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.