The Redistricting Plan ...
Has our house district changed for us? ...nope
Has our senate district changed for us? ...nope
Has anything really changed? ...nope. If you were worried that a new representative, wanting to impress you, would ask you pesky questions like; 'Would you like any help with that closed bridge?' or 'Should we cut education and hammer teachers and UVA employees at the same time?' - well don't. Our representatives do like to riel folks up with silly questions. And don't wory, they can spell Advance Mills. They may not be able to find it on a map, but they can spell it.
Link to the house redistricting map
Link to the house redistricting map
ANOTHER DAVE TOSCANO UPDATE (from our friendly and informative neighbor to the south)
April 29, 2011
After a series of stops and starts, the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate agreed on a redistricting plan for the 100 Delegate and 40 Senate districts of the Commonwealth. It passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers, 32-5 in the Senate and 63-7 in the House. In early April, the House and Senate passed a bill that was subsequently vetoed by Governor McDonnell. The Governor's veto was targeted primarily at the Senate districts, which, not unlike the House, were drawn to protect incumbents. Over the last week, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have worked on a compromise plan that would adjust the districts somewhat in order to obtain the Governor's approval.The House plan has not changed much from its original proposal. The Congressional Plan is not yet complete, and we will need to return to Richmond to complete work on this on July 11.
What does this mean for you? For those in the 57th District, if you live in the Ivy, Jack Jouett, or a very small portion of the Free Bridge precincts, your representation will change beginning in 2012. Ivy and Jack Jouett will become part of the 25th District, now represented by Delegate Steve Landes, and part of Free Bridge will become a part of the 58th District, now represented by Delegate Bell. Cale, Woodbrook and a part of East Ivy precincts formerly represented by Delegate Bell in the 58th district will now be in the 57th, the district I represent.Delegate Bell also loses the Belfield precinct to Delegate Landes, and his district moves to the north and west by gaining a large portion of Rockingham County. The City of Charlottesville remains entirely in the 57th District. After these lines are complete, the 57th will have approximately 80,000 people in the district. Of all the districts representing portions of Albemarle, the 57th will have the largest percentage.
The Senate districts will change as well. If you live in the Agnor-Hurt, Branchlands, Dunlora, Free Bridge, Georgetown or Keswick precincts, your are now in the 17th Senate District, presently represented by Senator Edd Houck. The 25th Senate District, represented by Senator Creigh Deeds, will lose the previous precincts and gain precincts that were formerly in the 24th District, represented by Senator Emmet Hanger (Crozet, Free Union, and Brownsville). Voters in Jack Jouett, Stony Point, and Woodbrook will be split between the 25th and 17th districts.
From the beginning, I have supported a non-partisan approach to redistricting, a position that was not embraced by the General Assembly as a whole. The approach that emerged was a partisan process that primarily benefits incumbents. I am honored to represent the 57th District in its various configurations. I will be sorry to lose my voters from Ivy and Jack Jouett, but am pleased to add Cale and Woodbrook, and I will always keep the entire region in mind when I cast my votes in Richmond.
no kidding ...
A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives.
Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies.
When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member.
"You better watch him," the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. "He wants a piece of your cookie."
TOSCANO UPDATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Agreement on the Budget
March 1, 2011
At 5 p.m. on Sunday, February 27, the General Assembly approved a new budget (one day late) and adjourned. This budget represents a major improvement from that which was approved by the Republican-dominated House of Delegates two weeks ago and is a major victory for higher education, mental health, and our local school divisions.
During the debate on the House version of the budget several weeks ago, a number of us took the floor and began our criticism of the proposal with the phrase, "Transportation is important, but...", followed by a discussion of a particular issue that we considered important, from education and aid to localities to mental health and public safety. Governor McDonnell and the majority party in the House attempted, in their proposed budget, to take monies from these priorities and move them into the transportation fund. Democrats in the House said that while we wanted to increase transportation funding, we refused to take money from schools to do it.
Despite our arguments, the House passed its budget two weeks ago. The battle, however, was not over, and the budget that was finally passed late Sunday evening reflects many of the priorities that we consider important. It restores the cuts the House Republicans made to K-12 education. This dramatically affects Charlottesville and Albemarle, which, under the House plan, would have lost substantial funding. The final budget also increases investments in higher education by $100 million, including for community colleges. The University of Virginia will also receive another $3 million for cancer research and clinical trials. Public broadcasting was saved from elimination, but did incur a 10% cut.
Other budget highlights include:
- Additional money for transportation through accelerated bonding, not at the expense of schools and public safety
- A contribution of $64 million to the Rainy Day Reserve Fund
- Increased funding for Medicaid providers, restoring some cuts made in the House proposed budget
- Restoration of funding for Drug Courts and AIDS awareness cut in the House budget
- Additional money for local police (HB 599)
- Funding for judicial vacancies
- Restoration of funding for Planned Parenthood cut in the House budget
The serious problems with the $17.6 billion VRS unfunded liability have not been fully addressed by this budget. The Governor's proposal, however, to have state employees pay more back into VRS than they would receive in raises was defeated and, instead, they will be required to pay 5 percent of their salary toward their retirement and get reimbursed the full 5 percent in a pay raise. This will inject some additional money into the fund but not enough to make a substantial dent in the unfunded liability. VRS funding will continue to be an issue over the next several years unless the General Assembly starts making larger, consistent contributions to the fund. For employees in the Optional Retirement Plan, the state will not reduce its contribution this year.
I will be back in Richmond on April 4, 2011 for the special session on redistricting and the veto session. I will do my best to keep you informed of the redistricting process and what we can expect for the 57th district.
I appreciate the input you have given me over the last 47 days of session and hope you will continue to be engaged in the pressing issues facing our Commonwealth. Please feel free to contact me at my office in Charlottesville, (434) 220-1660 or deldtoscano@house.virginia.gov if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Funding Issue
January 21, 2011
Many people in this area work for state funded institutions like UVA. Employees that are funded by state funds have not received a pay raise in some years. For most, the pay is not exceptional but the Commonwealth did commit to pay for the retirement system. That may be changing. The Commonwealth has underfunded the VRS for years and even borrowed from the fund to "balance" its budget. Now there is a new proposal to have state employees help bail the Commonwealth out of the hole it dug for itself.
Today I received an email from Dave Toscano (57th District), the Delegate for Charlottesville. In the email, Del Toscano gives his take on what is happening in the GA including the VRS proposal. It's informative and can be read below. I have asked Delegate Rob Bell (our area's Delegate) for his take on the VRS funding issue and hope to add that below as soon as I recieve a response.
TOSCANO UPDATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
January 21, 2011
Greetings from Richmond. We convened the 2011 session of the General Assembly on Wednesday, January 12. The first few days are generally reserved for reorganization and few bills are actually heard. Nonetheless, there is considerable controversy already brewing the Capitol. In Gov. McDonnell's amended budget, he has proposed several million dollars in school funding for Albemarle and Charlottesville, he has yet another proposal to privatize the Alcoholic Beverage Control and, in perhaps the most controversial proposal of all, he has suggested that state employees be forced to contribute a portion of their salary to the state retirement system.
I have signed onto legislation that will restore the school funding cuts to Albemarle and Charlottesville. I have also expressed serious concerns about the governor's plan to force employees, most of whom have not received a raise in several years, to contribute to the retirement system.
This year, we are confronting a major problem with the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) and its $17.6 billion "unfunded liability," which is approximately the amount of money appropriated from the General Fund in a year. The term "unfunded liability" describes the ability of a retirement plan to pay the future benefits due to employees if they retired immediately. Since all employees will not retire immediately, sound financial planning does not require that a fund be 100% funded. In fact, economists believe that if a plan is 80% funded, and so long as contributions are continuing to be made into the fund and investments perform adequately, a retirement fund is fine.
The problem with the VRS is that we have consistently underfunded our system while the stock market, where this money is invested, has not brought the returns to which we have become accustomed. In addition, over the last twenty years, the General Assembly has actually met the required actuarial funding request in only three years. If we had made those contributions, our assets would be $5.4 billion more than we have at present, thereby putting less stress on the system. The problem has been exacerbated by the $620 million the General Assembly "borrowed" from the retirement plan to balance the budget last year. I did not support this and voted against the budget, partially due to this provision. We would be in a much better position today had we not taken that money from VRS.
Some economists believe that the problem is even more serious because the actuarial assumptions underpinning upon the unfunded liability figures are perceived to be too liberal. If that is the case, the fund could experience problems even greater than are now being projected.
One overlooked portion of the governor's proposal which could have considerable impact on state employees in our area, including faculty at the University of Virginia, is his plan to decrease the amount of state contributions to what is called the "Optional Retirement Plan." Under this plan, members of ORP will have their state contributions reduced from 10.4% of their salaries to 8.5% of their salaries, and, unlike VRS employees, who will receive a 3% raise to partially offset the change, ORP employees will receive nothing. It is estimated that approximately 25,000 employees around the state are enrolled in this plan, including faculty at the University, VCU, Virginia Tech, George Mason, William and Mary, ODU, and Longwood. At UVA, 2,156 employees are enrolled in ORP compared to 6,210 at VRS, so the stakes are high.
Given the numbers of people involved and the fact that we will not solve this problem overnight, it is important to move deliberately, getting as much information as we can and as much input as possible, before developing a long term strategy to solve the VRS problem. Moving too quickly will be a disservice to employees and interject levels of inequity that are unfair and could create unintended consequences for the future. If you have any suggestions on what we should do to address this problem, I would appreciate hearing from you.
Local Heroine Saves a Life
May 25, 2010
Kathy Uricek, our local mail carrier likely saved a local resident by being alert and proactive. Mrs. McDonald suffered a stroke in May and Kathy noticed mail was not being picked up. Kathy tried to contact Mrs. McDonald and when she was not able to verify her status, she called the police. Mrs. McDonald was found unable to move after suffering a serious stroke.
Kathy's attentiveness, quick thinking and persistence undoubtedly saved Mrs. McDonald's life.
In a time when there is so much negative news it is really nice to hear something like this a be reminded that we don't have to look very far to find a heroine.
Dixon Trash Disposal goes "Green"
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tony Townsend tells us that the Dixon trash contractor, used by most of the people in our area has upgraded its service. Dixon's website explains " If you are a customer of Dixon Trash Disposal, you'll be happy to know that your garbage will no longer be dumped into landfill. Thanks to a new relationship with van der Linde Recycling, Dixon Trash Disposal has now added a service for trash removal that will help reduce their customers' impact on the environment by allowing more than 90% of their garbage to be recycled. The service is called Single Stream Recycling (also known as 'fully commingled')."
What this means for Dixon customers is that you can save a trip to the recycling center and just put all your trash and recyclables out and Dixon will cart it away ... and at no extra charge!
ADVANCE MILLS BRIDGE TIMELINE
1790-1830: Local farming begins shift from tobacco to grain
1833: John Fray opens a Mill and the economic development in the area begins to grow.
1880s: The size and scale of the Mills operations were comparable to others in Albemarle and Charlottesville.
1907: Advance Mills has telephone and Post Office. Along with Earlysville, Advance Mills was most important community in this part of Albemarle County. In the first decade of 1900, Frederick Neve described in his memoirs that he crossed the (Advance Mills Bridge) and it was a plank structure with no sides (…and no truss).
1910-1940: Advance Mills declines ecomomically, yielding to Earlysville and Charlottesville.
1942: Last historic wooden Advance Mills Bridge washed away.
1943: A two-span used (built before 1901) cast iron (west span: Pratt pony, east span: full Pratt) truss bridge moved to Advance Mills. The bridge is 204 feet and is supported by two poured concrete piers. This is the first truss bridge ever put into Advance Mills.
1945, March 15th: Frays Mill burned down to the foundation.
1946: Fray's Store burned down to the foundation.
1950: Cinder block store built on old historic Fray store foundation opened for business.
1988: Walter Eades, resident of Durrett Ridge Road, circulated a petition to upgrade and pave Durrett Ridge Road and everyone in the area signed the petition. He was told “in 5 or 6 years” – in 1999 he came back to the BOS and was told they had no money to spend in Advance Mills.
1999 inventory by VDOT, VDHR and FHWA of bridges in Virginia finds that Advance Mills Bridge is a common type that is not historic.
1999 (April 7): Advance Mills Bridge has a weight limit of only 8 tons. Board of Supervisors rejecst VDOT request to replace bridge and opts to "maintain" bridge for 10 to 15 years. BOS also decides to pursue historic designation. BOS decisions at this meeting were the groundwork for all the future problems in Advance Mills.
Late 1999/2000, Historical designation given to Advance Mills Village is one of local significance. The bridge, however, is designated as only a contributing structure.
Between 2000-July 2006 VDOT incrementally reduces load limit of bridge from 18 tons to 3 tons.
Spring 2007 VDOT permanently closes bridge and declares that it cannot be restored due to major structural failure.
Spring 2007 Advance Mills Homeowners Association circulates petition requesting Board of Supervisors (BOS) to request immediate bridge replacement with a temporary structure. Petition results in signatures from over 540 local homeowners.
Summer 2007 BOS and VDOT confer on the problem.
August 2007 BOS requests VDOT to scope and plan for removal of bridge and replace it with a temporary bridge because VDOT indicates that a permanent solution cannot be completed until at least early 2012.
Late August 2007 VDOT indicates to BOS that it will proceed with planning for the temporary bridge utilizing available state maintenance funds.
September 2007 VDOT works with Virginia Department of Historical Resources (VDHR) and FHWA to ascertain if the temporary bridge can be decoupled from the permanent bridge replacement for the purpose of fulfilling the Federal Section 106 process.
October 9, 2007 VDHR provides consultative input to the FHWA with regard to the need for a Federal Section 106 review of the state funded temporary bridge and FHWA co-funded new bridge as a single undertaking.
October 29, 2007 FHWA formally responds to VDOT/VDHR that they have “concluded that the permanent bridge replacement improvement and temporary bridge replacement improvement are mutually exclusive and neither is dependent upon the other for its justification”.
November 2007 VDOT moves ahead to scope the temporary bridge project in preparation for a January RFP and an April 2008 opening of the temporary bridge.
December 7, 2008 Carol Legard of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sends VDHR an opinion that the projects should be reviewed together if Federal funds are assumed to be part of the long term solution.
December 18, 2007 VDHR writes VDOT and FHWA expressing their concern about the decision to separate the two projects while acknowledging that “it is ultimately the Federal agency’s responsibility to establish the scope of its undertaking and to define the project’s APE. The role of the state historic preservation office which in Virginia is DHR under Section 106 is one of consultation” only. VDHR also notes the prospect of a legal challenge if the project is separated, but concludes by agreeing to “accept the proposed mitigation “with additional stipulations to be included in a MOA.
Early January 2008 VDOT informs BOS that RFP for the temporary bridge will be advertised on January 29th 2008.
January 28, 2008 FHWA informally informs VDOT that they would like to reconsider their decision to separate the two projects based upon their concern that the current detour is not adequate. Since that inadequate detour is presumably the local unpaved road that residents have been forced to use, resulting in school bus accidents, residents are flummoxed. VDOT requests that FHWA hold off sending a formal reconsideration pending VDOT’s exploration of alternate detours possibilities. VDOT also decides to not issue the RFP.
January 31 2008 VDHR emails Mary Kostishak (President Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association) stating “you must understand that DHR’s role in the process is one of review and comment. We do not “approve” projects and we can only respond to what is provided to us by VDOT and FHWA”.
February 5, 2008 VDOT provides FHWA with two alternate detour proposals.
February 6, 2008 VDOT informs BOS of their decision to not issue the RFP.
February 7, 2008 members of BOS, Advance Mills Village Homeowners Association (AMVHOA) and VDOT meet with FHWA. FHWA indicates that they hope to issue their formal reconsideration in approximately one week. FHWA also indicates that they are reviewing the VDOT alternate detour proposals but have reached no final conclusion. FHWA requests a letter from BOS reaffirming their support of the Temporary Bridge and their support of the alternate detour.
February 7, 2008 – Members of Albemarle BOS & AMVHOA meet with Senator Deeds and Representative Bell to reaffirm the Community’s desire for the immediate Temporary Bridge. Rob Bell contacts Congressman Goode to enlist his assistance.
February 13, 2008 – Albemarle BOS provides FHWA with the letter of support that was requested.
February 15, 2008 – FHWA advises BOS/AMVHOA that they reaffirm their decision that VDOT may move ahead with keeping the Temporary Bridge separate from the permanent solution and may immediately advertise it for an April 2008 opening, thereby allowing citizens almost immediate access to a bridge crossing.
February 22, 2008 - Quintin Elliot, VDOT meets with members of Albemarle BOS and Neighborhood Association to review current status of bridge. Mr. Elliot opened the meeting by announcing that he has decided to now recommend to Pierce Homer, the Virginia Transportation Secretary that, despite a year’s work on this project, VDOT withdraw its approval of this project, utilize the committed funding for other projects such as repairing the Dickerson Road bridge, and begins plans for a more permanent solution that would cost over $3M, require $2.4M in Federal funds and not be open to traffic until October 2010, almost two and a half years later than originally proposed. Should the Transportation Secretary approve Mr. Elliot’s recommendation next week, Albemarle County will have to begin the planning process anew with really no assurance of future funding since VDOT will be requesting most of the needed money from the Federal Government. While Mr. Elliot contends that these Federal funds are already available in VDOT’s six year master plan, the fact is that the Federal government has only provisionally allocated this money and has yet to authorize it. Without this specific authorization, VDOT has no assurance that money will actually be available for this new project when needed in FY2010.
February 25, 2008- Representative Bell informs AMVHOA that he continues to try to contact VDOT Commissioner and VA Transportation Secretary on our behalf. To date, neither has returned his phone calls.
February 28, 2008- AMVHOA Reps and Ann Mallek meet with Butch Davies, senior member of VA Transportation Board. Butch informs us that decision has been made to not install the temporary bridge.
February 29, 2008- VDOT Commissioner sends letter to Albemarle BOS informing them that VDOT will not install temporary bridge and will, in stead, pursue an accelerated, reduced scope permanent solution.
Hunting in Advance Mills
Some area landowners have expressed concern over finding hunters on their land without their permission. Click on Virginia Hunting Regulations for a detailed listing of Virginia's regulations governing hunters.
Here are a few brief items from Virginia's Hunting Regulations:
Hunting on Private Property
Hunters are reminded that it is unlawful to hunt on private property without the permission of the landowner and hunters must have the permission of the landowner to track or retrieve wounded game on private property.
Property not posted
It is unlawful to hunt any unposted property without permission of the landowner and is punishable by a fine of up to $500.
On Posted Property
it is unlawful to hunt without written permission of the landowner and is punishable by a fine of up to $2500 and/or 12 months in jail.
Shooting From the Road is Illegal
Shooting at wildlife from a vehicle and/or from or across a public road is illegal.
Penalties include: fines, license revocation and confiscation of firearms.
Hunting With Dogs
When the chase begins on other lands, fox hunters and coon hunters may follow their dogs on prohibited lands, and hunters of all other game, when the chase begins on other lands, may go upon prohibited lands to retrieve their dogs, but may not carry firearms or archery tackle on their persons or hunt any game while thereon. The use of vehicles to retrieve dogs on prohibited lands shall be allowed only with the permission of the landowner or his agent. Any person who goes on prohibited lands to retrieve his dogs must identify himself when requested by the landowner or his agent.
In Albemarle County
It is unlawful to hunt within 50 feet of the road.
It is unlawful to transport, possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road or highway.