HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-21 000;303
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of'Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 21, 1994, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Room 7,
County Office Building, McIntire R0ad, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally
H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Chief of Planning, Ronald S. Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.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. Phil Waigand spoke about community education and how it relates to
champion schools. Mr. Waigand said champion schools deal with success and
efficiency. A champion school is the idea that the school is the base for all
services, volunteers and businesses coming together to work as a team.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Thomas offered motion, seconded
by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1, 5.2, 5.6 and 5.7a, to pull Items 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.13 for discussion, and to accept the remaining items
on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Adopt ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1, Section
2.1-4, Subsection (g) of the Code of Albemarle, known as the "Moorman's River
Agricultural/Forestal District" to extend the life of the district for an
additional time period of ten years. By the above recorded vote, the follow~
ing ordinance was adopted:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-2.1(7)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED OF THE CODE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and
Forestal Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending
Section 2.1.4(g), Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal
District, as follows:
CHAPTER 2.1
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(g)
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural
and Forestal District" consists of the following de-
scribed properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 40, 40A,
40Al, 42, 42A; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6,
6A, 6B, 7Al, 8, 11, 12A, 12B, 13, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B,
23B1, 32B, 32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 37D,
38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 8, 8B, 8E, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9,
10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A,
63D, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70H1, 70K, 70L,
70M, 71, 7lA, 73B, 74A, 76, 78, 79C, 80, 84; tax map
30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels
15, 17C, 18, 37D1, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70,
72, 72B, 72C, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7, 8,
8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 25C, 25C1, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C,
40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H, 40H2, 41, 42B, 42B1, 43, 43A, 44;
tax map 43, parcels 1, 2, 2B, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5,
5A, 9, 10, 17, 18, 18A, 18C, 18E4, 18F, 18G, 18J, 19I,
19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 21, 2lA, 23A, 23D, 24, 25A,
25B, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 30N, 32H, 33,
33D, 34, 41, 42, 43, 45, 45A, 45C, 45D; tax map 44,
parcels 1 part, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29,
29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 3lA, 31Al, 31D, 31F, 31G;
tax map 59, parcels 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This dis-
trict shall be reviewed no more than ten (10) years
from December 17, 1994.
(Page 2)
000304
Item 5.2. Authorize County Executive to execute the Agreement for the
Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway between the
County and VDoT, and Agreement between the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Founda-
tion, Inc., and the County.
(The Executive Summary states that VDoT and the County have approved the
Thomas Jefferson Parkway Project (Phase I and II) to be primarily funded by
Enhancement Program funds. The total project cost is estimated to be
$3,125,000 of which $2.5 million will be enhancement funds and the balance
will be funded by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. [Foundation].
This project was proposed by the Foundation with the understanding that
the Foundation would be responsible for administering the project. VDoT
requires an agreement with the County to satisfy the Enhancement Program
requirements necessary for funding eligibility. The County requires an
agreement with the Foundation to pass through to the Foundation the County's
obligations and responsibilities for the project placed on it by the agreement
with VDoT. The County/Foundation Agreement makes the Foundation responsible
for the project with little County oversight or involvement. The Agreement
requires the Foundation to post a $2.5 million bond with the County to assure
that the requirements for the enhancement funding are met by the Foundation,
or if not, to provide the funds necessary for the County to reimburse any
amount required to be repaid to VDoT for failure to meet the enhancement
program mandates.
The County Attorney's Office has approved the agreements to form and staff
recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the
Agreement for the Development and Administration of the Thomas Jefferson
Parkway between the County and VDOT and the corresponding pass-through agree-
ment between the Foundation and the County.)
By the above recorded vote, the County Executive was authorized to sign the
following agreements:
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY
BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this
21st day of December , 1994, between the COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the
"Department" and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a municipal corporation
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Department has adopted a Six Year Improvement
Program for Fiscal Year 1993-94 through Fiscal Year 1998-99 for
streets and highways, which includes an allocation of funds for
the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Phase I and II) identified in the
Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program
and referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $3,125,000 for
Phases I and II, which will be reduced to $2,500,000 by $625,000
in contributions to the Project by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation, and
WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct the
Project as expeditiously as possible and the County agrees to have
the Project implemented within 48 months from the date funds are
made available for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. The County shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the
Department in performing the preliminary engineering,
right-of-way/property acquisition and construction phases
of the Project, specifically including the following:
Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the
preliminary engineering, design and plan development
necessary to award a contract for construction; and the
administration, supervision and inspection of the con-
struction of the Project through final acceptance, in
accordance with Department procedures and policies,
including settlement of any claims and disputes arising
from the Project.
bo
If deemed appropriate by the Department, submit each
phase of the work to the Department for review and
approval as the project develops; allow Department
personnel to inspect all phases of the project at all
times.
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
000305
C. Prepare Plans~r th~' ~bject, including such items as
general notes, references to specifications and stan-
dards, typical sections, drainage plans, stormwater
management, erosion and sediment control methods, pro-
files, cross sections, summaries, and the like. Plans
may be prepared in accordance with County of Albemarle
standards and format, provided the standards meet or
exceed Department standards or are approved by the
Department.
do
Coordinate the project through the State Environmental
Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental
document as established by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration policy and procedures and carry out the func-
tions necessary to clear the Project environmentally.
eo
Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste
sites during the survey or early plan development stage.
Discuss the presence of these sites and design alterna-
tives with the Department. Once contamination is deter-
mined to exist, whether obvious or established through
testing, the County shall notify the appropriate regula-
tory agency. Conduct detailed studies such as site
characterization to determine the length of time re-
quired for clean-up and potential financial liability
for the County and Department. If the purchase of
property is anticipated the first option is to pursue
remediation by the property owner(s) through the appro-
priate agencies.
If required, post a "notice of willingness to hold a
public hearing" on the Project, conduct such a hearing,
if necessary, in accordance with Department and Federal
Highway Administration requirements and coordinate the
Project with property owners in the Project area.
g. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project.
ho
If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition
plans for the Project and acquire title to all property
needed for the Project in the name of the County by
purchase or by eminent domain, if necessary.
i. Abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950 Code of Virginia,
as amended, in the acquisition of rights-of-way/property
for this Project and follow the policy and procedures
outlines in Section 702.02 of the Department's Right of
Way Manual, which are incorporated by reference.
j. Provide relocation assistance to those whose property is
acquired for the Project in conformance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR Part 24).
k. Maintain all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation
assistance files, closing statements, eminent domain
records and the like for a period of three (3) years
after final disposition of the Project by the Federal
Highway Administration. (Acceptance of final voucher.)
1. Coordinate and authorize utility relocations.
m. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in con-
formance with applicable provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. The County agrees not to award
a construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is
within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate
or which is approved by the Department. The County
agrees not to award such contract until the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has accepted and approved the bid
and the contractor, and until a standard County-State
agreement is executed. Department policy will govern
the rate of participation for utility relocations and
storm sewers.
n. Submit any change orders to the construction contract to
the Department's Resident Engineer for approval.
o. Receive Department approval of any claims prior to
settlement.
p. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documenta-
tion of all expenditures, identifying federally partici-
pating, federally non-participating, and in-kind contri-
butions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make
project documentation available for inspection and/or
audit by the Department or the Federal government at any
time.
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa~e 4)
000306
qo
Submit to the Department's Resident Engineer no more
frequently than monthly, a statement requestin~ reim-
bursement for the Federal share of the project's costs.
The statement must identify and document project expen-
ditures to date and include a summary in the followin9
categories:
Participatin~ expenditures
· Non-participatin~ expenditures
· In-kind contributions of donated ri~ht-of-way ser-
vices.
r. Agree to reimburse the Department 100% of all expenses
incurred by the Department in the event that:
· The project is canceled durin~ any phase of work;
· Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the
Federal Highway Administration due to the County's
failure to follow proper federal ~uidelines and/or
the expenditures are found to be federally non-
participatin~ items;
· Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allo-
cated in the Six Year Improvement Program.
The Department will coordinate with, cooperate with, and
assist the County in implementin~ the Project, and specifi-
cally a~rees to:
a. Review each phase of the Project and respond in an
expeditious manner to requests from the County.
b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Federal
Highway Administration and other appropriate Federal and
State agencies; provide assistance and 9uidance to the
County relative to environmental documentation and
coordination as is appropriate.
c. Provide reimbursement for Project expenditures for the
previous month or for the final billing, within thirty
(30) days of receivin9 an acceptable statement from the
County. The reimbursement amount will be based on the
Enhancement Project worksheet (example attached).
d. Audit all project costs and records as required by the
federal highway administration.
e. Provide fundin9 for the project pursuant to the Enhance-
ment Program in the Department's Six Year Improvement
Program. The maximum amount of federal funds available
for this project is $2,500,000.
3. Ail applicable federal, state and local regulations shall
apply to all work performed ont he project includin~ con-
sultant services contracts and construction contracts.
4. Nothin9 herein shall be construed as creatin9 any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of
the parties, nor shall it be construed as givin9 any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
5. This Agreement shall be bindin9 upon the parties hereto,
and their respective successors and assigns.
6. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the
County is hereby authorized to commence with the Project.
7. This a~reement may be modified with the mutual consent of
the Department and the County.
IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY SIGNATURE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
WITNESS:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION
BY:
COMMISSIONER
December 21~ 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE THOMAS JEFFERSON PARKWAY
BY THE THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC.
O00qO?
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate as of this
day of , 1994, between the THOMAS JEFFER-
SON MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC,, hereinafter called the "Foundation"
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the "County".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter
called the "Department" has adopted a Six Yea~ Improvement Program
for Fiscal Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 for streets and highways,
which includes an allocation of funds for the Thomas Jefferson
Parkway (Phase I and II) identified in the Enhancement Program
portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as
Projects EN93-002-V05,PE101,RW201,CS01 and EN94-002-VOg,PE101,
RW201,CS01 and referred to hereinafter as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the project is $3,125,000 for
Phases I and II, which includes $2,500,000 of Enhancement Program
Funds and $625,000 in contributions to the Project by the Founda-
tion; and
WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to construct the
Project and have entered into an Agreement in which the County
agrees to have the Project implemented within 48 months from the
date funds are made available for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation desires to undertake certain responsi-
bilities and duties of the County as an incentive for the County
to Undertake the Project and to complete it as expeditiously as
possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. The Foundation shall consult with, and act as the agent of,
the County in performing the preliminary engineering,
right-of-way/property acquisition and construction phases
of the Project, specifically including the following:
a. Perform or contract with a consultant to perform the
preliminary engineering, design and plan development
necessary to award a contract for construction; and the
administration, supervision and inspection of the con-
struction of the Project through final acceptance, in
accordance with Department procedures and policies,
including settlement of any claims and disputes arising
from the Project.
b. If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department,
submit each phase of the work to the County or the
Department for review and approval as the Project devel-
ops; allow County or Department personnel to inspect all
phases of the Project at all times.
c. Prepare bid documents, plans and specifications for the
Project, including such items as general notes, refer-
ences to specifications and standards, typical sections,
drainage plans, stormwater management, erosion and
sediment control methods, profiles, cross sections,
summaries, and the like. Plans and bid documents must
meet or exceed Department standards and be approved by
the Department.
d. Coordinate the Project through the State Environmental
Review Process, prepare the appropriate environmental
document as established by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration policy and procedures and carry out the func-
tions necessary to clear the Project environmentally.
e. Locate potential contaminated and/or hazardous waste
sites during the survey or early plan development stage.
Discuss the presence of these sites and design alterna-
tives with the Department. Once contamination is deter-
mined to exist, whether obvious or established through
testing, the Foundation shall notify the appropriate
regulatory agency. Conduct detailed studies such as
site characterization to determine the length of time
required for clean-up and potential financial liability
for the County and Department. If the purchase of
property is anticipated the first option is to pursue
remediation by the property owner(s) through the appro-
priate agencies.
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6) ..... · ~ · ............ -.
000308
If required by the Department, post a "notice of will-
ingness to hold a public hearing" on the Project so that
the County can conduct such a hearing, if necessary, in
accordance with Department and Federal Highway Adminis-
tration requirements and coordinate the Project with
property owners in the Project area.
g. Obtain all necessary permits for the Project.
If required, prepare right-of-way/property acquisition
plans or plats for the Project and acquire title to all
property needed for the Project in the name of the
Foundation by purchase or to pay all costs of the County
in acquiring title to property by eminent domain, if
necessary.
If applicable, abide by Titles 25 and 33 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, in the acquisition of
rights-of-way/property for this Project and follow the
policy and procedures outlines in Section 702.02 of the
Department's Right of Way Manual, which are incorporated
by reference.
Provide relocation assistance to those whose property is
acquired for the Project in conformance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR Part 24).
k0
Deliver all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation
assistance files, closing statements, eminent domain
records and the like to the County so it can maintain
them for a period of three (3) years after final dispo-
sition of the Project by the Federal Highway Administra-
tion. Acceptance of final voucher shall constitute
final disposition.
1. Coordinate and authorize utility relocations.
m. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in con-
formance with applicable provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. The Foundation will not award a
construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is
within seven percent (7%) of the County's cost estimate
or is approved by the Department. The Foundation will
not award such contract until the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board has accepted and approved the bid and the
contractor, and until a standard County-State agreement
is executed.
n. Submit any change orders to construction contracts for
which reimbursement is requested to the County Engineer
and the Department's Resident Engineer for approval
prior to the authorization of the change order.
o. Receive County and Department approval of any claims
arising from construction contracts for which reimburse-
ment is requested prior to settlement.
p. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documenta-
tion of all expenditures, identifying federally partici-
pating, federally non-participating, and in-kind contri-
butions, on which reimbursement will be based. Make
Project documentation available for inspection and/or
audit by the County, the Department or the Federal
government at any time.
q. All project costs shall be paid by the Foundation. The
Foundation shall submit to the Department, with a copy
to the County, no more frequently than monthly, a state-
ment requesting reimbursement for the Federal share of
the Project's costs. The statement must identify and
document Project expenditures to date and include a
summary in the following categories:
· Participating expenditures
· Non-participating expenditures
· In-kind contributions of donated right-of-way or
services.
r. Agree to reimburse the County 100% of all expenses
incurred by the County in the event that:
The project is canceled during any phase of work;
Expenditures incurred are not reimbursed by the
Federal Highway Administration due to the failure to
follow proper federal guidelines and/or the expendi-
tures are found to be federally non-participating
items;
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~09
· Expenditures incurred exceed the total amount allo-
cated in the Six Year Improvement Program or funds
actually available for the Project.
s. Meet all County site plan, zoning, and subdivision
ordinance requirements.
2. The County will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist
the Foundation in implementing the Project, and specifical-
ly agrees to:
a. Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the
Foundation.
bo
Provide the necessary coordination with the Department,
Federal Highway Administration and other appropriate
Federal and State agencies; provide assistance and
guidance to the Foundation relative to environmental
documentation and coordination as is appropriate.
c. Process payments to the Foundation of reimbursements
received from the Department for Project expenditures.
do
Cooperate with the Foundation and the Department in the
audit of all project costs and records as required by
the federal highway administration.
so
To take all reasonable actions required to obtain fund-
ing for the project pursuant to the Enhancement Program
in the Department's Six Year Improvement Program. The
maximum amount of federal funds available for this
project is $2,500,000.
3. Ail applicable federal, state and local regulations shall
apply to all work performed on the project including con-
sultant services contracts and construction contracts.
4. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of
the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto,
and their respective successors and assigns.
6. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and
upon notification by the County that the Department approv-
als have been received, the Foundation will be authorized
to commence with the Project.
7. This agreement may be modified by written agreement with
the mutual consent of the Foundation and the County.
8. The Foundation will not discriminate against any employee
or applicant for employment because of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, age, handicap, national origin or other non-
merit factors provided they are qualified and meet physical
requirements established for the positions.
9. None of the funds, materials, property or services contrib-
uted by the County or the Foundation, under this Agreement,
shall be used in the performance of this Agreement for any
partisan political activity, or to further the election or
defeat of any candidate for public office.
10. No officer, member, or employee of the Foundation who
exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review
or approval of the undertaking or carrying out of this
project, shall partici~%ate in any decision relating to this
Agreement which affect.~ his personal interest or have any
personal or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this
Agreement or the proceeds thereof.
11. The Foundation shall contribute a minimum of $625,000 to
the Project, such contribution to be in a form and
made at such time as acceptable to the Department
and the County.
12. The Foundation shall maintain any property improved as part
of the Project which is not accepted for maintenance by the
Department. The minimum level of maintenance shall be a
reasonable standard of care as determined by the Depart-
ment.
13. The Foundation shall, after construction of the Project, or
any part thereof, not permit any changes or alterations to
the Project, as approved and completed, without the prior
written approval of the Department.
December 21, 1994 (Regular Nig~t Meeting) 0008~0
(Page 8)
14. The Foundation shall, prior to any substantial work on the
Project, have appropriate Foundation agents and personnel,
as determined by the County and the Department, attend a
preliminary coordination meeting with the County and the
Department.
15. The Foundation agrees to indemnify the County and hold it,
and its officers, agents, representations and employees
harmless from any and all claims, damages, costs, including
attorney's fees, and liabilities of any kind arising out of
or resulting from the Foundation's or its agents' negligent
performance of its obligation under this Agreement or any
failure by the Foundation to meet any obligation required
to complete the Project.
16. The Foundation shall take out and carry during the entire
term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and
general public liability insurance with adequate limits to
protect both the Foundation and the County from liability,
such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Foundation
will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance
naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing
the insurance coverage required herein.
17. The Foundation shall provide to the County a performance
bond, in a form approved by the County Attorney, in the
amount of $2,500,000, to guarantee the Foundation's perfor-
mance of this Agreement. Such performance bond shall be
delivered to the County prior to its execution of the
Agreement.
IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers.
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL
FOUNDATION, INC.
BY:
Item 5.3. Authorize use of Towe Park for construction of a skateboard
facility.
(The Executive Summary states that on December 7, 1995 the Board discussed
the status of a skateboard facility on City or County property. Ms. Daria
Brezinski is leading an effort to have the skateboard facility developed at no
cost to the City or County. In order for her effort to be successful, Ms.
Brezinski feels that it is necessary to have a commitment on a site for the
facility prior to the end of December. The reason for the deadline is so that
those making donations can take advantage of current tax laws.
As of December 7, the recommended site for the facility was McIntire Park.
This recommendation was made by City and County Parks and Recreation staff.
However, since that time, it has been learned that there are potential prob-
lems with the site at McIntire that cannot be resolved by the end of the year.
Those problems include the planned future location of a water line and the
possible future reconfiguration of the little league field and the proposed
area, in order to provide a second little league field. The City and County
Parks and Recreation staff have now picked a site at Towe Park for the pro-
posed facility. The area chosen is not slated for any other type of develop-
ment.
Staff recommends that the Board approve that the proposed skateboard park
can be located at Towe Park contingent on: 1) City of Charlottesville approv-
al of the same; 2) Assurance in writing along with necessary surety that the
facility will be completed at no cost to the County; and 3) Support of operat-
ing funds for the facility in the FY 1995-96 operating budget, based on budget
analysis and need.)
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.4. Appropriation: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library.
(The Executive Summary states that the roof of the Central Library has been
repaired/replaced in several sections over the past several years. Due to
heavy leaks and major damage from last winter's storm to the Second Street
section of the tin roof, unanticipated when the current year CIP was submitted
last fall, emergency repairs were being planned for a black tar roof on that
section at an approximate cost of $15,000.
When the City Board of Architectural Review objected to covering the tin
roof with a black tar roof, the City called in additional roofing engineers to
seek an alternative solution. Upon further assessment of the project, the
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000 11
engineers'recommended replacing the entire roof with a standing seam tin roof.
The estimate for the new roof, including the asbestos and lead paint removal
from the old roof, is $90,000 split between the City and the County.
Although an alternative option is to lay a second metal roof on top of the
old for a lesser cost of $60,000, both City and County maintenance staff
concur with the engineer's assessment that in the long term it is more cost
effective to pull off the entire old roof and start over. The original roof
was not replaced when the Library was renovated in 1979-81.
Funding in the amount of $45,000 for the Central Library's roof is proposed
to come out of the County's General Fund Balance. Staff recommends approval
of Appropriation # 940042 in the amount of $45,000 to replace the Central
Library's roof.)
Mr. Martin asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.5. Legislation pertaining to Public Defender's Office.
(The Executive Summary states that last year Delegate Van Yahres introduced
a bill in the General Assembly to provide a public defender's office for the
City of Charlottesville. Although the bill was passed by the General Assem-
bly, it was vetoed by the Governor because the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bar
Association had not had time to study the bill and had, therefore, not made a
recommendation supporting the office.
At the request of a number of constituents, Delegate Van Yahres is again
planning to submit legislation to establish a public defender's office in
Charlottesville. The proposal is supported by the Public Defender Commission
and has recently been given official support from the Charlottesville/-
Albemarle Bar Association.
The Commission in several funding scenarios has shown that a joint public
defender's office would be more cost effective due to economy of scale if the
office was to represent both Charlottesville and Albemarle. The first year
cost of operating separate offices, plus start up costs, would be $720,680,
$332,410 for Albemarle and $388,270 for Charlottesville. The cost of estab-
lishing a joint office in Charlottesville would be approximately $557,165 per
year, a first year savings of $163,515. Fees for the current court appointed
attorneys currently total $372,622 for Charlottesville and Albemarle combined,
with approximately 68 percent of the cases in Charlottesville and 32 percent
in Albemarle. These fees would be deducted from the cost of the public
defender's office funded by the State legislation.
The experience of other localities who have replaced the current practice
of paying fees to individual attorneys with a public defender's office has
been positive. Anticipated benefits are an improved legal defense system, as
well as a better coordinated process and communication with the Commonwealth
Attorney's Office.
Delegate Van Yahres would like to include Albemarle County in his public
defender bill for the upcoming session. He has asked the Board to review his
proposal and to give him a sense of the Board feelings in regard to this
legislation.
If the Board concurs with the proposed legislation to establish a public
defender's office to serve both Albemarle and Charlottesville, staff will
forward on to Delegate Van Yahres your support for his bill.)
Mr. Martin asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.6. Legislation pertaining to solid waste authority.
(The Executive Summary states that Montgomery County has asked that
Albemarle County support an amendment to the Code of Virginia that would allow
one solid waste authority to contract with another authority. In an attempt
to form a regional solid waste authority with the towns of Christiansburg,
Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, this restriction is a stumbling block to the
formation of the authority. The current code reduces the available options
for all localities, not only for solid waste needs, but also for water/sewer
and other kinds of public services.
The proposed legislation requests that Section 15.1-1241(e) of the Virginia
Water and Sewer Authorities Act, Chapter 28, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virgin-
ia of 1950 be amended to read:
(e) The term "political subdivision" shall mean a county, authority, or
municipality and any institution or commission of the Commonwealth of
Virginia,
If the Board concurs with this amendment change to the Code of Virginia,
staff will convey your support to Montgomery County, the local legislators
and the legislative liaison.)
oooay.
December 21, 1994 '(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
By the above recorded vote, the ~cr~.rd concu~red~ with an amendment change to
the Code of Virginia that would allow one solid %;asta authority to contract
with another authority.
Item 5.7. Resolution requesting Industrial Access Road funding for the
University Real Estate Foundation for new roadway to connect property to Route
606.
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.7a. Resolution to accept Cindy Lane in Joyce Hill Subdivision into
the State Secondary System of Highways. By the above recorded vote, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 21st day of December, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Joyce Hill Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 21, 1994, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded 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 street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in Joyce Hill Subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated December 21, 1994, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; 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 road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
1. Cindy Lane from the edge of pavement of State Route 784,
1021 lineal feet to the end of the cul-de-sac with a 50
foot right-of-way as shown on plat recorded 3/1/90 in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1089,
pages 316-318.
Item 5.8. Memorandum dated December 13, 1994, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Jo Higgin's Job Description.
(In a memorandum to the Board, the County Executive states that in recogni-
tion of the County's increasing responsibilities in the area of various public
works functions such as detention basin maintenance, road construction,
landfill closure, sign maintenance, drainage issues and others, Jo Higgins'
job description has been amended to change her official title to Director of
Engineering and Public Works.
As we continue to take on more of the types of functions, it becomes
increasingly important to recognize a staff person to be responsible for these
issues. Most of these items are currently performed by our Engineering
Department and this seems to be a logical step in designating the appropriate
person to oversee the activities. No change in salary range is anticipated at
this time as a result of this action, this is simply a reflection of the
actual duties performed.)
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.9. Letter dated December 9, 1994, from Mr. J. H. Shifflett, Jr.,
Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, was received for information:
"The northern Route 745 bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railway
tracks south of Charlottesville will be closed to traffic in late
December.
December 21, 1994 (Regular 'Night Meeting) 000313
(Page 11)
Currently the closin9 is schedule~"fbr Tuesday, December 27, 1994.
It is expected to remain closed through the end of February,
however this could be extended if weather delays completion of
repairs by railroad company crews.
While the bridge is closed, crews will complete major structural
rehabilitation that includes straightening deck beams and install-
ing a new deck.
Route 745 is a secondary roa~ that forms a loop east of Route 29.
There are bridges across railroad tracks at both the northern and
southern ends of the road. During the bridge rehabilitation,
persons living south of the northern bridge will have to travel to
the southern entrance and drive north on Route 745 to their desti-
nation. Signs will alert motorists to the road closing and pro-
vide appropriate detour instructions while the work is underway."
Item 5.10. Copy of Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of November, 1994, was re-
ceived for information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated December 8, 1994, from Mr. Michael J. Bednar,
Associate Dean of Academic Programs, University of Virginia School of Archi-
tecture, to The Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: Community Outreach
Partnership Center, was received for information.
Item 5.12. Copy of the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program Financial
Statements for the year ended June 30, 1994, was received for information.
Item 5.13. Final Report - 250th Birthday Celebration.
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the
meeting.
Item 5.14. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 6, 1994, was
received for information.
Item 5.15. Copy of 1993 Annual Report for the Albemarle County Planning
Commission, was received for information.
Item 5.16. Letter dated December 16, 1994, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief
Engineer, Department of Transportation, to The Honorable Walter F. Perkins,
Chairman, providing a copy of the comments from the October 26, 1994 citizens'
information meeting regarding the Route 29 interchange design, was received
for information. (The letter states that if the Board wish to make comments,
please send them to Mr. Hodge by January 13. The Transportation Board has
placed this item on its Workshop agenda and the Board meeting scheduled for
January 18 and January 19, 1995, respectively.)
Item 5.17. Letter dated December 13, 1994, from Mr. James S. Givens, State
Secondary Roads Engineer, Department of Transportation, providing notice that
Cling Lane (Route 1226) in Crozet Crossing Subdivision was accepted into the
State Secondary System of Highways, received for information as follows:
"Pursuant to authority delegated by the Commissioner, the follow-
ing addition to the secondary system of state highways, as re-
quested by your resolution of September 21, 1994 is approved,
effective December 13, 1994.
ADDITION LENGTH
CROZET CROSSING
Route 1226 (Cling Lane) - From Route 1207 to 0.42 mile
southeast Route 1207
0.42 mi."
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to solicit input on local community
development and housing needs in relation to Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding for a project in the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on December 7 and December 14, 1994.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development administers the federally-
funded Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). These funds are
available to localities, on a competitive basis to implement a wide variety of
housing and community improvement projects. There is a total of approximately
$19.7 million available in community improvement and planning grants. The
staff report provides some potential projects which could be funded through
the CDBG program. Also provided is a description of the past use of funds,
information on the amount of funds available, the requirements on benefit to
low- and moderate-income persons, eligible activities and plans to minimize
00081.4
December 21, 1994 (Reguiar Night'Meeting)
(Page 12)
displacement. The only reque t for coUntY Sponsorship that has been received
is from the Albemarle Ho~SiDg improVementprogram {AHIP). Mr. Benish then
summarized the following projeets:
Project 1: Housing Rehabilitation-AHIP. A rehabilitation grant
would focus on upgrading substandard owner occupied and/or rental
units. A multi-year housing rehabilitation grant will be requested
which will provide up to $1.0 million.
Project 2: Crozet Community Improvements. This improvement project
for the Community of Crozet could be designed as a multi-purpose grant
for housing rehabilitation, sewer line and lateral extension and
community facility improvements (sidewalk, flood and storm drainage
facilities). For this project an income survey would need to be
performed to determine qualifying target areas.
Project 3: Agricultural Center/Farmer's Market. This is for the
purchase and development of a facility to serve as an agricultural
center including use as a farmer's market to accommodate local farmers
to market their goods to the public. An income survey would need to be
conducted to document a 51 percent benefit to iow/moderate income
persons.
Project 4: Community Center-Whitewood Road/Commonwealth Drive area.
This is for the development of a community center to provide indoor
recreational and multi-purpose rooms for educational/training/outreach
programs. This project could be oriented most directly to serve
Whitewood Village apartments, a Section 8 housing project on Whitewood
Road.
Mr. Benish said it is not anticipated that any of these projects would
necessitate the displacement of any residents. The County's use of VCDBG
funds over the last five years has been dedicated to housing rehabilitation
projects either through the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation
or AHIP, and most, recently, to the development of a new affordable housing
construction project. Staff is prepared to provide its priorities and recom-
mendations following the close of the public hearing.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came forward, so the
hearing was closed.
Mr. Benish said staff's recommendation is that the County pursue the
rehabilitation project proposed by A HIP. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, the Executive
Director of AHIP, is present to answer any questions. Mr. Benish said staff
does not recommend pursuing the remaining three projects at this time because
the projects need additional planning before staff can determine whether they
could successfully acquire CDBG fUnds. However, all three projects have
potential merit for planning grant funds. He would recommend the following
priority for a planning grant; 1) Community Center-Whitewood Road, 2) Crozet
Community Improvements and 3) Agricultural Center.
Mrs. Thomas said the County was not successful in obtaining a grant for
AHIP's project last year. She asked what has changed in the scope of the
project to make it successful this year. Ms. Tapscott said the problem with
the project last year was that the impact proposed was not competitive. More
localities are proposing almost 100 percent impact on substandard housing
within a community. This year the target area has been pared down. This
project is designated for the Esmont area. AHIP has prepared an income survey
of the area and a proposed impact. Representatives of Housing and Community
Development informed AHIP that had it requested the multi-year project to do
more within the designated area, the proposal probably would have been funded
last year.
Mr. Marshall said he is in agreement with the proposal regarding owner-
occupied, but he is not sure the County should be subsidizing landowners with
rental units. Mr. Benish said one of the concerns expressed by the Housing
Committee is that the County is lacking affordable rental housing for low
income persons in certain areas. This proposal could help bring those units
in the County up to a standard and provide housing. Mr. Marshall said he
feels there is sufficient rental housing being provided through Section 8. He
does not see why the Board should help property owners upgrade their property
at government expense.
Ms. Tapscott said one of the criteria upon which the application is judged
is whether or not the applicant has made the program available to all owners
of substandard property within the target area. There are provisions in the
federal regulations that insure any improvements made to investor-owned
property are to the benefit of the Iow income tenant. The rule of thumb is
that the landlord must rent any property improved with federal funds to a low
income family at 80 percent of the low area median and at no more than 30
percent of the family's gross monthly income. The landlord must do that for a
period of not less than five years. Although, the County can design its
proposal as it sees fit. Five years is the minimum. There are mechanisms
built in to insure that the landlord does not take advantage of the program.
Mr. Martin said he would like to change the minimum rental period from five
years to ten years. He asked if that change would affect the proposal. Ms.
Tapscott said she does not think it would necessarily hurt the proposal. Mr.
00031.5
December 21, 1994 (RegUlar Night Meet'lng)
(Page 13)
Martin said he agrees with Mr. Marshall and he does not think the landowner
should be allowed to sell~he property ~h- five years.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to proceed
with the housing rehabilitation project proposed by AHIP for CDBG funding and
set the following project priorities for planning grants: (1) Community
Center - Whitewood Road/Commonwealth Drive area, (2) Crozet Community improve-
ments and (3) Agricultural Center/Farmer's Market.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: .None.
At this time Mr. Tucker asked that the Board discuss Item 5.3 from the
Consent Agenda.
Mr. Tucker outlined the three contingencies (set out above in the Consent
Agenda) in which staff recommends Board approval of the request. It is his
understanding that the City of Charlottesville approved the request this past
Monday evening.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, said this site at Towe
Park is not proposed for any other use in the future. There is currently an.
architect working on the design for the facility. Mr. Marshall asked if the
facility will be supervised. Mr. Mullaney said the site will be fenced and
locked. The structures would have a chain around them so that if someone got
over the fence, they would not be able to ride on them. The only time the
site would be unlocked is when it is supervised. That is the only way the
County could get insurance to cover the site. The County's general liability
insurance would not cover the facility. The cost of a policy has been quoted
as $6,800.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the cost of the fence. Mr. Mullaney said the
cost of the fence would come from the donations. All capital costs would be
the responsibility of others. Mrs. Humphris commented that the annual operat-
ing costs of insurance and supervision would be borne by the taxpayers. Mr.
Mullaney replied that is correct and there are some other minimal expenses.
The annual budget has been estimated to be $23,000. There would be fees
charged to offset that cost which has been estimated to be up to one-third
with the remainder split between the City and County.
Mr. Bowerman asked what has been the experience of other communities with
this type facility. Mr. Mullaney said there are not a lot of these facilities
around and most places do not charge a fee for use. The most popular facility
in the state is in Chesapeake and there is a lot of variety at that facility.
They do not charge a fee at that facility.
Mrs. Mumphris asked how do the cost benefits compare with other activities
which the County does, i.e., lakes, tennis courts, etc. Mr. Mullaney said he
thinks that maybe on a weekend 20 to 30 children would use the facility and
during the weekday possibly 15 children use the facility. If this site could
be used for a soccer field or little league baseball field, and Parks and
Recreation had to choose between the two sports, he would not recommend
skateboarding. There are a lot of~children not served by the County's tradi-
tional sports and their argument is that they do not have to place to partici-
pate in their sport. He does not think this is something he would put into
the Capital Improvements Program to build with County funds. The driving
force behind this is that there is someone who says they can raise the money
in the community. He thinks that if the community is willing to raise
$300,000 for this facility, maybe the City and County could come up with
$6,000 each for the operating costs.
Mrs. Thomas asked how much is the proposed annual operating budget. Mr.
Mullaney said $23,000 is the total budget. It is estimated that the City and
County's share will be about $6,000. If the facility is opened on weekdays
and they do not get enough users, then the hours would probably be adjusted.
Mrs. Humphris said that is not the way things should be done. She does not
understand why the Board would go into this knowing as little as it does about
the cost to the taxpayers. She also thinks the safety issue needs to be
considered. It is very unusual to undertake a venture that requires the
County to get additional private insurance. This is not done in other situa-
tions.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this is being driven by a group of people who
want something very much. He thinks it is important how much they want it and
the level of commitment they are willing to give. It may not be as popular as
soccer or softball or many of the other things the County provides almost
totally free, but these people are willing to pay all the costs except for
operations. The facility will not be built unless the funds are there to pay
for it.
Mrs. Humphris asked where is the necessary surety coming from that the
facility will be completed at no cost to the County. Mr. Mullaney said he
does not know where the donations are coming from. A legal document would
have to be drawn up to cover financing of the project.
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Bowerman asked if ~he City aPproved the use of Towe Park with the same
contingencies. Mr. Mull~ne¥'S~id the AsSistant City Manager sent a memo to
City Council with the same inf~mati'°n'and the same contingencies. To his
knowledge the issue did not come up at City Council's meeting on December 19.
Mrs. Humphris said she is uncomfortable with all of the uncertainties. She
is concerned about funding and safety.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the swimming facilities are covered under the
County's general insurance policies. Mr. Mullaney replied "yes" In his
opinion there is more of a chance of a life threatening injury at one of the
swimming facilities than on skateboarding ramps because of all the safety
equipment required. Mrs. Humphris asked if that is because of the nature of
the activity or the number of people involved. Mr. Mullaney said probably
because of the number of people involved.
Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about these youngsters getting hurt. He
cannot support something he knows will cause injury to someone down the road.
If that was not a probability, the County would not have to purchase this
extra insurance and the activity would be covered within normal means.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks a supervised facility is safer than no facility.
It is more dangerous for skaters to be competing on sidewalks. He thinks it
would be a disservice to this group of people to kill this request tonight.
Mr. Martin said he agrees there is some danger in this sport, but the
liability insurance is there to cover the County if an accident occurs. Mr.
Marshall said the fact that the County has to purchase extra insurance proves
that this is more dangerous than other sports.
Mr. Martin then offered motion, to approve the construction of a skateboard
facility at Towe Park contingent on the following:
1. City of Charlottesville approval of same;
2. Assurance in writing along with necessary surety that the facility
will be completed at no cost to the County; and
3. Support of operating funds for the facility in the FY 1995-96
operating budget based on budget analysis and need.
Mrs. Thomas seconded the motion. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks people who
are willing to undertake a fundraising of this sort are admirable.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the people should be given an opportunity to
carry though with what they said they can do. He is rather skeptical as to
whether it will be forthcoming, but he thinks they should have the opportuni-
ty. He thinks the Board should be under no illusion that if they do raise the
necessary funds and prove they can construct the park, there will be an
enormous amount of pressure on the Board at budget time to fund this facility.
Mr. Davis said this approval does not bind the Board to fund this facility
in future years. He is not sure the second contingency can easily be accom-
plished by this group. He is also not sure what the surety is that the Board
is asking other than a promise in writing and a letter of credit. He needs
some clarification. Mr. Tucker said that is his understanding of the surety.
Mrs. Thomas asked about requiring sufficient funding in hand to dismantle the
facility if after five years it is no longer popular. Mr. Mullaney said that
would be forecasting the doom of the project before it gets off the ground.
That is something that would fall back on the localities.
Mrs. Humphris said she will not support the motion. She has some serious
concerns about safety and the use of taxpayers dollars given all of the other
priorities. She does not feel the County should do this.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Messrs. Bowerman, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
A representative of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Skateboarding Association
thanked the Board for assisting them in developing a skateboard park with the
City of Charlottesville. In appreciation of the Board's time and effort, they
presented the Board with a skateboard. Mr. Perkins thanked the skateboarders.
Mr. Tucker then updated the Board on the fire situation and the atmosphere
in the building. There is smoke throughout the building due to a four-alarm
fire at a building on the next street over from McIntire Road. Mr. Tucker
said smoke has filled the upper floors of this building, particularly the
third floor. The smoke is much worse outside. All the air handling systems
were shut off so that air would not come into the building from the outside.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to move through the agenda. If there are
items that can be deferred, he believes the Board should move in that direc-
tion.
Mr. Tucker said the Board just received a request to defer ZMA-94-15 until
January 11, 1995. He also suggested that CPA-94-03 be deferred.
000317
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-94-14. Highlands West Land Trust (applicant), Lady
B. Walton (owner).
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer
ZMA-94-14 until February 8, 1995.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-94-03. Crozet Study. Public Hearing to consider
the recommendations of the Crozet Study Committee to guide future development
in the Crozet Growth Area.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer
CPA-94-03 until February 15, 1995.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Chairman to execute East Rivanna Volunteer
Fire Co., Inc., Service Agreement and set public hearing to approve tax exempt
financing.
(The Executive Summary states that the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc., is in the process of purchasing a new fire engine at a cost of $186,126.
It wishes to take advantage of tax exempt financing provisions provided for
volunteer fire companies in the IRS regulations. Under these regulations it
can secure a loan at an interest rate below the prime rate. Jefferson Nation-
al Bank has committed to a 5.7625 percent rate for a $120,000 seven year loan
if ERVFC can qualify under the applicable regulations.
The IRS regulations provide that the tax exempt financing is only available
to "qualified fire departments". To be a qualified fire department ERVFC
must: 1) provide fire fighting services in an area which is not provided with
any other fire fighting services, and 2) be required to provide the fire
fighting services in such area by written agreement with the County. Because
no written agreement currently exists, ERVFC proposes to enter into an agree-
ment which addresses the provision of fire fighting services in its service
area.
Although the County incurs no liability for and has no obligation to repay
the loan, for IRS purposes it is considered an obligation of the County. The
IRS regulations require the Board to hold a public hearing prior to approving
the borrowing by ERVFC. In addition, the County will have to certify that it
will not borrow more than $10 million of tax exempt bonds in 1995.
If the Board wishes to assist ERVFC in securing a $120,000 tax exempt loan
from Jefferson National Bank, it should: 1) authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached Agreement to establish the necessary written agreement to qualify
ERVFC as a "qualified fire department" for IRS purposes; and 2) set a public
hearing for January 11, 1995, to consider the approval of ERVFC's loan appli-
cation.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the Chairman to execute the an Agreement to establish the necessary written
agreement to qualify ERVFC as a "qualified fire department" for IRS purposes
and to set a public hearing for January 11, 1995, to consider the approval of
ERVFC's loan application.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The Agreement is set out below:)
THIS AGREEMENT made this 1st day of June 1994, by and between
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "the
County," and EAST RIVA~NNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INCORPORATED, here-
inafter referred to as "The Fire Company".
WHEREAS, the Fire Company will provide firefighting and emer-
gency medical first responder services to the County in the area
designated on a map of Albemarle County and described as Scheduled
0003:1.8
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
A, attached hereto, such services not being provided by other
firefighting services; and,
WHEREAS, in consideration for its financial assistance, the
County requires the Fire Company to provide such firefighting
services; and,
W~EREAS, the parties desire to put such agreement in writing.
W I T N E S S E T H:
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
(1) The Fire Company will provide firefighting and emergency
medical first responder services to the County in the area de-
scribed on Schedule A attached hereto.
(2) The County will assist the Fire Company financially as it
determines in its sole discretion from time to time so long as the
Fire Company continues to provide such services in the described
area.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BY: (SEAL)
EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INCORPORATED
BY: (SEAL)
Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize Chairman to execute Scottsville's Amended
Service Agreement for law enforcement services.
(The Executive Summary states that in January of 1994 the County, Scotts-
ville and the Sheriff entered into a tripartite Service Agreement which
authorized the Sheriff to act as Chief of Police for Scottsville and to
provide law enforcement services for the Town. The purpose of the Agreement
was to take advantage of potential funding from the State for an additional
deputy or deputies which would provide law enforcement services for the Town
at no cost to the County.
The 1994 Service Agreement specifically provided that the salaries of any
deputies used for law enforcement purposes in the Town "shall be paid solely
by the State Compensation Board". When the Compensation Board considered the
request for funding the deputy positions, it denied the Sheriff's request for
the Scottsville positions. The Sheriff filed a lawsuit challenging that
denial which was settled when the State offered to fund two additional court-
room security positions for the County in lieu of the law enforcement posi-
tions for Scottsville. The Sheriff and Scottsville now wish for the County to
allow a County funded deputy to provide the law enforcement services for
Scottsville until July 1, 1996. This request is proposed in consideration of
the fact that the cost of the position is offset by the additional funds
approved for the courtroom security positions which are approved effective
January 1, 1995. Those positions resulted solely from the Sheriff's request
for the law enforcement positions for Scottsville. The approval of this
request requires an amendment to the Service Agreement. The proposed Amended
Service Agreement has been approved by Scottsville and the Sheriff. It
provides that one locally County funded deputy position can be used for law
enforcement purposes in Scottsville until July 1, 1996, and, thereafter,
provides that no locally County funded deputy positions shall be used for that
purpose.
To approve this request, the Board should authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached Amended Service Agreement.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the Chairman to execute the following Amended Service Agreement.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The Agreement is set out below:)
AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 21st day of Decem-
ber, 1994, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia,
(hereafter "Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, (hereafter "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, (hereafter "County"),
oooax9
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virgin-
ia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to Relocate
Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the County of
Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of Virginia,
(1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-time
police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjustment
became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County
entered into a tripartite Service Agreement dated January 31,
1994, for the purpose of having the Sheriff furnish law enforce-
ment services in the Town; and,
WHEREAS, the Town, the sheriff, and the County now wish to
amend the Service Agreement to recognize a funding opportunity to
provide law enforcement services in the Town,
NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby
agree as follows:
1. The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff, and
the County dated January 31, 1994, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference, is
hereby amended by replacing paragraph 5 therein with a new
paragraph 5 fully set out below:
5. Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other than
the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be paid
solely by the Town or the State Compensation Board, and
all other costs not covered by the State including, but
not limited to, vehicles, police equipment, supplies,
uniforms, medical insurance, liability insurance, FICA,
retirement benefits and related costs shall be paid by
the Town. Notwithstanding the above, the County shall
allow one locally County funded deputy position to be
assigned for law enforcement services in the Town until
July 1, 1996, provided that the State Compensation Board
has not funded a law enforcement position for the Town.
Thereafter, no locally County funded deputy positions
shall be assigned for law enforcement services in the
Town.
2. Ail other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations
of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain
unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA
By
A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Approved as to Form:
Clerk Town Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By
Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
ATTEST:
Approved as to Form:
Clerk
County Attorney
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
By
Terry W. Hawkins, Sheriff
At this time it was the consensus of the Board to defer discussion of Item
5.4, and appropriation request for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Board until January 4, 1995.
000820
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-94-15. Philip A. Sansone.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to defer ZMA-94-
15 until January 11, 1995.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-94-25. James & Becky Johnston. Public Hearing on a
request to amend SP-84-38 to permit further division of a lot located on E sd
of Rt 649 about 1/2 mi SE of inters of Rts 649/643. Property of 67.485 ac is
zoned RA. TM47,PS. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 5 and December 12, 1994.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. Mr. Keeler said
should the Board decide to reduce the preservation tract to 40 acres or less,
it would need to add a condition instructing the Planning Commission to not
apply Section 10.3.3.3.d. of the Zoning Ordinance. The reason is because the
conditions are written in a way to direct the Commission to review this
request under Rural Preservation Development. If the condition was not added,
then the Commission would not be able to approve anything less than 63.5
acres. The Planning Commission at its meeting on November 29, 1994, unani-
mously recommended approval of SP-94-25 subject to five conditions.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Johnston said he is asking that the Board liberalize its regula-
tions so that minimum acreage is preserved, but not specify that the acreage
be 63.55 acres. He and his wife need the ability to generate some funds and
they do not know what they will find when they go out into the market. If
someone wants to purchase a six-acre lot, they want to be able to sell that
lot. If someone wants to purchase a 20-acre site, they would like to sell
that site. That would still leave plenty of land to meet the requirements of
Rural Preservation. They want some flexibility. They are not asking for any
additional rights. This request does not infringe on the requirements of the
Rural Preservation Development. He does not think this would set a precedent.
Mr. Bowerman said the idea with the Rural Preservation concept was to
minimize the lot size and maximum the size of the lot that would go into the
conservation easement. Not only did the landowner benefit, but the County
would benefit in not having 21 acre by~right subdivisions. This is the first
time someone has come before the Board with a request where no lot lines are
drawn, the Board was told that the applicant had no lots to sell and nothing
has been surveyed. It seems to him to be almost impossible to sell lots
unless they are subdivided. In a Rural Preservation, the County was looking
for maximum preservation of the conservation area and minimalization of the
lot size, not the 20 acres that someone would want. Unless it is to provide
amenities to buyers of the lots, he does not understand the benefit of this
special permit. Mr. Johnston said there is only one division right remaining.
All the other lots have been surveyed and sold. There are two natural places
for home sites in this development. One or the other of those sites would be
offered. They want some flexibility in the size of the Rural Preservation
Development.
Mr. Keeler said he does not believe staff would have recommended approval
of this had it not fit the requirements of Rural Preservation in the Ordinance
which would require 63.55 acres. He does not think staff could have supported
the request as being consistent with current regulations.
Mr. Davis said the permit that was approved in 1984 was pursuant to a
regulation that is no longer in the Zoning Ordinance. That regulation was
repealed. He thinks the staff analysis of this was that it was alright to
amend the permit even though the regulation no existed so long as it met the
provisions of the Rural Preservation District. If the size of the preserva-
tion tract is reduced, it no longer meets the requires of the Preservation
District. If the applicant does not comply with the Ordinance requirements,
there may be a problem in amending the special permit because there is not a
provision applicable to what was done in 1984.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Johnston if he was amenable to the Board deferring
this request for about a month so that the Board could take a closer look at
what it is being asked to do, whether it is legal and what it does to County
regulations. Ne would like to be able to offer some flexibility, but he is
not sure he is up to speed on what is being proposed. Mr. Johnston said he
cannot afford an additional postponement. They thought this was a reasonable
request.
00032:
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Johnston if he had a buyer for his six acre lot.
Mr. Johnston said "no", they have not tried to offer anything to anyone
because they do not have the right to do so. They want to be able to react
and respond to different buyers as they come along.
Mrs. Humphris said her concern is that she is hearing the County Attorney
say if the Board does what Mr. Johnston wants, it could cause some legal
problems. Mr. Davis said what Mr. Johnston would like to happen does not meet
the requirements of the RPD and the provision for the special permit that was
issued in 1984 no longer exists. In order to amend the special permit, Mr.
Johnston would have to meet the RPD or some other applicable provision of the
Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris asked if that is the reason the motion from
the Planning Commission was so specific. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Perkins asked if part of the acreage in a preservation district can be
sold. Mr. Davis said the acreage cannot be subdivided. It would require some
type of joint ownership of the property. Mr. Keeler said it would also
require reapproval and renegotiation of the easements because the easements
prohibit reduction in size of the property.
The Chairman then closed the. public hearing.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-94-25
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The conditions are set out below:)
1. Approval is restricted to nine lots (in addition to the preser-
vation tract);
2. No further subdivision rights on the 110.4 acres of land;
3. Division of Tax Map 47, Parcel 8, shall be permitted only as
part of a Rural Preservation Development which includes Tax Map
47, Parcels 8, 8A and 9. Such development shall result in the
combination of the three parcels to allow the creation of one
new development lot and one preservation tract. The total
acreage devoted to the development lot shall not exceed six
acres and the Preservation Tract shall not be less than 63.55
acres. The building site shown on the Preservation Tract may
be allowed as a development lot provided that the balance of
the Preservation Tract is added to Lots 8B, 8C, SE, 8F, 8G, 8H,
8I or the development lot authorized by this permit resulting
in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 63.55 acres.
This provision allows for transfer of the RPT acreage to only
one of the aforementioned lots;
4. Any plat submitted for a Rural Preservation Development shall
be reviewed under the administrative review procedures and no
separate action by the Planning Commission shall be required
for the creation of a Rural Preservation Development unless
review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to the
administrative review procedures; and
5. Only one additional dwelling shall be allowed in the area of
Parcel 8. Such additional dwelling shall be permitted only
after approval of the Rural Preservation Development approved
in accord with this permit on the Preservation Tract.
At this time the Board discussed Item 5.5 from the Consent Agenda (Legisla-
tion pertaining to Public Defender's Office).
Mr. Martin said the Board has not discussed whether it wants a public
defender's office. There are some pros and cons to having such an office. He
is uncomfortable saying he is in support of this at this time with the lack of
information. Mr. Bowerman said he also would rather not act on the request at
this time. Mrs. Humphris agreed and felt that what was provided did not give
enough information. It was the consensus of the Board to defer this item
until January 4, 1995. The Board requested additional information on how a
public defender's office operates; how it is currently paid for; how much it
currently costs to fund; where other offices are located in the state and
whether the localities think they are effective.
At this time the Board took up Item 5.7. Mrs. Humphris asked why the
language in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the proposed resolution were different.
Tucker said the language in paragraph 4 was correct and the language in
Mr.
000322
December 21, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 20) .~ ~. ~ ~
paragraph 5 should be omitted. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a resolution requesting Industrial Access
Road funding for the University Real Estate Foundation for new roadway to
connect property to Route 606.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The adopted Resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) has
acquired property located in the County of Albemarle for the
purpose of industrial development; and
WHEREAS, this property is expected to be the site of new
private capital investment in land, building, and manufacturing
equipment which will provide substantial employment; and
WHEREAS, the subject property has no access to a public street
or highway and will require the construction of a new roadway to
connect with Route 606 known as Dickerson Road; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees that the
necessary right of way for this new roadway and utility reloca-
tions or adjustments, if necessary, will be provided at no cost to
the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Industrial Access
Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors hereby requests that the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board provide Industrial Access Road funding to provide an
adequate road to this property; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TH3%T the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors hereby agrees to provide a surety or bond, acceptable
to and payable to the Virginia Department of Transportation, in
the full amount of the cost of the road; this surety shall be
exercised by the Department of Transportation in the event that
sufficient qualifying capital investment does not occur on par-
cel(s) TM32-19 within three years of the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board's allocation of funds pursuant to this request [Note:
see Appendix I for qualifying parcels].
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors hereby agrees that the new roadway so constructed will
be added to and become a part of the County of Albemarle Secondary
System of Highway.
Mrs. Humphris requested that the Board defer discussion on Items 5.8 and
5.13 until January 4, 1995.
Mr. Martin asked that Item 5.4 be deferred until January 4, 1995.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
At 8:28 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered motion that the Board go into Executive
Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsec-
tion (7) to discuss a legal matter relating to a landfill. Mr. Martin second-
ed the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
At 8:33 p.m., Mrs. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, 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 identified in the
motion authorizing the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered
in the Executive Session.
000323
December 21, 1994 (Reguiar Night Meetihg) ~;
(page 21)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn~ With no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.