DOCSLIB.ORG

List of PST Locality District Codes (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Cities 510 000 ALEXANDRIA 520 000 BRISTOL 530 000 BUENA VISTA 540 000 CHARLOTTESVILLE 550 105 CHESAPEAKE BUTTS ROAD BOROUGH 550 110 DEEP CREEK BOROUGH 550 115 PLEASANT GROVE BOROUGH 550 120 SOUTH NORFOLK BOROUGH 550 125 WASHINGTON BOROUGH 550 130 WESTERN BRANCH BOROUGH 570 000 COLONIAL HEIGHTS 580 000 COVINGTON 590 000 DANVILLE 595 000 EMPORIA 600 000 FAIRFAX 610 000 FALLS CHURCH 620 000 FRANKLIN 630 000 FREDERICKSBURG 640 000 GALAX 650 000 HAMPTON 660 000 HARRISONBURG 670 000 HOPEWELL 678 000 LEXINGTON 680 000 LYNCHBURG 683 000 MANASSAS 685 000 MANASSAS PARK 690 000 MARTINSVILLE 700 000 NEWPORT NEWS 710 000 NORFOLK 720 000 NORTON Page 1 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Cities 730 000 PETERSBURG 735 000 POQUOSON 740 000 PORTSMOUTH 750 000 RADFORD 760 000 RICHMOND 770 000 ROANOKE 775 000 SALEM 790 000 STAUNTON 800 105 SUFFOLK CHUCKATUCK BOROUGH 800 110 CYPRESS BOROUGH 800 115 HOLY NECK BOROUGH 800 120 SLEEPY HOLE BOROUGH 800 125 SUFFOLK BOROUGH 800 130 WHALEYVILLE BOROUGH 810 105 VIRGINIA BEACH (EXCL. SANDBRIDGE SPECIAL SERV. DIST.) 810 110 SANDBRIDGE SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT 820 000 WAYNESBORO 830 000 WILLIAMSBURG 840 000 WINCHESTER Page 2 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 001 005 ACCOMACK ATLANTIC DISTRICT 001 010 ISLAND DISTRICT 001 015 LEE DISTRICT 001 020 METOMPKIN DISTRICT 001 025 PUNGOTEAGUE DISTRICT 001 702 ACCOMAC, TOWN OF 001 709 BELLE HAVEN, TOWN OF 001 715 BLOXOM, TOWN OF 001 741 CHINCOTEAGUE, TOWN OF 001 792 HALLWOOD, TOWN OF 001 808 KELLER, TOWN OF 001 830 MELFA, TOWN OF 001 841 ONANCOCK, TOWN OF 001 842 ONLEY, TOWN OF 001 844 PAINTER, TOWN OF 001 846 PARKSLEY, TOWN OF 001 867 SAXIS, TOWN OF 001 880 TANGIER, TOWN OF 001 893 WACHAPREAGUE, TOWN OF 003 001 ALBEMARLE ALL DISTRICTS 003 869 SCOTTSVILLE, TOWN OF 005 001 ALLEGHANY ALL DISTRICTS 005 803 IRON GATE, TOWN OF 005 910 CLIFTON FORGE, TOWN OF 007 001 AMELIA ALL DISTRICTS 009 001 AMHERST ALL DISTRICTS 009 705 AMHERST, TOWN OF 011 001 APPOMATTOX ALL DISTRICTS 011 707 APPOMATTOX, TOWN OF 011 845 PAMPLIN, TOWN OF 013 002 ARLINGTON NO DISTRICTS 015 001 AUGUSTA ALL DISTRICTS 015 755 CRAIGSVILLE, TOWN OF 015 788 GROTTOES, TOWN OF 017 001 BATH ALL DISTRICTS 019 001 BEDFORD ALL DISTRICTS 019 494 BEDFORD, TOWN OF Page 3 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 021 005 BLAND MECHANICSBURG DISTRICT 021 010 ROCKY GAP DISTRICT 021 015 SEDDON DISTRICT 021 020 SHARON DISTRICT 023 001 BOTETOURT ALL DISTRICTS 023 728 BUCHANAN, TOWN OF 023 774 FINCASTLE, TOWN OF 023 887 TROUTVILLE, TOWN OF 025 001 BRUNSWICK ALL DISTRICTS 025 703 ALBERTA, TOWN OF 025 726 BRODNAX, TOWN OF 025 814 LAWRENCEVILLE, TOWN OF 027 001 BUCHANAN ALL DISTRICTS 027 789 GRUNDY, TOWN OF 029 001 BUCKINGHAM ALL DISTRICTS 029 762 DILLWYN, TOWN OF 031 001 CAMPBELL ALL DISTRICTS 031 704 ALTAVISTA, TOWN OF 031 727 BROOKNEAL, TOWN OF 033 001 CAROLINE ALL DISTRICTS 033 718 BOWLING GREEN, TOWN OF 033 852 PORT ROYAL, TOWN OF 035 001 CARROLL ALL DISTRICTS 035 798 HILLSVILLE, TOWN OF 036 001 CHARLES CITY ALL DISTRICTS 037 001 CHARLOTTE ALL DISTRICTS 037 734 CHARLOTTE COURT HOUSE, TOWN OF 037 763 DRAKES BRANCH, TOWN OF 037 811 KEYSVILLE, TOWN OF 037 850 PHENIX, TOWN OF 041 001 CHESTERFIELD ALL DISTRICTS 043 001 CLARKE ALL DISTRICTS 043 711 BERRYVILLE, TOWN OF 043 719 BOYCE, TOWN OF 045 001 CRAIG ALL DISTRICTS 045 835 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF Page 4 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 047 001 CULPEPER ALL DISTRICTS 047 757 CULPEPER, TOWN OF 049 001 CUMBERLAND ALL DISTRICTS 049 774 FARMVILLE, TOWN OF 051 001 DICKENSON ALL DISTRICTS 051 748 CLINTWOOD, TOWN OF 051 795 HAYSI, TOWN OF 051 907 CLINCHCO, TOWN OF 053 001 DINWIDDIE ALL DISTRICTS 053 821 MCKENNEY, TOWN OF 057 001 ESSEX ALL DISTRICTS 057 881 TAPPAHANNOCK, TOWN OF 059 001 FAIRFAX ALL DISTRICTS 059 007 HUNTER MILL SANITARY DISTRICT #5 059 010 DRANESVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT #1 059 015 DRANESVILLE SANITARY DIST. #1-A 059 020 DRANESVILLE SANITARY DIST. #1-A2 059 023 DRANESVILLE SANITARY DIST. #1-C 059 025 LEE SANITARY DISTRICT #1 059 030 MASON SANITARY DISTRICT #1 059 035 MOUNT VERNON SANITARY DIST. #1 059 040 PROVIDENCE SANITARY DISTRICT #1 059 060 SULLY SANITARY DISTRICT #2 059 070 SULLY SANITARY DISTRICT #10 059 746 CLIFTON, TOWN OF 059 796 HERNDON, TOWN OF 059 890 VIENNA, TOWN OF 061 001 FAUQUIER ALL DISTRICTS 061 857 REMINGTON, TOWN OF 061 883 THE PLAINS, TOWN OF 061 895 WARRENTON, TOWN OF 063 001 FLOYD ALL DISTRICTS 063 777 FLOYD, TOWN OF 065 001 FLUVANNA ALL DISTRICTS 065 869 SCOTTSVILLE, TOWN OF 067 001 FRANKLIN ALL DISTRICTS 067 717 BOONES MILL, TOWN OF Page 5 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 067 861 FRANKLIN ROCKY MOUNT, TOWN OF 069 001 FREDERICK ALL DISTRICTS 069 826 MIDDLETOWN, TOWN OF 069 875 STEPHENS CITY, TOWN OF 071 001 GILES ALL DISTRICTS 071 784 GLEN LYN, TOWN OF 071 833 NARROWS, TOWN OF 071 847 PEARISBURG, TOWN OF 071 848 PEMBROKE, TOWN OF 071 858 RICH CREEK, TOWN OF 073 001 GLOUCESTER ALL DISTRICTS (EXCL. SANITARY DISTRICTS) 073 005 GLOUCESTER SANITARY DISTRICT #1 073 010 GLOUCESTER POINT SANITARY DISTRICT 075 001 GOOCHLAND ALL DISTRICTS 077 001 GRAYSON ALL DISTRICTS 077 728 FRIES, TOWN OF 077 802 INDEPENDENCE, TOWN OF 077 886 TROUTDALE, TOWN OF 079 001 GREENE ALL DISTRICTS 079 873 STANARDSVILLE, TOWN OF 081 001 GREENSVILLE ALL DISTRICTS 081 806 JARRATT, TOWN OF 083 001 HALIFAX ALL DISTRICTS 083 791 HALIFAX, TOWN OF 083 868 SCOTTSBURG, TOWN OF 083 892 VIRGILINA, TOWN OF 083 909 SOUTH BOSTON, TOWN OF 085 001 HANOVER ALL DISTRICTS 085 708 ASHLAND, TOWN OF 087 001 HENRICO ALL DISTRICTS ( EXC. SANITARY DIST. 2 & 3) 087 005 SANITARY DISTRICT NO. 2 087 010 SANITARY DISTRICT NO. 3 089 001 HENRY ALL DISTRICTS 089 860 RIDGEWAY, TOWN OF 091 001 HIGHLAND ALL DISTRICTS 091 828 MONTEREY, TOWN OF Page 6 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 093 001 ISLE OF WIGHT ALL DISTRICTS 093 871 SMITHFIELD, TOWN OF 093 902 WINDSOR, TOWN OF 095 001 JAMES CITY ALL DISTRICTS 097 001 KING AND QUEEN ALL DISTRICTS 099 001 KING GEORGE ALL DISTRICTS 101 001 KING WILLIAM ALL DISTRICTS 101 900 WEST POINT, TOWN OF 103 001 LANCASTER ALL DISTRICTS 103 804 IRVINGTON, TOWN OF 103 812 KILMARNOCK, TOWN OF 103 901 WHITE STONE, TOWN OF 105 005 LEE JONESVILLE DISTRICT 105 010 ROCKY STATION DISTRICT 105 015 ROSE HILL DISTRICT 105 020 WHITE SHOALS DISTRICT 105 025 YOKUM STATION DISTRICT 105 807 JONESVILLE, TOWN OF 105 849 PENNINGTON GAP, TOWN OF 105 864 ST. CHARLES, TOWN OF 107 001 LOUDOUN ALL DISTRICTS 107 793 HAMILTON, TOWN OF 107 797 HILLSBORO, TOWN OF 107 816 LEESBURG, TOWN OF 107 818 LOVETTSVILLE, TOWN OF 107 825 MIDDLEBURG, TOWN OF 107 855 PURCELLVILLE, TOWN OF 107 862 ROUND HILL, TOWN OF 109 001 LOUISA ALL DISTRICTS 109 817 LOUISA, TOWN OF 109 827 MINERAL, TOWN OF 111 001 LUNENBURG ALL DISTRICTS 111 809 KENBRIDGE, TOWN OF 111 889 VICTORIA, TOWN OF 113 001 MADISON ALL DISTRICTS 113 822 MADISON, TOWN OF Page 7 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 115 001 MATHEWS ALL DISTRICTS 117 001 MECKLENBURG ALL DISTRICTS 117 721 BOYDTON, TOWN OF 117 726 BRODNAX, TOWN OF 117 736 CHASE CITY, TOWN OF 117 744 CLARKSVILLE, TOWN OF 117 813 LA CROSSE, TOWN OF 117 872 SOUTH HILL, TOWN OF 119 001 MIDDLESEX ALL DISTRICTS 119 888 URBANNA, TOWN OF 121 001 MONTGOMERY ALL DISTRICTS 121 713 BLACKSBURG, TOWN OF 121 742 CHRISTIANSBURG, TOWN OF 125 001 NELSON ALL DISTRICTS 127 001 NEW KENT ALL DISTRICTS 131 005 NORTHAMPTON CAPEVILLE DISTRICT 131 010 EASTVILLE DISTRICT 131 015 FRANKTOWN DISTRICT 131 709 BELLE HAVEN, TOWN OF 131 731 CAPE CHARLES, TOWN OF 131 738 CHERITON, TOWN OF 131 769 EASTVILLE, TOWN OF 131 773 EXMORE, TOWN OF 131 834 NASSAWADOX, TOWN OF 133 001 NORTHUMBERLAND ALL DISTRICTS 133 812 KILMARNOCK, TOWN OF 135 001 NOTTOWAY ALL DISTRICTS 135 714 BLACKSTONE, TOWN OF 135 729 BURKEVILLE, TOWN OF 135 756 CREWE, TOWN OF 137 001 ORANGE ALL DISTRICTS 137 785 GORDONSVILLE, TOWN OF 137 843 ORANGE, TOWN OF 139 001 PAGE ALL DISTRICTS 139 819 LURAY, TOWN OF 139 870 SHENANDOAH, TOWN OF 139 874 STANLEY, TOWN OF Page 8 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 141 001 PATRICK ALL DISTRICTS 141 878 STUART, TOWN OF 143 001 PITTSYLVANIA ALL DISTRICTS 143 737 CHATHAM, TOWN OF 143 787 GRETNA, TOWN OF 143 801 HURT, TOWN OF 145 001 POWHATAN ALL DISTRICTS 147 001 PRINCE EDWARD ALL DISTRICTS 147 774 FARMVILLE, TOWN OF 147 845 PAMPLIN, TOWN OF 149 001 PRINCE GEORGE ALL DISTRICTS 153 001 PRINCE WILLIAM NO DISTRICTS (EXCL. FIRE DISTRICTS) 153 005 BUCKHALL FIRE DISTRICT 153 010 COLES FIRE DISTRICT 153 015 DUMFRIES FIRE DISTRICT 153 020 EVERGREEN FIRE DISTRICT 153 025 GAINESVILLE FIRE DISTRICT 153 035 LAKE JACKSON FIRE DISTRICT 153 040 NEABSCO FIRE DISTRICT 153 045 NOKESVILLE FIRE DISTRICT 153 050 OCCOQUAN FIRE DISTRICT 153 053 GREATER MANASSAS FIRE DISTRICT 153 055 WELLINGTON FIRE DISTRICT 153 060 YORKSHIRE FIRE DISTRICT 153 767 DUMFRIES, TOWN OF 153 794 HAYMARKET, TOWN OF 153 839 OCCOQUAN, TOWN OF 153 856 QUANTICO, TOWN OF 155 001 PULASKI ALL DISTRICTS 155 765 DUBLIN, TOWN OF 155 854 PULASKI, TOWN OF 157 001 RAPPAHANNOCK ALL DISTRICTS 157 897 WASHINGTON, TOWN OF 159 001 RICHMOND ALL DISTRICTS 159 896 WARSAW, TOWN OF 161 001 ROANOKE ALL DISTRICTS 161 891 VINTON, TOWN OF Page 9 of 12 LOCALITY/DISTRICTS Locality District Code Code Locality District Counties 163 001 ROCKBRIDGE ALL DISTRICTS 163 783 GLASGOW, TOWN OF 163 786 GOSHEN, TOWN OF 165 001 ROCKINGHAM ALL DISTRICTS 165 724 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 165 725 BROADWAY, TOWN OF 165 759 DAYTON, TOWN OF 165 772 ELKTON, TOWN OF 165 788 GROTTOES, TOWN OF 165 831 MT.
Recommended publications
  • The Berkshire Echo 52

    The Berkshire Echo 52

    The Berkshire Echo Issue 52 l The Grand Tour: “gap” travel in the 18th century l Wartime harvest holidays l ‘A strange enchanted land’: fl ying to Paris, 1935 l New to the Archives From the Editor From the Editor It is at this time of year that my sole Holidays remain a status symbol Dates for Your Diary focus turns to my summer holidays. I in terms of destination and invest in a somewhat groundless belief accommodation. The modern Grand Heritage Open Day that time spent in a different location Tour involves long haul instead This year’s Heritage Open Day is Saturday will somehow set me up for the year of carriages, the lodging houses 11 September, and as in previous years, ahead. I am confi dent that this feeling and pensions replaced by fi ve-star the Record Offi ce will be running behind will continue to return every summer, exclusivity. Yet our holidays also remain the scenes tours between 11 a.m. and 1 and I intend to do nothing to prevent it a fascinating insight into how we choose p.m. Please ring 0118 9375132 or e-mail doing so. or chose to spend our precious leisure [email protected] to book a place. time. Whether you lie fl at out on the July and August are culturally embedded beach or make straight for cultural Broadmoor Revealed these days as the time when everyone centres says a lot about you. Senior Archivist Mark Stevens will be who can take a break, does so. But in giving a session on Victorian Broadmoor celebrating holidays inside this Echo, it So it is true for our ancestors.
  • Transport for the South East – Consent for Submission of Proposal to Government

    Transport for the South East – Consent for Submission of Proposal to Government

    CABINET 7 APRIL 2020 TRANSPORT FOR THE SOUTH EAST – CONSENT FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL TO GOVERNMENT Portfolio Holder: Councillor Phil Filmer, Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services Report from: Richard Hicks, Director of Place and Deputy Chief Executive Author: Michael Edwards, Head of Integrated Transport Summary This report seeks Cabinet support for the creation of a Sub-National Transport Body for the South East, confirmation of Medway’s position as a constituent authority, and consent for the submission of a Proposal to Government for statutory status. 1. Budget and Policy Framework 1.1 Medway Council does not have a stated policy position on Sub-National Transport Bodies. It is possible, however, to align the principles behind its creation with the Council’s priority of maximising regeneration and economic growth. 2. Background 2.1 Transport for the South East (TfSE) formed as a shadow Sub-National Transport Body (STB) in June 2017, and brings together sixteen local transport authorities: Bracknell Forest, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Medway, Kent, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, Surrey, West Berkshire, West Sussex, Windsor and Maidenhead and Wokingham. The Shadow Partnership Board also includes arrangements for involving five Local Enterprise Partnerships in its governance process, along with two National Park Authorities, forty-four Boroughs and Districts in East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, Surrey and West Sussex, and representatives from the transport industry. 2.2 TfSE’s aim, as set out in its vision statement, is to grow the South East’s economy by delivering a safe, sustainable, and integrated transport system that makes the South East area more productive and competitive, improves the quality of life for all residents, and protects and enhances its natural and built environment.
  • Chapter 5: Public Sanitary Sewer and Private Wastewater Disposal; Public Water Service and Private Wells

    Chapter 5: Public Sanitary Sewer and Private Wastewater Disposal; Public Water Service and Private Wells

    CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER AND PRIVATE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL; PUBLIC WATER SERVICE AND PRIVATE WELLS Public Sanitary Sewer The presence or absence of public sanitary sewer service is a major factor in site selection for new development. Generally, within the County, public sanitary sewer service is available to the larger municipalities and adjacent urbanized areas. Figure 5-1 illustrates all existing public sanitary district service areas within the County. These limits are approximate and primarily obtained through interviews with municipal staff and contracted engineers. Table 5-1 provides information regarding the status of public sanitary sewer service availability within the urbanized areas of the County as of December 2007. Table 5-1: Availability of Public Sanitary Sewer Is Public Sewer Are plans underway to City or Village Notes available? provide Public Sewer? Allerton no no Allerton is located partially within Champaign County. IEPA certification process to begin Spring ’08, followed by18-month construction period. Estimated project Bondville no yes completion date is Dec ’09. Bondville’s public sanitary sewer will connect to Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District. Broadlands no no -- Champaign yes n/a Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District Foosland no no -- Fisher yes n/a Village of Fisher Public Sewer Gifford yes n/a Village of Gifford Public Sewer IEPA certification process to begin Spring ‘08, followed Homer no yes by18-month construction period. Estimated project completion date is Dec ’09. Ivesdale no no Ivesdale is located partially within Champaign County. Longview no no -- Ludlow no no -- Village of Mahomet Public Sewer; Sangamon Valley Public Mahomet yes n/a Sewer Ogden yes n/a Village of Ogden Public Sewer Pesotum no no -- Philo no no -- Rantoul yes n/a Village of Rantoul Public Sewer Royal no no -- Sadorus no no -- Savoy yes n/a Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District Sidney no no -- St.
  • HEAP for Isle of Wight Rural Settlement

    HEAP for Isle of Wight Rural Settlement

    Isle of Wight Parks, Gardens & Other Designed Landscapes Historic Environment Action Plan Isle of Wight Gardens Trust: March 2015 2 Foreword The Isle of Wight landscape is recognised as a source of inspiration for the picturesque movement in tourism, art, literature and taste from the late 18th century but the particular significance of designed landscapes (parks and gardens) in this cultural movement is perhaps less widely appreciated. Evidence for ‘picturesque gardens’ still survives on the ground, particularly in the Undercliff. There is also evidence for many other types of designed landscapes including early gardens, landscape parks, 19th century town and suburban gardens and gardens of more recent date. In the 19th century the variety of the Island’s topography and the richness of its scenery, ranging from gentle cultivated landscapes to the picturesque and the sublime with views over both land and sea, resulted in the Isle of Wight being referred to as the ‘Garden of England’ or ‘Garden Isle’. Designed landscapes of all types have played a significant part in shaping the Island’s overall landscape character to the present day even where surviving design elements are fragmentary. Equally, it can be seen that various natural components of the Island’s landscape, in particular downland and coastal scenery, have been key influences on many of the designed landscapes which will be explored in this Historic Environment Action Plan (HEAP). It is therefore fitting that the HEAP is being prepared by the Isle of Wight Gardens Trust as part of the East Wight Landscape Partnership’s Down to the Coast Project, particularly since well over half of all the designed landscapes recorded on the Gardens Trust database fall within or adjacent to the project area.
  • October 2018 CCSDA Newsletter Final

    October 2018 CCSDA Newsletter Final

    Contra Costa Special Districts Association Newsletter Contra Costa Chapter of the California Special Districts Association October 2018 Quarterly Newsletter New Contra Costa Special Districts and for other specified purposes, including the initiation of an action, based on determinations found in the study, Web page as approved by the commission. The bill would make funding for the program subject to appropriation in the annual Budget Act. Amendments to AB 2258 will mirror the signature thresholds currently in California Elections Code 11221. These thresholds range from 10 – 30 percent depending on the number of affected registered voters. The previous version of the bill raised the protest threshold from its current 10 percent level up to a flat 25 percent, regardless of population. CSDA is pleased to support AB 2258 as proposed to be amended, and encourages special districts to support the legislation once the compromise amendments go into print. th AB 2258 creates a grant-funding program for LAFCOs At the July 16 meeting, when the membership okayed managed by the Strategic Growth Council to fund certain the use of our new web host provider Digital studies and actions. Protest thresholds are the minimum Deployment (Streamline) our page was open for percentage of eligible voters in an affected jurisdiction business. Please take a look and provide comments to required to place a LAFCO action on the ballot. A Stan Caldwell, Susan Morgan, or Ed Duarte so we can LAFCO action could include various decisions like make corrections, additions or deletions as required. mergers and consolidations. The URL: https://contracostasda.specialdistrict.org/ CSDA appreciates the willingness of both Assembly CSDA and CALAFCO Strike Member Caballero and CALAFCO to work together with Compromise on AB 2258 CSDA to find a solution that will empower LAFCOs to do their important work while protecting the voice of local th On June 26 the Senate Natural Resources Committee, voters.
  • Packet Questioning If It Was Accurate Since the Meeting Was Cancelled Not Adjourned As Stated in the Minutes/Report

    Packet Questioning If It Was Accurate Since the Meeting Was Cancelled Not Adjourned As Stated in the Minutes/Report

    OJAI VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT A Public Agency 1072 Tico Road, Ojai, California 93023 (805) 646-5548 • FAX (805) 640-0842 www.ojaisan.org NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ojai Valley Sanitary District Board of Directors will hold a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Monday November 27, 2017 at the District Office located at 1072 Tico Road, Ojai California. If you require special accommodations for attendance at or participation in this meeting, please notify our office 24 hours in advance at (805) 646-5549. (Govt. Code Section 54954.1 and 54954.2(a). The Ojai Valley Sanitary District Board of Directors encourages all interested parties to speak on any issue or subject matter subject to the District’s jurisdiction. It is the desire of the Board that its business be conducted in an orderly and efficient manner. PUBLIC INPUT: All comments from the public are to be addressed to the Board of Directors, not to Dis trict Staff, Consultants or District Legal Counsel. Items Not On The Agenda: All speakers are requested to fill out a Speaker Card (Green) and submit it to the Clerk of the Board. All speakers are requested to present their information to the Board as concisely as possible with a three (3) minute time limit. This time limit may be modified by the Board Chairperson if necessary. If a member of the public does not wish to speak but wishes the Board to have benefit of their posi tion on an issue, they can present a Comment Card (Peach) which will be acknowledged by the Chairperson.
  • Appendix 6 Performance Indicator and CIPFA Data Comparisons BVPI Comparisons

    Appendix 6 Performance Indicator and CIPFA Data Comparisons BVPI Comparisons

    Appendix 6 Performance Indicator and CIPFA Data Comparisons BVPI Comparisons Southend-on-Sea vs CPA Environment High Scorers / Nearest Neighbours / Unitaries BV 106: Percentage of new homes built on previously developed land 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Southend-on-Sea 100 100 100 CPA 2002 Environment score 3 or 4 in unitary authorities, by indicator 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Blackpool 56.8 63 n/a Bournemouth 94 99 n/a Derby 51 63 n/a East Riding of Yorkshire 24.08 16.64 n/a Halton 27.48 49 n/a Hartlepool 40.8 56 n/a Isle of Wight 84 86 n/a Kingston-upon-Hull 40 36 n/a Luton 99 99.01 n/a Middlesbrough 74.3 61 n/a Nottingham 97 99 n/a Peterborough 79.24 93.66 n/a Plymouth 81.3 94.4 n/a South Gloucestershire 41 44.6 n/a Stockton-on-Tees 33 29.34 n/a Stoke-on-Trent 58.4 61 n/a Telford & Wrekin 54 55.35 n/a Torbay 39 58.57 n/a CIPFA 'Nearest Neighbour' Benchmark Group 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Blackpool 56.8 63 n/a Bournemouth 94 99 n/a Brighton & Hove 99.7 100 n/a Isle of Wight 84 86 n/a Portsmouth 98.6 100 n/a Torbay 39 58.57 n/a Unitaries 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Unitary 75th percentile 94 93.7 n/a Unitary Median 70 65 n/a Unitary 25th percentile 41 52.3 n/a Average 66.3 68.7 n/a Source: ODPM website BV 107: Planning cost per head of population.
  • FY 2017 and Is Expected to Be Completed in FY 2018

    FY 2017 and Is Expected to Be Completed in FY 2018

    Union Sanitary District Union City, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 with Comparative Information for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 Union Sanitary District Union City, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 with Comparative Information for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 Prepared by Business Services Department THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page Number INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................................................... i Vision/Mission Statement .................................................................................................................... viii District Board of Directors and Principal Officials ................................................................................. x Organizational Chart ............................................................................................................................ xii Service Area Location Map ................................................................................................................. xiii Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ...................................................... xiv FINANCIAL SECTION INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ................................................................................................ 1 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................
  • Should There Be Bridge to the Isle of Wight?

    Should There Be Bridge to the Isle of Wight?

    Should there be bridge to the Isle of Wight? Wightlink run two car ferry services to the Isle of Wight, one running from Portsmouth to Fishbourne and takes around 45 minutes and The other from Lymington to Yarmouth which is around a 40 minutes journey both ferries take cars, motor homes, bikes and foot passengers. • Many Isle of Wight residents joke that the island has the most expensive ferry crossing in the world. A return trip with car and two adults can come in at over £100 during high season. • "Every other island community in the British Isles which had the feasibility of a bridge has seen one built. Why is there no bridge to the Isle of Wight?" The Isle of Wight Party wants a bridge to the main land. However road bridges are very expensive to build. For example the road bridge to the Isle of Skye which opened in 1995 cost a total of £39 million to build. Some people are cross about the constant cancellations from Wightlink, Red Funnel & Hovertravel and also having to pay expensive prices to travel to and from the island. Some say it is about time the Isle of Wight was connected via a bridge to the mainland of the United Kingdom. The arguments for a fixed link include claims that it would boost the economy by creating more jobs. It would allow more people to go to the island and spend their money there. A bridge would be a faster and cheaper way to get to the island A bridge would be less dependent on weather The arguments against a bridge are Increases in traffic would put stress on the local road network, It is quite simple really - the I.O.W.
  • 84-0335-35664 State of Minnesota Office Of

    84-0335-35664 State of Minnesota Office Of

    84-0335-35664 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS In the Matter of the Petition FINDINGS OF FACT, for the Creation of the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Ash River Sanitary District AND ORDER CREATING THE ASH RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT On January 31, 2019, St. Louis County petitioned the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings to approve the creation of the Ash River Sanitary District pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 442A.04 (2018).1 Upon review of all the files and proceedings herein, the Chief Administrative Law Judge makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Background 1. Voyageurs National Park, located in northern Minnesota, is the nation’s only water-based national park. It is made up of more than 84,000 acres of water and 134,000 acres of land.2 2. In October 2009,3 St. Louis County and Koochiching County jointly formed the Voyageurs National Park Clean Water Joint Powers Board (JPB) to identify and resolve environmental issues caused by subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTSs) in populated areas with poor soil and other problematic geographic conditions in and around Voyageurs National Park. These areas include Crane Lake Township, Kabetogama Township and the unorganized area of Ash River in St. Louis County and Island View in Koochiching County.4 3. According to a June 2010 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan (Plan) prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH Engineering), initially retained by the Namakan Basin Joint Powers Board to outline a feasible strategy for improving and 1 Petition for Creation of the Ash River Sanitary District (Petition) (Jan. 31, 2019).
  • Minutes Template

    Minutes Template

    ADULT SOCIAL CARE, HEALTH AND HOUSING OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL 4 FEBRUARY 2019 7.30 - 9.25 PM Present: Councillors Harrison (Chairman), Allen, Mrs Angell, Mrs Mattick, Ms Merry, Peacey, Mrs Temperton, Thompson and Tullett Observer: Executive Members: Councillor D Birch Also Present: Catriona Khetyar, Head of Medicines Optimisation, East Berkshire CCG Melanie O'Rourke, Assistant Director: Adult Social Care Operations, Bracknell Forest Council Mairead Panetta, Head of Service: Safeguarding, Bracknell Forest Council Ellie Eghtedar, Interim Head of Housing, Bracknell Forest Council Tony Dwyer, Interim Assistant Director: Mental Health and Out of Hours, Bracknell Forest Council Jacqui Wilton, Family Safeguarding Model (FSM) Project Officer, Bracknell Forest Borough Council Ollie Lamping, Domestic Abuse Perpetrator Service Worker (DAPS), Bracknell Forest Borough Council Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Mrs McCracken and Dr Hill Dr David Norman, Co-opted Representative Mark Sanders, Healthwatch Bracknell Forest 45. Minutes and Matters Arising RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the Adult Social Care, Health and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel held on 15 January 2019 be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chairman, subject to Janette Fullwood, Head of Children, Young People’s and Families: East Berkshire Clinical Commissioning Group CCG being recorded as Also Present at this meeting. Arising from the Actions Log, Kirstine Berry, Governance and Scrutiny Co-ordinator advised Members that several items were awaiting a status update due to the short time lapse between this and the previous Panel meeting, but that any outstanding actions would be followed up and reported against at the next Panel meeting. There were no Issues Arising since the last meeting on 15 January 2019.
  • Bounded by Heritage and the Tamar: Cornwall As 'Almost an Island'

    Bounded by Heritage and the Tamar: Cornwall As 'Almost an Island'

    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 223-236 Bounded by heritage and the Tamar: Cornwall as ‘almost an island’ Philip Hayward University of Technology Sydney, Australia [email protected] (corresponding author) Christian Fleury University of Caen Normandy, France [email protected] Abstract: This article considers the manner in which the English county of Cornwall has been imagined and represented as an island in various contemporary contexts, drawing on the particular geographical insularity of the peninsular county and distinct aspects of its cultural heritage. It outlines the manner in which this rhetorical islandness has been deployed for tourism promotion and political purposes, discusses the value of such imagination for agencies promoting Cornwall as a distinct entity and deploys these discussions to a consideration of ‘almost- islandness’ within the framework of an expanded Island Studies field. Keywords: almost islands, Cornwall, Devon, islands, Lizard Peninsula, Tamar https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.98 • Received May 2019, accepted July 2019 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Introduction Over the last decade Island Studies has both consolidated and diversified. Island Studies Journal, in particular, has increasingly focussed on islands as complex socio-cultural-economic entities within a global landscape increasingly affected by factors such as tourism, migration, demographic change and the all-encompassing impact of the Anthropocene. Islands, in this context, are increasingly perceived and analysed as nexuses (rather than as isolates). Other work in the field has broadened the focus from archetypal islands—i.e., parcels of land entirely surrounded by water—to a broad range of locales and phenomena that have island-like attributes.