CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, VICE -MAYOR, WARD ONE HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE
HON. MATTHEW J. KELLY, AT-LARGE HON. GEORGE C. SOLLEY, WARD TWO HON. FREDERIC N. HOWE, III, WARD THREE Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street HON. BEATRICE R. PAOLUCCI, WARD FOUR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
December 11, 2012 7:30 p.m. Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Presiding 1. Call to Order
2. Invocation Councilor Frederic N. Howe
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Presentation A. Proclamation Formalizing the Agreement to Establish Sister City Partnership with Schwetzingen, Germany
B. School Enrollment Projections and Facility Needs – Mr. Doug Westmoreland
C. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – Andrew Grossnickle (Council Members please bring your copy of the CAFR distributed at the last meeting for reference during this presentation.)
5. Comments from the Public City Council provides this opportunity each regular meeting for comments from citizens who have signed up to speak before the start of the meeting. To be fair to everyone, please observe the five-minute time limit and yield the floor when the Clerk of Council indicates that your time has expired. Decorum in the Council Chambers will be maintained. Comments that are not relevant to City business and disruptive are inappropriate and out of order.
6. Public Hearings A. Resolution 12- , Granting a Special Exception to Karl Gentry to Use the Structure Located at 630 Pelham Street for Two Dwelling Units
7. Council Agenda
8. Consent Agenda A. Transmittal of the Fred Transit Progress Report – November 2012
B. Transmittal of 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
C. Resolution 12-97, Second Read, Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget by Appropriating $1,740,600 in the Transit Fund for Information Technology Projects and Replacement Buses Regular Meeting Agenda December 11, 2012 Page 2
D. Resolution 12- , Accepting Streets Within Idlewild Phase II into the City Street System and Petitioning the Virginia Department of Transportation to Accept the Streets into the State Street System
E. Resolution 12- , Designating the City as a Hybrid Entity for Purposes of HIPAA and Identifying its Health Care Components
F. Transmittal of Boards and Commission Minutes • Board of Social Services – October 12, 2012 • Economic Development Authority – October 15, 2012 • Fredericksburg Arts Commission – October 4, 2012 • Planning Commission – November 14, 2012
9. Boards and Commission A. Memorials Commission Reappointment – James M. Pates, Marilyn Holasek Lloyd
10. City Manager Agenda A. Resolution 12- , Amending the Contract (Design Services) for Fall Hill Avenue Widening/Mary Washington Boulevard Extension
B. Resolution 12 - , Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget by Appropriating Police Donations and Asset forfeiture Funding
C. Resolution 12- , First Read, Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget by Appropriating Fiscal Year 2012 Encumbrances
D. Resolution12- , First Read, Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget for Capital and Grant Carryovers
E. Resolution 12- , Recognizing The Contributions Of The Fredericksburg Guard Association To The Community Of Fredericksburg, Authorizing The City Manager To Execute A Memorandum Of Understanding To Permit The Association To Restore An Historic Cannon Owned By The City, And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Agreement To Loan The Cannon To The Association
F. City Council Goals and Initiatives & Work Plan Proposal
G. City Manager Report
H. Calendar
11. Adjournment
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, there has been longstanding friendship between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany; and
WHEREAS, in view of the numerous emigrants from the historic area of the Palatinate to Virginia from the 17th to the 19th century, and of the decades-long strong, friendly relations between the American soldiers, civilian employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, the City of Schwetzingen, Baden-Württemberg, Federal Republic of Germany and Fredericksburg, Virginia, have built on this relationship over the past years through visits by residents and government officials of each city to the other; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg signed a letter of intent with Schwetzingen to formalize a permanent partnership of their cities and citizens in May 2010; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the exchanges and the partnership relations is preservation and intensification of the German-American friendship on the local and regional level and the opening of both cities and cultures for interested citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Honorable Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Mayor of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and the Honorable René Pöltl, Lord Mayor of the City of Schwetzingen, Germany, do formally declare the official joining of the two as Sister Cities.
Duly signed, declared and proclaimed by the respective parties, this 11th day of December, 2012.
______Mary Katherine Greenlaw, Mayor Dr. René Pöltl, Lord Mayor City of Fredericksburg, Virginia City of Schwetzingen, Germany ITEM #6A
STAFF MEMO Special Exception Karl Gentry SE 2012-05
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
1. Overview
A. Request: The applicant requests approval of a special exception to construct two dwelling units in the existing structure.
B. Applicant: Karl Gentry
C. Owner of Property: Karl Gentry
D. Site Details: Address 630 Pelham Street : Current Use Vacant
E. Lot Acreage: Approximately 5,250 square feet
F. Surrounding Zoning: R-4, Residential
G. Surrounding Uses: Residential
H. Planning Commission: November 14, 2012
I. Future Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Raymond P. Ocel, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development DATE: December 11, 2012 RE: SE2012-05: Karl Gentry
ISSUE:
This is a request by Karl Gentry to approve a special exception to construct two dwelling units in the building located at 630 Pelham Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the special exception with the conditions noted in the City Attorney’s resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 14th public hearing, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of the special exception permit as submitted by the applicant. Mr. McAfee opposed the application but did not comment on his opposition.
During the public hearing, no members of the public spoke in regard to the application.
BACKGROUND:
This is a request to approve a special exception to utilize the existing structure located at 630 Pelham Street for two dwelling units. The property is comprised of two lots that are zoned R- 4, single family residential. The structure has been used for a variety of commercial uses during the past 40 years and those uses include the Nolde Brothers Bakery, Chesley’s Tackle Shop, and a wholesale postcard distributor, Cards Unlimited. The property has been vacant for approximately 3 years.
As early as 1960, the zoning designation of the property has been residential. The previous uses of the property were non-conforming uses, a use no longer permitted in the zoning district in which they were located. While a non-conforming use may continue or be replaced with a use that is no more non-conforming than the previous use, it cannot be expanded or replaced with a more intense use. Since the property lost its non-conforming status, it has become increasingly difficult for the property owner to find a suitable tenant for a non-residential building in a residential zoning district.
2
The proposed use is not a listed use in the R-4 zoning district, so the property owner, Karl Gentry, is seeking a special exception to convert the structure into two dwelling units with 3 bedrooms per unit. One unit is proposed to be on the lower level and contain 2,000 square feet with the second unit located above the first unit and containing 1,700 square feet. A large concrete pad is located between the building and the street and can accommodate up to 6 vehicles.
Properties immediately adjacent to 630 Pelham Street are zoned R-4 and contain single-family houses. The property at 636 Pelham Street is also zoned R-4, occupies a double lot, and contains two dwelling units within a single structure.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION:
As noted above, the applicant’s proposed use is not a use permitted by right or by special use permit within the R-4 zoning district. The previous uses of the property were non-conforming uses until the property lost its non-conforming status, due to a break in service of more than two years.
The granting of a special exception will permit Mr. Gentry to use the building for two dwelling units.
When the Planning Commission and City Council review, consider and act upon an application for a special exception under City Code 78-967, they shall do so using the following criteria:
a. Whether the grant of a special exception is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan;
The future land use map contained within the Comprehensive Plan designates this property and the surrounding properties as medium density residential. Medium density residential is defined as up to eight dwelling units per acre.
EXISTING LAND USE
Planning Area 6, along with Planning Area 7, reflects the development patterns established when the streets of Fredericksburg were laid out in 1728. This area of the City is characterized by clearly defined neighborhoods.
LAND USE POTENTIAL
The property lies within Planning Area 6-Downtown Neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan does not contain specific language or recommendations for this property, although the special exception application preserves the integrity of the residential neighborhood through the adaptive reuse of a longstanding commercial structure.
The residential aspect of Fredericksburg is made up of a collection of neighborhoods. The creation and preservation of the City’s neighborhoods is a central community value and organizing principle for Fredericksburg. [Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6: Neighborhoods] An adaptive reuse of the existing structure will serve to maintain the residential character of 3 this older neighborhood while avoiding future non-residential uses that may be out-of- character with the neighborhood.
Areas of the Comprehensive Plan relevant to this special exception application are found in several sections of the Plan and include:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING AREA 6
3. Work with property owners to redevelop selected sites without adversely impacting residential neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods
Goal 1: Neighborhood Character Preserve the character of the City’s existing neighborhoods.
Goal 3: Distinct and Attractive Neighborhoods The residential areas of the City will comprise a collection of distinct and attractive neighborhoods, each possessing a unique sense of place and shared identity.
b. Whether the special exception is consistent with the goals, purposes and objectives of the City’s Zoning Ordinance;
Section 78-991 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically provides that a special exception may be issued by the City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals, or other designated body or official specifically provided by this article (Zoning) whereby a use, standard or other requirement of this article may be modified or waived, provided that such exception would not have an undue impact upon or be incompatible with existing or planned development in the general area and that it is otherwise consistent with the article.
The two plus year break in use of the property for commercial uses necessitates that any further use must comply with the R-4 zoning district regulations or obtain approval of a special exception. In this manner the special exception provides a remedy in those circumstances where a non-conforming use is no longer permitted. In cases such as this one, the special exception process enables a fair, reasonable and equitable relief to property owners who have experienced hardships through no fault of their own, so long as the continuation of such use does not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The property owner points out in the application that the structure will maintain its size and scale, the site provides ample screening though an existing privacy fence and the structure’s distance from the street reduces its visibility to traffic traveling in either direction along Pelham Street.
c. Whether there has been sufficient period of time for investigation and community planning with respect to the application.
Staff has worked closely with the property owner, real estate agents and prospective owners/operators for the past five years. The property owner has encountered numerous difficulties in finding a business that can operate at this location under the limiting conditions imposed by the previous non-conforming uses. In December 2011, an independent insurance 4 agent applied for a Special Exception, to allow use of the property as his office, but eventually this application was withdrawn.
The property owner has recently invited, by letter, surrounding neighbors to tour the interior of the structure and hear his proposal for the residential reuse of the building. Mr. Gentry received several responses to his invitation and provided a tour of the building along with a description of his proposal to those neighbors.
d. Whether the special exception is consistent with the principles of zoning and good zoning practice, including the purpose the district in which the special exception would be located, existing and planned uses of surrounding land, the characteristics of the property involved, and the adverse impacts of the proposed use.
The R-4 district is established to provide for single-family detached dwellings in both developed and undeveloped areas of the City. The division is applicable to undeveloped areas of adequate size and physiographic characteristic for suburban scale residential subdivisions.
The building was originally constructed on two lots in 1939 for a commercial use and continued to house commercial businesses until approximately 2006. Given the fact that the property has always been used commercially, it is within reason that a residential use with two dwelling units will be no more intense in nature than the previous commercial uses operating at this location and will be more in harmony with the residential neighborhood.
While the predominant uses in the neighborhood are single family detached houses, the applicant notes that there are several houses on the street that contain more than one residential dwelling unit.
e. Whether the proposed use or aspect of the development requiring the special exception is special, extraordinary or unusual.
Since the non-conforming use of the property has been discontinued for more than two years, the land and structure must now conform to the R-4 zoning district regulations. The R-4 district permits a by-right use of the property as a single-family detached residential dwelling and its accessory uses.
The property owner believes that the conversion of the large 3,700 square foot commercial building to a single-family dwelling presents a financial hardship. Taking into account that the property is situated on a double lot, the size of the existing building is 3,700 square feet and the existing six off street parking spaces, the property owner believes that the adaptive reuse of the building for two dwelling units is a logical solution.
f. Whether the applicant has demonstrated that its application meets all these criteria.
The applicant’s submittal provides sufficient project information and does meet the criteria requirements for issuance of a special exception.
Based upon an analysis of the application, the opportunity to adaptively reuse a structure that has been a long term fixture in the neighborhood and the proposed residential use of the 5 property, staff recommends approval of the special exception application with the following conditions:
1. That the use of the property be in accordance with the application and supporting materials dated September 27, 2012.
2. That the proposed use of the building commence within 18 months of the date of the adoption of the City Council Resolution.
3. That the proposed use be permitted only so long as it continues and is not discontinued for more than two years.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 2. Application and Supporting Materials 3. Planning Commission Minutes
6 MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-
RE: GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO KARL GENTRY TO USE THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 630 PELHAM STREET FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the applicant, Karl Gentry, has applied to this Council for a special exception to use a structure as two dwelling units on property located at 630 Pelham Street, GPIN 7779-87-5333, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
WHEREAS, the Council after notice and public hearing thereon, has considered the special exception application in light of its conformity with the City’s criteria for the review of special exception applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
1. Council makes the following findings with respect to the special exception application: (a) the proposed use is unique and unlikely of recurrence; (b) the grant of the special exception is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; (c) the special exception is consistent with the goals, purposes and objectives of the City’s zoning ordinance; (d) there has been a sufficient period of time for investigation and community planning with respect to the application; (e) the special exception is consistent with the principles of zoning and good zoning practice, including the purposes of the district in which the special exception would be located, existing and planned uses of surrounding land, the characteristics of the property involved, and the adverse impacts of the proposed use; (f) the proposed use or aspect of the development requiring the special exception is special, extraordinary or unusual; and (g) the applicant has demonstrated that its application meets all these criteria.
2. Council grants to Karl Gentry a special exception to use the structure located at 630 Pelham Street as two dwelling units, upon the following conditions:
a) That the use of the property be in accordance with the application and supporting materials dated September 27, 2012. b) That the proposed use of the building commence within 18 months of the date of the adoption of this Resolution. c) That the proposed use is permitted only so long as it continues and is not discontinued for more than two years.
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
*************** Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey Clerk of Council
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2012 7:30 P.M. CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG 715 PRINCESS ANNE STREET COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COMMISSION MEMBERS CITY STAFF
Dr. Roy Gratz, Chair Raymond P. Ocel, Jr., Director Berkley Mitchell, Vice-Chair, Kevin Utt, Site Development Mgr. Edward Whelan, III, Secretary Debra Mathis, Zoning Officer Roy McAfee Joanne Kaiman (arrived 7:40 p.m.)
1. CALL TO ORDER
The November 14, 2012, Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Roy Gratz.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
o October 10, 2012 (Regular Session) – Adopted/ as submitted
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. McAfee nominated Mr. Whelan to serve as Secretary. The nomination passed by a vote of 4 – 0.
Dr. Gratz informed Commissioners that the City had received an application for a sign in the Lafayette Boulevard Corridor Overlay district and that there is a possibility that the Commission may have to carry over a couple applications being publicly heard this evening. Dr. Gratz asked Commissioner’s if they would prefer to vote to have a second meeting in November (28th) at 4:00 p.m. in order to consider this application.
Mr. McAfee moved to hold the second meeting in November. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Motion carried by a unanimous vote of 4 – 0.
Mr. Ocel introduced the new Zoning Inspector for the City, JoAnn Hunter.
PUBLIC HEARING
5. SE2012-05 - Karl Gentry requests a special exception to utilize the structure located at 630 Pelham Street for two single-family attached residential dwelling units. The property is zoned R-4, single-family detached residential. The proposed use is not permitted in the R-4 zoning district; therefore, the property owner is seeking a special exception in order to utilize the property as two single-family attached dwelling units. The property is designated as medium density residential on the Future Land Use Map contained within the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Mathis, Zoning Officer, presented the application.
Mr. Gentry (applicant), 54 Richards Ferry Road, Fredericksburg, 22406, provided a brief history of the subject property, which he said has always been a commercial use since it was built in 1939. He suggested that the property is better suited to be used as a duplex at this time. He noted that he had already talked to surrounding neighbors and that they are in favor of his proposal.
Dr. Gratz noted that there were very few windows in the existing structure and asked Mr. Gentry if they plan to install additional windows.
Mr. Gentry said they would install additional windows since there would be bedrooms added to accommodate the duplex, if approved.
Dr. Gratz asked if the partitions shown on the drawings are in existence or if the areas are currently just one large open space.
Mr. Gentry said it is currently just one wide open space.
Dr. Gratz asked the applicant if he intends to keep the addition, shown on the drawings to the side of the structure.
Mr. Gentry said that since it is attached to the building, he intends to keep it.
Dr. Gratz said that the application notes that there is no foreseen negative impact. Dr. Gratz said although there is no way to know in advance who the tenants would be, he could see the potential of the proposed use having an impact on the property and surrounding properties in that there could potentially be up to six (6) individuals living there if the duplex is approved, which could potentially create loud noise, loud parties and parking problems.
2
Mr. Gentry said they are hoping to rent to families.
There was no public comment on this item.
Dr. Gratz closed the public hearing on SE2012-05 – 630 Pelham Street.
Mr. Whelan made a motion to recommend approval of SE2012-05.
Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.
Motion carried by a vote of 4 – 1, which Mr. McAfee voting against the motion.
6. SE2012-06 - Lyle and Barbara Studer requests a special exception to increase the maximum occupancy of the structure located at 1212 Parcell Street, from three unrelated people to seven unrelated people. The Zoning Ordinance permits no more than three unrelated persons to live together as a single housekeeping unit. The property is zoned R-4, single family residential and is designated as medium density residential on the Future Land Use Map contained within the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ocel presented the application. He noted that staff does not agree with the applicants stating that the application meets the criteria for a special exception, and, therefore, recommends denial of the application. However, he added, if the Commission determines that the application does meet the requirements, then he recommends the following eight conditions:
• That the use of the property shall be in accordance with the application and supporting materials dated 10/01/12. • That the proposed use of the building commence within 12 months of the date of the adoption of the City Council Resolution. • That the proposed use be permitted only so long as it continues and is not discontinued for more than two years. • There shall be no more than seven persons living in the house at any one time. • Residency in the house shall not exceed one year, with the exception of the in-residence director. The applicant shall maintain a record of the persons living in the house. • The appearance of the house shall remain as a single family house. • There will be no extra-curricular activities after 11:00 pm. • Resident parking shall be on-site.
Carey Sims (applicant), 1514 College Avenue, thanked City staff for working with her and her husband during the special exception application process. She addressed concerns previously raised by City staff and surrounding property
3
owners. The entire written statement, submitted by Ms. Sims, is attached to this record (Attachment A). Ms. Sims asked that they be made part of the record.
Mr. Whelan asked if the current Baptist Student Center has had any violations cited against it.
Ms. Sims responded, no.
Mr. Whelan asked if there is currently anyone living at the Baptist Student Center.
Ms. Sims, responded no.
Mr. Mitchell asked as a matter of clarification if the existing Baptist Student Center exists because it obtained the proper Special Exception permit.
Ms. Sims said, yes, it obtained the required Special Use Permit.
Ms. Kaiman asked if the proposed home would become part of a non-profit as is the Student Union.
Ms. Sims said they were offering to come up with a pilot agreement to pay taxes to the City.
Dr. Gratz said he had looked up the property on the City’s GIS system, which indicates that this is a three-bedroom house. However, he said, the applicants indicate in their application that it is a four-bedroom house. He asked how they intend to make this a four-bedroom house.
Ms. Sims said there is an egress door in the basement and they would simply make an egress window in the basement for the additional bedroom.
Dr. Gratz said he notes there are a two-car garage and some pavement leading to it in the back. He asked how many people the off-street parking can accommodate.
Ms. Sims said it would accommodate four, comfortably.
Dr. Gratz said that there are going to be seven people, which is presumably seven cars.
Ms. Sims said correct, but they are students and most students don’t have easy access to their cars. She said only four people at the most would be able to park in the driveway.
4
Dr. Gratz said he will assume that the “in-residence Director” will be single and not married so that it would be just that person living in the house.
Ms. Sims said this is correct.
Dr. Gratz asked for clarification on the one-year limit of stay per student.
Ms. Sims said that it would be a stipulation for the program and students would know they are only allowed to stay there one year/one time.
Dr. Gratz asked if the students will be subsidized in order to live there, or live there free.
Ms. Sims said they would be required to pay rent.
Ms. Mary Pasto, 1209 Parcell Street, 22401, said she has been living at her home and serving her community for 45 years. She described the wonderful experiences she has had with the Baptist Student Union in the past years and she said she supports this application completely.
Mr. Richard Pasto, 1209 Parcell Street, 22401, said this use has positive characteristics and supports the application.
Mr. Tim Brown, 1616 College Avenue, 22401, (directly next to the Catholic Student Center), said the members of that center occupy every parking spot up and down the street. On nights when the Baptist Student Union offer free dinners, there is no parking. He said when his parents used to visit him there is no parking and they are too elderly to walk great distances, so they don’t come to visit. He said he admires the Baptist Student Union’s programs and their mission but he is in no way supporting this new application and asked the city to deny the request because traffic, parking, noise, etc., is already out of control in this area.
Bret Schmidt, 1518 College Avenue, 22401, asked what would happen once an exception is granted – especially, he said since the Studers are the ‘actual’ applicants and they are not present tonight. What happens if the Studers decide to sell the house to the highest bidder once the application is approved? Mr. Schmidt said he has grave concerns regarding this request because parking in this area is already too limited. He asked that the City deny the request.
Alice Collins, 1217 Payne Street, 22401, said her property adjoins the subject property. She said she and her neighbors are already having trouble parking and that there are times their driveway is actually blocked from students. She said she is not opposed to the Baptist program or mission but that she would be extremely disappointed to see that many people being permitted to live in a single-family dwelling, in an area already inundated with so many people and
5 homes being converted to accommodate the college and religious centers. She asked the City deny the request.
Rev. Beth Riddick, 1229 Parcell St., 22401, said she believes this program to be a great program. She said she has no issue finding parking spaces. She said she has seen the students from the Baptist Student Union helping people rake their leaves and help in other aspects. She said she is in favor of the City approving this special exception request and believes “we” can work around parking issues.
Mr. Matthew Laird, 1221 Parcell St., 22401, said he wanted to echo the remarks of Ms. Riddick. He said he and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for 13 years and believe parking issues and other issues can be dealt with. He asked that the City vote favorably on this application.
Meredith Beck, 1401 Brent Street – President of and speaking on behalf of the College Heights Civic Association. She said the Board of Directors of the Civic Association is opposed to the request to increase the maximum occupancy from three to seven. Objections are based on College Heights being zoned to allow no more than three unrelated people living together. There is no pressing need for a special exception to be granted. The goals of a living and learning center can be accomplished with an existing zoning in College Heights if a smaller home is purchased and used for this purpose. She said 1212 Parcell Street is currently assessed at over $400,000, thus the necessity of six to seven students in order to make the mortgage payment. She said the Association believes there are other options existing in the City for the goals of a living or learning center. She suggested Campus housing for such uses. She said the College Heights Board of Directors requests the City deny this request.
Faith Hollard, 1701 College Avenue (Student and campus resident at UMW), said the students at BCM have integrity and don’t party all the time and that this program would allow them to have a positive impact on the community. She asked the Commission to support the request.
Ms. Wiss, 21 Dawson Drive, 22405, Stafford spoke in favor the application.
Mr. Russell Wiss, 21 Dawson Drive, 22405 (Stafford), said the Baptist program has excellent leadership and that this is an opportunity to have students be able to participate in this program that encourages people to grow spiritually and give them a sense of community. He asked the City to support this request.
Diane Clark, 1212 Dandridge Street, Fredericksburg, 22401, said that she noticed all the people speaking in favor of this request are saying that this is a wonderful program. She noted, however that not one of the people speaking against the special exception request are saying anything against the program itself. However, she said, what is before the Commission and the City, and what
6 must be addressed are the zoning regulations. Approving this home to allow seven adults living and cooking as a single unit would set a precedent in a single- family residential neighborhood that already has tremendous issues with noise, parties, parking and the like. She strongly urged Commissioner’s to not consider that this program is a good one or not but to consider the zoning regulations that were put into place to protect families living in a residential neighborhood.
Steve Acock, Executive Director of the Fredericksburg Baptist Network, 7 Baldwin Drive, Stafford (22406), said this is a tremendous opportunity for students to learn leadership and the City should allow the request to move forward.
Lucy Lawless, 1204 Augustine Ave., Fredericksburg (22401), said she appreciates the Baptist program but that this is a small community and would hope that the City would deny this application because it would create a dormitory atmosphere. She said the applicants can accomplish the same “mission” with three living in the home and there is no real reason to have to have seven members living in one place. She said it is not about a wonderful Baptist program but about changing the character of a small neighborhood in the City that has already been greatly impacted by previous changes. She again asked the City to deny the request.
Clyde Matthews, 1111 Colony Road, Fredericksburg (22401), said he agrees with Ms. Lawless. He said the community has already had too many changes, where homes have been allowed to be converted to churches, student unions, etc. He said this is going too far to allow seven people to live in a single family home. He said the impact on the surrounding residential neighbors would be too tremendous and asks that the City deny this request.
Mr. Greg Jennings, 1905 Washington Avenue, said this program is a positive opportunity for the City and that the people that would live there could be encouraged to ride bikes, take the bus or walk to their destination in order not to add to the parking issues. He spoke in favor of the application.
Dr. Gratz closed the public hearing on SE2012-06 (1212 Parcell Street).
Mr. McAfee asked if the City has the capability to regulate the number of cars associated with this proposed use.
Mr. Ocel said the City could place a condition on any special exception or special use permit.
Mr. Whelan asked if the existing student center has a by-right use of allowing three unrelated people
7
This application is scheduled to come back before the Commission at its November 28, 2012 meeting to be held at 4:00 p.m.
7. SUB2012-04 - Proposed Preliminary Plat for Summerfield, TM 324-210F, located off of Hudgins Road. This project consists of the construction of a 68 Single Family Attached Home development located on 14.735 acres, in the existing Zoning C-H with a special use permit, SUP#2010-03, for R-12 use. This project also consists of the development of 127 parcels in the adjoining locality of Spotsylvania County, Zoned PDH-4 with proffers and approval #R06-10.
Mr. Utt, Building and Development Services, presented the application.
There was no Commissioner comment
There was no Public Comment
Dr. Gratz closed the public hearing on application SUB2012-04 (Summerfield).
Mr. Whelan made a motion to approve SUB2012-04 – preliminary subdivision plan for Summerfield.
Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Motion carried by a vote of 5 – 0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. Planning Commissioner Comment
None.
9. Planning Director Comment
Mr. Ocel provided the Planning Commission with an update of recent City Council Actions during its November 13, 2012.
Mr. Ocel reminded Commissioners of the upcoming City Council work session regarding the UDO on November 27, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
8
______Dr. Roy Gratz, Chair
9
ITEM #8A
FREDERICKSBURG REGIONAL TRANSIT History In Motion
MEMORANDUM
TO : Beverly R. Cameron, Fredericksburg City Manager C. Douglas Barnes, Spotsylvania County Administrator Charles Culley, Caroline County Administrator Anthony J. Romanello, Stafford County Administrator FROM : Kathleen M. Beck, Director of Public Transit DATE : December 4, 2012 RE : November 2012 Progress Report on FRED
FRED’s total ridership for the month of November 2012 was 44,419 compared to 45,178 riders in November 2011.
The ridership for FRED’s regular routes in the City of Fredericksburg for the month of November 2012 was 22,904 passengers compared to 21,688 passengers in November 2011. Ridership on the VRE feeder service in the City of Fredericksburg was 618 passengers in the month of November 2012 compared to 587 passengers in November 2011.
The ridership for the Spotsylvania County regular routes was 6,864 in November 2012 compared to the 7,343 passengers that used the FRED transit service in November 2011. The VRE feeder service from Spotsylvania County carried 2,417 passengers in the month of November 2012 compared to 2,540 passengers in November 2011.
Ridership on the service in Caroline County was 725 passengers in November 2012 compared to 510 passengers riding in November 2011.
Ridership in Stafford County was 9,059 passengers for November 2012 compared to 9,871 passengers for November of 2011.
MONTHLY RIDERSHIP BY LOCATION NOVEMBER 2012 DATE FREDERICKSBURG SPOTSYLVANIA STAFFORD CAROLINE UMW DAILY TOTAL
1-Nov 1,184 493 468 41 2 2,188 0 2-Nov 1,285 448 444 59 24 2,260 0 3-Nov 330 330 4-Nov 161 161 5-Nov 1,304 501 510 32 2,347 0 6-Nov 1,038 464 470 28 2,000 0 7-Nov 1,170 469 468 42 2,149 0 8-Nov 1,078 444 488 40 19 2,069 0 9-Nov 1,174 440 396 47 44 2,101 0 10-Nov 347 347 11-Nov 132 132 12-Nov 941 320 305 27 1,593 0 13-Nov 1,016 455 398 38 1,907 0 14-Nov 1,179 514 465 22 2,180 0 15-Nov 1,140 486 462 41 18 2,147 0 16-Nov 1,156 420 492 35 24 2,127 0 17-Nov 324 324 18-Nov 150 150 19-Nov 1,082 467 467 41 2,057 0 20-Nov 1,272 469 402 32 2,175 0 21-Nov 950 420 393 30 1,793 0 22-Nov
23-Nov 828 199 281 13 1,321 0 24-Nov 122 122 25-Nov 91 91 26-Nov 1,549 451 470 28 2,498 0 27-Nov 954 410 402 39 1,805 0 28-Nov 991 468 463 24 1,946 0 29-Nov 1,011 468 461 42 1 1,983 0 30-Nov 1,220 475 354 24 43 2,116 0
TOTAL 23,522 9,281 9,059 725 1,832 44,419 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total
November 2012 RIDERSHIP Spotsy Spotsy City VRE VRE VRE City City City City City City Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Caroline Caroline Stafford Stafford Stafford Stafford Stafford Stafford FRED DAILY Date: VF 1 VS 1 VS 2 F1 F2 F3 F4A F4B F5 S1A S1B S4 S5 C1 C2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Express Extras TOTAL 1-Nov 55 80 47 225 131 224 224 149 176 98 93 77 98 29 12 53 130 88 60 116 21 2 2,188 2-Nov 30 72 49 287 161 204 277 125 201 96 73 85 73 37 22 31 158 132 39 84 0 24 2,260 3-Nov 330 330 4-Nov 161 161 5-Nov 18 66 60 255 152 247 269 163 200 121 80 71 103 19 13 91 134 93 48 132 12 2,347 6-Nov 20 66 41 180 145 229 195 110 159 95 88 61 113 22 6 64 138 123 44 91 10 2,000 7-Nov 33 74 50 149 126 248 311 123 180 93 48 72 132 25 17 49 121 116 48 114 20 2,149 8-Nov 34 67 59 184 117 240 228 121 154 82 72 69 95 28 12 46 197 88 53 95 9 19 2,069 9-Nov 23 72 44 299 112 202 246 113 179 111 69 68 76 26 21 33 113 115 40 90 5 44 2,101 10-Nov 347 347 11-Nov 132 132 12-Nov 0 0 0 197 129 183 167 132 133 96 64 67 93 19 8 41 128 47 29 60 0 1,593 13-Nov 35 74 48 159 143 228 212 115 124 89 59 74 111 26 12 29 135 72 49 99 14 1,907 14-Nov 40 71 73 245 144 215 257 124 154 122 82 71 95 11 11 37 162 100 45 90 31 2,180 15-Nov 38 88 51 243 122 216 269 96 156 118 83 57 89 30 11 45 141 105 56 101 14 18 2,147 16-Nov 31 65 51 279 112 166 239 137 192 90 64 61 89 20 15 31 142 116 50 146 7 24 2,127 17-Nov 324 324 18-Nov 150 150 19-Nov 24 68 56 164 182 196 210 124 182 89 87 51 116 26 15 82 123 97 42 110 13 2,057 20-Nov 36 71 63 199 160 288 216 146 227 110 66 58 101 23 9 60 118 82 40 94 8 2,175 21-Nov 35 96 32 166 92 189 207 129 132 86 72 55 79 17 13 40 134 75 48 92 4 1,793 22-Nov 0 23-Nov 3 19 1 209 62 130 184 94 146 46 43 44 46 9 4 43 100 56 27 55 0 1,321 24-Nov 122 122 25-Nov 91 91 26-Nov 32 60 51 217 164 260 579 116 181 89 73 60 118 18 10 61 151 101 43 102 12 2,498 27-Nov 35 64 66 166 142 205 154 112 140 96 55 57 72 27 12 29 127 81 37 95 33 1,805 28-Nov 37 78 51 152 110 235 185 120 152 94 57 60 128 16 8 56 129 105 40 97 36 1,946 29-Nov 37 88 67 190 116 188 223 111 146 98 70 58 87 33 9 40 157 100 42 89 33 1 1,983 30-Nov 22 64 54 261 133 203 278 121 202 113 79 97 68 16 8 37 118 63 47 83 6 43 2,116
Total Ridership for Month 44,419
TOTAL # 618 1,403 1,014 4,426 2,755 4,496 5,130 2,581 3,516 2,032 1,477 1,373 1,982 477 248 998 2,856 1,955 927 2,035 288 1,832 0 of Riders 0 Average Ridership 29 67 48 211 131 214 244 123 167 97 70 65 94 23 12 48 136 93 44 97 14 115 Per Day Average Ridership 7 24 19 19 10 16 16 15 14 8 9 5 8 2 3 5 11 8 6 8 3 9 Per Hour ITEM #8B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Raymond P. Ocel, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development DATE: December 11, 2012 SUBJECT: Transmittal of 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
ISSUE:
Transmittal of the 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council receive this document, which has already been provided to the Council’s Housing Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2012, City staff, with assistance from two University of Mary Washington interns, completed an update of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the City of Fredericksburg. The AI is a mandated review by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which is required as part of the City’s federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding agreement. It will be incorporated into the Consolidated Plan and act as a basis for fair housing planning.
As part of the development of this document, 251 Fredericksburg residents completed telephone or written surveys regarding fair housing experiences and awareness of assistance programs. The interns also conducted interviews with 15 key persons in the local government and private sectors involved with fair housing issues and social service needs in the City. Three public forums were held in late March/early April 2012. Affordable housing and free day care services were the top concerns, outside of unfair housing experiences.
Of the representative group of citizens surveyed, 11.2 percent stated that they had experienced housing discrimination (see Exhibit III-7); however, the majority of the cases occurred outside of Fredericksburg. The survey and other research revealed that the overwhelming problem is awareness both of what it means to be discriminated against and how to act if discrimination occurs. The report commended the City for its actions in ITEM #8B
furthering fair housing including working with the Rappahannock Legal Services to help prevent the threat of wrongful eviction, creation of the fair housing resource page within the City’s website, coordination with the Commissioner of the Revenue’s office to annually distribute fair housing information to landlords, outreach to citizens, and continuing its CDBG programs.
The AI recommends the following action items:
1. Raise the visibility of fair housing and the complaint process. 2. Consider incentives and alternative funding sources to encourage and increase affordable housing development. 3. Increase landlord and resident awareness and knowledge of fair housing. 4. Work to assist residents with special needs to have full access to housing and needed services. 5. Ensure an orderly transfer of property assets to facilitate home improvement loans. 6. Work to reduce NIMBYism.
At its meeting in December, the Housing Advisory Committee reviewed the AI and requested that staff take action in addressing its recommendations. Planning staff has already planned for a fair housing seminar in the spring of 2013. This event will be free of charge and offer continuing education credits to real estate agents, lenders, and others who work in the housing industry.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This project was completed with existing staff and unpaid interns. No general funds were utilized. Follow up actions will be funded through CDBG programs.
Attachment: 2012 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Final Report November 15, 2012
Analysis of Impediments To Fair Housing Choice City of Fredericksburg, Virginia
Prepared by:
City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Department of Planning and Community Development 715 Princess Anne Street, Room 209 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 www.fredericksburgva.gov
With assistance from:
Brian Auricchio and Brianna Gavigan, Student Interns University of Mary Washington
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ...... 1 a. Analysis of Impediments...... 1 b. Citizen Participation...... 3 c. Funding ...... 3 d. Review of City’s Progress to Fair Housing ...... 3 e. Research Methodology...... 4 f. Report Organization ...... 4
II. Community and Housing Profile...... 6 a. Introduction ...... 6 b. General Demographics...... 6 c. Employment Profile ...... 19 d. Housing Profile ...... 24
III. Citizen and Key Person Feedback ...... 30 a. Telephone Survey ...... 30 b. Key Person Interviews and Public Forums ...... 45
IV. Lending, Complaint, and Legal Review ...... 50 a. Fair Housing Complaint Process and Data ...... 50 b. Legal Analysis ...... 55
V. Public Sector Review ...... 56 a. Public Housing Authority Policies ...... 56 b. Zoning and Land Use ...... 57 c. Other Public Sector Programs and Services ...... 68
VI. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations ...... 71 a. Summary of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ...... 71 b. Recommended Fair Housing Action Plan...... 72 c. Maintenance of Records ...... 75 d. Structure for Oversight Responsibilities, Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 75
1
SECTION I. Introduction
In 2012, the City of Fredericksburg partnered with Brian Auricchio and Brianna Gavigan, students from the University of Mary Washington, to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the City of Fredericksburg. This section introduces the study, provides information on the Fair Housing Act and the State of Virginia fair housing law, and presents the methodology used in the research.
Analysis of Impediments Background
The AI is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sectors. The AI is required for the City to be able to receive federal housing and community development block grant funding.
The AI involves:
• A review of the City’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures and practices; • An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and accessibility of housing; and • An assessment of public- and private-sector conditions affecting fair housing choice.
According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice include:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices. • Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin.
Although the AI itself is not directly approved or denied by HUD, its submission is a required component of the City’s Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (Consolidated Plan) performance reporting. HUD encourages AIs to accomplish the following:
• Serve as the substantive, logical basis for fair housing planning; • Provide essential and detailed information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing providers, lenders, and fair housing advocates; and • Assist in building public support for fair housing efforts, both within a jurisdiction’s boundaries and beyond. 2
Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending, and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members, and housing for older persons.
HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates complaints and determines if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the U.S. Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff).
State and local fair housing ordinances. Virginia’s fair housing law (Chapter 5.1, Title 36, of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended) prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status (children under age 18), and handicap. Virginia has a substantially equivalent law to the Federal Fair Housing Act, although Virginia’s fair housing law includes elderliness as a protected class, which is broader than the federal fair housing law. Elderliness means anyone over 55 years. Some of the transactions that the state fair housing law applies to include: renting an apartment, buying a home, obtaining a mortgage and obtaining homeowner’s insurance.
The Virginia Fair Housing Office investigates allegations of housing discrimination under Virginia’s Fair Housing Law. Anyone who believes they have been discriminated against in housing may file a complaint with Virginia’s Fair Housing Office. If the complaint is accepted, it will be investigated and assigned for conciliation. If conciliation is successful, the investigation will be suspended. If conciliation is unsuccessful and if it appears that discrimination occurred, the Fair Housing Office will present the evidence obtained during its investigation to the Real Estate Board. Generally, after reviewing the evidence, the Real Estate Board dismisses the complaint, accepts the conciliation agreement, or issues a charge of discrimination against the respondents. A charge issued by the Board will be immediately referred to the Attorney General’s Office.
3
The Virginia Fair Housing Office has been certified by HUD as a substantially equivalent agency. As a result, HUD refers most of the Fair Housing complaints that it receives from Virginia residents to Virginia’s Fair Housing Office.
The State of Virginia has also enacted the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (Chapter 13.2, Title 55, of the Code of Virginia as amended). This law governs the rental of dwelling units and the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants; encourages landlords and tenants to maintain and improve the quality of housing; and establishes a single body of law relating to landlord and tenant relations throughout Virginia. Rappahannock Legal Services, Inc. (RLS) produces a guide to the Virginia Landlord-Tenant Law and Local Rental Housing in Planning District 16. The most recent guide was completed in 2012 and describes equal opportunities in housing, gives an overview of the Landlord-Tenant Law, and provides rental housing information for Fredericksburg and the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford.
The City of Fredericksburg does not have its own Fair Housing Ordinance.
Citizen Participation
As part of the public outreach process for Fredericksburg AI, a random survey of 251 Fredericksburg residents was conducted to gather information about their experience with fair housing. Fifteen key person interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about fair housing issues and housing and social service needs in the City of Fredericksburg. In addition, three public forums, including a presentation on fair housing, were provided for the general public.
Funding
The AI research and report were unfunded, as Brian Auricchio and Brianna Gavigan served as unpaid interns, earning college credits from the University of Mary Washington. Plan implementation is funded by CDBG entitlement funds, general funds, and leveraged resources in coordination with local non-profit organizations and other government organizations.
Review of City’s Progress to Fair Housing
The City of Fredericksburg conducted an initial AI in 1996, with updates completed in 1997 and 2003. BBC Research and Consulting (BBC) conducted a complete analysis again in 2007. Many of the goals and objectives of the 2007 AI have been successfully achieved and, in some instances, exceeded.
4
The City continued to work with Rappahannock Legal Services during the past 5 years to provide education, counseling, and legal defense related to the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act. City funding allowed RLS to continue to update the “Guide to Virginia Landlord- Tenant Law and Local Rental Housing in Planning District 16,” to assist persons looking for housing.
The City also created a Fair Housing webpage which promotes awareness about fair housing laws and where to file a complaint. The City has also made proactive efforts to remind landlords about fair housing laws through the Commission of the Revenue’s annual mailing of the landlord licensing documents. In addition, City staff has conducted several fair housing public forums and public outreach efforts at events over the last five years.
Research Methodology
The project team’s approach to the Fredericksburg AI was based on the report conducted in 2007 by BBC and the methodologies recommended in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, Vol. I. and on the analysis that had been recently completed for the City’s Consolidated Plan.
The work scope consisted of the following:
Task 1. Project initiation. City staff briefed Auricchio and Gavigan about work tasks, the project schedule, reporting relationships, and overall expectations of the project. The team collected relevant data, identified potential candidates for key person interviews, and discussed the public participation components of the study.
Task 2. Community and housing profile. The project team used current data on population and households from the 2010 Census, 2008-2010 American Community Survey (ACS), and 2006- 2010 ACS to produce a community and housing profile to provide background data for the AI. The team also worked closely with Fredericksburg Regional Alliance to compile population projections.
Task 3. Fair lending and complaint data review. The team analyzed lending institution data from the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and complaint data from HUD and the Virginia Fair Housing Office to understand the basis of housing discrimination complaints received and legal cases filed by organizations.
Task 4. Policy review and analysis. The team examined housing policies and programs that influence fair housing choice through a review of the City’s zoning regulations and land use policies, and from discussion with key persons knowledgeable about such policies. The team also interviewed the Central Virginia Housing Coalition to understand the organization’s programs. 5
Task 5. Key person interviews. The team interviewed city planning and code enforcement officials, to obtain information about the City’s current land use and housing policies. The team also interviewed an affordable housing developer in the area as well as representatives from agencies serving special needs populations.
Task 6. Public forum and telephone survey. As part of the AI, the City of Fredericksburg held a public forum in late March. The team also participated in two other public meetings to discuss fair housing concerns with residents and to provide fair housing information. A random survey of 251 Fredericksburg residents was also conducted, to gather information about their experience with fair housing and knowledge of fair housing laws.
Task 7. Identification of impediments and development of the Fair Housing Action Plan. The team examined its findings to determine what barriers to fair housing exist in the City of Fredericksburg. The findings and identified impediments are detailed in Section VI of the report. This section also includes developed a recommended Fair Housing Action Plan for addressing the identified impediments.
Report Organization
The balance of this document contains five sections:
Section II. Community and Housing Profile;
Section III. Citizen and Key Person Input;
Section IV. Fair Lending, Complaint, and Legal Review;
Section V. Public Sector Review; and
Section VI. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations.
6
SECTION II. Community and Housing Profile
Introduction
This section of the AI describes the population, housing patterns, and socioeconomic characteristics of residents in Fredericksburg as well as in surrounding areas, to provide the context of the fair housing analysis.
In order to receive Community Development Block Grant Funding (CDBG), Fredericksburg is required to “affirmatively further fair housing choice” by identifying barriers to fair housing in the city and then work to mitigate fair housing impediments. This study focuses primarily on the City of Fredericksburg, but because fair housing conditions in Fredericksburg are influenced by demographic and housing conditions in surrounding communities, statistics for Culpeper, Manassas, Richmond, Spotsylvania, and Stafford County are reported where relevant.
The data collected and analyzed for this section were gathered from the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, 2006-2010 and 2008-2010 American Community Surveys, projections from the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (FRA), the City of Fredericksburg, HUD, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
General Demographics
Population. The 2010 U.S. Census reported a population of 24,286 persons for the City of Fredericksburg, up from 19,279 persons in 2000. From 2000 to 2010, the City’s population grew at a compound annual rate of 26 percent. As shown in Exhibit II-1 below, Fredericksburg has the fifth largest population in 2010 of the areas shown. 7
Exhibit II-1 Population Trends, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2000 to 2010
Percent FRA 2015 Jurisdiction 2000 Census 2010 Census Change Projections 2000-2010
Fredericksburg 19,279 24,286 25,056 26.00%
Culpeper 9,664 16,379 x 69.50%
Manassas 35,756 37,821 49,728 6.70%
Richmond 197,790 201,272 204,365 3.20%
Spotsylvania County 90,395 122,397 131,801 35.40%
Stafford County 92,446 128,961 136,739 39.50%
Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, Fredericksburg Regional Alliance
Gender and age distribution. In 2010, Fredericksburg’s residents were 54.1 percent female and 45.9 percent male. This was the largest gender gap for any of the six jurisdictions. Manassas had the most equal distribution with 49.9 percent female and 50.1 percent male residents.
The largest age cohort for the City of Fredericksburg in 2010 was residents aged 18 to 24, likely caused by the presence of the University of Mary Washington. Exhibit II-2 below shows the age distribution for the City of Fredericksburg for 2000 and 2010.
8
Exhibit II-2 Age Distribution, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
Percent Change Age Cohort 2000 Census 2010 Census from 2000 to 2010
Under 18 3,428 4,779 39.4%
18 to 24 4,595 5,649 22.9%
25 to 34 2,856 3,808 33.3%
35 to 44 2,385 2,732 14.5%
45 to 54 2,138 2,753 28.8%
55 to 64 1,407 2,215 57.4%
65 and older 2,470 2,413 -2.3%
Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census
Persons with disabilities. In 2000, the Census definition of disability status was based on individuals’ answers to several Census survey questions. According to the Census, individuals have a disability if any of the following three conditions were met: (1) they were 5 years old and over and had a response of “yes” to a sensory, physical, mental, or self-care disability, (2) they were 16 years old and over and had a response of “yes” to going-outside-the-home disability; or (3) they were 16 to 64 years old and had a response of “yes” to employment disability.
The 2000 Census definition of disability encompassed a broad range of categories, including physical, sensory, and mental disabilities. Within these categories, persons with disabilities were those who experienced difficulty with any of the following:
• Performing certain activities such as dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home (self-care disability); • Going outside the home alone (going-outside-home disability); or • Working at a job or business (employment disability).
Persons with disabilities included individuals with both long-lasting conditions, such as blindness, and individuals who had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months 9 or more than made it difficult to perform certain activities. All disability data from the Census were self-reported by respondents.
As stated by American Fact Finder 2, “The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. Accordingly, comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not recommended.”
The disability data that follows is provided by the American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates from 2008-2010, which is based on the “December 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities” (American Fact Finder).
Exhibit II-3 Amount of Total Population with a Disability, City of Fredericksburg, 2010 Population with a Percent of Total Age Cohort Total Population Disability Population
Under 5 1,454 16 1.1%
Ages 5 to 17 3,286 76 2.3%
Ages 18 to 64 16,471 1,452 8.8%
Ages 65 and older 2,372 751 31.7%
Total 23,583 2,295 9.7% Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates
It is estimated that 2,295 people over the age of four in Fredericksburg live with at least one type of disability. That is approximately 9.7 percent of Fredericksburg’s total population. As shown, it is much more common for Fredericksburg’s older population to have a disability. Approximately 31.7 percent of Fredericksburg residents who are 65 and older have at least one type of disability based on the American Community Survey estimates from 2008-2010. Exhibit II-4 below shows the distribution of population by disability type in Fredericksburg. 10
Exhibit II-4 Population by Type of Disability, City of Fredericksburg, 2008-2010
One Type of Disability Population with Specific Disability
Hearing difficulty 631
Vision difficulty 580
Cognitive difficulty 524
Ambulatory difficulty 1,301
Self-care difficulty 514
Individual living difficulty 726
Total 4,276 Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates Note: The totals do not match the total population because of the margin of error in the American Community Survey report. There is also no category for people with two or more types of disability, so those falling in this category were counted twice.
Race and ethnicity. Data on race and ethnicity require an introduction about how the U.S. Census Bureau collects and analyzes the data. In its surveys, the Census asks two different questions about race and ethnicity: the first asks respondents to identify their race; the second asks whether respondents are of Hispanic/Latino origin. The Census Bureau does not classify Hispanic/Latino as a race, but rather as an identification of origin and ethnicity. If a respondent reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity but did not mark a specific race category, they are classified in the “Some Other Race” category. Persons of Hispanic/Latino descent most commonly report their race as “White” or “Some Other Race.”
As shown in Exhibit II-5, the majority of Fredericksburg’s residents are White (60.8 percent). The next largest racial categories are Black/African American at 22.1 percent and Multiple Races at 3.06 percent. Approximately 11 percent of the City’s population reported to be of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity in 2010. 11
Exhibit II-5 Distribution of Race and Ethnicity, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2010 Spotsylvania Stafford Race/Ethnicity Fredericksburg Culpeper Manassas Richmond County County
American Indian/Alaska 0.40% 0.40% 0.60% 0.30% 0.30% 0.40% Native
Asian 2.8% 1.3% 5.00% 2.30% 2.30% 2.80%
Black/African 22.6% 15.8% 13.7% 50.6% 15.30% 17.00% American
Native Hawaiian/Other 0.10% x 0.10% 0.10% x 0.10% Pacific Islander
White 64.20% 75.1% 61.7% 40.8% 75.5% 72.50%
Other Race 0.26% x x x x x
Two or more 3.90% 2.80% 4.30% 2.30% 3.30% 4.00% races
Hispanic/Latino 10.70% 8.90% 31.4% 6.30% 7.60% 9.20% Source: 2010 U.S. Census
Population Growth. The Hispanic/Latino population of all areas grew much faster than any single race. The Fredericksburg Hispanic/Latino population more than doubled from 4.9 percent of the total population in 2000 to 10.7 percent of the total population in 2010.
Distribution within Fredericksburg. One of the key components of fair housing is an examination of the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction, to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences - e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that fit their needs. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also greatly influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities.
12
Exhibits II-6 and II-7 show the distribution of Fredericksburg residents who classified themselves as Black/African American and Hispanic, by block group, in 2010. Exhibit II-8 shows the percentage of residents who are White, by block group, in 2010 for a comparison.
As shown by Exhibit II-6, Fredericksburg’s Black/African American population is largely located in the western and southeastern portions of the City. The block group located in the southeastern portion of the city, known as the Mayfield Neighborhood, had the highest percentage of Black/African American residents in the City.
Exhibit II-7 shows that the City’s Hispanic population is largely located in the western and south central portions of the City.
For comparison purposes, Exhibit II-8 shows the distribution of Fredericksburg residents who classified themselves as White in the 2010 Census.
13
Exhibit II-6 Percentage of Black/African American Residents, by Census Block Group, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
14
Exhibit II-7 Percentage of Hispanic Residents, by Census Block Group, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
15
Exhibit II-8 Percentage of White Residents, by Census Block Group, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
16
Housing Units. From 2000 to 2010, Fredericksburg increased by 2,365 housing units, at a compound annual growth rate of 29.2 percent. Stafford County housing units increased by 45.7 percent and Spotsylvania grew by 44.0 percent from 2000 to 2010. The following exhibit shows the number of housing units for the years 2000 and 2010 for Fredericksburg and the five surrounding areas.
Exhibit II-9 Number of Housing Units, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2000 to 2010 Percent change from Jurisdiction 2000 Census 2010 Census 2000 to 2010
Fredericksburg 8,102 10,467 29.2%
Culpeper 3,848 6,271 63.0%
Manassas 11,757 13,123 11.6%
Richmond 84,549 98,349 16.3%
Spotsylvania County 31,308 45,185 44.3%
Stafford County 30,187 43,978 45.7% Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, Housing Characteristics
Discrimination based on familial status and large households is a common fair housing issue in many communities. The following is a discussion of a few household characteristics which correlate to fair housing and affordable housing.
Familial status. In 2010, the number of family households versus non-family households was very comparable. There were tremendous disparities between female householders and male householders within family households. Over one-quarter of households were headed by a female with no husband (28.6 percent), compared to 8.7 percent headed by a male with no wife.
17
Exhibit II-10 Household Type, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
Household type Number Percent
Family household 4,854 51.1%
Husband-Wife 3,044 62.7%
Male householder - no Wife 422 8.7%
Female householder - no Husband 1,388 28.6%
Non-family household 4,651 49.0%
Male householder 2,104 45.2%
Female householder 2,547 54.8%
Total occupied 9,505 100% Source: 2010 U.S. Census NOTE: A household that has at least one member of the household related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption is a "Family household." All persons living in family households are included in this total regardless of their relationship to the householder. Same-sex couple households are included in the family household category if there is at least one additional person related to the householder by birth or adoption. Same-sex couple households with no relatives of the householder present are tabulated in nonfamily households. Responses of "same-sex spouse" were edited during processing to "unmarried partner." "Nonfamily households" consist of people living alone and households which do not have any members related to the householder.
Household size. As shown by Exhibit II-11 below, the average household size in 2000 was 2.09 persons and grew to 2.28 persons in 2010 for the City of Fredericksburg, which remained the smallest average household size of the six areas. In 2010, Manassas had the largest average household size of 3.02 persons per household.
Exhibit II-11 Average Household Size, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2000 to 2010 Jurisdiction Owners 2010 Renters 2010 All households 2000 All households 2010 Fredericksburg 2.35 2.24 2.09 2.28 Culpeper 2.80 2.77 2.48 2.78 Manassas 2.99 3.06 2.91 3.02 Richmond 2.23 2.17 2.21 2.20 Spotsylvania County 2.29 2.85 2.87 2.91 Stafford County 3.01 2.90 3.01 3.00 Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census 18
Household income. The 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates reported that the City of Fredericksburg’s median household income was $43,558, which is a 24.5 percent increase from 2000. Richmond had the lowest median household income ($38,266) of all of the six areas and Stafford County had the highest ($93,065).
Exhibit II-12 Median Household Income, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2000 and 2010 Percent Change Jurisdiction 2000 Census 2010 ACS 2000 to 2010
Fredericksburg $34,721 $43,558 24.5%
Culpeper $36,725 $57,908 57.7%
Manassas $60,447 $75,173 24.4%
Richmond $31,401 $38,266 21.9%
Spotsylvania County $57,601 $76,574 32.9%
Stafford County $67,044 $93,065 38.8% Source: 2000 U.S. Census and 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Housing needs are determined from updated 2009 Census data. Exhibit II-13 displays income categories split between renters and owners.
Exhibit II-13 Income Categories for Renters and Owners, City of Fredericksburg, 2010
Income Category Renters Owners
Extremely low-income (30% of area median income or below) 1,790 335
Low-income (30-50% of area median income) 1,365 395
Middle-income (80-95% of area median income) 480 1,830 Source: 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan for Community Development Programs
Households in poverty. The poverty threshold is established at the federal level and updated annually. It is adjusted for household size but not by geographic area, except for Alaska and Hawaii. In 2011, the poverty threshold for a family of four was $22,350. In 2010, 20.8 percent of the population in Fredericksburg or about 2,600 people lived below the poverty threshold. The poverty rate is the highest for those under 18 living in Fredericksburg: approximately 27.5 19 percent live in poverty or an equivalent of about 1,292 people in 2010. Poverty rates were lowest for the City’s seniors. Exhibit II-14 shows the percentage of Fredericksburg’s population living in poverty by age cohort.
Exhibit II-14 Poverty by Age, City of Fredericksburg, 2008-2010
Age Cohort Population Below Poverty Line Percent of Total Age Group
Under 18 1,292 27.5%
18 to 64 3,011 21.1%
65 and older 131 5.5%
Total 4,434 20.8% Source: 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Employment Profile
According to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership’s Community Profile of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, Fredericksburg had a civilian labor force of 13,310 in 2010. The U.S. Department of Labor stated that in March 2011, Fredericksburg’s unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. In March 2012, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, a net change of -1.2 percent.
Exhibit II-15 Unemployment Rate, City of Fredericksburg, 2000-2012
Source: U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, March 2012 Note: Not Seasonally Adjusted 20
Employment and wages by industry. According to the Virginia Employment Commission, the City of Fredericksburg had 24,873 employees at the end of the 2nd Quarter, 2011. The single largest industry was Health Care and Social Assistance, with just over 26 percent of the workforce (6,519 employees). Transportation and Warehousing was the smallest industry, with less than 1 percent of the workforce (110 employees). The average annual salary for Fredericksburg residents was $38,480. Federal Government employees made the highest annual salary ($73,840) while those in Accommodation and Food Services made the smallest annual salary ($15,652). Exhibit II-16 below shows the average weekly wage figures for Fredericksburg.
Exhibit II-16 Industry Annual Salaries by Wage Category, City of Fredericksburg, 2nd Quarter, 2011 Average Average Percent of All Equivalent Industry Weekly Employment Industries Salary Wage
All Industries 24,873 100% $740 $38,480
Low-Wage Industries Accommodation and Food 4,242 17% $301 $15,652 Services Arts, Entertainment and 337 1% $304 $15,808 Recreation
Retail Trade 3,729 15% $437 $22,724
Administrative and Waste 604 2% $458 $23,816 Services
Educational Services 231 <1% $468 $24,336
Other Services, Ex. Public 808 3% $531 $27,612 Administration
Moderate-Wage Industries
Local Government 1,962 8% $702 $36,504
Transportation and 110 <1% $703 $36,556 Warehousing 21
Manufacturing 384 2% $753 $39,156
Real Estate and Rental and 367 1% $827 $43,004 Leasing
Construction 519 2% $840 $43,680
Wholesale Trade 551 2% $842 $43,784
High-Wage Industries
Information 573 2% $911 $47,372
State Government 1,158 5% $925 $48,000
Finance and Insurance 650 3% $1,004 $52,208
Health Care and Social 6,519 26% $1,051 $54,652 Assistance Professional, Scientific, and 1,066 4% $1,122 $58,344 Technical Services
Management of Companies 656 3% $1,216 $63,232
Federal Government 344 1% $1,420 $73,840
Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2nd Quarter (April, May, June) 2011
The statistics for average employment, percent of all industries, average weekly wage, and equivalent annual salary are complied above and each industry is categorized as a Low-, Moderate-, or High-Wage industry based on its annual salary. Those industries with annual salaries 80 percent or less of the average annual salary ($38,480) are classified as Low-Wage; industry annual salaries between 80 and 120 percent of the average annual salary are Moderate- Wage; industry annual salaries above 120 percent of the average annual salary are High-Wage.
Projections of employment growth by type. The Virginia Employment Commission also provides employment projections for the Bay Consortium, a geographic area that includes Fredericksburg. Exhibit II-17 displays those projections.
22
Exhibit II-17 Employment Growth by Industry, Bay Consortium, 2008 to 2018
Industry Estimated Projected Numerical Percent 2008 2018 Change Change
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing *** *** *** *** and Hunting
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and *** *** *** *** Gas Extraction
Utilities 515 485 -30 -5.83%
Construction 10,235 12,259 2,024 19.78%
Manufacturing 9,989 9,493 -496 -4.97%
Wholesale Trade 5,021 5,444 423 8.42%
Retail Trade 21,703 23,018 1,315 6.06%
Transportation and Warehousing 3,118 3,340 222 7.12%
Information 2,020 2,047 27 1.34%
Finance and Insurance 7,532 8,561 1,029 13.66%
Real Estate and Renting and 1,853 2,098 245 13.22% Leasing
Professional, Scientific, and 9,263 12,875 3,612 38.99% Technical Services
Management of Companies and 1,774 1,879 105 5.92% Enterprises
Administrative and Support and 4,415 5,352 937 21.22% Waste Mgmt. 23
Educational Services 16,973 20,409 4,436 35.08%
Health Care and Social 16,129 21,787 5,658 35.08% Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and 2,007 2,505 498 24.81% Recreation
Accommodation and Food 14,893 16,689 1,796 12.06% Services
Other Services (except Public 5,439 6,096 657 12.08% Administration) Note: Asterisks (***) indicate non-disclosable data. Projections data is for Bay Consortium (LWIA XIII). No data available for Fredericksburg city. Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Long Term Industry and Occupational Projections, 2008-2018.
The industry projected with the highest percentage of employment growth in the Bay Consortium is Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (38.99 percent growth). The next two largest projections are Educational Services and Health Care and Social Assistance (both predicted to grow 35.08 percent). In 2008, the largest industry by employment was Retail Trade, employing approximately 21,703 people. In 2018, Retail Trade is still projected to be the highest employing industry, with 23,018 employees.
Commuting and transportation patterns. The 2010 Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, also provides commuting patterns for workers in the Fredericksburg area.
Exhibit II-18 Commuting Patterns, City of Fredericksburg, 2010 Community Pattern Number of Workers
Live and work in area 1,941
In-Commuters 18,558
Out-Commuters 7,231
Net In-Commuters 11,327 Source: 2010 Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies
There are 1,941 residents of Fredericksburg who live and work in Fredericksburg, while 7,231 residents commute outside the City to their place of employment. In contrast, 18,558 people enter Fredericksburg every day to work. In Fredericksburg, there are 20,499 people employed. There is a net in-commuter population of 11,327. 24
Housing Profile
According to the 2010 United States Census, there were 10,467 housing units in Fredericksburg. The following Exhibit II-19 shows the number of housing units for the years 2000 and 2010 for Fredericksburg and the five surrounding areas.
Exhibit II-19 Number of Households, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2000 and 2010 Percent Change Jurisdiction 2000 Census 2010 Census 2000 to 2010
Fredericksburg 8,888 10,467 18%
Manassas 12,114 13,123 7%
Culpeper 4,056 6,271 54%
Richmond 92,282 98,349 7%
Spotsylvania County 33,329 45,185 36%
Stafford County 31,405 43,978 40%
Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census
In 2010, 91 percent of Fredericksburg’s housing units were occupied. The remaining 962 units (9 percent) were vacant. This vacancy rate is slightly smaller than found in Richmond at 11 percent. The five surrounding areas had vacancy rates ranging from 4 to 8 percent.
Tenure. Approximately 38 percent of occupied housing units in Fredericksburg in 2010 were owner-occupied, meaning roughly 62 percent were renter-occupied. The distribution is quite different from the other surrounding areas, aside from the City of Richmond, which is 43 percent owner-occupied and 57 percent renter-occupied. Spotsylvania County contains 79 percent owner-occupied units and only 21 percent renter-occupied units. The following Exhibit II-20 details the number and percentage of owner- and renter-occupied units in Fredericksburg and the five surrounding areas.
25
Exhibit II-20 Number and Percent of Units Owner- and Renter-Occupied, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2010 Number Number Percent Owner- Percent Renter- Jurisdiction Owner- Renter- Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Fredericksburg 3,623 38% 5,882 62%
Culpeper 3,309 57% 2,733 43%
Manassas 8,043 64% 4,484 36%
Richmond 37,596 43% 49,555 57%
Spotsylvania County 33,258 79% 8,684 21%
Stafford County 32,339 77% 9,430 23% Source: 2010 U.S. Census
Cost of housing. Based on the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the median home value in Fredericksburg was $335,800; the median monthly rent was $1,030. Exhibit II-21 below distributes the monthly rents and house values for Fredericksburg.
Exhibit II-21 Home Values and Monthly Rents, City of Fredericksburg, 2006-2010 Percentage of Percentage of Home Value Monthly Rent Housing Stock Rental Units $0 to $99,999 5.5% Less than $200 1.4% $100,000 to 2.8% $200 to $499 5.5% $149,999 $150,000 to 8.7% $500 to $749 10.5% $199,999 $200,000 to 22.1% $750 to $999 27.8% $299,999 $300,000 to 44.5% $1,000 to $1,499 46.6% $499,999 $500,000 or more 16.4% $1,500 or more 8.2%
Median $335,800 Median $1,030
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 26
As noted above, the median home value in Fredericksburg is $355,800. Only approximately 9 percent of homes are valued at less than $150,000. The highest percentage (46.6 percent) of monthly rental rates is between $1,000 and $1,499 per month, with Fredericksburg’s median monthly rent costing $1,030. Home values in Fredericksburg are higher than in Culpeper, Richmond, and Spotsylvania County. Exhibit II-22 below displays median home values and rents for Fredericksburg and the given surrounding areas based on the 2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
Exhibit II-22 Median Home Values and Rent, City of Fredericksburg and Surrounding Areas, 2006-2010 Median Gross Jurisdiction Median Home Value Monthly Rent Fredericksburg $355,800 $1,030
Culpeper $309,000 $963
Manassas $325,800 $1,232
Richmond $201,800 $805
Spotsylvania County $305,000 $1,178
Stafford County $355,300 $1,280 Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Age of housing stock. The Exhibit II-23 below identifies the number of housing units by the year in which they were built. Per the 2006-2010 American Community Survey data, nearly fifty percent of housing units are over fifty years old in Fredericksburg. The highest percentage of units was built during the 1970s. The median year for owner-occupied built structures is 1963, versus 1975 for renter-occupied units. The overall median year built for all housing units is 1972. 27
Exhibit II-23 Number and Percent of Housing Units by Year, City of Fredericksburg, 2006-2010 Construction Year Estimate Percent Built 1939 or earlier 1,630 16% Built 1940 to 1949 441 4% Built 1950 to 1959 1,073 11% Built 1960 to 1969 1,569 15% Built 1970 to 1979 2,054 20% Built 1980 to 1989 1,306 13% Built 1990 to 1999 729 7% Built 2000 to 2004 673 7% Built 2005 or later 692 7% Total 10,167 100% Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Housing units in severely substandard condition. The following Exhibit II-24 outlines the number and percent of Fredericksburg housing units without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities from 2006-2010, as well as units with no telephone service available.
Exhibit II-24 Substandard Living Conditions, City of Fredericksburg, 2006-2010 Condition Number of Units Percent Total number of occupied-units 9,206 100% Lacking complete plumbing 72 0.8% Lacking complete kitchen 57 0.6% No telephone service available 361 3.9% Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
As shown above, only 0.8 percent and 0.6 percent of occupied units were without complete plumbing and kitchen facilities respectively. The American Community Survey also estimates sources of heating fuel for all Fredericksburg housing units. From 2006-2010, 1,213 Fredericksburg housing units used either nontraditional sources of heat (kerosene, wood, coal, or other) or had no source of heat at all.
28
Subsidized housing units. There is no local public housing authority in Fredericksburg. The Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) administers vouchers in areas of Virginia that do not have a local housing authority or housing agency. The VHDA Voucher Program is primarily in the suburbs and rural areas of Virginia and generally not in the metropolitan areas of the state. VHDA subcontracts with local agencies (administrative agents or agencies), which run the day-to-day operations under the authority’s direction. The Central Virginia Housing Coalition administers the vouchers for the City of Fredericksburg and the surrounding counties.
Subsidized housing for low-income populations is provided by both public and nonprofit organizations. The type of assistance varies from units owned by the Central Virginia Housing Coalition and units subsidized with Section 8 vouchers to units built using low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) or other subsidies. Including tax credit and vouchers, there are 1,828 subsidized units in the City. This number represents 17.5 percent of the total housing units and 31.1 percent of available rental units. The following Exhibit II-25 shows the vouchers and properties that offer a subsidized rental rate.
29
Exhibit II-25 Subsidized Housing Units, City of Fredericksburg, May 2012 Type of Number of Location Subsidy Units HCV Fredericksburg City HCV 240
HCV Virginia Housing Development Authority Port Out HCV 14
Colonial Heights LIHTC 14
Crestview LIHTC 180
River Woods Apartments LIHTC 68
Fall Hill Apartments LIHTC 246
Riverside Manor LIHTC 142
Townsend Square Apartments LIHTC 200
Forest Village Apartments (portion) LIHTC 71
Forest Village Apartments (portion) LMSA 121
Hazel Hill Apartments LIHTC/LMSA 145
Heritage Park I LIHTC/LMSA 63
Heritage Park II LIHTC/LMSA 65
Mill Park Terrace HFDA/8 NC 129
Madonna House LIHTC 130
Total 1,828 Source: Central Virginia Housing Coalition, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Virginia Housing Development Authority, and Individual Residential Property Managers
Note: HCV = Housing Choice Voucher Program; LIHTC = Low Income Housing Tax Credits; LMSA = Loan Management Set-Aside Program; HFDA/8 NC = Section 8 new construction properties finances or insures through State Housing Finance Agencies; PRAC/811 = Project Rental Assistance Project for people with disabilities; and 202/8 NC = Section 8 New Construction for the elderly
30
Section III. Citizen and Key Person Feedback
This section of the AI summarizes the results of 225 completed telephone surveys, 26 survey responses from the Thurman Brisben Center, and 15 key person interviews. Three public forums were conducted on March 29, 2012 at the Bragg Hill Family Life Center, March 31, 2012 at the Mayfield Civic Association, and April 2, 2012 at the Thurman Brisben Center. These events served as part of the public outreach process for the City of Fredericksburg’s AI.
While responses were not obtained from every person who attended the public forums, the forums allowed for vibrant discussion of Fair Housing. Just fewer than 50 residents were in attendance at the Mayfield Civic Association, many of whom engaged in one on one discussion with the study team. The findings from these activities are discussed in turn.
Telephone Survey
Beginning in February 2012, the team conducted a telephone survey of 225 Fredericksburg residents. Due to reluctance by participants to complete a telephone survey, the team was unable to obtain the desired 475 survey responses, which was the initial goal. The survey asked respondents about their personal and housing characteristics, experience with housing discrimination, and their knowledge of fair housing issues, where to learn more about fair housing, their awareness and utilization of Fredericksburg’s housing assistance and social service programs, and their opinions about housing and social service needs in the City. Surveys were conducted in English only.
Survey respondent characteristics. Respondents were contacted by means of random selection of 22401 zip code addresses listed in the public telephone book. There are both similarities and differences between respondents’ characteristics and data obtained on Fredericksburg residents from the 2010 United States Census and the 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year- estimates.
The responses from the Thurman Brisben Center were compiled with the telephone survey responses, except for in the tenure, educational attainment, and household income categories.
Tenure. As shown in Exhibit III-1, 76 percent of survey respondents were homeowners, which is higher than the 38 percent of housing units that were owner-occupied in Fredericksburg according to the 2010 Census. Twenty-four percent of survey respondents were renters, compared to 62 percent of housing units that were renter-occupied in Fredericksburg in 2010. The reason for this may be that renters do not always have land-based telephone lines, and therefore are not listed in the public telephone book. 31
Exhibit III-1 Tenure of Survey Respondents and Residents, City of Fredericksburg
Respondents Telephone Survey Fredericksburg Citizens, 2010
Owner 171 76% 3,623 38%
Renter 54 24% 5,882 62%
Total 225 100% 9,505 100% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, 2010 U.S. Census
Additionally, 26 respondents from the Thurman Brisben Center identified themselves as homeless and currently residing at the shelter; therefore these participants do not occupy or rent a dwelling.
Age. Survey respondents had to be at least 18 years of age to participate in the survey. Ages ranged from 21 to 92 years. People in the age cohorts 55-64 and 65 and older were most likely to participate in the survey. A much lower percentage of persons ages 18 to 24 responded to the survey (6 percent) than are represented in the population for the City (30 percent). Eight people refused to answer this question.
Exhibit III-2 Age Distribution of Survey Respondents and Residents, City of Fredericksburg Respondents Telephone Survey Fredericksburg Citizens, 2010
18 to 24 years 15 6% 5,649 30%
25 to 34 years 33 14% 3,808 19%
35 to 44 years 45 18% 2,732 14%
45 to 54 years 36 15% 2,753 14%
55 to 64 years 50 21% 2,215 11%
65 and older 64 26% 2,413 12%
Total 243 100% 19,570 100% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, 2010 U.S. Census 32
Education. Five percent of survey respondents’ educational attainment includes some high school or less, compared to 13.4 percent of Fredericksburg residents based on the 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year-estimates. These estimates include the population over 25 in Fredericksburg, whereas the survey respondents begin at age 21.
Exhibit III-3 Educational Attainment of Survey Respondents and Residents, City of Fredericksburg Thurman Brisben Fredericksburg Citizens, Education Telephone Survey Center 2008-2010
Some high 11 5% 5 19% 1,785 13% school or less High school 54 24% 15 58% 4,008 30% graduate/G.E.D. Trade/Vocation al school/Some 40 18% 4 15% 3,247 25% college College 71 31% 2 8% 2,462 19% graduate Post-graduate 49 22% 0 0% 1,775 13% work or degree
Total 225 100% 26 100% 13,277 100%
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, Thurman Brisben Center Responses, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates
Race and ethnicity. The majority of survey respondents (72 percent) responded that they were Anglo/White and 19 percent responded that they were African American/Black. The 2010 U.S. Census reported that 64 percent of Fredericksburg residents were Anglo/White and 22 percent were African American/Black. Exhibit III-4 displays the racial and ethnic distribution of survey respondents and residents of Fredericksburg, including the amount of respondents and residents who identify themselves as Hispanic/Chicano/Latino (of any race).
33
Exhibit III-4 Race and Ethnicity of Survey Respondents and Residents, City of Fredericksburg
Race and Ethnicity Telephone Survey and Fredericksburg Citizens, Thurman Brisben Center 2010
Anglo/White 178 72% 15,596 64%
African American/Black 45 19% 5,498 22%
American Indian/Native 1 0% 100 0% American Asian/Oriental/Pacific 4 2% 706 3% Islander
Two or more Races 6 2% 949 4%
Other 3 1% 1,437 6%
Hispanic/Chicano/Latino 9 4% 2,402 11% (of any race)
Total 246 100% 24,286 100%
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, Thurman Brisben Center Responses, 2010 U.S. Census
Household income. Of the 225 survey respondents, 51 refused to answer the question about their household income. This means that 23 percent of the respondents were unaccounted for in the following summary. Of the 174 respondents who did answer this question, 18 percent of households earned over $150,000 a year, compared to six percent of households in Fredericksburg overall. Twenty-eight percent of respondents’ households earned less than $35,000, compared to 41 percent of all Fredericksburg households. Conversely, 72 percent of respondents’ households earned over $35,000 a year, versus 59 percent of all Fredericksburg households. Exhibit III-5 displays the income distribution of survey respondents.
Responses collected from the Thurman Brisben Center are included in the following Exhibit, but are not combined with the telephone survey responses. Seventy-three percent of residents at the Thurman Brisben Center earn less than $10,000 a year and none of the respondents earned over $49,000 a year.
34
Exhibit III-5 Housing Income of Survey Respondents and Residents, City of Fredericksburg Thurman Brisben Fredericksburg Income Telephone Survey Center Citizens, 2010
Less than $10,000 10 6% 19 73% 1, 109 12%
$10,000 to $19,999 8 5% 2 8% 1,010 11%
$20,000 to $29,999 13 7% 2 8% 1,349 14%
$30,000 to $34,999 18 10% 1 3% 418 4%
$35,000 to $49,999 25 14% 2 8% 1,681 18%
$50,000 to $74,999 18 10% 0 0% 1,543 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 24 14% 0 0% 808 8%
$100,000 to 28 16% 0 0% 1,075 11% $149,999
$150,000 or more 30 18% 0 0% 537 6%
Total 174 100% 26 100% 9,530 100%
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, Thurman Brisben Center Responses, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Household characteristics. Exhibit III-6 shows the household characteristics of the survey respondents. The majority of respondents were married, and only two percent identified themselves as domestic partners. Twenty-eight respondents refused to answer the question pertaining to how many residents lived within the household. Of the respondents, 42 percent of respondents’ households were occupied by two persons.
Fifty-five people either lived alone, or refused to answer the question pertaining to children under the age of 18 living in his or her household. Thirty-five percent of the respondents who did answer this question did not have children under the age of 18 living in his or her household.
35
Exhibit III-6 Household Characteristics of Survey Respondents, City of Fredericksburg
Response Choices Percentage of Respondents
Married 60%
Single 25%
Domestic partners 2%
Divorced 8%
Widowed 5%
Total 251
1 person 21%
2 persons 42%
3 to 4 persons 27%
5 or more persons 10%
Total 223
Do not have children under 18 years 35%
Have children under 18 years 65%
Total 196
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
36
Experience with housing discrimination. The survey asked respondents a number of questions about their experience with housing discrimination and the experiences of persons they know.
Approximately 11 percent of survey respondents (a total of 28) said they had experienced discrimination in trying to find house; 14 percent of survey respondents (a total of 35) said they knew someone who had experienced housing discrimination. If it is assumed that there is no overlap between the respondents who had experienced housing discrimination and the persons they knew who had experienced housing discrimination, the survey results suggest that approximately 25 percent of Fredericksburg citizens have experienced discrimination in trying to find housing.
Reasons for housing discrimination. Respondents who had experienced discrimination were asked why they thought they had been discriminated against. Thirty-two percent of respondents experiencing discrimination said it was race- and/or ethnicity-based. Another 14 percent replied they were discriminated against because they were poor or because of class background; however, income or a person’s ability to pay is not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. The reasons for discrimination reported by survey respondents are listed in Exhibit III-7.
37
Exhibit III-7 Survey Respondents’ Experience with Housing Discrimination, City of Fredericksburg
Have you ever experienced housing discrimination?
What do you think was the reason you were discriminated against?
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012, includes Thurman Brisben Center respondents
Of the 28 people who indicated that they were discriminated against, there were 12 who said the discrimination occurred in Fredericksburg. Other respondents had experienced housing discrimination in other parts of the country, typically from years ago. 38
A demographic review of the respondents who said they had experienced housing discrimination did not reveal any strong trends in discrimination. Persons who were renters were more likely to say they had experienced housing discrimination than owners.
Resolving housing discrimination. Survey respondents were asked a series of questions to identify how they would respond if they encountered housing discrimination.
The 28 respondents who had experienced housing discrimination were asked what they did about the discrimination. As shown in Exhibit III-8 below, the vast majority of the respondents did “nothing.”
Exhibit III-8 What Did You Do About the Discrimination?, City of Fredericksburg Number of those who took Percent of discriminated Actions Taken action population Nothing 17 61% Refused to buy/rent from 5 18% those discriminating Filed a complaint 4 14%
Called local government 2 7% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
The survey asked specifically whom respondents would contact if they experienced housing discrimination. Twenty-nine percent of respondents did not know whom to contact if they wanted to report being discriminated against. Among the respondents who said they know who to contact, 25 percent mentioned contacting an attorney/legal aid/ACLU. Ten percent would contact the Mayor’s Office or City Council and 9 percent would contact the Fair Housing Authority.
39
Exhibit III-9 Whom Would You Contact If You Were Discriminated Against In Regards to Housing?, City of Fredericksburg
Responses Percent
I don’t know 72 29%
An attorney/legal aid/ACLU 63 25%
Mayor’s Office/City Council 27 10%
Fair Housing Authority 22 9%
Central Virginia Housing Coalition 12 5%
Call/See Realtor 12 5%
HUD 10 4%
Better Business Bureau 9 4%
City Attorney’s Office 9 3%
Community Organization 8 3%
Other 4 2%
People who discriminated/ 3 1% someone above them
Research who to contact 0 0%
Total 251 100%
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
40
Responses in the “other” category included the following (responses are paraphrased to preserve confidentiality):
• “I would look for another place.” • “I would contact a local newspaper.” • “I would contact the police.”
Learning about fair housing rights. Respondents were also asked how they would get more information if they wanted to learn more about fair housing rights. The top two responses were to conduct an Internet search (44 percent of respondents) or that they did not know where to go (17 percent).
41
Exhibit III-10 How Would You Go About Obtaining Information About Your Fair Housing Rights?, City of Fredericksburg
Response Number Percent
Internet search 110 44%
Don’t know 42 17%
Local government information sources/officials 21 8%
Call a lawyer/ACLU/Legal Aid/Attorney General 17 7%
Call/see the city government/City Council 12 5%
HUD website 12 5%
Public housing authority 11 4%
Call/see a realtor 11 4%
Library 8 3%
Call the Central Virginia Housing Coalition 6 2%
TV 1 0%
Phone book/newspaper 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Total 251 100%
Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
42
Housing and social service needs. The survey also included several questions about the housing and social service needs of Fredericksburg residents. Thirty-nine respondents (29 percent of those who answered this question) said they had received social services or housing assistance.
Exhibit III-11 Have You Ever Received Social Services/Housing Assistance From These Agencies?, City of Fredericksburg
Agency Percent Who Responded Yes
Social Service Agencies
Department of Social Services 32%
Virginia Employment Commission 10%
Fredericksburg Area Food Bank 7%
disAbility Resource Center 5%
Rappahannock Area Community Services Board 3%
Rappahannock Agency on Aging 1%
Rappahannock Legal Services 0%
Rappahannock Council on Domestic Violence 0%
Other 0%
Housing Assistance Agency
Section 8 Program 12%
Fredericksburg Office of Planning and Community Development 4%
Virginia Housing Program/Coalition/Development 4%
Rappahannock Area Community Services Board 3%
FHA-Federal Housing Administration 1%
Other 18%
Don’t Know 0% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012 Note: Allows for multiple answers 43
Awareness of social service organizations. Survey respondents were asked about their awareness of several social service organizations in Fredericksburg. Approximately 91 percent of respondents knew the Department of Social Services while only 43 percent of respondents were aware of the disAbility Resource Center. Exhibit III-12 displays the results for each social agency.
Exhibit III-12 Are You Aware of These Services/Organizations in Fredericksburg? Agency Percent Who Responded Yes Department of Social Services 91% Fredericksburg Area Food Bank 89% Virginia Employment Commission 83% Rappahannock Agency on Aging 75% Rappahannock Council on Domestic Violence 71% Rappahannock Area Community Services Board 71% Rappahannock Legal Services 52% disAbility Resource Center 43% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
Awareness of housing assistance. Survey respondents were asked about their awareness about various types of housing assistance available to Fredericksburg residents. Almost 65 percent were aware of low-income rental units, while only 17 percent were aware of emergency home repairs. Exhibit III-13 displays the survey responses.
Exhibit III-13 Are You Aware of These Housing Assistance Services in Fredericksburg? Housing Assistance Percent Low-income rental units 65% Emergency assistance with utility payments 56% Section 8 rental assistance 54% Elderly housing 45% Housing for the disabled 41% New home purchase 29% Emergency assistance with rent or mortgage payments 25% Home rehabilitation 22% Emergency home repairs 17% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012
44
Top needs. Respondents were asked for their opinions about the top social services and housing needs in Fredericksburg. The top three most needed social services included the food bank, youth services and employment services. Exhibit III-14 lists the responses to this question.
Exhibit III-14 What are the Most Needed Social Services in Fredericksburg? Social Service Responses Percent Food Bank 81 31% Youth Services 50 19% Employment Services 43 16% Senior Services 22 8% Domestic Violence Services 15 6% Legal Services 14 5% Disability Services 14 5% Don’t know or refused 27 10% Total 266 100% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, February-April 2012 Note: Allows for multiple answers.
Respondents were also asked to identify the most needed housing assistance services in Fredericksburg, as shown in Exhibit III-15. The top three most needed housing assistance services in Fredericksburg were homeless shelter/housing for the homeless, low income rental units, and more affordable housing.
Exhibit III-15 What are the Most Needed Housing Assistance Services in Fredericksburg? Service Responses Percent Homeless Shelter/housing for the homeless 61 18% Low income rental units 48 14% More Affordable Housing 39 11% Elderly housing 30 9% Section 8 Rental Assistance 32 9% Housing for the Disabled 21 6% New Home Purchase 19 6% Emergency Assistance with Utility Payments 17 5% Emergency Assistance with Rent/Mortgage Payments 17 5% Home Rehabilitation 15 4% Student Housing 15 4% Emergency Home Repair 12 3% Don’t Know/Refused 22 6% Total 348 100% Source: Fredericksburg Telephone Survey, April-May 2012 Note: Allows for multiple answers 45
Key Person Interviews and Public Forum
During the months of March and April, the team conducted 15 key person interviews with individuals knowledgeable about fair housing issues and social service needs in the City of Fredericksburg. The team also held three public forums. The following Exhibit lists the organizations with which in-person and telephone interviews were conducted for the AI.
Exhibit III-16 Agencies and Organizations Consulted BB&T Mortgage City of Fredericksburg; Property Maintenance Code Official City of Fredericksburg; Zoning Office Department of Social Services disAbility Resource Center Fredericksburg Area Association of Realtors Fredericksburg Area HIV/AIDS Support Services Hope House Micah Ecumenical Ministries Rappahannock Legal Services, Inc. Realty World Select Thalhimer Sullivan Properties, LLC Thurman Brisben Center Top Choice Homes University of Mary Washington; Residence Life and Commuter Student Services Source: Auricchio and Gavigan
The key person interviews were conducted to obtain input on fair housing impediments. Interviewees and public forum participants mentioned several housing and community development needs/concerns the City should examine to improve fair housing and affordable housing. Their comments include the following:
Visible Issues
● Section 8 housing has a very long waiting list. This is a need for more vouchers and more turnover of vouchers. (6 responses)
● The most frequently mentioned issue in the community is the affordability and accessibility of housing. (10 responses)
¾ Residents have been forced to move out of the City to afford a home and most commute to work everyday.
46
¾ People wish to stay in the City but cannot afford rent.
¾ Affordable housing should be distributed across the City instead of just concentrated areas.
¾ There is a higher buyer and renter demand than supply of available housing.
¾ A person who earns minimum wage is unable to afford 99 percent of the housing units in the area.
¾ Because most disabled persons live on a fixed income, as rent increases, there is much difficulty for the disabled to afford rent.
● Respondents expressed a concern for the lack of subsidized housing. (5 responses)
● Several key persons and multiple citizens expressed a concern about gentrification; residents are displeased with their inability to move back into their neighborhoods as the character of some neighborhoods are changing.
Barriers
● Bad credit history and unemployment rates hinder a person’s ability to rent. (3 responses)
● Lack of or poor rental histories discourage landlords to rent to certain persons. (2 responses)
● Because constituents do not support affordable housing projects, local officials do not always support them. (2 responses)
¾ There is a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY-ism) reaction in the community.
¾ While homelessness is an issue that constituents recognize, nobody wants homeless shelter or housing in their neighborhood.
● Even when a criminal offense was minor and in the past, it may haunt a person and create an obstacle that many landlords do not wish to overlook. (4 responses)
● Restrictive zoning and few incentives for builders to build affordable housing. (3 responses)
¾ Because affordable housing is limited, there is a higher demand than availability.
¾ In order to increase density, zoning must be more flexible.
¾ The City should provide more incentives for builders to be able to address the housing needs of lower income residents. 47
Discrimination
● Most interviewees responded that they did not know of specific incidences of housing discrimination in Fredericksburg. (10 responses)
● Three instances of known discrimination were mentioned. They included people not being able to rent or buy due to:
1. Criminal history, which is not a protected class under the FHA.
2. Landlords refusing to rent to people currently living in a homeless shelter.
3. Residents having been denied or removed from housing due to HIV status.
Predatory lending
● Respondents voiced concerns for high interest rates on loans. Because borrowers are unable to pay off the loan, their credit is ruined. (4 responses)
¾ Education is necessary so people know what they are getting themselves into with these loans.
Needs
● There is a dire need for more Section 8 vouchers and there needs to be higher turnover rate. (5 responses)
● Education is necessary to inform the community how it can help the homeless population. (3 response)
● Assistance is needed for elderly or disabled person with low income, Medicaid eligible people.
¾ Most people are unaware of how difficult it is to be disabled.
¾ More ramps and more handicapped bathrooms are needed throughout the community.
● Increase the supply of housing units available so that housing prices may be reduced. (2 responses)
● A public housing authority is needed to promote fairness. (3 responses)
¾ A rental housing inspection program.
¾ There is a need for more transitional housing programs. 48
● Student housing/off campus living for students at the University of Mary Washington can eliminate some of the tension between residents and students.
If unlimited funding were available
● There is a large need for subsidized housing, particularly for those with disabilities, who survive on SSI or SSDI. (5 responses)
¾ Help people who cannot pay for first-month’s rent, an application fee, or utility deposit.
¾ Build additional group homes and apartment complexes to help mentally disabled persons.
● Build more affordable/free day-care centers. There are many single mothers who need to work but are unable to because they do not have a place to care for their children during the day. Without work, they cannot afford rent, and many become homeless.
● Project-based single room occupancy for homeless individuals. (4 responses)
¾ Keeping complexes in good repair.
¾ Funding for supportive services that help people obtain and maintain housing.
● Workforce housing for firefighters, teachers, etc.
● Increased education to enhance community support for programs like Rapid Rehousing and other social and housing services.
Summary of Responses
The results of the key person interviews and public forum confirm that there is a great need for more affordable housing units within the City and surrounding areas, particularly to accommodate households with low- to very-low incomes. Many of the needs identified by respondents are beyond the control of the City, such as the number of available Section 8 vouchers, instances of housing discrimination for characteristics not covered under Fair Housing, poor rental or criminal histories, and high interest rates. Other issues are already being addressed with City supported programs that provide security deposits and first month’s rent (CDBG supported Lend-A-Hand program), installation of ramps and other features in homes to promote independence (CDBG supported Removal of Architectural Barriers Program), funding of legal services to protect people against cases of fair housing discrimination (CDBG supported Rappahannock Legal Aid services), and allowances for a variety of dwelling types within residential zoning districts. The City should continue with its existing programs and consider new ways to encourage affordable housing within new developments, direct people to existing 49 educational programs offered by the Central Virginia Housing Coalition regarding homeownership and lending, and work within the Fredericksburg Regional Continuum of Care network to obtain new services to support free day care, increased wages/employment, and the availability of new affordable housing units in the region.
50
SECTION IV. Lending, Complaint, and Legal Review
This section contains an analysis of fair housing complaint data and legal cases concerning the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Virginia Fair Housing Law.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e, is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate. A review of CRA ratings from 1991-2012 revealed that all twelve of the Fredericksburg banks listed on the CRA website (www.ffiec.gov/cra) received outstanding or satisfactory CRA ratings. Further, the review of 2012 CRA data showed that the City was not listed as a distressed or underserved CRA tract.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data analyzes home purchases, mortgage applications, and refinance applications by location of loan origination. Statistics on HMDA are costly and were unattainable by the team, but is considered less relevant due to the presence of online banking.
As part of the AI, organizations were contacted and requested to provide summary information about cases that had been filed by or against organizations or residents in Fredericksburg. Information was received from HUD and Rappahannock Legal Services. Countless additional attempts to receive data from other organizations/agencies were unsuccessful.
Fair Housing Complaint Process and Data
Citizens of Fredericksburg who believe they have experienced discrimination may report their complaints to the following entities: HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), the Virginia Fair Housing Office (under the auspices of the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation), and Rappahannock Legal Services. If a person has been experienced illegal housing discrimination, they have 180 days to file a complaint.
Virginia Fair Housing Office. The Virginia Fair Housing Office (VFHO) consists of an administrator, who has overall responsibility for the office; an Investigative Supervisor, who oversees all investigations; a Program Conciliator, who attempts to resolve complaints through informal negotiation; four field investigators and two administrative investigators.
The VFHO is the investigative arm of Virginia’s Fair Housing Board and Real Estate Board. The Fair Housing Board administers and enforces the Fair Housing Law for most individuals and businesses; the Real Estate Board retains jurisdiction over real estate licensees and their 51
employees. Both boards meet in Richmond, at the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation. Their meetings are open to the public.
The VFHO investigates allegations of housing discrimination under Virginia’s Fair Housing Law. Anyone who believes they have been discriminated against in housing may file a complaint with the VFHO. Once the Fair Housing Office accepts a complaint for investigation, the complaint is assigned to an investigator. An investigator generally interviews the complainant, the respondent, and relevant witnesses. The investigator may also review documents and records. During the investigative process, a trained professional from the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section coordinates the conciliation process. Conciliation is a voluntary process in which the parties attempt to resolve the complaint by agreeing to mutually acceptable terms. If conciliation is successful, the investigation will be suspended. If conciliation is unsuccessful and if it appears that discrimination occurred, the Fair Housing Office will present the evidence obtained during its investigation to the Real Estate Board. Generally, after reviewing the evidence, the Real Estate Board dismisses the complaint, accepts the conciliation agreement, or issues a charge of discrimination against the respondents. If the Board issues a charge, it will immediately refer the case to the Attorney General’s Office.
The VFHO has been certified by HUD as a substantially equivalent agency. As a result, HUD refers most of the Fair Housing complaints that it receives from Virginia residents to the VFHO.
HUD. Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at (http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), toll free at 1-800-669-9777, or by contacting the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington D.C. or Virginia’s Fair Housing Hub located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
When HUD receives a complaint, HUD will notify the person who filed the complaint and will normally notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD will try to reach an agreement between the two parties involved. A conciliation agreement must protect the filer of the complaint and the public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the agreement is breached, in which case HUD will recommend that the Attorney General file suit.
If HUD has determined that a state or local agency has the same housing powers (“substantial equivalency”) as HUD, they will refer the complaint to that agency and will notify the complainant of the referral. The agency must begin work on the complaint within 30 days or HUD may take it back. If, during the investigative, review and legal process, HUD finds that discrimination has occurred, the case will be heard in an administrative hearing within 120 days, 52
unless either party prefers the case be heard in Federal district court. Virginia does have substantial equivalency of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
City of Fredericksburg. When the City of Fredericksburg receives a fair housing complaint, the complainant is referred to Rappahannock Legal Services (RLS). The City of Fredericksburg has contracted with RLS to conduct education, outreach and enforcement of fair housing issues to the citizens of Fredericksburg.
Rappahannock Legal Services (RLS) is a non-profit corporation that provides free legal services in non-fee-generating civil matters to those who cannot afford an attorney. RLS is funded by the federal, state, and local governments and by a wide range of local individuals, agencies, and organizations. RLS has three offices located in Fredericksburg, Culpeper, and Tappahannock with 12 full-time and 3 part-time staff.
RLS provides legal services concerning consumer problems, administrative matters, housing problems and domestic concerns. Typical calls and inquiries concern landlord/tenant issues, subsidized housing, foreclosures, and housing discrimination.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, RLS represented 19 Fredericksburg households which included 39 persons in housing related legal matters. Services provided ranged from counsel and advice to full representation in court and administrative hearings for foreclosures, evictions, and utility shut-offs. Monetary benefits awarded to clients during Fiscal Year 2011-2012 totaled $39,594.80. Claims avoided amounted to $24,842.90. Total benefits awarded and claims avoided amounted to $64,437.70.
Rappahannock Legal Services inventoried its case load from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012, and determined that no fair housing discrimination cases were identified. Over the last five years, RLS has not found many discrimination cases in general, and in the City of Fredericksburg, there simply have been no cases presenting themselves to the agency through its normal intake process that involve a discrimination issue. This is likely because discrimination is not as blatant as it had been in previous years or that the discrimination is also tied to a legitimate housing violation by the tenant.
Other legal services in the State of Virginia include the Virginia Poverty Law Center, Legal Services Corporations of Virginia, Legal Services of Northern Virginia, and Virginia Legal Aid.
Fair housing complaints filed with HUD were obtained from HUD’s Philadelphia Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). The number of housing discrimination complaints filed from January 1, 2007 - January 1, 2012 in the City of Fredericksburg is shown the following figures. 53
Exhibit IV-1 Number of Complaints Filed with HUD, City of Fredericksburg, 2007 to January 1, 2012
Year filed Number of complaints
2007 2
2008 0
2009 3
2010 1
2011 2
Total 8 Source: HUD’s Philadelphia Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Exhibit IV-2 shows the basis of the discrimination that was alleged in the complaints. For the City of Fredericksburg, race was the primary cause for complaints. Familial status and disability were the next most common reasons for complaints. HUD provides data on complaints made at the national level, which can be accessed by searching Enforcement Activity on (HUD.GOV). These data are compiled by the basis of the complaint, as well as the year in which the complaint was made. Nationally, the largest majority of complaints are made on the basis of disability and race.
54
Exhibit IV-2 Basis of Complaints Filed to HUD, City of Fredericksburg, 2007 to January 1, 2012 Date filed On the basis of
01/08/07 Disability
01/31/07 Disability
08/12/09 Race
09/11/09 Familial Status
12/14/09 Race
06/08/10 Race
06/16/11 Race
09/29/11 Familial Status Source: HUD’s Philadelphia Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Exhibit IV-3 shows how the HUD complaints were closed. Four of the eight HUD complaints closed showed “no cause,” another two conciliated or settled, one with cause (FHAP), and one with administrative closure. It should be noted that “no cause determination” does not necessarily mean that fair housing problems did not exist in the case; rather, it indicates that the case did not contain enough evidence to move forward.
Exhibit IV-3 How HUD Complaints were Closed, City of Fredericksburg, 2007 to January 1, 2012
How closed Number of complaints closed by HUD
No cause 4
Conciliated/settled 2
Cause (FHAP) 1
Administrative closure 1
Total 8 Source: HUD’s Richmond Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
55
Exhibit IV-4 shows how the complaints filed to HUD were closed by the basis of the discrimination and then provides the issues related to the complaint.
Exhibit IV-4 How Complaints were Closed by Basis and Issues of Complaint, City of Fredericksburg, 2007 to January 1, 2012
Conciliated/Settled Disability Failure to make reasonable accommodation Failure to make reasonable accommodation
No Cause Race Discriminatory refusal to sell Discrimination in the making of loans Discriminatory refusal to rent Discrimination in terms/conditions/privileges to rental Familial status Discrimination in the services and facilities relating to rental
Cause (FHAP) Familial status Discriminatory refusal to rent Discriminatory advertisement – rental
Administrative Closure Race Discriminatory refusal to rent
Note: More than one reason can be filed with a complaint.
Legal Analysis
As part of the fair housing analysis, recent legal cases were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and trends in Virginia. Consultation with Rappahannock Legal Services and a search of the Department of Justice website, the National Fair Housing Advocate case database, and the Virginia Attorney General’s Office yielded no cases filed in Fredericksburg from 2007 to January 1, 2012. 56
Section V. Public Sector Review
This section examines a review of the public sector policies and practices regarding fair housing and barriers to affordable housing development in Fredericksburg. It contains the results of interviews conducted with stakeholders and a review of zoning and land use codes and City policies associated with fair housing and housing development. It also contains a review of the policies and procedures of the Central Virginia Housing Coalition and interviews with its members.
Public Housing Authority Policies
There is no local public housing authority in Fredericksburg.
The Virginia Housing Development Authority (VDHA) administers vouchers in areas of Virginia that do not have a local housing authority or housing agency. VHDA subcontracts with 42 local agencies (administrative agents or agencies), which run the day-to-day operations under the authority’s direction. The Central Virginia Housing Coalition administers the vouchers for the City of Fredericksburg and its surrounding jurisdictions.
The Central Virginia Housing Coalition is a 501(3) non-profit, charitable organization established in 1988 that addresses housing issues in Planning District 16, which encompasses the City of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania, Stafford, King George, and Caroline Counties. CVHC serves individuals and families of low- to moderate-income, and one third of the CVHC Board of Directors live in low-income areas or qualify as low- to moderate-income wage earners.
CVHC offers educational activities, homeownership programs, and rental programs. The educational activities include Housing/Rental Counseling; VHDA Homeownership Education; Go For Home!, which are workshops that help prepare families for the responsibilities of homeownership; and Virginia Individual Development Accounts Program. CVHC’s homeownership programs include a low-interest home loan program through the VHDA, down payment assistance using Department of Housing and Community Development HOME funds, Neighborhood Stabilization Program in partnership with the City of Fredericksburg, and Sponsoring Partnerships and Revitalizing Communities program (SPARC). CVHC partners with local businesses to build and sell single-family homes to qualified applicants at below- market prices through the SPARC program; and the Indoor Plumbing & Rehabilitation programs allows families without indoor plumbing to access low cost repairs and/or installations. CVHC’s rental programs include: the Housing Choice Voucher Program; Lend-A-Hand (funded partially by the City of Fredericksburg), and emergency assistance for rent or mortgage payments. CVHC also 57
owns and manages Colonial Heights Apartments, a 14 unit complex in the City of Fredericksburg.
CVHC also provides the Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program. This program was developed with VHDA to convert rental voucher holders into homeowners for the counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Fauquier and the City of Fredericksburg. CVHC provides the same network/assistance of the voucher program for one half of the loan term and works to help owners achieve self sufficiency without the voucher during the last half of the loan term. CVHC continues to provide extensive counseling, education, credit, and homeownership responsibility workshops for these first-time homebuyers.
CVHC administers the Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8 vouchers, for the Planning District, which includes the City of Fredericksburg. In 2010, CVHC administered 1,047 rental assistance vouchers. Of those vouchers, 207 assisted families in Fredericksburg, with an additional 26 vouchers given to the Rappahannock Area Community Services Board to provide housing subsidies for their clients. There are no unused vouchers and a waiting list of 310 people. Currently, CVHC’s waiting list for rental vouchers is closed in Fredericksburg and in the counties of Caroline, King George, Stafford, Spotsylvania, and Fauquier.
Zoning and Land Use
The team reviewed the City of Fredericksburg’s codes, Comprehensive Plan, planning fees and other City programs and policies, to assess potential fair housing concerns or opportunities resulting from the development process. This review did not identify any fair housing problems.
The City Code of Ordinances governs the City of Fredericksburg. The City Council has full and complete powers to pass any ordinances not expressly prohibited by state law for planning, zoning, site plans, subdivisions, and preservation of historic and archeological resources. The City’s day-to-day operations are handled by the City Manager, who is appointed by the Council, and his staff.
There are several boards, commissions, and authorities to assist the Council with this job. The Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Building Code Appeals Board, and the Housing Advisory Committee are discussed further in this section.
City Council 2011-2012 goals and initiatives. The City Council routinely develops long term goals and initiatives. In the FY2011-2012 Goals and Initiatives, Goal 2 is titled, “Character of the City and Neighborhoods” and discusses developing a program to pursue an aggressive abatement of blighted properties. The Council appropriated $30,000 in FY2011 to survey and evaluate all vacant and abandoned buildings. 58
There was nothing in this document about the promotion of fair housing or the maintenance of affordable housing.
Consolidated Plan. The 2010 Consolidated Plan for the City of Fredericksburg displays how Fredericksburg intends to invest federal funds received from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The areas examined are: -Housing Needs -Homeless Needs -Analysis of the Existing Housing Market -A Five Year Strategic Plan -Community Development Priorities
Federal formula grants, such as CDBG, address three broad goals. These commitments include 1) decent housing, 2) a suitable living environment, and 3) expanded economic opportunities. Decent housing encompasses retention and provision of affordable housing as well as prevention of homelessness. A suitable living environment is defined as improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods and increasing their access to the community as a whole. Expanded economic opportunities include improvements to the economic viability of the locality and the creation and retention of jobs.
The eligibility threshold for such programs is defined by HUD as persons and families whose household income is 80 percent or less of the area median income. Using HUD criteria, the total number of Fredericksburg households that meet income eligibility requirements is 5,540, or 64.72 percent of the City’s households. This figure includes the following income categories:
• Extremely low-income – 30 percent of area median income or below – 2,130 households
• Low-income – between 30 and 50 percent of area median income – 1,755 households
• Moderate-income – between 50 and 80 percent of area median income – 1,655 households
The City of Fredericksburg is included in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area, which raises the median income benchmark allowing more City residents to qualify for HUD programs locally. Updated 2009 Census data indicates that there are 8,560 households in Fredericksburg.
Zoning, Planning and Development. The Code of Virginia provides enabling legislation to encourage local governments to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of its citizens, and to plan for the future development of communities. 59
The Planning and Community Development Department directs the overall and ongoing comprehensive land use planning and development process for the City. The Department provides direct staff support to a number of boards and commissions, including the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission. The Department processes all land use and development applications through the City’s Planning Commission. Applications requiring staff review and evaluation, and Planning Commission action include all rezoning requests, Special Use Permits, site plans, and subdivision plat and plans.
The Planning Commission consists of seven members who are appointed by the City Council. The Planning Commission is tasked with advising and assisting the City Council on all matters related to growth and development in the City. The Planning Commission meets twice each month to conduct a public hearing and to consider applications for Special Use Permits, Site Plans, Subdivisions, Rezoning, and Zoning Text Amendments. An important duty of the Commission is to formulate, approve and periodically update a long-term city plan to guide the development of the City. The Commission then recommends to the Council that the City adopt or amend the approved plan.
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) consists of five residents who are appointed to the Circuit Court of the City. The BZA holds public hearings and considers applications for variances.
The Housing Advisory Committee consists of three voting members appointed by the City Council. The City Community Development Planner is a fourth ex officio member and does not have the power to vote. The Committee’s purpose is to perform oversight for the housing rehabilitation loan program and other CDBG activities.
Comprehensive Plan. The Commonwealth of Virginia requires the local governing body to adopt a comprehensive land use plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s official guide for its future development. This Plan is general and long-range in nature, providing a view of the community’s past development as well as how it can develop over the next 15 to 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan ensures public decisions are made in accordance with adopted policies and objectives, and it serves as the City’s blueprint to create an increasingly better, more healthful, convenient, safe, and attractive community through intelligent foresight, administration, and coordination.
60
The 2007 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fredericksburg is framed around: ● Land Use Patterns ● Historic Preservation ● Downtown ● Transportation and Mobility ● Rappahannock River ● Neighborhoods ● Housing ● Environmental Protection/Sustainability ● Public Facilities and Services ● Institutional Partnerships ● Community Appearance ● Corridors ● Suburban Business Districts
The Comprehensive Plan has a number of components that encourage and support fair housing and affordable housing development, including the following:
● Mobility and Transportation. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the top priorities to improve the existing transit system include:
¾ Develop and implement a system for providing and maintaining crosswalks at every pedestrian path and street crossing, as well as at other strategic and appropriate midblock locations. ¾ Work with FRED to significantly expand local bus service by extending the service area.
● Neighborhoods. Policy statements:
¾ Preserve the character of the City’s existing neighborhoods. ¾ Enhance the quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods to promote livability and a strong sense of community. ¾ The residential areas of the City will comprise a collection of distinct and attractive neighborhoods, each possessing a unique sense of place and shared identity. ¾ The residential neighborhoods will be adequately served with efficient transportation, parking, sidewalks, pathways, street trees, lighting, and other public facilities that are compatible with their neighborhood scale.
● Housing. The City of Fredericksburg seeks to ensure that all persons who live and/or work within its boundaries have the opportunity to obtain safe, sound, and sanitary housing within the City’s neighborhoods and communities. Policy statements include:
¾ All persons who live and work in Fredericksburg should have the opportunity to rent or purchase safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing. 61
¾ Fredericksburg will provide a variety of housing opportunities throughout the City, both in terms of the housing type and the price of housing, that respect the existing character of the community. ¾ Homeownership in Fredericksburg should be encouraged and opportunities sought to increase homeownership. ¾ The City’s housing stock will be maintained, protected, and expanded to ensure an adequate supply of housing for future generations.
In 1989, the City of Fredericksburg adopted a policy on affordable housing, which has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. In the late 1980s, the City was experiencing an inadequate supply of moderately priced homes within the City. The City’s original Affordable Housing Goal stated, “To provide safe, decent housing opportunities within the means of all persons who live and/or work in the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia.”
Zoning. The City zoning ordinances are intended for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. The zoning ordinances apply to all land and structures in the incorporated territory of the City. The City is divided into classes of zoning districts and the zoning district boundaries are indicated on the “Official Zoning Map of Fredericksburg, Virginia,” which is adopted by the City Council.
Density and minimum site areas. An important component of zoning ordinance is the minimum site area requirement. Zoning ordinances should include zoning regulations and minimum site area requirements that are feasible for all types of developments. Overly large lot requirements may discourage or hinder affordable housing development.
According to the Fredericksburg zoning code, the City permits a density of new residential dwelling units of two to 30 dwelling units per acre. The zoning allows for a variety of single- family detached and attached units and multi-family units to be located in the City. The variety of dwelling types is appropriate for the urban environment. Exhibit V-1 summarizes the maximum number of dwelling units per acre, minimum square foot lot area requirements, and the minimum lot width for the various zoning districts in Fredericksburg.
62
Exhibit V-I Density and Area Requirements for Residential Development, City of Fredericksburg Maximum Density Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Zoning District (dwelling unit/acre) Area (square feet) Width (feet) Interior Site: 100 Single-Family, detached (R-1, R-2) 2 15,000 Corner Site: 125 Interior Site: 70 Single-Family, detached (R-4) 4 8,400 Corner Site: 95 Interior Site: 50 Single-Family, detached (R-8) 8 5,000 Corner Site: 70
Single-Family, attached (R-8) 8 1,600 18
Single-Family, detached & attached 12 1,600 18 (R-12)
Multi-Family (R-12) 12 None 18
Planned Development-Residential 6 See GDP or R-8 See GDP or R-8 (PD-R)
Single-Family, detached (PD-MU) 16 See GDP or R-8 See GDP or R-8
Single-Family, attached (PD-MU) 16 See GDP or R-8 See GDP or R-8
Multi-Family (PD-MU) 30 See GDP or R-12 See GDP or R-12
Single-Family, attached (C-D) 12 None None
Multi-Family (C-D) 12 None None
Mixed Use (C-D) 1/1,800 sq ft None None (commercial use on ground floor) No more than 24/acre
Single-Family (C-T) 8 20,000 100
Multi-Family (C-T) 8 20,000 100
Mixed Use (C-T) 12 20,000 100 (commercial use on ground floor) Source: Code of Ordinances, City of Fredericksburg, VA September 2012 GDP = Generalized Development Plan submitted with a rezoning request 63
The Zoning code also allows for a mixture of residential dwellings, commercial, office and services uses. The Planned Development-Residential (PD-R) and Planned Development Mixed- Use (PD-MU) districts were established to encourage innovative and creative design, to facilitate use of the most advantageous construction techniques, and to protect watercourses, stream valleys, forest cover in watersheds, and areas with scenic vistas. The districts were designed to permit a great degree of flexibility in terms of layout, design and construction of planned development.
Infill development. The City’s older neighborhoods are a critical component of the City’s identity and affordable housing stock. The trend in average house size growth from 1950 to 2000 is significant. The average house size in 1950 was 983 square feet. By the year 2000, the average house size increased to 2,265 square feet. During the process to update the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, character and construction/expansion of single family detached dwellings in a manner deemed to be out-of-scale with the surrounding neighborhood, was a well discussed topic. The discussion included infill construction on vacant lots, razing houses to building larger houses in their place, and large additions to existing houses.
To address this issue, the City of Fredericksburg responded by ensuring that teardowns are replaced with houses that are compatible with the neighborhood while accommodating modernization and additions to houses by addressing negative impacts or incompatibilities. Specifically, the City took action in 2011 to adjust setback regulations and lower building heights in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts, while easing the zoning process for building approvals by expanding the provisions for averaging of setbacks of existing structures to determine the setbacks for new infill development. For sites of record on or before April 25, 1984, or sites in developed areas where yard geometry has already been established by existing structures and development patterns, the average of the existing front and side yard setbacks of the residential dwellings is calculated using the average front and side yard setbacks of the existing residential dwellings located on similar size lots, along the block face and facing block face of the lot in question. In many cases, these averaged setbacks are less than the bulk regulations in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts, and allow for compatible construction without additional costs and concerns of the variance process to allow such deviation.
Cluster residential development. The City’s zoning ordinance allows for cluster residential subdivision, which is based on the concept of reducing low size requirements for the provision of common open space within a development. The clustering of development will also reduce the length of needed roads, sidewalks, sewer line and drain systems, and may include the coordination of yard dimensions, location of lots of various sizes, location of buildings with respect to project boundary lines, open spaces, and maintenance of vegetation.
64
Occupancy definitions. HUD regulations state the occupancy standard to be two persons per bedroom plus one additional person per unit. The City of Fredericksburg places restrictions on the number of occupants in a unit and their relationship to one another.
As defined in the Zoning Code, a single-family dwelling unit is not to be occupied by more than one family. The State Code states that any residential facility, in which no more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded, or developmentally disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, is considered a single-family dwelling. For the purposes of this definition, the term “mental illness and developmental disability” shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in Code of Virginia. The term “residential facility” is deemed to be any group home or other residential facility for which the state department of mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services is the licensing authority pursuant to the Code of Virginia. The city of Fredericksburg adheres to this exception specified by the State Code.
The zoning office uses the zoning ordinance definition of a family to determine occupancy of a dwelling unit. According to the City Code, a family means “one person or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, with no more than two boarders, or a group of not more than three unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit.”
The City defines residential occupancy to protect the health and safety of its citizens. As the population of the City grows, the demand for housing increases and many people search for affordable housing options. During the past several years, the City has received an increasing number of complaints from its citizens regarding overcrowding in single-family dwellings. In its worst state, overcrowding results in a threat to public safety and the welfare of the occupants of the homes, as well as the neighborhood.
According to the City, health studies indicate that:
• Overcrowding increases a negative effect on children by restricting exercise and play areas. • Overcrowding increases a negative psychological effect on the occupants by reducing privacy. • Overcrowding increases physical and mental fatigue when performing routine household tasks. • Overcrowding increases the risk of spreading infection and disease between occupants.
65
Special use permit. The zoning code includes provisions to allow group residential facilities (no more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded, or developmentally disabled persons, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons) to be located within any residential district. A Special Use Permit, however, is needed to allow homes for adults (with four or fewer persons), housing for elderly, institutional housing, nursing homes, boarding houses, rooming houses to be located within certain residential districts.
If a residential facility does not meet the single-family dwelling definition, and if reasonable accommodation is needed in order for them to meet the district requirements, the applicant may apply for a Special Exception or Special Use Permit through the Planning Department.
According to the Code, the term Special Use Permit means a use which, by its nature, could have an undue impact upon, or is incompatible with, other uses of land within a given zoning district. Upon approval of a Special Use Permit the special use may be allowed to locate within a given designated district under the standards, controls, limitations, performance criteria, restrictions and other regulations of the Special Use Permit.
A Special Use Permit application went to the Planning Commission on August 1, 2009 for a four unit transitional home for homeless women and their children (an extension for the Special Use Permit was submitted and approved in 2011.) The Planning Commission voted at their meeting on September 9, 2009, to recommend approval of the application to City Council. City Council held a public hearing on the application at their first meeting and voted final approval on October 13, 2009. According to the City, these steps are standard for any Special Use Permit application, and the process went very smoothly.
Planning and Development Fees. The City Manager has authority to establish fees for permits, inspections, and certificates required by the Uniform Statewide Building and Fire Code, subject to the approval of the City Council. The City has also established a set of fees associated with processing and hearing administrative appeals, petitions for rezoning, special uses, variances, subdivisions, reviewing permit applications and issuing permits for planning and development. The City’s planning fees are fairly standard and do not raise any significant concerns.
There are a number of methods by which cities may provide affordable housing incentives. One method is by affecting government fees. According to the City, the average amount for a new construction permit would cost from $1,000 to $1,500. Approximately 2,700 residential building permits were issued during FY2010-2011, 119 of which were for new construction.
Buildings and Building Regulations. The City’s office of Building and Development Services enforce the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. It performs building and site plan reviews, issues permits, and handles construction inspections for all regulated construction activities in the City. The responsibility of the Department is to promote the health, 66
safety, and general welfare of the public and to insure safety of life and property from all hazards incident to building design, construction, maintenance, use, repair, removal, or demolition.
According to Building and Development Services, the construction of buildings according to current accessibility standards is not an issue in Fredericksburg, because everyone is informed and understands the requirements. However, accessibility is more of a challenge in older buildings, built before current accessibility laws were enforced.
The City also requires the owner or managing agent of vacant buildings to register with the City. Each year the owner or managing agent must register with the property maintenance official the buildings they own or manage which have been vacant for a continuous period of 12 months or more. A building is vacant if it is not occupied in a manner consistent with the purpose for which it was built or typically occupied. For example, a single-family residence used for storage is considered vacant.
Code Enforcement. The Building Maintenance Official enforces the Maintenance of Existing Structures section of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The Board of Building Code Appeals considers all appeals concerning Building Code enforcement.
The Building Code Appeals Board consists of five members, of various professions and knowledge and is appointed by the City Council. The board adopts and makes available to the public through its secretary, the procedures under which hearings and appeals are heard.
Typical code issues concern the maintenance of properties. Older properties tend to have structural and foundation problems, while the new construction violations are usually cosmetic issues.
Rental Housing Inspections. The City implemented a Residential Rental Housing Inspection Program in January 2007. Approximately 62 percent of occupied housing units in Fredericksburg are renter-occupied, which is the highest rate of renter-occupied units compared to surrounding communities.
The City Council began the Residential Rental Housing Inspection Program, to protect the life, safety and health of residential rental housing tenants, and to preserve neighborhoods in which residential rental housing is located. It was determined that rental housing units when not subject to periodic inspections to ensure compliance with applicable building maintenance regulations, may become unsafe, a public nuisance, and unfit for human habitation. The decline in the condition of residential rental housing can lead to a decline in neighborhood quality of life, neighborhood appearance, and the value of real estate.
67
According to the Virginia Code, a rental inspection program cannot be implemented citywide. Therefore, a rental inspection district is declared according to certain findings (concerning the health and safety of the occupants and the condition of the unit) by the City Council. Until the program was left unstaffed by City Council on July 1, 2010 due to budgetary constraints, the City mailed letters to the owners of the properties informing them of the program and asking them to register with the City. The initial inspection fee was $50. If the unit had no violations, a certificate of compliance was issued and the unit will not have to be inspected for 4 years, unless a complaint is filed by a tenant.
The building maintenance official could conduct follow-up inspections of a rental unit, after the initial or periodic inspection, until the rental unit was brought into compliance with the provisions of the building code that affect the safe, decent and sanitary living conditions for the tenants. The owner was charged an additional $100 for each additional inspection until the unit passes.
The building maintenance official can issue a certificate of compliance to any residential rental dwelling unit that passes inspection upon a follow-up inspection. The building maintenance official periodically re-inspects each such residential rental dwelling unit with a certificate of compliance on a two-year inspection cycle.
Inspections of rental housing units are still conducted City-wide on a complaint basis. City Council is considering whether or not to reinstate the program in the future.
Affordable Housing Policy. In 1989, the City of Fredericksburg adopted a city policy on affordable housing, which has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, previously discussed. The City’s original Affordable Housing Goal stated, “To provide safe, decent housing opportunities within the means of all persons who live and/or work in the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia.”
The 2007 Comprehensive Plan Policy Framework states the following objective and policies to address affordable housing:
Housing. The City of Fredericksburg seeks to ensure that all persons who live and/or work within its boundaries have the opportunity to obtain safe, sound, and sanitary housing within the City’s neighborhoods and communities. Policy statements include:
• Maintain the supply of affordable housing through rehabilitation of existing owner- occupied housing, and improve the physical quality of housing and neighborhoods through appropriate community development programs. 68
• Develop strategies that increase homeownership opportunities while also ensuring the City achieves an appropriate balance of housing choices. • Continue to work with non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing opportunities. • Reduce the economic barriers to affordable housing through community development programs. • Provide for the accessibility of housing for persons who are physically disabled. • Address the unmet supportive housing needs of persons with disabilities.
In 2006, the Economic Development Authority released JumpStart! Fredericksburg 2010 to identify realistic development recommendations for multiple commercial corridors, based on a combination of market analysis, economic feasibility, community input, and area design themes. One of the major themes of the report was housing affordability. Within the content of escalating housing costs, multifamily residential components were included in many of the corridor concepts. The report recommends that the City consider strategies to preserve units that are affordable. The report states that the City currently has a stock of affordable housing units, and should take efforts to preserve this housing for the future.
The report suggests inclusionary zoning and incentive based programs often connected with other affordable housing set-aside programs, which may include incentives, density bonuses, relaxed height restrictions, reduced parking requirements, expedited permitting, local infrastructure upgrades, and the provision of public amenities. Other programs are home purchase assistance programs and affordable housing financing tools.
Other Public Sector Programs and Services
Community Development Block Grant Program. The City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides funding for housing rehabilitation assistance, the removal of architectural barriers for persons with disabilities, and direct homeownership assistance. The following activities are related to their CDBG goals.
Removing obstacles to meeting underserved needs. In order to ensure needs are being effectively met, the City ensures dwellings are safe and sanitary, through emergency roof, plumbing, and electrical repairs. The City also provides direct homeownership assistance to facilitate the affordability of homes for low- and moderate-income residents through its CDBG program and staff will continue to work with the Fredericksburg Regional Continuum of Care to meet the needs of the homeless population.
Fostering and Maintaining Affordable Housing. The City of Fredericksburg maintains the majority of the region’s subsidized and assisted housing, as well as the majority of the area’s 69
available rental housing. The City seeks to maintain this existing level of housing while concurrently working to conserve its other residential neighborhoods. The City’s home rehabilitation assistance and direct homeownership assistance programs contribute to Fredericksburg’s affordable housing and neighborhood conservation policies. The City also offers a variety of housing options including detached homes, townhomes and a variety of apartments. The City maintains a limited rental inspection program (complaint driven) to assist with the community development goals of maintaining the existing housing stock in a safe and sanitary condition.
Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. To address this need, the City has modified zoning requirements for off-street parking for residential infill projects and altered setback requirements in the R-4 and R-8 residential zoning districts to promote new infill development. The City also funds programs that provide housing rehabilitation assistance, architectural barrier removal, and homeownership assistance.
Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan. The City of Fredericksburg adopted an anti-displacement and relocation plan in April 1996. It makes public the City’s intent to: provide for housing replacement, provide for relocation assistance, and minimize displacement of all occupied and vacant habitable low/moderate-income housing units that are demolished or converted to other uses if an activity is assisted with CDBG funds.
The City does not normally and is not inclined to engage in projects that would require the implementation of the displacement and relocation plan. Instead, the City focuses on home rehabilitation and homeowner assistance projects to encourage residents to remain in their homes and promote new homeownership opportunities.
Public Transportation. Public transportation is an important part of a community to provide transportation for persons who cannot or choose not to drive. FREDericksburg Regional Transit (FRED) is the public transportation system that provides services to the citizens and visitors of the Fredericksburg Region. FRED provides bicycle racks and accessible transportation to everyone by providing a deviated fixed-route bus service.
All vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Drivers will assist persons on and off the bus when needed and make bus stop announcements regularly. Drivers are trained in passenger assistance, defensive driving, CPR, and procedures to secure wheelchairs. One personal care attendant may ride free. If a person requires a pick-up or drop-off that is off the fixed route, the person may notify FRED twenty-four hours in advance, and a route deviation can accommodate this need within a ¾ mile-off-route limit.
70
According to the Community Workshops held during the development of the update to the Comprehensive Plan, several participants mentioned the need to develop a first-rate transit system to improve public safety, air quality and pedestrian uses and to be a viable alternative to the automobile. The FRED transit system and the rail transportation were mentioned to be strengths of the community.
The Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) provides long range transportation planning for City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania and Stafford. FAMPO works with local officials, public transportation providers, the Virginia Department of Transportation and other state agencies to ensure that local and regional transportation priorities are coordinated with land use and other Comprehensive Plans.
71
Section VI. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommendations
This section outlines the impediments to fair housing choice identified through the research for this AI and contains a recommended Fair Housing Action Plan (FHAP) for the City of Fredericksburg.
Summary of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Sections II through V present the research conducted as part of Fredericksburg’s AI, as well as related findings. This research identified the following impediments to fair housing choice in the City of Fredericksburg:
Residents experiencing discrimination in housing “do nothing.” Eleven percent of respondents to the telephone survey said they have experienced housing discrimination at some point, even if the discrimination did not occur in Fredericksburg. This research suggests that about 2,709 people in the City of Fredericksburg have experienced discrimination, although discrimination based on income or inability to pay rent is not protected under the Fair Housing Act. Of the people who claimed to have experienced discrimination, 14.3 percent said it was because of class.
Survey results also reported that Fredericksburg residents are not well informed about how to report discrimination or inquire about fair housing concerns. When asked “whom would you contact about housing discrimination in Fredericksburg”, 29 percent said they did not know.
Finally, when Fredericksburg residents experience discrimination, few take action to report it. Of the Fredericksburg residents surveyed who thought they had experienced discrimination, the majority “did nothing about it” (61 percent). When asked where they would obtain information about their fair housing rights, 17 percent said they did not know.
Key persons interviewed for the study did not express much concern about housing discrimination, although stakeholders believe that violations probably do occur. It is important that education, outreach, and systems to file complaints are in place to help citizens identify and make complaints about fair housing violations.
Lack of affordable housing development. Several key persons identified the lack of affordable housing in Fredericksburg as the biggest problem in the community. Restrictive zoning ordinances do not provide incentives for builders to provide affordable housing. While residents would like to stay/live in Fredericksburg, added construction costs potentially raise the cost of housing and forces many residents to move out of the City, to be able to afford to buy or rent a dwelling.
72
Affordable housing. There are 2,130 households that are categorized as extremely low income. The Housing Choice Voucher program has a waiting list of 310 vouchers and is closed to Fredericksburg residents. This slow turnover rate for the vouchers, along with a lack of subsidized housing, creates limitations to access to affordable housing. Key persons also identified gentrification as a problem, which is a result of increased property values. Citizens on fixed income, especially senior citizens and persons with disabilities cannot afford rising housing costs.
Persons with disabilities face barriers to housing choice. Although the team did not conduct testing or other quantitative assessments of the fair housing barriers in Fredericksburg faced by persons with disabilities, evidence from interviews suggests that barriers do exist. Respondents suggested that many disabled persons live on a fixed income, and when their rents increase, they have a difficult time affording their rents. Organizations that assist persons with disabilities reported that there is a lack of accessible housing in the area and that the rents for accessible units are not affordable to many in the disabled community.
One telephone interview respondent suggested concern over her child’s ability to access living arrangements once she passes.
Respondents also suggested that improved accessibility, including more ramps, fewer stairs, and more accessible bathrooms are needed throughout the community, which would also increase awareness of the needs (both housing needs and supportive service needs) of the disabled population.
NIMBYism. Several key person interviews identified neighborhood resistance and an attitude of Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) as impediments to the provision and development of affordable housing and the placement of supportive services in Fredericksburg and the surrounding area.
Recommended Fair Housing Action Plan
Based on the research for this AI, in conjunction with a review of the previous Fair Housing Action Plan, the team recommends that the City of Fredericksburg consider the FHAP and activities for reducing fair housing impediments.
Action Item 1. Raise the visibility of fair housing statutes and the complaint process. As mentioned previously, when asked what they did when discriminated against, most survey respondents said they “did nothing” about the discrimination. Sixty-one percent did not take action to obtain information or to report their situation. When asked, “Whom would you contact if you experienced housing discrimination in Fredericksburg?,” 29 percent did not know.
73
A review of the City of Fredericksburg’s website found information that was recommended by the 2007 AI. A description of the CDBG programs, a definition of fair housing, and instructions for filing a Fair Housing complaint are already included in the Planning and Community Development section of www.fredericksburgva.gov’s website.
The City of Fredericksburg should also create a plan to raise its fair housing visibility through additional public outreach. The City and its local fair housing agency (currently the Central Virginia Housing Coalition) should conduct presentations and distribute information about fair housing through public forums and services.
One option would be to develop a small brochure to be placed near public use computers in libraries, computer rooms in housing developments, in places where publicly available activities occur, and in churches.
Action Item 2. Consider incentives and alternative funding sources to encourage and increase affordable housing development. Development and support of affordable housing require concerted efforts by multiple parties including government agencies, housing organizations, nonprofits, advocates, and real estate professionals. These entities should continually coordinate affordable housing efforts, perhaps guided by the strategies developed in the City’s Affordable Housing Policy and the housing policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City should update its Affordable Housing Policy, during the update of its Comprehensive Plan. An examination of the proportion of units in the City that are affordable to lower income residents will assist in setting actual and attainable goals for affordable housing. The City should also examine how it can more effectively facilitate affordable housing development through development fees and approvals. It should consider a local ordinance to encourage or mandate affordable housing in new development, as well as exploring the feasibility of a trust fund to assist with affordable housing acquisition and development.
Action Item 3. Increase landlord and resident awareness and knowledge of fair housing. In coordination with the Landlord Licensing process, distribute fair housing literature that landlords must acknowledge with the issuance of the annual license.
Conduct public service campaigns to inform citizens about fair housing issues. Work with affordable housing providers to reach renters most likely to be affected by fair housing issues.
Maintain a person at the City who is the central point of contact on fair housing issues for residents and landlords as well as for other City departments. This person would receive training on fair housing issues, communicate with state and local fair housing groups and HUD, and refer residents wishing to file complaints with follow-up as necessary. 74
Action Item 4. Work to assist residents with special needs to have full access to housing and needed services. Continue to dedicate funding to improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities. Specifically, funding should go to remove architectural barriers for persons with disabilities and to rehabilitate housing for accessibility.
Conduct fair housing training sessions with landlords and property managers, particularly those who serve the city’s lowest-income and special-needs populations. We recommend that the City bring in an outside party, perceived as neutral, to conduct these sessions. A key element of the training would be to present case studies on tricky landlord/tenant situations and to resolve the situations. Participants would be able to offer their own situations for group discussion and to explore solutions.
Continue to be part of efforts to improve public transportation (FREDericksburg Regional Transit) in an effort to strengthen the employment/transportation/housing link in Fredericksburg and surrounding areas.
Action Item 5. Ensure an orderly transfer of property assets to facilitate home improvement loans. Education about the legal aspects of property transfer between generations will help families to be able to obtain home improvement loans. Property owners who die intestate (without a will) and who have multiple heirs leave a legal tangle that can make it difficult for heirs to obtain property improvement loans. The City should work with the appropriate organization (e.g., legal services) to initiate education and assistance to ensure an orderly transfer of assets, which will mitigate some difficulties in obtaining credit.
Action Item 6. Work to reduce NIMBYism. Reduce negative impressions of affordable housing by supporting good property management and reducing violations through aggressive code enforcement, and through a more robust rental inspection program. Reinstate the systematic rental inspection program as it existed prior to July 1, 2010. Solid maintenance of affordable properties can go a long way toward reducing the stigma of affordable housing.
When applications for new affordable housing are submitted for public review, the City should take initiative on public relations efforts and resident education in support of addressing the need for affordable housing. This could include working with nonprofit developers to create a strategy of ongoing education for City residents and public officials around affordable housing and to facilitate tours of model developments, as appropriate. 75
Maintenance of Records
Per Section 2.14 in HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, the City of Fredericksburg will maintain the following data and information as documentation of the county’s Fair Housing Plan:
A copy of the AI and any updates.
A list of actions taken each year as part of the Fair Housing Plan to eliminate the impediments identified in the AI.
At the end of each program year as part of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, Fredericksburg will include information about the actions taken to fulfill the Fair Housing Plan and an analysis of their impact.
Structure for Oversight Responsibilities, Monitoring & Evaluation
The completion of this AI was overseen by the City of Fredericksburg Planning and Community Development Department.
The Planning and Community Development Department will oversee the implementation of the Fair Housing Action Plan. The City will continue to support Rappahannock Legal Services to update the “Guide to Virginia Landlord-Tenant Law and Local Rental Housing in Planning District 16” and an additional $10,400 to prevent homelessness and to assist in obtaining affordable housing for 140 families. The removal of architectural barriers for persons with disabilities will receive $8,400 to maximize independence and self-sufficiency of disabled residents; approximately $61,436 will go toward housing rehabilitation assistance to maintain existing affordable dwellings; and $21,700 will be used for direct homeownership assistance to promote affordability of housing units.
The Department will be responsible for putting fair housing information on the City’s website and implementing an affordable housing plan. The Department will also oversee the City’s efforts to better understand consumer credit issues and the need for accessible housing.
The Planning and Community Development Department will be ultimately responsible for carrying out the Fair Housing Action Plan. To ensure that the Plan is carried out, the Department will conduct an evaluation of each activity during each program year, identify additional areas that require study or analysis, and determine how to address those additional areas. As part of its monitoring efforts, The Department will also continue to obtain quarterly progress reports from the Rappahannock Legal Services.
ITEM #8C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Wendy L. Kimball, Assistant Director of Public Transit DATE: November 27, 2012 RE: Amending the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget by Appropriating a Total of $1,740,600 in the Transit Fund for IT Projects and Replacement Buses
ISSUE
The City of Fredericksburg, via FREDericksburg Regional Transit (FRED), obtained grants to fund various IT projects and purchase replacement buses. It is necessary to carry over FY 2012 funding to continue these projects and purchases.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, on first read, appropriating funds in the amount of $1,740,600 to the FY 2013 Transit Fund Budget. The required public hearing for amending the FY2013 budget is scheduled to coincide with the first reading of this resolution.
BACKGROUND
FRED IT Project- Carry over Funding
FRED Transit has been awarded a grant from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation in the amount of $350,600 to implement a number of IT-related projects. This grant will be used to assist in the redesign of FRED’s website, convert its route maps and information from their current forms to Google Transit formats, develop specifications, procure and implement a real-time AVL/GPS-driven schedule information system. This grant represents carryover activity from FY 2012.
The local match for this grant is $17,530 to be divided amongst FRED’s jurisdictional partners. The City’s share is $6,398 which is funding that was allocated in FY2012 and is now being appropriated out of fund balance; no additional new funding is required.
Memorandum: Resolution Amending FY13 Budget November 27, 2012 Page 2 of 2
FRED Replacement Buses-Carry over Funding
FRED has ordered 11 replacement buses that mark a step up from its current fleet of light duty vehicles and, while more expensive than the vehicles they will replace, should deliver significantly more years and miles of service. Five of these vehicles are being 100% paid for with Federal funds, therefore, there is no local match required. The remaining five vehicles are being covered by 96% Federal and State funds with a local match of $30,000 to be split with our jurisdictional partners.
The City’s share is $10,950 which is funding that was allocated in FY2012 and is now being appropriated out of fund balance; no additional new funding is required. As part of the grant program the local funding is obligated to operate and maintain them in transit service for their useful lives of 10 years or 350,000 miles.
FISCAL IMPACT
The attached resolution appropriates a total of $1,740,600 in the FY 2013 Transit Fund, of which the City’s share is $17,348. This amount will be appropriated out of fund balance.
Attachment: Appropriation Resolution MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-97
RE: AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING A TOTAL OF $1,740,600 IN THE TRANSIT FUND FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS AND REPLACEMENT BUSES
ACTION:
FIRST READ: November 27, 2012 SECOND READ:
WHEREAS, the FREDericksburg Regional Transit is in the process of replacing buses and installing a new information technology system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30; and WHEREAS, this project is ongoing and was not completed as of June 30; and
WHEREAS, the Transit Fund has fund balance amounts or expected revenues to continue this work; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appropriations be made and recorded in the Transit Operating Fund:
TRANSIT FUND Source: Fund Balance 3-309-061010-0010 Fund Balance $ 17,530 Department Total: $ 17,530
Categorical Aid 3-503-024040-0063 Transit Grant- Capital $ 333,070 Department Total: $ 333,070
Total Source: $ 350,600
December 11, 2012 Resolution No. 12-97 Page 2
Use: Information Technology Projects City of Fredericksburg 4-503-081800-8207 ADP Equipment - Additions $ 18,469 4-503-081800-8212 ADP Equipment – Software Additions $ 109,500 Department Total: $ 127,969
Spotsylvania County 4-503-081801-8207 ADP Equipment - Additions $ 12,397 4-503-081801-8212 ADP Equipment – Software Additions $ 73,500 Department Total: $ 85,897
University of Mary Washington 4-503-081808-8207 ADP Equipment - Additions $ 2,226 4-503-081808-8212 ADP Equipment – Software Additions $ 13,200 Department Total: $ 15,426
Caroline County 4-503-081810-8207 ADP Equipment - Additions $ 3,795 4-503-081810-8212 ADP Equipment – Software Additions $ 22,500 Department Total: $ 26,295
Stafford County 4-503-081818-8207 ADP Equipment - Additions $ 13,713 4-503-081818-8212 ADP Equipment - Software Additions $ 81,300 Department Total: $ 95,013
Total Use: $ 350,600
TRANSIT FUND Source: Fund Balance 3-309-061010-0010 Fund Balance $ 30,000 Department Total: $ 30,000
Categorical Aid 3-503-024040-0063 Transit Grant- Capital $ 248,000 Department Total: $ 248,000
Revenue from the Federal Government 3-503-024040-0063 Transit Grant- Capital $ 1,112,000 Department Total: $ 1,112,000 December 11, 2012 Resolution No. 12-97 Page 3
Total Source: $ 1,390,000 Use: Replacement Buses City of Fredericksburg 4-503-081800-8105 Motor Vehicle & Equipment Replacement $ 507,350 Department Total: $ 507,350
Spotsylvania County 4-503-081801-8105 Motor Vehicle & Equipment Replacement $ 340,550 Department Total: $ 340,550
University of Mary Washington 4-503-081808-8105 Motor Vehicle & Equipment Replacement $ 61,160 Department Total: $ 61,160
Caroline County 4-503-081810-8105 Motor Vehicle & Equipment Replacement $ 104,250 Department Total: $ 104,250
Stafford County 4-503-081818-8105 Motor Vehicle & Equipment Replacement $ 376,690 Department Total: $ 376,690
Total Use: $ 1,390,000
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
*************** Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12-97 duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
ITEM #8D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Doug Fawcett, Director of Public Works DATE: December 4, 2012 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Recently Completed Streets into the City Street System
ISSUE Acceptance of recently completed streets in Idlewild Phase II into the City street system and requesting that VDOT accept these streets into the State's Urban Street System.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting recently completed streets in Idlewild Phase II into the City street system and requesting that VDOT accept these streets into the State's Urban Street System. The total length of the streets recommended for acceptance is 5.74 lane miles.
DISCUSSION Periodically, the City accepts into its street system, for purposes of ownership, maintenance and repair, streets that have been built by developers and that have been determined by City staff to meet applicable standards. The City concurrently petitions the Virginia Department of Transportation to accept these streets into the State Urban Street System. The City then begins receiving annual street maintenance payments (on a per lane mile basis) for the newly accepted streets.
The streets proposed for addition to the City street system are listed in the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT Assuming the streets listed in the resolution are added to the State Urban Street System, the City will receive state funds of approximately $ 61,194 in FY14 for maintenance of these streets and a comparable amount annually thereafter.
Attachments: Resolution Map VDOT Form U-1
MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-
RE: ACCEPTING STREETS WITHIN IDLEWILD PHASE II INTO THE CITY STREET SYSTEM AND PETITIONING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ACCEPT THE STREETS INTO THE STATE STREET SYSTEM
ACTION:
WHEREAS, certain streets located within the City of Fredericksburg have been designed and constructed to City of Fredericksburg specifications and standards; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg desires to add these streets to the City’s street system and to petition the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets to the State Urban Street System.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia hereby accepts the streets listed in the attached VDOT Form U-1, consisting of 5.74 lane miles in Idlewild Phase II, into the City street system, as provided by Section 66-41 of the City Code, and petitions VDOT to accept the streets into the State Urban Street System.
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
************
Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012, at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
IdlewildSketch-to accompanyU-1.dgn8/3/2012 10:45:15AM
W ILC O X A V E N U E 5 0 ' R O W
GAYLE TERRACE50'ROW
EXISTING ROW IDLEWILD BOULEVARD 0.06 mile 0 1 0 m Avenue Begin Wilcox . ile H O K E LA N E - 5 0 ' R O W ALLEY 3
S
A
N ALLEY 2
5
0 D
'
S ALLEY 2 ALLEY 1 R
C
O
I
W
R
C
L
E
ID LE W ILD B O U LE V A R D R O W T A P E R S 102' F R O M 1 0 2 ' T O 9 0 ' T H IS S E C T IO N 0 .3 0 m ile ID LE W ILD B O U LE V A R D 9 0 ' R O W
A
N
D
E
6
R
0
S
'
O
R
N
O
W S ALLEY 5 ALLEY 4
T
R
E
E
T END IDLEWILDBLVD
0 .1 3 m ile P A T R IC K S T R E E T 5 0 ' R O W ALLEY 13 ALLEY 8 WILLNOTBEMAINTAINED BYTHECITY. NOTE: ALLEYSARE NOTCITYSTREETSAND
ALLEY 6 ALLEY 7 GRAHAM DRIVE50'ROW
0 .1 0 m ile F A R R S H P LA C E 5 0 R O W
0.26 mile I ' SAUNDERS DRIVE60'ROW 0.34 mile 0.34 mile ALLEY 9 ALLEY 11
ALLEY 10 HEARTHSTONE DRIVE50'ROW 0.38 mile 0 .0 7 m ile P O S E Y LA N E 5 0 ' R O W ALLEY 13 ALLEY 16 ALLEY 14 ALLEY 15
0 .1 6 m ile E LLIS A V E N U E 5 0 ' R O W E n A d v W e n ilc ALLEY 17 ALLEY 19 u e o x ALLEY 18
H E A R T H S T O N E D R IV E 5 0 ' R O W ALLEY 20 ALLEY 22 ALLEY 21
0 .2 9 m ile W R IG H T C O U R T BOUNDARIES -TOPOGRAPHY -BASEMAPPINGGEODETIC CONTROL LAND SURVEYING--CONSULTING --PLANNINGSUBDIVISIONS PH (540)371-5171 (540)373-4150FAX FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA22401 CITY OFFREDERICKSBURG,VIRGINIA VILLAGE ofIDLEWILD-LANDBAY 2 PURINA TOWERSUITE 100 401 CHARLESSTREET HGP, INC. ROAD CENTERLINES SKETCH SHOWING C SCALE : DATE: N O R T H 12/06/10 1"= 120' Form U-1 URBAN DIVISION page of (Rev. 1-1-87) VDOT REQUEST FOR STREET ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS FOR MUNICIPAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS Section 33.1-4 1.1 Code of Virginia
MUNICIPALITY
TERMINI STREET NAME R/W PAVEMENT CENTER- NUMBER LANE FUNC. WIDTH WIDTH LINE OF MILES CLASS. ROUTE NUMBER (FEET) (FEET) MILES LANES (TPD USE ONLY) * FROM TO
*COUNCIL RESOLUTION & MAP ATTACHED
SIGNED SIGNED MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL DATE RESIDENT ENGINEER DATE
Submit to: CLASSIFIED BY Resident Engineer in Triplicate TPD ENGINEER DATE ITEM #8E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Dooley, City Attorney
FROM: Rob Eckstrom, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: December 3, 2012
RE: HIPAA hybrid entity status
ISSUE:
Shall the City declare itself to be a "hybrid entity" under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)?
RECOMMENDATION:
Yes. Doing so will facilitate compliance with HIPAA and limit the City's liability under the statute.
BACKGROUND:
HIPAA1, which became federal law in 1996, regulates security and privacy of health information. HIPAA applies only to health care providers. The City is subject to HIPAA because its ambulance service/EMS activities and its self-funded employee group health plan both fall under HIPAA's definition of health care.
When an organization has some healthcare components and some non-healthcare components, the entire organization is subject to HIPAA unless it declares itself to be a "hybrid entity." This merely means making the declaration and identifying which components are health care components.
After the declaration is made, only health care components are responsible for implementing HIPAA training and policies. If other departments, such as Fiscal Affairs, need to access protected health information in the course of providing support to a covered component, the covered component is responsible for providing HIPAA training to the employees that will be accessing the protected health information. If a third-party
1 Pub.L. 104–191 ITEM #8E
has access to the City's protected health information, it must agree in writing to comply with HIPAA.
Declaring hybrid status will not require staff to implement new policies or training. The Fire Department currently has HIPAA training and policies in place. It also has a training program for "support departments" that have access to protected information. The City employees responsible for administration of the employee health plan do not receive any protected health information in the course of administering the plan (this is handled by Anthem). All third parties with access to protected information has agreed in writing to comply with HIPAA.
Declaring hybrid status will bring the City into compliance with HIPAA, facilitate continued compliance, and eliminate the City's HIPAA liability for actions by departments that do not provide health care.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-
RE: DESIGNATING THE CITY AS A HYBRID ENTITY FOR PURPOSES OF HIPAA AND IDENTIFYING ITS HEALTH CARE COMPONENTS
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations relating to privacy and security, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and regulations promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HIPAA Regulations"); and
WHEREAS, the City is a "covered entity" as that term is defined under HIPAA, because the City offers a group health plan to its employees and due to its ambulance/EMS activities; and
WHEREAS, City Council has determined that the City may more effectively and efficiently administer its policies and procedures for HIPAA compliance by designating the City as a "hybrid entity" as that term is defined under HIPAA; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department/EMS has in place adequate training, policies, and procedures for HIPAA compliance; and
WHEREAS, the City has contracted with a third party to administer its group health plan, such that no City employee responsible for administration of the plan has contact with 'protected health information' as that term is defined under HIPAA; and
WHEREAS, all third parties contracting with the City and receiving, processing, or transmitting protected health information of the City have entered into a "Business Associate Agreement" as that term is defined under HIPAA, thereby agreeing to treat 'protected health information' of the City in compliance with HIPAA;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fredericksburg Council hereby designates the City as a "hybrid entity," pursuant to Section 164.105 of the HIPAA privacy regulations ("the Privacy Rule").
FURTHER RESOLVED, the following are hereby designated as the health care component of the City's hybrid entity: (i) the Fredericksburg Fire Department; and (ii) the City employee group health plan. The group health plan shall be defined for purposes of HIPAA as those City employees responsible for administration of the health plan, including the Assistant City Manager, Budget Manager, and Human Resources Department, only to the extent that their duties involve administration of the plan.
December 11, 2012 Resolution No. 12-__ Page 2
FURTHER RESOLVED, the following departments are designated as part of the health care component of the City's hybrid entity only to the extent that they receive protected health information from the Fredericksburg Fire Department or group health plan in the course of providing support services to the Fire Department or the group health plan: (i) the Department of Fiscal Affairs; (ii) the Information Systems Department; and (iii) the City Manager's Office.
FURTHER RESOLVED, departments providing support services to the health care component of the City's hybrid entity shall receive a level of HIPAA training commensurate with their level of access to protected health information.
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
*************** Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
Fredericksburg Arts Commission
October 4, 2012
Location: The Fredericksburg Area Museum and Cultural Center 1001 Princess Anne Street
Call to Order: 7:10 pm
Meeting was preceded by a reception for artists and coordinators of Via Colori.
In attendance: Seth Casana, Ellen Killough, Collette Caprara, Ryan Poe, George Solley, Kerry Devine, Michelle Crow-Dolby
Absent: Rochelle Grey, Julie Perry, Kimberly Kemp, Harvey Gold
Approval of minutes: Sept. 6, 2012 minutes were taken by Julie Perry but were not available at the time of this meeting.
Committee Reports:
Public Art: Ellen Killough Committee for the Crossing. Ellen will attend first meeting of the Committee for the Crossing (T. Moncure, J. Hennessey, H. Turner) to commemorate slaves' crossing the Rappahannock to freedom. Committee goals: to tell the story of the crossing, including public art. Economic Development Authority plan for public art will include: ideas, implementation, budget. Prospective projects: two sculptures, one on each side of the river. Lorton Sculpture/Bench. The commission is considering recommending acceptance of the gift of the sculpture for location at a site determined in cooperation with City Council. Commissioners will individually travel to see the sculpture, if they so desire.
Website: Seth Casana The most recent public posting on the Web site was about the completion of the mural at the foot of the Chatham Bridge. FredArts Facebook page features continuing updates and has 80 followers.
Grants: Seth Casana no report
Venues: George Solley no report
Events: Sue Henderson, Via Colori Coordinator Via Colori: Approximately 7,500 people visited the Via Colori site throughout the weekend. Suggestions: Need a Welcome Site at entrance so barricade does not dissuade visitors. Consider changing the location for the featured artist, which currently experiences much wind. Discussion: Miranda Reynolds will attend Via Colori in Houston Nov. 17/18. GS will contact her. More than 40 cities currently participate in Via Colori. Fredericksburg is the only one that has not made a profit and its event is now at a "do or die" point. Financial report will be available at the November commission meeting. Via Colori made a generally positive impression. Drum circle was very popular.
New Business: Public Art Prospective mural in walkway adjacent to Colonial Cupcakes: The business owner, Jennifer Jensen, expressed interest in a series of depictions of Fredericksburg history along the walkway-- eg. nature and colonial, civil war and contemporary eras). Jensen also expressed an interest in featuring artwork from local artists in her store. Discussion: Does the owner of the building want the mural? The alley is city property. Lighting may be needed. Action point: Seth Casana, Julie Perry, and Ellen Killough will meet with Jensen. Ellen Killough will talk to the owner of the building. Free Lance-Star site: The newspaper has vacated the site. Verizon site: no longer available. Mural at 104 William Street: Possible lighting? Action point: Seth Casana will talk with owner of Bike Works, Tom Eskam Announcement Fredericksburg Weavers will be featured in there venues on October 25: UMW, Liberty Town, FAMCC--Ellen Killough
Meeting Adjourned: 8:15 pm
ITEM #9A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Greenlaw and City Council FROM: Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council DATE: December 6, 2012 SUBJECT: Memorials Commission
BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2012, James Pates and Marilyn Holasek Lloyd appointments will expire. Both are seeking reappointment to their second full-term. Both members have applied for and are requesting reappointment to the Memorials Advisory Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
At the December 11, 2012 regular session, Council is requested to reappointment Mr. Pates and Ms. Lloyd. The reappointment applications have been received by my office and are attached for your review and consideration.
Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey Clerk of Council CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG BOARDS AND COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATION
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Date: 12/05/2012 First Name: Last Name: Marilyn Holasek Lloyd Address: City: 215 Braehead Drive Fredericksburg State: Zip: Phone: Work: VA 22401 540-373-4755 Email: [email protected]
I am currently a member of the: (check the box of the Board/Commission that you are currently serving on) and wish to reapply for membership for another term.
□ Architectural Review Board □ Board of Social Services
□ Board of Zoning Appeals □ Cable Television Commission
□ Economic Development Authority □ Fredericksburg Clean & Green Commission □ Memorials Advisory Commission □ Planning Commission □ Recreation Commission □ Cable Television Commission □ Wetlands Board □ Other: ______
I hereby request consideration for reappointment to the above Board or Commission of the City of Freder- icksburg, Virginia. Applicants Signature: I understand that checking the box below is the equivalent of signing my name. ✔ I Accept: 12/05/2012 Applicant Name: ______Date: ______
Upon completion, please return this form to: Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council, City of Fredericksburg, P.O. Box 7447, Fredericksburg, VA 22404 or 715 Princess Anne Street, Room 208
PRINT CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG BOARDS AND COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT APPLICATION
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Date: 11/15/2012 First Name: Last Name: James Pates Address: City: P. O. Box 832 Fredericksburg State: Zip: Phone: Work: VA 22404 540-373-0140 202-366-0331 Email: [email protected]
I am currently a member of the: (check the box of the Board/Commission that you are currently serving on) and wish to reapply for membership for another term.
□ Architectural Review Board □ Board of Social Services
□ Board of Zoning Appeals □ Cable Television Commission
□ Economic Development Authority □ Fredericksburg Clean & Green Commission □ Memorials Advisory Commission □ Planning Commission □ Recreation Commission □ Cable Television Commission □ Wetlands Board □ Other: ______
I hereby request consideration for reappointment to the above Board or Commission of the City of Freder- icksburg, Virginia. Applicants Signature: I understand that checking the box below is the equivalent of signing my name. ✔ I Accept: 11/15/2012 Applicant Name: ______Date: ______
Upon completion, please return this form to: Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council, City of Fredericksburg, P.O. Box 7447, Fredericksburg, VA 22404 or 715 Princess Anne Street, Room 208
PRINT ITEM #10A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Doug Fawcett, Director of Public Works DATE: December 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Fall Hill Avenue Widening/Mary Washington Boulevard Extension: Proposed Design Contact Amendment #3
ISSUE Approval of an amendment to the contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the proposed contract amendment.
BACKGROUND In May, 2011, City Council amended a previously awarded contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide for preparation of thirty percent design plans and related studies and reports including, specifically, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for this project (Amendment #1). The City Council’s action was based on an agreement with VDOT that the City would be responsible for preparing plans to the extent necessary for the project to be turned over to VDOT for solicitation of qualifications and, eventually, proposals from design/build teams to complete the design and construct the project.
In July, 2012, City Council and VDOT approved an amendment to the contract to account for an expansion of the scope of services needed to prepare the project for transfer to VDOT for completion of design and construction of the improvements (Amendment #2). The additional services and related compensation to Kimley-Horn approved at that time, included:
• Evaluation of various alignments for the Mary Washington Boulevard extension in the context of avoiding conflicts with major Dominion Virginia Power transmission lines/poles, requiring extensive review and negotiation with representatives of DVP;
• Evaluation of multiple (i.e., seven) options for the design of the intersection of Fall Hill Avenue and Mary Washington Boulevard, just west of the Rappahannock Canal. Options that have been evaluated include various “T” intersection designs, including one with a “slip lane” to permit west bound Fall Hill Avenue traffic to bypass the intersection, and a roundabout. Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager Fall Hill Avenue Widening/Mary Washington Boulevard Extension: Proposed Amendment to Thirty Percent Design Contract December 5, 2012
• Participation by the consultant in a VDOT “Value Engineering” process.
• Assistance in the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding among the City, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, VDOT, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) and other entities addressing environmental and cultural resources impacts of the project.
• Assistance to VDOT in preparing project technical information and requirements associated with VDOT’s eventual issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project.
The scope of services has subsequently again expanded and Kimley-Horn has submitted an additional proposed contract amendment (Amendment #3). This amendment is needed to cover the costs of the following additional services:
• Extensive evaluation of the impacts of the project (and efforts to minimize those impacts) on two historically significant properties in the Fall Hill Avenue corridor. Any project impacts on those properties are subject to the terms of conservation easements that were placed on these properties by the prior owners almost forty years ago. This effort included extension submission of materials
• Additional analysis and provision of information/documentation to permit VDOT and Federal Highways Administration review of the various alternatives for the design of the intersection of Fall Hill Avenue and Mary Washington Boulevard, just west of the Rappahannock Canal and eventual approval of the City’s preferred alternative.
• Additional public involvement, including Kimley-Horn participation in meetings with various property owners in the project corridors to present the proposed design and respond to property owners’ questions and concerns.
Amendment #1; (May, 2011) established the cost of the scope of services outlined in that amendment at $1,412,831. Amendment #2 (July, 2012) increased the contract cost in an amount not to exceed $198,944. Approval of Amendment #3 will increase the contract cost by an additional not to exceed amount of $84,272. The proposed amendment has been reviewed by City staff and has been submitted to VDOT staff for review and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT The funds for both the current contract and for the proposed amendment will be provided through various FHWA and VDOT funds that have been allocated to the project. There is no required local match for the use of these funds.
Attachments: Resolution
2 MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 11-
RE: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO FALL HILL AVENUE AND THE EXTENSION OF MARY WASHINGTON BOULEVARD
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg, on June 23, 2010, entered into a contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for provision of engineering services for several transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, in May, 2011, this contract was amended to provide for provision, by Kimley-Horn, of preliminary design services and preparation of environmental studies and reports for the widening of Fall Hill Avenue and extension of Mary Washington Boulevard; And
WHEREAS, in July, 2012, this contract was further amended to provide for provision of additional services by Kimley-Horn, the need for such services having not been anticipated at the time of the previous amendment; and
WHEREAS, the scope of services has again increased, primarily due to a previously unanticipated need to perform extensive analysis of the impact of the proposed project on historically significant properties protected by conservation easements and the need for additional meetings and discussions with property owners in the vicinity of the proposed project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract amendment with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Virginia Beach, Virginia in an amount not to exceed $ 84,272 to provide preliminary engineering design for the project and other services as defined in the scope of services in Kimley-Horn’s proposal, subject to approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 2
***************
Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Doug Fawcett, Director of Public Works DATE: December 6, 2012 SUBJECT: Fall Hill Avenue Bridge over the Rappahannock Canal – Design Contract Amendment
ISSUE Approval of a contract amendment to provide for additional services needed to complete final design.
RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount of $41,054, subject to receipt of concurrence with the terms of the amendment from VDOT.
DISCUSSION In January, 2011, the City contracted with Kimley-Horn and Associates for final design of the replacement bridge on Fall Hill Avenue over the Rappahannock Canal. During the course of final design, it has been necessary for Kimley-Horn to perform tasks not included in the scope of services of the contract. These services are primarily, but not exclusively, related to relocation of existing utilities and coordination with adjacent property owners. Kimley-Horn has submitted a proposed contract amendment to incorporate these services into the contract and to establish compensation for provision of these services.
FISCAL IMPACT The primary funding for the bridge replacement project is the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. Under this program, VDOT provides 50% of total funding and the City provides the remaining 50%. Thus, the City’s fiscal obligation for this contract amendment is $20,527.
The City will soon advertise for construction bids for the replacement bridge. Once bids are received and the amount of the lowest qualified bid is determined, the project budget will be reviewed and a determination will be made whether the budget will need to be amended.
Attachment: Resolution MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-
RE: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FINAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE FALL HILL AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE RAPPAHANNOCK CANAL
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg, on June 23, 2010, entered into a contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for provision of engineering services for several transportation projects, including preliminary design of a replacement bridge over the Rappahannock Canal on Fall Hill Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the City Council authorized execution of a contract amendment to provide for final design services for the bridge; and
WHEREAS, during final design, it has become necessary for Kimley-Horn and Associates to perform services not anticipated in the initial scope of services, including, but not limited to, more extensive negotiation with utility providers related to relocation of existing facilities and the coordination of bridge and roadway design with adjacent property owners to facilitate acquisition of rights of way and easements essential to the project.
WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn has submitted a proposal to incorporate these additional services and the compensation for provision of the services into the design contract; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed these proposed contract revisions and has submitted the revisions to the Virginia Department of Transportation for review and approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract amendment with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in an
Fall Hill Avenue Bridge over Rappahannock Canal Design Contract Amendment December 11, 2012 amount not to exceed $ 41,054 to provide the additional services, as defined in the scope of services in the proposal.
************ Clerk’s Certificate
I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council ITEM #10B
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Amanda L. Lickey, Budget Manager DATE: November 28, 2012 RE: Resolution Request to Appropriate Asset Forfeiture and Donation Funding
ISSUE The City Council is asked to consider amending the City Grants Fund and the Asset Forfeiture Fund for FY2013. This action will appropriate donations received by the Fredericksburg Police Department and seized assets acquired by the Fredericksburg Police Department and the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution appropriating funds in the amount of $42,780 to purchase equipment and to support approved initiatives. This appropriation requires one reading for approval.
BACKGROUND The Police Department has donations that have accumulated over the past fiscal few years and request the funding is appropriated to be used for various police initiatives. These expenditures will be appropriated in the City Grants Fund. The Fredericksburg Police Department and the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney have an agreement to split the assets seized under the statues of Virginia. The initial $20,000 seized has a 60% - 40% split between the Police Department and Commonwealth’s Attorney Office respectively. For amounts over $20,000 the split shifts to an 80% - 20% split. All of these funds must be spent in accordance with DCJS regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT The City Grants Fund is being amended by 15,242 and the Asset Forfeiture Fund is being amended by $27,505. There are no additional local dollars required for any of the appropriations.
Category Appropriation Notes City Grants Fund Crime Prevention $3,385 Funds are used for “Crime Solvers” rewards. Unrestricted Donations $10,527 Funds are used for training and/or equipment. Domestic Violence $1,330 Funds are used by the Domestic Donations Violence Advocate to assist victims of family abuse. Total $15,242 Memorandum: Resolution Request for Grant Funds and Donation November 28, 2012 Page 2 of 2
Category Appropriation Notes Asset Forfeiture Fund PD Seized Assets $1,180 Funds are used for training and/or (Local) equipment. PD Seized Assets $6,685 Funds are used for training and/or (DCJS) equipment. CA Seized Assets 16,852 Funds are used for training and/or (DCJS) equipment. CA Seized Assets 2.821 Funds are used for training and/or (Local) equipment. Total $27,505
Attachment: Appropriation Resolution MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Session SECOND: Resolution No. 12-__
RE: AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING POLICE DONATIONS AND ASSET FOREFITURE FUNDING
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg has an asset forfeiture agreement between the Fredericksburg Police Department and the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney; and WHEREAS, these funds have collected and need to be appropriated in order for the funding to be utilized for DCJS approved used; and
WHEREAS, these Fredericksburg Police Department has also received donations for equipment and police initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the City has fund balance amounts as of June 30 or expected revenues to continue this work; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appropriations be made and recorded in the following funds:
FORFEITED ASSET SHARING PROGRAM FUND Source Fund Balance 3-223-061010-0010 Fund Balance (Surplus) $ 27,505 Department Total $ 27,505
Total Source: $ 27,505
Use Commonwealth’s Attorney 4-223-022300-5530 Subsistence & Lodging $ 7,819 4-223-022300-5540 Convention and Education 5,000 4-223-022300-6001 Office Supplies 1,000 4-223-022300-6014 Other Operating Supplies 1,000 4-223-022300-8207 ADP Equipment Replacement 2,000 Department Total $ 16,819
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 2
Commonwealth’s Attorney – Local 4-223-022310-6014 Other Operating Supplies $ 2,821 Department Total $ 2,821
Police Department 4-223-031200-6010 Police Supplies $ 6,685 Department Total $ 6,685
Police Department – Local 4-223-031210-5530 Subsistence & Lodging $ 600 4-223-031210-5540 Convention and Education 580 Department Total $ 1,180
Total Use: $ 27,505
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
***************
Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
ITEM #10C
MEMORANDUM
To: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager From: Amanda Lickey, Budget Manager Date: December 4, 2012 Subject: Resolution Re-appropriating FY 2012 Encumbrances in the FY 2013 Budget Issue Shall City Council approve a resolution appropriating FY 2012 encumbered fund balances into the FY 2013 budget?
Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution on first reading. This item will require a public hearing prior to second reading approval, which would be held January 8, 2013
Background Every year, as part of our annual process to close out activities relating to the budget, City staff requests that the current budget (in this case, FY 2013) be amended to grant appropriation authority for ongoing purchase orders from the prior year.
The encumbrance resolution involves purchase orders for active purchases at the close of FY 2012 where the products or services had not yet been delivered as of the close of the fiscal year.
Major encumbered purchases in the General Fund include a vehicle in the Police Department; contracted maintenance services in the E911 Center; streetlight repairs in Street Maintenance; capital equipment replacement in Traffic Maintenance. The City Grants Fund includes an encumbrance under the VDEM Homeland Security Grant. There is a large encumbrance associated with the Heritage Trail that has reimbursable grants and gasoline tax as a funding source as well as prior year balance. This action sets up appropriation to receive this funding in FY 2013.
Fiscal Impact The encumbrance resolution appropriates the following amounts in the following funds: Fund Amount General Fund 277,471 City Grants Fund 173,465 Public Works Capital Fund 19,285 Public Facilities Capital Fund 1,414,142 Total Appropriation 1,884,363
Attachment: Resolution MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Session SECOND: Resolution No. 12-__
RE: AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING FISCAL YEAR 2012 ENCUMBRANCES
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg appropriates encumbrances remaining from one budget year into the next; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend the FY 2013 budget to appropriate encumbrances recorded at the close of FY 2012;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appropriations are recorded amending the FY 2013 budget in the following funds;
GENERAL FUND Source Fund Balance 3-100-061010-0011 Fund Balance (Assigned – Encumbrances) $ 277,471 Department Total $ 277,471
Total Source $ 277,471
Use Information Technology 4-100-012510-3160 Professional Services – Other $ 22,462 Department Total: $ 22,462
General District Court 4-100-021200-5410 EDP Equipment $ 3,887 Department Total: $ 3,887
Police 4-100-031100-3310 Repairs and Maintenance $ 3,460 4-100-031100-8105 Vehicles & Equipment Replacement 29,433 Department Total $ 32,893
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 2
Fire 4-100-032100-6011 Uniforms & Wearing Apparel $ 8,443 4-100-032100-8103 Communications Equipment 3,907 Department Total $ 12,350
E911 Communications 4-100-035601-3320 Maintenance Services Contracts $ 39,000 Department Total $ 39,000
Public Works Administration 4-100-041100-3310 Professional Services - Engineering $ 3,535 4-100-041100-8101 Professional Services - Other 5,005 Department Total $ 8,540
Street Maintenance 4-100-041200-3310 Repairs and Maintenance $ 9,800 4-100-041200-6009 Vehicle and Powered Equipment 4,158 4-100-041200-8101 Machinery and Equipment – Replacement $ 23,587 Department Total $ 37,545
Streetlights 4-100-041320-3310 Repairs and Maintenance $ 11,528 4-100-041320-3310 Street Light Installations 5,690 Department Total $ 17,218
Graphics Department 4-100-041501-3160 Professional Services - Other $ 3,626 Department Total $ 3,626
Street Sanitation 4-100-042200-3110 Professional Health Services $ 836 Department Total $ 836
Refuse Collection 4-100-042300-3110 Professional Health Services $ 1,102 Department Total $ 1,102
Public Facilities 4-100-043200-3110 Professional Health Services $ 1,292 Department Total $ 1,292 December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 3
Parks and Recreation Special Projects 4-100-043400-3310 Repairs and Maintenance $ 9,500 4-100-043400-6007 Repair and Maintenance Supplies 4,200 Department Total $ 13,700
Parks Maintenance 4-100-071200-3110 Professional Health Services $ 570 Department Total $ 570
Planning 4-100-081100-3160 Professional Services - Other $ 40,175 Department Total $ 40,175
Economic Development and Tourism 4-100-081603-3160 Professional Services – Other $ 17,200 4-100-081603-3500 Printing & Binding 5,640 4-100-081603-3600 Advertising 6,600 4-100-081603-6015 Merchandise for Resale 2,835 4-100-081603-6021 Promotional Materials $ 10,000 Department Total $ 42,275
Total Use $ 277,471
CITY GRANTS FUND Source Fund Balance 3-210-061010-0011 Fund Balance (Assigned – Encumbrances) $ 173,465 Department Total $ 173,465
Total Source $ 173,465
Use
VDEM Homeland Security 4-210-031852-3320 Maintenance Service Contracts $ 68,138 4-210-031852-8107 ADP Hardware – Replacement $ 98,287 Department Total $ 166,425
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 4
DOJ JAG Grant 4-210-031856-3160 Professional Services - Other $ 5,040 4-210-031856-8212 ADP Software - Additions $ 2,000 Department Total $ 7,040
Total Use $ 173,465
PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL PROJECTS Source Fund Balance 3-302-061010-0011 Fund Balance (Assigned – Encumbrances) $ 19,285 Department Total: $ 19,285
Total Source $ 19,285
Use Culvert Repair 4-302-094127-3170 Construction Contracts $ 19,285 Department Total: $ 19,285
Total Use $ 19,285
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPITAL FUND Source Motor Fuels Tax 3-305-12130-0001 Gasoline Tax Receipts $ 139,197 Department Total: $ 139,197 Federal Revenue 3-305-033060-0057 VDOT - CMAQ $ 851,321 3-305-033060-0059 TEA 21 Heritage Trail 225,000 Department Total: $ 1,076,321
Fund Balance 3-305-061010-0011 Fund Balance (Assigned – Encumbrances) $ 215,124 Department Total: $ 215,124
Total Source: $ 1,414,142
Use December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 5
Computer Replacements 4-305-094563-8107 ADP Hardware – Replacement $ 1,325 4-305-094563-8112 ADP Software – Replacement $ 34,460 Department Total $ 35,785
Heritage Trail 4-305-094549-3170 Construction Contracts $ 1,394,857 Department Total: $ 1,394,857
Total Use: $ 1,414,142
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
***************
Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held January 8, 2013 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council ITEM #10D
MEMORANDUM
To: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager From: Amanda Lickey, Budget Manager Date: December 11, 2012 Subject: Resolution Re-appropriating Certain FY 2012 Projects in the FY 2013 Budget
Issue Shall City Council approve a resolution re-appropriating grant and capital project fund balances into the FY 2013 budget?
Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution on first reading. This item will require a public hearing prior to second reading approval, which would be held January 8, 2013.
Background Every year, as part of our annual process to close out activities relating to the budget, City staff requests that the current budget (in this case, FY 2013) be amended to grant appropriation authority for ongoing projects from the prior year.
The carryover resolution includes balances on projects in the general, grant or the capital funds that need to be re-appropriated in FY 2013 so that work can continue on the projects. All of these projects are previously approved. In addition, several of the capital projects that are based on reimbursable grants include grant revenue rather than fund balance as the source of funds.
Fiscal Impact The attached resolution appropriates the following amounts in the following funds.
Fund Amount General Fund 14,747 City Grants Fund 204,347 Public Works Capital Fund 3,183,198 Public Facilities Capital Fund 193,755 Total 3,596,047
Attachment: Resolution MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Session SECOND: Resolution No. 12-__
RE: AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET FOR CAPITAL AND GRANT CARRYOVERS
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City of Fredericksburg fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30; and
WHEREAS, the City has capital projects and other ongoing projects or programs which are not completed as of June 30; and
WHEREAS, the City has fund balance amounts as of June 30 or expected revenues to continue this work; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following appropriations be made and recorded in the following funds:
GENERAL FUND Source Fund Balance 3-100-061010-0010 Fund Balance (Surplus) $ 14,747 Department Total $ 14,747
Total Source: $ 14,747
Use Fire Department Community Donations 4-100-032100-8101 Machinery & Equip. – Replacement $ 4,747 Department Total $ 4,747
Environmental Management Services 4-100-043220-3160 Professional Services - Other $ 5,000 4-100-043220-5810 Dues and Association Membership 1,000 4-100-043220-6014 Other Operating Supplies $ 4,000 Department Total $ 10,000
Total Use: $ 14,747
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 2
CITY GRANTS FUND Source Fund Balance 3-210-061010-0010 Fund Balance (Surplus) $ 204,347 Department Total $ 204,347
Total Source: $ 204,347
Use Fire Services Program 4-210-032403-8101 Machinery & Equip. – Replacement $ 30,000 Department Total $ 30,000
Regional Group Tourism 4-210-081617-3600 Advertising $ 6,628 4-210-081617-5560 Visitor Accommodations 4,000 4-210-081617-5810 Dues and Association Membership 1,000 Department Total $ 11,628
Regional Consumer Marketing 4-210-081622-3160 Professional Services – Other $ 82,719 4-210-081622-3600 Advertisement 80,000 Department Total $ 162,719
Total Use: $ 204,347
PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL FUND Source Motor Fuels Tax 3-302-012130-0001 Gasoline Tax $ 190,201 Department Total $ 190,201
Categorical Aid 3-302-024040-0094 VDOT Revenue Sharing Pedestrian Imp. $ 239,001 Department Total $ 239,001
Revenue from the Federal Government 3-302-033010-0053 Sophia & William Street $ 312,651 3-302-033010-0065 Route One Traffic Signals 288,780 3-302-033010-0066 Route Three Traffic Signals 153,892 3-302-033010-0086 Fall Hill Bridge Over I95 $ 1,465,110 Department Total $ 2,146,654
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 3
Fund Balance 3-302-061010-0010 Fund Balance (Surplus) $ 558,542 Department Total $ 558,542
Total Source: $ 3,183,198
Use Salt Storage Facility 4-302-094103-3140 Professional Services - Engineering $ 34,763 4-302-094103-3170 Construction Contracts $ 450,000 Department Total $ 484,763
Traffic Signal Pedestrian Improvements (VDOT Revenue Sharing) 4-302-094129-3170 Construction Contracts $ 97,600 Department Total $ 97,600
Fall Hill Avenue Bridge over Interstate 95 4-302-094181-3170 Construction Contracts $ 1,465,110 Department Total $ 1,465,110
Fall Hill Avenue Bridge over Rappahannock Canal 4-302-094182-3170 Construction Contracts $ 380,402 Department Total $ 380,402
Sophia Street and William Street Intersection Improvements 4-302-094188-3170 Construction Contracts $ 312,651 Department Total $ 312,651
Route 1 Traffic Signals 4-302-094190-3170 Construction Contracts $ 288,780 Department Total $ 288,780
Route 3 Traffic Signals 4-302-094192-3170 Construction Contracts $ 153,892 Department Total $ 153,892
Total Use: $ 3,183,198
December 11, 2012 Resolution 12-__ Page 4
PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPITAL FUND Source Fund Balance 3-305-061010-0010 Fund Balance (Surplus) $ 107,724 Department Total $ 107,724
Total Source: $ 107,724
Use
General Parks Maintenance Projects 4-305-094554-8102 Furniture and Fixtures - Replacement $ 23,987 Department Total $ 23,987
Computer Replacements 4-305-094563-8107 ADP Equipment - Replacement $ 83,737 Department Total: $ 83,737
Total Use $ 107,724
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
***************
Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held January 8, 2013 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council
ITEM #10E
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kathleen Dooley, City Attorney
FROM: Rob Eckstrom, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: December 3, 2012
RE: Cannon restoration and loan - Fredericksburg Guard Association
ISSUE:
Shall the City loan its historic cannon currently located in front on Fire Station #1 to the Fredericksburg Guard Association in exchange for the Association's restoration of the cannon?
RECOMMENDATION:
Yes. The cannon is in need of repair, and the Association is well-suited to restore and house it. The cannon will be displayed at the entrance to the National Guard Armory at 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed Resolution approves the two legal instruments that would govern the cannon restoration. In the first, the City authorizes the Fredericksburg Guard Association to raise funds for the cannon restoration, and promises to loan the cannon to the Guard Association once the funds are in hand. The second agreement is the actual loan agreement, for a term of forty years, under which the Guard Association would take possession of the cannon, accomplish the restoration, and then display the cannon at the Fredericksburg Armory. The loan agreement permits the City to “borrow” the cannon back from time to time. At the conclusion of the initial 40 year loan term, the loan automatically renews for additional 5 year terms unless it is terminated by either party at least 60 days prior to the commencement of a new term.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Fredericksburg Guard Association will pay for restoration of the cannon (approximately $10,000) in exchange for the loan. MOTION: December 11, 2012 Regular Meeting SECOND: Resolution No. 12-
RE: RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FREDERICKSBURG GUARD ASSOCIATION TO THE COMMUNITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO PERMIT THE ASSOCIATION TO RESTORE AN HISTORIC CANNON OWNED BY THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT TO LOAN THE CANNON TO THE ASSOCIATION
ACTION:
WHEREAS, the City owns a Model 1841 6-pounder cast iron cannon, which is on display in front of Fire Station #1; and
WHEREAS, the cannon is in need of restoration, including restoration of the barrel and construction of a new gun carriage; and
WHEREAS, the Fredericksburg National Guard, formed in 1903, is the modern form of the local Militia, and stands ready to serve the City of Fredericksburg, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America, be it in natural disasters of numerous floods and snows or civil strife, preserving the peace of the City or if necessary, in acts of war; and
WHEREAS, the Fredericksburg Guard has a long and distinguished record of service to the Fredericksburg community, as demonstrated on the attached history of the Guard; and
WHEREAS, the Fredericksburg Guard Association wishes to restore the cannon and display the cannon in front of the Fredericksburg National Guard Armory;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fredericksburg Council:
1. Expresses its gratitude to the Fredericksburg Guard Association for its service to the City of Fredericksburg.
2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute, deliver and carry out the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement entitled “Memorandum of Agreement, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; Fredericksburg Guard Association,” on behalf of the City of Fredericksburg, in substantially the form submitted for approval.
December 11, 2012 Resolution No. 12-__ Page 2
3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute, deliver and carry out the terms of the Loan Agreement entitled “Loan Agreement - Model 1841 Cast Iron Cannon, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia; Fredericksburg Guard Association,” on behalf of the City of Fredericksburg, in substantially the form submitted for approval.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately.
Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting:
*************** Clerk’s Certificate I, the undersigned, certify that I am Clerk of Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. 12- duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council meeting held December 11, 2012 at which a quorum was present and voted.
______Tonya B. Lacey, CMC Clerk of Council History of the Fredericksburg Guard
Whereas the militia that was formed in this area has supported this community in disaster and war since its founding. Outlined below are but a few of the times in the past history of the City of Fredericksburg when the local Militia and later as the National Guard (Est. 1903) has stood ready to serve the City of Fredericksburg, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America, be it in natural disasters of numerous floods and snows or civil strife, preserving the peace of the City or if necessary, in acts of war.
• In 1679. MAJ Lawrence Smith , “At a Grande Assemblie at James Cittie, between the 20th of September, 1674 and the 17th of March, 1675, it was ordered that one hundred and eleven men out of Gloucester be garrisoned at one ffort or place of defense, at or near the falls of the Rappahannock river, of which ffort Major Lawrence Smith is to be captain or chief commander.” He was instructed to build a habitation for 250 men, 50 of whom were to be ready to respond to the tap of the drum.
• In 1753, records show that George Washington appeared in front of the court at Fredericksburg and took his oath as “Major of Militia horse and foot” for half of Virginia.
• In 1755 George Weedon recruited twelve men for the frontier defense and thus received a commission as an ensign in the Virginia Regiment. After gathering additional recruits from Fredericksburg, eighty men were marched to Winchester. “Using utmost Dispatch in your March”. There they met up with COL Washington and marched on to FT. Cumberland, the most advanced English garrison on the frontier. The fort was 100 feet square. Houses were deserted and there was evidence of Indian attacks.
• In 1757, COL Fielding Lewis was appointed by Governor Dinwiddie to command all the militia of the area.
• In 1758, Now a company commander, LT Weedon was at Patterson’s Fort at the South Branch of the Potomac. By 1759 as the Indians hostilities subsided and in December the Assembly allowed all Virginia troops to disband except for 150 troops for the frontier garrisons. LT Weedon went to Ft. Pitt and later Ft Niagara on the South side of Lake Ontario. He returned to Virginia because of the Cherokee War but by 1761 there was no need for soldier’s service, in 1763 the Virginia Regiment was disbanded. Soldiers who served in the French and Indian Wars were awarded bounty lands.
• In 1775 April 29, News of the removal of twenty barrels of gunpowder by Lord Dunmore on the 20th of April after the battle of Lexington caused more than 600 from Fredericksburg and surrounding counties to muster in Fredericksburg. A council of more than 100, represented 14 Companies. A resolution was passed in a public town meeting, which was tantamount to a declaration of independence. When Dunmore removed the powder supply from Williamsburg to aboard a British ship, volunteers gathered on the courthouse green and marched off towards the capitol, but were persuaded to come back.
• In 1775 May 13, A large assemblage on the Court Green adopted what was termed afterward “the first declaration,” which because of its frank avowals attracted attention throughout the Colonies. At this Provincial Convention 102 delegates, in resolutions, condemned “the conduct of the Governor as justly alarming” and declared that “obedience to the arbitrary mandate, the most tyrannical system of government, must be the fatal line of conduct to all His Majesty’s servants in America” and while “justly dreading the horrors of Civil War” the council “Considering the rights and liberties of America to be greatly endangered… being firmly resolved to resist such attempts to the uttermost hazard of our lives and fortunes, do now pledge ourselves to each other to be readiness at a moments notice to reassemble, and by force of arms, to defend the Laws, Liberties and Rights of this, or any other, sister Colony, from unjust and wicked invasions. GOD SAVE THE LIBERTIES OF AMERICA”. This “moments notice” established the Fredericksburg Minutemen.
• During 1770s Several Regiments went from Fredericksburg. COL William Woodford was a revolutionary commander of the First Virginia Regiment. General Hugh Mercer was the revolutionary commander of the Third Virginia Regiment. LTC James Monroe and MAJ Thomas Marshall were officers of the Third Virginia Regiment. COL Fielding Lewis ran the “Gunnery” in Fredericksburg. BG George Weedon an Irish immigrant, Inn keeper of the “Rising Sun Tavern”. Elected LTC of the First Virginia Regiment. On August 17, 1777 he became its commander. When Tarleton raided North during the revolution Brigadier General George Weedon was entrusted with the defense of Fredericksburg’s Gunnery and Hunter’s Iron Works. General Weedon was given power to raise additional troops, which he gathered from King William, Westmoreland, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Caroline and other near-by counties. These, with the trained men under him, numbering about 1800, were placed in Camp Hunter, on the hills northward of Falmouth, near Hunter’s Iron Works.
• In 1781 July, After the Gunnery had sent great supplies of muskets, bayonets, and cartridges to the Virginia troops Charles Dick reported to the assembly: “The Gentlemen and Ladies of the Town have very splendidly attended the Gunnery and assisted to make up 20,000 cartridges with bullets from which the Spotsylvania Militia, and the Militia of Caroline, have been provided.”
• In 1781 November 11, The Assembly room of the Rising Sun Tavern, now long since burned, was the scene of the great Peace Ball, when Revolutionary officers celebrated the Yorktown surrender. A weeklong celebration of officers of the French and Continental armies.
• In 1812, COL Hamilton formed a company here during the War of 1812 to protect Fredericksburg. GEN William Madison in the War of 1812 with a small force protected Fredericksburg.
• In 1821, By the provisions of the act of 1821 the Common Council were authorized to provide a night watch for the protection of the town and for the “better execution of this duty the power and authority, now exercised by field officers of the militia concerning patrols, shall hereafter be vested in and exercised by the said Mayor, Recorder and Common Council over militia of the said town” and the militia of the town were, by the same act, exempted from patrol duty beyond the city limits.
• In the 1840s During the Mexican-American War there were no recorded companies formed in Fredericksburg. GEN Daniel Ruggles participated as did many Fredericksburg residents. Additionally the United States Mine formerly one of Governor Spotswood’s mines was sold to the US government in about 1842. A forge and foundry was set up to make cannons. Hundreds were made for the Mexican War.
• In the 1850s The Fredericksburg Guard was formed and patrolled and drilled as required.
• In 1858 (June) They were organized under CPT Joseph W. Sener. Reported for duty for the first time during the trials and executions of John Brown and associates. Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry proved to be the inspiration for the formation of:
• In 1859 (November) Fredericksburg Grays organized by CPT William S. Barton, succeeded by CPT Robert S. Chew.
• In 1860 (April) Headquarters Organized because both companies trained together. These two companies with the HQs section served as elite “flank” companies in the 16th Regiment of the Virginia militia.
• In 1861 (22 April) Virginia withdrew from Union Governor John Letcher mobilized the volunteer militia the 2d Battalion, Virginia Volunteers, Mustered into service at Fredericksburg, commanded by MAJ William S. Barton. This battalion was absorbed into the newly formed 30th Virginia Infantry. The Washington Guard and Fredericksburg Grays were organized as a part of the infantry unit as:
• Company ‘A’, “Guards”, 30th Virginia Infantry
• Company ‘B’, “Grays”, 30th Virginia Infantry
This unit transferred to Confederate States Army on 1 July 1861 and served throughout the civil war. The 30th saw action in First and Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg and in the Peninsula Campaign before being assigned to BG Montgomery D. Corse’s Brigade on 3 December 1862. Then they blockaded a Union force at Suffolk County in April-May 1863, covered Lee’s withdrawal of Northern Virginia, delayed GEN Meade at Manassas Gap (21 July 1863). Saw action in Tennessee, Amelia Station, Bermuda Hundred, Cold Harbor and Petersburg (1864). Though reduced in strength the 30th’s units remained with Lee until the final surrender at Appomattox Court House 9 April 1865.
• In 1882 (30 March) Garfield Light Infantry Blues, Company D, 1st Battalion, Virginia Volunteer Infantry. The all African American company was named in honor of President James A. Garfield (1831-1881) who had been a Union general during the Civil War. As the Republican candidate in the election of 1880 he won, becoming the 20th President in March 1881. On 2 July of that year he was fatally shot by an assassin and finally died of his wound on 19 September 1881. This company was organized six months later and selected to honor Garfield who had fought to set their people free. Organized and received state recognition, it disbanded on 21 November 1895.
• In 1880 (5 July) Washington Guards Veterans of the civil war’s “Guard” and “Grays” formed this unit under command of CPT Benjamin P. Morrison, later by CPT Samuel Selden Brook. This unit became:
• In 1881 (20 October) Company ‘G’, “Fredericksburg Guard” of the newly formed 3d Regiment Infantry. Personnel problems in the 1890s led to a temporary disbandment in 1893 but it later resumed duty as:
• In 1895 (1 April ) Company ‘K’ of the 3d. Reported to Richmond after the outbreak of the Spanish American War and mustered into federal service on 17 May 1898. They were sent to Fairfax County, Camp Alger for training that lasted throughout the summer and fall. They were mustered out of federal service, never to see duty in Cuba, on 5 November 1898 and resumed state status as a separate company on 29 August 1900, as the Washington Guards.
• In 1900 (1 October) Company ‘L’ of the newly formed 70th Infantry, a Richmond based regiment. In 1908 the 70th was renumbered as the 1st Infantry. Company ‘L’ was transferred to:
• In 1916 (4 April) Company ‘K’ of 2d Infantry. They were activated on 30 June 1916 for a tour of duty on the Mexican border. They were released from federal service in Richmond on 28 February 1917, just before WW1 erupted. The Guards passed back into federal service only a month after their return from the border, undergoing formal muster at the Fredericksburg armory on 30 March 1917 to become:
• In 1917 (4 October) Company ‘K’, 116th Bde, 29th ID. While training at Anniston Alabama the Fredericksburg unit helped form the 29th (Blue and Gray) Division by becoming a part of company ‘K’. It shipped to France and saw combat in the Meuse-Argonne offensive and in the trenches of Alsace. It was demobilized on 30 May 1919.
• In 1917 (17 June) 3d Company, Coast Artillery Corps. This was the second company organized from Fredericksburg during WW1. It mustered into federal service on 30 July and reported to Hampton Roads. Where it promptly become:
• In 1918 (1 February) 10th Company, Coast Defenses of the Chesapeake Bay. It was demobilized at Fort Story in August of 1919.
• In 1922 (29 September) Headquarters Detachment and Combat Trains, 2d Battalion, 111th Field Artillery, 29th ID. The next year they reorganized:
• In 1923 (24 May) Battery ‘F’, 2d Battalion, 111th Field Artillery, 29th ID: They were armed with 75-mm guns. This unit went back on active duty as a part of the 29th Infantry Division on 3 February 1941. Which became:
• In 1942 (12 March) Battery ‘C’, 227th Field Artillery Battalion, 29th ID. The 29th Infantry Division reorganized under the”Triangular” structure and formed this unit. The 227th provided general artillery support to the 29th throughout Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe Campaigns. It was inactivated at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey on 16 January 1946. It later became:
• In 1945 (2 July) 176th Infantry Company, (Antitank), 176 Regimental Combat Team. Received federal recognition on 24 May 1948 and promptly became:
• In 1945 (1 December) Regimental Tank Company, 176 Regimental Combat Team. Later it became:
• In 1959 (1 June) Battery ‘D’, 2d Automatic Weapons Battalion, 280th Artillery. This unit was armed with self propelled guns. This battery became:
• In 1963 (22 March) Troop ’C’, 1st Squadron, 183d Cavalry, 29th ID. This unit branch transferred to become:
• In 1968 (1 February) Company ‘D’, 103d Engineer Battalion, 28th (Keystone) ID. Became the 237th Engineer Company (see 1975). It stood ready with ‘D’ 276 Engineer Battalion during the flood of 1972.
• In 1945 (2 July) 189th Engineer Combat Company, 176 Regimental Combat Team. Received its federal recognition on 12 November 1948. Became:
• In 1953 (1 February) 189th Engineer Company It changed its function from providing combat engineer support for a regimental combat team to providing non-divisional floating bridge support.
• In 1961 (15 October) 189th Engineer Company The company was summoned into active federal duty. It served throughout its tour at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and returned to state control on 7 August 1962. It became:
• In 1968 (1 February) Company D, 276th Engineer Battalion. This unit became:
• In 1975 (1 April) 237th Engineer Company, 116th Infantry Brigade. With the realignment of Pennsylvania’s Guard led to the withdrawal of Virginia’s brigade from the 28th (Keystone) Division. It again established the 116th Infantry Brigade. Similar in composition to the older regimental team. The 116th required an engineer company. The two Company Ds located in Fredericksburg were consolidated to fulfill this mission. It became:
• In 1985 (1 July) 229th Engineer Battalion (Light), 29th ID. With the reorganization of the 29th Infantry Division; there became a need for an engineer battalion to support this command. Fredericksburg’s engineer unit was reorganized to form this battalion. Their motto was “Sappers Lead!”
• Deployment 2001-2002 (August-April) 229th Engineer Battalion (-) had a task force supporting the Bosnia peace keeping mission as a part of a “stabilization force” (SFOR 10). They were with the 29th ID task force as part of Multi National Division North (MNDN).
• Deployment 2003-2004 (January- June) 229th Engineer Battalion (-) had a task force supporting security in the National Capital Region (NCR). It was a part of Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), covering rotations (3-3.5).
• Deployment 2004- 2005 (June-August) A Company, 229th Engineer Battalion (-) Supported Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan.
• Deployment 2004-2005 (August-July) 229th Engineer Battalion (-) supported the 276 Engineer Battalion in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). During this deployment two sergeants were killed and one Specialist wounded. This battalion became:
• In 2005 (23 October) 116th BSTB (Brigade Special Troops Battalion), 116th IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Team). The army reorganized in the “Army’s Transformation” to again develop combat teams focused on supporting Brigade size elements. This battalion is made of an HHC, Engineer, Military Intelligence and a Communication Company.
Two additional company size units were organized on this date in Fredericksburg they are:
• 2005 (23 October) ‘F’ Company, 429th Brigade Support Battalion, 116th IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Team) This company supports the Brigade logistical needs.
• 2005 (23 October) ‘D’ Company, 3-116th Infantry Battalion, 116th IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Team) formed in Fredericksburg. As the ‘Heavy Weapons Company’, a mounted maneuver force with heavy weapons capability.
• Deployment 2006 (June- November) Volunteers of the 116th BSTB patrolled the Arizona’s Southwest Border as part of Operation Jump Start.
• Deployment 2006- 2007 (July- October) HHC 116th BSTB supported Kosovo forces (KFOR 8) in Bosnia.
• Deployment 2007-2008 (January- January) ‘A’ Company, 116th BSTB supported forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
• Deployment 2007-2008 (May-March) HHC 116th BSTB supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
• Deployment 2007-2008 (June-May) ‘F’ Company, 429th BSB (Brigade Support Battalion) supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
• Deployment 2007-2008 (June-May) ‘D’ Company, 3-116th Infantry Battalion supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
• Deployment 2011-2011 (June-Dec) ‘A’ Company, 116th BSTB supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
• Deployment 2011-2011 (June-Dec) ‘D’ Company, 3-116th Infantry Battalion supported Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, by and between the CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation ("the City"); and the FREDERICKSBURG GUARD ASSOCIATION, INC., a Virginia corporation, whose address is Fredericksburg National Guard Armory, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 ("the Association").
A. Background.
The City owns a Model 1841 6-pounder cast iron cannon ("the Cannon"), which is on display in front of the fire station downtown. The Cannon is in need of restoration, including restoration of the barrel and construction of a new gun carriage. Several years ago, the Association offered to raise funds to restore the Cannon, but no action was taken by the City. The Association recently made another request to raise funds to restore the Cannon.
The purposes of the Association, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation, are as follows:
• Furthering comradeship among persons who are or have been members of the Armed Forces and who have represented the Fredericksburg, Virginia National Guard unit(s). • Honoring the memory of deceased veterans and members of the Armed Forces and aiding and comforting their survivors. • Encouraging patriotism. • Aiding hospitalized, disabled and needy war veterans and their dependents. • To maintain the lineage of our armory by educating the soldiers of the history and achievements of past National Guard units from Fredericksburg, Virginia. • Promote Americanism, conduct/support patriotic ceremonies and functions, and conduct community, social, and recreational activities that support these purposes.
The City desires to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to permit the Association to raise the funds to have the Cannon restored. In exchange for funding the restoration of the Cannon, the City wishes to commit to loan the Cannon to the Association for display at the Fredericksburg Armory. The Fredericksburg City Council approved this Memorandum of Understanding by adoption of Resolution xx-xxx at its regular meeting held ______, 201_.
B. Rights and Responsibilities of the Parties.
The City and the Association agree as follows:
1. The Association will be responsible for raising the funds necessary to restore the Cannon. The restoration will include restoration of the gun barrel, construction of a historically accurate gun carriage, and testing to determine the age of the Cannon.
1
2. Prior to the transfer of the Cannon from the possession of the City to the possession of the Association, the Association will provide assurances, in a form satisfactory to the City Council, that sufficient resources have been secured to complete restoration of the Cannon.
3. Upon the provision of such assurances, the City will transfer possession of the Cannon to the Association.
4. The Association will contract for the restoration of the Cannon, and will ensure that the restoration is completed.
5. Upon the restoration of the Cannon, the City and the Association will enter into the Loan Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, for placement and display of the Cannon.
WITNESS the following signatures of the City and the Association:
______Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager David Kelly James, President-Elect Fredericksburg Guard Association
ATTEST:
______Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
______Kathleen Dooley, City Attorney
2
LOAN AGREEMENT- MODEL 1841 CAST IRON CANNON
Borrower Fredericksburg Guard Association, Inc. 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
Lender City of Fredericksburg c/o City Manager P.O. Box 7447 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
Purpose Outdoor Display at Fredericksburg National Guard Armory
Commencement Date [DATE]
Object One Model 1841 6-pounder cast iron smooth-bore cannon.
Borrower’s Agreement It is understood that the borrower, Fredericksburg Guard Association (FGA), accepts the conditions outlined in this agreement prior to receiving the loan. The City of Fredericksburg reserves the right to withdraw the loan if the City Council deems that the security or safety of the cannon is at risk.
Loan Period The initial term of the loan will be forty years. The loan period will terminate in the event that the FGA disbands, and, in that case the FGA shall return the cannon to the City prior to disbanding. FGA may return the cannon at any time for its convenience, upon reasonable notice to the City so that the City may arrange to accept and store or display the cannon.
Upon expiration of the initial loan term, the loan will automatically renew on five-year terms based on the same terms and conditions, until terminated by either party. The party wishing to terminate the loan shall provide written notice to the other party at least 60 days prior to the commencement of a new term.
Changes: FGA must request in writing any changes in the schedule, venue, or other conditions of the loan. If approved by the City, the City shall issue confirmation of said changes in writing.
If a new National Guard Armory opens within City limits, the FGA may relocate the cannon to the new Armory upon written notice to the City. Loan Agreement- Model 1841 cast iron cannon Page 2 Draft 2012 10 17
Environment FGA will take reasonable measures to maintain and protect the cannon, including protection against vandalism and erosion by the elements.
Loan Costs FGA will bear all expenses relating to the loan including, but not limited to, preparation and exhibiting, plus any special costs for conservation agreed to in advance.
Display FGA will have full discretion regarding whether, for how long, and in what manner the cannon will be exhibited. However, if FGA elects not to exhibit the cannon for a period of six months or longer, then the City may elect to have FGA return the cannon prior to the termination of the loan term.
Temporary Use Upon reasonable advance written notice to FGA, the City may remove the cannon from its placement for use in ceremonies or similar short- term events. The City is responsible for the security of the cannon at such times. The cannon shall be returned to the FGA within a reasonable time of the conclusion of the ceremony or similar event.
Insurance The City will insure the cannon under commercially standard insurance policy terms and conditions for like objects against risks of physical loss or damage from external cause during transit and while the cannon is being stored or exhibited for the entire period of the loan.
Breach If one party to this agreement believes that the other party is in breach of this agreement, it shall provide written notice to the breaching party identifying the breach with reasonable specificity and identifying what steps the breaching party should take to remedy the breach. The breaching party shall remedy the breach within 60 days.
Conflict Resolution Should any conflict arise between this agreement and any writings, forms, or documents of the lender, the terms of this agreement shall be controlling.
I hereby agree to all terms and conditions set forth by this loan agreement.
______Signature of Lender Date
______Signature of Borrower Date ITEM #10F
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager FROM: Mark Whitley, Assistant City Manager RE: City Council Goals & Initiatives Work Plan DATE: December 5, 2012
ISSUE The draft work plan for the City Council Goals and Initiatives for FY 2013-2014 are presented for City Council review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the work plan.
BACKGROUND Each City Council of the City of Fredericksburg adopts a set of Goals and Initiatives document for the term of the Council. The Goals and Initiatives for the term provide the staff with strategic policy direction for the City for two years. Many Goals and Initiatives carry over from one term to the next, as they are longer term projects. Other Goals and Initiatives are newly added as Council identifies them or are eliminated as staff completes them or incorporates them into standard practices.
The current City Council has been working diligently on the Goals and Initiatives, including work at a retreat on October 19-20, 2012, and a special worksession on November 14, 2012. The attached document incorporates the feedback and discussion from the November 14, 2012 meeting into a proposed work plan document from City staff.
Council should bear in mind that the timelines proposed in the document represent a “first look” on the part of staff concerning the Goals and Initiatives. In addition, many of the initiatives will require funding through the budget process. Council may need to amend implementation plans based upon other priorities, state government actions, or availability of funding.
City staff hopes that the work plan proposal before you will meet with your approval. Also attached are two appendices prepared by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism for additional background information on the Tourism program. Staff certainly welcomes additional feedback, discussion, and direction on the plan.
Memorandum: City Council Goals & Initiatives Work Plan December 5, 2012 Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT Many of the items listed in the two year Goals and Initiatives work plan will require funding. The Goals and Initiatives will help inform the City Manager’s Office as to priorities for the FY 2014 budget and the future capital improvements plan.
Attachments: Goals and Initiatives Draft Work Plan Appendix A – Key Travel & Tourism Indicators Appendix B – Background Presentation for Tourism Background CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND INITIATIVES
FY 2013‐2014
December 11, 2012
Draft Work Plan
Page 1 of 40 HISTORIC CHARACTER & VITALITY
Preserve and enhance the historic character of Fredericksburg, including the historic city center. Preserve our sense of place, promote economic strength, and ensure the City’s continuing appeal to residents, business people, and visitors.
Initiative a. Support and encourage Main Street – Fredericksburg version; work with community leaders (new) b. Historic preservation plan: complete archaeology ordinance; incorporate preservation goals in city planning process; establish process regarding preservation goals (new)
Work Plan a. Support and encourage Main Street – Fredericksburg version; work with community leaders (new)
Discussion & Analysis The City currently has an allocation to the Main Street program in the FY 2013 budget. The City is waiting for the Main Street Formation Committee to present a business plan, proposed budget, and Memorandum of Agreement to the City. The Main Street group will also have an agreement with the Economic Development Authority, which is also expected to provide funding to the program in its early development years. The agreement is expected to be presented to the City by January 2013 and will define Main Street development through June 2013.
Key aspects of the agreement include hiring a Director and establishing four standing committees (Promotions, Economic Restructuring, Design, and Organization). The agreement will also establish first priorities for the organization. The first priorities typically include establishing internal communications with members, establishing external communications with the general public, determining a business recruitment approach and priorities, prioritizing appearance improvements in the downtown, and filing for Main Street Community status.
Main Street programs are developed as independent entities with strong partnerships with the local government. The Department of Economic Development and Tourism and other City departments will be involved with the Main Street committee structure as appropriate and to the extent desired by the Main Street program.
Timeline: January 2013 – Memorandum of Agreement presented for review. February – March 2013 – Agreement review & approval April 2013 – June 2014 – Implement Initial priorities in the agreement
b. Historic preservation plan: complete archaeology ordinance; incorporate preservation goals in city planning process; establish process regarding preservation goals (new)
Discussion & Analysis Archaeology Ordinance
Issue summary – An archaeology ordinance will require that we first develop an archaeology plan/program that specifies who, what, where, and when such an ordinance will be implemented. This task would entail putting together a working group or committee that will discuss and define a
Page 2 of 40 workable policy. Once a draft plan/program is developed, this committee would need to discuss it with stakeholders, such as developers and property owners, and then take it through the Planning Commission and City Council.
It is important to note that there needs to be a public education component to any archaeology program. The intent should not be to simply dig artifacts, but to have a commitment from a museum or other entity that will provide for public display and education. This public display / education component is critical. Without it, there is little point in having an archaeology program. Once the City Council adopts a final archeology plan, we would be able to quickly submit the related ordinance for adoption.
Process and timeline – Developing an archaeology plan/program will entail allowing sufficient time to develop a workable program that will be supported by the community.
Establish committee (January – March 2013) Membership will need to include archaeologists, historians, developers, property owners, and the FAMCC or some other organization that will provide for public education.
Committee defines the program parameters (April – December 2013) Who, what, when, and where archaeology will be accomplished What organization will undertake the public education component
Committee reviews proposed program with public; revises as necessary (Jan. – March 2014) Final review – Planning Commission & Council (April – June 2014) Develop ordinance & review concurrent with Final program review (May – July 2014)
Incorporate Preservation Goals into the Development Process
Issue Summary – The City’s Preservation Plan notes that historic resources outside the Historic District merit attention during the land development process. For several decades, the City has successfully identified historic resources outside the Historic District and preserved them through proffers and other techniques. The City can formalize these efforts to ensure that development goals are incorporated into the City’s land development processes.
Process and timeline – Developing preservation procedures related to the land development process will entail an interdisciplinary effort. Planning staff can coordinate this activity and develop an outline of procedures that will be used to meet this goal, as follows:
Identify existing procedures – both written and unwritten (January – June 2013) Develop revised written procedures (July 2013‐September 2013) Obtain approval & implement (October ‐ December 2013)
Page 3 of 40 Establish process regarding preservation goals
Issue Summary – The City’s Preservation Plan contains seven issues and 19 identified goals to support those issues. While many of the goals have been acted upon, a process to implement them has not been formalized. To ensure an on‐going implementation effort that is consistent with those issues and goals, the following is an outline that staff will use to ensure implementation.
Process and timeline – This effort will involve participation by several departments, but can be coordinated by planning staff. The following procedures will be used to meet this goal:
Identify existing issues and goals (January 2013) Develop written procedures for implementation (Feb. – August 2013) Finalize work plan and obtain approval (Sept. – Nov. 2013)
Page 4 of 40 CHARACTER OF THE CITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Enhance the quality of life of the City and its neighborhoods by investing in and promoting safety, livability, and a strong sense of community.
Initiatives a. Develop a program to pursue aggressive abatement of blighted properties (legacy)
Work Plan Discussion & Analysis
During the last two years, the City of Fredericksburg has been very active in the process of abating blighted properties. Through voluntary compliance and City initiated actions there has been a reduction in the number of blighted properties. It is also believed that the City’s actions have brought about a realization that the continued deterioration of properties within the City will not be tolerated. This feeling has generated interest in properly maintaining properties to avoid the receipt of a maintenance code violation. Here is a listing of most of the properties that have been involved in violations resulting in stabilization or demolition.
Substantial Renovation Demolition by Owner Demolition by City – Blight 1200 Prince Edward Street 1001 Myrick Street 648 Stuart Street 600 Essex Street 1407 Caroline Street 308 Pitt Street 321 Brock Square 612 George Street 1305 Charles Street 310 Frederick Street 20 Curtiss Estates
The City has under surveillance or notice many other properties in the City. Highlights include: 604 Woodford Street – Property deemed unsafe due to a fire and has been ordered to be razed and removed. 1012 Railroad Avenue – raze and remove 307 Glover Street – raze and remove underway by owner
The aggressive pursuit of blight abatement over the last two years was not limited to residential property maintenance. The City Council adopted an expanded and re‐defined nuisance abatement ordinance to strengthen the ability of the community to address a variety of property maintenance or use issues. The City also added resources to the Planning Department in the form of an additional Zoning Inspector to assist in the enforcement of zoning ordinance and other ordinance violations. The City Council also increased funding available for the pursuit of blight abatement and historic preservation in a comprehensive way by providing $100,000 in General Fund funding to start a Blight Abatement and Historic Preservation Fund to help fund these activities.
The City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation. It is hoped that this union will generate a list of historic structures that are in need of maintenance. This should allow early intervention by private parties to correct small problems before the structures become blighted or structurally unstable. Initial meetings to lay the groundwork for moving forward have begun. Develop a listing of blighted non‐historic properties. (within 12 months) Search for properties that are in danger of becoming blighted and appeal to the owners to repair the structures before they become blighted. ( within 18 months) Continue enforcement/abatement actions. (ongoing)
Page 5 of 40 ECONOMIC VITALITY
Increase the prosperity of our citizens and businesses and ensure adequate revenues by establishing Fredericksburg as a pre‐eminent national tourism destination and by pursuing economic development and re‐development opportunities in a business friendly environment.
Initiatives a. Prepare and adopt a unified development ordinance for zoning, subdivision, and land use regulation (legacy) b. Be better positioned to take advantage of, and identifying; funding opportunities 1) Work with EDA in putting together a City marketing package; 2) Establish a working group for follow‐up with state/ federal / regional officials on economic development opportunities (new). c. Review tourism efforts and take positive steps to increase regional efforts to leverage state grants; increase financial support (new). d. Local spending – Buy City business first; City procurement policy revision (new)
Work Plan a. Prepare and adopt a unified development ordinance for zoning, subdivision, and land use regulation (legacy)
Discussion & Analysis The City Council just held the second of two work sessions on the Unified Development Ordinance on November 27, 2012. A public hearing on the ordinance was also held on November 13, 2012. The ordinance has been developed over the past year with the assistance of a citizen steering committee, and has also been through the Planning Commission for review. Review comments are currently being incorporated into a second draft document.
Although final adoption dates have not been set, the Unified Development Ordinance should be ready for adoption by City Council during the first quarter of 2013.
b. Be better positioned to take advantage of, and identifying, funding opportunities 1) Work with EDA in putting together a City marketing package; 2) Establish a working group for follow‐up with state / federal / regional officials on economic development opportunities (new)
Discussion & Analysis The Department of Economic Development and Tourism is responsible for marketing the city to prospective businesses as well as working to retain and expand existing business. The primary economic development marketing tool is the department’s web site which was launched in September as a “dot.com” site, www.fredericksburgva.com. In addition to the web site, the department does e‐mail and direct mail marketing to promote the city’s Technology Zone and HUBZone. The department uses all available city tools and resources to get prospective businesses to locate in the city and to assist existing businesses who desire to expand and/or reinvest.
The City EDT is currently working on a regional basis to build a case for the General Services Administration (GSA) to include Fredericksburg, Stafford and Spotsylvania in future location searches for federal government facilities. GSA leasing that includes the City and our neighbors would be able to take advantage of the residency of government service workers already in the region, available transportation, and lower relocation and operating costs.
Page 6 of 40
The City’s Economic Development Authority is an essential partner in the city’s economic development efforts, bringing to bear its matching grants, industrial development bonding authority, acting as a conduit for tax incentives and undertaking economic development studies. The Economic Development Authority is separate and independent from the City government, and is comprised of members of our community that have important perspective into the city’s economic well‐being and future direction. The EDA is a strong advocate and partner in seeking regional, state and federal business opportunities.
The EDA has been successful in leveraging its grants to attract capital investment, improve downtown’s appearance, expand employment and retain businesses. Over the last two fiscal years, the EDA has approved 32 grants totaling more than $800,000 for downtown façade improvements, expansion of Riverfront Park, supporting various JumpStart! projects, strengthening the downtown arts community and much more.
The EDA has identified government contracting businesses as a viable target for future business growth and supports the citywide expansion of the Technology Zone to help promote the growth of this sector. The EDT initiative to use the new city‐wide HUBZone status is seen by the EDA as an important step in broadening government contractor presence in the city.
The EDA’s grant programs and operations are funded entirely by annual fees on bond issuances and interest on its capital account, which now stands at $1.1 million (including the $725,000 city loan for the Masonic Lodge/Riverfront Park property purchase). There are currently eight bonds on the EDA’s books with no immediate prospects for additional projects. Since all of these bonds are amortizing and have declining annual principal balances, the annual fees collected by the EDA are declining each year. Over the next five years, the EDA’s bond fees short of any new issuances, will be reduced by 25%, from $183,000 in 2013 to $136,000 in 2017.
If the EDA is going to continue playing a strong partnership role with the city, it must have additional sources of revenue for its grants and special projects (other than city annual appropriations which the EDA has never requested or received). The city should consider evaluating its surplus land and buildings inventory, as well as city‐owned buildings undergoing changes of use in the next few years, to see if there are opportunities for any of these to be deeded to the EDA. The EDA can generate revenue for its programs plus put properties to active use.
Proposed Wording
Support the city’s existing community‐based business development entity, the Economic Development Authority in its efforts to expand regional, state and federal business opportunities, including GSA leasing and recruitment of government contractors including HUBZone business development. Work to identify potential additional funding opportunities for the EDA’s operations and grant program, including identification of any surplus city‐owned land or buildings that could be conveyed to the EDA for economic development purposes.
Timeline:
Ongoing: FedBizOpps monitoring for GSA leasing opportunities, HUBZone and government contractor marketing, respond to private sector requests for assistance in business location, continue to support government contractor expansion through the regular meeting schedule for
Page 7 of 40 stakeholder groups, i.e., commercial brokers, Lafayette Corridor, Princess Anne corridor, U.S. 1 stakeholders, HUBZone businesses
January/February 2013: GSA survey of current government service workers in PD 16 to identify employment levels, skills and interest in relocating to federal government work in the Fredericksburg region.
March/April: Meet with GSA contact on employee survey results and further discussions on additional federal leasing in the region.
By April, 2013: Joint meeting between City Council and the Economic Development Authority. Topics of discussion to include attracting government contractors; city property inventory and potential agreement for inventory and consideration of deeding to/development of city property by the EDA; Sophia Street economic development; tourism and technology zones; tourism funding; and Fredericksburg Main Street.
c. Review tourism efforts and take positive steps to increase regional efforts to leverage state grants; increase financial support (new)
Despite an economic downturn in 2008, Fredericksburg tourism industry has maintained visitation and travel‐related taxable sales. The tourism marketing budget of the city and regional programs each suffered significant cuts. The Department’s General Fund advertising budget was reduced from $80,000 to $40,000 in 2010. This has reduced the city’s marketing efforts. Budget now is expended in the Fredericksburg region rather than reaching further to overnight markets.
The tourism program in EDT works in strong partnership with the Fredericksburg Regional Tourism Partnership and due to budget cuts experienced during the economic downturn, is reliant on the partnership for marketing funding. The current three‐year term regional tourism partnership Memorandum of Agreement concludes on June 30, 2013 and the first priority for the tourism program is developing a new multi‐year agreement.
The regional tourism partnership has successfully applied for three tourism marketing grants, including a golf marketing, travel packaging and Civil War Sesquicentennial grant. State tourism grants are allocated for new programming, rather than ongoing marketing initiatives. Staff does not recommend initiatives for new markets when the existing budget under serves current needs. However, it is recommended that a city tourism marketing opportunity matching grants program be created in conjunction with the Economic Development Authority to generate more local tourism marketing expenditures. Recipients of the matching grants should include the spectrum of tourism‐related entities, including historic sites, restaurants, the Expo Center, Fredericksburg’s Main Street, hotels, bed & breakfasts, etc.
Timeline:
Now through February 2013: Determine Stafford and Spotsylvania staff recommendations on future participation in the Fredericksburg Regional Tourism Partnership.
February through June 2013: Secure the support of the Stafford and Spotsylvania Boards of Supervisors for the FRTP.
Page 8 of 40 By April 2013: Hold a joint meeting with the City Council and the Economic Development Authority; include tourism marketing grant fund in the discussion.
January through May, 2013: Devise a strategy to return to marketing budget levels that allow for outreach marketing to overnight markets.
After July 1, 2013: Review FRTP marketing goals and strategies with partners and stakeholders.
For FY 2015: Seek investment from FRTP to revisit key markets and advertising strategies, revisit marketing goals and strategies in conjunction with stakeholders.
Discussion & Analysis
d. Local spending – Buy City business first; City procurement policy revision (new)
Discussion & Analysis City procurement is governed by the Virginia Public Procurement Act and City Code. The City is not allowed to adopt procurement policies that violate the Virginia Public Procurement Act. Council has requested advice of the City Attorney as to the extent that “Buy City Business First” provisions are legal under state law. The City’s own policies and procedures, which are based on state statute and City Code, are decentralized. The City does not have a purchasing office or a procurement officer. The City may be able to identify through review opportunities to expand outreach of City procurement opportunities to local businesses. Action steps for this particular initiative include: a. Obtain legal advice on local procurement preference from City Attorney (December 2012) b. Preliminary Review City procurement policies and procedures (First Quarter 2013) c. Review the possibility of funding for a procurement officer in the FY 2014 budget to centralize procurement functions (Second Quarter 2013) d. Comprehensive review of City procurement policies and setting up of seminars or other local business outreach programs (July 2013 – March 2014)
Page 9 of 40 SUSTAINABILITY AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment by encouraging sustainable practices and environmental conservation measures, particularly those designed to protect water quality, natural beauty, and historic resources of the Rappahannock River.
Initiatives a. Water and Sewer line replacements – update utilities master plan and construct line replacements (new – study)
Work Plan Discussion & Analysis
The City Public Works Department will need to incorporate funding for a master plan study into the upcoming FY 2014 budget in the Water and Wastewater Funds. Such a study will need to both assess current conditions and project future needs based upon the City’s comprehensive plan and other similar plans.
The City Public Works Department is in the process of completing a smaller scale study of water line adequacy in the College Heights neighborhood. That study could be incorporated into the larger study effort, and at the same time provide action steps for the City to begin replacing small water lines to improve water quality and fire flow in that area.
Page 10 of 40 PARKS, RECREATON, AND OPEN SPACE
Enhance the quality of parks and open space facilities, as well as recreational programming, to meet the needs of families, youth, and seniors.
Initiatives a. Complete design of Riverfront Park (new)
Work Plan Discussion & Analysis
The FY 2013 budget has an appropriation of $200,000 in the capital budget for the development of a preferred design concept / master plan. This work is the next step in the development of the park. The Riverfront Park Task Force and the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Public Facilities Department have reviewed responses to a Request for Proposal document and selected a firm to conduct this work. The negotiated price is approximately half the allocated budget amount.
Council discussed the contract award briefly at a worksession held November 27, 2012, and has scheduled further discussions at a worksession scheduled for December 11, 2012. If the contract for the master plan is approved, the plan should be ready for presentation in the summer of 2013.
Page 11 of 40 PUBLIC SAFETY
Provide a safe and secure environment for those who live, work and visit the City through high quality public safety facilities and systems.
Initiatives a. Pursue additional EMS staffing to provide 24 / 7 / 365 Advanced Life Support capability (new) b. Community policing; expand to other neighborhoods; communicate and involve neighborhood associations (new)
Work Plan a. Pursue additional EMS staffing to provide 24 / 7 / 365 Advanced Life Support capability (new)
Discussion & Analysis
The City of Fredericksburg Fire Department currently staffs two Advanced Life Support EMS transport units weekdays and holidays [Monday – Friday] from 5:30 am – 6:00pm. Fredericksburg Rescue Squad currently staffs a minimum of one EMS transport unit (usually Basic Life Support) from 6:00pm – 5:30am weeknights and 24‐hours on Saturday and Sunday.
It is difficult for Fredericksburg Rescue Squad to provide Advance Life Support service since the squad currently has only five Advanced Life Support providers who are actively running calls on a regular basis.
Due to limited resources the City averages calling for mutual aid from surrounding localities 54 times per month to provide EMS transport units to handle calls within the City. Mutual aid calls have been increasing over the last several months. Approximately 70 percent of these requests are made during the hours when the Fredericksburg Rescue Squad is providing EMS coverage on nights and weekends.
The eventual goal of the Fredericksburg Fire Department is to provide three units (two ALS and one BLS) at all hours. The City will continue to rely on the Fredericksburg Rescue Squad for the provision of at least one BLS‐unit during nights and weekends.
The Department estimates that eight additional ALS medics would be needed to staff two ALS units 24/7/365 will cost approximately $500,000. This includes salaries, benefits, uniforms, medical exams, firefighting/EMS gear and other ancillary items. In order for the City and its’ strategic partner (Fredericksburg Rescue Squad) to properly develop and manage the new 24‐hour Advance Life Support program, a phased in approach over the next two years would be appropriate. This involves developing good policies and procedures both within each organization and with the Communications Center as well as hiring and equipping additional employees and facilities enhancements.
The first six months of the next fiscal year [FY 14] shall be used for working on those items needed to make the system run effectively and seamlessly regardless of who provides the service. The second half of FY 14 would see additional transport units staffed and operational. The second year
Page 12 of 40 of the program would be to continue phasing in the additional units, evaluate operations, and collect statistical data used to make system improvements for the delivery service.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1. Meet with leadership of Fredericksburg Rescue Squad and emphasize the importance of continuing to staff a minimum of one (1) BLS transport unit during their current hours. Tie current funds allotted through budget process to performance benchmarks related to staffing of volunteer unit. First meeting – January/February 2013, complete by October – 2013.
2. Develop and implement work group consisting of Fire Department personnel, ECC Communications Manager and Staff and FRS leadership to update and change the dispatch matrix to reflect new 24‐hour medic units and appropriate dispatching of all EMS assets (career and/or volunteer). Start January 2013, complete October 2013.
3. Work with Senior Staff to change and develop current EMS SOGs to coordinate with 24‐hour work cycle beginning in March 2013.
4. By May 2013, receive indication from Council that they are willing to fund this initiative for FY 2014.
5. Advertise specifically for ALS‐certified EMS providers by July 1, 2013.
6. Meet with current EMS division staff to develop work schedule and look at extending staffing of units.
7. Conduct a promotional process to select additional EMS supervisor(s) that will be needed to properly manage the EMS assets within the current rotating shift environment. Start July 2013, complete by October 1, 2013.
8. Work with Fire Department Senior Staff and Public Facilities to identify, procure and implement facility changes to accommodate additional personnel living within current stations on a 24‐hour basis. Changes accomplished by November 1, 2013.
9. Hiring process complete by November 1, 2013, of additional Medics.
10. Nov/Dec 2013 – Orientation, street drills and additional training required to bring all personnel (Fire/EMS) up to speed on all changes necessary for implementation of plan.
11. January 1, 2014 – start actively dispatching and responding based upon the extended schedule.
Page 13 of 40 b. Community policing, expand to other neighborhoods; communicate and involve neighborhood associations (new)
Discussion & Analysis The Community Policing model is built into the overall management structure of the Police Department through programs that are already in place. Senior officers are assigned to liaise with different neighborhood groups by attending meetings and establishing lines of communication with stakeholders in the district. Additionally, patrol officers are assigned to the same patrol zones for extended periods of time specifically in order to develop relationships with the residents and businesses within the patrol area and to become familiar with the unique challenges facing each neighborhood. These practices would continue through the current City Council term.
To address the targeted initiative of expanding Community Policing through the full‐time assignment of an officer to a specific neighborhood, the Police Department included a second police officer in their FY 14 budget request:
This officer’s primary assignment will be the College Heights neighborhood during the academic year for the University of Mary Washington. The secondary assignment for this officer will be to patrol the canal path and other city trails and parks during the summer and other periods when UMW is not in session. If approved in the FY 14 budget, the new officer would start the Academy class beginning July 22, 2013. An existing officer would be deployed to College Heights during the December 2013 – January 2014 timeframe after the new officer is released from training to work regular patrol duties.
Page 14 of 40 TRANSPORTATION
Maintain and advance the development of local and regional multi‐modal transportation systems that are safe, functional, and attractive.
Initiatives a. Build the Rappahannock Heritage Trail (legacy) b. Pursue VDOT Revenue Sharing to accomplish additional street paving and street maintenance (legacy) c. Build a significant portion of the Virginia Central Railway Trail (legacy) d. Prepare preliminary design and NEPA documents for the Fall Hill Avenue Major Roadway Widening and I‐95 bridge replacement (legacy) e. Design and construct a replacement bridge on Fall Hill Avenue over the Rappahannock Canal (legacy) f. Parking Strategic Plan (new – study)
Work Plan a) Build the Rappahannock Heritage Trail (legacy)
Discussion & Next Steps: The construction contract is winding down. The City formally opened the trail to the public at a ribbon‐cutting ceremony on December 1, 2012. The next step for action is to complete the construction contract and to monitor and maintain the trail.
b) Pursue VDOT Revenue Sharing to accomplish additional street paving and street maintenance (legacy)
Discussion & Next Steps:
The City has applied for $1.2 million in FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing funds (to be matched by an equal amount of locally provided funds) for street maintenance and reconstruction.
c) Build a significant portion of the Virginia Central Railway Trail (legacy)
Discussion & Next Steps:
The City is currently receiving bids for this project. Bids are due December 12, 2012. Bid award by City Council would take place in January, with construction to commence soon afterwards.
Currently, the project is being bid in sections, and the City may not have enough current funding to complete all four sections of the trail (from Cobblestone to I‐95). The length of construction will depend to an extent on the length of trail permitted given the available funding. A general estimate is seven to ten months after contract award for construction (last quarter of 2013).
The City also intends to pursue additional transportation enhancement funding for sections of the Virginia Central Railway trail that may not be able to be built because of funding shortfalls. City Council would have to appropriate matching funding; however, if grant funds are awarded the City would be able to pursue additional trail construction during the Council term. Applications for the upcoming round of enhancement funding are due in February 2013.
Page 15 of 40 d) Prepare preliminary design and NEPA documents for the Fall Hill Avenue Major Roadway Widening and I‐95 Bridge Replacement (legacy)
Discussion & Next Steps The preliminary design and NEPA documents have been completed. A public hearing / public meeting on the project was held at James Monroe High School the evening of November 30, 2012. In early 2013, the City will be able to transfer the project administration to VDOT for the completion of the design and the construction.
e) Design and construct a replacement bridge on Fall Hill Avenue over the Rappahannock Canal (legacy)
Discussion & Next Steps The City Public Works Department is scheduled to advertise for construction bids by the end of December 2012. Contract award is anticipated for March 2013, and construction is expected to take up to eight months after the award of the contract (November 2013).
f) Parking Strategic Plan (new‐study)
The 2006 Jumpstart! Plan addressed the need for a Comprehensive Parking Management Plan. The Plan put forward the need for a “comprehensive parking management strategy.” The study suggested several major policy questions, which would form the basis for a scope of work:
Who is responsible for providing parking (private, public, shared) and how does this responsibility vary based on location and user? If publicly funded in whole or part, how will parking construction and carrying costs be financed? If publicly funded, how will the location and distribution of parking spaces by user (private/ public) be determined? How can satellite parking and mass transit be incorporated into a parking management plan? What is the appropriate “balance” between proximate parking and satellite parking? How can payment in lieu of parking be incorporated into the plan? How can shared parking strategies be incorporated into the plan? How should use (public / private) of existing public surface and street parking spaces be determined, managed, and enforced? How can the City coordinate with owners of existing private parking spaces to reserve private parking spaces for public use?1
The City will need to update and build upon both this work and the work of the 2006 “Desman” parking report. Projected parking demand would need to be updated to reflect any actual or pending changes in conditions, such as the construction of Riverfront Park and the VRE station in Spotsylvania County. Key deliverables could also include an analysis of potential downtown parking garage sizes, sites, and cost estimates.
The initial step is to bring the study as a funding request into the FY 2014 budget. Assuming Council funds the study:
1 JumpStart! Fredericksburg Action Plan, June 2006, p. 20.
Page 16 of 40 May – June 2013: Work on request for procurement document and proceed with procurement advertisement July 2013: Finalize negotiations and request contract award by City Council August 2013 – March 2014: Study period
A steering committee could be formed to assist the consultant with their review and analysis. Staff representatives should include Public Works, Economic Development and Tourism, and the City Manager’s Office, among others. Members of the community could include representatives of the EDA, Chamber of Commerce, Planning Commission, and / or others.
Page 17 of 40 GOVERNANCE
Ensure that City government is effective, efficient, and open by enhancing the operation, interaction, and communication among City Council, staff, and the public.
Initiatives a. Complete construction of the courthouse (legacy) b. Pursue an organizational review at the functional level (legacy) c. Develop and implement a succession plan for all departments (new – study) d. Develop Plan for Renwick Building and identify funding to accomplish this plan (new)
Work Plan
a. Complete construction of the courthouse (legacy)
Discussion & Analysis
The construction of the courthouse is well underway. The Interim facilities for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has been completed, and the old J&DR Court building has been demolished. The restroom renovations in the Visitor Center have also been completed. Next steps include site work, sheeting and shoring, and foundation work for the new building. Design work is also proceeding, and 95% construction plans should be submitted for the City review in January 2013. Construction should be completed in May 2014.
b. Pursue an organizational review at the functional level (legacy)
Discussion & Analysis
Work is active and underway on this item. Staff has targeted the January 22, 2012 City Council meeting for a worksession to review results. Results will be available to inform the FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets.
The report is broad and comprehensive, and City Council should anticipate that implementation will take place over several years. Many items identified in the Goals and Initiatives process by City Council will overlap to an extent with the findings of the consultant, but others may not.
c. Develop and implement a succession plan for all departments (new – study)
Discussion & Analysis The recommendation of a developing a succession plan is a good idea. Understanding the importance of succession planning, workforce data was gathered and evaluated concerning the impact of upcoming retirements on the City. Staff concluded that a developed and formalized succession plan will help to smooth transitions as employees retire.
Succession planning includes planning for both the foreseen and unexpected absences of people who hold key roles with the City of Fredericksburg. When succession planning is carefully conducted and the plan periodically reviewed; extended and costly vacancies can be planned for and the impact on the City is reduced.
Here is a proposed timeline for the development of a formal succession plan:
Page 18 of 40
Spring 2013 – Start to gather information and talking to Directors about succession planning.
Summer 2013 – Submit an RFP for a succession planning consultant to offer planning, training and guidance with succession planning. Evaluate proposals and award contract.
September/October 2013– Tabletop exercise with Directors to develop an unexpected absence plan for all departments. This plan includes all key roles in the City.
November/January 2014 – Coordinate with the consultant the gathering of information from Directors and departments. Review employee training and development needs and their impact on the City. Develop a comprehensive training and development plan for employees.
March/April 2014 – Compile and complete the Succession Planning documentation.
Succession planning is an ongoing process that will need to be reviewed on an annual basis at a minimum.
d. Develop a plan for the Renwick Building and identify funding to accomplish the plan (new)
Discussion & Analysis
The Renwick Building will continue to be used for a court facility and for Clerk of Circuit Court offices until the completion of the new courthouse until approximately June 2014. At a worksession of City Council, an Expert Choice model was run to give City Council a sense of the various options, including the original First Choice proposal to renovate the courtroom for City Council chambers and the first floor for office space. The results of that worksession will provide the basis for further discussion on the future use of the Renwick building.
The City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and Planning Department could initiate a comprehensive plan review process, which would provide for both public input and structured input from the Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Board could also provide input into the process. The goal of such a process would be to identify the parameters, uses, and potential renovation costs of the Renwick building. This could be done during CY 2013.
The building will need some ongoing renovation. The extent may vary depending upon the ultimate use for the new building. The FY 2015 capital budget would be the first real opportunity to fund improvements because the building will remain occupied by the Circuit Court until that point.
Page 19 of 40 EDUCATION
Support and enhance the core service of lifelong education, working closely with the School Board and other institutions.
Initiatives – there were no identified initiatives under this goal area.
Page 20 of 40 Appendix A: Key Travel and Tourism Indicators
The Department Economic Development and Tourism uses a number of regular reports and statistics to gauge the success of its marketing efforts and the overall well‐being of the local tourism industry. Those indicators include:
Area Visitation Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012 (September YTD)
300,000
250,000
200,000 2010
150,000 2011
100,000 2012 (YTD) 50,000
0 Area Visitation 2010 264,251 2011 274,570 2012 (YTD) 209,554
Area visitation provides a snapshot of visitation to museum, attractions, National Park Services sites and events. The figure is factored in an attempt to eliminate visitation to multiple sites by one visitor. As a frame of reference, the National Park Service counts more than 900,000 users of its facilities. Group visitation in 2011 was bolstered by the National Scout Jamboree held at Ft. A.P. Hill, bringing more than 40,000 scouts and associated travelers into the region.
Area visitation was up .7 percent in 2011 over 2010.
Page 21 of 40
Group Visitation Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012 (September YTD)
120,000
100,000
80,000 2010
60,000 2011
40,000 2012 (YTD) 20,000
0 Group Visitation 2010 99,198 2011 97,110 2012 (YTD) 59,884
Group visitation is derived mainly from people who travel to Fredericksburg by bus, either as part of a pre‐formed group or through the service of a group tour operator. The market segment is shrinking as the “Greatest Generation’s” ability to travel decreases and the succeeding generation of Baby Boomers is less inclined to travel by bus or as part of a large (40 person+ group). The market is very important to the city’s historic sites, other attractions, restaurants, and hotels so we continue to attend travel trade shows and advertise in publications that target these travelers.
The group visitation segment dropped by two percent in 2011.
Page 22 of 40 Meeting and Convention Sales Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012
12,000
10,000
8,000 2010 6,000 2011 4,000 2012 2,000
0 Meeting and Convention Sales 2010 6,178 2011 8,122 2012 10,068
The city’s Meeting and Conventions sales team was developed when the Fredericksburg Expo Center opened. The focus is to bring meetings, conventions and special events to the city and region to increase hotels nights, restaurant, retail, and auto service sales. Teaming with the sales force at the expo center and other area hotels and attractions, the efforts continue to show success, and are an important market to continue to pursue as the bus market continues to decrease.
Room nights derived from the city’s meeting and conventions sales increased 20 percent in 2011 over 2010 figures. Through September, 2012 sales have already surpassed 2011 figures.
Page 23 of 40 Lodging Taxes Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012 (October YTD)
$1,180,000.00 $1,160,000.00 $1,140,000.00 $1,120,000.00 $1,100,000.00 2010 $1,080,000.00 $1,060,000.00 2011 $1,040,000.00 2012 $1,020,000.00 (YTD) $1,000,000.00 $980,000.00 $960,000.00 Lodging Taxes 2010 $1,153,225.23 2011 $1,146,223.21 2012 (YTD) $1,030,186.48
Lodging taxes are locally‐based taxes that benefit the city directly. The Fredericksburg lodging rate of six percent is paid in addition to the state sales tax of five percent. A slight drop in 2011 figures is attributed to a delay in taxes due by one or more properties.
Page 24 of 40 RevPar Rates Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012 (October YTD)
$48.00 $47.00 $46.00 $45.00 2010 $44.00 $43.00 2011 $42.00 $41.00 2012 (YTD) $40.00 $39.00 $38.00 RevPar Rates 2010 $41.49 2011 $43.55 2012 (YTD) $47.08
RevPAR or Revenue per available room is one of the most important measurements in the hotel industry. It is a measure of how well the hotel has been able to fill rooms in any time period. Below in the Smith Travel Report, see that Fredericksburg occupancy levels, average daily rate (ADR) and RevPAR compare positively to neighboring localities.
Year to Date - October 2012 vs October 2011
Occ % ADR RevPAR Percent Change from YTD 2011
Room Room Room 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 Occ ADR RevPAR Rev Avail Sold - Fredericksburg City, VA 56.4 56.9 83.46 79.64 47.08 45.35 0.9 4.8 3.8 3.3 -0.5 -1.4 Stafford County, VA 60.4 57.6 71.53 69.97 43.21 40.33 4.8 2.2 7.1 7.1 -0.0 4.8 Spotsylvania County, VA 61.0 59.0 67.53 66.95 41.18 39.53 3.3 0.9 4.2 7.0 2.7 6.1
Page 25 of 40 Meals Taxes Year Over Year Comparison - 2010, 2011, 2012 (October YTD)
$9,400,000.00 $9,200,000.00 $9,000,000.00 $8,800,000.00 2010 $8,600,000.00 $8,400,000.00 2011 $8,200,000.00 $8,000,000.00 2012 (YTD) $7,800,000.00 $7,600,000.00 $7,400,000.00 Meals Taxes 2010 $8,514,845.63 2011 $9,160,603.30 2012 (YTD) $8,000,412.74
National travel statistics indicate that as much as 30 percent of local restaurant sales can be attributed to travelers, tour group, or meetings and conventions attendees so it is an important statistic for EDT to track. The Fredericksburg meals tax rate is six percent and contributes appreciably to the city’s General Fund. The 2011 taxes were nearly $650,000 higher than 2010, showing growth in the restaurant sector in the city in a few high volume establishments.
Page 26 of 40 Background Report for City Council Goals and Initiatives FY14-16 Appendix B December 2013
Page 27 of 40 Our goal is to increase travel‐related taxable sales for City businesses.
Streams from lodging, restaurant, retail, admissions, personal property, real estate, gasoline sales
How do we get more travel‐related sales? More visitors. Visitors spending more money. Use existing resources for higher benefit. Add product—hotels, restaurants, attractions, tours, etcetera. Seek private sector investment.
Page 28 of 40 Consumer (individual visitors) ◦ Advertising ◦ Visitor center ◦ FredericksburgVAcations regional tourism packaging ◦ Golf travel packaging ◦ Events Group Tours (buses primarily) ◦ Tour operators ◦ Group leaders Meetings and Conventions (added when the Expo Center was opened) ◦ Associations ◦ Government ◦ SMERF (social, military, education, religious, fraternal)
Page 29 of 40 Personnel and associated costs ◦ EDT full time staff (six staff) ◦ Two part‐time meetings and conventions staff ◦ Part‐time travel counselors (14 staff) Advertising currently limited to in‐market advertising due to budget Professional Services (design and marketing assistance) Travel and Trade Shows (sales opportunities) Dues and associations membership (to gain access to sales opportunities) Travel industry and media familiarization tours Office support
More than 75 percent of the EDT budget is currently expended on personnel costs. Much of the staff job responsibilities include a function that brings revenue to the City. We are highly reliant on the regional tourism budget for marketing funds.
Page 30 of 40 Operating Budget FY13 Personnel (full and PT) Professional services Advertising Printing and Binding Office support Travel and education Promotional materials Telecommunications Visitor Accomodations Dues and Memberships Merch. for Resale, CC Fees
Page 31 of 40 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0
Page 32 of 40 Civic efforts since the 1940’s Chamber program in the 1950’s City program from the late 60’s More justification for a tourism program with annexation in 1982 Stafford joined in a visitor guide project in 1984 Added advertising and brochure distribution Spotsylvania joined the partnership in 1987 Shared marketing since ‘87. First MOU in ‘07 new MOU due July 2013 Longwoods International study focused regional marketing efforts Timeless brand accepted Group tourism is now regional
Page 33 of 40 Jointly funded by the regional tourism partnership
The study determined the effectiveness of existing marketing
Perceived strengths : affordable, sightseeing, good place for adults to visit, worry free
Perceived weaknesses: Entertainment, sports and recreation, luxurious, unique
Defined the most accepting demographics to Fredericksburg’s product
Identified markets with the most potential for success for future efforts ◦ Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Richmond, Tidewater Virginia, Raleigh‐Durham, Pittsburgh, New York City
Page 34 of 40 For regional tourism marketing Developed after the Longwoods study was completed Intended to span the historic eras of the Fredericksburg area Evokes the suspension of everyday cares Carries to a variety of travelers: heritage tourism, arts and cultural, the outdoors and more
Page 35 of 40 Advertising ◦ Print advertising in selected markets ◦ Virginia Travel Guide ◦ Electronic media ◦ Welcome center advertising Professional Services ◦ Development of the design of the visitor guide and other printed materials ◦ Website development and management ◦ Agency public relations efforts Printing visitor guide, Civil War brochure, group sales publications, etcetera Research, Smith Travel Data Brochure distribution services Postage Group tourism marketing
We no longer jointly invest in photography, additional research or in‐market promotions
Page 36 of 40 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Page 37 of 40 The current Memorandum of Agreement for the tourism partnership concludes June 30, 2013. Spotsylvania is reviewing its entire economic development and tourism marketing programs which will include recommendations on future participation in the regional tourism partnership. Stafford is expected to review the partnership before they commit to another three-year term. Dissolution of the partnership would have significant impact on the city tourism operations and budget needs.
Page 38 of 40 Downtown Fredericksburg’s commercial core ◦ Its attractor status can be increased ◦ A funding source for Main Street must be identified ◦ Comprehensive vision needed for the Sophia Street corridor, including the riverfront Many City hotel properties are aging ◦ Of the 15 lodging properties in the city, 4 were built in this century. ◦ Older hotels collect lower room rates. Lower room rates affect federal per diem rates ◦ Need to seek redevelopment opportunities for older properties Preservation and heritage tourism sites lack marketing capacity Long term viability of the Expo Center Regional tourism partnership renewal
Page 39 of 40 Regional tourism MOU sunsets June 30, 2013.
CVS development vision adjusts to Kalahari realities.
Sports tourism focus grows.
VTC/Price Waterhouse Coopers marketing and opportunities study suggests regional tourism opportunities
Transportation challenges continue. Congestion on I‐95 is a detriment to travel and tourism.
Page 40 of 40 ITEM #10G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Greenlaw and Members of City Council FROM: Beverly R. Cameron, City Manager DATE: December 4, 2012 SUBJECT: City Manager’s Update
Highlights of major activities and other notable developments:
Rappahannock River Heritage Trail Ribbon Cutting - The Rappahannock River Heritage Trail ribbon cutting was held on Saturday, December 1, officially opening the new asphalt path to pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail, which connects the two ends of the existing Canal Path, completes a 3.1 mile loop that will almost assuredly be used for future 5K races. With scenic views of the river available throughout most of the route, and historical markers and benches providing convenient places to take a break, the 10- foot wide path is predicted to quickly become a favorite among the City’s trails. Invited to the ribbon cutting were the various groups associated with the pathway effort. Approximately 110 people attended the ceremony, and most of them afterwards either ran, walked, or rode their bikes on the loop, ending up at the picnic shelter at Friends of the Rappahannock. Refreshments for the event were provided by Wegmans.
Department of Social Services Campaigns for Infant Safe Sleeping - The Department of Social Services kicked off a Safe Sleep Campaign in October of this year. The campaign’s focus is the education of parents and caretakers about the risks of co-sleeping with infants. Many are not aware that suffocation is currently the leading cause of death for infants, with the majority of these suffocation fatalities occurring in the sleeping environment.
Each worker at DSS is tasked with assessing the sleep environment of the infants whose families are assigned a caseworker, and then educating the parents or caretakers on safe sleeping practices. As part of the DSS commitment to the community, the Department is also striving to provide pack-and-play portable cribs to those families who do not have a City Manager’s Update Memorandum - 2 - December 4, 2012
safe sleeping area for their infants. Funded through a grant administered by the Virginia Department of Health, the Fredericksburg DSS has so far purchased and distributed ten portable cribs. In collaboration with the state’s initiative to reduce child fatalities due to unsafe sleeping practices, Fredericksburg DSS is also launching a local initiative called “Project Manger”. The purpose of “Project Manger” is to partner with area churches and other members of the community to secure funding for portable cribs and allocate them to families in need. The cribs cost approximately $60 each. The “Project Manger” campaign will run through the month of December.
Greenhouse Construction Completed - The Park Maintenance Division has completed construction of their new greenhouse at the Water Treatment Plant. The greenhouse will assist the gardening staff with their goal of keeping the City of Fredericksburg beautiful through natural ornamentation. Greenhouses have many benefits, including providing the ability to garden year-round, offering optimum conditions and protection for cultivated plants, and increasing savings on plants and flowers.
Economic Development Property Search Tool – On December 6, a new feature was added to the Department of Economic Development and Tourism web site. A property search tool allows users to quickly find retail, office, and industrial and flex buildings and sites for lease and purchase in the city, categorized by the desired size. Detailed information, photos, brochures and maps for over 130 properties are available on this easy-to-use feature. The search tool includes seamless links to the city’s GIS system and has convenient printing and filing options. The database of available properties for lease and sale will be updated monthly by the department with input from commercial leasing agents and building owners.
The internet has transformed the site selection process performed by business industry, making information-rich websites increasingly important to community competitiveness and economic development. The property search feature is another helpful web tool available to businesses of all kinds who are investigating a location or expansion in our city. City Manager’s Update Memorandum - 3 - December 4, 2012
New K-9 Team on Patrol – On November 20, Officer Josh Lynch and his new partner Max graduated together from K-9 School, which was hosted by the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s Office. Max is a 4-year-old German Shepherd who was previously partnered with Officer Dave Reilly. When Officer Reilly received a promotion to Sergeant, his supervisory responsibilities required him to either transfer Max to a new partner or retire him. Max is a very motivated and capable patrol dog and he is apparently happy to continue working. Officer Lynch and Max are trained in tracking, suspect apprehension, and narcotics detection.
ITEM #10H
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS & EVENTS CALENDAR
City Hall Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401
DATE TIME EVENT 12/11/12 5:30 p.m. Work Session Suite, Room 218 • Discussion of Riverfront Park project . • Presentation of report to future parks and the use of city properties
7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
1/8/13 7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
1/22/13 5:30 p.m. Work Session Suite, Room 218 • Organizational Study results
7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
2/12/13 7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
2/26/13 7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
3/13/13 7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
3/27/13 7:30 p.m. Regular Session Chambers
Work Session topics for upcoming meetings
Police issues and innovations National Park Service - master plan update Joint Work Session with EDA
Boards & Commission Meeting Dates/Time Actual Date of Meeting Members Appointed Contact Person
Board of Social Services 2nd Friday/8:00 a.m. December 14 at 8 a.m. Paolucci Christen Gallik Central Rappahnnock Regional Library Quarterly/5:30 p.m. February 11 at 5:30 p.m. Devine Donna Cote Chamber Military Affairs Council Quarterly 3rd Thursday/3:30 p.m. December 13 at 3:30 p.m. Ellis Susan Spears Community Policy Management Team Thursday after 3rd Tuesday/2:00 p.m. December 13 at 2 p.m. Paolucci Joan Perry Fredericksburg Arts Commission 1st Thursday /7:00 p.m. January 3 at 7 p.m. Devine, Solley Julie Perry Fredericksburg Area Museum C.C. 4th Wednesday/4:00 p.m. No December meeting Solley Ellen Killough Fredericksburg Clean & Green Comm. 1st Monday/6:00 p.m. January 7 at 6 p.m. Solley Anne Little Fredericksburg Regional Alliance Quarterly 2nd Monday/5:00 p.m. January 14 at 5 p.m. Greenlaw Gene Bailey GWRC/FAMPO 3rd Monday/6:00 p.m. No December meeting Kelly, Ellis Lloyd Robinson George Washington Toll Road Authority 1st Monday/6:30 p.m. TBD Greenlaw, Ellis, Kelly Lloyd Robinson Pathways Steering Committee last Thursday/noon December 27 at 5 p.m. Solley Bob Antozzi PRTC 1st Thursday/7:00 p.m. January 3 at 7 p.m. Kelly Gina Altis Rappahannock Area Agency on Aging 3rd Wednesday/1:30 p.m. January 16 at 1:30 p.m. Paolucci Jim Schaefer Rappahannock Juvenile Detention bi-monthly last Monday/12 noon January 28 at noon Paolucci Carla White Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste Quarterly 3rd Wednesday/1:30 p.m. February 20 at 1:30 p.m. Solley, Howe Pat Rowe Rappahannock River Basin Quarterly/1:00 p.m. March 20 at 1 p.m. Middle Basin Solley, Kelly - Alt. Eldon James Recreation Commission 3rd Thursday/7:00 p.m. December 13 at 7 p.m. Kelly Bob Antozzi Regional Group Home Commission bi-monthly/3:00 p.m. January 16 at 3 p.m. Paolucci Kristen Van Tine Town & Gown Quarterly/3:30 p.m. February 14 at 3:30 p.m. at UMW Devine, Solley Pam Verbeck Virginia Railway Express Operations Brd 3rd Friday/9:30 a.m. December 21 at 9:30 a.m. Howe, Ellis - Kelly - Alt. Richard Dalton