HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-01From,-
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Laurie Bentley
Monday, August 06, 2001 2:08 PM
Andrew Trivette; Barbara Baker; Bart Svoboda; Brenda Neitz; Charles Martin; Charlotte
Humphds; COB-4TH FLOOR; Dan Mahon; David Benish; David Bowerman; DEPARTMENT
HEADS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT; Elaine Echois; Elizabeth Gamett; Jan Sprinkle; Janice
Farrar; Joan McDowell; John Gmdy; Juandiego Wade; Kelly Rider; Kevin Castner;, Lindsay
Dorrier, Mark Graham; Michael Thompson; Pat Mullaney; Richard Wood; Robert Walters; Sally
Thomas; Scott Clark; Sharon Bridges; Sharon Taylor; Steven Allshouse; TexWeaver; Walter
Perkins
Action letter from 8/1/01 Board of SuperviSors Meeting
! have attached the action letter from the 8/1/01 Board of Supervisors Meeting. Hard copies of attachments have been
forwarded to the appropriate individuals.
080101 actionletter.do¢
Laurie Bentley
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mcln#re ,Rd.
Chariottesv#1e, VA 22901
PH: (434) 296-5843
FAX; (434) 244-7017
email: ll~ent~ey~al[~emade.org
1. Call to order.
Board of Supervisors Meeting of Aug_ust 1, 2001
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Au_gust 5, 2001
· Ms. Ann Dunn, speaking on behalf of th e Corville Farm
Road subdivision, asked the CounTy to look into problems
with their water supply and the need for road improvements.
CONSENSUS to have staff study the problem and report
back to the Board.
· Rosa Hudson, Esmont resident, and Shirley Dickson, Chair
of th e Esmont Senior Citizens Advisory Committee, said
they are concerned that JABA recently decided that the
Esmont Senior Site will only be open one day a week now,
due to the Iow number of attendees. CONSENSUS to have
staff study the problem and report back to the Board.
· Gary Honeywell, a local contractor, asked where citizens will
take construction debris if the Ivy Landfill is closed.
Mr. Tucker said staff is preparing a report that will be
presented to the Board next week.
5. Presentation: Certificate of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas presented a certificate of appreciation to
A. B. Brown, Jr., for his service on the Region Ten Community
Services Board. In addition, Mr. Bowerman advised the Board
that he presented a similar certficate to Frank Kessler, for his
service on the Architectural Review Board.
No~eted: Officer William C. Reynolds gave the Board a brief
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. All BOS members, Bob
Tucker, Larry Davis, and David Benish present.
Clerk: Laurie Bentley.
~ Study the problem and make
recommendations to the Boara.
Assistant County Executive White: Gather
information and report to the Board.
.Engineerin.q staff: Submit report to the Board for
8/8/01 Board meeting.
_Clerk: Thank speakers for their comments, in
writing.
None.
update on the Open Gym Night, which provides teens an activity
to keep them off the streets at night during the summer.
6.1 Request to set public hearing for September 5, 2001, to amend
Leash law in County parks to allow designated off leash areas.
SET PUBLIC HEARING for 9/5/01.
6.2 Resolution to acce pt Peter Jefferson Place into the State
Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED
_Clerk: Advertise public hearing.
Clerk: Send signed, resolution (Attachment A) and t
~)riginal VDOT form to Glen Br~n'e~'ri~'i~ I
Resolution to support detouring of Route 250 during
replacement of drainage structures. ADOPTED.
6.4 Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Pro rata Share Rate
Adjustment. ADOPTED RESOLUTION w/changes,_
6.5 ~t~~ a-~ecto~ of Engineering
Public Works. MADE APPOINTMENT. -
I'6.6 Authorize County ExecUtive to execute Townwood Mobile
Home Park, LLE~ StormWater Drainage and Access Easements.
6.7 P~l~ii~ re~og~izin.~ August 26, 2-~
Equality D_ay. ADOPTED.
7. Transportation Matters.
· Mr. Jim Bryan, VDOT Resident Engineer, provided a brief
Transportation Letter sent to Jim Bryan, VDOT,
dng Juan Wade.
Clerk: Send signed resolution (Attachmen~-~) to
Jack Kelsey, E_ngineering.
..Clerk: Add Mark Graham to action letter
distribution list.
~ Obtain signatures. Forward copy
of deed (Attachment D) to Clerk's office for files.
.Clerk: Forward signed proclamation (Attachment
E) to Jenny Robinson from CNOW.
Clerk: Include Board's requests in Transportation
and provide an update at the 9/5/01 Board meeting.
8. Presentation:
update on current highway projects.
Mr. Bryan advised the Board that Mr. Bill Mills is retiring.
CONSENSUS to have staff prepare a resolution to be
given to Mr. Mills in recognition of his assistance to the
Board.
Ms. Humphds asked about a timetable on the "Sperry
study". Mr. Bryan said the report is due soon.
David Benish, Chief of Planning and Community
Development, added that the applicant advised him that
the applicant's report will be ready soon.
Mr. Perkins asked VDOT [o repair potholes on Rt. 628 and
road damage on Rt. 240 near the shopping center.
Mr. Dorrier asked VDOT to investigate road damage due
to the road at an intersection on Rt. 6 (he will provide
exact location to Mr. Bryan later).
Mr. Dorrier asked about the status of a pedestrian
crossing on Avon Street Extended. Mr. Bryan said the
roadway shoulders can be widened now, but the Board
would have to request sidewalks as part of the Six Year
Road Plan.
Ms. Humphris asked about construction on the North
Grounds arena. Mr. Bryan said he will look into the matter
RWSA Alternative water supply study.
PRESENTATION made by Gene Potter from Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority. CONSENSUS of Board to hold a work
session on water supply alternatives during the 9/5/01 meeting;
the public will be permitted to submit comments Jn writing prior
to the meeting. In addition, a joint meeting with City Council will
be held 9/27/01 on the same topic.
~e[ed: Mr. Tucker introduced Mark Graham, whom the
Board appointed th e new Director of Engineering and Public
Works at this meeting,
9. Board to Board PreSentation, School Board Chairman.
PRESENTATION made by Diantha McKeel. Then
· Mr. Dorrier asked about the highschool swim program.
Ms. McKeel said it has been approved as a 2-year pilot
program and may be expanded.
· Mr. Perkins asked whether anyone has studied energy savings
at Monticello High School, which was designed to be energy-
efficient. Dr. Castner said school staff will look into the
question and report to the Board at the 9/5/01 meeting.
· Ms. Thomas suggested that a sleeting committee, made up of
members of the Board of Su pervisors and the Sch ool Board be
organized to look into expanding student exchanges with Italy,
following her recent trip to that country. There was no
discussion on this topic.
· Ms. McKeel presented flowers to Ms. Humphris for her
assistance to the School Board during her tenure on the Board.
· Mr. Martin commented that it has been said by some that the
SOL's are an unfair way to evaluate the County's school
performan ce, and suggested that the School Board submit
alternatives. Dr. Castner said a report is forthcoming in
November.
10. Public Head_n.g on proposed FY 2001 budget amendments.
Clerk:
~ent to Mr. Bryan.
Clerk: Prepare resolution to be given to Mr. Mills at
the 10/03/01 Board meeting. Invite Mr. Mills to
attend.
None.
None.
Forward approved appropriations to
11.
AMENDED the FY01 budget in the amount of $141;~,§'6:6~ ~ ~B6igin Br~en
APPROVED appropriatior~s #20078, 20079, a~ and appropriate parties.
Public Hearing on proposed FY 2002 budget amendments. _Clerk: Forward ap proved appropriations to
AMENDED the FY02 budget in the amount of $393,586.00 and
APPROVED appropriations #2001001,2001002 2001003
2001004, 2001005, and 2001006. ' '
(Note: Ms. Thomas suggested sending a letter to the state
thanking them for the Victim Witness grant. Ms. White said she
would discuss with Chief Miller and draft letter.)
12.~date on Preddy Creek. UPDATE provided by Mr. Tucker.
He advised the Board that Greene County is now focus~'ng on a
different site for a sewage treatment plant, so it should not
affect the County. CONSENSUS of Board to have
David Hirschmann, Water Resources Manager; draft a letter for
the Chairman to sign, strongly suPp-~i~g the alternate location.
13. Presentation: GAS-B34, by Jack Farmer. PRESEN~TION -
made.
14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Closed'Session:
Ms. Humphris informed the Board that she attended a
meeting re: the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement focus
group. She said a report is forthcoming.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that the Commission on
Economic Development is meeting today. She added that
it is important that the High Growth Coalition has an
advisory committee that works with the Commissio n, and
that it is important that they remain active. There has bee n
some discussion of hiring a lobbyist to serve as a liaison
between the two groups.
Mr. Martin advised the Board that David Toscano, staff and
he have been meeting regarding the Court Study.
Ms. Thomas said Prato County is interested in joining the
officials of Poggio a Caiano, Italy, who are coming to visit in
March. March 29 is when McGuffey Art Center is going to
have an art exhibit from the Italian city. She said the
County should work closely with the City on this, and that
she wrote a letter of support to Italian officials.
Ms. Thomas mentioned WINA's request to begin
broadcasting Board meetings live. CONSENSUS was to
invite the radio station to address the Board.
Ms. Thomas said she is concerned about Martha Jefferson
Hospital's move and how it will impact the Monticello
viewshed. She added that it is important that the County
decide which areas are going to receive Master Planning.
Mr. Tucker noted that, with all the development going on in
the County, it may be necessary for all areas to be included
in Master Planning.
Personnel and Legal Matters.
Melvin Breeden and appropriate part es.
_County Executive's office: Discuss with
Chief Miller and then draft letter for Chairman's
signature,
~esources Mana.qer: Draft letter as
instructed.
Community Relations Manager: Invite WINA to
address the Board.
None.
None.
Clerk: Notify appointees and update Boards and
Commissions records. Advertise Historic
Preservation Committee vacancies.
16.
17.
Mr.
·
t-
Certify_Closed Session.
Appointments:
Martin nominated the following persons:
Jameson Gibson, Jr. to the Historic Preservation Committee,
with said term to run from 8/1/01, no term expiration date.
Ashley G. Young to serve as youth appointee to the
Commission on Children and Families, with said term to run
from 8/1/01 to 6/30/03.
~ter Levering to Workforce Investment Board: with said
term to run from 6/4/01 to 6/03/04.
Mr. 'Perkins nominated the following person:
· Joe Jones to the Shenandoah National Park Advisory
Committee, with term to run from 8/1/01 no term expiration
date. '
Note: The Board also advised the Clerk to advertise the two
~vacancies on the Historic Preservation Committee.
~ The Board appointed Roxanne White, Assistant
County Executive, to serve as Acting County Executive in
Mr. Tucker's absence.
~m to A~.m.
None.
Attach ment A
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on
the 1st day of August 2001, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Peter Jefferson Parkway in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July '19, 2001, fully ~ncorporated 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 Peter Jefferson Parkway meets the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requireme nts of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Peter Jefferson Parkway
in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)
dated July '19, 2001 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fltls 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.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mr. Martin.
Seconded by: Ms. Humphris.
Yeas: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr.
Perkins.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Board of County Supervisors
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Peter Jefferson Parkway from start of Phase 2 construction and end of Phase
1, location of commercial entrance (Station 19+35), to the end of Phase 2
construction, location of commercial entrance (Station 30+50), as shown on plat
recorded 9/28/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Attachment B
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 250 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
(Project 0250-002- I 14,115,C501 )
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is planning the
replacement of two drainage structures on Rome 250, east of the City of Charlottesville,
over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. During construction VDoT desires to close this
section of Route 250 and detour traffic around the site via Route 616 and Route 1-64; and
WHEREAS, VDoT has indicated that if the drainage structures are constructed
under traffic, a temporary detour would have to be constructed at each site, which would
increase costs for right-of-way and construction, increase the environmental impact and
require additional construction time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that given VDoT plans to
undertake the majority of this work during the summer months of 2003 'while schools are
closed, and in view of the cost and time savings, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, does hereby support the detouring of traffic from Route 250 as proposed by
VDoT during the replacemem of the two drainage structures.
I, Ella Washington-Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree,
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Superwisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on August I, 2001 by a vote of 6.0.
Ella Washington-Carey
Clerk Board of Supervisors
Attachment C
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATE
TO RECOVER PORTION OF COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
LICKINGHOLE REGIONAL STORMWATER BASIN
'WHEREAS, on July 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted
a"Poliey Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land that Lies in
the Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management Facilities' (hereinafter, the
"Policy"); and
WHEREAS, the Policy established a formula to determine each proposed
development's pro rata share for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Basin, and the
formula was based on the best available cost estimates for the facility at the time; and
WHEREAS, the pro rata share was calculated by determining the increase in runoff
(in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development in a ten-year
storm and multiplying that increase by four hundred twenty-eight and 85/100 dollars
($428.85); and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a new rate for the Lickinghole Creek
Regional Stormwater Basin pursuant to the Policy in order to assure that the County recovers
the appropriate costs for the construction of the Basin.
NOW, TI-II~,REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors establishes a rate of three hundred forty three dollars ($343), which shall be
mul~tflied by the increase in runoff (in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a
proposed development in a ten-year storm, in order to determine a development's pro rata
share.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this rate shall be adjusted annually by the
percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reaWarms the statemem in the Policy
that the calculation of the increase in runoffvolume and velocity shall be measured bom the
point at which the runoff Ieaves the boundary of the property proposed for development.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of
a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 6 to
0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on August 1, 2001.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
X
X
X
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
X
Attachment D
(County Attorney's office will forward electronic copy to Clerk's office upon receipt of same from
attorney who handled the matter.)
Attachment E
WHEREAS,
PROCLAMATION
many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give women the
right to vote; and
WHEREAS,
citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the taws and policies in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this County do not
unjustly discriminate against females, and any other group; and
WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the
passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. the
amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American women;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of AIbemarte County, Virginia. does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2001
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DA Y
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a
more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the
important differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges al~ citizens to
eliminate all unjust discrimination and pre. dice against women, and ensure
equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all women and men.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of August, 2001.
Sally Hi Thomas. Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
David R Bowerman
R~o
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Joue~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Super~sors
401 McInfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
'(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Riwanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
August 6, 2001
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Dear Mr. Bryan:
At the August 1, 2001 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Board took the following actions
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 6.3. Resolution to support detouring of Route 250 during replacement of
drainage structures.
The Board adopted the attached Resolution to support detouring of Route 250 during replacement
of drainage structures.
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Ms. Humphris asked about a timetable on the "Sperry study". You responded that the report is
due soon. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning and Community Development, added that the applicant
recently advised him that the applicant's report will be ready soon.
Mr. Perkins asked that repairs be made to potholes on Rt. 628 and road damage on Rt. 240 near
the shopping center.
Mr. Dorrier asked VDOT to investigate road damage due to the road at an intersection on Rt. 6
('he said he would provide the exact location to you later).
Mr. Dorrier asked about the status of a pedestrian crossing on Avon Street Extended. You
responded that the roadway shoulders can be widened now, but the Board would have to request
sidewalks as part of the Six Year Road Plan.
Ms. Humphris asked about construction on the North Grounds arena. You said you will look into
the matter and provide an update at the September 5, 2001 Board meeting.
Printed on recycled paper
cc:
Robert Tucker
Attachment
Sincerely,
Laurel A. Bentley, CMC
Senior Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 250 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
(Project 0250-002-114,115,C501)
.WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation O/DoT) is planning the
replacement of two drainage structures on Route 250, east'of the City of Charlottesville,
over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. During construction VDoT desires to close this
section of Route 250 and detour traffic around the site via Route 616 and Route 1-64; and
WltEREAS, VDoT has indicated that if the drainage structures 'are constructed
under traffic, a temporary detour would have to be constructed at each site, which would
increase costs for fight-of-way and construction, increase the environmental impact and
require additional construction time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that given VDoT plans to
undertake the majority of this work during the summer months of 2003 while schools are
closed, and in view of the cost and time savings, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, does hereby support the detouring of traffic from Route 250 as proposed by
VDoT during the replacement of the two drainage structures.
I, Ella Washington-Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree,
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on August 1, 2001 by a vote of 6-0.
~ E~lla Washin~6n-carey/,7
Clerk Board of Supe~rs
INTER
401 l¢~z~ ~oed
OFFICE
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance {'~,~
Laurel A. Bentley, Senior Deputy Clerk
Appropriations Approved on August 1, 2001
August 3, 2001
Attached are the original appropriation forms for the following items which were approved by the
Board at its meeting on August 1, 2001:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Appropriation: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Project (Form ~Y20078).
Appropriation: Math SOL Grant (Form ~r20079).
Appropriation: Funding for various school programs and donations (Form f~20080).
Appropriation: Victim Witness Grant (Form fY2_001001 ).
Appropriation: REA Grant and AIMR Program (Form #2001002).
Appropriation: School Resource Officer Grant (Form #2001003).
Appropriation: EMS Children Grant (Form #2001004).
Appropriation: Training Manikin Grant (Form #2001005).
Appropriation: Contribution to Region X for Youth Summit (Form #2001006).
In addition, the Board amended the FY01 Budget in the amount of $141,436.66 and the FY02
Budget in the amount of $393,586.00.
Attachments
CC:
Roxanne White
Robert Walters
Kevin Castner
Jackson Zimmerman
Susan Painter
Carl Pumphrey
Draft: 07/11/01
ORDINANCE NO. 01-11( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES,
ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, DIVISION 3, CONDUCT WITHIN AND USE OF PARKS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Article I, In General, Division 3, Conduct Within
and Use of Parks, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 11-120 Pets.
Chapter 11. Parks and Recreation Facilities
Article I. In General
Division 3. Conduct Within and Use of Parks
SeC. 11-120 Pets.
All pets shall be kept on a leash and under control while on park lands except in
designated areas clearly identified by authorized signs allowing pets not to be leashed.
(9-12-79; Code 1988, § 14-6.14; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-11(1), 8-1-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarie County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the
1st day of August 2001, adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Peter Jefferson-Parkway in Peter Jefferson Place Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 19, 2001, 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 Peter Jefferson Parkway meets the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirement.~ of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Peter Jefferson Parkway in Peter
Jefferson Place Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July
19, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of virginia,
and the Department's ..Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a dear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements 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.
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mr. Martin.
Seconded by: Ms. Humphris.
Yeas: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
Nays: None.
A Copy Teste:
Eila~'Carey, Clerk, CMC/
Board of County Supervi~'~:~rs
/
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Peter Jefferson Pa .rkwa~ from start of Phase 2 construction and end of Phase 1,
location of commercial entrance (Station 19+35), to the end of Phase 2
construction, location of commercial entrance (Station 30+50), as shown on plat
recorded 9/28/99 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1861, page 91, with a variable right-of-way width (80), for a length of
0.21 mite.
Total Mileage - 0.21 mile.
Form
ADDITIONS FORM SR-S {A}, - PROP0~ED,ADDI.,T,,IONS TO THE SECONDARY S~STEM OF 8TAT~ HIGHNA¥$
At~aolxment to (oh~ok one onl~) ~ Board of Supervisors Reeolut/on [] $uret~ Instrument D&ted: 19 Ouly 2001
Attao2mmnt i of I
Name of Subdivision: Peter Jefferson Place
A~lbema~le Count~,
R~f. Name o~ 8~eet S~eet ~_d4tion Termini R-O-W ~s~ll~s ~On ~g~
No. ~d~ (f~.) Notes
i ~= J~f~s~ ~: s~t o~ P~e 2 ~on ~d ~d of ph~e 1, lo~ion of ~rl~l~ wide,
(s~tA~ 30+50) , , ,
...... ~ ~ ~9-28-99 ~ ,~: Z86~ ~ea: 91 ...... ~ , , ,
2 ~t .........
3
4
~}~ ~z~.~: ~ ~:.. ~: , ...........
~ ~m{ ...............
. T~I .........
PI~ ~ ~: ~ ~k: Page:
To~l ~l~g* 0.21
Notes: Guaranteed width Of =i~h~-of-waty emolusive of ~ necessar~ eas_~__ents for ~uts, fills, and drainage.
CERTIFICATION OP ATTACHMENT
(Name and Title)
RESOLUTION
ROUTE 250 BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
(Project 0250-002-114,115,C501)
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) is planning the
replacement of two drainage structures on Route 250, east ~of the City of Charlottesville,
over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. During construction VDoT desires to close this
section of Route 250 and detour traffic around the site via Route 616 and Route 1-64; and
WltEREAS, VDoT has indicated that if the drainage structures are constructed
under traffic, a temporary detour would have to be constructed at each site, which would
increase costs for right-of-way and construction, increase the environmental impact and
require additional construction time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that given VDoT plans to
undertake the majority of this work during the summer months of 2003 while schools are
closed, and in view oft he cost and time savings, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, does hereby support the detouring of traffic from Route 250 as proposed by
VDoT during the replacement of the two drainage structures.
I, Ella Washington-Carey~ do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a reguhr meeting held on August 1, 2001 by a vote of 6-0.
Ella Washington-Cai. ey~
Clerk Board of Superv)(ors
?
CHARLES NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
July 13, 2001
JAMES b BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Albemarle County Executive
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Route 250 Bridge replacements
Project 0250-002-114,115,C501
Approx. 5 Mi. E. Charlottesville
Dear Mr.~
vDOT is planning the replacement of two drainage structures on Route 250 east of
Charlottesville over Carroll Creek and Limestone Creek. We are planning to advertise the projects
in December 2002, with the road closing and the majority ofthe work being done in the summer
months of 2003 while schools are closed. We would prefer to close this section of Route 250
during construction and detour traffic around the sire via Route 616 and Route 1-64 (see attached
map). The road would be closed approximately 90 days (45 days each bridge).
If the drainage structures are constructed under traffic, a temporary detour would have to be
constructed at each site, which would increase costs for fight of way and construction, increase
the environmental impact and require additional construction time.
In view of the above cost and tim~e savings, we are requesting the County's support for the
detouring of Route 250 during the replacement of the two drainage structures. We are requesting
this information in the preliminary engineering stage in order to incorporate this into the final
design.
James D/': _Bryan
R~,_~~t Engineer
cc: Mr. D. R. Askew Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr.
Ms. Karen P. Kilby
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
Stony
TO LOUISA
,..Campbell '
Monficeflo
Carters Mtn.
TO PALMYRA
TO ZION CROSSROADS
, .....
MILL CREEK AREA
37~00'
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219-2000
July 6, 2001
C. F. GEE
ACTING CHIEF ENGINEER
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 McLntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
S ubj ect:
Route 29 Improvements from
South Fork Rivanna River to
Airport Road - Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Tucker:
The current VDOT roadway plans for the subject Route 29 improvements call for
widening Route 29 from four to six lanes. The plans also include providing frontage
roads to manage access and create, a more efficient operating condition for the corridor.
VDOT presented this concept to Albemarle County officials and residents at a Citizen
Information Meeting held on July 20, 2000.
Following the Citizen Information Meeting, it became evident that the citizens
and the local government officials do not support the frontage road concept. This has
prompted additional meetings with local officials and several citizens to determine the
need for proceeding with this concept. We have also examined the possibility of gaining
support for just an upgrade of the existing four-lane corridor to an eight-lane facility, with
three through lanes and one continuous right turn lane in each direction. This is the same
typical section (base case improvements) that has been used throughout the rest of the
corridor, south of this project.
The cost of the frontage road concept is considerably greater than the upgrade,
however, neither concept is sufficiently funded in the Virginia Transportation
Development Plan. We will, therefore, abandon the service roads concept because of the
f'mancial considerations and public reactions. However, we strongly urge the County to
consider prudent access management strategies and work with the development
community to prowide service.roads, and minimize direct access to Route 29 to enhance
its operating capacity.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Page Two
July 6, 2001
I'am proposing to defer this project until sufficient funds are available, at which
time we will consider an altemative. Please call Mr. Don Askew or me if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
C. F. Gee
Cc'
The Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra
The Honorable H. Carter Myers, IH
Mr. Charles D. Nottingham
Mr. Donald R. Askew
Page ! of 2
Ella Carey _ _ --
From: Thomas Goodrich [thomasg~one.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 5:00 PM
To: Ella Carey
Subjecl: ZMA-2001-002 Sign 90 and 91
Dear Board of Supervisors::
Several years ago I expressed concerns regarding the continuation of the Crozet area as a
designated growth area. Specifically my concerns were related to the absence'of work or shopping
facilities that would result in increas~d traffic on 250W.
Considering the Board of Supervisors approval of the Transportation Advisory Committees
recommendations to keep 250W as a one lane scenic road ( no build alternative) and the fact thai there
are still no shopping or work alternatives to Charlottesville, I would like you to consider the following
as you discuss and vote on ZMA2001-002 Western Ridge Phase 5C, on Wednesday July 11ttL
In the past year 4 additional traffic lights have been installed on 250W between the bypass and
Broomley Road: 1 at Bellair, 1 at the exit ramp of the bypass, 1 at the Boars Head Inn and 1 at
Broomley Rd. This has changed the leisurely drive from Crozet into a bona fide commute complete
with increased decision making, stop and go traffic, worsening gas mileage and ti~asu, tion. The
passing lane at the bottom of the hill just west of Broomley Rd. has heen rendered useless in passing
stow trucks during the morning commute. The passing lane Westbound just past West Leigh has been
removed. And I now notice another subdivision being built on the "S" curve on Rt. 240 coming down
the hill out of Crozet: an extremely dangerous place in adverse weather to have traffic slow or stop
for turning cars. W'ffi this necessitate another traffic light? How soon before the residents of West
Leigh and the residents that use Owensville Rd. request there own traffic lights?
The additional residential dwellings that approval of Phase 5C of Western Ridge will create result in
even more traffic on Rt. 250W.
In your discussions please keep in mind the following:
1. The rezoning request is a change of intent on the part of the developers hoping to sneak in ( read as
make more money) what you would have turned down during their original application.
1. Rt. 250W is a one lane road and will remain so due to the wishes of local residents as reflected in
your earlier decision to' support the recommendations of the 250W Transportation Advisory
Committee.
2. As creatures of habit commuters will take the most direct route to work: this means current and
ftware residents of the Crozet and Ivy area will continue to use 250W and avoid going w/b on 250W
to I64 until an entrance is made on Miller School Road which VDOT does not support.
3. It will be more than a lifetime before adequate shopping and work oppommifies exist west of
Charlottesville to decrease the AM Eastbound flow and PM Westbound flow of traffic.
Please reconsider all efforts to continue to designate Crozet as a growth area until viable alternatives
7/9/01
to driving on 250W are in place and deny the rezoning request,
Respectfully,
Thomas J. G°odrieh
804-979-4764 / 244-4443
Page 2 of 2
7/9/01
RESOLUTION ESTABLISFIlNG RATE
TO RECOVER PORTION OF COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
LICKINGHOLE REGIONAL STORMWATER BASIN
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
"Policy Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land that Lies in the
Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management Facilities" (hereinafter, the "Policy"); and
WHEREAS, the Policy established a formula to determine each proposed development's pro
rata share for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Basin, and the formula was based on the
best available cost estimates for the facility at the time; and
WHle~REAS, the pro rata share was calculated by determining the increase in runoff(in cubic
feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development in a ten-year storm and
multiplying that increase by four hundred twenty-eight and 85/100 dollars ($428.85); and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a new rate for the Lickinghole Creek Regional
Stormwater Basin pursuant to the Policy in order to assure that the County recovers the appropriate
costs for the construction of the Basin.
NOW, TI-W. REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supe~isors establishes a rate of three hundred forty three dollars ($343), which shall be multiplied
by the increase in runoff(in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development
m a ten-year storm, in order to determine a development's pro rata share.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this rate shall be adjusted annually by the percentage
of change in the Consumer Price Index.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reaffirms the statement in the Policy that the
calculation of the increase in runoff volume and velocity shall be measured from the point at which
the runoffleaves the boundary of the property proposed for development.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of 6 to 0, as
recorded below, at a meeting held on August 1,2001.
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman x
Mr. Dorrier x
Ms. Humphris ___x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Ms. Thomas _x _
Clerk~Board of ComSty Superfi~sors
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATE
TO RECOVER PORTION OF COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
LICKINGHOLE REGIONAL STORMWATER BASIN
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
"Policy Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land that Lies in the
Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management Facilities" (hereinafter, the "Policy"); and
WHEREAS, the Policy established a formula to determine each proposed development's pro
rata share for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Basin, and the formula was based on the
best available cost estimates for the facility at the time; and
WHEREAS, the pro rata share was calculated by determining the increase in runoff (in cubic
feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development in a ten-year storm and
multiplYing that increase by four hundred twenty-eight and 85/100 dollars ($428.85); and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a new rate for the Lickinghole Creek Regional
Stormwater Basin pursuant to the Policy in order to assure that the County recovers the appropriate
costs for the construction of the Basin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors establishes a rate of three hundred forty three dollars ($343), which shall be multiplied
by the increase in runoff (in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development
in a ten-year storm, in order to determine a development's pro rata share.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reaffirms the statement in the Policy that the
calculation of the increase in runoff volume and velocity shall be measured from the point at which
the runoff leaves the boundary of the property proposed for development.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to
recorded below, at a meeting held on
, as
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye .Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TO: Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Ir., County Executive
FROM: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
DATE: July 31, 2001
Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin
Attached is a revised draft Resolution that provides that the rate established by the
Board shall be adjusted annually by the percentage of change in the Consumer Price Index.
The rationale for this additional language is set forth in the exeoative surmnary.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RATE
TO RECOVER PORTION OF COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING
LICKINGHOLE REGIONAL STORMWATER BASIN
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
"Policy Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Development of Land that Lies in the
Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management Facilities" (hereinafter, the "Policy"); and
WHEREAS, the Policy established a formula to determine each proposed development's pro
rata share for the Liekinghole Creek Regional Stormwater Basin, and the formula was based on the
best available cost estimates for the facility at the time; and
WHEREAS, the pro rata share was calculated by determining the increase in runoff(in cubic
feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development in a ten-year storm and
multiplying that increase by four hundred twenty-eight and 85/100 dollars ($428.85); and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a new rate for the Lickinghole Creek Regional
Stormwater Basin pursuant to the Policy in order to assure that the County recovers the appropriate
costs for the construction of the Basin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors establishes a rate of three hundred forty three dollars ($343), which shall be multiplied
by the increase in runoff(in cubic feet per second) projected to be caused by a proposed development
in a ten-year storm, in order to determine a development's pro rata share.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate established herein shall be retroactive to
March 1, 2001.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board reaffirms the statement in the Policy that the
calculation of the increase in runoff volume and velocity shall be measUred ~om the point at which
the runoff leaves the boundary of the property proposed for development.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of to as
recorded below, at a meeting held on " '
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Humphris
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE_:
Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Pro-rata Share
Rate Adjustment
.SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST.
BOS approval of the pro-rata share rate adjustment.
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER.:
August 1, 2001
ACTION:
INFORMATION.:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION.:
I
ATTACHMENTS: Yes .,..,/~
STAFF CONTACT(S): I .
DISCUSSION:
The Regional Stormwater Management Facilities policy was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 10 July 1991 (see
enclosure #1). This policy established a pro-rata share policy for the recovery of costs paid by the County for the design and
construction of regional stormwater management facilities. The policy also established the pro-rata share contribution
calculation formula (based on Engineering Department recommendations) for the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Facility.
The formula was based on the best available cost estimate of the facility (until the total cost of the facility had been determined)
and used a rate of $428.85 per cubic foot per second (cfs) of increased stormwater runoff generated as a result of
development.
The increase in runoff is determined by calculating and comparing the amount of post-development stormwater runoff to the
predevelopment runoff. In our review of this policy's implementation, we discovered inconsistency in the procedures used to
calculate the runoff. This inconsistency resulted in considerable differences in the pro-rata share paid by the developments.
The essential difference was the department's acceptance of using the Lickinghole dam as the point for determining the runoff,
rather than a development's property line, as prescribed by the adopted policy.
Department files indicate that the first development to which this policy applied took issue with the policy and the fee it imposed.
Ensuing debates followed and the best we can ascertain is that in 1991 the developer and consultant convinced staff that use
of the dam as the point of the analysis was the intent of the methodology that had been the basis of the policy and was
therefore an acceptable practice. However, in our review of the pre-rata contributions we found that this difference in the
procedure resulted in underassessment of the pro-rata share paid by the developer. To ensure compliance with the Board's
policy, and realizing that continuation of this practice would eventually result in a significant shortfall in the total cost recovery
from the developable area, the department suspended this practice earlier this year.
Development plans for Grayrock and Stonegate (submitted 7 March 2001 ) were under review at the time the change was being
considered and were informed that their pro-rata share would be computed based on strict compliance with the adopted policy
and formula. Several discussions ensued and three memos were prepared by Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering & Public
Works, regarding the administration and cost recovery for the Lickinghole Basin. These memos (enclosure #3) are attached
for your information. On 10 April 2001 representatives from the offices of the County Executive, the County Attorney, and the
Department of Engineering & Public Works met to discuss the Lickinghole Basin pro-rate share policy. After discussion of the
history of the Lickinghole program and review of the Board policy, the group agreed that no change in the adopted policy was
necessary. However, the group did agree that the Engineering Department would re-evaluate the pro-rata share rate
($428.85/cfs) specified by the policy and meet with representatives of the development community to discuss potential
changes.
The original pro-rate share formula did not consider Federal funding received for the project and overestimated the costs paid
by the County. in addition, it was based on the best available information and estimates for future development. Re-evaluation
of this rate was considered appropriate since the actual costs of the facility were known and historical data was available. The
department's re-evaluation was compiled into a document titled the Lickinghole Basin Pro-rata Rate Evaluation (enclosure
AGENDA TITLE.:
Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Pro-rata Sh are Rate Adjustment
August 1, 2001
Page 2
In summary, we determined that the pro-rata share rate for 2001 should be $343 per c'fs of increased runoff from the developed
property and that this rate should be adjusted annually for inflation. This rate adjustment has been reviewed with
representatives from the development community and everyone is in agreement that it is appropriate for the cost recovery for
the basin.
Finally, because development plans for Grayrock and Stonegate were under review at the time a change was being
considered, and we had previously accepted the lower calculation, staff allowed this practice to continue. (see enclosure ~4).
However, because there was some question regarding the previous application of Board policy, we indicated that this decision
was subject to Board review and additional fees may be assessed. Staff continues to believe that allowing payment at the
lower calculation was reasonable given the circumstances. If the Board should disagree with this decision, staff will need to
be directed to assess additional fees based on strict application of the policy in place at the time of their original submittal.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the adoption of the attached resolution (enclosure ¢~5) to revise the pro-rata share rate in the "Policy Governing
Calculation And Collection Of Fees For Development Of Land That Lies In The Drainage Basin Of Stormwater Management
Facilities" adopted 10 July 1991, to reflect a new rate of $343/cfs and effective upon adoption of the resolution.
01.148
Enclosure 1
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
35
POLICY GOVERNING CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THAT LIES IN THE DRAINAGE BASIN
OF REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
July 10, 1991
Where the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors determines that
the public interest is best served by a regional stormwater management
facility (for runoff control or stormwater detention), and appropri-
ates public funds for the construction of the facility with the
express understanding that a fee will be assessed for the development
of land within the drainage basin of the facility,-a subdivider or
developer shall be required to pay a pro rata share of the cost of
such facility. Such pro rata share shall be limited to the proportion
of such total estimated cost which the increased volume and velocity
of stormwater runoff to be actually cause~ by the subdivision or
development bears to total estimated volume and velocity of such
runoff from such area in its fully developed state (Code of Virginia,
Title 15.1-466j). Total cost shall include: 1) any engineering study
for the watershed of a regional facility; 2) design costs; 3) land and
easement acquisition~ 4) construction costs; and 5) constructio~
management and inspection fees.
Calculations of increase in runoff shall be submitted to the
Albemarle County Department of Engineering for review and approval.
Documentation must accompany any development proposal within the
watershed of a regional stormwater management facility. Following
approval of runoff calculations, the pro rata share contribution for
the facility must be made prior to any issuance of permits for land-
disturbing activities.
In such case that a re§ion~l stormwater manage~mant facility has
been proposed, but final cost estimates are not yet available 6r
construction of the facility has not commenced, the following options
shall be available to meet the terms of this policy:
1. The developer may make a contribution based on the best
available cost estimate of the regionalfacility at the time
of the site plan submittal for the project. The Count~
'Engineering Department shall use the projected cost'of such
facility to develop a formula for calculation o~ pro rata
share contributions in accordance with Title 15.1-466(j) of
the Code of Virginia.
2. The developer may provide an acceptable form of surety to
cover their respective pro rata share of the cost of a
regional stormwater facility and proceed with such project
subject to County Engineering Department approval of runoff
calculations and County Attorney approval of surety.
In any case where a regional stormwater management facility has
been proposed but is not constructed, the County Engineering Depart-
ment may require such facilities or pro rata share contributions to
control runoff as necessary to meet the requirements of provisions of
the Albemarle County Code in order to provide for the healt~ safety
and welfare Of the citizens of Albemarle County.'
Lickin hole Cree~ Re ional Stormwater Mane ement Facilit
Until the total cost of the facility has been determined, pro
rata share contributions shall be determined in accordance with the
formula below. This calculation is based on the best'available cost
estimate of the facility and establishes a pro rata share contribution
for offsite drainage facilities based on the increase in the volume
and 9elocity of stormwater actually caused by a particular project'.
The pro rata share is determined by the following:
Increase in Runoff x $428,85 per cfs increase = Pro Rata
Volume (cfs) in 10 yr. runoff Share
(based on best available
cost estimate)
July 10, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Increase in runoff volume shall be determined for any proposed
development and shall be based on the increase in runoff volume and
velocity resulting from the project in its fully developed state.
This determination shall calculate increase in runoff volume and
velocity from the point at which runoff leaves the property boundary.
Agenda Item No. 12. Meals Tax Referendum, Discussion of procedures.
Mr. St. John said the language in the Code of Virginia that authorizes a
meals tax and a referendum is c~nfusing. The Board can "doctor" the l~nguage
to make it plain. He has discussed this with the Attorney General and Secre-
tary of the State Electoral Board. The Code ~tates 'that a county can impose a
meals tax which when added to the State sales tax does not exceed eight and
one-half percent. At this time, the State sales tax is four and one-half
percent. The Board could put on the Nove~.ber ballot the ~question as: "Shall
Albemarle County be authorized to levy a tax on meals, with an appropriate
description, not to exceed four percentT" The other alternative is to use the
exact language of the statute as follows: ~h~il Albemarle County be autho-
rized a meals tax in an amount which when aa~ed to the sales tax shall not
exceed eight and one-half percent?'. He thinks it is simpler to understand
when the amount of four percent is included in the question For a refe
there are ~teps that have to be taken and deadlines to ' rendum
s 1~, l~ ~ too late to correct afte~ ~ = m~et. If one of the
.... ~n a wrlE of Election which orders~3==~act' The Circuit Court
question on the November ballot. That must be done no later than 60 days
~'~= m±ectoral Board to put the
prior to the election. The procedure is for the Board to direc~ him to file a
petition for a Writ of Election.
Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the referendum should state as
clearly as possible what the Board is doing and not be designed 'for misunder-
standing. Mr. St. John said although he received instructions from the Sta~e
that the County could use the four percent language, they think the County
should use the language in .the' Code. Mr. Perkins asked if 1
Code has changed from when this question came ......... anguage in the
John replied "yes". The section of the language' ~F ~v~raAreading.,,whenYears combine~ag°' Ftr.withSt.
language,the sales tax not to exceed a total of eight and one-half percent" is new
Mr. Bain said he wants to make sure the language is "attack proof". ~e
thinks it is up to the Board members to sell the idea of the meals tax.
Mr. Tucker asked if the County could not clarify in a parenthetical
comment the language. Mr..St. John said there are ways it can be clarified.
Mr. Bowerman thinks it is up to the Board to educate the public and the
Board should use the language in the Code. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr. Way
said he is still debating the issue.
Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that there should be some simple
language that could be put on the ballot to clarify
St. John said he would draft something and bring it the Code language. Mr.
.... - back to the Board at its
next meeting, on July 17. Mr. Bowie reiterated that the Board wants to comply
nowith further State discussion. Code, but wants the language made as simple as possible There was
Agenda Item No. 13. Letter from Accomack County Board of Supervisors
asking the Board to join in requesting the r-ight of participation in the
Virgini~sors in theRetirementcommonwealth.System for members of city councils and boards of Supervi-
Mr. Bowie said ~
has never supported this has been before this Board previously. This
~alary must be the request because the amount of fiv~ percent of Board
the
contributed for five years in order to vest and if this option
ms available the supervisors would not be eligible for Individual Retirement
Accounts (IRAs). If the Board
Board's reasons for concurs, he will write a letter explaining the
the Board. (Mr. St.n°t supporting the request. There were no object~ons from
~_ John l~ft the meeting at 11:33 a.m.)
Enclosure 2
Lickinghole Basin Pro-rata Rate Re-evaluation
County of Albemarle Department of Engineering & Public Works
20 July 2001
On 10 April 2001 representatives from the offices of the County Executive, the County Attomey,
and the Department of Engineering & Public Works met to discuss the Lickinghole Regional
Stormwater Contribution Policy. After discussion of the history of the Lickinghole program and
review of the Board policy, the group agreed that the policy (as adopted) did not need to be
changed. The group alsO agreed that the Engineering Department would re-evaluate the pro-rata
contribution rate ($428.85/cfs) specified by the policy. Evaluation of this rate was considered
appropriate since the actual costs of the facility are now known and historical data is available.
The Engineering Department's re-evaluation of the pro-rata contribution rate depended on
specific limits for the evaluation, background and historical information, as well as certain
assumptions'. This information is described below.
This re-evaluation of the pro-rata contribution rate does not include a revision or regeneration
of the hydrologic/hydraulic modeling that was developed as part of the Licking, hole Basin
design.
· The increase in runoffis determined at the property line in accordance w/th the Board
adopted policy.
Based on earlier interpretations of the pro-rata share computation and the current level of
growth within the watershed, the County has fallen short of its cost recovery. This re-
evaluation of the pro-rata contribution rate does not include recovery of the underpayment of
the pro-rata share payments collected to date.
· Total Cost incurred by the County: $1,816,000; This is the total cost as of 1995 and
disregards the effects of inflation.
Target Cost Recovery: 34% ($617,440); This was set by the Board and was based on the
1991 prediction of the portion of runoff anticipated from future development. Reference:
Engineering Department memo to Executives Office of 20 June 1991.
Total developed land in watershed from 1991 to 2001:315 acres (19% of total); This figure
represents only the development which have paid their pro-rata share. Reference:
Engineering Department records of pro-rata contributions as of 25 April 2001.
Total cost recovered as of 25 April 2001: $41,986.44; This figure corresponds to the total
developed land (see item above) and disregards the effects of inflation. Reference:
Engineering Department records of pro-rata contributions to date.
Total developable land remaining: 1352.4 acres; This figure is based on the most current
development study. Reference: Development Areas Initiatives Study of 1998, total
development acres remaining in 1998 was 1416.5
Pro-rata Re-evaluation
20 July 2001
Page 2 of 4
Cost Recovery Formula: Pro-rata Cost = [runoff increase in cubic feet per second] X [rate];
Runoff is computed at the development's property line and the rate is currentlY set at $428.85
per cfs in accordance with the Board policy. Reference: BOS Policy of July 1991.
For the purpose of this pro-rata contribution rate re-evaluation, we used an approximated
annual groWth rate 40 acres per year within the Lickinghole Basin watershed. This figure is
based on information provided in the Engineering Department records of pro-rata
contributions and the Development Areas Initiatives Study of 1998.
Our annual cost recovery projection (refer to the Cost Recovery Formula above) requires that
we project the anticipated runoffincrease from the approximated annual growth. This
projection requires a consistent approach to computing anticipated increase in runoff.
Utilizing historical site development information, simple stormwater hydrology approaches
like the TR-55 and/or the Rational method, and using consistent values given in the Virginia
Stormwater Management Handbook, we generated an average figure of approximately 1.25
cfs increase in runoff for every one acre of development or annual growth.
Since the recovery of the County's expenses will be occurring over an extended period of
time, adjustments for inflation need to be included. Therefore, inflation (I+CPI/100) was
applied on a yearly basis to the original cost of the basin, the Cost Recovery Formula rate,
and the recovered amounts (or payments received).
Rate of Inflation: The Consumer Price Index was used as follows. 1991/4.2, 1992/3.0,
1993/3.0} ~994/2.6, 1995/2.8, 1996/2.9, 1997/2.3, 1998/1.6, 1999/2.2, 2000/3.4, 2.5 was
used for future years. (Source: minneapolisfed.org/economy/calc/histl 913.html)
This information was compiled into a Cost Recovery Projection spreadsheet (see attached). The
purpose of this spreadsheet was to determine the pro-rata payment rate for 2001 (and subsequent
years) that would achieve the recovery target when full development was achieved. The column
headings and descriptions of the information contain therein are provided below.
"acres developed":
The number of acres developed during a specific year. Historical data
(when available) was entered into this column, otherwise the spreadsheet
assumes the approximated annual growth rate 40 acres per year.
Is the prO-rata share rate adjusted annually for inflation.
"ideal theoretical":
Represents the ideal theorized recovery (accumulated) that could be
collected, from pro-rata share payments, based on the utilization of this
Cost Recovery Projection method and beginning in year 1990 when the
receipt of pro-rata payments began. This provides the baseline for the
evaluation.
"recovery target":
Is the target cost recovery (34% or $617,440) of the total cost incurred by
the County ($1,816,000).
Pro-rata Re-evaluatiOn
20 July 2001
Page 3 of 4
"actual and projected":
Represents the actual and projected recovery (accumulated) of County
costs based on the pro-rata shares paid as of 25 April 2001 and
projected for future years.
Scenarios were evaluated by assuming different values for the initial "rate". Based on our
assessment, a 2001 rate of $343/cfs results in an ideal theoretical recovery projection closest to
the recovery target value at the time full development is achieVed (refer to the spreadsheet).
In order to assure the recovery target is achieved, the pro-rata contribution rate should be
adjusted for inflation on a yearly basis. In addition, methodology should be periodicallY
reassessed to verify the assumptions and to make rate adjustments as necessary to assure the
recovery target is achieved.
Cost recovery projection per item C of attached memo
12 July 2001 GEB
40 acres developed per year where real data is not available
1.25 cfs increase per acre assumed
ideal
year acres dev. acres left cpi rate theoretical recovery target
1990 0 1667.4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1991 24.84 1642.56 4.2 $260.00 $8,073.00 $0.00
1992 50.6 1616.8 3 $270.92 $17,135.69 $0.00
1993 106.15 1561:25 3 $279.05 $37,026.13 $0.00
1994 117.26 1550.14 2.6 $287.42 $42 128.44 $0.00
1995 117.26 1550.14 2.8 $294.89 $43,223.78 $617,440.00
1996 218.15 1449.25 2.9 $303.15 $82,664.91 $634,728.32
1997 228:12 1439.28 2.3 $311.94 $88,949.75 $653,135.44
1998 251.02 1416.38 1.6 $319.11 $100,130.26 $668,157.56
1999 251.02 1416.38 2.2 $324.22 $101,732.34 $678,848.08
actual and
projected
$0.00
$1,286.55
$9,081.33
$23,196.37
$24,439.80
$25,075.23
$35,040.50
$37,214.37
$40,643.40
$41,293.70
2000 270.22 1397.18 3.4 $331.35 $111,922.94 $693,782.74 $43,488.71
· ' actual
2002 1312.32 2.5 $351.19 $155,873.48 $735,305.63 $68,046.47 pr~ected
2003 t272.32 2.5 $359.96
2004 1232.32 2.5 $368.96
2005 1192.32 2.5 $378.19
2006 '1152.32 2.5 $387.64
2007 1112.32 2.5 $397.33
2008 1072.32 2.5 $407.27
2009 1032.32 2.5 $417.45
2010 992.32 2.5 $427.88
2011 952.32 2.5 $438.58
2012 912.32 2.5 $449.55
2013 872.32 2.5 $460.79
2014 832.32 2.5 $472.30
2015 792.32 2.5 $484.11
'2016 752.32 2.5 $496.22
2017 712.32 2.5 $508.62
2018 672.32 2.5 $521.34
2019 632.32 2.5 $534.37
2020 592.32 2.5 $547.73
2021 552.32 2.5 $561.42
2022 512.32 2.5 $575.46
2023 472.32 2.5 $589.84
2024 432.32 2.5 $604.59
2025 392.32 2.5 $619.70
2026 352.32 2.5 $635.20
2027 312.32 2.5 $651.08
2028 272.32 2.5 $667.35
2029 232.32 2.5 $684.04
2030 192.32 2.5 $701.14
2031 152.32 2.5 $718.67
2032 112.32 2.5 $736.63
2033 72.32 2.5 $755.05
2034 32.32 2.5 $773.93
2035 -7.68 2.5 $793.27
$177,768.55
$200,660.95
$224,586.87
$249 583.67
$275 689.95
$302 945.54
$33t 391.61
$361 070.65
$392026.51
$424 304.50
$457 951.38
$493 015.40
$529 546.41
$567 595.84
$607 216.76
$648,463.99
$691,394.07
$736,065.36
$782,538.10
$830,874.43
$881,138.49
$933,396.46
$987,716.61
$1,044,169.40
$1,102,827.51
$1,163,765.92
$1,227,061.98
$1,292,795.49
$1,361,048.76
$1,431,906.69
$1,505,456.87
$1,581,789.62
$1,660,998.09
$753,688.27
$772,530.48
$791,843.74
$811,639.83
$831,930.83
$852,729.10
$874,047.33
$895,898.51
$918,295.98
$941,253.37
$964,784.71
$988,904.33
$1,013,626.93
$1,038,967.61
$1,064,941.80
$1,091,565.34
$1,118,854.48
$1,146,825.84
$1,175,496.48
$1,204,883.90
$1,235,005.99
$1,265,881.14
$1,297,528.17
$1,329,966.38
$1,363,215.54
$1,397,295.92
$1,432,228.32
$1,468,034.03
$1,504,734.88
$1,542,353.25
$1,580,912.09
$1,620,434.89
$1,660,945.76
$87,745.87
$108,387.70
$130,006.79
$152,639.09
$176,321.75
$201,093.14
$226,992.90
$254,061.97
$282,342.62
$311 878.51
$342 714.73
$374 897.84
$408 475.91
$443 498.57
$480 017.07
$518 084.30
$557 754.89
$599 085.20
$642~133.43
$686 959.65
$733 625.84
$782 195.99
$832736.14
$885 314.41
$94C 001.15
$996,868.89
$1,055,992.53
$1,117,449.30
$1,181,318.92
$1,247,683.61
$1,316,628.21
$1,388,240.24
$1,462,609.97
shortfall $198,388.11
2001 shortfall $85,684.89
Enclosure
COUNTY OF,~BEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ENCL:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Bill Mawyer, Director
April 24, 2001
Review of the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Contribution Policy
1) Board Minutes dated December 20, 1989
2) Engineering Letter to Jordan Dev. Corp. dated September 11, 1990
3) Engineering Department. memo dated January 8, 1991
4) Bob ~Tucker memo dated July 2, 1991
5) FeiI, Deirdein, Petit & Williams letter dated May 24, 1991
6) Feil, Deinlein, Petit & Williams letter dated June 6, 1991
7) Engineering Department memo dated June 14, 1991
8) Board Policy adopted July 10, 1991
9) Engineering Department memo dated July 10, 1991
Engineering memo to Tom Foley dated April 6, 2001
This memo is to provide additional information concerning the subject policy, and to further the
documentation provided by the reference. A chronology of some of the early events related to
the Lickinghole policy is as follows:
In 1989, the Board approved development of"a rate structure based on the square foot
parameters recommended by staff" (see enclosure 1). This rate structure proposed by
Planning (and we assume Engineering) required a pro rata contribution to the cost of the
Lickinghole basin based on the quantity of impervious area created by the development.
The Engineering department applied this policy for new development proposed in the
watershed of the basin (see enclosure 2).
In January 1991, Engineering recommended a pro rata contribution policy for approval by the
Board. The policy recommended the contribution be calculated based on the quantity of
impervious surface created by the development (see enclosure 3).
The Board adopted the policy on February 13, 1991 (see enclosure 4).
An attorney representing Craig Builders argued that the policy did not comply with State
Code in May and June 1991 (see enclosures 5, 6).
MEMORANDUM
Review of the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Contribution Policy
April 24, 2001
Page Two
Engineering was directed to develop a revised policy (see enclosure 7).
Bob TUcker submitted the revised policy to the Board in July 1991 (see enclosure 4).
The Board approved the revised policy on July 10, 1991 (see enclosure 8).
The revised policy adopted by the Board required pro rata contributions based on the increase in
runoff volume and velocity created by a development. The policy specifies a formula to
calculate the volume and velocity increase as a function of the increase in peak flow rate at the
boundary of the property to be developed.
Much of the current discussion surrounds how the recovery rate ($428.g5/cfs) was established.
In 1991, Engineering used the data developed to design the basin, a HEC-1 model of the 8460
acre drainage basin, as the best information available for formulation of the recovery rate.
However, Engineering realized the HEC-1 model was not the appropriate tool to assess volume
and velocity increases resulting from development of small parcels within the larger watershed of
the basin. The HEC-1 model is not sensitive to small changes in flow volume or flow rate as the
result of developing individual parcels. ConSequently, Engineering recommended the
contribution be calculated based on the increase in peak flow rate measured at the boundary of
the property to be developed. Calculation of the peak flow rate increase was rOutinely provided
by development engineers to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance (pre development vs.
post development changes in peak flow rate) (see enclosure 9). While we are not certain why use
of the HEC-1 model was accepted by Engineering, we believe, staff negotiated a solution that was
acceptable to the developer. In 1991, staff appeared to be under a high level of pressure to
negotiate an agreement in view of multiple policy revisions by the Board and extensive debate
from the developer and 'his attorney.
In summary, we believe the HEC-1 model was not the intended tool for calculation of the pro
rata contribution. The HEC-1 model does not calculate the peak flow increase at the boundary of
the property to be developed and is, therefore, not in compliance with the Board policy. We do
not plan to accept the HEC-1 model as the basis for calculation of the pro rata contribution for
future projects. We will notify the development community of this revision to our
administrative .practices.
BM/ybv
Copy:
Larry DaVis, COunty Attorney
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Glenn Brooks, Senior Civil Engineer
File: mawyer\Lickinghole Policy Interpretation 4.24.01.d0c
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REF:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Bill Mawyer, Director
April 11, 2001
Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Contribution Policy
(a) Engineering memo to Tom Foley dated April 6, 2001
(b) Engineering memo toTom Foley dated April 10, 2001
This memo is to summarize the conclusions and plan of action decided in a meeting held on
April 10, 2001, regarding the Lickinghole policy. The following people attended the meeting:
Bob Tucker, County Executive
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Larry Davis, County Attorney
Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering & Public Works
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Glenn Brooks, Senior Civil Engineer
Mark Graham, Senior Project Manager
After a discussion of the history of the Lickinghole program and review of the Board policy (see
references a and b), the group agreed the policy did not need to be changed. The group also
agreed that Engineering would evaluate the Cost Recovery Rate ($428.85/cfs) specified by the
policy. Evaluation of this rate was considered appropriate since actual costs of the facility are
now known, and historical cost data collected to date provide an indication of the success of the
implementation practices and the Cost Recovery Rate (CRR) in recovering the funds expended
by the County.
Specifically, Engineering will complete the following with assistance from the County Attorney,
as needed:
Calculate a new CRR based On a target cost of $1.816 M (actual expenditure by the County),
rather than $2.2 M used in the original estimate completed in 1991 (which did not anticipate
receipt of a Federal grant).
Memorandum
Subject: Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Contribution Policy
April 11, 2001
Page Two
The CRR calculation will' adhere to the current Board policy by analyzing the volume and
velocity increase in the peak flow rtmoffrate" at the point at which the runoffleaves the
property boundary".
The CRR will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Prepare an Executive Summary to forward the new CRR to the Board for approval as a
Consent Agenda item as soon as possible. The Executive sUmmary will recommend the
CRR be adjusted annually based on the CPI, with an effective date for the new policy of
March 1, 2001. The two projects currently under review (Greyrock and Stonegate, submitted
on March 7, 2001) must pay the contribution based on the current policy and formula. If a
revised CRR is supported by the Board, the contribution for these two projects will be
adjusted retroactively.
The group decided a new CRR would not be applied retroactively to those projects submitted
before the effective date. Since the CRR is based on an estimated level of development and
increased volume of runoff, Engineering recommended the CRR be reevaluated in 2006 to assess
the effectiveness, of the cost recovery program.
This is the. plan of action under which we will move forward with our evaluation] Please let me
know if any additional actions are desired.
WlMjr/ybv
Copy:
Bob Tucker, County Executive
Larry Davis, County Attorney
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Glenn Brooks, Senior Civil Engineer
Mark Graham, Senior Project Manager
File: Mawyer~Lickinghole file memo 4.11.01 .doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ENCL:
Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Bill Mawyer, DirectOr
April 6, 2001
Review of the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Contribution Policy
1) Board Policy for Regional Stormwater Facilities dated July 10, 1991
2) Engineering Department memo dated June 20, 1991
3) Engineer'mg Department memo' dated March 30, 2001
4) Engineering Department memo dated July 10; 1991
5) Engineering Department memo dated July 18; 1991
6) Engineenng Department memo dated August 21, 1991
7) Engmeermg Department memo dated August 22, 1991
8) Engineering Department memo dated August 30, 1991
9) Engineering Department memo dated August 30, 1991
This memo is to review the effectiveness of the subject policy, provide recommendations for continued
administration of this cost recovery program and describe a process to solicit input from the development
community.
Background:
In 1991, the County Board established a policy for the collection of fees from development served by
regional stormwater management basins, (enclosure 1). Lickinghole Basin was established as the first
facility covered under this policy, providing water quality (not quantity) management for the Crozet
development area. As part of the Board's action, Engineering was assigned responsibility to assure these
fees reflect the pro-rata share of the planning, design, property acquisition, construction and inspection
costs of the stormwater management facilities constructed under this program. The pro rata cost sharing
theory is for development to contribute to the cost of the regional facility based on the increase in runoff
caused by the development, essentially a pre vs. post development runoffanalysis.
The Lickinghole regional basin was designed and constructed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
from 1990-95 for a total cost of approximately $2.2 M. The County funded $1.816 M of this cost, while
a Federal Grant provided $0.377 M. To determine an estimated pro-rata sharing formula, Engineering
completed a hydrologic model of the drainage area utilizing an estimate of growth within the drainage
area based on the County's Land Management Plan, in 1991.
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Review of the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Contribution Policy
April 6, 2001
Page Two
The County's drainage model anticipated recovery of 34% of the estimated cost of the facility
($765,926) based on the increased stormwater flow rate measured at the £ickinghole Basin. A cost of
$428.85 per cubic feet per second (cfs) was derived as the appropriate cost recovery fee, (enclosure 2).
However, due to limited accessibility and the complexity of the County's drainage model, Engineering
recommended the increased flow rate be measured at the property boundary for each development rather
than at the Lickinghole Basin, (enclosure 3). The Board's policy followed Engineering's
recommendation and specified the point of analysis to be "from the point at which runoff leaves the
property boundary".
Discussion:
A review of development projects served by the Lickinghole Basin policy was recently completed by
Engineering, (enclosure 3). We found that pro-rata share contributions have been paid by 19
development projects served by the basin between April 1992 and February 2001. However, we found
differences in the procedures used to calculate the stormwater runoffrate on which this fee is based. We
determined the differences in the runoff calculation methods resulted in considerable differences in the
runoff fee owed, and will lead to a significant shortfall in the total fees collected. To date, approximately
20% of the designated growth area within the basin's watershed has been develOped (315 of 1667 acres),
while less than 7% of the costs have been contributed ($41;986 of $617,440). The basic difference in the
method of calculation is'the point of analysis, as follows:
Number of projects calculating the peak flow rate at the proper,tv boundary:
Number of projects calculating the peak flow rate at the basin:
Avg. Fee / Acre
4 $1015
15 $95
Calculating the increased peak flow rate at the basin is always less than the peak flow rate at the property
boundary, thereby, minimizing the pro-rata contribution fee. Additionally, this inconsistency creates a
parity issue where similar developments could pay significantly different fees; depending on the method
used to calculate the increased rate of stormwater runoff. We estimate that continuing to ~accept
contributions based on calculations measured at the basin will result in a $395,000 shortfall when
buildout of the developable area is completed.
Issues and Recommendations:
1. How much did the Lickinghole Basin cost?
$2.2 M, including $1.81 M from the County and $377,339 from a Federal Grant.
The original cost recovery formula intended to recover only 34°/6o of the total cost of Lickinghole,
(enclosure 2). This approach recognized that 66~ of the drainage area served by Lickinghole was
developed_prior to 199! or wouM not be developed, as established by the Land Use ]Yah. Is this the
intent of the Board s pohcy.
We believe this approach to cost recovery is consistent with the Board's policy. However, we
recommend consideration, be given to 100% cost recovery from development for future regional
facilities as an equity issue for rural taxpayers of our county. We also recommend future cost
recoveries be indexed for inflation to provide aPresent Worth value. Both of these issues will be
discussed during our process to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy.
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Review of the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin .Contribution Policy
April 6, 2001
Page Three
3. Should our pro-rata calculation include recovery of the funds provided by the Federal Grant?
No. We should recover only the funds paid by the County.
The original pro-rata share calculation did not recognize Federal funding, and targeted cost
recoveries as follows: $2.27 M x 0.34 = $765,926.
If only County funds were targeted for recovery, the total objective would be: $1.81 M x 0.34 =
$617,440.
4. Should the point of analysis for flow rate increases be the property boundary or the basin?
Analysis at the property boundary is the alternative which is most simple to perform by the applicant
and to review by staff. Applicants can perform an analysis of the pre and post development runoff
increase resulting f£om their development without having access to a drainage model of the entire
drainage basin. Our files indicate analysis at the property boundary was "in keeping with precedence
set by the current Runoff Control Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-22" (enclosure
4).
Further, analysis at the property boundary is the more equitable approach: Analysis at the basin, as
measured in the model, is sensitive to the distance the development is from the basin. Consequently,
properties closest to the basin will pay a lesser fee than properties farther away from the basin even
though both properties create an equal rate of increased runoff. This inequity does not occur if the
point of analysis is the property boundary.
Analysis at the property boundary was the recommendation of the Engineering Department in 1991,
which we continue to support.
5. Is the' Board's policy for Lickinghole confusing?
We believe the policy is clear in establishing a formula and point of analysis (the property boundary)
for calculation of the pro-rata share. The formula is equitable to all applicants.
6. Is the recovery rate of$428.85 per cfs reasonable?
We believe the recovery rate is a reasonable estimate to be used for the next 5-10 years of
development, particularly since the fee has not been indexed for inflation. However, we plan to
review the policy with representatives 0fthe Design Review Council (DRC) before a final
recommendation is offered. Until another policy is established, we must use the current policy for
calculating contributions.
7. Why have we accepted calculations in the past using the basin as the point of analysis?
We believe the consultant for the first development served by the basin was able to convince staff
this was the. "intent" of the policy. Our files indicate the first development took issue with the new
county policy and the relatively high fee it imposed.
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Review o£ the Lickinghole Regional Stormwater Basin Contribution Policy
April 6, 2001
Page Four
While other development fees (subdivision, site plan, erosion control) amounted to only several
hundred dollars, the Lickinghole fee would have been $5,000 - $10,000 if calculated in accordance
with the policy. Our files indicate the first development was able to."negotiate" a calculation method
and fee of $1,285 for a 25-acre, 75-1ot subdivision, (enclosures 5-9). The same consultant has
continued to calculate the cOntribUtion for all of the l 5 "iioncomplYing" projects over the last decade.
Summary:
As noted above, we will require contributions to the Lickinghole basin based on the formula established
in the Board's policy. We will work with the DRC to consider ways to revise and improve the policy. If
we develop an improved policy, we will submit a draft for review by the County Attorney and yourself
before presenting recommendations to the Board.
Please let me know if any additional information is desired. I will schedule a time for us to review this
policy before April 25.
WlMjr/ctj
Copy:
Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering
Mark Graham, Senior Project Manager
Glenn Brooks; Senior Civil Engineer
David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager
File: Mawyefilickinghole policy interpretation draft2
Enclosure
COUNTY OF ALBEMAI~I F-
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 Mclntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5861
lOMay2001
Mr. Hunter Craig
Craig Enterprises Inc.
P.O. Box 6156
Charlottesville, Va. 22906
Re:
Stonegate at Western Ridge - Section B
Final Subdivision Plat (SUB 2000-263)
Dear Mr. Craig:
During the course of review for this project, the County determined that the practice of assessing
the prorated cost share for a development based upon an analysis of post-development
stormwater runoff at the dam was inconsistent with the prorated share policy adopted by the
Board of Supervisors. This information was shared with the you and your consultant and was
confirmed by Bill Mawyer in letters dated 30 March 2001 and 24 April 2001. These letters
notified you and the development community that all development in the Lickinghole watershed
would be required to compute and pay the pro-rated cost in accordance with the Board policy.
After discussions between the developer, staff, department heads and the County Executive's
Office, the County decided to allow the review process to proceed to completion for this specific
phase based upon Tom Muncaster's analysis of post-development stormwater runoff at the dam.
Factors considered in making this decision included:
· The past practice of computing the pro-rated cost based on a stormwater runoff analysis
at the dam had been considered an acceptable practice for a number of years.
The consultant's analysis and calculation of the pro-rated cost for this phase had been
prepared based on the accepted past practice and were submitted for approval at the time
we became aware of the discrepancy between the past practice and the Board policy.
The developer's understanding that this decision would be subject to further review by
the Board of Supervisors, who could reverse the decision and assess the prorated cost for
this section in strict compliance with the Board policy.
FAX (804) 972-4035
Mr. Hunter Craig
10 May, 2001
Page 2 of 2
The prorated cost for Section B was assessed in the amount of $857.70 and payment to the
County was received On 25 April 2001. The final subdivision plat for this section was approved
on 25 April 2001. The acceptance of the prorated cost, based upon Tom Muncaster's analysis of
post-development stormwater runoff at the dam, facilitated plat approval and is dependent upon
satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. Developer shall adhere to the Board prorated cost policy for all future phases of this
development.
o
In the event the Board decides to assess the prorated cost for this section in strict
compliance with the Board policy, developer shall pay the additional cost based on
current policy.
We will notify you when this item is scheduled for Board of Supervisors consideration, as well
as inform you of the results of the meeting. In the meantime should you have any questions,
please contact meat (804) 296-5861.
rector, Engineering & Public Works
JK\
CC:
Tom Muncaster
Roger Ray
Tom Foley
file: stonegate sect b promta conditions.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
401 Mclntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-5861
10 May 2001
Mr. Charles Kieler
Fried Companies Inc.
6551 Loisdale Court, Suite 900
Springfield, Va. 22150
Re:
G-rayrock Orchard - Section 2
Final Subdivision Plat (SUB 2001-064)
Dear Mr. Kieler:
During the course of review for this project, the County determined that the practice of assessing
the prorated cost share for a development based upon an analysis of post-development
stormwater runoff at the dam was inconsistent with the prorated share policy adopted by the
Board of Supervisors. This information was shared with the you and your consultant and was
confirmed by Bill Mawyer in letters dated 30 March 2001 and 24 April 2001. These letters
notified you and the development community that all development in the Lickinghole watershed
would be required to compute and pay the pro-rated cost in accordance with the Board policy.
After discussions between the developer, staff, department heads and the County Executive's
Office, the County decided to allow the review process to proceed to completion for this specific
phase based upon Tom Muncaster's analysis of post-development stormwater runoff at the dam.
Factors considered in making this decision included:
· The past practice of computing the pro-rated cost based on a stormwater runoff analysis
at the dam had been considered an acceptable practice for a number of years.
The consultant's analysis and calculation of the pro-rated cost for this phase had been
prepared based on the accepted past practice and were submitted for approval at the time
we became aware of the discrepancy between the past practice and the Board policy.
The developer's understanding that this decision would be subject to further review by
the Board of Supervisors, who could reverse the decision and assess the prorated cost for
this section in strict compliance with the Board policy.
FAX (804) 972-4035
Mr. Charles Kieler
10 May, 2001
Page 2 of 2
The prorated cost for Section 2 was assessed in the amount of $428.35 and payment to the
County was received on 1 May 2001. The final subdivision plat for this section was approved on
1 May 2001. The acceptance of the prorated cost, based upon Tom Muncaster's analysis of post-
development stormwater runoff at the dam, facilitated plat approval and is dependent upon
satisfaction of the following conditions:
1. Developer shall adhere to the Board prorated cost policy for all future phases of this
development.
2. In the event the Board decides to assess the prorated cost for this section in strict
compliance with the Board poliCy, developer shall pay the additional cost based on the
current policy.
We will notify you when this item is scheduled for Board of Supervisors consideration, as well
as inform you of the results of the meeting. In the meantime should you have any questions,
please contact me at (804) 296-5861.
Very truly yours
& Public Works
CC:
Tom Muncaster
Roger Ray
Tom Foley
file: grayrock sect 2 prorata conditions.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive ,
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 296-5800
July 12, 2001
The Honorable Board of County Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Director of Engineering and Public Works Appointment
Dear Madam Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
As you know, we have recently concluded our search to fill the position of Director of
Engineering and Public Works. I am recommending that you appoint Mr. Mark B. Graham to
this position effectiVe July 16, 2001.
Mark, as you know, has served in the Department for the past 3 years, most recently as the
Department's Senior Project Manager. He brings extensive experience from both the public and
private engineering sectors to our organization.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RWT,Jr\
01.050
Sincerely,
pc:
Mr. Mark B. Graham
Mr. Michael R. Thompson
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Townwood Mobile Home Park, LLC
Stormwater Drainage & Access Easements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUI~$T:
BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute
the deed of easement.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Kamptner, Kelsey
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2001
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
.ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
DISCUSSION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Deed of Easement & Plats
A final site plan and plat for the Townwood Mobile Home Park (SDP 2001-21) have been tentatively approved,
subject to recordation of the necessary drainage easement plats. These easements are to be dedicated to public
use in accordance with the Board of Supervisors stormwater control program action on 5 April 2000.
To clarify the purpose of and the responsibilities for the easement, it was the desire of the applicant (Townwood
Mobile Home Park, LLC) to prepare a project specific deed of easement to be recorded with the plat. Since this
deed of easement is specific to this project, Board of Supervisors action ~[o authorize the County Executive to sign
the deed of easement is necessary.
The deed of easement has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by both the County Engineer and the
County Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the County Executive to execute the deed of easement.
01.149
TMP 61-8
Prepared by: McCallum & Kudravetz, P.C.
T~IS DE~D OF F~%S~ dated this 12th day of July, 2001, by
and between TOWNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company ("Townwood"), the Grantor, and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE (the "County"), a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Grantee;
W I T N E S S.E T H :
WHEREAS, Townwood is the owner of that certain tract or
parcel of land containing 12.569 acres, more or less, designated
as Tax Map 61, Parcel 8 (the "Property"), a portion of which is
shown on the plat of Kurt M. Gloeckner, Land Surveyor, dated
June 18, 2001, captioned "Variable Width Drainage Easement For
Extended Detention Facility To Be Dedicated To Public Use
Townwood Mobile Home Park, Albemarle County, Virginia"
(hereinafter "Plat One"), and also shown on the plat of Kurt M.
Gloeckner dated June 18, 2001, captioned "Variable Width Access
Easement For Extended Detention Facility To Be Dedicated To
Public Use Townwood Mobile Home Park, Albemarle County,
Virginia" (hereinafter "Plat Two"), attached hereto, made a part
hereof and recorded immediately following this Deed of Easement;
and
WHEREAS, Townwood acquired such Property by deed of Charles
Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees for the West Rio
08-16-01 AtO:41, IN
Road Land Trust, dated July 21, 1999, recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1840, Page 42; and
WHEREAS, Townwood has agreed to grant unto the County
certain drainage and access easements for extended detention
facility purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing premises
and TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby
acknowledged', Townwood does hereby GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE
to public use with GENERAL WARRANTY and-ENGLISH COVENANTS OF
TITLE, unto the County, its successors and assigns, a perpetual,
non-exclusive variable width drainage easement (the "Drainage
Easement") and a perpetual, non-exclusive variable width access
easement related thereto (the "Access Easement") (collective!y,
the "Easements") to construct, install, maintain, repair,
change, alter, replace and extend storm drainage facilities,
consisting of pipes, manholes, and appurtenances thereto, within
those certain areas designated and described by metes and bounds
on Plat One (as to the Drainage Easement) and on Plat Two (as to
the Access Easement) respectively.
Reference is made to said Plat One and Plat Two for the
exact locations and dimensions of the Easements as they cross
the property of Townwood.
As a part of these Easements, the County shall have the
right to enter upon the above-described property within the
Drainage Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing,
maintaining, repairing, changing, altering, replacing and
extending storm drainage faCilities and appurtenances thereto,
within such easement, and the right of ingress and egress within
the Access Easement
install, maintain,
facilities.
as reasonably necessary to construct,
repair, replace and/or extend such
Grantor, its successors or assigns, agrees that new trees,
shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or other improvemenss or
obstructions shall not be placed within the Easements.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the
Easements, the County agrees ta backfill such excavation in a
proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface
conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior
to the excavation. In the event tha~ any damage results from
said access, the County agrees to correct and repair such damage
in a proper and workmanlike manner, including the restoration of
any such damaged or disturbed grass surfaces, but not the
replacement of structures, trees, or other facilities within the
Easements.
The Easements shall include the right of the County to cut
any trees, brush, and shrubbery, remove obstructions and take
other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical
and safe storm
maintenance. The
drainage installation, operation, and
County shall have no responsibility to
Townwood to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush,
shrubbery or obstructions if cut, removed or otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed within the Drainage Easement
shall be the property of the County, which shall have the right
to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its
facilities within the boundaries of the Drainage Easement as are
consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
The Grantee specifically reserves the right to assign the
Easements as its interests require.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive,
duly authorized by resolution of th~ Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of the
interest in real estate made by this deed.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
GRANTOR:
Townwood Mobile Home Park, LLC
Do6glas E. Caton, Manage
Approved as to form:
~<f~n~At t o rney
GRANTEE:
Cou~y E~ecu '
· (SEAL)
C~WEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ~tO~5~mt , to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~ day of ~ , 2001, by Douglas E. Caton,
Manager of Townwood Mobile Home Park, LLC, on its behalf.
My co~lssion expires:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
/5~ day of ~//Z~ , 2001, by Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executi~,- o~ behalf of the County of Albemarle,
Grantee.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
K:~UDataUM B'~WPDATA%RDW%CATONF:691-dsedease2.doc
7/13/01 11:39 AM
6
0 30 60 120
SCALE: 1"=60'
LINE TABLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING
L1 10,50i S84°56'35'E
L2 18,22 S35'07'20'E
L3 14,53 S54*17'02'%/
L4 5,60 S33*31'17'E
L5 ;:>3,69 N44°O5'O4'E
L6 17,97
L7 86,04 N74°51'51'E
L8 19,00 S76°44'46'E
L9 20,12 g84°50';:>4'E
co~. ,,~
GLOECKN~R ENG]NEEPJNG~SUBVBYING
2246 IVY ~EOA]3, SUITE
CHARLOT'I~SVff.f.E; VIRGINIA 22903
./
TOWNT~OOD DRIVE
/
EXTENDED .~/
DETENTION
BASIN SITE
6,:31
VARIABLE WIDTH
DRMNAGE EASEMENT FOR
sss~,'23'w .._[ IEXTENDED
DETENTION
FACILITY
'---~----- TO BE DEDICATED TO
O.S88q1'23'W ~ PUBLIC USE
TOWNW00D MOBILE HOME PARK
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
20' JUNE 18, 2001
TYPICAl
TOWNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC
OWNERS APPROVAL
THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN S
WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS,
PROPRIETORS, AND/OR TRUSTEES.
ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
OWNER(S):
DOUGLAS E. CATON, MANAGER
NOTARY PUBUC
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE ME THIS ~_O'F~ DAY OF
200'i. BY DOUGLAS E. CATON, MANAGER OF
TOWNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC, ON ITS BEHALF.
MY.~?~)~MISSI N EXPIRES '~"~"~ ~"~ %3..
APPROVAL BLOCK
APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DATE
TAX MAP 61 PARCEL 8
D.B. 1840 P. 42
D.B. 1840 P. 45 PLAT
N.T.$.
132.38'
T,M. 61X2 PARCEL 1
ZONING = PUD
FOUR SEASONS APARTMENTS LTD. PARTNERSHIP
C/O MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP,
D.B.1815 P.374
D,B,1813 P.376 PLAT
DRAINEAS,DWG 99-037-00
0 :SD BD 120
I , I _
-&~ALE:
I LINE TABLE
LINE ' LENGTH BEARING
k LI 18,,2E ,g 25'07'2D'E
L~ [4,53'
~ L3' 5.61] $]3~31'17'E
· L4 ~.3,6 9
e lS ~7,97
L L6 ~6,04
. L7 15~0
.?
./
../
./
/-
DETI~'I]ON
BASIN SITE
./
./'
TOI,%N'~ I~OSILE HOME PARK, IIC
TAX NIA~ 61 P.,~CEL 8
O.B. 1840 P. 42
D.Bo 1840 p. 43 PLAT
..4
N.T.S.
!r. NL 51X2 PARCEL 1
ZONING --
FOUR SEASONS APARTM.F.N,'P5 L'E). PAR?t~IER.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~HIP
C/O MAI~AGEMEI',I'T SERVICES; COR'P,
ID. B3BI3 P..374
ID.B. IBr5 P. 3,76 PLAT
VAR[ABLE I~IDTH
ACCESS EASEMENT FOE
g3(TENDED DETENTION
FACILITY
TO BE DEDICATED TO
PUBIC USE
TO~OOD MOBI~ HOME P~
AI,REM~ COUNt, ;qRCINh
JU~E 18, 2001
mK ACCESS EASmEN7 ~SCRI~ H~DN
~ ~E FR~ C~S~'T AND IN ACC~DANCE
~ mE DESleE m ~E UNDERSIZED
PROPRIETORS. AND/OR
ALL STA~MEN~ A~IX~ TO ~lS PLAT ARE roUE
1O~ M~I~ H~E PA~K,
DOUGLAS [. CATON, NAMAGER
~E FOREGOING INS~UM~T WAS A~NO~DGED
BEFORE ME ~15 _ ?-C'~ DAY OF ~I
20~. ~y DOUGLAB E. CA?~, MANAGE
TO~OD N~I~ H~E PARK. ~C. ON I~ BEHA~.
~PROV~ B~K
~PEO~ F~ ~C~DA~ON
P~NNIND AND
88/87/2881 15:S8 29~9~41 ~COALLU~&KUDRAVETZ PAGE 82/82
COMMONWEALTH OF V~GINIA
i
RECEIPT: Of ODOOfSG74
FULL PAYHENT
RECDRDED~ Oe/O?/O! AT ~;~;
£~; N LOCAL~?¥: CD
El: N ~ERCE~T; 100~
DATE OF DEED:' O?tJEtOJ
P~I~ COOE OE~CRIPTION
lg.SO 14~ U,;LF
NAflES: 0
PAID
1.50
AflOUNT PAI~:
CHAN~E AHT:
CLERK DF COURT: SHELBY L MARSHALL.
BO.18 (1 ~
David R Bo~erman
[~ndsa~ G. Dord~r, Jr.
Char~o~¢ Y. Mumph~$
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
White Ha~l
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
August 3, 2001
Ms. Jenny Robinson
CNOW
P.O. Box 5082
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Dear Ms. Robinson:
At its August 1, 2001 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a proclamation
proclaiming August 26, 2001 as Women's Equality Day. I have enclosed the signed
proclamation.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel A. Bentley, CMC
Senior Deputy Clerk
Attachment
Printed on recycled paper
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give women
the right to vote; and
cib'zens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and policies
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this
County do not unjustly discriminate against females, and any other group;
and
WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of inequality is often subtle; and
WHEREAS,
it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the
passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
amendment that gave the right of suffrage to American women;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2001
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DA Y
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop
a more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and
the important differences between women and men; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to
eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women, and ensure
equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilities for ali women and men.
Signed and sealed this 'lst day of August, 2001.
Sally H. Thomas, Chairman'
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
CNOW
P.O. Box 5082
Charlottesville, VA 22905
434-963-0669
The Honorable Sally Thomas
Chair, Albemarle County Board of 5upervisors
40! Mc];ntire Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22902
,Tuly 19, 2001
Dear Ms. Thomas:
1 th
Tn commemoration o~c the ratification of the 9 Amendment to the U.5. Constitution
giving women the right to vote, August 26 is observed nationally as WOMEN'S EC~UALTTY
DAY.
5inca, however, real-equality of rights and responsibilities has yet to be achieved in
the 8! years since ratification, in recent years the Charlottesville regional chapter of
National Organization for Women has issued a Proclamation for annual official endorsement
by local governments.
As our chapter has members in several of the surrounding counties, including your own,
we are presenting Albemarle with an opportunity to endOrse the Proclamation along with
Charlottesville, Louisa, and Nelson. A copy is enclosed. Although Jt is a fairly long statement,
we believe that this Js what our communities need and Wre would be pleased if you would use
it in its entirety.
We appreciate your support and your efforts to improve and strengthen our
communities.
Sincerely yours,
,Tanny Robinson
2260 Minor Mill Road, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Katherine Ballard Hoffman
President, Charlottesville NOW
P OCLAMATXON
WHEREAS, many decades of efforts by women and men were required to give women
the right to vote; and
VI/blEREA$, 153 years 090 in Seneca Fails the need was proc/aimed for protection in
the U. 5. Constitution for women against sex discrimination, but there is yet none;and
V~/4EREA$, laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia have unjustly
discriminated a9ainst gir/s and ~omen, in matters of reproductive rights, sexua/ assau/t and
harassment, and marital property, and a/though some laws and po//cies have eased, pro9ress
can be, has been and is bein9 reversed; and
H/MEREAS, some so-ca#ed neutral poh'cies, such os those deo/in9 with insurance,
pensions, family medical leaves, job promotions, occupational choices, recreational
opportunities, access to medical care (inc/udJm3 reproductive and abortion services), and
business opportunities, still have inequitable effects for women; and
~I/MEREA$, 9iris and women still must contend with sexual and verbal assaults, rape,
and bein9 looked upon by men os objects: and
14/MEREA$, most of the care of the youn9 and the elderly is givcn prJmari/y by women,
many of whom must a/so work at other jobs inside and/or outside the home; and
14//4E:REAS, in many other ways women are not provided with equal opportunities and
still bear burdens which fall unjustly on them,
NOVI/~ THEREFORE, BE 2,T RESOL VED, that the Boord o£ Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle, Commam~ealth of Vir~nio, does hereby proclaim Autos? 26, 2001, ~I/O~EN'$
EOtlALYTY DA E in remembrance o£ all those women and men who hove worked to develop
a more equitable community in which all people share burdens and bene£its in truly equal
partnership, acknow/edgirn3 both the similarities and di££erenoes between women and men;
8E 2'7'FllR774ER RESOLVED, that the 8oard o£ Supervisors urges all citizens to
suspect a// distinctions and classi£ications occordin9 to ~x and examine o// so-ca#ed neutra/
criteria, inc/ud/n9 physical sta~'ure and other occupational qua/i£icotions, to determine
whether they have un£air impact on women; promote o££irmative action in the public and
private (inc/uding non-pro£iO sectors; eliminate al/unjust d/scr/mination amiprejudice agains~
women; andensure equa/ity o£rights, privi/eges ondresPonsibi/ities under equitab/e princip/¢s
£or ali women and men.
Signed and sea/ed this ................ day o£ August, 3002.
$ot/y homas
Choir
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request Board to Set Public Hearing to Amend Leash
Law in County Parks to Allow Designated Off Leash
Areas.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Mullaney
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: D~_~
BACKGROUND:-
Historically the City of Charlottesville has not had a leash law in City parks. An increase in conflicts between
unleashed dogs and park users has caused the City to reevaluate this position. The City has created a fenced
off-leash area referred to as a dog park at Azalea Park. The dog park has been very heavily used. The City would
like to expand the number of dog parks in the area but available space in the City is limited. Some of the dog
owners using City parks are County residents. The City has requested that a dog park be located at Towe Park.
The Towe Park Committee has approved this request.
Towe Park is managed by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department for the City and County and
is governed by the Albemarle County Code. Section 1 '1-120 of the Albemarle County Code requires all pets to
be on a leash and under control while on parklands. This section of the code needs to be amended to allow dogs
off-leash in such areas that are designated for that purpose. The County Attorney has advised that changing the
County Code will require a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing on September 5, 2001 to consider amending Section 11-120
of the County Code.
01.145
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
· 14Ol EAST BROAD STREET -' '
RICHMOND, 23219-2000 , .
July 6, 2001
C. F. GEE
ACTING CHIEF ENGINEER
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
401 Mclntire ROad
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Subject:
Route 29 Improvements from
South Fork Rivanna River to
Airport Road - Albemarle Coun~
Dear Mr. Tucker:
The current VDOT roadway plans for the subject Route 29 improvements call for
widening Route 29 from four to six lanes. The plans also include providing frontage
roads to manage access and create a more efficient operating condition for the corridor.
VDOT presented this concept to Albemarle County officials and residents at a Citizen
Information Meeting held on July 20, 2000.
Following the Citizen Information Meeting, it became evident that the citizens
and the local government officials do not support the frontage road concept. This has
prompted additional meetings with local officiais and several citizens to determine the
need for proceeding with this concept. We have also examined the possibility of gaining
support for just an upgrade of the existing four-lane corridor to an eight-lane facility, with
three through lanes and one continuous right turn lane in each direction. This is the sarhe
typical section (base case imprOvements)'that has been used throughout the rest o f the
corridor, south of this project.
The cost of the frontage road concept is considerably greater than the upgrade,
however, neither concept is sufficiently funded in the Virginia Transportation
Development Plan. We will, therefore, abandon the service roads concept because of the
financial considerations and public reactions. However, we strongly urge the County to
consider prudent access management strategies and work with the development
community to provide, service roads, and minimize direct access to Route 29 to enhance
its operating capacity.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Page Two
July 6, 2001
i.am proposing to defer this proj e~t untif:ufficiei~t funds are available, at which
time we.'will consider an alternative. Plebe' tall Mr. Don Askew or me if you have any
questions or would like to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
C. F. Gee
Cc:
The Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra
The Honorable H. Carter Myers, III
Mr. Charles D. Nottingham
Mr. Donald R. Askew
AUGUST
· Mission
- Essential Tasks Assessment
- Construction
' e
- Ma~ntenanc
[] Planning & Traffic Engineering
· Issues
Mission
The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains
roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory
authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for
Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are:
focused on public safety
fiscally and environmentally responsible
supportive of alternative transportation means
supportive of neighborhood and regional development
2
ESSENTIAL TASKS
TASK
MAINTAIN SECONDARY &
PRIMARY ROADS
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMARKS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
guardrail, signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave patch
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES
o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
- Special projects: Rt 693, 637,810,622, s/w
- Patching for slurry seal & surface trtmt
(135 roads)
- Little machining of gravel roads due to
dry conditions
- Bridge 603
- PMs completed
Lei~end-'
Green: 90-100% Excellent
A~abe~: 80-90% GoOd, room for improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvemeat
Black: Below minimum standards
3
ESSENTIAL TASKS· (continued)
TASK
2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
o Administer Six Year Plan
o Monitor ROW activities
o Manage PE activities
o Administer contracts
o Inspect and monitor projects
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMARKS
- Vacant ARE (constr)
- 29 bridge
Legend:
Green: 90-100% ExeeHent
A~nbe-~: 80-90% Good, room for
improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
4
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
Task
3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning requests
o Conduct studies and advise
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
Assessment
(See legend below)
Remarks
- one vacant staff position
- 46 land use permits issued
- 0.44 M subd streets added to
system
- several subd inspected
- Albemarle To~e cntr (Sper~ry)
traffic study st)l.l not com~let6
Rt 22/231 truck ~ssue:
Legend:
Green: 90.100% Excellent
Aanbea~: 80-90% Good, room for
improvement
Red: 7080% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
- Peter Jefferson/Martha
Jefferson
- Glenmore traffic study site
- assisted co planning staff w/
2025 CHART model data
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
REMARKS
o Request and advise on signals & signs
o Request and advise on studies & data
o Assist with design
Legend:
Greell: 90-100% Excellent
A~bec: 80-90% Good, room for improvement
Red: 70-80% Needs improvement
Black: Below minimum standards
- Harris Road request
- Morgantown Road analysis
6
CONSTRUCTION
. PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PRO~CTS
Street Name Project ..................... ~ .................... ; ~ ~ SE--"~"*~'~ ~ fiOV DEC
.......................................................................................................................................... JUNE ~ AUG $
mmmm------
7
CONSTRUCTION
· PAVING & CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
'~plet~
street' Name , ,, ...... ~mje~t .... ~scdptlon ' ~ ' burati°n , '
........................ ........................................... ~NE ju~v AUG' SEPT OCT NOV DEC
.................... ~ ..... ng i
ifite~tate ................................................................................................. '
~u~i~slons ............................................................ : ..............
8
Mowing
MAINTENANCE
YANCEY MILLS HQ
JULY
Finished l"t round sec mowing,
began 2nd round on 810, 680,
811, 789, 684
AUGUST
Finish 2"d round sec mowing;
cut bank EB 64 rest area
GR mow 250,240,635,29
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Patched secondaries
Trench, cut & slope banks on 693
Machined 736
Rt 693; pipe on 691; repl pipe 695
Long arm on 250, 29
As scheduled
Removed trees 250; removed
trees/stumps 637
Continue patching for seal
Slope banks 693
Machine gravel roads after rain
Trim g/r on secondaries
Per schedule
Daylight signs 9
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch~ipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
FREE UNION HQ
JULY
Mowing/weeding GR 29
Patched w/Leeboy Rt 1070,1073,1074,
665, 609
Machined 606,668,671,674,662,
Cleaned drains, installed silt barrier 667
replaced pipe Rt 766
As scheduled
Repaired sinkhole Rt 810 & 629
Removed trees on 606,809,846,676
Filled in swimming pool, Colthurst
(VDOT rental property); daylight signs
AUGUST
Mowing sec rds, 2"d cut;
mowing g/r sec & primary
Patch w/Leeboy 601
Machine all dirt roads
Shoulder repair 29, 250
& secondaries
Clean drains Hessian Hills
Install entrance pipe 671
Per schedule
Litter patrol
Cutting/daylighting signs
Sweeping subd]Barracks Rd
10
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
MAINTENANCE
BOYD TAVERN HQ
JULY
1st cut on secondaries complete
600-686
640, 685, 865, 744, 731
Shoulder repair Rt $3
Open pipe in Key West; replace
pipes on 20 & 600 by contractor
G/r mowing Rt 250,20,231,22,53
Per schedule
Dead animal pickup
AUGUST
Begin 2"a cut on 631, 1117,729,
729,732,616-808; contract
mowing 1117, 631
Shoulder repair Rts 22, 250, 53,
231; machine/dust control as
needed
G/r mowing 631-729
As scheduled
Dead animal & litter pickup
11
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
MAINTENANCE
KEENE HQ
JULY
Rts 726,625,626,627,715,723,724,735
602, 800; GR 627,727,795,729,618,
620,626,602,719,6,20,29
Rts 717,627,704,708,795
Shoulder work Rt 6
AUGUST
Mow secondaries
Leeboy patch Rts 622,626
Skin patch 626,622,623
Machine/replace stone on
gravel roads
Ditch/Pipe
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Replace pipe 706,795,712
Open ditch Rt 6
Per schedule
Clean up storm damage Rts 712,
627,715,704
Cut trees on 20; slope bank on
622,773 for sight distance
As scheduled
12
MAINTENANCE
STANARDSVILLE HQ
Mowing
Patching
Grade/machine/add stone
Ditch/Pipe
JULY
GR 810,604,622,633,617
Contract mowing Rt 29, 33
Patching on 609 w/Leeboy
Machined 626,639
Ditched Rts 626, 639
Install pipe Rt 630
AUGUST
Tractor mowing on sec.
Plant mix Rt 663,606
Ditching on secondaries
Guardrail
Equip Maint
Emergency Ops
Other
Completed ali due PMs
Sidewalk repair in Stanardsville
Water gate project Rt 810
Daily PM per schedule
Animal/litter patrol
13
PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Albemarle Towne Center (Sperry) - waiting for study to be complete
Discussing Peter Jefferson/Martha Jefferson site w/County staff & applicant
Discussing Glenmore commercial area site traffic study with applicant
Assisted County Planning Staff with 2025 CHART model data
14
ISSUES
· None
15
NOTES ON CURRENT WATER SUPPLY PLANNING EFFORTS
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY STAFF PRESENTATION
AUGUST 1, 2001
December 1959, Report of Waterworks System, Charlottesville, VA
Basis for constructing the South Fork Rivanna dam in. 1966 with provision for future
addition of 4' flashboards and a predicted loss due to sedimentation for 19.6 million
gallons (MG) per year.
April 1972, Feasibility Report on Regional Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal
Estimated year 2000 demand to be 19.5 million gallons day (MGD) and recommended
purchasing land for future reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek.
July 1977, Report on Alternative Water Supply Sources
Estimated year 2000 demand to be 15.89 MGD and recommended expansion of South
l~ork Rivanna Reservoir by addition of 4' flashboards. Reservoir on Buck Mountain
C?eek recognized for long-term planning.
October 1981 - October 1983, Several reports on the feasibility of a reservoir on Buck
Mountain Creek ultimately resulting in the purchase of 1,312 acres and additional 429
acres of easements.
November 1994, Urban Raw Water Management Plan, Summary Report
Affirms previous conclusions regarding Buck Mountain Creek reservoir and flashboards
on South Fork Rivanna dam. Projects 2000 demand to be 12.1 MGD and determines
historical loss of capacity due to sedimentation to be approximately 13 MG per year.
Predicts additional water sources will be needed by 2015. Raises the concern that
existence of the James spiney mussel could complicate the approval process.
May 1996, RWSA begins process to obtain necessary regulatory approvals to construct Buck
Mountain Reservok expecting the permitting process could take up to 10 years. The prevailing
legal and professional advice is that regulatory approval will only be granted to the most
practicable, least environmentally damaging solution(s) to the areas water needs.
The current study determined existing resources and future needs, and identified 33 potential
alternatives, which have been screened to 5 alternatives for immediate implementation and
others fOr possible future implementation.
Field surveys confirm the presence of James spiney mussel in Buck Mountain Creek making
that reservoir problematic at this time. Differing techniques and drought periods have lowered
existing safe yields below the previous study, indicating a need for.additional water resources
now in the event of a 1930's type drought and continuance of present daily demands.
The recommended alternatives for immediate implementation are:
1. modify release from South Fork Rivanna reservoir in the event of {t drought
3.
4.
5.
implement a demand management plan in the event of a drought
water conservation
add a 4' crest control to the South Fork Rivanna dam.
reduce sediment load to the South Fork Rivanna reservoir.
\~FSI\SHARED DOCUMENTS\Water,NOTES ON CURRENT WATER SUPPLY PLANNING EFFORTS.doc
RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
P, O. BOX 18 · CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-0018 · (804) 977-2970
PLANNING SCHEDULE - FUTURE WATER SUPPLY - JULY 27, 2001
This tentative planning schedule for implementing actions resulting in adequate future water
resources for the Charlottesville/Albemarle urban water service area is based on the
recommendations in the May 2001 VHB revised draft report titled Water Supply Project -
Recommended Alternatives. Staffinput from VHB, O'Brien & Gere and RWSA is reflected in the
development of this schedule.
Specific recommendations are:
· Alternative release at South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
· Water conservation
· Drought management
· Reduce sediment loads into South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
· 4' crest controls on South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam
The implementation of these measures will extend existing resources beyond the mid-point of the
5.0 year planning period.~ How far depends upon the benefits gained by conservation, drought
management, reducing sediment loads and the accuracy of future demand projections. None of
thesemeasures preclude future implementation of other recognized alternatives such as dredging,
increased reliance on Chris Greene Lake, indirect reuse, etc.
August 1, 2001
RWSA staff presentation to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 10:00
a.m. Room 241, Albemarle County Office Building.
August 16, 2001
RWSA staffpresentation to Albemarle County Service Authority Board of
Directors. 9:00 a.m. Board Room, ACSA Office Building
August 20, 2001
RWSA staffpresentation to Charlottesville City Council. 7:30 p.m. Council
Chambers, City Hall.
September 27, 2001 Public hearing. 7:00 p.m. Monticello High School Forum
October 22, 2001
RWSA staff recommendation to RWSA Board of Directors; RWSA Board
of Directors recommendation/resolution to Charlottesville City Council,
Albemarle County Board of SUpervisors and Albemarle County Service
Authority Board of Directors. 2:00 p.m. - Moores Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant Administration Building Conference Room.
November 2001
Request from City and Service Authority to RWSA to proceed with
additional impoundment per Section 4.3 of the Four Party Agreement dated
June 12,1973. I
This is the earliest date at which a decision to go forward can be made. Any.
significant changes in the recommended alternatives will extend the
planning period. All subsequent dates are based on a November decision
date.
S:~Board"JI. WA~Board Meetings 2001XBoard Meeting WSA July 2001XPLANNING SCHEDULE - Future Water Supply. doc
SERVING CHARLOTTESVILLE & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Following the decision to proceed, the study team will initiate efforts to complete permit
applications (Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality) for the 4' crest controls. As a precedent to filing the applications, an
agency coordination meeting will be held, and final revisions made to the Recommended
Alternatives, based on public and agency input. AlSo at this time, several key steps will be taken
to complete required environmental documentation and follow up on major issues. Certain of
these, such as mitigation details, will carry over into the Permit Process, and will be finalized prior
to permit approval. The following will be initiated:
· Final justification of purpose and need
· Phase I cultural resources survey
· Detailed wetland impacts
· Avoidance and minimization
· MitigatiOn site feasibility and concepts
· Coordinate with Fish and Wildlife Service/Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and
mussels
· Coordinate with VDOT and begin design studies (Ivy Creek bridge)
· Identify necessary property acquisition (field survey and research)
· Permit support document
March 31, 2002 File permit applications with regulatory agencies.
Following submittal of permit documents, public notices will be issued and Comments sought by
the agencies. It is possible that hearings could also be scheduled. The approval processes will
require careful coordination, and likely follow up documentation or revisions. The permit
processes involve considerable back-and-forth discussions with the agencies, and may involve
numerous iterations in order to address concerns and provide additional technical justification.
Agency meetings will also be required.
February 28, 2003 Projected permit approval date.
Bringing the 4'crest controls on line will involve a series of interrelated events. Since the bladder
could be installed and not inflated, its design and installation need not wait for certain other issues,
such as property acquisition and clearing to be fully resolved. It is further assumed that bridge
replacement of the Ivy Creek bridge need not be complete prior to placing the bladder into service.
The following items will need to occur during this timeframe:
· Regulatory approval from FERC and/or Virginia DCR Division of Dam Safety for the crest
control. Order and install the bladder.
· Bridge work (final design and construction).
· Property acquisition.
· Clearing/land preparation.
· Local permit approvals.
2
January 31, 2006 Complete construction.
Project Completion: Once all implementation items are complete, the bladder could be inflated,
and the reservoir could reach the new pool level relatively quickly, depending on the time of year,
due to the large, drainage area of the reservoir.
Based on the above schedule, the 4' crest controls could provide additional safe yield by Februar-y
2006. Other short term strategy items could be implemented during this timeframe, and it is
possible that the effects of conservation and drought management would begin to be realized,
although not at the estimated 2050 levels. Furthermore, currently permissible alternate release
regimes could be employed in the event of a seYere drought during the construction timeframe.
Both Charlottesville and Albemarle have in place ordinances that facilitate demand management
during emergency situations. Triggers were intentionally not specified in order to allow flexibility
consistent with the emergency condition. Further, both jurisdictions have begun to implement
water conservation programs with budgeting to continue those efforts. These considerations are
not addressed further in this planning schedule.
EKP/csw
Revised July 27, 2001
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 16, 2001
Appendices
Appendix A: Supply Analysis Executive
Summary
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) has been authorized by the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority (RWSA) to prepare a raw water
supply study to evaluate the future water needs of the RWSA's Urban
Service Area which includes the City of Charlottesville and surrounding
areas. O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. serves as a subcontractor to VI-lB
on various aspects of the raw water supply study,
Among the initial efforts as part of this study are tasks to: (1) estimate the
current and future safe yield of the existing raw water supply system
and, (2) project future water demand through the year 2050. A
comparison of safe yield and demand projections will enable the RWSA
to better understand whether and when it may face a water deficit, and
the magnitude of any such deficit. Subsequent studies will include an
analysis of alternatives to address any water deficit. Alternatives to be
evaluated will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, new
sources of supply, water conservation programs, demand control
measures, and options to restore or increase the safe yield of existing
sources.
This report summarizes the results of a raw water safe yield review of
the existing RWSA Urban Service Area system as it has historically
operated. This system includes the (1) Rivarma Reservoir, (2) Sugar
Hollow/Ragged Mountain Reservoir system, and (3) North Fork
Rivanna River Intake. For purposes of this analysis, "safe yield" is
defined as the maximum raw water yield that can be supplied
consistently over the long term. It is est/mated by examining hydrologic
data for as long a time period as possible and then calculating the
probable maximum yield of the raw water supply resource during the
most severe drought, also referred to as the "critical period".
Previous safe yield estimates conducted for the same water supplies
used differing techniques and drought periods to estimate safe yield.
For example, the recent Urban Area Raw Water Management Plan (Black
& Veatch, 1995). used synthesized flow records simulating the period
1942 -1991, and particularly the drought of 1954 to estimate the yield of
the Rivanna Reservoir. The Report on Water Works System
Charlottesville, Virginia (Polglaze & Basenberg, 195~) used the 1930
drought to predict the safe yield for the Rivanna Reservoir. The Safe
Yield of Municipal Surface Water Supply Systems in Virginia Planning
Bulletin #335 (Virginia State Water Control Board, March 1985) used the
Appendices 36
%Vawill~projectsk30502%Wl~REPORTSLRecommended Alternatives 4.doc
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 16, 2001
1953-54 critical period to estimate safe yield of the Sugar
Hollow/Ragged Mountain system.
Methods employed for this analysis included a review of United States
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage data for numerous gauging
stations in the region. This data was used to select representative
hydrologic data and to identify the critical periods for all three water
supply sources noted above. System-wide safe yield evaluations were
performed for the RWSA Urban Service Area system based on the 1930
drought, which was found to be the critical period for each of the water
supply systems (the Rivarma Reservoir, Sugar HolloW/Ragged
Mountain Reservoir system, and the North Fork Rivarma River). The
system-wide safe yield was estimated by adding the safe yield estimates
for each component of the system. As no data exist to directly evaluate
the effect of the 1930 drought on the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain
reservoir system, estimates of safe yield based on two surrogate
watersheds were used.
The estimated safe yield of the water supply system is currently 11.9 to
12.6 mgd. Th/s range in safe yield results from uncertainty regarding the
1930 safe yield of the Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mountain system. As
siltation reduces storage volume in the reservoirs, this safe yield will
decrease over time. Safe yield for the system in Year 2050 is estimated to
be 4.5 mgd to 4.8 mgd. Current and future safe yield estimates for the
existing raw water supply system and for each component of the system
are summarized below.
RWSA Current And Future System-Wide Safe Yield Estimates
Source Current Safe Year 2050 Safe Yield
Yield
Rivanna Reservoir
Sugar Hollow/Ragged Mtn.
North Rivanna River Intake
Total System
7.2 mgd 0 mgd
4.1 to 4.8 mgd 0) 3.9 to 4.2 mgd 0)
0.6 mgd 0.6 mgd
11.9 to 12.6 mgd 4.5 to 4.8 mgd
(1) Range corresponds to uncertainty regarding the 1930 drought event.
Appendices
\\Vawill\pr ojec tsk30502\WP~REPO RTS\Reco mmended Alternatives 4.aoc
37
Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 16, 2001
Appendix B: Demand Analysis
Executive Summary
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHI3) was retained by the Rivarma Water
and Sewer Authority to assist with evaluating their need for future
additional raw water supply sources in order to satisfy the needs of its
customers. As part of this process, VHB is assisting the Authority with
evaluating their existing water supplies, projecting future water demand,
evaluating alternative approaches to address any shortages identified,
and ff required, permitting the construction of any new water sources
found to be required. This Water Demand study is the first step in
assisting the Authority to better understand its long term demand as it
carries out its mission of providing adequate, safe and dependable water
supply to its customers.
As the permitting process moves forward, this report will become an
important component of the documentation that will be required to
support the Authority in its efforts to secure adequate raw water supply
for its customers. As such, this report will be subject to detailed review
by individuals, state and federal agencies, and other concerned parties.
As this process moves forward, this study may be revised to respond to
comments and concerns that are raised.
This report presents a comprehensive review of long term water demand
in the region, and is based on the best available data. A design year for
the study has been established as the year 2050. This study presents four
separate approaches to projecting raw water demand. The first approach
looks at historic trends in raw water volumes and projects these trends
into the future. The other three approaches break down total demand
into a series of distinct components, and project demand for each
component into the future. Total demand is the sum of the 'individual
components of demand. One of these techniques is based on population
trends and per capita water consumption, the second is based on build
out under the comprehensive plans for each of the jurisdictions, and the
third is based on historic trends in each of the components of demand.
The details of all four approaches are presented in .the study report.
This study concludes, using all four approaches and the best available
data, that demand can be expected to continue to rise from its current
level to the design year 2050. In addition, it was found that each of the
approaches results in total demand estimates that correlate well with the
other approaches used. Total demand estimates fall within a range of
approximately 20 percent. While these demand estimates result in a
range of values, the study does not conclude that any one approach
results in a better projection than any other approach. As a result, the
study comes to the overall conclusion that total water demand in the
year 2050 will range between 18MGD and 21MGD.
Appendices
\\VawilI~.projecla~0502\WP~REPORTbXRecommended Alternatives 4.doc
38
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. Inc.
Revised Draft May 16, 2001
Appendix C: Analysis of Alternatives
Executive Summary
In our efforts to recommend to RWSA a strategy to meet the long-term
water supply needs of its customers, the study team performed a
thorough analysis o£ alternatives. This process involved first identifying
all potential reasonable measures to bring supply and demand into
balance through 2050. We then evaluated each of those alternatives
against the criteria of effectiveness, practicability/cost, and
environmental impact. The purpose was to identify the least
environmentally damaging, practicable alternative capable of meeting
projected demand.
The alternatives evaluated included improvements to existing supply
sources as well as development of wholly new sources. Since
sedimentation in the SFRR is the primary factor in diminishing water
supplies, efforts to stem siltation were investigated. Also, conservation
and drought management policies were reviewed for their potential to
manage demand. Other efforts to prolong the useful life of SFRR, such
as adding crest controls, were also investigated. Although the SFRR
currently provides the bulk of the raw water for the region, other
existing impoundments at Chris Greene Lake and Beaver Creek were
analyzed for their water supply potential. Finally, new sources such as
tapping groundwater and constructing new water impoundments were
investigated based on the same criteria.
The result of this analysis was a balanced comparison of possible
improvements, summarized in the matrix on the following pages. This
format allows easy review of key projects benefits and impacts. The
results of the evaluation process, supplemented by follow-up
investigations based on consultation with regulatory agencies and input
from the public, formed the basis for the recommendations included
herein.
To summarize that recommendation, we recommend temporary use of
the revised release, implementation and monitoring of sediment control,
drought management, and voluntary conservation, along with
pursuance of 4' crest controls with an 8 mgd constant release. These
measures represent a package of viable alternatives that appear best to
satisfy applicable considerations. This combination would meet the
needs of the Urban Service Area through approximately 2030, allowing
adequate time to monitor and select future, longer-term measures.
Furthermore, the combination is cost-effective, incurs minimal
environmental impacts, benefits flow in the Rivarma below the dam, and
prolongs the useful life of SFRR.
Appendices
~Vawifl~projectsk30502XWl~REPORTS,uR.ecommended Alternatives 4.doc
39
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
INCREASE IN ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 2050 SAFE YIELD COST ($) O&M COST ($) (S/g)* RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED CULTURAL REsouRcES IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
(mgd) DISPLACEMENTS STRUCTURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in vicinity (Acres)
Dredge South Fork
Riva{ma Reservoir
--Single Event 7.2 $ 71,000,000 n/a $9.86 ti . t} 0 ti 5
--Annual Dredging 7.2 $ 7,200,000 $ 800,000 $1.00 0 0 0 I 0 5
Reduce Sediment Load
into South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir
--BMPs 2 $ 8,800,liPA} n/a $4.4{} 0 (1 0 0 8{I
--Land Use Controls 2 $ 16,000,000 n/a $8.00 0 0 0 0 O
Alternate Release
Scenarios at South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir 1.6 $ 386,000 n/a $0.24 t} 0 0 0 minimal
Add 4 ft, Crest Controls on
South Fork Rivanna Dam 7 $ 2,260,000 I n/a $0.32 0 1 I James spinymusse,! 18
Add 8 ft. Crest Controls on
South Fork Rivanna Dam I 1 $ 18,300,000 n/a $1.66 2 I I James spinymussel 39
Use South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir as a
Pumped Storal~e Reservoir o n/a nla nla 0 o 0 0 minimal
Up to 5 ft. Drawdown of Chris
Greene Lake 2.9 $, 7,400,000 not significant $2.55 0 (} 0 0 minimal
20 ft. Draw Down of Chris I
Greene Lake 5.5 $ 14,7(g),000 no!significant $2.67 ti 0 0 l} mi,nimal/tnmporap[
Use of Chris Greene Lake I
as a Pumped Storage
Reservoir · o n/a n/a n/a 0 1! 0 0 minimal
Use Beaver Creek
Reservoir to Supplement
Flows in Mechums River o $ 500,000 no! significant n/a 0 0 {J 0 minimal
Dredge Sugar Hcdffow
Reser¥oir o. 1 $ 4,900,(}0{} not significant $49 0 0 0 O 2
Conversion of Ragged Mtn.
to Pumped Storal~e' Reservoir Itl $ 47,0(}0,000 not significant $4.70 I 0 0 0 5
Pumpback to Mechums
River 15 $ 56,00t1,(}00 $ 150,{g)o $3.73 0 unknnwn unknown James spinymoss¢l
Pumpback to Moormans
River 15 $ 69,l}{}0,0{}0 $ 28{I,000 $4.60 0 unknnwn unknown Jan]es spinymussnl 5
*Unit cost based only on capital cost per gallon.
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs,
X\WiLLVA\PROJECTS\30502\SHEETS\3AItornmatrlx\Sheetl
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
REDUCTION ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAL IMPA'CTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATIVE IN COST ($) O&M COST (S/g)* RESIDENTIAl, IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS '
DEMAND (mgd) DISPLACEMENTS STRUCTURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in vicinity (Acres)
Water Conservation ~
-,Pluml~ing Changeout 1.13 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0
· -Pricing Structure o. 13 unknown n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0
--Comm./Industrial 0.28 0 n/a o 0 0 0 0 0
· -Landscaping/Xeriscaping 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0
· -Education 0.13 $ 2,500,000 n/a $19.23 0 0 0 0 0
· -System Pressure Reduction 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0
Growth
Management · 1.7 unknown n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0
Drought Management
Demand Side 1.4 . $ 250,000 n/a $0.18 0 0 0 0 0
Drought Management
Supply Side I ' unknown n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0
Leak Detection and
Meter Calibration o ' n~a n/a n/a 0 o 0 o 0
*Unit cost based only on capital cost per gallon,
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs.
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTIIORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AFPROXI~ATE
I INCREASE IN ESTIMATED ANNUAl. UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY
ALTERNATIVE 2os0 SAFE YIELD COST ($) O&M COST ($) (S/gallon)* RESIDENTIAl, IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RF~qOURCES IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
(mgd) )iSPLACEMENTS STRUCTURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in viclnit~/ (Acres)
Aquifer Storage n/a
& Recovery o nla fda n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Conventional Withdrawal of
Groundwater o.I $ 1,2oo,ooo nra $12 0 0 0 0 0
Construcl Dam on
Buck Mountain Creek 14.4 $ 57,000,000 not significant $3.96 I 6 0 James spiuymussel 59
Construct Dam on 0 77
Preddy Creek ~.4 $ 91,000,000 not significant $14.22 6 7 0
Construct Dam on os
Moormans River I 1.6 $ 106,000,000 not significant $9,14 22 14 I 0
2onstmct Dam on
North Fork Rivamla River '15.4 $ 79,000,000 not slgnlflcam $5.13 2 3 4 James splnymussel 72
Construct Dam on
Mechums River
Near l.akn Albemarle 13.3 $ 68,000,000 not significant $5.11 21 15 2 James spinymussel 144
Construct Dam on
Mechums River
Near Midway 5.6 $ 26,000,000 not sigoitleam $4.64 6 6 0 James splnymussel 52
Construct Dam on
Buck Island Creek 15 $ 118,000,000 not sl~nilicant $7.87 14 6 0 0 103
lames River Withdrawal
at Scottsville 15 $ 72,000,000 $ 17o,000 $4.80 0 unknown I unknown 5
Rivanna River
Withdrawal 4.7 $ 18,000,000 not aigniflcanl $3.83 0 unknown unknown 0 2
Mechums River
Withdrawal 0.2 $ 850,000 not significant $4.25 0 unknown unknown James splnymussel mi~flmal
INCREASE ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAl, # OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTF~ATIVE IN COST ($) O&M COST ($) (S/g)* RESIDENTIAl. IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
DEMAND (mgd) DISPLACEMENTS STRucTuRES I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES iu vininlt~ (Acres)
RegioaalI minimal
Cooperation 3 $ 3,100,000 n/a n/a 0 unknown unknown 0
REDUCTION ESTIMATED ] ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAl. IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATIVE IN COST(S) O&M COST ($) (S/g)* RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
SAFE YIELD (mgd) DISPLACEMENTS STRUCTURES I ARCIIAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in vicinity (Acres) , .
o 0I o o 0
No-Actiou 7.7 n/a n/a ,, ,_,, ___,nla t.___.4 ~1 ...... nil.~l onet nar nalltan
*Unit cost based only on capital cost per g~
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs.
Revised Draft
Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority
Summary of Recommended Alternatives
Prepared by
YJ-JBNanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc,
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Ellis & Thorp, LLC
May, 20'01
~ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Revised Draft May 18, 2001
Summary of Recommended
Alternatives
Introduction
This document summarizes the recommended strategy for meeting the
water supply needs of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Urban Service Area .
through the year 2050. The full technical recommendation is included in
the report entitled Recommended Alternatives (Revised Draft May 2001).
The proposed strategy attempts to address the existing and projected
water deficiency throughout the planning period to 2050. To develop the
recommendation, a wide range of alternatives was analyzed against
criteria including effectiveness, cost, logistics, feasibility, and
environmental impact. The goal was to provide the needed water
throughout the planning period in a practicable and least
environmentally intrusive manner.
The following sections describe the resulting recommendations.
The Current Water
Deficiency
Water supply planning is based on the need to provide water in the
event of a drought approaching the severity of the drought of record (in
this case droughts in the 1930s and 1950s). As such, the capacity (or safe
yield) of a particular source is described in terms of its ability to supply
water during such an event. Analysis of the existing water supply
sources used by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
indicates that their capacity during a severe drought is within the range
of 11 to 12 million gallons per day (mgd). Current water demand in the
Urban Service Area is approximately 12 mgd, raising the possibility that
demand could exceed supply during the next severe drought. RWSA
therefore needs to identify means to bring demand and supply in
balance should such a drought occur tomorrow.
Summary of Recommended Alternatives 1
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP~ummary of Recommendations 2.doc
~ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Revised Draft May 18, 2001
Furthermore, projections of demand and supply for the Urban Service
Area are currently diverging at a rate of 3 mgd per decade (see Figures 1
and 2).~ By 2050, demand is expected to exceed supply by approximately
15 mgd. This divergence results from two factors: increases in demand
due to population growth.and development, and decreases hn available
supply due to siltation in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (SFRR).
However, even without any increase in present water demand, decreases
in available water supply will result in a 2050 water deficit of
approximately 7 mgd. Accordingly, it is necessary to identify means to
bring supply and demand in balance throughout the planning period
while maintaining maximum flexibility.
Part of the solution must involve management of demand coupled with
efforts to manage sedimentation. We therefore recommend
development and implementation of a water conservation and drought
management plan, as well as investigation of potential ways to build
upon Albemarle County's comprehensive sediment control program. At
the same time, RWSA will need to develop additional supply, and we
recommend installation of 4' crest controls to extend the life and increase
the yield of the SFRR.
Water Conservation and Drought Management
Water conservation includes efforts, such as conservation pricing and
installation of water-saving plumbing fixtures, to encourage permanent,
long-term reductions in water use. Drought management includes
voluntary, and mandatory temporary restrictions on water use, such as
prohibitions on lawn watering. We believe and recommend that both
should be implemented aggressively and immediately, even though
their long-term effectiveness is difficult to predict quantitatively.
By 2050 (the planning period for this study), we estimate that aggressive
water conservation could result in average demand reductions totaling
1.7 mgd, and that drought management could save 2.4 mgd. The
combined effects of these measures would result in an overall demand
reduction of 21% in 2050; this figure compares well with similar
programs investigated as part of this study. Although the full benefit of
these measures will not be realized until the end of the planning period,
proportionately smaller benefits could accrue in the short-term. The
combined cost of developing and implementing these alternatives could
be as high as $2.7 million, although substantial cost savings could be
realized by scaling back public education efforts that may not be cost-
effective.
Summary of Recommended Alternatives
C:\WINDO WS\TEMP~Summary of Recommendations 2.doc
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 18, 2001
Sediment Control
If the rate of sedimentation of the SFRR could be reduced, it would be
possible to increase its projected yield through 2050. Albemarle County
currently implements a strong sediment control program. Although the
effects of this program on reservoir siltation cannot be quantified, it is
possible that control measures have pr.evented an increase in rates of
sedimentation as development in the watershed has continued. In fact,
based on available data, it appears that sediment rates have remained
relatively constant over time, and that the actual rate has been slightly
less than predicted when the reservoir was constructed. Furthermore,
anecdotal evidence suggests that reservoir water quality may have
improved over time; it is possible that sediment control measures have
contributed to this phenomenon.
We recommend that Albemarle County's program continue, and that
studies be pursued .to determine whether the program can be enhanced.
The studies should include periodic bathymetric surveys of SFRR to
monitor and document sedimentation rates.
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Release
When this study was begun, the study team was informed and
understood that SFRR was required as a regulatory matter to release at
least 8 mgd at all times. The safe yield of the reservoir was accordingly
calculated on that basis. Subsequent investigation has failed to identify
any such regulatory requirement, however. Accordingly, the current
yield of the reservoir is actually gyeater than that assumed In the supply
study. If the reservoir is assumed to release at a rate of 8 mgd or at the
rate of natural inflow, whichever is less, then the yield of the reservoir
would increase by 1.6 mgd. Under this operational regime, when water
flowing into SFRR exceeds 8 mgd, a minimum of 8 mgd would be
released; if inflow falls to 8 mgd or below, then the release would equal
inflow. The cost for this alternative is approximately $386,000.
Restating the reservoir's yield in this way would satisfy the immediate,
apparent water deficit faced by RWSA and would likely have no
practical consequence. The scenario would occur only on rare occasions
as the water level falls to and below the top of the dam. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that this has happened approxima.tely 2 or 3 times
since the dam was constructed in 1966. Furthermore, once asource of
additional supply is obtained, the RWSA could of course adopt or accept
a prescribed minimum release. Even if a severe drought should occur
before a new water source is brought on-line, the natural river flow
would simply be passed downstream without augmentation.
The study team recommends restating the present yield of the SFRR in
this way to more accurately reflect the Current yield of the reservoir
given its existing operational flexibility. If and when the following
alternative is implemented, a minimum release for SFRR would likely be
Summary of Recommended Alternatives 3
C:\WlNDO WSXTEMP~Summary o f Recommendations 2.'doc
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Revised Draft May 18, 2001
established and the yield of the enhanced SFRR would be stated
accordingly.
Four-foot Crest Controls
Adding 4' crest controls would provide an immediate increase in the safe
yield of SFRR of approximately 11 mgd, which gradually would decline
to 7 mgd of additional safe yield in 2050, assuming a constant 8 mgd
mandatory minimum release is imposed at the SFRR and sedimentation
continues at its present rate. The alternative would make use of the
existing SFRR as well as treatment and transmission facilities, and would
extend the useful life of the reservoir. Furthermore, based on current
projections of supply and demand, it would provide approximately 35
years of additional supply, significantly delaying the need for other more
costly or environmentally intrusive alternatives. Should sedimentation
decrease, or shOuld demand management prove more effective than
estimated, this alternative could meet future water needs for an even
longer period.
The crest controls would allow RWSA to institute a minimum 8 mgd
constant release, thereby augmenting downstream flow during severe
droughts. Also, the alternative involves relatively minor wetland
impacts that could be offset through mitigation. Finally, based on the
findings of a survey by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, this alternative would not impact the James spinymussel
population in Ivy Creek.
The issue of property acquisition is still under investigation, kfitial cost
estimates assumed that the City of Charlottesville owns land up to an
elevation of 387' - higher than the 386~ pool level resulting from the 4'
crest controls. Recent evidence, however, suggests that this might not
apply to the full reservoir perimeter. Furthermore, the study team is
currently engaged in discussions with the Virginia Department of
Transportation regarding potential impacts to the bridge over the Ivy
Creek branch of the reservoir, which may require modification or
replacement. Additional research is underway to address these
questions and refine the cost estimate for this alternative. At this time,
the stated cost of this alternative (approximately $5.6 million) includes
an allowance of $1.3 million for land acquisition, based on preliminary
estimates, and an allowance of $2 million for bridge replacement. It is
not anticipated; however, that any inaccuracy in the preliminary estimate
for land acquisition would significantly affect the overall cost-
effectiveness of the crest controls. Finally, it is anticipated that any
necessary approvals could be obtained from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to continue operation of the existing
hydroelectric generating facilities at SFRR. Because this alternative is
cost-effective and practicable, and has relatively, minor environmental
effects, the study team has recommended .its implementation as soon as
possible.
Summary of Recommended Alternatives
C:\WINDO WS\TEMl~um~ary of Recommendations 2. doc
Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 18, 2001
Additional Future Measures
As previously mentioned, the above alternatives would provide needed
water supply well into the 2050 planning period, based on supply and
demand projections. Nevertheless, we predict that additional supply
will be needed before 2050. RWSA should monitor variables such as
sedimentation, demand, and conservation/drought management to help
determine when such additional supply will be warranted. Based on
analysis to-date, it appears that two alternatives - using Chris Greene
Lake for water supply purposes and dredging of SFRR - offer the most
promise. However, adequate time to reassess these future needs will be
provided by implementation of the currently recommended alternatives.
Dredging SFRR
Due to the volume of sediment involved in this alternative, its cost,
practicability, and impacts are difficult to gauge. In order to achieve a
safe yield of 7.2 mgd in 2050 (returning the reservoir to its current
capadty and satisfying the remaining 2050 demand) roughly 3 .million
cubic yards of silt would have to be removed at some point near the
middle of the planning period. This could be accomplished by means of
a one-time dredging event, .a staged event over several years, or annual
maintenance dredging. Under any scenario, the costs are .significant,
ranging from $40 million to $75 million. A key factor in the cost is the
method of disposal, a question complicated by the large amount of spoil,
which makes beneficial use a difficult proposition.
To understand the volume of material in question, disposal of 3 million
cubic yards of dredged material would cover a disposal site of 310 acres
to a uniform depth of 6'. This alternative involves wetland impacts,
disturbance of shallow water habitat, loss of upland farm or wooded
habitat, and temporary water quality impacts.
We recommend that RWSA conduct bathymetric surveys every 5 years
to monitor the rate and the nature of sedimentation over time. This will
help determine the need for, the scale of, and the timing of dredging,
which because of its high cost and environmental impacts should be
viewed as a potential long-term improvement.
Chris Greene Lake Drawdowns
Chris Greene Lake was originally constructed as a water supply facility,
and recreational amenities were added using Land and Water
Conservation Funds. This creates a complicated scenario whereby the
lake could be used for water supply purposes, but at the cost of losing
existing recreational resources. Albemarle County could be required to
replace any impacted recreational activities, a factor that could increase
total project cost. Five possible drawdown alternatives were analyzed:
Summary of Recommended Alternatives 5
C:~WINDO WS~TEMP'~SummarY of Rccormncndations 2.doc
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Revised Draft May 18, 2001
0.5', 5', 10', 15' and 20'. The increase in safe yield for these alternatives
ranges from 0.7 mgd to 5.5 mgd, and their cost ranges from $500,000 to
$20 million (excluding potential recreational costs).
The 0.5' option was investigated as a way to utilize existing treatment
capacity at the North Fork treatment plant, while avoiding the
infrastructure costs association with the other options. It would rely on a
stream release, as opposed to the direct piping included in the other
options. The 0.7 mgd increase in safe yield is a factor of the maximum
amount of water that can efficiently' be withdrawn with existing
infrastructure. However, demand for this amount of water currently
does not exist in the northern portion of the Urban Service Area, and the
water distribution system currently makes transmission of the water
further south impracticable.
The costs for variations involving a 5' drawdown or more are increased
substantially due to required infrastructure. First, to use the yields of
these variations would necessitate construction of 6 miles of water main
to transport water from the North Fork water treatment plant south to
the primary portion of the Urban Service Area. Simply put, the lake is
not located close to the current demand center. Although demand may
in the future grow significantly in the northern portion of the Urban
Service Area, at present it would be necessary to incur costs for
transmission facilities of approximately $5.4 million to bring the yields of
these variations to the south where the water can be used. This expense
would increase the cost for the 5' option by 73% and the 20' option by
37%. Some of these costs may eventually be borne by the Virginia
Department of Transportation as part of future road improvements.
Second, whereas the 4' crest controls would take advantage of existing
treatment capacity at SFRR, using water from Chris Greene Lake under a
5' or greater drawdown scenario would require additional treatment
infrastructure at the North Fork plant. For the 20' option, this accounts
for 66% of the project cost.
These costs could increase significantly if Albemarle County were
required to provide replacement recreational facilities of equal
usefulness as determined by the State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. Because the Virginia Department of Health has stated
that a cessation of swimming may be required ff Chris Greene Lake is
used for water supply, this becomes a major factor. Recent recreational
improvements made by the County at other locations suggest that
recreational impact could add approximately $4 million to the project.
Finally, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has stated
that drawdowns of greater than 5' could significantly impact fish stocks
in the lake.
Using Chris Greene Lake for water supply purposes offers a potential
future solution However, due to its higher cost, lower yield, and
impacts to the fishery in the lake, it is not as attractive in the short-term
as the 4' crest controls.
Summary of Recommended Alternatives
CAWIIqDOWS\TEMI~Surmnm~ of R~co~tions 2.doc
6
~ ~ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Revised Draft May 18, 2001
Why Not Buck Mountain Reservoir
Because RWSA owns the land required to construct the Buck Mountain
Reservok, it would seem logical that this Would be a preferred
alternative. The reservoir has been part of the area's water supply
planning process for some time, and a significant investment was made
to purchase the land. Nevertheless, we suggest that the facility simply is
not permissible at this time under the current regulatory and permitting
climate.
Presently, we believe alternatives are available to RWSA that are
practicable and less environmentally intrusive; based on state and
federal regulations, these must be selected over the reservoir, which
involves impacts to 59 acres of wetlands and potential impacts to the
lames spinymussel.
Conclusions
The RWSA will need approximately 15 mgd of demand reduction
and/or supply increase to meet the needs of the Urban Service Area
through 2050. The recommended alternatives provide approximately
11.1 mgd of water in a cost-effective manner with minimal
environmental impacts. They provide sufficient water in the short-term
as well as providing a rational program for implementing additional
measures, as needed, in the middle or later portions of the planning
period in order to meet needs through 2050. We therefore recommend
that RWSA immediately begin pursuing their implementation.
Summary of Recommended Alternatives
C:\WrNDO WS'~T EMP~Summary of Recommendations 2.doc
7
Summary of Water Needs
22
Water l)emand Proj.ecti )n
Xa, .- ~ ~ Increase in Existing Demand
"'--,._ ~-~ .~ ~ /xisting Demand
//'- '-'""~~~ ~' : ~,?,'Decrease:: .... ':: ::,,' in:ii.Existing, i. ~,... ,.~ :,Supply.:."
W tter Sup ply Pro2 ecUon ~~
2O
._~ 14
m '12
m 10
4
2
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Figure 2
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
ALTERNATIVE
Dredge South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir
--Single Event
--Annual Dredging
Reduce Sediment Load
into South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir
--Forebays
--Stream restoration
Alternate Release
]cenarios at South
?ork Rivanna Reservoir
~,dd 4 ft. Crest Controls on
South Fork Rivanna Dam
--Base cost
Add 4 ft. Crest Controls on
South Fork Rivanna Dam
--Inc. cost for lan~
Add 8 ff. Crest Controls on
South Fork Rivanna Dam
Use South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir as a
~Reservoir
INCREASE IN
;050 SAFE YIELD
(mgd)
7.2
7.2
unknown
1.6
7
7
11
0
ESTIMATED ANNUAL
COST ($) O&M coST ($)
$ 71,000,0~0 n/a
7,200,000 800.0(}4}
$ 232,000 46,000
$ . 386,000
UNIT COST
(S/g)*
$9.86
$I.00
POTENTIAL # OF
RESIDENTIAL
}ISPLA CEMENTS
$ . 18,300,000
n/a 0
n/a 0
$0.24 0
$0.32 2
$0.80 2
$1.66 2
poTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES
STRUCTURES A.~RCHAEOLOG1CAL
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1
1
1
0
nIa n/a
n/a 0 o
*-'~t cost base--al cost per gallon.
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs,
PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED T & E
SPECIES in vicinity .
unknown
James 8 inymussel .
James spinymussel .
James spinymussel .
APPROXIMATE
W~TLAND IMPACTS
(AcreS) .
5
unknown
minimal
~nim~
,~,,WiLLVA\PROJECTS\30502\SHEETS~3AItemmatrix~Sheot 1
INCREASE 1N ESTIMATED
ALTERNATIVE 2050 SAFE YIELD COST ($)
(mgd) .
0.5 ft. Drawdown of Chris
Greene Lake 0.7 $5oo.ooo
$ ft. Drawdown of Ctu'is
]reene Lake 2.9 ~ $ 12,800,000.
10 ft. Drawdown of Chris
Greene Lake
~ $ 15,500,000.
15 ft. Drawdown of Chris
Greene Lake 4.8 __ $ 17,800,000.
20 ft. Draw Down of Chris
Greene Lake 5.5
~ $ 20,100,000.
Use of Chris Greene Lake
as a Pumped Storage
Reservoir o
Use Beaver Creek
Reservoir to Supplement
Flows in Mechums River o .
Dredge Sugar Hollow
Reservoir o. 1
Conversion of Ragged Mtn.
~Reservoir
Pumpback to Mechums
River
Pumpback to Moormans
River 15
$ 47,000,000.
$ 56,000,(~.
$ 69,000,00(J
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
ANNUAL
O&M COST ($)
not significant
not significant .
150,000
280,000
UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF
(S/g)* RESIDENTIAL
DISPLACEMENTS
$0.71
$4.41
$3.88
$3.71
$3.65
n/a 0
$49 0
$4.70
$3.73
0
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVJ[OUSL-~'~'-~PREVIOUSL--'~'~~
APPROXIMATE
IDEN~ CU~ ,TURAL RESOURCES . IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
STRUCTURES . ~ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in vicinity . (Acres).
0
unknown
~ni~own
$4.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
James spinymusscl .
Jame~ s. pinymus~l
0
o
0
*Unit cost based only on capital cost per gallon,
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs.
minimal/tern ~,rary
minimal/temporary
minimal/temporay
minimal/temporary
minimalhemporary
minimal
minimal
2
5
2
5
\\WILLVAPROJECTS\30502\SHEETS~3Aiternmatrix\Sheet2
'RIVANNA WATER SEWER AUTHORITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
ALTERNATIVE
Water Conservation
--Plumbing Changeout
--Pricing Structure
--Comm./Industrial
--Landscaping/Xeris caping
.-Education
~e Reduction
Growth
Drought Management
Demand Side
Drought Management
Leak Detection and
Meter Calibration
REDUCTION
IN
DEMAND (mgd_) .
1.13
0.13
0.28
0
0.13
0
1.7
1.4
I
ESTIMATED
cOST ($)
0
0
2,500,000
n/a
unknow~
$ 250,000
Ilrikllown
ANNUAL
O&M COST
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
UNIT COST
(S/g)*
0
n/a
$19.23
n/a
$0.18
DISPLA CEMENTS
POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY
RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED CU. LTURAL RESOURCES .
STRUCTURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED T & E
SPECIES in vicinity .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*Unit cost based only on capi~ cost per gallon.
Does not include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs.
APPROXIMATE
WETLAND IMPACTS
(Acres)
0
0
0
0
0
~, I\WILLVA\PROJECTS\30502\SHEETS~Altemmalrix\Sheet 3
RIVANNA WATER SEWER AuTHoRITY
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
INCR F.A.qI~ 1N ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF POTENTIAL IMPACT~ TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATIVE ~0~0 SAFE YIELD COST ($) O&M COST ($) ($]g~llon)* RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCE~ IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
(mgd) D[qPLACEMENTS ~'I'RUCTURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL ~rt~t;ll~, in ~:~1~' (Acr~)
Aquifer Storage
& Recovery 0
Conventional WRhdrawal of
Groundwater O. 1 $ 1,200,000 n/a $12 0 0 0 0 0
~onstruct Dam on
Buck Moumain Creek 14.4 ~ $ 57,000,000 not significant$3.96 I 6 0 ~ spinym.~l 59
Construct Dam on
,Preddy Creek 6.4 $ 91.000,000 not ~i~nlfl,'n.* $14.22 6 7 0 0 77
Construct Dam on
Moormans River 11.6 $ 106,000,000 llOt 81~nifioant $9,14 22 14 I 0 68
Conslmct Dam on
North Fork Rivanna River 15.4 $ 79.000,000 not signifien.*$5.13 2 3 4 James spiny ....... I 72
Construct Dam on
Me. chums River
Near Lake Albemarle 13.3 $ 68,000,000not significant$5.11 21 15 2 lam~ splav,..,~l 144
Construct Dam on
Mechums River
Near Midway 5.6 $ 26,000,000not siEnifle~n*$4.64 6 6 0 James apinym.~l 52
Construct Dam on
Buck Island Creek 15 $ 118,000,000 nol ~i_anifir.nt $7.87 14 6 0
lames River Withdrawal : 0 lo3
at Scottsville 15 $ 72,000,000 $ 170'.000 $4.80 0 unimown I unknown 5
Rivanna River
Withdrawal 4.7 $ 18,000,000 not significant$3.83 0 unknt~wn Ilnk~OWfl 0 2
Mechums River
Withdrawal 0.2 $ 850,000 not '~i~nift~.-t $4.25 0 unknown unknown James spiny ....... I mlnimnl
INCREASE ESTIMATED ANNUAL UNIT COST POTENTIAL # OF PCrfi~NTIAL IMPACTS TO PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY APPROXIMATE
ALTERNATIVE IN COST ($) O&M COST ($) (S/R)* RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCi~ IDENTIFIED T & E WETLAND IMPACTS
DEMAND (mgd)
Regional DISPLACEMENTS STEUC'ruRF2/[ ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIES in vlelnlty (Acre~)
Cooperation 3 $ 3,100,000 ~a ~a 0 ~i~lO~fl[ unknown 0 minimal
I~o-Action
ALTERNATIVE
[ REDUCTION [ ESTIMATEB
IN COST ($)
_.L ,.t L___..__~a
ANNUAL ] UNITcOST POTENTIAL#OF [ POTENT/ALIMPACTSTOPREVlOUSL¥
O&M OST,$, I RESIDENTIAL LRESOU,,CES
-- 4 -- U~SFLAC~.MEmS.~
Unit cost based only on capital cost par
Does not Include effects of annual operations and maintenance costs.
'PRE¥IOUSLY [ APPROXIMATE
IDENTIFIEDT&E ] WETLANDiMPAC~rS
~o
~WILLVA~PROJECTS~30502\$HEETS~3AItemmairix~Sheet 4
Project Alternatives
River
Alternative
Sugar
Reservoir
ns River
~ir Alternative (Downstream)
ns River
~ir Alternative (Upstream)
j,
USTA
Buck Mountain Creek
,~servo r A temative
1 North Fork Rivanna
River Reservoir Alternative
ROCKINGHAM & ~ _
/__
NELSON
Mechums River
Withdrawal Alternative /
Rehab of Existing Pump Station
Conversion of Ragged Mountains
to Pumped Storage Alternative
",,
GREENE
/
/
!
Preddy C~k
Re~,'voir Alternative
ORANGE
Utilization of of Chris Greene Lake:
5' and 20' IDrawdown,
Pumped Storage
South Fork Rivanna:
4' and 8' Crest Gates,
Dredging and Pumped Storage
LOUISA
Rivanna River
Pipetine Alternative
tO
Mechums River
Buck island Creek
Reservoir Alternative
James River
Withdrawal Alternative
Charlottesville City Limita
Urban Service Area
Existing Reservoir/Water Supply
ReseP/Oir/Water SUpply' Alternatives
James River Withdrawal
Rivanna River Withdrawal
New Intake
New Treatment Plant
New Pump station
New PiPeline
/
/
/
/
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Water Supply Project
May, 2001
This item was scanned under Water Reports.
BOARD -TO -BOARD
August 1, 2001 - 10:30 a.m.
A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albemarle County School Board to
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Highlights: School Board Briefs (Attachments 1 and 2} - June 7 and 28, 2001
RECENT
BAKER-BUTLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPDATE: Construction on
Baker-Butler Elementary School on Proffit Road is underway. If you are
interested in following the progress of the school's construction, the Division
website (http://kl 2.albemarle.org) has a Baker-Butler Elementary School link
where there are recent pictures of the construction. Pictures are updated
approximately every two weeks. Also, during the summer, numerous other CIP
projects have taken place, most notably the beginning of the renovation/addition
at Burley Middle School along with roofing projects at Walton Middle,
Albemarle High and Crozet Elementary Schools, in addition to a number of other
minor projects.
REVISIONS TO POLICIES BBA AND CBA: At its June 28, 2001 meeting,
the Board approved changes to School Board Policies BBA and CBA which
address the evaluations of the School Board and the Superintendent. The
changes resulted from recommendations of the Board/Superintendent Evaluation
Review Committee.
HIGH SCHOOL SWIMMING: At its June 28 meeting, the Board approved a
two-year pilot swimming program for the County High Schools. This past
January, the Board directed staff to work with parents from the three high
schools to study the possibility of having a swimming program. On June 28, the
Board also adopted Policy IGDAA, Addition or Elimination of High School
Interscholastic Teams or Sports. This policy provides a specific process to
consider the addition or deletion of a particular high school athletic program.
2001-2002 PROPOSED FEES: At the June 28 meeting, the Board approved the
Student Fees for the 2001-2002 School Year. The approved fees did not change
from the 2000-2001 School Year.
FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST
2000-2002 BOARD/SUPERINTENDENT PRIORITIES: At its June 16
Retreat, the Board began to review the 2000-2002 Board/Superintendent
Priorities and the progress that is being made towards meeting the priorities. The
Board discussed revisions to the Priorities at its June 28 meeting, and at that time
placed the Priorities on the August 9 agenda for further discussion and possible
approval. In developing the priorities, the School Board is placing major
emphasis on measurable outcomes. For the coming year, the Board is also going
to place special emphasis on increasing parental involvement. The Priorities are
important because they drive the School Division in terms of time, energy and
resources.
START OF 'THE 2001-2002 SCHOOL YEAR: The first day of the new school
year will be Monday, August 27. It's been an extremely busy summer. We've
had a variety of instructional programs occurring in the schools, in addition to
moving ahead on a number of Capital Improvements Program (C/P) maintenance
projects. There has also been a significant amount of staff development focused
on the Standards of Learning.
SOL RESULTS: The School Division received the individual student results
from the spring 2001 standards of Learning tests. Principals received these
results and mailed the individual student score sheets home to parents. Once we
receive the official test results from the testing service, we will verify the
accreditation status of schools and will then release the information to the public.
Receipt of test scores is driven by the dates of testing. Since we chose to test
later, allowing for more instructional time, our results are being received later
than divisions that chose to test earlier.
The
Albemarle County
School Board
Board Briefs
Kevin Castner, Superintendent
Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board
401 Mclntire Road * Charlottesville, VA 22902
http://k 12.albemarle.org
Regular Board Meeting
Thursday, June 7, 2001
Auditorium and Room 241, County Office Building
CLOSED MEETING
The Board approved the following actions:
.... Expelling two middle school students through the end of the first semester of the 2001-2002
school year for vandalism of school property.
.... Appointing Karen Marcus as Principal of Woodbrook Elementary School and Matthew
Landahi as Principal of Cale Elementary School. Ms. Marcus will replace Keith Hammon, who will be
the pnncipal at Baker-Butler Elementary. She is currently the Assistant Principal at Hollymead
Elementary School. Mr. Landahi has been working as the Assistant Principal at Burnley-Moran
Elementar~ School in the City of Charlottesville. He will be replacing Gerald Terrell who is retiring.
COMMENDATIONS
The Board recognized over 70 students during the meeting for accomplishments that they have
made in during the school year.
ACTION ITEMS
The Board approved:
.... Adopted a redistricting plan for Baker-Butler Elementary School slated to open in the Fall of
2002. The adopted plan, Plan A, was originally proposed by the Redistricting Committee. For more
information or questions, contact Frank Morgan at morgan~albemarle.org or at 296-5877.
INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board received for information, direction and public comment:
.... Reviewing and changing the suggested changes to Policies BBA and CBA that were
recommended by the Board/Superintendent Evaluation Review Committee. This item will be scheduled
on the June 28, 2001 Consent Agenda for approval. For more information, contact the Clerk's Office at
jjohnston~albemarle.org or at 972-4055.
.... Reviewing a proposed policy for the addition or elimination of a high school interscholastic
teams or sports. This policy will be on the June 28, 2001 Consent Agenda for approval. For more
information on the policy, contact the School Board Clerk's office at 972-4055 or at
jj ohnston~albemarle.org
.... Receiving a report from the Gifted Advisory Committee. The Gifted Advisory Committee
submits an annual report concerning the education of gifted students through the Superintendent to the
School Board. The report included recommendations for the coming year. For a copy of the report,
contact the Clerk's office at jjohnston~albemarle.org or at 972-4055.
.... Receiving a report from the Equity and Diversity Committee. The committee gives an annual
report to the Board on the activities of the committee for the school year. The report included a complete
update of the activities of the committee and the plans for future activities. For more information or a
copy of the report, contact the School Board office at jjohnston~albemarle.org or at 972-4055.
.... Receiving for information curriculum revisions to Middle School Civics and Economics and
for High School World Geography. Curriculum is available for public comment until June 28th when the
items will be placed on the Consent agenda for approval. For more information, contact Pat Hughes at
296-5820.
.... Receiving a report on the development of a high school swimming program in Albemarle
County. The item will be on the June 28, 2001 Consent Agenda for approval. For more information or
for a copy of the report, contact the Clerk's office at jjohnston@albemarle.org or at 972-4055.
OTHER MATTERS
The following information was discussed:
.... Dr. Castner gave a brief preliminary end-of-year report for the Divi sion. The information is on
file in the School Board Clerk's Office.
UPCOMING DATES
June 8, 2001
Western Albemarle High School Graduation, 8:00' p.m., Western Albemarle
High School
June 12, 2001
June 13, 2001
June 14, 2001
June 16, 2001
Murray High School Graduation, 5:00 p.m., Murray High School
Albemarle High School Graduation, 6:00 p.m., University Hall
Monticello High School Graduation, 7:00 p.m., University Hall
School Board Retreat, Albemarle Resource Center'
June 28, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 200I
August 23, 2001
Regular Board Meeting, Room 241 of the County Office Building
Regular Board Meeting, Room 241 of the County Office Building
Regular Board Meeting, Room 241 of the County Office Building
Regular Board Meeting, Room.241 of the County Office Building
The Albemarle COunty School Board
Board Briefs
Kevin Castner, Superintendent ~
Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board
401 Mclntire Road * Charlottesville, VA 22902
http://kl 2.albemarle.org
Regular Board Meeting
Thursday, June .28, 2001
Room 241, County Office Building
CLOSED MEETING
The Board approved the following actions:
.... Placed a high school student on long term suspension through the 2001-2002 school year,
.... Appointed Nh'. Carl Kielm as Assistant Principal of Albemarle High School, effective July 1.
Mr. Kiehn holds a Bachelor's and Master's Degrees from Adams College in Colorado. He taught middle
school Science in Carb0ndale, Colorado from 1993 - 2000. During the 2000-2001 school year, Mr.
Kiehn taught Science at Monticello High School. Mr. Kiehn will replace Jamie Brown, who is retiring
after a 30-year career in Albemarle County Schools.
.... Accepted the resignation of Mr. Michael Thompson, Director of Human Resources. Mr.
Thompson will be retiring, effective October 1, 2001. He has served as Albemarle's Director of Human
Resources for the past three years. Mr. Thompson previously worked as Director of Human Resources
for the City of Lynchburg.
DONATIONS
The Board approved the following donations:
.... An anonymous donation to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School in the amount of $949.00.
This donation will be used to purchase a Mac computer for the reading specialist.
.... A donati°n from the B.F. Yancey PTA in the amount of $1,500. These funds will be.used
maintain the services of a school nurse at Yancey Elementary School for the Extended Learning Time
Program this summer.
ACTION ITEMS
The Board approved:
.... Approved the applications for Federal and State Migrant funding and authorized the
Superintendent to submit the applications to the Virginia Department of Education. .... Approved a proposed two-year pilot high school swimming program.
.... Approved Proposed Policy IGDAA, Addition or Elimination of High School Interscholastic
Teams or Sports.
.... Approved Curriculum revisions m High School World Geography and Middle School Civics
and Economics.
.... Authorized Dr. Jean Murray, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, to sign Virginia
Department of Education correspondence, reports, documents, and other official correspondence in the
absence of the Division Superintendent, Kevin Castner. Also, the Board authorized Dr. Murray to attend,
in the absence if the Superintendent, School Board meetings and to act on behalf of the Superintendent
accordingly.
.... Approved changes to Policy BBA, Role and Evaluation of the School Board, and Policy CBA,
Role, Qualifications and Evaluation of the Superintendent.
.... Approved the proposed fees for the 2001-2002 school year. Board Policy JN requires Board-
approval of any feds that are charged to students. The proposed fees for the 2001-2002 school year did
not change from last year's fees. For a copy of the fees, contactthe Clerk's office at 972-4055 or at
jjohnston~albemarle.org
.... Approved the year-to-date financial report as of April 30, 2001.
INFORMATION ITEM,q
The Board received for information, direction and public comment:
.... Reviewing revisions to Policy GCC, Leave Program, for information, comment and direction.
The revisions are scheduled on the August 9, 200! agenda for additional discussion. For more
information, contact the School Board Clerk's office at 972-4055 or at jjohnston@albemarle.org
.... Receiving for information and direction the changes to the 2000-2002 Board/Superintendent
Priorities. This item is scheduled on the August 9, 2001 agenda for further discussion. For more
information, contact the School Board office at 972-4055 or at jjohnston~albemarle.org
OTHER MATTERS
The following information was discUSsed:
.... Board members discussed that there was concern among some citizens that some individuals
in the community did not want their names submitted for the school. Some BOard members felt that the
individual should be contacted if their name is submitted for approval: There was Board consensus for
staff to review and recommend changes to the Policy that deals with naming of schools.
.... Board members received a letter from the Backpack Committee of the Health Advisory Board.
The letter contained recommendations for implementation. The recommendations will be discussed at the
August 9 meeting.
UPCOMING DATES
CANCELED
July 24, 2001
August 9, 2001
VSBA Govemor's Conference on Education, Richmond Marriott
Regular Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office
Building
August 23, 200i
VSBA Hot T6pic C6nference: Special Education Workshop, Charlottesville
Omni
August 23, 2001
Regular Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office
Building
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 01 Budget Amendment Public Hearing
SU BJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on Proposed FY01 Budget Amendment in
the amount of $141,436.66 and approval of Appropriation
#20078, 20079, and 20080 for various school and local
government programs and grants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
August1,2001
ITEM NUMBER:
.ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUN D:
The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current budget
if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the original budget or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The
Code section applied to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or
County's adopted operating budget. To meet this requirement and to provide timely appropriation of funds, a
regular public hearing is scheduled on the first day meeting of each month to have all appropriations heard and
approved.
DISCUSSION:
This proposed FY01 Budget Amendment totals $141,436.66. The chad below breaks out the estimated revenues
and expenditures for the amendment in the General and School Funds.
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
Federal Grant Revenues
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue
$ 10,025.00
$ 10,025.00
Education Funds
Local Revenues
AIMR Summer Rental
State Revenues
Fund Balances
Education Funds Estimated Revenue
$ 7,429.00
40,000.00
489.00
83,493.66
$ 131,411.66
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE
$ 141,436.66
07-18-01 P04:01 iN
AGENDA TITLE: FY 01 Budget Amendment Public Hearing
AGENDA DATE: August 1 2001
Page 2 of 2
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Human Development
General Operating Expenditures
10,025.00
$ 10,025.00
Education Operating Fund
$ 131,411.66
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
$ 141,436.66
This budget amendment consistsrof three appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the public hearing.
A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATION:
Subsequent to the public hearing, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors amend the FY01 Budget in the
amount of $141,436.66, and approve Appropriation #20078, 20079, and 20080 as detailed on the attached
appropriation forms.
01.147
APPROPRIATION #20078
Appropriations
Attachment A
$10,025.00
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Project
The social services departments of the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville, in partnership with Region Ten
Community Services Board, were awarded a federal grant to establish mental health and substance abuse services in
each of the departments. The purpose of this project is to provide services to social services clients who am public
assistance recipients or "welfare-to-work" participants with the goal of improving their employment prospects and
outcomes.
The project will him two mental health and substance abuse clinicians with salaries and fringe benefits paid by Region
Ten. Both social services departments will make "in-kind" contributions, including clerical and supervisory support
and professional consultation services as necessary. Supplies and equipment will be funded by federal grant monies.
The program startup costs will be funded by a $10,025.00 federal grant. Them is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #20079
$5,070.19
Math SOL Grant
Teaching the Math SOL Grant was not fully expended in the FY99-00. The grant carryover amount of $5,070.19
may be appropriated for FY00-01. These funds will be used to pay teacher salaries.
APPROPRIATION #20080
$126,341.47
Donations
M eriwether Lewis Elementary School received an anonymous donation in the amount of $949.00. This donation
was used to purchase a Mac Computer for the reading specialist.
Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $90.00 from John and Kristine Bean. This donation
will be used for the gifted program at the school.
Golden Apple Award
Three Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded Staff Development Stipends in the amount
of $1,000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award. Better Living, Inc. is the sponsor for the Golden Apple Award.
Learn and Serve Virginia Grant
The Leam and Serve Virginia Grant, from the Virginia Department of Education, has a fund balance in the amount
of $1,794.18. This grant will provide funding for the project Reading Together to Reach the Stars. This project
will develop and implement a model program of reading buddies, which pairs second and third graders with
preschool Children to ease transition of preschoolers into elementary school and to provide the second and third
graders with an opportunity to be leaders and practice reading and writing skills. This fund balance will help to
support this program.
Virginia Commission of the Arts
The Virginia Commission of the Arts has awarded Albemarle County Public Schools an Arts Education Technical
Assistance Grant in the amount of $489.00. This grant will fund a graphic design project for art teachers.
Donation
The Albemarle County Public Schools received a donation from B.F. Yancey P.T.A. in the amount of $1,500.00.
These funds are to maintain the services of a school nurse at Yancey Elementary School for the Extended
Learning Time Program this summer.
Adult Basic Education
Albemarle County Adult Basic Education provides tuition classes tailored to the individualized needs of the clients
of private companies, institutions and agencies when needed to supplement our existing classes. Additional
revenues in the amount of $1,400.00 have been received from Farmington Country Club in tuition fees for English
as a Second Language Class.
Standards of Learning Training Initiative Program
The Standards of Leaming Training Initiative Program provides the implementation and evaluation of a
comprehensive teacher training program to be conducted within the school division in the core content areas and
leadership training for administrative staffing implementing the SOL. The program collected $490.00 in tuition
fees. There is also a fund balance of $76,629.29 from FY99-00. These funds will be used to purchase
instructional materials, pay for staff development and consultants.
AIMR Summer Rental
During the April 12, 2001 meeting, the School Board approved a contract for Albemarle County Food Services to
provide catering services for the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) staff during the
rental of Monticello High School. Some expenses for food are incurred prior to the end of the current Fiscal Year.
The remaining expenses are incurred in FY01/02.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
00/01
NUMBER
20078
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES PROJECT.
CODE
1 1660 53014
I 1660 53014
I 1660 53014
1 1660 53014
1 1660 53014
I 1660 53014
1 1660 53014
1 1660 53O14
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*********************************** **************************************** *********************
410000 DATA PROCESSING
520300 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
540000 RENT
550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE
550402 TRAIN lNG
600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES
800200 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
800700 ADP
$ 100.00
800.00
1,800.00
175.00
500.00
300.00
3,900.00
2,45O.OO
CODE
2 t660 33000
TOTAL $10,025.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
330001 FEDERAL GRANT $10,025.00
TOTAL $10,025.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: SOCIAL SERVICES
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JUNE 30, 2001
.--,/
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR MATH SOL GRANT.
CODE
I 3141 61311
I 3141 61311
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GRANT
X
20079
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
132100 Salaries $4,709.88
210000 FICA 360.31
CODE
2 3141 33000
TOTAL $5:070.19
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
330212 Math SOL Grant $5,070.19
TOTAL $5,070.19
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JUNE 30, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 NUMBER
20080
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQU IRED ?
YES
NO
FUND: EDUCATION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 2115 61320 800700 ADP Equipment $ 949.00
I 2304 61104 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 90.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Dev 3,000.00
1 3126 63328 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies 1,794.18
I 3104 61311 580500 Staff Dev 489.00
1 3310 61120 133100PFFWages-Nurse 1,393.40
I 3310 61120 210000 FICA 106.60
1 3116 63348 132100 TeacherWages 1,300.51
1 3116 63348 210000 FICA 99.49
1 3139 60607 312500 Consultants 26,974.00
I 3139 60607 580500StaffDev 31,258.14
1 3139 60607 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 18,887.15
I 3002 63115 600200 Food Supplies 40,000.00
TOTAL $126,341.47
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $ 1,039.00
2 3104 18000 181258 Golden Apple Award 3,000.00
2 3126 51000 510100 Learn & Serve Grant 1,794.18
2 3104 24000 240345 Va. Com.-Arts 489.00
2 3310 18000 181246 Donation-SummerSch 1,500.00
2 3116 16000 161206Tuition-AdultEd 1,400,00
2 3139 16000 161201 Revenue-Tuition 490.00
2 3139 51000 510100 Approp-FundBal 76,629.29
2 3002 16000 161247AIMRSummer 40,000.00
TOTAL $126,341.47
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JUNE 30, 2001
David R Bowcrman
P~o
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charloffesvitle, Wrginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sali~ H. Thomas
Samuel Milhn'
August 3, 2001
Mr. and Mrs. John Bean
480 Lego Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bean:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation to Monticello High School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your
investment in our educational system. These funds will be used to help enhance the
quality of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued
support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
CC:
Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed'on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Chaflot[e Y. Humphfis
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 29-902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel 1Wilier
August 3, 2001
B. F. Yancey P.T.A.
Yancey Elementary School
7625 Porter's Rd.
Esmont, VA 22937
Dear P.T.A. Members:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for your
recent donation to provide a nurse to Yancey's Extended Learning Time Program. It is
a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational system. These funds will
be used to help enhance the quality of education provided to our students. Again,
thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Dr. Kevin C. Castner
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 02 Budget Amendment Public Hearing
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on Proposed FY02 Budget Amendments
in the amount of $393,586.00 and approval of
Appropriation #2001001, 2001002, 2001003, 2001004,
2001005, and 2001006 for various school and local
government programs and grants.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
August 1, 2001
ACTION: ×
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: /
BACKGROUND: /
The Code of Virginia {}15.2-2507 stipulates that the County must hold a public hearing to amend its current budget
if the additional appropriated amounts exceed 1% of the odginal budget.or $500,000, whichever is the lesser. The
Code section applies to all funds, i.e., Capital, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc., not just the General Fund or
County's adopted operating budget. To meet this requirement and to provide timely appropriation of funds, a
regular public hearing is scheduled on the first day meeting of each month to have all appropriations heard and
approved.
DISCUSSION:
This proposed FY02 Budget Amendment totals $393,586.00. The chart below breaks out the estimated revenues
and expenditures for the amendment in the General and School Funds.
ESTIMATED REVENUE
General Fund/Other Funds
Local Revenues
State Grant Revenues
Federal Grant Revenues
Transfer from School Fund
Fund Balance
$ 2,300.00
78,000.00
34,339.00
11,447.00
500.00
General Fund/Other Fund Estimated Revenue $ 126,586.00
Education Funds
AIMR Summer Rental
State Grant Revenues
$ 167,500.00
99,500.00
Education Funds Estimated Revenue
$ 267,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE
$ 393,586.00
07-23-07 p0 ~ : 33 IN
AGENDA TITLE: FY 02 Budget Amendment Public Hearing
AGENDA DATE: August 1, 2001
Page 2 of 2
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Operating Fund
Public Safety
Human Development
General Operating Expenditures
$ 126,086.00
500.00
$ 126,586.00
Education Operating Fund
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
$ 267,000.00
$ 393,586.00
This budget amendment consists of five appropriations that will need approval subsequent to the public hearing.
A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A,
RECOMMENDATION:
Subsequent to the public hearing, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors amend the FY02 Budget in the
amount of $393,586.00, and approve Appropriation #2001001, 2001002, 2001003, 2001004, 2001005, and
2001006 as detailed on the appropriation forms.
01.146
APPROPRIATION #2001001
$74,700.00
Appropriations
Attachment A
Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant
This is the fourth renewal of the Victim Witness Grant, an on-going program. This grant funds personnel and
supplies to provide quality service to victims particularly in the area of property crime. It also assists with
implementation of the Crime Victim Rights Act. The state grant totals $74,700.00. There is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #2001002
$267,000.00
Reading Excellence Act Grant
The Virginia Department of Education has awarded the Reading Excellence Act (REA) Grant in the amount of
$200,000.00 to Yancey Elementary School. The grant funding covers a period of two fiscal years. Funding for
the 2001-02 Fiscal Year is $99,500.00 and the 2002-03 Fiscal Year is $100,500.00. The REA Program is focused
upon training teachers to provide reading instruction that develops systematic phonetic decoding and
comprehension skills and learns to diagnose reading problems and apply specific early reading intervention.
AIMR Rental
During the Apd112, 2001 meeting, the School Board approved a contract for Albemarle County Food Services to
provide catering services for the Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) staff during the
rental of Monticello High School. Some expenses for food are incurred prior to the end of the current Fiscal Year.
The remaining expenses are incurred in FY01/02.
APPROPRIATION #2001003
$45,786.00
School Resource Officer Grant
An increase in the presence of additional School Resource Officers (SRO's) at the middle school level has
been identified by staff and community members as an area of ongoing need. Funding for one officer has
been procUred by a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services grant. The grant will be administered by
the Police Department and will cover 75% of salary and benefits. This is the third year of a three year
renewable grant.
The position will be funded by a $34,339.00 grant and local match of $11,447.00. The local match will be
funded by the School Budget. Additional equipment, training, and other operational costs will be funded by the
Police Department budget. An additional appropriation is not required for other operational costs.
APPROPRIATION #2001004
$1,000.00
EMS For Children Grant
The Virginia EMS for Children Program administered by the Virginia Commonwealth University has ap proved a
mini,grant providing funds to assist with a child passenger safety program. The min;-grant is funded by an
$1,000.00 Office of Emergency Medical Services grant. There is no local match.
APPROPRIATION #2001005 $4,600.00
EMS Training Grant
The Virginia Office of EMS has approved a mini-grant providing funds to assist with the purchase of a training
manakin to be used by both fire and rescue squads. The mini-grant is funded by a $2,300.00 Office of
Emergency Medical Services grant. There is a $2,300.00 local match that will be funded from current training
appropriations. No additional funds are required.
APPROPRIATION #2001006
$500.00
Charlottesville-Albemarle Youth Summit 2001 Contribution
During the July 11, 2001 meeting, The Board of Supervisors approved a $500 contribution to Youth Summit
2001, organized by Region Ten, MACAA, and Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries. The purpose of the
summit, scheduled for July 21, 2001, is to provide interactive workshops that will help educate local teens
and guide them forward into the future. No additional funds are required.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
VICTIM WITNESS GRANT
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GRANT
2001001
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 1225 31012 110000 SALARIES $52,011.00
1 1225 31012 210000 FICA 3,979.00
1 1225 31012 221000 VRS-RETIREMENT 4,338.00
1 1225 31012 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 3,036.00
1 1225 31012 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE 110.00
1 1225 31012 241000 VRS-LIFEINSURANCE 416.00
I 1225 31012 550000 TRAVEL 3423.00
1 1225 31012 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,387.00
TOTAL $74,700.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1225 24000 240500 STATE GRANT $74 700.00
TOTAL $74,700.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 9, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01102
NUMBER
2001002
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REA GRANT AND AIMR PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 3213 61101 112100 TeacherWages $ 45,000.00
1 3213 61101 210000 FICA 3,442.50
I 3213 61101 220000 VRS 4,891.50
I 3213 61101 230000 Health ns 3,225.00
1 3213 61101 232000 Denta 120.00
1 3213 61101 241000 Life Ins 360.00
I 32!3 61101 312000 Other ProfSvcs 3,800.00
I 3213 61101 580000 Misc. Expense 1,000.00
1 3213 61101 580500 StaffDev 14,000.00
1 3213 61101 601300 Ed/RecSupplies 13,161.00
1 3213 61101 800100 Mach/Equip 10,500.00
1 3002 63115 139320 PFFWages~ Sp. Events 92,812.00
1 3002 63115 210000 FICA 7,688.00
1 3002 63115 600000Materials&Supplies 8,375.00
I 3002 63115 600200 Food Supplies 50,250.00
1 3002 63115 800100Mach/Equip 8,375.00
TOTAL $267,000.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 3213 33000 330204 REA Grant $ 99,500.00
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR Summer 167,500.00
TOTAL $267,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 10, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01102
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER GRANT
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GRANT
X
X
2001003
CODE
1 1000 31013 110000
1 1000 31013 210000
1 1000 31013 221000
I 1000 31013 231000
I 1000 31013 232000
1 1000 31013 241000
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SALARIES
FICA
VRS-RETIREMENT
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS-LIFE INSURANCE
$36,755.00
2,812.00
3,065.00
2,760.00
100.00
294.00
CODE
2 1000 33000
2 1000 51000
TOTAL $45,786.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
330406 SRO GRANT $34,339.00
510307 SCHOOL FUND TRANSFER 11,447.00
TOTAL $45,786.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 10, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR:
01/02
NUMBER
2001004
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND:
GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING OF EMS CHILDREN GRANT.
CODE
1 1558 32015
EXPENDITURE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
~¢*$c~****~* ******************************************* ************************** **S¢**$c*~c****$c~c*****
601400 OPERATING SUPPLIES $1,000.00
CODE
2 1558 24000
TOTAL $1,000.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
¢c*~rcr*~r**** ******************************************* ************************** **~****~r*W~*W*******
240415 EMS GRANT $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/SAFETY
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
BOARD OFSUPERVlSORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 12, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR TRAINING MANIKIN GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
2001005
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GRANT
AMOUNT
1 1559 32012 601400 OPERATING SUPPLIES $ 4,600.00
TOTAL $ 4,600.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1559 24000 240415 EMS GRANT $ 2,300.00
2 1559 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F 2,300.00
TOTAL $ 4,600.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FIRE/SAFETY
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 12, 2001
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 01/02
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
CONTRIBUTION TO REGION X FOR YOUTH SUMMIT.
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
2001006
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
YES
NO X
GENERAL
AMOUNT
1 1000 59000 560167 YOUTH SUMMIT $ 500.00
TOTAL $ 500.00
REVENUE
CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 G/FBALANCE $ 500.00
TOTAL $ 500.00
TRANSFERS
REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
JULY 19, 2001
ROBINSON, 'ARMER, COX ASSOCIATES
C2~ TIF1ED .PUBLIC
January 2001
GASB 34
A PI~O£J~$IO2XiAI. LIMIT~D I. ZAB~ C03,iPAN¥
I£You Thought That Y2K Was Bad, Wait TEl You Meet
THE GREAT GASBY
~So we beat on, boats against thc current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
Look up ... it's a bird .... it's a plane ... No, it's GASB 34! Superman arrived to right wrongs and
save the imperiled. The GASB 34 phenomenon has simply spawned a cottage industry,
promoting a variety of goods and services. At Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, we were
satisfied with the format of local government financial statements currently in place. We
suspect that you were also content with the format. Nevertheless, the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board has presented us with Statement 34, "Basic Financial
Statements-and Management's Discussion: and Analysis-for State and Local Governments."
This statement provides to all governments in the United States a uniform way to present
financial information that differs entirely from existing presentations.
Much has been discussed about implementing GASB 34, but precious little has been presented
in terms of a strategy and proposed managerial tactics. Without a doubt, GASB 34 will present
both governmental officials and auditors with significant challenges. Now, what can we do?
FIRST
Let's start with the objective for all accounting and related reporting:
To aid a locality in preserving its financial strength, maintaining the integrity of fiscal
.operations, and developing timely relevant information in order to deliver the greatest
level of services to its citizenry.
To this end, we believe that a locality must have a financial report and auditors' opinion which
is unqualified. Hence, a new report with new financial statements must be created. We may
not have asked for GASB 34. We may not have wanted GASB 34. But we have GASB 34.
What does it mean to you?
Fitzgerald, F. Scott, The Great Gatsby, copyright 1925, Collier Books, New York, NY, 1986, p182
4' CHARLOTIZ~VILLIr '0' RICHJVfOND ~ RAD£OliD 't' STA UIVTOJV ~'
]2VT. b'RN/:' .T: www. rfc& cora
R F C - G A S B 34 - January
Page 2 of 3
THE BIGGEST CHANGE
Certainly the most dramatic change will be the loss of the term with which we are all so familiar:
"FUND BALANCE". This wonder term will now be called net assets and will include debt and
fixed assets in the mix. A word of caution: some localities will show negative net assets and
should prepare to address this issue in a pro-active way.
AND
The inclusion of a report by management similar to the vision given in an annual report by
executives of corporate enterprises will enable local government executives to deliver their own
State of the Locality address on their fiscal condition. In some cases, a greater understanding
of the contents of an audit report will result.
A business basis financial statement showing changes in net assets will shift the focus from
accountability and legal compliance to net income or net boss. This heightened focus on results
may shift awareness away from quality of service levels.
SOME SPECIFICS
Significant changes can be classified into 2 primary areas: reporting and depreciation of fixed
assets. A summary of significant changes follows:
REPORTING
GOVERNMENT -WIDE REPORTING: The new financial model's most significant change is
in the handling of government-wide reporting. GASB 34 insists that fund financial statements
be accompanied by government - wide financial statements. All activities reported in
government-wide financial statements will be reported on the accrual basis of accounting.
Statements will be in a "net expense" format. A reconciliation is required between the
governmental fund statements and the government-wide statements.
MD&A: Basic financial statements must be accompanied by a narrative introduction and
analytical overview in the form of a "management's discussion and analysis" (MD&A). The
MD&A must include 1) an objective discussion of the basic financial statements, 2) an analysis
of the overall financial position, 3) analysis of balances and transactions of individual funds, 4)
analysis of significant variations between original and final budget and final budget and actual
results, 5) a description of significant capital assets and long term debt activity, and 6) any
known facts, decisions, or conditions expected to have a significant impact on financial
positions. Without a doubt, considerable energy and resourceS must be committed to prepare
this section of the financial report.
+ 'CHARZO~ ~I-I~ + RICf-I~OND + RAI~ORD + STAU1VTO1V +
_rN~.. www. rfca. com ~
R F C - G A S B 34 - January 2001
Page 3 of 3
DEPRECIATION OF FIXED ASSETS
Traditionally, governments have not been required to report their general infrastructure assets,
such as roads, bridges, dams, etc, in their financial statements. However, under the new
reporting model, governments will be required to report depreciation expense for ALL capital
assets, including general infrastructure, in the government-wide financial statement. This
expense must be allocated to respective departments. Hence, a detailed depreciation
schedule must be prepared for each department, in addition to the ordinary and customary
fixed asset schedule.
OKAY, NOW WHAT?
To accomplish GASB 34, Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates has devised a strategic
implementation program that spreads the implementation and associated costs over a periOd
of two fiscal years. An abbreviated outline of our plan for this project covers the following areas
and schedule:
ACTION TIMETABLE
Establish oversight responsibility for implementation with Finance
Committee or other internal group
Begin organizing data collection and/or review for fixed assets
with emphasis on depreciation allocation to departments
3. Instruct Treasurer and Finance Department on data gathering for
full accrual method of accounting
Immediately
Begin immediately and have in
place by December 1,2001
Commence by January 1, 2002
4. Prepare Training Memorandum and Sample Financial Statements Available by July 31, 2002
for Governing Body
5. Review sample Management Discussion and Analysis with your January 1, 2003
auditor for content, clarity and approval
6. Conduct audit and prepare recast financial reports Fall of 2003
This general outline has been adopted by several localities striving to implement the changes
by FY 2001. In any event, Our goal is to insure thatyou have the support required to make
this change, and that you receive an unqualified auditors' opinion.
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates is fully committed assisting Virginia localities with the
implementation of GASB 34, and to ensuring that the financial reputation and credibility of the
Commonwealth remain solidly intact. Representatives will contact you in the near future to
discuss the tasks and costs associated with this transition.
+ CHARLOITFI~V~7.L~ + RICHAzIOND + RADFORD + STAUNTON
I~v'IER_NF~: wrtow.rfctt, corn
Robi nson, Farmer,
Cox Associates
and
B 34-The New
· Model
Means
Overview
Changes
Management Discussion and Ana
Government-wide Reporting
Infrastructure Assets to be Included
Fund Reporting
~estricted Use of [nterprise, Fiduciary an
Internal Service Funds
Elimination o.f Account Groups
Budgetary Reporting
Ma
nt Discussion
and
·
ys s
Required to be presented
supptementary information
entity's basic financiat stateme
Intended as summary of entity
operations and financial position.
Witt enabte user to anatyze retevant
data.
uired
Mana
and
ent Discussion
·
ys s
MDEA requires certain-subj
addressed:
- a discussion of the basic financiat state~
setected financiat information comparin~
current and prior years
- an anatysis of the overatt financiat position
resutts of operations
- anatysis of batances and transactions of
individuat funds
Ma
ent Discussion
and
ysis
· MDS:A requires certain su
addressed: (continued)
- anatysis of significant variations
to be
the original and final budset
- description of significant capital and
transactions during the year
- Known facts conditions or decisions tha
are expected to have a significant im
on the entity.
Government
Reportin8
t
Flow of economic resources mea~
focus rather than modified accrual.
Combines 8overnment and discretely
presented component units ~nto one co
- Business type activities in a separate column
Trust and asency funds no [onser re
Internal service funds no [onser allowed
Infrastru
re .Assets
Capitalized at historical cost a
depreciated over its useful [~fe.
Estlmated costs are allowable if
cost information is not available.
Allowable methods to estimate costs:
- estimated historical cost
- deflated current replacement cost
- current replacement cost, not deflated
- Current replacement cost, adjusted for conditi
Modif'
roach
Governments may be able to
requirement to report depreciati
for networks or subsystems of infras
assets by usin~ the modified approach
Preservation costs used in lieu of
depreciation.
There are certain conditions that must be
met before the modified approach can be
used.
~ense
Modifie
ach
· Must have an up-to-date
assets.
inventory
rastructure
The ~overnment must perform or obtain
assessments on infrastructure assets at lea:
every three years.
Year[y, the ~overnment must estimate the a
needed to maintain and preserve infrastructure
assets.
· The ~overnment must document that infrastr~
assets are b.ein~ preserved at or above the conditio
[eve[ established by the government.
Fund
rting
Separate statements required
category, major funds are rep.o
separate columns and non-ma]or flu
reported in separate column [abe[ed
"other".
fund
Reportin fund types, (such as ecia[
revenue 8and caPita[ projects), ~sPno longer
required for governmental funds in the
financial statements.
Sta
of Net Assets
Format wit[ consist of separate
governmental and proprietary
Preferred approach is to present
liabilities in their relative order of
· Alternative approach is to classify assets
liabilities as current or Ion8 term.
mns for
Sample
CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
ASSETS
Cash and Cash Ecuivalents
nvestments
Securities Lending
Receivables (net)
Due From Other Governments
Due From Component Unit
Inventories
Prepaids
Other Assets
Capital Assets:
Non-depreciable
Depreciable, net
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Accounts Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Accrued Interest Payable
Advance Payments
Due To Primary Government
Deferred Revenue
Securities Lending
Non-Current liabilities
Due Within One Year:
Bonds and Loans Payable
Compensated Absences
Due tn More Than One Year:
Loans Payable
Bonds Payable
Compensated Absences
Claims Liabilities
Advances from Orange County
Advances from City of Orlando
Total Liabilities
NET ASS ETS
Invested in Capital Assets,
net of related debt
Restricted for:
Capital Projects
Debt S ervice
Renewal and Replacement
Unrestricted (Deficit)
Total Net Assets
Governmental Business-type
Activities Activities Total
228,965,257 $ 167,794,437 $ 396,759,694 $
45,532,491 35,907,173 81,439,664
101,262,989 101,262,989
15,786,225 5,424,173 21,210,398
13,379,679 209,626 13,589,305
2.000,000 2,000,000
1,185,970 382,618 1,568 588
126,699 4,250 130,949
1 151,313 1,253,438 2,404,751
44,190,825 43,416,560 87,607,385
147,164,815_ 483,278,782 630,443,597.
600,746,263,, 737,671,057 1,338,417,320_
15,562,386 8,884,811 24,447,197
3,917,770 618,719 4,536,489
3851,105 4,048,763 7,899,868
7,009,634 16,240,620 23,250,254
8,436.866 8,436,866
101,262,989
101,262,989
Component
Units
3,929,029
1,367,890
1,057,136
1,935,745
41,867
42.414,632
50,746,299,,
2,249,965
22,246
113,707
2,000,000
4,975,000 10,877,752 15,852,752 601,662
1,325,608 164,865 1,490,473 8,473
99,971,200 24,547,761 124,518,961
104,048,966 187,676,318 291,725,284
14,600,311 1,89~934 16,496,245
18,570,354 18,570,354
383,532,189 254,955 543. 638,487,732 .
56,675,701 329,329,042 386,004,743
27,251,509 38,053,359 65,304,868
11,400,000 11,400,000
4,906,928 4,906,928
133,286,864 99,026 185. 232,313,049
$ 217,214,074 ~ $ 482,715,514 $ 699,929,588
3,179,164
3,231,903
97,445
5,559,000
13,372,635
30,436,200
35,915,770
190,676
(15,796,347,
$ 20 310,099
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statementS.
-13-
Statem
Activities
Expenses presented before
Emphasizes revenues are for p
services and not to maximize rev
First col. umn shoutd present the di
expenses associated with each of t
government's functionat activities.
es.
Sample
1 Basic-GW-StmtActivites.xls
CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Function/Program Activities
Primary Goverment:
Governmental Activities:
General Government
Planning and Development
Finance
Public Works
Community and Youth Services
Police
Technology Management
Human Resources
Fire
Community Redevelopment Agency
Centroplex
Securities Lending
Lynx/Transit Subsidy .
Street Lighting
Payments to Component Units
Other
Interest on Long-Term Debt
Unallocated Depreciation
Total governmental activities
Business-type Activities:
Environmental Services
Wastewater
Solid Waste
Centroplex
Parking
Stormwater Utility
Total business-type activities
Total primary goverment
5/4/00 6:29 PM
Expenses
Chargesfor
Services
Proqram Revenues
Operating
Grants and
Contributions
Capital
Grants and
Contributions
24,542,089
13,263,183
2,122,274
31,727,229
14,639,574
64,042,308
5,337,044
1,542.522
31,478,359
6,386,307
658,740
5,011,030
3,926,250
3,197,669
1,913,136
4,415,120
7,267,160
1,580,489.
223,050,483 ,.
$ 2,011,989 $
498,565
539,621
3,339,615
1,285,115
9,930,244
5,985
3,592
302,553
1,920,744
221,673
5,257,222
7,024,941
673,446
144,556
735,009
29,500
3,226
$
I 566,392
5,000,000
25.316,918 8,610,677 6,566,392
58,632.640 59,295,592
13,763,092 14,375,948
18,044,153 13,057,803
12,016,022 10,621,191
6,627,924 10.129~034
109,083,831 107,479,568
$ 332,134,314 $ 132~796,486, $ 8,610.677
$ 6,566,392.
Component units:
Downtown Development Board
Civic Facilities Authority
Total component units
$ 2,000,532 $ $
4,954,216 1.773,477, 3,797,024
$ 6,954,748 $ 1,773,477 $ 3,797,024
General Revenues:
Taxes:
Property taxes, levied for general purposes
Sales and Gas Taxes
Occupational Licenses and Franchise Fees
Public Service Taxes
Tax Increment Fees
Fines aha Forfeitures
Grants ann contributions not restricted to specific programs:
Orlando Utilities Commtssion
Other
Impact Fees
Investment Earnings
Payment to Component Unit
Miscellaneous
Special Item - Gain on sale of Navy Base Land
Capital Contributions
Transfers:
Subsidy Transfers
Other Transfers
Total General Revenues, Special Items, and Transfers
Change in Net Assets
Net assets - Beginning (Restated)
Net assets - Ending
-14- Odd
Net {Expense) Revenue and
Chanqes in Net Assets
Prir~arv Government;
Governmental Business-Woe
Activities Activities Total
Comloonent
Units
$ (22,530,100)
(5,739.677)
(1,582.653)
(26,147,776)
(13,209,903)
(53,377,055)
(5,331,059)
(1.538,930)
(31,146,306)
537,662
(437,067)
246.192
(3,926,250)
(3,197,669)
(1,913,136)
(4.415,120)
(7,267,160)
(1,580~489)
(182,556~496)
(182~556r496)
$ $
662,952
612,856
(4,986,350)
(1,394,831)
3~501~110
(1 ~604~263)
(lr604r2631
(22,530,100)
(5,739,677)
(1,582.653)
(26,147,776)
(13,209,903)
(53,377,055)
(5,331,059)
(1,538,930)
(31,146,300)
537,662
(437,067)
246.192
(3,926,250)
(3,197,669)
(1,913,136)
(4.415,120)
17.267,160)
(1 ~586,489'~
(182~556~496)
662,952
612,856
(4,986,35O)
(1,394,831)
3~501~110
(1,604~263)
(184~160~759)
53,915,499
30,867,888
22,102,594
29,521,550
4,856,780
2,251,575
31,350,352
9,798,219
5,443,993
5,004,658
10,417,158
1,424,605
(3,055,947)
2~422~086
206~321~010
23,764,514
193~449~560
$ 217~214~074
6,202~ 940
674,402
3,055,947
(2~422~086)
7,511 ~203
5,906,940
476~808~574
$ 482~715~514
(2,000,532)
616~285
(1~384~247)
53,915,499 964,843
30,867.888
22,102,594
29,521,550
4,856,780
2,251,575
31,350,352
9,798,219
5,443,993
11,207,598 278,790
373,000
10,417,158 335,006
1,424.605
674.402
213~832~213 1~951~639
29,671,454 567,392
670~258~134 19~742~707
$ 699~929~588 $ 20~310~099
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements,
Fund
rtin.g
Two new fund types estab[is
funds (governmentat) and private
trust funds (fiduciary).
Governments must present a summary
reconcitiation to the government-wide
financiat statements.
Reconcitiation may be quite comp[ex due
the difference in measurement focus and
ermanent
basis of accounting.
Sample
ASSETS
Current Cash and Cash Equivalents
Current Investments
Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents
Restricted Investments
Securities Lending Collateral
Receivables
(Net of Allowance for Uncollectibles):
Accounts
Taxes
Special Assessments
Due from Other Funds
Due from Other Governments
Prepaid Items
Inventories
Other Assets
Total Assets
General
CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA
BALANCE SHEET
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Utilities Transportation
Services Gas Tax Im pact
Tax Revenue Fees
$ 56,055,020 $ 16,966,027 $ 17,298,426 $. 23,608,933
101,262,989
10,935,438
457,444
990,135
3,309,926
5,004,255
94,807
787,895
2,676,849
$ 178,897,909 $ 19,642,876 $
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:
Accounts Payable $
Accrued Liabilities
Compensated Absences
Advance Payments
Due to Other Funds
Short-term Loans from Other Funds
Deferred Revenue 4,880,866
Obligations Under Securities Lending 101,262,989
Accrued Interest Payable
Total Liabilities 118,274,979
Fund Balances:
Reserved for:
Debt Service
Prepaid Items 94.807
Inventodes 787,895
Encumbrances 463,587
Unreserved, reported in:
General Fund 59,276,641
Special Revenue Funds
Capital Preiect Funds
Total Fund Balances 60,622,930
Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 178,897,909
347,272
21,925
1,841,731
19,509~354
3,892,261
3,651,137
1,229,992
3,357,734
$ 111 $
111
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
$ 6,040,828
19,997,308
2.838,767
17,770,175
31,892
23,608,933 $ 46,678~970
19,642,765
536,441 $ 1,256
400
73,463
74,719
23,534,214
1,774,736
2,311,577
4,096,413
13,101,364
19,642,765 17,197.777 23,534,214
$ 19,642,876 $ 19,509,354 $ 23,608,933
$ 4,328,327
11,021
2,000
17;776
1,681,827
6,040,951
18,790,951
31,892
8,901,911
4,142,940
8,770,325
40,638,019
$ 46,678,970
-16-
Other Total
Capital Governmental Governmental
Improvement Funds Funds
$ 28,874,810 $ 24,819,140 $ 173,663,184
19,997,308
2,838,767
17,770,175
101,262,989
70,357 70,658 14,100,574
457.444
1,012,060
3,309,926
6,534,193 13,380,179
126,699
76,882 864,777
42,033 42,033
$ 28,945,167 $ 3t~542,906 $ 34&826~115
$ 2,678,261 $
3,632,857
6,311,118
2,927,840 $ 14,364,497
51,377 3,713,535
56,015 1,286,007
16,643 7,009,634
1,292,136 1,309,912
4,500,000 4,500,000
1,707,801 8,436,866
101,262,989
1,681.827
10,551,812 143,565.267
1,735,727
18,790,951
126,599
76,882 864~777
3,435,821 18,633,459
59,276,641
3,119.332 63,540.615
20,898,322 14,359.059 44,027,706
22,634,049 20,991,094 205,260,848
$ 28.945,167 $ 31,542,906 $ 348,826.115
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
(continued)
-17-
CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA
RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET
TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
Fund balances - total governmental funds
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because:
Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial
resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds.
Governmental capital assets
Capitalized interes!
Less accumulated depreciation
Other assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources
and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds.
Bond costs
Less current year amortization
$ 252,166.103
2,089,658
(82,721,667)
644,314
(31,302)
$ 205,260,848
171,534,094
613,012
Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable are not due aha payable
in the current period and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds
Governmental bonds payable
Discount
Current year amortization
Compensated Absences
Governmental banking fund debt
Intemat service funds are used by management to charge the
costs of certain activities to individual funds.
The assets and liabilities of the internal service funds that are
reported with governmental activities.
Net assets of governmental activitites.
(105;665,000)
389,979
(18,946)
(14.144,908)
(73,208,441)
(192,647,316)
32,453,436
$ 217,214,074
The accompanying notes are an integral pan of the financial statements
-18-
Enterpr
Funds
May be used when a fee is cha
externat users for ~oods and serw
required.
Fnterprise fund required if:
tO
an activity if an actlvity is financed with d~
secured so[e[y by a pledge of its net revenue',
from fees
has taws or re~u[ations requidn~ that costs of
providin~ services be recovered with fees
has pricin~ po[ides that establish fees designed
to recover its costs
Other
Chan es
Contributed capital and retai ,arninss
rep[.aced with the term "net asse: r
enterprise fund equity.
Fiduciary funds only used to report
held in a trustee or asency capacity for
others, not when used to support the
~overnment's own pro~rams.
Governments will eliminate most internal
service fund amounts to avoid overstatin8
the finanda[ statements.
[imination
nt
Groups
The genera[ long term debt a
genera[ fixed asset account gro
no tonger be appticabte under the
GASB 34 modet.
Bud
Reportin8
Budsetary comparison schedu
required showin8 the oris1na[ and
budset and actual amounts on the
basis.
[ be
Required for the genera[ fund and each
major specia[ revenue fund with a tegalty
adopted budget.
Government may choose to present this
statement as a basic financial statement.
Imp[em
ion Dates
· Revenues in excess of $100 million
- Effective FYE:
-Infrastructure
· Revenues in excess of $10 million but [ess than
million
June 30., 2002
FYE: June 10, 2005
- Effective FYE: June 30, 2003
- Infrastructure FYE: June 10, 2005
Revenues [ess than $10 million
Effective FYE: June 30, 2004
- Infrastructure FYE: June 10, 2007
To:
From:
Dat~.
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella Washington Carny, CMC,
Reading List for August !, 2001
july 24, 2001
March 21(A), 2001
Apdt 18, 2001
Apdt 25, 2001
May 2, 2001
May 9, 2001
May 16, 2001
June 6, 2001
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Thomas
Ms. Humphris
Pages 1-27 - Mr. Perkins
Pages 28 ~ end - Mn Martin
Mr. Dorrier
Pages [~ 18 (end at Item 6a) - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 18 (Item 6a) - 36 - Mr. Dorrier
Pages 37~end - Ms. Humphris
/ewc
Il
AUGUST I, 2001
CLOSED SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
· UNDER SUBSECTION ( I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS;
UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
AND STAFF REOARDING PROBABLE LITIGATION AND OTHER
SPECIFIC LEGAL MA-f'TERS RELATING TO THE IVY LANDFILL ; AND
· UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MA-f-I'ERS RELATING TO
A BREACH OF A CONTRACT.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
Members of the Board of Su~,.ervisors
Laurie Bentley~ C.M.C./' "~/(~ i~J
Senior Deputy Clerk ~
July 27, 2001
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through November 30, 2001.
Thank you.
Cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
Chamber of Commerce
~ ~ ~
NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL
BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT?
Advertised twice; rec'd no Margaret Bom/hat 9130/00 9/29/03 No
applications,
12fl 3100 12113/02 No
1 application (Perkins) sent on 2/2~0,Daniel Montgomery
Readvertised; mc'd no new
applications. ~.
. ~ · ~ . Clark C. Jackson 6/30/01 6/30/05 Not eligible
~ 6/3/01 6/3/04 , Yes
3 interviews to b ~ N/A N/A _
~ Marie Conte
obert L. Self N/~
2 interviews to be held 8/!/0t, Happy Darcus (youth 6/30/0t 6/30/03 (Graduated)
Resigned
Advertised; applications due Frank Kessler 1 I-t -0
Advertised; applications due Lisa Briskey 12-31-01 Resigned
915101. _. . . . . - - ....
WISH TO BE
NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL
BOARD OR COL~.JSSION MEMBER ~ TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT?
Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, an N/A No set terms, ' (See note,)
Wayne Citimberg wish to be
removed from this commit[~e.
Mr. Perkins suggests appointing
Joe Jones to serve as County
~E. Gaines 1't-2_1-01 .~ Yes. . .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mere bers of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Laurie Bentley, C.M.C./~
Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: July 27, 2001
RE: Applications for Boards and Commissions
I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions. Please
note that you will conduct interviews for both the Historic Preservation Committee and the Commission on
Children and Families. Thankyou.
Attachments
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 2964843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type ot piint.)
Board/Commission/Committee
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located
Employer
Business Address
Home Phone ~ Z3-- :5'..~ / ~
./
Phone
Years Resident in Albemarle County ~'~
Previous Residence
Education ,(Degrees and Graduation Dates)
Date of Employment
Spouse's Name _) e' eve. r~
Number of Children
Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Sodal Groups _
Public, Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interest.
Reason0) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee,
Th~7~mlation provided on this application will be released to the public upon
Signature / Date/
Return to:
Cletl~ Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
FAX: (8O4) 29648OO
05- 14-0 I
A10:57
GIB$ON/H~GERFIELD Fax:804-295-66~4 Ha9 ~ '01 12:~6
C.~n~ral Contractors (AGC)
ASSOCIATIONS
Technical Education Center (CATBC)
Foundation Board
Langford Farms Architectural Review Board
Chairman
National Trust For H/stofic Preservation
Preservation Alliance of Virlgnia
Virginia Historical Society
1993
1987- Present
CONFERENCES
Successful Rehabilitation
Association For Preservation Technology
National Park Senzice
National Trust For Historic Preservation
Savannah, Cmorg/a
i984
Association For Preservation T~chnology
Annual Conference
Boston, MA
Make No Li~e Plan~
Association For Preservation T~chnology
Chicago, Illinois
· Confluence and Continuity
Association For Pr~o~ation Technology
Annual Conference
New Orleans, Louisiana
Rest0rc
R]~ Productions
S~ Francisco, CA
National Trust For H/storic Preservation
Annual Conference
Satna Fe, New Mex/co
1987
1989
199I
1995
1997
County of Albemarle
OtT~e of ]~:~l of Coum
~ 40t Me, Ind~
Ch~otmavlll~-VA 22902'4596
(8o4)
GIBSON/~AGERFIELD
Fax:804-295-6654
Mag 4 '01
12:46
P. 02
PERSONAL
EDUCATION
PUBLICATIONS
& PAPERS
EXPERIENCE
woodlmry Fore~ S~hool
Orange, Virginia
Cemre College of Kentucky
Danville, l~ntu~ky
(B,A. Art History)
1970
1974
September 8, 1989 Chicago, Illinois
Paper presented m Ibc Association For
Preservation Technolol~ (APT)
~ Historic Structures ~ Modern
Paper presented to th~ Association For
Preservation Technology (APT)
SepUmaber 26, 1991 ~ew Orleans, Louisiana
~ His¢oric Foundations
Old House Jounud, Lane Press May/June 1992
Volume XX, Number 3, p. 41-4~ Burlington, Vermont
Fairfax County Park A~hori~y
(History ~ont -
National Trust For Historic
Preservation - at Lyndhurst
(Restoration Workshop - Crafaman
AOpmuic~)
Oibson/lVlagerfteld Corp.
President
President Local Chaptm Associated
1974-1975
1975- 1977
1977-Present
1991-1993
County of Albemarle
B oard/Commission/Commktee
Applicant's Name
Full Home Address
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMlV~SSION/COM1VffTTEE
(Please type or print.)
/~' ~/P-~rg"~t"~v' Home Phone
Magisterial District in wkich your home residence is located
Employer
Business Address
Occupation/Tide
Years Resident in Albemarle County
Previous Residence /3'"~g'
Dare of EmpIoy~ent
Spouse's Name J~)~c.y ~. z:Ja/"~a~.~lR2
Number of Ch/Idren .~' ("~-o~,aw.$ ,~.~Z~
..Educa2on (Degrees and Graduation Dates) ~5~//~ ~',4/d~,~ ~.2,W/V~',~-,, ,r~,, /t~J"~a' MO/. ///t4~'~Z~_./.,o ~/ff,,V.,/~Oa-~a.
MembersNps ~ Fratemfl, B~Mess, Ch~ch ~d/or Soci~.Groups W~vg& ~a~z ~~,' ~~ ~'
PubEc, CMc ~d Ch~mbte Of[ce ~d/or ~her A~des or Ntere~s ~e ~~~
Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee ~e,~
%e N~~~ be fete=ed co ~e pubEc won requeg.
Silage Date
Return Eo:
Clerk, Board of CountY Supervisors
.Albemarle County
401 Mclndre Road
Charlottesville. VA 229¢2-4596
F.~MK: (8C4~ 296-58CC
PAUL R. BROCKMAN
680 Broad Axe Road
'~' ~, ~ ~ Charlottesville, VA 22903
~- 804-977-3440
" brockm~nfmly~_,earthlink~net
SUMMARY OF.EXPERIENCE EH HISTORY AND I~IsToRIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Brockman began reading history, independent of his formal education, at the age of 10. By the
age of 14, he had read the complete works of Toynbee, Beard, the Durants, and Churchill as well
as works by other modem historians. He passed by examination out of all history requirements at
the undergraduate level.
While an undergraduate at Baker University, and during the early years of his public service career
in Washington, D.C., Mr. Brockman undertook research on his own initiative to establish the
significance of the Mine Creek and Little Osage battlefields in Linn County, Kansas--sites of the
only engagements in Kansas between regular forces of the Union and Confederate armies. The
results of this research were used by Congressmen George and Ellsworth in their successful efforts
to secure National Military Historic Monument status for the sites as part of the Fort Scott National
Military Park.
During and shortly after his first residence in Albemarle County, bom 1966 to 1967--while
studying at the University of Virginia as a Fellow of the National Institute of Public Affairs--he
began private research into the history of Central Virginia as a part of his efforts in behalf of the
Brockman family to develop a comprehensive history of that family and the families allied with it
by marriage. This family came to Orange County in 1734, spread into Albemarle County in 1761,
and was part of the Great Migration to the South and West. It now has family members spread
across the nation. Mr. Brockman is historian for the family, and is nearing completion of the
family history. He will serve as one of the hosts for a nationwide family reunion in Charlottesville
and surrounding areas in June 2001.
While serving with NASA at its Headquarters in Washington, D.C., he was elected to the Falls
Church, VA, City Council in 1971, and the following year became that city's member of the Board
of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). From I973 until the
end of his term in 1976, he chaired both Committees representing the local governments of that
region in preparing for the Bicentennial o fthe United States: the Congress of Bicentermial
Commissions, concerned with historic and celebratory observances, and the COG Special
Committee on the Bicentennial, concerned with assuring adequate public services and safety during
the Bicentennial Year.
In 1975, after experiencing the limitations on governmental efforts in historic preservation, he
founded Historic Falls Church, Inc. (HFCI), as a public-benefit, private corporation to conduct
preservation activities in accord with the special tax treatment provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code. He was President and CEO of I-[FCI for three years, before turning it over to others. It
continues as a vital preservation force in Falls Church--holding and administering preservation
easements, and managing a revolving fund which it uses to intervene in the saving of endangered
landmark buildings. He co-authored the successful National Register nomination for the Birch
House, the most historic remaining residence in the City of Falls Church.
2
In I977 and 1978, he was co-chair of the Committee on History of The Falls Church, one ofthe
three remaining late Colonial churches designed by Col. James Wren and built by Col. Wren.
From 1985 to 1987, he was on the Committee on Historic Ministries of a second of these churches:
Christ Church, Alexandria. For some 30 years, he has been a member of the Historical Society of
Fairfax County, and is currently a member of the Albemarle and Orange County Historical
Societies, the National Genealogical Society, and the Mid-Atlantic German Society.
In 1980, Mr. Brockman formed a limited partnership to acquire and hold one of the then-threatened
fortifications associated with the Aquia Creek Landing area northeast of Fredericksburg in Stafford
County. This site was of strategic significance in relation to the Fredericksburg campaign in the
War between the States. It subsequently became known as the Brockman-Henderson Fort Site and
was placed on Stafford County's initial set of historic overlay districts. In 1994, he sold the fort to
an equally dedicated preservationist, Dr. Thomas Mountz, who continues its preservation and
restoration.
Recognizing the value of public benefit corporations such as HFCI in the preservation and
restoration of historic areas across America--including among others Charleston, S.C., Savannah,
GA, Philadelphia, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA--and becoming aware of the absence of such an
organization in Central Virginia focused on landmarks of local significance--Mr. Brockman
incorporated Preservation Central, Inc., in October 2000, and serves as ks President and Executive
Director. Preservation Central has a service area that includes Albemarle, Amherst, Fluvanna,
Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange counties and the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Brockman has recently finished building a new home for his wife and himself in the Samuel
Miller district--designed to give the appearance of Virginia I-farmhouse of the type built between
1780 and 1850 while exploiting both historic and moderu energy-efficient techniques in its design
and construction. In addition to his activities in preserving buildings and sites, he and his wife
initj~iated the revival of the art of Scottish fiddling in the United States through the founding of
workshops in 1975, bfnational championship competitions in 1976, and incorporation of the. U.S.
Scottish Fiddling Revival, Ltd. in 1978. Mr. Brockman is a member of the Beacon Club of
Charlottesville and the St. Andrews Society of Washington, D.C., and is a life member of the
Alumni Association of the University of Virginia.
County of Albemarle
Full Home.Ackit-e.~s
· ~ ~ o£Employn:~
Spouse's N~ne - "'
-- Numbe¢ of Ch./ld.t~~' ' .
Return to:
County of Albemarle
APPLI~ON TO St!:R~ ON BOARD/COUrUr~ON/COMbi1TTi~~
.......... ........... :'"'-'"": :'o:"-'
~~~~:~i.-.:.+.:...:....,.~.~.....~~ -- ....::~.:.:...:.:........... ........ ....
Ma~vler~ D~rict in w~ich your ho~ ~ ls loca~l .:.~? }~.:.. (:;~!::.::..;::..?.:.?.~.:`:.::~??::::::.~: :.:....~.?:.~ :;~:..:~.~`:`:~ `. :~.~...~ ...... ,.:' -.: ........ .~ . . .
................ .... ....... :~...~:.~:::~.:;:~.:...":.:..::..:.~.:~:.:~....::~`~:~.?:.~¥..:`%.~?.:..?~:~`,. ~ :.:..:.:~:::.:.::.... :.`.::::.~.?;:...: :.;.:.:.:~.: ....
B1LVtlle~i ACI~ :.~..:~::~.~:..::~:..:..:~::~::~.:;~.`.....:::.:.~:.~:.?.:.:~:::~:.:~.:.:::~:~::~:.. '.::... ...........
-- ~--~-' .... ' ....':'"'"'~"'"~::?::;-'"':;-::~!::'¥":;'::!"'-~::' ~potls~'s Name
.................. '::'":"::'::::~"""':;:;::::'::"::':'::;'":-""?""::": Numb~
Edncat~ ~_ and Grarhat~,~ Dat~l ...... !~ ~~."lm~. ~a." '~:17t~" '. ....................
- . ..~--~:~: ......... .::.....:::...`:::....:.::.::.:~.:;..~?......:.:::.:.::/.:.v:.?.:.::....::....~..:: .~..,........: .........
.......... :""~', ...... ? .-'-'.'_' ~:..':.'.'.::?.._:.::.._?::'..'...:::~.~.i.::?!??..:.'-..!::?'..:
~' , ' .'. ..... ~'L~.~:':'.,.-:'
..'.~2~½2~2-~,~-';-"~'.2~ ....... · .. · .,.. . . .. ~J~ ~il ~r~.1 .~-:..-.;F~..:...?-..c:.-.:~......-;.~::.:.~.:~.~.~::.:.~.~:;:::-.`~L:.:...-~::...~ ...... · ........
............. · .~ ..............~: ::...:..'.:..~:.: ?~.:..?.~.:.'.:.;.:.:!::;.,:':.?:::::/: :~;.::.:::?2?.:v~::::);:-...:;~:..?::?..::~.c..~....:.:...?..-y..:-..:;.:::;;~E:..~.::(.E:~.3?-~-:~:;-.::;:.:.;~.:~c::~c~:.~.;..::~c~:~:--.~..~--~ .:..:.~..~....
~i ........ .'- .:.'. '..:.': ....... ; ........... ~n~,~n ' "~ ~nm~¥ ....... ,:f~: .... ' ........... . - --
.... ~.. . . · .... ......,.. ....... -...,:....:,.:: ...-.:.:...,.~.~, :... ......................... : ........
, ~ ' '- ..... ,~...' .--..;-.~' v..-,:-.'~;:: ;:.:.:-.,?::;-.;.:...: 'h.": .'.;,:: :'.':" ;:.::.: :". "..:,: '.,:",.';':~:.> :.".':'.'..:; ;¢';": ':;". ?~-: '.';: L" ;".;;:2.:.'.; :'?:~. '.'.;:..'.,' ~.-'...'
............... ,,., ..: :~:;:-~....--.-.:-...:. ~,: ..:;-. ;..:~;~,; :;...:.:~.~::..-.::.;::....-....;..::. Q
I
......................... '-': :' ""'"'":' '-:':?~:: ::'~-::~::':::-::'5::'~:%";::':' ~:'~.':;~.;:!~"..:',:::'..:"::::::/::"..:.:::~<?..::..:':.::'...: ......
T~e au~mna~on provt:led on tbfs app/tcatton ~ be reteased to the pablk:
~bemarle Comn'y
401 Mclmim Road
Charlo~c.,~v~ VA
David R Bowerman
Rio
lind.say G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charlotte Y Hurnphris
Jack Joue~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, V~rginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivaraa
Walter E Perkins
White Ha~
Sall~ H. Thomas
Samuel
August 6, 2001
Mr. D. Jameson Gibson Jr.
51 Langford PI.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Mr. Gibson:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 1, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Historic Preservation Committee with said term effective August 1, 2001 (no expiration date). I have
enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
SHT/laD
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
Enclosure
CC:
James Camblos
Margaret Maliszewski
Printed on recycled paper
GIBSON/MAGERFIELD
Fax:804-295-6654
Mag 4 '01 12:46 P. O1
County of Albemarle
Of~e of Boazd of Cotmt7 Supervisors
40t McI~ti~
Cl:~tlottesville, VA 22902,.4596
GIBSON/MRGERFIELD Fax:804-29S-665~ Mag 4 '01 12:~6 P. 02
D. Jameson Gibson, Jr.
PERSONAL
EDUCATION
PUBLiCATIONS
& PAPERS
EXPERIENCE
Children
Woodbe~ Forest School
Orange, Virginia-
1970
Centre College of Kentucky
Danville, Kentucky
(B.A. Art His~ry)
1974
_Th¢ ,,Role OfAtmrenticeshjp T..mining
September 8, 1989 Chicago, Illinois.
Paper presented to the Association For
Prese~afion Technology (APT)
~ Historio S~S ~ ,Modern
Paper presented to the Association For
Preservation Technology (APT)
September 26, 1991 New Orleans, Louisiana
~ Historic Foundation~.
OM House Journal, Lane Press May/June 1992
Volume XX, Number 3, p. 41-45 Burlington, Vermont
Faiffax County Park Authority
(History I~par~ent - Cra~man)
1974- 1975
National Trust For H/storic
Preservation - at Lyndhurst
(Restoration Workshop -Craftsman
Apprenti~)
1975 - 1977
~ibson/Mag~-,ffield Corp.
President
197% Present
OTt~R President Local Chapter Associated I991 - 1993
6IgSON/HRGERFIELD Fax:804-295-6654 H89 4 '01 12:46 P. 05
Oeneral Contractors (AC-C)
ASSOCIATIONS
Clmirman Charlottesville-Allaemaxl=
Techn/oal Education C~ntex (CATEC)
Fotmdation Board
Landlord Farms Architectural Review Board
Chairman
National Trust For H/storic Preservation
Preservation Alliane~ of Vir/inia
Virginia Historical ~ci~
1993
1987-Present
CONI~RENCES
Suexe.s. sful Rehabilitation
Association For Preservation Technology
National Park S,~vie~
Nat/onal Trust For Historic PreserVation
Savannah, Cnorgia
1984
20/20 Visjo~
Association For Preservation Technology
Annual Conference
Boston, MA
M~e No Little Plans
Association For Preservation Technology
Annual Conference
Chicago, Illinois
Confluence and Continuity_
Association For Presorvation Technology
Annual Conferenc~
New Orleans, Louisiana
Restore
REI Productions
5~n Francisco, CA
National Trust For Historic Preservation
Annual Conference
Sama Fe, New Mexico
1987
1989
1991
1995
1997
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Li~dsay G. Dottier, ~r.
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jac~ Joue~
COUlXlTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(8041 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivar~a
Walter E Perkins
Wh~e Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
August6,2001
Mr. J. Walter Levering
110B Second St., NE
Charlottesville VA 22902
Dear Mr. Levenng:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 1, 2001, you were reappointed to the
Workforce Investment Board, with said term to run from July 4, 2001 through June 3, 2004. I have
enclosed an updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
!
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
CC:
Commonwealth's Attorney
Bitlie Cam pbell
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsa9 G. Dorrier, Jr.
Sco'd~xnlle
Charlotte Y. Hurnphris
Jack Joueli
COUNTY OF ALB~
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vir§inia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel ~
August 6, 2001
Ms. Ashley G. Young
6775 Wildon Grove Rd.
Gordonsville, VA 22942
Dear Ms. Young:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 1 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Commission on Children and Families, with said term to run from August 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003. I
have enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Roxanne White
Printed on recycled paper
County ,of Albemarle
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON
481 McIn~d~e ~
Chm'lotle~. VA
F,~m (804)
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.
Scotts~ille
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Waiter E Perkins
White Hall
Sall.v H. Thomas
~mud l~ler
August6,2001
Mr. Joseph H. Jones
3630 Browns Gap Turnpike
Crozet, VA 22932
Dear Mr. Jones
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on August 1, 2001, the Board appointed you to the
Shenandoah National Park Advisory Committee, with said term to run from August 1, 2001 (no expiration
date). I have enclosed a roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the County in this capacity
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc: James Camblos
Printed on recycled paper