Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-01 FIN A L 9:00 A.M. April 1, 1992 Room 7, County Office Building 1) Call to Order. 2) Pledge of Allegiance. 3) Moment of Silence. 4) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. 5) *Consent Agenda (begins at bottom of sheet). 6) Approval of Minutes: June 12, September 4, September 11, October 9 and October 16, 1991. 7) Highway Matters: a) Discussion: Revenue Sharing Projects. b) Other Highway Matters. 8) Amendment: Continuous Service Policy. 9) Sale of McIntire School Property to McIntire Land Trust (from March 11, 1992). 10) Review of Development Related Fees, i.e., for Day Care, Home Occupation and others. 11) Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney. 12) Set Public Hearing date to amend the Jail Board Ordinance. 13) Work Session: To amend the Comprehensive Plan to add an Open Space and Critical Resource Plan to guide efforts to plan for and protect open space in the County in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. 14) 11:00 A.M. - Leave Charlottesville for tour of Scottsville to view proposed boundary line adjustment. 15) 2:00 P.M. - Work Sessions, Room 7: a) George Williams - Discussion: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority budget. b) Discussion: Route 29 North Aesthetic Improvements. 16) 3:30 P.M. - Joint Meetin~ with School Board - Rooms 5/6:. a) Budget Update. b) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 17) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 18) Adjourn. CON S E N T AGE N D A FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 V oluntary Early Retirement Application - Louella Turner. 5.2 Tour DuPont Bicycle Race. FOR INFORMATION: 5.3 Memorandum dated March 26, 1992, from Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive, re: Road Name Change Petition Status for Route 640 and Route 53. 5.4 Amendment to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study ( CATS) . 5.5 Airport Orientation Program. 5 .6 Memorandum dated March 11, 1992, from Gerald E. Fisher, Secondary Roads Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Fiscal Year 1992-93. 5.7 Letter dated March 9, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that roads in Rosemont had been added to the State Secondary System effective March 5, 1992. 5.8 Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for February 18, March 10 and March 17, 1992. 5.9 Report from JAUNT on its Service Provided from October 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991. 5 .10 Letter dated March 13, 1992, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy Director, Department of Historic Resources, giving his staff's opinion that Castlebrook, Albemarle County, 02-656, is not an eligible historic resource for inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register. 5.11 Letter dated March 20, 1992, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating the Department's interest in including Enniscorthy, Albemarle County (DHR File No. 02-28) on the Virginia Landmarks Register. 5.12 Update on the Southside Transfer Station. 5.13 Real Estate Tax Exemption - Our Lady of Peace. 5.14 Letter dated March 25, 1992, from Secretary John G. Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: Route 29 proposed improvements and interchanges at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive. 5.15 Update on Space Needs Master Plan - County Office Building. 5.16. Regulation of Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors. 5.17 Memorandum dated March 25, 1992, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: Current Projects, Con- struction Schedule. 5.18 Whitewood Forest Park Development Plan - Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5.19 City of Charlottesville Gas Division Gas Line Installation to Serve Keswick, Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5.20 Letter dated March 24, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Hunter's Way has been taken into the State Secondary Sytem effective March 16, 1992. "" ;. .. Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development FROM: Lettie E. Neher. Clerk. CMC /J;rJ DATE: April 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 1, 1992 At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on April 1, 1992, the following actions were taken: Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5.1. Voluntary Early Retirement Application - Louella TUrner. APPROVED. Signed application form for Ms. Turner returned to Personnel. Agenda Item No. 5.2. Tour DuPont Bicycle Race. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign a letter granting permission for the Tour DuPont bicycle race to pass through Albemarle County on May 15, 1992 contingent upon receiving a certificate of insurance from the race organizers. Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Revenue Sharing Projects. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached letter indicating the County's intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1992-93 in the amount of $500,000 to be used on the reconstruction I realignment of Fifth Street Extended. (5/1 vote) Date: Page 2 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 -- Memo To: Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters. The Board AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the financial plan for the Six Year Secondary Road Improvements Plan for 1992-93 through 1997-98. (6/0 vote) The Board AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached agreement covering cost participation for sidewalk installation in the Route 654 (Barracks Road) project. Original agreements forwarded to Dan Roosevelt. (610 vote) Mr. Tucker announced that the Commonwealth Drive Extended project will be advertised for bids on April 19. Mr. Perkins asked the Highway Department to consider installing a sign on 1-64 at exit 108 indicating the exit for Greenwood, and on Route 250 at the sign for Greenwood Country Store provide a sign for the Greenwood Post Office or Greenwood Community Center. Mr. Marshall asked the Highway Department to install "no littering" signs on Route 20 South and indicate that there is a fine for littering on this high- way. In response to an article in the Daily Progress containing comments made by Secretary Milliken following the Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper, the Board asked Mr. Tucker to communicate with Secretary Milliken for clarification on his comments and to find out the sequence for acquisition of right-of-way. This information is to be brought back to the Board on April 8. Agenda Item No.8. Amendment: Continuous Service Policy. The Board APPROVED a request from Mac Sandridge to include all of his years of service to the County in his retirement bonus. APPROPRIATED $1200 from the Board's contingency to cover the additional costs. Appropriation form requested from Melvin Breeden. The Board agreed to look at requests from employees regard- ing the Continuous Service Policy on a case by case basis with no change in the general policy. ( 5/1 vote) Agenda Item No.9. Sale of McIntire School Property to McIntire Land Trust (from March 11, 1992). Provided as information - no action. Agenda Item No. 10. Review of Development Related Fees, i. e., for Day Care, Home Occupation and others. ADOPTED the attached Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change the fee for special use permits for day care centers to $390 when the request is for six to nine children and $780 when the request is for ten or more children. The Board took no action on home occu pation or other related fees. ( 6 I 0 vote) Date: Page 3 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 -Memo To: Agenda Item No. II. the appropriation request. vote) Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney. APPROVED Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. (6/0 Agenda Item No. 12. Set Public Hearing date to amend the Jail Board Ordinance. The Board AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex agreement to enable private citizen members of the Jail Board to serve three consecutive three-year terms. Agreement forwarded to Mr. St. John for rewriting before it goes to the City. ADOPTED a Resolution of Intent to amend the County Code in Section 2-42 that "No private citizen member of the Board shall serve more than three consecutive three year terms." Public hearing to be advertised for May 6. (6/0 vote) Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: To amend the Comprehensive Plan to add an Open Space and Critical Resource Plan to guide efforts to plan for and protect open space in the County in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. DEFERRED discussion on the recommendations for the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan to May 6, 1992. Agenda Item No. 14. Leave Charlottesville for tour of Scottsville to view proposed boundary line adjustment. No action. Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: George Williams - Discussion: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority budget. Mr. Bain wants to know the details of the Joyce Engineering contract and its duration. Agenda Item No. 15b. Work Session: Discussion: Route 29 North Aesthe- tic Improvements. The County Executive will follow up with the Highway Depart- ment concerning the Planning Department's inquiry last December on the costs of having landscaping of some sort in the median on Route 29 North. Staff is also to get clarification from Virginia Power and Centel as to the costs of under- ground service. Agenda Item No. 16a. Joint Meeting with School Board: Budget Update. No action. Agenda Item No. 16b. Other School Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Nothing. .. ... Memo' To: Date: Page 4 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Voted to APPROVE the County Executive being made a permanent proxy to vote the County's shares at Jaunt's annual meetings. (6/0 vote) In response to an issue concerning a waiver of the Runoff Control Ordi- nance to allow an individual to build a swimming pool without requiring a runoff control permit, the County Engineer indicated that a waiver or variance was not necessary. It is part of Engineering policy to permit open swimming pools as they retain water and safeguard quality. A memo stating this policy is included as part of their files. LEN: ec Attachments cc: Robert B. Brandenburger Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Jo Higgins Amelia Patterson Bruce Woodzell George R. St. John File Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall MEMORANDUM TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development FROM: Lettie E. Neher. Clerk. CMC /J;rJ DATE: April 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Board Actions of April 1, 1992 At the Board of Supervisors I meeting on April 1, 1992, the following actions were taken: Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No.5. 1. Voluntary Early Retirement Application - Louella Turner. APPROVED. Signed application form for Ms. Turner returned to Personnel. Agenda Item No. 5.2. Tour DuPont Bicycle Race. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign a letter granting permission for the Tour DuPont bicycle race to pass through Albemarle County on May 15, 1992 contingent upon receiving a certificate of insurance from the race organizers. Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Revenue Sharing Projects. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached letter indicating the County's intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1992-93 in the amount of $500,000 to be used on the reconstruction I realignment of Fifth Street Extended. (5 11 vote) Date: Page 2 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 Memo To: Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters. The Board AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the financial plan for the Six Year Secondary Road Improvements Plan for 1992-93 through 1997-98. (6/0 vote) The Board AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached agreement covering cost participation for sidewalk installation in the Route 654 (Barracks Road) project. Original agreements forwarded to Dan Roosevelt. ( 6 10 vote) Mr. Tucker announced that the Commonwealth Drive Extended project will be advertised for bids on April 19. Mr. Perkins asked the Highway Department to consider installing a sign on 1-64 at exit 108 indicating the exit for Greenwood, and on Route 250 at the sign for Greenwood Country Store provide a sign for the Greenwood Post Office or Greenwood Community Center. Mr. Marshall asked the Highway Department to install "no littering" signs on Route 20 South and indicate that there is a fine for littering on this high- way. In response to an article in the Daily Progress containing comments made by Secretary Milliken following the Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper, the Board asked Mr. Tucker to communicate with Secretary Milliken for clarification on his comments and to find out the sequence for acquisition of right-of-way. This information is to be brought back to the Board on April 8. Agenda Item No.8. Amendment: Continuous Service Policy. The Board APPROVED a request from Mac Sandridge to include all of his years of service to the County in his retirement bonus. APPROPRIATED $1200 from the Board's contingency to cover the additional costs. Appropriation form requested from Melvin Breeden. The Board agreed to look at requests from employees regard- ing the Continuous Service Policy on a case by case basis with no change in the general policy. ( 5/1 vote) Agenda Item No.9. Sale of McIntire School Property to McIntire Land Trust (from March 11, 1992). Provided as information - no action. Agenda Item No. 10. Review of Development Related Fees, i. e., for Day Care, Home Occupation and others. ADOPTED the attached Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change the fee for special use permits for day care centers to $390 when the request is for six to nine children and $780 when the request is for ten or more children. The Board took no action on home occupation or other related fees. (6/0 vote) Date: Page 3 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 Memo To: Agenda Item No. II. the appropriation request. vote) Appropriation: Commonwealth's Attorney. APPROVED Original form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. (6/0 Agenda Item No. 12. Set Public Hearing date to amend the Jail Board Ordinance. The Board AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex agreement to enable private citizen members of the Jail Board to serve three consecutive three-year terms. Agreement forwarded to Mr. St. John for rewriting before it goes to the City. ADOPTED a Resolution of Intent to amend the County Code in Section 2-42 that "No private citizen member of the Board shall serve more than three consecutive three year terms." Public hearing to be advertised for May 6. (6/0 vote) Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: To amend the Comprehensive Plan to add an Open Space and Critical Resource Plan to guide efforts to plan for and protect open space in the County in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. DEFERRED discussion on the recommendations for the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan to May 6, 1992. Agenda Item No. 14. Leave Charlottesville for tour of Scottsville to view proposed boundary line adjustment. No action. Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: George Williams - Discussion: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority budget. Mr. Bain wants to know the details of the Joyce Engineering contract and its duration. Agenda Item No. 15b. Work Session: Discussion: Route 29 North Aesthe- tic Improvements. The County Executive will follow up with the Highway Depart- ment concerning the Planning Department's inquiry last December on the costs of having landscaping of some sort in the median on Route 29 North. Staff is also to get clarification from Virginia Power and Centel as to the costs of under- ground service. Agenda Item No. 16a. Joint Meeting with School Board: Budget Update. No action. Agenda Item No. 16b. Other School Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Nothing. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg April 2, 1992 Date: Page 4 Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD . Voted to APPROVE the County Executive being made a permanent proxy to vote the County's shares at Jaunt's annual meetings. (6/0 vote) In response to an issue concerning a waiver of the Runoff Control Ordi- nance to allow an individual to build a swimming pool without requiring a runoff control permit, the County Engineer indicated that a waiver or variance was not necessary. It is part of Engineering policy to permit open swimming pools as they retain water and safeguard quality. A memo stating this policy is included as part of their files. LEN: ec Attachments cc: Robert B. Brandenburger Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Jo Higgins Amelia Patterson Bruce Woodzell George R. St. John File r ALBEMARLE COUNTY VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT PLAN APPLICATION NAME OF APPL I CANT: j-, () d c:-- \ \ Oi \;(j~>.. 'I 6\~ ( . y (, I 11 /' II) POSITION;~~<,~ ((/teL /[LGC~ DEPT./SCHOOL: ~~r-F 0.x1H(~Q,Jde~v-c::-<~ DATE OF HIRE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY: O~/ol /79 DATE OF BIRTH: D~/ b~/;?1? APPLICATION IS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT TO BEGIN: D7 /0/ /~~1 STATE BRIEF REASON FOR EARLY RETIREMENT REQUEST: I understand that the Albemarle County Voluntary Early Retirement Plan is voluntary and that I am pursuing this request on my own initiative. The Plan will be administered in accordance with the Voluntary Early Retirement policy of the Board of Supervisors/School Board. ~~ LUJ/~ SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE ;) / 0<0/1.;) DATE SIGNED* *NOTE: Application must be received by the Director of Personnel by December 1 in order to be considered for next fiscal year. ~APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD D NOT APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD d7J April 1, 1992 DATE ACTED UPON BY BOARD WHITE - PERSONNEL; YELLOW - SUPT ./COUNTY EXEC.; ~. .-i ~ - EMPLOYEE Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 April 2, 1992 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins While Hall Mr. Aaron Marinari Event Services Director Tour DuPont 3228 West Cary Street, Suite D Richmond, Virginia 23221 Dear Mr. Marinari: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is hereby granting permission to your organization for the Tour DuPont bicycle race to pass through Albemarle County on May 15, 1992. This permission is granted based upon our receiving a certificate of insurance naming Albemarle County on your $5,000,000 liability policy prior to your pass through the County. Our specific language requirements necessary to complete our insurance certificate are as follows: Albemarle County Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Please mail the completed certificate of insurance to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, at the above referenced address. Sincerely, David P. Bowerman, Chairman DPB/dbm 92.016 Edward H Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall April 2, 1992 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Code of Virginia Section 33.1-75.1 Fiscal Year 1992-93 County of Albemarle, Virginia Dear Mr. Fisher: The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1992-93. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. Sincerely, David P. Bowerman Chairman, Board of Supervisors DPW\alb Enclosures cc: Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer o 0\ nw lJ1 .- 01 NO o N I N N .l:- I "" 0 d ... Q. oQ .. ~ "'" ... ~ ~. _. .. _ Q. n ~.. ~ .. .. . rT.... -~ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .(f> lJ1 o o o o o n o .. ~n ... <> -..... -= .,. ... .. - CO ~ ::::...... o .. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .(f> lJ1 o o o o o "" ... ....~ -.. n .,... .... - Q....... ... .. .." -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- ---- ,-., \J:l N <Xl I \J:l <Xl '-' _. "'" .. ... "'" -- -"'0 ... ... c:a ......_. .. ~ ...- ., -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- z -.... ... ...... c: d ~_ .. ....- ... - ... - .. .... -. d - .. _ en ... .. .... .. -... ... ... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- :::. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- N C31 .... - ""'.. . ... .. =~.~ .. .... ~ .- <Xl I ~ .. 0 =.f"h= ... - ... ~ CO .... -... c:r .. ... .." -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- 0 .... 0\.- 0\ W .... .c- .I:- .I:- .I:- .... ... <> <> 3: . ~ ,.. CJ) 0 C,i'j -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .... - lJ1 .... .. .. ~ ... \J:l co n N ... .. <Xl - ... - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- :> en n en -=IiIIIIlA -g. ~:.~ lU .... - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- __ __ __ _5'__ __ __ '.:_ __.:: z - '" - -. ... ... Q .... --... -. .." -.... ... >< - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -;-- - - - - --- --. ,.- ,., .. ... CO - . - .. .. ... oQ - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- 0.(") ....0 <: ::l ....en 0.,.. ~ '1 o.C n :1"'" .... OQ .I:- :1"1 ~ .... lU lU '< ::l ~ ... ... .. <> ... co ... ca .. ... .. CO .,I a o ..., . -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -: ---- co <::> co ... ca ... .. co <> .. ... ... ... ... ("10_ ~ . -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -:- -- r- ~ i r =:=: en en ... :;:~ .. n h ~ en <: .... .... .... ~ :> :;: ~ pa~ CT".-.q:.... ~~~!~ '1 <::> ~ rs= -.... gl..... Q \0 Q <::I =W ~ _ en .... - on - 1- <::> .. 1- '. COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT SIDEllALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 0654-002-242, C501 THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 1st day of April , 1992, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT. II I T N E SSE T H: llHEREAS, the Department plans the reconstruction and improvement of Barracks Road, (Route 654) in Albemarle County, beginning at a point 0.092 Mi. W. of its intersection with Route 656: to a point 0.003 Mi. W. of its intersection with Route 1406: which improvements are shown in detail on plans designated as Project: 0654-002-242, C501. Said plans include the installation of new sidewalk located throughout the project limits; and llHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, pertaining to State participation in cost of right of way, sidewalks and storm sewers, revised February 18, 1968, the County is required to participate in the cost of new sidewalk construction. ... -3- IN VITNKSS VHEREOF, the County and the Department have caused their names to be affixed to this Agreement on the date set forth above by duly authorized officers of their respective organizations. THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY: (,;)~A~ Cnairma , Board of County Supervisors ATTEST: ~ -:f!:{---:7 /' ~t/ _~~1 d7 /2f~1 / Title: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BY: ATTEST: Ti tle : APPROVED Fiscal (VDOT) Office of the Attorney General Date: Date: RES 0 L UTI 0 N o F I N TEN T BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 to change the fee for a special use permit for day care centers to $390 when the request is for six to nine children and $780 when the request is for ten or more children; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda- tion to this Board for its public hearing on May 6, 1992. * * * * * I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 1, 19~ if5 Clerk, Board of ~rVisors APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 91/92 NUMBER 910043 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO COVER ADDITIONAL RETIREMENT COST. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1100011010999999 B.O.S.-CONTINGENCY ($1,200.00) 1100012030223000 PERSONNEL-EARLY RETIREMENT COST 1,200.00 TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE /~~ DATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7' - ~ -~ ~~/.2--- , APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 91/92 NUMBER 910041 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1100022010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $200.00 TOTAL $200.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 2100015000150207 SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY $200.00 TOTAL $200.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: APPROVALS: COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~4,~474- ~/. /ffi4~[ v .______--,. r~-7-9 2- /-;; -Y'J--- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECEIVED MAR 3 1 1992 PLANNING DEPT. March 31, 1992 Albemarle County Six-Year plan Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Attached is the original and one copy of the 1992-98 Six-Year plan for Albemarle County. Also attached is a copy of the approved County priority list with the VDOT priorities shown. The only difference in the priorities is number 11 and number 13 on the County's list. These two projects on Rio Road were combined as priority number 11 in the Six-Year Plan. Please sign the original and return to this office. The copy is for your files. Yours Truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer cc: Mr. David Benish SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY: ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS YEAR NEW S.T. FEDERAL OTHER TOTAL ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ,0" ---------------- ---------------- 1992-93 $671,576 $1,497,644 $947,300 $3,116,520 1993-94 $692,105 $2,271,743 $248,004 $3,211,852 1994-95 $688,492 $2,198,584 $310,000 $3,197,076 1995-96 $712,112 $2,003,063 $610,000 $3,325,175 1996-97 $748,340 $2,230,000 $518,766 $3,497,106 1997-98 $786,115 $2,380,260 $510,000 $3,676,375 TOTALS $4,298,740 $12,581,294 $3,144,070 $20,024,104 ~/-2Z. -~-----!~;~-- -- VDOT RESIDENT ENGINEER DATE (CHAIRMAN,CLERK,CO.ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.) DATE SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 1 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 RIO ROAD P.E. 200,000 FINANCE DEFICIT TC: 17605 0631-002-128,C503 R/W 160,000 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE ID: 4189 FR:0.3 MI.E. RT. 29 CON 2,140,870 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 650 TOT 2,500,870 STATE LENGTH: EAD 05 1990 ( 0) ECD 0 7 1 9 9 1 . -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 8000 COUNTY WIDE P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 0 8000-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: NEW PIPE INSTALL., CON 600,000 STATE FORCE SIGNS,SEEDING TOT 600,000 STATE (BUDGET ITEMS) EAD 07 1992 ( 1) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0625 HATTON FERRY P.E. 0 TC: 67 0625-002- R/W 0 ID: OPERATE CON 60,000 STATE FORCE HATTON FERRY TOT 60,000 STATE (BUDGET ITEM) EAD 07 1992 r ( 2) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0664 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 1705 0664-002- R/W 0 ID: FR:RTE. 665 CON 17,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 663 S TOT 17,000 STATE LENGTH:0.4 MI EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 19~3 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0684 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $45,000 TC: 395 0684-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 788 CON 45,000 CONTRACT TO:MINT SPRINGS TOT 45,000 STATE LENGTH:0.70 MI. EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0692 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $63,000 TC: 394 0692-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 250 CON 63,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE 691 TOT 63,000 STATE LENGTH:1.61 EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0729 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 2070 0729-002- R/W 0 ID: FR:0.7 M.N. RT.1120 CON 93,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 53 TOT 93,000 STATE LENGTH:2.2 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0738 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $62,000 TC: 1043 0738-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 679 CON 62,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 250 TOT 62,000 STATE LENGTH:1.5 MI EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0788 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $30,000 TC: 955 0788-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 789 CON 30,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 684 TOT 30,000 STATE LENGTH:0.28 MI. EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0800 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 1382 0800-002- R/W 0 ID: FR: RTE. 6 CON 71,000 CONTRACT TO: NELSON CO. LINE TOT 71,000 STATE LENGTH: 1.4 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 2 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0810 PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 964 0810-002- R/W 0 ID: FR:RTE. 674 W CON 49,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 672 W TOT 49,000 STATE LENGTH:1.2 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0000 PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 0 COUNTY WIDE R/W 0 ID: APPLY PLANT MIX TO CON 800,000 CONTRACT SURFACE TREAT. RD. TOT 800,000 STATE EAD 07 1994 ( 3) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0708 P.E. 75,000 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 8220708-002-241,C501 R/W 55,434 1988-89 ID: 8844 FR:0.14 M.E. RT. 631 CON 263,600 CONTRACT To:0.07 M.W. RT.631 TOT 394,034 STATE LENGTH:0.21 EAD 05 1993 r ( 4) ECD 12 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0654 BARRACKS ROAD P.E. 150,475 REVENUE SHARING $600,000 TC: 17500 0654-002-242,C501 R/W 360,520 1988-89 ID: 9100 FR:ROUTE 1406 CON 875,775 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 656 TOT 1,386,770 STATE LENGTH:0.20 EAD 06 1992 ( 5) ECD 04 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY P.E. 390,000 EAD AND FINANCING BASED ON TC: 0 0631-002-128,C502 R/W 2,250,000 COORDINATION WITH CITY PROJECT ID: 2530 FR:NCL CH'VILLE CON 3,000,000 UOOO-104-102,C501 CONTRACT TO:CSX RAILROAD TOT 9,640,000 RS LENGTH:1.00 EAD 01 1999 ( 6) ECD 10 2000 \ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY P.E. 75,000 TC: 0 0631-002-128,B612 R/W 0 ID: 2530 BRIDGE OVER CON 725,000 CONTRACT MEADOW CREEK TOT 800,000 BRSOS EAD 01 1999 ( 6) ECD 10 2000 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0671 P.E. 82,000 TC: 4900671-002-191,B646 R/W 0 ID: 2507 BRIDGE OVER CON 840,000 CONTRACT MOORMANS RIV. TOT 922,000 BRSOS STR. NO. 6058 EAD 05 1992 ( 7) SUFF. RATING 17.2 ECD 10 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 5TH ST. EXTENDED P.E. 550,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 79740631-002-224,C502 R/W 1,851,560 1992-93 ID: 4188 FR:1.34 M.S. RT. 64 CON 3,660,606 CONTRACT TO:0.14 M.S. RT. 64 TOT 6,062,166 RS LENGTH:1.20 EAD 07 1992 ( 8) ECD 12 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0678 P.E. 70,000 REVENUE SHARING $206,000 TC: 2499 0678-002-223,C501 R/W 50,000 1993-94 ID: 4148 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 530,000 CONTRACT TO:0.20 M.N. RT. 250 TOT 650,000 STATE LENGTH:0.20 EAD 05 1993 ( 9) ECD 12 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0743 HYDRAULIC ROAD P.E. 250,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 22997 0743-002-153,C502 R/W 750,000 1994-95 ID: 8811 FR:ROUTE 657 CON 1,565,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 631 TOT 2,565,000 RS LENGTH:0.6 MI. EAD 06 1994 ( 10) ECD 08 1995 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 3 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 RIO ROAD P.E. 286,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 14686 0631-002-185,C501 R/W 1,725,000 1995-96 ID: 2419 FR:ROUTE 29 CON 1,739,696 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 743 TOT 3,750,696 RS LENGTH:0.7 MI EAD 07 1995 ( 11) ECD 10 1996 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0691 TABOR STREET P.E. 30,000 REVENUE SHARING $65,000 TC: 1750 0691-002-2346C501 R/W 45,000 1993-94 ID: 8809 INT. RTE. 24 CON 75,000 STATE FORCE AND INT. HIGH ST. TOT 150,000 STATE LENGTH:0.10 MI. EAD G2 1994 ( 12) ECD 07 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0866 GREENBRIER DRIVE P.E. 250,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 0 0866-002-236,C501 R/W 200,000 1996-97 ID: 8814 FR:ROUTE 743 CON 1,284,325 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 1455 TOT 1,734,325 RS LENGTH: 0.69 MI. EAD 07 1996 { ( 13) ECD 07 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PKY. P.E. 1,500,000 TC: 0 0631~002-,c R/W 7,500,000 ID: FR:RIO ROAD CON 11,000,000 CONTRACT TO: RTE. 649 TOT 20,000,000 STATE LENGTH: 5.0 MI. EAD 01 2010 ( 1 4 ) ECD 0 1 20 1 3 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0656 GEORGETOWN ROAD P.E. 100,000 REVENUE SHARING $500,000 TC: 13500 0656-002-,C R/W 350,000 1997-98 ID: FR:ROUTE 654 CON 550,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 743 TOT 1,000,000 RS LENGTH:0.8 MI EAD 10 1997 ( 15) ECD 10 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0601 P.E. 150,000 REVENUE SHARING $500,000 TC: 3931 0601-002-158,C501 R/W 500,000 1997-98 ID: 8807 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 850,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 29 BYPASS TOT 1,500hOOO RS LENGTH:0.7 EAD 10 199/ ( 1 6 ) ECD 0 1 1 999 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0649 AIRPORT ROAD P.E. 120,000 TC: 13411 0649-002-158,C501 R/W 250,000 ID: 2456 FR:ROUTE 29 CON 830,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 606 TOT 1,200,000 RS LENGTH:0.83 MI. EAD 10 1999 ( 17) ECD 05 2001 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0691 P.E. 112,000 TC: 1831 0691-002-,C R/W 213,000 ID: 11129 FR:ROUTE 240 CON 800,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 684 TOT 1,125,000 RS LENGTH:1.5 MI. EAD 07 2000 ( 18) ECD 10 2001 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0651 P.E. 55,000 TC: 189 0651-002-,B R/W 45,000 ID: BRIDGE OVER CON 400,000 CONTRACT CSX RAILROAD TOT 500,000 BRSOS STR. NO. 6124 EAD 07 2000 ( 19) SUFF. RATING 6.0 ECD 10 2001 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0627 RAILROAD CROSSING P.E. 3,000 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 83 0627-002-,S R/W 1,000 1993-94 ID: SIGNALS CON 96,000 CONTRACT AT WARREN TOT 100,000 RRP EAD 10 1993 ( 20) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 4 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0682 P. E. 5, 000 TC: 317 0682-002-P ,N501 RjW 0 ID: 8810 RAILROAD CROSSING CON 95,000 RAILROAD CSX RAILROAD TOT 100,000 RRP LIGHTS & GATES EAD 07 1992 ( 21 ) ECD 10 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0682 P.E. 80,000 TC: 317 0682-002-P33,N501 R/W 20,000 ID: 8810 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 1,050,000 CONTRACT TO:1.7 M.S. RT. 787 TOT 1,150~000 STATE LENGTH:2.5 MI. EAD 07 199~ ( 21 ) ECD 1 0 1 9 93 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0610 P.E. 25,000 TC: 268 0610-002-P,N R/W 30,000 ID: 8808 FR:ROUTE 20 CON 885,000 CONTRACT TO:1.8 MI.E. RT. 20 TOT 940,000 STATE LENGTH:1.8 EAD 07 1994 f ( 22) ECD 10 1995 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0712 P.E. 15,000 TC: 139 0712-002-P,N R/W 18,000 ID: 2307 FR:RTE. 29 CON 417,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 692 TOT 450,000 STATE LENGTH:0.9 MI. EAD 07 1995 ( 23) ECD 04 1996 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0711 P.E. 15,000 TC: 163 0711-002-P,N R/W 15,000 ID: FR:RTE. 29 CON 320,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 712 TOT 350,000 STATE LENGTH:0.55 EAD 07 1996 ( 24) ECD 04 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0760 P.E. 15,000 TC: 118 0760-002-P,N R/W 15,000 ID: 11133 FR:RTE. 710 CON 330,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 760 TOT 360,000 STATE LENGTH:0.60 MI. EAD 07 1996 ( 25) ECD 03 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0637 P.E. 25,000 TC: 110 0637-002-P,N R/W 30,000 ID: 11125 FR:RTE. 635 CON 845,000 CONTRACT TO:0.55 M.W. RT. 682 TOT 900,000 STATE LENGTH:2.2 MI. EAD 07 1997 ( 26) ECD 10 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0759 P.E. 5,000 TC: 240 0759-002-P,N R/W 8,000 ID: 11132 FR:RTE. 616 CON 197,000 CONTRACT TO:FLUVANNA CO. LINE TOT 210,000 STATE LENGTH:0.60 MI. EAD 07 1997 ( 27) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ .. '.,.-, ,l t I I \ J [ i u w Edward H. Bain, Jr Samuei Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R Marshall. Jr ScottsvilJe David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. HumphTls Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall TO: Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC ~ DATE: April 2, 1992 RE: Voluntary Early Retirement Request - Ms. Louella Turner Continuous Service Policy - Mr. Mac Sandridge At its meeting on April 1, 1992, the Board approved the Early Retirement Application for Ms. Turner. I am enclosing the application which has been executed by Mr. Tucker. The Board also approved Mr. Mac Sandridge's request for amendment to the Continuous Service Policy with regard to his retirement. The Board recommended that future requests will be dealt with on a case by case basis with no change in the general policy. LEN/alb Enclosure cc: Karen Morris, Social Services ALBEMARLE COUNTY VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT PLAN .. t' I ,1 ~ . - I ... APPLICATION NAME OF APPLICANT: ~DG(e- \ \~ \,~~ I ncr POS 1TI ON ;A ,:,.L; (fiR- cb ~(;& DE PT .(SCHOOL : ~tf 6 J::Ju, &~ JJew..-~ '0 DATE OF HIRE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY: o~/~I /79 DATE OF BIRTH: 64/b~/;{~ APPLICATION IS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT TO BEGIN: 01 /0/ /q~l STATE BRIEF REASON FOR EARLY RETIREMENT REQUEST: I understand that the Albemarle County Voluntary Early Retirement Plan is voluntary and that I am pursuing this request on my own initiative. The Plan will be administered in accordance with the Voluntary Early Retirement policy of the Board of Supervisors/School Board. ~~ tlj)/~ SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE d / cXO / '1;) DATE SIGNED* *NOTE: Application must be received by the Director of Personnel by December 1 in order to be considered for next fiscal year. ~APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD D NOT APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD :r:trJ April 1, 1992 DATE ACTED UPON BY BOARD WHITE - PERSONNEL; lli.!::ID! - SUPT ./COUNTY EXEC.; "': PINK - EMPLOYEE .J ,.!'n ",,,ei: 1!.11!!..?:::_ t;<~, . . qZ._Qif!.iJ 5. I) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE...." ~\." ,'\I.(.::;~i\QIJ,q.Ll COUN I i ~,~. {"...f....._I)\, .I,. " . _...." ""1.'''.......\ 1.-'........ at' .-\ Lli;., ,-.-;:'') r";:::.:i r.'.;::1. .";'-;:J l! ~.. \ ~! \ f"' - i ~.'\ \ "". . .,<.// , I '\. I'. '. ...."...'.,. e~""""'~ ! 1 I I, -:1:.Ji 1m! .~ \ \ II l...'.... ... \ ' l \; o~. :-,(1\, .~~~ \ '- -1- '" ,,!,Ii 'I" P'7<1'~'Y) \,'; ,", 1'1' ,.. ,J <,.) ....."'/ \. \ I ~\' ~. " ~_. ~ : {' \ \ l\, ,.; -, ,\.' \, ~..,. - I , ~ it, ~-, \. ...::..,..,~~I, ,': i !: \ \, ..d.......c.._-,/ 1\ i ~ I/Re!'''\'' t, ; ~ '-"" ,,<. .... '. ,,,.., 1 .. 11 u.. J > I J \ \ -'~., \ ~.,. .. ~:"";J \,) \J ..=J; ~"...,.ij ~'),:":.,:-;', ~.~~~, (,\ lPERV\SOqs :...::>\..}-"'; n L' '~.' i ..... ..... I . MEMORANDUM Robert W. County Board of supervisors,4J. ~ Tucker, Jr., County Executive ;I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle March 24, 1992 Voluntary Early Retirement Request - Ms. Louella Turner Ms. Louella Turner from our Social services Department has recently requested to participate in the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Plan. Her retirement date is scheduled for July 1, 1992. The total cost of the request for early retirement would be $1,141.00 and would be provided for a period of only nine months before the VRS program would become effective. Funding is provided in the Personnel budget for Ms. Turner and staff recommends your approval. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,Jr/dbm 92.065 Attachment , I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Personnel/Human Resources Department Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Dr. Carole~A. kas~i~~, Director of Personnel/Human Resources ~ From: Date: March 19, 1992 Re: Voluntary Early Retirement Request Attached please find a request for participation in the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Plan from Louella Turner, Social Services Department. Although this request has been received beyond the required date, i.e. December 1, Ms. Turner's requested retirement date is July 1, 1992. The total cost of this request is $1,141, since Ms. Turner is only eligible for the early retirement plan for a period of nine months. Given the small amount involved, it is recommended that you present this request to the Board for approval. Should you have further questions on this matter, do not hesitate in calling on me. CAH/ac m-920319.1 attachment cc: K. Morris, Director COUNTY Of t\LBEMAf~LE ""l 1 ~ ~ {;. J" ~'. N ';':,.n" .. ;J;~:~ E'~ECUT1VE Offl CE 03/18/92 Cola Adj.: FICA Rate: Annual Medical: Albemarle County Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program Budget Forecast FY 1992 - 1993 1.042 0.0765 1,248.00 1.04 0.0765 1,385.28 1.04 0.0765 1,537.66 1.04 0.0765 1,706.80 1.04 0.0765 1,894.55 1.04 0.0765 2,102.95 ========================================================================================================================== Fiscal Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 ========================================================================================================================== Louella ~. Turner (9 months) DOB: Start pay: Last Pay: 04/06/28 07/92 03/93 # Months Monthly stipend Annual stipend Prorated Medical Annual FICA Total Yearly Cost Total Plan Cost Onetime Retirement 9 0 0 0 0 0 13.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 936.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,141.31 1,141.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,617.00 Dr. Carole Hastings Director of Human Resour~es County Office Bldg. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Dr. Hastings, ~~.. March 3, 1992 I will be taking early retirement as of July 1, 1992. ~y last working day for Albemarle County will be June 30th, 1992. I have enjoyed wo~king for the county. Sincerely, i ~ L(..L-L- '---' i;t'7./ -eLe .0 Louella Turner RECEIVED MAR 0 4 1992 Personnel Deot. , C-(Jl.) \,/ ri ~'.- (I. i D \~ ~. ~ i\ f)! /"" , \j: I . ! ;m LJ f~_ j '.' j ,~\ ,_ C AGENDA TITLE: Tour DuPont Bicycle Race i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY L :J AGENDA DATE:BOf\RD April 1, 1992 ."'."'" ----. : ;....' j' ~'1' I .. ,I .,.;~ ,'I ~ 1 \ ' ! II ': I" t lill'l I; ! I , ' . .,.c..,..," j I J I U I._~:~.J L;:J OF S l.JfifIiiiIV iiitMiER : '9'2. {)<!O/ (.>-. ~ ) Y?SI'2 County of Albemarle STAFF CONTACTCS): Messrs. Tucker and Huff. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval is requested for the Tour DuPont Bicycle Race to pass through Albemarle County subject to the race organizers providing the appropriate insurance certificate. ATTACHMENTS: 1 ACTION: INFORMATION: REV!"""" BY' ~ DISCUSSION: The Tour DuPont bicycle race is planned to pass through Albemarle County on May 15, 1992. The May 15th race will feature the Wintergreen to Richmond leg of the race along Route 6 in southern Albemarle County. The organizers of the event are seeking the Board's permission for the event to pass through Albemarle County which will require traffic coordination between our Police Department and the Virginia state Police. Chief Miller will be participating in the planning phases of the event as it will relate to our involvement. Should overtime be necessary, the County will be reimbursed RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the attached draft letter which grants the necessary permission contingent upon receiving a certificate of insurance form the race organizers. 92.043 ..1 U LJ Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 April 2, 1992 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall Mr. Aaron Marinari Event Services Director Tour DuPont 3228 West Cary Street, suite D Richmond, Virginia 23221 Dear Mr. Marinari: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is hereby granting permission to your organization for the Tour DuPont bicycle race to pass through Albemarle County on May 15, 1992. This permission is granted based upon our receiving a certificate of insurance naming Albemarle County on your $5,000,000 liability policy prior to your pass through the County. Our specific language requirements necessary to complete our insurance certificate are as follows: Albemarle County Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Please mail the completed certificate of insurance to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, at the above referenced address. sincerely, O~~P- David P. Bowerman, Chairman DPB/dbm 92.016 Tour Du Pont Headquarters 3228 West Cary Street, Suite 0 Richmond, VA 23221 (804) 354-9934 Fax (804) 354-9968 March 10, 1992 caUI'iT'," or: t" r,c . . .',......... r:.:-;I 11\ Ii" l-\ RLt. , """0.. ....... r-'':-'I " , \~"1:1 : ~ ~ l . j l' Robert W. Tucker County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA , , !; :~:'1 ((:,'0} I" ' I I j, L 22902-4596 E~(),~ l~t. '.J. .~~;. Dear Mr. Tucker, Preparations for the 1992 Tour Du Pont are well underway. I am pleased to announce that this year's race route will be passing through your jurisdiction. The Tour has become one of the biggest international sporting events due to the volume of world wide recognition it has received. Last year over 40 million homes around the world watched the Tour live or by satellite, and over 1000 newspapers and periodicals carried stories about the event. The 1992 Tour Du Pont will offer network coverage (2-4 hours), nightly cable coverage (3 1/2 hours), daily international feeds to 88 countries and local highlights and news coverage. Specific details regarding broadcast times will be available in the near future. The dates for the 1992 Tour are set for May 7-17. On May 15, 1992 we are racing through your jurisdiction. The race will be traveling along the routes outlined on the attached maps. The Virginia State Police will provide the rolling escort for all racing within the state, and will also serve as the coordinating group for the involved local public safety agencies and municipalities. The State Police will coordinate a meeting with all local police jurisdictions regarding the race passing through each individual jurisdiction. Our contact at the Virginia State Police is Lieutenant Glen Milner who can be reached at 804-674-2000 if you have any additional questions. F I ..~-. ... ""'II r-: COUNTY 0 A\.-'ur.J~1i.\h...r:. EXECUTIVE OfFICE The Tour Du Pont as well as the State Police and Department of Transportation want to be sure that each local jurisdiction along the route is aware of and endorses these activities. As the owners and operators of this event we will provide your jurisdiction with a certificate of insurance on our $5,000,000 liability policy. In order for us to send this certificate the insurance company requires a written letter or permit that states that your jurisdiction is aware of and endorses these activities. I have included two samples of the types of written permission that we need. It is important that you include the specific phrase which you would like to appear on your certificate and to whom the certificate should be sent. We must receive the permit no later than April 7, in order to process the information. We are looking forward to your cooperation on this project. We feel this event is beneficial to your community on a promotional and social scale. Certainly, last years attendance throughout each and every state will attest to that. Your assistance in this endeavor is appreciated and will aid in it's continuing success. I hope that you and your community have a chance to get out and see one of America's most spectacular sporting events. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or require any other additional information please call me as soon as possible. Sincerely, ,// " / <I -~ 1,- ;.....~_ '-_-''I..~_-' [..-'_":'..,.- -...,-.- ; ; Aaron Marinari Event Services Director cc: Michael Plant State Police Department of Transportation Example 1 March 4, 1992 Aaron Marinari Event Services Director Tour Du Pont 3228 W. Cary St. Suite D Richmond, VA 23221 Dear Mr. Marinari: The "Anywhere Township Board of Supervisors" is hereby granting permission to your organization for the Tour Du Pont bicycle race to pass through Anywhere Township, on Monday, May 7, 1991. This permission is granted based upon our receiving a certificate of insurance naming "Anywhere Township" on your $5,000,000 liability policy prior to your pass through of this Township. Our specific language requirements necessary to complete our insurance certificate are as follows: "Anywhere Township" "Anywhere Township Board of Supervisors" Please mail the completed certificate of insurance to the name and address given below: Anywhere Township John Doe 4 N. Main St. Anywhere, NJ 00201 Sincerely, John Doe Chairman Board of Supervisors EXAMPLE 2 March 4, 1992 Aaron Marinari Event Services Director Tour Du Pont 3228 W. Cary St. Suite 0 Richmond, VA 23221 Dear Mr. Marinari: Based upon your written request dated March 4, 1992, permission is hereby granted by the (city. village. borough etc.) of Anyplace to the Tour Du Pont to travel through our jurisdiction. This permission is granted based upon your representation that the "City of Anyplace" shall be named on an individual certificate of insurance as an additional insured upon your $5,000,000 liability policy. We shall receive the certificate prior to the event passing through our jurisdiction. The certificate should be forwarded to: John Doe Deputy Clerk Anyplace, NJ 00202 Sincerely, John Doe Mayor r " -'._:~: (;:~, 010/(3',3) iJJ. E}'7 ? AZ,:r:d~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ,ll.,LBEMt-\RLt., 1-::;1 r;:::: ;:=:) r:::J 1'1 nr;' 1'::::1 ~ L Vh-~' -'-~"_'_'_LI.';~J~\ ! r I /1\ \ \, i_..~1~~~., 2. .~.I~U2 J II ul/I Lid ._-,1;"';')"..,11 l'L WI ~~--..I l..:_... t.,_~}. w .~J ~-J BOARD OF SUPERV1S8QS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Robert w. Tucker, Jr., County Executive ~ ~ ~ Brandenburger, Assistant County Executiv~~ Robert B. DATE: March 26, 1992 RE: Road Name Change Petition status for stHwy 640 and StHwy 53 On March 4, 1992, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved two (2) road name changes contingent on staff verification of the appropriate number of landowner signatures (greater than 50 percent) . Staff has reviewed the petitions. The results are summarized below and in greater detail on Attachments A and B. Staff reviewed the road name change request for StHwy 640, between StHwy 231 and its end at the railroad tracks south of StHwy 22. The necessary number of landowner signatures were presented on the petition. Therefore, staff will administratively make the road name change from Turkey Sag Road to st. John Road for the portion of StHwy 640 outlined above consistent with the Board's action. Staff reviewed the petition to change the road name of StHwy 53, between StHwy 795 and the County line, from Buck Island Road to Thomas Jefferson Parkway. The initial review revealed that the appropriate number of landowner signatures necessary to make the change were not represented on the petition. Staff met with the residents that submitted the road name change request on March 10, 1992. Subsequent to this meeting, additional landowner signatures along StHwy 53 were submitted and verified, thus meeting the necessary level. Therefore, staff will administratively make the road name change from Buck Island Road to Thomas Jefferson Parkway. RBB/dbm 92.042 Attachment , ATTACHMENT A ROAD NAME CHANGE CHECK LIST 1 . Turkey Sag Road Adopted Road Name: -.-.----.-.----.----.---.------------------.---.---- ~ ~. St. John Road Requested Road Name: ----------------.-------------------.--------- 3. 40 Total Number of Landowners: 4. 27 Number of Landowner Signatures: c ~. 67.5% Percent of Landowner Signatures: w. Number of Landowners Not Represented: 13 I . Percent of Landowners Not Represented: 32.5% o w. 37 Number of Unidentified Signatures: ROAD NAME CHANGE CHECK LIST 1. Buck Island Road ------------------------------------- Adopted Road Name: ~ '- . Thomas Jefferson Parkway .----------------------------------- Requested Road Name: 3. Total Number of Landowners: 91 LI' . 49 Number of Landowner Signatures: .:=" d. 54% Percent of Landowner Signatures: CJ. Number of Landowners Not Represented: i. Per-cent O"i" Landowners Not Represerlted: a w. Number of Unidentified Signatures: 42 46% 94 ATTACHMENT "-,. '-:-:> , . ..:...' _~ Z1,Qz.. -----.. ND, qZ,O':foI{~,Y) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF /'; ~Y:'J\' ,'\'~ .. Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem, ,___ __ . ,'"\."....5L,.!..'.I',Lf::. . j 1 ~ ; 1"....) { r:.l f ~..,.~ i' -;"1 t'} f Y,,,',,, I........ 401 Mclnlire Road ,fll V~~....c._......,.,'_.."t.L,..tL.,ir"'" i n'"1 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 I L/ ii.' '\r.\.. ;I '.! II (804) 296-5823 n (\ M~d 1 () lCQ') . ;i I, ! ,i , ' l..' 0" ,~'" / : : ~ Iii i h"~",;""""_,,, .... / i ) I u U I ."--' , , r' ". ",,,'( 'J"'"''?',''' " . .ij' '--~"_! \.._~,,) )..~::.:: \. ~ 'l lL..., i _ .' BOAf;D OF SU'~'\t":f \\I;'~~O' ~~. . . '\. ,j ,.:) MEMORANDUM FROM: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission ~ David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development TO: DATE: March 12, 1992 RE: Amendment to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) Attached please find an amendment to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study year 2000 transportation plan. This amendment incorporates the City, County, and University joint resolution to include certain improvements and sequence for development. If you have any further questions, please contact me. DBB/blb cc: George St. John RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1992 PLANNING DEPT. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 RICHARD C. LOCKWOOD TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEE'i March 9, 1992 Charlottesville Area Transportation study Year 2000 Transportation Plan Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Albemarle County 401 McIntire Raod Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: On May 9, 1989, I sent the County 25 copies of the final report for the above study. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization on January 18, 1992, amended the Year 2000 Transportation Plan to include certain improvements. Enclosed are 25 copies of the MPO's resolution listing those improvements. ,;~~~~~J/ Richard C. Lockwood Transportation Planning Engineer Enclosures c: Mr. D. S. Roosevelt RECEiVED MAN 1 1 1992 PLANNtNG Df~>'" TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY "'~""" ' , COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE . tflrlDl ~ ~ :l\! ~ ~;'.:;-'~ '.J:~'i "j ~ 'iW 'tl . l:. .... ", :'-1 t .~ ~~_..,_.\f~,_~_~\ii.-:.L. ~. f '.' b~ ~ ~__l' ~; }:.,fI.",; MAR. 11 ldoJ 92 - ~;<l..~..:'.. 'iI~ .~ .i ~ i~ f] ~ c ~ ;j . ~'Tt", ~ i: ~ ~.,... .' Q'. -"I ,~ ..:"'...., f'_ " ~.:..-...';) ..,,/1-;7 , ..-,1': ...~ '_~I Lll'o...l.. ~ t.-" ",I ..<!.'-*... ....."... (' r.'1f",'.....f l.il~Jf,:" r~f.:ffr:~ .. . eh a rl 0 ttesville- Albemarle Metropolitan planning Organization WHEREAS , Albemarle and improvements Transportation the city of Charlottesville, the County of the university of Virginia have reviewed the proposed by the Virginia Commonwealth Board (CTB) for the 29 North Corridor: and WHEREAS, the City, county and University believe a unified and cooperative implementation agreement with the CTB and the virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is necessary to provide for these improvements in an expeditious and efficient manner: and WHEREAS, the City and County have requested the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) to amend the Charlottesville Albemarle Area Transporta- tion study (CATS) to be consistent with the improvements and priorities adopted by the City, County and Virginia Common- wealth Transportation Board: NOW, THEREFORE, be i t resolved that the MPO amends the CATS to include the improvements and sequence of the following: o Widen Route 29 North as provided for in 1985 CharlotteSville Area Transportation Study; o Design the North Grounds connector road facility; o Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendation of November 15, 1990; o Construct the Meadowcreek Parkway from the Route 250 By-Pass to U.S. 29 North as soon as funding is available; o Construct grade-separated interchanges on U.S. 29 North at Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) and Rio Road (Route 631) with early acquisition of right-of-way for these inter- changed based upon hardship (same program being used for early acquisition for Alternative 10- Western alignment); o Construct an for traffic including the By-Pass; alternate controlled vehicle access bound for University areas o~ly, north grounds from Route 29/250 o Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of November 15, 1990; and 413 East Market Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 972-1720 .. " . o Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the above and when traffic on Route 29 is unacceptable and economic conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985 Charlottesville Area Transporta- tion study. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be forwarded to VDOT for the Department's concurrence. L ,~ Charlott Humphris, Chair MPO Policy Board Date: ~ /;tf' it:! ~ i tr -2- Distribu!c;d b BOr!rd: ;/ i . '(~u.", Agenda Item I;J. '1";,0,/01 (s/;,- ) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., of Supervisors ~ r-- County Executive ~tvI/ Albemarle County Board March 16, 1992 Airport Orientation Program As I mentioned to you earlier, the Airport Authority staff has developed an orientation program for local elected officials. The one hour program entails the following: . Brief slide presentation . Review of ongoing/planned projects . Tour of airport facilities I have scheduled the orientation for May 6 (daytime meeting) at 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided at the airport. I am confident all of you will benefit from this program and will find it most enjoyable. RWT,Jr/dbm 92.041 cc: Mr. Bryan o. Elliott, Director of Aviation Distributsd to Botltd' "3;27.12- . -, -........ AgendJ IL;-n r:,c&i:,:lf~Vdl4s~EMARLt: fT'" r-'-" ,,~--,. ".,-, ...., "'1 n ,--... -. ,'" ...... " "., I ' ".. '. I" I I r "'\, \ I I ,'." \ . . It'.... J-', I i I J)'" ..:.......\ "";''''\''''.'''''''~I"" II II I i PI , \ II I' 11-;'(\ ,M:'.H l0 j992 } II, .11.', [II! \ \ , ,'/ ' I ~ ~ 1 \" " , I . i [""'F:':..:' ...I..\....'U. r'"f' , J ' J oj i '.., "". , ,..., , ! l_ l!J. ~ ,_.,~.__.l \...,'.....~-,/ 'n.,.,-'.' i.,_J J '': "'-' "... COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA BOl\~-;;D SUPERVISO,?S RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND,23219 GERALD E. FISHER STATE SECONOARY ROADS ENGINEER March 11, 1992 Boards of Supervisors of All Counties and the City of Suffolk Council Re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Fiscal Year 1992-93 Dear Members of the Boards of Supervisors and Members of the Council: The County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly known as the "Revenue Sharing Program" , allows the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match local funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of primary and secondary highways in your county. This money also may be used for the addition of subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1 Code of Virainia. Such a cooperative program between local governments and VDOT allows for an increased number of road improvements throughout the Commonwealth. In the current fiscal year, 32 counties chose to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, thereby providing $20 million for additional improvements .to the primary and secondary system. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation of state funds in this program is limited to $10,000,000 (Code of virainia, Section 33.1-75.1[C]). If your county wishes to participate in this program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993, the Board of Supervisors or members of Council must notify VDOT of its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, the amoun-e'~_of local funds to be provided, not to exceed $500,000, and a prioritized list of eligible projects with individual estimated project costs. . The ~esident Engineer for your locality will work with you to identify a list of one or more improvement projects to be undertaken with these funds. Your Resident Engineer will also help you establish estimated project costs. VDOT must 'receive this information on the attached form by Kay 1, 1992. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY page 2 This package of information should be sent to: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher state Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Note: A sample letter of notification is attached for your reference. In the event that localities throughout the state request a total in excess of the available matching funds, the Commonwealth's participation will be adjusted downwards on a pro rata basis to remain within the limits of the appropriation. The adjustment may require that the lowest priority project or projects be dropped from the FY 92-93 program. You will be notified of the preliminary amount available to your locality in June, 1992; this amount will be subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board early in the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Conversely, should total requests require less than the available funds, those counties which initially requested the $500,000 maximum may apply for a part of the remaining appropriation (Code of Virqinia, Section 33.1-75.1[0]). The allocation of any remaining funds will be decided in June, 1993. Note: A set of guidelines for administering this program is enclosed to assist you in making these assignments. Thank you for your continued support of this effort. Sincerely, J~ ~-?~ Gerald E. Fisher state Secondary Roads Engineer JSG Attachments pc: Mr. J. W. Atwell District Administrators Resident Engineers , " GUIDE to the REVEI\'TIE SHARING PROGR4J\1 of the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary Roads Division Memorandum SR-48-92 Richmond, Virginia March, 1992 Copyright 1992, Commonwealth of Virginia VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROADS DIVISION MEMORANDUM Subject: Revenue Sharing Program Nwnber:SR - 48 - 92 Specific Subject: GUIDE TO THE Date: 3/10/92 REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM per Code of Virqinia 33.1-75.1 Supersedes:prev. guide Directed to: cL/~ f d~ LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS RESIDENT ENGINEERS State Seconda Roads Engineer This revised document provides a comprehensive summary of the Revenue Sharing program as established by the Code of Virginia and as governed by the policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. It is intended to serve as a reference for local jurisdictions and VDOT staff in the preparation and disposition of applications for program funding. This document defines eligible projects, summarizes funding limitations, and describes the roles of the parties involved in the application and approval process. All previous instructions regarding administrative procedures for Revenue Sharing projects are hereby superseded. Copyright 1992, Commonwealth of Virginia t I. II. REVENUE SHARING GillDELINES CONTENTS Purpose 1 Definitions A Budget Item Number B. Construction Improvements C. County Primary and Secondary Road Fund D. Incidental Improvements E. Maintenance F. Matching Funds G. New Hardsurfacing (Paving) H. Plant Mix I. Project (eligible) J. Project Number K Secondary Six-Year Plan 1 III. Eligible Work 3 A Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six Year Plan E. Construction or Improvements for the Acceptance of Subdivision Streets F. Unprogrammed Maintenance IV. Application Process 5 V. Approval Process 6 VI. Implementation Process A VDOT Administered Work B. County Administered Work 6 VII. Additional Allocations 8 REVENUE SHARING GUIDELI1\TES I. PURPOSE The "Revenue Sharing Program" provides additional funding for the maintenance or improvement of the primary and secondary highway systems and eligible additions in the counties of the Commonwealth, including the former Nansemond County portion of the City of Suffolk. The program is administered by the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the participating localities, under the Authority of Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Vir~nia. An annual appropriation of funds for this program is designated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, with statutory limitations on the amount authorized per locality. Application for program funding must be made by resolution of the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the road is located. Project funding is allocated by resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Construction may be accomplished by the Department of Transportation or, where appropriate, by the locality under an agreement with the Department. II. DEFINITIONS The following terms are important in understanding the revenue sharing program. A. Budget Item Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed; it is used for minor activities which are usually done in one year. (See incidental improvements ). B. Construction Improvements, means operations which usually require more than one fiscal year to complete, and which change or add to the characteristics of a road, facility, or structure. C. "..... County Primary and Secondary Road Fund", means the designation given to the specially funded program developed by the county government and the Department of Transportation subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. This is more commonly referred to as the Revenue Sharing Program. 1 D. Incidental Improvements, means any operation, usually constructed within one year, which changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of a road, facility, or structure; or the addition of features not originally provided for such road, facility, or structure. E. Maintenance, means activities involved in preserving or restoring the roadway, facility or structure to its original condition, as nearly as possible. F. Matching Funds, means funds provided by the Commonwealth which are allocated to eligible items of work in participating counties and the City of Suffolk to supplement, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the locality's contribution for eligible. projects. G. New Hardsurfacing (Paving), means the first-time paving of a previously unpaved roadway; usually composed of a multiple course asphalt surface treatment. In order for a road to be eligible for paving, it must meet the minimum traffic volume criterion of 50 vehicles per day (VPD). H. Plant Mix, means an asphalt-based compound used in highway construction and maintenance. For a road to be eligible for plant mix, it should: . Have an average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 500 or greater; Be a major secondary and serve as_ a major transportation facility in the I ocali ty; Be classified as "tolerable" in accordance with established standards for such a determination; and Consist of an overlay necessary to restore the typical section and/or riding surface of the roadway. . . . I. Project (eligible), means work including construction, improvement, maintenance, and addition costs. J. Project Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed; it is used in conjunction with construction. K. Secondary Six-Year Plan, means the official listing of projects to be constructed, which is developed jointly by the Department of Transportation and the county governments. (Section 33.1-70.01, Code of Virginia. 2 III. ELIGIBLE WORK Revenue Sharing funds may be used to finance eligible work on a county's primary or secondary system. Below is a list of work which could be considered eligible for Revenue Sharing funds, and examples of each. ( A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements. When the Resident Engineer has a completed project with a deficit, the county may request that the deficit be financed with Revenue Sharing funds provided the county is willing to contribute one half of the deficit as its portion. County participation State match Revenue Sharing Funding = $120,000 = $100.000 = $ 20,000 = $ 10,000 = $ 10.000 = $ 20,000 Example: Actual Cost Available project funding Actual deficit B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements. When the Resident Engineer anticipates the cost to complete the construction or improvement will exceed the financing currently committed to this work, the county may request that the anticipated deficit be financed with Revenue Sharing funds provided the county is willing to contribute one half of the anticipated deficit as its portion. Example: Available project funding Estimated cost Estimated deficit = $100,000 = $150.000 = $ 50,000 = $ 25,000 = $ 25.000 = $ 50,000 County participation State match Revenue Sharing Funding 3 C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements Listed in the Adopted Six-Year Plan. When the Resident Engineer anticipates allocations (in addition to those proposed in the adopted Six-Year Plan) will be required to completely finance a project, the county may request permission to provide one half of such additional fmancing with the remaining one half provided by state matching funds. This includes, but is not limited to, such things as signalization, additional preliminary engineering, or acquisition of additional right-of-way. This same procedure may be utilized to accelerate the funding of a project and thereby permit its completion earlier than otherwise would have been possible. \ D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan. When the Resident Engineer believes that the necessary work may be completed within the fiscal year, the county may request one half the funds to construct a project not currently included in the Six-Year plan. However in such cases, the county funds, together with the state matching funds, must finance the entire estimated cost of the project within the fiscal year involved. E. Construction or Improvements Necessary for the Acceptance of Specific Subdivision Streets Othenvise Eligible for Acceptance into the System for Maintenance. The construction or improvements (widening, surface treating, etc.) necessary for the acceptance of certain subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia. for acceptance into the secondary system. The work should be completed within the fiscal year involved. F. Unprogrammed Maintenance Whose Accomplishment is Consistent with the Department's Operating Policies. Examples of this type of work include normal maintenance replacement activities such as guardrail replacement, plant mix overlays, sidewalks and curb & gutter repair. 4 IV. APPLICATION PROCESS Application for Revenue Sharing Funds may be made only by the governing body of the county or the City of Suffolk in which the road is located. The following process describes the steps which occur in determining the funding available for each participating locality to finance eligible projects. 1. VDOTs State Secondary Roads Engineer sends a letter inviting all county governments to participate in the revenue sharing program for the coming fiscal year. 2. The County Government determines its intent to participate in the program, and the amount of county funds to be provided. The County Government and Resident Engineer jointly prepare a prioritized plan to recommend assignment of requested funds to eligible projects. This prioritized plan should: · list what is to be included for each project (example: length of road, width of road, estimated cost, etc.); · identify who will administer each project (see subsection 33.1-75.1 [B], regarding when a project may be administered by a county.) While there is no limit on the amount of funds the county may contribute, the amount of funds eligible for State matching funds may not exceed the statutory limitation. 3. The Resident Engineer submits the detailed prioritized plan developed in Step 2 of the process with recommendations to the Secondary Roads Division, with a copy to the appropriate District Administrator. This prioritized plan must be received by the date specified in the invitation letter. 4. VDOTs Secondary Roads Division notifies the county governments of the amount of State matching funds available for use in their counties, subject to the approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. If the total requests exceed the amount available according to statute, each participating county will receive State matching funds on a pro rata basis, and the prioritized plan will be adjusted accordingly. 5 V. APPROVAL PROCESS The following process describes the steps which occur in securing approval of the Statewide Revenue Sharing Program from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 1. VDOTs Secondary Roads Division reviews the individual plans, and if found to be acceptable, develops the Statewide plan and recommends it be submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval. The Maintenance and Programming and Scheduling Divisions will also review the plans as appropriate for their areas of responsibility. 2. The Commonwealth Transportation Board approves the Statewide program, including allocations to specific projects in each county's plan. Upon approval of the plan, it constitutes the "..... county primary and secondary road fund." Any modification of the approved program must be agreed upon by the county government and VDOT and approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS A. VDOT administered work The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match. 1. VDOTs Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve the State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies are placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose. 2. If applicable, the Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements which govern the performance of work administered by VDOT. The agreement must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed from the Revenue Sharing Program. 3. The Fiscal Division bills the county for its share of the estimated cost of work to be performed; the money is collected prior to the beginning of work in accordance with current billing procedures. 6 4. After the project is completed, the Fiscal Division makes a final billing to the county for its share of the actual costs incurred, in excess of those provided in Step 3. If the county's share of the actual cost is less than the estimated cost, the difference may be refunded to the county or reassigned to another Revenue Sharing project. If a County government wishes to cancel a project begun under the revenue sharing program during the Preliminary Engineering (PE) or Right of Way (R/W) phases but prior to the construction phase, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution. The Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled. If construction does not begin before the end of the Fiscal year involved, the county must pay the Department its share, or certify that the money is held in a special fund account specifically earmarked for the project(s). This must occur by June 30 of the fiscal year or it may result in loss of state matching funds. B. County administered work The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state match. 1. VDOTs Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve . . the State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies are placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose. 2. The Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements which govern the performance of work administered by the county. The agreement must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed from the Revenue Sharing Program. 3. After all work is completed, the County makes a final billing to VDOT for its share of the actual costs incurred. If the actual cost is less than that provided by the agreement, the difference may be reassigned to another Revenue Sharing project in the county, or refunded to the VDOT Revenue Sharing account. 7 If a County government wishes to cancel a project begun under the revenue sharing program before it is completed, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution. The Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled. If construction does not begin before the end of the Fiscal year involved, the county must certify that the money is held in a special fund account specifically earmarked for the project(s). This must occur by June 30 of the fiscal year or it may result in loss of state · matching funds. VII. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS One month prior to the end of any fiscal year in which less than $10 million has been allocated from state funds under section 33.1-75.1 [D] of the Code of Virf:inia, those counties requesting $500,000 may be allowed an additional allocation. The difference between the amount allocated and $10 million shall be allocated at the discretion of the Commonwealth Transportation Board among the counties receiving the maximum allocation. 8 Dhfc'h,,~.-..!,... It "';"., [J t5aard: '21."jz, AC'f'l'l!' /. "q -A r.>'" QJ l"'c" r"J 2 Od." ( ) Viii Ii. - . TO'S, L f RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI~b~f\!TV OF '~IJ~q,r.r\r)LE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND,23219 r,::;-, t...-:, I, i " " \ " ~" ,I ! i ! i ,. ' .. d I' i ,-,- I " '~:l ,\ \\ I I ~ , I 1 i l' ) March 9, 1992 ~'. ) ? ':' FS2 , , , , L ,,,..} Secondary System Additions A1bemarle County Fe' .' ! ",:' \..i-, ',." i ....l.... Board of Supervisors County of A1bemarle 401 McIntire Road Char1ottesville, VA 22901 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated February 5, 1992, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective March 5, 1992. ADDITIONS LENGTH ROSEMONT Route 1660 (Rosemont Drive) - From Route 637 to 0.58 mile South Route 637 0.58 Mi Route 1661 (Rosewood Lane) - From Route 1660 to 0.11 mile West Route 1660 0.11 Mi Route 1662 (Tre11is Lane) - From Route 1660 to 0.06 mile South- west Route 1660 0.06 Mi Sincerely, 4~..~ Commissioner (j C ' Ef1J~.~t' "j j1J11CJ:-. 2vY1(p/~ ~ . I 'Iorv)! ~ ~ TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY IA\ JAUnT H D' ",I '." 1"'-_..,1. z,Z1"l.z" 'iSlr\I1\,,~:..; l\< ..,,,.......q 2., 0.401 (.~~i, Agenda It:;m No. ..;'~=> J ..... , i'. Pl f: JAUNT, INC. 1138 EAST HIGH STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, 22901 Administration: (804) 296-3184 or 296-4980 Operations: (804) 296-6174 ALBEMARLE COUNTY .,) ;~~ j \ J '....' r ,:' i.) ;. j., i!.j V ,-. Service Provided 10-1-91 to 12-31-91 1stQ PUBLIC TRIPS Urban area handicapped 4,189 Rural area handicapped 2,490 Scottsville route 775 Total Public Trips 7,454 AGENCY TRI PS 3,887 TOTAL PUBLIC & AGENCY TRIPS 11,341 Percent of budgeted funds expended For administrative and ridesharing services: 23% For operating costs of public transportation services: 26% Local funds are expected to be sufficient for the year at this time. Oistr:lrtd h 8~~rrl' 1Z,Z 1 ,ry "2,- _.~ ,........ ~.. -:.t- _ ___ f\Eerwa !l.1..~OLfD' (5-, I~) ,....,.'I'l~I~.\1 ,"\':: ~ pl'-nll 11 R' 1":' 'l,-{/f, !\j) t t,'! ;-",Ll..)L_!VJt~\ ~c< f' (::'1') {i'''''~ , /<":,' ,..::"' .,;-, r~. ,~-,~ d""HH-r r~ I . I J I "",,,I...,,.,,......'''......'''....,,,. -, , . , I !/kr MAH 9;"10<12 ~~)III ! H \\. (..: j, / lUJi [I ! il. \ 1 t:;-; 1.::'";'::1""'\' c:~"..y-'l'TtL U! ~ ...J 1,..,_--' \~_, __I I-J \.J L::::1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINI.A3oARo OF'SUPERV1SOqS Hugh C. Miller, Director Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Ri,chmond, Virginia 23219 TOO: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX (804) 225-4261 March 13, 1992 David P. Bowerman, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Castlebrook, Albemarle County, 02-656 Dear Mr. Bowerman: Recently the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Commonwealth's agency responsible for administering historic preservation programs, received information regarding the history and significance of Castlebrook. This information was submitted by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Frank G. Ryder, along with a request that the department conduct a preliminary evaluation of the property to determine whether it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Landmarks Register. I must emphasize that this evaluation does not constitute a formal action to add this property to those registers. The National Register and Virginia Landmarks Register are lists of properties important for their prehistoric andlor historical associations. Only those properties found to be significant for their associations with events or persons or determined to be good examples of an architectural style or method of construction are eligible for inclusion on the registers. Additionally, properties must meet age and integrity standards. Inclusion on the registers applies no restrictions regarding what the owner may do with his property. Registration makes a property eligible for protection and financial incentives such as easement donations, tax credits for rehabilitation and grant funds, not available to unregistered properties. More importantly, registration is a way of honoring the significance of a historic property and recording its history and appearance by collecting information that becomes a permanent record in the Department's archives. The information submitted about this property has been considered by the department's National Register Evaluation Team, a group of staff representing a variety of disciplines and agency programs, at one of its semi-monthly meetings. It is the staff's opinion that Castlebrook is not an eligible historic resource. While this review is not dependent upon an owner's consent, we are notifying the owner and you of the department's evaluation so that you can participate in this process should you so desire, and so that you may know to contact us should you have any questions. We will make a recommendation that this property is not an eligible historic resource to the State Review Board, an advisory group consisting of preservation professionals from throughout the state. We anticipate that the board will consider the staff recommendation regarding the eligibility at its upcoming meeting. Meetings of the board are open to the public. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, in Senate Room A of the General Assembly Building, comer of Ninth and Broad streets, Richmond, beginning at W:ooam. As with the staff's evaluation, the Review Board's conclusion does not constitute any formal action to nominate this property to the registers. If the Review Board concludes that this property is eligible for registration, the applicant or any other interested party may wish to prepare and submit the more extensive formal register nomination. Prior to any action to register the property, federal regulations require the department to notify the owner, as well as local officials, and give both the opportunity to express opinions on the nomination before any formal action is taken. Though the formal notification requirements come into effect only when a formal nomination is being considered, we want to call your attention to the fact that the historical significance of this property is being considered and we would welcome any additional information you may wish to share with us. The enclosed materials should explain in more detail the register process and the implications of listing. However, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosures Vlrg!q,ia Department of "'Historic Resources 221 Governor Street - Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-3143 - FAX 225-4261- TDD 786-1934 THE VIRGINIA LANDMARKS REGISTER The Virginia Landmarks Register was established in 1966 by the Virginia General Assembly to recognize the significant historic buildings, sites, and districts in the Commonwealth. In the words of the Virginia Supreme Court, listing in the Virginia Landmarks Register is a "hortatory" act - that is it recognizes the importance of our historic resources and "exhorts" owners to care for them. There are no restrictions on an owner of a property that is listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register who is using private money. However, a property that is recognized officially on the register is eligible for certain State preservation grants. The Department of Historic Resources awards grants from its Threatened Properties Grant Fund on a annual basis. Properties that are threatened in some way are eligible to apply for such funds if they are listed individually on the Register or are considered contributing structures or sites within a listed historic district. The General Assembly also awards grants to historic properties for operations and renovations. These grants require that the property be listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register. Historic Districts and individually listed properties will receive a plaque from the Department of Historic Resources in recognition of their listing. Owners of recognized historic properties are also eligible for technical assistance from the staff of the Department of Historic Resources. Professional architects, architectural historians and archaeologists are available to provide technical guidance in the care and rehabilitation of buildings and sites. July, 1990 , , COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Hugh C. Miller, Director Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond. Virginia 23219 TOO: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (804) 225-4261 NATIONAL REGISTER PROCESS IN VIRGINIA Preliminary Information Porm (PIP) -----Department of Historic Resources received and reviewed, additional (OHR) archives checked for property information requested if necessary file and any additional information PIP reviewed and rated by National ------Owner a..nd officials informed of Register Evaluation Team at monthly team recommendation, additional meeting information requested if necessary PIP goes to State Review Board for ------Owner and officials notified of review and recommendation (Board Board's decision meets every other month) IF STATE REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDS NOMINATION: Preparer of nomination consults with Department staff regarding criteria, areas of significance, period of significance and boundaries. DeQartment staff reviews nomination ----COMPLETE nomination due to DHR drafts upon request and provides seven weeks prior to meeting of technical assistance State Review Board and Virginia Board of Historic Resources Department staff reviews completed -----Owner, consultant and local nomination officials notified no less than 30 days prior to State Review Board meeting Copies of nomination sent to members --Nomination presented at State of both Boards two weeks prior to Review Board meeting. If approved, meeting State Review Board recommends that nomination be forwarded to Keeper of the National Register, Virginia Board of Historic Resources lists property on the Virginia Landmarks RegIster Owner and consultant notified of ---------Nomination is forwarded to the Boards' decisions Keeper of the National Register in Washington, D.C. Property is logged in at National ---------Pollowing 45 day review period, Register office Department is notified of decision Owner, consultant and local officials notified of Keeper's decision .' . NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EV ALVA TION Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Exceptions) Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or D. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. , . , Hugh C. Miller, Director COMMONWEALT~I of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond. Virginia 23219 TOO: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (804) 225-4261 RESULTS OF LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Eligibility for Federal tax provisions: If a property is listed in the National Register, certain federal tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 revises the historic preservation tax incentives authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act of 1978, The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and as of January 1, 1987, provides for a 20 percent investment tax credit with a full adjustment to basis for rehabilitating historic, commercial, industrial, and residential rental buildings. The former 15 percent and 20 percent investment tax credits for rehabilitation of older commercial buildings are combined into a single 10 percent investment tax credit for commercial or industrial buildings built before 1936. The Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980 provides federal tax deductions for charitable contributions for conservation purposes of partial interests in historically important land areas or structures. Whether these provisions are advantageous to a property owner is dependent upon the particular circumstances of the property and the owner. Because tax aspects outlined above are complex, individuals should consult legal counselor the appropriate local Internal Revenue Service office for assistance in determining the tax consequences of the above provisions. For further information on certification requirements, please refer to 36 CFR 67. Consideration in planning for Federal, Federally licensed, and Federally assisted projects: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that Federal agencies allow for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to have an opportunity to comment on all projects affecting historic properties listed in the National Register. For further information, please refer to 36 CFR 800. Consideration in issuing a surface coal mining permit: In accordance with the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977, there must be consideration of historic values in the decision to issue a surface coal mining permit where coal is located. For further information, please refer to 30 CFR 700 et seq. Qualification for Federal grants for historic preservation when funds are available: Funding is unavailable at present. ... t: . 1,21'1Z. _.-. .., .............O'.h_~;_ .~...:-."".a.: 12&'1.0 /H(-S _ (I )-- .---- _.____'-- ___ _J._____._~~ Agenda 1:.;;:1 1,'\'. ' t I'. ',>_ 11.\' ! 1:( II ~.'l h",; I: ' , 1" . . II i ~ \ ' . ! '\ I" 1\ \f..... '.' I :.J L~ L..:::::l ~:'_j to.:: E<O AJ\[) () F S lJ P EFN ISO '{f, COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Hugh C. Miller. Director March 20, 1992 Department of Historic Resources 221 Governor Street Richmond. Virginia 23219 TOO: (804) 786-1934 Telephone (804) 786-3143 FAX: (804) 225-4261 J. W. K. Properties, Inc. clo Curry Roberts Morven Farms Route 6, Box 69 Charlottesville, V A 22902 Re: Enniscorthy, Albemarle County (DHR FIle No. 02-28) Dear Mr. Roberts: For some time the Department of Historic Resources has been interested in including the above referenced property on the Virginia Landmarks Register and nominating it to the National Register of Historic Places. Before this action is taken, I would like to clarify the nature of these designations to you. It is the policy of our department to notify property owners and local city or county officials prior to such consideration. The Virginia Landmarks Register is an official listing of places in the Commonwealth judged to have state or national archaeological, architectural, andlor historical significance. At its next meeting, on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, the State Review Board will have the opportunity to consider Enniscorthy's inclusion on this register. Should the board determine the prepared nomination for this property is acceptable, it will automatically nominate it to the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Department of the Interior. Listing in the National Register provides recognition and assists in preserving our Nation's heritage. Listing of a resource recognizes its historic importance and assures protective review of Federal projects that might adversely affect the character of the resource. If Enniscorthy is listed in the National Register, certain Federal investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other provisions may apply. Listing in the National Register does not mean that limitations will be placed on the properties by the Federal Government. Public visitation rights are not required of owners. The Federal Government will not attach restrictive covenants to the properties or seek to acquire them. You are invited to attend the State Review Board meeting at which the nomination will f - J.W.K. Properties, Inc. clo Mr. Curry Roberts RE: Enniscorthy, Albemarle County Page 2 be considered. The Board will meet at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday. April 21. 1992, in Senate Room "A" of the General Assembly Building, Capitol Square, Richmond, Virginia. We hope you can come. This nomination will also be considered for inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register by the Historic Resources Board at its meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 22, 1992, also in Senate Room "A" of the General Assembly Building. Should the boards determine the prepared nomination for Enniscorthy is acceptable, it will be placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register at that time. This meeting is also open to the public. Enclosed, please find a notice that explains, in greater detail, the results of listing in the National Register and that describes the rights and procedures by which an owner may comment on or object to listing in the National Register. Should you have any questions about this nomination before the meeting of the State Review Board of the Department of Historic Resources, please contact Ms. Julie Vosmik at (804) 786-3143. I' / Sin~tY '/ \J:'l/ H. Bryan itch , Deputy Director State Historic Preservation Office HBM/sdm Enclosures c: David P. Bowerman, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Phil Gramm, Chairman Albemarle County Planning Commission V. Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Melinda Frierson, Consultant '"'01' 'NT\! 0"" A. ' BE~,~ A r'1 Lt.: \.... ,j i ,,, r L ,Vi,!,; I:. ITD-~; r.:~: \....;:-::) j;: Ii \l n ''';::1 fIT ,_._,'..~.. '-'_'_)1 ! :: 1'--' \ I: I ".,r; ~,):\.) ~rJ1C-O? III J;\\ .. H"_ I I" , II ! j' .. "'.....~. .fl.) County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Update on Souths ide Transfer Station AGENDA DATE: .':. .~. '_. April 1, 19923lii'\;-':U 0; STAFF CONTACTCS): Messrs. Tucker and Brandenburger SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Board decision on the status of the Transfer Station ATTACHMENTS: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The staff report you considered at your March 4, 1992 meeting recommended to continue to hold the project funding in abeyance, pending further assessment of (1) availability of private refuse service at reasonable fees to be determined within 60 days and (2) if service is not expected to be available, to re-examine the necessity in conjunction with a review of the County's Solid Waste collection program and report to the Board by July 1, 1992. DISCUSSION: Subsequent to this meeting, staff has determined private refuse service is available at rates comparable to other areas of the County. Based on a review of the Ivy Landfill records and telephone contact with specific private trash haulers, there are at least five haulers providing service in the southern part of Albemarle County. They all provide once-a-week pickup at the residents curbside or driveway. Monthly charges range from $13 to $19, depending on where the pickup is made. Three haulers are offering curbside recycling at an additional monthly charge ranging from $0 to $2. These rates are comparable to those charged in other areas of the County. Unless residents indicate service cannot be obtained at these rates, the necessity for a transfer station cannot be justified on the basis of a lack of available service. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to defer any action on transfer stations until the solid waste update is available this summer. \bat 92.046 Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 April 7, 1992 Charles S. Martin Rivanna David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins While Hall Ms. Ruth DePiro, President Our Lady of Peace 751 Hillsdale Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. DePiro: I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your proposal asking that' the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reconsider the tax exemption request made by Moore House, Inc. in December, 1990. I understand that your Management Agent, Ms. Mary Elyn McNichols also provided some documentation for our staff to review and this too, is appreciated. The Board, by consensus, does not presently feel that it is in a position to reconsider the issue it decided in December, 1990. While the Board recognizes the differences pointed out between your request and that made by other facilities in terms of the provision of indigent care, there does not appear to be a willingness to embark on a path of tax exemption for any of the facilities at this time. As you know, the Virginia Grant Program outlined in your material requires a 20% local match. We are happy to assist the indigent at your facility in this way and feel that this contribution by the taxpayers of Albemarle County is a significant step towards a pUblic/private partnership of providing the much needed care you have outlined in your proposal. Again, I appreciate your assistance in presenting the request and wish you much success in your endeavor. Sincerely, {).,J 6~~ David P. Bowerman, Chairman DPB/bat 92.017 , D;,~-:".,,-", ,'" " ~~ '~'''. ,:-'~d: (':l,.cfL_ AgeL::'l L:,., "J, __92,o<fOI{5:/?) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTYOFALBEMARLE r:'M::' :~'1~~~((~ ~ Ii t.: i~'..:', ~-'..'-I'T:-IJ'" . tJ I .. .- , "....,) ".,:...l _::J :::.J l3U,;:,~'~O OF SUPERV1SO~S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive March 25, 1992 Real Estate Tax Exemption - Our Lady of Peace Several Board members have asked that staff review a request made by Our Lady of Peace which proposes to pay Albemarle County a service fee in exchange for real estate tax exemption. While this is clearly a policy issue, the following comments should be considered in your deliberations: · Our Lady of Peace made a similar request in December, 1990 which was denied by the Board of Supervisors at the same time as a request from westminster Canterbury was denied. · The request is for an exemption of $54,874 per year, based on their current assessment. This obviously will increase as the property appreciates. In exchange, the County is to be paid a service fee of 20%, amounting to $10,975 annually on the current assessments, which is to help support public services such as fire, rescue, police, etc. The service fee proposed would have to be agreed to by contract rather than applied as is allowable by state statute for service fees to non- profit entities, such as the County presently charges the University of virginia. Staff has been advised that this is being done in some other jurisdictions and copies of the applicable contracts have been requested. A policy issue arises here in who to require the service fee of and who is not required to contribute such a fee when reviewing non- profit organizations. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 25, 1992 RE: Real Estate Tax Exemption - Our Lady of Peace Page 2 of 3 · The Virginia Grant Program mentioned in the proposal to be used to offset the cost of assisted living care requires a 20% match from our local Department of Social Services. Should the facility provide 10 scholarships to residents that are not currently in the program, our local cost will increase by $14,448 per year whether the County grants tax relief or not, assuming that these 10 scholarships would be for additional persons not currently enrolled in the program. · If the Board is interested in pursuing the issue of granting tax exemption status for the facili ty, a public hearing is required at which time the following list of issues must be considered. Following the public hearing, a recommendation is made to the Virginia General Assembly who must specifically act to grant or deny the exemption by name of the organization. Questions to Be Considered 1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to S 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organization, for use on such property; 3. Whether any director or officer of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services which such director or officer actually renders; 4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions, or local, state or federal grants. As used in the subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in- kind or other material services; Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 25, 1992 RE: Real Estate Tax Exemption - Our Lady of Peace Page 3 of 3 5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for pUblic office; 7. No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; and 8. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolution. Attached is a copy of the staff report prepared in November, 1990 for two requests made of the Board for tax exempt designation. Please note that Moore House Church of the Incarnation is now Our Lady of Peace. There appears to be no significant difference in the request made in 1990 as the current request. Discussions with Our Lady of Peace indicate that they feel that they are different than Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge in that westminster Canterbury does not offer indigent care and does charge a significant up-front fee in order to receive care. They feel that their presentation in 1990 did not sufficiently make that point and has approached several Board members to see if there is some consensus to review the request again. If further information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,JR/REH,II/bat 92-4 Attachment ... .. /i_t~,-I _ . 1/~~2LX '1.; /1/'(,-:;'(.,; COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road , Charlottesville, Virginia 2290~j4,q96 NOV 9 19~Q ::; (804) 296-5841 ~u.:,\i._:, '.~. < ~~.~ ~J-v'T~~ lL~ l.. MEMORANDUM L: '~;,;j OF SUFcFN'~;O;~'.'; TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive .;!&..4- DATE: November 9, 1990 RE: Request for Real Estate Tax Exemption: Westminister Canterbury of the Blue Ridge Moore House Church of the Incarnation The above two entities are requesting exemption from paying County real estate property taxes. The Code of Virginia provides for such exemption through designation by the General Assembly, or by classification of ownership, i.e. governmental, educational, religious and charitable. Both entities are seeking the designation process since the classification process will not provide the exemption. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the request. and examined the record of current exemptions. The County provides tax relief for elderly citizens with limited resources. Staff, however, does not recommend the County begin supporting tax exemption for the entities providing housing and care for elderly citizens who have a variety of resources. Back~round: The General Assembly designation process requires a resolution by the governing body of the locality where the property is located, that either supports, or declines to support. the exemption. Consideration of the resolution requires a public hearing at which eight questions are considered. Those question are: 1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to 9 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to such organization, for use on such property; .. '" Page 2 3. Wheth~r any director or officer of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services which such director or officer actually renders; 4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions or 10cal, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in kind or other material services; 5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; 7. No rule, regulation, policy, or practice of the organization discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex or national origin; and 8. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances which the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such resolution. Currently five organizations in the County are exempt by designation, namely the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Posts of the American Legion, Posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Nature Conservancy, and the Senior Center. There are 626 property exemptions by classification. Of these properties, 277 are governmental, 21 are educational, 261 are religious, 19 are charitable, and 48 are grouped as "other", which are mostly cemeteries. Property values and taxes of these organizations are: Designation Group Property Value Tax 1. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation $ 6,687,000 $ 49,484 2. American Legion 341,900 2,530 3. Veterans of Foreign Wars 39,700 294 4. Nature Conservancy 39,900 295 Sub Total (Under construction) $ 7,108,500 $ 5. Senior Center 52,603 , ~ Page 3 Classification Group: 1. Governmental 2. Educational 3. Religious 4. Charitable 5. Other Sub Total $509,242,500 59,018,500 35,738,900 5,888,800 2,645,900 $612,534,600 $3,768,395 436,737 264,468 43,577 19,579 $4,532,756 GRAND TOTAL $619,643,100 $4,585,359 On your November 14 agenda, you wi 11 hold a public hearing to consider the request of the Meadows Housing Corporation for tax exemption by designation of the Meadowlands, an elderly housing project for residents with limited resources. As you will recall, this request was required by the Federal government in an application process for Federal funds for the project. The Meadows Housing Corporation indicated they did not intend to apply for the existing housing units at the Meadows built in the 1970's, and that your support, or denial of support, will not affect the Federal funding for this planned expansion. Tax relief, not exemption, is provided for the elderly (65 and older) or handicapped citizens with assets of $55,000 or less, and income of $12,000 or less. The relief is on a sliding scale depending upon the resources of an applicant. The current limits of the assets and income will be presented to you for revision on your November 14 agenda. Lastly, the County has provided some financial support for the elderly/handicapped housing project at the old Scottsville School for residents with limited resources. This project, owned by the Jordan Development Corporation, a non-profit, income tax exempt corporation, is not exempt from County property taxes. Elderly citizens with fixed incomes are a constant concern to the County, and to all other communities. We know their numbers are growing. Their needs for housing, health care, and other services are significant governmental and societal concerns. It is difficult, and complex, to consider requests for property tax exemption from non-profit, income tax exempt organizations, formed to provide services to these citizens. However, staff believes the County government role should be limited to property tax exemption or relief for limited resource (indigent) citizens struggling to continue ownership of their homes. Providing tax exemption to the entities that serve citizens who have a variety of resources (some limited and some not limited) loses the distinction of helping those who need the help the most. Additionally, supporting the request for exemption will most likely result in other requests from other organizations, thereby diminishing a primary resource of local government, property taxes. Staff therefore recommends denial of the requests. Please call if you have any questions. GBAJr/gs 1152 cc: Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., Chairman, Westminister-Canterbury Ruth DePiro, President, Moore House Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance .Ii '.. T ...~ :A .~~, -: /"..... t) Hc.~rd; -!"~';N/..::1~:-- 'I.'). _.'t~',!?.l~!l.S;:'i) John G. Milliken Secretary of Transportation COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA J'u" I IN -r '.1 n "'. ." I.... t; b f. ,) Lt.'.: J \." I, . ,.... ' ',' <.. ",> \ ~~~~~C;;;;'T ITfP-' 'rOo=, March 25 1992 ! :-(~ i'" :. ,) )i) !, , , Ii . ' .. t II j ) I', \. II'i i 11\ , l . ~ ~ u ..,,,./ ~: j L.l L~~, :_~ ~., L1 L~,":.J t,.~~' .. :-. '''Ii''. ~.,~ ,'~ .~ ..: ~~) ~-L~;;\\/ iSC;:> . The Honorable David P. Bowerman, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Read Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Bowerman: This is in response to your request of March 10 for clarification of my February 26 letter concerning the proposed improvements to Route 29 interchanges at Rio Road, Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive. Please refer to the December 19, 1991, resolution passed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) and my letter to former Chairman F. R. Bowie, which was made a part of the CTB resolution. The resolution restated, to the best of the CTB's ability and authority, its intent to carry out the November 15, 1990, resolution approving Alternative 10 and outlining the Phase I, II and III sequence of accomplishing the completion of these facilities. The remarks in my February 26 letter are consistent with all rules, regulations and policies of both state and federal governments and previous decisions and resolutions from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The sequence of events required to pursue the interchange issue are funding allocation, preliminary design, location and design pUblic hearings, Commonwealth Transportation Board approval, right-of-way acquisition and, ultimately, construction as additional funding for both right-of-way and construction is made available. The funding issue, of course, must be considered along with all other priorities within the Culpeper District, as has been discussed in previous meetings and correspondence. r The Honorable David P. Bowerman March 25, 1992 Page Two I hope this information is helpful to you. If, for some reason, there remain questions about our intentions on this matter, I would be pleased to talk with you by telephone or in person. Thank you for YOUr}9nt~nued int~rest in this issue. (j" Si~CerelY, / ~. ~l Y1~~1 ohn G. ~lliken cc: Mr. Ray D. Pethtel Mrs. Constance R. Kincheloe rc I J' "'''V .') c.- \ f' -... " n R i I' 'j ,I, 1'1 I L I ,I..L ::.t j\,'l,"\',_c County of Albemarle f-=.~:~"j {-::,'.~.'J (':.:i '11'1 I.: \; I. I! \ 1"- ..... r i Ill:" I';: . ~.~ ,i\ :'~ , i L \.:.__: "~J r'~ . I; 1\ i )'1 idl ! I/,! .1, '"' I!,.', ,. '....-,~,""" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY F~. (' ;~c . ,- ~J,_~~;:- ~:' ~..: r" t. i' -.: 1/ .: ~~..:' 0 q S AGENDA TITLE: Staff Update on Space Needs Master Plan AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 92. ()"/Gi!(.>d>) STAFF CONTACTIS): Messrs. Tucker and Huff SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST: The Board of Supervisors received a presen- tation from Mr. Kirk Train, Architect, in the Spring of 1991, to review a draft Master Plan Report for County Office Space Needs. Since that time, staff has been reviewing the various options and felt that an update was warranted at this time. ATTACHMENTS: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: BackQround: The Master Plan indicated that the County Office Building is presently some 35,000 sq. ft. deficient for existing employees. It evaluated the cost differentials of adding on to the existing building vs. building new space and concluded that it would be significantly cheaper to build approximately 35,000 square feet of new space in the County's upper parking lot which presently is used for staff pool vehicles. It estimated the cost of this construction at approximately $2.9 million. Discussion: Due to the large capital outlay involved in building new space, various alternatives have been explored as follows: (1) Rental Office Space - Staff, in conjunction with several area realtors, have reviewed available office space which could be leased. There are few opportunities in the area to put together 20-30,000 square feet in one location. No suitable space has been identified to date that would prevent having to scatter agencies and/or departments throughout multiple locations. (2) Reconditioned Industrial Space - At least one former industrial plant was studied to determine if it could be retro-fitted to meet our office space needs. The costs of such renovations on top of the initial capital costs made this particular review unsatisfactory. (3) Joint Venture - The Albemarle County Service Authority has also identified a need to enlarge their existing office space. One option under review is for the Service Authority to build a building large enough to meet their needs as well as rent space to such departments as Social Services, VPI Extension, Farmer's Home Administration, ASCS, and SCS. Because of the Authority's ability to borrow funds for such a project, this alternative is being studied in more detail at this point. One variation under consideration would be for the Service Authority to build a smaller building of 24-28,000 square feet on County property and work out a lease arrangement that would compensate the County for use of its land. Conclusion: Staff continues to review potential options for relieving overcrowded conditions in the County Office Building and will bring the Board further options as they are identified. 92.036 AGENDA TITLE: Regulation of Sale of Tobacco Products AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1992 Ci"':!l H.:\cr,y ~l:' ^ "~'~';.:~,'. .~_'r ,"\LBEMARLE: ltd' ,.. ,; (7"'; r-:; ,.., fi..... n r:::J .i.. ..1....'.... IJ.......' ."",._-:.....r_ U \ / , "\- ,; ..^. -"'-'.-,., ---" /,',,/ r;'.\ ...M.M'l.9"'.i 1902 -rd'W'~ Ii \)'h ,~. ..'''' 'd I J i III - I LS-""-i-'U~~'-lJ'- .~ ~_.l <..::::;..J ! "-, RnL\ Dr\ ",- -::~ """ ~ :l!il'll ) 1;;;. o~o/ (5,A6 County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker and Huff. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: On March 11, 1992, the Board heard a presentation regarding concern over the sale of tobacco products to minors. At that time, the Board asked the staff to review the available options and report back to the Board. ATTACHMENTS: Yes ACTION: INFORMATION: x REVIEWED BY: ~ BACKGROUND: Mr. St. John, in his letter of March 13, 1992 (attached) advises that state law does not permit localities to regulate, by local ordinance, the sale of tobacco to minors. State law makes the sale to minors a civil action rather than criminal and carries a $50 maximum fine. Mr. st. John recommends that our best course of action would be to work with the various establishments in a persuasive manner in attempting to reduce the accessibility of tobacco products. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the county, through the Community Policing Program, make contacts at facilities frequented by minors to remind the owner/operators of the state law on sale of tobacco products to those under the age of 18. Chief Miller believes that this is a logical issue for his officers to include in their visits with the various establishments. 92.045 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 JAMES M. BOWLING, IV DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY March 13, 1992 GEORGE R. ST.JOHN COUNTY ATTORNEY Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesvi1le, Virginia 22902 Re: Regulation of Sale of Tobacco Products (Our File #ACG 88-808) Dear Bob: Find enclosed a copy of Virginia Code Section 18.2-371.2 regulating sale of tobacco products to minors. You will notice this section specifically speaks to sales from vending machines. In view of this state code provision, I believe any effort by the County government to discourage the placing of vending machines so as to be within reach of children, has to be of a persuasive nature, rather than by an ordinance regulating the location of these machines, or prohibiting them altogether, since this section in my judgment would preempt such a local ordinance. This is in connection with the presentation made by Mr. Mike Williams to the Board, on the evening of March 11. s~CerelY Yo~. A1 ~ Ge~. Joj I County Attorney GRStJ/bs Enclosure COUNTY OF AU3EMAHLE "<1:"1). '- d -t~ -, '. p, :'...,'.'....J\.~ t,~, ~ ' ;>~~.. t:'V;"'~'ITI\fr: OfFiCE \~~l\_'-J 'L i "'.,.. S 18.2-371.1 CRIMES AND OFFENSES GENERALLY S 18.2-371.2 construed as repealing, modifying, or in any way affecting SS 18.2-18, 18,2-19, 18.2-61, 18.2-63, 18.2-66, 18.2-68, and 18.2-347. (Code 1950, S 18,1-14; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, cc. 397, 568; 1990, c. 797; 1991, c. 295.) Editor's note. - Acts 1990, c. 797 provided that the amendatory provisions of that act would become effective July 1, 1992. However, Acts 1991, c. 295, cL 1 amends Acts 1990, c. 797 so that the amendatory provisions become effective July 1, 1991. The 1990 amendment, in the first sentence, inserted "or" preceding "cause," deleted "or tend to cause" following "cause," and inserted "in need of supervision." See Editor's note for effective date. Trial court properly denied the instruc- tion on contributing to the delinquency of a minor since it was not a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery; the of- fense of aggravated sexual battery does not require proof that the defendant was 18 years of age or older and thus, all of the elements of this section are not included within the offense of S 18.2-67.3. Kauffman v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 400, 382 S.E.2d 279 (1989). S 18.2-371.1. Abuse and neglect of children; penalty. - A. Any parent, guardian, or other person responsible for the care of a child under the age of eighteen who by willful act or omission or refusal to provide any necessary care for the child's health causes or permits serious injury to the life or health of such child shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony. For purposes of this subsection, "serious injury" shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigure- ment, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, (vi) forced ingestion of dangerous substances, or (vii) life-threaten- ing internal injuries. B. Any parent, guardian or other person having care, custody, or control of a minor child who in good faith is under treatment solely by spiritual means through prayer in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination shall not, for that reason alone, be considered in violation of this section. (1981, c. 568; 1988, c. 228; 1990, c. 638.) The 1990 amendment added subsection designations A and B, inserted "guardian" following "Any parent" at the beginning of subsections A and B, and in subsection A, in the first sentence deleted "by" following "act or omission or," inserted "serious injury to," de- leted "to be seriously injured" following "health of such child," and substituted "Class 4 felony" for "Class 5 felony" and added the second sentence. Duty on parent to actively monitor child's health and well-being. - This sec- tion not only precludes a parent or custodian from committing "willful acts," but also man- dates that a parent or custodian may not stand idle while the child's life or health is seriously threatened. The statute imposes upon the parent the duty to make herself aware of her child's physical and mental condition and to actively monitor his health and well-being in order to insure his safety. Lester v. Common- wealth, No. 0538-89-1 (CL of Appeals June 12, 1990). Recent childbirth alone does not excuse legal duty to care for child. - Although a court may consider the mother's condition in determining the degree of criminal culpability arising from a failure to attend to her newborn baby, the sole fact that she has recently experienced childbirth does not excuse her from a legal duty to care for the baby. Vaughan v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 665, 376 S.E.2d 801 (1989). Failure to place baby for adoption be- fore birth not supportive of mother's plan to kill baby. - That mother never took active steps towards placing the baby for adoption before the birth was not a fact which would support a reasonable inference that she in- tended to kill the baby since making adoption arrangements prior to a birth may be advis- able, but it is not reasonable to infer that the failure to do so indicates a plan to kill a baby Vaughan v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 665, 376 S.E.2d 801 (1989). S 18.2-371.2. Prohibiting purchase or possession of tobacco products by minors or sale of tobacco products to minors. - A. No person shall sell to or purchase for any person less than eighteen years of age, knowing that such person is less than eighteen years of age, any tobacco product, 216 S 18.2-37 including this subs. vending r manner ; products B. No I tobacco p provision, tobacco p delivery () parent. C. A VI not to exc or city in the civil enforcem, D. The tobacco pi in a cons] tobacco p law. Any this subs, a civil pl: the local county, l E. Notl action. (1 The 1991 9 18.2- (1) An: (2) An' bumper , videotapr (3) An: recording obscene s 1975, cc The 19ii sticker" in S 18.2- distribUl presum, Objectin held seve' children." severable' of "sexual I S 18.2-371.2 ting SS 18.2-18,18.2-19 e 1950, * 18.1-14; 1960: c. 797; 1991, c. 295.) * 18.2-373 CRIMES INVOLVING MORALS AND DECENCY S 18.2-374.1 "LY Iroperly denied the instruc- luting to the delinquency of it was not a lesser included lvated sexual battery; the of- ated sexual battery does not lt the defendant was 18 years nd thus, all of the elements of lOt included within the offense :auffman v. Commonwealth 8 :82 S.E.2d 279 (1989). ' including but not limited to cigarettes and cigars. However, the provisio~~_QL this subsection shall not apply to the sale of any tobaccoI>roductlrom a vendingl!l_ii.chiI2~)'}r?vl~~<J pO~lce ispos..!e<l. ().n~.l1~ maCTiiiie IIi-a conspicuous nUl~i1._-.~.er..._. ..~..I).!LP.. .. .J.,<!c._. ~__J.p._..~._.I... c.. a_ltlli_g tha!..-th~_p~~.cl1~~.~_oE.J~o.1'l_s.~~si.on of. tobll,<;c() r"'.. prOUUCLS qJ. mlliors IS un awTUl. )',. '""R N a-person -lesstlian- elgnteen years of age shall purchase or possess any . ) tobacco product including but not limited to cigarettes and cigars. The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to the possession of tobacco products by a person less than eighteen years of age making a delivery of tobacco products in pursuance of his employment or an order of his parent. C. A violation of subsection A or B shall be punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed fifty dollars. Any attorney for the Commonwealth of the county or city in which an alleged violation occurred may bring an action to recover the civil penalty, which shall be paid into the state treasury. Any law- enforcement officer may issue a summons for a violation of subsection A or B. D. The proprietor of every retail establishment which offers for sale any tobacco product, including but not limited to cigarettes and cigars, shall post in a conspicuous manner and place a sign or signs indicating that the sale of tobacco products to any person under eighteen years of age is prohibited by law. Any attorney for the county, city or town in which an alleged violation of this subsection occurred may enforce this subsection by civil action to recover a civil penalty not to exceed fifty dollars. The civil penalty shall be paid into the local treasury. No filing fee or other fee or cost shall be charged to the county, city or town which instituted the action. E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private cause of action. (1986, c. 406; 1991, c. 558,) lalty. - A. Any parent a child under the age of 1 provide any necessary jury to the life or health '. For purposes of this limited to (i) disfigure- ion, (iv) mutilation, (v) es, or (vii) life-threaten- re, custody, or control of :Jlely by spiritual means ractices of a recognized that reason alone, be ~88, c. 228; 1990, c. 638.) The 1991 amendment rewrote this section. Jirth alone does not excuse are for child. - Although a jer the mother's condition in degree of criminal culpability ilure to attend to her newborn fact that she has recently dbirth does not excuse her to care for the baby. Vaughan h, 7 Va. App. 665,376 S,E.2d ARTICLE 5. Obscenity and Related Offenses. ~ 18.2-373. Obscene items enumerated. - Obscene items shall include: (1) Any obscene book; or (2) Any obscene leaflet, pamphlet, magazine, booklet, picture, painting, bumper sticker, drawing, photograph, film, negative, slide, motion picture, videotape recording; or (3) Any obscene figure, object, article, instrument, novelty device, or recording or transcription used or intended to be used in disseminating any obscene song, b;1llad, words, or sounds. (Code 1950, ~ 18.1-229; 1960, c. 233; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1981, c. 293; 1989, c. 546.) ace baby for adoption be- upportive of mother's plan rhat mother never took active acing the baby for adoption was not a fact which would nable inference that she in- , baby since making adoption 'ior to a birth may be advis- t reasonable to infer that the 1dicates a plan to kill a baby. Iffionwealth, 7 Va. App. 665, '1989) The 1989 amendment inserted "bumper sticker" in subdivision 2. ~ 18.2-374.1. Production, publication, sale, possession with intent to distribute, financing, etc., of sexually explicit items involving children; presumption as to age; severability. n of tobacco products . - A. No person shall I years of age, knowing ~, any tobacco product, Objectionable provisions of subsection A held severable. - The phrase "obscene for children," and the definition thereof, were severable from the remainder of the definition of "sexually explicit visual material" set forth in subsection A as it read in 1979, and the remainder of the section met all of the require- ments of New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982) and was constitutional. Foster v. Commonwealth, 6 217 .... \ (' .-..' ,; .;,,'. 1,27,'12 . , '''-' _..._~. ...~,~.._-" ......~ j e-; 2 J/ '/V'dS /7 ) ,'.;. ~~----~. ~ I rn"! (',::'::' (:.:,; I UU>._.,~' JJ\~ M!\R COMMONWEALTH of VIRGW~~'[~n A;;endJ i._", (:0 LJ f\\ RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902 ~ll i lit ;; 11 ., ,I . , ill{ -','1' I' U I ~="' ..../1 L...::..J 80AHD OF SUFTRViSO~S D. S, ROOSEVELT RESIDENT ENGINEER March 25, 1992 Current Projects Construction Schedule Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Miss Neher: Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently under construction in Albemarle County and the quarterly report of projects under design. Please see that this information is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors members. I will be prepared to discuss this matter with them at the next meeting if they so desire. Yours truly, ~ '\ / ~ ? j , ~ to..''-'''''-'S ~"<t_ \ V D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer DSR/smk attachment cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY .. PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY APRIL 1, 1992 +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ IROUTE I INO. I LOCATION STATUS EST.COMP I DATE I +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ I I I I I I 250 I I I ST. CLAIR AVE. TO RTE. 64 I CONSTRUCTION 31% COMPLETE SEP 93 +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ +------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------+ * REVISED DATE ** NEW PROJECT '.- . ....... . RTE NO. 20 20 29 29 29 610 631 631 631 637 649 654 671 678 682 691 708 712 729 743 866 PROJECT LISTING ALBEMARLE COUNTY APRIL 1,1992 LOCATION - DESCRIPTION AT AVON ST. EXTENDED (RTE. 742)-CONSTRUCT TURN LANES 3.5 MI. SOUTH RTE. 53 - SAFETY PROJECT HYDRAULIC ROAD TO RIO ROAD - WIDEN TO 8 LANES RIO ROAD TO S. FORK RIVANNA RIVER - WIDEN TO 6 LANES S. FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO AIRPORT RD.-WIDEN TO 6 LANES FROM RTE. 20 TO 1.8 MI. E. RTE. 20 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE TO RTE 631 - MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 743 - RIO ROAD WEST 1.33 MI. S. RTE. 64 TO 0.1 MI. S. RTE. 64 - 5TH ST. EXT. RTE. 635 TO 0.55 MI.W RTE. 682-WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD (AIRPORT ROAD) ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 606 RTE.1406 TO GEORGETOWN RD-(BARRACKS RD.) WIDEN TO 4 LANES MOORMANS RIVER - BRIDGE AND APPROACHES ROUTE 250 TO .2 MI N. RTE 250 - AT IVY ROUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI. S. RTE 787 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD .4 MI E. RTE 240 TO RTE. 240 - PARK ROAD INT. RTE 631 - NEAR SOUTHERN REGIONAL PARK ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD INT. RTE 250 - INT. IMPROVEMENT NEAR SHADWELL HYDRAULIC ROAD RTE.657 TO RTE.631 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES RTE. 743 TO GREENBRIER DRIVE - NEW ALIGNMENT ( !) * INDICATES NEW PROJECT ** INDICATES REVISED DATE ADV. INDICATES THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED ADV. DATE ADV. 07-93 07-93 07-94 07-95 07-93 01-99 07-95 07-92 07-95 07-95 06-92 05-92** 05-93 07-92 02-94 05-93 01-95 ADV. 06-94 07-95 '" EST. CONST. TIME 5 MO. 6 MO. 2 YRS. 2 YRS. 2 YRS. 6 MO. 2 YRS. 12 MO. 18 MO. 9 MO. 12 MO. 6 MO. 12 MO. 6 MO. 6 MO. 3 MO. 5 MO. 6 MO. 4 MO. 1 YR. 9 MO. :'1 PC3~d: ,2' (~''Z..~ hr~fi~', lL:;~i : lo. q 2, o:!..~y (.}"/U J COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 COUNTiOFALBEMARLE [;:=:I r;:::;') r::J n n n 'PI n .l,.....-ll-=.OlC.- .,".dl..~~\ III IU MAR 261992 J'l q I \ ,-,../ 'u ~lSU~~a l~ BOARD OF SUPERV'~Jl:?S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive David B. Benish~ghief of Community Development DATE: March 19, 1992 RE: Whitewood Forest Park Development Plan - Review For Compliance with The Comprehensive Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 17, 1992, unanimously found the above-noted plan to be in compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this proposal. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. DBB/jcw C (i tJ ~~ -rl (i F r\ L [i [r/i /\:~ -.:~ !~ l~ f'i~R 19 1992 t . iIil ~.< '-C E)~Lc~rrIVE ui":<f!C~ STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: DAVID B. BENISH MARCH 17, 1992 WHITEWOOD FOREST PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Proposal: Proposal to develop a neighborhood park. The site is currently being used as a jogging trail/park. The trails were developed in 1984 when the property was owned by the School Board, and were considered an interim use until the County took title to the property in 1990. Location: The site is located on Whitewood Road, between Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive. The site is approximately 23 acres and is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial District (Tax Map 61, Parcel 28). Reason for P1annins Commission Review: As required by Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, the Planning Commission must review a proposed public use for compliance with the County's Comprehensive PIan. The Commission must determine that the 10cation, character and extent of the use is in accord with the adopted Plan. This pIan is not subject to site pIan approval due to the limited extent of improvements to an existing public facility. Improvements will be limited to connections within the existing pathway system, clearing of underbrush, and creation of open space/picnic area. This plan is the result of about one year of development under the guidance of a Board of Supervisors appointed committee. This review provides the Commission an opportunity to comment on the proposed development pIan. Staff Comment and Recommendation: Attached is a Master Plan Report from Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation. This report provides a background on the property, the park planning process, and a narrative of the pIan. The park is to serve a neighborhood function for a high density area of development in the County by providing green space and passive outdoor recreation opportunities. The site has been used for recreational purposes since 1984 when the existing jogging trial was constructed on-site. The Comprehensive PIan for Neighborhood One recommends the following: o Maintain permanent public recreational uses on a parcel of County owned land on Whitewood Road, presently the jogging park site (p. 164). The Land Use Map for the urban area recognizes this site for "Public/Semi-Public, Recreational Use." The Community Facilities PIan component of the Comprehensive Plan states that "priority should be given to developing Whitewood Park with provisions for passive recreational uses (p. 46)." Staff finds this proposal in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Commission. . ~. Whitewood Forest Master Plan Report Planning Commission: March 17, 1992 Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the proposed ~aster plan for the 22.7 acre County owned park property on Whitewood Road. The plan is being recommended by the Whitewood Road Park Committee. The Committef' was appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and charged with this task. Committee members include: David Bowerman, Charlotte Humphris, Robert Cooper, Sally Whaley, Thomas Jakubowski, Ron Ervin, Virginia Gardner, Ernest Flynn, Joan Branscome, Betty Via, Dennis Rosencrance, Betina Ring, Jo Higgins, David Benish, Marcia Joseph, Sharn Perry and Pat Mullaney. History: In 1919 the Albemarle County School Board purchased a 22.4 acre parcel of property that combined with a small land exchange in 1971 forms the current 22.7 acre Whitewood Road property. Until recently the property was held in reserve by the School Board due to its potential as a future school site. Because it represented a large tract of public land in an area planned for high density development, its value as a future recreational site was recognized and in 1982 the property was designated "Public Recreation Area" in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. About that time the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors asked the County staff to develop a plan to make interim recreation use of the property while its future as a potential school site was being decided. In 1984 permission was granted by the School Boa~d and funds were appropriated by the Board of Supervisors for the Parks and Recreation Department to develop the present day jogging trail on the property. Any additional recreational development was delayed until a decision was made on the ultimate disposition of the property. As the area surrounding the property continued to develop as anticipated, the importance of preserving the area as greenspace increased. In 1989 a consultant was hired to evaluate six potential sites for a new urban area elementary school. The consultant found that the Whitewood Road site was the most well suited for that purpose. However, because the construction of a school facility would drastically reduce the greenspace in that highly developed area, the Board of Supervisors decided to preserve the property for a park. On February 13, 1991, the Board appointed the Whitewood Road Park Committee. Membership on the Committee includes representatives of the various neighborhoods surrounding the property, County staff representing the Department of Planning, Engineering and Parks and Recreation, two Board of Supervisor members and a landscape architect. One of the primary charges of the Committee was to develop a master plan for the park. The Committee reached a consensus at its first meeting that construction of active recreational facilities such as ballfields, playgrounds, hardcourt areas and the related support facilities, would defeat the very purpose of not using the property for a school site. Recognizing then the value of preserving this greenspace in as close to its natural state as possible, the Committee set out to develop a plan to make the property a more inviting and safer place to pursue more passive recreation activities while still preserving its existing character. . '/'" Master Plan Development: The first draft of the master plan was developed after a site visit and several meetings by the Whitewood Road Committee. Along with the first draft of the master plan, the name Whitewood Forest was unanimously endorsed by the Committee to be suggested to the Board of Supervisors for the park. At four public meetings the draft plan was presented to the residents of Townwood, Wynridge, Minor Hill, Oak Forest, Birnam Woods, Came1ia Gardens, Garden Court and Whitewood Village. A total of approximately fifty persons attended the public meetings and unanimously endorsed the plan. To date, one negative comment has been received from a resident who would like to see the property remain in its current state. After receiving the public comments, the Committee finalized the park master plan. Master Plan Narrative: The park master plan shows two major site constraints. One is the extension of Greenbrier Drive, which encroaches approximately 80' within the park property lines, and the other is the location of a regional detention basin. These items are not part of the park plan, but rather existing encumbrances on the property that the Committee had to plan around. The site for Greenbrier Drive is set, however the Committee is recommending a location for the detention basin that will have the least impact on the park. A major concern about the current condition of the park that is addressed in the plan, is the abundance of undergrowth throughout the woods. This restricts -the visual contact within some areas of the trail and creates a concern for the safety of park users. Because the Committee needed to balance the need for security with the desire to limit clearing as much as possible, it was decided to limit activity areas to those areas being cleared for security. To address the security issue it is proposed to open up the views from Whitewood Road, Greenbrier Road Extension, and within the interior trails. To accomplish this some trees may be removed in the front of the property facing Whitewood Road and along the side facing the Greenbrier Road Extension. In addition, it is proposed that much of the underbrush within the interior trails be removed to allow visibility along the length of the trails. To further allow the interior of the park to give a feeling of security, the trails have been linked in some areas. This allows a much longer trail, and provides additional visual interest, and an increase in the visibility along the length of the trails. The necessary structures such as exercise station, picnic tables and benches for such activities as running, walking, exercising, resting, sketching, bird watching, etc., are shown included in these areas. There has been no provision made for on site parking. With the significant property already being disturbed by the road extension and the detention basin, the Committee unanimously rejected the idea of additional clearing and grading for on site parking. With the intention that the park serve a neighborhood function, and the lack of any special facility to act as an attraction, the need for parking is expected to be minimal. There was no desire for on site parking expressed at the public meetings, and the County Zoning Administrator has determined that parking is not necessary on this site. Recognizing that some residents may prefer the availability of convenient pa~king, the Committee is investigating if any arrangements can be made with the adjacent Sachem Village. One other item of discussion has been the type of surfacing for the park trails. The current trails are rock dust with paving in high erosion areas. The ,/' Committee originally recommended paving the new trails to reduce maintenance. At each of the public meetings those in attendance preferred the rock dust surface. At this point the Committee is recommending rock dust with the money saved to be used for increased erosion control measures. The Department of Parks and Recreation has asked the Independence Resource Center to issue an opinion on the handicapped accessibility of rock dust. The final decision on the type of surfacing will be based on that opinion. Finally, it was one of the Committee's goals to inspire neighborhood pride and care for the park from within the community. To achieve this it is suggested that appropriate entrance with a sign and low maintenance plant material be designed. The Committee will also be investigating areas to make direct neighborhood accesses. In addition, it is hoped that the various neighborhoods surrounding the park would adopt the different modules that have been created by the linking of the park trails. Budget: The cost estimate for the Whitewood Forest Project is $41,000. There has already been an appropriation of $10,000 for the master plan. Through the work of the Committee, especially landscape architect Marcia Joseph, the master plan was produced at no cost. An additional $20,000 is included in the 92-93 Capi tal Improvement Budget. Commi ttee members will try to supplement the commi tted County funds with additional resources solicited from private sources. i-/ "- '- '\ " , I \ \/ -:J 0\ IW I ; ..--..",,,,/ i! I /, .j' I; i / ! ; .. _.i. -~ \,/ ........., / ""-- ..... __d'_ __ ___ I _ .-- .--" -. -~'!,-., J.-.. .--.-,.,--. '-., " j "}~_,,r~ 0 ':~ ~ J ~ o ILJ-1i :.-d :r==n iLJ \ --/ I"",,;; V ---.. \ \, "- , " " \, \, \ \, \ \ \ \ \ " \ ,~ ."-- ,..~, \ \ \, \ '-- "- " '- , '- "-- - " "- ~~~ r \ \ z) ~~~ ~ ~ _._-~ './ ~. ALBEMARLE COUNTY , , . -::::.. 45 7!/. 0//1/ (0.' I( /; I3l .. <, // I (7J.' , ~ i ~~ '/~ '!...ro.~ ,,""_r. 'll II/, (1~~".,Jd. II/, I/. SEC6IW1'R', 1/, ,I ~"'t~' 1>. SEC. 61" :~~I I/, ~ '26 '26 rll ,~ '.$ ~ - ~ I , /. " F-SEC.- ~ .' E~ ~XI a XZ ~ . 619. t==FOUR:;r ""- ZC \.... ZD \ .." !t=SEASONS ---:--;::::: ~.~~ ". --------=--=.: -===-: !:? " f J ~ "'tiff. I.... -: ~---::-: - L::::=::==- ~ .. ':;;~ ~ ~. ':. ....0 . ~ ::==-.==_ __ ~ 'iN'<:. t ~ TIIII/II rllllll, '// (/1 ~ I\. " t:/~~~' \ ~ , '/11 I I I I I. '1!c~~~0 /f; I ~ ~ Q'4 i~ IIWl Ilj ~/ I -1 z ~\\: za /// CJ.HHJ11f////;' WH,OL K'~1.."":;.v.; E ~ ~ "". '(/., III//Ii (//l//t (/ ~ """", "'i, "... IN. III , (illj 1/ ". ~~~ ~ ~~ 6IW' ~_ (! ~.~~ s~ STFE SE~,;. ~ ~~ ~ ~ '" ~,iJ " ~~ ~~ r I~~ ;'~.......... "'-, .~61 ..' ~^.A..'- ':::;t ::S:: ,X,,~? .,_ ~ ~ ~"" ~~k" ,,- :-SECTION 6' ~.:::-......~ ~ '<!:' , 0 ~ ~.~ ~' .,0 ".. ./ tI' ~ ~_:::s:: d' ~ '-.. /' tIF // / ..--;;r \ ".' .""~'W~ 7 . "// \\ ' ):~ ~ rr-- ", I 60 ~~ ~. . / ~:--: ",.~ .' ....... / ~ lOA ~. / '/I 7 ~ /~ 'X/ /\ \ / //// \rr~ -Y$L " " //// \ '/ "-. l ~ '.,' yY /' IZ3 ( 124 , \ \\\\ 'Z5 Iat. ~ " ;:" '0"" ....~,,~~ ,'1i ~s.":" ~~ '~-;~7~ ~ 124[ ;;< ...., ~. f'-.. ~':Z~: .~? i~ t$l ~ v' 128 ,n ''', IZIE ~~ ~. ~ '2.. ~ 1Z1~ ~~'V 1. .. ~ ~z,o ,\. //) 19$1"".. //0/ ///1 . ///1 ///1 I//; '/; /" I ~ ~Il -~'-j ~ --_./~ "'''~... -".\.~~ \ ".\\ \ \\\ \ ~\ \ \\ \ \ \ " SLCT.". 62A '>; _\~ ~,~~ (\.~\Y/ ~~.~ ~ ,L""~' ....: --i l;k~~ - . ~I/J.~ ~ , . - ~!) .~ ~.E." ~ ,.. f-~ ~~"'\- ~ j / . '\, J.. 164. ..~I"I" . R'.b~O ~ ~ . . ;j', .... . '~. o ,~~164~ 62 oj/,! Q ~....-: ~'/f ., :;.r....-::; -3 ~ '.:) s/I/!t69 I~&?A /// 170 .t....:::!!!:. v ~ .filII / ~ ~ 168 ';(~s""'''"' ... I~. ""'" o~/~ ~~... X.A Iii I;;S I, ~... 1.<' II. O. */. ~ . " 1// ;)0:._ ~ / /:/ 193 d '. ~ '85'..' ", I/; ~\, ~ ~~~ /,v/ "".JI 811: ~~<c,:;-o;-~ \'.\ ///A ""'::j (-... ' '\ l\\ _~"f/ j.,,', . ',I :", "'............"Y" ~ 7/// -:it~. 1I9 .. '\ \.J' I~; '(, ~~".lI \ \. If L '7 p' 19Z, '10 j /210 I WOOClHA"'- \ ~ / f/ " 19' [,,-, ./f/ S~T1 J ~ I J'/ f ~. I / /II /1~"'. ....L lh /1 L. .' - ..-, ^ I' ' "'-, II ~ i, I / I ~ -.~ .....- '.on, II/I ~ .Ill "- Iff A- I " :.0".; .. :i.E:CTION 6IZ-'C: BRjI,HCH,LAHOS --~ <j.G"~ i-I, O~ .....'--'.....' _ '.~'J'>4~.....~.......:... ....~.....o'\. ,:6<_:...'_. ~",r _... ....",;::;;; ~........ ';: 0,': ._~':--..~ ~ L,,,'Ts -ll. \,':.::~~~ ~~ ~~-::-.'" ~~~ ~.>~ '~'o~ .' --~ " '" CITY OF CHARlOTTESV I LLE 'r ---.. -..- \ - --- !CIII.I lei f''hl ... ~ 77 "~0K JOUETT, RIVANNA AND SECTION 61 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Department County Office Building 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901-4596 T elpphone (804) 296-5845 MEMORANDUM TO: David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development FROM: Patrick K. MUllaney, Director, Parks & Recreation/~/~ DATE: March 6, 1992 RE: Whitewood Road Park Committee Report On behalf of the Whitewood Road Park Committee, please find enclosed our report on the Whitewood Forest Master Plan. If you need any additional information prior to the Planning Commission meeting on March 17, please let me know. PKM/sms Enclosure cc: Rick Huff Marcia Joseph ...\: ,'. ,',SJii.)lIt;;li"~I.,.'jr ct. , .."".' 7.'.7 '.~1-'''' _",.' . V ""-".L~" ~':~_,~_ l\fcrlda Itam No. f.:{.:::..J.EL/S. /7 ) --..... :~ f) 1 (' ') COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296,5823 ; I,.;c':' i._ : 'il ..i .i. 'I!. ! Ii I! I :, I 11 . I",' r ,~----, BOARD OF SUPEF;'ViSOl:?$ I 1)-'1; 'I I' .' , . ! ,~ I r U MEMORANDUM FROM: Bob Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and/l/I I~ . Community Development [)l}J~ TO: DATE: March 25, 1992 RE: Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review): City of Charlottesville Gas Division Gas Line Installation To Serve Keswick The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 24, 1992, by a vote of 5-1, found the above-noted request to be in compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this proposal. If you have any questions or comments regarding this action, please do not hesitate to contact me. VWC/jcw cc: Pete Bradshaw Judy Muller STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIEW CONSENT AGENDA: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AGENDA: KENNETH BAKER MARCH 17, 1992 MARCH 24, 1992 REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (15.1-456 REVIEW) : CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS DIVISION GAS LINE INSTALLATION TO SERVE KESWICK As per section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, the city of Charlottesville Gas Division has requested that the Planning Commission review the installation of a gas line. The proposed line begins at Shadwell near the Route 250jRoute 22 intersection and runs along the northwest side of Route 22 to a point approximately 300 feet west of the Route 22jRoute 744 intersection. From that point the line heads southeast across the C & 0 rail line and then runs in a northeast direction to a point near Route 744. The line then runs southeast along Route 744 to the Kewsick Acquisition Company property. The line is approximately 1.9 miles in length (See Attachment A). The primary uses of this service will be the Keswick Inn and clubhouse. Other surrounding properties have also expressed interest in having service provided. The proposed alignment of the gas line appears not to impact any major tree areas along Route 22 and all distribution lines are underground. Charlottesville Gas Division is currently in the process of securing all necessary easements and has applied for a railroad crossing permit. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the following concerning the extension of utilities: 1. An objective of the Plan is to provide essential services, such as telephone, electric and natural gas utilities, to ensure the adequate provision of these services to support existing and anticipated development in the County (p. 153). 2. Route 22 is designated a Virginia Byway (p. 84). A Virginia Byway designation does not place any restrictions or regulations upon a byway corridor. The primary purpose is to give recognition to deserving roads to promote tourism and public appreciation of actual and historic resources. General design standards to preserve scenic quality are most applicable to this project includes: (1) corridors should be shared by utilities when possible, and (2) distribution lines shc~ld be placed underground. 1 staff op1n1on is that the installation of the proposed gas line is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action be taken by the Commission to find the gas line in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Necessary protection should be undertaken by Charlottesville Gas Division to avoid any major tree area along Route 22 to preserve the natural resources of this corridor. 2 ~~/ \/.' .' )' . ~ '"PROPOSED KESWICK GAS L1NE(\ 'v' - , ""'!\ (r \ I \ "\ \ \ J ~~_ '", \ --\- X.' .~.ALACHMEN~I \ ~_ \ ;r"~~ ~i \ t \/- \ )~ X----/\--\ \ ", 1,/ \:.f ,LEGEND \ \\5A I \ . \ t \ ",-,,, \. ~ '\ ---EX5TNG GAS LNE i ( \) ~ ~, \;> ......... PROPOSED GAS LNE "t ' , I \ \'.' ~,,\ ,\\" t j) \ }' / I ( \ ~\ ,~. ,\ ?"\ :t~ M j ~ \ {- 10 \ I \ .. \:~\ \. "\. ~~_ / / ~ '\ " 1 \ .. . ~ ~~\ ~ \) I \ \ ~' \ --\.:>'\ - ~ .< ~\ \7t/ I \ \~\ ..' ,\\ \" ~YK-~.' ,~ \' \. ~i1: \ /' -\ ...... .. ..-- . --, _.._~ -'-- .---.--.-- v.~ <:...:;' ~c? 4'$ J...tf ~ .~ Cj cJ C./ c.,' q, . ~ Q.S- Cb q, s.... c,,>~~ 'V)~q, ~ qj C) ~ qO) KesWick H unt Club -= VA STATE ROUTE 731 - ""'\ CO TAX MAP 80 PAR 9 0.8. 1119 P. 670 .- I"") r-.... ~ => o 0: 1L/ ./- ;! (J) ~ 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE GAS DIVISION PLAT SHOWING A PROPOSED 15' WIDE EASEMENT FOR A 4. P .E. GAS LINE FROM KESWICK ACQUISITION CORP. SCALE: 1" = 100" DATE: ~ Rr.::"'~-'" "4__" h,... Il.,:1~: ~ \:t (...... ~ .;~ MAR 1 6 1992 PLANNiNG DEPT. 12 March 1992 Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Wayne: At the request of Keswick Acquisition Corporation, The city of Charlottesville is proposing an extension of their gas main to the Keswick Estate in Albemarle County. The undersigned hereby requests a review under Virginia Code 815.1-456 to determine compliance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. We previously submitted to your office the proposed routing of said gas line as prepared by Charlottesville Gas. Thank yo~ for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, /'.-2~ . ~ ~~:~~~ Pete Bradshaw Development Manager Keswick Acquisition Corp. >&~ '7n 'fIuu (J It", d Mueller i ector of Public Works "ty of Charlottesville -- PB:.b PB.002 Oistribut13d to Board: -?' 2 7.1 V' Ag2i1fh Itf!': ~Jo, 12, 0 ~o!JS../!I) ) RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINlftoUNTY OF ALBL\/~i , ffllll r;::::; r::::. Jr.J n \'1 n ,- ,:';: ;"" H~JjIA\Jr~:~;;:'~'"':)~~"l;~:~~-\ I, ',i II Ii \, '.. '- ".. .."',' // t' iJ' ' U Ii ' ": '"" IJ I ---.> \ L . ;..':- '-.."" BOAHO Ci" "d, :...",' ;::.C;~S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND,23219 March 24, 1992 Secondary System Addition Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: As requested in your resolution dated January 15, 1992, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective March 16, 1992. ADDITION LENGTH HUNTER I SHALL Route 1146 (Hunter's Way) - From Route 250 to 0.44 mile Northeast Route 250 0.44 Mi Sincerely, 4:fJp~ Commissioner (!C-: Pd/'~ Eh'jflULfl n j PIOJ1~(~u 1-~ '-0 TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 5T CENTURY Distributed to Board: rz, () c/o I. f {o ? Agenda Item No. ?;, Z 11 q '2,..-- Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC DATE: March 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Reading List for April 1, 1992 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsvil1e Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall June 12, 1991 - pagc~ 1 - 14 (*6) - Mrs. Humphr1s ~~ n pa.ges 14 (#6) 23 (it?&.) - Mr. ~mlcrm;:tn. \~~ September 4, 1991 - All - Mr. Bain September 11, 1991 - pages 54 (#15) - 66 (#16) - Mr. Bain r&--~-9 October 16, 1992 - pages 14 (#7) - end - Mr. P~rk;ns ._N__,.",__....,,,.,~___~~__ LEN:ec ~'~....'..\.:J.'.'.. . '. ." .. , . ,\ '\ '.1 \' . l Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Marlin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall April 2, 1992 Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer Department of Transportation PO Box 2013 Charlottesville , VA 22902 Dear Mr. Roosevelt: At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on April 1, 1992, the following actions were taken: Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Revenue Sharing Projects. AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached letter indicating the County's intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for FY 1992-93 in the amount of $500,000 to be used on the reconstruction/realignment of Fifth Street Extended. Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters. The Board AUTHORIZED the County Executive to sign the financial plan for the Six Year Secondary Road Improvements Plan for 1992-93 through 1997-98. The Board AUTHORIZED the Chairman to sign the attached agreement covering cost participation for sidewalk installation in the Route 654 (Barracks Road) project. Attached are the signed original agreements. Please return a fully signed copy to our office for our files. Mr. Tucker announced that the Commonwealth Drive Extended project will be advertised for bids on April 19. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt April 2, 1992 Page 2. Mr. Perkins asked the Highway Department to consider installing a sign on I -64 at exit 108 indicating the exit for Greenwood, and on Route 250 at the sign for Greenwood Country Store provide a sign for the Greenwood Post Office or Greenwood Community Center. Mr. Marshall asked the Highway Department to install "no littering" signs on Route 20 South and indicate that there is a fine for littering on this high- way. In response to an article in the Daily Progress containing comments made by Secretary Millikin following the Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper, the Board asked Mr. Tucker to communicate with Secretary Milliken for clarification on his comments and to find out the sequence for acquisition of right-of-way. This information is to be brought back to the Board on April 8. Agenda Item No. I5b. Work Session: Discussion: Route 29 North Aesthe- tic Improvements. The County Executive will follow up with the Highway Depart- ment concerning the Planning Department's inquiry last December on the costs of having landscaping of some sort in the median on Route 29 North. ;:?4iY~ Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC LEN: ec cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Robert B. Brandenburger I' " lYJ '.--..,'" rJ' ,'"', : I')' \' ; ~' \ \0U Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall, Jr Scottsville David p, Bowerman Cniulottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall April 2, 1992 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher State Secondary Roads Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: County Primary and Secondary Road Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Code of Virginia Section 33.1-75.1 Fiscal Year 1992-93 County of Albemarle, Virginia Dear Mr. Fisher: The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1992-93. The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia. The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds. Sincerely, ~;:)~~ David P. Bowerman Chairman, Board of Supervisors DPW\alb Enclosures cc: Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer " ...., ... o ...., ... c - ... "" - Q C"i:;; - ... c '" ... ... ~ 18 ... .... ~~ 0 - ... - "" :::: - .. ... - - t: ~ - - ~ . - ,.c "" .... .-I ... ...: co Q) .-I .-I .,., ;. 00 u - .. u u_ - .... co ... "" "" -- ....- ~ .. -a ....- . -a_ ....- ~.:!:. z ... - -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- --. o _u ... ~.,~ o .. _ 0" 00 Q ... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- Eo-< o '" ::> ,. Q) c: :>. OJ OJ .-I ~ I ..c: 0 .. "" 00 ... .. .,., ... 0 ..... ..c: ... .... u 0 .. =' "0 - ... ~ Q) ..... "0 00"" c: ;. 0'", u"O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- .... -a .. .. ... . - e.:~ ~ Do... _ Do _ - - -- ~ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -a ....- ....- ~o;:; :z ... .- ....!:: -- -- -- -- -- --~- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- ~:: co .,"", "' ..c t::g,:;:: 0- = QI:I =' tf.I u "" -< -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ---- --- ... - .. ... -Q ... .- .. ..Cl .. '" ... ... 00 N '" l/'1 .... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --_. '" 0 en -.: ..... ~ . "-' 0 0 "" "" "" "" .. .. ... C"i \D .... \D .... 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---. .... -a .. ..II:lI ",._ ~ O~ ~ I:ar= ~~ -.... .. o .. o N I 00 .... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ..... ... ~ .~ - &0 :-::: -. N ... Do_ ...... .... o -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .. -a ..._ ...... - -a ""_ ... - .. .- ... .. ... ... - ~ -..Cl .. - ~ =' =' ..... ... ... - z -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- ---- ---- .. -... ~ '" ........... a .. ... 0"'_ .- ... .. .. .... .- ,....., 00 '" I OON '" '-" -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- .... .. ... ....""!:f_ ..Cl ..._ ... ..- ~ ... ... "" o o o o o l/'1 <J}- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- .. o .- -..... ~ ..- ...-- ~.:::- u~ ... o U o o o o o l/'1 <J}- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ... -..... . co .. ~ .. ..... ... -a_ "'.- .- U 4.1 o co .. .. - .... Do -a .. .. 0.... I "" N N I N o ON 10 .... l/'1 C"iU \D o c:: "'_ ~ Z 7(9~ .... .............- -._...._~. !.,'(f~}j~ , _ .tf.?-,0fo J I Zr;:,.s -~. COD~:Y~FAl8E~i~~-- COUNTY OF ALBEMAR~r;j~::~au)I~.' Cl Qt. M,"" 1Mb" I Lr, , ,..;1 n-,"? Ill...! ;<,~ -1; -"" ,.."-. d Lf ,L~ J "0 ~. 7 80"""D ~ ,_ _ I.._oJ.::;:.J! & '0 1"11\ Ot SU r't:.C D'V'lr'.,~ .D'"" C t'1 . 11 ~J'ljc) MEMORANDUM Albemarle County Board of Supervisors TO: FROM: DATE: RE: David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development March 26, 1992 County Request to Participate in VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Attached please find a draft notification of the County's intent to participate in the County Primary and secondary Road Fund, commonly referred to as the "Revenue Sharing Program". This program allows VDOT to provide state funds to match local funds for the improvements of primary and secondary roads. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation to this program is set by the Code of Virginia at $10,000,000. The amount of local participation in the program is not to exceed $500,000, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from this program. This program provides the opportunity to leverage $500,000 in additional funds from the state for the completion of road projects. The County has participated in the Revenue Sharing Program since FY 1987-88. Use of these funds are anticipated in the FY 1992-93 to 1997-98 Six Year Secondary Road Plan recently approved by the Board of Supervisors. The VDOT resident engineer has recommended that these funds be used on the reconstruction/realignment of Fifth Street Extended (Stagecoach and Old Lynchburg Roads) south of Interstate-64. VDOT must receive the County letter of intent to participate in the program by May 1, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact me. DBB/mem ATTACHMENT RECEIVED MAR 3 1 1992 PLANNING DEPT. March 31, 1992 @@[PtJ Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Attached is the original and one copy of the 1992-98 Six-Year Plan for Albemarle County. Also attached is a copy of the approved County priority list with the VDOT priorities shown. The only difference in the priorities is number 11 and number 13 on the County's list. These two projects on Rio Road were combined as priority number 11 in the Six-Year Plan. Please sign the original and return to this office. The copy is for your files. Yours Truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer cc: Mr.. David Benish ~ /)~ e..e-4;'C.L Jj//72_ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1992 - 93 THRU 1997 - 98 APPROVED BY BOS FEBRUARY 19, 1992 BOARD OF VOOT 6 YR ESTIMATED SUPERVISOR PLAN ROUTE ROAD LOCATION COST ADVERTISEMENT PRIORITY PRIORITY NUMBER NAME FROM/TO DESCRIPTION AS OF 12/91 12/91 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1* ( 1 COUNTY \.IIDE SIGNS,PIPE,SEEDS 600,000 2* ( 2 625 HATTON FERRY RD HATTON FERRY OPER. HATTON FY 60,000 3* ( 3 COUNTY \.IIDE PLANT IX PROJ. 1,000,000 4* ( 4 ) 708 RED HILL RD 708/631 INTER. IMPROVE. 342,000 (5/93) 5* ( 5 ) 654 BARRACKS RD \.ICL TO GTO\.IN MAJOR RECONST. 1,386,770 (6/92) 6* ( 6 ) 631 MEADO\.I CR P\.IY NCL TO RIO NE\.I RD, 1 BRIO. 5,850,000 (1/99) 7* ( 7 ) 671 BUCK MTN RD MOOR MANS R BRIO/MOORMAN RIV. 1,467,643 (1/92) 8* ( 8 ) 631 FIFTH ST 1103/S 780 MAJOR RECONST. 5,612,166 (7/92) 9* ( 9 ) 678 O\.IENSVI LLE RD 250 AT 678 MAJOR RECONST. 650,000 (5/93) 10+ (n/a)+ COMMON\.ITH. CON COM\.IETH/G'BRIER NE\.I ROAD/EXT. 363,616 (4/92) 11* (11 )* 631 RIO RD 29/BERKMAR MAJOR RECONST. 750,696 (7/93) 12* (10 ) 743 HYDRAULIC RD LAMBS/631 MAJOR RECONST. 2,500,000 (6/94) 13* (11 ) 631 RIO RD \.I BERKMAR/743 MAJOR RECONST. 3,000,000 (7/95) 14+ (n/a)+ BERKMAR DR N OF RIO RD NE\.I ROAD/CONNECTOR 1,169,138 (4/92) 15* (12 ) 691 TABOR ST PARK/240 INTER. IMPROVE. 150,000 (5/94) 16* (13 ) 866 GREENBRIER DR G'BRIER EXTD NE\.I ROAD 1,659,325 (7/95) 17* (14 ) 631 MEAD.CRK PK\.IY N. OF RIO ROAD NE\.I ROAD 28,751,000** 18! (15 ) 656 GEORGETO\.IN RD 743/654 SPOT IMPROVE. 1,000,000 (10/97) 19! (16 ) 601 OLD IVY RD 250/29 BYPASS MAJOR RECONSTR. 1,500,000 (10/97) 201 (17 ) 649 AIRPORT RD 606/29N MAJOR RECONSTR. 1,200,000 (7/96) 21! (18 ) 691 JARMANS GAP RD 240/684 MAJOR RECONSTR. 1,125,000 22+ (n/a)+ AVON STR/20 NE\.I ROAD 1,575,500 231 (19 ) 651 FREE STATE RD FREE STATE RD BRIDGE PROJECT 500,000 (1/99) 241 (20 ) 627 \.IARREN FERRY RD .74 M S RT 726 GRADE RR XING 100,000 (7/95 ) 25 ( ) 631 STAGECOACH RD NE\.I ALIG. TO PARK SPOT IMPROVE. 1,045,000 26 ( ) 726 JAMES RIVER RD 795/1302 SPOT IMPROVE. 500,000 27 ( ) 692 PLANK RD 29 S/712 SPOT IMPROVE. 400,000 28 ( ) 781 SUNSET AVE CL TO LYNCH RD SPOT IMPROVE. 150,000 29 ( ) 691 PARK ST PARK/250 CONN. S.SEC 240/250 30 ( ) 657 LAMBS RD NEAR ACCESS RD SPOT IMPROVE. 31 ( ) 810 BRO\.INS GAP RD INTER. OF 789 SPOT IMPROVE. 350,000 32 ( ) 708 RED HILL RD 20/29 SPOT IMPROVE. 525,000 33 ( ) 649 PROF F IT RD iil RR IN PROFITT BRIDGE PROJECT 1,000,000 34 ( ) 641 BURNLEY STATION RD Norfolk S. RR BRIDGE PROJECT 300,000 35 ( ) 640 GILBERT STATION RD Norfol k S. RR BRIDGE PROJECT 425,000 36 ( ) 625 HATTON FERRY RD .75 M S RT 738 GRADE RR XING 100,000 37 C ) 602 HO\.IARDSVILLE TPKE .01 M S RT 626N GRADE RR XING 100,000 38 ( ) 743 ADVANCE MILLS RD iilJACOBS RUN SO IMPROVEMENT 300,000 39 ( ) 622 BLENHEIM RD iil622/795 INTER. IMPROVE. 150,000 40 C ) 622 BLENHEIM RD iil622/m INTER. IMPROVE. 200,000 41 ( ) FONTAINE/SUNSET NE\.I ROAD/CONNECTOR STUDY 42 ( ) AVON/FIFTH ST NE\.I ROAO 4,870,000 43 ( ) 240/250 NE\.I ROAD/CONNECTOR 44 C ) 744 HUNT CLUB RD .02 M S OF RT 22 GRADE RR XING 100,000 45 ( ) 611 JARMANS GAP RD .23 M \.I RT 691 GRADE RR XING 85,000 46 C ) 642 RED HILL DEPOT RD .28 M NE RT 708 GRADE RR XING 85,000 47 ( ) 1310 FERRY ST .06 M S RT 6 . GRADE RR XING 85,000 48* (21 ) 682 GILLUMS RIDGE RD 250/1. 7 MI S 787 UNPAVED ROAD 1,250,000 (7/92 ) 49* (22 ) 610 LONESOME MTN RD 20/D.E. UNPAVED ROAD 940,000 (7/94) 50* (23 ) 712 NORTH GARDEN LN 29/692 UNPAVED ROAD 450,000 (7/95) * IN CURRENT SIX YEAR PLAN. ** BASED ON THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. VOOT'S COST IS $20,000,000 AND IS BASED ON THE CATS ALIGNMENT AND COST ESTIMATED, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION BY VDOT STAFF. ! NE\.I PROJECTS EXPECTED TO RECEIVE FUNDING IN THE VOOT SIX YEAR SECONDARY CONSTRUCTION PLAN 1992-93 THRU 1997-98. + NOT ELIGIBLE FOR VDOT FUNDING SECONDARY SYSTEM @@ COUNTY: ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS YEAR NEW S.T. FEDERAL OTHER TOTAL ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ,.'. --------------- ---------------- 1992-93 $671,576 $1,497,644 $947,300 $3,116,520 1993-94 $692,105 $2,271,743 $248,004 $3,211,852 1994-95 $688,492 $2,198,584 $310,000 $3,197,076 1995-96 $712,112 $2,003,063 $610,000 $3,325,175 1996-97 $748,340 $2,230,000 $518,766 $3,497,106 1997-98 $786,115 $2,380,260 $510,000 $3,676,375 TOTALS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $4,298,740 $12,581,294 $3,144,070 $20,024,104 _:_~1~Ql~-9 2 DATE ----------------------------------------------------- VDOT RESIDENT ENGINEER DATE ----------------------------------------------------- (CHAIRMAN,CLERK,CO.ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.) DATE SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 1 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 RIO ROAD P.E. 200,000 FINANCE DEFICIT TC: 17605 0631-002-128,C503 R/W 160,000 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE ID: 4189 FR:0.3 MI.E. RT. 29 CON 2,140,870 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 650 TOT 2,500,870 STATE LENGTH: EAD 05 1990 ( 0) ECD 07 1991 -----------+--------------------+--~-----------~+------------------------------+' ROUTE 8000 COUNTY WIDE P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 0 8000-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: NEW PIPE INSTALL., CON 600,000 STATE FORCE SIGNS,SEEDING TOT 600,000 STATE (BUDGET ITEMS) EAD 07 1992 ( 1) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0625 HATTON FERRY P.E. 0 TC: 67 0625-002- R/W 0 ID: OPERATE CON 60,000 STATE FORCE HATTON FERRY TOT 60,000 STATE (BUDGET ITEM) EAD 07 1992 {' ( 2) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0664 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 1705 0664-002- R/W 0 ID: FR:RTE. 665 CON 17,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 663 S TOT 17,000 STATE LENGTH:0.4 MI EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 19~3 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0684 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $45,000 TC: 395 0684-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 788 CON 45,000 CONTRACT TO:MINT SPRINGS TOT 45,000 STATE LENGTH:0.70 MI. EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0692 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $63,000 TC: 394 0692-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 250 CON 63,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE 691 TOT 63,000 STATE LENGTH:1.61 EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0729 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 2070 0729-002- R/W 0 ID: FR:0.7 M.N. RT.1120 CON 93,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 53 TOT 93,000 STATE LENGTH:2.2 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0738 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $62,000 TC: 1043 0738-002- R/W 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 679 CON 62,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 250 TOT 62,000 STATE LENGTH:1.5 MI EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0788 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 REVENUE SHARING $30,000 TC: 955 0788-002- R/W . 0 1993-94 ID: FR:RTE. 789 CON 30,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 684 TOT 30,000 STATE LENGTH:0.28 MI. EAD 07 1993 ( 3) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0800 NEW PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 1382 0800-002- R/W 0 ID: FR: RTE. 6 CON 71,000 CONTRACT TO: NELSON CO. LINE TOT 71,000 STATE LENGTH: 1.4 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 2 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0810 PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 964 0810-002- RjW 0 ID: FR:RTE. 674 W CON 49,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 672 W TOT 49,000 STATE LENGTH:1.2 MI. EAD 07 1992 ( 3) ECD 06 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0000 PLANT MIX P.E. 0 TC: 0 COUNTY WIDE RjW 0 ID: APPLY PLANT MIX TO CON 800,000 CONTRACT SURFACE TREAT. RD. TOT 800,000 STATE EAD 07 1994 ( 3) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0708 P.E. 75,000 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 8220708-002-241,C501 RjW 55,434 1988-89 ID: 8844 FR:0.14 M.E. RT. 631 CON 263,600 CONTRACT TO:0.07 M.W. RT.631 TOT 394,034 STATE LENGTH:0.21 EAD 05 1993 r ( 4) ECD 12 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0654 BARRACKS ROAD P.E. 150,475 REVENUE SHARING $600,000 TC: 17500 0654-002-242tC501 RjW 360,520 1988-89 ID: 9100 FR:ROUTE 140b CON 875,775 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 656 TOT 1,386,770 STATE LENGTH:0.20 EAD 06 1992 ( 5) ECD 04 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY P.E. 390,000 EAD AND FINANCING BASED ON TC: 0 0631-002-128,C502 RjW 2,250,000 COORDINATION WITH CITY PROJECT ID: 2530 FR:NCL CH'VILLE CON 3,000,000 UOOO-104-102,C501 CONTRACT TO:CSX RAILROAD TOT 9,640,000 RS LENGTH:1.00 EAD 01 1999 ( 6) ECD 10 2000 \ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY P.E. 75,000 TC: 0 0631-002-128,B612 RjW 0 ID: 2530 BRIDGE OVER CON 725,000 CONTRACT MEADOW CREEK TOT 800,000 BRSOS EAD 01 1999 ( 6) ECD 10 2000 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0671 P.E. 82,000 TC: 4900671-002-191,B646 RjW 0 ID: 2507 BRIDGE OVER CON 840,000 CONTRACT MOORMANS RIV. TOT 922,000 BRSOS STR. NO. 6058 EAD 05 1992 ( 7) SUFF. RATING 17.2 ECD 10 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0631 5TH ST. EXTENDED P.E. 550,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 79740631-002-224,C502 RjW 1,851,560 1992-93 ID: 4188 FR:1.34 M.S. RT. 64 CON 3,660,606 CONTRACT TO:0.14 M.S. RT. 64 TOT 6,062,166 RS LENGTH:1.20 EAD 07 1992 ( 8) ECD 12 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0678 P.E. 70,000 REVENUE SHARING $206,000 TC: 2499 0678-002-223,C501 RjW 50,000 1993-94 ID: 4148 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 530,000 CONTRACT To:0.20 M.N. RT. 250 TOT 650,000 STATE LENGTH:0.20 EAD 05 1993 ( 9) ECD 12 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0743 HYDRAULIC ROAD P.E. 250,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 22997 0743-002-153,C502 RjW 750,000 1994-95 ID: 8811 FR:ROUTE 657 CON 1,565,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 631 TOT 2,565,000 RS LENGTH:0.6 MI. EAD 06 1994 ( 10) ECD 08 1995 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 3 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------~ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------~ ROUTE 0631 RIO ROAD P.E. 286,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 14686 0631-002-185,C501 RjW 1,725,000 1995-96 ID: 2419 FR:ROUTE 29 CON 1,739,696 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 743 TOT 3,750,696 RS LENGTH:0.7 MI EAD 07 1995 ( 11) ECD 10 1996 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------~ ROUTE 0691 TABOR STREET P.E. 30,000 REVENUE SHARING $65,000 TC: 1750 0691-002-234,C501 RjW 45,000 1993-94 ID: 8809 INT. RTE. 240 CON 75,000 STATE FORCE AND INT. HIGH ST. TOT 150,000 STATE LENGTH:0.10 MI. EAD 02 1994 ( 12) ECD 07 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------~ ROUTE 0866 GREENBRIER DRIVE P.E. 250,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 TC: 0 0866-002-236,C501 RjW 200,000 1996-97 ID: 8814 FR:ROUTE 743 CON 1,284,325 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 1455 TOT 1,734,325 RS LENGTH: 0.69 MI. EAD 07 1996 f" ( 13) ECD 07 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------i ROUTE 0631 MEADOWCREEK PKY. P.E. 1,500,000 TC: 0 0631~002-,C RjW 7,500,000 ID: FR:RIO ROAD CON 11,000,000 CONTRACT TO: RTE. 649 TOT 20,000,000 STATE LENGTH: 5.0 MI. EAD 01 2010 ( 1 4 ) ECD 0 1 20 1 3 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------i ROUTE 0656 GEORGETOWN ROAD P.E. 100,000 REVENUE SHARING $500,000 TC: 13500 0656-002-,C RjW 350,000 1997-98 ID: FR:ROUTE 654 CON 550,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 743 TOT 1,000,000 RS LENGTH:0.8 MI EAD 10 1997 ( 15) ECD 10 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------i ROUTE 0601 P.E. 150,000 REVENUE SHARING $500,000 TC: 3931 0601-002-158,C501 RjW 500,000 1997-98 ID: 8807 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 850,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 29 BYPASS TOT 1,500~000 RS LENGTH:0.7 EAD 10 199/ ( 16) ECD 01 1999 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0649 AIRPORT ROAD P.E. 120,000 TC: 13411 0649-002-158,C501 RjW 250,000 ID: 2456 FR:ROUTE 29 CON 830,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 606 TOT 1,200,000 RS LENGTH:0.83 MI. EAD 10 1999 ( 1 7 ) ECD 05 20 0 1 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0691 P.E. 112,000 TC: 1831 0691-002-,C RjW 213,000 ID: 11129 FR:ROUTE 240 CON 800,000 CONTRACT TO:ROUTE 684 TOT 1,125,000 RS LENGTH:1.5 MI. EAD 07 2000 ( 18) ECD 10 2001 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0651 P.E. 55,000 TC: 189 0651-002-,B RjW 45,000 ID: BRIDGE OVER CON 400,000 CONTRACT CSX RAILROAD TOT 500,000 BRSOS STR. NO. 6124 EAD 07 2000 ( 19) SUFF. RATING 6.0 ECD 10 2001 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ ROUTE 0627 RAILROAD CROSSING P.E. 3,000 REVENUE SHARING $100,000 TC: 83 0627-002-,S RjW 1,000 1993-94 ID: SIGNALS CON 96,000 CONTRACT AT WARREN TOT 100AOOO RRP EAD 10 199j ( 20) ECD 06 1994 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------+ SECONDARY SYSTEM . COUNTY ALBEMARLE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Page: 4 RESIDENCY CHARLOTTESVILLE (In Dollars) DISTRICT CULPEPER -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE I DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED I LENGTH COST COMMENTS -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0682 P.E. 5,000 TC: 317 0682-002-P ,N501 RjW 0 ID: 8810 RAILROAD CROSSING CON 95,000 RAILROAD CSX RAILROAD TOT 100,000 RRP LIGHTS & GATES EAD 07 1992 ( 21 ) ECD 10 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0682 P.E. 80,000 TC: 317 0682-002-P33,N501 RjW 20,000 ID: 8810 FR:ROUTE 250 CON 1,050,000 CONTRACT TO:1.7 M.S. RT. 787 TOT 1,150~000 STATE LENGTH:2.5 MI. EAD 07 199~ ( 21 ) ECD 10 1993 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0610 P.E. 25,000 TC: 268 0610-002-P,N RjW 30,000 ID: 8808 FR:ROUTE 20 CON 885,000 CONTRACT TO:1.8 MI.E. RT. 20 TOT 940,000 STATE LENGTH:1.8 EAD 07 1994 F ( 22) ECD 10 1995 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0712 P.E. 15,000 TC: 139 0712-002-P,N RjW 18,000 ID: 2307 FR:RTE. 29 CON 417,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 692 TOT 450,000 STATE LENGTH:0.9 MI. EAD 07 1995 ( 23) ECD 04 1996 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0711 P.E. 15,000 TC: 163 0711-002-P,N RjW 15,000 ID: FR:RTE. 29 CON 320,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 712 TOT 350,000 STATE LENGTH:0.55 EAD 07 1996 ( 24) ECD 04 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0760 P.E. 15,000 TC: 118 0760-002-P,N RjW 15,000 ID: 11133 FR:RTE. 710 CON 330,000 CONTRACT TO:RTE. 760 TOT 360,000 STATE LENGTH:0.60 MI. EAD 07 1996 ( 25) ECD 03 1997 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0637 P.E. 25,000 TC: 110 0637-002-P,N RjW 30,000 ID: 11125 FR:RTE. 635 CON 845,000 CONTRACT TO:0.55 M.W. RT. 682 TOT 900,000 STATE LENGTH:2.2 MI. EAD 07 1997 ( 26) ECD 10 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ ROUTE 0759 P.E. 5,000 TC: 240 0759-002-P,N R/W 8,000 ID: 11132 FR:RTE. 616 CON 197,000 CONTRACT TO:FLUVANNA CO. LINE TOT 210,000 STATE LENGTH:0.60 MI. EAD 07 1997 ( 27) ECD 06 1998 -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ -----------+--------------------+---------------+------------------------------ -~.U'..-1'....er:( 'f II I'lL COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 2013 CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902 March 20, 1992 D. S. ROOSEVELT RESIDENT ENGINEER Route 654 Project: 0654-002-242, C501 Barracks Road Albemarle County Mr. R. Y. Tucker, Jr. County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Attached you will find two originals of an agreement covering cost participation for sidewalk installation on the above project. This agreement was approved by a Board of Supervisors resolution on April 10, 1991. Please have both copies signed by an authorized County official and returned to this office for processing. Upon receipt of the fully approved copy, I will return one copy for your records. Should there be any questions, the Department will be available at the April 1, 1992 Board Meeting to assist you. Yours truly, ~~~fA ~ Gerald G. Utz ~ Contract Administrator GGU/yrm attachment cc: John DePasquale Gale D. Lipscomb COUNTY OF !~L8E\;f\F~Ui :~ ,-, e ~uq 9~ JCq? r," . >~ ~i' ~' TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY EXECUlriE OfFlCE COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT SIDEVALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: 0654-002-242, C501 THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 1st day of April , 1992, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and the COMMONVEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT. V I T N E SSE T H: VHEREAS, the Department plans the reconstruction and improvement of Barracks Road, (Route 654) in Albemarle County, beginning at a point 0.092 Mi. W. of its intersection with Route 656: to a point 0.003 Mi. W. of its intersection with Route 1406: which improvements are shown in detail on plans designated as Project: 0654-002-242, C501. Said plans include the installation of new sidewalk located throughout the project limits; and VHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, pertaining to State participation in cost of right of way, sidewalks and storm sewers, revised February 18, 1988, the County is required to participate in the cost of new sidewalk construction. -3- IN VITNESS VHEREOF, the County and the Department have caused their names to be affixed to this Agreement on the date set forth above by duly authorized officers of their respective organizations. THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY: (.I)~~ Chlfirma , Board of County Supervisors ATTEST: /., /- Title: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BY: ATTEST: Title: APPROVED Fiscal (VDOT) Office of the Attorney General Date: Date: Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 MEMORANDUM David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett TO: Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance Lettie E, Neher, Clerk, CM~ April 7, 1992 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Appropriation Requests ("""" " . ) (" ; r' I \ . ~ r. '. ~: rr-'. '<:" 'j ",-._".,,;" ..,J At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 1, 1992, the Board appropriated $1200 from its contingency to the Personnel budget to cover additional costs for years of service included in Mac Sandridge's retirement bonus. Attached is the signed appropriation form to reflect this action. LEN: ec Attachment cc: Roxanne White Richard E. Huff, II ., i '." , T1 ,., _,I 'I . ./ \ { U Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Marlin Rivanna Walter F Perkins While Hall APPROPRIATION REQUEST \. FISCAL YEAR 91/92 NUMBER 910043 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL TRANSFER X NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO COVER ADDITIONAL RETIREMENT COST. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1100011010999999 B.O.S.-CONTINGENCY ($1,200.00) 1100012030223000 PERSONNEL-EARLY RETIREMENT COST 1,200.00 TOTAL $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~;~ DATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7' - ~ -u ~~/~ . ~ i I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 COUNTY or A.LBEMARLt. ~~iP;:. j;::. .~fC~...[2_~[t ~ ~ fl \ MAR 111992 I I' \ \ \ I f"- ;"1""-::"' ",_.. - UL~:J l~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISO~S SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE Date: April 1, 1992 Agenda Item I: 9/, IZ/~,z..&(,p Title: Request for Amendment to Continuous Service Policy Issue: Several months ago, a request was made by an individual who was retiring from County employment to amend or make an exception to our continuous service policy. At that time, the Board requested that the issue be referred to the Joint Personnel Committee for a recommendation, which is attached. Background: The individual making the request had worked for the County for a period of years, left for a short time and returned to County employment for a lengthy period. This individual requested that his retirement bonus based on years of service include all of his years of service rather than only his continuous time which the policy indicated. Concern was raised over the impact this request could have on other policies which use continuous service as a guide as well as whether these requests should be considered on a case by case basis. Recommendation: If the Board is inclined to honor this individual's request, it is staff's recommendation that it be done on a case by case basis and not done by general policy change. Staff Contact(s): Messrs. Tucker and Huff \bat 92.035 Attachment ~ .. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Personnel/Human Resources Department Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Dr. Carole A, Hastings, Directo~ .~ of Personnel/Human Resources~ March 3, 1992 From: Date: Re: Continuous Service At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Joint Personnel Policy Committee convened on March 2 and discussed the concept of continuous service. With regard to the Retirement Bonus policy, the Committee discussed the fact that the policy was intended to recognize continuous commitment to Albemarle County and not merely total number of years worked. The Committee felt strongly that the concept of continuous service as it is currently defined was used appropriately in this policy and in all of the other policies in which it appears in the County policy manual. Thus, there is no recommendation to change the policy to recognize all service to the County. Should you have further questions, feel free to contact me. CAH/ac m-920303 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Iri~i ~"I;!ji ,~.,;(~ r ~ 1 i4" ";" r'l';' . t",'" ,i~~::"'~-;_"""'" ..,~_...~..~_."'-~~~ . ~;, ~- ~~~~,:t\'" ~ ~:;1 '," ~,".1,f... ~J.H~ f). ~~:?). "u ~~.'.~.:. ..;. ~ t. m 'M'h 1\ .. ',,', ~.- ..~_.'it.- fe,._ ~"_ . ~" ,W:, it. '. & Iii "......;) ";:OM r'.C\i' or; ~ EXECUTIVE OffiCi ~ .. OlSTR12UTD T:J 80..\::D A\CA\::r:RS Q';~ ~/-71 - 9;L.- -~-~._-"~"""""'-";.~~"-<l Ill. - .i to,. ~ . ,~ :.~ , ":. r', f-~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 ~G V f J j U ,_' L r, ~' ~ v t,d .. ..; AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Agenda Item *: 91, (2./8.91 Title: Retirement Benefit - Continuous Service Issue: At the Board's January 15, 1992 meeting, staff discussed a request from an employee to allow the County's retirement bonus policy apply to total years of service with Albemarle County rather than basing it on the existing policy of using continuous service. At that time, it was indicated that if this change were to be made for all e~ployees, there would be impacts on several other policies which reference continuous service as well. These additional policies which may be affected are referenced in the attached memo from Dr. Hastings. Discussion: As alternatives, the Board could choose to treat these requests on a case-by-case basis or could choose to amend its policies to allow any or all of them to apply to total service with the County. Recommendation: If the Board is inclined to change the retirement bonus policy for all employees, staff recommends that it be sent to the joint personnel policy committee for review and recommendation on fiscal and operational impacts. If the Board chooses to make an exception on a case-by-case basis, no further changes are needed at this time to other policies. Staff Contact(s): Messrs. Tucker and Huff. 92.042 Attachment . COUNTY OF l\L LE J/\~J 30 jqq? It~'-... l.:" , . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Personnel/Human Resources Department Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human C A H I yp Resources From: Date: January 29, 1992 Re: Continuous Service In response to your January 17, 1992 request, the following Albemarle County policies incorporate the concept of continuous service: Policy P-02 Definition of Employee Status: Defines continuous service and how continuous service is broken, i.e. through resignation, termination or unexcused absence of ~onsecutive days. P-30 Reduction in Force: Defines the concept of seniority and uses continuous service to establish the order in which a layoff would take place. P-84 Vacation Leave: Sets forth the accumulation of vacation leave based on length of continuous service. P-64 Retirement Bonus: Compensates retiring employees for years of continuous service accrued up to a maximum of 25 years. Service Recognition: While not a policy, this annual recognition is based on length of continuous service in the County. Part-time Annuity Program: Provides a tax sheltered annuity to part time employees based on continuous service in Albemarle County. All of the above policies/programs are also in effect in the school division. MEMO- R. TUCKER JANUARY 30, 1992 PAGE 2 In request for information regarding how many employees have had previous service with Albemarle County which was broken and is not now counted toward benefits, we do not currently track such data. In general, however, I believe the number of employees would be extensive particularly in the school division. If you want the exact number, I would need to search the files of the current employees, approximately 2000 files. Please notify me if you want to have this work performed or if you need additional information. The Joint Personnel Policy Committee, compressed of both local government and school division employees, is currently meeting to review several personnel policies. If the Board would like to have the concept of continuous service reviewed by this group I would be happy to arrange for this. Thank you for your consideration. CAH/ac m-920130 cc: R. W. Paskel, Superintendent C:,{':llf 1.....'( OF 1\ I B"-<' , r: ".'1 ,- , . r.LQ ,q'd>" '~ I - f".~ . c.[vIA,\;..t, O'f AD tnbuted to Soard: .' ',-: . 'f'. . ;, ~. G u11 Z: ~1:.G .,,\ .'" '.>"j ~. a ""m ~Jo I I t '_ ,.~.j;",.,-~'.;'.. ~_c "'""'-';":.~ :. & I.\i t-.,. ---.. V _l .Co' "~f:- ;.;~l U J.~NI {} FiC)? ; '1 '- )'J rei ;~ >.~..-_-...,.---....".. .. -~. - - '--~.j ~W EXi::CLniVE OFFiCE COUNTY OF ALSi:Mr,f';LE ~i~r;~~~)!m.. ~~~LE;~ lIJJ BOARD OF SUPERV'SO~S ; - ~,.; ~< -: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Personnel/Human Resources Department Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive From: Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources Date: January 9, 1992 Re: Malcolm Sandridge Retirement Bonus Prior to the holidays, you requested that I review the records of individuals who have retired since November, 1989 (the date upon which the new retirement bonus policy became effective) in order to determine whether the provision for continuous service had negatively impacted any other retiree. This question arose because of the retirement of Malcolm Sandridge who did not receive the maximum allowable bonus due to a break in his service with the County. A total of 80 files were examined and no other individual was affected similarly, i.e. there were no other situations in which an individual had terminated service with the County, subsequently returned to service, and then retired thus receiving a lower retirement bonus. In examining the question of whether an exception in this case should be made, several points should be remembered: 1) If the Board wants to remove the provision for continuous service for purposes of calculating the retirement bonus, this will require a policy change by both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. 2) When Mr. Sandridge began his employment with Albemarle County, the only payment that he would have received upon retirement was payment for unused sick leave which had a maximum of $2,500. He did receive $3,800 for the retirement bonus which is $1,300 more than he was anticipating under previous policies. .. MEMO R. TUCKER JANUARY 9, 1992 PAGE 2 3) The prOV1Slon for continuous service affects several County policies and any major changes in this provision should be carefully examined. I recommend that if this is being considered, the matter be referred to the Joint Personnel Policy Committee for study. If you need further information on this matter, I will be happy to be of assistance. CAH/ac m-920109.1 County of Albemarle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: McIntire Land Trust AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1992 CC1t..J1\tT'l (;~:-l\Li3tl;,'1 r,::;, .!. i il \ 1 i III! lW BOf\i~D OF SUPEf?VISOliS ITEM HUMBER: 9';<,0;30<'./..P.0 i STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker and Huff. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Staff had earlier advised the Board that a second deed of trust was being developed in lieu of a letter of credit now invalidated by the resolution Trust corporation for the McIntire Land Trust. ATTACHMENTS: ACTION: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: x /wi DISCUSSION: The proposed deed of trust has been drafted and sent to the Resolution Trust Corporation in Atlanta for their approval as to the conditions desired by the county. The RTC has indicated that they will accept the conditions and staff is awaiting their written approval and will forward to the Board upon its arrival. 92.047 Distributed to Board: Z,Z f c;~ , ...b.... Agenda Item No. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Off;" of County Exeoutive fill [t2[E;?_!:2J~ 401 Mcintire Road I V~" Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 I!: I \ ~r.q 271992 (804) 296-5841 r I', ~,._" AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J \ I ,.' ':'1 l~.:j"[:';w- 80;-\)(0 OF SUPERVISoqS Date: March 4, 1992 Aaenda Item #: t},l, () "?iJ 1. If y( Title: Sale of McIntire School to McIntire Land Trust Issue: An annual paYment in the amount of $55,000 and due on December 5, 1991 in consideration for the sale of the old McIntire School has not been made. The security for the paYment was a letter of credit from Investors Savings Bank in the amount of $385,000. Investors savings Bank was closed on December 13, 1991 and put into the hands of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) as receiver. The RTC has notified the County that it does not intend to honor the letter of credit in the amount of $385,000. Backaround: In May, 1989, the County entered into an agreement to allow McIntire Land Trust to put up a letter of credit to secure an obligation for the balance of the paYments due on the sale of McIntire School. Annual paYments of $55,000 were made for the first two years and the third paYment was defaulted on. When the County presented its claim on the letter of credit, the RTC advised that it disaffirm its obligation. The attorney for McIntire Land Trust advises that they will provide a second deed of trust along with a revised paYment schedule for the Board's consideration prior to the March 4, 1992 meeting, although not received in time to place in the Board's packet. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board consider the repaYment schedule when presented and give direction to the County Attorney and County Executive as to how to proceed regarding the repaYment schedule proposed. Staff Contact(s): Messrs. Huff and Tucker. /dbm 92.020 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Finance 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Telephone (884) 296-5855 MEMORANDUM FROM: Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ~ March 3, 1992 TO: DATE: RE: Sale of McIntire School to McIntire Land Trust I have received a draft of the proposed Second Deed of Trust and Note that would replace the Letter of Credit held as collateral on this property sale. This Deed of Trust would be against the High Street property currently occupied by the YMCA and owned jointly by the YMCA and McIntire Land Trust. The fair market value of this property is currently estimated at approximately $1 million. This proposal would replace the current payment schedule of $55,000 per year currently owed from December 5, 1991 through December 5, 1997 with the following paYment schedule: No paYment until July 1, 1993 July 1, 1993 - June 1, 1994 July 1, 1994 - June 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 - June 1, 2002 $2,400 per month 3,564 per month 5,135 per month This plan basically eliminates paYments for 1991 and 1992, reduces the annual payment, and extends full paYment for 5 years past the current agreement. Currently the First Deed of Trust in the form of a Line of Credit is for $585,000. The amount actually owed under this Line of Credit is $170,000. Part of the proposal includes the reduction of the First Deed of Trust Line of Credit to the $170,000 currently owed. This would make the County's Second Deed of Trust subordinate only to the $170,000 currently owed to Investors/RTC. In exchange the County would relinquish any claim or rights under the Letter of Credit. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .^ l ,) 'T "::~) ~~ /\ L E:~ E. rvl p, f.-( L i~ i ii! jj,:^::^C;:::~:'L'::'::Il\tD:.Li::,~-\! U"l\ ! t : t~ ' ,. i , 1 I i :,' 1"1. (~, FP 1 t;\ 1992 ,\ I i i n \ \. '.... , / !ll~!l' , ' \ \ ! \'"..~'Y"."-"^"''''''''r''f.''''']-r-r' I U :J L..:::l \_"::J L::.:".\ i.l t 1..:::1 \..:-' b h [) OF :':~U F'FIN I :;Of:?S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board Robert W. Tucker, Jr., of Supervisors ~ ~ County Executive~1 September 17, 1992 McIntire Land Trust/YMCA Property As you will recall, staff has been working for some months to secure a Second Deed of Trust and Promissory Note to be made by the Charlottesville-Albemarle YMCA and the McIntire Land Trust to secure the $385,000 owed to the County following a letter of credit that was disavowed by the RTC. On August 31, 1992, papers were recorded that reduced the first deed of trust to $164,747. The County has subsequently proceeded to put to record a second deed of trust which incorporates the repayment schedule presented to the Board on March 4, 1992. Under this arrangement, the County will receive the $385,000 owed with our final payment on June 1, 2002 which involves principal only. This process gives the County surety on a loan that has remained unsecured since the RTC's disavowment of our letter of credit. It likewise provides for a payment schedule that both the YMCA and the McIntire Land Trust believe can be met. Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. RWT,Jr/dbm 92.160 Attachment cc: Mr. Melvin A. Breeden Mr. George R. st. John SECOND LIEN DEED OF TRUST THIS DEED or TRUST, made this _,..'"~ day of m,___,1992, by and botwoen CHARLOTTESVILLE-AI..BEMARLE YMCA, INC. and CHRISTINE C. CW\PMAN, S\~bstitute Trustee under agreement dated April 10, 1989, creati~g The McIntire Land Trust, hereinafter referred to as "Grantors," anq GEORGE R. ST. JOHN, of Albemarle county, Virginia, horeinafterre~erred to as "Trustee," WITNESSETH: Th~t for and in considoration of the provisions of this Deed of Trust and fivo dollars cash in hand paid by the said Trustee to the Grantors, recei;pt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors horeby GRANT, n:A,RGAIN, SELL, and CONVEY unto the said Trusteo, wi.th GENERAL WARRANty OF TITLE, the following described property, to- wit: All that certain tract or parcel of land, with the improvements thereon, fronting on the north side of U. S. 250, a by-pass road, a short distance west of the intersection of said road with Park Street, containing 7.445 acres, more or less, together with that certain lot fronting "0 feet on tho west side of Park stroot and ~unning back between parallel linos to the 7.445 acre parce.l doscribed abovo: and being the same property conveyed to the Grantors by deed recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the circuit court of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia in Deed Book 533, Page 235; together with all the improvoments now or hereafter erected on the above-described property, and all casements, rights, appurtenancos, ~nd all fixtur~s now or hereafter attached to the property, all of which, includ.i;ng replacements and additions thereto, shall be docmed to be ~nd romain a part of the property conveyed by this Dead. This Deed of Trust is subordinate to that certain credit lino deed of trust ~ecorded at Deed Book 533, page 240, dated ^ugust '-8, 1989, made by Charlottosville~Albemarlc YMCA, Inc. and Will iam Massie Smith, Jr., Trl1ste.e undel" agreement dated April 10, 1989 creating the MCIntire Land Trust, as grantors, and Thomas P. Baker and InVestors Real Estate Funding Group, Inc., as Trustees, sccuring the payment of the maximum principal amount of $575,000.00; $aid Deed of Trust was modified by Modification Agrcmnont dnte.d June 7 I 1992, recorded A\lgust 31, 1992 in said Clerk's Office in Dead BOOK __.' page _' Which Modification Aqroemont, among other things, reduced the maximum principal amount securod by sold deed of tl"ust to $164,747.15. The county of Albemarle, tor itself, its successors and assigns, agroes that the lien of this Deed of Trust may be subordinated to a deed of trust securing repayment of an amount not to exceed $164,747.15 and provided that $uch new deed of trust is entered into in connection with the refinancing of the e~isting $164,747.15 doed of trust and that tho exist-ing $164,747.15 deed of trust shall be reloased contemporaneously with the recordation of such new dead of trust. In Trust Nevertheless, to secure to the County of Albemarle, Vil"ginia, a certain debt of McIntire Land Trust in the principal sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND and NO/100 DOLLARS ($385,000.00), with no interest thereon, evidenced by note, bearing 1 j, I I I ! , .' I 'I t f 'I ' ' , ,': i .. ! '! < !, .! ! Trustee has no responsibility or liability, express or impliod, for the porformanc~ of the covenants and agreements contained in this Deed of Trust ~ This discl a imer does not, however, 1 im! t the liability or ltcsponsibility of the McIntire Land Trust or its assets. ! 'j WITNESS tbo following signatures and saals the day and yoar first above written. CHhRIJOTTESVILLE-AJJBEM.ARLE YMCA, INC. By: Its: (BEAL) christine Trustee 4/10/99 Trust ~ m.__._._..(SEAL) C. Chapman, SUbstituto under agreement dated creating The McIntiro IK'\nd COMMONWEALTH Or VIRGINIA [AT LARGE] CITY/COUNTY OF _.. _._._' to-wit: '. , charlot tesvlrf~'--AIb'emar'i e YMCA,' Inc. , this , 1992, on its behalf. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by of of day .' -, -- --- ._'---t- I i My Commission expires: :J __........ ,........._._....... l'J .... ','....01.'" '. Notary Public Christine April 10, The forogoing instrument was acknowledged beforo me by C. ~hapm.an, Substitute Trustee undor agreement datod 19B9 creating The McIntire Land Trust, this __... day of , 1992, on its behalf. My Cbmmission expires: ~,.'''''..^'''''--.-''- ,I I , I I , --~...._._. "Notary publ (c ........ " ; . cpo/ro.11 3 , , I' : I ! i oven date with this Deed of Tr.ust, which note, provlde(a) for paymont of principal only, at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, virginia, 22901, in the following manner: July.1, Ju~y il, Ju1y 1, Juno 1, 1993 - June 1, 1994 1994 - June 1, 2001 2001 - May 1, 2002 2002: Final Payment $2,000.00 per month $3,564.00 per month $5,135.33 per month of $5,135.37. Tho said Grantors covenant as by statute in this case made and p~ovided except as herein otherwise expressly sot out, as follows: 1. Renew~l; Extension; Reinstatement. Renewal, oxtonsion, or reinstatement permitted. 2. In$Ur:anoe. Insurance required to the full insurable value of all improvements upon said property whether now or subsequently Grected. 3. Events ot Default. Should default for ten days or more bo made in tho payment of the debt hereby secured, or any part thereof, prihcipal or interest, after the maturity of such debt or part thereof, or in tho ovont of the breach of any of the covenants entered into or imposed upon the Grantors, then the entire obligation of this Deed of Trust and the whole debt secured hereby shall, without notice of acceleration or otherwise, to Grantors or any other person, become immediately due and payable. 4. Consequenoes of Default. In the event of a dofaul t herounder which continues for ten (10) days after the beneficiary gives written :notice of such default as provided in the Note secured hereby, the Trustee, at the request of any beneficiary, may tako possossion of the property hereby conveyed and shall procoed to sall tho samo at public auction upon such terms and conditions as the Trustee may deem best: advertisement required being once a week for a period of four weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Charlottesville, Virqinia. A written notico of such proposed sale, when given as provided by Soc. 55~59 of tho Code of Virginia (1950) (as amended), shall be doomed an effective exercise of tho right of acceleration contained heroin. 5. Trust,aa' s commission. Should such advertisement not be followed by sal. pursuant thereto, the Trustee shall be entitled to a commission fr~m the Grantors of two and one-half per centum (2- 1/2%) of the u~paid principal amount of the debt secured heraby, plus their aptu:al expenses. 6. Ex~mp~ions. Exemptions waived. 7. Trust.ees. SUbstitution of trustee permitted at tho. discretion of the beneficiary or benefi.ciaries for any reason whatsoever. " s. Due on Sale. No intorest in the property secured hQreby shall be sold, conveyed, assigned, or othorwiso disposed of without the prior written consent of the holder of the note secured heroby. In this Deed of Trust the plural shall include the singular whenever the l~tter is appropriate. The undersignod Substitute Trustee of the McIntire Land Trust executes this Deed of Trust solely in her capacity as such Substitute Trustee, and not porsonally, it being understood and agroed by the Holder of this Deed of Trust that the Substitute ,I :.' 2 ! ! i I~ NOTE $385,000.00 Charlottesville, virginia Febru~ry 27, 1992 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CHRISTINE C. CHAPMAN, Substi tutc Trustee under a9r~ement dated April 10, 1999, creating THE MoINTIRB LAND TRUST, or assigns, promises to pay to the order of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville 22901, the principal sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-lo~IVE THOUSAND and NO/lOa DOJJLARS ($385,000.00), with no interest thereon. Said principal is to be paid in installments as follows: t July 1" 1993 - June 1 , 1994 $2,000.00 per month July 1, 1994 - June 1, 2001 $3,564.00 per month July 1, 2001 - May 1, 2002 $5,135.33 per month J'un~ 1, 2002: Final payment of $5,135.37. If after default this note is placed in the hands of an atto~ney for collection, his reasonable fee shall, if and to tha extent permitted. by law, be collectible, along with any other reasonable costs or charges incurred by the noteholder. In tho event Maker fails to make any paymont as and when due under this Npte and such failuro continuos for ton (10) days aft~r Holder gives Makers written notice thereof, the entiro principal sum then outstanding shall at once become due and payablo without notice, at the option of the holder of this note. Failure to exercise this option shall not constitute a waivor of tho right to exercise the same in the avent of any subsequent dofault. I ~ Notico shall be given, by certified or registered mail, to Chr iatine C. Chapman, Substitute Trustee, The McIntire Land Trust, Post Offioe Box 2737, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902; or to ! 1 l , ,I; l , such other addross as the Maker may designate by written notico to the Holder of th~s Note. The undersigned substitute Trustee of the MCIntire Land Trust executos this Note solely in her capacity as such Substitute Trustee, and not personally, it being understood and agreed by the Holder of this Note that the Substitute Trustee has no rosponsibility or liability, express or impliecl, for tho performanco of the covenants and agreements contained in this Noto. This disclaimer, does not, however, limit the liability or responsibility of the McIntir~ Lahd 1rust or its asse~s. This note is secured by a Deed of Trust of even date herowith of record in the Clerk's Office of the circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book ___,_____, Page " WITNESS tho following signature: " " ch"ifst:{ri-e c. Chapman, substIEu'te Trustee under agreement dated 4/10/B9 creating The McIntire J.Jand Trust , , " cpo/ro.l1 ,I, ; '" j, i' , , ! ~ i 1, !, , I .\ ) " :2 """''''. n1.. '''.'...\d\..,i' , I" .~, II;" 'U::"'''''' t, . , '\ !.\<.,_~ :J: '~' Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 MEMORANDUM Forrest R. Marshall. Jr Scottsville Edward H. Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall DATE: April 2, 1992 Director of Finance Clerk, CM~ TO: Melvin Breeden, FROM: Lettie E. Neher, SUBJECT: Appropriation Requests At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 1, 1992, the Board took the following actions requests: .-" APPROPRIATED $1200 from the Board's contingency to the Personnel budget to cover additional costs for years of service included in Mac Sand- ridge's retirement bonus. Please provide an appropriation form to reflect this action. APPROVED an appropriation request from the Commonwealth's Attorney to reflect additional funding received from the sale of Code of Virginia books. Attached is the signed appropriation form. (Form #910041) LEN: ec A ttachmen t cc: James L. Camblos, III Roxanne White Richard E. Huff, II APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 91/92 NUMBER 910041 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL X TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES NO X FUND GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 1100022010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT $200.00 TOTAL $200.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ************************************************************************ 2100015000150207 SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY $200.00 TOTAL $200.00 ************************************************************************ REQUESTING COST CENTER: COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY APPROVALS: SIGNATURE DATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE fff;9r '.----- .~-9-9 2 ~-/ -;?J-- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .'.~istrib.utGd to 8()3j.d: . ~, 2-1. . ...q~. ',.,' " '. .,..., ,,-,~ "", ,'- Ilgerlda ite/'n }JO'd qt ,O~61 riv.l ) . '--:4 .! COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Finance 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5855 C:.ebU0f1Y1jp ;a.'CfjEJ~~RlE ~-ll f"r-':::; (';.;J r;= Ii n n r,::J · n u l>--'-~~"_'_M''-U_~'''~\! I '1'1 (\ ~~'\R ~ ~ 1992 d 11" i \' ! II \ 1\"'.', .;...-...."...-._..r~,...."I' ) I ! I ll..I...... ,'. "dO;:j,' ,e U J _. \._. _.. ", &"_''''.'- ..., t-..--4~_ t'o/:..~: Of SUFERViSOt:?S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance ~ March 10, 1992 DATE: RE: Appropriation - Commonwealth Attorney The County recently received $200.00 from the sale of Virginia Code books which the Commonwealth Attorney determined were no longer needed in his office. The Commonwealth Attorney has also requested that this amount be placed in his budget to be used for another purpose. An appropriation form to accomplish this, which requires Board action, is attached. MAB/bs Attachment COUNTY OF ALBE.MARL~ EXECUTiVE OffiCIi DATE /J/J/U/e /! / f7 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1;(, (,;/6 j, 2 G :5 AGENDA ITEM HAIlE C;~ &aA. cI ~~eN.-n i-n' DEFERRED UNTIL I~ Ii?:; A 7 & / /7/2-- Form. 3 7/25/86 . ... @" .~ \l ~ v~' "-J Edward H. Bain, Jr Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R Marshall. Jr Scottsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall April 8, 1992 Mr. Clyde Gouldman City Attorney PO Box 911 Charlottesville , VA 22902 Dear Mr. Gouldman: At its meeting on April 1, 1992, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Chairman to sign the attached amendment to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex Agreement to allow private citizen members on the Jail Board to serve three consecutive three-year terms. Please note that the Board did not approve the original request from the Jail Board which was to allow citizen members to serve unlimited terms. Please forward this proposed amendment to City Council for its concurrence. After the agreement has been signed by City Council, please return a copy to the undersigned for our files. Very truly yours, 4!i ~ Clerk, CMC LEN: ec Attachment cc: George R. St. John Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Richard E. Huff, II THIS AGREEMENT made for identification purposes this 9th day of March, 1992, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (the "City"); WIT N E SSE T H Backqround: The County and City previously have entered into an Agreement dated October 18, 1977 for the operation of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex. The County and City desire to amend this Agreement to authorize private citizen members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board to serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the County and the City do hereby amend paragraph 3 of the October 18, 1977 Agreement as follows: 3. Members of the Jail Board in office in 1977, shall continue in office until the effective date of their replacement appointments provided for in paragraph 2, supra. Vacancies on the Jail Board shall thereafter be filled for an unexpired term in the manner in which original appointments are required to be made. Continued absence of any member from regular meetings of the Jail Board shall, at the discretion of the City Council and Board of supervisors, render such member liable to immediate removal from office. In all other respects, the October 18, 1977 Agreement shall No private citizen member of the Board shall serve more than three consecutive three year terms. remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals authorized after duly called meetings of the County and City. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By II Jr:~.' t? 1J14i~ p., -David P. Bowerman, Chairman Board of Supervisors of County of Albemarle CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By Alvin Edwards, Mayor City of Charlottesville STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this ~ day of April, 1992, by David P. Bowerman, Chairman, Board of Supervisors of County of Albemarle. Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~ 2 q I 199 3 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of April, 1992, by Alvin Edwards, Mayor, City of Charlottesville. Notary Public My Commission Expires: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 GEORGE R. ST.JOHN COUNTY ATTORNEY April 6, 1992 JAMES M. BOWLING, IV DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Re: Agreement - Ordinance - Jail Board Terms Dear Estelle: I believe the enclosed revisions are in keeping with your instructions to me; as you see, both the Agreement and the Ordinance are amended to provide a limit of three terms for citizen board members. Sincerely yours, ~.~ George R. st. John County Attorney GRstJjtlh Enclosures THIS AGREEMENT made for identification purposes this 9th day of March, 1992, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County") and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (the "City") ; WIT N E SSE T H Background: The County and City previously have entered into an Agreement dated October 18, 1977 for the operation of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex. The County and City desire to amend this Agreement to authorize private citizen members of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board to serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the County and the City do hereby amend paragraph 3 of the October 18, 1977 Agreement as follows: 3. Members of the Jail Board in office in 1977, shall continue in office until the effective date of their replacement appointments provided for in paragraph 2, supra. Vacancies on the Jail Board shall thereafter be filled for an unexpired term in the manner in which original appointments are required to be made. Continued absence of any member from regular meetings of tbe Jail Board shall, at the discretion of the City Council and Board of Supervisors, render such member liable to immediate removal from office. In all other respects, the October 18, 1977 Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. WITNESS the following signatures and seals authorized after duly called meetings of the County and City. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By David P. Bowerman, Chairman Board of Supervisors of County of Albemarle CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By Alvin Edwards, Mayor City of Charlottesville STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of March, 1992, by David P. Bowerman, Chairman, Board of Supervisors of County of Albemarle. Notary Public My Commission Expires: STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of March, 1992, by Alvin Edwards, Mayor, City of Charlottesville. Notary Public My Commission Expires: .','''''''' ~tl"... ll..... :' " '~7" " ", i : lJ Edward H, Bain, Jr. Samuel Miller COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scoltsville David P. Bowerman Charlottesville Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte y, Humphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall April 2, 1992 Mr. George R. St. John County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. St. John: At its meeting on April 1, the Board authorized the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex agreement to enable private citizen members of the Jail Board to serve three consecutive three year terms. The Board also adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the County Code in Section 2-42 that "No private citizen member of the Board shall serve more than three consecutive three year terms." Please rewrite the agreement to provide for the actions taken by the Board and return to the undersigned so that it can be signed by the Chairman and forwarded to City Council for action. Very truly yours, ~~~MC LEN:ec r:n! I\T\.' OFt.LBEM..l\RLt JAMES M. BOWLING, IV DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Telephone 296-7138 March 9, 1992 ,"', ( ~ "'\:"J_~II ":~(r'l'~ lU w u '_~ BOAR'D OF SUPERVfSO~c) GEORGE R ST.JOHN COUNTY ATTORNEY Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Clyde Gouldman, Esquire City Attorney P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Amendment to Jail Board Agreement Dear Bob and Clyde: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposed amendment to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex Agreement. The amendment enables private citizen members of the Jail Board to serve more than two consecutive three-year terms. The Jail Board requested that the County and City consider this Amendment. I have also enclosed for Bob Tucker a proposed Amendment to the Albemarle County Code concerning the Jail Board. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, Ja~ Bowling, IV Dep~ty County Attorney JMB/tlh Enclosures ......~-.:....'" COUNTY OF ALBEM,AJ'~LE. ~'.. ~l' MAR 11 J~~t I U 11:~T; , EXECUTIVE OffiCii THIS AGREEMENT, made this Iflth(j"y of october. , 197 , by and between the COUNTY OF Al.BEMARU-:, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the County, and the CITY OF CII1\RI,OTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the CitYl WIT N E SSE T \I WHEREAS, the County a'1d the Ci ty have previously establish d and are now operating a regional j.d 1, known as tl1(~ A1hemarle.- Charlottesville Joint Security Complpy', (hcl"f'inaftf'r (:ilIled HIe Security Complex), and have previ oll:.~ly :ll'pointecl a jail bOilnl Lo control the Security Complex, plIr;,unnt Ln the provisions of Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virqinia; and WHEREAS, in constructing thp Secud.ty Complex, the County and the City shared equally in the cost of acquisition of land and the cost of constructing the administrative areas of the Security Complex, and, pursuant to state requirements, shared on a two to one basis the cost of constructing the cell areas of the security complex, the City's share being two-thirds of the cost of constructing the cell areas and the C8unty'S share being one- third of the cost of constructing the cell areas; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the Security Complex is f,et forth in a document entitled "Joint Security Complex-Total Cost of Project as Built", and attached hClfeto ~s Exhibit A; and WCIEREAS, the City and the County have shat.",d on a 1:1'10- thirds (City) to one-third (County) basis the net operating cost (total cost less local, state and federol reimbursement) of lll(' Security Complex; and WrIEREAS, the County and the City have charged other- surrounding counties who have made use of the Security Complf'x QI:O"OI: R. _T. JOHN on a per diem basis, based upon the total number of prisoner dClYS "..,oeIAT.. ATTo.,u:ve AT LAW .,. ""'''K .1"IET CH..LOtT.eVl\.LI. VA. ,UOI of each respective county for a particular month; and " WHEREAS, the County and the City desire to memoralize the premises set forth herein and to provide for an allocation of costs based up~n actual use of the SecuL-ity Complex~ NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and the mutual covenants set forth herein, the County and the city covenant and agree as follows: 1. The establishment of a regional jail, known as the Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Secu,.j ty complex, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of t:he Code of Virgi.nia, including the allocation of costs of: ('on~;tl-l1ct.ion and operation, is hereby approved and ratified. All ploperty of the Security Complex shall be held jointly by ,thf" Cay i'md the County. 2. The Security Complex shall be cont.rolled by a board, known as the Albemarle-Charlottesville r~eqional Jail Board (here- inafter called the Jail Board). The Jail B0ard, created pursuant to a resolution dilly adopted by the City Council of the City of. Charlottesville on April 9, 1974, and by the Board of .r;upervlsol-S of 'Albemarle County on April 18, 1974, shall consist of seven members. The Jail Board shall include the Sheriff of the City of Cha~lottesville and the County of Albemarle, who shall serve for a term consistent with their respective terms as Sheriff~ one member of City Council to be appointed by t.he Counr.il und who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Council, but no longer I than his term of office on City Council; one member of the 8"a1'1 of Supervisors to be appointed by the noard of Supervisarn and who shall hold office at the pleasure af the Board of Supervis(lI:~;, but no longer than his term of office on the Board of Supervisors; one private citizen from the City and one from the COllnty, to b" appointed by the respective governing bodies for teo:rrns of t.hree years, and one additional private citizen, to be appoint.ecl jojnl:Jy by the governing bodies for a term of t,lnee years. o~O"Gt: ... BT. JOHN 3. Members of the Jail Board in offIce on .....0.:1.1.. ATTO..,.RV. AT LAW .,. ,UIK .llnET CHAftL01TIIVIU... VA. ".01 1977, shall continue in office until the effective dale of their -2- ~. I I( --~". Q~OftGr. ft. 8T. JoHN A,,'SoetAT.I ATTOltNI.Y. AT LAW .... "A"K .T"EItT CHAIU..OTTceVU.LI. VA. s:.... replacement appointments provided for in paragraph 2, supra. Vacancies on the Jail Board shall thereafter be filled for an unexpired term in the manner in which original appointments are required to be made. Continued absence of any member from regular meetings of the Jail Boal-d shalL at the discretion of the City Council Bnd Board of ~;\IP('\-vj :;or8, render snch member liable to ilTUnediate removal t 1:011\ office. No priv'itc citizen member of the Jail Board Shilll serve more t_han t.wo consecutive three year terms. 4. The Jail Board shall !~lel:t_ [rom among its nH'ffluers a chairman and secretary, whose L(~I-lI1 :,ha 11 be for- on'3 year with eligibility for' re_election. 5. Private citizen memben-; of the Jai 1 Boar.d shall be entitled to necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings of the DoaL-d and in addU iOll each shall rc((~iv~, ;111 allowance of $20.00 per day for e?ch day that he or she :.;hall be in attendance on the Board. Sucll allowance, however., 5h<'l11 not exceed in anyone year the sum or $240.00, to be puid by the County or the City respectively. The account_s fOl' such expenses and allowances shall be v(~r i [ied by the Secretary of the Board. 6. The Security Complex t,halllle under the :.;up2r- vision, control and mantl.gement o[ L1-,'-~ .Tail Boat-d, ,,,,11:) t:h.:Jl1 perform such duLies as are :;~L {Cd III in Chapter "7.1 of Till" 53 of the Code of Virginia, and who shall be responsible to t.he Ci t Y and the County (or the P,"Op"" Iflanagen.en t <111'1 operation of the Security Complp.x. The Ja i 1 Board ,;\1811 submit annually to the city and I he Cnlll1ty a repn\-t. ~:h()Vli.:l(J its activities; a budget, which shall include all ;'f"-venIlCs and expendi tures, emploYt~e compenr;at j on schedu ll~r;, and other similar data which the City and/or the County may desire. -3- .',. ........."....__..,'*lIhI1J.' I'" ,,... :'. .-. ' ......hN.' 00:01100: II. ST. ~OHN ...oeIA'.. .TTO""I:". AT LAW ..t. .....11I. .TIIt..,. CHAIltLOfTC.YU.Lt:. VA. ...0' 7. The Jail Board shall appoint a superintendent of the Security complex and authorize the number of employees thereof who shall serve as such for stich length of time as the Jail Board may designate or until their removal or until others are appointed in their place. 8. The superintendent and complex employees shall have such powers and duties as ar.-f' seL forth in Chapter 7.1 of Title 53 of the Code of Virginia or are otherwise provided by law~ The Jail Board may require the superintendent and certain employees to give bond in such penalty a~d with such security as the Jail Board may prescribe, conditioned faith- fully on. the discharge of the duties of their office. 9. The City and County shall bear the expenses of operating and maintaining the Security complex and supporting the prisoners/incarcerated therein, including clothing and requisite medical attention. Such participation shall be based as follows: In preparing its annual budget for approval by the City and the County, the Jail Board shall determine the I projected total operating cost of the security Complex for the upcoming fiscal year. From the total operating cost shall be subtracted the projected reimbursement from federal, state, and local governments other than the City and the County for the upcoming fiscal year, to determine the project0.d net ope;:ating cost of the Security Complex for the City and 1:hf~ County for the upcoming fiscal year. This projected net operating cost of the Security Complex shall be multiplied by the ratio of County to City prisoner days of utilization of the Security Complex for the prior fiscal year to determin'~ the County's and City's proportionate share of the net operating cost of the Security Complex for the upcoming fiscal year. Payment of each respective local government's proportionate share of the net op~rating cost shall be made -4- .t _.........~.....', I................... ......... _...... '" OEOROe: R. ST. JOHN A..OCtATII ATTORNEY' AY LAW ... ''''''K Ir".I" CHARLOTl f;tlYU.L.. VA. 11..01 , during the applicable fiscal year on a semi-annual basis within the first fifteen days of the semi-annual period. 10. Upon completion of the annual audit of the Security Complex for a fiscal year, in the event that such audit s~ows that the City's and the County's participation in the cost of the Security complex has exceeded t:he actual net operating cost of the Securi ty Complex for the fiscal year, the Jail Board shall, within si.xty ddYS of receipt of the audit, refund to the City and the County their proportionate share of such over-participation. In the event the audit shows the actual net operating cost of 1:110 S, 'l~1I1" i ty ComplC'x for the fiscal year has exceeded the City I r~ and County 's participation in such net operating eDell:, then, within sixty days of receipt of the audit, "the City and the County shall appropriate to the Jail Boar"d their proportionate share of funds necessary to balance the budget of the Security Complex for the fiscal year. 11. The Jail Board may contract with ot11er j uris- dictions to provide prisoner space in the Security Complex. The Jail Board may charge such jurisdictiolls a per diem cos\: of providing prisoner space based upon the number of prisoner days of utilization of the Security Complex by the particular jurisdiction, which charge shall take into consideration the operating cost, the fixed cost for the maintenance and operation, as well as the capital cost of the Ser.urity Complex. The city and the County shall be given priority consideration for prisoner space over other jurisdictions when the Security Complex is filled to or near capacity. 12. The city and the CO.1nty recognize that: other jurisdictions may wish to become participating jurisdictions in the operation of the Security Complex. With the c~mcurrence of both the City and the County, other parties may participate in the operation of the Security Complex. At such time, a new agreement will be entered into by the parties involved -5- " reflecting the participation of the new jur.isdiction and the terms of such participation. 13. The Jail Board shall obtain caRualty and other insurance adequate to protect the inter.est,s of the City and the County. This provision in no WilY constitutes a waiver of any defense of sovereign inununity which may be available to the City and the County in the event~ of leqal action against the Jail Board and the City and the C'Junty. 14. The County is currently providing the following administrative support services to t,he Jail Board: The offices of the Din'ctor ()f Finilncc as Fiscal AIJ,"nt., the offices of the Director of Purchasing as Purchasin'] Aqent., the offices of the Payroll Clerk ~s ~lyroll Agent, and the office of the County Attorney to provide leqal services to the Jail Board and the Superintendents of the Security Complex. The cost to the County of these service~j 511all hereafter- be c(Jmplltl;~d annually and included as an expenditul~ item in the operating budget of the Jail Board and payment made to the County accoL-dinq] y in the form of an administratjve sUI'p('rt fee. A:3 part of this administrative support fee, the County shall receive intercs:: for any monies advanced pursuant to paragraph 15 ~nfra. Interest shall be determined by calculating the interest the County could have received from such advanced monie~; .if it had ueen invc~.ted in an interest bear ing certificate of Ilcpot;l t [COI" th'~ time "r advancement until State reimburaement was received. 1" :J. The conunonwealth of Vinjinia conlr-ibutc5 11 maj"r part:ion of the total operating costs of the Security Complex hy I'eimbursing the Securit.y Complex, yenel:ally within sixty days, for qualified costs incurred. The County, as fl~;cal aljcnt. for the .1ai 1. Boal-d, if necessary during the course of 1:he year. may GEORGE R. ST. JOHN advance monies from the general fund of the County to cover thane qualified COl;ts of opel'ating the Security Complex until .....aCIATE' ...,.,onNC"'. AT LAW .,. PARK ",..I:T CHARLOTT.....'L..... VA. 11.0' State reimbursement is received. If monies are advanced, the County shall replenish its general fund as State reimbursement -6- - .' _ _1 . . of qualified costs is received. 16. This agreement shall begin on the day of execution of the last party to sign and shall continue for a period of one year. Thereafter, this co~tract shall be automatically renewed for periods of one year unless terminated upon sixty days notice by any party hereto. The terms of this agreement are expressly subject to annual appropriations by the City and the County of funds sufficient to meet the expenses of operating and maintaining the Security Complex. In the event that no such appropriation by either party be IIwdl' jn any ye,:n' during the term of this agreement, either pc"lrtJ' :ill011 have the right to terminate this agreement. WITNESS the following ~ignatllle:1 and seals. ATTEST: ..J )r J' "'l ,-,.{/r: do.. I.. .~('QL2../ ':J \?PU-ty C 1 er k CIT~ OF CHARLOTTESV~~ BY~'L~_C I &) Nancy K. O'Brien, Mayor city Council ATTEST: .-::y?.>' XJ..d~ . Clerk "- DIEOADIE A. tiT. JOHN A..oe'AT" ATTORN,YIII AT LAW .,, ,..". I,,,,'T eM.flLO".""ILLI. vA. ..eo. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF AL3EMARLE , { ,-.Thfil foregoing was acknow ledged before me this ~{/J day of.",.:..J..(I'[lhd..t..L., 1971, by Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, Board ':If supervisors. /: / '7 ("; ~/ My Commission Expires: eLf.! ')l.-t4I / / / Y J' .Y ,/, // ~J(..l/!<:; ,~L/-..ja<'~~7=- . .. Notary Public / STATE OF VIRGINIA (;- COUNT~ OF ALBEMARLE (/ -jl, /, The foregoing was acknowledged before me this /3 day of(J.-/'_"b.-Iu.L../ ,1977, by Nancy Kr1'Brien, Mayor, City Council. My Commission Expires: ?J J-IUl.IUIJ.-J ;;?~ 115'/ 4~.t;-,. ;( ! JdM u-I Notary Public -7- DATE 1J},cl /( If?;;? / AGENDA ITEM NO. ;?!, 0"7/ / 2 {:; </ AGENDA ITEM NAME tJ ;c I( SA?' u- ? A-'1 I DEFERRED UNTIL 141 a; ?/ /7 j? .J P ~ 5 (!~ /t! (//fJ1/JZL~7f ~;y Form. 3 7/25/86 DATE AGENDA ITEM NO. AGENDA ITEM NAME DEFERRED UNTIL Form. 3 7/25/86 M)}z,1 1,/992- 1;2. tJ 10/,.2 7 0 l!J, <'-W b { ~el nce-4 /2d<< z.- 4' 7c< ?l I-Irt 1/flJ t?1 c~ ~ ~ /c;72-- . " RES 0 L UTI 0 N o F I N TEN T BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 to change the fee for a special use permit for day care centers to $390 when the request is for six to nine children and $780 when the request is for ten or more children; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommenda- tion to this Board for its public hearing on May 6, 1992. * * * * * I, Lettie E. Neher, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 1, 19~~~~. Clerk, Board of ~~~rvisors Distributed to Board: _ :j, ~( 7'.2- Wii Agenda Item No. tj';c, d:;P/I, 161 1'--/ ~ ~.v ~ ~ t:?;I/,/. ,2; / 7,;;;(' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5841 AGENDA ITEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 'CbUN'rl of.' !~I Rt~J~!1 P,'l-P . _ .. ~. ..J ._"" \ j "'- Aqenda Item II: j?,1. /3// /s~ r ..~. .~'-#" Date: March 11, 1992 w f.) ~;~-,Fl !v ~:r,ji; Title: scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment Issue: The Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors and scottsville Town Council to review the alternatives regarding a potential boundary line adjustment, has developed two potential options along with supporting data for the Board's review. The Committee now seeks guidance from the Board as to how to proceed from this point. Backqround: Attachment A shows a map reflecting what is labeled option 4 and option 5. These two options, or some combination thereof, reflect the extent of the Committee's willingness to discuss a potential boundary line adjustment for scottsville. Attachment B is an estimate from our Finance Department of the potential revenue loss to the County from each of these options. Attachment C is a draft memo from the Town of scottsville reflecting their reasoning for choosing option 5 as well as a summary of their projected budget should option 5 be granted. Attachment D is a copy of a memo prepared for the Committee which outlines the differences between an annexation and a boundary line adjustment. At this point in time, the Committee feels that a boundary line adjustment is the better choice. Discussion: Now that the two options have been identified, the Board must now consider whether to move forward. If further discussion is warranted, public input from the scottsville area will be important. Additional option 4 and 5 specific data will be available to be handed out at the March 11, 1992 meeting which will Agenda Item Executive Summary March 11, 1992 Title: scottsville Boundary Line Adjustment Page 2 provide census information, potential buildout data, and other pertinent information. Recommendation: Committee and staff suggest for Board action that the Board plan a trip with Town Council to review the proposed boundary line adjustment on site and schedule public forums in the scottsville area to seek public comment. staff contact(s): Messrs. Tucker and Huff. /dbm 92.034 >-- "-'/ ~ 19A ' r .. ~ / . r ~-~--L ' ~ //' --..{ 19 . \ \ \ (~J \. )~ _.+.-\~ 17A I 2'K / 25 lit A~t'I\e~ A. ........ OPTION 4 ,.. r ~ ? o " III1!UltII!lIlluiIIUIlIl OPTION 5 29 TOrlell CIICCK \ V',_ It:' \ A ~~hlY\etJt 8 attrJ../),/YY1y/nt 1.5- , ~ NOVEMBER 26, 1991 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ESTIMATE OF REVENUE LOSS FOR SCOTTSVILLE ANNEXATION OPTION #4 BASIS COUNT RATE TAX UTILITY TAX RESIDENTIAL # RESIDENCES 66 4/MO $3,168 COMMERCIAL AVG BILL 27 6,312 INDUSTRIAL AVG BILL 1 4,080 BUSINESS LICENSES GROSS RECEIPTS 24 26,231 SALES TAX # STUDENTS 23 4,082 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY GROSS RENTS 2,511 VEHICLE LICENSE PER VEHICLE 188 22.50 4,230 TOTAL $50,614 OPTION #5 BASIS COUNT RATE TAX UTILITY TAX RESIDENTIAL # RESIDENCES 98 4/MO $4,704 COMMERCIAL AVG BILL 27 6,312 INDUSTRIAL AVG BILL 1 4,080 BUSINESS LICENSES GROSS RECEIPTS 24 26,231 SALES TAX # STUDENTS 67 11,890 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY GROSS RENTS 2,511 VEHICLE LICENSE PER VEHICLE 252 22.50 5,670 TOTAL $61,398 IllUm of ~'ottllbille P. o. &ax 395 JiaJUmille, 'irgiuia 24590 A ~Cch MeN1- c... ORA F T f In furtherance of the matter of annexation of additional territory to the Town, the Mayor and Council are of the unanimous opinion that a "boundary line adjustment.. based on Option 5 should be given primary consideration. The most pressing reason for annp.x~tion continues to be the need for more "persons" in the Town: the 1990 census of the munic:ipality standing at 234, there is hardly a sufficient "supply" of individuals to adequately serve in the elected and appointed positions required or mandated under the Town's Charter of state Statute. The designated Option 5, while providing the ideal number of persons, also encompasses most of the significantly developed area in the Scottsville community, taking in, as it does, the Stoney Point/Paulettown subdivision. The County has estimated Option 5 to include the following: 98 residences, 27 commercial uses and .~ industrial use. The attached financial statements show by revenue source and expenditure use the financial operation of the Town of S(:ottsville for: (1) the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991; (2) the estimateQ experience for the present 1991-92 fiscal year, to end this June 30; and (3) the estimated experience for the initial year under Option 5. Estimates for the current fiscal year factor in the 6-month experience to date as well as our expectation for the remaining six-month period. While we will note below the major changes in expenditures for operation under Option 5, the income portion is based upon OLlr experience for the present Town area, with appropriate adjustments to raise certain taxes and fees levied by the Town to the same level as those levied by the County. These tax and licenses fees include those levied on utility bills, business and professional licenses, and automobile tags, all of which have been substantially below the CrnJnty rate. Additionally, it should be noted that the present trash collection charge of $30 quarterly per household or "small business" has been in effect only since January 1991, and would be extended to the annexed area. Conversely, the ad valorem tax on both real and personal property within the Town and which overlays the County tax would be abolished. The abolition of the property tax within the present Town will be somewhat of a quid pro quo for the raising of the other levels of revenue and would, at the same time, remove e the'most consequential stumbling block to those within the are. to be annexed. Additional revenue is predicated to fall to the Town based on the County's estimates of their revenue losses coupled with the aforementioned raising of the Town "rates" to those presently in effect in the County; the effected revenue sources are utility tax, business and professional licenses, vehicle license tags and, of course, sales tax moneys which ~re remitted by the State/County. As for municipal expenditures, appropriate increases have been made in the cost of contracted trash collection, street cleaning and street lights. Police protection would be expanded through the employment of a full-time officer and the continuation of a part-time trainee as at present, with indicated adjustment of other police expense. Flood control costs are expected to increase in that the Town is presently negotiating a contract to provide routine maintenance to the three diesel pumps which are an integral part of the flood protection system. In i:he event' that the annexation would be realized, t~e Town would also.anticipate hiring a part-time administrator and would require also additional services from the Town Treasurer; a total of $25,000 is budgeted in this personnel category vis-a-vis the current $4,000. Current estimates leave a remaining balance of some $25,000 which would be available for capital improvements and contingencies. Among the capital improvements are the continuing of th~ sidewalk replacement program in the downtown area which, in the last fiscal year, required some $21,500 and the repair and exterior repainting of the Municipal Building. Contingency items would include such as planning and consulting expense for which no current estimate is available. TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE Fiscal Year Estimated Option No. 5 STATEMENT OF MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTS Ended Fiscal Year Ending Estimated GENERAL EXPENSES June 30, 1991 June 30, 1992 Fiscal Year STREET DEPARTMENT Trash Collection $12,090.14 $16,100.00 $30,550.00 Str.et Cleaning Labor & Payroll Taxes $3,566.04 '56,000.00 58,000.00 Street lights $3,283.20 53,200.00 $7,000.00 MAteriAl. ~ Supplies 5362.78 $400.00 5400.00 Str..t/Sidewalk Repair and Maintenance $150.81 Park Area Maintenance 5385.00 $400.00 $400.00 Miscellaneous $1,549.18 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 TOTAl STREET DEPARTMENT $21,387.15 527,100.00 $48,350.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT Salary ~ Payroll Tax - Town Officers $15,452.07 $16,600.00 $35,000.00 Cars - Gas, Oil, Maintenance ~ Repairs 52,242.56 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 Supplies and Equipment $97.47 $100.00 $500.00 Telephone $460.50 5450.00 $450.00 Insurance $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,500.00 Office Expense ~ Miscellaneous Expense $385.44 $400.00 51,000.00 TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT $19,638.04 $20,650.00 $42,450.00 FLOOD CONTROL Sal ary Sc Payroll Tax - Superintendene' $1,393.99 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 Electricity - Pump Station $1,663.14 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 Supplies and Maintenance--Pump Station $1,389.76 $2,200.00 $4,400.00 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL $4,446.89 $5,300.00 $7,500.00 MUNICIPAL BUILDING Labor and Payroll Tax ~ Cleaning $420.50 $450.00 $500.00 Utilities--Electricity/Gas/Water/Sewer $1,526.61 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 Repairs and Maintenance $559.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 Insurance $729.00 5750.00 $750.00 Miscellaneous $30.75 $100.00 $150.00 TOTAL MUNICIPAL BUILDING $3,265.86 $4,400.00 $5,000.00 ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICE Salary and Payroll Tax - Treasurer $3,979.65 $4,000.00 $25,000.00 Office Supplies and Expenses $1,030.49 $1,380.00 $1,800.00 Telephone $711.92 $720.00 $900.00 Building Inspector and Expenses $530.10 $550.00 $780.00 Dues and Subscriptions $239.00 $250.00 $250.00 Miscellaneous $100.00 $500.00 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND OFFICE $6,491.16 $7,000.00 $29,230.00 UNCLASSIFIED EXPENSES $483.40 $500.00 TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES $55,712.50 $64,950.00 $132,530.00 A.~~h~T -:D COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Annexation Committee - County Members ~ Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County Executive~ November 15, 1991 Annexation Information As you know, County staff has been working over the last several months to identify what options the County may have relative to the proposed annexation by the Town of Scottsville. Consideration has been given to the extent of the authority available to the County to negotiate many of the land use and development issues as well as financial arrangements and other matters of concern to the County. Enclosed for your review is a copy of an informal opinion from the Attorney General's Office and the associated State Code section which clearly gives the two governing bodies the authority to enter into a voluntary agreement which could cover any of the items listed in Section 15.1-1167.1(2). Any such agreement would be subject to approval by the Commission on Local Government, adoption in the form of an ordinance by the governing bodies, and approval of a specially convened court . This is the same statutory authority that was used in the' City-County Revenue Sharing Agreement and would be binding on future governing bodies. Given this enabling legislation, there are several options available to the County: A. Refuse to voluntarily allow Scottsville to annex any of Albemarle County and maintain the status quo. Scottsville would then have to consider whether to file an "unfriendly" annexation suit against the County and prove that they could provide equal or better services to those residents. B. Enter into an agreement to allow Scottsville to annex some part of Albemarle County that would involve an agreement as outlined by Section 15.1-1167.1 of the Code Annexation Committee - County Members November l5r 1991 RE: Annexation Information Page 2 of Virginia. This agreement could contain as much or as little as both parties desired within the parameters of paragraph 2 of that Code Section. Such agreement would bind future governing bodies. C. Enter into a boundary line adjustment agreement with the Town of Scottsville that would only address the new corporate limits of the Town. No other matters would be made a part of this agreement other than the corporate limits boundaries and Scottsville would exercise the same control over the new territory as they do with the existing town limits. This adj ustment of boundaries would be done pursuant to Section 15.1--1031.1 and involves a thirty-day notice provision and petitioning of the Circuit Court to enter an order carrying out the provisions of the agreement. Obviously, options Band C would involve allowing the Town of Scottsville to annex portions of Albemarle County. The Board of Supervisors will have to decide whether or not it is in the best interests of the citizens affected to agree to such an arrangement. Further, if the Board decides that Scottsville should be allowed to annex, it must decide whether the area proposed by the Town is appropriate or whether some different configuration is proper. If the Town is allowed to annex, the Board must decide whether to attach "strings" to the agreement or whether to simply do a boundary line adjustment with no "str'ings" attached. As you know, the entire Annexation Committee is scheduled to meet again on Thursday, November 21, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 11 of the County Office Building. The County Executive feels it would be helpful for us to meet at 1:00 p.m. (before the 2:00 p.m. meeting) to discuss these options and an agenda for continuing the negotiations. As always, should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. REH,II/dbm 91. 92 Mary Sue Terry Attorney General COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Office of the Attorney General K. Marshall Cook Deputy Attorney General Finance & Transportation Division H. Lane Kneedler Chief Deputy Attorney General Deborah Love-Bryant Chief-of-StaH October 10, 1991 R. Claire Guthrie Deputy Attorney General Human & Natural Resources Division Gail Starling Marshall Deputy Attorney General Judicial AHairs Division Stephen D. Rosenthal Deputy Attorney General Public Safety & Economic Dell9lopmenl Division Mr. George R. St. John County Attorney for Albemarle County 416 Park Street . Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear George: This responds to yout letter to the Attorney General dated September 26, 1991. In that letter you ask whether Albemarle County and the Town of Scottsville may proceed under Article 2, Chapter 24 of Title 15.1, ~~ 15.1-1031.1 through 15.1-1031.4, of the Code of Virginia to obtain approval of an agreement for an annexation by Scottsville that would include provisions relating to revenue sharing and land use regulation and future county immunity from town annexations. I agree with your conclusion that the procedures detailed in ~~ 15.1-1031.1 through 15.1-1031.4 contemplate only agreed-upon boundary adjustments (like the agreement by Albemarle to allow Pen Park to be annexed to the City of Charlottesville) and not the other matters you ask about. I am making this response informally, however, because I think you may have overlooked the procedures established under Chapter 26.1:1 of Title 15.1, ~~ 15.1-1167.1 through 15.1-1167.2, which provide broader authority than that found under Article 2 of Chapter 24 for the types of revenue sharing arid land use plan- ning agreements being contemplated by Scottsville and Albemarle. My recollection of the history of Chapter 26.1:1 is that it was enacted after we negotiated the Albemarle-Charlottesville revenue sharing agreement to clarify the legis- lative authority for the sort of thing we had done. You will note that ~ 15.1-1167.2 pro- vides for the county to hold a referendum in the event the voluntary agreement results in the county's contracting a debt pursuant to Article VII, ~ 10(b) of the Constitution of Vir- ginia (1971). If I'm not mistaken, we had to obtain special legislation to authorize Albe- marle to hold such a referendum. In any event, the Commission on Local Government advised me that a number of counties and towns have used the procedure in Chapter 26.1:1 to achieve agreement on matters of the sort you describe. While the procedure under that chapter is somewhat more complicated than that under Section 15.1-1031.1, it does avoid the requirement for addressing future annexation rights found in ~ 15.1-1058 that you find objectionable. ~llnr~mp. r.nllrt Rllilrtinn. 1n1 f\.lnrlh Cil"lhth ~t,.o.of. Di.....h................. \1:.....:_:_ ,,""'..... n ~ n^.. ~n,.. "'^..,.. ....... ~ __ ~ __. _ __ . __ __ Mr. George R. St. John October 10, 1991 Page 2 I'll be glad to discuss this with you further if you'd like to give me a call. With best wishes, verz:, uly yours, 7f0~ Ro .~ 6. Wiley Senior Assistant Attorney General Chief, Opinions and Local Government Section 5:67/54-244 \ND TOWNS ~ 15.1_11351 ~ 15.1-1167.1 VOLUNTARY SE'lTLEMENT OF ANNEXATION ~ 15.1-1167.1 d the delivery of water, sewer and i divid~ng that are~ or. portion from the newly consolidated jurisdic~io~ 3:nd n add.ltlOn the consolidated county I mergIng or consolidatIng that area or portIOn with an adjoInIng junsdlctlOn les with respect to the public right I not a part of the newly consolidated jurisdiction. The terms and conditions of stn~t and :~ceive State Highwa - this di,:,ision and merge~ n:ay be included in said ~greement or .m3:Y ~e lS, city or cIt~es prior to canso lid: d.etermIned by the CommIssIOn on Local G?vernment If the affected ju.nsdIc- lted solely wIthin the county will tI~ns are unable to agree. The nonagreeIn~junsdlctlOn shall have t~e nght to Inor to the consolidation, and this reje~t the recommendatIOns of the CommIssion, and not accept said area or onze a.ny allocation from highwa portIOn. ll~ndanes of such special servi y 18. That in the event of consolidation of such counties and cities into a tIme to time by ordinance of fhe single city which completely surrounds another city, the agreement may : hearing. e provide for the subsequent unilateral merger of the surrounded city into the ay provide for offering to the vot consolidated city at any time. The agreement shall provide that a referendum ,rm of government as well as :h"s take the sense of the qualified voters of the surrounded city on the question of ents. e whether the surrounded city and the surrounding city shall consolidate. mty and t~e incorporated tow . 19. T~at in ~he event of consolidation of such cC!unties and cities into a ;uan~ to thIS article ma contafS smgl.e city WhICh completely s~rrounds another City, the ~greement may serVIce tax districts whe:ein a t n provIde for the subsequent UnIlateral merger and converSIOn of the sur. within those shires or boro ax rounded city to a township within the surrounding city at any time. The )lidation plan there exists ugt~S, agreement shall provide that a referendum take the sense of the qualified l or more co~plete oven:. or e voters of the surrounded city on the question of whether the surrounded city '3 bein.g provided or ~II, un~~nt~~ shal~ convert to a townsh~p. The township may, in the discretion of its cO';lncil, IS, or m the consolidated cou t contmue to be called a CIty and may formally be referred to as .......... CIty, a rnmental services include b n y as Virginia township. Such township shall have no right to become an 'bage removal and disposal u~ arte independent city, nor to annex or exercise any extraterritorial jurisdiction lins, fire-fighting equipm ' t ea d within the consolidated city but otherwise shall have the rights, powers and services but shall not e.n an immunities granted towns. The consolidated city's legal relationship with other basic governmental mcl!-lde such township shall be governed by the same laws that govern county-town tional revenue produced f:ervlCes relationships, except as modified herein. (Code 1950, ~ 15-222.3; 1950, p. ~ate fund and expended born anh 1607; 1956, c. 554; 1962, c. 623; 1971, Ex. Sess., c. 36; 1975, c. 214; 1979, c. 85; ugh, or special servI'ce t dY' StU~ 1983, c. 4; 1984, c. 695; 1986, c. 312; 1989, c. 656; 1990, c. 424; 1991, c. 189.) '. ax IS nct . consolIdatIOn plan shall establish :J?roughs and th~ tax rates within ~nllthe bounda.nes of such shires, B; be made m accordance with ohda0d county, as well as to the v~rnmg bo~y of such consolidated CIty councIl referred to in such -Ie the power to tax all sources of lorated towns there,in had prior to . suc.h countie~ and cities into a lerem, any rIghts provided to 21 (~ 15.1-966 et seq) 211 ~t seq.)! 22 (~ 15.~-982.1 ~t seq\ oe modIfied or waived in whole or ~ement or plan, provided that th tl~e ~onstitution of Virginia and o IdatIOn areement or Ian' >ter 2~.1:1 ( 15.1-1167.1 ~t seqI) ~onsolIdation. . ,a ~ubs.equ~n~ r~ferendum of the ~ohdat~ng JurIsdictions to be held questIOn of consolidating Th' ?f the q~alifi~ voters of a~ ar:: , d~~.~med m the discretion of uns ICtIOns, on the question of The 1990 amendment added subdivision 17. The 1991 amendment substituted subdivi- sions a through c for (a) through (c) in subdivi- sion (9), and added subdivisions 18 and 19. CHAPTER 26.1:1. VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT OF ANNEXATION, TRANSITION OR IMMUNITY ISSUES. Sec. 15.1-1167.1. Voluntary settlement;.<; among lo- cal governments. ~ 15.1-1167.1. Voluntary settlements among local governments. - Recognizing that the counties, cities and towns of the Commonwealth may be able to settle the matters provided for in Chapters 20.2 (9 15.1-965.9 et seq.), 21 (9 15.1-966 et seq.), 21.1 (9 15.1-977.1 et seq.), 21.2 (9 15.1-977.19:1 et seq.), 22 (9 15.1-982.1 et seq.) and 25 (~ 15.1-1032 et seq.) of this title through voluntary agreements and further recognizing that such a resolution can be beneficial to the orderly growth and continued viability of the counties, cities and towns of the Commonwealth the following provisions are made: 1. Any county, city or town may enter voluntarily into agreement with any other county, city or town or combination thereof whereby any rights provided for its benefit in the aforementioned chapters may be modified or waived in 147 1 ~ 15.1-11671 COLJNTI8S. CITIES AND TOWNS ~ 15.1-1167.1 whole or in part, as determined by its governing body, provided that the modification or waiver does not conflict with the Constitution of Virginia. 2. The terms of the agreement may include fiscal arrangements, land use arrangements, zoning arrangements, subdivision arrangements and arrange- ments for infrastructure, revenue and economic growth sharing, dedication of all or any portion of tax revenues to a revenue and economic growth sharing account, boundary line adjustments, acquisition of real property and buildings and the joint exercise or delegation of powers as well as the modification or waiver .of specific annexation, transition or immunity rights as determined by the local governing body including opposition to petitions filed pursuant to ~ 15.1-1034, and such other provisions as the parties deem in their best interest. The terms of the agreement may also provide for subsequent court review, instituted pursuant to provisions contained in the agreement, by a special court convened under Chapter 26.2 (~ 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title. 3. In the event a voluntary agreement is reached pursuant to this chapter, the governing bodies shall present to the Commission the proposed settle- ment. The Commission shall conduct a hearing pursuant to * 15.1-945.7 A. The Commission shall report, in writing, its findings and recommendations as to whether the proposed settlement is in the best interest of the Common- wealth. Such report shall not be binding upon any court but shall be advisory in nature only. 4. Upon receipt of the Commission report, the local governments, by ordinance passed by a recorded affirmative vote of a majority of the members of each governing body thereof, may adopt either the original or a modified agreement acceptable to all parties and may thereafter petition the circuit court for an order establishing the rights of the local governments as set forth under the specified agreed terms. Before adopting such ordinance each local governing body shall advertise its intention to approve such agreement, or modified agreement, at least once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper published in or having a general circulation in its jurisdiction and such advertisements shall contain a descriptive summary of such agreement or modified agreement. Each locality shall hold at least one public hearing on such agreement or modified agreement prior to the adoption of such ordinance. The publication shall include a statement that a true copy of the agreement, or modified agreement, is on file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of each of the affected jurisdictions. 5. The governing bodies shall present to a special court convened under Chapter 26.2 (* 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title the proposed settlement. The court shall be limited in its decision to either affirming or denying the voluntary agreement and shall have no authority, without the express approval of each local governing body, to amend or change the terms or conditions of the agreemeI1t, but shall have the authority to validate the agreement and give it full force and effect. The court shall affirm the agreement unless the court finds either that tJ;le agreement is contrary to the best interests of the Commonwealth or that it is not in the best interests of each of the parties thereto. In determining whether such agreement should be affirmed, the court shall consider, among other things, whether the interest of the Commonwealth in promoting orderly growth and the continued viability of local governments has been met. In the event the agreement is validated and provides for annexation by a city or town, the same shall take effect at midnight on December 31 of the year set forth in the agreement unless the agreement stipulates that the annexation shall be effective at midnight of some other date or dates. 6. Upon affirmation of the agreement by the court, it shall become binding on future local governing bodies. 148 '10 TOWNS * 15.1-11671 lverning body, provided that the Ith the Constitution of Virginia. I?~ fiscal arrangements, land use Ils.lOn arrangements and arrange- mlc growth sharing, dedication of lue and economic growth sharing .lOn of real property and buildings lrs as well as the modification or mmunity ~i~hts as determined by ion to petItiOns filed pursuant to the parties deem in their best 11so provide for subsequent court Jntained in the agreement, by a (9 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title. reached pursuant to this chapter ~ommission the proposed settle~ nng. pursuant to 9 15.1-945.7 A. find10gs and recommendations as Ie best interest of the Common- n any court but shall be advisory ort, the local governments by ~te of a majority of the members ~lther the original or a modified y thereafter petition the circuit Ie !ocal governments as set forth Ipt10g such ordinance each local to approve such agreement or !or tW? successive weeks i~ a ;lrculatlOn in its jurisdiction and lve summary of such agreement I~ at least one public hearing on mor to the adoption of such 8:tement that a true copy of the l.n the office of the clerk of the :tlOns. a special court convened under !e the proposed settlement. The ther affirming or denying the uthority, without the express mend or change the terms or the authority to validate the t. The court shall affinn the .h~ agreement is contrary to the l t IS not in the best interests of eth<<:rsuch agreement should be " things, whether the interest of .vth and the continued viability ent the agreement is validated 1, ~he same shall take effect at ;h 10 the agreement unless the all be effective at midnight of ~ court, it shall become binding .., ~ 15.1-1239 VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWEH AUTHORITIES ACT * 151-1240 7. The applicable provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to have been met with regard to any voluntary fiscal agreement or voluntary agreement in settlement of an annexation, transition or immunity petition or voluntary settlement agreement entered into pursuant to this chapter (i) which has been previously entered into or (iil which has been reviewed or is in the process of review by the Commission on Local Government or (iii) which has been or is the subject of review by a special court convened under Chapter 26.2 (9 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title or (iv) which has been or is approved by a special t:ourt convened under Chapter 26.2 (9 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title. 8. The provisions of 9 15.1-1054 shall apply when a voluntary agreement includes the annexation of territory by a city or town. (1983, c. 523; 1985, c. 478; 1986, c. 333; 1988, c. 881; 1990, cc. 62, 326.) The 1990 amendments. - The 1990 amendment by c. 62, in the first sentence of subdivision 2, inserted "land use arrange- ments, zoning arrangements, subdivision ar- rangements and arrangements for infrastruc- ture," and added "and such other provisions as the parties deem in their best interest"; and in subdivision 7, inserted "or voluntary settle- ment agreement entered into pursuant to this chapter," and added "or (ivl which has been or is approved by a special court convened under Chapter 26.2 (~ 15.1-1168 et seq.) of this title." The 1990 amendment by c. 326, effective March 30, 1990, added subdivision 8. CHAPTER 28. VIRGINIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITIES ACT. 9 15.1-1239. Title of chapter. Editor's note. - Acts 1989, c. 357 provides that where any county with a population of more than 35,000 but less than 35,400 has fonned an authority pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 28 (~ 15.1-1239 et seq.l of this title and such authority on a regular route and basis picks up garbage and refuse as defined in ~ 15.1-1240 (r) and disposes of same for a fee, such authority may charge and collect a non- user service fee not to exceed 85% of the 9 15.1-1240. Definitions. Editor's note. - Acts 1989, c.357 provides that where any county with a. population of more than 35,000 but less than 35,400 has fonned an authority pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 28 (t 15.1-1239 et seq.) of this title and such authority on a regular route and basis picks up garbage and refuse as defined in t 15.1-1240 (r) and disposes of same for a fee, such authority may charge and collect a non- user service fee not to exceed 85% of the minimum monthly fee charged those persons using the authority's pickup and disposal ser- vices, provided that such persons are located on the authority's established routes and have not contracted with a private vendor for such services, and that all other provisions of Chap- ter 28 (~ 15.1-1239 et seq.) of this title shall be applicable to this authorization, mutatis mu- tandis. minimum monthly fee charged those persons using the authority's pickup and disposal ser- vices, provided that such persons are located on the autlfority's established routes and have not contracted with a private vendor for such services, and that all other provisions of Chap- ter 28 (~ 15.1-1239 et seq.l of this title shall be applicable to this authorization, mutatis mu- tandis. 149 ves, piers, docb", { county, city orf e Bay, includin. or the Atlantic; ructures, except' ,cted along the y{' lesapeake Bay ~ ,. 1.ers), or the Atl , larves, piers, d." :tion of this Co'" county, cityot 76, c. 646.) * ~ 15,1-1031.1 COUNTIES. CITIES AND TOWN~ ~ 15,1-1031.4 'rs fail to agree. - If ' In. of sl:lc.h line, they shall' ltIes, cIties or towns stat' een:ent ~~d describing fJft mtles, cIties or towns u if Irt of either county ~it~. flail have the right 'to Ii ~ed as h~~einafter proVid mch petition shall descri led f?r' and shall states . locatIO~ c.ontended for, fii '1 descnptIOn. The petit~' wns the party defendant' >y o~ the petition upo' ,he city attorney of suc ' ea or answer to the pe' oe its grounds of defe egree of certainty reqUir' . .fendant and the county''', e shall be the true locat' rt, without a jury, held g:e o~ the circuit court o~ :lrcUlt court of the defen' court in this Common'!:"' be. d~signated by th~'.' wlthm the same circ 1. an adjoining circuit: uced in the manner, in' shall ascertain and e '. 1, and shall give, j . ~ourt shall determtir mmon-law order boo ' n the names of the forever settle, dew', \. copy of any final jl(, mwealth. An appeal' reof, to either party, leal shall be awarded; 42; 1954,c.536;196~~ c. 456.) 't ~ ARTICLE 2, Relocation or Change, by Agreement, of Boundary Line Between Political Subdivisions; Adjustment by Court, S 15.1-1031.1. Establishment by agreement. - Whenever any two or more of the following political subdivisions, a county, a city or a town wish to relocate or change the boundary line between them, the governing bodies of such political subdivisions may, by agreement, establish, relocate or change such boundary line between them. (1977, c. 277; 1983, c. 594.) S 15.1-1031.2. Publication of agreed boundary line; posting copy of agreement. - The governing body of each such political subdivision shall cause a description of the boundary line between them, as agreed upon, to be published at least once a week for two consecutive weeks in some newspaper having general circulation in such political subdivisions. The costs of the publication shall be apportioned between the political subdivisions in the percentage agreed upon by them and shall be so paid. A copy of such agreement shall be posted at the front door of the courthouse of each such political subdivision in the same manner that other public notices are posted. ; (1977, c. 277; 1983, c. 594.) S 15.1-1031.3. Petition and hearing; recordation of order; costs. - Within thirty days after notice is given in accordance with S 15.1-1031.2, the attorneys for each affected political subdivision shall petition the circuit court of one of the affected political subdivisions, which court shall then have .1 exclusive jurisdiction, setting forth the facts pertaining to the desire to ; relocate or change the boundary line between the two political subdivisions, . as well as the new boundary line as agreed upon by the respective two political subdivisions. The judge with whom the petition is filed shall, after hearing the evidence on the boundary line to be relocated or changed, enter the appropriate order which shall be recorded in the common-law order book of his court and in the current deed book of his court and indexed in the names of the political subdivisions, and shall designate and establish the new boundary line. Costs shall be awarded as the court may determine. Whenever , such an order is entered, a copy of the order shall be certified to the Secretary . of the Commonwealth. (1977, c. 277; 1983, c. 594.) ~ 15.1-1031.4. Court-ordered minor adjustment of boundary lines. - - A. Whenever any two of the following political subdivisions, a county, or a city or a town have agreed ,that a change should be made as to their common .. oundary line so that public services in an area may be provided more effectively and more efficiently, but are unable to agree as to the proper location for such new boundary line, the governing bodies of such political ~u~divisions may petition jointly either ofthe circuit courts of their respective ,unsdictions for an order establishing the new boundary line within the terms , f the petition. The court shall refer the petition to the Commission on Local iQavernment, and shall also certify the filing of the petition to the Supreme Court with a request that a three-judge court be convened pursuant to ,,15.1-1168 to decide the matter. The Commission shall conduct a hearing to ~ive evidence concerning th~ location of the new boundary line. Any '..:. tt:rested persons may present evidence. The Commission shall publish .,obce of its hearing at least once a week for two successive weeks in newspapers of general circulation in each political subdivision. Based upon 537 ~rP~/ 5//~f'v--A, SCOTTSVILLE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT Option 4 Option 5 Estimated Dwelling Units 66 94 Estimated Population 167 238 Total Dwelling Units (Town of Scottsville) 121* 121* Total Population (Town of Scottsville) 239* 239* Additional Dwelling Unit Potential 324** 699** Additional Population Potential 820 1,768 Total Dwelling Unit Capacity 390 793 Total Population Capacity 987 2,006 Total Developed Commercial Acreage 22 22 Total Undeveloped Commercial Acreage 10 10 Total Commercial Acreage 32 32 Total Acreage 457 848 Total Acreage (Town of Scottsville) 105 105 Total Combined Acreage 562 953 * Bureau of the Census, 1990. ** Data derived from a build-out scenario utilizing Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Note: Population = total dwelling units x 2.53 (average number of persons per household - 1990 Census) except where indicated by "*" Prepared by the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 0'..., . ..- ~ "7 a., l"^'-T"'.-' -,- ", .... /'''': ,Ie>'- .,:.llj ;,.It-.....U t'.i ~"""",'J. __-..,_ Agenda Item No. 9.2, o'-fo/'d. 7~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (~() t.J "".: I... ", " " ',' i.'- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board Robert W. Tucker, Jr., of Supervisors ~,---------- County Executive~1 March 27, 1992 Background for Discussion of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Budget Mr. George Williams and members of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority staff will be presenting information on the 1993 RSWA budget and associated tipping fees at your April 1 work session. While Mr. Williams will have more detailed information available at the meeting, the following preliminary information is provided as preparation for the work session. OVERALL Operational expenses are down 2.7% Revenues are up 26.7% due to site Development TONNAGE PROJECTIONS Domestic is level, 82,000 tons Mixed dirt is up, 1,700 tons All others are down Total tonnage is down, -37,180 tons or 76% OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION For tires expenses diversion means and white goods both revenues and are down over 75% because of of these items to other disposal Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 27, 1992 RE: Background for Discussion of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Budget Page 2 of 3 A new category of expense for Recycling Center is added ($77,000) with an associated revenue of $8,000 The allowance for special Household Hazardous Materials collection is increased from $70,000 to $120,000, reflecting current year costs for this service. Al ternati ves are being considered The shared administrative costs (with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority) allocation is raised to 40% from 30% Contract services (operations) is lowered from $85,000 to $45,000 The Recycling/Refuse/Reduction direct education expense allowance is raised to $20,000 from $8,000 to allow for significant increases in the emphasis on public education The yard waste composting effort is proposed at $20,000, chiefly to fund a study of disposal alternatives for this waste category. STAFFING One additional clerical position for the Joint Administrative Staff shared with the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority One half-time position to implement solid waste education programs 2% across the board pay plan adjustment SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The budget proposes a significant increase in tip fee funding for Site Improvements, which includes facilities improvements, closure and remedial costs, leachate system development and new cell development Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 27, 1992 RE: Background for Discussion of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Budget Page 3 of 3 The funding schedule has been affected by lower than anticipated collections for FY 1991 (5 months) and FY 1992 Joyce Engineering projects cost of $21,545,000 by the end of FY 1996 Impact of House Bill 1073 is unknown at this time RWTjr/RBB/bat 92-5 Attachment Page 1 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Proposed FY 1993 Budget +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Percent I Expenses: FY 1992 FY 1993 Change Change ------------------------------------------+ operations: Administration Ivy Landfill Ops. Recycling/Reuse/Reduction Recycling Centers Special Programs 221,031 1,367,565 243,450 o 80,000 277,076 1,304,315 54,150 77,000 140,000 56,045 (63,250) (189,300) 77,000 60,000 25.36% -4.63% -77.76% H/A 75.00% ------------------------------------------+ Subtotal 1,912,046 1,852,541 (59,505) -3.11% site Developtent Allocation: 1,912,645 2,616,194 703,549 36.78% Reserve Allocation: 149,966 140,514 (9,452) -6.30% +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ jTOTAL EXPENSES: 3,974,657 4,609,249 634,592 15.97%1 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Revenues: Tipping Fees: Domestic Debris/Stumps/Brush Tires White Goods Asbestos Mixed Dirt Subtotal 2,624,000 3,690,000 1,066,000 40.63% 1,008,000 805,000 (203,000) -20.14% 124,100 14,040 (110,060) -88.69% 31,950 10,030 (21,920) -68.61% 107,100 15,280 (91,820) -85.73% 3,300 20,400 17,100 518.18% ------------------------------------------+ 3,898,450 4,554,750 656,300 16.83% Per Item: Tires Truck Tires White Goods Subtotal o 4,500 4,500 H/A o 600 600 H/A 3,500 2,000 (1,500) -42.86% ------------------------------------------+ 3,500 7,100 3,600 102.86% other: 74,910 59,400 (15,510) -20.70% +--------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------t ITOTAL REVENUES: 3,976,860 4,621,250 644,390 16.20%1 +~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I BALANCE: 2,203 12,001 t-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------t Page 2 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Site Improvements Program +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Percent I FY 1992 FY 1993 Change Change ------------------------------------------t Landfill site Expansion Domestic Cell Development 700,000 880,000 180,000 25.71% Design for Expansion 195,000 275,000 80,000 41.03% Subtotal 895,000 1,155,000 260,000 29.05% Facilities Expansion Building Improvements 50,000 5,000 (45,000) -90.00% General Site Improvements 30,000 275,000 245,000 816.67% Subtotal 80,000 280,000 200,000 250.00% CUrrent Cell Closure/Retrofits Domestic Cell Closure 300 ,000 800 , 000 500 , 000 166.67% Debris Cell Closure 287,000 608,000 321,000 111. 85% Monitoring Well Remedial 75,000 200 , 000 125,000 166.67% Leachate Sys. Improvements 175,000 150,000 (25,000) -14.29% Erosion Control Improvements 0 40,000 40,000 H/A Subtotal 837,000 1,798,000 961,000 114.81% +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Total 1,812,000 3,233,000 1,421,000 78.42%1 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Carryover Shortfall Required site Development Allocation (576,488) (40,318) 2,616,194 +-------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------+ Page 3 t------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Tipping Fees t-------------------------------------t---------------------------------t------------------------------- I Tonnage I Fee/Ton t---------------------------------t------------------------------- I FY 1992 FY 1993 % Change I FY 1992 FY 1993 % Change t---------------------------------t------------------------------- Domestic 82,000 82,000 0.00% $32 $45 40.63% Debris/Stumps/Brush 72,000 35,000 -51.39% 14 23 64.29% Tires 1,110 130 -88.29% 106 108 1.89% White Goods 450 170 -62.22% 71 59 -16.90% Asbestos 350 80 -77.14% 306 191 -37.58% Mixed Dirt 350 1700 385.71% 11 12 9.09% t-------------------------------------t---------------------------------t------------------------------- t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------t BREAKDOWN OF TIP FEES Disposal Indirect site Operations Costs Improv. Recycling Reserves **Total t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------t IFY 1992 t-------------------------- Domestic Debris/Stumps/Brush Tires White Goods Asbestos Mixed Dirt $10.70 1.15 0.60 20.00 300.00 5.00 $3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 $16.36 7.91 0.46 0.44 1.33 1.33 $0.69 0.69 100.69 46.31 0.42 0.42 $0.96 $0.96 $0.96 $0.96 $0.96 $0.96 $32 14 106 71 306 11 Proposed FY 1993 t-------------------------- Domestic $10.83 $4.79 $27.38 $0.79 $1.18 $45 Debris/Stumps/Brush 5.89 4.79 10.39 0.79 1.18 23 Tires 2.00 4.79 3.55 95.79 1.18 108 White Goods 8.00 4.79 3.55 40.79 1.18 59 Asbestos 180.00 4.79 3.55 0.79 1.18 191 Mixed Dirt 1.00 4.79 3.55 0.79 1.18 12 ** - Total will differ due to rounding. t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------t " ""()' . ,., ,,', i;.. '. l..'.- \; ; 't' r; f....,(t ',~,... ...._. , \. 1"',\ J, f-i- ~,l! ,)t ~j r" U:,' r"~';,:;:. r.'~"-: ,~,.,. L r:. t ! .. t' ". r~; i; County of Albemarle i j!\ :1 ; I I ~ '!'" " ., JJI ~..~ . ," _ ,.""'ll....,~:. -~-] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,....~. --. . . ... ~~ ;: AGENDA TITLE: Route 29 North Aesthetic Improvements AGENDA DATE: April 1, 1992 ITEM NUMBER: 9;;? . () "/ () /, z 7?/ STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker and Brandenburger. SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of staff recommendations on plans for developing aesthetic improvements to Route 29 North. ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION: ACTION: REVIEWED BY: # ..... BACKGROUND: The attached report is in response to the Board's request for a plan to develop aesthetic improvements to Route 29 North. The Architectural Review Board and staff have developed a proposed plan for your discussion. RECOMMENDATION: Support the recommendations outlined in the report. 92.049 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 MEMORANDUM To: Robert W. Tucker, County Executive From: Marcia Joseph, Design Planner Re: Integrating plantings and improvements within the Rt. 29 North proposed expansion project. Date: April 1, 1992 Backqround: The Board of Supervisors has requested information concerning- the addition of aesthetic improvements, such as landscaping, to the proposed Rt. 29 North road plans. In response to the Board's request, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has met and evaluated the road plans to determine if any additional improvements should be proposed. This memo addresses the feasibility of incorporating plantings and other design improvements within the proposed expansion plans for Rt. 29N, and, the necessity of developing a comprehensive design plan for the future development of the corridor. Discussion: The ARB review of the road plans revealed information concerning the grading required for construction. Because the road will be widened in most areas to accommodate additional lanes, the existing elevations in the median and along adjacent properties will be modified. In some areas the existing medians contain substantial vegetative growth. This growth will be removed with the grading required for this project. Some vegetation existing on adjacent properties will also be removed with the grading. The proposed road plans also indicate that a substantial amount of vegetation exists that has been planted by adjacent owners within the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) along Rt. 29. These areas include the bank planting along the Fashion Square si te, and the recent plantings along the Seminole Square site. Memo 29N April 1, 1992 Page 2 The resident engineer for VDOT has indicated that existing power lines must be moved to accommodate the grading. Virginia Power has not yet determined the extent of the relocation or the estimated cost. within their discussion, the ARB included the possibilities available for funding any improvements they may suggest. Several matching grants exist that are related to beautification projects. Most of the grants the ARB discussed are specif ic to plant materials, these include: Green Virginia 2000, Small Business Administration, and America The Beautiful. (Exhibits A, B, and C) Other means of funding discussed were county contribution, benefactor support, and business and civic group involvement. The Planning Department has met with VDOT and has discussed several issues concerning enhancing the aesthetic properties on Rt. 29 in conjunction with the proposed road plans (Exhibit D). These include: l)Using mast arm signalization, 2)Planting within the VDOT R.O.W. 3)Relocating the utility lines underground. VDOT has not determined if these items can be incorporated within the proposed expansion project. Recommendation: The Architectural Review Board has proposed that the improvements for Rt. 29 include the following: 1) Relocating underground. the existing powerlines 2) Replacing signalization signalization. wire mounted with mast arm traffic traffic light light 3) Investigation of available funding the revegetation project. grants for 4) Reduction in sign size and height allowance and reduction in setback as reflected in the proposed sign ordinance. (Exhibit G) Memo 29N April 1, 1992 Page 3 5) Adoption of a comprehensive plan that will propose additional plantings along the existing properties adjacent to Rt. 29 and within the median strip. (Exhibits G and E) staff suggests that a comprehensive plan be designed and adopted for the Rt. 29N corridor. within this plan a phasing process should be outlined to include relocating the powerlines underground and the installation of the plant materials. The phasing should be defined in 5 (five) one year intervals. . By defining the phasing, this plan could then be included in the Capital Improvements Plan incrementally over a five year period. The comprehensive plan for the corridor will also include: 1) The estimation of the costs for undergrounding the power lines, 2) The estimation of the costs for the plant material, installation, and maintenance. .>iJ 3) A phasing plan to guide the development and Capital Improvements Plan. 4) A determination of grants, and other sources of revenue available. MJ cc: Amelia Patterson Wayne Cilimberg Bob Brandenburg Tim Lindstrom Frank Kessler Diane Miller Harry Porter ~ .0' r- ~ ~ ~ 6' - r- ~. \<' \ \ \ \ \ "'. ~ 6' . ~ ~ . ~ .,", r'~ ~ <".:~,<:'.~r \,"',\\'1 ',' . \ZtJ ....,'.\'.'~\.j. .". '-. ~~ " ~ \ . -;}; ~\....5 ..."';. . \ ~ ~?'. .....-:::::. f.;..~\. ",\ .... Cj \ \ ~ <J' - ~ ~ j ~ , en ,.,.. . GREfrJVIRGINIA 2000 f.XHt t'.:> rr A J PROJECT ~AME:"Green Virginia z(XX)" - Jointly sponsored by Chambers Development of _.,':' _.". _; "'_'_ ..:., .:.. Virg~ Inc., and me Virginia Forcsay Association. -. - -. - . . . ... .-.- -." _.- .-..- -. .. __'--__ ..___:. .__.... GoAl.: One Of me mM broa:J-ba5o:i civic tree-planting projecrs in Virginia's histOlY, with a goal of planting thousands of rrees by me year zero in urban. suburban and small-cown Icx:.ations where financial resources are not available to cover me entire project casc. ORCAI'I1ZATION: "The GreenVirginia Foundation, Inc." is the organization- through which me program is managed. It is a non-profit, non-stOCk corpOration. {rax-exempcion applic:Jricn ~} wha,e I:oard of direaors inclt.des . representatives from Oumbers. the Virginia ForesIT)' Association. and me Virginia Scate Deparonent of Foresay. BI.,'OC;Er: The Foundation is cum:ndy funded by an annual ~nt of $50,000 from Ol=bers. Such funds are used strictly ror granrs to !cx:al civic and community volunteer . organizations to support cree-planting projecrs. Chambers also pays ror all administrative CO,.1S ourside of me annual grant. PRoJECf ExAMPLES: T ypica! of the lo::.aI projecrs the Foundation wanrs to encourage would be Boy Scouts planting crees in a median so of a major city thoroughfare, or a gartlen club planting crees as pan: of a landscaping of a local school or COuMOU.<< E!lcm1lIIY: Funds will be made available for planting on public propertY, or private propertY which is dedicated to public u.<e ~ ea.<emenrs, covenants, or other legal.insm.nnenrs- Funds may be granted to private. non-profit, civic, or communi groups which will coordinate closely wim the public entity controlling me property to be planted. Coortlimtion mt be indicated !:om in the initial project implemem:ation phase as well as with long-term maintenance. .-. . ".--- ,. : :." ;,._;0- ": ~.' . ,Oo..-Eo -.' . -~. . . . GRANT .AllOCATION: Grants will be provided on a matching basis (50%/50%) ror the COStS of cree-related cangible materials, such as !Tel mulch, and ferrili=. CasG of shrubs, annuals, ground covers, per.;onnel and equipment time and sirn.ikr expenses w not qual.ift ;lS man:hi.ng expenses. Grant applic:ations must provide prcd of ihe a....ailability of marching funds. Applicar . are ~couraged to pro....ide more than 50% of me project cost from other sources where possible. It is planned to d tribute the tot:al grant funds over a number of cree-planting projecrs of various sues throughout Virginia. Therefor the amount granted for any individual project will be balanced against the need to fund a number of other projec: ... ...: .. . -.~'."'- . .' ,. .:-1.:.::. : . .:.~ - ~ .'.". ",:;': . GRANT R.EvrEW: The Foundation has =blished a screening committee chat does me initial review of grant applications. The commi tee includes arborists and foresters who have special expertise in cree-planting. Those grant appliC3tions recommen ed by the screening committee are men forwarded to me board of directOrs which makes the final deci5iol1.S. :;:;::;{~:Fi;;~-~ -.' . ;~~~ _ ~~cinoN D?^DUNES: Grants will be awarded twice each year. to coincid~ .~m p~ f9.r spring and fall proj= :rg~l!'~'''~ .e.~..~:t..~?;:~~1l~~~~':'. .- .: ... . '.' ..:- .. '. . ' :--: ...::.::: '. .: '. ..::." . . ..:::.:,?:;":~""'!o. ~ .....l:.,...;;..~:,-;.'~ ::.' j~-:-~' ,. '. The rollowmg scrcerung and approval schedule will be adhered to: \,~~t~~~;?1r :-':'i.[~,O 'F>ll PRq= (5:>5= "" 1991 ~u) , August 1 _ AppliC3con deadline _ Screening committee makes fin:llrecommencbtiol1.S _ Board selecrs gr.mrs to be awarded _ Gl<Int~ notified June 15 June/luly - .. d ;;,...:.. .~ ~~. .~:;-I__' .., . ..- ; --- -."- .--...----.-----. --~.-.. - - --- -----..-.---- t1C~f'tT 5 .. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 'NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTERED IN VIRGINIA BY: Application Deadline JULY 5,1991 SUBMIT TO: . . SBA Program Virginia Department of Forestry P. O. Box 3758 Charlottesville, VA 22903-0758 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL -,...,. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL Urban and Community Forestry Grants for Virginia A' Application Deadline June 15, 1991 Submit to: . AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL Virginia Department of Forestry Box 3758 Charlottesville, VA 22903-0758 e<t+t& ( T c... ~Htf;JIT P f e:, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depl. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 January 3, 1992 Dan Roosevelt Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. . Box 2013 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Albemarle County Planning Department Cormnents - Route 2-9 North Plans (Corrections to December 3, 1991 Letter) Dear Dan: In response to your request, I am providing these staff comments on the Route 29 North project as reviewed at the meeting on December 17, 1991.. 1. Aesthetics/Landscaping - Route 29 is an entrance corridor and subject to a special County overlay zoning district that addresses the aesthetic aspects of development along the corridor. In keeping with this intent, staff asks that this project incorporate allowances for median and other right-of-way landscaping, mast arm signalization and street name signs on the mast arms. Staff understands that up to a 4' median will be concrete, with from 4' to la' concrete or rock and over 10' grass. I ask that the minimum area (less than 10' if possible) be left in grass to allow for landscape material. Staff understands that mast arm signals located in the median may not be possible due to utilities. I also ask that alternative mast arm designs be considered to avoid the visual clutter of the wire signalization. I would further ask that underground utilities be utilized where possible when utility lines are moved/relocated. The County welcomes an opportunity to work with VDOT on the aforementioned design considerations. .. .... ~ " . ~ ~ --~-~_.~,....- t ~ L- ,/ .t -> ~ \- ,.. (\. ~ ~ A. ,":,-).:;1 I /7 -{t) l)~Cut.( ?-/1/17/ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Memorandum DATE: March 31: 1992 FROM: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert w. paskel ~ Division Superintendent TO: RE: 1992-93 School Division Budget ~ May I take this opportunity to express appreciation on behalf of the school division for your support of the school division's budget and the allocation of additional funds to meet the School Board's unfunded top priorities. Your sensitivity to the needs of the students and staff of the school division as reflected by your budgetary actions is reassuring for all of us, especially in the year where revenues were greatly affected by the recession. I was also pleased with the cooperation received from Mr. Tucker and his staff with me and my staff as we worked with the budgetary process this year. It is a professional pleasure to work with such dedicated and cooperative individuals as we all strive to improve the quality of life in Albemarle County. RWP/bmc cc: Mr. Tucker School Board Members Proposed Agenda for the Regular Business Meeting of the Albemarle County School Board April 6, 1932 - 6:00 p.m. Meeting Room 7 - County Office Building Agenda Item Infor- mation Order of Business Subject Action Call to order - Opening Ceremonies Agenda 92-4-1 Adoption X 92-4-2 Intent to Speak X 92-4-3 Intent to Speak X 92-4-4 Additional Revenue Request for CATEC X 92-4-5 School Health Services Job Descriptions X 92-4-6 Proposed Special Education RFP X Announcements 92-4-7 Field Trips X Announcements Opportunity for Public Expression Business by Division Elnployees Superintendent's Report . Instruction Business Services 92-4-8 Appropriation of Instructional Technology In-Service Payment X Appropriation of Title II Grant X Appropriation of Title II D & E Grant X Appropriation Request for Project Success X Stone-Robinson Elementary Waterline X Maintenance of Entrance Roads and Bus Loops by Virginia Department of Transportation--Revised X Announcements 92-4-9 92-4-10 92-4-11 92-4-12 92-4-13 ~ . Personnel 92-4-14 92-4-15 92-4-16 Personnel Action X Election of Professional Staff X Report of the Staffing, Recruitment, Assignment Task Force X Announcements School Board 92-4-17 Redistricting for Stony Point and Stone-Robins~n Elementary Schools X Business by Individual Board Members X 92-4-18 Executive Session (when required for matters permitted by law) Adjournment -- Albemarle County School Board 1991-92 Patricia Moore Charlottesville District William rmley White Hall District Clifford Haury Samuel Miller District Sharon Wood Rivanna District V aldrie Walker Scottsville District Karen Powell Jouett District ~ Michael Marshall At-Large Member Dr. Robert W. Paskel, Superintendent ClitTord Haury, Chairma&- MEETING PLACE: County Office Building TIME AND DATE: Meetings are the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 6:00 p.m. in Meeting Room 7 In alternate months during the school year the second meeting of the month will be in a school. The location of the meeting will be advertised in advance. The School Board meetings are open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. An opportunity for the public to speak on issues of concern is provided at each meeting. Agendas may be obtained in advance of the meetings from the Superintendent's office on the third floor of the County Office Building. School Board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors and must reside in the district which they represent. The four-year terms run concurrently with the appointing Supervisor's term of office. An at-large member is appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Duties of the School Board include selection of the Superintendent, adoption of the annual school budget, employment of teachers and other personnel upon recommendation of the Superintendent, determination of the educational needs of the school division, and establishment of policies to ensure a safe, efficient and economical operation of the public schools. :!f,?- 7 - 'i 2- ~""-.._"_.>''''_.<<. ':. " ; ,.~. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ':.. .f,_, !"-', i~ L_t._ MEMORANDUM E3J,Jl.\;-~'C) ()F ~~Ll PEf-<\/ (':3J:]QS TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive DATE: March 27, 1992 RE: FY 92-93 Proposed Budget Revisions Attached for your information are copies of the final budget adjustments from the worksession on Wednesday. RWT,Jr/dbm 92.068 .....................".,."".............. \ .~OARbOF= SUPE;RVISORS FY92-93 PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGES' SCENARIO I - 4% MERIT ALL PERSONNEL BEGINNING RESERVE FUND COUNTY EXECUTIVE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS $774,933 8,835 TOTAL RESERVE FUND $783,768 GENERAL FUND - PROPOSED CHANGES REVENUES o adds FY91-92 carry-over for one-time general fund priorities o adds FY 91-92 carry-over for solid waste contingency o adds FY91-92 carry-over for school priorities TOTAL REVENUES ADDED EXPENDITURES o funds selected board priorities o funds solid waste/recycling contingency o reduces 1 % merit for all personnel TOTAL EXPENDITURES ADDED TOTAL GENERAL FUND CHANGES 300,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 (667,324) (100,000) 79,255 (688,069) (188,069) TOTAL RESERVE FUND $595,699 SCHOOL FUND - PROPOSED CHANGES REVENUES o adds new state revenues o adds FY91-92 school carry-over to fund one-time costs TOTAL REVENUES ADDED EXPENDITURES 173,178 205,000 378,178 o reduces fuel costs from .85 to .73/gallon o lease/purchases four buses o funds $500 increase at top of teacher's scale (priority #1) o implements new staffing guidelines (priority #2) o maintains 4% merit for all classified employees o provides funds for remaining school board priorities TOTAL EXPENDITURES ADDED TOTAL SCHOOL FUND CHANGES 60,000 o (223,850) (514,500) o (175,000) (853,350) (475,172) TRANSFER GENERAL FUND RESERVE TO SCHOOL FUND 475,172 TOTAL REMAINING RESERVE FUND Less Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund $120,527 20,000 FINAL REMAINING RESERVE FUND $100,527 03/27/92 """" ,.,. ..............................,...,.............""""..,,,. QNE....,.IM~f{ECURRINGC()S1"S()FREC()MMENOE[)paIQRI,.IE$ RECURR ONE-TIME TOTAL BOARD NO. BY DEPARTMENT COSTS COSTS COSTS APPROVED 17 Increased fee for decal vendors (.50 to .75) 4,250 4,250 4,250 6 Cost of redistricting/voting machines 11,255 11,255 11 ,255 40 Fax machine for circuit court 1,000 1,000 750 19 DP equipment for comm. attorney 7,000 7,000 5,000 15 County share new bailiff for Juvenile Court (6 mos) 7,080 6,920 14,000 14,000 20 Transport officer - Sheriff's dept. 12,000 12,000 12,000 34 State employee bonuses 12,650 12,650 4 Investigations officer (full year) 35,295 14,895 50,190 50,190 5 Full year police performance plan 28,000 28,000 28,000 7 School Resource Officer #1 (salary/fringe pd by schools) 5,390 12,745 18,135 18,135 10 Patrol officers (3) (includes priority 27 & 29) (Six months) 54,615 50,385 105,000 105,000 16 Lieutenant - patrol (6 mos) 26,910 18,132 45,042 45,042 25 Computer equipment - Police 11 ,660 11 ,660 11 ,660 33 Investigations officer (6 mos.) 17,935 13,555 31,490 45 School Resource Officer #2 32,454 12,745 45,199 45,199 12 Training program for firefighters/software 4,385 875 5,260 5,260 18 Fire Prevention Inspector (6 mos) - contingency fund 14,103 1,350 1 5,453 15,453 11 Erosion Control Inspector 15,575 11 ,250 26,825 26,825 1 Continued curbside dropoff program 43,535 43,535 43,535 9 Match for state funded social service computers 1 9,1 00 1 9,1 00 19,100 Match for two eligibility positions (20%) (contingency fund) 10,250 10,250 10,250 JABA - outreach program for tax relief 2,280 2,280 2,280 Additional funding - SHE ($6,415 in Board contingency) 21,250 21 ,250 15,015 21 Fully fund local share for CALAS 1,920 1,920 1,920 3 Funding for teen-mother program 20,000 20,000 19,228 Fully fund Sara ($4,650 in Board contingency) 1 2,1 25 12,125 12,125 2 Full season - Walnut Creek Swimming Program 24,290 24,290 24,290 8 Therapeutic Recreation/joint City/County program 902 902 902 47 Full year funding - Northside Library 53,070 53,070 53,070 Additional books at Northside Library 10,000 10,000 10,000 WVPT - full funding 5,130 5,130 24 Fiscal impact study - 1 st year 25,000 (5,130) 19,870 25,000 14 ARB program materials 3,325 3,325 3,325 23 Administration of WRPA Ordinance 3,880 3,880 3,880 13 Gypsy Moth Suppression Program 11,000 11,000 11,000 26 Part-time carpenter - AHIP (contingency fund) 14,385 14,385 14,385 MACAA - full funding 3,113 3,113 TOTAL PRIORITIES $453,939 $266,782 720,721 $667,324 03/27/92 PROXY Albemarle The undersigned hereby appoints County Executive , with power of substitution, proxy to act and vote all shares of the undersigned at the Annual Meeting of the shareholders of Jaunt, Inc., a Virginia public service corporation E>> at all future shareholders meeting~9___ and at any adjournments thereot, upon the election of directors, and, in his or her discretion, upon such other matters as may properly come before such meetings. This proxy shall be valid ~~~x indefinitely Dated: April 1, 1992 19 ~~~ COUNTY OF Albemarle , VIRGINIA By,~~e~~::- Supervisors ." ~~~ .~ . v. ~~w] Tucker: Under runoff control ordinance,the Board can grant certain waivers. Only one I remember is for a swimming pool. We onlyhave those come up from time to time. I have one today where an individual in the watershed is pressing to build a swimming pool and because of the construction it normally reuqires a runoff control permit. Because is a swimmin pool and the pool itsel facts as a detention basin, we are requesting a waiver of the provisions of that ordinance, so don't have to require a runoff control permit. Higgins. Its not a waiver of the ordinance. I wrote a memo because in the past we haven't considered swimming pools to meet the 100 foot setback. It has been erraticaly applied, and lately there have been some inquiries, so I wrote a memo to say that this particular person's pool is not subject to the ordinance at all. They are not a variance, or a waiver, saying it i accepted, and it will be part of the policy. In the past they have gotten through. If someone comes in with a closed in swimming pool, that is a whole different issue. I just wanted this one to be the memo we put with the ordinance to say that swimming pools do not have to be considered; it is water retention and it actually safeguards the quality. It catches rain water and that area it takes up, there is no runoff, it actually collects water, and the purpose of the buffer is so rain water goes through vegetation before it gets into the stream or an impoundment. Bowerman: Does anybody object to that? It seems to be consistent with our policy.