lfportal.loudoun.gov · BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE . AGENDA . December 13, 2016 . 6:00 p.m. Loudoun …

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

December 13, 2016 6:00 p.m.

Loudoun County Government Center 1 Harrison Street, S.E., Leesburg, VA

Board Room

Committee Members: Matthew Letourneau, Chair

Phyllis Randall - Tony Buffington - Ralph Buona - Koran Saines

*Proposed for Consent 1. Monthly Department of Economic Development Report (Information)

Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

2. Economic Development Advisory Commission (Information) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

3. *Monthly Report/Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System (Information) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Wendy Wickens, Information

Technology; Vince Marchesano, Vivad Technologies, LLC

4. *CONTRACT AWARD/Construction of Mooreview Parkway (Action) Election District: Dulles Staff Contacts: Melissa Tello & Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital

Infrastructure; Mike Angel, Finance and Procurement

5. *CONTRACT AWARD/Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station (Action) Election District: Blue Ridge Staff Contacts: Mark Hoffman & Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital

Infrastructure; Christopher Bresley, Finance and Procurement

6. Elevated or Tunnel Crossing for the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Boulevard (Action) Election District: Sterling Staff Contacts: Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Packet Page 1

Agenda Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

December 13, 2016 Page 2

7. Fiscal Impact Committee’s Recommended FY 2017 Capital Facility Standards (Action)

Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Erin McLellan and Julie Crim, Management and Budget

8. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 (Information) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Janet Romanchyk, Finance and

Procurement

9. FY 2016 Year-End Financial Condition and Report on Fund Balances (Information) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Janet Romanchyk, Finance and

Procurement

10. Uses of FY 2016 Fund Balances (Action) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Tim Hemstreet, County Administration; Erin McLellan, Management and

Budget

11. Acceleration of Funding for HS-9 (Action) Election District: Dulles Staff Contacts: Erin McLellan, Management and Budget

12. Loudoun County Vehicle Decal Program (Action) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: H. Roger Zurn, Jr., Treasurer

13. Request for 0.47 FTE to Support the Commissioner of the Revenue Business Tax Assessor (Action) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Robert S. Wertz, Jr., Commissioner of the Revenue; Erin McLellan,

Management and Budget

14. Fire and Rescue - Advance Hiring for Recruit School (Action) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Chief W. Keith Brower, Jr., Fire and Rescue; Erin McLellan, Management

and Budget

15. Request for 0.47 FTE to Support the Community Development Block Grant Program (Action) Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Sarah Coyle Etro & Ellen Grunewald, Family Services; Erin McLellan,


Packet Page 2

Agenda Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


16. Phased Construction Delivery for Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Project Phase II

(Action) Election District: Catoctin Staff Contacts: Mark Hoffman, Khattab Shammout, and Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation

and Capital Infrastructure

Next Regular Meeting: January 10, 2017 If you require a reasonable accommodation for any type of disability in order to participate in the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee Meeting, please contact the Office of the County Administrator at 703-777-0200/TTY-711. At least one business day of advance notice is requested; some accommodations may require more than one day of notice. FM Assistive Listening System is available at the meeting.

Packet Page 3


AGENDA SUMMARY

December 13, 2016 6:00 p.m.

Loudoun County Government Center 1 Harrison Street, S.E., Leesburg, VA

Board Room

Committee Members: Matthew Letourneau, Chair

Phyllis Randall - Tony Buffington - Ralph Buona - Koran Saines

*Proposed for Consent 1. Monthly Department of Economic Development Report (Information)

The Department of Economic Development’s monthly statistical report shows leading economic indicators for Loudoun County and key department performance indicators. The director will also report on key economic development activities that have occurred since the November 2016 meeting. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

2. Economic Development Advisory Commission (Information) The purpose of this item is to update the Committee on the work of the Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC). At the December 13, 2016 meeting, Sharon Virts and Todd Pearson will summarize EDAC activities since their last report to this committee. They will also discuss their plans to request the formation of an EDAC River Crossing Ad-Hoc Committee. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Buddy Rizer, Economic Development

3. *Monthly Report/Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System (Information) The Phase 2 implementation of the Oracle Human Capital Management modules (HCM – human resources and payroll) was restarted on Monday, May 9, 2016, and Oracle America, Inc. was retained to provide system integration and project management services. Per the approved and baselined project plan, the Phase 2 implementation is 51% complete and on schedule to go-live in July 2017. The status of key project activities and milestones, by phase, are detailed within the item. There are currently no issues that Oracle and Loudoun project management deem to be an impact to the overall project.

Packet Page 4

Agenda Summary Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Additional details on the Phase 2 implementation will be provided during the December meeting. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Wendy Wickens, Information

Technology; Vince Marchesano, Vivad Technologies, LLC

4. *CONTRACT AWARD/Construction of Mooreview Parkway (Action) On October 27, 2016, staff received bids for Construction of Mooreview Parkway. Three (3) lump sum bids were received as follows: 1. William A. Hazel, Inc. $4,375,344.00 2. Branch Highway, Inc. $5,077,770.00 3. Phillips Construction $5,187,288.19 The scope of work includes the construction of a four lane median divided roadway, intersection improvements, and signal improvements of a new segment of Mooreview Parkway from Croson Lane to Old Ryan Road. The project also requires complete compliance with all applicable permits and other regulations, including all environmental permitting. Once complete, this road will be turned over to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The lowest bid for the Mooreview Parkway project was from William A. Hazel, Inc. Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award a contract for the Construction of Mooreview Parkway between Croson Lane and Old Ryan Road to William A. Hazel, Inc. in the amount of $4,375,344. Election District: Dulles Staff Contacts: Melissa Tello & Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital

Infrastructure; Mike Angel, Finance and Procurement

5. *CONTRACT AWARD/Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station (Action) The purpose of this item is to award a contract for the architectural and engineering services to design the new Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. Request for Proposal No. 425 was issued on May 25, 2016 for Architectural and Engineering Services for the new Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. Seven (7) proposals were received on June 28, 2016 and evaluated by a Proposal Analysis Group (PAG) consisting of members from the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure and the Fire and Rescue Department. The PAG met on August 2, 2016 to rank the proposals and decided to shortlist and interview the top four (4) ranked firms.

Packet Page 5



Initial Ranking

Hughes Group Architects 1st Samaha Associates, P.C. 2nd Lemay Erickson Wilcox Architects 3rd Moseley Architects 4th Bignell Watkins Hasser Architects PC 5th Northeast Collaborative Architects, LLC 6th BVK Group 7th

At the conclusion of the evaluation process, it was determined that the firm of Hughes Group Architects was the most qualified firm and negotiations were successfully completed on November 10, 2016. The Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station is planned to be approximately 18,000 square feet. The facility will include apparatus bays, bunkroom facilities, a training/break room, restrooms, showers, food preparation and dining areas, laundry and decontamination areas, supply storage, a gear/hose drying area, a breathing apparatus air compressor room, fitness room, offices and a repair shop. The site consists of multiple parcels that need to be consolidated into one parcel with complex topography that include a floodplain and steep and very steep slopes. Part of the site is located in a historic district and contains historic structures requiring preservation. Sufficient funding is appropriated in the Aldie Fire Station Replacement project in the Capital Fund to award the design contract to Hughes Group Architects in the estimated amount of $1,131,154. Prior appropriations totaling $14,859,566 exist in the capital project account consisting of general obligation bond financing and local tax funding. The remaining unspent, unencumbered balance in the project totals $11,429,125. Additional appropriations totaling $4,000,000 are anticipated to be required for construction and is planned for in FY 2018 of the Adopted Capital Improvements Program using general obligation bond financing. Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award a contract for Architectural and Engineering Services for the new Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station to Hughes Group Architects, Inc., in the total estimated amount of $1,131,154. Election District: Blue Ridge Staff Contacts: Mark Hoffman & Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital

Infrastructure; Christopher Bresley, Finance and Procurement

6. Elevated or Tunnel Crossing for the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Boulevard (Action) This item reports back to the Board of Supervisors (Board) on a Board Member Initiative relating to the history of any planning or concept designs and estimated costs for concepts for

Packet Page 6



an elevated or tunnel crossing of the Washington & Old Dominion (W. & O.D.) Trail at its intersection with Sterling Blvd.

No funding has been appropriated for this project. The project will to be submitted for funding consideration in the FY 2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Budget deliberations.

Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend to the Board an endorsement of the elevated grade crossing option for the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Blvd; and that staff consider such crossing for inclusion in the CIP Budget, using the most fiscally appropriate funding source and an affordable funding year, for consideration during the FY 2018-2023 CIP budget approval process.

Election District: Sterling Staff Contacts: Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

7. Fiscal Impact Committee’s Recommended FY 2017 Capital Facility Standards (Action) The Fiscal Impact Committee (FIC) began its review of the County’s Capital Facility Standards on September 1, 2016, and completed its review on November 10, 2016. Each FIC meeting involved presentations and question and answer sessions with County staff from each Department presenting Capital Facility Standards for the FIC’s consideration. The purpose of this item is to present the FIC’s Recommended Capital Facility Standards to the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC). There is no fiscal impact related to the development of the County Capital Facility Standards. The Capital Facility Standards are used for planning purposes and to help develop the County’s Capital Intensity Factor and Capital Needs Assessment. Staff recommends that the FGOEDC recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt the Capital Facility Standards as recommended by the Fiscal Impact Committee. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Erin McLellan and Julie Crim, Management and Budget

8. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 (Information) This information item presents the findings and observations of the County’s independent Auditors, Cherry Bekaert, L.L.P. The engagement partner for the FY 2016 audit, Rob Churchman, will attend the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee meeting to present Cherry Bekaert’s findings. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Janet Romanchyk, Finance and

Procurement

Packet Page 7



9. FY 2016 Year-End Financial Condition and Report on Fund Balances (Information) This report presents the County’s fund balances as June 30, 2016. During the budget cycle, revenues are estimated conservatively so it is highly probable that a positive fund balance will exist at the end of any given fiscal year. Having a fund balance that is both positive and available is an important component in maintaining the County’s strong fiscal condition. It serves to enhance the County’s strong bond ratings and provides sufficient carry-over funds for cash flow purposes. Carry-over funds eliminate the need for short-term borrowing between the start of the fiscal year and the receipt of revenue from taxes. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: John Sandy, County Administration; Janet Romanchyk, Finance and

Procurement

10. Uses of FY 2016 Fund Balances (Action) This item presents recommend uses of unassigned FY 2016 General Fund balance. At the conclusion of each fiscal year, staff evaluates the need for use of prior year fund balance in the current fiscal year. Prior year fund balance should only be used for one-time purposes and aligned with existing projects and priorities of the Board of Supervisors. In addition, staff evaluates the need to program prior year fund balance in the upcoming proposed budget. Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed used of FY 2016 fund balance. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Tim Hemstreet, County Administration; Erin McLellan, Management and

Budget

11. Acceleration of Funding for HS-9 (Action) This item presents a funding scenario that would allow for the acceleration of HS-9 during FY 2017. Based on student population projections, the School Board has identified the need to accelerate HS-9 to accommodate projected student growth in the Dulles South Planning District. Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors (Board) amend the FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and budget to appropriate $3,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds and transfer that amount to Loudoun County Public Schools. Election District: Dulles Staff Contacts: Erin McLellan, Management and Budget

Packet Page 8



12. Loudoun County Vehicle Decal Program (Action)

Since the 1980’s, Loudoun County has issued vehicle decals as a license fee as defined by State Code. The current fiscal year revenue from decals is expected to be $7.0 million. The purpose of this item is to determine whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to continue the vehicle decal which evidences satisfactory payment of Personal Property taxes. The requested deadline for action is January 3, 2016. The Treasurer recommends the continuation of the Loudoun County Vehicle Decal Program as currently instituted. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: H. Roger Zurn, Jr., Treasurer

13. Request for 0.47 FTE to Support the Commissioner of the Revenue Business Tax Assessor (Action) The Commissioner of the Revenue recommends that the Finance Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend the Board of Supervisors authorize 0.47 FTE to convert an existing part-time Business Tax Assessor to full-time in the Commissioner of the Revenue Office to provide professional support to accommodate the ongoing workload associated with increased business tax base and to realign the duties of current staff. The total number of business tax accounts has increased 21% over the last three years from 15,800 accounts in 2013 to 21,000 in 2016. The taxes assessed for business tangible personal property were approximately $70 million in 2013 and have increased to over $155 million for the 2016 tax year. The increase in businesses tax accounts resulted in additional large asset lists, primarily comprised of equipment located in data centers, which need to be reviewed. Currently, the position has an authorized 0.53 FTE. However, the position became vacant as of November 16, 2016. If the mid-year enhancement is approved, then the cost to fill the position with an estimated start date of January 12, 2017 for the remainder of FY 2017 is $13,800. Based on the Department of Management and Budget’s FY 2017 Q1 revenue projections, there is sufficient over-recovery in personal property tax revenues; staff recommends a one-time appropriation of $13,800 of personal property tax revenue to cover the additional cost of the 0.47 FTE in FY 2017. The annual personnel cost beginning in FY 2018 for the full-time Business Tax Assessor position is $76,200. If the Board approves this FY 2017 mid-year enhancement, the full cost of the position will be added to the department’s base budget in FY 2018. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Robert S. Wertz, Jr., Commissioner of the Revenue; Erin McLellan,


14. Fire and Rescue - Advance Hiring for Recruit School (Action) Loudoun County Fire and Rescue (LCFR) seeks a mid-year enhancement to hire seven (7) firefighters/Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) operational positions for LCFR, totaling

Packet Page 9



7.84 full-time equivalent (FTE) to maximize the January 2017 recruit academy. The next recruit academy is scheduled to begin in January 2017 with 23 individuals – the current number of vacancies in the Department. However, to maximize the efficiency of this upcoming recruit academy, LCFR requests to hire 30 firefighters. Historically, a percentage of new recruits do not successfully complete the academy, resulting in long-term vacancies. Acknowledging the goal of reducing overtime (long-term) through the planned incremental increase in base FTE, this mid-year enhancement would allow LCFR to ensure an optimal academy size of 30 recruits as a first step in more effectively managing overtime, reducing the incidence of mandatory holdovers, and right-sizing the Department. The estimated cost for seven positions for the remainder of FY 2017 is $434,900 which includes salary and benefits, holiday pay overtime, background checks, training, uniforms and required physicals. The estimated FY 2018 full year cost is $717,800. Funding for these additional positions cannot be absorbed with LCFR’s current FY 2017 operating budget. If the Board of Supervisors authorized the 7.84 FTE, these positions will be included in LCFR’s FY 2018 base budget. Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize the addition of 7.84 FTE, and appropriate $434,900 in current year fund balance for LCFR. Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Chief Brower, Fire and Rescue; Erin McLellan, Management and Budget

15. Request for 0.47 FTE to Support the Community Development Block Grant Program (Action) The Department of Family Services requests approval of an additional 0.47 FTE to support the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The funding for this FTE increment will come from the federal administrative funds provided annually to support the management of the CDBG program and will not require local funding. The addition of this partial FTE will cost approximately $41,300. The County can use up to 20% of its annual CDBG allocation for program administration expenses. This year, the County received $1,110,235 in CDBG funds. The 20% of funds allowed for program administration this is year $222,470. The CDBG annual allocation has been approximately $1,000,000 each year since the program started in 2005. This request is being made because of the increase in the workload and staff time required to implement the complex federal regulations associated with the program especially as relates to Davis-Bacon and environmental review compliance. The addition of the partial FTE will enable the program to efficiently manage program requirements within required timeframes. The Department plans to assign the 0.47 FTE to an existing 0.53 FTE part-time position. Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize 0.47 FTE to support the administration of the Community Development Block Grant Program to be fully funded from the administrative funds portion of the annual Community Development Block Grant.

Packet Page 10



Election District: Countywide Staff Contacts: Sarah Coyle Etro & Ellen Grunewald, Family Services; Erin McLellan,


16. Phased Construction Delivery for Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Project Phase II (Action) Initially funded as part of the Fiscal Year 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 budgets, Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase I construction started in the spring of 2011 and was completed in the summer of 2012, along with the co-located Harmony Park and Ride Lot. Since initial funding was not sufficient to construct the full park, additional funding was approved as part of the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, for a second construction phase. An Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase II construction project was issued on June 7, 2016. Two bids were received on July 19, 2016, with the lowest responsible and responsive bid being $3,292,583. This bid price is above the available construction budget of $1,400,000. While the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (DTCI) explored options to amend the project scope and budget, the lowest responsible and responsive bidder agreed to hold their price through the end of calendar year 2016. DTCI staff, in consultation with staff from the Department of Management and Budget, was not able to identify other funding sources to cover the budget deficit for the project. Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board of Supervisors (Board) to direct staff to reject all the received bids and direct staff to phase the construction delivery of the project to allow a portion of the park to be constructed. The first phase (Phase IIA) will use the remaining and available budget of $1,400,000 and include the construction of the rectangular field and its associated irrigation system and 60 additional parking spaces. The remaining improvements (Phase IIB) will defer the construction of three (3) diamond fields, the concession building, and 100 additional parking spaces to be funded as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget process. Furthermore, staff recommends that the FGOEDC recommend to the Board to direct staff to apply for a Special Exception to add athletic field lighting to the Phase IIB scope of work. Election District: Catoctin Staff Contacts: Mark Hoffman, Khattab Shammout, and Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation

and Capital Infrastructure

Next Regular Meeting: January 10, 2017 If you require a reasonable accommodation for any type of disability in order to participate in the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee Meeting, please contact the Office of the County Administrator at 703-777-0200/TTY-711. At least one business day of advance notice is requested; some accommodations may require more than one day of notice. FM Assistive Listening System is available at the meeting.

Packet Page 11

Date of Meeting: December 13, 2016

# 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

INFORMATION ITEM SUBJECT: Monthly Department of Economic Development Report ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide STAFF CONTACT: Buddy Rizer, Executive Director, Economic Development

PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is for the Department of Economic Development (DED) to report on leading economic indicators, key performance indicators and DED initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Each month, DED reports on leading economic and key performance indicators. At the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) meeting, staff will provide a verbal briefing on DED activities. Below are selected highlights. At only the halfway point for Fiscal Year 2017, DED has already attracted or retained more than 30 businesses; representing approximately 1.8 million square feet of space, more than 700 jobs and more than $1.2 billion in commercial investment. On November 15, DED cosponsored the Washington Business Journal’s “On the Road: Loudoun” event in Ashburn. This was the best-attended event of the media company’s road series, with more than 160 participants (the turn-out in other counties averaged approximately 60 people). Copies of the November 11 edition of the Business Journal were distributed at the event; the paper featured an 11-page spread written and illustrated by DED that highlighted the advantages of locating a business in Loudoun and featured our business attraction and retention messages. On December 6, DED will host its second “Bytes and Bites” event targeting mid-to-senior level executives in Loudoun’s tech companies. The department launched the series to allow Loudoun-based I.T. professionals previously traveling to tech events inside the Beltway, to stay in Loudoun to network and build relationships to further strengthen the County’s information, technology and communications industry. At the same time, DED can use the events as a touchstone to: 1) understand barriers and opportunities for business attraction and growth within the cluster and 2) leverage the cluster to identify leads and prospects. At the FGOEDC meeting, DED will present the world premiere of its new business attraction and retention marketing tool. This 1.5-minute video will be available in English, German,

Packet Page 12

Item 1, Monthly Department of Economic Development Report Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Korean, Chinese and French. The video will be shown to United States and international prospects to help them see the advantages of locating businesses in Loudoun.

ISSUES: There are no issues associated with this Information Item.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this Information Item. ATTACHMENT:

1. October FY 2016 Monthly Statistical Report

Packet Page 13

Commercial Building Permits

Internet Activity

Website Visits FY17 (DED) 12,741*

FY17 Goal 51,000

FY17 Goal Attainment 25%

Website Visits FY17 (Loudoun Farms) 24,359

FY17 Goal 62,000

FY17 Goal Attainment 39.3%

Social Media Followers (DED) 20,579

YTD FY16 14,500

Change + 41.9%

Social Media Followers (Loudoun Farms) 14,259

YTD FY16 12,517

Change + 13.9%

Loudoun County Department of Economic Development

Monthly Update

October FY2017

Source: Costar; Loudoun County Dept. Bldg. and Dev.

4.1%

4.7%

8.5%

14.4%

12.4%

6.9%

4.7%

3.8%

Office

Industrial

Flex

Retail

CY 2016 (3rd Qtr) CY 2015 (3rd Qtr)

Commercial Vacancy Rates

Investment

FY17 Wins 30

Estimated Investment by Wins $1.2 B

Jobs Created/Retained by Wins 609

153

YTD FY 2017

YTD FY 2016

56

204 (30.2% of 675 Goal)

Oct. 2016

501,046 ft2

713,106 ft2

306,699 ft2

Office

Industrial

Flex

Retail

522,017 ft2

1,427,224 ft2

865,867 ft2

61,862 ft2

224,212 ft2

YTD CY 2016 YTD CY 2015

Visits to Existing Businesses

biz.loudoun.govNote: FY17 = July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

*Some visitors not captured due to website migration.

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 14

Source: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Source: Virginia Employment Commission

.77 M

2.13 M

2.21 M

.82 M

Total Passengers

InternationalPassengers

Cargo21,975 tonnes

21,261 tonnes

July 2016 July 2015

3.4%

4.1%

4.9%

4.8%

4.0%

3.3%

United States

LoudounCounty

Virginia

Sept. 2016 Sept. 2015

$12.8 M

$14.9 MSept. 2016

Sept. 2015

Source: Visit Loudoun

Hotel Revenue

Source: Virginia Dept. Taxation

$4.99 B

$5.34 BTotal CY 2015

Total CY 2014

Retail Sales

Dulles International Airport Unemployment Rates

$1.30 B

$1.36 B2Q 2016

2Q 2015

$119.1 M

$126.6 M YTD CY 2016

YTD CY 2015

biz.loudoun.gov

Loudoun County Department of Economic Development

Monthly Update (Continued)

October FY2017

Note: FY17 = July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

Packet Page 15




INFORMATION ITEM SUBJECT: Economic Development Advisory Commission ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide STAFF CONTACT: Buddy Rizer, Executive Director, Economic Development PURPOSE: Sharon Virts, Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) Chair and Todd Pearson, EDAC Vice-Chair will update the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee on EDAC initiatives.

BACKGROUND: At the December 13, 2016 meeting, Sharon Virts and Todd Pearson will be present to report on the work of the EDAC. Discussion points include: • Plans to request the formation of an ad-hoc committee to evaluate a second Potomac River

crossing. This request will be made during EDAC’s next report to the Board; • Plans to request an ad-hoc committee to review Loudoun’s housing needs. This request will

be presented after the release of the county’s housing study; • Engagement meetings with EDAC’s partner organizations: (1) the CEO Cabinet, (2) the

Chamber of Commerce, (3) the Economic Development Authority, (4) the Mason Enterprise Center/Small Business Development Center, (5) the Rural Economic Development Council, (6) the Town of Leesburg, and (7) Visit Loudoun;

• Briefings by subject-matter experts at the September and November EDAC meetings; and • Plans for filling EDAC’s remaining vacancies. ISSUES: There are no issues associated with this Information Item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this Information Item. ATTACHMENT: 1. Report of Economic Development Advisory Commission Activities

Packet Page 16

MEMORANDUM

Date: December 1, 2016

To: Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee, Loudoun County Board of Supervisors

From: Sharon Virts and Todd Pearson, Economic Development Advisory Commission

Subject: Report of EDAC Activities

This memorandum summarizes the EDAC activities for September – November 2016.

Current Ad-Hoc Committees EDAC has no Ad-Hoc committees currently convened. In January, EDAC will request approval to commence an Ad-Hoc committee to evaluate next steps to plan and lead an initiative for a second river crossing in Loudoun County. Further, after the release of the county’s housing study, EDAC will request an Ad-Hoc committee to review the impact of housing needs on our economic growth.

Partner Engagement EDAC held its quarterly partners meeting on November 18, 2016. The 2017 schedule has not been determined as our current Partners Chair is leaving the EDAC at the end of this month. EDAC will appoint a new chair to manage this committee at our December Executive Committee meeting.

EDAC Activity Summary In our September meeting of the full Commission, EDAC was briefed by Paul Wiedefeld, CEO of WMATA, on the current status of operations of the Metro system. We also received an update from county staff on the status of the Silver Line CPAM update. In October, EDAC issued its position statement on the Silver Line CPAM along with its recommendations to the Board.

Our November meeting focused on Regional Transportation issues, and more specifically, the prospects of a second bridge crossing over the Potomac River. At this meeting, EDAC hosted a three-member panel discussion with developer Bob Buchanan; Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance CEO David Birtwistle; and Suburban Maryland Transportation Alliance Vice Chairman Richard Parsons, to discuss the impacts of such a crossing on Loudoun and the Greater Washington metro area as a whole. In 2017, EDAC will focus on next steps for planning a second river crossing here in the county as well as other strategic transportation initiatives. In November, we also were briefed on our rural and agricultural economic development strategy and discussed some of the challenges to further growth of that economy.

There are six current EDAC members whose terms are expiring. We recommended four applicants to the Board of Supervisors for next year’s EDAC. These four are current members who are seeking a second term. We have three vacancies remaining and are continuing to review candidates for these vacancies.

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 17


# 3


INFORMATION ITEM SUBJECT: Monthly Report/Implementation of the Enterprise Resource

Planning (ERP) Project ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide STAFF CONTACTS: John Sandy, County Administration Wendy Wickens, Information Technology Vince Marchesano, Vivad Technologies, LLC PURPOSE: To provide an update on the status of the County’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system implementation. BACKGROUND: The Loudoun County Government (Loudoun) and Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) began implementation of a new ERP commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) system in January 2012 as part of a larger program to replace three core financial systems: ERP, Computer Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA), and Integrated Tax Revenue (ITR). This action was based on an independent assessment of Loudoun’s legacy financial, human resources, and taxation systems, as well as the future replacement of those systems. The ITR and CAMA systems were successfully implemented and are now fully operational. On November 2, 2011, the Loudoun Board of Supervisors (the Board) authorized the negotiation of a contract to implement ORACLE eBusiness Suite (EBS) as the ERP System for Loudoun and LCPS. The resulting contract included EBS licensed software and implementation services for the ERP system, which were to be deployed in three phases, as detailed below.

Phase 1: Financials, Procurement, Grants, and Document Management: o Duration: January 2012 – July 1, 2013 o Status: COMPLETE

Phase 2: Human Capital Management (HCM) Applications (HR and Payroll) o Duration: January 2014 – August 2017 o Status: Paused in November 2015 and Restarted in May 2016

Phase 3: Advanced Procurement o Duration: November 2013 – May 2014 o Status: COMPLETE

Packet Page 18

Item 3, Monthly Report/Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Phases 1 and 3 were implemented and are currently operational, and on May 9, 2016, Oracle America Corporation, Inc. (Oracle) was retained to complete the Phase 2 HCM implementation. ISSUES: This item provides a monthly update from the Department of Finance and Procurement and the Department of Information Technology on the current implementation of the ERP system. The Loudoun Project Manager, Vince Marchesano, and Loudoun staff will be present to discuss details and answer questions.

Phase 2 Human Resources and Payroll In January 2016, Loudoun engaged Oracle to perform a comprehensive assessment of the Phase 2 implementation and to recommend a road map to best move the project forward. Based on the outcome of the assessment, Loudoun authorized Oracle to begin the Phase 2 implementation on May 9, 2016, and on June 23, 2016, the Board approved the appropriation of $4,775,527, which includes a 10% contingency amount, from the FY 2016 General Fund balance to complete the implementation by August 2017. Oracle Phase 2 Implementation Oracle is currently onsite providing project management and system integration services. Additionally, the Business Transformation Office (BTO) is providing operational and strategic management support to Loudoun and LCPS, and Project and Client Management is providing internal project management and project communication across and among Loudoun and LCPS, the Oracle project team, and the project’s Executive leadership. Further supplementing project efforts, Gartner, Inc. is providing Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) support, which includes project management and technical review services. Approach Oracle’s approach to successfully completing the Phase 2 implementation is based on the standard Oracle Unified Method (OUM - Oracle’s methodology for deploying Oracle-based business solutions). To maximize efficiencies, Oracle further structured this implementation into two distinct sub-phases – Phase 2 A: Inception and Elaboration and Phase 2B: Construction, Transition, and Production.

Packet Page 19



During Phase 2A, Oracle, Loudoun, and LCPS have collaboratively reviewed all business requirements to (a) determine whether they are still applicable and to ensure that they are clearly defined; (b) determine whether the requirements can be met leveraging standard, out-of-the-box Oracle functionality (i.e., a “fit”), or if a change to a business process or a customization is required to meet the requirement (i.e., a “gap”); and (c) determine what existing design/build can be reused from the previous implementation, if any. These activities resulted in a scope of work, solution design, and test plans. During Phase 2B, Oracle is building the solution, data is being converted, Loudoun and LCPS will validate the build, and will complete other tasks in preparation for Go-Live will occur (i.e., testing, change management activities, including communications, training, documentation, post production support planning, etc.). Phase 2 is scheduled to go-live in July 2017, as reflected in Attachment 1: Oracle Phase 2 Project Timeline. Status Per the approved and baselined project plan, the Phase 2 implementation is 51% complete and on schedule to go-live in July 2017. The status of key project activities and milestones, by phase, are detailed below. *Note: The start and completion dates for the referenced key activities and milestones may fluctuate due to the concurrent nature of associated tasks; fluctuations will be closely monitored by project management, and will report and mitigate any impact to the critical path. Further, reported status is as of December 8, 2016.

Packet Page 20



Inception Phase – Phase 2A: Key project activities and milestones are complete. Elaboration Phase – Phase 2A: This phase is 68% complete.

o Completed Activities and Milestones: Data Mapping (Loudoun and LCPS) Data Conversion Extract for Development (Loudoun and LCPS) Setup Responsibility Profiles / App Security (Loudoun and LCPS)

o In Progress Activities and Milestones: Setup and Configuration Documents (Loudoun and LCPS)

*Note: This task includes review and approval. Percent Complete: 94%* Scheduled Completion Date: August 12, 2016

*Note: This task is 100% complete, with the exception of Loudoun Compensation Workbench Module (CWB). This module’s implementation cannot begin until January 2017, after the County’s current compensation process is restructured. Project Management has assessed the impact of this delay, and is confident that it can be absorbed by the current project schedule with no impact to the overall timeline. Further, this module’s go-live can be delayed, as no other HCM modules have a dependency on CWB, and use will not begin until August 2017.

Data Cleanup (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 53% Complete Scheduled Completion Date: February 2, 2017

System Integration Test (SIT) Test Scripts (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 15% Scheduled Completion Date: February 7, 2017

o Scheduled Activities and Milestones: User Productivity Kit (UPK) Training Materials (Loudoun and LCPS):

Scheduled Start Date: January 23, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: May 12, 2017

*Note: The scheduled start date changed from November 15, 2016 to January 23, 2017, and the scheduled completion date changed from February 17th to May 12, 2017 to better align with the timeline for related tasks. Further, these changes bear no impact to the critical path, and will be closely monitored by project management.

Construction Phase – Phase 2B: This phase is 38% complete. o Completed Activities and Milestones:

Test Plan (Loudoun and LCPS) Cutover Plan (Loudoun and LCPS)

o In Progress Activities and Milestones: Detailed Functional Design Documents (Loudoun and LCPS):

Percent Complete: 63%

Packet Page 21



Scheduled Completion Date: January 16 2017

*Note: The scheduled completion date has changed from November 15, 2016 to January 16, 2017, however, this change bears no impact to the critical path. Project management has assessed the impact of this change and to ensure the critical path is maintained, a mitigation plan was recently implemented, which includes increasing effort over the next several weeks to address schedule delays. This, and all impacted activities will continue to be closely monitored by project management.

Detailed Technical Design Documents (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 31% Scheduled Completion Date: February 21, 2017

*Note: The scheduled completion date has changed from December 19, 2016 to February 21, 2017; project management recognizes this schedule change is significant, however, it aligns with the functional design document tasks and bears no impact to the critical path. Status will continue to be closely monitored by project management.

Set Up and Configuration (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 67% Scheduled Completion Date: March 7, 2017

CEMLI Development (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 14% Scheduled Completion Date: March 15, 2017

Training Plan (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 25% Scheduled Completion Date: February 7, 2017

*Note: The OCM and Training vendor was recently on-boarded, and based on their initial assessment of the Phase 2 Project, the scheduled completion date was changed from December 1, 2016 to February 7,, 2017; this change bears no impact to the critical path and will be closely monitored by project management.

CRP2 (Loudoun and LCPS): Percent Complete: 4% Scheduled Completion Date: January 20, 2017

o Scheduled Activities and Milestones: Train-the-Trainer (Loudoun and LCPS):

Scheduled Start Date: April 24, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: May 11, 2017

*Note: The scheduled start date changed from February 7th to April 24, 2017, and the scheduled completion date changed from March 7th to May 11, 2017, however, this change bears no impact to the critical path, and will be closely monitored by project management.

User Acceptance Test (UAT) Test Scripts (Loudoun and LCPS): Scheduled Start Date: February 7, 2017

Packet Page 22



Scheduled Completion Date: April 25, 2017

*Note: The scheduled start date changed from February 28th to February 7, 2017, and the scheduled completion date changed from April 21st to April 25, 2017, however, this change bears no impact to the critical path and will be closely monitored by project management.

Transition – Phase 2B: o Scheduled Activities and Milestones:

Data Cleanup Maintenance: Scheduled Start Date: January 9, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: May 12, 2017

CRP3/SIT Preparation (Loudoun and LCPS): Scheduled Start Date: January 23, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: February 3, 2017

Conduct CRP3 (Loudoun and LCPS) Scheduled Start Date: January 23, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: February 14, 2017

Conduct SIT (Loudoun and LCPS) Scheduled Start Date: February 14, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: April 28, 2017

UAT Preparation: Scheduled Start Date: May 1, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: May 8, 2017

UAT (Loudoun and LCPS): Scheduled Start Date: May 9, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: June 16, 2017

Production Infrastructure: Scheduled Start Date: May 1, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: June 28, 2017

Production – Phase 2B o Scheduled Activities and Milestones:

Cutover to Production (Loudoun and LCPS): Scheduled Start Date: June 19, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: July 4, 2017

Post Go Live Support (Loudoun and LCPS): Scheduled Start Date: July 4, 2017 Scheduled Completion Date: August 8, 2017

There are currently no issues that Oracle and Loudoun project management deem to be an impact to the overall project. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board appropriated $4,775,527 from FY 2016 General Fund Balance to complete the Phase 2 implementation. Currently $3,802,870 is available (unencumbered) in the

Packet Page 23



ERP project in the Capital Fund. The contract with Oracle has been finalized and the total cost for Oracle to complete the Phase 2 implementation is estimated at $9,906,061, which has already been encumbered. The remaining funds not currently obligated are anticipated to be used for post go live support and other ancillary items related to the successful completion of Phase 2. No additional funds are being requested at this time.

Packet Page 24

Item #3 Monthly Report/Implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project Attachment 1: Oracle Phase 2 Project Timeline

Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee December 13, 2016

Page 8

ATTACHMENT 1: ORACLE PHASE 2 PROJECT TIMELINE

Packet Page 25


# 4


ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD/Construction of Mooreview

Parkway ELECTION DISTRICT: Dulles CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016 STAFF CONTACTS: Melissa Tello, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Mike Angel, Finance and Procurement PURPOSE: To award a contract for the construction of Mooreview Parkway from Croson Lane and Old Ryan Road. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board of Supervisors (Board) that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award the contract for the construction of Mooreview Parkway to William A. Hazel, Inc. in the amount of $4,375,344. BACKGROUND: Invitation for Bid (IFB) No. RFQ-478 was issued on September 23, 2016, for the Construction of Mooreview Parkway Project. Three (3) bids were received on October 27, 2016 as shown below. The lowest responsive and responsible bid was submitted by William A. Hazel, Inc. in the amount of $4,375,344.

Firm Bid Amount William A. Hazel, Inc. $4,375,344.00

Branch Highway, Inc. $5,077,770.00 Phillips Construction $5,187,288.19

The purpose of this contract is to construct a new segment of Mooreview Parkway from Croson Lane to Old Ryan Road. The scope of work includes the construction of four lane median divided roadway, intersection improvements, and signal improvements and requires compliance with all applicable permits and regulations, including all environmental permitting. Once the project is

Packet Page 26

Item 4, Contract Award/Construction of Mooreview Parkway Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


complete, it will be turned over to the Virginia Department of Transportation for operations and maintenance. ISSUES: The construction contract for Mooreview Parkway was originally bid in June 8, 2015 and one (1) bid was received. On August 3, 2015, the County cancelled the IFB prior to contract award based on a delay in the relocation of two (2) Columbia Gas transmission lines that traversed the project. At its January 21, 2016 Business Meeting and to progress the project, the Board voted (8-0-1, Letourneau absent) to approve an agreement with Atapco Moorefield Residential for the construction of the portion of Old Ryan Road between Mooreview Parkway and Southland Street originally included in the Mooreview Parkway construction documents. Construction is ongoing and scheduled for completion in Spring 2018. Concurrently, on September 10, 2016, Columbia Gas completed the gas line relocation work. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funding is appropriated in the Mooreview Parkway Project account in the Capital Fund to award the construction contract totaling $4,375,344. The project account includes $7,554,000 in local tax funding, $1,800,000 in local gas tax, and $324,600 in NVTA 30% local funds. The remaining unspent, unencumbered balance in the project is $7,079,529, which is sufficient to award the construction contract in the amount of $4,375,344, as well as leaving enough balance for anticipated third party costs and a sufficient project contingency. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the Board that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award the contract for

Construction of Mooreview Parkway to William A. Hazel, Inc. in the amount of $4,375,344.

2. Do not recommend the contract award and direct staff on how to proceed. DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award the contract for Construction of Mooreview Parkway between Croson Lane and Old Ryan Road to William A. Hazel, Inc. in the amount of $4,375,344.

OR 2. I move an alternate motion.

Packet Page 27




ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: CONTRACT AWARD/Architectural and Engineering

Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station

ELECTION DISTRICT: Blue Ridge CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016 STAFF CONTACTS: Mark Hoffman, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Christopher Bresley, Finance and Procurement PURPOSE: To award a contract for the architectural and engineering services to design the new Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board of Supervisors (Board) that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award a contract for Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station to Hughes Group Architects, Inc., in the total estimated amount of $1,131,154. BACKGROUND: Request for Proposal No. 425 was issued on May 25, 2016 for Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. Seven (7) proposals were received on June 28, 2016 and evaluated by a Proposal Analysis Group (PAG) consisting of members from the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure and the Fire and Rescue Department. After reviewing the seven (7) proposals, the PAG met on August 2, 2016 to rank the proposals.

As a result of the PAG’s evaluation of the proposals, the firms were ranked as follows:

Initial Ranking Hughes Group Architects 1st Samaha Associates, P.C. 2nd Lemay Erickson Wilcox Architects 3rd Moseley Architects 4th Bignell Watkins Hasser Architects PC 5th Northeast Collaborative Architects, LLC 6th BVK Group 7th

Packet Page 28

Item 5, Contract Award/Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station


Page 2

Based on the evaluations of the proposals submitted, the PAG decided to shortlist and interview the top four (4) ranked firms. The Notice of Shortlist was issued on August 10, 2016. The shortlisted firms were interviewed on August 30, 2016. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, it was determined that the firm of Hughes Group Architects was the most qualified firm and negotiations began to enter into a contract for Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station. The Notice of Final Ranking was issued on September 15, 2016. The final ranking of the four (4) shortlisted firms was: A joint scoping meeting was held with Hughes Group Architects on September 22, 2016 to clarify the project scope of work and confirm Hughes Group Architects design and construction administration responsibilities under the contract. Negotiations were successfully completed on November 10, 2016.

The Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station is planned to be approximately 18,000 square feet. The facility will include apparatus bays, bunkroom facilities, a training/break room, restrooms, showers, food preparation and dining areas, laundry and decontamination areas, supply storage, a gear/hose drying area, a breathing apparatus air compressor room, fitness room, offices and a repair shop. The site consists of multiple parcels that need to be consolidated into one parcel with complex topography that include a floodplain and steep and very steep slopes. Part of the site is located in a historic district and contains historic structures requiring preservation.

ISSUES: The construction of a replacement fire and rescue station in Aldie will provide much needed space for staff to work out of and for housing of apparatus. The current facility, built in the early 1960’s, was not designed to accommodate 24/7 in house staffing or the number and size of apparatus that is needed to continue providing fire and emergency medical services to the Aldie area. The existing station sits in a known flood area. This has required staff and equipment be relocated to other facilities during times of potential flooding. The new station will be built outside of the flood plain. Project Delivery Method: Over the past two-three years the County staff have been expanding its portfolio of project delivery methods. These include, when appropriate, a migration from the traditional Design-Bid-Build process to other methods such as Public Private Partnerships and Design-Build delivery methods to increase project delivery times and in some cases, but not always, reduce costs. When considering the preferred delivery method for a project it is important to ensure the respective project is appropriate for the method chosen. In the case of a fire station project, the characteristics of the building are highly specialized to meet the program department’s needs. The County has completed a fire station project as a design-build project in the Sterling area and generally it was a successful project. This Aldie Fire-Rescue Station is located in a unique

Final Ranking Hughes Group Architects 1st Moseley Architects 2nd Samaha Associates, P.C. 3rd Lemay Erickson Wilcox Architects 4th

Packet Page 29

Item 5, Contract Award/Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station


Page 3

historic area where it will be necessary to work directly with several neighborhood community and historic preservationist groups. Gaining community support for the building desirable aesthetic characteristics is critical to the success of the project. Integrating these building features are difficult to prescribe within the performance standards used in the Design-Build delivery method as these characteristics evolve through interaction and consensus building. The Design-Build process does not lend itself well to a project where this is necessary. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funding is appropriated in the Aldie Fire Station Replacement project in the Capital Fund to award the design contract to Hughes Group Architects in the estimated amount of $1,131,154. Prior appropriations totaling $14,859,566 exist in the capital project account consisting of general obligation bond financing and local tax funding. The remaining unspent, unencumbered balance in the project totals $11,429,125. Additional appropriations totaling $4,000,000 are anticipated to be required for construction and is planned for in FY 2018 of the Capital Improvements Program using general obligation bond financing. This additional appropriation will provide the necessary funding to complete construction and outfit the facility. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the Board that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award a contract for

Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station to Hughes Group Architects, Inc., in the total estimated amount of $1,131,154.

OR 2. Do not recommend award of the contract and direct staff on how to proceed. DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the Purchasing Agent be authorized to award a contract for Architectural and Engineering Services for the New Aldie Volunteer Fire and Rescue Station to Hughes Group Architects, Inc., in the total estimated amount of $1,131,154.

OR 2. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENT: 1. Capital Improvement Program: Fire and Rescue – Station 07 Aldie Station Replacement. FY

2017 Adopted Budget, Volume 2; page 10-45.

Packet Page 30

FY 2017 Adopted Budget

Loudoun County, Virginia Public Safety

Fire and Rescue – Station 07 Aldie Station Replacement

Project Description – C00140

This project provides funding to design and construct a new Aldie Fire Station on a County-owned site to replace the Aldie Fire and Rescue Company #7 Station.

The Station would be approximately 18,000 square feet on 6.5 acres. The facility will include apparatus bays, bunkroom facilities, a training room, break room, restrooms, showers, food preparation and dining areas, laundry and decontamination areas, supply storage, a gear and hose drying area, a breathing apparatus air compressor room, fitness room, offices and a repair shop.

Original appropriations for the project were part of the FY 2008 and FY 2009 CIP budgets, with an additional $3.6 million in fund balance appropriated in the FY 2014 CIP for land acquisition. In the Fall of 2015 the County acquired three contiguous sites for the replacement station. $4 million in additional appropriations is being requested to cover the extensive site development costs and the costs of retaining walls required to build the new station.

Funding Plan

This project is funded using general obligation bond financing. The general obligation bonds will be scheduled for placement on the November 2017 referendum.

Prior 6 Year Future Project

Capital ($ in 1000s) Alloc. FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total FY's Total

Land 4,590 - - - - - - - - 4,590

Professional Services 900 - - - - - - - - 900

Construction 7,870 - 4,000 - - - - 4,000 - 11,870

Furniture, Fixtures & Equip 1,500 - - - - - - - - 1,500

Other - - - - - - - - - -

Total Cost 14,860 - 4,000 - - - - 4,000 - 18,860

Local Tax Funding 5,355 - - - - - - - - 5,355

Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - -

General Obligation Bonds 9,505 - 4,000 - - - - 4,000 - 13,505

Lease Revenue Financing - - - - - - - - - -

State Capital Assistance - - - - - - - - - -

Federal Funding - - - - - - - - - -

Total Financing 14,860 - 4,000 - - - - 4,000 - 18,860

Operating Impact ( $ in 1000s) FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total

FTE - - 5.60 - - - 5.60

Personnel - - 229 472 485 498 1,684

O&M - - 93 122 123 124 462

Debt Service - - 400 390 380 370 1,540

Total Impact - - 722 984 988 992 3,686

10-45

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 31


#6


ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Elevated or Tunnel Crossing for the W. & O.D. Trail at

Sterling Boulevard ELECTION DISTRICT: Sterling CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the pleasure of the Board STAFF CONTACTS: Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure PURPOSE: To report back to the Board of Supervisors (Board) on a Board Member Initiative (BMI) relating to the history of any planning or concept designs and estimated costs for concepts for an elevated or tunnel crossing of the Washington and Old Dominion (W. & O.D.) Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board an endorsement of the elevated grade crossing option for the W. & O.D. Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard; and that the Board direct staff consider such crossing for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget, using the most fiscally appropriate funding source and an affordable funding year, for consideration during the FY 2018 - 2023 CIP budget approval process. BACKGROUND: The W. & O.D. Trail Park extends 45 miles from Arlington to Purcellville, Virginia, along an old railroad bed which originally had very gradual slopes and turns. The W. & O.D. Trail Park’s multi-use trails support approximately two-million trail users a year including walkers, joggers, bicyclists, horseback riders, rollerbladers and other uses. In addition to trail use by the general public, maintenance vehicles from various utility companies and Northern Virginia Park Authority (NOVA Parks) also periodically use the trail right of way for access to their facilities. At its October 4, 2016 business meeting the Board voted (7-0-2, Higgins and Meyer absent) on a BMI brought forth by Supervisor Saines to direct staff to provide historical background of any conceptual design and preliminary cost estimates through contractual work that has transpired to date for the design and construction of an elevated above grade crossing for the W. & O.D. Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard and report this information through the FY 2018-2023

Packet Page 32

Item 6, Crossing for the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Boulevard Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


CIP, and any alternative funding options that may be available, to a future meeting of the FGOEDC. At its July 1, 2015 business meeting, the Board voted (9-0) to endorse the design and installation of a warning signal system and series of zigzag pavement markings at the intersection of Sterling Boulevard and the W. & O.D. Trail, similar to that which was installed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) at the intersection of Belmont Ridge Road and the W. & O.D. Trail in 2009 (Attachment 1). On August 13, 2015, staff from the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (DTCI) notified VDOT and NOVA Parks of the Board’s endorsement (Attachment 2). Since corresponding with VDOT and NOVA Parks, no additional communication has transpired. On October 18, 2016, DTCI staff contacted Dan Iglhaut, Deputy Director of Planning and Grants for NOVA Parks to determine if NOVA Parks has, recently or in the past, prepared any concepts, designs, or cost estimates for an elevated grade crossing or tunnel for the W. & O.D. Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard. He advised that no planning or design work has been done by NOVA Parks. In the spring of 2016, staff from County Administration asked DTCI to prepare a preliminary estimate of costs to design and construct an elevated grade crossing and tunnel for the W. & O.D. Trail at its intersection with Sterling Blvd. Estimates were provided as requested and are given in Attachment 3 for the elevated crossing, and Attachment 4 for the tunnel option. A drawing depicting the elevated crossing is shown in Attachment 5. ISSUES: Overhead Utilities: A major electrical transmission line exists adjacent and parallel to the W. & O.D. Trail. Absent of any detailed surveying and engineering it is difficult to estimate with any real accuracy the cost implications of the overhead lines. If any of the tower poles carrying the overhead lines require relocation or height adjustment the cost per pole could range from $100,000 to $500,000 each. Photographs of the site and overhead power lines are contained in Attachment 6. Trail & Roadway Crossing Guidelines: The design and construction of either an elevated crossing or tunnel must follow the W. & O.D. Trail & Roadway Crossing Development Guidelines published by NOVA Parks (Attachment 7). Elevated vs. Tunnel Option: There are three options for the crossing of the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Blvd. They are: 1. Maintain the existing condition as an at-grade crossing; 2. Construct an elevated bridge crossing, and 3. Construct a tunnel under Sterling Blvd. Table 1 below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three options:

Packet Page 33



Table 1 – Advantages and Disadvantages of the Crossing Options Option(s) Advantages Disadvantages

1 No cost (no build) solution Safety Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts Potential for vehicle crashes increase May require the installation of enhanced

warning systems to protect pedestrians

2 Bridge crossings are the preferred method by the NOVA Parks

Lowest cost alternative that improves safety

Provides elevated viewing area for Trail users

May conflict with the overhead power lines and require adjustment

May be considered unsightly by citizens and motorists

Requires bi-annual inspection and regular routine maintenance

3 Avoids overhead power line conflict

Most costly alternative that improves safety.

May be considered unsafe for users of the trail.

May impact more utilities underground (i.e. sewer, water, electric, communications, etc.).

Requires regular routine maintenance and inspection.

Requires artificial lighting, when natural lighting is preferred by NOVA Parks

Table 2 – Summary of Costs for Each Option:

Option(s) Estimated Total Project Cost1 1 $0, no build option 2 $ 6,200,000 3 $ 8,300,000

Based on the advantages and disadvantages listed in Table 1 and the cost information listed in Table 2, the Staff recommendation to address the safety concerns at this location is Option 2 – Elevated Bridge Crossing. ALTERNATIVES: Funding sources: The October 4, 2016 Board action directed staff to identify potential funding 1 Total project cost is preliminary, not based on the development of any engineering plans.

Packet Page 34



sources to design and construct either an elevated crossing or tunnel for the W. & O.D. Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard. The following funding sources are suitable or eligible for such a project, pending their availability and timing of availability which will be evaluated as part of the FY 2018-2023 CIP Budget process:

1. Local tax funding. 2. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority local formula funds and regional competitive

funds. 3. Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). 4. General Obligation debt financing. 5. Commonwealth of Virginia, Smart Scale competitive funding. 6. Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) competitive grant funding

program. FISCAL IMPACT: No funding has been appropriated for this project. The project will need to be submitted for funding consideration in the FY 2018 CIP and Budget deliberations. The timing of potential project appropriations is dependent on available funding in the CIP, and Board direction. DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend to the Board of Supervisors to forward the elevated grade crossing option for the Washington and Old Dominion Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard to the FY 2018 – FY 2023 Capital Improvement Program Budget process and deliberations.

OR 2. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend to the Board of Supervisors to forward the tunnel crossing option for the Washington and Old Dominion Trail at its intersection with Sterling Boulevard to the FY 2018 – FY 2023 Capital Improvement Program Budget process and deliberations.

OR 3. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy Teste, July 1, 2015 Board Meeting, Endorsement of warning signal system and

pavement markings. 2. August 13, 2015 letter to VDOT and NOVA Parks, Endorsement of warning signal

system and pavement markings. 3. Cost estimate, Elevated crossing of the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Boulevard. 4. Cost estimate, tunnel crossing of the W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Boulevard. 5. Plan drawing for an elevated crossing of the W. & O.D. Trail over Sterling Boulevard.

Packet Page 35



6. Photographs of the site and overhead power lines. 7. W. & O.D. Trail & Roadway Crossing Development Guidelines, NOVA Parks.

Packet Page 36

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 37

Packet Page 38

Packet Page 39

ATTACHMENT 2

Packet Page 40

Packet Page 41

Packet Page 42

Packet Page 43

ATTACHMENT 3

7/21/2016

Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost W&OD Trail Grade Separation at Sterling Boulevard

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Item Total

Mobilization LS 1 $80,000.00 80,000

Earthwork CY 5,500 $40.00 220,000

Erosion and Sediment Control LS 1 $75,000.00 75,000

10' Asphalt Trail SY 1,500 $20.00 30,000

Bridge LF 105 $10,000.00 1,050,000

MSE Walls SF 24,570 $90.00 2,211,300

Railing LF 2,500 $100.00 250,000

Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $200,000.00 200,000

Utility Relocation ALLOW 1 $100,000.00 100,000

Roadside Development LS 1.0 $150,000.00 150,000

Signage/Pavement Marking LS 1 $10,000.00 10,000

Subtotal 4,296,300

25% Contingency 1,074,075

Total Construction Cost 5,370,375

Say 5,500,000

Engineering (7%) 400,000

Utility Relocation 250,000

Right-of-Way Acquisition 50,000

Total Project Cost $6,200,000

Opinion of Probable Cost based on conceptual plan prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated July 20, 2016.

Date of OPC: July 20, 2016 E:\Documents\Documents\Projects\Bike trails\W O and D\WO and D over Sterling

Blvd\Copy of WOD Trail over Sterling Blvd—Conceptual OPC

Packet Page 44

7/21/2016

C:\Users\Joe.Kroboth\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\6DFH0NXR\WOD Trail Tunnel Under Sterling Blvd - Conceptual OPC Page 1 of 1

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Item Total

Mobilization LS 1 $80,000.00 80,000Earthwork CY 15,000 $100.00 1,500,000Erosion and Sediment Control LS 1 $150,000.00 150,00010' Ashphalt Trail SY 1,500 $20.00 30,000CIP Tunnel Structure LF 100 $12,500.00 1,250,000MSE Walls SF 16,300 $90.00 1,467,000Storm Drain LS 1 $750,000.00 750,000Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $500,000.00 500,000Utility Relocation ALLOW 1 $200,000.00 200,000Roadside Development LS 1.0 $150,000.00 150,000Signage/Pavement Marking LS 1 $10,000.00 10,000

6,007,0001,501,7507,508,7507,500,000

500,000250,00050,000

$8,300,000

Opinion of Probable Cost based on conceptual plan prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated July 20, 2016. Date of OPC: July 20, 2016

Utility RelocationRight-of-Way Acquisition

Total Project Cost

Say

Subtotal

Conceptual Opinion of Probable CostW&OD Trail Tunnel at Sterling Boulevard

25% ContingencyTotal Construction Cost

Engineering (7%)

ATTACHMENT 4

Packet Page 45

W&OD TRAIL GRADE SEPARATIONAT STERLING BOULEVARD©

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT

1ATTACHMENT 5

Packet Page 46

Photographs of W. & O.D. Trail at Sterling Blvd and Overhead Utilities

W. & O.D. Trail, west of Sterling Blvd,looking west

W. & O.D. Trail, west of Sterling Blvd,looking east

W. & O.D. Trail, east of Sterling Blvd,looking west

W. & O.D. Trail, easte of Sterling Blvd,looking east

ATTACHMENT 6

Packet Page 47

Copyright © 1993 / 2015 NOVA Parks. All Rights Reserved.

W&OD Trail & Roadway Crossings

Development GuidelineA Guideline for Trails Crossing Over or Under Roadways

Published By:

NOVA PARKS

5400 Ox Road Fairfax Station, Virginia 22039

Updated in Consultation With:

BURGESS & NIPLE, INC.

4160 Pleasant Valley Road Chantilly, Virginia 20151

ATTACHMENT 7

Packet Page 48

TOC - 1

Table of Contents

Introduction: Why Is This Booklet Necessary? .........................................................................................................1 Guideline for W&OD Trail Bridge Design ................................................................................................................2 A. Trails Crossing Over Roadway ............................................................................................................................2

1. Cast-in-Place Bridges (Preferred) ..................................................................................................................2 2. Approach to Bridge .......................................................................................................................................2 3. Safety Fence ..................................................................................................................................................3 4. Vertical Clearance Requirement ....................................................................................................................3 5. Bridge Deck Material and Surface Treatment ...............................................................................................3 6. Deck Drainage ...............................................................................................................................................4 7. Trail Pavement Marking ................................................................................................................................4 8. Pre-Engineered/Prefabricated Bridge Superstructure ...................................................................................4

B. Trail Crossing Under Roadway ...........................................................................................................................6

1. Trail Location ................................................................................................................................................6 2. Vertical Clearance .........................................................................................................................................6 3. Horizontal Clearance .....................................................................................................................................6 4. Overhead Protection during Construction .....................................................................................................6 5. Lighting .........................................................................................................................................................6 6. Drainage ........................................................................................................................................................6 7. Safety Fence ..................................................................................................................................................6 8. Non-Vegetative Coverings ............................................................................................................................6 9. Pavement Marking ........................................................................................................................................6 10. Openness .......................................................................................................................................................7 11. Light Wells ....................................................................................................................................................7 12. Minimum Underpass Height .........................................................................................................................7 13. Minimum Underpass Width ..........................................................................................................................7

C. General Criteria ....................................................................................................................................................8

1. Trail Re-Routing During Construction ..........................................................................................................8 2. Grounding ......................................................................................................................................................8 3. Offsite Grading ..............................................................................................................................................8 4. Seeding & Mulching of Denuded Areas and Embankment ..........................................................................8 5. Coordination with Existing Utilities ..............................................................................................................9 6. Chickwall.......................................................................................................................................................9 7. Bridge Superstructure Painting ......................................................................................................................9 8. Bridge Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................................9 9. Concrete Finish - Abutment, Piers, etc. .........................................................................................................9 10. Protective Coating of Exposed Concrete .......................................................................................................9 11. Architectural Treatments .............................................................................................................................10 12. Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic ...........................................................................................................10 13. Americans with Disabilities Act ..................................................................................................................10

Submission Requirements for Preliminary Bridge Plans .........................................................................................11

Appendix 1 - Trail Typical Sections ..................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix 2 - Trail Painting Guideline .................................................................................................................. A-2

Packet Page 49

1

INTRODUCTION: WHY IS THIS BOOKLET NECESSARY?

This booklet presents design guidelines for bridges where roadways cross the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park (W&OD). The W&OD is a unique park in its physical character, in the variety of its users, and in the great number of roads that must cross the park with little option for realignment to avoid impact. In order to protect the integrity of the park, exceptional specifications are needed, which may not be required by federal, state, or local standards.

The W&OD Park extends 45 miles from Arlington to Purcellville, Virginia, along an old railroad bed which originally had very gradual slopes and turns. NOVA Parks desires to preserve the historic character of this property and so requires that new road and associated bridge construction not interfere with its trademark features.

The park's multi-use trails support approximately two million trail users a year, including walkers, joggers, bicyclists, horseback riders, rollerbladers and others. In addition to trail use by the general public, maintenance vehicles from various utility companies and NOVA Parks also periodically use the W&OD right-of-way for access to their facilities.

Because of the tremendous development on lands adjacent to the W&OD, new roadways are being developed across the park and existing road crossings are being widened. For the safety and convenience of trail users and to protect the continuous linear nature of this park, NOVA Parks policy requires grade-separated road crossings. Whether the trail is constructed in underpasses or on overpasses, it is the intent of NOVA Parks to provide a park having an open-air feeling for the users.

Providing for a wide variety of users and protecting the continuity of the right-of-way requires specialized guidelines. The purpose of this booklet is to set forth those guidelines so that plans conform to NOVA Parks standards, in addition to federal, state and local requirements, and are complete when submitted so they can be reviewed in a timely manner by NOVA Parks. This booklet also contains submission requirements for bridge plans to ensure that the needs of all the park's users are addressed during the design and construction phases.

The participating political jurisdictions of NOVA Parks, in most cases, have adopted a comprehensive trail plan. Where possible the applicant is encouraged to connect the W&OD to the comprehensive plan trails adopted by the jurisdiction. Connecting trails to the W&OD should connect at 90 degrees.

Packet Page 50

2

GUIDELINE FOR W&OD TRAIL BRIDGE DESIGN

A. Trails Crossing Over Roadway

1. Cast-in-Place Bridges (Preferred):

a. Bridge Location - It is NOVA Parks policy that the paved trail follows the grade and alignment of the original railroad bed. Bridges carrying the trail should be located at the centerline of the right-of-way or of the old track bed. Compelling justification shall be required for deviation from these criteria. The angle of the bridge crossing the road should be as close to perpendicular as possible.

b. Bridge Width - Varies depending upon each use and site conditions. As a planning guideline prior to development of preliminary plans, 20'-0" minimum clear width may be assumed or the width of approaching trails, median and shoulders, whichever is greater. For bridges exceeding 100' in length and where scenic vistas or other features may encourage overlook stopping, allow a 3' clearance on each side.

c. Bridge Structure Design – Shall be in accordance with LFRD Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges. Where vehicular access is not prevented by fixed physical methods, the bridge shall be designed for an H-10 maintenance vehicle.

2. Approach to Bridge:

a. Trail Approach Slope - Grades greater than 5% are undesirable according to AASHTO and VDOT guidelines. A 5% grade is substantially higher than the 1% to 2% established by the railroad. To preserve the gentle slopes along the original track bed, the maximum trail slope shall be 3%. However, in extreme circumstances, up to a maximum of 5% slope for the paved trail and up to a maximum of 8% slope for the gravel trail may be permitted if the applicant can provide substantial justification that the negative effect of the extra fill outweighs the benefit of the flatter slope. Approval of the maximum slope will be at the discretion of NOVA Parks.

b. Approach Ramp Width - Where grades exceed 3% provide 3' clear areas outside the trails. Where safety fence or barriers are required on one or both of the embankments, additional clear areas of 1' shall be provided (see Appendix 1, Trail Typical Sections).

c. Embankment Slopes - The standard maximum is 5 to 1 for safety and to allow mowing operations. The absolute maximum is 2 to 1 if 5 to 1 is proven unfeasible and approved by NOVA Parks.

d. Cross Slope - Not to exceed 2% on trails and bridges. Not to exceed 6% on Shoulders and clearances described in 1-b (see Appendix 1, Trail Typical Sections).

e. Trail Approaches/Separation - A minimum four foot wide grass median between the trails is required to within 25'-0" of the bridge. The full trail section, including median and shoulders, is required to this point, including between retaining walls. Provide 2' radius on the gravel trail at the end of this separation such that a horse and rider is perpendicular to the paved trail for visibility when the trails abut before entering the bridge (see Appendix 1, Trail Typical Sections).

f. Trail Transition - Where trails are widened in connection with bridge construction and adjacent development, a straight line transition from existing trail pavement to wider trail pavement shall occur over a length of at least 100'.

Packet Page 51

3

g. Grade Differential - The length of vertical curve used to transition between two different trail slopes is critical because of the nature of cycling. Obstructions in or on the trail at zero height, such as potholes, can severely affect a rider's safety. If a short vertical curve is used at the crest of vertical transition, the rider may not be able to see obstructions until it is too late to stop. To remedy this potential problem, the vertical curves should be designed per the most current edition of AASHTO's "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities". The recommended design speed is 30 mph. Warning signs may be required where limited sight distances may create a hazard.

h. Vegetation on Approach Ramp Embankment – The embankments shall have grass cover, or natural vegetation to stabilize the slope. Ground cover specifications will require approval by NOVA Parks. Trees are encouraged for aesthetics; however special consideration of DVP clearance requirements shall be adhered to. Landscaping plans shall be included in each submittal.

3. Safety Fence:

a. Fencing Specifications, Framing and Accessories - Fencing requirements shall be discussed at the project scoping meeting. Generally, fencing shall be provided the full length of the bridge structure. All fences indicated on the plans shall be black, Type IV Class 2B, 9-gage fabric (prior to PVC coating). Wire shall have the PVC coating thermally fused onto galvanized steel core wire. Galvanized steel core wire must be coated with Zinc by either the hot-dip or electrolytic process. The top and bottom salvages must be knuckled.

b. Bridge Safety Fence - Fencing shall be provided on the bridge and shall be curved in at the top, with the curve projecting inward 1'-3" at a radius of 3'-0". Fencing shall be 10'-0" to highest point of the fence. The fabric shall be thermally fused, 1" maximum chain link mesh.

c. Approach Ramp Safety Fence - Fencing shall be provided on the approach to the bridge and shall extend a minimum of 50'-0" along trails from abutments or from the end of any retaining walls, whichever is longer. Fencing shall be located a minimum of 3' from the trail edge. Fabric shall be 2" maximum mesh chain link fence. Fence shall be minimum 5'0" high on the bike trail side and minimum 8'0" high on the horse trail side. The end of fence should be aligned with bridge abutments and the nearest post should be located no more than 4 inches from the end of the bridge structure. Additional fence lengths may be required where the project results in narrow shoulders, steeper or higher embankments, or potentially hazardous obstacles on embankments. Guard rails adjacent to the bridge abutment are not permitted because they are not high enough to protect bicyclists and horseback riders from drop-offs. Fencing specifications shall be the same as listed in Bridge Safety Fence Specifications, except that 2" mesh may be used on the approach instead of 1" mesh.

4. Vertical Clearance Requirement:

Minimum 17’-6” clearance, from bottom of bridge to the road, as required by VDOT or local jurisdiction. Vertical clearance to obstructions above the bridge shall be minimum 12 feet. Applicant will also need to obtain Dominion Virginia Power’s approval of necessary horizontal and vertical cleanses.

5. Bridge Deck Material and Surface Treatment:

Should be continuous broom-finished concrete perpendicular to the flow of traffic. The broom-finish provides a low maintenance, skid-resistant riding surface. Also, use as few lateral joints as possible and no longitudinal joints without permission of the NOVA Parks. Joints shall be no greater than 1/4" wide and shall be filled flush to the decking with elastomeric joint filler for a smoother ride and to prevent water and debris from falling through onto the roadway below.

Packet Page 52

4

6. Deck Drainage:

Proper drainage controls shall be used to prevent ponding of water on the bridge deck. Generally, deck drains with grate tops will not be allowed in the travel-way of the bridge deck unless approved by NOVA Parks. If grates are approved, bicycle-safe grates must be used and grates and covers should be located in a manner which will minimize severe and/or frequent maneuvering by the bicyclist. Grates must be flush with the adjacent pavement. Spacing of bars shall not exceed 1/2" in one direction; if there are elongated openings, then they must be perpendicular to the direction of trail traffic. If manholes are placed in the bridge deck, the covers must be secured with tamper-proof bolts. On the downhill side of the bridge structure and where water will travel along the gutter line of the bridge, an inlet shall be placed at the outside edge of the approach trail in order to drain the water, or a concrete channel shall be utilized around the abutment wing-wall to drain the bridge deck.

7. Trail Pavement Marking:

Trail Pavement Marking - Upon completion of trail and bridge construction, the trail approaches and bridge deck shall be striped using thermoplastic markings per NOVA Parks standards. The trail approaches and bridge deck shall be striped in accordance with the striping plan shown in Appendix

8. Pre-Engineered/Prefabricated Bridge Superstructure:

In rare occasions and under special circumstances, NOVA Parks may allow a prefabricated or pre-engineered bridge to be used in lieu of a constructed-in-place bridge.

Applicant must obtain permission from NOVA Parks to use this type of structure in advance of preliminary engineering work; when approved, the following specifications shall be used as guidelines in design development.

a. Span and Width to be approved by NOVA Parks. Minimum width 20'-0" inside clear width or the width of approaching trails, median, and shoulders, whichever is wider.

b. Structural Design as described in Cast-in-Place Bridges above.

c. Camber - Bridge camber at center of bridge span shall be no more than 1" (inch) rise for each 10 feet of span. Example, a 50 foot bridge will have no more than a 5 inch camber at the center of the bridge.

d. Flat Bridges - Bridge shall be cambered to offset full dead load deflections. Bridges in excess of 65'-0" in length may need to be spliced for shipment. Bridges shall be designed to accommodate abutment elevation differences.

e. Bridge Materials - Self-weathering bridges are preferred to reduce maintenance (i.e. eliminate painting). Self-weathering bridges shall be fabricated from high strength, self-weathering, low alloy, atmospheric corrosion-resistant ASTM A847 cold-formed welded square and rectangular tubing, and ASTM A588, ASTM A606 or ASTM A242 plate and structural shapes (Fy=50,000 psi). Self-weathering bridges shall be allowed to weather either at the manufacturer or in on-site storage for 90 days before erection.

All welding shall utilize E80 series electrodes which have the same weathering characteristics as corrosion-resistant steel. Field splices shall be fully bolted with ASTM A325 Type 3 high strength bolts in accordance with "Specifications for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts".

Where painted bridges are allowed, they shall be fabricated using ASTM A500 Grade C (Fy=50,000 psi) structural tubing and/or ASTM A36 (Fy=36,000 psi) structural steel shapes.

Packet Page 53

5

f. Concrete Decking - NOVA Parks standard decking is poured-in-place concrete, with the same broom finish as cast-in-place structures. Generally, other deck types require prior approval of NOVA Parks. Decks must provide positive drainage to prevent ponding or ice formation.

g. Toe Plate - Continuous 6" high toe plates are required. The bottom of the toe plate shall be placed 1½" above deck level.

h. Fences - Same requirements as for cast-in-place bridges. Method for attaching fence to the bridge shall be approved by NOVA Parks.

i. Fabrication - Workmanship, fabrication and shop connections shall be in accordance with AASHTO. Welding operators shall be properly accredited experienced operators, each of whom shall submit satisfactory evidence of experience and skill in welding structural steel with the kind of welding to be used in the work and who has demonstrated the ability to make uniform good welds of the type required.

j. Finishing - Self weathering bridges: All boldly exposed surfaces of self-weathering steel shall be cleaned in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council Surface Preparation Specifications No. 6 Commercial Blast Cleaning, SSPC-SP 6-63.

Where Painted Bridges are permitted, all exposed surfaces of steel shall be cleaned in accordance with the Steel Structures Painting Council Surface Preparation Specifications No. 6 Commercial Blast Cleaning, SSPC-SP 6.63. Primer coat and two finish coats shall be applied. Bridges shall be provided with paint for touch-up after erection.

Packet Page 54

6

B. Trail Crossing Under Roadway

1. Trail Location

When trail(s) cross under a roadway, the trail(s) shall be centered within the roadway bridge opening. Equal distance shall be provided on both sides between the toe of the abutment and the trail edge. Compelling justification shall be required for deviation from this requirement.

2. Vertical Clearance

Provision of a minimum Elevation Open Area (EOA) is required to allow safe usage of the trails. EOA is also critical to maintaining the open-air feeling of the entire park. Minimum underpass height depends on the depth of the underpass.

3. Horizontal Clearance

Minimum side clearances are a primary tool to prevent a tunnel effect especially under multi-lane and divided roads. Larger horizontal clearances are required to accommodate higher vertical clearances. Minimum underpass width depends on the trail typical section, drainage ditches, if any, and EOA.

4. Overhead Protection during Construction

Plans should include details such as pedestrian cages or plywood canopies. These should be wide enough to accommodate trails and shoulders. Artificial lighting of enclosures may be required.

5. Lighting

Natural lighting is important in relation to safe trail use, both for visibility and to deter vandalism. It also is significant toward preserving the aesthetic outdoor characteristics of this historic trail. Artificial lighting may be required where added lighting is desired, night use is anticipated or security considerations dictate.

6. Drainage

Drainage off the bridge deck must not fall or drain onto the trails below; it should be directed into off-site stormwater management facilities or, if necessary, ditches paralleling the trails. These drainage ditches shall be improved by the applicant to adequately carry all anticipated water.

7. Safety Fence

Chain link fencing is required on top of the bridge to prevent materials from being thrown onto the trails below.

8. Non-Vegetative Coverings

Slopes and ditches that do not receive enough rain or daylight to maintain vegetation shall be concrete or riprap covered as approved by NOVA Parks. Surge stone or other slope protection should be placed in other areas directly under bridges where grass will not grow.

9. Pavement Marking

A 4” continuous yellow centerline and 4” solid white edge lines shall be installed on the asphalt trail under the roadway-bridge and 25’ beyond on both sides of the bridge. Thermoplastic, reflective markings shall be used.

Packet Page 55

7

10. Openness

Underpasses must be designed and constructed to substantially preserve the open air character of the W&OD, that is, to avoid creating a “tunnel effect”. This shall be accomplished by maintaining a minimum Elevation Open Area (EOA), essentially representing a measure of the area of the smallest vertical plane perpendicular to the trails and bounded by the space between the bridge abutments, the trail surfaces and the bridge girders.

The minimum required EOA is a function of the depth of the underpass, including any light well, measured along the centerline of the paved trail for the entire underpass structure and determined by the following formula where “d” is the depth of the underpass: Minimum EOA=100+8d+25√d. Within certain parameters, the designed height and width of an underpass may be adjusted to accommodate bridge, road, trail and drainage design and other related site conditions. But, in any event, the minimum EOA must be provided.

Where the “boundaries” of the EOA plane are irregular, that is the plane is not strictly rectangular, then the area of the irregular plane shall be computed, provided the areas generated by ditches and bridge piers shall not be included in computing the EOA.

11. Light Wells

A light well extending the full length of the bridge span shall be required for bridges with depth (excluding the light well) 60’ or greater.

The light well width (clear inside dimensions) shall be the greater of 12’ or 1.5 times the height of the bridge structure measured from the bottom of the girder to the top of the parapet walls adjacent to the light well opening.

In the event road design parameters preclude providing the full light well as specified, then natural lighting may be provided by increasing the underpass height and/or width to the effect that the EOA, as defined above, is increased by 30%, and provided the underpass height shall not be less than that which would have been required if the light well were provided.. That is, for purposes of determining the minimum underpass height, the required light well width is assumed in computing the underpass depth.

12. Minimum Underpass Height

Minimum underpass height shall be 12’, plus ½ foot for each 7.5 foot or fraction thereof of underpass depth (measured on the alignment of the paved trail and including any light well) in excess of 30’. Underpass height is defined as the height of the shortest vertical line beneath the bridge measured between the bottom of the bridge girder or structure to the surface of the paved and gravel trails.

13. Minimum Underpass Width

Minimum underpass width shall be determined by dividing the minimum height requirement into the EOA as defined above.

Packet Page 56

8

C. General Criteria

1. Trail Re-routing During Construction

Provisions shall be shown to allow continued use of the trails during construction. The temporary trail shall be a minimum of 18 feet wide, (10’ paved and 8' compacted gravel rock dust) in areas with both bike and horse trails; and 10' wide paved with 2’ gravel shoulders if bike trail only, with a maximum vertical slope of 5% for paved trail, 8% for gravel trail, unless otherwise approved by NOVA Parks. Detour trails must be clearly marked with reflective barriers and temporary fencing along both sides to protect trail users from accidentally entering the construction area and to prevent construction equipment from encroaching on the temporary trail. A "Trail Detour Ahead" sign shall be posted 150 feet prior to detour from each direction. The sign shall be 36" x 36" and diamond shaped, on 0.080” aluminum, reflective with an orange background and black lettering sized to adequately fill the space on the sign. Both signs shall be in place prior to diverting trail users onto the trail detour

2. Grounding

Grounding shall be in conformance with all local codes and the National Electric Code. All conducting members of the bridge, including the fences, shall be electrically bonded together and to a ground rod (or rods). When sections of the bridge are bolted or riveted together, at least one bonding jumper, welded to each section and to each fence, shall be installed. Bonding jumpers shall be stranded soft-drawn copper, meeting American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard B8, and sized not less than No. 4/0 AWG.

A ground rod shall be driven into the earth at one end of the bridge. The ground resistance shall be measured in normally dry conditions not less than 48 hours after rainfall. A resistance of not greater than 25 ohms shall be provided. Where this resistance cannot be met with one ground rod, additional ground rods, longer ground rods, or deep-driven sectional rods shall be installed and connected until the specified resistance is obtained.

Ground resistance measurements shall be taken and certified. One copy of a test report, indicating the resistance and the soil conditions at the time the test was performed, shall be submitted to the NOVA Parks.

A grounding conductor shall be welded to the bridge and to the ground rod. Bolted connections shall not be permitted. The grounding conductor shall be stranded soft-drawn copper, meeting ASTM Standard B8, and sized not less than No. 4/0 AWG.

3. Offsite Grading

It is recommended that offsite work be minimized by using earth retaining systems to keep all construction within the right-of-way. All adjacent properties shall be shown on the preliminary site plan regardless of whether they contain offsite construction, and shall include the owner's names and property addresses. Offsite trails or walks that are proposed to connect to the W&OD trail at grade-separated bridges, shall tie in perpendicularly to the W&OD. Show any offsite easements required for construction and include, property addresses, and owner's names.

4. Seeding & Mulching of Denuded Areas and Embankment

Seed with a native warm season grass mixture approved by NOVA Parks. Temporary and permanent stabilization shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.

Packet Page 57

9

a. Preparation of Soil and Seeding - Low maintenance areas (area where the slope is greater than 4:1) will be mowed infrequently or not at all. Lime and fertilizer may not be applied on a regular basis to the areas that will not be subjected to intense use, nor required to have a uniform appearance. The plants must be able to persist with little maintenance over long periods of time. Grass and legume mixtures are favored for these sites because legumes are capable of fixing nitrogen from the air for their own use and the use of plants around them. The seed mixture shall be specified on the plans for the specific site and the period of the year during which seeding is to be performed.

b. Mulch - Material shall be dry straw or hay or wood cellulose fiber for hydraulic seeding. Mulch shall conform to Section 257.07 of the VDOT specifications.

5. Coordination with Existing Utilities

The applicant is required to obtain Dominion Virginia Power's written approval for all encroachments on the W&OD right-of-way. In addition, the applicant should coordinate construction with the following utilities whose high-volume, underground facilities parallel the trails on the right-of-way: Loudoun Water and Fairfax Water (watermain from Hunter Mill Road in Fairfax to Ashburn Road in Ashburn); AT&T (fiber optic cable from Columbia Pike in Arlington to Harrison Street in Leesburg); and Level 3 Communications (fiber optic cable from Gallows Road in Fairfax to Van Buren Street in Herndon).

6. Chickwall

Chickwall is required on all the bridge abutments to protect the bearing assembly.

7. Bridge Superstructure Painting

All steel superstructures to be painted shall have the proposed finish color approved by NOVA Parks. Exposed structural steel designated to be painted shall be painted in accordance with latest VDOT specifications.

8. Bridge Aesthetics

Special treatments may be required at the discretion of NOVA Parks and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

9. Concrete Finish - Abutment, Piers, etc.

Concrete shall have a rubbed finish: Rubbing of concrete shall be started immediately after forms are removed. Immediately before this work, concrete shall be kept wet for at least 3 hours. Sufficient time shall elapse before wetting to allow mortar used in the pointing of rod holes and defects to set thoroughly. Surfaces to be finished shall be rubbed with a medium-coarse carborundum stone with a small amount of mortar on its face. Mortar shall be composed of cement and fine aggregate mixed in the proportions used in the concrete being finished. Rubbing shall be continued until form marks, projections, and irregularities are removed; voids are filled; and a uniform surface is obtained. Paste shall be left in place. The final finish shall be obtained by rubbing with a fine carborundum stone and water. Rubbing shall be continued until the entire surface has a smooth texture and uniform color. After final rubbing is completed and the surface has dried, the surface shall be rubbed with burlap and left free from unsound patches, paste, powder and objectionable marks.

10. Protective Coating of Exposed Concrete

To protect concrete from stains, other chemical reactions and graffiti when unpainted ASTM A588 or other type of weathering steel is used in a structure and no other concrete waterproofing surface finish is specified, a 5 percent solids, solvent-based, clear, water-repellant silicone treatment shall be applied in two coats to the surface of the concrete substructure as indicated on the plans, or where not shown on the

Packet Page 58

10

plans to all exposed concrete surfaces below and including the bridge seats, within the limits of vertical planes parallel to and two feet outside the extreme edges of exterior beams or girders. The first coat shall be applied at a rate of 60 to 70 square feet of surface area per gallon of treatment solution and the second coat at rate of 90 to 110 square feet per gallon. If the treatment is applied by spraying, the nozzle shall be held no further than 24 inches from the surface being treated. The silicone treatment shall be applied after the cleaning of exposed substructure concrete surfaces is completed and before any structural steel is erected. Coloring agent to be selected and approved by NOVA Parks for final finishing color; shall be consistently applied and even in color.

11. Architectural Treatments

Abutments, wing-walls, piers, and concrete slope protection shall be considered for architectural treatment, such as exposed aggregate or a block pattern. Rubbing and coloring of these surfaces is not required if architectural treatments is applied.

12. Restriction of Motor Vehicle Traffic

To the extent possible, construction traffic on the new trail bridge shall be avoided. In the event that construction traffic must cross the new facility, due to very unusual and extraordinary circumstances, advance approval must be obtained from NOVA Parks.

13. Americans with Disabilities Act

Modification of any of the criteria in this booklet may be required in order to meet ADA standards.

Packet Page 59

11

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLANS The following is a list of required items to be included when submitting preliminary bridge plans for NOVA Parks review:

1. Site Plan

Shall show the entire area affected by the crossing, including grading, utilities, adjacent property owners, and proposed retaining walls.

2. Typical Bridge Cross-Section

Typical bridge cross-section shall show type of deck, superstructure, fencing and width.

3. Bridge Side Elevation and Plan View

Bridge side elevation and plan view shall show fencing, pier locations, clear spans, abutment locations, slopes, fencing, vertical clearances, and horizontal clearances. Plans shall have a 1 to 1 horizontal to vertical scale.

4. Engineering Profile of the Bridge Crossing

Engineering profile of the bridge crossing shall show the proposed grades and existing grades on the same sheet. Approach grades can be easily evaluated using this drawing. Shall also show length of vertical curves and stopping sight distances provided.

5. Site Plan Showing Trail Detour during Construction

Site plans showing a trail detour during construction shall show entire area affected by the detour, length, width and slope of the detour, all construction requirements such as fencing, traffic control (reflective barriers, pavement marking and signage, etc.) and existing utilities. The maximum slope for the temporary trail should not exceed 5%.

Packet Page 60

A-1

APPENDIX 1

TRAIL TYPICAL SECTIONS

Packet Page 61

A-2

APPENDIX 2

TRAIL PAINTING GUIDELINE

Packet Page 62



FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITEE

ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Committee’s Recommended FY 2017 Capital Facility Standards

ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide

CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016

STAFF CONTACTS: Erin McLellan, Management and Budget Julie Crim, Management and Budget

PURPOSE: To present the Fiscal Impact Committee’s Recommended Capital Facility Standards to the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC).

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Fiscal Impact Committee: The Fiscal Impact Committee voted (11-0-2, Michael Larkin and Olin Filyaw absent) to recommend that the FGOEDC recommend that the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopt the Capital Facility Standards as recommended by the Fiscal Impact Committee (FIC).

Staff: Staff concurs with the FIC recommendation.

_____________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND: The FIC began its review of the County’s Capital Facility Standards on September 1, 2016, and completed its review on November 10, 2016. Each FIC meeting involved presentations and question and answer sessions with County staff from each Department presenting Capital Facility Standards for the FIC’s consideration.

The capital facility planning process relies upon the adoption of the Capital Facility Standards by the Board. The Capital Facility Standards determine the number, type, and size of facilities planned for in the Capital Needs Assessment. Without adopted Capital Facility Standards, these facility details cannot be determined and the Capital Needs Assessment cannot be developed. Likewise, the County’s Capital Intensity Factor cannot be calculated without the standards for facility acreage and building square footage being established by the approved Capital Facility Standards. Therefore, in order to commence the development of an updated Capital Needs Assessment and Capital Intensity Factor, the Board will have to adopt a new set of Capital Facility

Packet Page 63

Item 7, FIC Recommended FY 2017 Capital Facility Standards Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Standards. Each Capital Facility Standard involves four main components:

1. The types of capital facilities the County would like to develop, according to Department service plans, in quantities that are driven by demographic or geographic considerations;

2. The typical square footage to be developed for each type of facility; 3. The acreage required to site the facility. Each standard provides an approximate acreage to

develop that type of facility on a stand-alone site, and provides estimates for the building footprint, parking areas, storm water management ponds, required zoning setbacks, and well and drain field areas in the event a site is not located on public water and sewer systems. The acreage is provided on an “up to” basis, meaning the facility can be developed on a site of up to the proposed acreage.

4. The demographic or geographic factors by which a new facility is “triggered” to begin development.

The following tables provide a summary of the actions taken by the FIC and represent the final set of Capital Facility Standards being recommended to the FGOEDC and the Board for adoption. Table 1 provides a summary of the staff recommended Capital Facility Standards that the FIC endorsed: Table 1. Staff Recommended Standards Endorsed by the Fiscal Impact Committee

Capital Facility Building Square Footage

Up To Acres

Standard

Animal Shelter 25,000 square feet

5.00 1 Shelter for the County; Maintain the existing western Animal Shelter for livestock,

large animal housing, seizures, or other special needs.

Sheriff Station 18,000 4.00-5.00 1 Station per 100,000 population

Library 40,000 7.00 0.6 square feet per capita General Government Support Facilities

N/A N/A 4 square feet per capita

Recycling Drop-off Centers

3,000 sq.ft. container pad

6,050 sq. ft. parking area

0.25 Maximum of 9 sites; reduce number of sites when warranted

based on increase curbside recycling rates

Special Waste Drop-off Centers

600 sq. ft. pavilion 1,600 sq.ft. container

pad 6,050 sq. ft. parking

area

1.00 1 Center for the County

Packet Page 64



Capital Facility Building Square

Footage Up To Acres

Standard

Fire Station -East 18,000 - 20,000 5.00 1 Station per 25,000 population Fire Station - West 18,000 - 20,000 5.00 1 Station per 10,000 population 1500-gpm Engine N/A N/A 1 Engine per 10,000 population ALS Ambulance N/A N/A 1 Ambulance per 10,000

population Ladder Truck N/A N/A 1 Ladder Truck per 25,000

population Heavy Rescue Squad N/A N/A 1 Heavy Rescue Truck per

50,000 population Tanker N/A N/A 1 Tanker per 10,000 population Brush Truck - west N/A N/A 1 Brush Truck per 10,000

population Transit Buses N/A N/A 1 Bus per 3,370 population Park and Ride Lots N/A 4.00 – 13.00 1.15 spaces per 100 residents

200 -700 spaces per lot 4- 13 acres

(70 spaces per acre) Transit Bus Maintenance Facility

28,000 square feet

10.00 1 facility per 247,500 population

MH Residential Facility 3,400 (SFD)

1,000 (Condo) 0.25 (SFD) 1 bed per 5,900 population

DS Residential Facility 3,400 (SFD) 1,000 (Condo)

0.50 (SFD) 1 bed per 5,900 population

Juvenile Detention Center 40,000 6.00 1 Center for the County Youth Shelter 8,000 2.00 1 Shelter for the County Emergency Homeless Shelter

9,000 2.00 1 Shelter for the County

Adolescent Independent Living Residence

9,000 2.00 1 Residence for the County

Recreation Center 83,000 15.00 6 Recreation Centers for the County

Adult Day Center 7,000 4.00 1 Center per 15,000 population aged 55+ years

Teen Center 20,000 5.00 1 Center per 10,000 residents aged 12-14 years

Senior Center 15,000 5.00 1 Center per 10,000 population aged 55+ years

Community Centers 20,000 6.00 1 Center per 45,000 population Satellite Maintenance Facility

5,000 3.00 3 Facilities for the County

Regional Park 10,000 200+ 5 Regional Parks for the County

Packet Page 65



Capital Facility Building Square

Footage Up To Acres

Standard

Community Park 800 30-74 1 Community Park per 25,000 population

Neighborhood Park 400 1-29 1 Neighborhood Park per 10,000 population

Elementary School 100,000 – 115,000 20 900- 1,000 pupils Middle School 185,000 – 200,000 35 1,350 – 1,500 pupils High School 290,000 – 310,000 75 1,800 – 2,000 pupils

The standards recommended remained the same as the currently adopted Capital Facility standards, with the following staff recommended modifications that were endorsed by the FIC:

1. The size of the Animal Shelter facility was increased from 21,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet to match the size of the facility currently under development in the CIP.

2. The size of Fire Stations were increased from 13,000 to 20,000 square feet to 18,000 to 20,000 square feet to match the size of the facilities currently under development in the CIP.

3. The number of transit buses was revised from 1 bus per 4,950 population to 1 bus per 3,370 population to account for the addition of local buses to the County operated fleet with the takeover of operations of the local fixed routes in the County, and future planned growth in the local and Metro transit feeder routes.

4. The standard for Developmental Services and Mental Health Residential Facilities is being provided on a per bed basis, rather than on a residential unit basis to provide greater flexibility in the delivery of these services. The standard has changed to 1 bed being provided per 5,900 population in the County for both Developmental Services and Mental Health residential placements. The standard was also modified to include the provision of 1,000 square foot condominium units that can accommodate two beds to account for proffered condo units in the pipeline to be provided to the County, or the purchase of condo units by the County. Typically, single family detached Developmental Services residences are planned to provide for 5 beds per unit and single family detached Mental Health residences are planned to provide for 4 beds per unit. The FIC recommended that both single family detached unit types provide for 4 beds per unit, with the option to provide up to 5 beds per unit where applicable.

Table 2 provides a summary of the staff recommended Capital Facility Standards that the FIC amended: Table 2. Fiscal Impact Committee Amended Capital Facility Standards

Capital Facility Department Recommended FIC Action District Park 9:County

5,000 square foot building 75 to 199 acres

8:County 5,000 square foot building

75 - 199 acres Recreational Trails 0.65 miles per 1,000 population 0.40 miles per 1,000 population

Packet Page 66



The FIC made the following amendments to Capital Facility Standards that were endorsed for approval:

1. Staff requested that the standard for District Parks provide for 9 parks in the County, approximately one District Park per planning subarea in the County. Given the amount of land that would need to be acquired and the lack of such large sites in particular planning subareas, the FIC recommended that the capital facility standard remained unchanged from the current adopted standard of 8 District Parks in the County.

2. Staff requested that the current adopted capital facility standard for Recreational trails remain the same at 0.65 miles per 1,000 population in the County. The FIC recommended the standard be reduced to 0.40 miles per 1,000 population.

Table 3 provides a summary of new Capital Facility Standards endorsed by the FIC: Table 3. New Capital Facility Standards Endorsed by the Fiscal Impact Committee

Capital Facility Building Square Footage Up To Acres Standard Group Home 8,000 2.00 1 Group Home

for the County At their July 5, 2016 Business Meeting, the Board voted (9-0) to approve the conversion of one of the County’s Youth Shelters to a Group Home. The Youth Shelter has a limit on the length of stay, which is capped at 90 days. There is a need to provide transitional housing options for youths for longer placements, typically 6 to 9 months. Due to the stabilization of the number of placements in the Youth Shelter, there is not a need to have two Youth Shelter facilities. Prior year appropriations in the CIP to renovate the old Youth Shelter will now be used to renovate the facility for use as a Group Home, to allow for longer term youth residential placements. Staff recommended that the current adopted Youth Shelter capital facility standard of two shelters for the County be amended to provide for 1 Youth Shelter and 1 Group Home in the County. The Group Home standard is a new capital facility standard proposed by the County, which will be provided for once the renovation of the old Youth Shelter facility is complete. Table 4 provides a summary of the recommended Capital Facility Standards not endorsed by the FIC: Table 4. Capital Facility Standards Not Endorsed by the Fiscal Impact Committee

Capital Facility Department Proposed FIC Action Natural and Scenic Area Parkland

4.5 acres per 1,000 population

FIC voted not to adopt the recommended standard

Equestrian Facility 1:County; 160,000 square foot building, to be located within an

existing park

FIC voted not to adopt the recommended standard

Packet Page 67



A summary of the recommended capital facility standards, FIC actions, and FIC votes on the capital facility standards recommended for approval are provided in Attachment 1 to this item. Proffer Guidelines for Regional Road Contributions The FIC requested that staff work on calculating and establishing proffer guidelines for regional road contributions to be used during proffer negotiations associated with rezoning applications. Providing such guidelines will allow the County to better calculate the impact new development has on the provision of roads in the County and to establish a consistent, defensible formula. During the review of the capital facility standards, staff presented a recommended methodology towards calculating regional road costs associated with the build-out of the CTP roads. The proposed contribution methodology establishes guidelines to offset a development’s impacts on the regional road network. The proposed methodology assumed to be used only with residential rezoning applications. This is due to the fact that other capital facility standards are based on residential uses and population growth, and because non-residential development is generally viewed as being fiscally positive for the County and beneficial for residents and real estate values. It is important to note that the proposed methodology used the average number of daily trips generated per dwelling unit type and not a per capita standard. This is due to the fact that population per dwelling unit is not an accurate measure of trip generation, as every additional person residing in a dwelling unit reduces the marginal number of additional trips generated. This is accounted for by the use of industry accepted trip generation rates in the proposed methodology. The proposed methodology is similar to a transportation impact mitigation funding mechanism developed by Prince William County and identifies missing roadway segments shown on the CTP by planning subarea. Specifically, this methodology includes the following steps:

1. Identify the total number of CTP roadway lane miles yet to be constructed outside of the Towns by planning subarea.

2. Estimate total cost of the lane miles yet to be constructed (using a conservative estimate of $4 million total cost per lane mile) by planning subarea.

3. Subtract out the total amount of funding identified for roadway projects in the Adopted FY 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget.

4. Calculate the total cost of unfunded CTP roadway improvements (i.e., those improvements not funded in the Adopted FY 2017-2022 CIP).

5. Calculate total future (both residential and non-residential) daily trips generated by planning subarea.

6. Calculate percentage of total daily trips generated by each residential dwelling unit type by planning subarea.

7. Calculate the residential share of unfunded lane mile costs by planning subarea. 8. Determine the contribution amount per residential dwelling unit type by planning subarea.

Packet Page 68



Note that all of these inputs would need to be reviewed periodically, perhaps every two years during the Capital Facilities Standards review process, to reflect additional buildout of the CTP roadway network, updated roadway cost estimates, and current demographic data. Attachment 2 to this item provides the draft methodology and calculations by planning subarea of staff’s recommended road capital facility standard calculation. It is important to note that the methodology recommended by staff actually develops a capital intensity factor calculation for roads per residential housing unit, by unit type, rather than a capital facility standard. There is no capital facility standard for roads, per se. The development of roads in the County is dependent upon roads identified in the CTP, and design and construction standards for road development is developed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Therefore, the FIC voted to approve the methodology proposed by staff to calculate the road capital intensity factor, but directed staff to come back in the spring to come up with options to:

1. Determine the cost of road development attributable to commercial development (commercial cost or proportion of required road development in the CTP), and

2. Determine the cost attributable to “incremental” development. This means to determine the level of road development required today due to current housing unit development and density, and an analysis of road development and costs attributable to future growth over time, “incremental” development.

Due to these factors, the FIC is recommending FGOEDC approval of the recommended Capital Facility Standards, exclusive of a road facility standard. The road standard will be finalized after further review by the FIC in the spring, and will be included in the review of the County’s Capital Intensity Factor calculations. ISSUES: The Capital Facility Standards, Capital Intensity Factor and the Capital Needs Assessment have not been updated since 2014. In order to develop a new, required Capital Needs Assessment document and update the County’s Capital Intensity Factor, the Board needs to review and adopt a set of Capital Facility Standards.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact related to the development of the County Capital Facility Standards. The Capital Facility Standards are used for planning purposes and to help develop the County’s Capital Intensity Factor and Capital Needs Assessment.

ALTERNATIVES: If the Board elects not to adopt a new set of Capital Facility Standards, the currently adopted Capital Facility Standards last reviewed and approved in 2014 will remain in effect. This means the County will continue to calculate the cost of capital facility development on a per housing unit basis based on 2014 cost recovery levels. The Capital Intensity Factor sets the average capital facilities impact/costs associated with new residential units (by type) in the County. Neither the Capital Intensity Factor nor the Capital Needs Assessment can be updated without a new set of adopted Capital Facility Standards in place.

Packet Page 69



DRAFT MOTIONS:

1. I move the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Capital Facility Standards as recommended by the Fiscal Impact Committee.

OR

2. I move an alternate motion.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. A summary of the recommended capital facility standards, FIC actions, and FIC votes on the capital facility standards recommended for approval

2. Draft methodology and calculations by planning subarea of staff’s recommended road capital facility standard calculation

Packet Page 70

Capital Facility Standards Review

Fiscal Impact Committee

Page 1 of 9

CAPITAL FACILITY STANDARD REVIEW SUMMARY AS OF November 10, 2016Straw Vote Record

Department Capital Facility Current Standard Dept. Proposed FIC Action Y N A FIC Recommended Standard

Animal Services Animal Shelter2: County;

21,000 square feet Up to 5 acres

1: County; 25,000 square feet on up to 5

acres

Approve a standard of 1:County based uponmaintaining the existing western Animal Shelter forlivestock, large animal housing or seizures, or otherspecial needs

7 0 609-15-2016 - Lazaro moves to approve standard as recommended by staff. 2nd Mitchell

Sheriff Sheriff Station

1:100,000 population;

18,000 square feet Up to 4-5 acres

1:100,000 population 18,000 square feet

Up to 4-5 acresApprove staff recommendation 9 0 4

09-01-2016: Capretti moves to approve the Department proposed standard; 2nd by Krueger

Library Services Library

0.6 square feet per capita


0.6 square feet per capita


Approve staff recommendation 9 0 409-01-2016: Capretti moves to approve the Department proposed standard; 2nd by Krueger

General Services General Government Support Facilities 4 square feet per capita

4 square feet per capita Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4

09-01-2016: Mitchell moves to approve the Department proposed standard; 2nd by Larkin. Miller moved to divide the motion: one vote for the General Government Support Facilities, and one vote for the Recycling Facilities. Mitchell accepts Miller's proposal to divide the motion.

General Services Recycling Dropoff Centers

Maximum of 9 sites, reduce number of

sites when warranted based on increase curbside recycling rates; 0.25 acres;

3,000 sq. ft. container pad, 6,050 sq. ft.

parking area

Maximum of 9 sites, reduce number of

sites when warranted based on increase curbside recycling rates; 0.25 acres;

3,000 sq. ft. container pad, 6,050 sq. ft.

parking area

Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4


General Services Special Waste Dropoff Centers 1:County 1:County

Approve staff recommended standard of 1:County,on up to 1 acres, with a 600 square foot pavilion,1,600 square foot container pad and 6,050 squarefeet of parking space

9 0 4


ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 71



Page 2 of 9



Fire and Rescue Services Fire Station -East

1:25,000 population; 13,000 - 20,000

square feet; Up to 5 acres

1:25,000 population; 18,000 - 20,000


Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services Fire Station - West

1:10,000 population; 13,000 - 20,000


1:10,000 population; 18,000 - 20,000


Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services 1500-gpm Engine 1:10,000 1:10,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services ALS Ambulance 1:10,000 1:10,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services Ladder Truck 1:25,000 1:25,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services Heavy Rescue Squad 1:50,000 1:50,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services Tanker 1:10,000 1:10,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Fire and Rescue Services Brush Truck - west 1:10,000 1:10,000 Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd by Mitchell

Packet Page 72



Page 3 of 9



Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Park and Ride Lots

1.15 spaces per 100 residents;

200 -700 spaces per lot

4- 13 acres (70 spaces per acre)

1.15 spaces per 100 residents;

200 -700 spaces per lot

4- 13 acres (70 spaces per acre)

Approve staff recommendation 8 0 5 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Larkin

Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Transit Bus Maintenance Facility

1 : County; 28,000 square feet

Up to 10 acres

1 : County; 28,000 square feet

Up to 10 acresApprove staff recommendation 8 0 5 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve

staff recommendation; 2nd Larkin

Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Transit Buses 1 Bus: 4,950 population

1 Bus : 3,370 population Approve staff recommendation 8 0 5 10/13/2016: Lazaro moves to approve

staff recommendation; 2nd Larkin

Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Roads N/A N/AApprove methodology, come back with optionsregarding commercial costs, development phasingand incremental development

6 1 0

10/06/2016: Lazaro moves to approve the road standard methodology, staff to come back with commercial proportion analysis; Adamo friendly amendment to explore avenues to offset commercial costs; Miller substitute motion to approve methodology, staff to come up with options regarding commercial costs and incremental development. 2nd Adamo.

Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Developmental Services Developmental Services Residential Facility

1 Home:38,000 population; 3,400 square feet Up to 0.50 acres

1 bed:5,900 population; 3,400 square foot SFD Units Up to 0.50 acres; 1,000 square foot Condo Units

Recommendation to change standard to 1 bed: 5,900 population; 3,400 square foot facility on up to 0.50 acres (SFD)

7 0 6

09/15/2016: Capretti moves to accept recommended standard at 1 bed per 5,900 population, 2nd Lazaro. Mitchell friendly amendment to establish four beds per unit for SFD DS residential facilities. Capretti friendly amendment that up to 5 beds can be considered for SFD DS residential facilities.

Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Developmental Services Mental Health Residential Facility

1 Home:18,325 population; 3,400 square feet Up to 0.25 acres

1 bed:5,900 population; 3,400 square foot SFD Units on up to 0.25 acres; 1,000 square foot Condo Units

Recommendation to change standard to 1 bed: 5,900 population; 3,400 square foot facility on up to 0.25 acres (SFD)

7 0 6

09/15/2016: Capretti moves to accept recommended standard at 1 bed per 5,900 population, 2nd Lazaro. Mitchell friendly amendment to establish four beds per unit for SFD DS residential facilities. Capretti friendly amendment that up to 5 beds can be considered for SFD DS residential facilities.

Packet Page 73



Page 4 of 9



Family Services Juvenile Detention Center1:County; 40,000 square feet on up to 6 acres

1:County; 40,000 square feet on up to 6 acres

Approve staff recommendation 7 0 6 09/15/2016: Larson moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Miller

Family Services Youth Shelter2: County; 8,000 square feet Up to 2 acres

1: County; 8,000 square feet Up to 2 acres


Family Services Emergency Homeless Shelter1:County; 9,000 square feet Up to 2 acres

1:County; 9,000 square feet Up to 2 acres


Family Services Adolescent Independent Living Residence1:County; 8,000 square feet Up to 2 acres



Family Services Group Home N/A1:County; 8,000 square feet on up to 2 acres


Packet Page 74



Page 5 of 9



Parks, Recreation and Community Services Recreation Center



Approve staff recommendation 8 1 409/20/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Mitchell (Miller, no)

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Adult Day Center

1:15,000 population aged 55+ years; 7,000 square feet Up to 2 acres


Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 09/20/2016: Miller moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Lazaro

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Teen Center

1:10,000 residents aged 12-14 years; 20,000 square feet Up to 5 acres

1:10,000 residents aged 12-14 years; 20,000 square feet Up to 5 acres

Approve staff recommendation 8 1 409/20/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Erbs (Gleason, no)

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Senior Center



Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 09/20/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Mitchell

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Community Centers

1:45,000 population; 20,000 square feet Up to 6 acres

1:45,000 population; 20,000 square feet Up to 6 acres


Parks, Recreation and Community Services Satellite Maintenance Facility 3:County;

5,000 square feet 3:County; 5,000 square feet Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 09/20/2016: Mitchell moves to approve

staff recommendation; 2nd Lazaro

Packet Page 75



Page 6 of 9



Parks, Recreation and Community Services Regional Park

5: County; Up to 200 acres; 10,000 square foot building

5: County; Up to 200 acres; 10,000 square foot building


Parks, Recreation and Community Services District Park

8:County; 5,000 square foot building; 75-199 acres

9:County; 5,000 square foot building; 75-199 acres

Recommendation to keep the standard to 8:County, 5,000 square foot building on 75-199 acres 6 3 4

09/20/2016: Gleason moves to keep the standard at 8:County, 5,000 square foot building on 75-199 acres, 2nd Miller (Lazaro, Erbs, Mitchell - No)

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Community Park

1:25,000 population; 30 - 74 acres; 800 square foot building

1:25,000 population; 30 - 74 acres; 800 square foot building

Approve staff recommendation 9 0 4 09/20/2016: Gleason moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Miller

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Neighborhood Park

1:10,000 population; 1-29 acres; 400 square foot building

1:10,000 population; 1-29 acres; 400 square foot building


Parks, Recreation and Community Services Natural and Scenic Area Parkland N/A 4.5 acres per 1,000

populationRecommendation not to approve the recommended standard

9 0 409/20/2016: Mitchell moves not to adopt the recommended standard; 2nd Miller

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Recreational Trails 0.65 miles per 1,000

population0.65 miles per 1,000 population

Recommendation to change the standard to 0.40 miles per 1,000 population

9 0 409/20/2016: Gleason moves to amend the standard to 0.40 miles per 1,000 population; 2nd Mitchell

Parks, Recreation and Community Services Equestrian Facility N/A

1:County; 160,000 square foot building, to be located within an existing park

Recommendation not to approve the recommended standard 7 2 4

09/20/2016: Capretti moves not to approve the staff recommendation for an Equestrian Facility standard; 2nd Gleason (Lazaro, Mitchell - No)

Packet Page 76



Page 7 of 9



Public Schools Elementary School - 1 Story66,743 square feet on up to 20 acres for 750

pupils

100,000 - 115,000 square feet Up to 20 acres 900-

1,000 pupils

Approve staff recommendation 11 0 2 11/10/2016: Capretti moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Lazaro


pupils


1,000 pupils



pupils


1,000 pupils


Public Schools Elementary School - 2 Story102,141 square feet on up to 20 acres for

875 pupils


1,000 pupils


Public Schools Middle School - 1 Story160,048 square feet on up to 35 acres for

1,184 pupils

185,000 - 200,000 square feet Up to 35 acres 1,350-

1,500 pupils



1,350 pupils


1,500 pupils



1,350 pupils


1,500 pupils


Public Schools High School - 2 Story227,835 square feet on up to 75 acres for

1,350 pupils


2,000 pupils



1,600 pupils


2,000 pupils



1,800 pupils


2,000 pupils


FINAL VOTE

I move to recommend that the Fiscal Impact Committee adopt the straw votes taken at FIC Meetings as summarized in this chart as the Fiscal Impact Committee's formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 11 0 2

11/10/2016: Lazaro moves to approve staff recommendation; 2nd Krueger

Packet Page 77

FY 2017 Capital Facility Standards as Recommended by Fiscal Impact Committee

Capital Facility Building Square Footage Up To Acres Standard

Animal Shelter 25,000 5.00 1:CountySheriff Station 18,000 5.00 1:100,000 populationFire Station -East 18,000 - 20,000 5.00 1:25,000 populationFire Station - West 18,000 - 20,000 5.00 1:10,000 population

1500-gpm Engine N/A N/A 1:10,000 population

ALS Ambulance N/A N/A 1:10,000 populationLadder Truck N/A N/A 1:25,000 populationHeavy Rescue Squad N/A N/A 1:50,000 populationTanker N/A N/A 1:10,000 populationBrush Truck - west N/A N/A 1:10,000 populationGeneral Government Support Facilities N/A N/A 4 square feet per capita

Recycling Dropoff Centers 3,000 square foot container pad, 6,050 square foot parking area 0.25

Maximum of 9 sites, reduce number of sites when warranted based on increase

curbside recycling rates

Special Waste Dropoff Centers600 square foot pavilion, 1,600

square foot container pad and 6,050 square feet of parking space

1.00 1:County

Park and Ride Lots N/A 4.00 - 13.00 1.15 spaces per 100 residentsTransit Bus Maintenance Facility 28,000 10.00 1:CountyTransit Buses N/A N/A 1 Bus : 3,370 population

Packet Page 78

Capital Facility Building Square Footage Up To Acres Standard

Developmental Services Residential Facility 3,400 (SFD) 1,000 (Condo) 0.50 1 bed:5,900 population

Mental Health Residential Facility 3,400 (SFD) 1,000 (Condo) 0.25 1 bed:5,900 population

Juvenile Detention Center 40,000 6.00 1:CountyYouth Shelter 8,000 2.00 1:CountyGroup Home 8,000 2.00 1:CountyEmergency Homeless Shelter 9,000 2.00 1:County

Adolescent Independent Living Residence 9,000 2.00 1:County

Library 40,000 7.00 0.6 square feet per capitaRecreation Center 83,000 15.00 6:CountyAdult Day Center 7,000 4.00 1:15,000 population aged 55+ years Teen Center 20,000 5.00 1:10,000 residents aged 12-14 years Senior Center 15,000 5.00 1:10,000 population aged 55+ years Community Centers 20,000 6.00 1:45,000 population Satellite Maintenance Facility 5,000 N/A 3:CountyRegional Park 10,000 200+ 5:CountyDistrict Park 5,000 75-199 8:CountyCommunity Park 800 30-74 1:25,000 populationNeighborhood Park 400 1-29 1:10,000 populationTrails N/A N/A 0.40 miles per 1,000 populationElementary School 100,000- 115,000 20.00 900-1,000 pupilsMiddle School 185,000- 200,000 35.00 1,350- 1,500 pupilsHigh School 290,000- 310,000 75.00 1,800- 2,000 pupils

Packet Page 79

Regional Roadway Contribution Methodology for Capital Intensity Factor

(Data source found in headers ) Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure - 9/30/2016

STEP 1 416.18 (Per DTCI Analysis and County GIS Data) 8 Steps - Noted in the relevant locations, below:

STEP 2 $4,000,000.00

1,664,720,000.00$

STEP 3 617,898,000.00$

1,046,822,000.00$

STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8

Ashburn Planning Subarea

2010 CTP Lane Miles Left to be Built in

Subarea

Percentage of Total 2010 CTP Lane Miles Left to Be

Built Countywide within the Subarea

Total Estimated Cost of Construction for Unfunded Road

Improvements within the Subarea Type of DU

Forecasted New DUs by Type by 2040 (County Planning and

Zoning)

Daily Trip Generation / Unit (ITE Trip

Generation Manual, 9th Edition)

Total New Trips Generated By

Forecasted New Residential Dwelling

Units by Type% New Residential Trips

By Unit Type

Non-Residential Employment Forecasted By 2040 (County

Planning and Zoning)

Daily Trip Generation / Employee (ITE Trip


Forecasted New Non-Residential Trip

Generation within the Subarea (ITE Trip


Total Trips Within the Subarea

% of Total Trips by Residential

Dwelling Unit Type

Residential Share of Unfunded Lane Mile Costs

by Subarea

Residential Contribution for Transportation Impacts Per

Dwelling UnitSFD 549 10 5,490 4.53% 1.96% 6,890,375.09$ 12,550.77$ SFA 2,542 8.7 22,115 18.26% 7.89% 27,756,539.38$ 10,919.17$

MF-S 11,409 8.1 92,413 76.31% 32.97% 115,985,344.98$ 10,166.13$ MF 174 6.2 1,079 0.89% 0.38% 1,353,977.53$ 7,781.48$

SUBAREA TOTALS 139.85 33.60% 351,766,199.00$ - 14,674 - 121,097 100.00% 47,945 3.32 159,177 280,275 43.21% 151,986,236.98$ -

Dulles Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea


Dwelling UnitSFD 6,842 10 68,420 51.50% 31.84% 117,761,057.49$ 17,211.50$

SFA 4,018 8.7 34,957 26.31% 16.27% 60,165,539.06$ 14,974.00$

MF-S 2,332 8.1 18,889 14.22% 8.79% 32,511,139.54$ 13,941.31$

MF 1,706 6.2 10,577 7.96% 4.92% 18,204,943.84$ 10,671.13$

SUBAREA TOTALS 147.02 35.33% 369,800,976.60$ - 14,898 - 132,843 100.00% 24,703 3.32 82,014 214,857 61.83% 228,642,679.92$ -

Leesburg Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea



SFA 1,416 8.7 12,319 24.86% 12.38% 21,622,569.65$ 15,270.18$

MF-S 1,916 8.1 15,520 31.32% 15.60% 27,239,888.29$ 14,217.06$

MF 472 6.2 2,926 5.91% 2.94% 5,136,395.85$ 10,882.19$

SUBAREA TOTALS 69.43 16.68% 174,638,020.71$ - 5,682 - 49,545 100.00% 15,046 3.32 49,953 99,498 49.80% 86,961,372.30$ -

(Per American Roads and Transportation Builders Association) - Conservative Estimate

(Per the Current Adopted FY2017 - FY2022 Capital Improvement Program)

1) Lane miles total countywide

2) Estimate cost per lane mile

3) Net out CIP investment

4) Calculate cost of unfunded road improvementsby subarea

5) Calculate total trips (residential and non-residential) byplanning subarea

6) Calculate residential share of trip generated byresidential type by subarea

7) Cost shared by residential type by subarea

8) Contribution per residential DU by type

Total Lane Miles Left to be Built - Countywide:

Estimated Cost per Lane Mile:

Estimated Total Cost of Road Improvements - Countywide:

Capital Improvement Program Dedicated Roadway Transportation FundingEstimated Total Cost of Unfunded Road Improvements (Less FY 2017-FY 2022 CIP) - Countywide:

ATTACHMENT 2

Packet Page 80

Regional Roadway Contribution Methodology for Capital Intensity Factor

(Data source found in headers ) Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure - 9/30/2016

Potomac Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea


Dwelling UnitSFD 92 10 920 73.06% 24.85% 324,975.19$ 3,532.34$

SFA 39 8.7 339 26.94% 9.16% 119,852.26$ 3,073.13$

MF-S - 8.1 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

MF - 6.2 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

SUBAREA TOTALS 0.52 0.12% 1,307,961.56$ - 131 - 1,259 100.00% 736 3.32 2,444 3,703 34.01% 444,827.45$ -

Route 7 West Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea



SFA 168 8.7 1,462 5.27% 4.17% 2,681,852.02$ 15,963.40$

MF-S 41 8.1 332 1.20% 0.95% 609,361.70$ 14,862.48$

MF - 6.2 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

SUBAREA TOTALS 25.54 6.14% 64,241,034.84$ - 2,803 - 27,734 100.00% 2,192 3.32 7,277 35,011 79.21% 50,887,848.50$ -

Route 15 South Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea



SFA - 8.7 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

MF-S - 8.1 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

MF - 6.2 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

SUBAREA TOTALS 4.97 1.19% 12,501,094.09$ - 1,072 - 10,720 100.00% 166 3.32 551 11,271 95.11% 11,889,832.48$ -

Sterling Planning Subarea


Subarea






Zoning)






By Unit Type










Dwelling Unit Type


by Subarea


Dwelling UnitSFD 9 10 90 0.20% 0.09% 62,479.95$ 6,942.22$

SFA 102 8.7 887 1.99% 0.85% 616,052.31$ 6,039.73$

MF-S 5,388 8.1 43,643 97.81% 41.75% 30,297,777.38$ 5,623.20$

MF - 6.2 - 0.00% 0.00% -$ -

SUBAREA TOTALS 28.85 6.93% 72,566,713.20$ - 5,499 - 44,620 100.00% 18,045 3.32 59,909 104,530 42.69% 30,976,309.64$ -

Packet Page 81




INFORMATION ITEM

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016


STAFF CONTACTS: John Sandy, County Administration Janet Romanchyk, Finance and Procurement

PURPOSE: To provide information on the Status of the 2016 Financial Audit

BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 15.2-2511 of the Code of Virginia the County’s independent auditors, Cherry, Bekaert, L.L.P. will present their findings and observations on the financial audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016.

Cherry, Bekaert began their audit in May 2016 with testing of the County’s internal control procedures and completed auditing the County’s financial statements on November 30, 2016. The County wishes to express its appreciation for the cooperative and professional attitude of the audit staff during the course of their work. Mr. Rob Churchman was the engagement partner for the FY 2016 audit and will attend the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee meeting to present their findings and respond to questions from the Board of Supervisors.

ISSUES: The County’s published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016 contains all financial information related to the County’s operations, the Independent Auditors’ Report and transmittal letters from the County Administrator and the Department of Finance and Procurement.

It is important to note that for FY 2016, the County received an unqualified or clean opinion from Cherry Bekaert, LLP.

Copies of the Independent Auditors’ Reports are attached. The CAFR is available on the County’s webpage at https://www.loudoun.gov/cafr. Printed copies will be provided when available. This item is presented as information only. No action is required by the Board of Supervisors.

Packet Page 82

https://www.loudoun.gov/cafr

Item 8, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2016 Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


ATTACHMENTS:

1. Report of Independent Auditor2. Report of Independent Auditor on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on

Compliance with Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performedin Accordance with Government Auditing Standards

Packet Page 83

Report of Independent Auditor

To the Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors Loudoun County, Virginia

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the County of Loudoun, Virginia (the “County”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the County’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Specifications for Audits of Counties, Cities, and Towns, issued by the Auditor of Public Accounts of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Those standards and specifications require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Opinions

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the County of Loudoun, Virginia, as of June 30, 2016, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Emphasis of Matter As discussed in Notes I(O) and XXIII to the financial statements, the County adopted new accounting guidance, GASB Statement No. 73, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68. As a result, the fund balance of the General Fund and the net position of the Governmental Activities as of June 30, 2015 have been restated. Our opinions are not modified with respect to this matter.

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 84

Other Matters

Required Supplementary Information

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison schedule, and pension and other postemployment benefits’ schedules on pages 19-27, 75-76 and 77-81, respectively, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Supplementary and Other Information

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the County’s basic financial statements. The Introductory Section, Other Supplementary Information, and Statistical Section, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.

The Other Supplementary Information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the Other Supplementary Information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

The Introductory and Statistical Sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated November 30, 2016, on our consideration of the County’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the County’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

Tysons Corner, Virginia November 30, 2016

Packet Page 85

Report of Independent Auditor on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements

Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards

To the Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Loudoun, Virginia

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the Specifications for Audits of Counties, Cities, and Towns, issued by the Auditor of Public Accounts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the financial statements of the governmental activities, discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the County of Loudoun, Virginia (the “County”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the County’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated November 30, 2016. That report recognizes that the County implemented one new accounting standard effective July 1, 2015.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the County’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the County’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the County’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the County’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

ATTACHMENT 2

Packet Page 86

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Tysons Corner, Virginia November 30, 2016

Packet Page 87


# 9


INFORMATION ITEM SUBJECT: FY 2016 Year End Financial Condition and Report on

Fund Balances ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide STAFF CONTACTS: John Sandy, County Administration Janet Romanchyk, Finance and Procurement PURPOSE: To report on the County’s year-end financial condition and fund balances as of June 30, 2016. BACKGROUND: This report presents the County’s fund balances as June 30, 2016. During the budget cycle, revenues are estimated conservatively so it is highly probable that a positive fund balance will exist at the end of any given fiscal year. Having a fund balance that is both positive and available is an important component in maintaining the County’s strong fiscal condition. It serves to enhance the County’s strong bond ratings and provides sufficient carry-over funds for cash flow purposes. Carry-over funds eliminate the need for short-term borrowing between the start of the fiscal year and the receipt of revenue from taxes. At the end of each fiscal year, the unassigned fund balance of the County’s General Fund and the School’s fund is available for appropriation by the Board of Supervisors (Board). The bond rating agencies and best practices strongly recommend that these funds be used for one-time expenditures only. The Board’s Fiscal Policy requires a fund balance commitment for Fiscal Reserve purposes (the “fiscal reserve”) equal to 10% of the net operating revenues of the general and school funds. This goal was first achieved in FY 1992 and the County has consistently met that objective. The fiscal reserve has priority with any available balances, after funding the new fiscal years’ budget. Balance information on the County’s Special Revenue Funds, Self-Insurance Fund, Debt Service Fund and other selected funds are also provided annually for informational purposes. ISSUES: GASB 73 Compliance.—In FY 2016, the County implemented a portion of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 73, Accounting for Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68. This statement relates to pensions that are revocable such as the Board of Supervisors’ authorized Volunteer Fire and

Packet Page 88

Item 9, FY 2016 Year-End Condition and Report on Fund Balances Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Rescue Length of Service Awards Program “LOSAP.” As a revocable pension, GASB Statement No. 73 requires the assets and liabilities of the pension plan, previously reported in a separate trust fund, to be included in the Government-wide and General Fund statements. For year ending June 30, 2016, the County has reported the investments of $17.9 million as restricted cash and $17.9 million as committed fund balance. As required, the County has restated beginning balances from FY 2015. Financial Condition. — On a government-wide basis which includes the School Board component unit, the County ended FY 2016 with a positive net position of $1.54 billion, which represents a 13.3% increase over FY 2015, as restated. The government-wide Statement of Net Position (CAFR Exhibit 1) and the Statement of Activities (CAFR Exhibit 2) answers the question of whether the County is better or worse off as a result of the years’ activities. These statements include all assets and liabilities using the accrual basis of accounting, which is similar to a private-sector company. All revenues and expenses are taken into account regardless of when cash is received or paid. Overall, the County’s assets increased by $263.3 million due in part to an increase in cash and investments from the reclassification of LOSAP investments, unspent bond proceeds, higher property tax collections, and $91.9 million in capital assets due to new projects under construction, donations of land and the addition of buildings and infrastructure offset by depreciation. The County’s liabilities increased by $189.5 million primarily due to an increase in the amount due to the Schools, and long-term liabilities of $117.4 million due to new debt issued in fiscal year 2016, drawdown of the County’s TIFIA loan for the Metrorail extension of $42.3 million, and an increase in the VRS pension obligation of $7.4 million offset by a reduction in the OPEB liability of $6.2 million. Governmental funds focus on current financial resources and how those resources are used to support the County’s programs. As such, long-term assets and liabilities are not included. The balances of selected funds are provided below. Unassigned balances in the General Fund are available for appropriation by the Board. Staff recommendations on the use of these funds is presented in the Fiscal Impact section below. GENERAL FUND:

Table 1. General Fund Revenues

Adopted Revised Actuals Variance

General Property Taxes 977,167,500$ 977,167,500$ 1,033,758,018$ 56,590,518$

Other Local Taxes 139,901,600 139,901,600 146,127,627 6,226,027

Permits and Licenses 20,989,810 20,989,810 22,384,995 1,395,185

Fines and Forfeitures 2,175,894 2,175,894 1,726,649 (449,245)

Use of Money and Property 3,847,421 4,893,929 5,832,491 938,562

Charges for Services 33,802,915 36,011,371 34,273,963 (1,737,408)

Other Local Revenue 9,967,619 10,399,996 9,394,539 (1,005,457)

Payment from Component Unit - - - -

Intergovernmental Revenue 88,316,447 95,736,080 90,938,930 (4,797,150)

Transfers from Other Funds 16,474,724 14,749,140 14,751,885 2,745

Total 1,292,643,930$ 1,302,025,320$ 1,359,189,097$ 57,163,777$

Packet Page 89



Actual general property tax revenues exceeded the revised budget by approximately $56.6 million due to an increase in personal property taxes of $48.9 million, real and personal public service corporation taxes of $4.8 million, and higher permits and licenses offset by small increases and decreases in other accounts. Other local taxes included an increase in local sales and use tax of $5.8 million. Actual expenditures were lower than budget by approximately $30.6 million due to vacancy savings, lower than budgeted internal service charges for vehicle fuel and maintenance, unspent grant funds, and overall savings in material and supplies, contractual services, and utilities.

Table 2. General Fund Expenditures

Adopted Revised Actuals Variance

General Government Administration 73,415,391$ 72,992,421$ 72,951,877$ 40,544$

Judicial Administration 13,715,297 14,132,193 14,013,797 118,396

Public Safety 174,546,286 179,170,483 169,153,608 10,016,875

Public Works 17,299,690 19,943,935 17,567,569 2,376,366

Health and Welfare 69,240,842 77,855,496 68,938,159 8,917,337

Parks, Recreation and Culture 52,461,078 54,558,215 50,806,573 3,751,642

Community Development 53,757,443 54,640,231 49,275,814 5,364,417

Education 658,554,107 681,705,584 681,705,584 -

Prior Year Sale of Land to Component Unit - 19,998,042 19,998,042 -

Transfers to Other Funds 242,732,115 239,829,876 239,827,070 2,806

Total 1,355,722,249$ 1,414,826,476$ 1,384,238,093$ 30,588,383$

Table 3. General Fund Balance

GENERAL FUND BALANCE GENERAL

JUNE 30, 2016 FUND

FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2015, as restated 311,379,664$

Revenues, Sale of Capital Assets and Transfers In 1,359,189,097

Expenditures and Transfers Out 1,364,240,051

Prior year procceds from land sale to component unit 19,998,042

Total Expenditures 1,384,238,093

FY 2016 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (25,048,996)

BALANCE AVAILABLE JULY 1, 2016 286,330,668

Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed (13,742,109)

Committed for Volunteer Fire and Rescue Pension Benefits (17,898,274)

Reserve Required per Fiscal Policy (10% of current revenue) (164,658,683)

Adopted FY 2017 Use of Fund Balance (27,134,547)

Supplemental FY 2016 use of Fund Balance (6,092,779)

Assigned (1,093,954)

UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2016 55,710,322$

Packet Page 90



For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the County transferred approximately $20 million in proceeds from the sale of land received in a prior fiscal year to the Schools for the construction of the Academies of Loudoun, as planned in the Capital Improvement Program. Additionally, the County used $4.7 million of additional fund balance for the implementation of a new Payroll and Human Resource enterprise system. The County’s fiscal reserve for both County and Schools increased by $10.2 million over the prior fiscal year. As a result, the general fund balance decreased by $25.0 million from the prior fiscal year. The adopted FY 2016 budget forecasted a net decrease in the fund balance of $63.1 million. Higher collections than projected in general property tax revenues and lower than forecasted expenditures contributed to the ending fund balance. The remaining Unassigned Fund Balance of $55.7 million is available for appropriation by the Board. Balance information on selected Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Fund, Self-Insurance Fund and School Funds are presented for information purposes. It is the County’s practice and staff recommendation that the ending balances in the County’s Special Revenue and Self-Insurance Funds remain in these funds. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS:

1) TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FUND: In FY 2016, the County collected approximately $6.9 million of general property tax, penalties and interest associated with the Metrorail Service District, $6.9 million in local gasoline tax funds, and $17.3 million in Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) revenues. The Transportation District Fund serves as a “pass through” for certain revenues to demonstrate a maintenance of effort as required by House Bill 2313 (2013). The 30% portion of the NVTA’s revenues distributed to the County was $1.7 million higher than what was assumed in the Adopted

Table 4. Other Governmental Funds

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Transportation Public Facilities Hotel & Motel EMS

June 30, 2016 District CSA Fund Fund Room Tax Transport

FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2015 40,261,633$ 4,162,548$ 141,349,439$ 553,406$ 18,849$

Revenues and Transfers In 110,752,971 6,865,112 42,553,135 3,384,081 3,984,276

Expenditures and Transfers Out 120,230,208 7,102,198 57,517,676 2,687,047 2,096,155

FY 2016 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (9,477,237) (237,086) (14,964,541) 697,034 1,888,121

BALANCE AVAILABLE JULY 1, 2016 30,784,396 3,925,462 126,384,898 1,250,440 1,906,970

Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed (27,975,256) (3,925,462) (126,384,898) (912,032) (1,906,970)

Fiscal Reserve (338,408)

Assigned (2,809,140)

FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2016 - - - - -

Packet Page 91



2016 Budget. Metrorail Service District revenues exceeded budget by approximately $0.3 million. Local gasoline taxes were under budget by approximately $3.3 million due to the sustained drop in gasoline prices. During FY 2016, approximately $42.4 million passed through this fund related to the drawdown of TIFIA loan proceeds. The Transportation District Fund Balance decreased by approximately $9.5 million due to transfers from the Transportation District Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to finance capital construction for transportation projects.

2) COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND: The Comprehensive Services Act

(CSA) Fund decreased fund balance by approximately $0.2 million. CSA expenditures were greater than actual revenues ending fiscal year 2016 with available fund balance of $3.9 million.

3) PUBLIC FACILITIES FUND: During FY 2016, the County collected approximately $42.2 million of cash proffers and interest on investment of $0.4 million. Approximately $56.4 million of proffer contributions were transferred to the Capital Projects fund for a variety of construction projects with a balance of $126.4 million remaining in the fund.

4) HOTEL & MOTEL ROOM TAX FUND: The Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) Fund ended FY 2016 with an increase to fund balance of approximately $0.7 million. FY 2016 revenues exceeded the Adopted FY 2016 Budget amount by 12.6 percent as occupancy rates remained at historically high levels and average room prices increased. The Adopted Budget projected an addition to fund balance of approximately $0.3 million.

5) EMS TRANSPORT REIMBURSEMENT FUND: EMS Transport revenues were greater than expenditures resulting in an increase to fund balance of $1.9 million. Revenues in the EMS Transport fund are appropriated and distributed to the respective Volunteer Companies and the Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Management. In addition, 25 percent of the net revenue is retained as fund balance to maintain the County provided infrastructure of the Combined Fire-Rescue System.

Packet Page 92



SELF INSURANCE FUND

AON Consulting is the financial consultant/actuary for the county government self-insurance. AON conducts an annual study to recommend appropriate reserve levels for the self-insured medical, dental and vision benefit plans as well as workers compensation. In addition to the incurred but not reported claims (IBNR), AON recommends a claims reserve of between 5% and 6%. After establishing the 6% reserve of $3.1 million in the self-insurance fund, an excess County self-insurance fund balance of $1.1 million remains. DEBT SERVICE FUND

The ending Debt Service Fund Balance is $40.5 million with $15.0 million budgeted for use in FY 2017, and $25.5 million available for additional debt service. The FY 2016 increase in fund balance of $2.4 million is due to unspent bond premium received during FY 2016, unused bond proceeds from completed projects, and savings due to the conservative budgeting of debt service. Unless otherwise directed, staff will follow the current fiscal policy regarding the use of Debt Service Fund balance by applying a portion of fund balance to reduce local tax funding needs as part of the FY 2018 Proposed Budget.

Table 5. Internal Service Fund

Self Insurance

June 30, 2016

NET POSITION JULY 1, 2015 11,712,525$

Revenues and Transfers In 54,465,300

Expenses 61,955,419

FY 2016 CHANGE IN NET POSITION (7,490,119)

NET POSITION JULY 1, 2016 4,222,406

6% Claim Reserve 3,059,193

Available Balance @ June 30, 2016 1,163,213$

Table 6. Debt Service Fund

DEBT SERVICE FUND

June 30, 2016FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2015 38,100,876$


Expenditures and Transfers Out 295,144,429

FY 2016 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 2,428,976


Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed (40,529,852)

FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2016 -

Packet Page 93



SCHOOLS FUNDS

Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) ended FY 2016 with restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned fund balance in the amount of $22.1 million. The LCPS revenues and transfers-in exceeded expenditures and transfers out by $6.5 million. Actual revenues were more than final budgeted amounts by $3.4 million, while actual expenditures came under budget by $33.9 million. During FY 2016, the County transferred $7.0 million of 2014 fund balance set aside in a reserve to the School’s Self-Insurance Fund to offset the FY 2015 deficit within that Fund of $17.6 million. At the end of FY 2016, the School’s General Fund transferred an additional amount of approximately $16.3 million for a total transfer of $23.3 million into the School’s Self Insurance Fund. The School’s Self Insurance Fund ended FY 2016 with a positive net position of $23.8 million. It is important to note that Virginia code §22.1-100 states that all sums derived from local funds unexpended in any year shall remain a part of the funds of the governing body appropriating the funds for use the next year. Based on this statute, current Board direction is that unexpended funds, including $16,268,000 transferred to the Self-Insurance Fund, are expected to be returned to the County and may not be spent without an annual appropriation by the governing body to LCPS. As seen in Attachment 1, staff has requested the School Division to provide their actuarial analysis

Table 7. School Funds

SCHOOOL GENERAL FUND

June 30, 2016FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2015 15,557,144$


Expenditures and Transfers Out 964,391,615

FY 2016 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 6,522,609


Nonspendable, Restricted, Committed (154,865)

Subsequent Year Appropriations (7,000,000)

Assigned (14,924,835)

UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE JULY 1, 2016 53$

SCHOOL Self Insurance

June 30, 2016

NET POSITION JULY 1, 2015 (17,558,201)$


Expenses 147,953,260

FY 2016 CHANGE IN NET POSITION 41,382,880

NET POSITION JULY 1, 2016 23,824,679

Claim Reserve 7,556,679

Available Balance @ June 30, 2016 16,268,000$

Packet Page 94



(report) to justify the accrual of these funds in the Self-Insurance Fund so that County staff is able to recommend re-appropriating these funds to meet the legal requirement established by Virginia State code. Attachment 2 is the Superintendent’s response to this request indicating that appropriate reports will be provided. Staff will return to the Board of Supervisors once those reports are received. Staff recommends that this issue remain open until we return to the Committee with additional analysis and recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT: At the close of FY 2016, the total General Fund Balance was $286.3 million. During the FY 2017 adopted budget process, the Board used a total of $27.1 million of available fund balance for the General Fund. Subsequent to the beginning of FY 2016, supplemental carryover appropriations of $6.1 million of available fund balance have also been approved for the General Fund. Additional adjustments to fund balance have been made for non-spendable, encumbrances, restricted and committed items (including the County’s 10% fiscal reserves). As shown in Table 3, $55,710,322 is available for appropriation by the Board. Staff’s recommendation for the use of fund balance will be presented in a separate item. ATTACHMENTS: 1. December 6, 2016 Hemstreet Letter: LCPS $23.8 Million Self-Insurance Fund Surplus 2. December 8, 2016 Williams Letter: Response to Hemstreet Letter

Packet Page 95

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 96

Packet Page 97

Packet Page 98

LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT

21000 Education Court Ashburn, Virginia 20148

(571) 252-1020

Eric Williams, Ed.D. Superintendent

December 8, 2016

Mr. Tim Hemstreet County Administrator County of Loudoun 1 Harrison Street Leesburg, Virginia 20175

Dear Mr. Hemstreet:

I am writing with an initial response to your letter of December 6, 2016 regarding the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) Self-Insurance Fund.

LCPS staff is committed to working with County staff to respond to inquiries relating to the level of the “net position at end of year” in the LCPS Self-Insurance Fund for FY2016. As part of this effort, we plan to commission an actuarial report regarding the level of need for the “net position at end of year” in the LCPS Self-Insurance Fund for FY2016.

We are also committed to working with County staff to mutually agree to a process and timeline for future transfers to the LCPS Self-Insurance Fund.

I am not addressing the topic of expended versus unexpended local funds at this time. If you believe that it would be productive for me to respond to this aspect of your letter at this time, please let me know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eric Williams, Ed.D.

cc: Members, Loudoun County School Board Leigh Burden, Assistant Superintendent of Business & Financial Services

ATTACHMENT 2

Packet Page 99


# 10


ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Uses of FY 2016 Fund Balance ELECTION DISTRICT: Countywide CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016 STAFF CONTACT: Tim Hemstreet, County Administrator Erin McLellan, Management and Budget PURPOSE: To present recommended uses of unassigned FY 2016 General Fund balance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed uses of FY 2016 fund balance. BACKGROUND: As detailed in Item #9 on the FGOEDC December 13, 2016, agenda, the annual financial audit is complete. The unassigned fund balance as of July 1, 2016, is $55,710,322. This unassigned fund balance has taken into account restricted and committed revenue, reservation of 10 percent of current revenue per Fiscal Policy, the adopted use of fund balance for FY 2017, and otherwise assigned revenue. ISSUES: At the conclusion of each fiscal year, staff evaluates the need for use of prior year fund balance in the current fiscal year. Prior year fund balance should only be used for one-time purposes and aligned with existing projects and priorities of the Board of Supervisors. In addition, staff evaluates the need to program prior year fund balance in the upcoming proposed budget. The table below lists the proposed uses of FY 2016 fund balance. Table 1. Use of FY 2016 General Fund Balance Functional Area Item Amount Capital Improvement Program Bolen Park Restrooms $2,400,000 Planning and Zoning Comprehensive Plan $1,310,143 Parks, Recreation, and Community Services

Franklin Park Pool Spray Ground $400,000

Capital Improvement Program Allder School Road Utility Relocation $345,000 Capital Improvement Program Belmont Ridge Road $340,271

Packet Page 100

Item 10, Uses of FY 2016 General Fund Balance Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


Functional Area Item Amount Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Bus Stop ADA Compliance Study $250,000

Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Professional Services $250,000

Library Services Cascades Library Shelving Systems $206,000 County Administration ECC Consolidation Study $150,000 Sheriff’s Office Body Worn Cameras and Data Storage $142,308 Sheriff’s Office Unmanned Aircraft System $100,000 Non-Departmental Northern Virginia Emergency Response

System $100,000

Finance and Procurement ERP Backfill Temporary Support $70,000 Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

SafeTrack $43,000

Commissioner of the Revenue and Treasurer

Printing and Mailing Tax Assessments and Billing

$40,000

LCPS School Bus Purchases* $4,080,000 LCPS Synthetic Turf Field (Heritage High

School)* $1,900,000

LCPS Textbooks/Digital Learning* $1,500,000 Subtotal FY 2017 Uses $13,626,722 Non-Departmental Reserve for Possible Reduction in Real

Property Tax Rate $3,600,000

Non-Departmental FY 2018 One-Time Needs $38,483,600 Total $55,710,322

*Table Denotes School Board Request. Staff recommends consideration of an option that funds two (2) turf fields. See discussion below. Bolen Park Restrooms. This funding would replace the existing E-Loo restrooms that were initially installed at the Park. The E-LOO restrooms were chosen in order to reduce project cost and because the Town’s sewer system did not extend to the Park site. Since that time, the Town has constructed a pump station to provide sewer service to the Park site. Bolen Park is a primary location for baseball, softball and soccer tournaments, thus necessitating the need to develop permanent restrooms and concessions at the Park. Comprehensive Plan. The FY 2017 Adopted Budget included $400,000 for the Department of Planning and Zoning to begin the Comprehensive Plan process. During budget deliberations, the Board voted to consider additional funding for the Comprehensive Plan during the annual fund balance discussion. The proposed $1.3 million is the total needed to complete the project, which includes contractual funds needed to conduct increased community outreach efforts, and produce a new Revised General Plan and Countywide Transportation Plan. The original cost estimate to complete this project was done prior to the Board’s development of a Plan Charter, which provides specific expectations, including a high level of public involvement. The higher level of public involvement, including 12 public outreach meetings throughout the process as described in the

Packet Page 101



charter, is one of the reasons the request for additional funding is higher than originally anticipated during budget deliberations. Franklin Park Pool Spray Ground. The Franklin Park Pool experiences extremely high demand volume during its operating months and is typically at capacity by late morning during those times. Constructing a spray ground facility at the pool would increase capacity by up to 200 people (roughly a 50 percent increase), which would generate a corresponding increase in revenue due to increased capacity. Cost to operate the facility can be absorbed within the facility’s existing budget. Allder School Road Utility Relocation. Supplemental funding is requested based on the finalized electrical utility relocation scope of work required for the project. The County has negotiated the cost of the work to be directly performed by Dominion Virginia Power and has revised the County’s construction documents to provide infrastructure to support the electrical utility relocation in the general construction contract itself. The estimated cost includes additional conduit installation and infrastructure to be installed prior to Dominion Virginia Power pulling cable and making final connections. Belmont Ridge Road. The County will need to provide a portion of the cost for the stormwater management pond that the developer is currently constructing adjacent to Route 659/Belmont Ridge Road, which will serve the development and run-off from the road. Proffer V.B of Ashburn Overlook, ZMAP-2014-0002, required the applicant to enter a sharing agreement with the County and/or VDOT for design, construction, and maintenance of the stormwater pond. The County is required to pay two-thirds of the construction cost for the pond. Bus Stop ADA Compliance Study. The Department of Labor requires local jurisdictions to inventory and review bus stops for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (28 CFR 35.150). This funding request would produce an inventory of all 330+ existing transit facilities (bus stops both with and without shelters) for physical barriers and deficiencies, identify bus stop related safety hazards throughout the County, and develop comprehensive safety criteria and bus stop guidelines. A preliminary assessment would provide a list of necessary actions and cost estimates to address deficiencies. This study was identified as a need in the 2013 Assessment of Transit and Mobility Services for People with Disabilities. Professional Services. The Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure utilizes professional services funding to respond to Board Member Initiatives (BMI). The number of BMIs that the Department coordinates on an annual basis and their level of complexity is increasing. This use of fund balance will add capacity to the Department’s operating budget to respond to Board member-initiated requests in FY 2017. Cascades Library Shelving Systems. The shelving systems at the Cascades Library are beyond their useful life. Replacement of systems furniture such as this cannot typically be absorbed within the Department’s operating budget.

Packet Page 102



Emergency Communications Center (ECC) Consolidation Study. During the FY 2017 budget deliberations, the Board voted to consider funding the ECC Consolidation Study during the annual fund balance discussion. This study would provide recommendations for the best method for successfully implementing a consolidation of the County’s three agencies that perform dispatching into one newly formed agency within the County Government. Body Worn Cameras and Data Storage. At its October 11, 2016, meeting, the FGOEDC was briefed by the Sheriff’s Office on its request to expand its use of body worn cameras in three additional phases. Proposed fund balance would be used in FY 2017 to fund maintenance and data storage services for existing grant-funded body worn cameras. If this use of fund balance is approved, the ongoing cost to maintain these cameras would be added to the Sheriff’s Office FY 2018 base budget. As noted in Item #16 from the FGOEDC’s October 11 agenda, the Commonwealth’s Attorney has advised that his Office’s workload will be impacted by the expansion of the Body Worn Camera Program at a baseline staffing impact of one attorney for every 100 cameras. Unmanned Aircraft System. At its October 11, 2016, meeting, the FGOEDC was briefed by the Sheriff’s Office on its request to purchase an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to aid search and rescue operations during missing persons cases. The total cost includes the drone unit, infrared and Project Lifesaver payloads, drone software, training, FAA Certificate of Authorization, and limited maintenance. The ability for the Sheriff’s Office Search and Rescue Team to deploy a UAS carrying a Project Lifesaver payload will expedite the search process, expand areas not currently being covered due to terrain or inclement circumstances, and reduce the amount of time a victim has to wait to receive medical treatment. If this use of fund balance is approved, the ongoing cost to maintain the UAS would be added to the Sheriff’s Office FY 2018 base budget. Northern Virginia Emergency Response System (NVERS). NVERS is a program that coordinates and manages Federal Urban Area Security Initiatives (“UASI”) grants that are provided to the jurisdictions, including Loudoun County, in the northern Virginia region. These grants are provided to the northern Virginia region as a whole, although the proceeds are distributed to the counties and cities that make up northern Virginia. Since there is no central northern Virginia “government or agency,” NVERS manages these Federal grants for the jurisdictions. Most of the funds that go to NVERS are used to purchase regionally used items, such as tablet computers for patient tracking, or trauma kits for law enforcement, or specialized training, and other similar items. Since UASI is a Federal grant, the funds are allocated on a reimbursement basis. NVERS is a 501C3 non-profit that was created to manage these funds for the northern Virginia jurisdictions, and thus, has no assets. This one-time funding is being requested by NVERS from each of its member jurisdictions to assist in cash flows issues related to grant reimbursements from the Federal Government. These funds will be used for cash flow purposes only and will be returned to the County should NVERS cease to exist or upon Loudoun deciding to no longer be a part of NVERS. Loudoun has received $987,300 in direct funding since 2005 through NVERS. Further, $16.8 million has been received by NVERS for projects that develop capability and capacity throughout the Northern Virginia region. Attachment 1 includes a memorandum from the

Packet Page 103



Department of Management and Budget and the Office of Emergency Management with further details of the request. ERP Backfill Temporary Support. Department of Finance and Procurement staff will be diverted for system testing and training for new processes as part of ERP Phase 2. To backfill staff, the Department is requesting funds for temporary positions to begin in February 2017. SafeTrack. As a result of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) SafeTrack program, Loudoun has modified transit services to address changes in the Metro system for each of the planned safety surges. The total projected cost is $86,000. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will match 50 percent of costs borne by the County. Loudoun’s share of these costs are projected to be approximately $43,000. Printing and Mailing Tax Assessments and Billing. The County’s costs for printing and mailing tax assessment notifications and bills increase as the County’s resident and business populations increase. Both Offices contract with third party vendors that specialize in volume printing and mailing to ensure tax assessments, bills, and other similar notifications reach Loudoun’s residents in a timely manner. The Commissioner’s FY 2016 total printing and mailing cost increased 19 percent while the Treasurer’s FY 2016 costs increased 7 percent over the prior fiscal year. FY 2016 fund balance would be used to supplement each Office’s postal services budgets for FY 2017; the Offices’ base budgets will be adjusted as part of the FY 2018 budget development process. School Board’s Fund Balance Requests On October 26, 2016, the Chairman of the Loudoun County School Board provided Chair Randall with a request for supplemental funding totaling $7,480,000. This letter is included as Attachment 2. At its November 15, 2016, meeting, the FGOEDC posed a number of questions to the School Board to better understand the requests included in the Chairman’s letter. Responses to those questions (Attachment 3) as well as the LCPS Fleet Management Plan are included as attachments to this item (Attachment 4). During the FY 2017 budget process, the Board of Supervisors forwarded the topic of funding synthetic turf athletic fields to the FY 2016 Year End Fund Balance discussion. In doing so, the Board requested that County staff provide appropriate recommendations and options for the funding of these synthetic turf fields, depending upon the amount of fund balance available. The value of four synthetic turf athletic fields for each of the four remaining High Schools without them is approximately $7.6 million ($1.9 million for each field). Staff’s understanding from discussions with School staff is that the School Board understood that funding for synthetic turf fields was forwarded to this Fund Balance discussion. The School Board decided to recommend alternatives to the Board of Supervisors to four synthetic turf fields. In doing so, the School Board decided to remain within the dollar amount of the four fields. Due to annual budget constraints, if funding of synthetic turf fields are desired prior to FY 2021 and FY 2022 (these are the years for installation in the FY 2017 Adopted CIP), then the most

Packet Page 104



appropriate source is Year End Fund Balance, as other priorities of the Schools and County have precluded funding this in the CIP before then. Given this situation, and if providing synthetic turf fields to all high schools is a priority, then staff recommends a “Staff Option” of funding two synthetic turf athletic fields this year at Heritage and Dominion High Schools, respectively, as these are the two oldest that do not yet have synthetic turf playing surfaces. The final two schools would be considered in the FY 2017 Fund Balance process. This would be an alternative to the School Board’s request and would reduce the amount for the School Bus Purchases by $1.9 million and divert these funds to the synthetic turf field at Dominion High School. The Board could also fund all four synthetic turf fields as part of the FY 2016 Fund Balance process for $7.6 million. The School Board request is as follows:

School Bus Purchases. On October 26, 2016, the Chairman of the Loudoun County School Board provided Chair Randall with a request for supplemental funding for 34 bus purchases for a total of $4.08 million. Per the Chairman’s letter, the new schools bus purchases are meant to maintain the Schools’ Fleet Management Plan (Attachment 4). Per the Chairman’s letter, it is anticipated the FY 2018 Superintendent’s Proposed Operating Budget would seek funding for 26 new school buses rather than 60.

Synthetic Turf (Heritage High School). On October 26, 2016, the Chairman of the Loudoun

County School Board provided Chair Randall with a request for supplemental funding for synthetic turf for one stadium at Heritage High School. The total dollar amount requested includes complete track replacement and drainage.

Textbooks/Digital Learning. On October 26, 2016, the Chairman of the Loudoun County

School Board provided Chair Randall with a request for supplemental funding for textbooks and digital learning. Per the Chairman’s letter, it is anticipated that the FY 2018 Superintendent’s Proposed Operating Budget will seek increased funds for textbooks and digital resources but not at the same level as would be recommended without funding this item through fund balance.

Reserve for Possible Reduction in Real Property Tax Rate. Staff recommends that the Board reserve this funding for the effect of a possible $0.01 reduction in the real property tax rate, which would reduce the second real property tax collection in Tax Year 2017. This use is typically recommended in anticipation of the Board’s upcoming budget deliberations and is meant to offset the impact of a reduction in the tax rate for the last six months of the preceding tax year. FY 2018 One-Time Needs. Staff recommends that up to $38,483,600 million of the FY 2016 fund balance be allocated for one-time uses in the FY 2018 Proposed Budget to specifically address one-time needs in the Capital Improvement Program and the Capital Asset Preservation Program and other one-time needs as necessary. The addition of fund balance will allow a greater amount of recurring local tax funding to be used for ongoing budget needs.

Packet Page 105



FISCAL IMPACT: The unassigned General Fund balance as of July 1, 2016, is $55,710,322. This total is available for appropriation by the Board. Of the available balance, staff recommends that the Board allocate a total of $55,710,322. Staff has identified items totaling $13,626,722 for use during FY 2017. Further, staff recommends reserving $3,600,000 for possible reduction of the real property rate for the second half of Tax Year 2017 and up to $38,483,600 for use in FY 2018 for one-time purposes as needed. ALTERNATIVES:

1. The FGOEDC may recommend that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $13,626,722 for use during FY 2017, including $6,146,722 for County government uses as recommended, and $7,480,000 as requested by the School Board. Further, the FGOEDC could reserve $3,600,000 for possible reduction in the tax rate and up to $38,483,600 for use in FY 2018 for one-time purposes.

2. The FGOEDC may recommend that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $13,626,722 for use during FY 2017, including $6,146,722 for County government uses as recommended, and $3.8 million for two (2) synthetic turf fields, one each for Heritage and Dominion High Schools, $2.18 million for school buses, and $1.5 million for text books. Further, the FGOEDC could reserve $3,600,000 for possible reduction in the tax rate and up to $38,483,600 for use in FY 2018 for one-time purposes. [Staff Option]

3. The FGOEDC may consider any number of other amounts and/or uses of the unallocated fund balance.

DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $13,626,722 of unassigned FY 2016 fund balance for the uses listed in this item, inclusive of the full School Board request, and direct the County Administrator to: 1) reserve $3,600,000 of fund balance for a potential reduction in the real property tax rate for the second half of Tax Year 2017 and 2) program up to $38,483,600 of fund balance for one-time purposes in the FY 2018 Proposed Budget as needed.

OR

2. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $13,626,722 of unassigned FY 2016 fund balance for the uses listed in this item, inclusive of the Staff Option of funding two (2) synthetic turf fields, and direct the County Administrator to: 1) reserve $3,600,000 of fund balance for a potential reduction in the real property tax rate for the second half of Tax Year 2017 and 2) program up to $38,483,600 of fund balance for one-time purposes in the FY 2018 Proposed Budget as needed.

Packet Page 106



OR

3. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum, Northern Virginia Emergency Response System Funding Request

2. LCPS October 26, 2016, Letter to Chair Randall Requesting a Supplemental Appropriation

3. LCPS Response to Board Member Questions regarding Fund Balance Requests

4. LCPS Fleet Management Plan

Packet Page 107

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

MEMORANDUM

ATTACHMENT 1

DATE: December 13, 2016

TO: Tim Hemstreet, County Administrator

FROM: Erin McLellan, Department of Management and Budget

Kevin Johnson, Office of Emergency Management

RE: Northern Virginia Emergency Response System Funding Request

The Northern Virginia Emergency Response System (NVERS) began in 2005 as a regional Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS). The program was started by the Federal Government to coordinate a regional medical response to a chemical, biological or nuclear incident in major metropolitan areas. The program stressed the importance of planning and a multidisciplinary approach to emergency management. In 2007, the program was expanded in order to focus on the entire emergency response system, not just the original medical aspects. NVERS is charged with the management and dissemination of Federal Grant funds for the Northern Virginia region. NVERS is governed by an eleven member Board of Directors comprised of five representatives from local government nominated by the Chief Administrative Officers of Northern Virginia and six representatives from NVHA. NVERS also has a steering committee that functions as the interdisciplinary, interjurisdictional forum for regional collaboration, analysis and recommendation making. The steering committee consists of representatives from: emergency management; fire and rescue; law enforcement; public health; hospitals; public information; transportation; information technology and state agencies. NVERS benefits the region through the following:

Improved emergency preparedness via collective and collaborative planning, response, capable systems and continued operational improvements;

Building collaborative partnerships across jurisdictional boundaries through a diverse set of regional leaders over many disciplines which increases regional capacity;

Facilitating regional operations and awareness through information exchange, training, exercises, equipment acquisition and priority setting; and,

Providing project management for enhancing capacity and capability with the Northern Virginia region.

Recently, NVERS has encountered cash flow issues due to the nature of the grant funding it administers on behalf of the region. NVERS currently acts as the fiduciary agent for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants for the region. NVERS handles up to three years of UASI Grants, with each individual year valued up to $3,000,000. UASI Grants are paid on a reimbursement basis. This means that the grant administrator, NVERS, must pay the contractor performing the work or creating the devices being ordered, and then submit for reimbursement. If the grants are

Packet Page 108

Northern Virginia Emergency Response System Funding Request December 13, 2016 Page 2 of 2

spread evenly over 12 months, then this means that NVERS must pay $750,000 a month first to the vendors, and then await reimbursement from the Federal Government. This process can take between 30 and 45 days and is subject to audit and delays. NVERS can be out as much as $1.5 million in a month while waiting for reimbursement, although the average amount is closer to $900,000. NVERS can access a $500,000 line of credit, which means its needs at least another $400,000 in cash reserve in order to operate during the time between payment and reimbursement because the payment cycle for the next month of bills will start in that same 30 to 45 day window while they are awaiting reimbursement. Members of NVERS will soon pay annual dues of $2,500 per jurisdictional discipline. These dues will be meant to pay for the administrative expenses not allowed under the UASI grant. The dues are estimated to bring in about $96,000 per year when they begin, and the administrative expenses not allowed under UASI are currently estimated to be between $38,000 and $90,000 annually. NVERS is requesting that each jurisdiction pay a contribution in FY 2018 to establish a reserve that will assist with cash flow. The contribution is intended to allow NVERS to be able to continue in its capacity as the grant administrator/project manager for UASI Grants that are allocated to them for the benefit of Northern Virginia member localities. In order to facilitate the handling of the equity contributions from each jurisdiction, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been created. These funds will be used for cash flow purposes only and will be returned to the County should NVERS cease to exist or upon Loudoun deciding to no longer be a part of NVERS. Loudoun has asked that the MOU address those years where the dues collected exceed the administrative expense and requested that these excess dues be applied proportionately to refund the equity contribution for each jurisdiction, so that at some future point, the equity contribution is entirely comprised of excess dues payments. NVERS is seeking a one-time equity contribution of $100,000 from each member jurisdiction to be utilized only for cash flow purposes associated with the administration of UASI grants as described in this item. Staff has included the requested funding in the Uses of FY 2016 General Fund Balance item that is included in the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee’s December 13, 2016, agenda.

Packet Page 109

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 110

Packet Page 111

Board of Supervisors Questions from the 11/15/2016 Finance/Government Operations and

Economic Development Committee:

This document lists LCPS responses to the italicized questions listed below. These questions were provided by Caleb Weitz. Recognizing that multiple questions are similar to one another, two responses include references to other responses.

1. Supervisor Letourneau asked if the request for textbooks and buses could wait until the

FY 18 budget discussions.

The Fleet Management Plan shows that 60 buses are scheduled for replacement in FY18. The County requested that we provide a list of one-time items that would be appropriate for FY16 fund balance, thus the purchase of 34 new school buses was included. Due to the potential fiscal constraints of the FY16 fund balance, only a portion of the FY18 need was requested with a plan to seek funding for the other 26 school buses, rather than 60, in the Superintendent’s Proposed Operating Budget for FY18. The FY15 fund balance request included buses, which were funded from a different source, resulting in no school buses funded in the FY17 operating budget. Unmet needs exist relating to textbooks and digital learning resources. The appropriated budget for FY17 included some funds for textbooks and digital learning resources. It did not include the $1,500,000 for textbooks and digital learning resources included in the supplemental appropriation request because the assessment of textbooks and digital learning resources had not yet been completed. The textbook inventory and assessment was launched in June 2016, and while the assessment is ongoing, it is clear that this amount of funds could be prudently spent during FY17 on textbooks and digital learning resources to meet a portion of the unmet needs. In order to be good stewards of taxpayer funds, this additional $1,500,000 was not sought as part of the budget process last year because LCPS did not want to seek funds prior to the commencement of the assessment. The additional funds for textbooks and digital learning resources could be appropriated in FY18 but the textbooks could be available for student usage sooner if they are appropriated in FY17. Even if the funds are appropriated in FY17, the Superintendent has indicated that he is likely to propose requesting additional funds for textbooks and digital learning resources. However, the proposal for requesting additional funds for FY18 would be decreased by any amount provided via a supplemental appropriation in FY17.

2. Vice Chairman Buona asked if LCPS budgeted for textbook replacements in the annual

standard budget request. He also requested if LCPS had a bus replacement strategy to

replace the oldest number of buses each year.

Please see the response to the first question listed in this document.

Packet Page 112

Additional details (see attached) regarding the school division’s fleet management plan were provided at the Joint Committee meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board on September 10, 2015. The school division’s fleet management plan will provide an estimated $18,000,000 of cost avoidance by 2020.

3. Chair Randall asked if LCPS had funding for regular routine maintenance of the bus

fleet.

Please see the responses to the first two questions listed in this document.

4. Supervisor Buffington asked if the purchase of buses and textbooks were an appropriate

one-time expenditure that was needed to use the fund balance.

The FY15 fund balance from the School Board request included buses, which were funded from a different source, resulting in no school buses funded in the FY17 operating budget. LCPS staff communicated verbally and in writing with County Staff regarding what LCPS would recommend regarding the School Board’s fund balance request, both in terms of the amount that might be requested and that the request would include funds for school buses. LCPS has set forth the rationale for the buses and textbooks included in the request from the School Board, but recognizes that the Board of Supervisors will ultimately determine whether it wishes to use fund balance to support these items.

5. Supervisor Umstattd requested a breakdown of costs related to the turf fields for track

replacement, drainage, and synthetic turf at Heritage High School.

The total project estimate of $1,900,000 includes budget estimates for the track replacement at $175,000 - $250,000, whereas the storm and perimeter drainage systems is $300,000 - $400,000 and the synthetic turf system is $660,000 - $750,000. The remaining $400,000 - $500,000 costs are associated with design engineering, permitting, construction management, site conditions contingency and miscellaneous items such as fencing, netting, electricity, stormwater credits and feature relocations (scoreboards, flagpoles, jump pits, etc).

6. Supervisor Umstattd and Vice Chairman Buona asked why the cost of synthetic turf has

steeply increased recently.

Packet Page 113

There are many factors that influence the costs of the synthetic turf projects. Recent bids for projects executed in 2016 were over $100,000 higher than those received in 2015 which indicates the current market conditions. It should also be noted that our experience in installing these fields has resulted in the additional scope of full track replacement which has proven to be necessary given the close proximity of the track surface to the perimeter drain system required for the management of storm water runoff.

Packet Page 114

Fleet Management PlanLoudoun County Public Schools

Division of Transportation

Joint Board of Supervisors & School Board

Sept 10, 2015

1ATTAACHMENT 4A-46

Packet Page 115

Fleet Management Plan

Existing Replacement Strategy15 Years Retirement/Replacement of busCurrent Fleet (Ratio Routes : Bus)

Currently 1 : 1.37

New Replacement Strategy175K Miles = Retirement/Replacement of busRight Size Fleet (Ratio Routes : Bus)

Goal 1 : 1.15

2

A-47

Packet Page 116

Bus Fleet - Age 7-15 Years, Mileage and Annual Repair

3

83

28 7564

7645

31

64

19

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

AV

ERA

GE

AN

NU

AL

MIL

EAG

E P

ER B

US

AV

ERA

GE

AN

NU

AL

CO

ST P

ER B

US

AGE OF BUS

Average Cost Per Bus Avgerage Mileage Per Bus # of Buses

Mileage Matters!!

Miles DownCosts Down

A-48

Packet Page 117

Bus Fleet Purchase

4

0.00

1,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

7,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

Co

st

Years

School Bus Cost

A-49

Packet Page 118

Bus Fleet Management Plan

5

Fiscal Year Beginning Bus

CountBus Routes Ratio Route : Bus

Retirement (+175,000 miles)Mileage Matters

Purchases Final Bus

Count

2016 859 625 1 : 1.37 38 0 821

2017 821 645 1 : 1.27 81 60 800

2018 800 661 1 : 1.21 60 60 800

2019 800 674 1 : 1.19 46 60 814

2020 814 687 1 : 1.18 61 60 813

286 240

A-50

Packet Page 119

Current Practice -15 Year Replacement Practice

1 : 1.37 Route to Bus Ratio

Recommended Strategic Management Plan175,000 Mile New Replacement Strategy

1 : 1.15 Route to Bus Ratio

Cost Avoidance

6

$18,229,300 in 4 years

A-51

Packet Page 120


# 11


ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Acceleration of Funding for HS-9 ELECTION DISTRICT: Dulles CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016 STAFF CONTACT: Erin McLellan, Management and Budget PURPOSE: To present a funding scenario that would allow for the acceleration of funding for HS-9 during FY 2017. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend that the Board of Supervisors (Board) amend the FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and budget to appropriate $3,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds and transfer that amount to Loudoun County Public Schools. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Supervisors’ December 6, 2016 Business Meeting, the Board voted (9-0) to direct staff to bring to the FGOEDC December 13, 2016 Meeting an item that would include options to accelerate funding of HS-9 in the CIP for appropriation in FY 2017. ISSUES: Based on student population projections, the School Board has identified the need to accelerate HS-9 to accommodate projected student growth in the Dulles South planning district. The School Board’s adopted FY 2018-FY 2023 CIP requests $125,540,000 in design and construction funding in FY 2018 to accommodate a Fall 2020 opening. The School Board’s adopted CIP page for HS-9 is included at Attachment 1. The Board’s current FY 2017-FY 2022 CIP anticipates a Fall 2021 opening. FISCAL IMPACT: The Adopted FY 2017-FY 2022 CIP includes funding for HS-9 totaling $130,660,000 in FY 2018 and FY 2019. The acceleration of this project would reduce the total project funding to $125,540,000 with appropriations funded by the following: $3,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds in FY 2017, $3,500,000 in local tax funds, and $109,747,200 in General Obligation Bonds in FY 2018, and $8,787,800 in local tax funding in FY 2019. The acceleration of funding will allow the school to open in the fall of 2020 (2020-2021 School Year).

Packet Page 121

Item 11, Acceleration of Funding for HS-9 Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


In order to accomplish the full one year acceleration, the School Board has indicated that $3,505,000 will need to be appropriated in FY 2017 to start the design phase of HS-9. The acceleration of funding can be accomplished through appropriation of General Obligation Bonds, which were approved on the November 8, 2016 referendum. The remaining design and construction funding can be accelerated to FY 2018, and the Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment funding will remain in FY 2019 as previously scheduled. Acceleration of HS-9 can be accommodated in the Adopted FY 2017-FY 2022 CIP without delaying new or existing projects. In addition, Staff has confirmed the County will be within its annual debt issuance limits and ratios with the acceleration of appropriations of General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $3,505,000 in FY 2017 and $109,747,200 in FY 2018.

FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 Project Total

HS-9 Project Total: 125,540,000

Proposed FY 2017 Amendment 3,505,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,505,000 Proposed FY 2018 CIP 0 113,247,200 8,787,800 0 0 0 122,035,000

Local Tax Funding 0 3,500,000 8,787,800 0 0 0 12,287,800 General Obligation Bonds 3,505,000 109,747,200 0 0 0 0 113,252,200

Adopted FY 2017 CIP 0 11,760,000 118,900,000 0 0 0 130,660,000 Local Tax Funding 0 3,500,000 10,000,000 0 0 0 13,500,000

General Obligation Bonds 0 8,260,000 108,900,000 0 0 0 117,160,000

ALTERNATIVES: The Board may choose to not accelerate funding for HS-9 at this time and discuss the project during the CIP deliberations in February and March 2017, during the FY 2018 budget process. DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operation and Economic Development Committee

recommend that Board of Supervisors amend the FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program and budget, and direct staff to execute a budget adjustment to appropriate $3,505,000 in General Obligation Bonds and transfer that amount to Loudoun County Public Schools.

OR 2. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. HS-9 – Loudoun County School Board Adopted FY 2018-23 Capital Improvement Program

Packet Page 122

High School (HS-9)

Project Completion/Open Date

FY 2018 - FY 2023 Capital Improvement Program

High School (HS-9)

Fiscal Year Amount Funding Description

Prior FY

FY 2018 $125,540,000 Design & Construction Funding

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

FY 2023

FY 2024

FY 2025

FY 2026

FY 2027

Future FY

TOTAL $125,540,000

TBD - To Be Determined

Project Description

The high school will be built using the prototypical two-story high school design. The estimated 282,064

square foot building will serve students in grades nine through twelve. With an anticipated program

capacity of 1,800, the high school will include classrooms, a media center, cafeteria, auditorium,

gymnasium, auxiliary gymnasium, outdoor physical education fields and other associated spaces to

support the high school program.

Project Location

TBD/A 75-acre site will need to be acquired in the Dulles South planning district.

Fall 2020 (2020-21 School Year)

Loudoun County Public Schools

School Board Adopted FY2018-23 Capital Improvement Program November 29, 2016

41

Packet Page 123




ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Loudoun County Vehicle Decal Program


CRITICAL ACTION DATE: January 3, 2017

STAFF CONTACT: H. Roger Zurn, Jr., Treasurer

PURPOSE: To determine whether the Board wishes to continue the vehicle decal which evidences satisfactory payment of Personal Property taxes.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Treasurer recommends continuation of the vehicle decal as currently instituted.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1980’s, Loudoun County has issued vehicle decals as a license fee as defined by State Code. The current fiscal year revenue from decals is expected to be $7.0 million. Many jurisdictions have eliminated decals in favor of just a license fee added to the Personal Property tax, typically $25.00. There are 15 jurisdictions in the Commonwealth still using decals while 48 are adding the license fee with no decal. Others have incorporated the anticipated revenue into the Personal Property tax rate.

The decal has worked well as a collection tool and for enforcement purposes. Loudoun has a collection rate of 99%, which is among the highest in the Commonwealth. Decals are not issued until taxes are paid in full. Questions have arisen as to why Loudoun has decals whereby Fairfax does not. The purpose of this item is to request the Finance Government Operations and Economic Development Committee to either confirm its continued use or to eliminate the decal program.

There have been questions also in terms of the cost of decals. The amounts below show all the associated expenses related to decals:

• Decals $59,053 • Mail Services Vendor $21,839 • Postage $14,573

Total $95,465

In addition to the $7.0 million of anticipated decal revenue, additional revenue of $1 million from Project Fairness is also expected. Expenses for personnel, two Sheriff Deputies and one part time

Packet Page 124

Item 12, Loudoun County Vehicle Decal Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


administrative position, total $275,000. Net resulting revenue is expected to be $725,000. Project Fairness deputies patrol Loudoun at night looking for tax scofflaws who are avoiding the Personal Property tax and not registering their vehicles. Since inception in 1997, the program has brought in net revenues of $20,131,186, which would not have been collected without this enforcement program. There is also a compounding effect in that once these vehicles are on the tax rolls, the taxes continue to be paid but are not included in the totals. Project Fairness will no longer provide enforcement if the decal program is ended. Should the Board of Supervisors wish to discontinue the decal program, there will be a need to amend the ordinances and implement system changes, with a targeted effective date of July 1, 2017. ISSUES: The question for the Finance Government Operations and Economic Development Committee is: Does the Finance Government Operations and Economic Development Committee wish to continue with decals?

The other options are: 1) Change to a license fee of $25.00 with no decal for residents outside of incorporated towns.

The Treasurer strongly does not support this. 2) Increase the Personal Property tax rate sufficient to cover this loss of $7.0 million in decal

revenue. It is estimated that a rate of $4.40 would be necessary for vehicles. The current Personal Property tax rate is $4.20.

FISCAL IMPACT: All three options have roughly the same impact however the County will lose any new revenue brought in by Project Fairness. It is also anticipated Personal Property tax delinquencies will increase due to the lack of the decal enforcement and the impetus to pay. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Keep the decals and Project Fairness. 2) Impose a license fee on County residents outside of incorporated towns. 3) Increase the Personal Property tax rate for all County residents.

DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the County maintain the Vehicle Decal program.

OR


Packet Page 125

Jurisdiction CY 16 % Collected CY 15 % Collected CY 14 % Collected CY 13 % Collected CY 12 % CollectedAlexandria City Use Decal 98.62% NA 97.45% NA 97.62%Arlington Use Decal 99.35% NA 99.33% NA 98.84%Loudoun Use Decal 96.05% NA 99.59% NA 96.80%

Jurisdiction Year Decals ended CY 16 % Collected CY 15 % Collected CY 14 % Collected CY 13 % Collected CY 12 % CollectedChesapeake 2006 78.96% NA 88.53% NA 65.57%Chesterfield 2006 94.48% NA 93.18% NA 94.12%Fairfax 2006 102.30% NA 101.84% NA 99.42%Henrico 2012 85.59% NA NA NA NANorfolk City 2005 NA NA 79.73% NA 68.31%

Jurisdiction Year Decals ended CY 16 % Collected CY 15 % Collected CY 14 % Collected CY 13 % Collected CY 12 % CollectedCulpeper 2008 91.85% NA 95.69% NA 91.94%Franklin 2013 93.04% NA 86.54% NA NAShenandoah 2007 98.01% NA 94.80% NA 92.67%Spotsylvania 2007 87.64% NA 87.95% NA 97.30%Westmoreland 2006 91.69% NA 92.35% NA 73.78%

Jurisdictions similar in population to Loudoun that USE Decals

Jurisdictions similar in population to Loudoun that DO NOT use Decals

Other Jurisdictions that ended the use of Decals

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 126

Decals License TotalAverage Fee Amount $25.55 $26.64Most Common Fee $25.00 $25.00Total Jurisdiction Who Use Fees 23 63 86# of Cities That Charge Decal & License Fees 8 15 23# of Counties That Charge Decal & License Fees 15 48 63# of Jurisdictions That Do Not Charge Fees 12Highest License/ Decal Fee $40.75 $40.75Lowest License/ Decal Fee $5.00 $10.00

Average Personal Property Tax for Counties $3.49Most Common Personal Property Tax for Counties $3.60Number of Counties with Higher PP Rate 23Number of Counties with Lower PP Rate 60# of Counties with PP Rate of $4.40 and Higher 20Loudoun County PP Rate $4.20Alexandria City PP Rate $5.00Arlington County PP Rate $5.00Fairfax County PP Rate $4.57

Counties and Cities who either use decals, license or do not have fees in VA

Personal Property Tax Rate for Counties and Cities

Packet Page 127


#13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Request for 0.47 FTE to Support the Commissioner of the Revenue Business Tax Assessor


CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the pleasure of the Board

STAFF CONTACTS: Robert S. Wertz, Jr., Commissioner of the Revenue Erin McLellan, Department of Management and Budget

PURPOSE: To request a mid-year authorization for 0.47 FTE to convert a part-time Business Tax Assessor to a full-time in the Commissioner of the Revenue Office to provide professional support to accommodate the ongoing workload associated with the increased business tax base and to realign the duties of current staff.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Commissioner of the Revenue recommends that the Finance/ Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend the Board of Supervisors authorize 0.47 FTE to convert an existing part-time Business Tax Assessor position to a full-time and appropriate $13,800 of personal property tax revenue to fund the additional FTE for FY 2017.

BACKGROUND: The County’s business tax account volume has increased significantly since the position was originally created and classified as part-time in 2011. The increase in businesses has resulted in additional large asset lists, primarily comprised of equipment located in data centers, which need to be reviewed.

The Business Tax Assessor position is responsible to: • Independently classify and value business personal property based upon established state

and local laws and policies.• Ensure that assigned business tax accounts are properly maintained in accordance with

office policies and procedures, and accurately assessed in compliance with Virginia StateCode (including property which is assessed by the Commonwealth) and CountyOrdinances to reduce assessment adjustments due to delays in processing, errors, appeals,litigation, etc.

• Continuously monitor business tax accounts and ensure that omitted local taxes or leviesare assessed by statutory deadlines in accordance with Virginia Code § 58.1-3903.

Packet Page 128

Item 13, Mid-year Enhancement - Authorization of 0.47 FTE for Business Tax Assessor Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


ISSUES: The total number of business tax accounts has increased from 15,800 accounts in 2013 to 21,000 in 2016. This represents a 21% increase in customer base increase since 2013. The taxes assessed for business tangible personal property were approximately $70 million in 2013 and have increased to over $155 million for the 2016 tax year. The increase resulted in additional large asset lists, primarily comprised of equipment located in data centers, which need to be reviewed.

Should the Board approve the conversion of position #32039 - Business Tax Assessor (S2): from a Part-time to Full-time:

• More thorough desk reviews will be completed increasing the likelihood of additionalrevenue and enhanced accuracy of reporting.

• Business Tax related phone calls that are presently distributed among various divisions inthe Office during annual tax cycle deadlines will be redirected to the Business TaxDivision where the most efficient service can be provided.

Should the Board not approve the conversion of position #32039 - Business Tax Assessor (S2) from Part-time to Full-time:

• Less thorough desk reviews may be performed due to lack of personnel resources.• Large asset lists, primarily comprised of equipment located in data centers, will not be

reviewed with the level of detail necessary to detect and ensure compliance, assessmentaccuracy and could result in a loss of revenue.

• The current Part-time positon was recently vacated. The ability to attract and recruitspecialized applicants for a part-time job with the necessary qualifications will bechallenging. This could result in delays in securing a resource that can contribute to theteam’s efforts given the business license and business tangible filing deadlines coming upin March and April 2017.

FISCAL IMPACT: Currently, the position has an authorized 0.53 FTE. However, the position became vacant as of November 16, 2016. If the mid-year enhancement is approved, then the cost to fill the position with an estimated start date of January 12, 2017 for the remainder of FY 2017 is $13,800. Based on the Department of Management and Budget’s FY 2017 Q1 revenue projections, there is sufficient over-recovery in personal property tax revenues; staff recommends a one-time appropriation of $13,800 of personal property tax revenue to cover the additional cost of the 0.47 FTE in FY 2017. The annual personnel cost beginning in FY 2018 for the full-time Business Tax Assessor position is $76,200. If the Board approves this FY 2017 mid-year enhancement, the full cost of the position will be added to the department’s base budget in FY 2018.

The Commissioner of the Revenue Office already has assigned working space and the necessary electronic equipment available so there is no need for office space to be configured nor for technology to be budgeted for the position.

Packet Page 129

Item 13, Mid-year Enhancement - Authorization of 0.47 FTE for Business Tax Assessor Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the Board approve a mid-year authorization of 0.47 FTE to convert a part-

time Business Tax Assessor to full-time with an estimated start date of January 12,2017, and appropriate personal property tax.

2. Recommend the Board direct that discussions regarding the conversion of a part-timeBusiness Tax Assessor position to full-time to continue as part of the FY 2018 Budgetdeliberations.

3. Recommend the Board not authorize 0.47 FTE to convert a part-time Business TaxAssessor to full-time.

DRAFT MOTIONS:

1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic DevelopmentCommittee recommend that the full Board of Supervisors authorize 0.47 FTE toconvert a part-time Business Tax Assessor to full-time. I further move that theFinance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee appropriate$13,800 of personal property tax revenue in FY 2017 to cover the cost of the additionalFTE.

OR

2. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic DevelopmentCommittee recommend that the full Board of Supervisors direct that discussionsregarding the change of status from Part-time to Full-time for the existing Business TaxAssessor continue as part of the FY 2018 Budget deliberations.

OR

3. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic DevelopmentCommittee recommend that the full Board of Supervisors not authorize the 0.47 FTEfor converting a part-time Business Tax Assessor to full-time.

OR


Packet Page 130


#14 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Fire and Rescue – Advance Hiring for Recruit School


CRITICAL ACTION DATE: December 13, 2016

STAFF CONTACTS: W. Keith Brower, Jr., Chief, Loudoun County Fire and RescueErin McLellan, Department of Management and Budget

PURPOSE: To request seven (7) new firefighters/Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) operational positions for Loudoun County Fire and Rescue (LCFR), totaling 7.84 full-time equivalent (FTE).

RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors (Board) authorize the addition of 7.84 FTE and appropriate $434,900 in current year fund balance for LCFR in the current Fiscal Year.

BACKGROUND:

LCFR, as a component of the Combined Fire and Rescue System, is responsible for delivering essential fire, rescue, hazardous materials, and emergency medical services to the citizens of Loudoun County, as well as mutual aid to surrounding jurisdictions. As the County has grown in population and density, the Board has added additional fire and rescue stations and career staff to ensure continuity of services. Previous staffing models relied on overtime to cover vacancies resulting from a combination of factors including the use of leave (vacation and sick), injuries, attrition, and emergency staffing requests when requested by volunteer companies when unable to staff their stations. In the past, LCFR was able to absorb these overtime needs by restricting spending in other areas of its operating budget, but that practice is not sustainable as it will have an adverse effect on the LCFR’s ability to meet its core mission. LCFR currently has 23 vacant positions and will start its next recruit academy in January 2017.

Packet Page 131

Item 14 - Fire and Rescue – Advance Hiring for Recruit School Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


ISSUES: The January recruit academy could realize the greatest measure of efficiency by enrolling the maximum capacity of 30 recruits. Historically, a percentage of new recruits do not successfully complete the academy, resulting in long-term vacancies. Acknowledging the goal of reducing overtime (long-term) through the planned incremental increase in base FTE, this mid-year enhancement would allow LCFR to ensure an optimal academy size of 30 recruits as a first step in adding more firefighters to the system. Following the January recruit academy, the next recruit academy is scheduled for August 2017; however, that recruit academy will likely be filled with recruits for the new Kirkpatrick Farms Fire and Rescue station only. (Information related to this new facility will be detailed in the FY 2018 Proposed Budget.) Without this mid-year enhancement, the earliest that these seven individuals could be hired to begin training would be November 2017, a delay of nine to twelve months, resulting in the need for additional overtime to meet minimum staffing requirements.

During its October 11, 2016 meeting, the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee was presented with an Information Item #15, “FY 2018 Budget Development – Fire and Rescue Staffing and Overtime Analysis1.”

That item presented an overview of the overtime issue faced by LCFR and outlined several possible solutions. As indicated in the Item, the adopted overtime budget for LCFR increased 40.2 percent between FY 2014 and FY 2017. However, between FY 2014 and FY 2016, LCFR’s actual overtime expenditures have exceeded the adopted overtime budget by at least 50 percent. In addition, overtime expenditures per FTE increased by 15.6 percent during this same time period.

LCFR uniformed employees are scheduled to work 2,184 hours per year (42 hours per week for 52 weeks per year). Factoring in all forms of leave usage, an employee actually works, on average, between 1,750 and 1,780 hours per year. The resulting delta (400 to 430 hours) must be filled by other qualified personnel. When multiplied across each minimum staffed position, the total number of hours requiring coverage equates to a gap that must be filled by overtime or through the hiring of additional FTE. The concept of having additional FTE available to fill the void is often referred to as a “staffing factor.” The staffing factor equates to the number of FTE required to ensure that a minimum staffed position is filled by an employee working regular time (as opposed to overtime which is paid out at time and one half).

While minimum staffing positions may require overtime to be filled, efforts can be made to reduce this amount by continuing to incrementally hire employees to meet minimum staffing requirements. The current staffing gap is estimated to be 72 positions.

FISCAL IMPACT: Staff proposes a FY 2017 mid-year enhancement totaling 7.84 FTE for seven firefighter/EMT for LCFR. The estimated cost for seven positions for the remainder of FY 2017 is $434,900; this cost includes salary and benefits, holiday pay overtime, background checks, training, uniforms, personal protective equipment and required National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) physicals. The estimated FY 2018 full year cost is $717,800. Current year fund balance is available to appropriate should the Board choose to authorize the additional 7.84

1 10-11-16 FGOEDC Item #15 FY 2018 Budget Development – Fire and Rescue Staffing and Overtime Analysis

Packet Page 132

https://lfportal.loudoun.gov/LFPortalinternet/0/doc/208445/Electronic.aspx

Item 14 - Fire and Rescue – Advance Hiring for Recruit School Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


FTE. Funding for these additional positions cannot be absorbed within LCFR’s current FY 2017 operating budget. If the Board authorizes the 7.84 FTE, these positions will be included in LCFR’s FY 2018 base budget.

ALTERNATIVES: The Board may choose not to authorize the creation of the requested positions at this time and direct staff to include the request as part of the FY 2018 Proposed Budget.

DRAFT MOTIONS:

1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committeerecommend the Board of Supervisors authorize the addition of 7.84 FTE firefighterpositions within Loudoun County Fire and Rescue. I further move that theFinance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend tothe Board of Supervisors that it appropriate $434,900 of current year fund balance.

OR


Packet Page 133


# 15

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Request for 0.47 FTE to support the Community

Development Block Grant program


CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the pleasure of the Board

STAFF CONTACTS: Sarah Coyle Etro, Assistant Director, Family Services Ellen Grunewald, Director, Family Services Erin McLellan, Department of Management and Budget

PURPOSE: The request for 0.47 FTE to support the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is made to increase the staff capacity to administer the federal requirements of the program. The partial FTE will be fully funded through the federal administrative funds that are part of the County’s annual CDBG allocation as an entitlement jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorization of the 0.47 FTE to support the administration of the CDBG program.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Family Services (DFS) requests approval of an additional 0.47 FTE to support the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The funding for this FTE increment will come from the federal administrative funds provided annually to support the management of the CDBG program and will not require local funding. The CDBG annual allocation has been approximately $1,000,000 each year since the program started in 2005. This request is being made because of the increase in the staff time required to implement the complex federal regulations associated with the program especially as relates to Davis-Bacon and environmental review compliance and new requirements under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule and the HEROS online environmental review software. The addition of the partial FTE will enable the program to efficiently manage program requirements within required timeframes.

If approved, the additional 0.47 FTE will be assigned to an existing part-time (0.53 FTE) accounts assistant. The CDBG program is also supported by a program administrator (whose position is full-time, but only part of the position (.75 FTE) supports the CDBG program).

Packet Page 134

Item 15 Request for 0.47 FTE to support the CDBG Program Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


The program is in its 13th year of operation. As an entitlement community, the County annually receives approximately $1 million dollars in Federal CDBG funds to address community development needs such as affordable housing, community facilities and infrastructure, and services for low to moderate income citizens and neighborhoods. The County offers an annual competitive grant application process for non-profit and public agencies to apply for funding for projects and programs that implement federal objectives. The County partners through cooperative agreements with the seven incorporated towns so they can apply to use the County’s CDBG program to address their community development needs as well. The County also uses the funding to support the County’s home improvement program.

Federal regulations require the program to develop and submit a Five Year Consolidated Plan that quantifies affordable housing, homeless services and community development needs and identifies goals and objectives for meeting those needs. The Consolidated Plan also includes the AFFH, a Fair Housing Plan, and a Citizen Participation Plan. Development of these plans requires a public participation process, public hearing, and adoption by the Board of Supervisors (Board). The newly implemented AFFH adds extensive public outreach and participation requirements, data development and analysis to the preparation process of the Consolidated Plan. DFS staff will begin work on the Consolidated Plan in 2017 to ensure completion by the federally required adoption deadline of May 15, 2019. Each year, the Board conducts an annual public hearing and adopts the Annual Action spending plan.

Over the past 12 years, CDBG funds have been used to help with the following: build playgrounds, bus shelters and sidewalks in low income neighborhoods; purchase land; help renovate and build affordable housing, buildings for non-profit services for children with disabilities, homeless families, and victims of domestic violence; and other projects. The County has funded a total of 133 projects and services through FY 2017. Many important community projects and services would not be funded without the availability of CDBG dollars. Federal regulations require that the County, as the CDBG funding recipient, regularly monitor projects to ensure compliance with Davis-Bacon wage rules. The program also serves as the “responsible entity” for implementation of environmental review procedures, which have gotten technically more demanding as projects have become more sophisticated including the Carlheim Barn renovation on the National Register Arc of Loudoun Paxton campus. DFS seeks the additional FTE to increase the capacity for technical oversight in these critical areas.

ISSUES: Increasing the staff capacity to support the CDBG program will help the program meet the federal requirements of the program. The program grant enables the County to use up to 20% of the CDBG funds to support the administrative activities required by the Federal Government to implement the program. Should the Federal Government discontinue the County’s entitlement, the FTEs funded by the CDBG program would not be needed.

FISCAL IMPACT: The CDBG program is 100 percent grant funded. The addition of this partial FTE will cost approximately $41,300 per year to be paid out of the administrative funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to administer the program. Per federal requirements, the County can use up to 20% of its annual CDBG allocation for program

Packet Page 135

Item 15 Request for 0.47 FTE to support the CDBG Program Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee


administration expenses. As an entitlement community, the County consistently receives approximately $1,000,000 per year in CDBG funds. This year, the County received $1,110,235 in CDBG funds and the 20% of funds allowed for program administration is $222,470.

ALTERNATIVES: The Board could chose not to authorize the 0.47 FTE for CDBG program administration.

DRAFT MOTIONS:

1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committeerecommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize 0.47 FTE to support the administrationof the Community Development Block Grant program to be fully funded from theadministrative funds portion of the annual Community Development Block Grant.

OR


Packet Page 136


# 16

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINANCE/GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ACTION ITEM

SUBJECT: Phased Construction Delivery for Scott Jenkins

Memorial Park Project Phase II ELECTION DISTRICT: Catoctin CRITICAL ACTION DATE: At the pleasure of the Board STAFF CONTACTS: Mark Hoffman, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

Khattab Shammout, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure Joe Kroboth, III, Transportation and Capital Infrastructure

PURPOSE: To seek Board of Supervisors (Board) direction on bids received for the construction of Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase II and to phase the construction delivery of the Phase II Scott Jenkins Memorial Park project to enable portions of the park to be constructed with the available funding as Phase IIA while supplemental funding is identified for the remainder of the project (Phase IIB) as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget process. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee (FGOEDC) recommend to the Board to direct staff to reject all bids received as part of the June 7, 2016 Invitation for Bid (IFB), and to direct staff to phase the construction delivery of the project to allow a portion of the park to be constructed within the available budget of $1,400,000 (Phase IIA), and to issue a new Invitation for Bid (IFB) for Phase IIA of the project. Phase IIA will include construction of the rectangular field and associated irrigation system and the construction of 60 additional parking spaces. This phasing plan defers the construction of the remaining park improvements (Phase IIB) which include three small diamond fields, a concession building, and 100 additional parking spaces to the future to be funded as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget process. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to submit a Special Exception (SPEX) application to the Loudoun County Department of Planning and Zoning to request the installation of athletic fields lighting at the park as part of Phase IIB. BACKGROUND: Scott Jenkins Memorial Park and the co-located Harmony Park and Ride lot are located along East Colonial Highway (Business Route 7) just east of the Town of Hamilton. A portion of the property, approximately 24 acres, was offered as a gift option to the Board by the

Packet Page 137

Item 16, Phased Construction Delivery for Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Project Phase II Finance/Government Operations, and Economic Development Committee


Virts Family in memory of their nephew Scott Jenkins with the understanding that Loudoun County would provide an active park and purchase the remaining 11 acres of the property. On July 1, 2008, the Board voted (9-0) to accept the gift and to purchase the additional land from the Virts to bring the total park size to 35 acres. As part of the Board item, the Board moved to transfer $800,000 in Capital Project Contingency account funds and $1,000,000 in gas tax funds to develop a 90’ baseball field and the parking infrastructure for Phase I of the Community Park and Hamilton Area Park and Ride Lot. The Board item also directed staff to initiate a SPEX application for the Community Park and Park and Ride Lot development. The initial SPEX application was submitted on February 20, 2009 and included plans to light the one rectangular field, one large diamond field and three small diamond fields. At its February 2, 2010 Business Meeting, the Board voted to approve the SPEX (9-0), but removed the athletic fields lighting from the approval. The athletic fields lighting was removed due to concerns that the lights would adversely affect the growth of poinsettia plants at the nearby Ellmore Greenhouses, approximately 500 feet away. Utilizing funds from the FY 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 budgets, Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase I construction started in spring 2011 and was successfully completed in summer 2012 along with the co-located Harmony Park and Ride Lot. Phase I included the construction of one large diamond field, parking to serve the diamond field, one restroom building, rough grading for the rectangular and three small diamond fields, and the 250 space park and ride lot. Attachment 1 shows the facilities constructed as part of Phase I of the project. Since initial funding was not sufficient to construct the full park, additional funding was approved as part of the FY 2015 budget for a second park construction phase. A plan showing the complete Scott Jenkins Memorial Park (Phase I and II) is included as Attachment 2. An Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase II construction was issued on June 7, 2016 and two bids were received on July 19, 2016 with the lowest responsible and responsive bid being $3,292,583. This bid price is above the available construction budget of $1,400,000. Based on discussions with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, substantial costs were included in their bid to screen and amend the soil used to rough grade the rectangular and three small diamond fields during Phase I construction since the soil does not meet the design specification. This cost was not factored into construction budget. While the Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (DTCI) has been exploring options to evaluate the project scope and budget, the lowest responsible and responsive bidder agreed to hold their price beyond the typical 90 days outlined in the IFB to the end of calendar year 2016. DTCI staff in consultation with the Department of Management and Budget staff was not able to identify other funding sources capable of covering the budget deficit. ISSUES: The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services (PRCS) is challenged to meet the demand for athletic fields, particularly in the western half of the County due to the limited number of available fields. The fields proposed as part of Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase II are intended to help satisfy some of this demand. Since no cash proffers are available in this part of the County and another funding source has not been identified to cover the deficit, the

Packet Page 138



project cannot move forward without phasing the delivery of the project to stay within the available budget or finding supplemental funding to cover the deficit. The Virginia Procurement Act allows the County to negotiate scope modifications and the associated price changes with the lowest responsible bidder only as long as the extent of the scope modifications will not substantially change the character of the project. The suggested phasing and/or modification of the project to be completed in two separate phases (Phases IIA and IIB) is significant enough to change the character of the project; and therefore the Department of Finance and Procurement will need to reject all the received bids for the Phase II construction due to the lack of available budget. To allow a portion of the construction to proceed (Phase IIA), a new IFB will need to be developed with identified elements of the original scope that can be completed within the available construction budget ($1,400,000). DTCI staff estimates show that the identified elements as one rectangular field with the associated irrigation system and 60 additional parking spaces can be constructed within the available budget of ($1,400,000). The remainder of the Phase II project scope can be constructed at a later date as a separate Phase IIB when additional budget becomes available. A request for Phase IIB funding can occur as part of the FY 2018 budget process. Staff has been unable to determine with any high confidence that the Ellmore Greenhouses are, or are not in operation any longer. Staff will continue to pursue this information and report accordingly. Given the need for athletic field access in western Loudoun County, staff suggest the Board consider pursing another SPEX application to light the Scott Jenkins Memorial Park athletic fields as part of the Phase IIB project. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Board directs staff to further phase the Phase II construction scope into two phases of construction delivery (Phase IIA and IIB) and advertise an IFB for Phase IIA, this will have only minimal impacts to slightly modify the design plans. The Phase IIB portion of the project would need to obtain funding of approximately $2,450,000 (2016 dollars) through the FY 2018 budget process before it can be advertised. If the Board decides to fund the Phase IIB portion of the project as part of the FY 2018 budget process and directs staff to pursue a SPEX exception to add athletic fields lighting to the one existing and four proposed fields, the SPEX application development and processing will add approximately $100,000 to the project and the construction of the athletic fields lights, if approved, will add approximately $1,500,000 to the project. If the Board desires to construct the full Phase II scope at this time, an estimated $2,300,000 in supplemental funding will be required. The additional $2,300,000 will fund the difference between the bid price and the available construction funding ($1,892,583), additional construction contingency ($190,000), additional third party inspection and construction administration ($75,000), additional site furniture and telecommunications equipment ($35,000) and infrastructure to develop a new drinking well ($100,000) for the proposed concession building.

Packet Page 139



ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Board could direct staff to reject all the received bids for Phase II construction; modify

the Phase II scope to only include the construction of the rectangular field and associated irrigation system and 60 additional parking spaces, issue a new IFB for the modified Phase II scope, and not endorse a future phase to construct the remainder of the project.

2. The Board could direct staff to reject all the received bids for Phase II construction; phase the construction of the Phase II projects to be completed in two Phases (IIA and IIB) and issue a new IFB for Phase IIA construction to fit within the available budget; defer construction of the remaining project to a future phase (Phase IIB) with funding to be identified through the FY 2018 budget process; but not pursue a SPEX to light the athletic fields.

3. The Board could direct staff to reject all the received bids and not move forward with Phase II

of the project.

4. The Board could propose supplemental funding in the amount of $2,300,000 to fully fund the Phase II construction project and allow the existing lowest responsible and responsive bidder to be awarded the construction contract.

DRAFT MOTIONS: 1. I move that the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to reject all the received bids as part of the June 7, 2016 Invitation for Bid, phase the project to develop two phases, (Phases IIA and IIB), advertise an IFB for Phase IIA which includes the construction of a rectangular field and the associated irrigation system and the construction of 60 additional parking spaces, defer the construction of the remainder of the park to a future Phase IIB and identify funding as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget process.

I further move the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to submit a Special Exception application to the Loudoun County Department of Planning and Zoning to request the installation of athletic fields lighting at the park as part of Phase IIB.

OR 2. I move the Finance/Government Operations and Economic Development Committee

recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to reject all the received bids as part of the June 7, 2016 Invitation for Bid, phase the project to develop two phases, (Phases IIA and IIB), advertise an IFB for Phase IIA which includes the construction of a rectangular field and the associated irrigation system and the construction of 60 additional parking spaces, defer the construction of the remainder of the park to a future Phase IIB and identify funding as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget process.

Packet Page 140



OR

3. I move an alternate motion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Phase I Improvements 2. Overall Plan of Scott Jenkins Memorial Park Improvements (Phase I and II)

Packet Page 141

P a t t o n H a r r i s R u s t & A s s o c i a t e s

T F

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 1

Packet Page 142

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

Packet Page 143