Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-10April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 10, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and, Deputy Clerk, Ms. Laurel W. Bentley. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Bonnie McCauley said vital resources in the County are slipping away. When it first was learned that there would be no burial of debris, etc. at the Ivy landfill, they were told that resources would not change. However, during the last couple of weeks they have received memos from the RSWA saying that due to declining revenue, there will be changes made in what can be recycled. She said there is a meeting scheduled at the RSWA offices soon on their proposed budget for 2003. RSWA is proposing not to accept or recycle glass, textiles or plastics at the McIntire Recycling Center. They also propose cutting back the operating hours of the Center to 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. At the Ivy Landfill, they propose to close the transfer station on Wednesdays. She thinks that even propose to shut down on Wednesdays is ridiculous. RSWA has already canceled one of the vital white goods clean-up days for pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Ms. McCauley said the landfill is a vital resource, and if the County cannot do anything to fund it, roads will be cluttered with trash and debris. She thinks the County should step forward and do more with the landfill. Ms. Thomas said there used to be a group which met with trash haulers. She asked if that group still exists. Ms. McCauley said at this time there are only two people who are interested in having such a haulers association. Ms. Thomas thanked Ms. McCauley for bringing up this subject, and particularly for mentioning the public hearing to be held by RSWA soon. Mr. Ray McCauley said there are many houses proposed for the Crozet area, enough for 12,000 people. How will they dispose of their trash? He asked that the Board keep the Landfill open on Wednesdays. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.4 on the Consent agenda, to pull Items 5.2 and 5.3 for discussion later, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. __________ Item 5.1. Addition of two citizen members to the Commission on Children and Families (CCF). It was noted in the staffs report that 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. Therefore, the Agreement between the Albemarle Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families, as adopted in 1997, must be amended to increase the membership of the Commission's citizen representatives from nine to eleven. Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes to the Agreement between the Board and Council. By the recorded vote set out above, the staffs recommendation concerning the Agreement == between the Board and Council, was approved. __________ Item 5.2. Draft Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Plan Pre-allocation Hearing in Culpeper (deferred from April 3, 2002). It was noted in the staffs report that on April 16, 2002, the Virginia Department of Transportation = April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) (VDOT) will conduct its annual pre-allocation hearing in Culpeper for improvements to the interstate and primary system for the Culpeper District. All roads with route numbers below 600 are primary roads (i.e. Route 29, Route 250). The Six-Year Primary Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that a specific amount of funds are set aside for secondary road projects in the County, whereas funds for primary road projects are allocated for each construction district, and all primary projects proposed within localities of the District compete for these funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Orange and Rappahannock counties. The purpose of this review process by the Board is to recommend which County projects to include in the Primary Plan for the District. Attachment A (on file) is a draft of the County's improvement priorities for the primary system. If necessary, staff will modify priorities based on the Board's comments and can provide a final draft for the Board's review and endorsement at the April 10, 2002, Board meeting. This item was pulled for discussion later in the meeting. __________ Item 5.3. County Response to Draft SEIS on the Route 29 Bypass. This item was pulled for discussion later in the meeting. __________ Item 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. It was noted in the staffs report that Virginia Code 24.2-307 requires that the Board of Supervi- =' sors establish polling places by ordinance. Albemarle County Code 2-102(C)(4) establishes the North- ' side 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. 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 1500 yards of the precinct boundary (Virginia Code 24.2-310) and is easily accessible to the voters in the precinct. Staff recommends that the ' ordinance be set for public hearing on May 1, 2002. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set this ordinance for a public hearing at its meeting on May 1, 2001. __________ Item 5.5. Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections First Quarter 2002 Report, was received for information. __________ Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated April 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 10.3.1), was received for information. _______________ (Note: The Board held the following two public hearings simultaneously.) Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the Proposed FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget and Proposed FY 2002-2003 through FY 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 31, 2002.) __________ Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING on Proposed FY 2002 Tax Rates. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 31, 2002.) Mr. Tucker said he would like to review some of the changes which have occurred since the recommended budget was heard at a public hearing last month. The total operating budget for FY 2002- 03 is $195,743,108. About 50 percent of the budget goes to School operations, with six percent going to the Schools Self-Sustaining Funds, and with Capital transfers added in, about 65 percent of the total = budget goes to school needs. Twenty-five percent is for General Government, three percent for the City Revenue Sharing Agreement, with other funds taking seven percent. Mr. Tucker listed the following major proposed additional expenditures: Administration: 1) Office of Management/Budget - one new budget analyst with an October 2, 2002, hire date has been added; 2) A salary supplement is provided for the Registrar. Public Safety: 1) In the Police Department, one additional police officer has been added with a January, 2003 hire date. This will be a total of two new police officers in FY 2003; 2) In the Fire/Rescue Department, funding for one new fire/rescue trainer position with a January, 2003 hire April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) date has been added; 3) The County will be funding the County Fire Dispatching Service at the Emergency Communications Center; 4) Funds have been added for operations of the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center; 5) Additional funding is included for operations of the Albemarle- Charlottesville Regional Jail; 6) A contingency fund is being set aside to support community agencies which may experience reduced VJCCA funding from the Commonwealth. Human Development: 1) A total increase of $53,363 is being provided for the following agencies - Commission on Children & Families, Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) and the MACAA Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. Parks and Recreation: 1) Additional funds to cover summer part-time employee costs; 2) An additional $24,100 to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. Community Development: 1) One additional Senior Planner (January, 2003 hire date) has been added, making a total of two new senior planner positions with hire dates of January, 2003; 2) At the request of the Soil & Water Conservation District provided an additional $1811. Non-Departmental: 1) Propose a total increase of 3.8 percent in staff compensation, which is 1.8 percent over the two percent increase included in the recommended budget; 2) Provided $1.0 million for the Acquisition of Easements (ACE) Program in the Capital Budget (money coming from both the General Fund and Tourism funds). Board Contingency Reserve has been reduced to $157,164. Mr. Tucker said total County revenues are $195,743,108. About 58 percent of those revenues come from local funds. State revenues are at 30 percent, with self-sustaining revenues at three percent, and Federal funds at five percent. Changes in revenues have been made by increasing the Countys = automobile decal by $2.00; an increase in the E-911 surcharge from $1.39 to $2.00 per month per line; an increase in the Parks & Recreation entrance fee by $1.00; establish a court security fee of $5.00 per conviction (if the Governor signs the bill). Mr. Tucker next mentioned the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2003-07. He said last year was the first year in this five-year cycle. For next fiscal year, the plan has been amended slightly in the way of urgent and emergency projects, and updated costs for projects over the five-year period. One item added is $1.0 million for the ACE Program with $550,000 coming from the General Fund, and $450,000 coming from Tourism funds. The CIP budget for next year totals $16,825,000 with 58 percent going to school projects, ten percent to highways and transportation, eleven percent to public safety, and the ACE program is about six percent. Mr. Tucker said for the 2002 Tax Levy, the rates are proposed to remain at the current rate of $0.76/$100 of assessed valuation for Real Property, and at $4.28/$100 of assessed valuation for Personal Property. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Ms. Babette Thorpe was present to represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. She thanked the Board for restoring funds to buy conservation easements. She said this program fills an important niche in the Countys long-range planning. It gives the County an opportunity to retire permanently the = development rights on land with outstanding environmental, agricultural, historic and scenic value. She said the Council is working with several prospects for the program, landowners who were discouraged when they heard funding for ACE had been excluded from the budget the Board considered last month. She said PEC is 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. Ms. Marjorie Shepherd was present to represent the Albemarle Education Association. She asked the Board to fund the amount of the Baker-Butler School opening, $400,000. She said the Schools budget cannot handle more cuts without compromising the quality of education in the County. She said no comparable cuts are being levied on Local Government, so she sees this as punitive and unfair to the children and educators of Albemarle. She said the Board and Mr. Tucker have repeatedly refused to fund growth in the schools. She thinks the Board promotes growth in the County through its policies, but then refuses to pay the bill for opening a new school. She said the schools support the Character Counts program. By not funding this growth expense, the Board shows there is yet a ways to go to foster fairness, caring, respect, responsibility, trust and citizenship. She urged the Board to find the funding to support the schools. Ms. Ivy Hinton was present to speak on behalf of the Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE). She asked that the Board fully fund SHEs request. = Mr. Brian Wheeler said he is the parent of a fourth grader at Murray Elementary, He is speaking tonight on behalf of the Murray community as Vice President of the Murray PTO. He hears a lot of concerns from parents and teachers in the County about the state of the schools. He said they will not settle for a second rate school system, and if the State will not pay its way, then the Board needs to take revenue matters into its own hands until they do. Albemarle should set its only agenda for quality education. The States Standards of Quality and its lack of funding for even those minimal goals, is a joke = and totally inadequate. This years school budget has no new initiatives. There are a lot of technology = initiatives on the horizon that this school system would greatly benefit from that budgets like this one will not April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) even begin to fund. Mr. Wheeler said the one initiative that made top priority was to raise salaries by 3.3 percent, and this Board has threatened not to fully fund that effort. The Board raised the real estate tax rate two years ago to fully fund the education budget, and for that, he says Thank you. He said things are different now A@ than they were two years ago. The State is in worse shape and Albemarle County is in better shape because a priority was placed on funding education. He asked that the Board not back down on that commitment now. He further asked that the Board support the school systems complete request for one- = time money for the opening of the new Baker-Butler Elementary school. This Board needs to make up this $400,000 deficit or the schools will start on a backwards course, and even if it is slight, it is the wrong direction. He asked that the Board put excellence in education on its priority list for this budget. Ms. Cathy Link, a resident, thanked the Board for its decision to continue funding the ACE Program. Mr. Corky Shackleford was present to speak as a member of the ACE Committee, and a member of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau. He said at the hearing on the proposed program he spoke to the Board in support of the ACE Program. The comments he heard at that meeting made it seem that it is a popular program which should be supported. He is here tonight to express his appreciation to the Board for finding the funds to continue funding the ACE Program. Ms. Judy Bartlett, said she was present in support of SOCAs request for $2000 for a SOCA = outreach program for a Latino soccer program. There is a need for a Spanish-speaking outreach promoter. Ms. Liz Palmer was present to speak about the recent proposals for cuts by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. She said there have been many changes this past year, but there is a strange debacle in the making and she thinks the inability of the City and the County to communicate is part of the problem. It was recently announced that they will stop the collection of glass, plastics, etc. at the McIntire Center, and cut dramatically the hours of operation. It has also mentioned collecting $1.00 for use of the Center. She said this was confusing because of Mr. Tuckers presentation at the public hearing last month. She said = that many people will not use the Center if there is a charge. She has been told that the City is withholding tipping fees because they want the County to pay part of those tipping fees. She said the community is already committed to recycling because it is the only responsible way to go forward into the next century. She asked that the Board find a solution to this problem. Mr. Lanny Moore, Chief of the East Rivanna Fire Department and Chairman of the Fire/Rescue Advisory Board, spoke next. He asked that the Board help fire services as much as possible. Ms. Kathy Verell, a County teacher and parent, spoke next. She asked that the Board reconsider the School Boards request to fund the one-time start-up cost for Baker-Butler Elementary School. She = said that without those funds, the School budget will be seriously impacted. She asked that the opening of a new school not be detrimental to the quality of education in the County. Mr. Dan Rosensweig, Director of the SOCA Organization in Charlottesville and Albemarle, asked the Board to fund the Outreach Program to help Latino children. Mr. David Brown, Charlottesville's SOCA City Outreach Coordinator, described the success of the program in the City. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chair of the ACE Committee, thanked the Board for funding the ACE Program. Mr. Joe Bodick, the parent of two children and member of a parent council, spoke next. He spoke in favor of fully funding the County schools. Mr. Jimmy Powell, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, thanked the Board for funding the ACE Program. His was one of the first requests to be funded. He said if it was not for ACE his farm would probably have ended up being subdivided. A representative of the Hatter family asked the Board to fund SOCA and the outreach program. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Thomas said the Board would adopt the budget and set the tax rates at its next meeting. Mr. Martin asked what amount was left unfunded for the Shelter in Help and Emergency (SHE). Mr. Tucker said the outside agencies were funded at 2.5 percent this year. Mr. Martin said the difference between the request and the recommended amount is then only $480. Mr. Dorrier asked about the recycling issue. He thinks the Board needs to know more about recycling efforts before making a decision. Mr. Tucker said he cannot add much to what was said during the public hearing. Mr. Rooker said remediation expenses were included in the budget. Mr. Tucker said the lady was referring to reductions in Rivanna's budget in order for them to balance their budget. If the RSWA Board adds some of those things back, the City and the County will have to pay some additional funds. Ms. Thomas asked if the services mentioned will end in July. Mr. Tucker said the RSWA Board April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) needs to determine what revenues are available in January for salaries and other things. What the County provides in funding for this year and next year will provide a cushion of revenues for RSWA. The largest revenue item would be charging $1.00/vehicle at McIntire. If the fee is eliminated, the County would have to fund an additional $80,000. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Mark Graham has been analyzing what RSWA has proposed; he will present that analysis to the Board soon. Mr. Rooker said the program is no longer self-funding. Mr. Martin said all taxpayers now have to fund the shortfall since the landfill has closed. Mr. Roger Hildebeidel said in response to Mr. Martins question, to fully fund SHE, an additional = $1,000 would need to be added. Mr. Martin said regarding the startup costs for the Baker-Butler school, the School Board said they can handle both salary increases and the Baker-Butler School's needs. Ms. Thomas said the 3.8 percent was such a high priority that the School Board used that as a negotiation point. Dr. Castner said he prepared a memorandum to the School Board that said when the Supervisors talked about raising salaries, he said $800,000 to $1.0 million in cuts would have to occur. Even with additional Federal revenue coming in, cuts may still be needed. Ms. Thomas said when she looked at the budget, she came up with over $3.0 million in unmet requests within General Government. She said the Board added a few things to the budget during work sessions, but they did not nearly begin to pickup some things. The Board did not do what it wanted to do in the area of public transportation, did not pick up losses agencies in the area of childrens services are = suffering due to State cuts. She said there is a lot of cutting being done at the State level which is impacting the County in major ways in mental health, etc. which the County cannot pick up. There are also new bills which have been passed which will cost the County money. There is a provision in the State budget which will not be settled until after the veto session which could cost the County $100,000. There is a provision which has been signed by the Governor that will cost the County $20,000 every time it approves a certain zoning category. She thanked the staff for its work in drafting this budget because it was put together during difficult circumstances. Mr. Rooker said there are about $1.5 million in unfunded requests from the Planning Department, and that the department has held off hiring staff in order to keep costs down. Sixty-five percent of the budget goes toward education. This year that was an increase of nearly $5.0 million. Mr. Dorrier said the budget is successful in many areas (ACE, Fire Protection, an increase in School and General Government salaries without raising taxes). The sparse attendance at this meeting would indicate this to be a successful budget. Mr. Rooker said the employee health care benefit increased by 26 percent and this increase is not being passed to the employees. He said he would appreciate receiving additional information on the increase in Jail expense. Mr. Tucker said staff would get that to him. Mr. Rooker asked what the request for $3000 for the Latin SOCA program would fund. Ms. White said the Program Review Committee reviewed and supported this request. Their recommendation was that SOCA increase their fees in order to raise revenue. Ms. Thomas said she thought the Committee wanted level funding since the City has already funded the program. She would like to be able to fund it. She thanked the community for supporting the ACE Program. Mr. Rooker said he would like to see Dr. Castner's letter. Mr. Tucker said he would send him a copy. (Note: At 8:25 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.) _______________ (Note: At this time, the Board returned to Items 5.2 and 5.3 from the Consent Agenda.) Item 5.2. Draft Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper. Mr. Tucker provided Board members with the following draft statement to be read by the Chairman. He asked that any comments be forwarded to staff to be incorporated into the final statement: “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 of priorities 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 functioning 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 April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 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 streetscapes 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 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 11th 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 Airport/Proffit Road intersectionThe 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. 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 I-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 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 Route 29 Phase I Corridor Study and being considered in the Route 29 Phases II and III Corridor Study. We are recommending a number of safety improvements with the most critical being the construction of pedestrian walkways 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 April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 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 opportunity 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 attention.” Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize the Chairman to present the statement at the preallocation hearing. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. _______________ Consent Agenda Item 5.3. County Response to Draft SEIS on the Route 29 Bypass. Ms. Thomas asked Board members to get comments regarding the County’s response to the Draft SEIS on the Route 29 Bypass to Mr. Tucker tomorrow so that the response can be faxed Tuesday. She added that Mr. Rooker and she worked would with this when working on MPO statement. The MPO endorsed this statement as well as that of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. She commented that she recently came upon a recent truck accident involving a fuel spill on Route 29 South, and noticed that there was no Hazardous Materials Team to clean up the accident. Mr. Martin asked about alternatives to the bypass. Mr. Graham said he could not comment on specifics. Mr. Rooker said options should include grade-separated interchanges. Mr. Graham said this is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Study, adding that handling hazardous materials is a significant issue. Costs were not provided. Mr. Dorrier said the report says responsibility for cleaning up hazardous materials will fall to the County. Mr. Rooker asked about attaching a statement from the Historic Preservation Committee. He asked whether the HPC agrees with the data recovery findings. Mr. Tucker said Planning staff will look into this. Ms. Thomas, referring to the second example of an emergency response situation, noted that the nearest responders had to come from a long way away. She added wording to the cover letter to highlight this concern. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the letter and attached statements subject to such changes as might be communicated by the Board. Options on second page are all western options. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. Proposed comments are set out below: 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 Essentially, the VDOT approach is like studying the chances of someone catastrophic spill scenario. 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 low 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 of haz/mat spill on the proposed bypass than on the existing roads. April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 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 haz/mat 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 of the 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 While VDOT does not think through the implications (or hazard) associated with the worst case scenario. 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 doesn't 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 VDOT compares the phosphorus concentration (mass per water volume) standard for such analyses). coming off the bypass to the existing concentration in the Ivy Creek Watershed instead of estimating the actual amount of phosphorus (total mass) that the bypass would add. 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 load 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 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 III: 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? April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 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 ppm. d) 4.3.1, p. 4-8, Table 4-4- Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. e) 4.3.3, p 4-9, Table 4-5- Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. f) 4.3.3, p. 4-10, Table 4-7- Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. g) 4.3.4, p. 4-12, Table 4-8- Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. h) 4.3.6, p. 4-13. Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in discussion. i) 4.3.7, p. 4-13. Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in discussion. j) 4.3.8, p. 4-13. Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) 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. l) 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 the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. r) 4.3.10, p. 4-27, par. 2- Estimate the chances of a 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 the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) 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 loads (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 the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) in table and associated discussion. th w) 4.5.3, p. 4-35, par.1- 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.1- 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.1- 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 describing the analytical methods, how is the SEIS to be reviewed? aa) 4.7.1, p. 4-37, Table 4-17- Include impacts of the base case with grade separated interchanges (at Rio, Greenbrier, and Hydraulic Roads) 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 contaminant as possible. In wet weather the same downstream gate would be 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 of the pond. April 10, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 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. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas noted that the Boards retreat is scheduled on the same date as the Dogwood Parade. = After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to hold the retreat from 1:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on April 26 and April 27, 2002. This will allow the Supervisors time to attend the Dogwood Parade should they so choose. __________ Ms. Thomas said the General Assembly's Veto Session lists six things the Board has encouraged its legislators to support. It was the consensus to have staff draft a letter of support for certain budget amendments. The letter will be distributed to legislators and Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, will communicate the County's support to legislators. The Board also agreed to add its support to have a portion of the state garbage tipping fees be returned to localities to help pay landfill closure costs. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to communicate on CSA funding. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ABSTAINED: Mr. Martin (Abstained from voting on the budget amendment pertaining to CSA funding for non-custodial Foster Care arrangement). __________ Ms. Thomas said the County's Western counterpart in the Lewis and Clark celebration is Long Beach County in Washington state. Representatives from there will visit this area May 10-13. She sent an E-mail to the Board members this afternoon, and asked which of the Board members will be attending these events. __________ Ms. Thomas stated that a State tipping fee for each ton of garbage taken to any landfill goes to the Virginia Land Conservation Fund and natural resources, etc. But, none goes to local landfills for their remediation charges. Some counties are asking that that be added. She asked if this Board is supportive. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 08/07/2002 Initials: LAB