HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-10 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors ..u,~ting of April 10, 2002
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
1. Call to order.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agei~da.
,, Mr. and Mrs. Ray McCauley expressed their concem
surrounding the closing of the landfill and its impact on
residents who still need to d~,_nose of trash.
5.1. Addition of two citiTen members on the Co~mission on
Children and Families (CCF). APPROVED.
5.2 D~aA Statement for VDoT's Pdmary Road Plan Pre-alloc~ion
ASSIGNMENT
Apd111,2002
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p,m., by the
Chairman, Sally ThOmas. BOS members present:
Dorfier, Thomas, Perkins, Rooker, and Martin
(Bowerman absent). Officers/staff: Tucker, Davis.
Clerk: Bentley.
None (no mailing address provided)
.Clerk: 'Notify City Council and Saphira Baker.
Update Boards & Commissions files to reflect one
additional County appoi~cc slot.
Plannino Staff: Supervisors to provide any
Hearing in Culpeper (deferred from Apdl 3, 2002).
APPROVED.
5.3 County Response to Draft SEIS on the Route 29 Bypass.
AUTHORIZED Chairman to sign response to VDOT.
5.4 Set PH for May 1, 2002 on an Ordinance to amend and
reordain § 2-102(C)(4) of the County Code to relocate the
polling place for the Northside Precinct in the Rio District. SET
for 5/1102.
receive comments on the Propc_,~d FY 2002/2003
Operating Budget and Proposed FY 2002/2003. to FY
2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program. PUBLIC HEARING
HELD.
PH on Proposed FY 2002 Tax Rates. PUBLIC HEARING HI~Ln.
8. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
· CONSENSUS to hold the Board's retreat from 1:00-
6:30 p.m. on 4/26/02 and 4/27/02 to allow Supervisors
time to attend Dogwood Parade, should they so
choose.
· CONSENSUS to ask staff to draft a letter of support
for certain budget amendments dudng the General
Assembly's Veto Session. The letter will be
distributed to legislators and David Blount will
communicate the County's support to legislators. The
Board agreed to add its support for a portion of the
state garbage tipping fees to be returned to localities
to help pay landfill closure costs. (Note: Mr. Martin
abstained from voting on the budget amendment
per[aining to CSA funding for non-custodial Foster
Care arrangements.)
· Ms. Thomas advised the Board that the County's
western counterpart in the Lewis and Clark celebration
comments/suggestions by 4/15/02; Juan Wade
then to prepare final statement to incorporate any
.changes.
Er~. ineedno Sta~ Vedfy that the alignment
options are ,western", not "eastern~ options.
Attach Historical Preservation Committee findings
before sending, and provide copies of ali
documents to the Clerk.
Clerk: Advertise PH.
(Note: Mr. Tucker to obtain and forward a copy of
Dr. Castner's recent letter to the School Board to
BOS members, if possible.)
County E)¢,~,cutive Staff: Prepare and send letter.
is ! c,n.g B~,e. ach County in Washington.
Representatives from that area will visit the County on
i5/10, 5/12, and 5/13. She sent an email and has
asked each Supervisor to let her know what days they
. . can participate.
9. Adjourn at 9:10 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Consent Agenda (on next page).
PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Proposed FY 2002/2003
Operating Budget and proposed FY 2002/2003 to FY 2006/2007 Capital
Improvement Program.
PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2002 Tax Rates.
From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Adjourn.
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Addition of two citizen members on the Commission on Childmn and Families
(CCF).
5.2 Draft Statement for VDoT's Primary Road Plan Pm-allocation Hearing in
Culpeper (deferred from April 3, 2002).
5.3 County Response to Draft SEIS on the Route 29 Bypass.
5.4 Set public hearing for May 1, 2002 on an Ordinance to amend and reordain Section 2-
102(C)(4) of the County Code to relocate the polling place for the Northside Precinct in the
Rio District.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.5 Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections First Quarter 2002 Report.
5.6 Copy of letter dated Apr~ii 4, 2002 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to
David J. or Goldie Belle Feigert, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and
Parcels: Tax Map 43, Parcel 25E (Section 10.3.t).
FOR APPROVAL;
5.1 Addition of two citizen members on the Commission on Children and Families
(CCF).
5.2 Draft Statement for VDoT's Primary Road Plan Pre-allocation Hearing in
Culpeper (deferred from April 3, 2002).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Consent Agenda (on next page).
PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Proposed FY 2002/2003
Operating Budget and Proposed FY 2002/2003 to FY 2006/2007 Capital
Improvement Program.
PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2002 Tax Rates.
From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Adjourn.
David P. Bowerrnan
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivarma
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel ~er
April 15, 2002
M~'. Jeanne Cox
City Council
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Cox:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on April 10, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved
ch anging the Agreement between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City
Council regarding the Commission on Children and Families. With respect to the structure of the
Commission, the County agrees that the Commission shal consist of 19 (nineteen) voting members: 11
(elegen) of the members shall be citizen representatives, 5 (five) appointed by the County, 5 (five)
appointed by the City, and 1 (one) jointly-appointed private service provider. Please advise me when the
City Council makes their decision.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel A. Bentley, CMC
Sr. Deputy Clerk
cc: Saphira Baker
Printed on rec?cled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Commission on Children and Families Additional Members
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval to add two additional citizen members to
the Commission on Children and Families (CCF)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF), in its 2001 Annual report recommended that its
membership be expanded to provide for two additional citizen representatives to broaden participation and better represent the
diversity of the City and the County.
CCF would therefore like to request that the Agreement between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families, as adopted in 1997, be amended to increase the
membership of the Commission's citizen representatives from nine to eleven.
DISCUSSION:
To wit; the wording in section 1) a) currently reads:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) The Commission shall consist of .scvc,q~e~ nineteen voting members: ~ Eleven of the members shall be citizen
representatives, feu~ five appointed by the County, feu~ five appointed by the City and one jointly appointed private service
provider.
The 'proposed changes to the agreement are underlined in the above section.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the Agreement between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families.
04-02-02P03:33 RCVD
02.047
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Six Year Primary Improvement Plan
SUBJECT/PROpOSAL/REQUEST:
Revisions to 2002 Pdmary Road Priorities and speech
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. ,TuCker, Foley, Cili m berg, Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
April 10, 2002
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVtEWED BY:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2002, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and suggested several changes to the draft priorities
that will be presented at Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annual pre-allocation hearing in
Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has made the revisions to the primary priorities (Attachment A) and developed a speech
(Attachment B) based on these priorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
For review and acceptance for presentation.
OD .o~4a-
VIRGI~A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION April 16, 2002
PRE-ALLOCATION MEETING FOR THE INTERSTATE, PRIMARY, AND URBAN
SYSTEMS, AND FOR MASS TRANSIT
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITIES April 16, 2002
The following addresses Albemarle County's priorities for each allocation of TEA-21 and each sub-
allocation of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Standard Projects:
The following projects, listed in priority order, are eligible for STP funds. The County supports these
projects as referenced.
1)
Undertake those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation Study-CHART (adopted
May 24, 2001) projects eligible for the primary program in the sequence as called for in the
February 2, 1992 joint resolution between the City, County and University and agreed to by
VDOT. In addition to Route 29 improvements already completed or currently planned,
construct Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Route 29 North. The
Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the Route 29 improvements, and is of
the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate level of service on Route 29 and to
improve the overall roadway system serving the urbanizing area north of the City. The
Parkway should be developed as follows:
A) The first phase ofthis project from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio Road is being funded in
the County's secondary program. This project has been approved by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the City of Charlottesville and the
County. The County asks that this section he designed or built in accord with the County's
design and alignment recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent
consultant and endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001
(Attachment A) and approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed design and
alignment emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to
the development of adjacent urban land. The linear park concept is intended to replace
Mclntire Park land lost due to the project and, at the same time, link Mclntire Park to the
Rivanna Trails Foundation trail along Meadow Creek and the County's urbanizing area along
Rio Road.
B) Planning and design of the second phase of Meadow Creek Parkway fi:om Rio Road to
Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Road Plan for the county.
County staff is working closely with VDOT staff to get the design process underway.
However, it is not possible to construct this project within a reasonable timeframe solely wimh
secondary funding due to the cost and dramatic impact it will have on the timing for
completion of other important secondary projects. The County believes the Parkway will
meet the criteria for inclusion in the primary system. The Commonwealth Transportation
Board previously decided to eliminate funding of the Route 29 interchanges in the primary
plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to be re-established in the plan, the County
believes primary fimds should be redirected to the Parkway and wants to work with VDOT
staff to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road, provided it will
accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the eleventh consecutive year the County urges
VDOT to investigate all possible flmding sources, particularly primary road funds, to achieve
the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area also must be actively pursued and
completed. These projects include improvements to Route 29 and associated new roadways
north of the South Fork Rivanna River, the Airport Road improvements and the Hill~ale
Drive-Zan Road Connector. Funding was dropped for the Route 29 improvements north of
the River and these improvements along with other transportation system improvements as
identified by the County in its Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B) are impem~e to this area.
Also, the County supports re-establishing funding for deSign and construction of the Route
29 interchanges at Hydraulic Rd., Greenbrier Dr. and Rio Rd., with consideration for
alternative design concepts not previously considered, which will be less intrusive and better
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
2)
Complete preliminary engineering and undertake the widening of Route 20 South from 1-64
to Mill Creek Dr. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements. This
is a curvy section o£road in the County's Urban Area that serves the traffic from Monticello
High School and has experienced several accidents with fatalities_in recent years. While this
has previously been a project lower on the County's priority list, its priority has greatly
increased due to these events.
3)
The County has followed the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Route 29 Phase I Corridor
Study recommendations were forwarded to the CTB in 1996 with the County's endorsement.
The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach in lieu ora limited
access road design~ Regarding the Corridor Study:
A) The County feels that it is imperative that access management be the design basis for the
third phase of the Route 29 widening project fi:om the South Fork ofthe Rivam~ta River to the
Airport/Proffit Road intersectior[ Last year, the County approved amendments to its
Comprehensive Plan regarding the transportation system in this area that reflect this principle.
2
The County requests that Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's
Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations which emphasize a more
complete urban roadway system serving this emerging urban community (Attachment B).
B) The County appreciates efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases II and III
Corridor Study process to receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited
access design for the Albemarle County section of the corridor. Last year, the County
provided VDOT and CTB a resolution regarding this study which repeats the access
management recommendations of the Phase I Corridor Study (Attachment C).
4)
The County supports the funding of the TransDominion Express and recommends that it be
seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues and recommendations
identified in the Rome 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29
Phases II and HI Corridor Study.
5)
Undertake road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve traffic on
Rome 29 by providing better service to local traffic. Such projects include the Hillsdale
Drive-Zan Road Connector and the Comprehensive Plan urban roadway system
recommendations between the South Fork Rivanna River and Airport Road/Proffit Road that
should be built in conjunction with the Route 29 improvement project. The Comprehensive
Plan transportation system recommendations envision future development to be served by a
transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets and supports walking
and biking and comprehensively links all land use in this area.
6)
There are three areas of emphasis the County requests be addressed on Rome 250:
A) Improve Route 250 west from Emmet Street to the Route 29/250 Bypass. This section is
covered by the joint Ivy Road Desigxt Study conducted by the City, County and University of
Virginia and originally recognized for improvement in the Lewis Mountain
Neighborhood/University Heights (Area B) Study. Recent announcement by the University
of Virginia regarding a new basketball arena and parking facilities this area will likely create
additional traffic demands on Ivy Road. Any plans for the improvement of this section of
Route 250 West need to be coordinated between the City, County and University.
B) The remaining portion of Rt. 250 West to Yancey Mills (the 1-64/250 interchange) was
studied by VDOT with a local advisory committee to determine long term needs for this road.
The Board of Supervisors has rejected the study recommendations and, instead, recommends
maintaining the present two-lane configuration of the corridor with any short term or spot
improvements being as non-intrusive and consistent as possible with the special character of
this scenic by-way.
C) VDOT has completed a s'nnilar study of Rt. 250 East from Free Bridge to the Fluvanna
County line. This study's findings have been presented to the Albemarle County Board of
7)
Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors awaits the final study recommendations frOm VDOT.
Undertake improvements to Route 240 in Crozet in accord with recommendations from the
Crozet Master Planning process, which is currently underway.
8)
Undertake improvements of Fontaine Avenue from Jefferson Park Avenue to the
improvements along the frontage of the University Real Estate Foundation development. The
County supports the recommendations identified by the Fontaine Avenue Task Force.
Undertake the widening of Route 20 North from north of Route 250 East to Elks Dr./Fontana
Drive. Incorporate sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these improvements.
I0) Recognize that mass transit can relieve traffic congestion and is an alternative to road
construction, particularly in more densely developed urban areas, and shift funds from road
construction into mass transit to accomplish this.
Safety Improvements:
Several projects in the County seem to qualify under this 10% set-aside. They are, in priority order:
1)
Construct pedestrian walkways along various primary routes within the County's Urban
Neighborhoods. Absent the incorporation of such road walkways into full road
widening/improvement projects, the following road sections are priorities for pedestrian
walkways: 1) Route 20 North from Route 250 East to Wilton Farm Apartments and Darden
Towe Park; 2) Route 240 in "downtown" Crozet; 3) Route 20 South from the City line to
Mill Creek Drive; 4) along Route 250 East in the Pantops area as an extension to existing
sidewalks; and 5) along Route 250 West from the City limits to the Bypass.
Of these, the walkways along Route 20 North are the most important improvement.
Pedestrian travel along this road has increased significantly with the development in that area.
Furthermore, W~flton Farms Apartments are now served by public bus service which travels
along Route 20 North and a walkway would provide additional pedestrian access to this
service. There is great concern with the safety of walking along this segment of road as
currently constructed.
The County also has placed a high priority on pedestrian improvements in the Crozet area.
The County has chosen Crozet as the first community to be master planned based on the
County's adopted Neighborhood Model. The County submitted a TEA -21 Enhancement
application in 2002 for downtown Crozet which included; relocation and burial of overhead
utility wires, construction of historically compatible sidewalks, and ~tallation ofperiod street
lighting, benches, and other streetseapes and road cross section improvements. The County
urges the approval and funding of this very essential Enhancement Grant request.
4
2)
Reconfigure intersection and installation traffic signals at Route 22 and Route 250
intersection.
3)
Improvements to Route 250 West along the corridor in Ivy to address existing and short-term
traffic circulation problems, including access to developed properties in this area. Of
particular concern is the Tillman Road intersection (Route 676), which serves industrial track
traffic and has poor sight distance. These improvements should he undertaken in accordance
with recommendations approved by the Board of Supervisors in the Route 250 West Corridor
Study.
4) Improvements to the Route 240 underpass at the CSX Railroad tracks in Crozet.
5)
Functional plans, including an analysis ofposs~le safety improvements, for Routes 22 and
23 I. The County remains concerned with overall public safety as it relates to traffic created by
large tracks along these road segments, and encourages VDOT to consider all appropriate
measures to ensure that tracks travel safely along these roadways in the future. VDOT is
considering undertaking an origin-destination study regarding truck traffic on these routes as
requested by the County. Restriction of through truck traffic is still considered by the County
to be potentially the most effective measure.
Enhancement Projects:
Several projects appear to be eligible for enhancement funds. They are, in priority order:
1)
2)
3)
Pedestrian streetscape improvements in downtown Crozet. These streetscape improvements,
which were included in an Enhancement Grant submitted in January 2002, include the
relocation and burial of overhead utility wires, and construction of historically compatible
sidewalks.
Construction of pedestrian walkways along Route 20 North.
Beautification of entrance corridors (particularly Route 20, 29 and Route 250) and Airport
Road connecting Route 29 and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport - landscaping, signage,
placement of overhead utilities underground, etc.
Completion of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation access project at Monticello.
Construction of bikeway facilities as prioritized in the Bicycle Plan for the. City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County (adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of
the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 1991).
Development of portions of the Rivanna River Greenway path system.
7)
8)
Beautification of streets in Scottsville through the Scottsville Streetscape project.
Removal of non-conforming billboards.
National Highway System (NHS)
The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board approved the NHS as proposed by VDOT in this
area excluding the Route 29 Bypass. The Federal Highway Admini~'tration (FHWA) has approved the
NITS, which includes the existing Route 29, and the Route 29 Bypass. The County's highest priority
project in the proposed NHS is the completion of the widening of Route 29 North from the South
Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. The County continues to monitor the progress and
recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Studies, which are part of the NHS (additional
information is provided under Standard Projects #3).
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
This does not apply to Albemarle County. The County is not in an area ofnon-attainment for ozone
or carbon monoxide.
DRAFT - COMMENTS FOR VDOT PREALLOCATION
HEARING, APRIL, 2002
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors I appreciate this
opportunity to bring the county's transportation priorities to the attention of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. While our complete list ofpriorities is outlined in our
written report, I would like to highlight for you those projects which we feel are most
critical to the safe and efficient fimctioning of our community's transportation systems.
As we strive to meet the increasing demands of a growing and diversifying population
while protecting those community attributes that create our character and sense of place,
our transportation systems become much more than just infrastructure projects. In many
cases they are defining elements of our land use strategies, and therefore must reflect the
values, goals and vision our community has defined for itself now and well into the
future. The projects we bring before you not only enhance the smooth flow of vehicular
traffic but also promote our goal of encouraging alternative transportation modes
including pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as the possibilities of mass transit to
meet the varied transportation needs and pressures of our rapidly urbanizing county.
We continue to stress the absolute necessity of pedestrian improvements for the
Crozet community. These improvements, aimed at creating a viable and vibrant
downtown streetscape, are essential to overall master planning as we implement our
newly adopted Neighborhood Model for this critical county community. We submitted a
TEA-21 Enhancement application for downtown Crozet which included relocation and
burial of overhead utility wires, construction of historically compatible sidewalks, and
installation of period street lighting, benches, and other streetseapes and improvements
and we strongly urge the approval and funding of this request.
We also continue to support those Charlottesville Albemarle Regional
Transportation Study (CHART) projects eligible for the primary program in sequence as
called for in the February 2, 1992 joint resolution between Charlottesville, Albemarle
County and the University of Virginia and agreed to by VDOT.
In addition to the Route 29 improvements already completed or currently
planned, we recommend construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250
Bypass to Route 29 North. The Parkway is the County's highest priority project after the
Route 29 improvements, and is of the utmost importance in order to maintain an adequate
1
level of service on Route 29 and to improve the overall roadway system serving the
urbanizing area north of the City.
The first phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass to Rio
Road is being funded in the County's secondary program. This project has been approved
by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) as a low speed parkway in the City
of Charlottesville and the county. In particular, the County asks that this section be
designed or built in accordance with the County's design and alignment
recommendations developed with the assistance of an independent consultant and
endorsed by resolution of the County Board of Supervisors on June 20, 2001, and
approved by the CTB on December 18, 2001. This endorsed design and alignment
emphasizes the parkway corridor's potential as a linear park and its relationship to the
development of adjacent urban land.
Planning and design of the second phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio
Road to Route 29 North is being funded in VDOT's Six Year Secondary Plan for the
county, The CTB previously decided to eliminate funding of the Route 29 interchanges
in the primary plan. If funding of the interchanges is not going to be reestablished in the
plan, the County believes primary funds should be redirected to the Parkway and we will
work with VDOT to evaluate construction of subsequent phases as a primary road,
provided it will accelerate the Parkway's completion. For the 1 lth consecutive year the
County urges VDOT to investigate all possible funding sources, particularly primary road
funds, to achieve the quickest construction of this vitally important roadway.
Other projects listed in CHART in the northern study area also should be actively
pursued and completed, including improvements to Route 29. Funding was dropped for
the Route 29 improvements north of the river, and these improvements along with other
transportation system improvements as identified in our Comprehensive Plan are
imperative to this area~ The Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study recommendations were
forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in 1996 with the County's
endorsement. The recommendations emphasized use of an access management approach
in lieu of a limited access road design. The County feels that it is imperative that access
management be the design basis for the third phase of the Route 29 widening project
from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the AirportiPmffit Road intersection The
County requests that Route 29 improvements in this area incorporate the County's
Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations which emphasize a more
2
complete urban roadway system serving this emerging urban community. We also
strongly support road projects adjacent to the Route 29 North Corridor that will relieve
traffic on Route 29 by providing better service to local traffic. The County appreciates
efforts that have been made in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study process to
receive public input. Again, the County does not support a limited access design for the
Albemarle County section of the corridor.
The County also strongly supports reestablishing funding for design and
construction of the Route 29 interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive and Rio
Road, with consideration for alternative design concepts not previously considered.
Completion of the preliminary engineering and widening of Route 20 South from
1-64 to Mill Creek Drive is a priority that continues to be urgent to us for several reasons.
This roadway serves heavy vehicular traffic generated by Monticello High School and
has been the scene of several serious accidents with fatalities in recent years. We
strongly support the incorporation of sidewalks and bike lane facilities into these
improvements.
The County supports the fimding of the TransDominion Express and
recommends that it be seriously considered as a multi-modal means to address the issues
and recommendations identified in the Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being
considered in the Route 29 Phases II and 1/I Corridor Study.
We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most critical
being the construction of pedestrian walk-ways along various primary routes within the
County's Urban Neighborhoods. The walkways along Route 20 North are the most
important improvement due to the significant increase of development and resulting
pedestrian travel along this road. Furthermore, Wilton Farms Apartments are now being
served by public bus service which travels along Route 20 North and a walkway would
provide additional pedestrian access to this service. We are anxious to address the safety
concerns associated with walking along this segment of road as currently constructed.
I thank you again for this oppommity to discuss our community's pressing
transportation needs with you. We believe that the recommendations we are presenting
to you reflect effective traffic management priorities as well as community goals and
values regarding transportation networks that support our land use plans. We have
devoted much time and attention, with significant input from our citizens, to developing
this list in a way that manages our traffic flow while also protecting our neighborhood
amenities and community character. If you have any questions that are not addressed in
our report, I hope you will feel free to bring them to our attentior~
4
Attached please find copies of our complete statements in response to the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Draft SEIS on the U. S. 29 Western Bypass, specifically
addressing the issues of archaeological resources and reservoir impacts. While these
documents outline in detail our reaction to these two critical elements of the SEIS, I
would like to summarize our response in a very general way.
First I would like to comment on the report entitled Archaeological Identification Survey,
Route 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia (December 2001) and the accompanying
VDOT and DHR documentation. The County's Subcommittee on Archaeological
Resources agrees with the consultant's assessment that site 44AB428 (located within the
proposed construction limits) and site 44AB430 (located outside the proposed
construction limits but within the proposed right of way) are potentially eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. We strongly urge further
archaeological study of these two sites for possible inclusion with the National Register
and to gain additional knowledge about the Archaic period in Albemarle County and the
larger Piedmont area of Virginia.
Secondly I would like to summarize our comments regarding possible impacts to the
reservoir. We feel that the draft SEIS demonstrates a lack of adherence to standard
problem analysis approaches used in the engineering and environmental science fields
that results in an incomplete analysis of potential water quality impacts. We believe, for
example, that VDOT carried out an incomplete and potentially misleading risk
probability assessment for the catastrophic spill scenario. The draft SEIS provides no
discussion of alternatives beyond option 10 versus no option 10 in the water quality
sections of the report which is a serious omission. VDOT also suggests a series of
proposals for limiting the potential risks but does not assume responsibility for these
proposals.
The SEIS does appear to commit VDOT to stormwater treatment strategies that would
help to reduce the threat to drinking water and discusses some interesting new proposals
for catastrophic spill containment, but we do not feel that the document represents a firm
commitment to these measures.
I appreciate the opportunity to summarize for you the highlights of our response to the
draft SEIS and appreciate your careful and thoughtful review of the attached documents.
Sincerely,
Sally Thomas, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
COMMENTS ON RESERVOIR IMPACT ELEMENTS OF VDOT'S DRAFT SEIS
ON U.S. 29 WESTERN BYPASS
General Comment I
In the draft SEIS VDOT and its consultants show a surprising lack of adherence to
standard problem analysis approaches used in the engineering and environmental
science fields. Applying standard professional procedures may or may not lead to
dramatic changes in the findings, but until VDOT brings its analysis up to the
standards of professional norms, the water quality impacts of the bypass will not
have been properly considered.
Example One
VDOT carries out only an incomplete and potentially misleading risk probability
assessment for the catastrophic spill scenario. Essentially, the VDOT approach is like
studying the chances of someone stealing money from your house by only studying one
of several avenues a thief could take. To carry out the analogy, they have estimated
chance the thief could get in through the solid front door with a dead-bolt lock without
considering other obvious things like unlocked windows or the back door. Based on the
Iow probability of a haz/mat spill in a very small stretch of roadway (equivalent to a front
door break-in), VDOT concludes that no further analysis is necessary. By limiting the
scope of the probability analysis, VDOT comes up with the lower probability ofhaz/mat
spill on the proposed bypass than on the existing roads. However, the key question isn't
the probability of a haz/mat spill but rather the probability of a water treatment plant
shutdown resulting from a hazJmat spill To look at this question one needs to recognize
that there are windows and back doors to be considered when studying the bypass that
don~t exist for the other roads. These unique bypass characteristics include the facts that
the bypass would be much closer to the raw water intake than the other roads and would
be on steeper slopes than many roads near the reservoir, When the unique characteristics
of the bypass (the windows and back door as well as the front door) are accounted for, the
reservoir risk analysis should be quite different from VDOT's isolated haz/mat spill
analysis as Black & Veatch:found it to be. In fact, the Black & Veatch analysis stands as
the only useful risk analysiS that has been carried out. (In related example, VDOT bases
its estimate of the time it would take for a pollutant plume to pass the water intake as 2-4
days, but this assumes normal flow conditions- the front door scenario. If the reservoir is
low, particularly below the top ofthe dam as it has been in two of the last three summers,
that time could become weeks or months- the window/back door scenario. While
containment devices are more likely to work in dry weather, VDOT points out that most
accidents also occur in dry weather.)
Example 2
VDOT does not think through the implications (or hazard) associated with the worst case
scenario. While pointing out that under normal conditions it would take the plume 2-4
days to pass the intake, VDOT reports that RWSA estimates three days of reliable water
supply in the Urban Service Area after a South Fork Rivanna Plant shutdown (under
certain conditions and assuming emergency conservation measures). There is no
discussion of what would happen on the fourth day. The spill/emergency response
discussion provides some detail on how this process works, but the fact that the nearest
responders to the most serious spills (after local officials reach the conclusion that state
resources are needed) would have to come from Harrisonburg, Richmond, or
Fredericksburg is not reassuring. Also, laboratory testing time to be sure that the plume
has pass the water intake is not considered. One doesfft come away from this report
understanding the impacts of a spill as one might if a few worst case scenarios were
included and analyzed.
Example 3
VDOT studies phosphorus impacts by looking at concentrations rather than loads (the
professional standard for such analyses). VDOT compares the phosphorus concentration
(mass per water volume) coming offthe bypass to the existing concentration in the Ivy
Creek Watershed instead of estimating the actual amount of phosphorus (total mass) that
the bypass wouldadd. It is a basic understanding in water quality research that the impact
on receiving waters is best viewed first through the change in the load (total mass)
delivered to the receiving waters. By using the only selected concentrations, VDOT
avoids the issue of what will change between the pre and post condition. Note that while
VDOT identifies the concentration coming from the pre-bypass Ivy Creek Watershed and
the post-bypass new road area, the department avoids looking at the pre-bypass road area.
It is the difference between the pre-bypass road area phosphorus load and the post-bypass
road area phosphorus bad that defines the potential impact on phosphorus delivery to the
reservoir. Once VDOT properly reanalyzes the phosphorus load issue it can then move on
to an analysis of whether the increase in phosphorus will have an impact on water quality.
Blurring the issue with a discussion of selected concentrations is not a standard
professional analysis.
General Comment II
There is no discussion of alternatives beyond option 10 versus no option 10 in the
water quality sections of the report. Tables and discussions should include the
reservoir impacts of other options including the base case with grade separated
interchanges at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) and options 9, 7, 7a, 6, 6b,
etc. so that the impacts can be compared. In many cases the impacts of these options
that do not cross the reservoir watershed could be lumped together very efficiently
since they will have the same impacts. It also seems appropriate to provide
comparison to options 11 and 12 that cross the reservoir itself.
General Comment HI
VDOT suggests a series of proposals for limiting the risk but does not take
responsibility for these proposals. VDOT suggests that the Emergency Operations
Plan be updated to addresS this catastrophic spill scenario and that RWSA install
monitoring equipment between the new Bypass and the water intake without any
commitment from VDOT to take responsibility for these needs. VDOT seems to
endorse the idea of a boom to keep floating contamination away from the intake, but
also supports the idea that local sources pay for such a boom.
General Comment IV
The substance of the SEIS is a small portion of the body of text. The extraneous
information in the report should be moved the appendices. Then the appendices
should be printed in a separate volume. Such adjustments would allow readers to
see and feel that the actual analysis described is minimal.
General Comment V
On a positive note, the SEIS does appear to commit VDOT to stormwater treatment
strategies that would help to reduce the threat to drinking water. Also, the SEIS
does discuss some interesting new proposals for catastrophic spill containment
including pre-treatment vaults or separators above ponds, sorbent materials,
adjustable gates on the ponds, pond linings, and enhanced road design. However, at
this point, these new proposals have the tone of musings rather than commitments.
Point-by-Point Comments
a) 3- Most of chapter three is only vaguely relevant to the problems being studied and
could be referenced or moved to the appendix.
b) 3.4.1, p. 3-11, par. 1- Why was the SEIS released before Dr. Yu's water quality
analysis was complete? It seems like a critical study component that VDOT initiated
exactly to get at questions like the SEIS is meant to address.
c) 3.4.3, p. 3-14, par. 1- Recent total P concentrations are more like 0.027 ppm than 0.04
pprm
d) 4.3.1, p. 4-8, Table 4-4- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and associated
discussion~
e) 4.3.3, p 4-9, Table 4-5- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and associated
discussion.
f) 4.3.3, p. 4-10, Table 4-7- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and associated
discussion.
g) 4.3.4, p. 4-12, Table 4-8- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and associated
discussion.
h) 4.3.6, p. 4-13. Include impacts of other alternatives in discussion.
i) 4.3.7, p. 4-13. Include impacts of other alternatives in discussion.
j) 4.3.8, p. 4-13. Include impacts of other alternatives in discussion.
k) 4.3.3, p. 4-11, par. 1- MTBE does reach this area even though it is not a non-
attainment area under the Clean Air ACt. Fuel transporters sometimes find it
inconvenient to separate the fuel going to different parts of the state and put MTBE
full on trucks going to both non-attainment and other zones.
1) 4.3.6, p. 4-13, Par. 2- I'd be interested to know what "groundwater maps" VDOT is
referring to. I did not know these were available.
m) 4.3.7, p. 4-15, item 3- Is VDOT saying that existing impact to the endangered mussels
is justification for further impacts?
n) 4.3.9, p. 4-17, par. 1- The herbicide discussion is not very thorough. What does this
mean to likely herbicide concentrations in drinking water? Make a rough estimate
rather than just waiving it away.
o) 4.3.9, p. 4-17, par. 1- It is shocking that VDOT wouldn't analyze the possibility of
alternative vegetation control in a water supply watershed (as well as deicing). This
could be a low cost way to reduce the impacts and must be studied.
p) 4.3.10, p. 4-20, Table 4-10. Fuel oil estimate seems low. The City has natural gas, but
oil is common in the County.
q) 4.3.10, p. 4-26,27, Tables 4-13, 14.4.3.7, p. 4-13. Include impacts of other
alternatives in table and associated discussion.
r) 4.3.10, p. 4-27, par. 2- Estimate the chances ora plant shutdown, not just a truck
crash. Such an analysis should combine the risks from different stretches of road that
have different crash probabilities as well as different reservoir contamination and
flushing probabilities. Splitting the probabilities this way seems deceptive. A full risk
analysis, similar to B&V's is necessary. Partial probabilities (such as crash analysis
without plant impact analysis) are meaningless.
s) 4.3.10, p. 4-30, par. 4- Provide examples of typical response times when the services
of a "State On-Scene Coordinator" is required.
t) 4.4.1, p. 4-32, Table 4.15- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and
associated discussion.
u) 4.4.3, p.4-32- The issue isn't the export concentration from the watershed, it is the
overall load to the reservoir. The bypass adds phosphorus load to areas that may
currently have small bads (keeping the preexisting rate from being worse). Thus the
bypass may increase the phosphorus load to the reservoir. The real question is
unanswered while an extraneous question has been answered thus confusing the issue.
v) 4.4.3, p. 4-33, Table 4-16- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and
associated discussion.
w) 4.5.3, p. 4-35, par. l- What happens on the 4~ day when the Urban System is past its
3-day emergency capability (described in the previous paragraph)?
x) 4.5.3, p. 4-35, par. l- How would the hydraulic residence time be affected by the
likely addition of four feet to the reservoir pool?What other effects would this change
have on VDOT's analysis? How about eight feet.
y) 4.5.3, p. 4-35, par. l- What would happen if the reservoir contamination occurred
during a dry period, particularly when the reservoir pool was below the top of the
dam (as has occurred in 2 of the last 3 years)? While a contaminant reaching the
reservoir is less likely under these conditions would be less likely, dilution would be
less and residence time could be weeks or months rather than 2-4 days. This is the
kind of thing that could be analyzed in a complete risk assessment rather than the
partial (incomplete) probability method chosen by VDOT.
z) 4.7.1, p. 4-37- Describe the AnAGNPS model. What explains the difference between
the B&V finding and the Dr. Yu finding? Does VDOT view the findings as having
the same meaning, or has VDOT chosen Dr. Yu's finding over B&V in making its
conclusions. Without descr~ing the analytical methods, how is the SEIS to be
reviewed?
aa) 4.7.1, p. 4-37, Table 4-17- Include impacts of other alternatives in table and
associated discussion.
bb) 4.8.1, p. 4-43- Has mosquito control (in light of West Nile Virus) been taken into
account in design of these wet ponds? Will they evolve into ecosystems that sustain
mosquito predator populations or will VDOT need to use insecticides (in the reservoir
watershed) for mosquito control?
cc) 4.8.2, p. 4-46, par. 3- Could the proposed gate systems include a bypass system to
help with wet weather contaminant trapping? In dry weather the downstream gate
would be closed to trap as much comaminant as possible. In wet weather the same
downstream gate would he closed as the material approached the pond. Once as much
of the material as possible was trapped in the pond, the pond could be bypassed using
an upstream gate and an emergency channel to prevent flushing the contaminant out
o f the pond.
dd) D-20, par. 1- RWSA and VHB. have determined that the 8mgd flowby is not currently
a legal requirement. This entire discussion needs to be developed more fully. Start by
discussing basic things like the intake elevations relative to bathymetric survey data.
VDOT Project:
VDFItt File No.
Coumy:
Funding:
60Z94)02-j.22 (PPMS# I6160)
Albemarle
Federal
Should you concur with the recommendations that sites 44AB481, '44AB482, and 44AB483 are not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, please complete the signature block and return to my
attention with/n 30 days of receipt. Data recox, ery proposals for sites 44AB428 and 44AB430 have been
submitted to your office. Please feel free to contact me at (540) 654-1737with any questions you m/ght
have. Thank you for your assistance.
The Vir,~a State Historic Preser~-ation Officer concurs w/th the Virginia Department of
Transportation's recommendations that archaeolOgtcal sites 44AB48 I, 44AB482, and 44AB483 are not
eligible for the National Register of t:tistorie Places.
L Kilpatr~k,'V/i-ginia State Historic
Preservation Officer
Date
Cc;
Jacquetine H. Keeney, VDOT Fredericksburg
J. Mark WittkofskL YT)OT Central Office
This file has been scanned into Land Use Reports
ARCHAEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION SURVEY
ROUTE 29 BYPASS
(from 4/10/02 Board meeting)
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 2002
County of AIbemade
County Executive's Office
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr.
Scottsvflle
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COU~NTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April9,2002
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack .Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Mr. Bob Tucker, County Executive
County of Albemarle
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Conflict of Interests Filing
Dear Bob:
Enclosed herewith is a State and Local Government Conflicts of Interest Act filing for me.
I would appreciate it if you would make certain that this is maintained in the official
records of Albemarle County for at least five years. Please feel free to contact me ff you
have any questions concerning this matter. Thank you.
DSR:dsm
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Dennis S. Rooker
(_.~C~ Davis, Albemarle County Attorney
Printed on recycled paper
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ACT
TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
For Officers and Employees of
Local Government [S~-tion 2.2-3115(G)]
2.
3.
4.
5.
Name: Dennis S. Reeker.
Title: ,J,ack Jouett Representative
Agency: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,.,
Tran~ction: Al! matters relating to the, Route 29 Bypass.
Nature of Personal Interest Affected by Transaction:
personal interest in, property in ,proximity to the proposed, Route 29 Bypass and property
which may be impacted, by its .co. nstm~ion.
I declaro that:
I am a member of the following business, profession, occupation, or group, the members
of which are affected by the transaction:
The large group ofproperty., owners similarly affected by.the Route 29 Bypass.
I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest.
2002
Signature
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance Amendment- Electio ns - Rio Magisterial
District - Change of Polling Place
SUBJECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Set for public hearing the proposed ordinance
changing the location of the polling place for the
Northside Precinct in the Rio Magisterial District.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Harris
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2002
ACTI O N:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Ordinance
BACKGROUN D:
Virginia Code § 24.2-307 requires that the Board of Supervisors establish polling places by ordinance. Albemarle
County Code § 2-102(C)(4) establishes the Northside Community Fellowship Church as the polling place for the
Northside Precinct in the Rio Magisterial District. The Albemarle County Electoral Board recently recommended
that the polling place be changed to Buck Mountain Episcopal Church.
DISCUSSION:
The Albemarle County Electoral Board has recommended that Buck Mountain Episcopal Church replace Northside
Community Fellowship Church as the polling place for the Northside Precinct. Even though this polling place has
been used for less than a year, this change is necessary because Northside Community Fellowship Church moved
out of the building it occupied at 1820 Airport Road and the building is no longer available. Buck Mountain
Episcopal Church is located at 4133 Earlysville Road, which is outside of the Northside Precinct. However, it may
be used as a polling place for the Northside Precinct because it is within 1,500 yards of the precinct boundary
(Virginia Code § 24.2-310) and is easily accessible to the voters in the precinct.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be set for public hearing on May 1,2002.
02.049
04-09-02P0t:40 RCVD
Draft: 04/09/02
ORDINANCE NO. 02-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I,
ELECTIONS, 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 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork
Rivanna River and its intersection with the northeastern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River to
its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then northeast along Seminole Trail
to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering along the North
Fork Rivanna River northwest to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606);
then south along Dickerson Road to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route
743); then northwest along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road
(State Route 663); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State
Route 665); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its
intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south along Bleak House
Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then south along Reas
Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering
southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road
(State Route 743); then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic
Road (State Route 743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with
Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier
Drive; then east on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route
29); then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the northern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then following the limits of the City of Charlottesville east to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
Draft: 04/09/02
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (5) voting
precincts, as described herein:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Beginning at Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29)
and its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then northeast along Seminole Trail to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering west and south along
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743);
then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route
743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road;
then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then east along
Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail, the point of origin.
2. Branchlands Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on Rio Road East to its intersection with
Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to the northern city limits
of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way and Rio Road East, the point of origin.
3. Dunlora Precinct: Beginning at Rio Road East (State Route 631) at
its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of way; then northeast along the
Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River;
then meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with
the Charlottesville City limits; then following northwest along the Charlottesville City
limits to the intersection with Rio Road East and the Southern Railroad right-Of-way, the
point of origin.
4. Northside Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail
(U.S. Route 29) and the South Fork Rivanna River; then northeast on Seminole Trail to
its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to
its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville
Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then northwest
along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its intersection with Buck Mountain
Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to
its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route
662); then south along Bleak House Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State
Route 660); then South along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering eastward to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S.
Route 29), the point of origin.
5. Woodbrook Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern Raikoad right-of-way
to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with
Draft: 04/09/02
the South Fork Rivarma River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29);
then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631);
then southeast on Rio Road East to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-
way and the northern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, 3201
Berkmar Drive.
2. Branchlands Precinct: Senior Center, 674 Hillsdale Drive.
3. Dunlora Precinct: Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education
Center, 1000 East Rio Road.
4. Northside Precinct: xx^..~.:n~ t- ...... :,.. -~11 ..... 1~.~_
l O. ^ ^ :~ ^~ ~, ^ ~ n Buck Mountain Eviscoval Church, 4133 Earlvsville Road.
Woodbrook Drive.
Woodbrook Precinct: Woodbrook Elementary School, I00
(8-19-71, § 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, § 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 2-100(1), § 2-101; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, 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
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Dorder
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
Department of Voter Registration and Elections
First Quarter 2002 Report
04-17-02A09:35 RCVD
The following report provides a synopsis of the activities of the Albemarle County
Department of Voter Registration and Elections for the period of January 1, 2002
through March 31 2002. The information is presented under the six major service
areas of the department: Voter Services, Candidate Services, Voter Education, Election
Administration, Data Management, and Legal and Administrative Services. These
service areas have frequent overlap, but information will be provided according to the
service area most significantly affected by the activity.
Voter Services
The DMV Co-location desk (in the lobby of DMV) is staffed by a 0.6 FTE
employee, Monday through Wednesday of each week. (The City of Chadottesville
provides staffing Thursday- Saturday.) During the reporting period, the co-location
staff registered 1,991 voters. Of that number, 919 registered for Albemarle County, 408
registered for the City of Charlottesville, 214 registered for Fluvanna County, 128
registered for Greene County~ 70 registered for Louisa County, 41 registered for Nelson
County, 37 registered for Orange County and 23 registered for Buckingham County.
The remainder registered for localities outside our immediate region.
The Registrar's staff processed an additional 645 Albemarle County registrations
received through other sources during the period. In addition, 409 voters transferred
their registration from Albemarle County to another Virginia locality, 112 registrants
were identified as deceased and removed from the rolls, 65 voters were removed
following notification of registration from another state, 17 felons were identified and
removed, and 3 voters were removed for adjudication of incapacity. A further 308
voters made a change to their name or changed to another address within Albemarle
County.
The net effect of this activity was an overall increase in the registered voter
population from 52,879 to 53,269.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
SAMPLE BALLOT
TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE
GENERAL ELECTION
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
Mayor
{Vote for not more than one)
StevenG. Meeks
R. Stephen Phipps
Member
Town Council
{Vote for not more than six)
-~ M. Copeland
Lillian
H. Gadient
Heinz
Jeannette E. Kerlin
---] G. Meeks
Steven
Robert C.
Mellow
Penny N. Phelan
--] A. Pillar
Harold
Craig M. Stratton
Voter Education
During the reporting period, staff members arranged to provide voter registration
in the County High Schools. Each school worked with the department to determine its
desired interaction with voter registration staff to provide this service. Murray and
Albemarle High Schools opted to perform the voter registration drive for eligible
students in-house, utilizing their own staff. Forms for this purpose were provided, as
well as training for a lead staff person on the process for registration and educational
materials to accompany the registration activity. Monticello and Western Albemarle
High Schools opted to have department staff come to the schools and provide the voter
registration services. On March 21, department staff registered 108 eligible students at
Monticello High School. (This site was deliberately scheduled early in the year to allow
any student residents of the town of Scottsville the opportunity to register prior to the
close of books for that election.) Department staff will provide registration to Western
Albemarle High School on April 29, 2002.
Other voter education initiatives included the update of the County Registrar's
website, located at www. albemarle.or.q/re.qistrar. This site provides access to
information and forms related to voter registration, absentee voting, candidate forms,
polling locations, elected officials and more. As the County moves forward with web
design, this department will continue to offer as many on-line options for customers as
possible.
The chart of precincts, polling places, and voter data developed for the post-
redistricting period (commonly referred to as the "Purple Sheet "), has been updated
monthly and distributed to interested parties. A representative of the local Senior
Statesmen organization was impressed by the information provided by this one-sheet
handout, and contacted the Secretary of the State Board of Elections to recommend
that all counties provide a similar synopsis of local information. The State Board has
asked us to share this format with other interested localities.
"'"'" '"'"" "" '" :!8!¥!: :~!!i~i~i '-'""-" '-'"'""
Election Administration
This has been a particularly busy period for election administration-related
activities.
The Electoral Board and departmental staff have been diligently working to
complete the establishment of an office location at the County Office Building.
This office will house the Electoral Board's full time assistant and provide
meeting and daily workspace for the three-member Electoral Board. This on-site
location will provide voter registration and candidate services to County Office
Building visitors and to elected officials within the County Office Building.
· Preparations for the Scottsville Municipal Elections are well under way. Staff
members are working closely with the Scottsville Town Administrator to secure
the voting facility, parking, and telephone access. In addition, to avoid the
difficulties of the manual recount experienced after the last Scottsville Town
Elections, the town council voted to use electronic voting equipment to conduct
the election. This department has worked with Scottsville leaders to effect this
change. Absentee voting commenced in March upon the arrival of the ballots.
· A third project in the election administration area is the continued efforts to bring
all County polling places into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA). The department has been working closely with Engineering staff, County
Attorney's staff, and representatives of the individual polling places in order to
complete the modifications, where necessary.
· . Due to the relocation of the Northside Community Fellowship Church from its
prior location at Route 29 and Airport Road to a newly built facility further north
on Seminole Trail it is necessary to relocate the polling place for the Northside ,
Precinct of Rio Magisterial District. Alternate locations have been reviewed,
assessed for compliance with the ADA, and presented to representatives of the
disabled and minority communities for comment. A pre-clearance request to the
U.S. Department of Justice will need to be submitted pdor to any change being
adopted and individual voters will need to be notified by mail. Since a
Republican primary election has been called for June 11, 2002*, this submission
will need to be placed immediately.
determination on whether the primary will actually be held will be made on April 1 ~.)
· On February 4, the Electoral Board met to appoint Officers of Election for the
2002 election cycle. Letters of appointment were sent to approximately 330
individuals, requiring a written response and the administration of an oath. Most
staff members are Notaries Public and numerous oaths were administered in the
Pantops office. In addition, the database of election officials is updated on a
continual basis to maintain current information on the status of all appointments.
· The current Electoral Board Assistant is scheduled to leave this position at the
end of June to pursue a law degree in Northern Virginia. A comprehensive
training manual is being written to aid in the training of the replacement staff
member. In addition, a skills test is being developed to assist in the selection of
a new employee for this very important position.
Data Management
Each of the previously listed activities has an associated data management
component. Every voter transaction requires the alteration of a physical file and an
electronic file. Many transactions require the replacement of an odginal file with a
second, newer document, the storage of the original file in a second location, followed
by the storage of the documentation for the transaction in a third location. Each voter
transaction generates a pdnted report of activity that is stored by type. All voter files are
subject to retention and destruction schedules as prescribed by the Library of Virginia.
Therefore, in the first quarter of 2002, the .,.2,500 voter transactions for Albemarle
County each required at least three record transactions (physical, electronic, and
printed report). Additionally, each candidate for office with an open campaign account
has a separate file maintained, including the 11 candidates for Scottsville and the 12
previously opened campaigns. A record is kept for each of the 330 Officers of Election,
including appointment status, political party choice, address and phone information,
precinct assignment, and payroll data.
The most time-consuming project this quarter has been the preparation and
distribution of 30,000+ voter cards related to congressional redistricting, the processing
of the 4,000+ pieces of returned mail, and the preparation and distribution of follow-up
letters to all voters whose envelope was retumed with a forwarding address. In
addition, staff continues the laborious process of pulling, marking, and re-filing over
20,000 files from the previous (local and State) redistricting in order to indicate the
change in precinct.
As is required after each election, staff members are also comparing the List of
Those Who Voted compiled by the State Board of Elections to the official precinct
rosters used at the polls on Election Day to verify all names match, and that all voters
have been given proper voting credit. This was completed for the 26,500 voters that
participated in the November General Election and the approximately 15,000 that voted
in the December Special Election.
LeQal and Administrative Services
This program area includes those operations inherent in the administration of any
department, including personnel management, budget administration, procurement, etc.
Special activities within the first quarter also include the tracking of voting and election-
related legislation, interacting with members of the General Assembly, and attending
professional conferences and training.
On the legislative front, over 100 bills were introduced in the General Assembly
with some direct beadng on voter registration and elections. These included such
diverse bills as: extending polling place hours, restricting the release of election results,
changing the appointment process for Electoral Board members, instituting mandatory
primaries, designating local candidates by party on the ballot, as well as proposed
referenda and constitutional amendments. Voter registrars held their annual legislative
day in February; three local staff members attended this session and met with local
legislators.
The department closely tracked the movement of election-related bills through
the General Assembly and provided information to legislators, as appropriate. Staff also
closely followed the continuing developments to federal election reform legislation. The
outcome of these state and federal bills could have a significant impact on the
operations of the department and, perhaps, provide access to federal funds for certain
departmental services.
The Virginia Electoral Board Association, in association with the State Board of
Elections and the Voter Registrars' Association of Virginia held a three-day training
session in March to address policies and practices, and to provide additional information
on legislative issues for the coming year. Electoral Board and voter registration staff
attended this multi-faceted training and are utilizing the information provided to improve
internal operations and maximize compliance with all applicable laws and policies.
The department is tracking developing technologies designed to provide
unassisted voting opportunities for disabled citizens. The Registrar attended a
presentation of four new voting systems designed with this new capability to weigh the
merits of each. Though these systems are in their infancy, there remains the likelihood
that legislation will be enacted in the coming years requiring this style of voting system
be made available. Many localities nationwide are testing these new technologies with
mixed results. The City of Charlottesville will serve as a Virginia test locality for the Hart
InterCivic Direct Record electronic system during the May 2002 City Council Elections.
Test localities are required as part of the certification process for voting systems in
Virginia. Localities may only purchase systems that have completed the certification
process.
On a final note, the department is following the progress of the challenge to the
state's redistricting plan, as this could create a significant addition to the departmental
workload. This includes the possibility of: non-standard primaries, the re-election of the
entire House of Delegates, a change in state district boundaries, the need for alteration
of Albemarle's registration street database, and identification and notification of all
affected voters. The past two years, which have seen major redistricting efforts coupled
with seven elections, have stretched departmental resources and staff to the extreme.
The prospect of a repeat of the redistricting process is a daunting one, but, as always,
this department will continue to provide the best possible service to the citizens of
Albemarle County.
FAX (434) 972-4126
0~-05-02 A1 O: ~ 9
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
RCVD
TTD (434) 972-4012
April 4, 2002
David J. or Goldie Belle Feige.rt
2218 Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS-
Tax Map 43, Parcel 25E (Section 10.3)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Feigert:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Parcel 25E consists of two parcels. One parcel is the residue of the 64.3 acres
conveyed in Deed Book 178, page 97. This parcel contains one theoretical development
right, provided that Winqate Lot 11 contains at least two acres from the 22.3 acre parcel
shown on the plat recorded in D.B. 267, p. 102. The other is the residue of this 22.3
acre tract. This parcel contains at most four (4) theoretical development rights,
depending on the acreage.
The basis for this determination is summarized below beginning with the conveyance
described in Deed Book 267, page 101.
Our records indicate Tax Map 43, Parcel 25E contains 25.17 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1619, page 187. The most recent deed for this parcel
prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (December 10,
1980) is recorded in Deed Book 331, page 557.
Deed Book 267, page 101, dated March 1, 1946 conveyed 86.6 acres from Charles C.
Tennent and Adelaide P. Tennant to Thomas R. Shepherd and Kathleen Anne Kelly
Shepherd. The property conveyed is described by metes and bounds on a plat by Hugh
F. Simms and Son dated February 1946, hereto attached and made part of this deed,
and being the same property which was conveyed to the said Charles C. Tennant by
two deeds as follows:
(1) By deed of William B. Murphy and wife, dated December 8, 1921, of record in Deed
Book 178, page 97, conveying a tract of 64.3 acres, more or less; and
h\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\43-25E Feigert. doc 1
T.M. 43, P. 25E
April 4, 2002
Page 2
(2) By deed of W.O. Watson and others, dated December 20, 1920, of record in Deed
Book 178, page 170, conveying 22.3 acres, more or less.
It is determined that the 64.3 acre tract and the 22.3 acre tract were separate
parcels of record at the time of this conveyance.
Deed Book 331, page 557, da'ted May 1, 1957 conveyed 59.86 acres from Thomas R
Shepherd and Kathleen Anne Kelly Shepherd to W. H. Paine. The property conveyed is
described as the entire remainder of the lands which were conveyed to the grantors by
deed of Charles C. Tennant and wife dated March 1, 1946 and recorded in Deed Book
267, page 101, after the conveyance by the grantors of 14.6 acres and 2.64 acres to
Gladys B. Wanner ( See Deed Book 310, page 125 and Deed Book 317, page 8), and
9.5 acres to Vincent Jamme (See Deed Book 315, page 121. The said deed of Tennant
and wife contains a plat of the entire acreage thereby conveyed, and each of the
conveyances off was made by reference to a plat attached to the deed. Reference is
here made to said deeds and plats for a more particular description of the lands hereby
conveyed.
This is the most recent deed for this property prior to December 10, 1980, the date
of adoption of the zoning ordinance. The three parcels divided from this tract
referenced in this deed did nothing to combine the Murphy and Watson parcels. It
is determined that this 59.86 acre property was comprised of two separate
parcels of record: The 37.56 remainder of the parcel conveyed from Murphy to
Tennant in Deed Book 178, page 97 and the 22.3 acre tract conveyed from Watson
and others to Tennant in Deed Book 178, page 170. On the date of the adoption of
the zoning ordinance, December 10, 1980 each of these tracts was entitled to five
(5) development rights.
Deed Book 709, page 284, dated December 29, 1980 and recorded on January 23,
1981 conveyed 25.17 acres from W. H. Paine to Ellen R. Barber. The property is shown
on a plat by W. S. Roudabush dated November 3, 1980 attached to this deed,,,'The
property is described as being composed of portions of the property conveyed to W. H.
Paine by deed of Thomas R. Shepherd and Kathleen Anne Kelly Shepherd on May 1,
1957 and recorded in Deed Book 331, page 557 and by deed of John L. Sanford and
Elizabeth L. Sanford on October 20, 1955 and recorded in Deed Book 319, page 492.
Parcel 25E was erroneously Created by the recordation of this deed and plat in on
January 23, 1981. The County did not approve that plat and therefore, it was not a
legal combination or division of the prior existing parcels. The plat did not and
could not assign development rights as required by the zoning ordinance
I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\43-25E Feigert. doc 2
T.M. 43, P. 25E
April 4, 2002
Page 3
adopted on December 10, 1980. This plat did not recognize the two separate
parcels conveyed by Deed Book 331, page 557.
Deed Book 903, page 251 contains a plat showing the subdivision of Wingate Farm by
GIoeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc. revised May 29, 1986 and approved on October 10,
1986. This was the property of Blue Ridge Land Trust being parcels 25, 26 & 27A of
Tax Map 43. The plat divided this property into twelve parcels; two parcels containing
21 acres and ten parcels containing less than 21 acres. Development rights from
particular parcels were not assigned to the new lots. However, the plat did carry the
note, "No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval."
it is assumed that the County approved this plat on the basis that Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 &
6 derived their development rights from Parcel 26 and Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 derived
their development rights from Parcel 25. It is further assumed that Parcel 25E was
considered to be a separate parcel of record with no connection with the creation
of Wingate Farm Subdivision. The intent of the plat was to exhaust the
development rights of Parcels 25 and 26. The result of the Wingate Farm plat,
absent the finding that Parcel 25 originally consisted of two parcels, was to
exhaust the development rights of Parcels 25, 26 and also Parcel 25E.
However, the determination that Parcel 25 actually was comprised of two parcels
on the date of the adoption of the ordinance means there are five additional
development rights within the bounds of the 22.3 acres conveyed in Deed Book
178, page 170. Therefore it is determined that Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 derived their
development rights from Parcel 26. Lots 7, 8,9 & 10 derive their development
rights from Parcel 25. Lot 11 derived its development right from the north portion
of the 22.3 acre parcel conveyed in D.B. 178, p. 170, provided this area contains
two acres. Four (4) development rights, depending upon the acreage, remain
from the residue of the 22.3 acres, within Parcel 25E. The portion of the remainder
of the 64.3 acres conveyed in Deed Book 178, page 97 within Parcel 25E retains
the one (1) remaining development right from Parcel 25.
There have been no off-conveyances since the recordation of this deed. Both of the
parcels described above are entitled to the noted development rights if all other
applicable regulations can be met. These development rights may only be utilized within
the bounds of the original parcels with which they are associated. These development
rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing
less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\43-25E Feigert. doc 3
T.M. 43, P. 25E
April 4, 2002
Page 4
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $95.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Enclosure:
Copies: Roger W, Ray
1717-1B Allied Street
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Yadira Amarante
Reading Files
I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\43-25E Feigert.doc 4'
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' PROPOSED FY 2002~2003 OPERATIrNG
BUDGET AND
FY 2002/03 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
This item was scanned under Financial Reports
(from 4/10/02 Board meeting)
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: /-r//[ d/~ ~
Agenda Item #: ~
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL C~~~... (
Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rnrad economy, na~turad resources, hiaory ~nd ~
Support for AC~, Acquisition of Conservation ~asements
Statement to the Board of 8uperfisors
April 10, 2002
Thank you for restoring funds to buy conservation easements. This program fills an
important niche in your long-range planning, giving you an opportunity to retire
permanently the development rights on land with outstanding environmental, agricultural,
historic and scenic value.
We're working with several prospects for the program, landowners who were
discouraged when they heard funding for ACE had been excluded from the budget you
considered last month. We're looking forward to going back to these landowners with
the message that the County has renewed its commitment to protecting farms, forests and
open space. Thank you.
REC~ED AT BQS MEETING
April 10, 2002
To the Albemarle Coun~ Board of Supe~isors c~e~'s
From Marj orie Shepherd, for the Albemarle Education Association
I am here to ask you to ~nd the amount of the B~er Butler opening -
$400,000. The akeady austere budget in the Albem~le CounW Schools cabot
handle more cuts without compromising the quality of education in this county.
As no compmable cuts are'being levied on coun~ gove~ent, I see ~is as
punitive and unfair to the chil&en and educators of Albem~le.
It is you, the Board of Supe~isors and ~.Tucker, who have repeatedly
reused to ~nd ~o~h in the schools. You who promote .gro~h in Albemarle
t~ough your policies. ~d then, when that ~o~ results in the need for another
school, it is you, who m~se to pay the bill for opening ~at new school.
In Albemarle County Schools, we suppo~ the Character Counts progrm. In
sho~changing our schools, in not ~ding this gro~h expense, the Albemarle
County Board of Supe~isors shows ~ere is yet a ways. to go to foster Fairness,
Caring, Respect, Responsibility, Trust, and Citizenship.
I urge you to do ~e right t~ng, and find the ~nding to suppo~ our
schools. Thank you.
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Comments from Brian Wheeler to q[~
200~-~03 l~udget
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Agenda Item #:
April 10, 2002 Clerks lnit~:.
~ My name ~s Bri~ ~eeler. I am the p~ent of a fourth ~adc~ at Mu~ay
Elemental. Tonight I am spea~ng on behalf of the Mu~ay community as Vice
President of o~ PTO. ~ am also a member of the P~ent Council ~d Ch~c~
Info~afion Of~cer at S~ F~naac~al o~ the do~to~ mall.
~ I hear a lot of the concerns ~om parents ~d teachers ~n th~s Co~ about thc
state of our schools. I hear these things because I ~ on the Pamat Co~c~l,
because I am a PTO of~cer ~d because I have helped set up over 10 e-mail
newsletters a~med at improving co~cafion about o~ schools and our
co~~ty.
~ Do we have good schools? You heft I am ve~ pleased my daughter is at
M~ay Elemental. Could o~ schools be even better given ~e resources ~ this
Count, bo~ ~nancial and o~e~se, de~nitely.
~ We won't settle for a second rate school system, ~d ~fthe state won't pay ~ts
way, then YOU, thc Bo~d of Supe~so~s, needs to t~ce revenue matters ~nto
o~ bauds ~til they do. Albemarle should set ~ts o~ agenda for quality
educafiom ~e state's agenda ~s a joke, ~n the fo~ of thc St~d~ds of Quality and
their lack of ~nd~ng even those m~n~mal goals. It ~s totally inadequate. We will
pressure ~c~ond, but nobody thinks the state's pfio~6cs will be s~aightencd out
q~ckly. I want a bumper sficke~ that says "My Hono~ Eoll Student Needs
Gilmore's Car T~.'
~ ~is year's school budget ~as no new ~ni~afives. ~at if we wanted art, music
~d me~a teachers ~lly ~dcd ~n cve~ school? Element~ s~gs~ band
choir pm~a~ that would feed ~to a ~gh school music pm~am of
Charlottes~]le's caliber? ~at ~f wc w~ted fomi~ l~guage in elementa~
school? ~at ~fwc wanted a laptop on cve~ desk? Speaking oftec~olo~,
B~an Wheeter (bwheeter~atbemartematm~.com) ~s a fou~h grade parent at Virginia L. ~urray Etemen~a~ 5choot and
seventeen year resident of the Atbemarte County area. He maintains ~he website ~.atbemartematmrs.com atong w~th various
Inmme~ newste~mrs that hetp keep the IW, Virginia community and Atbemarte Eounty paren~ and staff ~nfo~ed abou~
happenings in the community, at the sch~t board, and in the schoot system ~hat impact our ch~tdren.
2
saw an impressive presentation recently by Bruce Benson, the school system's
Director of Technology. 'Bruce is a former teacher and HE gets it. That "IT" is the
integration of technology in the classroom. There are a lot of technology
initiatives on the horizon that this school system would greatly benefit from that
budgets like this won't even begin to fund.
· In fact the one initiative that was made the top priority was to raise salaries by
3.3% and this board has threatened not to fully fund that effort. Don't back off
your commitment to competitive salaries.
· You raised our real estate taxes to fully fund the education budget 2 years ago
and for that we say thank you.
· Ask not how little you can get our school board to beg for, ask if they are
requesting enough of you, to put our school system well beyond its peers, in its
ability to educate our children to the standard of excellence your constituents
demand.
· Isn't that a legacy you would like to leave as a Supervisor. Even better, be
fiscally responsible and make sure we get the most for our education dollar. Then
even the naysayers in this County, the people that were persuaded by Governor
Gilmore's "less is more" slogans, will join us celebrating our schools and our
children's accomplishments.
· Things are very different now than they were two years ago. The state is in
worse shape and Albemarle is in better shape, because we placed a priority on
funding education. Don't back down on that commitment now. We have gained a
lot of ground, but this should not be the year to throw things in reverse.
· Support the school system's complete request for one-time money to open
Baker-Butler Elementary. You need to make up this $400,000 deficit or our
schools WILL start on a backwards course, even if it is slight, it is the wrong
direction and our school board will have to make cuts in what was a very austere
budget in the first place..
3
~ In summary, we need you to put excellence in education on your priority list for
this budget. Thank you.
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
the Proposed FY 2002~2003 Operating Budget and Proposed
FY 2002~2003 to FY .2006~2007 Capital Improvement Program
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
NAME ' ' ' MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE
9 C~&,~ ~¢~ ....
10 ~-
13~ ~- . ' ~' '
15¢-
17~ ~
18
19
20
21
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
the Proposed FY 200212003 Operating Budget and Proposed
FY 200212003 to FY 200612007 Capital Improvement Program
(PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY)
22
30
31
32
33
35
36
'38
39
40
41
42
43
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Support for certain budget amendments during
General Assembly's Veto Session
SUBJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST:
-Request legislative support for four budget
amendments during General Assembly's Veto Session
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Spencer, BloUnt
AGENDA DATE:
April 10, 2002
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
i A
TTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND: /'
Governor Warner proposed 83 amendments to the approved 2002-2004 budget, totaling $31.6 million. Next
Wednesday, April 17, 2002, the House and Senate will reconvene to approve or deny any of the Governor's
amendments. Amendments must be passed in both the House and Senate to be approved.
David BIount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison, reviewed these recommendations and brought many of them to our
attention. These proposed amendments do not cut funding from other programs, but utilize shifting non-general
funds to general funds and additional interest income.
DISCUSSION:
The BOS should consider supporting the following six budget amendments:
Restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use as an alternative to
incarceration for individuals co nvicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
Restores $1.8 million in funding for the Pre- and Post-I ncarceration Services (PAPIS) program,
which provides transition services (such as employment, education and housing assistance) to
assist individuals who have been involved with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
Amends the car tax audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local
governments several ways to obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are
receiving car tax relief.
Provides additional funding for educational programs for at-risk children.
Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by using provisional
population estimates. (Note: we do not expect additional deputy positions for Albemarle County
this year)
Clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care arrangements. Changes
language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential placement through a non-
custodial foster care agree merit resulting from court involvement, if the court has ordered and
received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a residential placement is
necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates that parents have been
unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BOS support Governor Warner's recommended amendments as discussed above.
Staff will draft a letter of support and distribute it to legislators prior to the April 17 session and will request that
David Blount communicate the County's support for these amendments to our legislators.
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorricr, Jr.
Smtts~lle
Chiles S.
~vanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Th e Hon arable Mitchell Van Yahres
Virginia House of Delegates, 57th District
223 West Main Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
April 11, 2002
RE: Support of SpecifiC Budget Items During April 17m Session
Dear Delegate ~Y~ahr~s:
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
as an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services - Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who.have been involved
with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are receiving car tax relief.
Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educational programs for at-risk children.
· Deputy positions. Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by using
provisional population estimateS.
CSA Funding - Amendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited rir~
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision of these funds to localities for landfill
upgrades, cleanup, and closures in addition to epen space preservation, recycling and water
quality improvement initiatives.
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres
April 1,1,2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17th Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, I thank you in advance for your support of these
. proposed amendments.
SHT~
02.003-A
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
David P. Bowerman
Rio
I_.indsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scoff. sville
Charles S. Martin
Rlvanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 11, 2002
The Honorable R. Steven Landes
Virginia House of Delegates, 25th District
P. O. Box 42
Weyers Cave, Virginia 24486
RE: Support of SpecifiC Budget Items During April 17t~ Session
Dear Delegate Landes:
Walter E Perkins
White Hail
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
a~.an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services. Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who have been involved
with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only.vehicles used for personal use are receiving car tax relief.
Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educational programs for at-risk children.
Deputy positions - Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by usin'g
provisional population estimates. '
CSA Funding! . Amendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited in
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision of these funds to localities for landfill
upgrades,~'cleanup, and closures in addition to open space preservation, recycling and water
quality improvement initiatives.
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable R. Steven Landes
April 11,2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17u' Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, I thank you in advance for your support of these
.proposed amendments.
SHT~
02.003-D
Sincerely,
Sally lq. Thomas
Chairman
David R Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier, ,Jr.
Scott~illa
Charles S. Martin
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 11, 2002
The Honorable Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
Virginia House of Delegates, 59th District
P. O. Box 683
Appomattox, Virginia 24522
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack douett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
RE: Support of SpecifiC Budget Items During April 17th Session
Dear Delegate Abbitt:
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
as an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services - Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who have been involved
with the courts to become law-abidin g citizens.
Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are receiving car tax relief.
Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educationa programs for at-risk children.
· Deputy positions - Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by using
provisional population estimates.
CSA Funding - Amendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited in
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision of these funds to localities for landfill
upgrades, cleanup, and.closures in addition to open space preservation, recycling and water
quality improvement initiatives.
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable Watkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
April 11, 2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17th Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, i thank you in advance for your support of these
proposed amendments.
SH'I~
02.003-C
Sincerely,
Sally Iq. Thomas
Ghairman
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dottier,
Scott,wille
Charles S. Martin
Rivann~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 11, 2002
The Honorable Rob B. Bell, III
Virginia House of Delegates, 58h District
2309 Finch Court
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
RE: Support of SpecifiC Budget Items During April 17th Session
Dear Delegate Bell:
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
as an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes invo ving minor drug offenses.
Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services -Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who have been ~nvolved
with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are receiving car tax relief.
Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educational programs for at-risk children.
· Deputy positions - Provides for an additional 29 deput7 positions throughout the state by using
provisional population estimates.
CSA Funding - Amendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited in
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision of these funds to localities for landfill
upgrades, cleanup, and closures in addition to open space preservation, recycling and water
quality improvement initiatives.
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sail9 H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable Rob B. Bell, III
April 11, 2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17th Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, I thank you in advance for your support of these
proposed amendments,
SHT~
02.003-B
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, ~Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office. of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434] 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 11, 2002
The Honorable Emmett W. Hanger, Jr.
24th State Senate District
P. O. Box 2
Mt. Solon, Virginia 22843-0002
RE: Support of SpecifiC Budget Items During April 17th Session
Dear Senator Hanger:
Walter E Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
$~y H. Thomas
Samuel M~ler
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
a~ an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services - Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who have been involved
with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification requirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are receiving car tax relief.
Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educational programs for at-risk children.
Deputy positions - Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by using
provisional population estim ares.
CSA Funding - A~nendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited in
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision ofthese funds to localities for landfill
upgrades, cleanup, and closures in addition-to open space preservation, recycling and water
quality imp~'ovement initiatives.
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable Emmett W. Hanger, Jr.
April 11,2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17th Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, I thank you in advance for your support of these
proposed amend ments.
SHT~
02.003-E
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
S¢ottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
The Honorable R. Creigh Deeds
25th State Senate District
P. O. Drawer D
Hot Springs, Virginia 24445
RE: Support of Specific
/
Dear Senator D~-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
April 11, 2002
Budget Items During April 17th Session
Wa~ter F, Perkins
Wh/te Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Mi[~er
On behalf of Albemarle County, I am requesting that you support the following budget amendments when
you reconvene on Wednesday, April 17:
· Drug Court - Amendment that restores $2.1 million in funding for Drug Courts, which judges use
as.an alternative to incarceration for individuals convicted of crimes involving minor drug offenses.
· Pre- and Post- Incarceration Services - Amendment that restores $1.8 million in funding for the
Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS) program, which provides transition services (such
as employment, education and housing assistance) to assist individuals who have been involved
with the courts to become law-abiding citizens.
· Car tax Audit and Relief Program Certification Requirements - Amendment to the car tax
audit and relief program certification rec~uirements, to allow local governments several ways to
obtain certification that only vehicles used for personal use are receiw ng car tax relief.
· Education Funding for At-Risk Children- Amendment that provides additional funding for
educational programs for at-risk children.
Deputy positions - Provides for an additional 29 deputy positions throughout the state by using
provisional population estimates.
CSA Funding - Amendment that clarifies the use of CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care
arrangements. Changes language so that CSA funding shall only be used for residential
placement through a non-custodial foster care agreement resulting from court involvement, if the
court has ordered and received a family assessment that indicates therapeutic services in a
residential placement is necessary, or a founded Child Protective Service investigation indicates
that parents have been unable or unwilling to provide the necessary services.
Changes to SB 592 - If SB 592 is amended to impose a $5/ton fee on solid waste deposited in
Virginia landfills, Albemarle County supports the provision of these funds to localities for landfill
upgrades,~cleanup, and closures in 'addition to open space preservation, recycling and water
quality improvement initiatives.
Printed on recycled paper
The Honorable R. Creigh Deeds
April 11, 2002
RE: Support of Specific Budget Items During April 17th Session
Page 2
For the sake of the citizens of Albemarle County, I thank you in advance for your support of these
proposed amendments.
SHT~
02.003-F
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman