statba weftern Null street DMnkt Statlon Iteaworaryl • wes4rn hug stteet Dlshlct station I,ara,nantl ` Matcaca [gRrkC"RaNda f'~ hl Voga SuppGtt sham. A sa,t~iopentlon.a T7 Beasley ~dtalsaWnnat ,fit. ^ Wstrktstation StasP tiMF'a1Nn~ hti9iy .Ialln {Ipdqua[NO Enron OMtrlct station [hater Dbtlki sutlon 1 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet ,~~ ~B~ Attachment 1 ~~ ~'` ` ATTACHMENT 1: Four Areas Identified by BOS on 10/10/12 Needing Staff Response STAFF'S RESPONSE to ITEM 2: Mrs. Jaeckle's recommended Changes 5 and 6; Mr. Elswick's recommended Changes 2 and 3 shown as follows relative to The Public Facilities Plan chapter, Fleet Management: THE GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT THESE CHANGES. ATTACHED EXHIBIT B PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR THIS POSITION. CHANGE 5 (~AECKLE) CHANGE 2 (ELSWICK)-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 206: RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD • ''^^•~^^~^^+'•• 'Locate fleet maintenance facilities central to the county. +^ +h° .,.,,;^,-;+.• ^f fl^^+ rrccc-a'-~crs RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA Facilities should be located away from existing or planned residential areas and within, or adjacent to, the Government Center. I~dast~~~'.~~Ee;~~te 8fnee/~seareh~ ~e#e~red. Sites should be well buffered from incompatible uses. nff h +h .+r+h/or~~~+h -..+.J .+-.c+/...nc++ro..^I rh.~~~lrl h^ r~r^f^rr^r! FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 20138-2022 No new facilities are recommended during this period. Post 2022 Central Fleet Facility: replace the current facility with a new facility in the vicinity of the Government Center on approximately 20 buildable acres and include school bus parking areas. Facility should be approximately 80,000 square feet and include radio shop operations, larger vehicle servicing, fueling center and administrative offices. This facility will replace the Consolidated Shop on Lori Road and the Courthouse Bus Facility. 2 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1 ~~ ~~ ~_~~~ f ATTACHMENT 1: Four Areas Identified by BOS on 10/10/12 Needing Staff Response CHANGE 6 (,JAECKLE) CHANGE 3 (ELSWICK)-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 207. REPLACE MAP AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON PAGE 206: Fleet Management Facility Recommendations i Existing f=acility New Facility WValmtaieY bus Facility ~` Central Fleet FacNlty ~ ~ ~ Courthouse eYS facility .~ ~ ~ ConaoUdated Si+op ``.~ i`, 3 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1 ~a~e r*~: ,a'~ ATTACHMENT 1: Four Areas Identified by BOS on 10/10/12 Needing Staff Response STAFF'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 3: Mr. Elswick's initial recommended Change 4 shown as follows relative to the Implementation chapter. Upon further discussions with staff, Mr. Elswick has clarified that his intent is for the Board to provide guidance to the county administrator relative to developing a plan for the management and staffing of the implementation steps within 30 days of adoption of the Plan. This alternative is shown below and will not require a change to the Plan. THE ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS THIS ALTERNATIVE STATEMENT OF DIRECTION. CHANGE 4-ELSWICK- CHAPTER 15: IMPLEMENTATION. PAGE 211 ADD UNDER IMPLEMENTATION A THIRD ITEM WITH A DEADLINE FOR STAFF COMPLETION OF THE STEP TO BE 2 MONTHS: Implementation Team. Appoint a staff member whose responsibility is the oversight of the completion of the implementation steps. Establish a cross departmental team of staff members whose sole responsibility will be the completion of the Plan implementation steps. The organizational structure will include authority for the cross departmental team to obtain support from other staff members, as necessary. ALTERNATIVE STATEMENT OF DIRECTION FOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Within 30 days of the adoption of the Plan, the county administrator will submit a plan to the Board of Supervisors for the management and staffing of the implementation steps within the Implementation chapter of the Plan. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO ITEM 4: The Board of Supervisors requested that Staff provide a summary comparing the draft Plan recommendations tothose of the Upper Swift Creek Plan. THE PROPOSED PLAN PROVIDES THE SAME, AND IN SOME INSTANCES BETTER, WATER QUALITY PROTECTION THAN THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK PLAN. IN FACT, THE PROPOSED PLAN ADDRESSES COUNTY WIDE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND SUGGESTS THAT THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK ORDINANCES BE APPLIED COUNTYWIDE. ATTACHED EXHIBIT C PROVIDES BASIS FOR THIS POSITION. 4 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1 ~~~ .. ~, V ~~4 ~" `. ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT A: Police Information Chesterfield County, 'Virginia Pplice Department 1C~t~411YOn Bridge ]:Load -- P.O. Bo:~ 1~IS ~- C~hcstexfiel<l, "~' ~ 2832-±')~~1& ~.: I'hoz~e: (~C}4) 718-12C_,6 - Fay:: r8C~~; -4&-62G5 - Intein~t: chesterfield.gc>~ COLONEL Thictrr, G. Dupuis Chie£ a£ PpGce October 11, 2012 Chesterl`ield County Board of Super~~isors 9901. Lori .Road, Roam a0~ ChesterfieId.. ~v''~ 23832 Re: County Comprehensive Plan The Chesterfield County Police Department supports the chaa~;e requested by lr~fs. Dorothy Jaeckle regarding the current Chester District Station and the proposed new I3ensley and l naa District Stations. The Police Departinent ~upporta continued operations at the Ches#er District Station upon. the opening of the new Beasley District Station and anticipates closure aI` the current Chester District S#ation uizan #lte cazrrpletiati of the ztew Enan District Station facility. In conclusion, the Police Departmen# requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the change recomn•~eaded by 14gs. Dorothy Jaeckle. Police staff would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, Colonel '1'1lierry C3. Dt~p ' Chief of Polka TGDIss cc: file Pxc~viding a t°'th'S'I" CHf)If;~ cr~mmunity thrc~ual~ e~cellcncr in prahlic sez a7c:e BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information ~-f emorandurn Chesterfield County, Virgrirua DATE: JUNE 29, 2009 TU: THE HONORA$LE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THRU: WILLIAM E. JOHNSON, DEPUTY CUiJNTY AIaMINISTRATOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES FRtlM: ROBERT C. KEY, I7IRECTQR /"' ' DEPARTMENT +OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: OiJTSOURCIr1G FLEET MANAGEMENT SERVICES This memorandum is in res~nse to your request {at the February 25~' Board. of Supervisors Meeting}, for our staff to provide additional inforrr-atiQn regarding the use of outsourcing for fleet management services. While the sulaject at that meeting was the approval of the Fleet. Management portion of the Public Facilities Plan, the fundamental therane ctf that discussion was cost-efFectiveness of fleet services and the use of private service providers. The attached Executive Summary and Report on Outsourcing Maintenance provides an overview of outsourcing practices, a list of advantages and disadvantages, and a description of our approach to outsourcing. While the Mercury study provides a description of the advantages of a well-run fleet maintenance organization, we understand that ~+e rtrust continue to pursue strategies that create an environment of accountability through high-service expectations and clarity of costa and services. In addition to the attached report frorri the Fleet Manager, we provide the following information regarding our direction and approach to Fleet Maintenance; 1. The Activity-Based-Costing i;ASC) p4iIosophy is built into the 201(? budget so that we fully allocate costs to activities and make those costs available to our customers during the budget development process through presentations, and during the year through well- dcscumented invoicirtg processes. It xs our intention tt~ asstue drat our services are truly cast competitive, and we are corntrutted tv assuring that each service we deliver is valued by the customer. The AHC approach requires that ore provide conrzpetitive rates that cover all costs for each category of shop service, and fuel services as well. Z. Through our Fleet Steering Committee, we engage customers in the development and improvement of our services and processes. 3. Thorough our CARE Card program, we ensure front-line service satisfaction. 4. Each customer department is. provided with a Service Level Agreernertt that specifies services and communication requirements. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 1 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information l~onfinued; [}UT~4URCING FLEIIT MANAtsEMENT ~ERYICES 5. Custorrters have the option of taking their vehicles tv an outside service provider if they l~lieve that cost-effectiveness andJor quality of service is improved. If a customer prefers that. we facilitate that outsourcing, we will contract that. service, and inspect tits work of the vendor to assure the t~;etinical quality of the repair. When this occurs, we charge only for the time to schedule the repair in the ~reudor's shop, deliver the vehicle, pick-up the vehicle if needed, acid inspect the woxk when it is complete. 5. "1'iie fleet facility strategy will include discussions with customer groups, development. of a customer-driven program, and a design process that incorporates customer needs, This is an example where F1+eet Management is working toward.. building a facility that reduces the overall costs of operating a fleet of vehicles, factoring in these considerations: a. I.,acatian -that reduces the customer costs of transportatiaa tv and from maintenance and. fueling sues. This also reduces "dvwrttime", which is a critical factor far public safety departments. b. Equipment -that increases productivity and efficiency c. Bay sizes -that frarilitate mairYtenartce and repair ©f specialized vehicles d, Fnture trends -that may impact our ability to repair alternative-fuel vehicles arjtl hybrids If you need additional information or would like Co meet with ¢ur Fleet Manager, please let me know. RI.Tfljap Attachment -Fleet Manager's Report cc: Jay Stegmaier -County Adxninistratflr BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~^~ ~ r1 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Executive Sumnnary Q~tso~r~ing Flee# I~atnt~enan~c~e ~lfi~a9 His#orical Overview Outsourcing of government feeet .maintenance services has been a topic of discussion far many ~-ears. The basis. for this 'interest,~as the general sense that the private sector was c~ansiderecf tQ be more efficient and cost-effective, and many+ privat+~ firms have bid on government ~cnntracts promising bhath. Along with straightforward outsourcing, many govemment organizations tried re- enginearing, righ#-sizing, managed competition and other alternatives to improve efficiencies and effectiveness of their fleeet operations. Auer decades of experimentation, the results have been mixed at best. ~'?rgarriza#ic-ns disc©vered that the drawbacks of outsourcing often exceeded the benefits, but also that judicious outsourcing had its advantages.. To analyze the experience and study fleet operations, municipalities hired extems~! oQnsultants. The analyses revealed that the ftrrxlamental problem with m un~cipal fleet maintenance operations was the weakness of their financial and management models, They recommended a °true internal service fund" nperatfon as the best practice, using activlty~based costing to drive custanner ar~d service prr~vider behaviors: They also found that t~utsourcng cert~.in specific services could be cast effective in managing overall fleet maintenance activities, with a range of 1 l~ to 1 ~ percent considered '"best pracfice.» 0-utsourcinq Advantages Judicious outsouroing is a valuable and a l~enefica.l tool for managing a fleet maintenance operation, par#icularly in the following areas::. • S,pe~ciai#y repairs that require unique parts, tcx3ls and mechanic training such as engine and transmission overhauls: + Body repairs and painting that also require expensi~re frame straightening equipment,. paint booths and drying ovens_ • ~++Varranty repairs when in-house warranty is not feasible Qr nsat authorized. + lnfifrequent repairs needing special tools anal training such as glass, radio#ors etc... + Maintaining a lean operation, ~rrerirtg peakworkloads using vendors (wttien the internal snaps cannot meet the service demands. + Simple oil and filter replacements with restrictions on other services (with a watchful eya ro ensure that sucr~ vendora don't try tQ selr questionable items such as bulbs, wipers etc.), 3 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~~!!~~'~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information •~ Sending out lower priority work sQ in-house staff cart focus an putting mission critical units bao[c into .service gs~ickly, reducing the need for spare vehiClES. Uutsvurcing Disadvantages Vtilhen using ~auts4urGing, the potential problems to be atrercome in+c[ude: • I# lower hourly rates are pr©ritised by private contractors, managers must closely review total oharges and hours spent on a given jnb to assure fair value. The cost v# this oversight must be calculated into comparisons. If flat rate (fixed) charging methodology is allowed {using industry standards like Chiltons 4r MitcMell$}, thQn even if the job tak$$ less time titan specified, vendors charge the specified time. If the job takes longer, they charge the actual time. This Garr result i~1 highQr casts andtar cutting comers. • Governments da not receive any priority tr~satment at vendor facilities. Far the vend!ars, aU customers are equally important. Thus, ntemal priorities such as public safety units mean little to outsid$ vendors. Vendors that prouide services to many government entities further cornpl'ica#e allvcati~n of prlt~rities. + Vendor's businesses tend #v tie in one location whereas rno~st large governmen# operations maintain satellite operations, close to the customer base to provide quick service. Gflsts for transporting ~-ehicles bank and forth to facilities scan be quite high when staff time, fuel and wear-and•tear are included. Vendors do not gear up t4 mee# governmen# needs, For example, generally they da not work extended hours, overtime or weekends to meet srxow ar oth®r emergencies or disasters.. • Unlike internal fleet operations, few venders know utif~atlon rates or bather with alerting c[~stomers about upcoming Ph+l, insp$ctians or certifications. It iS Qr~tirely uR to the oust~om+ar t~ self-monitor which requires intema[ resources. • Mast venders specialize only on specific equipment or speoifiic rrtakes of ve'hic[e. • Security of equipmen# and items left in the vehicles is at risk. • Many vendors do not have any excess capacity far providing additional services to govern ment vehicles. When outsourcing is G~tntracted within the governmen#'s own facility, overhead costs must soil be factored into the cost cornparisvn. Ste:tus of QutsourclnQ far ChesterfEeld bounty flee# rnaintenance rrperatians were reviewed by Mercury ~4ssoclates in 208. In FY 2UQ8, for which a fiull year's figures were available, tare value of 4 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 r ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information ~ut~aur~in~ was apprt~xrrtatelyr $1.1 mtl[an. Mercury reported that tf~~e ~vunty gas inrdustrg~ best practice in t~ fe~rel ~f ouourc~~, tha# its ire-l~~use casts are beiQvrr industry standards and a~sv that any ir~creasa in vutsour~r~~ waufd result in h~i~}'~er exp~ertises ft~r t#~e ~t~unty dire to ti:rne and distances in~roiv~ed in transpartin~ vehicies tv ver~dcrs. because rr~a~y- ©t the potentiaE ~autsour~cint~ ve~ndvrs are Qutside th$ borders of tha ~cc~unty, even the busEness tax benefit iS severely limited. 5 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ,-~ r- y , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ rte: ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Repolrt on ~utsaurcing Main#enance Fleet Management Division April 2ClQ9 Background: The County Board, at its meeting on February ~~, 24{}9, asked the administration fir addi#ional information onoutsourcing fleet managemenY°. Although fleet management camprises a broad spectrum ofi services, it is understood that the expectation is specific to outsourcing fleet maintenance. This report details advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing fleet maintenance based on actual experiences. Situation: Chesterfield County outsourcns a considerabl$ amount of various fleet services. Aside from f=leet Management division (FN1D) that currently outsources many maintenance services such as engine and transmission rebuilds, other Cauntyr agencies diractly outsource aN or part of their fleet's maintenance also {see Appendix A}, Examples are: • 141lotorcycle maintenance - Police Department • E...adder and Platform track maintenance _ Fire De~rartrnent installing interiors of squad units -Police and Sheriff's Departments • Glass anti laQdy repair - Risk ~Manag+ement for units involved in accidents • Construction equipment units ~backiloes, loaders, etc.) -Utilities Department • Warranfiy work • T©wing (3utsourced value: !n FY 2Q+D8, for which full year's figures are available, the value ofi outsourcing was some $i.1 million. Individual contracts with various vendors rant,~ed between $94 and $24$,400. Some 45 vendors were involved from towing companies to major vehicle and engine suppliers. Appendix A lists the names and dollar amounts fore each vendor. FNfD management visited a few major suppliers tv evaluate their operations and make benchmark comparisons.. Observations are attached as Appendix B to this report.. 6 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ,{~~ s r, ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Level afi outss~urcing: All fleet operativns ask the question whether the level of outsourcing is appropriate and whether there are benefits to outsourcing more or less. M$rcury Associates, the consultant hired by the County to evaluate fileet maintenance, made trre fallQwirtg obser~-atiran: "FD currently Follows industry best practices by u~tsourcing work that is highly specialized, such as body work and transmission rebuilds. FI~AD a1s~d arvpropriately c~ufsQUrces r~epar"rs during periods o! peak workload in order tc~ rninirrriz~e velhlele downtime. AddltonaP cxxrtsourcrn~ in order tt~ -•eduee shop space requ;rernents is nor feasible because i J~ additlona! outsourcing would result ire a 25 percent increase in repar`r costs; 2} edditr`one! outsourcing would' negati~ely~ irr~pacf employee pmductl~vl heca~rse many key vendors are lacai'ed miles ftt7m where county ~etrirlos are domciled,° ~~ c'tt7~Clft%C~!]c'~I QLlitSl7~l1rL'1/?~I [+'Vt~U~~ I?~t Gs~1{t?%rk~'tt3 f~?8` t!%t'~'R1817~ f{7t" ~~?$ Counl`y fro construct new shops an the future" {~utsaurdng origins: (7utsaurcing of specrEio serfices has existed fcrr as lr~n+g as float c~~erations hays been arau~rni. But, in the late i 98(ls, government fleet o;~erations reached a Iow In popular perception and organizations looked to outsourcing more, C?ebates raged uvhether fleet aperatic~ris were even core business functions. Primate sector fleet providers such as Ry~i+er, General Electric, AFtI, etc. made sales pitches claiming to r~esol~re many t~f the thorny Issues. Quite a few murtlclpalities and... counties gave a sympathetic ear urthaut first car~sidering if their fleet operations' financial, casting and management models were appropriate or if they were even adequately funded. Vllhenever k~udgets were tight, the first cuts were invariably made to fleet replacements making the situattor~ worse. Also, based on a fasting- that befter aril more cost-effective services could be ~gEeaned, government organlzatbns across ~'4merica tried to redefine their Fleet operations by oufsourcing, reene~ineering, right-sizing, rttrodu+cinq managed corrrpetitiorr, etc for tfte past Few decades, peatang in the early- and mid-199~1s. Th€~se that studied Internet fleet operaticxts determined that most suffered from inappropriate financial and martagemertt rr~odels. Many provided all-ir}clusiv~s rates that were not transport to customers and hard tea defend; many were prevented from charging appropriate rates since their other general fund agencies had budget shortfalls; many had cQSting structures bossed an "directives", many had budget funds given to them that tended to fluctuate frorrc year to year, and so fortf7. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~~'~~ ~,;~' ~.. ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information What were the results of cu#sourcing? The resin#s were mixed. tJrganiza#ians discovered aver the years that cautscaurcing has both drawbacks and benefits: • The lower hourly rates, if promised by private contractors, have li#tle meaning if the total charges are the same Make twice as Icang or charge twice as much -see next bullet} • Flat rate ifixed) charging method used by the private sector means even if the job takes less time than specified in either Chilton or Mitchell or International Trucks standards (industry standards that establish timelines for various jobs), vendors charge the specified time. If the jab takes longer, they charge the actual time. This results in higher costs. Governments do not receive any priority #reatment. For the venders, afi cus#amers are equally important. Thus, internal priorities such as public safety units mean tittle #o outside vendors. Many venders provide services to many government entities further complicating allocation of priorities. C}ften, distances involved are long and time consumed ferrying back and forth, high. These cysts are neither transparent nor considered when calculating savings andlor benefits of outsourcing. • Vendors d~, not gear up to meet government needs, Far example, generally they do not work eac#ended hours, overtime er weekends to meet snow or other emergencies or disasters. • t.lnlike internal fleet operations, few venders knew utilization rates or bother with alerting customers about upcoming PM, inspections car certifications. It is entirely up to the custommer to self-monitor. Most venders specialize only can specific equipment or specific makes of vehicle. Thus, a Cat deafer would not maintain a John Deere tractor. government c-peratfons typically carry a wide variety of makes, equipment types, models etc. in response to tfie needs of the specr~ic vehicles in the flee# • Vendor's businesses tend to be in one location whereas most large government operations maintain satellite operations, class to customer base to provide quick service. + Security of fosse equipment and items left in the vehicles is at risk. • Many vendors do not have any excess capacity far providing additional services to government vehicles. Some cities such as Charlotte NC, Indianap~vlis and Phoenix tried different approaches to outsourcing. Charlotte tried managed competition; Indianapolis tried maintenance contracting;.. and Phoenix, joint bidding for specific s~rrvices such as garbage collection. Managed competition is a process in which the internal operations bid far providing main#enance services on a fixed cast basis. Since the price is fixed, there is a benefit to the provider for controlling costs. Residual "profits" are shared by aft employees. Thus, profit and cutting corners becomes the motive, BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 t~~~a ~.~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information not service or the larger interest of the organization. Fleet operations and. customers are often in disputes abau# whether yr not a specific breakdown was caused by negligence or routine wear. The atmosphere is one of confrontation. The time horizon is also short far there is no certainty that the contract will be awarded again when the term expires. Short-term thinking results. Maintenance contracting is where an external provider resides in the government facility and provides services on a fixed cost basis. The experience is that, typically, bidders "lowball" the bids to get a foot in and then ask for more money claiming that there were many "unforeseen„ expenses, The experience of Indianapolis caused quite a media stir. Maintenance contracting also results in short-term thinking, profit motivation that results in cutting comers and uncertainty regarding the future. In order to manage a maintenance contract properly to assure that the municipality is truly receiving value, the municipality mus# employ experienced managers far oversight. This cost is often overlcxaked when compa~ng costs. Joint bidding is when fleet operations jointly bid with another entity far providing a complete service. Phoenix divided Itself in#v four quadrants. Fleet and Solid 1Naste jQint#y bid in cxampetition with the private sector. When they lost a contract one year in one quadrant, they had to sell off ail equipment. When they wan a contract back, they had to re-equip all over again, Garbage trucks haute a Ivng read time for deliveries. Besides, nc3# all city quadrants are the same. Some tend #o be heavily residential and others, commercial or industrial. The types of garbage packer vehicles needed to serve them are entirely different too. The results were, again, shflrt-term thinking, cost c+ontral motivation, frequent selling and acquiring of vehicles raising casts and uncertainty regarding the future. None of this means that outsourcing is without merit. Judicious outsourcing is a valuable and a benei"icial tool in many instances such as: Specialty repairs that squire unique parts, tools and mechanic training such as engine ar~d transmission overhauls. • Body repairs and painting that also require expensive frame straightening equipment, paint booths and drying ovens. • Warranty repairs when in-house warranty is not feasible or no# authorized... • Infrequent repairs needing special tools and training such as glass, radiators etc. • Overflow work when the internal shops cannot meet the service demands. • Simple oil and finer replacements with restrictions an other services (ono experience showed tha# such vendors try to sell questionable items such as bulbs, wipers etc.}. VYftat followed outsc~urclr~g~' Promises made by private sector providers did not materialize and a few organizations reversed outsourcing in early 204Qs. But, they needed advice on 9 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~i;~~ ~~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information haw tv improve interrtal fleet ©perations. Thus, the role of the consultant became more pror~ninent. Experts Tike Mercury Associates, Maximus, Spectrum Consultants, Chatham Consulting and others stepped in to study severs! organizations across the tJS 3r'1~ Canad~.lntQrastingly, after studying many, they do not recommend outsaurci~ng as a solution at all. They, instead, recommend a rational model far internal fleet operations based on. Establishing fleet operations as a true internal seruiCa fund • Establishing afull-cast accvur~ting model Establishing separate businesses within fleet operations such as fleet sappiy, maintenance, foal etc, ~• Establishing aservice-based charge back system for each business • Establishing a sinking fund which is dedicated and used only for fleet replacements This is the direction Ffv1D is headed nova. How does Cheatarfl~id C~ur~ty measure c-n outsourcing? Considering the abavve factors, Mercury Associates investigated if the County can save rncrney by auts~ourcing mare fleet maintenance functions. They used a Vehicle Equivalent Uait (VEU) analysis which converts all fleet units intq sedans or multiples of them k~ased vn complexity, Their aaserva#ian was tha# FMD is approximately ~8~o below benchmark: which indicated that FMa's cast of servaGe is competitive with best in class municipal fleet organizations and with maintenance e©ntractars (described above). With regards to outsourcing to community vendors, they observed, "FMD already uses carnmunft~r vendors for off these purposes. In our vp~ni©n, additronsl cutsourcing of activities would rrof produce better fleet management for the +County since >=A+-A already fa!%ws industry bas# ~rractces in t~1s Brea !n .other words, we found na senricv eurrerrtly pe-rfarmed in-house fhat ~ArtD shnufd outsource from an operational (rath$r than hharrci~al~ perspective" To determine if fr~am a finar~Cial perspective more outsourcing makes sense, one needs to benchmark and compare the lo~ca,l rates for various services. The following are the ~Ot~g shop hourly rates. Li ht vehici~es Hea /bus fleet Goodman Truck ~ Tractor h~'A $89 international Truck Sales l~Jl'A $79 to $1 t72 Carter Maohine h11A $9~} Sirs er Associates iVfA $96 Wlfestern Branch Diesel __ N1A $104 Hale Ford $89 N1A 10 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~-; ,-~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information FMt3 ~~ 2t}10~ ~6~ $~S1'T3~{heavy fleetlschavl k~us The industry best practice, asdefined by consultants, far the average amount of ~outs~ourcing is t~etween 1 ~°fb and 15°fo of the vwark. Fpr 2Q08, inciud'tng outs~ourced work by customer departmen#s, ~e figure for the +Daunty as a whale is Brame t4.~%~. Fl1~ll, internally, outsc>urces in excess of 1~~a of the work, Mr+vh~ich is tin the high end. These~figur`es exclude v-rarranty maintenance proved by vendors fc~r which no data is a~vai'lable_ Mercury Associates themselves concluded that outsourcing would a.ctualty cast the County some 25°I~ mere in repair casts. D+t~+es c~utsouircing aeneflt the county at large It is unlikely #hat further auts4urcxn+g would benefit the county. The am~vunt ~Df rnaintenanca is fined and if part t~fi it is Qutsour+ced, Internal resources have to be reduced correspondingly. Bence, a gain in Qne area imeans a Ic~ss in anvth~er. Besides, as ARpendix B indicates, many Qf the big service providers are not domiciled in Chesterfield ~c~unty. Thus, furtherauts+ourcing would rewire additional r~est~urces to transport vehicles ~ vendor [ocatior~s. Tt~e sdditic~nal travel time spent r~uld require the aunty tQ purchase adc~'rtic~nal `spare'" vehicles to be used for the additional ~`dc~wntirne° of units awaiting repair a# vendor locations. ~onrclustons. ~ . FM'CI~ already follows or +exceeds best practices with regards to outsourcing. ~. Disadvantages with further c~utsaurcin~g or alternative service provisions outweigh the benef~s_ 3. Further outsourcing wiN also likely increase the cast tQ the bounty. 4. savings can be realized by bringing in-house maint~enanc+e of Utilities' heavy construction equipment. 11 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information AP~~NBIX A Outsourwed Maintenance in FY2048 Etccludlnp wat'l~ltyrepaksa Mar- 09 e Fl6at Atanagemrnt t71vi81orr--a SharflPs Farr Copt Pn11cs Ud1i11~ Risk Algmt- Totei terra siwp rwy strop L>re shop weam.tay 4u 7echrx>iog+es 5830 $s3o.oo Auto au of Virginia $872.68 5872.68 BinsvraBnerGlass $1,034 $255.16 $92432 $1,000.81 $21.819.93 $25.034.40 Bob's Glass Shops $,14,074:01 $14,074.01 Budget AAObiie t_Otk5mith $75.00 5150.Q0 $~-`-~ Capital Pontiac $22$ $228.24 Carter Machinery $21,117 $36,883.81 $58,000.as Chagtetfiet( Body Shop $288.DS $11,036.04 $i42,745.G2 $154.067.72 Coastal Towing 5775.QQ $175.0¢ Coionial Forci Sales 5617.57 $7,557.91 Si3,t75.4$ CrersshawCarp $16,341 $1,415.83 $8,05828 $25,415.01 Cummins Atlantic Inc $848 $1,OG5.28 57,a82.ss Dep# of info. Techrglogy $72ti.15 3721.15 Gursdman7ruck $52,558 $13,188,72 $23,656.77 $$7,171.00 $176,787.78 Hatay Fwd $702 x704.27 $8,388.71 39,794.86 Harley Davidson 312,1366.00 312.885.00 Heritage Chevrolet $8,778.47 $109.89 $8,888.36 #iydra Carbon Recovery 9vs. 5188 x189.00 Intematiartal7ruck Sales $45,943 $612.20 571,4$6.18 56,547.11 $123,648,90 $248,415.12 hAid~thian Speadwash 52,992.20 $2,992.20 Miscei-ar,eous S1,soo_oo 5a,5oo.to ~ri,ooo.oo AAobilily Center 5901.75 $903.75 New Life CeI Wash $1,968 56.908.50 S&67fi.50 Old Oorrtiei4n Brush $1,800.OO $1.800.00 Oki Dominion Linn-x $425.00 $426.00 Old Dominion Tke 580.00 $90.00 Old Dominon Tractor 5952,8.5 $1)52,85 PriorityCollis~nCenter $896.71 S1B.B99.57 S19.796.28 Rays wrecker Service Stao.9o 5130.00 Richmond Auto Uptwlstery 5399,67 $399.67 srlset klanagrrnrml0#vlsion-~---a St~rl(Prs Flro Dept Polkas Utilltles Rtdc Mgrnt Total Bus Shop Hvy Shop Lbe Strop Wrlntsky Servpm $4,50 §450.00 Shaey Ford $978.40 5978.40 Singbt $1tY2,36i.00 $182.381.00 Sunny Merryman $7,262 $7,262.25 Stuart Rolffe Mumer $1 st 5583.75 $133.25 $$5625 TCI 547,307.00 $24,934.51 372.241.51 Terex UNGes $775.00 5775.00 Thurston Spring Services $1,045.36 51,045.36 Tyia Equ~xnent $6,894.38 $6,984.36 Utility Distributors 5361.3.6 $361.36 VA Truck Center 52,547 S6,a97.00 59.043.$6 Virginia Fprkljil ycn1.02 5261.02 western Branch Oiasal $5,402 5335.42 $30,958.40 $3x3,693.10 white oak 59,439.01 S9,439.01 Whitten BroUtars $819.52 $3,358.74 $4,17528 GrarW Total 157,b41.29 23,80267 94,,315.E16 152,36$.8+{ 1,500.00 334,292.00 1ti,365.m 558,535.84 321,385.73 51,1198,236.83 45 FMD Maintenance Expenses $t3,721,893,3Q Outsourcing as a % ts.~ Courliy-wide 0utaaut'ced Value s7,tt20,t30.4a Outsourclrrg as a ~ 14.79'. 12 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information ARPE~iD~X B Contractor information Visits to Suppliers 31 Goodman Truck 8~Tractor Inc. Location: Amelia County Distance: 31 miles from Cvurthause driving time: 35 minutes by car, longer by bus Normal shop rate: $98lhvur County rate: $89~our Technicians: 14 Bays: 1' S Body shop: fi Machine shop: 6 `gB County business:. $17fi,788 {rank #2) Authorized dealer: lntemational, Cummins, Allison and Caterpillar. Shops include: Radiator, body, paint, lagging machines and trailer repairs... Hours: 8 am to 5 pm, M tv F; ~ am to Haan, S Typical c~astamers: UPS, Fed Ex, Crewe Fire Dept., Seat's Towing, Teal Furniture, Firs# Fleet, Penske, Virginia Correctional Enterprises, Virginia Waste Services ~3bservatian: The bays were full, with trucks squeezed in angularly sometimes to get them in. TC! ~a #ir$ supplier) Lacativn: Hanauer County Distance: 2$.g miles frcam Consolidated Shops Driving time: 33 minutes by car, longer by busltruck '08 County business: $72,242 (rank #4} Authorized dealer: Michelin tires. TCI is awned by Michelin but it also sells other brands such as BF Goodrich, Gagd Year, Yc~kahama, etc. TCI also- recaps tires but at their Statesville plant in lUvrth Carolina (near Charlotte}. TCI, headquartered in Duncan, SC, has sums 10~ centers in the region. They have a branch operation in Richmond where the lease is expiring in a year. Services include: Supply of new tires, recapping, and emergency roadside service. They have 24 service trucks which provide an-site fire repairs and installations. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 13 ~k~.~jd~~~~`< ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Appendix B Contractor information Carter Machinery Location: Hanover County dive branches in Virginia} Distance: 27.6 miles from Consaliclated Shops Driving time;. 32 minutes by car, longer by busltruck Shop rate: $9(lmour Technicians: 10 Bays: 12 "08 County business: $58,a0Q (rank #5} Authorized dealer: Cat on-highway engines, generators Shops include: 'U~tash bay,. truck dynamometer bay, one service truck Hours: 7 am to 5:30 pm, M tv T; 7 am to 7:30 pm F, S, & S Typical customers: Washtech, DCA Express, New Century, Estes Leasing, Frank Parsons, Liesfield Contractor, Mid Atlantic etc. Observation: The shop was full of trucks undergoing engine repairs.. Since Cat will cease to mark®t can-highway truck engines from 2010 onward, they plan on starting truck chassis repairs also on trucks but not school Muses. 3I3i109 Stng_er Associat+~ Location: Chesterfield County Distance: 9 miles Driving time; 23 minutes by car, longer by busltruck Shop ra#e: $951t~aur Technicians 9 - aays 7 (double size, 14 in ail} `a8 County business: $162, {rank #3} Authorized dealer: Pierce fire equipment. AIsQ works an others such as E-One, Seagrove etc. Shops include: No body shop. Hours: 8 am to 5 pm, M to F Typical customers: Virginia l?ept. of Health, Scottsville, ~lewpart News, Hanover EMS, Quinton, City of Richmond, York County, Camp Peary, Suffolk Fire Dept, State Police, Fort Eustis etc. Observation: Singer has a modem facility with wide bays {22`} and long bays (gU' wall to wall}. Singer specializes in fire and EMS units and nothing much else. They are the official representatives for Pierce units with five facilities in Virginia. Manassas is their head office. 14 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ~~` ~~ ~ ~_ $ ',, ,:'fir ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Appendix 8 Ccntractar Information UWestern Branch diesel Inc. Location: Hanauer County DisianCe: 27 miles Driving time: 32 minutes by car, longer by busltruck Shop rate: $10QOhour; $105~'hour in the field Technicians 20 Bays 16 '08 +Cc~unty business: $36,70~I drank #f) Authorized dealer: Detroit Diesel, Allison Transmissions, Mercedes-Benz engines, Donaldson filters and mufflers, Reed Dat AIC, generators Shops include: Chassis dynamometer and transmission dynamometer. Hours: 8 am ts~ 5 pm, M to F Typical ~custornerS: Coastal Towing, Platinum Tours, G.S.IV Trucking, Fete Ex, James City Fire, Virginia Waste, James River Bus Service, ATS Inc., Bobb}r Curtis Towing, etc. 201t~ emissiar~s: Detroit Diesel engines will require urea injection in 2010 engines, about 2°Jp (2 gallons far evert t 40 gallons of diesel}. Urea freezes at about 15 F. It may cast some $6 a gaUan to t~gin with. if urea bottle gets empty, the engine is programmed to degenerate in performance and ultimately quit. Drivers will have to top up with urea when fueling. Bio diesel: [}strait Diesel voids any warrantable issues relating to fuel if more than B5 is used, tnternatianal Truck Sales. Hanauer facili#v Location: Hanover County Distance; 28.8 miles from Consolida#ed Shops Driving time: 32 minutes by car, It~nger by busltruck Shop rate: $55 to $102ahour. $55 for simple PM work; $ia2 for enginelelectronics work. Typical County jabs - $79/haur. Technicians 20 in service; t 5 in collision repairs Bays 47 including 13 for body shops and paint booth "OS County business: $245 500 (rank #1) Autthorized dealer: , IntematiQnaf trucks, engines, Allison transmissions, Caterpillar engines,. Cummins, Eaton, Dana, fNeritor Straps include: Collision work, paint, alignments, frames Hours. 7 am to 1 am, M tQ F Typical customers; Dan's Trucking, Allied Crawford Stesl, Snap On, Estes, Henrico County, Spatsylvania County, Budget, 15 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 C~.Fp~ x ~.~ ,~ ~ E~.r+ 6:J ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Appendix B Ct~r~tract€rr Infgrrnation Chesterfield facility Sateilts tvcation: Distance: giving tune;. Technicians: Keys: Shags inClu~le: Hours: Gr~enshaw ~GorpQrat[lon interstate Batteries, 'UYard Trucking, Uni#ect Van L.irtes BMG Metals, Richmond School bus, AJsca, etc. Chesterfield +Gaunty ~ miles from Cortsolida#ed Slaps 23 minutes by ter, hanger by busl'truck 7 F~cutln$ rnairtitenance. Facility is nqt Gat certified. They prefer to perfarrn all engine-rotated work at Hanover facility. 8amto5pm,i~toF Other suoaiiers, no# vlel!ted Location: Richmond Distance: 14.2 rrriles from Consolidated Shops Driaing time: 23 minutes by car, longer by busJtru~ck `~8 County business: $2b,500 (rank #7~ Supplies: Service bodies, dump bodies., lift gates, pickup accessories, van equipment, snow and ice removal equipment, etc. Tru~fc Er~terorisea. Iric. LQCativn. pistsn~: Driving tirt~e: Shop Rate; '08 County business: Autharizer~ dealer: Shops include: IWhite 4a~k E+culprnent location: Services fQr: C hester'Fietd trounty 7.6 miles 1~4 minutes by car, longer by busltruck $981haur, $72lhour body shop. None Kenworth trucks. bodyr shop, wheel alignment Utilit~- equiDnnent_maintenance Hanover County, 28 miles. Kubota backhoes, skid-steer loaders, etc. Uid Dorninlort Tractor & Eaui~men# Loeatir~n Ri~chmand, 2t.5 miles Services for New Holland backhoes, skid-steer loaders, etc. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 16 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B1: Fleet Management Information Appendix B Contrac~ar I nf~rrnation Paten~~at ctuick tube vendors r III, f~'~ ~aa'~'}~ [8(~4} 7958 11321 ~enitt~ lid, Mi~iloth~an, 1/A 2:31 ~ ~ asst: 4.S miles Coil Change, Tr~nsmissior~ Service J~_ff~, Lute $Q~~ ~6~-5950 7C~5 commons Pia~at ~Ghe~terfield, 4`A 23832 fist; 5.~ r~tiles ~3i1 Change, Auty Repair and uervice, Transmission Service Ff~~ts#e~t~ Car litif~sh end, t~ui+ck L~~~ ~~80~~ ?AO-009Q ~ ~ C~31 I rc~n Bridge Rd, ~hester,lf A 23831 Digit: ~.1 miles Coil change .. _ _~.._., .....~...~w~~.~~d..~..y..._.__ _,..._~,~,~. Midlothian Exp~e s L' ~a~~} 89~-Ofit~3 i X285 hllicllc~thian Turnpike, Midlc~thiar~, ~l~4 231 ~ Dig#: ~(~,~ miles Coil ~hang~; Jiffw Labs ~$0~~ ~5~ -0999 °1201 ~effersen Mavis ~lwy, Cher#er, ll~ 23$31 l~~t ~Q.~ ~'rtiie~ iii Change, Transmission Service Zvc~m A Luba ~$~ ~3D-555 Hundred Rd, Chester, VA ~333~ . .. fist: ~3.~ miie~ -_ . . ail Dhange, Auto Flep~i r an~1 Se~yi~a 17 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B1 ,r~;;~ ~i~}''~ .. , ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B2: Fleet Management Information Chesterfield County, Virginia Memorandum ~,,~~, ~~`~ DATE: FEBRUARY 6.2009 ``~) ~ TO: THE H0IVORABL.E DANIEL. A. GEC'KER MT17I,OTI-ITA~ti DISTRICT SCIPERVISQR THE HONORABLE J.AMF.S M. pICILLANI? DALE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR FRAM: RU13EIi.T L. IS.EY, DIRECTOR ~'~/~='~"` DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ~~ SUBJECT: BUDCJET AND AUDIT CflA!IItE1iTTEE FdLLOW-UP SUMMARY C1F MERCURY r'1SSOCIATES ©TJTSCIURCING ANALYSIS The following sun~mruy is pr©r~idcd in response to the request fr©m the Budget and Audit Committee meeting on Navernl~er 19, 2008, asking whether the consultant's estimate includes the facilityfinfrastructure casts to run the operations. In order to answer that question fully, ant needs to understand the consultant's methadc~logy. That methodc~lagy is bdsecl on tl.e rrurnber of work orders charged out for each shop in ll'Y 2t)0', along with the fatal actual costs far those work orders. Based an Mercury's experience, the following additional casts are associated with using conununity service centers {local dealers and small shops). 1. Direct maintenance and repair casts -mercury has found that community service center casts are generally 25~f'u more than those of government shops*, due to higher labor costs, higher par`s mark-ups aad dealer profit 2. Labor/Staff casts fo; transporting vehicles to local vendor locati©ns as identified by Mercury for eacft shop 3. Fuel costs for transporting vehicles to the service centers *Note: According to mercury, same curnpanies cc~clcl proYlde services far approximately ld9o over the cast of government shops, -f Facilities are prouided by the locality. The attached spreadsheets sha~~ the consultant's figures assuming Z5%, as the estimated additional costs, and an alternative using 10 ~ as a comparison. Estimates were not included for the cost of additional spares needed far longer delays associated with campeti~tg with other vehicles at de:deril, nor fc~r monitoring and managing contract services. T'roviding a FIRST CHC1ICl(~ cazrzmunir~~ through excellence in public service BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 x~'S N ~,` ~~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B2: Fleet Management Information Mercur~r determined the locations 4f local service providers, and calculated rnileag~c tt3 those locations, assuming 44 miles per hour average travel speed to es~imate staff time. 7t was also noted by Iwtercury's vice president that prices cuu~ld be recluc~ed by negutiatiau, but that the harder you nego'ated, the lower the veal priority your vehicles would receive. 'Ihe consultant does not ga iota the qualitative advantages of internal fleet services staeh as priority fc~r public safety vehicles, emergency respcrosc assistance, environmental perfomrtance an~i the intangibles of employee comrnaitrnent. RaCKJjap Attachment -Spreadsheets cc: Allatn (~armc~dy William Jahr~son I'rab Rao Jay Stegmaier 2 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 ~~ ~~ ~'r x ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B2: Fleet Management Information Pnalys7s Using addiiticxt3l Z5°,'s Gast r9. In-house Gas's _ ~ - - - __ _ -_.. _ _ Ligr'[. ~M~a'+rtt - ~3ctr~alBus :Totals i-. -. ~, --.- 'h?orf~ Order`6 6,3$3 I 3,493 ; _ 1 7,3'2 ; 2t,.Z88 i_.nst 5 1.[105.['H10 ' S _,~79f3.0EX2 - S 3.Fad8.360 _ 3 5.709.0(lU.~ . - , FMp t2SX i 25l.75C~ ~ 5 274,5Qd _ ~ 9Q1,5fl0 S 1,~27,2a0 - F~ 1~lPG i5. ~ ~: B, l0 . Fuel Price $ 2 Y5 i 2.7$ ` S ? 5 ~ S R.25 av~ rni7es , _ 29 ~ _ _ 43 ' 89 , - _ - - - - :5~ _ acdad mesdriv~n ~ iB3,Bafl ~ 171,9flt} ; i 047,134 ' _ 1,382,584 aCdad fug7gals - - 10,022 " _ 29,45p r i3D,$9Z 1133,284 , added fuel cast - - , 5 30,074 ; 5, 58,19 S 359,952., S _. _. 4#8,9!73 bstprudueiivehrs 5,351 ! 4,253 31,318 - #ird8{} ._.. . Lak,+ormsk 24~ 2k7~ ~ - 2Q' _ 2d , . prad~r.7iv!'j rx~st S 11 1.022 ' S 85,~5f4 , 3 fiL7.513 ; S _ . . . t319.a92_; iTc~al ~utwurtx ws[ i 338,3Q7 3 415,.:,45 . 5 1,638,E . ~ -, -_ - - .. t,7p5,817 _.. _. _ - -- - _. _. _ _ .. -- - - --~ --- Year t $ _._ . T - 3'5,947' S --- - -- --,... 418,545 $ _ - _ 1,888,9E5 ! ii - _ _ 2,70.1,&1? 5 ~ - -- - - - _. .273561? _ ._- - -- . _ ~ ; - -- 396,347' ; ~ _ _ 418,545 + ~ _ - _. 1,988,95 ; ~ 2,7D5,$17 ~ S . _ Sdii 63Y4 _- _ _ . 3_S__ _ 396,90X-_i__ . 4?!3,545 ~5_ 1,S1}8,,91E5 j ~ _.. __-- , -- -2,7"05,817 ~.Sr.- 8 1(7,451 4 S _ 358,3{?7_~ 3. _ _ 498,5#_5 ~ i- 1 ~$~ 985 : ~ ---- 2,7i75~$17 ~ t._ _ .. _ _- 14.823,268 Si #. 3~,3Ly7 r S X18,545 1 ~ _1'$88 945 x . 3,746,81y ~S 13a~2lf~Otl.5 _ . . _. _ ' _ _ - _ . 5; ~ _ .398,3C`7 ~ 5. . ._ X18 51.5. 6 _ 1 Eii91 ~ ~ ..... -. 2,70'5.817 ! 3 _ . _ (8,234,902 ~ T~ x- ~ 3liEr;tfl?_h«C . .418~b+F5 ' ~r t E38ff,9fS5 I i _.. .... - 2,705,$17 j.5__.._ - 18,~i4,7'ID' . , B'; S . ~. 398 7477 ' S _. - _ 418 545 # 1 i 985 S ?Y'1!5 817 ; ~ ~ 21,38.538 ,_ . _- _ _ - , _ _ 1 _ - - flr3 _ , I ...,. _3H8,3k77 _3_-_.. , _ v _415.5+15 ~.i , _ _ - . ~ _1 9!4$,8 r$._ ,_...._ _ _ _ . . _. , __.2,T{N~,81T ;.~____ - 24,352,343 - -- .. .----- _ . _ 10-'- $_ 38E,30T ~ 3._ 418,5~i5 _;_ 1,,$8~ a S _. 2 795,817 : 8 .._ '.s'7,~fl58,:1751 - ii'~ ~ 399,347 ~ S d99,5k.s g I,t38,E,965 , S .231]5 Biz ~ _-., .. 29,783:987 - - - --- -- - .- _... -- - .._ ....--- -- -- -121- ~ _ 398,3f17 ; ~._. 47Bi54_.5--~- -1,8a8~9Cf5 ; 5 P.703,d1I i _. 32,4d9,BfY4_ 1 & ~ 3307 8 . 4'I 8,~4$ 5 - 1, 388 ~ 3.__ 2 705 817 3 a51T6,$21 . 1d S . 398 307 ~ T~ 418545 S 1,5$8 9r?l5 ~ _ - ? 7{b5 817 ~ ,5 ,, _ J _ 37 ~l81,438 - _ 75=- 3 - . _39~8S3DT i ~ _ 418,545 , S _ 1,886,4X3 ; ~ 2,7'Q5,81T j i __ +1~~587,2~i 18, '~ 3U&st17; a 41$,545 i 1,8&8,4165 t 2,P45 817 6 ~d3 2Q31472 _ --_ -~_ ...._.._.._, - .--1.7"7: _,_... __... 3€r83df ~ S _ , d1B,'54S 5 _ _ _ -1.888.985 ~ t _ __ _ k 705 X17 : 5 _ ___ ___ 45 ~8.t788 i8~_~ 868,_307 , i I 1 418,5+45 5 ~,8f,8,995 i ,,705,!317 19 43 7W,7E7 r 19: S 3£JB,~l7 ~ i 418,546 ' ;~ i,,aaa, ; t 2,7{75,817 S _ .5t 410,522 v20"_5_.. 388,307 5 _ di 8. ~ ~ __ t.71~f185 S -..._.. ,.. _. , _2,7416,817_= 3 -.. __ - ' " 5~.t 7,339 158 21; a 388,347 ~ ~ 41a,5~45 • ~ 1,SB8,g&5 i 2,7 45,817 r i 59,822, 23~# 3fl8,3Q7 ~ 418,546 ~ ` 8 „__ , _, _ _ 1,88$ Si65 13 _ ,~ _ ___ -.. __..-_ __ ^ 7p5 81T_r~ ~ __ __ ~ ' 59 577,973 . ------_E3 f __ _ 39 ,30111! -- 418.5u#~_~3_ - - - 1,~8985~6._T __..lO5b~7 !~ _62,233.780 _ 24 i-_ _--- -- 398,347 ~__ 8 Q 418.:r#;a_~,S_ 1~88B9t~5__~,~~_.___ S _,__2~7Q.,,81,7.~___ i7 2 45 3 Bwi,93i~r80T d24 BT ~45 . _-- ---- - -___25. S S 9 79 ,3 T ; ~_ 478,x45 S 1,888:985 9~s7-BH1 ~ L 1 3 4113-825 S 47.224.119 S , ,7 ,a -- - 87.845-424 ~ , 3 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 `~~~~~~c ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT B2: Fleet Management Information . _.. - { Cluts4urc ng An~lysi9 Using Estitnytod 1090 Aclr~ikicsna Cns# vs In-hauls Casts _ r _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _.._._..._. ---- .... _ .. __ . _. _ _ :iyht ttG3-1F S~.honl Bps .7=~t~hst :. _ ._~ - _-- -! i~4lcsrk~-dr4ra f,?•A3 ' 3~~~3 _; _ 1i,A1~ ! 21.268 ~ _ Cud _ • 3 1,{1~7y,GOQ 5 '.fl9s3,DO0 $ 3.fitYB DOG ' S 5.709 f~JC~ ' FMO+1076 S 1'OG.S[}l} ' S 1Q9.8CR} ' S 3fi0,6(3GG ' S 57447E _ Fuel hii~G .. 15: $: 3' 10 ;. Fual Rrti~• - - - S . .. 2.75 $ -- 2.75 ' S 2.75 : S 8.25 ' __ ~igmiles . ?6 _ 4.3 : 3~ . 5~ . aC+lsri tflil~S driven iR3,A3D ; 171,fi0p ~_ 1-t7,t7 134 1.362 avid ac~lar7 tud ga's _ _ _ fG,922 ~ 21,~k ; . ]308:2 ' __ 163 X94 , ardad #~r91 cast .. S _ _ 3t1,t~'_16 ~ S _ 5A,9f38 S _ ?459..457 ' S 44P1475 IastproducDvs firs .. _ 5,851 i 4,253 ° _ 31 376: _ _ a1 4dG ~ ... _ - LahCrcast _ _ 70 2~~} _. , 215 23 ,. - -- prQduetiuily r..~st -- - 8 -- -- ` 117,(}22 S 85,058 . S 617,513 $ ._ $19,592 ; Fo4a~ autsaures arst_ _ , ._ S 24?,557 S 253.8445 $_ 1 348,[]65 . S _1.349 4t37_T ._ .. _ .. ._ - _ . ..-_. .. __ F. __ _ ____i _ 3 ___ _ .. .__.._ .._ _. _..~---- - ~_....... Yoor 1; _, 2A7,557_,.~. _253845 y _ i,34$fl!65y ~_-- _--- - 1,349#67_,.3 _. i 84~,t67 ~ ~ $ ..247.557... S _ .:~3.8~5... $ _ .. Y<34B 0&5_ S_..- - - - --- 1-849.467_, ~_ .. __ . 3.696.'x. _ . _ _ ..._.. .-- - ---..... ~; ~_ 2~~,ss~~;3 - 2s3.&~ ~_~ ~,al4iuss_.~-... _ .. i,~a~aa7 ~_~ _ _ s~~ae.~i ,.-. _~ ~__--- -~._..~. 4i~ 247:567 3 - -. 253~8454'~ _ _. 1,3-08rC165_~~ _ _ -_18484b7 r~ _. l,;~l,tl{iS .__.. _._ . __ _ .__._. 51 S 247u,57 3 ._253y84S_ _S_ 1,348 D68-~ ~_ - ..._. 1,849~487_~ ffi:_. __ 91247,6_ - 6r 5 2475571 ~ 253,EA5 E 1~ 1„3A6 Dfia i S i,8149~457 ~ '~ '7,{)96,802 _ _ - ---- - -- - - --- . _ _ . _ ~f ~ _ _ 2d7,6~62'. ~ ~ _ ,_ „ e~C e,L I.t]~~,.{~}. L~ . - _ ___._._ 77 . 1SL~ '. ~" ___'- ..._ __ _.._ ry~ ! ~. ~6l ' i .. ___ ~y~ ~~,L'iO,~•i ~. ,.. .. . _ _ _ _ 8, f 247 557 1 ~ _ . . _ Z53,&~6 ~$ . 9 ` _ 1~34E4.;1~Er6. ;.5 1,_64g' 1167 _t 3 _ _ .4,79E.736 _.._ __....._ ._.- _. $t S 10~ 5 2-07.557 ~ i 247 567 i ffi 2rs3,84S ' ~ 25 b45 ' S ~~t8, ~ S 34$;J68 i S - t.$491,4B7 ` ~ _. 1 $48!117 5 __... i&6A5,~!!3 IB4~4 !BT~ _.. _ _ __ _.._ _..._ _ __ _ _.__ __~. ~~-- - --- - --- -11 ~ # t-- . 347,x57 !_~ - - - . ., . , -~3=~r-'. ~--- ,34S,t7.iG~s ~ S - ° , .1_ ._ _~- ..-t,&i~,A6T k-~' ---- , . _.. _ _ _- 211',344, 137 12 ~ 5 247,567 t 5 253 845 i 8 i S 1,348 1,849,467 + 3 22,193,61}4 --------__..__._..._._._._.._.~. - _ -_..1~1_~! 247'.55`7 ' '~ .___._._ - . -_253L$46 ? ~_ 1 _34$_96'5 f 3 __` - - 1. X67 } $ _ - .t,._~_v . ~d043.071_ _..,, ....._ - 14' i, 151 5~ 247.567 S_ 2"d7 7 ~ t5 253.844_~S 53845 $ . 1,348.5 ~S_-- - 948 Q6~ S ,&t9~67 S '643 467 ~ ~5~892,53B_ 2T 7A2 Q75 -_._ __. _ - , 5 ? _1. , I _ ___ S , _ ... ~ . ___.. . __ .~ --- -- _i~, S -- --- - -- - Zd7,~S7 3 ~_.- 2S3,adG 5 _ . ~_ _ 1,348 OtIG ~ $ _ J. 4449 ~#G7~x -~ _ .. " ~_29S9i,472 .- ~._- 17! 3_ ---- 247.557 j 5__ __213845 -~ 1,348,€IBfi~$ ._4_. a S __•_ ._ _.__8d9:4~ __.,..31A~14,. 10 3 t s^4x,557 , ~ 250,845. $ 1,~+9,iJ65 ~ 1,849 x67 ! $ - 33,291J,48w ------ ., .._------- -- --- ----__._. __ _... 19_.5,_ . 247.557 ~ ~.. ~ ' __ 253 8~ 5 s3 _ _1.34$ 0$5 ~ # _ _ _ o ; -- - - _ 1,&19L4fIT ~, i _. e 4 -- -_ 35 739_[3'1 Z_ ~ s _ . _ _ zo_-s - E 7ss~ ~ ~-- a7 5 H s~ s -~ z ~ T 1.348 6 fi_s _., 3aa ' . _ i, a,4e? #---..._. 4 ~~ T.~ _m_ a a t~ a a z~ ; _ a 5 T ~ 53 ~ i. ves . ~--- - 1,b k 4$7 .t s_ 3 a r _ __ __ -??LS 247.587 ! S 233845 $ 1,34$,44ifi~S T` i 849 467 44 F$A273 13~ ~_ - 24'x',657 r $ _ 253846 ;-$-- 1'3481085 -I i-- . _ 1,849 4(iT ' ffi 42,537,74[7 2i s _ 2a~ffi 24755! ~; 24.7,557' ~ 3 ~253,E1b 3 ._ 333,[}43 3 1 316,085 ~_ . _ _.. .._ -- 1,346,(~65 S .. 1,849~48T. C-.~! -__ . - .1,&iB,~G?' I S -_ 44: 367,297 44231[,674 --- -- -_..._.._. . 8 1 t3$ 531' 1 634612.5 , 3 3.769 E 19 i .. __ _ d8 238 574 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 4 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number 1 2 3 Land Use and Density Orderly Development Patterns Economic Development Swift Creek Plan Overall: the recommended land uses and densities were adopted to minimize the impacts of development on water quality; Land Use Goal 5A: Provide land use transitions Land Use Goals 1 and 7A: Development patterns guided by the availability of public water and wastewater and suggest a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services; ordinances adopted to require mandatory utility connections. Plan did not include an analysis of public facilities needs. Land Use Goal 2: Promote economic development opportunities Draft Plan Generally the land uses recommended by the Draft Plan are consistent with those recommended in the Upper Swift Creek Plan; the recommended residential densities are the same; All land uses are subject to the adopted Upper Swift Creek Ordinances which are not recommended to be changed as a result of the Draft Plan. (Land Use Plan and Environment chapters) Draft Plan does not suggest changing mandatory utility connections; Draft Plan further controls growth by suggesting that leap frog development not be allowed by limiting the length of extension of public wastewater (Land Use Plan chapter, Page 97, Future Development Potential). Draft Plan also includes a full analysis of public facilities needs and addresses provision of those needs for the next five years based upon anticipated growth and development countywide (The Public Facilities Plan chapter). Draft Plan carries recommendations forward (Land Use Plan Chapter); Draft Plan further addresses Economic development countywide by suggesting more detailed strategies and efforts than what was addressed in the Upper Swift Creek Plan (Economic Development chapter). BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C 1 ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number Topic Upper Swift Creek Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan supports a variety of residential unit types but limits densities to minimize impacts on water quality consistent with the recommendations ofthe Upper Swift Creek Plan; both Draft Plan Land Use Goal 3A: Promote and Upper Swift Creek Plan Variety of Residential a variety of residential suggest that new residential 4 Types types; update the residential zoning categories and portion of the zoning requirements be developed. The ordinance. Draft Plan includes an Implementation chapter which addresses timing and reporting of implementation progress so as to insure that steps are taken to implement the Draft Plan. Land Use Goal 3A and 4B: Preserve scenic and Preservation of Natural recreational value found in Draft Plan does not recommend 5 Landscape natural and forested areas. changing current requirements. Ordinance was adopted to require tree preservation along major roads. Land Use Goal 36: Encourage actions that The Draft Plan, Land Use Plan stabilize and improve chapter carries this 6 Residential Compatibility existing neighborhoods such recommendation forward in each as density and lot size land use category and applies the compatibility among existing recommendations countywide. and new subdivisions that share sole access. The Draft Plan, Historical and Land Use Goal 4A: Cultural Resources chapter ~ Adaptive Reuse of Encourage preservation by guidelines carries the Historic Structures allowing adaptive reuse recommendations for adaptive reuse forward and applies the recommendations countywide. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C ~.~;a~'~~j ~e~, `~'~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number Topic Upper Swift Creek Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan, the Parks portion of The Public Facilities Plan chapter carries these recommendations forward and recommends general locations for corridors; Environment chapter guidelines suggest innovative development which incorporates environmental features as Land Use Goal 4C: Use the amenities; Draft Plan does not Conservation/recreational plan to identify corridors; suggest changing or amending 8 corridors ordinances have been adopted ordinances that are in adopted to protect corridors effect today, and further suggests that more stringent ordinances may need to be adopted (Environment chapter); Draft Plan recommends applying existing ordinances countywide; Draft Plan addresses adopting additional ordinances to require environmental features to be in open space (Implementation chapter). Draft Plan recommends development of strategies/studies for land conservation tools to include Land Use Goals 6A and 8A: purchase of development rights Purchase of Development Develop a Program; such a and open space/conservation 9 Rights and Transfer of program was never easements (Implementation Development Rights developed following chapter). The Draft Plan includes adoption of the Plan an Implementation chapter which addresses timing and reporting of implementation progress so as to insure that steps are taken to implement the Draft Plan. Draft Plan carries this recommendation forward and applies the recommendation 10 Affordable Housing Land Use Goal 9: Encourage countywide; Draft Plan further affordable housing addresses studying tools to encourage affordable housing (Housing and Implementation chapters). BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C ,~ ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number Topic Upper Swift Creek Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan carries forward these Road Improvements and Transportation Goals A, B recommendations and addresses 11 Development Conformity and C: Thoroughfare Plan recommendations countywide (Transportation chapter). Transportation Goal D: Draft Plan carries forward these Consider incorporating recommendations and addresses 12 Bikeway Plan bicycle facilities when countywide; Draft Plan further improving roads recommends updating Bikeway Plan (Transportation chapter). Rail Service; Public Consider options for Draft Plan carries these 13 Transportation; and Park expanding these recommendations forward and and Ride Lots transportation options addresses countywide (Transportation chapter). Evaluate zoning proposals Draft Plan addresses service based upon adequacy of needs countywide for all public 14 Levels of Service roads, schools and fire/EMS facilities (Transportation, Public facilities Facilities and Implementation chapters). Draft Plan carries these recommendations forward and addresses countywide Environmental Goals A and (Environment, Water and B: Promote land uses and Wastewater and Implementation Land Use and development standards that chapters); Watershed Master 15 Development Standards protect natural systems; Plan is not affected or changed by Watershed Management Draft Plan; Draft Plan does not Master Plan updated to recommend changing adopted comply ordinances and recommends applying adopted ordinances countywide (Environment chapter). BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C ~~~'} ~'N~ ~=~~•v ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number Topic Upper Swift Creek Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan carries these recommendations forward and addresses countywide Environmental Goal C: (Environment and Improve, restore and Implementation chapters); Draft prevent degradation of Plan does not recommend resources; ordinances changing adopted ordinances and 16 Degradation of Resources adopted to require greater recommends applying adopted setbacks from resources ordinances countywide than those required in other (Environment chapter). Draft Plan parts of county supports funding to address improvement, restoration and prevention of degradation (Environment chapter). Draft Plan carries these recommendations forward and Environmental Goal D: addresses countywide Maintain diversity by (Environment and Biological and Nabitat protecting undisturbed land Implementation chapters); Draft 17 Diversity corridors between Plan does not recommend watersheds; Ordinances changing adopted ordinances and have been adopted recommends applying adopted ordinances countywide (Environment chapter). Draft Plan carries these recommendations forward and addresses countywide Environmental Goal E: (Environment and 18 Stormwater runoff Minimize during Implementation chapters); Draft construction; Ordinances Plan does not recommend have been adopted changing adopted ordinances and recommends applying adopted ordinances countywide (Environment chapter). Draft Plan carries these recommendations forward and addresses countywide Environmental Goal F: (Environment and 19 Development Standards Promote and encourage Implementation chapters); Draft standards that minimize Plan does not recommend environmental impact changing adopted ordinances and recommends applying adopted ordinances countywide (Environment chapter). BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C ~~~ `'~" ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C: Comparison of Upper Swift Creek Plan and Draft Plan Number Topic Upper Swift Creek Plan Draft Plan Draft Plan carries these Environmental Goals G and recommendations forward and 20 Education H: Promote education and addresses countywide awareness to protect (Environment and watershed Implementation chapters). BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 1, Exhibit C ~~~~$~='•~4;~., ATTACHMENT 2: Individual Board Members' Proposed Changes The following exhibits provide proposed changes by individual Board members that were submitted prior to the October 10, 2012 public hearing on the draft Plan. • Mrs. Jaeckle's Proposed Changes (Attachment 2, Exhibit E) • Mr. Elswick's Proposed Changes (Attachment 2, Exhibit F) • Mr. Holland's Proposed Changes (Attachment 2, Exhibit G) BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2 ~~;~~~ r; ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT E: Mrs. Jaeckle's Proposed Changes CHANGE 1-CHAPTER 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PAGE 18, EDUCATION & TRAINING, AMEND LAST SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS: Chesterfield area employees have above-average levels of education and skill, and work in business-friendly environments rich with training opportunities. Close ties between local businesses and industries and our institutions of higher education, Virginia State University and John Tyler Community College, assist in tailoring educational programs and curriculum to area employers' needs. Accessibility to other area colleges and universities to include Virginia Commonwealth University, College of William and Mary, University of Virginia and J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College allows Chesterfield to have a readily available educated workforce. - CHANGE 2-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, POLICE, PAGE 162, FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS, 2013-2017, 3rd bullet, amend as follows: Qe~,.,..,+^ r"e~+,,. genslev District Station• ^•~~~^^+~„ ~^,..,+^a ; „^+ ,. „+.--.~ +^ „~+.-^~ ~ee~s-This station should be relocated {~•~*"^~ „^~+" *^ in the vicinity of Route 1 and Dundas Road. +^ "^ „~ „+.-,~ +^ +"^ „.,+.-^~ -, CHANGE 3-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN. POLICE, PAGE 162 FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS, 2018-2022, add the following bullet: Upon completion of the Enon and Bensley Districts Stations, the Chester District Station should be closed. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit E ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT E: Mrs. Jaeckle's Proposed Changes - CHANGE 4-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, POLICE, PAGE 163, REPLACE MAP AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON PAGE 162: Police Facility Recommendations • Existing Facility New Facility YY Midlothian ,ll~w rrA{dlylhlait • O~trict Station DlsiclR Stittiat '~~. VsBce Sup~far!"Serv{ees 1A(e~dern H'7dI Street Dlstrl~titiltWn S~t6ft OpenlaoBS i `~ Bensley ., ~~ ,T~etigl~Cgyipnent ~_ ".0'Isirict Station !"sir > ~ r ~~ ~r~y t ~t { ~ J ~~~ ~ ~~ ~lbfke Ne9dgwutlrs (pyrniaier~ tg' ~ Enos Dlstrkt Station . p,~-~,, r'~ y „;,' ,~. Matoaea durkt itatbn. N ry BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit E 2 ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT E: Mrs. Jaeckle's Proposed Changes CHANGE 5-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN. GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 206: *NOTE-MRS. IAECKLE 8l MR. ELSWICKARE BOTH PROPOSING THIS CHANGE. THIS CHANGE IS CHANGE Z ON MR. ELSW-CK'S LIST RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD - ~^^~•°^~°^*'~• 'Locate fleet maintenance facilities central to the county. *^ +"° .,,,,;^.-:+•• ^f f~°°+ , T RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA Facilities should be located away from existing or planned residential areas and within, or adjacent to, the Government Center. Sites should be well buffered from incompatible uses. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 20138-2022 No new facilities are recommended during this period. Post 2022 Central Fleet Facility: replace the current facility with a new facility in the vicinity of the Government Center on approximately 20 buildable acres and include school bus parking areas. Facility should be approximately 80,000 square feet and include radio shop operations, larger vehicle servicing, fueling center and administrative offices. This facility will replace the Consolidated Shop on Lori Road and the Courthouse Bus Facility. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit E 3 ~'~~~~~ ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT E: Mrs. Jaeckle's Proposed Changes CHANGE 6-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 207, REPLACE MAP AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON PAGE 206: *NOTE-MRS. ~AECKLE St MR. ELSWICKARE BOTH PROPOSING THIS CHANGE. THIS CHANGE IS CHANGE 3 ON MR. ELSWICK~S LIST Fleet Management Facility Recommendati©ns kI ~ Existing Facility New Facility I~~ YValmdeylus FacNity • k Central Fleet FacMtty ~ ~ ' cewrtAouseeu3Faei1ltY ~ Cansdidated Stop ;.. !`. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit E 4 ~~~ ~~~~ ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT F: Mr. Elswick's Proposed Changes CHANGE 1-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, SCHOOLS. MOVE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE THE CHARTS ON PAGES 2, 3 AND 4 OF ATTACHMENT 3: SCHOOL BOARD RECOMMENDED CHANGES NOT BE ACCEPTED CHANGE 2-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 206: *Note-Mrs. Jaeckle & Mr. Elswick are both proposing this change. This change is Change 5 on Mrs. Jaeckle's list RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD - ''^^••°^~°^+'•~ 'Locate fleet maintenance facilities central to the county. +^ *"° .,,.-,;^.;+•, ^{ fl°.,+ rrc~avc°-t~-~i: RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA Facilities should be located away from existing or planned residential areas and within, or adjacent to, the Government -Center. ~t;-iU'~Ce~ate A##TceTResearsh 8~ ~e#e~e~. Sites should be well buffered from incompatible uses. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 20138-2022 No new facilities are recommended during this period. Post 2022 Central Fleet Facility: replace the current facility with a new facility in the vicinity of the Government Center on approximately 20 buildable acres and include school bus parking areas. Facility should be approximately 80,000 square feet and include radio shop BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit F 1 ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT F: Mr. Elswick's Proposed Changes operations, larger vehicle servicing, fueling center and administrative offices. This facility will replace the Consolidated Shop on Lori Road and the Courthouse Bus Facility. ~eec#e~ CHANGE 3-CHAPTER 14: THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN, GENERAL SERVICES, FLEET MANAGEMENT, PAGE 207, REPLACE MAP AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THE CHANGES ON PAGE 206: *Note-Mrs. Jaeckle & Mr. Elswick are both proposing this change. This change is Change 6 on Mrs. Jaeckle's list Fleet Management Facility Recommendations ~ Existing Fadlity New Facility Watmsley Bus Facility Gentiai Ftlet FacNHy , ,, • Courthouse Bus Faellky ~.r' ~~~ e7r ., .. r ~ ' i ~ ~ Consofldatad 5hV'P (.~ 1`', BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit F 2 ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT F: Mr. Elswick's Proposed Changes - CHANGE 4- CHAPTER 1$: IMPLEMENTATION, PAGE 211 ADD UNDER IMPLEMENTATION A THIRD ITEM WITH A DEADLINE FOR STAFF COMPLETION OF THE STEP TO BE 2 MONTHS: Implementation Team. Appoint a staff member whose responsibility is the oversight of the completion of the implementation steps. Establish a cross departmental team of staff members whose sole responsibility will be the completion of the Plan implementation steps. The organizational structure will include authority for the cross departmental team to obtain support from other staff members, as necessary. - CHANGE 5- CHAPTER 15: IMPLEMENTATION, PAGE 212 ADD UNDER POLICIES A SECOND ITEM WITH A DEADLINE FOR STAFF COMPLETION OF THE STEP TO BE 9 MONTHS: Infrastructure Financing. Evaluate the cash proffer policy and other methods to finance infrastructure needs; revise existing policies and adopt new policies, as necessary. - CHANGE 6- CHAPTER 15: IMPLEMENTATION, PAGE 217, POLICIES, OTHER POLICIES, ELIMINATE THE SECOND BULLET AS FOLLOWS: OTHER POLICIES. Revise the following policies, as necessary: • Substantial Accord for Public Facilities • Tower Siting • Residential Subdivision Connectivity Stub Road • Residential Sidewalk. 3 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit F ~~.~~a~ ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT G: Mr. Holland's Proposed Changes - CHANGE 1-CHAPTER 10: THE LAND USE PLAN, NOTE 3 ON PAGE 11O CHANGE AS FOLLOWS: Note 3: Chippenham Parkway/Route 10 and Jessup Road/Route 10 At the northeast and southeast quadrants of Chippenham Parkway and Route 10 and at the northwest and southwest quadrants of Jessup Road and Route 10, land uses other than those shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be appropriate if adequate land is assembled to minimize the impact on surrounding land uses; if high quality, upscale and innovative architecture and site design is employed to provide a positive first impression on visitors and potential investors; if adequate land is assembled to provide direct vehicular access to Route 10 without using internal residential streets; and if mitigating road improvements are provided. Such alternative land uses could include Community Mixed Uses or Regional Mixed Uses. - CHANGE 2-CHAPTER 10: THE LAND USE PLAN, AMEND THE LAND USE PLAN MAP ON PAGE 112 AND THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP ON PAGE 113 TO REFLECT CHANGE 1 AS FOLLOWS: BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 2, Exhibit G "~ ~-~ ,_,. ~.;' ~ ~ `~', ATTACHMENT 3: Staff Recommended Changes Subsequent to Commission Action Economic Development (Chapter 5) - Chanee 1. Page 24, amend Opportunity Zone/Enterprise Zone Section as follows: Jefferson Davis Corridor Primary Enterprise Zone (~~3,792 acres) This primary zone, designated in 1994, is located along U.S. Route 1/301 from the City of Richmond to the intersection of Route 10. The zone is conveniently located to Interstate 95, Chippenham Parkway a~Route 288 and CSX rail, all which ~~~traverse the zone. Its close proximity to the Port of Richmond provides additional development opportunities. A significant amount of industrially zoned land lies within the Jefferson Davis Enterprise Zone boundary. This important corridor has excellent transportation infrastructure, ample water and wastewater capacity, and abundant reliable power. Walthall Primary Enterprise Zone (~,5~83,451 acres) This primary zone ~° r^^,^~~°^~' ^{ ~ ^~' °^~°° °^~' encompasses a large portion of industrially zoned land. The zone begins at Route 10 and continues south along Interstate 95 and Route 1/301 to the City of Colonial Heights. Ashton Creek, Ruffin Mill Industrial Center, The Enterchange at Walthall and Appomattox Industrial Center present significant development opportunities. With easy access to Interstates 95, 85 and 295, the Walthall Zone is ideal for warehouse and supply chain management companies as well as manufacturing that require "just in time" shipping such as food related industries. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 3 ~'~~~ ~ ~? ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Public Schools OVERVIEW High performing, high quality public schools contribute to the quality of life and economic vitality of Chesterfield County. The importance of providing school facilities equitably to all county residents is paramount, as is finding ways to plan and adapt to future needs on the basis of anticipated trends in demographics and technology. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a greater focus on linking schools with communities by providing greater access, flexible designs and locations that better meet the needs of the communities in which they are located. In addition to ensuring sufficient and appropriate educational space for our students, it is the responsibility of the school division to properly maintain all facilities and to promote parity and equity among all schools. Although parity among all schools is desired, the plan recognizes that schools in the county have been built over time in response to school age population demands. As neighborhoods have been approved and emerged, certain areas of the county have created a demand for schools sooner than other areas. As a result, as of 2012, county schools range in age from just under 100 years to just over two years. This large disparity in facility ages inherently yields newer schools offering more current, and in many cases more advanced, opportunities for students and the communities they serve. The county should strive to create and maintain parity among all schools by either fully modernizing schools on a scheduled basis or replacing the facilities as each reaches the end of its useful asset life. Program (Functional) Capacity Chesterfield County Public Schools uses a facility's program capacity to measure facility usage. Program capacity is an industry concept that accounts for the building's design capacity and incorporates classroom space limitations created by various state and federally regulated programs such as Special Education, Title 1 and Headstart. These programs contain certain mandates limiting classroom sizes, reducing available classroom space in the facility. Program capacity figures change on an annual basis depending upon program requirements and state/federal mandates, and do not include temporary trailer space. Design Capacity Design capacity is based upon a building's physical size and the amount of classroom space. This figure does not include programming requirements which place limitations on class sizes, reducing the number of students that can be accommodated in individual classroom spaces. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 1 ~~~~~~ 8 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Elementary Schools The county has 38 elementary schools enrolling 26,000 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. h l Th t ' l t e ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ e~ ~ emen oo s e coun y s e ary sc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°, have a combined program capacity ~ ~ ~ ~ S4;y of 26,700 students for a y ,;T=" ~ ses ~°, systemwide utilization of 97 ~ ~szs s-zs ss~ percent in the 2011-12 school se+a-R+f ~ ses s~ ~ year. Elementary schools enroll an ~' ~ ~ s~ ~o, average of 683 students each and '~ 1~QL ~ 8~ ld f 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ years o are an average o . ~estweed ~ bps ss4 88°6 Program capacity and enrollment r, r:~ ~~ gq~ fee ~°6 ~ for individual schools is subject to ~~" sus ~ ~„~, change. Annually, this information €~€€ ~e sus ~ ~°, is published in the Capital °"-,"" `~~'• ~eea ear asz es;6 Improvement Program (CIP) and ' _°~'° s~ ~e the school division's Financial Plan ~ ~_' s~ sus 0 . ~..~~ ~ ssa ~ ~„o, r ~ ~ sae ~ee;b r~ ~ ~e sss ~°, ~~ n,-,= ~s sse u~a klar~ewgate ~ s4~ 44s 82;6 ,~ ~ sas ~a e~ s ~,= szs ssg ~o, ~~ ~ ~ ~ aaa ~ see as4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~°, mad ~s ssz ~ sz~ ~ ~,-,^ ~ ~ ss~ c~i,.... r".~.~" ~8 ~e s~-8 ~6 c...:l+r.....L two] ,~-~ ,&~ ~A ~e w~EIRb ~ ~9 ~e ~ a~oi 1I1~~V1~tF ~4 ~4C ~e -~°~o anEeus }sus ~e ~ ~; ,°, week+dge ~99e ~2e ~-3 396 sysFem ~~ ~ BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 2 ~~~~„ ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Middle Schools The county has 12 middle schools enrolling 13,900 students in 6th through 8th grades. The county's middle schools have a combined program capacity of 15,200 students for a systemwide utilization of 91 percent in the 2011-12 school year. Middle schools enroll an average of 1,156 students each and are an average of 39 years old. Program capacity and enrollment for individual schools is subject to change. Annually, this information is published in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the school division's Financial Plan. yL-e~ aFeaK ~egr a~ J~egKaw~ Name ~1~ ~alaas i~~ ~~ 6,a~aasii#~ Q~se ~ ,~ ~~ 3§°6 ewer ~ ,~ ~~ 8876 F~~-oaai~s ~9A8 ~ ~ 3~8 X3°6 ^ " , ,~ 3~9~ ,. ,~ 4~4 mo o AAa~easa-*- ~ X45 8 ~,~99 ~~°6 AA~dle~l-iia~ 3~4 ~~ ; ,~ 3~°6 ~e 3~8 ~ ~ 843 88°6 #~e~ieH3 3~~ ,~ , ~~ 3~°6 c.~" -~ ~ ~ 8~§ X4°6 i x$98 ~- ~ '~ 3~°6 c„~ ~~ '~ ~8 3~°6 •nn~r,.~~~ nn~.Fai., c~ti...,i •.,,-i ~a..~ ~ .ti.. a..... ~ti..,.,.. H,.... •~ F... ~ti,. ~ ...ti~....a nn ~r..~~-. LI'.. L. C~I.,...I1 .. ~ L. '14 :.. 1 OG7 -....~1 L. ~.~ -. ..F 4~A ~ ~~.I....t~ BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~~ ~^ ~~~»~r;: ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session High Schools The county has 11 high schools enrolling 18,500 students in 9th through 12th grades. The county's high schools have a combined program capacity of 18,900 students for a systemwide utilization of 98 percent in the 2011-12 school year. High schools enroll an average of 1,684 students each and are an average of 30 years old. Program capacity and enrollment for individual schools is subject to change. Annually, this information is published in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the school division's Financial Plan. 4 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 a.J' .:1 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session OVERALL SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS • Provide more community-oriented schools that act as neighborhood anchors and support community use of the facilities after school hours. • Coordinate economic development and revitalization efforts with school revitalization and replacement as one aspect of an overall community revitalization strategy. • Adequately maintain all facilities including schools, administrative buildings, auxiliary spaces, sports fields, playgrounds and other school division spaces. Maintenance should ensure that all facilities are safe, properly functioning as designed, support learning for students, create efficient and effective working spaces for employees and support community activities. • Revitalization is a full modernization of the facility which includes extensive renovation to bring the building up to current codes and standards, while enhancing the overall learning environment. This would include replacement of, or upgrades to, building components including handicapped accessibility, HVAC, roof, electrical, windows, flooring, ceiling lighting, and current technology infrastructure and internal reconfiguration of space to support educational programs. Revitalization may include the construction of new space to provide adequate program areas. Also included would be external upgrades and renovations to enhance the appearance and condition of the exterior of the facility to enhance the surrounding community. The goal of facility revitalization is to make an existing facility comparable to a new building. • Replacement entails building a new school facility either on the same site (preferred) or at a new location within existing attendance boundaries. A school facility would be replaced at the end of its useful life when it becomes more economically attractive in the long term to replace that facility than to continue major repairs or to revitalize it. • Assess facility needs on the basis of current conditions and enrollment as well as projections of future growth and enrollment. • Provide modular classroom buildings to temporarily address insufficient student capacity and/or instructional programs such as special needs. Use these structures for temporary (1-3 year) spikes in enrollment and not as permanent classroom space. These temporary structures should be removed from school sites as soon as permanent classroom space is available. Temporary modular classroom buildings should be located on school sites in areas that support instruction and to the extent possible located away from highly visible areas. • When appropriate, school facilities should be co-located with other public facilities for maximum efficiency. Flexibility to site acreage will be provided when considering co-location. • Continue to encourage and expand joint-use agreements between school and county agencies for use of school facilities and grounds. 5 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~~r ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session • Encourage private sector cooperation in the acquisition and siting of new school facilities through the acceptance of developer proffers of buildable land suitable for school locations in conjunction with review of development proposals, provided the proffered land has been evaluated through the site selection process. • Ensure compatibility of land uses adjacent to existing schools and reserved school sites • Improve student access and safety by coordinating the construction of roads, sidewalks, bike paths and/or pedestrian trails to and from schools. Extend this linkage to other nearby public facilities such as parks, libraries and community centers. • When possible, consider using multi-story building configurations for new construction and additions to middle schools and high schools to reduce site requirements. 6 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session RECOMMENDED THRESHOLDS FOR FACILITIES Assess system utilization and identify facilities that are, or are projected to be, over capacity. • Consider whether individual facilities are projected to be over capacity for a temporary (1-3 years) or long-term period. If temporary, use temporary expansion strategies including modular classrooms. Base decisions regarding the timing and location of new schools and school additions on a comprehensive analysis of need, fiscal impact, and availability of adequate resources. • Consider the program capacity level as the threshold to trigger redistricting, building additions and/or new school development according to the following recommendations at the individual school level: • • • e •• o. % of Program Capacity Recommendation Action Less than Consider redistricting to capture enrollment from other Monitor capacity levels. 90% districts as needed. 91%to 100% Recommended school capacity. No action. Monitor capacity levels. 101% to Determine if enrollment trend is a 1. Redistrict if long-term. 2. Begin planning for additional space needs or new 110% short-term or long-term school construction if trend is long-term. occurrence. Approaching threshold capacity. 1. Redistrict. 111% to Determine if enrollment trend is a 2. Begin planning for additional space needs or new 119% short-term or long-term school construction if trend is long-term. occurrence. School is operating over capacity. 120% and Determine if enrollment trend is a 1. Redistrict. Over short-term or long-term 2. Expand school capacity. 3. Construct new school. occurrence. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 7 ~. ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Elementary School Recommendations New Facilities: 600 - 750 students (design capacity). RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA • New facilities should be a minimum of 20 acres. • Facilities should be located with direct access to at least one collector road. • Athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds provide students and communities with a connection to and sense of identity with school facilities. All schools will be constructed with their own athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds. Community access and organized recreational usage of these outdoor facilities is encouraged as appropriate. • New facilities should be located within residential areas and not along major arterial roads or within non-residential areas. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ~~ AIl1TG Th +' f h I f~ 'I'+ rl +' rev-r~rrri--c' mmrr'rr'r~$r~crrvmTCrcm c7-TCCrni~rcncrucivrro a~-~ Di,o+ 7A77 rwrrvrr • ~clvS~e1' 1,-Y~°-~v'-'rtc~T~2~~e~;uC~. an..~ln„ Dn~~l-.h ~.,.~1 u.,.~,L~.,~• • rL.~+er ~. r ..i+~li~n „ nl~~n rh-,ILIn.. -,.,.J unr,~.,n • r~..~+nr z. r .,~+~r~ nl~~n n~„~~ n.J ~ ~~+L. nF ATrlln+hi-.., T~~r.,r.iLn Dn..i+-.limn n .,f-,ten Dnn Air o.,.J rr.,o+ ...nn.J I n.J r ~~+h .,F n~~.~ol Dn-..~1 Dn...+oli~n n nl-.~n Gr-,.,r,n u-,II ~.„J c..,i# rrnn • rl..~+e.- G r ..i+-.limn „ r,l-,.-n Cr+ri,-L ~.,.J nA~+.,-.~-, L D n.,i+-,limn n nl-.~n Cnnn uorrn...no+n ~n.d 1A/nll~ 2014-2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Beulah o Crestwood o Enon o Ettrick o Harrow ate BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 8 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session o Matoaca o Reams • New Facility o Old Hundred/Otterdale: in the vicinity of Old Hundred and Otterdale Roads, north of Genito Road and south of Midlothian Turnaike Post 2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Bensley o Bon Air o Chalkley o Davis o Grange Hall o Hening o Hopkins o Swift Creek o Wells • New Facilities o Hull Street/Otterdale: in the vicinity of Hull Street and Otterdale Roads, east of Skinguarter Road and south of Duval Road. o Ruffin Mill: in the vicinity of Ruffin Mill Road, Enon Church Road and Ramblewood Drive. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 9 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session ~ Q ~~ o ~ d~ ~v ~~ g m ~ ae .iG ~ ~ x u a~ v N n -a c o e y a t o~ E o f .. ~~ x> N ,v. ~ ° t c a ~ m o~ -~ °1 0~ '3 io w w ~ a t~xxx~e~a °~ a°cv1°i~n~nv+3's333 O N N M C N ~D 1~ m O~ O N N M V Vf t0 !~ 00 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M ~ _ C e., y -_ ~ ti~a~~~ ~~ ~ c~~°S«v~ , O ~ o ~ U d L O L 0~ V O W W W W LL C9 ~~ ~ ~ a d m m m m ~ v v u ~ / ~~ VL e i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ W ~. ti ' ~ ' -'~' -s,. ° - ~ ~~ x . ~ ® ~ t ~ e .. O.. e ~ ~® w ~ ~ ~ ~ -'C ~ r L ~ ~: ~. .~ ~ o _ N ~~ tlJ W Z OC • z 10 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~~b~3~'~~F~ ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Middle School Recommendations • New Facilities: 900 -1,100 students (design capacity). RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA • New facilities should be a minimum of 40 acres. • Facilities should be located with direct access to at least one major arterial road where feasible. • Athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds provide students and communities with a connection to and sense of identity with school facilities. All schools will be constructed with their own athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds. Community access and organized recreational usage of these outdoor facilities is encouraged as appropriate. • Where feasible, knew facilities should be located along major arterial roads and not within residential areas. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS AIl1TC• The +imi.,....f o.•h....l f•,.~i17+.. r .,.J-++i~..~ 9/11 27/11 7 rvrrrvsT s~ D..e•+ 9/177 +--v~r-rvt-r 2014-2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Manchester o Providence 11 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~`~~"'~~_ ~~, ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Post 2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Falling Creek o Matoaca East o Matoaca West o Swift Creek • New Facilities o Chester Area: in the vicinity of Chester and West Hundred Roads. o Western Route 360: in the vicinity of Hull Street and Otterdale Roads. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 12 ~~~~~~~ ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session 0 O V O i V --. u to 47 u a •~~'~, 1 W - GJ ~ ~V N ~ ti •fp ._ a+ N w Z ~ w ~- C~f LL1 • ~,<, u` ~,~ ~ s ~ u a, G d ~ "O ~ * ¢ .~ . 4 d :~ ` ` ~ 3 ~'~il; ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ Y. Y N • ~ a t m Id, , Z- 13 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 4, } ~~ ~ ,>~°~ ti ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session High School Recommendations ~ New Facilities: 1,500 -1,800 students (design capacity). RECOMMENDED SITE CRITERIA • New facilities should be a minimum of 80 acres. • Facilities should be located with multiple direct accesses to at least one, but preferably two, major arterial roads. • Athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds provide students and communities with a connection to and sense of identity with school facilities. All schools will be constructed with their own athletic facilities, practice areas and playgrounds. Community access and organized recreational usage of these outdoor facilities is encouraged as appropriate. • New facilities should be located along major arterial roads and not within residential areas. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS fl1/lTG Tho +imi.,,, .,~ crh~,.,l f~rili+., r .,...J~+i.,..o ~Azvs~-tsri ~/~~ p ~/~ .,.II h., ~rlrJo.J -. r +he.. ~ ~Ll~hl., fr.,m f: d~~OSCtl~ crh.,.,lr orlmir.ic+ro+i.,r, Dirt 7/1'7'1 r-vvr-rv== 2014-2020 Note: With the exception of Monacan High School, all high schools in the county have been renovated, replaced, or newly constructed within the past 15 years. To provide all students with equity of opportunity and parity of programs and facilities, Monacan needs to be modernized as funding becomes available. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 14 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Post 2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Monacan • New Facilities o Branders Bridge: in the vicinity of Branders Bridge, Bradley Bridge and Iron Bridge Roads north of Swift Creek. o Genito/Otterdale: in the vicinity of Genito and Otterdale Roads northwest of Swift Creek Reservoir. o Chester/Route 288: in the vicinity of Chester Road and Route 288 north of Route 10. 15 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 a. ~~.-« _~~ _ t eGs ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session c 0 ._ ra ~ , ~ ~ .ro w ~ 01 u ~+` fl. 00 0 0~ •~ ~ cc w - o~i .u 00 n~ a; 3 m '3~ ~ ~ w ~ ~5 ~ w Z OC ~~ V / ~ ~/ ~ Q ~ w ~ ~~. 4 ! ~ ~ ~ ~`~ m in , J ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~- ti< C *~ * a ~ q~. C ~ y9':' !~ ~ = _ i • . ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ a ~ , . 3* d E - d a .. ~, Z--:~ 16 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~!~ ~ ti,<`~"' ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Career and Technical Education Career and technical education plays an important role in the county's economic competitiveness. High- quality career and technical education enhances economic development opportunities and supports the workforce training needs of existing businesses. Graduates of these programs provide skills needed by employers in the county and region. Chesterfield County Public Schools is committed to providing career and technical educational facilities that accommodate student demand and promote the development of skills required by current and future businesses by: o Preparing students for the world in which they live and work. o Meeting the demand for well-trained, industry certified workers. o Providing career and technical courses that are current and relevant to industry needs. o Collaborating with business and industry to support vocational programs. o In addition to Chesterfield Technical Center and the 21St Century Academy, supporting the continued efforts to expand Career and Technical Education (CTE) opportunities. These efforts should complement revitalization and economic development efforts. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS No new facilities or revitalization/replacement of existing facilities are planned. 17 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~, ~~ e' e ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session = o N ~ ~ ~ LL -~ ~ W C '~ ' `~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ • t O ~ T I I O C k { I ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,. ~ t ~~\\ V ~{/ /R / ' ; , ," V r. 'rV-~- 1. _ .. ~ _ ~ ~~' : - ., ~. j u i a. ~, ~~~ u N Z~I 18 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL SETTINGS Alternative schools provide educational opportunities in facilities established and oriented to enhance learning in unique and creative ways. Such may occur in facilities shared with more traditional programs, or may be provided in separate facilities. Virtual learning is a vital component of 215Y century education. Virtual schools and facilities that promote opportunities for students along with public and private partnerships should be encouraged when possible. FACILITY RECOMMENDATION Post 2020 • Revitalize/Replace o Community High School 19 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ~; ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ Q • ~ ~ 'u t7 u V7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N s v •- ~ ~ O v ~ '~~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ •- ~ •_ +~ Q ~ ~ 3= ~~ ..~ ~.,~ .-_ ',~~, ^~ ~~; ,a:~. .. ~ ~~' ~o ~~ £ `~ - ~~~ 20 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session Administrative Space Provide administrative facilities for employees and work functions that support the efficient provision of a high quality educational system in the county. FACILITY RECOMMENDATION 2014-2020 • Consolidate Ful~hum Center and Instructional Development Center administrative operations at the 21St Century Academy. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 21 ATTACHMENT 4: School Board Recommended Changes to Chapter 14 Public Facilities Plan Approved at 9/28/12 Work Session u ~n c~ ~ Q O Vf '- ++ ,. ~, ' > '~ ~ ._ f.+ ca ~ ~ ,~ i ~+ ~ = •X x •, ._ o ~ a o x ~ ~, w ~ oc o °' a ~ ~ ~`.. ado ~~• N ~1 + c ~ N W ~~ ~ V ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ •~ ~ Vf ~ . C 0~ _G ~ -~~ ~ w H f0 ~ C ~ z "a.,~ ~ ~+ '~ a _;,, ~ S .~ 2 , ~ ~ ~ ' - C , ~ Q i~ u „. Z.:` I BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 4 22 ATTACHMENT 5: Staff Recommended Changes for Neighborhood Parks Based Upon School Board Recommendations for School Facilities The Public Facilities Plan (Chapter 14) - Chanse. Page 195, update section to match recommended new school facility timing: Neighborhood Parks FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Countywide: This park category should be used to supplement regional and community parks in specific geographies where there is insufficient regional, community and neighborhood park acreage. In these areas, development proposals, where appropriate, should include neighborhood park sites to serve the development's park need. 2013-2017 • Cogbill Road Park: in the vicinity of Cogbill Road west of Route 10 and east of Belmont Road, part of the Cogbill Conservation Area. (20 acres) 2014-2020 • Old Hundred/Otterdale: in coniunction with construction of new Elementarv School. 2018-2022 • Western Hull Street Road: in the area north of Hull Street Road, south of Duval Road and west of Otterdale Road. (20 acres) Post 2022 • Duval Road: in the area north of Duval Road west of Otterdale Road, and generally south of Horsepen Creek. (20 acres) Mt. Hermon Road: in the vicinity of Mt. Hermon Road and Old Hundred Road south of Midlothian Turnpike. (20 acres) • Hull Street/Otterdale: in coniunction with construction of new Elementarv School. • Ruffin Mill: in coniunction with construction of new Elementary School. • Chester Area: in coniunction with a Middle School. • Western Route 360: in coniunction with construction of new Middle School. 1 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 5 ~`~~~ ~°;~J`~ ATTACHMENT 5: Staff Recommended Changes for Neighborhood Parks Based Upon School Board Recommendations for School Facilities - Chanee. Page 197, new map to reflect school naming for new school-park facilities: C O ~ ~ ° O C C = g ~ a ~ 7 u C N ~ A N j C y~ -~ ~ p d3Y~~ per, ~ n N a~ R ~ t ~ ~ ~!~ '~ a a o a i coav °_' °~' ° ~ n is o ~ ~ r u C ~ ~ CY , y - £ A Q~ ~ ~ w . u L ~ ~ LL m~ °' E~ u 3 ~ A ~ ~r f: u W ~ c a 3 z ~ ~ S ~ Y • ~ ~ ~ ~ • ,ra ~ L ~ ~ ~ • 0 ~. ~ ~ "~ r _~ '.: o ~ ~~ _ O ~ `, , ~y'~ak ~~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ b i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ d ~. C Q ~ •~. ~. ~. •~ • Z~I x i~ ~ u ~ C ~ N u u n v v° m •- y ~ ~ t d L V - Q t Q Q W ~+ ~ li d u ?' v s y Z" u~aa~ ~ t~ 9 t 4 ui a c~ o=a ::`~v a a~'I v f K ~' t a m v. .~m~a~~~~~$~~ WI N N fY1 V ul 1p I~ W 01 ti H 2 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 5 ~r~:,q'+~}~~_ ATTACHMENT 6: Synopsis of Commission Action and Discussion Synopsis of Commission Discussion on September 18, 2012 Mr. Patton supported the Plan amendment. Mr. Waller indicated that while all chapters of the Plan are important, the Goals (Chapter 3) and Implementation (Chapter 15) chapters represent the essence of the Plan. He expressed concern that the schools and related neighborhood parks facilities recommendations were still outstanding, but trusted that the Board of Supervisors and School Board would resolve those questions prior to adoption of the Plan. Dr. Wallin indicated that community involvement throughout the process resulted in an improved Plan, noting that 78 percent of the comments had been addressed. He expressed disappointment that the school system had not taken advantage of the opportunity to share their vision by providing facility recommendations, but was hopeful that their recommendations would be forthcoming for the Board of Supervisors' consideration. Dr. Brown indicated that while all chapters of the Plan are important, the Economic Development (Chapter 5), Revitalization (Chapter 7) and Environment (Chapter 9) chapters are crucial to the success of the Plan. He was regretful that the East/West Freeway has been included, but that the Plan will be reviewed every five years allowing future reexamination of this issue. Mr. Gulley was impressed by citizen involvement throughout the process, noting that 78 percent of the comments were incorporated into the Plan. He indicated that the process had worked well and that the Board's deadlines had been met in a timely manner. He indicated the Plan is a comprehensive document upon which to build future enhancements. He indicated that from his perspective, the Revitalization (Chapter 9) chapter is very important with much more work to be done. He also expressed his disappointment that the data on school facilities had not been provided for the Commission's consideration. He indicated that while the Plan is weak with respect to addressing the county's long term water needs, he trusted that the Board of Supervisors would take action to address development of a strong water supply strategy. He indicated that the Plan is a reflection of efficient, effective and positive team work among staff, the community and the Commission. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 6 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan Cover Page, All Footers, and Other References - Chanee 1. Eliminate from the Cover Page, all footers and other references to the year 2035 Economic Development (Chapter 5) - Chanee 2. Page 18, Business Advantages, new 2nd paragraph Fort Lee, home of the combined arms support command located south of the county, is undergoing expansion, and bringing support businesses to the county. Further, the Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM), a 60,000 square foot applied research center also located to the south of the county, is staffed by 150 researchers and engineering students developing and accelerating new manufacturing technologies. - Chanee 3. Page 18, Education & Training, amend 15Y paragraph Chesterfield area employees have above-average levels of education and skill, and work in business-friendly environments rich with training opportunities. Close ties between local businesses and industries and our institutions of higher education, Virginia State University and John Tyler Community College, assist in tailoring educational programs and curriculum to area employers' needs. m ^ "°+ ° ^+~~~•• °~~"° ° ° "°~^^ ~'°•~°'^^°~'. Accessibility to other area colleges and universities to include Virginia Commonwealth University. College of William and Mary, University of Virginia and J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College further promotes A~e# +"° -. °~~~ °,~„~-,+c°.,,~ ., ^.+ ~ ~,~~,.~ ° ^"^~~~° a lifetime of learning and continuous improvement for all students and employees. - Chanee 4. Page 20, Prime Economic Development Opportunity Sites, add a new section under Meadowville to include the non-residential portion of Roseland Roseland This 1,395 acre mixed use development is located between CenterPointe and the Watkins Centre. Of the proposed development, approximately 170 acres at the interchange of Woolridge Road and Route 288 is zoned for office, commercial and industrial uses. With the extension of Woolridge Road, this area is attractive for corporate headquarters, light industrial and commercial uses. 1 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan Chanee 5. Page 21, Prime Economic Development Opportunity Sites, add Roseland non-residential area at interchange of Woolridge Road and Route 288 Prime Economic Development Opportunity Sites d Y Watkins Centre 2QB' 176: L'~, Roseland „""' CenterPointe 76 ~ ~'' i `~~ fames River Industrial Park GhnFrR.H .~ ~4q.1 ~. ~~ "°' CHESTERFIELD hleadowvillerethnclagyPark ~ ,o ,a ~o "~ American7obaccolKeckSite '.ZOr ' ttop~wNl colonial Ashton Creek $usiness Center Meighb Pet~nbury - Chanee 6. Page 24, Enterprise Zones Opportunity Zones ENTERPRISE ZONES Enterprise Zones are distinct geographic areas of the county, designated by the Governor of Virginia, with the specific goal of encouraging business location and expansion in these selected areas of the state. Enterprise Zones are allotted a designated amount of acreage. Sub zones can be created if additional acreage is available within a primarv zone. These sub zones are not required to be contiguous to the boundaries of the primary zone. Chesterfield County has two primary Enterprise Zones with the residual acreage allotted to three Sub-zones. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan The county's Enterprise Zones and Subzones are: Jefferson Davis Corridor Primary Enterprise Zone (3,972 acres) This primary zone, designated in 1994, is located along U.S. Route 1/ 301 from the City of Richmond to the intersection of Route 10. The zone is conveniently located to Interstate 95, Chippenham Parkway and Route 288 and CXS rail, all which transverse the zone. Its close proximity to the Port of Richmond provides additional development opportunities. A significant amount of industrially zoned land lies within the Jefferson Davis Enterprise Zone boundary. This important corridor has excellent transportation infrastructure, ample water and wastewater capacity, and abundant reliable power o Hull Street Road Subzone 48 acres This sub zone of the Jefferson Davis Enterprise zone is located along Hull Street Road from the City of Richmond to iust west of Turner Road. This predominantly commercial and retail corridor has easy access to Chippenham Parkway and presents opportunities for business infill to support surrounding residential neighborhoods. rh cse ~9r~5-se;~rp~=FSe 2,4A~vty-acTe.T. Walthall Primary Enterprise Zone (3,820 acres) This primary zone is comprised of 3,451 acres and encompasses a large portion of industrial zoned land. The zone begins at Route 10 and continues south along Interstate 95 and Route 1/301 to the City of Colonial Heights. Ashton Creek, Ruffin Mill Industrial Center, The Enterchange at Walthall and Appomattox Industrial Center present significant development opportunities. With easy access to Interstates 95, 85 and 295, the Walthall Zone is ideal for warehouse and supply chain management companies as well as manufacturing that require "lust in time" shipping such as food related industries. o Midlothian Turnpike Subzone (311 acres) This sub zone of the Walthall Enterprise Zone is located along Midlothian Turnpike from Chippenham Parkway west to Powhite Parkway. The county's partnership with a private developer to redevelop the former Cloverleaf Mall into amixed-use development has been a catalyst for private sector development in this sub zone and presents significant infill opportunities. o Meadowdale/Meadowbrook Subzone 58 acres This sub zone is of the Walthall Enterprise Zone is located at the interchange of Chippenham Parkway and Hopkins Road. While this gateway shopping area experienced high vacancy rates in the past, its designation as an enterprise sub zone has spurred increased business investment and occupancy. This area presents a key business infill opportunity to support the residential communities in this corridor. ,T-,~52 zei~c5-se;nprise ~,4'~-vrv-c'~cTe.T. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 3 ~ ,r, ,~^ .~, rw ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan - Chanee 7. Page 27, General Economic Development Guidelines, amend 3~d bullet • Encouraging the ea#le cost-effective distribution of economic resources throughout the county. - Chanee 8. Page 30, General Economic Development Guidelines, Collaboration, add bullet • Pursue partnerships between food manufacturers and area farmers to encourage use of locally grown products in food production. Housing (Chapter 6) - Chanee 9. Pages 33 and 38 modify affordable housing definition to be consistent in both places Page 33-change the footnote Household Income & Single Family Home Affordability chart ** o 0 0 alaeve~ Housing is considered affordable when 30 percent or less of a household's gross annual income is scent on housine. Page 38-change the following bullet Affordable/Workforce Housine. Support affordable housing opportunities and choices. Housing is considered affordable when '^' °,~-~"~;r30y6-percent or less of a household's gross annual income is spent on housing. The following should be considered: - Chanee 10. Page 38, Affordable/Workforce Housing, amend bullet Affordable/Workforce Housine. Support affordable housing opportunities and choices. Housing is considered affordable when less than 30% of a household's gross annual income is spent on housing. The following ~#e~4~ could be considered: o ;,=rc~„~es fea- t,",~I Integration of affordable/workforce housing in market rate developments. Market rate is defined as the price charged in the free market. o Architectural compatibility with market rate units. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 4 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan Historical & Cultural Resources (Chapter 8) - Change 11. Page 59, Historical & Cultural Tourism, Local Attractions & Destinations, add section under Pocahontas State Park Point of Rocks Historic House & Grounds This county park, a local, state and federal historic landmark, offers beautiful views of the Appomattox River from a high bluff overlooking the Port Walthall Channel. This area had a significant role in the Civil War with the historic 1830's home serving as a surgeon's quarters for the large military hospital located on the property during Union General Butler's Bermuda Hundred Campaign. Environment (Chapter 9) - Chanee 12. Page 70, Farmland, add to end of 2nd paragraph Further, opportunities exist for the partnering of area farmers and food manufacturers to grow and produce food within the county. The Land Use Plan (Chapter 10) - Chanee 13. Pages 112/113, northwest Quadrant of Route 360 and Old Hundred Road, north of creek, change land use designation from Regional Mixed Use to Suburban Residential II .. ,f , ~ ~' s ' t. ~ , ~ ~ , ~ , ; . ,t , .i . ~.,.,: ~, ~ ~ l ~ 1 6 / ~ J 4~ ~ / h ~ I ~ " ; t ~ J 7 }y y :iw~ h, . ay , ~~ ~~ i ~ '~~ 1Mr ~;~ r ~° ~r fA~ ~ ~~~11i - .~.. f ~ CHANGE From: Regional Mixed Use To: Suburban Residential II (2-4 units/acre) 5 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan - Chan>;e 14. Pages 112/113, property along Woodpecker and Bradley Bridge Roads, west and south of Corporate Office/Research & Development/Light Industrial, change land use designation from Residential Agricultural to Low Density Residential rT- ,~ ~' s, f ~ ~ , .. ~;s ~,-; .,:: ,~~ . _~. 1 ,~: t 4f .^~}r'. ~ c ~,~~ ~•~' °~ mow: .... ~ ~ ~ w i ~ , h ^ i! t ~~ ~~ .CHANGE ' ~~~~ , ~ ~i _ ~. From: Residential Agricultural (0.5 units/acre) '`*± - R To: Low Density Residential r`-N, , (1 unit/acre) City of _ _ - '~ Colonial ' " _ Heights ~ Water & Wastewater (Chapter 12) - Chanee 15. Page 124, add the following paragraph after the first paragraph to expand discussion relative to the county's commitment to provide a reliable and sufficient water supply The Utilities Department and Chesterfield County leaders fully understand and appreciate the critical role adequate water supplies are for the county's future. The recent droughts of 2010 and 2012 serve to accentuate the importance of reliable water sources for the health of a community. Staff from both the ARWA and the Utilities Department continuously work with governmental regulatory agencies, en~ineerin~ consultants and water supply professionals and others to evaluate and develop all feasible short term and long term solutions for enhancing and expanding drinking water sources that will reliably serve the county's needs in the future. - Chanee 16. Page 131, add to bullet under Public Water and Wastewater Line Extensions: • Evaluate the current Assessment District Ordinance and consider other methods of funding the extension of public water and wastewater to serve existing aging residential areas developed on private individual wells and wastewater systems. 6 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ~.k~~~~ g-_ ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan Transportation (Chapter 13 - Chanee 17. Page 135, Road Network Assumption, 3`d paragraph, clarify the number of lanes modeled The Transportation Department evaluated the outputs from the modeling which included traffic volumes and levels of service. The Department then determined reasonable road improvements (improvements to existing roads and construction of new roads) necessary to accommodate the forecasted traffic. The number of lanes modeled is not the number that currently exist, but rather the lanes that may be necessary to support build-out development. The roads were then classified based upon their function and right of way width necessary to accommodate the number of lanes for the anticipated traffic volume. - Chanee 18. Page 137, clarify the Number of Lanes Modeled map Itenrico County Number of banes Modeled ~AtEi RIWER Existing Road Proposed Road -~~~'`~ LANES MODELED LANES MODELED Powhatan County ~'~ ` 2 2 City of G ti, 11 ~ Richmond i ,~ ~ 'h~,:. L ~ .. 1st - `~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ .: ... .., ~ HenricoCounty . - wCR ' _. IAMCS R ~ ~ '\..__ ~: Amelia Count ~ ~ Y EasbV1~~ iewaY - ~ ~"+, ~ Gtyof ~a4 ~ Hopewell o. 'Ng JI G + qt~ '~ p _ Cit f Prince George County ~- ial P6 Heights City of Dimviddie County Petersburg N~ BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 7 :ra ... ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan - Change 19. Page 139, add the following bullet after Powhite Parkway Extension, to discuss the East-West Connector from I-95 to I-295 East/West Connector I-95 and I-295 are major north/south routes that carry regional traffic through the eastern area of the county. Route 10 from Interstate 95 to the Appomattox River, is the major east-west highway serving the area, and carries a mix of local and regional traffic. Even after completion of planned improvements to Route 10, this highway will not accommodate anticipated traffic volumes. Another east-west facility is needed in this area of the county. This connection would improve access to area development, and help reduce regional traffic on Route 10 between Interstate 95 and Interstate 295, and on other roads such as Woods Edge Road and Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Because much of this area has been developed or approved for development, this east-west facility would have to be located between I-95 and I-295 in the Walthall area. A connector road in this area would include a major bridge structure across the Appomattox River. State funding would have to be provided for construction of this connector road. No public funds are anticipated to become available in the foreseeable future for a major protect of this type. Staff will work with developers to keep a corridor open for the facility. if possible. However, staff will not restrict or prohibit development in the Walthall area in order to protect the corridor. Developer participation will be strictly on a voluntary basis. This proposed east-west connector is not included on the Thoroughfare Plan. At such time as public funding becomes available, the alignment of this road will be determined with strong consideration of existing development in the area. ~9 ~~F C ~O 4,~0~ OOO~ $~ ENON CHURCH RD M Q s"' EPgt~WEg7 CONNECTOR •~~~~i tpo R4F~N ~ Mid G~ ~ RO WOODSED Q=~ N _~~ ~~~' N'~l: s ti BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 8 ~~~.r~~r~~~~' ~:.y ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan - Chanee 20. Page 140, clarify Road Classifications legend Henrico County MMES RIVER Powhatan County ___/ t r `t / ~l I ~'~ ~_~ f A~ 1 `, t ~ < f 1) ~ ~ l ~ l -s'~ - ~ i 'i f ~i i ~ Y r I Amelia County I 9q ~9~ ~"'~F 9 Thoroughfare Plan CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ROAD PROPOSED ROAD .~ ~i~~d aa• .,r ~ ~ . City of Richmond `°~' "` ~° ~~0~ _ .~~. arr iba', __. c.,n na;~ of c;,a~:cd- ;vt rai cc 1;. r. s °', ~, p to f 1 ~~ . i I r~ ~ ~s~- ~e{~tiF`~aY. • A detailed copy of this plan can be obtained from the Chesterfield County Transportation Department or the county website. exact right of way widths and proposed road alignments should be verified with the Chesterfield County Transportation Department. ` , -~.. Dinwiddie County Henrico County LAMES RwER ~ r ; ~.~-- -.. ~~ ~ ~ t ~ •~ ~~ ~ i City of i j Hopewell j City of Prince George County ~- , Colonial '~. t Heights City of Petersburg N, - Chanee 21. Page 141, Fundine, after 3rd paragraph add the following paragraph The Code of Virginia permits the Commonwealth Transportation Board to make an equivalent matching allocation to any county of up to $10.0 million in funds to construct, maintain, or improve primary and secondary hi~hway systems. - Chanee 22. Page 152, Transit, amend last bullet as follows Support expansion of the Ettrick train station as a multimodal center to accommodate the anticipated increase in passenger services, and the growth and revitalization of the Ettrick/Virginia State University area. 9 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan The Public Facilities Plan (Chapter 14) - Chanee 23. Page 153, add following paragraph after 2"d paragraph to stress that while Plan supports parity in facilities, countywide level of services will not be the same throughout the county It should be noted that the levels of service identified in this chapter generally apply to locations outside of the Rural Residential/Agricultural and Residential Agricultural areas. These rural areas currently do not have, and are not planned to have, the same levels of service as the more developed and developing areas of the county. However, the Plan does recognize that existing rural public facilities have parity with newer facilities in more developed areas of the county. - Chanee 24. Page 155, General Public Facilities Guidelines, amend bullet Site Acquisition. Acquire new public facility sites in advance of, and/or in conjunction with, development and acquire land adjacent to existing public facility sites planned for renovation or replacement when land becomes available. These acquisitions should be accomplished using sound real estate principles and practices and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies. Consider the impacts of new facilities in relation to growth as identified in The Land Use Plan. Construction of new facilities should take place in areas contiguous to existing developed areas. - Chanee 25. Page 155, General Public Facilities Guidelines. amend bullet Buildable land. Base facility site requirements on the concept of "buildable land". Consider modification in the amount of required site area where existing public facilities are to be replaced or renovated within the established communities in which they are located. This calculation excludes required buffers, setbacks and other development restrictions, as well as areas with steep slopes, wetlands, RPAs, stormwater ponds and other physical constraints to the use of the property. - Chanee 26. Page 155, add guideline at the end of the bulleted list to clarify that proposed new facilities and revitalized/replaced facilities shown on each facility map are general locations and are not meant to depict exact locations • Facility Locations. Proposed facility locations as shown on Facility Recommendation maps display general facility locations and should not be used for specific location identification. Implementation (Chapter 151 - Chanee 27. Page 215, add to Implementation Phase 2 under Ordinances: Public Water and Wastewater Assessment Districts. Evaluate the Assessment District Ordinance to consider other methods of funding the extension of public water and wastewater to aging residential areas developed on private individual wells and wastewater systems and amend if appropriate. BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 10 ~;.s ATTACHMENT 7: Planning Commission Recommended Changes Subsequent to Initial Advertisement of Plan - Chanee 28. Page 218, amend AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING. Identify needs ~^~' ~"r°^~~•~^° for affordable housing. Where such housing is provided, consider architectural requirements for compatibility and integration with market rate units within the same development. 11 BOS 10/24/2012 Comprehensive Plan Agenda Packet Attachment 7 ~;~ ~~; ^ 1 °v ~ ~~ y ~_ ,-~ 1'749 ~RGIN~' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.1. Subject: Nominations/Appointments to the Youth Services Citizen Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nominate/appoint members to serve on the Youth Services Citizen Board. Summary of Information: The purpose of the Youth Services Citizen Board is to advise the Board of Supervisors regarding planning and policies affecting youth development and to provide a community forum to focus on youth issues. Dale District. Supervisor Holland recommends that the Board nominate and appoint Khushbu Patel and Reaushon Gilbert, students from Meadowbrook High School, and Juliana Hybner, a student from L.C. Bird High School, for a term of November 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. Ms. Patel, Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Hybner meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancies and have indicated their willingness to serve. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Preparers Jana D. Carter Attachments: ~ Yes Title: Director. Juvenile Services ^ No ~~ ~= .~_~ 1:3Y ~RCI!'1~A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: B.B. Subject: Streetlight Cost Approval County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: This item requests Board approval of a streetlight installation in the Dale District. Summary of Information: Requests for streetlights, from individual citizens or civic groups, are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Dominion Virginia Power for each request received. When the quotations are received, staff re-examines each request and presents them at the next available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each request based on the following criteria: 1. Streetlights should be located at intersections and 2. A petition is required which must be signed by 750 of the residents within 200 feet of the proposed light and shall include a majority of the homeowners living at the proposed locations. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Preparers Richard M. McElfish Title: Director, Environmental Engineering Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # x"'~, ,~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) Cost quotations from Dominion Virginia Power are valid for a period of 60 days. The Board, upon presentation of the cost quotation, may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds from available District Improvement Funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Dominion Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial of a project will result in its cancellation and the District Improvement Fund will be charged the design cost shown; staff will notify the requestor of the denial. Projects cannot be deferred for more than 30 days due to quotation expiration. Quotation expiration has the same effect as a denial. DALE DISTRICT: • In the Branches Bluff subdivision In the cul-de-sac of Evelake Road, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $321.74 (Design Cost: $350.00) Does not meet minimum criteria, location is not an intersection For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District Request Received: September 13, 2012 Estimate Requested: September 13, 2012 Estimate Received: October 1, 2012 Days Estimate Outstanding: 21 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Mr. Lamont Taylor ADDRESS: 10006 Brightwood Avenue North Chesterfield, VA 23237 REQUESTED LOCATION: In the cul-de-sac of Evelake Road, on the existing pole Cost to install streetlight: $321.74 POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Not Qualified, location is not an intersection. Petition: Qualified Requestor Comments: "The purpose of this request for a streetlight at 3701 Evelake Road is due to the following: We have recently purchased a home that is currently under construction. The location of the home is a dead end cul-de-sac which has been used as a dumping ground because of the lack of lighting. Since construction has started on our home the dumping has not stopped and our new home has been vandalized on numerous occasions: Six windows have been broken - a rear window was damaged while my wife and son were in the home, framework has been damaged throughout the house, and plumbing has been damaged in the kitchen. On the weekend of 22 September, already installed copper piping was ripped out, necessitating removal of installed sheetrock in order to affect repairs. We have posted 'No Trespassing' signs, but the dumping has continued and is now coming over on to our property." ~~~~~~-*~~c~, Stre~tli~ht F~equest 1~1~p C3ctober 24, 2U12 F If4R RIDGE 6P. d~ a~~~ ~ ~~~. W J r ~ KINGSLf~ND R6 Y ~' SNI4~ OR ~p SNG SH Uh( CT EVEL.AKE R dLl SahJ RD ~ ~ ~ LLOW B FF LN ~ J w ~~~4fiG ~41~ r O a ~ ~'£} ~ ~ ~ O x w ~ q~ ~ ~ a J w+ 4 ~ C~ V' ~Z ~- ~~ HS~~~~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 4~ f ~~ r!I E Rp ~ ~ d ~ A~- This map is a copyrighted product of 14 the Chesterfield County GIS Office. This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation Streetlight Legend to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was e~cisting light obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. requested light ~~ c~ '~ ~A~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.1.a. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Deputy First Class Robert A. Acampora, Sheriff's Office, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mr. Robert A. Acampora will retire on November 1, 2012, after 24 years of service to Chesterfield County. Preparer Dennis S. Proffitt Attachments: ^ yes ^ No ~: ~ ~ ... Title: Sheriff RECOGNIZING DEPUTY FIRST CLASS ROBERT A. ACAMPORA UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Robert A. Acampora has faithfully served Chesterfield County for 24 years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Acampora was hired on November 7, 1988, and was assigned to the Chesterfield County Jail; and WHEREAS, Deputy Acampora was transferred to the Quartermaster Unit in October 2004, where he was instrumental in preparing that unit for the transition to the new jail facility; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2008, Deputy Acampora met all requirements to qualify as a Deputy First Class; and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora has demonstrated his versatility, skill and strong work ethic in a wide range of departmental assignments in both the Correctional and Court Services sections of the department; and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora has aided in ensuring that employees of the Sheriff's Office meet the highest standards by serving as a field training officer; and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora demonstrated further commitment to protecting the citizens of Chesterfield County by serving on the Sheriff's Special Operations Response Team (SORT); and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora received numerous letters of appreciation and commendation for his dedication and service to the employees and citizens of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora was selected as Employee of the Quarter in 1996 and again in 2008; and WHEREAS, Deputy First Class Acampora has amassed an exemplary attendance record, having not utilized any sick leave during the course of his entire career. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Deputy First Class Robert A. Acampora, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his service to Chesterfield County and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 1~'~ 'L v ~ ~~ i hRGI'.Z1A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.1.b. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Juanita Wolfe-Waters, Chesterfield Department of Mental Health Support Services, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mrs. Juanita Wolfe-Waters is retiring from the Chesterfield Department of Mental Health Support Services after providing 26 years of service to the citizens of Chesterfield County. Preparers Debbie Burcham Title: Executive Director of Chesterfield CSB/MHSS Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # RECOGNIZING MRS. JUANITA WOLFE-WATERS UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mrs. Juanita Wolfe-Waters has provided 26 years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County and has devoted herself to supporting the mission of the Chesterfield Community Services Board and the Department of Mental Health Support Services; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters began her career with the Chesterfield County Department of Building Inspection and provided excellent administrative support to the Building Official, Assistant Building Official and the Administrative Manager and as Secretary to the Chesterfield Board of Building Code Appeals; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters served as the department liaison to the Chesterfield County Department of Human Resources; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters was promoted to Administrative Secretary in January 1990; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters was promoted to Administrative Assistant in June 1997, providing supervision to five administrative staff in addition to other administrative duties; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters was selected as the 1990 Employee of the Year for the Department of Building Inspection; and WHEREAS, in October 2003, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters accepted the position of Administrative Assistant to the Executive Director and to the Chesterfield Community Services Board, the Administrative Policy Board of the Department of Mental Health Support Services; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters served on the Department of Mental Health Support Services Quality Council, United way Committee, E-CET Phase I and II Committees, Employee Recognition Committee, Customer Service Committee, Exit Interview Work Group, Employee of the Year Committee, and the Community Services Board Annual Recognition Event Committee; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters completed the Supervisory Leadership Institute in 1999 and graduated from TQI University in August 2007; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters served as mentor to other administrative professionals within the department, as well as professional organizations of which she is a member; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters served on Chesterfield County's Focus Group to explore partnering with Virginia Tech to provide a certification review class through Chesterfield University for administrative professionals to prepare for taking certification exams; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters volunteered in the Santa Call/Letter Program of the Department of Parks and Recreation, typing several hundred personalized letters from Santa to area school children over a ten-year period; and ~., WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters achieved certification as Certified Professional Secretary in 1996 and as Certified Administrative Professional in 2002 from the Institute of Certification of the International Association of Administrative Professionals and has recertified in both areas; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters has been actively involved in the International Association of Administrative Professionals since 1992, where she has served on the Chapter Board in several positions and on committees on the local and division level and on the Board of Directors of the Certified Professional Secretaries Association as treasurer; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wolfe-Waters achieved 2011/2012 IAAP Member of Excellence and, as President of Tri-City Chapter IAAP, led the organization to achieve its first designation as 2011/2012 IAAP Chapter of Excellence from the International Association of Administrative Professionals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions of Mrs. Juanita Wolfe-Waters, and extends appreciation for her 26 years of dedicated service to the county, congratulations upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. (~~~r::. ~~ m u~~ %` +~~//~ ~~ ., ivay R/ hRGTM1\A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.2. Subject: Adoption of the 2013 Legislative Program County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action. Requested: Adopt the 2013 Legislative Program. Summary of Information: Attached is the proposed Legislative Program for the 2013 General Assembly. The items listed are those discussed at the work session on October 10, 2012. Preparers Mary Ann Curtin Title: Director, Intergovernmental Relations Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No 2013 Legislative Initiatives Guiding Principles: Continually Strengthen AAA bond rating, financial independence and fiscal integrity of Chesterfield County. Keep land use decisions local. Continually strengthen local economic development competitiveness. Legislative Requests: Amend the Code of Virginia to equalize the composition of the Board of Directors of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority among the member localities. This request will increase the county representation on the board of directors by one to a total of three to more accurately reflect the region's population and the recent debt repayment to the City of Richmond for the initial financing of the roadway. • Seek language amendments to the Appropriation Act to provide more local flexibility with education funding. With the biennial updating (re-benchmarking) of the K-12 state funding formula, county and school staff discovered that certain support positions (school nurses) would require significant additional local fiscal resources, not based on need or school board priorities. A language amendment is sought to modify this. Legislative Positions: Support for positive outcomes from the JLARC study of regional incentives. Support for full funding of state's obligations for K-12 education. Support efforts to increase the number of available intellectual disabilities' waivers. Support the legislative agendas of the Richmond Regional and Crater Planning District Commissions. Oppose the devolution of responsibility for secondary roads from VDOT to counties. Oppose legislation eliminating or reducing local revenue sources. Oppose any limitations/caps on existing cash proffer, land use and zoning authorities. Oppose all additional cost shifts and mandates. Ongoing Issues of Concern: State funding for education. Economic development. Transportation funding. Chesapeake Bay and storm-water requirements and costs. Local aid to Commonwealth. Line of Duty Act. Constitutional Officers' funding needs. State and local tax structure. VRS/Unfunded long term liabilities. School construction and renovation. .._u ~~ ~~ c~G y~ ~~ S~ ~,49 Z ~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.3. Subject: Award of Construction Contract for County Project #11-0202, Addison Evans Water Treatment Plant - Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Improvements County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ; Board Action Regues~i: The Board of Supervisors is requested to award the construction contract to Southwood Building Systems, Inc. in the amount of $681,510 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Summary of Information: There are four existing primary sedimentation basins at the Addison Evans Water Production and Laboratory Facility. This project consists of concrete repair work in four of the basins and the replacement of the sludge removal equipment in two of the basins. Staff received a total of three (3) bids. The bids ranged from $681,510 to $939,000. The lowest bid was from Southwood Building Systems, Inc. in the amount of $681,510. Utilities staff has evaluated the bids and recommends award of contract to Southwood Building Systems, Inc., the lowest responsive bidder. Funds for this project are available in the current CIP. DistrlCt: Clover Hill Preparer: George B. Hayes Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director of Budget and Management Attachments: Yes No -~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~~.~o~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~y~ AGENDA ~,e9 hR~ ~ Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.'~. Subject: Authorize Execution of a Radio System and Services Agreement with the City of Hopewell Regarding the County's Public Safety Communications System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the County Administrator to enter into the attached Radio System and Services Agreement. Summary of Information: Staff has negotiated an agreement with the City of Hopewell whereby the Chesterfield County Radio Shop will reprogram the City of Hopewell's subscriber radios and maintain those radios for a fee to be paid to the Radio Shop. In addition, the agreement permits the City, upon written request from the City Manager to the Chesterfield County Radio Shop and in exchange for the payment of an access fee, to switch the City's reprogrammed radios to the County-provided radio system interface, thereby ensuring that the public safety agencies maintain radio communications and interoperability. This Agreement shall remain in effect for one year and will renew automatically unless one party provides the other with 30 days written notice of its intent not to renew. Preparers Rob Key Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No ;~-p~~ f ~ s a ~ . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RADIO SYSTEM AND SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into on this day of September, 2012 between the County of Chesterfield, Virginia and the City of Hopewell, Virginia. ,WHEREAS, the City of Hopewell and the County of Chesterfield operate Public Safety Communications Systems which are compatible and have inter-operability capability between their Public Safety Communications Systems; WHEREAS, the County and Hopewell recognize the importance of their public safety agencies {law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, and their respective 911 Centers} maintaining radio communications; and WHEREAS, the County is willing to provide communication operability and inter- operability to Hopewell's public safety agencies according to the protocol set forth in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises and representations contained herein, the County and Hopewell agree as follows: 1. The County will reprogram Hopewell's subscriber radios during the rebanding process, including Hopewell talkgroups on the current system and new Hopewell talkgroups for the Chesterfield Radio 800 MHz system. All rebanding subscriber reprogramming costs, including but not limited to template design and testing, shall be paid to the Chesterfield County Radio Shop within 30 days of the date of the invoice. The fee for each template design and for testing is $200.0012.5 hours. The reprogramming subscriber unit fees are based on the following schedule: .Portable- non encrypted .5 hr @ $60.00 $30.00/radio Portable -encrypted .75 hours @ $60.00 $45.00/radio Mobile -non encrypted (installed} 1.35 hours @ $60.00 $81.00/radio Mobile -encrypted (installed} 1.60 hours @ $60.00 $96.OOlradio Mobile -non encrypted {not installed} .6 hours @ 60.00 $36.OOlradio ~. ~ ,. ~1~ Mobile -encrypted (not installed) .75 hours @ 60.00 $45.00/radio 2. Once the rebanding program described in paragraph 1 is completed, all Hopewell subscriber radio programming, service, and ordering of new subscriber equipment must be done in conjunction with the Chesterfield County Radio Shop. In addition, Hopewell agrees that any future Hopewell subscriber radio programming (new radio or reassignment of resources) will be handled exclusively by the Chesterfield County Radio Shop. The fee to program a radio with an existing template is $25.OOIradio on the bench. 3. The monthly subscriber fee schedule is as follows: Type Access Maintenance Monthly Total Annual Total Portable $14.00 $17.00 $31.00 $372.00 Mobile $14.00 $ 7.00 $21.00 $252.00 The monthly subscriber fee, whether access, maintenance, or both, will be billed to Hopewell on a monthly basis and shall be paid directly to the Chesterfield County Radio Shop within 30 days of the date of the invoice. The monthly subscriber fees set forth in this Agreement are the current fees charged to Chesterfield County Public Safety and other uses based on radio type. These fees are subject to change. If there is a change in the monthly subscriber fees, Hopewell will be provided 30 days written notice to Hopewell of the new fee schedule. 4. If Hopewell radio users remain on the current federal government 800 MHz radio system, then the County will maintain the subscriber units still supported by Motorola and, as payment for its services, the County will charge Hopewell the monthly subscriber fee for maintenance of the unit. For subscriber equipment no longer supported by the manufacturer repair depot, any repairs will be accomplished, if possible, under the current time and materials contract rate of the Chesterfield County Radio Shop. 5. The County understands that Hopewell plans to remain on its current radio system as long as practicable. However, should that system no longer be available for Hopewell's use, either by failure of the system or loss of access to the system, Hopewell will be permitted, upon written request to the Manager of the Chesterfield County Radio Shop, to switch their reprogrammed subscriber units to the Chesterfield County provided talkgroups. The written request shall state whether Hopewell intends to temporarily use the Chesterfield 800 MHz talkgroups as a temporary solution (less than 30 calendar days) to cover radio needs far the duration of a move from the federal government radio system to Hopewell property or whether Hopewell intends to use the Chesterfield County radio system indefinitely. Hopewell shall provide as much written notice as is practicable under the circumstances so that the system can 2 ~~~ °R . ~....d'z.~ be coordinated and tested prior the conversion from the federal government radio system to the Chesterfield County radio system. If the conversion has to occur immediately or is only for temporary use, Hopewell recognizes that it may experience reduced functionality during the transition period. The access fees outlined above will take effect on the day that Hopewell's usage of the Chesterfield County provided talkgroups begins. 5. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of ane (1} year and shall be automatically renewed for successive one (1} year periods unless either the County or Hopewe}1 provides thirty (30) days written notice to the other of its intent to not renew the Agreement. Al} obligations of the parties are subject to lawful appropriations. 7. There are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. The obligations created pursuant to this Agreement are for the benefit of the City of Hopewell and the County of Chesterfield only and no other entity shall have any rights or obligations as a result of the terms and conditions herein. WITNESS the following signatures: COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD Date: James J. L. Stegmaier County Administrator CITY OF HOPEWELL ~• Edwin C. Daley City Manager Date: ~ ~ ?~` j2 ed c o sistan Coup ~ At ~ Y 3 ~~~~~ ~,~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~~~~„~~~ AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.5. Subiect: Set a Public Hearing to Consider Amending Section 15-196 of the County Code to Allow Taxicab Companies to Charge Passengers an Additional $2.00 for Trips Originating at Richmond International Airport Coun is Comm County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to set a public hearing for November 14, 2012 to consider amending Section 15-196 of the County Code to allow taxicab companies to charge passengers an additional $2.00 for trips originating at Richmond International Airport. Summary of Information: The Capital Region Airport Commission ("Commission") recently issued an RFP and awarded contracts to three taxicab companies for walk-up service. The successful companies will have to meet new standards for their fleet of vehicles and drivers. To help defray the cost of upgrading service, the Commission authorized in its contract the reimbursement of $2.00 from passengers. Accordingly, the Commission has requested that all member jurisdictions adopt amendments to their respective taxicab ordinance to allow the new charge. Only the three companies awarded a contract for walk-up service are required to make the upgrades to their service, but all taxicabs in the region will continue to be permitted to pick up fares at the airport on a pre-arranged basis and charge the $2.00 fee. The fee will not apply to any taxicab drop-off at the airport. Henrico, Hanover, and Richmond are all in the process of amending their ordinances. Preparers Jeffrey L. Mincks Title: County Attorney 0623:88976.1(88977.1) Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # .~ ~&~~n-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT COMMISSION TAXI TRIP FEE RESOLUTION ITEM III.E.I.c. The Finance and Audit Committee recommends that the Commission adopt the following resolution, WHEREAS, the Capital Region Airport Commission ("Commission") assesses each taxi company authorized to pick up passengers at Richmond International Airport ("Airport") a fee of two dollars ($2.00} per trip at the time a passenger engages a taxi operated by such company for travel from the Airport ("taxi trip fee"); WHEREAS, the taxi trip fee along with all other public ground transportation fees are used to defray the cost of monitoring the provision of public ground transportation services at the Airport to assure compliance with Commission rules as well as local and state regulations regarding ground transportation services; WHEREAS, the Commission has entered new contracts with taxi companies for walk-up service at the Airport effective July I, 2012, requiring upgrading of taxi vehicles, uniforms and other costly requirements in order to enhance the safety and appearance of the taxi experience for the travelling public that is of benefit to the entire Richmond metropolitan area; WHEREAS, because of the capital investment made by the walk-up taxi companies pursuant to such contracts, the Commission deems it appropriate for the taxi companies to recover the taxi trip fee from passengers picked up at the Airport and has so provided in the contracts with such companies; WHEREAS, the member jurisdictions of the Commission have taxi ordinances that address allowable rates to be charged by taxi drivers. NOW THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to 198a Acts of Assembly, Chapter 380, the Capital Region Airport Commission hereby expresses to the Boards of Supervisors of Henrico County, Chesterfield County and Hanover County and to the City Council of the City of Richmond its request that their respective taxi ordinances be amended to allow an additional two dollar ($2.00} charge to be made far passengers picked up at Richmond International Airport and further authorizes the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Commission to transmit this resolution to the managers of the respective jurisdictions for consideration by their boards and council. On August 2$, 2012, Commissioner Norfleet moved to approve the Taxi 'Trip .Fee Resolution, and 'ammissioner C?'Bannon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Susan Joy inn, Recording Secretary ~, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 15-196 RELATING TO TAXICAB FEES FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING AT RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 15-196 of the Code of the Count~o Cheste~f eld, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Chapter 15 REGULATED OCCUPATIONS AND SERVICES 000 ARTICLE IX. TAXICABS 000 DIVISION 4. OPERATING REGULATIONS 000 Sec. 15-196. Same--Enumerated; special discount for elderly passengers and disabled passengers. (a) Taxicab drivers shall charge passengers: For the first one-fifth mile ... $ 2.50 For each succeeding one-fifth mile ...0.50 For each 80 seconds of waiting time ...0.50 For each additional passenger over one (children six years of age or younger, when accompanying afare-paying passenger, shall not be deemed additional passengers) ...1.00 Waiting time is (i) the time the taxicab is stopped or moving at a speed less than 15 miles per hour, (ii) the time the taxicab is waiting for a passenger beginning five minutes after the time of arrival and (iii) the time consumed while a taxicab stands at the direction of the passenger. Waiting time shall not include, and no charge shall be made, for the time a taxicab loses on account of inefficiency, breakdowns, or premature response to a call. No taxicab shall charge for mileage while charging waiting time. (b) A surcharge of $1.00 per trip shall be added to compute the fare for a trip originating between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the next day. (c) The owner of any taxicab, upon receipt of satisfactory proof that a passenger is 65 years of age or older or disabled, may offer a discount not to exceed 20 percent of the total charge. S.,` ...'fk. ~.7~y~r 0623:88977.1 1 (d) The owner of any taxicab may enter into written contracts with organizations and companies to provide taxicab services on a negotiated basis. The owner of any taxicab may enter into written contracts with individuals to provide regular service on a negotiated basis. All such contracts must be kept in the main office of the taxicab company during the terms of the contract and for 12 months after termination of the contract. The rates to be charged for such services shall be determined by contract, not established by the board of supervisors, but taximeters shall be in operation at all times during the transportation of contract passengers. ~ For a trig on inatingyat Richmond International Airport, the rate shall be the charge registered on the meter plus $2.00. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0623:88977.1. 2 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~;,.. ~~,~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ ~.. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 3 ~~~`/j' AGENDA .•• 1:05 f/: hecm Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.6. Subiect: Designation of FY2014 Chesterfield Revenue Sharing Projects and Appropriation of Funds County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Rec The Board is requested to designate FY2014 Chesterfield Revenue Sharing projects and appropriate and/or transfer up to $10 million in matching funds upon VDOT approval. Summary of Information: The county regularly participates in an annual VDOT matching fund program (Revenue Sharing) wherein the county may provide local funds in anticipation of an equal match by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) In October 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved $10 million, the maximum allowed, in local matching funds for the FY2013 revenue sharing projects. VDOT matched $10 million for a total of $20 million. VDOT has requested localities submit their FY2014 Revenue Sharing applications by November 1, 2012. Staff recommends the Board continue a two-tiered approach for the program consisting of a rotational $2 million magisterial district element and an Preparer: R.J.McCracken Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Attachments: ^ yes Title: Director of Transportation Title: Director, Budget & Management No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (continued) $18 million element for county priorities. Midlothian and Matoaca are scheduled for the rotational funding this year. The recommended magisterial district rotation projects for FY2014 are Walton Park Sidewalk, Phase III and Deer Run Drive, Phase I (Attachment A). Staff also recommends the $18 million be utilized equally among the districts. Specific district improvement recommendations are included on Attachment B. The improvements have been selected from a previous needs list prepared by staff and from needs identified during discussions with the Board. VDOT has not yet identified the funding level for the program this year and it is uncertain the amount of matching funds that will be requested statewide. If VDOT does not match the full amount requested by the county, some projects will need to be delayed until funding can be sought with the FY2015 revenue sharing program or other sources. 4Ve will consult the Board to make necessary adjustments. To move the projects forward quickly, staff recommends the County administer the projects. As project plans are developed, staff will meet with affected property owners to discuss the impacts of the project on their property. A judgment will be made after the meetings as to whether a formal citizen information meeting/public hearing is needed. In either case, staff will only bring the detailed design to the Board for formal approval if there are significant concerns expressed by the property owners directly impacted by the project. The Board is requested to act on this item in order to meet the application deadline of November 1, 2012. In light of the Board's intention to request the maximum match from the state in the future, staff will prepare a Six-Year Plan for the future Revenue Sharing projects for the Board's consideration at a later date. The sources identified to potentially fund the $lOM county match for the program can be provided from a combination of the following sources. ~a~~~ ~ '"~s~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA • Industrial Access • Un-appropriated cash proffers • Reserve for Future Capital Projects • Un-appropriated interest earnings on debt issues • Other reserve funds Local funding for the match in FY2014 revenues. If VDOT continues to grant allocations in years beyond FY2014, the on-going matching revenue stream, reprioY implement some combination of the two funding. consists primarily of one-time the county similar $10 million county will need to identify an itize planned capital projects or in order to maximize the state Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution (Attachment C) designating the projects as listed in the resolution as the county's FY2014 Revenue Sharing projects, totaling $20 million; and 2. Upon notification from VDOT, appropriate and/or transfer among funds and capital projects all necessary budget entries needed with exception of the amounts provided in the Adopted FY2014 CIP in an amount sufficient to match the actual funding provided by VDOT; and 3. Authorize the County Administrator to enter into the necessary county/VDOT agreements/contracts, permits/mitigation agreements, and surety agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for the projects; and 4. Authorize the County Administrator to proceed with the design and right-of-way acquisition, including advertisement of an eminent domain public hearing, if necessary; and 5. Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator to execute easement agreements for relocation of utilities; and 6. Authorize the County Administrator to proceed with the advertisement for construction of the projects. District: Countywide ~~~ $2 Million Magisterial District Rotation Schedule Midlothian FY13 & FY14 Matoaca FY14 & FY15 Dale FY15 & FY16 Bermuda FY16 & FY17 Clover Hill FY17 & FY18 Recommended Projects Amount Walton Park Sidewalk, Phase III $765,093 Deer Run Drive Sidewalk, Phase I $1,234,907 TOTAL $2,000,000 ATTACHMENT A ~~~~'~. Staff Recommended Projects for FY2014 $18 Million Funding Request Proposed Projects Projects Amount Old Bermuda Hundred at Old Sta e Intersection Improvements $2,500,000 Old Centralia Road (Castlebur Dr to Glen Oaks Sidewalk $500,000 Harrowgate Road (Old Hundred Rd to School St) Sidewalk $600,000 Lucks Lane Spirea Rd to Ever reen Dr Widen to 4 Lanes $3,600,000 Newb s Brid a Road (Ha ood Ln to Belmont Rd) Shoulders & Pavement Widening $3,600,000 E River Road (Gran er St to Colonial Hei hts) 4 Lane Widenin , Ph I $3,600,000 Providence Road (Rt 60 to Woodward Dr) Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk $3,600,000 TOTAL $18,000,000 ATTACHMENT B __::~ ~~: PROPOSED RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Section 33.1-23.05 of the Code of Virginia permits the Commonwealth Transportation Board to make an equivalent matching allocation to any County for designations by the governing body of up to $10,000,000 in funds received by it during the current fiscal year for use by the Commonwealth Transportation Board to construct, maintain, or improve primary and secondary highway systems within such County; WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors will make available $10 million for the Chesterfield Revenue Sharing Program with the adoption of the FY2014 Appropriation Resolution and other Board action; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has notified the county that $10 million is the maximum amount of Chesterfield County funds that can be matched by the state during FY2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors appropriates and/or transfers $10 million to be matched by the State for the FY2014 Chesterfield Revenue Sharing Program. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matched funds be allocated to the following projects: $765,093 Walton Park Sidewalk, Phase III Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $382,546.50-VDOT and $382,546.50-County $1,234,907 Deer Run Drive Sidewalk, Phase I Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $617,453.50-VDOT and $617,453.50-County $2,500,000 Old Bermuda Hundred Road at Old Stage Road Intersection Improvements Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $1,250,000-VDOT and $1,250,000-County $500,000 Old Centralia Road (Castlebury Drive to Glen Oaks Drive) Sidewalk Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $250,000-VDOT and $250,000-County $600,000 Harrowgate Road (Old Hundred Road to School Street) Sidewalk Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $300,000-VDOT and $300,000-County $3,600,000 Lucks Lane (Spirea Road to Evergreen Drive) Widen to Four Lanes Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $1,800,000-VDOT and $1,800,000-County $3,600,000 Newbys Bridge Road (Hagood Lane to Belmont Road) Shoulders and Pavement Widening Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $1,800,000-VDOT and $1,800,000-County $3,600,000 E River Road (Granger Street to Colonial Heights)Widen to Four Lanes, Phase I Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $1,800,000-VDOT and $1,800,000-County $3,600,000 Providence Road (Route 60 to Woodward Drive) Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-way and Construction $1,800,000-VDOT and $1,800,000-County ATTACHMENT C T/'~~ ~ a~ ® ..S ~ . i~! ~Y.+w~ ~`°~~G,, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ T` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pa e 1 of 2 '~ ` 9 ~~•y ~~ AGENDA t?RCIN~' Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.7. Subject: Approval of FY2014 Priority List of Transportation Needs County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to approve the attached priority list and letter regarding Chesterfield County's transportation needs, and authorize this information be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Commonwealth Transportation Board, and the county's Congressional and State Legislative Delegations. Summary of Information: Each year, the Board of Supervisors is requested to adopt a priority list of primary and interstate transportation needs for consideration by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) when VDOT updates their Six- Year Improvement Program (SYIP). VDOT's SYIP identifies projected funding for primary and interstate roads, rail, transit and other federally-funded specialty projects. This year, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will be holding a public meeting for the FY2014-FY2019 SYIP on November 15, 2012, at the VDOT Central Office Auditorium. This meeting is being held to obtain input into the SYIP prior to releasing the draft SYIP in the spring. (Continued on next page) Preparers R.J. McCracken Title: Director of Transportation Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # .~ ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) The following revisions are proposed for the priority list transportation needs: - Move Route 360 Commuter Bus (#21) to priority #14 and revise to include Chesterfield Express - Delete projects under construction or complete: Powhite Parkway (Route 288 to Watermill Parkway) Widening, Powhite Parkway/Old Hundred Road at Brandermill Parkway Signal, Route 60 Corridor Signal Improvements - Delete North/South Freeway (from East/West Freeway to I-85) in anticipation of Thoroughfare Plan update Staff recommends a letter be sent to VDOT for inclusion in the public record expressing support for the priority projects and the revenue sharing program. The draft letter is Attachment B. The draft letter includes a request for funding for the Route 360/Commonwealth Center and Chesterfield Express bus routes. Funding for these express bus routes will run out in June 2013. The letter should be submitted to the Richmond District CTB member and the county's legislative delegation. A summary of the Chesterfield County projects included in VDOT's current FY2013-FY2018 Six-Year Improvement Program is shown on Attachment C. The Secondary Road Six-Year Program will be presented in the spring for the Board's consideration. Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1) The Board approve the recommended priority list of primary and interstate transportation needs and letter; and 2) Direct the County Administrator to forward the list and letter to the Richmond District Commonwealth Transportation Board member, Virginia Department of Transportation and Chesterfield County's Legislative Delegations. District: Countywide ~.~~'~~y.~~ se CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRIORITY LIST OF PRIMARY AND INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS RECOMMENDED October 24, 2012 PREVIOUS PROPOSED PRIORITY PRIORITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION FROM TO ESTIMATE FUNDING in millions STATUS 1 1 Route 288 Interchange Improvement Route 360 $72.0 2 2 Route 60 6 Lanes Courthouse Rd. Old Buckingham Rd. $16.0 Funded 3 - Rewhite-ParkweY- 4~aAes &eute~-255 LUatermill-Pkwy $~1~0 Funded 4 3 Route 10 6 Lanes Bermuda Triangle Rd Meadowville Rd. $30.0 Funded 5 4 Route 10 6 Lanes Route 1 I-95 $4.0 Funded 6 5 Route 360 6/8 Lanes Winterpock Rd. Woodlake Vllage Parkway $15.0 Funded 7 6 Route 10 6 Lanes Route 288 Frith Ln $14.0 8 7 Route 360 6 Lanes Route 288 Genito Rd $18.0 Partially Funded $3.5 M 9 8 Route 360 6 Lanes Woodlake Vllage Parkway Otterdale Rd. $25.0 10 9 Huguenot Road 6 Lanes Route 60 Alverser Dr. $4.0 Funded 11 10 Route 1 Intersection Improvement Old Bermuda Hundred Rd. $5.0 Funded 12 11 Centralia Road 3 Lanes Memory Lane Hatt-6n Chester Rd. $25.0 13 12 Rt 288 Interchange Improvement, Nedlawest Leep Chester Rd $3.0 Funded 14 13 Route 360 ~ Chesterfield 6aarmuteF Express Bus Spring Run Road Lowe's/Koger Center City of Richmond City of Richmond $0.4/year 15 14 New Freeways: A. Powhite Pkwy Ext B. EasUWest G-Nerlh/Seutp Prel. Engr. & Right-of-Way A. Charter Colony Pkwy. B. Route 360 A. Route 360 B. I-95 6:1-55 A. $4.0 B. $9.0 C,-$38 16 15 Powhite Parkway Extended 4 Lanes, At-grade Intersections Watermill Pkwy Woolridge Rd Ext $19.0 17 16 Signalization Var. Locations * (see belo Countywide $3.0 18 17 Sight & Sound Barriers Powhite Pkwy., Route 288 Various Locations Countywide $50.0 19 18 Park/Ride Facilities Commuter Parking Lots Countywide $2.0 20 19 Powhite Pkwy Removal Tolls (see below) Chippenham Pkwy. Route 288 $57.0 ** 21 20 High Speed Rail Chesterfield -- 22 21 I-295 Loops Meadowville Rd. $20.0 TOTAL $422.2 * Requested Signal Locations Long Terrn Obligations Cost Route 360 at Lynview Drive, Broadstone Road & Lynchester Drive For Tolls as of 1/31/11 in millions Outstanding Principal on Bonds $0.0 Due to Toll Facilities Revolving Account $34.3 Route 10 at W. Rock Spring Road, Ecoff Avenue & Parker Lane Due to VDOT Construction Fund $14.7 Route 1 at Old Bermuda Hundred Road & Sand Hills Drive Long-Term Notes Payable to Chesterfield Co. River Road at Pickett Avenue $57.0 Attachment A November 2012 Gregory A. Whirley, Sr. Commissioner VA Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 SUBJECT: VDOT FY14-FY19 Six-Year Improvement Program Chesterfield County Priority Projects Dear Commissioner Whirley: On behalf of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, I am submitting Chesterfield County's priority list of highway projects. Chesterfield County is requesting funding for the projects and asking that this priority list be entered into the Richmond District Public Meeting record for the FY14-FY19 Six- Year Improvement Program. We have worked with VDOT on many important projects over the years and hope to continue a positive relationship with the Department in the future. In that regard, we would like to express our appreciation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the increased funding for the revenue sharing program. We feel this program is an excellent way to partner with the state to deliver priority projects. Our top three priority highway projects which require funding are highlighted below: Route 288/Route 360 Interchange: Our number one priority project involves improvements to the Route 288/Route 360 Interchange. Traffic volumes on Route 360 in the vicinity of the interchange are over 80,000 vehicles per day. Traffic exiting Route 288 southbound to Route 360 westbound backs up onto Route 288 during the evening commute period restricting through traffic on Route 288 to a single lane. We are currently working with VDOT in the preliminary design stages. Funds for the project need to be programmed now. Attachment B Page 1 of 2 .~ s^~ ,-4 ~- ''_~ ~; Route 10 (Route 288 to Frith Lane) Widening_ The second project I would like to discuss is the Route 10 (Route 288 to Frith Lane) Widening Project. The county just completed the widening of Route 10 which extends east of Frith Lane to Greenyard Road, using county bond funds. Approximately 36,000 vehicles per day use Route 10. Funding in the Six-Year Improvement Program will allow construction of the six lanes needed on this corridor to the Route 288 interchange. Route 360 (between Route 288 and Genito Road) Widening The third project we would like to bring to your attention is the widening of Route 360 between Route 288 and Genito Road. This section of road carries 41,000 vehicles per day. The first phase of this project, which should be under construction in 2013, has been funded with Regional Surface Transportation Program funds from the Richmond Region MPO. The second phase involves reconstructing and widening the eastbound lanes of Route 360 in this section. This second phase of widening will complete aten-mile long, six-lane principal arterial that connects Chippenham Parkway, Route 288 and extends to western Chesterfield. In addition, we are requesting funds for the Route 360/Commonwealth Center Express and the Chesterfield Express bus service. We support public transportation and are requesting assistance from the state to continue these routes. The Route 360/Commonwealth Center express bus service was initiated by the CTB near the end of 2005 with funding allocated in the Six-Year Improvement Program. Identified funding for these routes will run out June 2013. In closing, let me thank Commissioner Whirley, the Central Office, District, and Residency Staff, with whom we work on a daily basis, for all of their help. If funding is provided for these projects, the county stands ready to manage them through construction. If you need additional information or clarification, please let us know. We look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Daniel A. Gecker Midlothian District Chairman, Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: The Honorable Members of the Chesterfield Congressional Legislative Delegation The Honorable Members of the Chesterfield State Legislative Delegation The Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors Roger Cole, Commonwealth Transportation Board Member James J. L. Stegmaier, County Administrator William Dupler, Deputy County Administrator R.J. McCracken, Director of Transportation Thomas A. Hawthorne, District Administrator Attachment B Page 2 of 2 0.1 ~``~9 p ~~"~S G R O a C d c y ~ ~ V p C~ C G ~ W _ L O ~ v !A Q >' ~ o M x Q o ~ tq 'a vs ~ ~ ~ ~'~' N ~ O -Fy, u. a Or ~ ~ > o r .. d1 V CD M m O O ~ C ~ EA EA EA _ EH _ EA ~ R d ~ m O ER O E9 O EH O O b4 O dT O EH O ER O VT O ER O EA O b4 O E9 O Ef3 O ffT M ~ O ER N ~ O EA O ER O ER O ER O EA O E9 O EA O 64 O ER O EA O b4 O EA O H3 O EH ~fJ ~ ~ O r } ~ ~ (!T O LL v1 0 0 0 a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~fT O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD ~ E9 ELT tlT ~ 00 VT (A EH ER EH ER O EA EFT b4 CO ER ~ ER EA ER E9 EA ER EA EA EH EN EH ER EH EH ~ m N M ELT « ll') LL EH K3 V3 ~T fA C O v O' o ER 0 EH 0 dT 0 O 0 EH 0 EH 0 ER 0 ER 0 EfT 0 ER 0 N 0 !A 0 0 0 ER 0 EA 0 fA ~ N o ER 0 A 0 f!> 0 ER 0 EFT 0 EA 0 EA 0 b4 0 HT 0 EA 0 EA 0 ER 0 EA o b4 rn Q1 R ~ ~ c` J ER fA ~ 0 d-J ~ ~ v LL EtT O a -a ~ 1(1 In O I~ ~ 0 O 0 ELT 0 EfT 0 EA 0 EA 0 EH 0 EA 0 dT 0 EH 0 O 0 00 0 i0 0 EA 0 b9 0 EA ~fJ M O VT ~fT ~ O ffT O ER O (A O ER O EA O b4 O b9 O EA O 69 O ER O KT O EA N ~ w M N ~ ` EA EA m ~ ~ EA EH dT EA EA EfJ '~ LL a Q) v M o O rn M o ER 0 EH 0 ER 0 E9 ~n i.fJ o EH 0 b9 0 to 0 EA 0 ER 0 ELT 0 HT ~ M o b? 0 EA 0 O 0 E9 0 EA 0 K3 0 EA 0 Ef3 0 EA 0 E9 0 EH 0 ER 0 EA 0 b4 o EA cD O ~ CO r' O ~(T N N _ N N t c"> H'T ~ EH N ER ER ~^ r EA EFT ER EH LL ~ KJ Q1 O V 0 0 0 0 0 ~C7 ~ 0 0 ~ ~lJ O (O O O O O M ~ V ~ N O O O LCJ I~ N M O CD M ~ (R M O O LfJ O V O tf) O O CO N M M ~ I~ O N O O M QO M N HT C N E9 O M ER O ~ CO M N N O O CD ER ~.CJ ~ N ~- O N O N O ~fJ CO I~ r N O r ~ E!3 V tt « FfT V EFJ M <-9 M N r - EA EH E9 fR b9 ~ ER ER (R b4 ER EA ffT ~ EF} EH fA d3 ER VT EA ~-- En EA EH ~ Ef3 LL y~ ~ N O O O O O ~!J O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD O O O CO M CO O V ~fJ O O O O f~ ~ C. ~ OD I~ M O O O LfJ EA EA M O O ~ N V' 1~ L(J ~ O t[') O LfJ EH EA KT I~ ~ M M ER 69 VT M f~ V O O O O M ~ O N O N fA ER N '~ ~ V C+7 N <-R '~ VT ~ V3 N ER M E9 f!T M N O ELT fA VT b9 ~ C EH ER dT to (~> HT ffT EFT (» 64 EF3 L 3 a LL ~ (D O ' O O O O O O N f~ t!7 O O O ~O O ~[J N tCJ L{7 O a0 (D L(7 oO W O O lfJ Lf) y,,, C L 7 C I~ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 fJ ~ 0 O I` ~.fJ lO CD ~ M tt O tf) O O M N O) N ~IJ O ~ N O M N Q) O l0 M f~ CO ~ V M O ICJ W M M O ~ O ~ O ~('> CO I~ M V ~ C [ O ER ~!") O CO V f-9 . ER oD r O ~ M CO .- N M M ER ER EA EA C') M 69 ~ EfT EH EH (fT b4 EH G i.~ N E/T 64 M EA ER EH E9 fA VT fA V3 cA EN HT EH ER E!3 EH EH H W c o m w ~~ V ~ c0 CO V M M ~ lf> d ~ M M M M ~ ~ ~ CO M ~ M M V (O ICJ ~ V N M M M ~' ~ J Q ~ d m d O_ r m O m O ~ Z O N ~ O N O N O N O N O N C O N a O N O N O N O N O N ~ C O N O N ~ O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N ~ O C ~ ~ U ~ ~ F' 0 U w ~ w N ~ ~ a ~ > a a a a 0 ~ i+ C N > pNj -O UJ > N > C C O > N > ~ O O- C •L °' ~ N O ` m OJ ui N m o d m p m rn 41 w O y N o d d ~ a~ E o a o d _ ~ - N V v ~ E m cco a ~ - ccv ~ > ~ m m ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ m VJ ~ J p J O J O ~ p J V ~ -J ~ J CD J CO J CO (O N C O C ~ J Q ~ ` ~ .U O O N ~` U O ` C O Y O O O Y O U N ~ 4J ~ Y O .U Y Y O 'U ~ Vl C ~ Y O ~ Y Y Y Y a~ ~ L N c N c N in d y c N ~ E O 3 c N c N c N 3 N a~ °~ O 3 3 3 u`oi .c ~ L ~ L 3 d ~ 3 O 3 d 3 N 3 N "O a> -o -o ~ d a -~ m O ~ a_ a a N -o o ~O- ~ N -o °~ N -° N a o ~ ~ :o ~ ~ :o -a ~ m` ~ - ~ ~ a = ~ ~ a v~ ~ ~ ~ uT ~ m` m` w ~ in v~ ~ ~ in ~ cn = cn in ~n in m c o o ~ d ~ L ~ -p m ~ ~ C O (n ~ D O, w O Y d f0 ~ ~ 3 vi ~ ~ ~ a~ °% C L ~ ~ c ~ c K c J 2 3 m U ca ~ .° c~ 2 O U Y N - w o c o ~ _ o ~ Y a s g m Y ~ O ~ d° U aci 3 ~ U o o 0 a o ~ ~ o ~ w `-6 ~ ~ t Q .o L ~ ~ o ~ ~ yr .o ~ m O O w ~ O _ - j o ~' ~ m ~ o L ~ ~ O 3 O cn ~ ~ - L Cn Y N ~ L ~ (6 ~ d ~ -° o aci `° -0 3 s ~ o -v O -° ~ ~ -° o R ' m 0 D ii o d m = - U -o o ~ ~ C ~ °~ o E o ~ m w -- o ~ °~ o a~ d o -o o ~ d L ~ C O o0 ~ N C O ~ - 'O ~ - "O O Y N U N M ~ 2' Q' -O ~ U O = O .0-~ O_ N w N (O ~ O O (D O O ~. O ~ _ m O (a d' N U ~ L "° ~ (U O N (V N 07 N ~ d O m ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O 0 3 to .~ N _ y ~ U O O (U6 ~ = J 'O H U N O ~ ~ O Cn ~ N m ~ ~ O C w ~ ~ O ° O ~ _ ~ O Y ~ ~ -O Y 0 0 ~ O a N (6 U L = O ~ c ~ w a~ -o ° ~ cUT ~ o c Y v o ~ o o cv = v> ° y _ U m m 3 O 0 ~° a ~ a ~ ~ >. ~ ~ o - ° ~ L ~ c ° ~ o o m -o ~ a~ ~ m m Q - m 3 ~ ° ~ o c i o a c a> r o ~ -o ~ o w -o ~ = ~ L m a~ ~ m o -o z - O a ~ a`~ ~ O m ~ > ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ O U z ° m -° ° ~ m ~ m a ~° ~ ° m m ~ ~ o iu ia o o o o a ~6 aaOO C°o ~ c°fl o o ca ~ c a ~°' a~i 3 ~ L ~o, m m ~ ~ o ~ o ~ a ~ CO d o N M M CO GO O m o 0 C .N > - U h N ~+ L N o 0 C (,7 ca a~ a> a~ a; a~ a~ a~ t ~? m ~ a~ m a; 0 ~ E t a .n r w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m o 0 0 0 0 a~ a~ v> m o ~a a> a> m o o a~ a~ o m a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ O J v cn ~ z z v U c~ c~ ~ Y cn U A~`~) W U a--~ y ~~°` +r 55~' ~. L Y .zy...r.,.-- ~V ~, 164 -~ ~RGI!'1) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 8.C.8. Subject: Authorize the County Administrator to Execute a Construction Contract for Tomahawk Creek Middle School Athletic Fields Sports Lighting County Administrator's Comments: ,,.-~ r County Administrator: ~ ~v ~ i ~/ Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute a construction contract with Hall Brothers Electric Contractors Inc. in the amount of $352,283.00 for work at Tomahawk Creek Middle School to install athletic lighting for two soccer/football fields. Summary of Information: The Tomahawk Middle School lighting project will accomplish the final stage of planned improvements of the athletic fields funded in the FY2012 CIP. Other planned improvements beyond the sports lighting contract include installation of new irrigation systems and top soil improvements work which is currently underway. These improved fields will assist in meeting the current demands for lighted fields in the western part of the county for use by co-sponsored athletic leagues. There is sufficient funding available for this project. Parks and Recreation staff recommends approval. Preparer: Michael S. Golden Preparer: Allan M. Carmod Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director. Parks and Recreation Title: Director, Budget and Management ^ No # ~~~' ~~ ~ c~G c,~~y~ 0 .~.....- ~ Ii19 yRCn+~` CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 9.A. Subiect: Report on Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparers James J. L. Stegmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: ^ Yes ^ No # ~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE Budgeted Ending Balances October 24, 2012 of General Fund Fiscal Year Budgeted Expenditures* 2009 $53,495,000 7.7% 2010 $53,495,000 8.1% 2011 $53,495,000 8.3% 2012 $53,495,000 8.2% 2013 $53,495,000 8.0% *Effective FY2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a change to the financial policy ratio to raise the targeted fund balance level from 7.5 percent to 8.0 percent CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS October 24, 2012 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance* FOR FISCA L YEAR 2012 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2011 4/13/2011 FY2012 Budget Addition 13,552,500 17,580,585 4/13/201 l FY2012 Capital Projects (13,352,500) 4,228,085 8/24/2011 Construction of first phase of Mary B. Stratton Park (391,735) 3,836,350 11/9/2011 Chesterwood-Cogbill Rd Drainage Improvements (change order (32,066) 3,804,284 1/11/2012 Chesterwood-Cogbill Rd Drainage Improvements (change order (20,204) 3,784,080 4/25/2012 Point of Rocks Property Maintenance (85,000) 3,699,080 6/27/2012 Mary B. Stratton Park Sports Fields additional work (210,000) 3,489,080 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 3/28/2012 FY2013 Budget Addition 3/28/2012 FY2013 Capital Projects *Pending outcome of FY2012 audit results 13,905,000 17,394,080 (13,199,300) 4,194,780 ~~~~ , CHESTERFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT FUNDS October 24, 2012 Maximum Balance Carry Over Pending from FY2013 Funds Used Items on Board District Prior Years* Appropriation Year to Date 10/24 Agenda Approval* Bermuda $21,566 $33,500 $14,636 $0 $40,430 Clover Hill 37,500 33,500 0 0 71,000 Dale 37,391 33,500 16,637 322 53,932 Matoaca 37,500 33,500 2,390 0 68,610 Midlothian 37,500 33,500 0 0 71,000 County Wide - - - - - *Pending outcome of FY2012 audit results Prepared by Accounting Department September 30, 2012 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PUR CHASES APPROVED A ND EXECUTED Outstanding Date Original Date Balance Bean Description Amount Ends 09/30/2012 04/99 Public Facility Lease- Juvenile Courts Project $16,100,000 01/20 $6,475,000 (Refinanced 10/10) O1/O1 Certificates ofParticipation* - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 13,725,000 11/12 565,000 03/03 Certificates ofParticipation* -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation 6,100,000 11/23 ],270,000 03/04 Certificates of Participation* -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 21,970,000 11/15 3,770,000 10/04 Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project 16,596,199 10/12 16,596,199 12/04 Energy Improvements at County Facilities 1,519,567 12/17 843,702 05/05 Certificates of Participation* -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 14,495,000 11/24 5,035,000 05/06 Certificates of Participation* -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 11,960,000 11/24 6,705,000 08/07 Certificates ofParticipation -Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition 22,220,000 11/27 17,545,000 06/12 Certificates of Participation Refunding - Building Acquisition, Construction, Expansion, Renovation, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems; Equipment Acquisition 19,755,000 11/24 19.755,000 *Partially Refinanced 06/12 TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED $144.440.766 78.559.901 PENDING EXECUTION Approved Description Amount None October 24, 2012 Speakers List Afternoon Session 1. Ms. Kim Taylor 2. 3. 4. 5. v~ ~y~.e . ~' 1749 hRGIN~' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 9.8. Subiect: Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for Chesterfield Parks and Recreation (Case 12PD0184) to Permit a Special Purpose Park County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: On September 18, 2012, the Planning Commission determined that Case 12PD0184 is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, as per attached. (AYES: Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin.) Staff recommends no action. Summary of Information: State law provides that the Board may overrule the Planning Commission's determination or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing and decision. If the Board takes no action, the substantial accord determination will become final. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No ~ r^, r-+ ~~ ~ „r~~ e~ ; e.~ Title: Director of Planning CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr ~~~~~ ;.z °~y, v ''' r~~/Jn ~RCS1'11* BS Time Remaining: 365 days c +o,,,t, ~ Q ~ni ~ rVn~ v@p rczrrvE-r~z~ri~c October 24, 2012 BS SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD REVIEW 12PD0184 Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Bermuda Magisterial District East line of Jefferson Davis Highway REQUESTS: Substantial Accord Determination to permit a special purpose park in a Residential (R-7), Neighborhood Business (G2), General Business (GS), Residential Multifamily (R-MF), and General Industrial (I-2) Districts. PROPOSED LAND USE: Expansion of a public park (Falling Creek Park) is planned north of Falling Creek and pedestrian access across properties south of the creek. (Exhibit 1) PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THE REQUEST TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ON PAGES 1 AND 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reason: The proposal complies with the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan identifies the need for new or expanded linear or open space parks along Falling Creek. In addition, the Plan specifically suggests park acreage around historic properties should be increased. CONDITION Prior to the property north of Falling Creek being designated as a public park or within sixty (60) days from the date of a written request by the Transportation Department, whichever occurs first, a variable width right-of--way for the relocation of Station Road from any part of the property that is owned by the County shall be recorded, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. The exact location and width of the right-of--way shall be approved by the Transportation Department. There shall be Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service ,,r.. ,.~,,~ no requirement to dedicate right-of--way, if the Transportation Department determines that such right-of--way is not required for the Southeast High Speed Rail project. (T) GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Falling Creek Park -Adjacent Property Acquisition T ,~cati nn The request property fronts the north and south lines of Station Road and the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway south of Chippenham Parkway. Tax IDs 791-684-2483 and Part of 7484; and 791-685-5178. Existin,~g: R-7, C-2, C-5, R-MF and I-2 Size: 32.1 acres Existing Land Use: Public/semi-public; commercial; multifamily residential or vacant Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North - I-2 and I-3; Industrial or vacant South - C-2 and R-7; Commercial and vacant East - I-2 and A; Industrial or vacant West - C-5, R-7 and R-MF; Commercial, multifamily residential or vacant UTILITIES Public Water System: The site is located within the Bellwood water pressure zone. There is a sixteen (16) inch water line extending along the eastern side of Jefferson Davis Highway. There is also a twelve (12) inch water line extending along the northeastern side of Station Road. The request site is currently connected to the public water system. Connection to the public water system is required by county code for any new structures. 2 12PD0184-OCT24-BOS-RPT Public Wastewater S sue: The request site is located within the Falling Creek sewer service area. There is an eight (8) inch wastewater line extending through the middle of the request site that connects to a forty-eight (48) inch wastewater trunk along the north side of the creek. The request site is currently connected to the public wastewater system. Connection to the public wastewater system is required by county code for any new structures. ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: The subject property drains directly into Falling Creek. The northern part of the property is wooded and the southern portion is developed. There are no known drainage or erosion problems and none are anticipated after development. Water Quality: Falling Creek is a perennial stream and as such, is subject to a conservation buffer, inside of which uses are very limited. PUBLIC FACILITIES Fire ~ervice~ The Bensley Fire Station, Company Number 3, and Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad currently provide fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS). This request will have a minimal impact on Fire and EMS. Count~Department of Transportation: Approval of the substantial accord will not limit development of the property (32.1 acres) to specific uses within the proposed special purpose park; therefore, it is difficult to anticipate traffic generation. Development of the property as planned will have a minimal impact on the existing transportation network. Traffic generated by this development will be distributed along Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301), which had a 2009 traffic count of 24,153 vehicles per day. The capacity of that four (4) lane road is acceptable (Level of Service B) for the volume of traffic it currently carries. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is being prepared for the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor from Richmond (Main Street Station) to Raleigh. The DEIS identifies proposed bridges and underpasses, rail crossing closures, and other road work throughout the corridor. Located on the north side of Falling Creek is the at-grade railroad crossing of Station Road, which is proposed in the DEIS to be improved to a grade-separated crossing. To provide this grade separation, Station Road will need to be relocated through the property (Exhibit 2). If the final design of the SEHSR project 12PD 0184-0 CT24-B OS-RPT ~~'~ ~_. requires the relocation of Station Road, the applicant has offered a condition that would require dedication of the right-of--way for that road improvement. (Condition) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): An appropriate VDOT standard commercial entrance(s) will be required for entrance to the site from Station Road, with adequate intersection sight distances. Such an entrance(s) shall meet the access management requirements of 24 VAC 30 - 73. Planned entrances are being evaluated during review of construction plans submitted for park improvements. VDOT has expressed the need for an appropriate entrance. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: The subject property includes and surrounds the historic 1619 Falling Creek Ironworks, the first ironworks in English North America, and is located within the boundaries of the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan. The Plan suggests the property is appropriate for residential, community and general industrial uses, based on existing land use and zoning before the Ironworks site was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1995; however, the Plan recognizes the historic significance of the Ironworks and recommends such sites be preserved and promoted as community assets. In addition, the Plan recognizes the area around and including Falling Creek as a significant environmental feature and recommends that implementation of the Falling Creek Greenway project, of which the request property is a part, should be a priority. The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that special purpose parks should be located on sites with historical, ecological or cultural significance. The Plan identifies the need for additional linear or open space parks along Falling Creek. In addition, the Plan specifically identifies that park acreage around historical resources should be increased. Area Development Trends: Falling Creek runs through the request property. Area properties are zoned residentially, commercially and industrially and are occupied by multifamily residential, commercial and industrial uses. It is anticipated these land uses will continue in the area, except as limited by the conservation buffers around Falling Creek, as suggested by the Plan. Zoning History: On September 8, 1987 the Board of Supervisors granted historic landmark designation (Case 87HP0001) for the Falling Creek Ironworks site, which the request property surrounds. It is important to note that the Ironworks site was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1995. 4 12PD0184-OCT24-BOS-RPT ~'~ A'~'''' ;~' ~`: On June 26, 1995 the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning to Residential Multifamily (R-MF) and Agricultural (A) plus conditional use planned development approval (Case 95SN0149) on a portion of the request property to authorize the non-conforming Falling Creek Apartments and accommodate the dedication of property along Falling Creek for public park use. These portions of the request property are included for pedestrian access. On September 19, 1995 the Planning Commission accepted the Planning Director's decision that a proposed passive linear park facility is in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan (Case 96PD0110) on a portion of the request property. On April 17, 2001 the Planning Commission accepted the Planning Director's determination (Case O1PD0110) that an area (immediately south of the request property) planned for park facilities, including parking and a visitors center for the Falling Creek Ironworks site, is in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan. Access across portions of the request property south of Falling Creek is proposed to provide access between this parking area and planned park expansion north of Falling Creek. Park iTse~ The applicant has indicated that plans are in place for the County to purchase property north of Falling Creek (fronting the north and south lines of Station Road) for use as an expansion of the linear park facilities (Falling Creek Park). Special purpose parks preserve and interpret unique historical, cultural and environmental resources. The request property is unique and rich with historical, cultural and environmental resources. Falling Creek is a unique natural resource located on the "fall line" between the tidal and piedmont geological features of central Virginia. The proposed park would provide access via trails to Falling Creek's unique environmental resources and ties into the overall linear park concept along the James River and Falling Creek. In addition to the environmental resources, the properties would serve as an expansion of Falling Creek Park which preserves and offers interpretation of Falling Creek Ironworks which has unique historical significance. Falling Creek Ironworks Park is the site of the first ironworks in English North America. Captain Bluett selected the site for iron production in 1619 and was accompanied by John and Maurice Berkley and twenty (20) ironworkers. Although Berkley wrote to the Virginia Company that he would produce iron by the spring of the next year, the Powhatan Indians included the ironworks in their colony-wide attack and massacre in March of 1622. In addition in 1760, Archibald Cary built a forge on the north side of Falling Creek. The forge proved to be unprofitable, so Cary turned his attention to a grist mill, which was destroyed during the American Revolution. The mill was rebuilt in the 1850s by John Watkins and was active until about 1906. Stone foundations on the north side of the creek are the remains of that mill. 12PD 0184- O CT24-B O S-RPT Site Design: This park expansion (known as Falling Creek Park -Adjacent Property Acquisition) is planned to include walking trails, observation areas, interpretive signage, work to preserve mill ruins, and enhancement of streamside habitat. Connections between north end trails, south bank park facilities and pedestrian access to the existing parking lot and visitor's center area south of the request property are planned. The request property lies within the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor District. Any development of the site must conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the Jefferson Davis Corridor District which address standards to encourage reinvestment and revitalization of the area. Such standards address access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, buffers, signs and screening. CONCLUSION The location, character and physical extent of the proposed park is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan as specified by the Code of Vir ig nia. The Public Facilities Plan identifies the need for new or expanded linear and open space parks along Falling Creek and its riparian areas. In addition, the land proposed for this special purpose park will increase park acreage to preserve historic, cultural and natural resources. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the special purpose park is in Substantial Accord with the Comprehensive Plan. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (9/18/12): The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission determined the request to be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the Condition on pages 1 and 2. AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 beginning at 3:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 6 12PD0184-OCT24-BOS-RPT l ~,~ -~ N ~" ~ i , _ _ d i < ,; i ,~ ~ "3 • ,- ~. ~ ~ F _ _. 5 J~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .. ..,~ ~. ,yam _ ~ _ ~ 41y ! ,. ...~. ............ ..M. .:. ..'~ c~ i. ~ ~ J ... i. U . ~ :::: .- ~ ~ - 'Q _~ ~. ..~ 1~.h 1 1 .~._;~,~ „ ____ 1 ~ ,; ~ __ . . ~ .: _, ,.~„ ~ .. V ~ ~ *~. ---~ __. 7 ` 1 ~ ,,. i j ~~ ~t_ _ ~~~ i ,~ ~ ~~,, ~~. y,~ d ~~~ , ~ yam' N ~ ~ ~ ~os"~ , ~ ~ ~, ~ ,! ~ -F W Z~~ ~ ~ i -~ ,. ~~ ~~ ~. ~' ~ °' a Q J ~ G~~N~oR° ~ ~~ s ~ F- / U / W~ ~, ~ -, Q ~ M ~ O a ~ ' ~ x ~ r ryj u a ~ ~~ 1S bNO~H1b211S Q. m o 4= N Z ~ O {~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~, I a ~ Q ... Q Y ~ ... 1~ I" 1S K61N3l1b l` .c. ~'-- o~ 0 O O M 0 0 a :`~ ~ ~ U r - { a r, ~ a~ ,._ _ a - _, _.... ~ ~ _ -,_ _ y ~ - ~ _.~ ~ . ~ ~ i f ~ p, ~ .. `, ~ `; r r '~ ~ ~ # L ~)f` 1. ! ~~ i ~7 t , ., ,- r `111' w ~ ~I iii ~`~ VI ~~' m - ~".,.,,,. ~~ ~'~ !a ,, ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ r ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~"~ ~i rt ~ t ~{ ~ ~ ,~ r r., :."'„~ ~ W r „' ~ ^} ,~; (( ~' ice' -~.. ~,, - --, - w~ -~' ~~ y ~' ' ''~ w. a" ~ L" 4~~ ~ ~ r5Y ai <' s;t. W ~ ~ Ll. ~ ~ W ~r .-~~. ~~ ~ ~,, ., ; ., E i a ~~_~),; {a . ~ ,-,,, . y ~. a~ _ r ....- ~ _ .~-_.-- - - ~,1 ~ ,~: 1 _ `. .S` ~ i _..-~"; 1 ~l - +~~ -' a '" ~ { ~ ~ "fit ; ~ > ~.'~"~,.~ ff `m yr r, `~`' ;",°' `til -'Y` ~, ~ ~,.. r '~~ a-_Tr,~r-r~.+ l ~, f.. ,~ ~.~,. f 4 ~ i rry~ ~ M ~~~ t. .. 1. .. ~Y~••~~~w t_~ T' ~. T 1i~s~r/ `lt.,. y!' ' '1 ~.a11 _T~ ~. 5 12PD0184-1 ~ : k~. ~: ~-~ 1749 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 9.C. Subiect: Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for Chesterfield County (Case 13PD0108) to Permit a Group Care Facility County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: On October 16, 2012, the Planning Commission will determine if Case 13PD0108 is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, as per the attached report. Staff will advise the Board of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff requests the Board take no action. Summary of Information: State law provides that the Board may overrule the Planning Commission's determination or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing and decision. If the Board takes no action, the substantial accord determination will become final. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~~~'~~~ v~ Title: Director of Planning CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr ~~~. _~ ~~~d "~ ~-d~_. ~ecn+-' ADDENDUM 13PD0108 Chesterfield County October 24, 2012 BS Dale Magisterial District Southwest corner of Lucy Corr Boulevard and Government Center Parkway REQUEST: Substantial accord determination to permit a group care facility in an Agricultural (A) District. PROPOSED LAND USE: A twelve (12) bed group care facility is planned. The purpose of this addendum is to provide an additional condition (Condition 2) offered by the applicant's representative on October 15, 2012 and to advise the Board of the Planning Commission's determination for this case. PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THE REQUEST TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION IN THE "REQUEST ANALYSIS" ON PAGE 1 AND CONDITION 2 STATED BELOW. Staff continues to recommend approval of this request for the reasons outlined in the "Request Analysis." To address concerns of area property owners and the Dale District Commissioner relative to the impact of the use on adjacent residential development, the applicant's representative offered a condition that would require a 150 foot buffer along the western property boundary adjacent to Branch's Colony development and along the southern property boundary adjacent to Branch's Trace development (Condition 2). With the addition of this condition (numbered Condition 2), the condition in the "Request Analysis" will be numbered Condition 1. CONDITION 2. A 150 foot buffer shall be provided in accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements for 100 foot buffers along the entire length of the western property boundary and along the southern property boundary where such boundary is adjacent to the Branch's Trace development. Existing vegetation within the buffer Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service ~ , ~ ~~~•-, shall be deemed sufficient to meet the landscaping requirements for 100 foot buffers provided such vegetation shall be maintained except as necessary to remove unhealthy, dying or dead trees. If vegetation within the buffer becomes unhealthy, is damaged or dies, one (1) tree shall be planted for each tree lost. (P) CASE HISTORY Applicant (10/15/12): To address concerns of area property owners and the Dale District Commissioner relative to the impact of the use on adjacent residential development, a condition that would require a 150 foot buffer along the western and southern property boundaries was submitted. Planning Commission Meeting (10/16/12): The applicant's representative accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present. On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Dr. Wallin, the Commission determined the request to be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions contained in the "Request Analysis" as amended by this addendum. AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 beginning at 3:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 2 13PD0108-OCT24-BOS-ADD ~~~~ ~~ CASE MANAGER: Darla Orr ~~'~, October 24, 2012 BS hecss~u` BS Time Remaining: SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD REVIEW 365 days 13PD0108 Chesterfield County Dale Magisterial District Southwest corner of Lucy Corr Boulevard and Government Center Parkway REQUEST: Substantial Accord Determination to permit a group care facility in an Agricultural (A) District. PROPOSED LAND USE: A twelve (12) bed group care facility is planned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO HEAR THIS CASE AT THEIR MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012. STAFF WILL ADVISE THE BOARD OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AFTER THEIR MEETING. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reason: The proposed facility is located in the Human Services District area of the Government Center Master Plan and complies with the recommendations of the Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, which suggests uses within Government Center area be located in accordance with the Master Plan. CONDITION Development shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for Corporate Office (O- 2) uses in an Emer~in~ Growth District Area. (P) GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: ICFMR (Intermediate Care Facility) Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service Location: The request property is located in the southwest corner of Lucy Corr Boulevard and Government Center Parkway. Tax ID 771-664-0521. Existing Zoning: A Size: 21.3 acres Existing Land Use: Mental Health Support Services Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North and East - A; Nursing/convalescent facilities (Lucy Corr Nursing Home), multifamily residential use (Springdale), and public/semi-public use (Health and Social Services Departments) South - A and R-TH; Townhomes (Branch's Trace) and public/semi-public use (County fleet maintenance facility and fire safety training area) West - R-TH; Townhomes (Branch's Colony) UTILITIES Public Water S stem: There is a twelve (12) inch water line at the intersection of Lucy Corr Boulevard and Courts Complex Road approximately seventy (70) feet from the request site. There is also an eight (8) inch water line extending along Lucy Corr Boulevard that terminates in front of the Rodgers building (which houses the Mental Health Support Services Department - MHSS) on the eastern portion of the request property. This existing building is connected to the public water system. Any new structures will be required. by county code to connect to the public water system. Public Wastewater System: There is a twenty-one (21) inch and an additional eighteen (18) inch wastewater line extending through the northern portion of the request property. The existing structure (the Rogers building) located on the eastern portion of the request property is connected to the public wastewater system. Any new structures will be required by county code to connect to the public wastewater system. 13 PD 010 8-O CT24-B O S -RPT ENVIRONMENTAL The Environmental Engineering Department has no comment on the Substantial Accord review. However, it is important to note that a Resource Protection Area (RPA) Determination will need to be submitted and approved by Environmental Engineering prior to site plan submittal. PUBLIC FACILITIES Fire Service: The Airport Fire Station, Company Number 15, currently provides fire protection and emergency medical service (EMS). Based on a proposed twelve (12) bed facility, this request will generate approximately twelve (12) calls for Fire and EMS per year. Fire protection issues will be addressed at the time of plans and building permit review. County Department of Transportation: This request will have a minimal impact on area roads. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT): An appropriate VDOT standard commercial entrance(s) will be required for entrance to the site, with adequate intersection sight distances. Such an entrance(s) shall meet the access management requirements of 24 VAC 30-73. Planned entrances shall be evaluated at the time of site construction plan submittal. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Current Plan: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for office use. The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, provides that uses within the Government Center Area should be located as suggested by the Chesterfield County Government Center Master Plan. The request property is located within the area of the Government Center Master Plan identified for Human Services District. Proposed Plan: The pending comprehensive plan, entitled Moving Forward...The 2035 Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County, designates the request property as a Corporate Office area where professional and administrative offices or similar uses (such as those permitted within the Corporate Office (O-2) Zoning District are appropriate. The Public Facilities chapter of the Plan suggests that government functions should continue to be developed and concentrated at the Government Center at Route 288 and Iron Bridge Road to foster effective and customer friendly delivery of service to the public. 13PD0108-OCT24-B OS-RPT It should be noted that the proposed comprehensive plan, pending review by the Board of Supervisors, has not been approved, and does not provide final land use guidance for the subject property at this time. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Plan to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 18, 2012. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider this proposed Plan in October 2012. The recommendations of the proposed Plan are provided for reference purposes only. Area Development Trends: Properties to the north and east are zoned Agricultural (A) and are occupied by nursing/convalescent facilities and multifamily residential use at Lucy Corr Village and public/semi-public uses (Health and Social Services Departments located in the Wagner Building). Properties to the south are zoned Agricultural (A) and Residential Townhome (R-TH) and are occupied by townhomes within the Branch's Trace development and public/semi-public use (County fleet maintenance facility and fire safety training area). Properties to the west are zoned Residential Townhome (R-TH) and are occupied by townhomes within the Branch's Colony development. It is anticipated that office uses will continue in the area, as suggested by the Plan. Site Design: The applicant's representative describes the proposed group care facility as a twelve (12) bed intermediate care facility of approximately 10,000 square feet. The services provided by this facility will be similar to the personal care provided by Lucy Corr Nursing Home, located north of the request property; however, the proposed facility will focus services only on those individuals with physical and intellectual needs and will fill a void in this service in the County. The facility is proposed to be located on the vacant western portion of the request property. The request property lies within an Emer ing Growth Area. The purpose of the Emerging Growth District Standards is to promote high quality, well designed projects. While the property is not bound by the Emerging Growth District Standards, due to the agricultural zoning, a condition is offered which will require development of the site to conform to these requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which address access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment, signs, utilities and screening of dumpsters and loading areas. (Condition) CONCLUSION The location, character and physical extent of the proposed group care facility is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan as specified by the Code of Virginia. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission determine that the group care facility is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 13PD0108-OCT24-BOS-RPT CASE HISTORY Staff (9/28/12): If the Planning Commission acts on this request on October 16, 2012, the case will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 2012. The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 beginning at 3:00 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 5 13PD0108-OCT24-BOS-RPT ~~~ ~~ .~: ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~) ~ ~ ~~A - - '~C USE}2D _ J ~ ~ ._ ~ %, s~' ~~,` ~ ' ,,,,r`' 1 ~; i < ~ '` \ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ `` ~ ~ ``; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~__~ __ . Q GO _.. _... _.. _... _._.. __. __.a (~~?t -,i ~~ ,~ r r ~ r rj[ O' 1 ~ r \ ~ ' f ,_ \ I ,' ~, ,~'b~. ~-E . 1 ~ °'~,, NT CENTER ~~- ___.. ___7...- d ~.. _~ ~~ ~~- ~ _. c ..._ w ~~ ~ •~ C ~" U Q ` ~ r 1 ~ ~ ! '"'---- i D ~~~~~~~ gl~n~ O '1 V r ~ ~ a ~ m~ Q I ~ ~ ~ O 1 DD 3,aw a~X ~. ,~--.»,.. ~` N 1 ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~~ O r ~~ `° ~ , ~ ~ '` ~ :~ U -J , , ~ ~' ` 1 K ; ¢ ~' ` ; r 0 8 ~- 2 s ~ ~ ^ ^ U V DGE RD ~_ r~ M r v~ ~ •~ ~ • ~ ~ ... IRON BRI 1 . ~ ~i_!-r ~ __ r o ~~ r~~ . ~ ~ f ~. i-~~ r ~ 1 O rI ~ ¢ ~~ ~ , `, w - PAMPAS DR _ ~ ~-x r ~ ~~o ~ o w ~~ w 0 0 -~ ~w ^` 1 +i~ ~ ~ U i - ' ~ r r _~ ~ ~ .,,, Q ~ q _ 1 ~~_~ ~ r 1 r ~ ~ °a~jy~ o TA ~.. oo~M LL a I- Z 0 00 ~ ~ O ~ O acna r o~ O 0 O M 0 0 ~R ~ ~ ~y' ' .y/, ... tau ~.~ I 1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~'~°~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~~ ~"~.~~ ' y AGENDA ~,<~~ hRCtN~ Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 14.A. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing November as Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: "Cultural Arts Awareness Month" in County Administrator: Board Action Regueste Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Ms. Jaeckle requests that the Board of Supervisors recognize November as "Cultural Arts Awareness Month" in Chesterfield County, acknowledging the importance of Cultural Arts in the community. Preparers Sarah C. Snead Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Deputy County Administrator, Human Services ^ No # ~ y~~P•' ~ ~~~.~T+3 RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER AS "CULTURAL ARTS AWARENESS MONTH" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, Chesterfield County is recognized for its leadership in providing consistently excellent services to its residents, and one of its major goals is to be known for an extraordinary quality of life; and WHEREAS, the accessibility of cultural arts is an essential component of a vital and thriving community; and WHEREAS, community and school programs that encourage cultural arts afford the opportunity for an exchange of and exposure to ideas, talent and creativity and improve quality of life for the individual and the community; and WHEREAS, a well-rounded education includes exposure to the arts, and helps ensure the ability to have a good job, provide for the future and become active in civic affairs that support the well-being of the entire community; and WHEREAS, students participating in cultural arts classes and programs are more engaged in school and more likely to complete their education; and WHEREAS, a strong work force is essential to economic vitality and the sustainability of businesses and industry; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has a long history in all the cultural arts, including music and dance, literature and poetry; and has included performances with the John Rolfe Players and the Swift Creek Mill Theatre and visual arts with the Bon Air Artists and the Chester Artists Association; and WHEREAS, the dream of building a cultural arts venue in Chesterfield County began many years ago and became a recommendation in the 1989 Chester Village Plan, and Chesterfield County residents voted to approve building a cultural arts center through bond referendums; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield Center for the Arts Foundation has kept the dream alive, in partnership with the county, to secure funds to build the cultural arts center; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has many vibrant and exciting cultural arts groups, businesses, and schools that would use a cultural arts venue to share their creative talents with our community and with visitors from surrounding counties and the Tri-City area, as well as with tourists; and WHEREAS, enhancing opportunities to benefit from the cultural arts is integral to our quality of life and the Chesterfield Center for the Arts Foundation has worked tirelessly to increase awareness of this benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby declares the month of November as "Cultural Arts Awareness Month" in Chesterfield County and calls this recognition to the attention of all its citizens. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "~°~~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 Y y . t ~ AGENDA `~RCIN~ Meeting Date: October 24, 2012 Item Number: 20. Subiect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: of the Board of County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on November 14, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board ^ No # ''~.-~~,