HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-01June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 1
000-252
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 1, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, 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 Director of Planning and Community Development,
V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
10:03 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. Perkins said the Board received a letter in its packet from Mr.
Joseph Adlesic regarding the fees required for a bridge proposed to be built
over the Moorman's River to a parcel of land, he contracted to purchase, which
has no other access. Mr. Adlesic is requesting that the Board look at the
fees and see if there is some way to reduce them.
Mr. Adlesic addressed the Board and said the complication is created
because the use he proposes falls in two separate special use categories, a
scenic stream crossing and the flood plain. He was told by the Zoning
Administrator that he would be assessed two separate fees of $780 per
category. This seems excessively high to him. He is requesting that the
Board consider allowing him to pay only one fee. There is a filing deadline
of June 27. He needs to submit the fee with the application or request a
deferral of that fee until the Board makes a decision.
Mrs. Humphris asked that this request be discussed on June 8, 1994, when
the Board reviews the zoning text amendment regarding the waiver of fees.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve item 5.1, to accept items 5.2
through 5.11 as information, and to pull items 5.4 and 5.5 for discussion with
transportation matters. Rol~ 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.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk of the Circuit Court
for the month of May, 1994, were approved as presented by the above recorded
vote.
Item 5.2. Letter dated May 26, 1994, from Mr. F. E. James, Jr., Acting
Maintenance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella
Carey, Clerk, re: notice that VDoT intends to replace the deck and structural
steel on the existing structure over Ballinger Creek (Routes 627/726) during
the period of May 31, 1994, through June 10, 1994, was accepted as
information.
Item 5.3. Copy of Tentative Construction Fund Allocations for Fiscal
Year 1994-95 for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as
Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including an update of the Six Year
Improvement Program through 1999-2000, was accepted as information.
Item 5.4. Letter dated May 25, 1994, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, re:
breakdown of costs between City and County for the four corridors studied on
the Meadow Creek/McIntire Road Project, was discussed with transportation
matters. The following letter was received:
"At the April and May Board of Supervisors' meetings the Board
requested a break down of costs between City and County for the
four corridors studied on the Meadow Creek/McIntire Road project.
I have attached estimate summary report sheets for the four
alignments and have listed below the total costs assigned to the
City (urban funds) and the County (secondary funds) for each
corridor.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 2
000253
Please see that the Board of Supervisors are supplied this
information. I will be available to answer questions concerning
the information at any future Board meeting.
CORRIDOR CITY COUNTY TOTAL
A $ 2.4 Mil $ 9.9 Mil $12.3 Mil
Rev A 2.4 Mil 10.0 Mil 12.4 Mil
B 4.0 Mil 14.3 Mil 18.3 Mil
D 11.0 Mil 9.9 Mil 20.9 Mil"
Item 5.5. Letter dated May 25, 1994, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk, re:
criteria for transferring secondary roads to the primary system, was discussed
with transportation matters. The following letter was received:
"At a recent Board of Supervisors' meeting Mrs. Humphris requested
information concerning the Department's criteria for transferring
roads currently in the secondary system to the primary system. I
believe this information would also be of interest to the other
board of supervisors' members. Attached (on file) you will find a
copy of the Department's policy concerning this matter. I request
that you supply this information to all board of supervisors'
members. As always, I will be available at a future board meeting
to discuss this policy in more detail if the board so desires."
Item 5.6. Letter dated May 23, 1994, from Mr. David R. Gehr,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, transmitting a copy of the Final
Estimated Secondary Construction and Unpaved Roads Allocation for FY 1994-95,
was accepted as information.
Item 5.7. Quarterly report of services and expenditures provided by
Jaunt from October 1, 1993, to March 31, 1994, was accepted as information.
Item 5.8. April, 1994 Financial Management Report, was accepted as
information.
Item 5.9. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 17, 1994, was
accepted as information.
Item 5.10. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for April 21, 1994, was accepted as information.
Item 5.11. Memorandum dated May 17, 1994, from Ms. Cindy M. Berndt,
Department of Environmental Quality, transmitting a draft of the comments
received on the proposed amendments to the Water Quality Standards to
designate five water bodies (Moormans River, North Creek, Crooked Creek,
Stewarts Creek and Whitetop Laurel Creek) as exceptional surface waters, was
accepted as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 14 and July 1, 1992; April
6, April 20 and May 11, 1994.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of May 11, 1994, and found them to be
in order.
Mrs. Thomas had read the minutes of the April 20, 1994, and found them
to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of July 1, 1992, pages 1-13, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of May 14, 1992, and passed some
typographical errors to the Clerk.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 6, 1994, pages 16-end, and
found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the
minutes as read. 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.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 3
Item 7a. Transportation Matters: Letter dated May 3, 1994, from the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition, Inc., re: Alternative 10
Bypass.
Mr. Tucker reviewed a letter (copy on file) received from Mr. George R.
Larie, President of Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition, Inc.
(CATCO) expressing concern with the programming for improvements of Route 29
North. Of particular concern are the bypasses, interchanges and how those
improvements tie in with the sequencing of the agreement between the City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, University of Virginia and Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB). CATCO believes the programming, is in violation
with this agreement. Mr. Tucker said he has written to Mr. Jack Hodge, Chief
Engineer with the Department of Transportation, asking for his comments
regarding Mr. Larie's letter, as well as other issues Mrs. Humphris requested.
Mr. Hodge has supplied information addressing where VDoT is with regard to the
programming of improvements. He has indicated that there are no changes in
the funding for the interchanges or study relative to changes in the northern
and southern termini of the bypass report. In his letter, Mr. Hodge discussed
the Six Year Improvement Program and indicated that final approval is
scheduled for later this month by the CTB. Mr. Hodge has been invited to meet
with the Board on July 6, 1994, to discuss any matters the Board may have and
bring the Board up-to-date on the transportation issues. Mr. Hodge also
indicated, in his letter, that the CTB does not feel it has done anything in
violation of the agreement.
Mr. Edward R. Slaughter, Jr., a member of the Board of Directors of
CATCO, said this morning he received a copy of Mr. Hodge's letter. The letter
is incomprehensible to him. The agreement states that the Route 29 North
bypass, for which a corridor has been designated through the property of many
landowners, is only to be considered when all other projects are completed.
The original construction date was the year 2010. Now, funding is going
forward with four overpasses which are scheduled in Phase II of the plan and,
yet, Mr. Hodge has the audacity to say he is in compliance because all that is
being done is planning. There are enormous amounts of money being invested in
this project which, in CATCO's opinion should be invested in the part of the
plan approved by the CTB, this Board, the City of Charlottesville and the
University of Virginia. CATCO finds this incomprehensible and despicable.
CATCO requests that this Board do what it can to enforce the agreement.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates Mr. Slaughter's comments because
after reading Mr. Hodge's letter a number of times, and she had many
questions. The letter did not respond directly to questions this Board posed,
nor did it respond to the concerns in regard to the schedule of construction
of the bypass. She questions the scheduled date to advertise for construction
of the Alternative-10 bypass and, at the same time, adhering to the agreement
that is in place with the City, County, University and CTB. The May 23, 1994,
update of the Six Year Plan shows that the final phase of the Route 29 north
improvements, from South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road, are not scheduled
to be completed until the year 2000. She does not understand how there can be
an advertisement date for the bypass which calls for construction to start
before the final phase of the Route 29 north base case improvements and before
there is time to get the scheduled interchanges constructed and in place, much
less, the Meadow Creek Parkway. She also questions the assessment of the
effects on traffic, the assessment of all the phases that are supposed to
occur before construction of the bypass which is impossible if they are not in
place. She submits that there is no way to determine whether the traffic on
Route 29 north has become unacceptable until the called for, and agreed upon
improvements, are in place. She asked that staff draft a letter for the Board
to review on June 8, 1994, addressed to the CTB, to deal with what many people
in the community consider to be an important issue and one that needs to be
resolved quickly.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the letter be written to Mr. Hodge since
there are specific questions. Mrs. Humphris said she wants answers and does
not care from whom they come. This problem began when she received a copy of
the letter from CATCO. She then provided Mr. Tucker a copy of a letter
because the way she analyzed the situation, Mr. Hodge is the Chief Engineer
and this does not make him a policy-maker, but an executer of policy. In her
letter, she asked what document or documents from the CTB directed Mr. Hodge
to proceed with Phase III or what provided the "marching orders" to proceed.
To her it seems that the Chief Engineer must have been directed by someone,
somewhere, to do the work that is being done (scheduling advertisement of
construction of a new road) and that is not in accordance with the agreement.
Secondly, she asked if the VDoT Planning Department had this same schedule for
action because she had reason to think it did not and if Mr. Hodge does have
this direction, from whence did it come and by what document. She feels that
Albemarle County deserves these answers.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the letter should be addressed to the
Secretary of Transportation with carbon copies to members of the CTB and Mr.
Jack Hodge.
Mr. Tucker said his letter to Mr. Hodge addressed all of questions Mrs.
Humphris' has stated, but he did not receive a response. Mrs. Humphris said
this is why she does not feel it will do any good to write Mr. Hodge again
because time is being lost as scheduling continues.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 4
000255
Mrs. Humphris reminded the Board of the headline in the Daily Proqress
which ran on November 16, 1990 where Mr. Hodge stated "this bypass may be
finished in four or five years." This is why she has maintained all along
that Mr. Hodge has an agenda of building a bypass and she is constantly in
fear that he is promoting an agenda not in accordance with the agreement.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the letter to the Secretary of
Transportation should include a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Hodge and
indicate that responses to those questions were not forthcoming. Mr. Tucker
said he also talked with Mr. Roudabush, a member of the CTB, about this matter
to find out if he was aware of the situation and he indicated that he had seen
the letter sent to Mr. Hodge, as well as, Mr. Hodge's response. Mr. Roudabush
is aware of the questions. He does not know if the entire CTB received copies
of those letters.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Roudabush indicated that Mr. Hodge's response
was satisfactory. Mr. Tucker said "no." There are new members on the CTB who
may be unaware of what has transpired. He thinks sending the letter to the
Secretary of Transportation with copies to the CTB and Mr. Hodge is an
appropriate way to handle this matter.
Mrs. Thomas said what is happening does not coincide with the Six Year
Plan that the Board received. This gives another reason to respond to the CTB
with this issue.
At this time, there was a consensus of the Board that staff draft a
letter for its approval at the June 8, 1994, Board meeting, addressed to the
Secretary of Transportation, with carbon copies to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and Jack Hodge regarding the following questions: 1)
Can you really have a scheduled date to advertise for construction of the
Alternative-10 bypass and at the same time adhere to the agreement that is in
place between the City, County, University and Commonwealth Transportation
Board? 2) The May 23 update of the Six Year Plan shows that the final phase
of the Route 29 North improvements from the South Fork Rivanna River to
Airport Road are not even scheduled on the current timeline to be completed
until the year 2000. How can there be an advertisement date for the bypass
which calls for construction to begin before the final phase of the Route 29
North base case improvements is completed and before there is time to
construct the scheduled interchanges, much less the Meadow Creek Parkway?
Also, how can the effect on traffic be assessed? 3) How can traffic on Route
29 North be assessed as unacceptable until the called for and agreed to
improvements are in place?
The Board also requested that the letter include a copy of the letter
Mr. Tucker sent to Mr. Hodge and indicate that responses to his questions Were
not forthcoming.
Item 7b. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 250/678
Improvements at Ivy.
Mr. Cilimberg said the original concept of improvements to Route 678 in
Ivy was to relocate the road to the west of its current intersection with
Route 250. After discussion and review of this project, the Board determined
that it would prefer to pursue an improvement to the existing Route 678/Route
250 intersection. VDoT has asked that the County give an indication as to how
it would like to fund this project. The project was retained in the secondary
system as a lower priority on the priority list with the potential of using
revenue sharing funds. Staff feels this potential is beyond the upcoming Six
Year Plan. There are a number of revenue sharing projects already scheduled
to be funded that are high priority projects. The possibility of funding this
road through revenue sharing sources seem to be slim until after the year
2000. Another possibility is to try and obtain funds through the primary
system and list it in the Six Year Primary Plan Priority List, but it would
not receive any funding in the tentative allocation proposals. Staff has
recommended pursuing primary funds for the project with the expectation that
revenue sharing funds would not be available for some time. If the project is
listed for primary funding, the funds rely on the priorities of VDoT and the
other 11 counties to compete for funding.
Mrs. Thomas said she was not a member of the Board when this project was
first discussed and asked if the Board could use the safety issue to try and
obtain primary funds, i.e., school bus crossings. Mr. Cilimberg said the
project could be presented as correcting a poor intersection such as road
configuration, turning movements and that school buses use this intersection.
During the analysis of the existing conditions there were accident records
approximately one year ago, but few were connected with the Route 678/Route
250 intersection. Most of the accidents were turning movements and deer
incidents. Accidents were a major consideration for the original Route 678
relocation project, along with concerns of increased traffic and poor
configuration of the existing intersection. This continues to be used as
justification for the project.
Mrs. Thomas said it seems that if primary funds are requested, a strong
case will have to be made because ten other counties will be competing for
those fun~s. This does not sound like a strong case to her, but it is also
not a high priority on the list of projects to receive revenue sharing funds.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 5
000256
Mr. Cilimber9 said there is a maximum $500,000 County/S500,000 VDoT
funds per year to devote to revenue sharing which is used quickly for projects
like those currently on the list. Mr. Martin said during discussion of these
improvements and the plans, people who lived on the roads objected to the
improvements. Mrs. Thomas said as she understand it, those residents objected
when Route 678 was planned to be relocated. That particular plan has been
dropped and it is now a matter of taking care of the problems along Route 250.
Mrs. Thomas asked what the basis for staff suggesting that the Board
pursue primary funds and did staff hope that funding would be obtained or did
staff see this project as not competing with the other revenue sharing
projects. Mr. Cilimberg said the first consideration was that revenue sharing
funds were committed on other projects higher on the priority list through the
year 2000, and considering that the cost for this was approximately $300,000
and the project may be included earlier in the request for primary funds and
this Board would have an opportunity to see where it is placed on the list.
In two years, when the secondary plan is before the Board this project could
be put back on the list as a revenue sharing priority.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this project can be put on the list to receive
primary funds and revisit the issue at a later time. She does not want to put
it on the primary road funding list unless the Board is serious about the
project and feels there may be a strong enough case to receive funding. Mr.
Roosevelt said when primary funds are requested, the CTB decides what projects
are to be funded with the $11.0 or $12.0 million. The recent Six Year Plan
distributes the funds that VDoT anticipates getting for the next six years and
none of that money is going to this project. Unless estimates change or
projects are deleted, he does not foresee this project funded in the next six
years. He feels the chances for receiving money through primary funds for
this project are slim. This Board has the ability to designate what projects
are to be funded with revenue sharing.
Mr. Roosevelt said it is erroneous to think that because this project is
listed in the secondary priority list, it may apply to work that is on Route
678, but does not apply to the work on Route 250 because Route 250 is a
primary road.
Mr. Perkins asked if the project could be split up so that some
secondary funds and some revenue sharing funds are used. Mr. Roosevelt said
"yes," but approximated 85 percent of the work is on Route 250.
Mrs. Thomas said she feels it would be good to pursue the use of primary
funds, given that this is not an irrevocable decision and the revenue sharing
funds for the next three years are committed to other projects. This will
also allow the Board to develop a good case for the importance of this project
that may be influential in moving it up on the list of priorities to receive
revenue sharing funds.
Mr. Tucker asked if VDoT has a problem with trying to pursue both
primary funding and revenue sharing funds, because he thinks there may be a
bid less than planned in a revenue sharing project which may free $150,000 and
would cover the County's part of the project. Mr. Roosevelt said until it is
clear as to when the funding will be available, VDoT would not do any work on
this project. There is no indication as to where the funds would come from
for this project. The question is whether this Board wants to make a
commitment to use revenue sharing funds so the project can begin or whether it
wants to seek some other source of funding and defer its decision on using
revenue sharing funds, recognizing that nothing is being done until such time
as funding is found.
Mr. Roosevelt said the impression he was left with after the Board
passed its resolution recommending the original Route 678 plan be dropped and
pursue the Route 250 alternative was that it wanted to move on with the Route
250 alternative immediately. VDoT has responded in writing and said the Route
250 alternative cannot move forward until a funding source is available and it
must come from primary funds or revenue sharing funds. This Board needs to
let VDoT know whether it desires to fund this project with revenue sharing
funds or try and continue to pursue funding through the primary allocation
process.
Mr. Cilimberg adding that nothing precludes the Board, at a later date,
from funding this project with revenue sharing funds.
At this time, there was a consensus of the Board to direct staff to
pursue the use of primary funds for Route 250/Route 678 improvements at Ivy.
Item 7c. Transportation Matters: Discussion: McIntire Road Extension
Project.
(Mr. Bowerman left the room at 11:03 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker said V DoT provided the Board with a transcript of the public
hearing on the McIntire Road Extension project which was held on April 26,
1994 at Charlottesville High School. The meeting was attended by
approximately 75 people.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 6
000257
There were four alignment alternatives presented at the hearing:
Corridor A, Revised Corridor A, Corridor B and Corridor D. A no-build option
will also be considered. The purpose of this project is to facilitate the
flow of traffic from the northern part of Albemarle County to the southern and
eastern portions, avoiding the heavy traffic on Route 29, south of Rio Road.
This will also provide an easier access to the mall area on Route 29 for the
traffic from the southern part of the county.
The breakdown of the choice of alignment Of those who expressed a
preference during and after the public hearing is as follows: 24 preferred
Corridor "A", two preferred Revised Corridor "A", zero preferred Corridor "B",
13 were in favor of Corridor "D" and one chose the "no-build" option.
After reviewing the corridor options, VDoT recommends Corridor "A".
Corridor "A" was also the choice of a majority of those who expressed a
preference after the public hearing. VDoT requests a resolution from the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supporting the Corridor "A" location for
this project.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to support VDoT's
recommendation of Corridor "A" for the McIntire Road Extension Project.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker to provide further comments. Mr. Tucker
said in reviewing the information Corridor "D," although costs more, more
closely follows the original City/County alignment because it has a parkway
design. Beyond Melbourne Road the designs are different with the separation
of lanes. This is the reason for the additional cost, although he is
surprised that the City's share was such an increase from Corridor "A" to "D."
Some time ago, the City and County did a joint study of a parkway design for
this section of roadway and Alternative "D," with the exception of the
interchange, was the alignment that more closely resembled the original
parkway design. He thinks even if Corridor "A" is chosen there will be a
parkway feel because of the location of the corridor. (Mr. Bowerman returned
to the room at 11:05 a.m.)
Mrs. Humphris asked if language should be included in the motion which
states that the Board hopes the design in the City will be that of a Parkway,
divided, as much as possible.
Mr. Thomas said she thinks jumping from $12.0 to $20.0 million is too
extreme to get the project underway. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the bulk of
that $20.0 million figure is the interchange.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if it is possible that Corridor "A" could be similar
to Corridor "D" in the County in terms of splitting the alignment since there
is no difference in cost. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not understand why the
cost of Corridor "D" in the County is the same as Corridor "A." Corridor "D"
is a separated alignment, requires more right-of-way, but the cost estimates
for utilities, right-of-way and construction are the same for Corridor "A" and
"D" in the County. It appears that the only change was the "D" alignment in
the City.
Mrs. Thomas then amended the motion, to support VDoT's recommendation of
Corridor "A" for the McIntire Road Extension Project and hopes the design in
the City will be that of a Parkway, divided, as much as possible. As
seconder, Mr. Marshall agreed.
There being no further discussion, 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.
Item 7d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Humphris referred to item 5.4 from the consent agenda and said this
information explains to her everything but two details. First, in Mr.
Roosevelt's letter of May 25 and VDoT's update of the Six Year Plan, dated May
23, she does not understand why did the City's cost for the Meadow Creek
Parkway changes from $9.96 million to $2.4 million as stated in the letter
dated May 25. Simultaneously, the Board received the state's updated Six Year
Plan which states that the City's cost for the Meadow Creek Parkway is $4.4
million. She asked why the numbers are different and which number is correct.
Mr. Roosevelt said the figure in the revised Six Year Plan includes
preliminary engineering costs and the estimate sent to the Board in his letter
of May 25 only includes construction and right-of-way costs. He said the
costs also depend on the timeframe in which the estimates are made.
Mrs. Humphris said she asked the question because VDoT's numbers in the
past have shown the one and one-half miles of the Meadow Creek Parkway in the
County to cost $10.3 million and the one-half mile in the City to cost $10.0
million. Those numbers do not make sense. She feels this Board has to be
able to have confidence in the numbers VDoT provides and she has not been able
000 $8
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 7
to have that confidence because they change so frequently and without any
rationale.
Mrs. Humphris referred to item 5.5 from the consent agenda and said Mr.
Roosevelt has provided the Board with a statement from VDoT on the criteria
for transferring roads currently in the secondary system to the primary
system. This Board has discussed the possibility of getting the Meadow Creek
Parkway into the primary system for approximately two years. She expected
that when the criteria was received it would be a huge chunk of the VDoT
policy manual, but in fact it is one simple page. After reading the criteria
and seeing the flexibility of it, she asked the Board to join her in
requesting that staff submit a report on how the Meadow Creek Parkway may
qualify for transfer into the primary system from the secondary system.
Mr. Tucker said this report can be done readily because it was done
about two years ago at the request of the Board. Staff would only have to
update the criteria. Mr. Martin expressed concerns that this may be
burdensome on staff since it was done two years ago. This Board is still
waiting for the numbers of expected traffic on the Meadow Creek Parkway and
that report was due in February and has continuously been postponed. To him,
that report is more important than redoing a report that was done only two
years ago. Mrs. Humphris said it would have to be updated, not redone. Mr.
Martin said as long as the update is not burdensome, he does not mind asking
staff to do it. Mr. Tucker said he does not feel it would entail a lot of
staff's time.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is an advantage from a funding standpoint for
secondary roads to be put into the primary system if a majority of the
criteria is met. Mr. Roosevelt said if the road is in the secondary system,
this Board has control over when it gets funded because it sets priorities on
the spending of secondary funds, recognizing that there is $3.0 million per
year to be spent on secondary roads. When a road is put in the primary
system, it is eligible for funding from a pot of $11.0 or $12.0 million per
year, but it is at the "mercy" of the Commonwealth Transportation Board to
decide whether the road is a priority out of 11 counties.
There was consensus of the Board that staff bring forth a report on July
6, 1994, on qualification for Meadow Creek Parkway from the secondary system
to primary system.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Roosevelt to replace the Virginia Scenic Byway
signs on Route 20 North coming into Route 250. Apparently they were removed
when improvements were made.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had placed any signs to slow
traffic at the intersection of Avon Street/Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said he
had night arrows installed. Mr. Marshall said cars are still going into the
grass. He saw some white reflectors on straight poles every few feet on Dead
Man's Curve and asked if something like that could be installed. Mr.
Roosevelt said he will review this.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the traffic signals under construction at
Greenbrier/Commonwealth and the two on Rio/Hillsdale/Greenbrier are expected
to be in operation. Mr. Roosevelt said it will be sometime this month but he
does not have a definite date.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to allow sewer
service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and 80B, located on U. S. Route 250 W.
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is in response to the Health
Department's directive to correct a problem that now exists with the septic
system on parcels 77 and 80B owned by Charlottesville Oil on Route 250 West.
Water service currently exists on these parcels. There are several properties
near this property that have water and sewer service and are outside the urban
area (i.e., Northridge building, UVa Health Services, Farmington County Club,
etc.) The Health Department has stated that there are potential health risks
to the apparent sewer disposal system. Public sewer is accessible.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has not looked at the option of on-site
septic at a different location. The Health Department feels that option would
be difficult to provide. Staff recommends that the Board proceed to public
hearing to consider this request and whether the Board wants staff to
investigate on-site septic as an alternative.
Mrs. Humphris said if the Board goes to public hearing on this request,
she feels it must know whether on-site septic is possible, because if the
request were approved it would set a precedent.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Health Department considers locating another
drain field on the property to be difficult due to limited area, the extent of
impervious surface and the prior disturbance to soils that has occurred.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meetin9)
Page 8
Mrs. Thomas said this property has had problems in the past with oil
draining into the lake. She asked that a report be provided on how the water
treatment plant can be protected from oil and petroleum products being dumped
into the sewer, as well as whether this service will help the ongoing problem.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to proceed to
public hearing on a request to allow sewer service to Tax Map 59, Parcels 77
and 80B, located on U. S. Route 250 West and asked for a report on the
possibility of septic on-site. The Board also requested a report on how this
activity might prevent oil and petroleum products from being dumped into the
sewer system. 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. ·
Item 9a. Adoption: FY 1994-95 Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Tucker said this request is to approve the appropriation ordinance
for the FY 1994-95 Capital Improvements Program budget that was approved by
the Board on March 2, 1994. The Ordinance appropriates a total of $3,228,450
in funding for capital projects in Fiscal Year 1994-95. Staff recommends
approval~
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt a
Resolution of Appropriation (set out below) for the FY 94-95 Capital
Improvement Program in the amount of $3,228,450.
Mr. Perkins said he did not remember the Board approving the vehicular
maintenance reconfiguration. Mr. Tucker said this item has been discussed for
a number of years and it has continually been deferred. This Board briefly
discussed the project and included it in the final CIP.
There being no further discussion, 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.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1995
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all
necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1995; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and
to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance
and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent
of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are
appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1995:
PARAGRAPH ONE - ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
For the current expenses of the function of ADMINISTRATION
AND COURTS, the sum of four hundred eighty-three thousand, five
dollars and no cents ($483,005) is appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Albemarle County Office Building ADA Renovations
2. Replacement of Voting Machines
3. County Computer Upgrade
4. Real Estate Appraisal System
5. Health Department Clinic Wing
6. Jail ADA Compliance
$ 55,630
109,000
65,000
100,000
118,125
35,250
PARAGRAPH TWO - EDUCATION
For the current expenses of the function of EDUCATION, the
sum of one million, one hundred seventy-seven thousand, five
hundred sixty-five dollars and no cents ($1,177,565) is
appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 9
1. PVCC - Humanities & Social Science Building
2. Emergency Stop Switches
3. Stone-Robinson Renovations
4. Vehicular Maintenance Reconfiguration
5. Western Albemarle Crossing
6. ADA Structural Changes
7. Contaminated Soil Removal/Monitoring
8. Energy Maintenance Management System
9. Instructional Technology
10. Waterline Improvements
ooOz o
62,335
18000
25 000
324 900
120 000
200 830
95 000
59 000
150 000
122 500
PARAGRAPH THREE - FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
For the current expenses of the function of FIRE, RESCUE AND
SAFETY, the sum of three hundred forty-one thousand, twenty
dollars and no cents ($341,020) is appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Police Satellite Receiver
2. Enhanced 911 Building Locator
3. Fire Building/Equipment Fund
$109,000
82,020
150,000
PARAGRAPH FOUR - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
For the current expenses of the function of HIGHWAYS AND
TR3kNSPORTATION the sum of five hundred seventy-seven thousand,
seven hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($577,750) is
appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. St. Ives Road Cul-de-Sac
2. Revenue Sharing Road Projects
3. Hydraulic/Rio Road Bike Path & Sidewalk
4. Old Brook Asphalt Sidewalk
5. Landscaping Route 250 East
$ 7,100
500,000
43,000
15,250
12,400
PA/~AGRAPH FIVE - LIBRARIES
For the current expenses of the function of LIBRARIES, the
sum of ninety-seven thousand, five hundred dollars and no cents
($97~500) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. HVAC Central Library
2. Replace Carpet Central Library
$77,500
20,000
PARAGRAPH SIX - PARKS AND RECREATION
For the current expenses of the function of PARKS AND
RECREATION, the sum of three hundred fourteen thousand, eight
hundred dollars and no cents ($314,800) is appropriated from the
Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
ADA Compliance - Parks & Recreation Facilities
ADA Compliance - On School Grounds
Crozet Park - Building & Grounds Improvements
Scottsville Center Outdoor Rec. Improvements
Greenwood Community Center Improvements
Hollymead Outdoor Rec. Improvements
Walton Tennis Court Resurfacing
Jouett Tennis Court Resurfacing
Cale Outdoor Basketball Court
$ 86,450
96,250
10,000
20,400
15,000
51,500
12,400
12,400
10,400
SUMMARY
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 1995:
To be provided as follows:
General Fund Transfer
CIP Fund Balance
General Fund Balance
Fire/Rescue Payments
Egll Centel Reimbursement
Borrowed Funds
Interest
$ 2,991,640
$ 1,360,000
682,920
200,000
21,800
82,020
444,900
200,000
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FI/ND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1995 $ 2,991,640
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 10
000261
SECTION II - STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are
appropriated for stormwater and utility improvement purposes
herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995:
PARAGRAPH ONE - STORMWATER/UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
For the current expenses of the function of UTILITIES/STORM-
WATER IMPROVEMENTS the sum of two hundred thirty-six thousand,
eight hundred ten dollars and no cents ($236,810) is appropriated
from the Stormwater/Utilities Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Peyton Drive Detention Basin
2. County Master Drainage Plan
3. Ricky Road Drainage
$145,515
60,000
31,295
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 1995:
$ 236,810
To be provided as follows:
Stormwater Utilities Fund Balance
$ 236,810
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 1995 $
236,810
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I AND II IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1995:
RECAPITLrLATION
Section I Capital Improvements Fund $ 2,991,640
Section II Stormwater/Utilities Fund 236,810
GRAND TOTAL
$ 3,228,450
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is
hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another,
from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but
not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the
period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION III
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained
items in Sections I and II are appropriated upon the provisos,
terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in
connection with said terms and those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained,
all appropriations made out of the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
and the STORMWATER/UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, are declared to
be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the
purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the
amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the
aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year
for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of
the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable
in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the
respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be
available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board
of Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the
financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of
Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the
control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the
Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these
agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific
item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 11
000
of appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance
being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or
contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any
department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control
of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the
purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight,
express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required;
and provided further that no requisition for contractual services
involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis
shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head
of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and
the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the
basis of specification furnished by the contracting department,
bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval
herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded
through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq
procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual
shall not be considered obliqations of the County, and the
Director of Finance shall not issue anV warrants in payment of
such obliqations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this
ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies
under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their
officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such
officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and
shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like
rates.
Paragraph Five
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and
according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of
Finance.
Paragraph Six
All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the
provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby
repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first,
nineteen hundred and ninety-four.
Item 9b. Appropriation: Section 8 Housing Fund, $66,942 (Form
$930073).
Mr. Tucker said the Section 8 Housing Program is an ongoing rental
assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). Albemarle County has received a new grant from HUD that
will provide housing vouchers for an additional 34 units. This grant was
approved through June 30, 1995.
Although the final amount of the HUD grant will be determined by the
total amount of assistance rendered to residents, it is estimated that the
total grant over two years will be approximately $327,071; $66,942 in FY
1993/94 and $260,129 in FY 1994/95. The County should receive approximately
$23,236 to administer the program, $4,199 in FY 1993/94 and $19,037 in FY
1994/95. The administration revenue will be recognized in the General Fund.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount
of $66,942 to fund the Section 8 Housing Grant Fund.
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 12
000263
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $66,942, to fund the Section 8
Housing Grant Fund. 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930073
GRANT
FUNDING FOR SECTION 8 HOUSING GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1122781921579001
1122781921579003
1122781921579004
1122781900800100
1122781900300205
1122781921300205
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
DAMAGE/UNPAID RENT
UTILITIES
EQUIPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE-START UP
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
$ 51,593.00
400.00
1,400.00
8,850.00
500.00
4,199.00
TOTAL $ 66,942.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2122733000330016
SECTION 8-002 GRANT
TOTAL
$ 66,942.00
$ 66,942.00
Item 9c. Appropriation: FY 1993-94 Special Grants for Early Childhood
Special Education Teachers, $3070 (Form #930074).
Mr. Tucker said the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Education,
awarded Kathy Hoover and Robin Aldridge, teachers at Woodbrook Elementary
School $3070 through the 1993-94 Special Grants for Early Childhood Special
Education teachers. The objective of this project is to provide children with
a summer transitional kindergarten preschool program aimed at building social
skills among students with and without special needs, to improve the services
to children with disabilities in an already established integrated setting of
providing greater support services to families, and expanding the training of
early childhood teachers regarding provision of services in an integrated
setting. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation
in the amount of $3070 accepting a special grant for Early Childhood Special
Education.
Mrs. Humphris commented on the description of this request. She feels
these descriptions need to be understandable. She re-read the paperwork, but
did not understand what was written. She feels that there is no wonder
parents and citizens get upset with the education establishment when they have
to deal with "garbage" like this. Mrs. Thomas said she concurs.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the Resolution
of Appropriation for a Special Grant for Early Childhood Special Education in
the amount of $3070. 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NIYMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930074
GRANT
FUNDING FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1310460291112100
1310460291114100
1310460291210000
1310460291340000
1310460292152100
1310460292210000
1310460292580500
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE
FICA
TRANSPORTATION
SUB/WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
$ 737.00
184.00
79.00
1,000.00
295.00
25.00
750.00
TOTAL
$ 3,070.00
REVENIIE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2310424000240281
SPEC GRANTS-EARLY CHILDHOOD
TOTAL
$ 3,070.00
$ 3,070.00
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 13
O00; G4
Item 9d. Appropriation: Title II Eisenhower Grant Award, $3,000 (Form
#930075).
Mr. Tucker said a Title II Eisenhower Grant of $3000 was awarded to
Murray Elementary School. Mr. Timothy Frazier, the Principal, will be
coordinating the effort. The funds will be used to support training teachers
at Murray Elementary in instructional technology by providing relief time
during the instructional day to work with the University of Virginia's
Infusion Program. An instructional technology consultant will be used to
coordinate the school side of the project by meeting with teachers to support
and train them in creating their own technology and explore the Internet
possibilities. The training will be used to provide a new model for teacher
support and training in instructional technology utilizing the classroom
environment, to enhance the learning and to challenge students experience in
school. Staff recommend the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation
accepting a Title II Eisenhower Grant in the amount of $3000.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt a Resolution
of Appropriation to accept a Title II Eisenhower Grant in the amount of $3000.
Mrs. Humphris said the last sentence in the description does not make
sense. She feels uneasy when people involved in the County's education cannot
construct sentences in the English language which are understandable by people
of a reasonable level of intelligence.
There being no further discussion, 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930075
GRANT
FUAIDING FOR TITLE II EISENHOWER GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1320360216152100
1320360216210000
1320360216312700
1320360216580500
SUB/WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
PROFESSIONAL SVC.-CONSULTANTS
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
360.00
27.54
1,600.00
1,012.46
TOTAL $ 3,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320333000330200
TITLE II EISENHOWER GRANT $ 3,000.00
TOTAL $ 3,000.00
Item 9e. Appropriation: Drug Free School/Communities Act, $4207 (Form
#930076).
Mr. Tucker said the Drug Free Schools/Communities had a fund balance of
$4207 at the end of FY 1992-93. These funds will be used to provide education
and staff training to prevent substance abuse. Staff recommends the Board
adopt a Resolution of Appropriation for the Drug Free Schools/Communities Act
in the amount of $4207.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a
Resolution of Appropriation for the Drug Free Schools/Communities Act in the
amount of $4207. 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FI/ND:
PURPOSE:
1993/94
930076
GI~J~IT
FUNDING FOR DRUG FREE SCHOOLS/COMMUNITIES ACT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1310761101601300
1310761311580000
1310761311580500
REVENUE
INST/REC. SUPPLIES
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
$ 1,201.11
1,000.00
2,005.89
$ 4,207.00
AMOUNT
2310751000510100
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$ 4,207.00
$ 4,207.00
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 14
000265
Item 9f. Appropriation: Eisenhower 1994 Equity Minigrant, $750 (Form
~930077).
Mr. Tucker said the Eisenhower Math/Science Consortium at AEL is one of
ten federally funded regional collaboratives whose mission is to bring about
systematic change in math and science education. A limited number of grants
of up to $750 each is available to public and private schools in the AEL
Region to support programs designed to increase access to mathematics and
science for students from traditionally under-represented groups. Murray High
School has been awarded one of the $750 minigrants. Ms. Becky Fisher at
Murray High School will be the project director. Approximately 100 children's
books dealing with mathematical content will be purchased. Staff recommends
the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation accepting Eisenhower 1994 Equity
Minigrant in the amount of $750.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not know what "AEL" is. Mr. Tucker said it
stands for Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolution
of Appropriation for the Eisenhower 1994 Equity Minigrant in the amount of
$750.
Mrs. Humphris said she, too, did not know what AEL was. She also did
not understand what the paperwork meant when it stated $750 was to be spent on
approximately 100 children's books dealing with mathematical content. She
does not know what high school students are considered, but she does not
consider them "children." She also asked what is meant when books are
purchased for science and mathematics that deal with mathematical content.
Mrs. Thomas said the books have stories with a great deal of mathematical
requirements. She assumes this is what is being talked about.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand how 100 books can be
purchased with $750, given the price of books today. This led to her question
of whether these books had meaningful content in dealing with mathematics.
She also questions the enrollment at Murray for 100 students to use these
books.
Mr. Martin said he understands Mrs. Humphris' questions, but having
served on the School Board, he knows from experience, these grants are things
people have applied for and received, and the School Board has reviewed these
grants and what they entail. The School Board receives detailed information
as to what the books are for and this Board is being asked to do is release
the money that has been received, since it is the fiscal agent. He does not
expect to have a full range of information at this level because he knows his
School Board appointee has reviewed detailed information on these requests.
Mrs. Humphris said she plans to ask her School Board appointee about these
requests.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has received appropriation requests that have
been denied. Mr. Martin said one that was denied was done when he was on the
School Board and he was upset that the Board denied the request. Mr. Perkins
said this Board sometimes views requests differently than the School Board.
This Board is elected to ask questions and it does not matter if it is money
that has been received because of a grant or otherwise; it is still public
money. This Boards job is to see that public money is spent on what it is
meant to be spent on.
Mrs. Humphris said she will ask her School Board member about the
wording of these requests for appropriations and so forth. She feels these
requests should be written better.
There being no further discussion, 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1993/94
930077
GRANT
FUNDING FOR EISENI~OWER 1994 EQUITY MINIGRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1310460303601300
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
$ 750.00
TOTAL
$ 750.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2310433000330120
EQUITY MINIGRANT
$ 750.00
TOTAL
$ 750.00
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 15
Item 9g. Appropriation: Student Assistance Program Training Grant,
$500 (Form ~930078).
Mr. Tucker said an application has been submitted to the Governor's Drug
Policy Office for a Regional Training for Coalitions of Student Assistance
Programs Grant. The grant was written for the coalition of Albemarle County,
Charlottesville City, Culpeper County, Fluvanna County, and Staunton City.
The focus of the grant is to provide the staff involved in Student Assistance
Programs continued educational experiences. The primary goal of the Central
Virginia Student Assistance Coalition is to provide intensive training to
coalition members in the identified areas of need. The one-day training is
focused on the implementation and maintenance of local Student Assistance
Programs. The proposal is based on identified needs by represented members of
Student Assistance Program staffs from the regional coalition members. The
total grant award is $500. Staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of
Appropriation for a Student Assistance Program Training Grant in the amount of
$500.
Mr. Martin said he had no idea what this appropriation was for by
reading the description. Mrs. Humphris said she does not know who represented
members of the Student Assistance Program. Mrs. Thomas said if the money had
not been identified as coming from the Governor's Drug Policy Office she would
never have known that this dealt with drugs, but assumes it does.
Mr. Marshall said many years ago he went to the high schools to lecture
on drug abuse in the health classes. Before he was allowed to give lectures,
he was required to go to a training session and be informed about what his
lectures should deal with. He assumes this is what this training session is
for.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt a Resolution
of Appropriation for a Student Assistance Program Training Grant in the amount
of $500.
Mr. Martin said he assumes the School Board knows more about this grant
than he could ascertain from the description. He agrees with Mrs. Humphris
and feels these descriptions and summaries need to be written so they are
understandable.
There bein9 no further discussion, 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.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930078
GRANT
FUNDING FOR STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TRAINING
GRANT.
EXPEND I TI/RE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1311161311550400
1311161311580500
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
$ 312.00
188.00
TOTAL $ 500.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2311124000240300
STUDENT ASSISTANCE GRANT $ 500.00
TOTAL $ 500.00
Item 9h. Appropriation: VPSA Bond Refund Proceeds, $58,000 (Form
#930079)~
Mr. Tucker said in order to comply with the bond counsel's directive,
this appropriation allocates $58,000 (15 percent of $379,000) to the
Sutherland School account in the Capital Improvements Program Fund to purchase
furniture and equipment for the new middle school in the current year. The
remainder of the VPSA funding, which will be used to purchase school buses for
the middle school and redistricting, will be appropriated at a later time in
the School Division's FY 1994-95 budget.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation which
uses the proceeds from the VPSA bond refunding to purchase furniture and
equipment for Sutherland School in the amount of $58,000.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a
Resolution of Appropriation which uses the proceeds from the VPSA bond
refunding to purchase furniture and equipment for Sutherland School in the
amount of $58,000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
000267
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 16
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1993/94
930079
CAPITAL
FLrNDING FOR FUP~NITURE AND FIXTURES AT SUTHERLAND
SCHOOL FROM VPSA BOND REFU1TDING ISSUE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900060255800200
REVENUE
FURNITURE & FIXTURES $ 58,000.00
TOTAL $ 58,000.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900015000150104
VPSA BOND REFUND
TOTAL
$ 58,000.00
$ 58,000.00
Item 9i. Appropriation: Sheriff's Department, $21,660 (Form ~930080).
Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff's office has received revenue totaling
$19,060 for reimbursable overtime from working public functions as requested;
the original budget projected $400. Wages paid to the officers to provide
this service have been charged to the Sheriff's budget resulting in an
overexpenditure. Sheriff Hawkins is requesting that the revenue in excess of
the budget projection ($18,660) be appropriated to cover the wages paid.
The State Compensation Board has approved an additional $3000 in State
funds to provide for office automation equipment. These funds will be used
primarily to obtain a fax machine for the Sheriff's office. According to the
State, Albemarle County is the only locality where the Sheriff does not have a
fax machine.
Staff recommends the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation for
reimbursable overtime and equipment in the Sheriff's office in the amount of
$21,660.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a
Resolution of Appropriation for reimbursable overtime and equipment in the
Sheriff's office in the amount of $21,660. Roll was called and the motion
carried on the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930080
GENERAL
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031020129900
1100031020800300
REVENUE
SALARIES-REIMBURSABLE
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
$ 18,660.00
3,000.00
TOTAL $ 21,660.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100016000160304
2100023000230202
SHERIFF'S DEPT. REIMBURSABLE
COMP BOARD-OFFC EQUIPMENT
$ 18,660.00
3,000.00
TOTAL $ 21,660.00
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Revision to VACo By-Laws.
Mr. Tucker said the VACo By-Laws Committee has recommended revisions
that will require VACo's Regional Director to be selected by only those
counties within each region. VACo is asking board's throughout the state
whether each county shall cast one vote during the caucus meeting or cast
multiple votes based on population.
Mrs. Humphris said in her experience with VACo's operation, voting needs
to be based on county population because this region (Region IV) includes some
counties to the south of Albemarle which have very small, rural populations
with no particular interest in the work of VACo. She feels a fair way to do
this would be to have votes of all citizens in Albemarle County count more
than a smaller locality.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to support the
concept of each county within the region casting multiple votes (1 vote per
50,000 population or fraction thereof) according to VACo's By-Laws during the
caucus meeting.
June id 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 17
Mr. Perkins said he thinks a 50,000 population is high to have input
from small counties. There are a lot of counties in the state which have a
population of less than 50,000.
There being no further discussion, 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. 11. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 11:42 a.m., Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
go into executive session under Sections 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia
under subparagraph one to consider appointments to Boards and Commissions and
to discuss an evaluation; and under subparagraph seven to consult with legal
counsel on a specific legal matter regarding a landfill. 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.
(Mr. Martin left the meeting during Executive Session.)
Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the
following Certification of Executive Meeting.
MOTION: Mrs. Thomas
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: June 1, 1994
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.A.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of
Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board Of
Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in
conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments.
Mr. Marshall recommended Ms. Betty L. Newell and Ms. Roxanne W. White be
reappointed to JAUNT with terms to expire September 30, 1997.
Mr. Bowerman recommended Dr. F.A. Iachetta be reappointed to the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority with terms to
expire May 1, 1996.
Mr. Bowerman also recommended Mr. Mark Reisler be reappointed to the
Jefferson Area Board on Aging with term to expire October 20, 1996.
Mrs. Humphris recommended Mr. William Kehoe be reappointed to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority with term to expire December 1,
1997.
000269
June 1, 1994 (Regular Day Meeting)
Page 18
Mrs. Humphris also recommended Mr. Robert S. Parrott, Jr. be reappointed
to Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation with term to expire
October 9, 1997.
Mrs. Thomas recommended Mr. Frank Kessler and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom be
reappointed to the Architectural Review Board with term to expire November,
14, 1998.
Mrs. Thomas recommended Messrs. Leigh Middleditch, Jr., Forrest Kerns,
Howard Allen and Richard Kovatch (UVa representative) be reappointed to the
Housing Committee with terms to expire December 31, 1997.
Mrs. Thomas also recommended Mr. G. David Emmitt be appointed to the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee with term to expire
December 31, 1995.
Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the above
noted appointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Davis recommended that the Board appoint Mr. Mark Trank as the new
Deputy County Attorney effective June 15, 1994. Mr. Trank has a Yale
undergraduate background, is a University of virginia law school graduate and
has a background which provides a lot of life experiences as well as practical
experiences in the legal profession. He has four years of litigation and
private practice experience with the last three plus years in this area.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr. Mark
Trank as the Deputy County Attorney, effective June 15, 1994. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Tucker recommended that Ms. Roxanne White be appointed Assistant
County Executive effective July 1, 1994. Ms. White will oversee the fiscal
management responsibilities, as well as the Department of Social Services.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Ms.
Roxanne White as Assistant County Executive effective July 1, 1994. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
YES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins said the Board received a letter in it's packet informing it
that Ms. Nicole Gercke, a graduate of St. Anne's-Belfield, has been named a
1994 U. S. Presidential Scholar. He asked that staff draft a letter to Ms.
Gercke commending her on her accomplishment.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
Chairman