HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-06September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000235
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 6, 1995, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. John Pollock was present to say that the Batesville Ruritan Club is
seeking the assistance of the Board in their planned project to bring a public
recreation facility to Batesville. They are asking the State Forestry
Department to lease them a portion of the Forestry property in Batesville.
The Club feels it will be able to provide an excellent public facility for the
neighborhood without the expenditure of tax funds. The Ruritans ask that this
Board adopt a resolution endorsing the project and request the Forestry
Department to lease part of the old State Shed property to the Ruritans.
Mrs. Thomas said this property has essentially become a used car lot
because it is being used for storage of old vehicles. Mr. Pollock said the
Forestry Department acts as an agent for the Federal Government in disposing
of surplus vehicles from the Department of Defense. It is an eyesore and
because it is State property they do not have to abide by the County Zoning
Ordinance. The Ruritans think their request would be a good use of the
property, and would also get rid of the eyesore.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board will receive an official request on
this question. Mr..Tucker said Mr. Pollock submitted a request, and staff is
looking at it, but is not ready to make a recommendation yet.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4 on the
Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Item 5.1. Proclamation proclaiming October as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels this item should be brought to everyone's
attention. Reading just the statistics in the proclamation shows that in the
Commonwealth of Virginia in a one-year period, 29,805 women and 8640 children
sought domestic violence services. That is overwhelming when you consider all
who suffer from domestic violence who have not sought any services.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board proclaimed October as
Domestic Violence Awareness month in Albemarle County.
Item 5.2. Resolution requesting that Emerald Ridge Subdivision roads be
taken into the State System of Secondary Roads.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
As requested by the County's Engineering staff, the following resolution
requesting acceptance of roads in Emerald Ridge Subdivision was adopted by the
vote set out above:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Emerald Ridge Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 6, 1995,
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record-
ed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, T~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Emerald Ridge Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 6, 1995, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re-
quirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)
Saddleback Drive from Station 11+25, left edge of
pavement of State Route 684, 2018 linear feet to sta-
tion 31+18.50, left edge of pavement of Saddleback
Court with a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on a plat
recorded 6/27/89 in Deed Book 1054, pages 492-496, for
a length of 0.38 mile. Additional drainage easement
shown on plat recorded 8/10/95 in Deed Book 1485,
pages 7-18.
2)
Saddleback Court from Station 9+74.49, edge of pave-
ment of Highlander Way, 385 linear feet to station
13+59.51, edge of pavement at the end of cul-de-sac
with a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on a plat record-
ed 6/27/89 in Deed Book 1054, pages 492-496, for a
length of 0.07 mile. Additional drainage easement
shown on plat recorded 8/10/95 in Deed Book 1485,
pages 7-18.
Total 0.45 mile.
Item 5.3. Request Resolution of Intent to set a public hearing for
October 4, 1995, to amend Chapter 8, Article 1, In General, of the Code of
Albemarle, in Section 8-1.3(a) re: Split Billing of Real Estate Taxes.
Staff noted that the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY 1995-96 was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 7, 1995. The ordinance was based
on the split billing of real estate taxes effective for tax year 1996 in
effect projecting additional revenue of $15.0 million for capital improve-
ments. Section 8 of the Code of Albemarle must be revised to adopt split
billing of the real estate tax. Staff recommends that the amendment be
scheduled for a public hearing on October 4, 1995.
By the recorded vote set out above, this matter was scheduled for a
public hearing on October 4, 1995.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
0002.37
Item 5.4a. Appropriation Request: Metropolitan Planning Organization
Grant, $48,625 (Form #95011).
It was noted in the staff's report that the 1995-96 Unified Planning
Work Program was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization. The
program includes transportation studies and on-going planning activities,
including a Transportation Improvement Program which lists road and transit
improvements for the upcoming three years, and the Twenty Year Charlottesville
Area Transportation Study (CATS) which is updated every five years. Other
activities address traffic congestion reduction, city-county bicycle and
pedestrian improvements and public-private transit development. The work to
be performed by the County of Albemarle will be funded by a $38,899 Federal
Grant, a $4863 State Grant, and a $4863 transfer from the Planning Depart-
ment's approved budget.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95011
FUND: GPJuNT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 FUNDING FOR METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1120881301110000
1120881301601700
1120881302110000
1120881302601700
1120881309110000
1120881309601700
DESCRIPTION
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$4,075 00
50 00
37,400 00
100 00
6,900 00
100 00
$48,625 00
REVENI3E
2120824000240500
2120833000330001
2120851000512004
DESCRIPTION
GRAi~T REVENIIE-STATE
GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$4,863.00
38,899.00
4,863 . 00
' $48,625.00
Item 5.4b. Appropriation Request: Community Crime Prevention Grant,
$20,275 (Form ~95012) .
It was noted in the staff's report that for several years the County of
Albemarle has experienced a steady increase in its crime rate in burglaries,
larcenies and motor vehicle thefts. The purpose of this grant is to continue
to develop a comprehensive crime prevention network for the community since
enhanced departmental crime prevention capabilities seems to have been a
factor in some target crime category decreases for 1994.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) has renewed Community
Crime Prevention Grant 96-B8421 in the amount of $20,275, with $15,206 being
in Federal funds and $5069 in local cash matching funds which will be funded
out of current budgeted expenditures.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of
appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95012
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY CRIME
PREVENTION GRANT
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1152029404110000
1152029404210000
1152029404312700
1152029404550000
1152029404600100
1152029404800100
000238
REVENUE
2152033000330404
2152051000512004
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SALARIES-REGULAR $10,515.00
FICA 804.00
CONSULTANT 867.00
TRAVEL 500.00
SUPPLIES 685.00
EQUIPMENT 6,904.00
TOTAL $20,275.00
DESCRIPTION
DCJS-COMMUNITY CRIME
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
A24OUNT
$15,206.00
5,069.00
$20,275.00
Item 5.4c. Appropriation Request: Housing Assistance Payment Program,
$1,413,393 (Form #95013).
It was noted in the staff's report that the Section 8 Housing Program is
an on-going rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8-001 program provides
housing assistance with 178 subsidies. This program is funded through June,
2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section
8-003 program provides housing assistance for 35 units.
The final amount of the Federal HUD grant will be determined by the
final amount of assistance rendered to residents. It is estimated that the
8-001 grant will total approximately $1,062,987. The 8-002 grant will be
approximately $208,546, and the 8-003 grant will be approximately $141,860, a
total of $1,413,393.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95013
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 FUNDING FOR SECTION 8
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1122781920300205
1122781920312800
1122781920579001
1122781921300205
1122781921579001
1122781922300205
1122781922579001
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
AUDIT
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$94,079.00
400.00
968,508.00
19,372.00
189,174.00
12,725.00
129,135.00
$1,413,393 . 00
REVENTJE
2122733000330015
2122733000330016
2122733000330017
DESCRIPTION
SECTION 8-001 GRAlqT
SECTION 8-002 GRANT
SECTION 8-003 GRANT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,062,987.00
208,546.00
141,860 . 00
$1,413,393.00
Item 5.4d. Appropriation Request: Soil and Water Conservation,
$10,754.52 (Form #95014).
It was noted in the staff's report that on October 7, 1993, the Chairman
of the Board of Supervisors signed a Memorandum of Agreement between the
County of Albemarle and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recre-
ation. The agreement provides a grant to the Department of Engineering to
supplement a stormwater and non-point source pollution study being sponsored
by the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of
Virginia. The grant outlines 16 milestones ranging from data collection on
Best Management Practices to education and outreach activities for pollution
reduction. The grant was for a two-year term beginning October 1, 1993, and
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
O00Za9
ending on September 30, 1995. The remaining $10,754.52 balance of the grant
needs to be reappropriated to complete activities.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995'-96
NI/MBER: 95014
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 FUNDING FOR SOIL AND WATER
GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1154041055520100 POSTAL SERVICES
1154041055950012 SOIL & WATER-DWP PROJECT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$200.00
10, 754.52
$10,954.52
REVENUE
2154033000330310
DESCRIPTION
EPA-DIV SOIL & WATER DWP
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$10,954.52
$10,954.52
Item 5.4e. Appropriation Request: Teensight, $14,000 (Form #95027).
It was noted in the staff's report that Teensight is a program that
provides long-term training and counseling to at-risk youth in the community
to enable them to become productive members of the community. The majority of
their funding is derived from Federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
funds, although the County provides an additional $19,600 for an expanded
program for teen mothers at the three county high schools. Due to Federal
funding reductions instituted this summer, Teensight has lost $184,000 in a
second year grant from JTPA and is requesting a one-time grant of $14,000 from
the County to help offset this loss of Federal funds, which is approximately
60 percent of their budget. The City of Charlottesville provided a $20,000
emergency grant to Teensight in June, 1995.
With welfare reform initiatives and mandates on the horizon for
Albemarle County, Teensight is providing a valuable service to the community
in either helping at-risk youth to become independent of public assistance or
to prevent them from ever needing to receive public welfare. The program also
attempts to focus on longer term training to help these youth secure jobs
beyond minimum wage to enable them to remain self-sufficient.
Staff recommends approval of Teensight's funding request in the amount
of $14,000 for several reasons. The program has been viable and successful
for three years and has provided preventative services targeted towards
building self-sufficient adults, a priority focus in human services at this
time. It also seems short-sighted to reduce training opportunities offered to
at-risk youth in the community in the face of impending welfare reform
measures that will demand these types of programs. However, since the
long-term training component of Teensight has not been reviewed by the Program
Review Committee in any detail prior to this request, staff does recommend
that only one-half of the total appropriation be distributed to Teensight at
this time with the remaining $7000 to be allocated in mid-year contingent on a
positive review by the Program Review Committee in December. This review
would monitor the quality of the program, the impact of the program on
Albemarle residents, and Teensight's success to date in securing other funding
resources.
Mrs. Humphris said everyone needs to understand what a marvelous
situation this is for prevention. As the County enters into the local
attempts for welfare reform, this can be an important part of that. All
should recognize Teensight and how valuable it is to the community. She
recognized Ms. Alicia Lugo and others who were present to represent Teensight.
Mrs. Humphris said she is happy to support the funding request due to a
shortfall in some funding, and she wishes them luck in endeavors which will be
undertaken by Teensight to raise the remainder of the funding needed.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000240
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95027
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR FOCUS
TEENSIGHT PROGRAM
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100059000566210 FOCUS-TEENSIGHT
TOTAL
REVENUE
2100051000510100
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$7,000.00
$7,OOO.OO
AMOUNT
$7,000.00
$7,00O.O0
Item 5.4f. Appropriation Request: Public Safety Grant, $10,388.17
(Form %95019).
It was noted in the staff's report that the County has been experiencing
rapid growth especially in the areas of retailing and residential development.
This growth has placed increasing demands on the County Police Department.
Major areas of demand are traffic related. In 1992, a Traffic Unit was
established and a $16,839 Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) grant for the
period October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995, was received to expand the
unit to a more functional level by funding overtime for traffic checkpoints,
selective enforcement and education operations. A balance of $10,388.17
remains to be appropriated for the period July 1, 1995, through September 30,
1995. The overtime work to be performed by the County Police Department will
be funded by the balance of this Federal Grant. There are no local matching
requirements.
Mrs. Humphris brought the attention of the members to this item, and
said that the money to fund the drug/alcohol stops that happen during night-
time hours comes from this special grant. These programs would not be
possible if the County had not received the grant.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95019
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 1995-96 FUNDING FOR TRAFFIC UNIT
EXPANSION GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1153031145129900 REIMBURSABLE OVERTIME
1153031145210000 FICA
1153031145300205 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$8,086.72
618.45
1,683.00
$10,388.17
REVENUE
2153033000330306
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
FEDERAL GRANT $10,388.17
TOTAL $10,388.17
Item 5.4g. Appropriation Request: Lambs Road Project, $6810 (Form
#95020).
It was noted in the staff's report that in February, 1995 the Albemarle
County School Board approved granting an easement to the Virginia Department
of Highways for improvements to the intersection of Lambs Road at Hydraulic
Road and the northeast side of Albemarle High School. In exchange for this
easement, the School Division received payment in the amount of $6810. This
request is to use these funds to replace and replant shrubbery and trees in
September 6, 1995 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 4
the affected area, to reinstall the parking lot lights and to install curb and
additional sidewalks on the east side of the entrance to Lambs Road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NI3MBER: 95020
FI/ND: CAPITAL-SCHOOLS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: LAMBS ROAD PROJECT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1900062420800685 VDOT-LAMBS ROAD PROJECT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$6,810.00
$6,810.00
REVENUE
2900051000510100
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
FUND BALANCE $6,810.00
TOTAL $6,810.00
Item 5.4h. Appropriation Request: Old Brook Road Pathway, $6686 (Form
~95021).
It was noted in the staff's report that in FY 94-95, $15,250 was
appropriated to construct two segments of asphalt pathway to provide a
continuous pathway system on the west side of Old Brook Road (Route 653) to
Rio Road. At the time this project was approved, the least expensive alterna-
tive was construction of the asphalt pathway outside of Highway Department
(VDOT) right-of-way by acquiring an easement to cross private property.
Mr. Bowerman said that subsequent to the appropriation being made, a
property owner decided that due to the impact this would have on his property,
he would not grant an easement. Staff looked at the project again, and
decided that if curb and gutter were installed in the front of this person's
property, the pathway could be located immediately adjacent to the curb and
gutter in VDOT's right-of-way and it would not encroach on his property at
all. The request for $6686 in additional funding is to install that curb and
gutter in order to get the pathway. It is needed due to site specific
drainage problems. The revised project costs are:
1156 feet of 4' wide pathway
532 feet of concrete curb and gutter
Surveying and easements
Vehicle crossing sign
Relocation of fire hydrant (3')
Contingency
Total Project cost
$ 9958
10,108
5O0
7O
3OO
1000
$21,936
Less FY 95-96 appropriation
Required additional funds
$15,250
$ 6,686
Funds for this project can be taken from the remaining Capital Improve-
ment Program Fund Balance from other projects.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95021
FUND: CAPITAL-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: OLD BROOK ROAD PATHWAY PROJECT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1901081010950002 OLD BROOK PATHWAY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$6,686.00
$6,686.00
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
'000;
REVENUE
2901051000510100
DESCRIPTION AMOLINT
FUND BALANCE $6,686.00
TOTAL $6,686.00
Item 5.4i. Appropriation Request: Miscellaneous School Grants,
$14,198.64 (Form #95022).
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on August 14,
1995, the School Board approved the following requests for appropriation and
reappropriation.
The reappropriation of the Environmental Education Grant for Hollymead
Elementary School in the amount of $5000. The funds will be used to
continue the project, "The Outdoor Classroom" for the 1995-96 school
year. Students will be involved in all phases of the project requiring
them to use critical-thinking, problem-solving and decision-making
skills.
The reappropriation of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) Grant for Woodbrook Elementary School in the amount of $1998.64.
These funds will be used to continue the project which is designed to
kindle interest in the NCTM Standards, provide information and encourage
interest with parents and students in grades K-3.
The appropriation of the Artists-in Education Residency Grants for Cale
Elementary School in the amount of $5494.00 and Hollymead Elementary
School in the amount of $1706.00. These grants will center upon
activities that develop awareness of African arts that have influenced,
and will continue to influence, culture in America.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95022
FIIND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS FY 1994-96 SCHOOL GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1310460205600000 ENVIRONMENTAL GR3kNT-MISC MATERIALS $5,000.00
1310460212601300 MATHEMATICS GRANT-INSTR MATERIALS 1,998.64
1310460214312500 ARTISTS IN RESIDENCY-PROF SVCS INSTRU 5,494.00
1310460205312500 ARTISTS IN RESIDENCY-PROF SVCS INSTRU 1,706.00
TOTAL $14,198.64
REVENUE
2310424000330113
2310451000510100
2310424000240285
2310424000240284
DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT
FI/ND BALANCE
VA COMM ARTS #96-0161
VA COMM ARTS #960139
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5, 000.00
1,998.64
5,494.00
1,706.00
$14,198.64
Item 5.4j. Appropriation Request: Education - Auto Stipend for
Superintendent, $1000 (Form #95023).
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting on August 14,
1995, the School Board approved the following transfer of funds. During the
School Board's retreat on June 19, 1995, the School Board voted to increase
the Superintendent's stipend for automobile travel by $1000 for FY 1995-96.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was adopted.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEA_R: 1995-96
NI/MBER: 95023
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTO STIPEND FOR SUPERINTENDENT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1241062120160200 STIPENDS-NON INSTRUCTIONAL
1241090610999981 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
Si,000.00
(1,000.00)
$0.00
1. REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
000 ,43
TOTAL
$0.00
$0.00
Item 5.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 1 and August
22, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.6. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program
Report and Monthly Report for July, 1995 was received as information.
Item 5.7. Copy of ABG Financial Services, Inc., Monitoring Report for
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.), received as information.
Item 5.8.
Carey, Clerk, re:
follows:
Letter dated August 22, 1995, from A. G. Tucker to Ella W.
Current Projects Construction Schedule, received as
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SEPTEMBER 1, 1995
ESTIMATED
ROUTE COMP. DATE
NO. LOCATION STATUS
29 From Hydraulic Rd (Rt 743) Construction 89% Complete Dec 95
To N of Rio Rd (Rt 631)
240 Rt 240 Bridge Replacement Construction 42% Complete Dec 95
Near Iht Rt 250
1-64 Bridge Repair - Construction Complete Sep 95
Various Locations
29 From N of Rio Road (Route 631) Construction 19% Complete May 97
To S Fork Rivanna River
671 Bridge Replacement at Construction 22% Complete Nov 95
Millington
Item 5.9. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for
June 26, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.10. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority for
July 10, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.11. Copy of letter dated August 11, 1995, from the Commonwealth
Department of Education addressed to Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent, noting
approval of a Title I, Improving America's Schools, Act of 1994 grant in the
amount of $550,000. This grant is for educationally deprived children.
Received as information.
Item 5.12. Letter dated August 25, 1995, from Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., to
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: the James Madison Commemorative Coin Act and a
letter he sent to fellow Representatives urging them to support this Act,
received as information.
Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated August 23, 1995, from Julie L. Vosmik,
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, addressed to Mrs. F. Palmer Weber,
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
0002
advising that Malvern, Albemarle County, was entered on the National Register
of Historic Places on August 4, 1995, received as information.
Item 5.14. Letter dated August 25, 1995, from the Honorable George
Allen addressed to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, re: Self-Employment
Microenterprises. The Governor said the Commonwealth is offering the Virginia
Economic Development Corporation a Virginia Enterprise Initiative Grant in the
amount of $70,000. This effort will provide over $1.0 million in grants and
technical assistance funding to be matched with $4.0 million from local,
private and public partners.
Item 5.15. Copy of the 1995-1996 Work Plan for the County Development
Departments, was received as information.
It was noted that last year was the first time the Work Plan for the
Albemarle County Development Departments was distributed to the relevant
boards/commissions, development community and interested members of the
public. This informational listing is intended as a means of assessing and
prioritizing the many items which occupy the time and resources of the
County's Engineering, Inspections, Planning/Community Development and Zoning
Departments. This comprehensive annual report is broken into four identifi-
able categories: 1) the alphabetized work item; 2) the lead department and
any supporting departments; 3) the expected outcome/product; and, 4) the
anticipated time schedule.
This product is intended as a communication tool to the many "customers"
that the County's Development Departments serve. To keep all interested
parties informed and up-to-date, the work plan will be revised and made
available yearly. The time frames noted are estimates based on the latest
obtainable information and are subject to change without prior notice as
workloads and priorities shift.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 1993; January 11,
March 15 (N), June 28 and August 9, 1995.
Mr. Bowerman had read June 2, 1993, pages 39 (#20) to End, and found
them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read June 2, 1993, pages 13 (#7b) to Page 25 (~14b),
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Martin had read January 11, 1995, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read June 2, 1993, page 1 to page 13 (~7b), and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read March 15, 1995 (Night), page 1 to page 14 (#9), and
found them to be in order. Mrs. Thomas noted a correction on Page 10 of March
15, 1995 (Night), fifth paragraph, tenth line, in the sentence beginning
"Staff has" the word "not" should be inserted so that the sentence reads
"Staff has not convinced her that this is an appropriate plan .... "
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve the minutes which had been read, noting the one correction. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Improvements to Moormans
River and Sugar Hollow Road, Report on.
Ms. Angela Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. She intro-
duced Mr. Charlie Williams, a new member of staff who is transferring from the
Fairfax County Office. Mr. Williams will be the Assistant Resident Engineer
for Construction and Preliminary Engineering.
00024.5
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Tucker said her most recent report on Route 614 is in reference to a
meeting held last Friday with five or more property owners. They met and
walked Route 614 for approximately two hours looking at specific locations
which are of concern. VDOT is addressing some of those concerns by raising
the road in certain locations in order to minimize damage to trees. The
property owners are also concerned about the tree canopy, and do not want any
more trees cut as VDOT widens the road to get 18 feet of pavement through some
of the areas. Ms. Tucker said she believes this can be done by raising the
road in some locations and tieing it back to the existing pavement. She does
not know if VDOT will get hard-surface pavement on 614 this winter. That will
have to be done under a special award contract. Between now and the winter
months, there may be a surface treatment applied if there is a 16 to 18-foot
path clear for tar and gravel.
Mrs. Humphris asked the definition of a special award contract. Ms.
Tucker said it is a process used by VDOT to secure a contract for a certain
dollar amount. It is put out under procurement guidelines as a quick way to
get a contractor without having actual road plans to follow. The contractor
will come in and do what is called "scheduled work" where the road is ready
for an application of a material.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Ms. Tucker knows who decided to get a 50-foot
right-of-way and hard-surface the road. Ms. Tucker said she does not have a
specific name, but knows that this is promoted and supported by the Richmond
Office. The Local Office has told the Richmond Office that they can work with
a 40-foot right-of-way. The owners of a few properties do not wish to donate
additional right-of-way. Because of a transition to the one-lane bridges
along that road, they can work within a 40-foot right-of-way.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the person in the Richmond Office would be aware
of the fragile environment that Route 614 serves. Mr. Perkins said there have
been representatives from the Richmond Office on the site. Ms. Tucker said
she believes there have been a few drive-throughs with people from Richmond,
but she does not know their names. Mr. Don Askew from the Culpeper Office has
ridden Route 614 with his boss, Mr. Claude Garver.
Mr. Bowerman said he has not been out to look at the river, but he read
the memorandum which Mrs. Thomas wrote to Mr. Bob Tucker. He asked her to go
over her observations about the lack of channelization. Mrs. Thomas said it
is her understanding that in places where the river was used as a borrow pit,
the river has been left without channels and that could be detrimental to the
road during the next storm. Just to be sure everybody has thought it through,
she thinks VDOT should present a plan for what they will do with the borrow
pit areas so County staff can evaluate the plans. She knows that borrow pits
can scar the dry land, and these are borrow pits in the middle of a scenic
river. The concept horrifies her, but it has already been done. The question
now is, when everything is finished, what kind of channel will be left? She
saw a spot where the channel had been inadvertently dug out, and was now aimed
directly at a house. Without having some discussion of exactly what is
planned, staff does not know if it will be left that way, or if the channel
will be left in a way that is safe to buildings and the river banks. She
asked if the Board should make this request in a formal way.
Ms. Tucker said that last Friday they looked at a portion of the river
which is of concern and how a section was rechanneled. Where a section is
more "U" shaped than "V" shaped, VDOT has been asked to restore that area.
They hope to work with Mr. David Hirschmann to determine the best method for
restoring that portion of the channel. As far as a borrow area, a lot of the
material not from the river bed itself was pushed away and carried to the
road. At this time, VDOT has received permission from the County to use
material that is found in the reservoir. In this way they can assist the
County in the clean-out of the reservoir. It will also use material that is
native to the area to build up the road in the locations she mentioned
earlier.
Mr. Bowerman said that shortly after the storm occurred, and after the
Board knew the damage that was there, it expressed concern about the river and
the amount of work needed in order to put 5he road back in order. It was made
clear to this Board that only the minimum amount of work necessary to recon-
struct a road that was safe from periodic flooding would be done. Based upon
what he has heard, it seems the destruction that has taken place is
unconscionable.
OOO246
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Tucker is aware of the sensitivity of this situa-
tion. Things that have happened out there are "over her head". He has
discussed this with Mr. Askew and Mr. Bill Roudabush to make them aware of the
sensitivity of this area, and of the concerns this Board has. Mr. Bowerman
said he was not directing his comments to Ms. Tucker.
Mrs. Humphris said she recognizes that this was not Ms. Tucker's fault,
but the problem is that this Board does not seem to be able to get beyond Ms.
Tucker to find out what happened, who took charge and make the decisions that
might not have been in the best interest of this community, this road, this
watershed, and most importantly, is what has been done the best thing that
could have been done. Learning from this experience, when the next flood
occurs, what will V/DOT do then? The Board does not want a repeat performance.
It seems that nameless people came in and made the decisions. Mrs. Humphris
said she went out on Sunday and between what the flood did, and what VDOT
contractors have done in response to the flood, it is not the same place that
it used to be. It was supposed to have been returned, as much as possible, to
be the same place it used to be.
Mr. Perkins said he does not think that can be attained, except over a
period of time. Mrs. Humphris said she knows VDOT could not put it back, but
they did damage in the river and on the banks. Mr. Perkins said that some-
times damage must be done to correct the problem. He hears two different
arguments. One is that there is no channelization where the borrow pits are,
but yet he sees the pictures which were shown to the Board complaining about
channelization. He said it is not going to be pretty in the area for a while.
Mrs. Humphris said that is not what she is talking about. She does not
expect it to be pretty. She expects the trees that were down and dead to lie
there and decay or wash away over time. What she does not expect is for live
trees to be bulldozed to make room for a wider, faster, straighter road.
Mrs. Thomas suggested as a way to move from where this situation is now,
that someone, probably Albemarle County, convene a meeting to bring together
people from all of the agencies and associations that deal with the Moormans
River to discuss what is happening, and what can be done. That includes
everybody from VDOT to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), Trout
Unlimited (because they used to stock the river), the Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries, the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee, and the County
departments of Planning, Zoning, Engineering and Water Resources. Because
people don't know who is doing what, and don't have a way to find out what can
be done next, there is a lot of frustration. It became a VDOT project out of
necessity because it was an emergency to get a road built, but that necessity
has now created a situation where there are a lot of other people who have
spent a lot of effort on the Moormans River and are not sure what is being
done. Just convening a meeting with the goal of developing a plan and a
process may help with the next flooding disaster someplace else if the process
is one that can be picked up.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the borrow pit was created after the public
meeting that was held in White Hall. Mrs. Thomas said she believes it
happened prior to that meeting. Mr. Perkins asked which borrow pit Mr.
Bowerman is referring to. Mrs. Thomas said the one she looked at was located
before one of the bridges at what was clearly a channel going toward a house,
near the Girl Scout Camp. Mr. Perkins said that probably happened after the
hearing in White Hall.
Mr. Marshall admitted he has not been to the area to see the damage.
Mr. Perkins said rock is being taken out of the reservoir and used to build up
the road. Mr. Marshall asked if this Board has authority to do anything about
what is taking place. Mrs. Thomas said this road was not in the Six-Year
Highway Plan for paving so this project is not proceeding by any of the usual
processes. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board "is spinning its wheels" or does
the Board have any authority to do anything.
Mr. Bowerman said it is incredible that the County has ordinances to
deal with activity within the flood plain, special permits are required for
stream crossings, and yet the Board has no control over this activity in a
scenic river.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks there was an understanding that only a minimal
amount of improvement was to be made to the road, and it has gone beyond that.
In terms of the County having any authority, he does not think the County has
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000Z47
any authority at this point. What Mrs. Thomas is proposing is something to
help if there is another flood that damages the road or the scenic river
itself. Convening these agencies is probably the best that can be done at
this time.
Mr. Marshall said in an emergency situation VDOT is going to come in and
do what it "darn well pleases", so what authority does the County have? Mr.
Tucker said when there are plans with others as to how certain situations will
be handled, they are only as good as the entities that sign on. Legally, he
does not know that the County would have any authority to enforce any plans
that might be developed, but it would be guidelines that could be followed in
the future. VDOT is a state agency, so having input may be the best thing the
Board can hope for. Mrs. Humphris said it would be a big help to shine a
light on the process and if the process has flaws, to see what the flaws are.
Now, if there are people at this meeting who have experience in the Moormans,
it might be good to let them speak.
Ms. Tucker said that while the Board might not have official authority
with this project, the Board's opinions will be respected. Mr. Tucker said he
believes Ms. Tucker has done all she can in this matter. If the Board wants
to take this further, then Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Askew should be invited to a
Board meeting. They are the people who might have some influence on what
might happen, although what can happen at this point he does not know.
Basically all of the work "damage" has been done at this point.
Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT has an employee on the job directing the
contractor in his work. Ms. Tucker said that basically the width of the road,
and the roadbed itself is as it will be. VDOT is done with that work. Mr.
Perkins asked who authorized VDOT to go into the reservoir to haul out
material. Ms. Tucker said that was permitted environmentally due to the
clearing of their structures. Mr. Perkins said that is outside of highway
right-of-way. He asked if that was something VDOT worked out with the RWSA.
Ms. Tucker said this should have been in direct relation to the structures
that VDOT had to clear and ensure that they remain clear. Mr. Perkins said
where VDOT is now taking out rock is where the stream used to come into the
reservoir but is now probably 200 or 300 feet from the nearest VDOT right-of-
way. Ms. Tucker said she guesses it comes down to the permission they had to
obtain in order to get in and remove the debris. Mr. Perkins said he is
referring specifically to the reservoir which three months ago would have been
under water, but now it is rock. Ms. Tucker said VDOT was given permission
through the County to assist in their cleaning of the reservoir while the
material can be used. It was hoped that because the material is native to the
area, it was best to use that in the road. Mr. Perkins said he is interested
in knowing who VDOT got permission from to do that.
Mr. David Hirschmann, Water Resources Officer, said this started to be
of concern because of the continuing borrowing in the river downstream of the
reservoir. At that time, he was looking at balance to protect the river and
had the idea of VDOT getting the material from the reservoir. He worked out
communication between VDOT and the RWSA to get the material from the reservoir
where there could be little damage done because that material used to be in
open water. It will not cause the same type of ecological changes to the
river, and the reservoir needed to have material removed anyway.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is a great idea. He was just asking about
the process. He then asked if any members of the public present wished to
speak.
Mr. Jim Bennett said he and his family have lived in Sugar Hollow about
one mile downstream from the dam for ten years. They were isolated during the
flood. To remind the Board about the importance of the area, this is a semi-
wilderness that is accessible to all County residents for a variety of
recreational activities. This is an important water resource for the County.
The Moormans River, under normal conditions, delivers a substantial quantity
of high quality water to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Any events that
could affect that water quality should be of great concern for the entire
County and for this Board. There is a commitment with the Shenandoah National
Park to preserve this area as part of the Related Lands Survey done in 1992,
which identified the Moormans River corridor as an important area for wildlife
migration.
Mr. Bennett said they have several complaints about the behavior of
VDOT. He did express his gratitude for their clearing of the road, at least
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
000248
for four-wheel drive vehicles, over the July 4th holiday, however, they have
had a number of behaviors which are very distressing. The first is that VDOT
never held a public hearing about the road improvements (as distinguished from
road restoration, meaning restore the road to what it was before) which was
their mandate. After the fact, and in the face of protest from a number of
residents, there was a public meeting organized around August 1 when basically
they told the residents what they had done and about their plans to pave the
road. They had a series of right-of-way forms for people to sign. There
never was adequate public debate over the whole idea of improving the road,
widening it, and hard-surfacing it. Secondly, VDOT did extensive dredging in
the river bed for rocks. It is important to point out that not only did they
remove rocks that had washed downstream from the flood, but they violated the
original stream bed in the areas which had been channelized. Those rocks had
not been disturbed by the flood, and where basically the hiding places for the
river animals that had survived, and which would have helped to restore the
ecology of the river. VDOT also did extensive removal of rock from flood
plain area. Mr. Bennett said he had brought in pictures to document that
fact. In terms of authority, in order to be in the river bed, beyond just
clearing of their structures, VDOT had to have a permit from the Army Corps of
Engineers. They never obtained that permit. As far as he can tell, the work
they did in the river bed, other than clearing VDOT structures, was not done
with proper permits.
Mr. Bennett said that in four places along the river bed, VDOT removed
dozens of substantial living trees and stripped the banks in order to produce
the rock walls that one sees. He is not talking about removing dead trees or
small amounts of vegetation. Literally, dozens of full-size, mature trees
were taken out in order to clear the banks to produce the rock walls. That is
in violation of the County's Zoning Ordinance which does not permit removal of
trees within 30 feet of the river bank because this is a scenic river.
Lastly, VDOT has trucked in thousands of cubic yards of red clay to build up
river banks in this area. This is not indigenous material to the area and
when the next rain occurs most of it will wash into the river, come down the
stream, and contribute further to the siltation of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. This material will not allow for the return of indigenous
vegetation to the area.
Mr. Bennett said the residents did meet with Ms. Tucker and her col-
leagues last Friday morning, and they did receive a verbal commitment from her
to address all of these problems including an attempt to investigate undoing
the channelization in the river, bringing in indigenous material to cover up
the clay, etc. In terms of what the residents would like to request from the
Board, they agree with Mrs. Thomas that this project should be reviewed. They
would like to see it stopped until there is adequate public debate about all
aspects of the project including paving the road, the damage that has been
done, and what VDOT proposes to do to restore the area. They would like a
county-sponsored backing of a restoration project to restore the area. They
would be happy to serve as a center point on that project to seek volunteers,
experts in the area of river ecology, etc. to help plan to restore this very
valuable area to the County. He said that Ms. Tucker has expressed interest
as a representative of VDOT in assisting in this effort.
Mr. Bennett said to address Mr. Perkins' earlier question, there was
channelization done in at least two major sites, meaning the normal "V" shaped
natural river bed was made into a wide "U" and this is substantially away from
the structures, meaning the bridges which VDOT had to clear.
Mr. Jack Marshall said he lives on the Moormans River and is speaking as
Chair of the State-appointed Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee. His
comments are based on agreements at a meeting of the committee last week, and
subsequent to three members of the committee visiting Sugar Hollow last
Friday. The Moormans corridor is special and has been so recognized by being
designated a scenic river by both the State and the County. There is a magic
to Sugar Hollow, not just the river as it dances over the stones, but in the
way the narrow dirt road braids back and forth around the stream under the
canopy of trees. The flood did not change that magic. It scoured out much of
the flora and fauna of the river bed itself, but the basic morphology of the
stream is largely unchanged, and the basic habitat remains so that the ecology
will reconstruct itself. Great mounds of rocks and gravel were redeposited,
but the river has seen that before and will again rediscover its path. Trees
and bushes were swept away by the flood, but that also has happened before,
and will again.
00024:9
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Jack Marshall said his point is that Sugar Hollow was not destroyed,
it was temporarily damaged. The Board cannot allow this transitory flood
damage to be used as an excuse to reconfigure the Moormans River into what a
bureaucracy believes is desirable for a suburban subdivision. The fact that
the Sugar Hollow Road is a dead-end used largely by a few residents, hikers,
fishermen and others who like its unique charm, suggests that it should not be
treated with the ordinary cookie cutter administrative mentality. Unfortu-
nately, we are talking about locking the barn after some of the horses have
been stolen. VDOT, while rebuilding the road, bulldozed the river bed to
unrecognizable configurations in several places. In preparation for widening
the road, which is in preparation for paving, the trees which remained
standing after the flood, were cut down. In addition to the aesthetic impact,
the road side timbering diminishes the tree canopy over the river, raising the
river's temperature and affecting its ecology.
Mr. Jack Marshall said that on behalf of the Scenic River Advisory
Committee, he asks that the Board request VDOT to immediately pause in its
efforts to deal with the flood damage while the community, county staff, the
advisory committee, this Board, and other qualified advisors, calmly decide
the wisest course of action and get from VDOT a clear and unambiguous plan
about what its plans to do. During that pause, he would like to think that
VDOT could, with gravel and stones from the far end of the reservoir, begin
filling in places where they have dug deep troughs in the river bed. His
committee is in the process of drafting a letter to the Board expressing more
specific concerns.
Mr. Jack Marshall said that during the tour on Friday, VDOT authorities
displayed an admirable willingness to listen to the concerns of the committee
members, and to consider the possibility of adjusting in modest ways their
plans for widening and paving the Sugar Hollow Road. In this spirit of
compromise, he believes that during a brief pause in VDOT's activities, a
course of action could be worked out that would be agreeable to everyone.
Mr. Perkins asked how much more material is to be hauled out of the
reservoir to build up the road. What is the status of the road right now?
Ms. Tucker said the work being done at this time is in direct relation to the
meeting which was held on Friday. They are trying to raise the road one or
more feet in certain sections to minimize impact to trees. She does not know
how much material will come out of the reservoir, but thinks it will be a
substantial amount. There is no problem with halting the contractor's work at
this time.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a pause would do any damage to the work that is
taking place now. Ms. Tucker asked if "pause" means a pause in stabilization
of the road. She knows some issues which can be addressed: restoring of the
channel to a "V" configuration as opposed to the "U" configuration. She
thought that some people wanted that done immediately, along with placing
river material on the material that was brought in, and to do it immediately.
Outside of that, VDOT can pause on the work being done in the roadway itself.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said he did not think Mr. Jack Marshall had made an
unreasonable request that the project be stopped at this point and addressed.
He appreciates everything Ms. Tucker does, but the willingness to work with
the citizens in the area is wonderful. He hopes that if the project can be
halted now, something can be salvaged.
Mr. Bowerman said the frustrating thing is that he does not believe
Peter Way or Mitch Van Yahres or Ed Robb or this Board had anything to do with
this. This Board expressed concern about this before anything was started.
In spite of that concern, somebody in authority, somewhere, made decisions
without public hearings, without public input, without consulting any of the
elected officials who have the responsibility to protect this community, and
have done things out there which are wrong. He would like to see that whoever
is responsible for making these decisions come before this Board and answer
the Board's questions. The Board can't just let this go off in limbo.
Obviously it was not at the local level that these decisions were made. He is
cynical, because this Board talked about this before the work started, and in
spite of that, it happened. In spite of the public meeting which took place
at White Hall, additional work was done which was damaging. He is cynical
because there are people who are beyond the touch of public elected officials
and the public that are making these decisions. He does not understand it.
He does not like it, and it is not right, period.
000250
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with that, but on the other hand, VDOT got
some directions at that meeting at White Hall. The people present wanted
different things done. He talked to one person who wanted to go in and clean
up every tree that was downed in Sugar Hollow. There is a very broad spectrum
of what people want done. Mr. Bowerman said common sense plays a large role,
and common sense was not exercised. Mr. Perkins said the reason he is asking
Ms. Tucker these questions is to find out if the work can be completed in two
weeks, rather than shutting it down and having to come back during bad
weather. There are things that need to be done so that the grass catches
before winter so the banks will be stabilized. If the project is stopped,
that opportunity may be lost.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not believe anybody wants to stop the things
that have to be done to stabilize the situation, but she thinks it is best to
stop and get the players together. As Mr. Bowerman has said, who are these
shadows behind Ms. Tucker? If somebody said what is to be done, they said it
without any contact with the local elected officials who have a responsibility
to the citizens of the community for what happens to the environment and the
water supply. She thinks the Board needs to get to the bottom of it, and not
to stop the essential work, but to make sure that nothing more goes forward
that is not essential until there has been a clearing of the air. The Board
needs to know how and where these decisions were made, and why they were made
without any communication with anybody locally. Mrs. Humphris said she could
not believe when she went to the public meeting in August, that that was the
first public meeting which had been held.
At this point, Mrs. Humphris offered motion that this Board ask VDOT to
pause in any further work on Route 614 in Sugar Hollow until a meeting such as
that recommended by Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Jack Marshall takes place and all the
players gather and have a serious discussion of both the background and the
future.
Mrs. Thomas said she would second that motion. She thinks the meeting
should involve the Moormans River because that is what is being worked on now,
but the long-term results of that meeting, or a subsequent meeting, could be
that there is a process on the shelves. She said the Board members thought
that when they spoke at their meeting, that that would be sufficient, but
obviously it was not. For this to be a learning experience that has any
beneficial outcome, the Board will have to develop from the process how to
deal with emergencies. This time, the rain just dumped on the North Fork of
the Moormans River. It did not even dump on the South Fork of the Moormans
which also goes into the reservoir. They are only one ridge apart and yet the
rains and the rock slides were all on the North Fork of the Moormans River.
Next time, the rain may be localized in an entirely different place, and the
Board still won't have a process to deal with it unless the Board uses this
experience to develop a process. It still will not give the Board authority,
but it will give an ability to jump in quickly and say that in Albemarle
County this is how to respond to these things.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants to make a clear distinction between emergency
?
restoration of the road and access to it, and what has taken place beyond
that.
Mr. Martin said Mrs. Humphris' motion did not mention essential work
that needs to be done, and he thinks that should be allowed including planting
of any greenery that might be needed. He does not believe the Board wants a
complete shutdown. He thinks the issues of what has been done and what will
be done in the future, need to be separated. The Board could get so bogged
down trying to track down who made decisions and what has been done in the
past, that the Board can't move to the future. It would be good to focus one
motion on pausing logically, with letting the things that need to be done
continue, while trying to get a group together to get input before moving
forward. Then, as a separate issue, try to find out what happened and what
the Board can do about it in the future.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought she made it clear that the work that is
necessary should be done, but to pause in the work that is not necessary. She
does not believe that after today there should be any problem getting the
players who were a part of this scenario to the table. She believes that
hearing from them about why they did what they did when they did it would shed
a lot of light on what should be done in the future. To her, that is all a
part of the process, and she does not think that will cause a bog down at all.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000251
She is sure that those responsible public servants will come to this meeting
that will be called. She will stick to that part of her motion.
Mrs. Thomas said since she seconded the motion, she will agree that
necessary work should continue. She is worried about the word "necessary",
wondering in whose eyes it is necessary. "Minimum necessary" would be the
wording she would agree to.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mrs. Humphris would consider adding to the motion
that this Board demands that Ms. Tucker have more input into the project.
Mrs. Humphris said she did not think that would get very far. Mr. Marshall
said Ms. Tucker knows the Board's concerns, and the concerns of County
citizens. He thinks that she is the one who should have been making these
decisions.
Ms. Tucker said she does not want to stand before the Board and offi-
cially "pass the buck" to those above her. She has been given responsibility
to make some decisions for the work. One way to clarify the situation is that
the local office did not go about its work on Route 614 with the idea that
they would be doing anything other than putting back the road that was there
before the storm. As far as calling in a contractor and working with them,
the rest of the process was basically out of their hands. She will take
comments from today's meeting back to Mr. Askew, Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Garver,
and share will all of them this Board's concerns about how this process was
used.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that they listen to the tape because although
the factual part can be passed on, it is difficult to pass on the emotional
part.
At this time, Mr. Perkins asked for a roll call. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Route 29 Western Bypass
Press Conference Report.
Mr. Cilimberg said that on Tuesday', August 15, 1995, at the Transporta-
tion Research Council auditorium, the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) held a press conference to address the Route 29 Bypass design, public
involvement in the design process, and the design landscaping components.
Present at the meeting were members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board
(CTB), representatives of VDOT's central, district and local offices, and
members of the design consultant team. The two main goals stated at the press
conference were: (1) communication and public involvement, and, (2) building
a bypass that is sensitive to the Charlottesville/Albemarle community.
Other Information Presented Included:
Approximately $40.0 million is programmed over the next four years
for bypass right-of-way and engineering.
Total estimated cost of the bypass is $100.0 million.
Nine properties have been purchased to date by VDOT.
VDOT may have to purchase 30 to 40 properties.
A citizen participation meeting is planned for Spring, 1996.
A public hearing on the road design is planned for November, 1996.
The construction plan is to be completed in December, 1996.
Complete right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for Fall, 1998.
The maximum cost for the consultant team is $7.4 million.
It is estimated that 200 miles of roads in Albemarle County are
currently in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed.
The traffic analysis for the Western Bypass will be totally re-evaluated
as part of the project. The consultant team will evaluate the traffic impact
only of hypothetical interchanges at Hydraulic and Barracks Roads as part of
this process. The results will be presented at the public meetings. As the
Board of Supervisors directed, the bypass is not being designed to have
interchanges at either Hydraulic Road or at Barracks Roads.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000252
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board may wish to discuss its position regarding
interchanges at Hydraulic and Barracks Roads and then communicate to VDOT and
the CTB any concerns it may have regarding the evaluation of the traffic
impact of such interchanges.
Mrs. Humphris said she is disturbed that erroneous information continued
to be distributed by VDOT and CTB at this press conference. She saw in the
media a report of $40.0 million programmed for bypass right-of-way and
engineering. The Board did receive a corrected report from the VDOT Culpeper
error showing just a little over $30.0 million. They said that figure would
be corrected by the CTB in December. They gave a total estimated cost for the
Bypass of $100.0 million when the Board already knows that given inflationary
figures, as of this year it would be a minimum of $123.0 million if there is
no interchange where the northern terminus of the Bypass intersects Route 29
North.
Mrs. Humphris said there was an estimate that more than 200 miles of
roads in the County are currently in the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
watershed. She pointed out that there have been no new roads built in the
watershed since it was found that the South Fork Rivanna River was eutrophing
except for subdivision roads which have been done under strict regulations.
She is disturbed about the consultant team being instructed to evaluate the
traffic impact of the supposedly hypothetical interchanges in spite of the
agreement with the CTB, and the only part of the agreement left is that access
to this bypass corridor would be provided only at the request of the County.
The County has not made such a request, and she hopes it will not make such a
request given the danger to the South Fork Rivanna River from the pressure of
development, and not only at those interchanges. She believes this Board
should ask the CTB not to do this evaluation. It is very clear that the
evaluation will lead directly to building the interchanges in spite of the
agreement that the CTB has with the County, the City, and the University.
Ms. Babette Thorp, Piedmont Environmental Council, was present and read
the following statement into the record:
~According to the executive summary prepared for the Western
Bypass Press Conference Update, the consultants have been asked to
evaluate the traffic impact of 'hypothetical' interchanges at
Hydraulic and Barracks Road. This evaluation could represent a
step towards real interchanges in the design of the bypass, which
would undermine all the County has done over the past 15 years to
protect the watershed.
Building these interchanges would dramatically alter the expecta-
tions of nearby landowners and raise the speculative value of
surrounding property, making it extremely difficult for the Board
to deny requests for rezonings to intense commercial and residen-
tial uses. As the watershed begins to develop, the sediment,
phosphorous and nitrogen loading which polluted the reservoir in
the late 1970's would once again increase to critical levels. In
addition, the very construction of these interchanges would
introduce substantial new earth-disturbing activity into the South
Rivanna Watershed.
According to a 1990 resolution by the CTB, these interchanges will
be built only if the Board of Supervisors requests their construc-
tion. If the CTB intends to keep its word, it would seem an
unnecessary expenditure of scarce highways funds to measure the
impact of imaginary interchanges, when there are so many other
real transportation projects short of funds throughout the Common-
wealth.
For these reasons, the Piedmont Environmental Council urges the
Board to remain consistent in its opposition to these interchanges
and any interim steps which may lead to their construction in the
future."
Mrs. Treva Cromwell was present and read the following statement into
the record:
"It is difficult to understand, at this late date, why we now
have a proposal to study access to what was to be a limited
access bypass to speed north-south traffic away from Route 29.
000253
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
The route of the limited access bypass was finally approved after
countless hours of work by engineers, consultations with public
officials, and more public hearings than I can keep track of.
Present and future traffic volume were studied, along with other
factors that were considered in deciding on a location and a
design that would come closest to being for the greatest public
good. At the last public hearing, various design options were
presented and explained so that citizens had an opportunity to
express their opinions concerning the controversial proposal.
Never, during that public hearing, do I recall any discussions of
interchanges at Barracks Road or Hydraulic Road. The inter-
changes represent a radical change in the area's transportation
plans with unknown consequences to land use development in the
Rivanna Reservoir and a threat to the troubled reservoir itself.
The accepted bypass design is the result of two many years of
debate and compromise to be radically changed at this late date
simply because individuals who fought so hard for a western
bypass to alleviate traffic on Route 29 now want to direct some
of that traffic back to Route 29. The result will not be a
bypass, but just another crowded urban street. It is a puzzle-
ment.
Many are convinced that the bypass has been thrust upon us. The
public believes that finally we have a route and a design. It is
up to the Board to keep faith with the public and deny any pro-
posal to even as much as study the pros and cons of
interchanges."
Mr. Jack Marshall, Citizens for Albemarle, was present to read a
prepared statement as follows:
~Citizens for Albemarle is a 25-year old organization with over
400 members in the City and County. We have heard you o~er the
years encourage County residents to become more involved in local
government and we have supported and applauded your efforts.
Good citizens are becoming cynical and being driven away from
their involvement in local government by this behind the back
attempt to circumvent an agreement you had carefully and pain-
fully worked out with the Commonwealth Transportation Board. It
appears, and I hope I am wrong, the combination of personal power
on some personal agenda has led someone to violate or threaten to
violate what we all thought was a done deal. That person should
be required to take a remedial course in participatory democracy
and should learn to play by the rules that the rest of us have
agreed to. I hope we will learn before long why this thing has
surfaced.
On the proposed interchanges on the Western Bypass, for goodness
sake, don't allow them to be built. The reasons are obvious to
anyone who cares about the County's long range good, and to
anyone who has studied as much as you have the County's water-
shed, the need to provide in a sustainable manner drinking water
to the City and the County.
The Citizens for Albemarle letter to Mr. Perkins that some of you
may have received, summarizes some of the reasons the inter-
changes would be unwise. There is no question that the inter-
changes would spur development, as Treva (Mrs. Cromwell) has just
said, in the watershed and in this and other ways exacerbate the
problems we can anticipate in the already fragile and threatened
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. We are proud of your consistent,
courageous stand to enact land use measures in the watershed
area. We know you share our concern, and we urge you to oppose
access interchanges to the Western Bypass as vigorously as you
opposed the bypass itself."
Mr. George Larie, Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition,
was present to read the following statement into the record:
~The news conference report in the press quoted Carter Meyers as
saying that the consultant would determine whether interchanges
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
should be included on the Alternate 10 Bypass at Barracks and
Hydraulic Roads. The November 15, 1990, Transportation Board
resolution specifically states that 'preservation of the Alter-
nate 10 corridor will assist the County in a no-growth position
in the watershed. Access to the corridor will only be provided
at the request of the County.'
The County has a lengthy history of preserving the watershed,
including downzoning, farm management practices and limited
growth in the watershed. Water is our most important resource,
yet 4.2 miles of this bypass is in the watershed where we are
subject to increased siltation from construction and development,
and to toxic spills which would feed directly into the water
supply. In addition, we all know that development goes where the
roads are, and if interchanges are put on that bypass there will
be increased development in the watershed.
Of critical importance is that an appointed official of the
Transportation Board, Carter Meyers, apparently feels he can
override the Transportation Board resolution of November, 1990 by
simply dictating to the construction consultant to do so, and
thereby override the County's expressed wishes in the watershed
and the question of local access to the bypass. I think it is
pretty obvious what is going on here.
The CTB adopted the Alternate 10 Bypass in 1990 over the unani-
mous objections of the County Board of Supervisors, with the
proviso that the County's concern for the water supply would be
respected and no access would be made to the bypass without
County request. Now, after rejecting the Route 29 interchanges
last winter, and refusing to fund the Meadow Creek Parkway from
primary funds, the machinery has been put in place to further gut
the 1990 agreement and add interchanges on the bypass. This even
when no interchange is planned for the northern terminus of the
bypass itself.
You are our elected officials. Please stop this power grab by
the appointed bureaucracy and insist that the CTB uphold the 1990
agreement. Please stop all consultant work on interchanges on
the bypass and do it now!"
Mr. Jim Murray said there is a shoddy practice in retailing which is
known as "bait and switch". This kind of sleazy does not belong in state
government, particularly one that is claiming high moral ground over the past
few years. Time after time, the citizens were told this was a bypass that
was going straight through the area with no interchanges. To have a study
now as to whether these interchanges would take some traffic is ridiculous.
There would be thousands of cars coming onto Route 743 from this interchange,
and they would reap havoc in the general area of the watershed. V/DOT is
telling local government that this is how you can plan your community whether
you like it or not. He nhinks the Board should stay in charge, tell 'em to
"go to hell", and keep the interchanges off the bypass.
Mr. John Owen, President, Colthurst Owners Association, said all know
that the political pressure for this bypass has always been ascribed to the
business interest of the communities to the south. In terms of the inter-
changes, he does not believe the Danville Horsebreeders' Association really
thinks that a Barracks Road interchange would help get their horses to the
Fauquier races any faster. He also does not believe that the Lynchburg Yacht
Club really wants to get out and use the ramps on the Reservoir for water
skiing. If there is no political pressure to do this, it seems to be a "no
brainer" He thinks the western bypass, which will probably be called the
Danville/Lynchburg pacifier, should be kept in its place. The members of the
Board of Supervisors know their duty, and he is sure they will do it.
Mr. Dick Stricker said he is from the Samuel Miller District. He has
been observing the "goings on" with the western bypass for several years. He
seconded the comments made today about the interchange question. He does not
live in the path of the bypass or close to the proposed interchanges, but he
is troubled at intermediate on- and off-ramps on what is supposed to be a
through highway to speed long distance traffic around local road congestion.
He thinks it is educational, after hearing about VDOT's work in the Sugar
Hollow area, because it sets the stage for what be believes this Board should
000255
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
do, which is learn from that experience. Although the Board did not have any
power to change that situation, he believes the Board does have power in this
situation. The Board should not rely on "word of mouth" or press releases to
convey to VDOT what he hopes will be the Board's continued opposition to
placement of this road, but take a forceful stand and write a letter
reaffirming what the Board has already said unanimously about opposing
interchanges on the Western Bypass. It seems to be the height of irony for
the group and the individuals who have said that interchanges are concrete
monstrosities inappropriate to be placed on Route 29, which is not a scenic
highway, to say they are fully appropriate for locating in the Barracks Road
area which is appurtenant to a Virginia Scenic Byway. Barracks Road and
Garth Road are windy, hilly, country lanes which cannot support the traffic
already on them. Dropping additional local traffic on those two roads would
seem to be "just plain crazy". Mr. Strickler said that besides the issue of
the watershed, the traffic safety issues are such as to warrant telling VDOT
directly that the County does not want the interchanges. They are not
needed, please don't study them or built them. Stay with what the County's
position has always been.
Mr. Edward R. Slaughter, Jr. (Ned) said he has appeared before the
Board about the Bypass, and attendant issues, several times in the past. He
seconds what has been said today. He has been concerned that his participa-
tion in this would make him appear to be a "nimby". The Bypass, as it is
presently foreseen, will take part of his lot. Versions with an interchange
at Barracks Road showed that the interchange would cut into Stillhouse
Mountain and take his home of 30 years. Ironically, he feels that he would
be better off if his home were taken. This is such a rape of the county,
such a promotion of cynicism that it is absolutely essential that this board
"get up on its hind legs and fight like hell."
Mr. Slaughter said the citizens have reason to be cynical. In 1982,
this bypass was first mentioned with the idea of a 120-foot cut through
Stillhouse Mountain which would be excaberated by the interchange at Barracks
Road. In 1986, the VDOT Commissioner stated that in short of a request from
local government, there would never again be considered a western bypass.
Yet, four years later, over the recommendations of this board, and with
everybody's dismay, the feeling that there should be no bypass because of the
very low expected traffic count, VDOT put in a bypass along with all of the
other items of the agreement. Now, that agreement has been gutted in several
particulars, and there is a concerted movement to gut it in its remaining
particulars to the detriment of the County and to the detriment of the
Reservoir.
Mr. Slaughter said that recently a friend of his attended a meeting
with a VDOT official who is overseeing the design study. He raised the
question as to whether there would be any further environmental impact study
as a result of the prospective interchanges. The answer was uno", VDOT has
done everything it intends to do with respect to studying the environment.
Anyone can see that two interchanges, one right above the reservoir at
Hydraulic Road, and one in the watershed at Barracks Road, will have a major
impact on the environment. Yet, as far as VDOT is concerned, the environment
needs no further study. Mr. Slaughter urged the Board to take all possible
action against these interchanges, which are a travesty.
Mr. Perkins said if there were no further comments on this matter, the
Board would go to the next agenda item.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board has not finished just because the public
comment period is over. She feels the Board needs a motion. She wishes she
had said the things which have been said by members of the public this
morning; cyncisism, anger, personal interest, bureaucracy, abrogating an
agreement, etc. What is happening in reference to this project is outra-
geous, and the way it is happening is outrageous. For someone to just say,
after all of the agreements which have been made, "now that we have agreed to
this, we think we will simply study these interchanges", is a bunch of
baloney. That is just a precursor of building the interchanges. Mrs.
Humphris said uno way" and she thinks the public has said "no way. She then
offered motion that the Board send a letter to the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board and Secretary Martinez and tell them in no uncertain terms that
Albemarle County does not want any further study of interchanges on the
Western Bypass, that the bypass should remain a bypass.
000256
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas who said that looking at the map
posted at this Board meeting, it is easily recognized that one of those
interchanges would bring traffic into Hydraulic Road which if one of the
County's most densely populated areas. It is a road that is being upgraded,
but it will never be upgraded sufficiently to handle the kind of traffic that
might possibly come off at that point. She drove around in that neighborhood
yesterday to get a feel for it, and there is no way that Commonwealth Drive
and those other roads should be asked to absorb traffic that supposedly is
going to be doing perfectly well on Route 29 North'once the bypass is built.
The Garth Road interchange is so close to the University where the project
ends that if there is commuter traffic coming in from Greene County going to
the University, it will be going down to the terminus that dumps traffic
between Darden School and the Law School. Mrs. Thomas said she would like to
add one thing to all of the fine things heard today, and that is, what
happens to all of the neighborhoods when this traffic is dumped into them?
Albemarle County has gone all the way to the Supreme Court to protect that
area from further degradation. She feels strongly that the Board owes it to
a great many people in the community to make sure this doesn't proceed any
further.
Mr. Marshall said he likes Mr. Owen's statement that it is a "no
brainer".
With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters: Whitewood Road Bus Stop,
Report.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that they have discussed this
request several times. The schedule for bus route #9 was amended several
months ago and the bus stop in front of Whitewood Village was eliminated.
There is a bus stop on Commonwealth Drive. The last time this was discussed
the Board requested additional information, but in the interim, some con-
cerned individuals have filed a petition with the Board objecting to this
change.
Mr. Terry Campbell was present to say this is a bad idea. There are a
lot of people who ride Bus #9, and it is impossible for them to get to the
route now. He understands this change was made so the bus can stop at the
Colonnades, however, no one at that location is riding the bus. (Note: Mr.
Marshall left the room at 10:39 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there will have to be some substantial
changes to Route #9 since stops at Sam's and Wal-Mart have been added. He
believes the Board will be dealing with issues of head-times of an hour. He
asked when the staff's report will be ready. Mr. Tucker said it will not be
ready until time to work on the next fiscal year budget.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the residents in the area will have to
continue using the bus as presently scheduled. He knows there are no
sidewalks in the area, but it is a relatively short walk. Mr. Campbell said
it is not just that the walk is difficult, it is also dangerous.
It was the consensus of the Board to take no further action to rein-
state this bus stop until budget work session time next spring.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Transportation Matters: Abandonment of Old Route
606, Request for.
Mr. Cilimberg said the relocation of Route 606 at Austin Drive was a
requirement of the rezoning for the Briarwood development. The developer has
requested that the old section of Route 606 be abandoned in this location.
(Note: Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at 10:42 a.m.)
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
000257
The County Attorney has previously advised that an existing state road
may be abandoned as enabled under Section'33.1-155 of the Virginia State Code
(the Code allows abandonment of an old road section when a new road section
has been constructed in lieu thereof). Approval of the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Commissioner and resolution of the Board of Supervisors is required
also.
The relocated Route 606 is now being used by traffic. However, accord-
ing to the County Engineering Department and VDOT, it has not been accepted
into the state system. Abandonment of old Route 606 should not occur until
the relocated section is accepted into the state system.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors indicate a willingness
to abandon the requested section of Route 606 and authorize a resolution
allowing the requested abandonment to be brought back for its approval
subject to the following:
Acceptance of the relocated section of Route 606 into the state
system.
Approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to accept the staff's recommendation. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7e. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Marshall again made hms request for stop signs at the bottom of the
ramp coming off of 1-64 going south on Route 20 in the vicinity of Piedmont
Virginia Community College.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:46 a.m. and reconvened at 10:53 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 8. Review County Engineer's decision, re: Coleman-
Adams Soil Erosion Permit.
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, said that in 1990, Coleman-Adams was
awarded the construction contract for the Murray Elementary School project.
Pursuant to the County's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, they
were required to obtain a permit and post a soil erosion performance bond.
The bond for $50,320 was posted and accepted in October, 1990. The bond
amount was subsequently reduced to $16,660 based on a June, 1992 inspection
by County staff. Seeding and stabilization were not performed satisfacto-
rily, and site work deficiencies were brought to the attention of Coleman-
Adams and its subcontractor on numerous occasions. The County was forced to
have the work done by another contractor for $13,500. Notice of default was
given to the surety and Coleman-Adams as principal. The amount has not been
paid.
Section 7-7 of the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance allows
Coleman-Adams to appeal the Director of Engineering's decision to call the
bond to the Board of Supervisors. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied
since Coleman-Adams has failed to comply with the requirements of the plan
and has defaulted under the terms of the bond.
Present were Mr. Joe Coleman and Mr. A. C. Coleman (President of Adams
Construction Company). Mr. Joe Coleman reviewed the history of the case,
giving specific dates on which they had received letters from the County. He
asserted that Coleman/Adams was not notified timely and in a format as
Stipulated in the erosion and sedimentation control provisions in the County
Code.
Mr. Coleman said Coleman--Adams has an excellent reputation for finish-
ing projects in a timely manner. Their offer of $2775 to Albemarle County as
described in a letter dated June 9, 1995, to Mr. Mark A. Trank, still
remains. Their main concern has been timely and proper notification as set
forth in the County Code. There was some communication made with the grading
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
000258
contractor directly who was the agent for Coleman-Adams at the time of
construction, however, he was not the permit holder. Due to the lengthy time
frame, Coleman-Adams feels any problems worsened during that 700+ day period.
Mr. Coleman expressed appreciation to the Board for helping to resolve this
issue.
Ms. Higgins said although this contractor was under contract for a
County project, the erosion control bond issue is not related to the substan-
tial completion that was issued on the building and site work done under the
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern design for V. L. Murray Elementary School.
That is important because timing does indicate that the projects do override.
Often contractors doing work for the County do not want money held back on
the contract when local government is also holding an erosion control bond.
Ms. Higgins noted that before an erosion control permit is issued a
preconstruction conference. In this case, Mr. Joe Coleman and Mr. Ed Honey
were there representing Coleman-Adams. At that time, they were to designate
the point of contact in respect to the land-disturbing activity. The person
designated was Ronny Parham, who was the subcontractor. On July 24, 1991, a
detailed list of items was issued, and Mr. Coleman signed for that detailed
list. That list contained an item saying the silt pond was full and must be
restored. Those corrections were done before substantial completion of the
school project.
Ms. Higgins said there was a phased move into the Murray School
Building. This was a very difficult project and Coleman-Adams did a beauti-
ful job on the building. It came down to their earth work contractor being
unresponsive. In June, 1992, Mr. Coleman requested that the erosion bond be
released. When the project was completed the previous Fall, the seeding
season had passed. Usually temporary seeding is done, and it was, but it did
not come up in the Spring. In June, 1992 he was told that an inspection
would be done. Mr. Bobby Shaw, Soil Erosion Inspector, did the inspection,
and on August 23, 1992, Mr. Coleman was told the grass was not satisfactory,
and that there were several areas beginning to erode which needed repairs.
Typically an erosion bond stays in place until permanent vegetation is
established.
Ms. Higgins said that over a period of time, the matter became very
serious. From June, 1992 until December, 1992, there were four different
letters sent to Mr. Parham who was the designated agent for Coleman-Adams
under the erosion bond. She was reassured on four different occasions that
Mr. Parham would show up, and he did not. In July, 1993 she sent a letter to
Mr. Coleman telling him about all of the contact with Mr. Parham. Due to the
frustration at that time, a meeting was set on site, and Mr. Coleman did
attend although Mr. Parham did not. At that time, she was assured that they
would fulfill their obligation. They were given a deadline of August 28.
She has pictures from October 11, 1993, which forced the County's decision.
Her office made notice to the surety that the contractor was unresponsive.
Mr. Coleman, verbally on August 27, said there was no way he would do the
work. The County then obtained prices because it was holding a bond of
$16,660. The amount of work associated with what was considered the respon-
sibility of Coleman-Adams was $13,500. At that time, a letter was sent
offering not to call the bond if the work were completed.
Ms. Higgins said what finally caused the County to go ahead and do the
work, was time. It was now October and another season was about to be lost
to seeding. She showed a picture where the rills had gone to deep gullies.
A footing on one of the fence posts was about to give way which would have
caused further damage. This fence separated the elementary school children
from the sloop in that area. With that being undermined, it was turned over
to the County Attorney and work was authorized on November 15. The work has
been successfully completed. The price Mr. Parham gave in the Fall of 1992
to do the work was $8050. The County had extra work done which was not the
responsibility of Coleman-Adams, so that work was separated from the respon-
sibility under erosion control requirements, and another $13,500 was paid to
correct the gullies and get the grass to grow. In addition, $10,500 was paid
for top soil in areas which had been denuded by the children playing on the
grassy areas.
Mr. Davis said the basic position of the County has been that Coleman-
Adams had actual knowledge of the erosion problems through both their
subcontractor and directly. They are responsible for completion of the
project. Staff feels they were given all proper notice required before
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000259
taking this type of action. They have continued to deny responsibility for
it. The purpose of the bond is so the County does not have to go to court
when the contractor is in violation of the agreement. Unfortunately, the
bonding company in this instance is also refusing to acknowledge responsibil-
ity, so the County may have to go into litigation to collect the money. The
first step is for this Board to concur with the County Engineer's position
that they are in default of their obligations so staff can proceed to take
appropriate action.
Mr. Martin said the ordinance clearly states that communication shall
be with the bondholder, and Ms. Higgins has said that in this instance, the
bondholder designated a person to have contact with. He asked if this
creates a problem. Mr. Davis said the permit holder is required by statute
to be notified if criminal proceedings are being taken against him. The
County has no intention of pursing criminal charges in this matter so that
notice is not necessary. They feel that the actual notice given to both
Coleman-Adams and their agent is sufficient to pursue the matter civilly.
Mr. Marshall questioned whether Mr. Coleman was notified directly as
opposed to Mr. Parham. Ms. Higgins said when the project was completed in
the Fall of 1991, erosion control, as to inspection and enforcement, was
suspended because grass won't grow during the Winter. In June, 1992, Mr.
Coleman did receive the letter which reduced his bond from the original
amount down to $16,660. There were phone conversations with Mr. Coleman, so
he did have knowledge of this. In August when the bond was reduced, it was
pointed out that erosion was beginning, and it was during that Spring, Summer
and Fall that the serious erosion occurred. Mr. Coleman did not tell the
County not to deal with Mr. Parham. As a matter of fact, Ed Honeyl his
associate who has a local office, told the County not to call him, but to
call Mr. Parham. The letters went to Mr. Parham at his direct instruction.
Mrs. Thomas said she feels the letter of August 3, 1992, is important,
and it does give the notice that there are problems. Ms. Higgins said that
typically contractors have their bonds reduced and released. At the time a
bond is reduced, if that does not meet their expectation and they ask to have
it released, another inspection is done.
Mr. Martin asked about pictures Mr. Coleman alluded to in his presenta-
tion. Mr. Coleman said the pictures taken on September 12, 1991, show the
rip rap and the pond in place and the grass beginning to germinate. It shows
that the work had been done. Mr. Martin said Ms. Higgins said that is
usually temporary work because it is not a good season for seeding. He asked
if that is correct. Mr. Adams said their concern is that they are following
all of the rules of what they are supposed to do, but County Code Section
7.6(b) had not been followed, and proper notification is the problem.
Mr. Martin asked if this is an issue of money or reputation. Mr. Adams
said it is an issue of what is right and what is wrong. Why should a
contractor do a job, and then 700 days later be asked to come back and do
something else just because the County holds a bond? The final thing that
happened was that the County called the bonding company and said they would
not recognize that company in Albemarle County any longer because of the
problems the County had with Coleman-Adams. They were judged guilty before
they got a chance to speak.
Mrs. Humphris said the letter did not say ~will not recognize". She
asked Mr. Adams his opinion of the letter of August 3, 1992, to Mr. Joe
Coleman. She asked if the letter was not clear. It says an inspection was
made to determine the status of the erosion control bond, and then went on to
mention that the grass was not satisfactory, over seeding was needed, areas
had begun to erode, the repairs that were needed, areas along the access road
and others adjacent to the riprap, and so forth. It went on to say that
although the performance bond could not be released, it was being reduced.
She feels that was a very clear letter. Mr. Coleman said the letter said
"may need over seeding" which he feels is just an opinion of someone. Mrs.
Humphris said the letter is signed by the erosion control officer. It is not
just from ~someone". Mr. Coleman said in reference to the riprap, Mr. Parham
was quoting the County on some additional work that was not a part of the
base contract with Coleman-Adams. Mrs. Humphris said that has nothing to do
with the notification. Mr. Coleman said it was not proper notification based
on the County Code; in a timely manner, with specific guidelines. What was
contained in the letter was not specific, but general.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000260
Mr. Martin said he feels it was specific enough for Mr. Coleman to have
checked into it. To say, "I received this, but ignored it because it did not
meet County Code specifications as to being specific", and then to say 300+
days later that you were not notified, seems to be stretching it.
Ms. Higgins said Mr. Coleman may recall that when he received this
letter he apparently sent it directly to Mr. Parham because on August 12,
1992, Mr. Parham met with Ed Smith on site and went over a review of the
corrections. Apparently Mr. Smith had been directed by Mr. Coleman to meet
with Bobby Shaw, so Mr. Shaw did meet within a week of the letter. To her
that brings up the relationship between Coleman-Adams and Mr. Parham,. Mr.
Shaw met them on site, walked the entire site and showed them every area.
There was no breakdown in communication between the general and subcontractor
as far as the County Engineer's Office was concerned.
Mr. Coleman said he was going back to the time frame. He understands
that this letter raised the question. He has copies of other letters sent to
the County through his legal representative asking for a list of specific
corrections to be made. The site consisted of a multitude of acres with a
lot of possible problems. Code Section 7.6 advises to give immediate,
written, detailed notification. That is what Coleman-Adams is going back to.
Mr. Martin asked if there was a seeding in September if there would be
an expectation of more permanent vegetation growing in the Spring. Mr.
Coleman said the contract documents reference Exhibit Sheet C-3 which is the
approved sheet that the bond is based on, so there is a connection between
the bond and the contract documents based on planning and the scope of the
work. If they were not tied together, the bond would describe on its own
what type of work you do so far as the amount of seeding and fertilizer.
Those things were described in the contract documents.
Mr. Bowerman asked for Ms. Higgins to repeat what transpired after the
August 3rd letter. Ms. Higgins said the August 3rd letter was not sent to
Mr. Parham. It was dealing with the bond amount. It reduced the amount of
the bond. It did get into Mr. Parham's hands because Ed Smith called the
Engineering Office and asked for a meeting. Mr. Bobby Shaw met Ed Smith, who
is the superintendent on the job, for Ronnie Parham. They walked the
complete site on August 12 and went over the corrections. When the County
holds a bond for $16,660 that equates to the amount of work remaining, and
that in itself says it is a substantial amount of work. As to the question
of immediate notice, the contract was complete in October. The specification
under the school contract says to put down top soil, to seed, to mulch, and
it says that if these things are done, contract requirements have been met.
It doesn't always guarantee that the grass will grow. Also, the Erosion
Control Ordinance requires a complete, permanent vegetative cover that will
survive severe weather conditions. The proof is in having the grass grow.
If the contractor needs to do more work under a contract to meet an ordinance
requirement, he would go back to the owner and ask for additional funds.
This contractor never came back and said the specifications were inadequate.
After the work was done, the contractor was released from his construction
contract because the County held a bond to guarantee in the Spring that the
grass would grow. In the Spring, the notices started being sent. August was
the renewal date for the bond. He felt comfortable in leaving that bond in
place and did not pursue the County for details of the work.
Mr. Martin said when the bond was reduced from $50,000 to $16,660 and a
list of corrections was given (even if the list was not as specific as it
should have been), he feels he would be responsible to find out what was
wronH, and what should be done in order to recoup the $16,660. If he were
relying on a subcontractor it would be his responsibility to be sure that
subcontractor did his job. He does not think Mr. Coleman can argue that
after August 3rd he did not know what was Hoing on, and Mr. Coleman knew
something was wrong. Mr. HiHHins said the school contract does have a year
of warranty on everything, so it was still in the warranty period. There was
no activity that would be above and beyond holding the bond waiting for the
grass to grow. From August until November 18, 1992, staff repeatedly met
with Mr. Parham, repeatedly exchanged information and got further pricing
from him on additional work which he claimed was beyond the contract. In
that 700 days there was a lot of activity going on.
Mr. Coleman asked about seeding that the County did on site in the
Spring of 1992. He thinks that if they came on site and did some work they
assumed some liability.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
00026 .
Mr. Martin said that would matter to him if Mr. Coleman had come to the
Board at that time. Now, Mr. Coleman is asking the Board to hear this appeal
based on his not being given notice during this long period of time, and the
damage was done during that period of time, and he has been wronged, but it
appears that Mr. Coleman was notified all along. Mr. Coleman said some of
the problem was the additional work the County requested, and he assumed paid
an additional amount to a contractor to do. Mr. Martin said if that were the
point, the circumstances would be different. Mr. Coleman said that is part
of it because that is where the erosion was. It all comes down to being
specific. Their complaint is that notice was not given according to Section
7.6.
Mr. Perkins said it seems that Mr. Coleman knew something was wrong,
and it was his responsibility to find out what it was. Mr. Coleman said that
is not what is stated in Section 7.6. They did not get notice until October,
1993, 700+ days after the fact.
Mr. Perkins said he feels Mr. Coleman's problem is with Parham Con-
struction.
Mr. Marshall said at the beginning of this conversation, it sounded
like there was a legitimate complaint against the County, but Mr. Coleman has
not rebutted what Ms. Higgins said. He can't support the appeal, and is
ready to go on to another agenda item.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall,
to deny the appeal.
Roi1 was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Bowerman asked what happens next. Mr. Davis said that unless the
bonding company honors the County's request for the $13,500, he will proceed
to file a lawsuit to collect that money.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending
and reordaining Chapter 4, Section 4-19(a), to add subsection (35) to include
Peacock Hill Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from
running at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August
28, 1995.)
(Note: At 10:42 a.m., Mr. Bowerman left the room.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this ordinance amendment as set out
in the minutes of the meeting of August 2, 1995.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Peter Drennan said when they bought their property five years ago,
they did so specifically so they could have animals romp and play with their
children, and who would be safe away from traffic. He was surprised to read
in Sunday's paper about this request for a leash law. It goes against one of
the reasons they moved there. He glanced at the statistics in the staff's
report and cannot refute the numbers. He suggested that the Board consider
grand fathering existing pets in the subdivision.
Ms. Cindy Perfeder, Secretary of the Peacock Hill Board, said there
have been numerous complaints from the residents. The homeowners association
has its own environmental protection ordinance which states that dogs are not
to run loose, but to be leashed so as not to disturb other people's property
or children. There are 180 lots in Peacock Hill, 43 of which are vacant,
with 137 residents. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:45
a.m.) Sixteen of the lots are vacant lots which are for sale at this time.
There have been complaints from citizens who are out walking, and all of the
complaints received at the office may not be from residents of Peacock Hill.
There are dogs from outside of the community who come in and run at large.
Without having the Albemarle County leash law in effect, they cannot call the
County's Animal Control Officer for help. In an effort to gain some sort of
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
000262
control as the community grows, they request that the dog leash law be
implemented for Peacock Hill.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered Mr. Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article
2, Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Subsection 35, Peacock Hill, as an area where
dogs are prohibited from running at large.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AR-D REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL,
ARTICLE 2, DOGS, DIVISION 2, RUAINING AT LARGE, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMA/~LE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article 2,
Dogs, Division 2, Running at Large, is hereby amended and re-
ordained by amending Section 4-19, In certain areas, as follows:
ARTICLE II. Dogs.
Division 2. Runninq at Larae.
Sec. 4-19. In certain areas.
(35)
Peacock Hill as recorded in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 589,
pages 205-212; Deed Book 708, pages 286; Deed Book
777, pages 039; Deed Book 904, pages 182, Deed Book
960, page 174; Deed Book 1025, page 610; Deed Book
1123, pages 071; Deed Book 1189, page 407; Deed Book
1310, page 128.
Agenda Item No. 10. Tax-exempt Status, University of Virginia Proper-
ties and Foundations, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said that at the Board's meeting on August 9, 1995, several
questions were raised concerning the tax exempt status of University property
and related foundations. State-owned university property is clearly tax
exempt as provided for in the Code of Virginia. The Code does, however,
authorize a service charge for faculty and staff housing which, by formula,
is the equivalent of a $0.70 tax rate.
Mr. Tucker said the Code of Virginia also provides that foundations
with incomes that are used exclusively for literary, educational or scien-
tific purposes are tax exempt. It becomes somewhat more complicated in
Albemarle County and Charlottesville in applying these particular code
sections since the Three-Party Agreement with the University and the City
requires the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) to pay taxes in the
County and City for properties not held for educational or scientific
research purposes. UREF and its wholly-owned subsidiaries currently pay such
property taxes.
Mr. Tucker said the Health Services Foundation (HSF) is the other
foundation affiliated with the University's Health Sciences Center that owns
property in the County. Again, under state law, it is exempt from paying
local taxes. However, HSF has voluntarily agreed to pay a service charge for
the Fontaine property that it currently owns. This service charge is agreed
to be set at the same amount received from the University for faculty and
staff housing. HSF is in the process of purchasing s~veral medical offices
in the County and it has indicated that it intends to continue paying taxes
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
00026
or a service charge on those facilities. Staff will be working out an
agreement with HSF on this matter in the near future.
Mr. Tucker said the taxation status and agreements regarding University
property are very complicated, however, the current arrangements the County
has with the University's foundations are favorable to the County considering
that the law would allow them to claim total exemption from local taxation.
Staff recognizes that the County benefits from having these facilities in the
community because of the enrichment provided by the University and by the
spin-off of employment opportunities in the region. Likewise, the University
recognizes that the arrangement for providing service charges and taxation on
certain property they hold is fair and equitable to both entities. The
County is fortunate that the University and the County have worked out
amicable agreements that acknowledge the need to protect the County's tax
base so the County can continue to provide high quality local services to
University properties. This is important to the University and in order to
promote the best interests of the County. University communities in other
parts of the State do not have similar arrangements.
Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President of the University, and
Mr. Nick Carter, Executive Director of the Health Services Foundation, were
present.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the statement "HSF is in the process of
purchasing several medical offices in the County and it has indicated that it
intends to continue paying taxes or a service charge on those facilities."
She asked why they do not just pay taxes instead of the service charge, since
they are competing for customers with other facilities, and the service
charge is lower than taxes. Mr. Tucker said they have a facility at Cross-
roads now, and they pay taxes on that facility. They are looking at facili-
ties in Earlysville and Forest Lakes. It will depend on the relationship of
the doctors with the HSF from a teaching perspective. That is the reason for
talking about an agreement on those facilities.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the County will know when these facilities move
from teaching to competition. Mr. Nick Carter said this is new for HSF. The
intent is to have teaching at the remote sites they are acquiring. It is
being done to increase the number of primary care physicians
Mrs. Humphris asked how there would be teaching in these remote sites.
Mr. Carter said these are primarily clinical sites; they will not be turned
into "teaching factories." With the mandate from the State to create more
primary care doctors, they are looking for new opportunities to get doctors
out into a more typical setting. They will be rotating residents and
students through those sites to get them an educational experience, and to
get clinical services there. If there is no teaching in any of the facili-
ties, taxes will be paid.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the people taking advantage of these sites in
the community will know that they might be seen by a resident doctor, and
that a student might be observing. Mr. Carter said it will be a different
ar.rangement from what exists in the Primary Care Center, but the patients
will know about the arrangement.
Mr. Marshall said managed health care is demanding that a person go to
a primary care physician, so a large number of these doctors must be created.
Mr. Martin said even if there is no teaching at Forest Lakes or Earlys-
ville and they are in direct competition with private hospitals, there is
nothing which requires them to pay taxes other than the fact that there is an
agreement. Mr. Davis said as long as they qualify as an incorporated
foundation whose profits are used exclusively for charitable, literary,
scientific, or educational purposes, they are not required to pay property
taxes. They are exempt, but they can be charged a fee in lieu of property
tax limited to a percentage of the tax base. It is not 70 cents, but a much
smaller number.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is good that they are agreeing to do it.
He was surprised at how much in taxes they are paying.
Mr. Sandridge said the University is actually making payments to the
County now in three categories. Under the "use charge in lieu of taxes
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
0002G4
category" (paid for any facility used for faculty and staff housing), they
paid about $64,000 to the County last year. In addition, they have a for-
profit corporation (Boar's Head Enterprises) and they are paying about
$134,000 a year for that property. Under the Three-Party Agreement which
obligates them to pay taxes, which technically under the law they would not
otherwise be required to pay, they paid $123,000 to the County. The combina-
tion of the three categories which represent the University, and the closely-
held foundation that was set up for holding real estate for the future of the
University, they pay about $320,000 a year to the County.
Mrs. Thomas said that this is indeed a unique arrangement. Mr. Martin
said to "leave well enough alone."
There was no further discussion of this report.
Agenda Item No. 11. Site Review Process, Discussion.
Ms. Marcia Joseph, Landscape Planner, was present to make the presenta-
tion. She said that consultants, developers, members of the public and staff
have identified several shortcomings in the current site review process. To
address these shortcomings, the development departments created a team to
examine existing methods. The team was determined to create a procedure that
would be more productive for the departments and the applicant(s) while
ensuring that the public remains informed.
The team identified the following as areas that require change:
(1)
Communication between development departments (internal improve-
ments).
Solutions include:
a)
b)
c)
Setting up regular site review internal committee sessions;
Continuing to encourage interactions among departments and
agencies to understand the role played within the process;
and
Respecting deadlines for comments requested by other de-
partments.
(2) The plan review process itself (external focus).
Solutions include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Making the plan/plat checklist reference ordinance sec-
tions;
Making submission of the checklist mandatory;
Rejecting plans/plats if all the material required is not
included in the submission;
Indicating if the requirements requested for revision on
the plan/ plat are for preliminary or final approval;
Limiting additional comments (re-review); and
Changing the Site Review meeting format.
Ms. Joseph said because the Site Review meeting includes consultants
and developers, along with staff from the Development departments, the
Highway Department, the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Health
Department, the team requested that the topic be presented at a Community
Roundtable so as to give the external participants, as well as the interested
public, the opportunity to present their views of the meeting process, and to
offer any changes they felt would improve the existing process. The meeting
also allowed developers and consultants to express their frustration with the
existing site review meeting.
Issues and concerns raised at the meeting included the following:
1)
2)
3)
Developers/consultants were not able to respond at the meeting to
the comments they were receiving from the various agencies.
Developers/consultants did not receive the comments before the
meeting.
Developers/consultants had to devote their entire morning to the
meeting, waiting in line behind other applicants that had been
scheduled for earlier times on the agenda.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000265
4)
5)
Developers/consultants had to attend the mandatory meeting even
if there were no issues or conflicts concerning their project.
A citizen representative noted that the Site Review meeting, as
currently structured, allows members of the public to observe the
meetings. Any changes to the meeting procedures should not
preclude this opportunity.
The team's recommendations to the concerns expressed follow:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Attendance at the Site Review meeting should be discretionary,
with attendance determined as needed by the applicant or the
staff;
The Site Review meeting should be a work session between the
consultant/developer and staff, in a scheduled appointment for
each submittal, set for a specific time slot;
Because the Site Review meeting would be made up of individually
scheduled appointments, there is a need to allow for public
awareness of the projects. Possibilities to increase public
awareness are under consideration.
To rewrite the letter sent to the adjacent owner making the
letter easier to understand, and to make the adjacent owner aware
that staff is available for information. Currently, the letter
sent to the adjacent owner does not advise of staff availability
and is not informative of the review process. This effort to
make the notifying letter more easily understood while helping to
clarify the process is clearly intended to more readily involve
members of the public.
Ms. Joseph said staff has investigated the placing of larger signs on
the individual property to advertise that a petition for a special permit,
zoning map amendment, or variance has been applied for. This is one of the
most visible methods of informing people of activity proposed on the site.
The signs, which are similar in size and shape to real estate sales signs,
will not be placed for site plan applications.
Mr. Bowerman asked what percentage of site plans are approved adminis-
tratively. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know the percentage, but it is not
the majority.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff considered restructuring Site Review
meetings so applicants could speak at those meetings, and also allow inter-
ested citizens to attend. Ms. Joseph asked if Mr. Bowerman was suggesting
having open Site Review meetings to accommodate that. Mr. Bowerman said it
was mentioned that there is no forum for the public to find out what is going
on except at a Commission or a Board meeting. Ms. Joseph said staff did talk
about it, but details of that have not been worked out. The concept is that
after all the information is received on Mondays from all the agencies
involved, it gives Tuesday for staff to digest that information and decide if
there needs to be a Site Review meeting on Thursday. It is difficult to get
the information out to the public and the applicant that there will be a
meeting on Thursday.
Mr. Cilimberg said that after the information is available about the
site plan, few people attend Site Review meetings. There are only a few
plans which are requested for full Commission review. (Note: Mr. Martin
left the room at 12:15 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked if these site plans are
basically for items which are ministerial, such as, construction of build-
ings, access, landscaping, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said there are some big
subdivisions as well, but all Rural Preservation developments have to go to
the Commission per the ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman asked what Ms. Joseph felt about changing the Site Review
meetings. Ms. Joseph said she favors the change. People have been frus-
trated by coming in and not being able to work out problems during the
process. There have even been people who came in from out of town and were
not allowed to speak during the meeting. Some citizens have been accustomed
to the meetings being held on a certain day so there should be a time when
they could see the information about the plan. She believes it will be
difficult to explain to people that approval is ministerial and there is no
recourse. It does get the developers and the adjacent owners together to
work out certain things that staff cannot require because of the ordinance.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
0002G6
Mr. Bowerman asked if the current process brings together developers
and adjacent owners. Ms. Joseph said at the current time no one is allowed
to speak during the meetings. What the staff plans on doing is allowing
consultants and the applicants to speak with people from the different
agencies to work out any problems.
Mrs. Humphris asked why people are not allowed to discuss anything
during these meetings. Ms. Joseph said that on many occasions the meetings
"got out of hand" and an excessive amount of time was spent on just one
project. Mrs. Thomas said that will be handled now by having set times on
the agenda. The last meeting she attended, the third applicant did not show
up, so the second applicant did ask questions and there was a lot of discus-
sion. It worked fine because there was no one else waiting for their turn.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 12:20 p.m.)
Mrs. Humphris said the problem at the meetings she attended appeared to
be with the County's staff person who did not run the meeting well. She does
not understand throwing out the process instead of having a way of handling
the meeting which makes it possible for everybody to inject their ideas. To
her, it appears that a process which could work is being thrown out instead
of administered correctly, plus creating the difficulty of scheduling,
individual conferences, etc. Mrs. Humphris said she wanted to refer to the
communication which was submitted to the Board by Babette Thorpe. She thinks
it is important since until a year ago Babette represented the Zoning
Department on the Site Review Committee. Ms. Thorpe said ~eliminating the
structure and allowing project review schedules to vary with each project
will complicate the process and undermine coordination and communication,
possibly increasing problems for developers, as well as adding to staff
burdens." Mrs. Humphris said she tends to agree with that, feeling the
County is making something more complicated, rather than simplifying it. She
does not understand why the meetings can't be handled in an orderly fashion,
with a stated policy and process. It doesn't mean that staff should not
communicate with the public in all the ways mentioned, but she still thinks
the meeting is important.
Ms. Joseph said one of the other aspects is to reject plans. Staff
feels this would eliminate a lot of the discussion during Site Review
meetings. If all information is not on the plan, the plan would be rejected
and there would not be a lot of discussion. Site review would then become an
earnest work session. Allowing discussion between the consultants and staff
so people would not be wasting time is the major concern. Not all problems
could be worked out at the meetings, but it would give some basis on which to
work. As for scheduling, staff considered this for customer service so
people would not have to come and wait for long periods of time.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates what Ms. Thorpe said on the second
page of her memo. ~Anyone who has tried to accommodate the vagaries of
everyday, individual calendars to schedule meetings, will realize that
scheduling independent reviews for each project represents a scheduling
nightmare. It should be expected that substantial additional staff time,
either at the expense of other elements of the work plan or taxpayers' funds,
will be needed if the existing structure imposed by the regular site review
meeting is sacrificed to individually scheduled project reviews." Mrs.
Humphris said she agrees. Many people change their schedules on a moment's
notice, thereby creating a nightmare.
Mr. Martin said there are two types of schedules. One is where we call
up and set a meeting with an individual person, and the other is where you
are notified that an appointment is set for a given time. There is a big
difference. It still would allow notification of adjoining property owners.
Mrs. Thomas said she assumed it was the second type of scheduling being
contemplated. She said the notification letter might suggest that people
call the office to see what time an item is scheduled to be discussed. Ms.
Joseph said if an application should not need to be reviewed because all
information is on the plan, and the applicant and/or developer does not need
to attend, the slot will be left open so if adjacent owners want to come in
and talk to people representing the different agencies, they would have an
opportunity to do so. Mrs. Thomas said that is what she assumed was meant by
"individual scheduling".
Mr. Bowerman said he has heard developers and consultants talk about
the process and this is not what he has heard complaints about. Most of the
000267
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
complaints seem to be directed toward getting a final decision because there
is controversy between the different agencies involved. Then, after the site
plan is approved, there are issues which come up during construction. Also,
during approval of the site plan, not all staff comments are complete,
causing consultants/developers to go through the same process more than one
time. Those are the real issues he has heard complaints about. It seems
that what staff is implementing is fine, but he has not heard complaints
about the site review process on Thursdays. It is what happens in those
meetings that he hears concerns about. How does this process change sitting
down with a developer, and there still being a difference of opinion between
two agencies. Mr. Tucker said allowing discussion between the agencies and
the applicant is the change being made. At this time, the adjacent property
owner cannot take part in the discussion. It is the agency telling the
applicant what corrections, etc. they recommend being made to the site plan.
This will allow the new, proposed change to take place on the same date, but
allow time for discussion between the applicant and staff.
Mrs. Humphris asked if under this new process, the meetings will be on
Thursdays. Ms. Joseph said "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked if the adjoining
landowners and citizen groups, as well as the applicant, can attend these
meetings. Ms. Joseph said staff has not found a way yet to let these people
know about the meetings. Citizens groups will know that the meetings are
being held on Thursdays. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a process to let
the adjoining owners know about the meeting. Ms. Joseph said they will
receive a letter. Mrs. Humphris asked if both the developer and the public
will be allowed to speak at the meeting. Ms. Joseph said ~yes". Mrs.
Humphris asked if the staff person conducting the meeting will explain to
everybody that they are not there to discuss the merits of the project, but
only how it meets or does not meet the design standards set forth in the
ordinances. Ms. Joseph said ~yes". Mrs. Humphris said as long as there is a
good staff person to conduct the meeting, this change should work. She asked
what problems remain to be dealt with. Ms. Joseph said staff needs to work
out details as to when the letter is sent. There is a rejection process, and
that occurs on day ten. Mrs. Humphris said the letter could include the
information about the rejection process, and suggest that the public call the
office for further information. That seems to be simple.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Site Review team has worked on overcoming
something Mr. Bowerman mentioned, and that is problems with conflicting
recommendations. That should not happen with what the Site Review Committee
is doing with their preliminary meetings and discussion among staff.
Mr. Bowerman said what he hears is that staff is not recommending many
changes. The meeting will be on the same day, during the same time period,
appointments are being scheduled, any citizen group who wants to hear can do
so, and, adjacent property owners will be notified of the time the item will
be heard.
Mrs. Humphris said part of the description of the new employee ~Manager
of Development/Site Review" says this person will manage the site review
process. Does this mean that this person will always chair this meeting?
Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked if this person is to act on
behalf of the Subdivision Agent in doing all these things; this person has no
obligation to the public, only the developer? Mr. Tucker said it is no
different than any other staff person has to listen to the concerns of the
public, and be sure the requirements of the ordinances are met. The Director
of Planning, by title, is the agent for the Board of Supervisors. This
individual, whomever that might be, would be acting so as to relief the
Director of Planning from having to do all those kinds of things. When that
person runs into problems, he would have to go back to department heads to
resolve conflicts. At this time, if an individual planner has a problem with
a plan, he does not feel he has the authority to move the plan forward if
there is a conflict with a staff member in another department. This new
employee is to work out those problems and remove the road blocks to find a
solution to the problem.
Mrs. Humphris said this person will have to walk a fine line working on
behalf of the subdivision agent and not become an advocate for the subdivi-
sion agent. Mr. Cilimberg said when a person is listed as the agent in an
ordinance, that is exactly what that person must do.
Mr. Bowerman asked when these changes will be implemented. Mr. Tucker
said staff has been waiting the Board's review of this report before going
0002G8
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
forward with advertising for the new position. The new process will not
begin until this new individual is hired.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that person will be superior to department heads
in terms of making decisions. Mr. Tucker said "no". Mr. Bowerman asked how
that person resolves issues when department heads disagree. Mr. Tucker said
basically this person will work under the supervision of the Director of
Planning and the Director of Engineering from a performance perspective.
This person will be given some authority in acting on behalf of the agent of
the Board of Supervisors in review of site plans and subdivisions. If there
is a conflict between an official in the Zoning office or an engineer, he
might have to review that with the Director of Planning. It will be cumber-
some initially.
Mr. Marshall said he had one concern. This individual will be put in a
position of judgment so it has to be an individual of the very highest moral
character. Are there any checks and balances to prevent an individual from
getting a ~kick-back" from a developer or someone with a great financial
interest in the plan? Mr. Tucker said that oversight would have to be
provided by the directors of planning and engineering.
Mrs, Humphris said she does not believe there was an answer to Mr.
Bowerman's last question. Mr. Cilimberg said if one reads the site plan
provisions in the ordinance, there are responsibilities assigned to the
agent. There are also responsibilities assigned to the director of engineer-
ing, and the zoning administrator. In the give and take of site review,
there can be differing opinions about interpretation. There is ultimately
one point of final decision. This person will try to work that out within
the site review process and make a decision. If a decision cannot be made,
then the department head assigned that responsibility by the zoning ordi-
nance, or by the subdivision ordinance, will have to make that decision.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it remains a ministerial decision. Mr. Cilimberg
said "yes".
Mr. Tucker said that now if a planner and an engineer cannot agree on
some point, the plan lays on someone's desk because that one point can't be
resolved. This new person will be responsible for keeping that decision-
making process moving forward. Mr Bowerman said the overseer is to be a
champion of the process; he is not on anyone's side in the process. He said
he does not have a problem with trying this approach, but he would like for
the Board to have a review in three to six months to see how it is going. If
it works the way staff has laid this out, and addresses the issues brought up
by the development community, it will be well worthwhile.
Mrs. Thomas said the Board has been "cheering on" efforts to get the
process working so there are fewer frustrations. If she spoke up, it was to
be sure the public's frustrations were included, as well as those of the
development community. She said this sounds like a process that has not
forgotten the public.
Mr. Marshall said he is willing to try this change.
Mrs. Humphris said she is willing to try it, but will say reluctantly
that she is concerned that this person has a "solomonesque" job to perform
and it will require great people skills. She thinks it will be difficult to
work for two department heads. She is concerned about how that will work.
She thinks the words in the memo furnished the Board that this person will
act on behalf of the subdivision agent in resolving differences is unfortu-
nate. She thinks this person should act to be sure the process works for
everybody involved, as Mr. Bowerman stated. Mr. Tucker said that sentence
can be amended.
Mrs. Humphris said she knows that Mr. Tucker and Mr. Cilimberg will
keep strict tabs on this because she knows they are aware of the Board's
concerns. She has not been convinced that the Board should not just be sure
the process in place, and the policies in place, are not executed better by
existing staff, rather than create another position. She is willing to watch
and wait.
Mr. Perkins asked if a motion were needed to finalize this item. Mr.
Tucker said he feels that if it a consensus that staff move forward with the
process, they will proceed. He would like for staff to begin acting on any
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
000269
problems they see without going to their department head. That is part of
the problem with government in general. Government does not deal with
issues, but always goes to someone else to make that decision. He wants
staff to have the confidence to make some decisions (this part of the QUIP
program).
Mr. Bowerman said he is supportive of the idea of people making
decisions. To not make a decision because you don't know how people will
react to it, is not the way to deal with it.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to set public hearing to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for water only to
existing structures for Clifton, The Country Inn (Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B,
23C, and 23F) .
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant makes this request as a result of
numerous water quantity and quality problems experienced over the last
several years. He seeks this request "in order to eliminate human health and
safety issues associated with the existing water quantity and quality."
The Comprehensive Plan, in the Village of Rivanna recommendations,
says, "water lines should be sized to serve the Village and Stone Robinson
School only." With the development of Glenmore in the Village, a waterline
was installed along the Route 250 East corridor from the Urban Area to
Glenmore. Subsequently, Stone Robinson School received a service area
designation for water and a waterline was constructed to serve the school
from the main line on Route 250.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant's property is located in the Rural
Areas as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding provision of public
utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and
strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should
be made available, "Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of
designated growth area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1)
adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public health or safety is endangered."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehensive Plan also warns that "such
utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can
increase development pressures." This request is being made under the second
strategy. Although not immediately adjacent to a waterline, the property is
across Route 729 from Stone Robinson School. The applicant has documented
difficulties he believes has made the on-site water supply unreliable in both
quantity and quality. He further indicates the well driller and the Virginia
Department of Health have advised the applicant to seek public water.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Officer,
has researched the situation and provided an analysis of options. He
concluded that connection to the public water supply line would remedy the
problems and that "this option represents the best use of resources to
guarantee a lasting solution that will protect public health and safety into
the future."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has been very deliberate in consideration
of requests for water service along the Route 250 East corridor so as not to
set a precedent for allowing water service in this area not intended for such
service. Two prior requests for water service were made for commercial
properties in this area (Booth/Exum [GOCO Oil] and Allen G. Dillard). The
Booth/Exum request was based on concerns with groundwater contamination. The
Dillard request was based on a need for fire suppression capabilities. Both
requests were denied.
Mr. Cilimberg said there seems to be evidence in the analysis by Mr.
Hirschman that a water quantity and quality problem exists at Clifton and the
applicant has exhausted reasonable options for on-site remedies. As this is
an operating restaurant and inn serving the public, staff believes this
circumstance may be distinguishable from others in this area and recommends
that the Board proceed to public hearing to consider granting a service area
boundary change for water only to existing structures for Clifton, The
Country Inn (Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B, 23C, and 23F) .
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
0O0270
Mr. Marshall said he doesn't see any reason to get into a deep discus-
sion about the request today. Mr. Bowerman said there may be philosophical
reasons why the Board should do this, and then the Board would want to go
forward.
Mr. Martin said that as with the two petitions that were denied during
the public hearing process, he thinks this one probably has more merit in
terms of its ability to meet the Board's long-term criteria, so he moved that
the Board set a public hearing on this request for October 4, 1995. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Solid Waste Alternatives.
Mr. Tucker said Joyce Engineering, consultants for the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority, has outlined six alternatives for future solid waste
disposal. The alternatives are:
1)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Ivy Landfill - status quo.
Ivy Landfill - status quo with a 35 percent reduction in munici-
pal solid waste due to the proposed BFI Transfer Station at Zion
Crossroads.
Municipal solid waste transfer station at Ivy Landfill.
Composting municipal solid waste.
Waste-to-refuse derived fuel (RDF) .
Waste-to-energy with ash disposal at the Ivy Landfill.
Mr. Tucker said at its meeting on August 28, the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (RSWA) authorized the creation of a solid waste task force to
review these alternatives and any other alternative that might be viable for
handling solid waste in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The suggested
makeup of the task force is to have three citizen members appointed by the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, three citizen members appointed by the
Charlottesville City Council and three citizen members appointed by the RSWA.
This task force would be given a basic charge of analyzing more definitively
these and other alternatives and then making a recommendation in terms of
priority which would be considered by the RSWA, and the City and County.
Mr. Tucker said that in addition to the establishment of a task force,
the RSWA also withdrew the master plan currently under consideration by the
Albemarle County Planning Commission. A site plan outlining improvements
around the convenience area, i.e., blue bag drop-off, citizen convenience
area, pilot compost area, household hazardous waste drop-off area, etc. will
be submitted to the County's Department of Planning and Community Development
for approval as Phase I of the Ivy Landfill site plan. The remaining areas
for new cell construction and height expansion will not be a part of any site
plan before the Commission at this time. Any future master plan will await
the recommendation(s) regarding solid waste disposal alternatives.
Mr. Tucker said the County Attorney's Office has reviewed the risks and
responsibilities from the County's perspective on the matter of the landfill.
That review included evaluating the reports and data pertaining to the
current conditions at the landfill, the State's and County's role in the
regulation and management of solid waste, applicable state and federal laws,
and other factors that may have a bearing on the potential liability of the
County. Based on analysis of current law and known facts, it is their
opinion that the County has no present liability arising from the operation
of the Ivy Landfill.
Mr. Tucker said this is just a report to the Board and requires no
action. Staff would like to have some guidance on the appointment of the
three citizen members.
Mrs. Thomas asked if it would be appropriate to discuss the appoint-
ments in executive session. Mr. Tucker said that is allowed. Mrs. Thomas
said she had asked for a report of this sort, which is certainly just a
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
preliminary report. It appears that the consultant is thinking there is $4.0
million worth of clean-up to be performed. No one really knows what will
happen at the landfill. Many of the neighbors have pointed out that to
proceed with piling more on top of the unknown dangers underneath does not
make any sense at this point. There are numerous wells still being drilled.
The Authority is trying to find out what is happening. She does have some
suggestions for names, but believes the Board would probably want to discuss
them as is done with all appointments.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important to note what an important part flow-
control plays in the future. It seems to drive everything, and if the
localities do not have authority for it, they cannot plan, as Congress goes
ahead with flow-control legislation. Mr. Tucker said it limits the alterna-
tives.
Mrs. Thomas said the Virginia Association of Counties is urging
approval of the Oxley bill which only grandfathers flow-control and would not
allow the RSWA, if a more reasonable solution were found, to guarantee that
there would be sufficient waste to build any of the things that might require
a major flow. It means that almost every study done in the past on alterna-
tives would need to be looked at again, because all of them assume there can
be contracts and flow-control.
Mr. Tucker said there is no action needed at this time.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel (Boards and Commis-
sions applications) and Disposition of Real Property.
At 1:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr.
Martin, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-
344(a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel
matters regarding appointments to boards and commissions; under subsection
(3) to discuss the disposition of real property relating to possible capital
improvements; and under subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and
staff four specific legal matters, one regarding an insurance issue, one
regarding the negotiation of a contract, one regarding pending litigation
concerning a zoning issue; and, one regarding reversion issues.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Executive Session.
At 4:02 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, that the
Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's
knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identi-
fied in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or
considered in the executive session.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
(Note: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 4:04
p .m)
Agenda Item No. 12. Juvenile Detention Needs, Secure Assessment ofo
Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, said that concern has been
expressed about the increasing number of Albemarle and Charlottesville
juveniles being transported and detained at the Shenandoah Valley Detention
Home in Staunton, as well as security concerns at the current facility for
the more serious and violent offenders. The County and City requested
000272
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
assistance from the State Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) last
December to conduct a study of the current and future needs for secure
detention beds for the two localities. A report was produced by a team
composed of City, County, Children and Youth Commission (CACY), Juvenile
Court and DYFS staff. This report will be submitted to DYFS in October for
their approval to proceed with a Program Design and Planning Study.
Ms. White said the increasing number and severity of Charlottesville
and Albemarle youth offenders is creating capacity, security and transporta-
tion problems at the current Shenandoah Valley Detention Home in Staunton.
Charlottesville and Albemarle together make up approximately 45 percent of
the bed space in a 32-bed facility, with Albemarle admissions increasing 236
percent over an ll-year time period and the average daily population (ADP)
for Albemarle youth increasing from 1.4 to 3.9 youths over the same time
frame. Additional problems cited in the report are the lack of safe holding
cells for the juveniles at the Courthouse, the costs and security problems in
transporting juveniles back and forth to Staunton on a regular basis, the
lack of security for violent offenders at the current facility, and the lack
of post-dispositional spaces. Post-dispositional placements are often
favored by the local judges who would like the option of sentencing a
juvenile offender for a 30- to 180-day local placement, rather than commit-
ting the youth to a more permanent state facility.
Ms. White said that based on current usage and trends, the report
concludes that a 65-bed secure detention facility may be needed to address
the growing number of delinquent youth in Albemarle and Charlottesville over
the next 20 years. If the State Board of the Department of Youth and Family
Services concurs with this assessment, approval will be granted for Albemarle
and Charlottesville to proceed with a feasibility/planning study. This study
will provide a detailed analysis of the capital and operational costs for
this type of facility and is estimated to cost approximately $10,000 to
$20,000, all of which would be 100 percent locally funded by the City and
County. If approval is received from the State and both the Board and City
Council agree to fund the study, it should be completed by July, 1996. The
design plan would then come back to the Board and City Council for approval
before sending it to the State for consideration in the State's 1997-98
budget.
Ms. White said if funding were approved by the State, construction
could begin by July, 1997. Similar to jail construction funding, the State
will reimburse the County and City for 50 percent of the costs of construc-
tion, but only after construction is completed. The State would continue to
pay a high of two-thirds of the personnel costs and 100 percent of the
operational costs to a low of 50.48 percent of the combined personnel and
operation costs. Although the full budget impact will not be available until
the feasibility/design study is completed, estimated costs are provided as
follows:
Planning Study ($10,000 - $20,000)
Site Acquisition
Facility Construction
(65 beds @ $100,000 bed)
Operational Cost ($25,000 $30,000/bed
or $400,00 - $1,550,000 to
$1,950,000 annually)
Local
$20,000
$3,250,000
State
$o
? ?
$3,250,000
$965,000 $985,000
Ms. White said Albemarle's share of the local costs would need to be
determined as part of the contractual agreement establishing a juvenile
facility commission. Although not included in the official needs assessment
study, the counties of Culpeper, Fluvanna and Goochland have expressed a
strong interest in joining with Albemarle and Charlottesville and have
participated in several discussions with the assessment team during the
assessment report process. All three jurisdictions will also be submitting
their individual needs assessments to the state board at the same time in
October. If approved, their participation in a joint facility could reduce
the local share of the costs to Albemarle and Charlottesville shown above.
Ms. White said this report is submitted for the Board's information and
does not require any action at this time. However, given the time frame for
the proposed jail expansion and the need to locate additional secure juvenile
detention space in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, staff recommends that
the Board request the Jail Board to investigate the possibility of designing
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
000273
the jail expansion to include space for juvenile offenders. Although there
are many problems associated with housing juveniles in close proximity to
adult offenders, the economies of scale of sharing kitchen, laundry, educa-
tional and security functions seems an option worth pursuing before commit-
ting significant funds to a separate juvenile facility.
Mrs. Thomas asked what makes the difference in the way the state pays.
Ms. White said there are just two ways the State allocates. The State has
been very vague about which way it would be. It depends on the type of
historical block grants the locality already has.
Mr. Martin said it is much like the Jail. If there is empty bed space,
other localities could be offered use of the facility at the beginning to
make it a more regional facility, but if there is any space, there are plenty
of bodies to put in that space, and a per diem is charged.
Ms. White said the State is presently about 130 percent over capacity,
so there is a need for beds. The funding share would depend on what could be
worked out with the Juvenile Detention Commission. Culpeper, Fluvanna and
Goochland do not have contracts with anybody for bed space. They have been
party to some of the discussions held and all three jurisdictions are
interested in joining in with Charlottesville and Albemarle. That would
change the calculations as to what the cost would be to Albemarle.
Mr. Martin said he mentioned them because they are part of the 16th
District, but going in the other direction, he does not believe Nelson County
has an agreement either. Ms. White said there have been preliminary discus-
sion with Madison and Greene counties who have contracts now with the
Rappahannock Center, but they also have transportation problems.
Ms. White noted that this is a five-step process. This initial phase
does not require any action by the Board. The localities have to wait and
see what the State approves on the lltho The second phase would be a
feasibility and design study at local cost. Then the plan would come back to
this Board next July and, if approved, go to the State, and then construction
would begin in 1997.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this should be pursued at the same time that the
localities are developing a jail authority. Ms. White said a separate
juvenile detention commission is usually set up, and it would not be part of
the authority. It was recommended that while the jail is going through the
expansion phase, that somebody address the issue of whether the two things
could be done together. There are a lot of statutory problems involved, but
there would be economies of scale in the way of kitchen facilities, laundry
facilities, recreational facilities. Mr. Martin said even if the two
facilities were sight and sound separated, there would be some sharing of
staff, so he feels it is an idea worth investigating. Ms. White said it has
been discussed that the possibility of any advantages of doing this should be
looked at during this initial stage in moving forward on both facilities.
Mrs. Humphris asked who will take the lead in making this investiga-
tion. It has been suggested that it be the Jail Board, but if it is, who
pays for the Jail Board's design team to look at this idea? Mr. Tucker said
that is something the City and the County will have to consider. The first
thing to look at is whether a juvenile facility could physically be located
on the site with the jail. That should not require a major analysis. If the
answer is positive, then a decision is needed as to the cost of such a study.
Mrs. Humphris said she believes the consultants already know the
building parameters of the site, and the 115 beds which are being deleted are
being taken out from within the footprint, so that should make it fairly
simple. She asked if this Board should send a letter to the Jail Board
asking them to consider doing this with the Puckett firm. Mr. Tucker said
~yes". Mrs. Humphris offered this as a motion.
Ms. White suggested the Board wait to see what the State will do on the
llth in reference to financing. Mrs. Humphris said the Jail Board has a
meeting soon~ and wondered if it should go ahead and discuss the idea. Ms.
White said "yes".
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion that this Board send a letter
suggesting the Jail Board start discussions on this possibility, subject to
000274
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
the State's decision on October llth. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Thomas.
Mr. Martin said that two or three years ago, the State passed Section
16.1-281.1(a) and (b) which allowed a judge to sentence a juvenile to
detention. Because the County's agreement with the detention home was signed
prior to that statute being adopted, the detention home does not honor that
statute. Ms. White said the daily population at the Shenandoah Valley
Detention Home is over its capacity, so there will be some expansion at that
facility anyway.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mrs. Humphris noted that last week she got some information concerning
the jail expansion. It was estimated to cost $15.8 million. Cutting out
one-half of the beds only cuts the cost by $2.0 million. It will still cost
more than $13.0 million for this project. The savings are not great.
Not Docketed: Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to reappoint Beverly Dee Tirrell and
Karen Lilleleht, and to appoint Frances Lee-Vandell to the Housing Committee
as of December 31, 1995, with three-year terms ending December 31, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to appoint Chris L. Daschbach to
serve out the unexpired term of Sonia H. Barton until September 30, 1996, on
the JAUNT Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to reappoint Stephen Ayers to the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Airport Commission with a new term beginning
December 1, 1995, and ending December 1, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Lisa Keyes Glass and
Jerry E. Jones to the Jordan Development Corporation with new terms expiring
on August 13, 1996.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Fred W. Shields, Jr.,
to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board to a term which expires on
September 1, 1997.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to appoint Robert H. Hodge, Jr. to
the Monticello Area Community Action Agency with no set term limit.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint C. Timothy Lindstrom
to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with a term ending December
13, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Karen Morris, Thomas
J. Jakubowski and Elsie T. Fryer to the Regional Disability Services Board to
terms which end on July 1, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to appoint David Booth to the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee to a term which begins
January 1, 1996, and ends on December 31, 1997, and to reappoint John K.
Pollock to a term which ends on December 31, 1997.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to reappoint Bruce K. Kirtley to the
Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation with a term which expires
December 31, 1998.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas to appoint Ralph E. Allen, Laurel
Elizabeth Royse and Richard W. Morton to the Solid Waste Task Force.
Mr. Martin gave second to all of the motions for appointments. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
000275
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adoption of a Resolution regarding Section 5-3 of
the County Code to eliminate all permit and inspection related fees for
projects owned by Albemarle County or Albemarle County Schools.
Mr. Tucker noted that staff recently conducted a planning session with
the various departments involved in handling Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects. The purpose of this session was to identify ways to work
together on all aspects from plan review and site inspections to bidding and
project management in order to more efficiently handle the work load.
One of the recommendations was to eliminate the payment of inspection
fees on all County-funded projects. Currently, the County is required to pay
the Building Permit fees associated with construction projects. As an
example, on the Sutherland Middle School, this amounted to about $13,000.
The recommendation to eliminate the payment of these fees is based on the
following:
The fees are built into the contractor's bid which the
County is paying with borrowed funds and subjecting itself
to interest for twenty years on these permit fees.
2 o
Each subcontractor is responsible for the fees associated
with his/her portion of the work which is then marked up by
the general contractor and passed along to the County.
3 0
It is easily remedied by indicating on bid documents that
the owner (if the owner is the County government, or the
School System) will be responsible for all permit fees.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that fees not be collected on any
project owned by Albemarle County or Albemarle County Schools. This recommen-
dation appears to be consistent with the practice of many other localities and
is felt to be fiscally prudent.
Mr. Tucker said staff knows there will be a drop in revenues and that
expenditures in the Inspections Department could exceed revenues for the first
time since 1986. Since the payment of fees was a paper transfer anyway, there
is no negative impact on the overall financial condition of revenues and it
will clearly save the County money in interest charges and contractor mark-
ups.
Mr. Tucker said a second issue is whether to waive fees for projects not
owned by the County, but where financial participation from the County may be
involved. Examples would include the upcoming construction on the Crozet
pool, the recent construction by the Community Action Agency (MACAA), fire and
rescue buildings which may include community centers (East Rivanna Fire
Station), etc. The difficulty in considering these projects for eligibility
is defining the limits of who should be included. There are a tremendous
number of nonprofit organizations in the community that are all serving very
useful purposes. The difference in these types of requests and those owned by
the County is that there is no true revenue loss in those projects owned by
the County, whereas there would be for others. The same level of inspections
for both types of projects will still have to be provided. Once opened to
others, it would be difficult to define who should be exempt and who should
not, and why.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution
eliminating all permit and inspection-related fees for projects owned by
Albemarle County or Albemarle County Schools.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
TO AMEND CERTAIN
PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000276
W~EREAS, Section 5-3 of the Code of Albemarle prescribes
fees required to be paid for permits and inspections for new
construction or other building operations; and
W-~EREAS, the Code of Albemarle further provides that such
fees prescribed in Section 5-3 may be amended by resolution of the
Board of Supervisors; and
W~EREAS, the Board has determined that the efficient opera-
'tion of government and good financial management requires the
elimination of all fees for construction projects owned by Albe-
marle County or the Albemarle County Public School System.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~SOLV~D that the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby amends Section
5-3 of the Code of Albemarle by resolution to eliminate all permit
and inspection fees for new construction or building operations
for any construction project owned by Albemarle County or the
Albemarle County Public School System.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Shooting near Residences: Review of Policy Options
for Prohibiting Discharging of Firearms near or Adjacent to Populated Areas.
Mr. Tucker said that staff had been requested to look into the issue of
discharging firearms in and around subdivisions and other occupied dwellings.
Game Warden, Kenny Dove, has indicated a high degree of skepticism in ability
to enforce such a regulation, as well as difficulty in defining the areas
where shooting would be prohibited.
Mr. Tucker said staff researched the request and found that Section 13-9
of the County Code makes it unlawful to discharge any firearm within the
boundaries of any residential district in the County as designated by zoning
classification. The enabling legislation for Section 13-9 actually allows the
County to ban shooting firearms, air or gas-operated weapons, in an area so
heavily populated as to make such conduct dangerous.
Mr. Tucker said Section 15.1-518.1 of the Code of Virginia allows
counties to prohibit hunting with firearms or other weapons within one-half
mile of any subdivision or other area which is so heavily populated as to make
hunting dangerous. Signs are required to be erected designating such bound-
aries. A survey of urbanizing counties reveals an apparent reluctance to
incorporate this half mile regulation, presumably due to the difficulty in
erecting sufficient signage to designate the boundaries.
Stafford County makes it unlawful to shoot within one hundred yards of
any regularly occupied structure without written permission of its owner or
occupant. This is apparently done under the enabling legislation of Section
15.1-518 of the Code of Virginia which does not require the signage provision
of Section 15.1-518.1. This appears to be the best solution to the issue of
attempting to restrict discharging firearms adjacent to districts zoned
residential. ~
Mr. Tucker said as with any ordinance, enforcement is the key to an
effective solution to a problem. A requirement that prohibits discharging a
firearm within a set distance of an occupied dwelling is consistent with the
current prohibition of the same within 50 feet of a highway and would be
enforced with the same resources. Hunter education will be, as always, an
important element of addressing this issue should the Board decide to move
forward. This same amendment could be written to include air or gas-powered
weapons if the Board so chose.
Mrs. Humphris said this resulted from some experiences she brought to
the Board's attention last year. A resident of Arbor Park mentioned target
shooting next to his property line which he found to be scary for himself and
his family. Another person living near Bloomfield called Mrs. Humphris to say
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
000277
a deer had been shot right next to her house, and then staggered to her door
and died right on the front door step and was left by the hunters. She thinks
anything that says a firearm cannot be shot within a hundred yards of any
regularly occupied structure is probably a good thing to have on the books.
She does not think people who live in the rural area should be subjected to
this kind of problem. She does not know of any downside to the legislation.
Mr. Martin said the way the draft ordinance is written his son could not
shoot his bee-bee gun at a target in his back yard. That is one of the things
he is qualified to do as a Boy Scout. Mr. Tucker said it is written so that
this activity can take place if the child has the permission of the owner.
Mr. Bowerman said he was concerned about a couple of incidents in
Woodbrook where compressed gas pistols were being sold. The current ordi-
nances do not prohibit that. He would like to see that type of weapon also
covered if an ordinance is to be adopted.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County does not already have the necessary
legislation in place. Mr. Tucker said there is a provision relating to
zoning, and that would not help either example given by Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Davis said the current ordinance addresses only firearms and that
does not cover bee-bee guns or the compressed gas pistols, and does not apply
in the Rural Area districts.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff would bring back another proposal before
this goes to public hearing.
Mr. Marshall said the Board, last year, discussed these types of
ordinances and tried to be sure they were all uniform with state laws. He
would not want to make changes that would make that interpretation more
complicated. Mrs. Humphris said homes in the Rural Areas District are not
protected by existing laws.
Mr. Davis said what is being proposed is not a "no hunting" provision,
but a "no shooting" provision. Mr. Martin said it would still be in confor-
mity with the State as to the rules of hunting.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to see the exact text before setting it
for a public hearing. The other Board members agreed.
(Note: Bowerman leaves the meeting at 4:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 19. Year End Adjustments and Reappropriations: General
Fund Operations and Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said that based on staff's
annual review of projects and operations at fiscal year end, this report is
provided to advise the Board of the County's financial status as of June 30,
1995. Approval is being requested for expenditures and projects that require
adjustments at year end or which span fiscal years.
FINANCIAL STATUS: The County continues to remain in sound financial
condition. General Fund operations for FY 1994-95 resulted in a surplus of
approximately $2.8 million. This results from revenues exceeding projections
by $1.8 million and expenditures being less than appropriated by $1.0 million
(savings). Revenues exceeded projections in the following areas:
Real Estate Tax $ 288,000
Personal Property Tax 875,000
Sales Tax 498,000
Investments 797,000
Other Revenues (658,000)
Total ........... $1,800,000
School operations resulted in a surplus of approximately $0.5 million
primarily as a result of a reduction in expenditures. However, these amounts
are preliminary and subject to minor adjustments. Audited results will be
presented to the Board in the near future.
000278
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
FY 1994-95 OVEREXPENDITURES: Overexpenditures were incurred in several
General Fund operations totaling $80,500 (Appropriation Form #940073).
Justification for the major items follows:
Circuit Court ($8600) - Primarily due to the payment of
accumulated leave resulting from the retirement of Mrs. Jean
Easton.
Magistrate ($1600) - The forced relocation of the office
resulted in a substantial rent payment.
Sheriff ($66,500) - Additional staff approved for the Town
of Scottsville and a substantial increase in provision of
security at private events. This overexpenditure was
largely offset by additional funding from the State Compen-
sation Board and fees charged for the private security.
District Home ($2450) - Increased usage exceeded budget
projection. This expense is basically outside of the
County's control and often difficult to project.
Mr. Breeden said an overexpenditure was also incurred in the Capital
Improvement Fund on two projects detailed on Appropriation Form #940074.
These projects can be covered by a transfer from a completed project with a
surplus balance.
REAPPROPRIATIONS: Requests have been received from numerous departments
for funds from FY 1994-95 to be reappropriated for expenditures in FY 1995-96.
The total General Fund request is $482,437.72. These requests are summarized
in three categories:
1)
Purchases made in FY 1994-95 for which the goods or
services had not been received or finalized as of June
30, 1995, ($80,965.75) (Form ~95017) .
2)
Projects funded in FY 1994-95 which were in progress
but not completed as of June 30, 1995, ($229,372.97)
(Form #95018).
3)
Projects or equipment needed for various operations
which were not funded in the FY 1995-96 Budget or
needs that have been identified since adoption of the
FY 1995-96 Budget ($172,099.00) (Form #95018).
Mr. Breeden said capital improvement projects have also been reviewed
and show a total $4,649,329.40 in projects still in process, but uncompleted
as of June 30, 1995. As recommended by the County's Auditors, the Capital
Fund will be split into two funds for FY 1995-96. Appropriation Form #95015
provides the details of uncompleted school projects totaling $853,103.08.
Appropriation Form #95016 provides the details of uncompleted General Fund
projects totaling $3,796,226.32. All project balances requested for reappro-
priation are the amounts unexpended as of June 30, 1995, with one exception.
Based on the revised cost savings for Berkmar Drive, $150,000 is requested to
be transferred from the Berkmar project to the Avon Street/Route 20 Connector
project.
Mr. Breeden said staff believes these requests are justified. Addi-
tional adjustments will likely need to be requested based on the final closing
of FY 1994-95 operations. However, this action covers the major items needed
for continuation of FY 1995-96 operations in an orderly manner.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt
the following resolutions of appropriation. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Bowerman.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
September 6,
(Page 45)
1995
(Regular Day Meeting)
0002 9
NUMBER: 940073
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FISCAL YEAR FY 1994-95 OVEREXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100012013601700 COMMUNITY SVCS
1100021010601700 CIRCUIT COURT
1100021030700003 MAGISTRATE
1100031020110000 SHERIFF
1100031020129900
1100031020210000
1100031020221000
1100031020270000
1100031020600800
1100031020800501
1100041021332300
1100059000563000
DESCRIPTION
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES 8
RENT 1
SALARIES 27
OVERTIME-REIMBURSABLE26
FICA 2
RETIREMENT 2
WORKERS COMP 1
VEHICLE OPERATION 2
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT 4
STREET SIGNS
DISTRICT HOME
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1 050 00
600 00
600 00
650 00
850 00
050 00
.250 00
150 00
.250.00
300.00
300.00
2,450.00
$8o,5o0.oo
REVENUE
2100051000510100 FUND
DESCRIPTION
BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$80,500.00
$80,5o0.oo
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
N-UMBER: 940074
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FISCAL YEAR FY
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1900060100800705 SCHOOL BOARD
1900062420800673 SCHOOL BOARD
1900060100950013 FACILITIES PLAINT
TOTAL
1994-95 OVEREXPENDITURES
AMOUNT
COMPUTER CABLING $14,200.41
HVAC IMPROVEMENTS 533.00
STOP SWITCHES (14,733.41)
$o.oo
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$0.00
$o.oo
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95015
FUND: CIP-SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATIONS FOR SCHOOL CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FROM FY 1994-95
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1900060100800664 SCHOOL BOARD SECURITY SYSTEMS $75,
1900060100800665 SCHOOL BOARD ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGE 115,
1900060100950014 SCHOOL BOARD SOIL MONITORING 7,
1900060100950042 SCHOOL BOARD UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 76,
1900060100950087 SCHOOL BOARD ENERGY MANAGEMENT 21,
1900060205950021 HOLLYMEAD FOLDING WALL
1900060210800605 STONE ROBINSON CONSTRUCTION 1,
1900060210800901 STONE ROBINSON RENOVATIONS 25,
1900060215312300 AGNOR-HURT PROF SER ARCHITECTURE 17,
1900060255312350 SUTHERLAlkrD ENGINEERING/PLANNING
1900060255800200 SUTHERLAND FURNITURE & FIXTURES 59,
1900060255800605 SUTHERLAND CONSTRUCTION 32,
1900060255800740 SUTHERLAND LAB EQUIPMENT
1900060301312350 ALBEMARLE ENGINEERING/PLANNING 17,
1900060301800605 ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION 3,
1900060301800901 ALBEMARLE BUILDING RENOVATIONS
1900060301800903 ALBEMARLE ASBESTOS REMOVAL 4,
1900060302800901 W ALBEMARLE BUILDING RENOVATIONS 10,
AMOUNT
692 32
592 19
622 50
535 00
161 53
355 97
200 00
000 00
280 00
680 47
471 03
173 03
600 00
310 08
336 35
550 00
798 75
153 04
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
1900060303312350
1900060303800901
1900060304312350
1900060410800605
1900060510800901
1900061101800700
1900062190800700
1900064010800700
1900064010800710
MURRAY EDUC
MURRAY EDUC
NEW HIGH SCHOOL
CATEC
VEHICLE MAINT
CLASS/INST
ADM-TECHN
DEPT OF ED
DEPT OF ED
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING RENOVATIONS
ADP EQUIPMENT
ADP EQUIPMENT
ADP EQUIPMENT
ADP-SOFTWARE
TOTAL
REVENUE
2900051000510100
DESCRIPTION
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
O00Z$O
205.84
3 156 53
37 114 52
7 783 75
306 221 75
10 127 37
1 210 06
12 214 00
5,557.00
$853,103 08
AMOUNT
$853,103.08
$853,103.08
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95016
FUND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATIONS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS FROM FY 1994-95
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1901012140950004
1901012200800301
1901012200800700
1901021050331000
1901031010950005
1901031040312703
1901031040950085
'1901032010800510
1901032010800710
1901032010950092
1901033020700002
1901033020800665
1901041000800960
1901041000800961
1901041000800962
1901041000800963
1901041000800964
1901041000950011
1901041000950022
1901041000950035
1901041000950039
1901041000950059
1901041000950072
1901041000950073
1901041000950090
1901041000950091
1901041020950036
1901041020950051
1901041020950065
1901041020950081
1901041020950098
1901043100580411
1901043100800665
1901043100800666
1901043100800901
1901051020800901
1901051020950095
1901071000800665
1901071000800668
1901071000950003
1901071000950006
1901071000950009
1901071000950010
1901071000950015
1901071000950016
1901071000950018
1901071000950019
FINANCE
INFO SERVICES
INFO SERVICES
JUVENILE CT
POLICE DEPT
EMERGENCY SERV
EMERGENCY SERV
FIRE DEPART
FIRE DEPART
FIRE DEPART
CORRECTION
CORRECTION
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
STREET IMP
COUNTY OFFICE
COUNTY OFFICE
COUNTY OFFICE
COUNTY OFFICE
HEALTH DEPT
HEALTH DEPT
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS &' REC
PARKS & REC
DESCRIPTION
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
COMMUNICATION EQUIP-R
ADP EQUIPMENT
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
SATELLITE RECEIVERS
E-911 LOCATOR SYSTEM
E-911 JOINT CITY/COUNTY
SERVICE VEHICLES-NEW
DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE
FIRE HOUSE
REGIONAL JAIL
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGE
STREET LIGHTS
AMOUNT
$150,000 00
1,875 24
14 030 60
4 528 45
245 900 00
179 056 32
714 474 49
9 100.00
24 060.00
150 000.00
207 107.28
35 250.00
40 000.00
000.00
000 00
000 00
000 00
817 89
000 00
800 00
06O 75
976 35
000 00
000 00
667 00
000 00
475 91
700 00
650 00
107 90
071 00
940 81
435 05
930 00
122 98
.690 00
.444 22
827 80
375.80
518.70
806.85
,400.00
859.00
,400.00
359.00
000.00
,400.00
ST LTS-HYDRAULIC/CMNW'LTH 16
ST LTS-HYDRAULIC/GEO'TOWN16
ST LTS-WHITEWOOD/GEO'TOWN12
ST LTS-GEOTOWN/CMA/W'LTH 16
HYDRAULIC ROAD SIDEWALK 32
ASPHALT PATH-GEORGETOWN 13
NORTH BERKSHIRE ROAD 3
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY ENG 109
KEENE LANDFILL CLOSURE 376
PARK ROAD EXTENSION 41
SIDEWALK-FIFTH STREET 78
IVY ROAD 1
BARRACKS RD SIDEWALK 11
BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED 252
AVON ST-RT 20 CONNECTOR 220
COMMONWEALTH DRIVE
REVENUE SHARING-ROADS 11
MECHUMS WEST 3
ADA COMPLIANCE 65
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGE 42
FACILITY MAINTENANCE 17
BUILDING RENOVATIONS 17
BUILDING RENOVATIONS 2
HEALTH DEPT-NEW WING 12
ADA STRUCTURAL CHANGE 197
A/DA CH3%NGES-SCHOOLS 93
CROZET PARK IMPROVEMENTS
CROZET/GREENWOOD FIELD 1
SCOTTSVILLE COMbUJNITY CTR 14
CHRIS GREENE LAKE 5
WALTON TENNIS COURTS 12
CALE BASKETBALL COURT 2
WHITEWOOD ROAD 30
JOUETT TENNIS COURTS 12
September 6,
(Page 47)
1995
(Regular Day Meeting)
00028 .
1901071000950031
1901071000950047
1901071000950079
1901071000950080
1901071000950083
1901071002800650
1901073020312350
1901073020800663
1901073020800673
1901073020800902
1901073020950062
1901073020950076
1901081010950001
1901081010950002
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
PARKS & REC
TOWE MEMORIAL
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
LIBRARIES
PLANNING
PLANNING
WAHS TENNIS CT RESR'FCING 25,000.00
BEAVER CREEK PARK 7,425.48
STONE ROBINSON REC IMPVMTS 1,946.69
HOLLYMEAD REC IMPROVEMENTS 5,169.90
STONY POINT RURITAN BSBL
BUILDINGS-CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING/PLANNING
CARPET REPLACEMENT
HVAC IMPROVEMENTS
ROOF REPAIRS/IMPVMNTS
LIBRARY RENOVATIONS
NORTH BRAi~CH LIBRARY
HYDRAULIC/RIO BIKE PTHWY
OLD BROOK RD SIDEWALK
TOTAL
894.04
18,334.70
8,019 00
20,000 00
100,000 00
4,324 50
22,536 77
4,223 10
43,000 00
15,132.75
$3,796,226 32
REVENT3E
2901019000120605
2901024000240429
2901024000240430
2901051000510100
DESCRIPTION
RECOVERED COST E-911 FUND
CATEGORICAL AID VDOT-BERKMAR
CATEGORICAL AID VDOT-250E LANDSCAPING
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$893,530.81
160,692.18
44,234.00
2,697.769.33
$3,796,226.32
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95017
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE
OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATIONS FOR GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100011010800710
1100012010350000
1100012141800200
1100012141800700
1100012142800100
1100012142800201
1100012142800700
1100012143800200
ENCUMBPJkNCES FROM FY 1994-95
DESCRIPTION
BOARD OF SUP ADP SOFTWARE
COUNTY EXEC PRINTING & BINDING
FINANCE-ADM FURN & FIXTURES
FINANCE-ADM ADP EQUIPMENT
FINANCE-ASSESS M_ACH & EQUIP
FINANCE-ASSESS FURN & FIXTURES
FINANCE-ASSESS ADP EQUIPMENT
FINANCE-ACCT FURN & FIXTURES
FINANCE-ACCT FURN & FIXTURES-RPL
FINANCE-ACCT ADP EQUIPMENT
FINANCE-RL EST ADP EQUIPMENT
FINANCE-PURC FURN & FIXTURES-RPL
FINANCE-PURC ADP EQUIPMENT
POLICE-MGT MACH & EQUIP
SHERIFF VEHICLE SUPPLIES
ENGINEERING PROF SERV-CONSULTANT
SOLID WASTE CURBSIDE RECYCLING
STAFF SERVICES R&M EQUIP/BLDG
STAFF SERVICES MAINT CONTRACTS
STAFF SERVICES MACH & EQUIP-REPL
VPA BENEFITS FS ISSUANCE-CONTR
PLANNING PROF SERV-CONSULTANT
PLANNING PRINTING & BINDING
PLANNING MACH & EQUIP
TOTAL $80,
AMOUNT
$690.00
3,600.00
128.33
3,393.00
650.00
2,866.33
12,131.00
158.00
4,030.66
6,932.00
3,048.00
212.00
6,957.00
215.32
359.48
293 80
9,422 00
7,186 00
1,000 00
605 55
6,027.44
7,919 84
2,840 00
300 00
965 75
1100012143800201
1100012143800700
1100012144800700
1100012145800201
1100012145800700
1100031011800100
1100031020600900
1100041000312700
1100042040390010
1100043002331200
1100043002332200
1100043003800101
1100053012301212
1100081010312700
1100081010350000
1100081010800100
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE $80,965.75
TOTAL $80,965.75
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95018
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REAPPROPRIATIONS FOR GENERAL FI/ND
PROJECTS FROM FY 1994-95 CARRYOVER
EXPENDITURE
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
O00Z$;
COST
1100013020130000
1100013020320000
1100013020520100
1100013020800100
1100021020601200
1100021060120000
1100021060312800
1100021060331100
1100021060332100
1100021060350200
1100021060350300
1100021060520100
1100021060600103
1100021060800101
1100021060800200
1100022010800100
1100022010800200
1100031011120000
1100031013310000
1100031013311000
1100031013601101
1100031013800100
1100031013800300
1100041000800700
1100041000800710
1100041000950023
1100042040390001
1100043002331200
1100053012800201
1100053013800201
1100053014110000
1100053014210000
1100053014221000
1100053014231000
1100053014232000
1100053014241000
1100053014270000
1100053014550400
1100053014600100
1100053014800200
1100053014800700
1100081010350000
1100081010312385
1100081010800100
1100081030550400
1100081030800700
1100081031231000
1100081031232000
1100081031550400
1100081031800700
1100081040601500
1100081040800100
1100081040800200
1100081040800300
CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
BOARD OF ELEC P/T WAGES
TEMP HELP SERVICE
POSTAL SERVICES
MACH & EQUIP
GEN'L DSTRCT CT BOOKS & SUBSC
CLERK OF COURT OVERTIME WAGES
PROF SERV-AUDIT
R&M-OFFICE EQUIP
MAINT CONTRACTS
BINDING OF RECORDS
INDEXING SERVICE
POSTAL SERVICE
RECORD BOOKS
MACH & EQUIP-RPLCMNT
FURNITURE & FIXTURES 10
COMM ATTORNEY MACH & EQUIP
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
POLICE-MGT OVERTIME WAGES 20
POLICE-PATROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5
HEALTH SERVICES 4
UNIFORMS-NEW 8
MACH & EQUIP 4
COMMUNICATION EQUIP 30
ENGINEERING ADP EQUIP 3
ADP SOFTWARE 1
AUTOMART-ROAD BOND 16
SOLID WASTE KEENE LANDFILL 150
STAFF SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT 9
VPA-BENEFITS FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1
VPA-SERVICES FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1
SALARIES-REGULAR 34
FICA 2
RETIREMENT 2
HEALTH INSURANCE 1
DENTAL iNSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
TRAVEL-EDUC 2
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1
ADP-EQUIPMENT 2
PLANNING PRINTING & BINDING
A~RIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 45
MACH & EQUIP 1
HOUSING TRAVEL-EDUCATION 3
ADP EQUIPMENT 2
HEALTH INSURAi~CE 2
DENTAL INSURANCE
TRAVEL-EDUCATION 1
ADP EQUIPMENT
ZONING MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE1
M_ACH & EQUIP 4
FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1
COMMUNICATION EQUIP
TOTAL $401
AMOUNT
$754.85
688.05
1,612.01
8,250.00
3,200.00
2,000.00
528.18
500.00
304.00
209.88
3,200.00
300.00
600.00
3,500.00
,000.00
400.00
900.00
,000 00
000 00
080 00
400 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
200 00
970 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
163 00
613 00
979 00
740 00
60 00
120 00
50 00
000 00
500 00
000 00
500 00
450 00
000 00
000 00
232 00
100 00
,060 00
68 00
,165 00
300 00
,275 00
,500 00
,475 00
525.00
,471 97
REVENUE
2100024000240110
2100051000510100
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE-ADM $23,860.00
FL/ND BALANCE 377,611.97
TOTAL $401,471.97
the
Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Executive Session.
These items were deleted from the agenda, having been heard earlier in
day.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
September 6, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
roved by
Mrs. Humphris said it would be a great help if the Board would make a
recommendation for statewide public hearings on long term care. This has been
studied for a long time by an advisory committee on aging, disability and
long-term care services. The draft report is ready for public hearing. There
will be two public hearings and VACO feels it is important, based on past
history, that all localities respond to the draft report.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion to approve sending the finalized draft
"Preliminary Recommendations for the Delivery of Long-Term Care Services at
the Local Level" to the Advisory Committee on Aging Disability and Long Term
Care Services. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.