HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-01 FINAL
9:00 A.M.
OCTOBER 1, 1997
MEETING ROOM 241, COUNTY OFFICE BU1LDING
4,
5,
6)
8)
9)
11,
12,
I3)
14)
I5
16~
I7,
18,
19)
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
Approval of Minutes: September 6 and November I, 1995; Mardr 12 and March 19 (N) and
May 2I, 1997.
Transportation Matters:
Other Transportation Matters.
Discussion: 1997-99 Work Plan for County Devdopment Departments.
10:00 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the service area boundaries of Albm
County Service Authority for limited sewer service to existing warehouse structures on
TM59, P23B1 for W. J. Kirtley, Jr. Property is located on Route 250 West in the Ivy
(Deferred from September 3, 1997.)
Annual Presentation by Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President, Piedmont Virgi~fia Community Coil
I 1:00 A.M. - APPEAL: SUB-97-044. Rivancrest Preliminary Plat. Proposal for subdivision (
26.42 acs in RA near Rivanna Keservoir in the Earlysville area. Subdivision to be serv
private rd w/access from Woodlands Rd (Rt 676). TM45,P5. Located on S sd of We
Rd (Rt 676) across Tuckahoe Farm Lane & Rivanwood Dr (Rt 1050). (Property not ]
designated growth area.) Jack Jouett Dist.
Discussion and Approval of 1998 Draft Legislative Program for the Thomas Jefferson Plannin
Discussion: Request for Career Firefighter/EmergencT Medical Technicians (EMTs).
Work Session: 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Executive Session: Legal Matters.
Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
Adjourn.
area.
~ge.
,f 5 16ts on
,~dby
odlands
}cared in a
District.
CONSENT AGEN])A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Appropriation:
6.2 Appropriation:
6.3 Appropriation:
6.4 Appropriation:
6.5 Appropriation:
6.6 Appropriation:
6.7 Appropriation:
6.8 Appropriation:
Thomas Jefferson Health Department; $80,000 (Form #96084).
Commtmity Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $62,715 (Form #97018).
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant, $51,346.69 (Form #97019).
Law Enforcement Block Grant, $18,000 (Form #97020).
Route 29 North Traffic Enforcement Grant, $I,340.82 (Form #9702 I).
County-wide Traffic Enforcement Grant, $4,285.01 (Form #97022).
Community Ctime Prevention Grant, $20,295 (Form #97023).
Community Policing Grant 98A9687, $3,440 (Form #97024).
6.9
Agreement and Resolution establishing Commission on Children and Families for Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville.
6.10 Park and Ride Agreements with Paran United Methodist Church, Peace Lutheran Chttrch and Maple
Grove Christian Church.
6.11 Resolution to Amend §P-61/62 Relating to Work Periods for Firefighters of the County of Albemarle
Personnel Policy.
6.12 Road Name Change Requests.
6.13 Set public hearing for November 5, 1997, to grant two Virginia Power Utility Easements for Monticello
High School.
6.14 Set public hearing for November 12, 1997, on a request from VDOT to restrict through trud<s on Rio
Road from Hillsdale Road to the Charlottesville City limits.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.15
Letter dated September 22, 1997, from Angela G. Tucker, Resident Engineer, Department of
Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: transportation ,matters discussed at the August 6 and
September 3 Board meetings.
6.16
Letter dated Septembe~ 17, 1997, from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department of
Transportation, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, notice of approval by the Commonwealth Transportation
Board of allocations for the Revenue Sharing Program for FY I997-98.
6.17 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly BOnd and Program Report for the months of
July and August, 1997.
6.18
Letter dated September 15, 1997, from Jay Roberts, Environmental Engineer, Department of
Environmental Quality, re: Notice of Receipt of a VWPP Application, City of Charlottesville~
Department of Public Works, Moores Cree& Chamxel Modification - (JPA-97-1454).
6.19 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional lail Authority of June 30 (spedal meeting),
July 10 and August 14, 1997.
6.20 Copy of minutes of the Riva~ma Watex & Sewer Authority 0f August 25, 1997.
6.21 Copy of FY 1997/98 Capital Improvement Projects Report for the Department of Engineering
and Public Works.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, CMC. Clerk ~O ~'
October 6. 1997
Board Actions of October 1, 1997
At its meeting on October 1. 1997. the Board of Supervisors took the following actions:
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a..m., by
the Chairman. (All Board members were present.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation.
Mrs. Humphtis presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. Robert A. Musselman for
his more than 50 years of service as an Officer of Elections.
Item 6.1 Appropriation: Thomas Jefferson Health Department, $80,000 (Form
#96084). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.2. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant,
$62.715 (Form #97018). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.3. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant,
$51.346.69 (Form #97019). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.4. Appropriation: Law Enforcement Block Grant, $18,000 (Form #97020).
APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 2
Item 6.5. Appropriation: Route 29 North Traffic Enforcement Grant, $1,340.82 (Form
#97021). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.6. Appropriation: County-wide Traffic Enforcement Grant, $4,285.01 (Form
#97022). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.7. Appropriation: Community Crime Prevention Grant, $20,295 (Form
#97023). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.8. Appropriation: Community Policing Grant 98A9687, $3,440 (Form
#97024). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Item 6.9. Agreement and Resolution establishing Commission on Children and
Families for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
AUTHORIZED the Chairman to execute the Agreement which has been forwarded to
the City for signature and ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
APPROVED appointment of the following persons to the Commission:
Dr. Kevin Castner; Dr. William Symons, Kathy Ralston, Bmx Cox, Jim Peterson, Martha
Carroll and Dr. Susan McLeod. Also AUTHORIZED advertisement of additional citizen
appointees.
Item 6.10. Park and Ride Agreements with Paran United Methodist Church, Peace
Lutheran Church and Maple Grove Christian Church. AUTHORIZED the County Executive to
execute the attached Agreements.
Item 6.11. Resolution to Amend §P-61/62 Relating to Work Periods for Firefighters of
the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy. ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Item 6.12. Road Name Change Requests. APPROVED as follows:
Changed the name of Stonehedge Farm Road to Liberty Comer Road. The property
owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Changed the name of Safari Camp Drive to Misty Mountain Road. The property owner
will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Memo To: Rober~ W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cdimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 3
Changed the name of Turner Wood Road to Turner Mountain Wood Road. The
property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Changed the name of Faullmer Drive to Faulkner Way. The property owner will be
responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Item 6.13. Set public hearing for November 5, 1997, to grant two Virginia Power
Utility Easements for Monticello High School
Public Hearing set for November 5~ 1997.
Item 6.14. Set public hearing for November 12, 1997, on a request from VDOT to
restrict through trucks on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the Charlottesville City limits.
Public Hearing set for November 12, 1997.
Item 6.18. Letter dated September 15, 1997, from Mr. Jay Roberts, Environmental
Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, re: Notice of Receipt of a VWPP Application,
City of Charlottesville, Department of Public Works, Moores Creek Charmel Modification -
(JPA-97-1454), was received for information.
Mrs. Thomas commented on the amount of silt in Moores Creel(. Mr. Tucker suggested
someone from Soil & Erosion look into the situation.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes.
Mrs. Humphris said the minutes of September 6, 1995, include a lengthy discussion on
the restoration of Sugar Hollow Road. At the end of the discussion, the Board passed a motion
that a meeting take place between certain parties whereby they would develop a plan which
outlined how VDOT would deal with future emergencies, such as this in the County. This
would attempt to prevent VDOT from doing certain work to a road not supported by the
County. She was not aware that had ever been done.
Mrs. Tucker mentioned legislation introduced by Senator Couric that required holding
a public hearing before begirming maintenance work under emergency conditions. Mrs. Tucker
said a lot of the controversy at Sugar Hollow evolved around VDOT's ordinary emergency
operations; the fact that they were not working sensitively within the scenic tiver boundaries,
even beyond the actual paving of the road. VDOT has policies and procedures on how to
restore a road under emergency conditions which would come into play before the state
legislation would come into effect. She suggested outlining, for the Board's information, these
policies and procedures on what VDOT is required to do in order to get a road reopened
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, I997
Page: 4
Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters.
Regarding Item 6.16, Mrs. Humphris asked why the description for the work states to
"widen road" for Route 654 since that is not what they want to do. Mrs. Tucker explained that
there is no actual widening of the road planned, but VDOT did not want to prevent looldng at
the potential to add turn lanes, widen and pave existing shoulders, and adding bike lanes and
sidewalk.
Mrs. Humphris said Georgetown Road is a mess; it has patches on top of patches along
the surface. Mrs. Tucker said she will find out when it is due for a fttll overlay. There have
been a lot of improvements.
Mrs. Tucker said the Hydraulic Road project is nearing completion. VDOT is fine
tuning the signals and doing some cleanup. They will be advertising the improvement of Rio
Road from the Rock Store around to Berkmar Drive in February, 1998. There will be a bit of a
lapse during the winter, but then VDoT will be back in the same area in the spring to construct
Rio Road.
Mr. Bowerman said there was a fence in front of the trailer park, which is located
behind the Rock Store on the west side. When the road improvements began, the fence was
taken down. A condition of approval of the site plan requires the installation of an opaque
screening fence. Without the fence it is an intrusion on the people who live there. It is also
unsightly from the highway. He has received a lot of calls from motorists. It is his
tmderstanding the fence will be down for another year, and he asked if something can be done
temporarily. Mrs. Tucker said she will check into temporary private fencing.
Mr. Perldns asked for a status report on the bridges at Sugar Hollow. Mrs. Tufter said
the bridges are schedtded to be advertised for construction in the next two months. She will
provide the Board with firmer details on the actual advertisement date. VDOT has completed
the design, held the public hearing and acquired the necessary right-of-way.
Mr. Perldns said the intersection of Route 240/Route 250 at the Mechums River Bridge
is becoming more hazardous citing another accident this morning. He thinks that either a
permanent light or a caution light should be installed. It is also difficult for motorists coining
out of Browns Gap Road to get onto Route 240 or Route 250.
Mrs. Tucker said she will have the area reviewed for a caution light. VDOT will look at
the accident history, traffic volumes and layout of the intersection.
Mr. Martin mentioned the foot traffic from Wilton Farms on Route 20 to Route 250.
There is no lighting and at night motorists cannot see people walldng along the edge of the
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 5
road. He believes it is a dangerous situation. He thinks it is incumbent upon the Board to
work with VDOT to address the issue. He thinks that until sidewalks are installed, there needs
to be some lighting.
Mrs. Tucker said this request could be made as a spot improvement, i.e., sidewalk and
street lighting, at the Spring Preallocation Heating since this is along a primary road. It could
be a VDOT project, done under permit to the Department by either a developer or the County,
or a combination of both.
Mr. Tucker suggested staff meet with VDOT to see what can be done and to see what
projects can be shifted around.
Mr. Martin said recently he has received a lot of complaints from people about the type
gravel being nsed. They are saying it is very dusty. Mrs. Tucker said it sounds like they are
getting a lower quality of crushed stone. VDOT has also received some complaints. VDOT can
attempt to address some of the dust issues with dust control measures.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the paved portions of several roads near the landfill (Dick
Woods Road, Miller School Road, Gilliums R~dge Road and Broad Axe Road). She believes the
roads are being impacted by large trudcs. She said anything that can be done as far as
maintenance and cutting down on the washboarding would be appreciated.
Mrs. Thomas said she had a constituent express concern about the speed limit on
Owensville Road, near its intersection with Route 250. There are some places on Owensvllle
Road where VDOT has posted a lower advisory speed limit. She asked if this could be done on
other portions of the road, if not made the official speed limit. There are a number of
subdivisions and old driveways that enter the road.
Mrs. Thomas said some of the residents of West Leigh are concerned about who owns
the road and who is responsible for maintenance after the road is improved. Mrs. Tucker said
the next step is to bring the road into the State system. VDOT is doing the paperwork.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that someone had removed the graffiti from underneath the
btidge at the Bellair Restaurant. She said if graffiti is a problem, there may need to be some
way to deal with it. Mr. Tucker did not think the County had that big of a problem with
graffiti. He suggested looldng the issue, but did not want to give too much attention to it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary to retain "no right turn on red?' at the
intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North. There is a lot of backed up traffic which he
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 6
believes is creating some of the cut through traffic in the neighborhoods. Mrs. Tucker said
after all the signals in that corridor have been coordinated, the sign could be remOVed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT has a policy in place on traffic calming when 75 percent
of signatures have been collected. He has five neighborhoods in his district that want to do
something. He asked if the Board could be brought up-to-date on the Policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said the policy is still in draft form. Staff has forwarded its comments
on the policy to VDOT. Staff had planned to provide the Board with a copy of its comments
on the policy for discussion at the November 5th Board meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said if citizens want the policy, then it needs to get it implemented. He
would like to see it pursued.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT has a policy on jake brakes on trucks on primary roads
in the urban areas. The noise from these trucks, when they hit their brakes, is unbelievable.
He asked if there is some kind of signage that could be installed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mrs. Tucker had been approached by the owners of'Crensha~v
Mobile HOme Park regarding access to Towmvood Road. Mrs. Tucker responded, "no".
Mrs. Tucker said Route 610 will be fix~ished, from a construction status standpoint,
within the next two weeks.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: 1997-99 Work Plan for County Development
Departments.
The Board requested staff look at whether VDOT should manage the EIS for Phase II of
the Meadow Creek Parkway. If the County does it, and VDOT does not like the procedure,
VDOT may not support it.
Agenda Item No. 10. 10:00 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the
service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer service to
existing warehouse structures only on TM59, P23B1 for W. J. Kirtley, Jr. Property is located
on Route 250 West in the Ivy area. (Deferred from September 3, 1997.)
DEFERRED this request until such time as the applicant can provide further
information on the potential drain field proposed for the ICdrtley Distributing Building as set
out in a document from Mr. Steve Gooch of Earth Tech, Inc. The applicant is to ascertain
whether the conditions that appear to be favorable for the 67 foot lines with a good percolation
:'i " I i;i,l:[i] I? rr II II HIq[~liflll/ II~[,~l!l!l[[l[ll :' : - - '
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 7
rate actually exists. (Note: This item will be rescheduled for an agenda when the information
becomes available. )
At 11:27 a.m., the Board recessed. The Board reconvened at 11:44 a.m.
Agenda Item No. I 1. Annual Presentation by Dr. Deborah DiCroce, President,
Piedmont Virginia Community College.
Rescheduled for the November 5th Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 12. 11:00 A.M. - APPEAL: SUB-97-044. Rivancrest Preliminary Plat.
Proposal for subdivision of 5 lots on 26.42 acs in RA near Rivanna Reservoir in the Earlysville
area. Snbdivision to be served by private rd w/access from Woodlands Rd (Rt 676).
TM45,PS. Located on S sd of Woodlands Rd (Rt 676) across Tuckahoe Farm Lane &
Rivanwood Dr (Rt 1050). (Property not located in a designated growth area.) Jack Jouett Dist.
DENIED the appeal based on the actions of the Planning Commission, as set out in the
attached letter, dated September 18; 1997; to Mr. Roger Ray, Roger W. Ray and Associates,
Inc., from Elaine K. Echols, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community
Development.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion and Approval of 1998 Draft Legislative Program for
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
Regarding Universal Service and Constrmer Access, Mrs. Thomas asked Bonnie
Fronfelter to review the wording with the Cellular Task Force or the Planning Department,
because the Board might oppose this position. One of the issues is how much service is
"adequate service". When a cellular tower request comes before the Board, and it is degrading
the environment, scenic beauty, etc., the Board wants to be able to deny that request. The
Board does not want the State to define "adequate service" as being "e. xcellent service" no
matter where an individual lives.
Requested that juvenile detention facilities be added to the public safety section.
APPROVED the draft legislative program, with the understanding that any changes
would be incorporated into the final document.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 8
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Request for Career Firefighter/Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMTs).
APPROVED funding the additional personnel in the cttrrent year using carry-over funds
and. Staff to further research the Service District concept as a potential funding source for the
full year costs in the next fiscal year; after a more comprehensive analysis is available.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: 800 MHZ Public Safety Radio System.
AUTHORIZED the 911 Management Board to move forward with th~ Process to
develop an RFP for the system, and associated financing, so that a better cost analysis, as well
as engineering studies on the design of the system, can be completed.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the attached Rivanna Service and
Contribution Agreement.
Mr. Tudcer explained that this is an agreement with BFI for waste handling from
Rivanna that will not go into effect until July, 1998. It is a ten year agreement with two, five
year renewals.
Mr. Tucker suggested scheduling a joint meeting with the School Board to hear the
budget presentation on long range fiscal planning and the appointment of the Director of
Human Resources Director. He suggested the afternoon of October 15, at 4:30 p.m.
The Board suggested the dates of November 5th or November 12th to meet with the
School Board to discuss revenue projections.
The Board agreed to meet with the School Board and our Legislators to discuss
legislative issues on November 19th or November 24th. (Mr. Bowerman will not be here on
the 24th.)
Mrs. Httmphris asked that when the invitation is sent to the Legislators, it include the
Board's desire to lmow what legislation they are planning.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the Planning District Commission's 25th Anniversary
celebration which will be held on the Charlottesville Downtown Mall Amphitheater on
October 12, 1997.
Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Date: October 6, 1997
Page: 9
Mr. Bowerman said he received a call from an individual expressing concern that the
County was harboring nondomestic animals. Specifically, one of the pet stores has a cougar in
the front window. This individual has some safety concerns. He asked staff to look into the
issue.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 12:59 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, to move that the Board go into
Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7)
to discuss specific specific legal matters relating to interjurisdictional agreements and to
consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation and reversion and under
Subsection (1) to discuss Boad appointments. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 18. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
At 2:28 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board Certify by a
recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or
considered in the executive session. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 19. AdjoUrn; The meeting was adjourned at 3:59 p.m.
Attachments ( )
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Kevin C. Castner
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Richard Wood
lan Sprinkle
Yadira Amarante
File
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is committed to improving services m
children, youth and families in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County have a vested interest in strengthening families and
developing positive attributes in their children and youth; and
WlcW~REAS, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission was estabhshed in
1990 to serve as a comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and youth
serwces for the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, the Community Policy and Management Team was established in 1993 m serve the
needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families for the City and the County and to maximize
the use of state and community resources; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville
City Council are recommending that the County join with the City to form a comprehensive
planning, coordinating and evaluating body for children and family serwces composed of citizens
and human service directors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED:
That the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be authorized to execute an agreement with the
City of Charlottesville to establish a Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission")
whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community -wide
system of all children and family agencies and programs. Such agreement shall contain
substantially the same terms as the attached draft agreement.
That the membership of the Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of
the members shall be citizen representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by
the City and one jointly appointed service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one
appointee from each jurisdiction must be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members will
be public agency administrators or their designees: two School Superintendents, two Depamnem
of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court Director, one Health Depamnem Director, and
one Community Service Board Director. One member will represent the University of Virginia.
tn addition to the fifteen members, three ex-Officio members will represent the County
Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way on the Commission.
3. That upon the execution of an agreement by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
establishing the Commission. the current Children and Youth Commission shall be dissolved.
4. That the County agrees to adhere m the responsibilities of the Community Policy and
Management Team set forth in Virginia Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 and those of the
Virginia Delinquency Prevenflon and Youth Development Act Grant programs set forth in
Virginia Code Chapter Title 66, Chapter 3, Section 66-31 of the Code of Virginia.
5. That the Commission on Children and Families shall advise the County Executive and the City
Manager in the administration of children and family human service programs;
6. That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors intends to provide an annual contribution as
mutually agreed upon by the County and the City for the operation of the Commission.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a Wac, correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the Board of Supervisors at a regular meeting held on October I, 1997.
Clerk, Board of County ~dsors
2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council agree to join together to form
the Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan,
coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal
of the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use
of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing so, we agree
to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
The Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of the members shall be citizen
representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee from eachjurisdiction must
be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their
designees: two School Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court
Services Director, one Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One
member will represent the University of Vir~nia. In addition to the seventeen members, three ex-Officio
members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way
on the Commission.
b)
Citizen members of the Commission shall be appointed for a three-year term and may be subject to
reappomunent; the private service provider shall be appointed to a two -year term and will not be subject
to reappointment; initial appointments may be staggered for continuity;
c) The Commission shall elect its own officers and establish its o,~xt by-laws.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that the
Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in the Virgima
Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 et seq.;
b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within the
Charlottesville/Alberaarle community;
c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City :f '
and County governing bodies within the
budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
d) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of children and families
are being met effectively and efficiently;
3)
4)
e) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to pmgrarn development for children and families:
f) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs:
g) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the dh:ector of Commission staff;
h) Provide structured oppommities for community input and participation on the needs of families, e.g.
public hearings, workshops, focus groups and work teams.
i) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure that the County and City
are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the Commission.
With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staffwill be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City and the County with
assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staffwill be employees of the City of Charlottesville subject to all personnel policies and entitled to all
its benefits;
With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISION, the City and the County intend to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the Commission;
b) Provide the local match required by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act
Grant Programs and adhere m the minimum standards set our in the Virginia Code Chapter , Section
subject to annual appropriation;
c) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for children and family projecrs
from other sources, including public and private grams, local service groups and the business communky;
d) PooI all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the operations of the Commission.
Each jurisdiction will continue to provide the required matching funds for CSA services according to the
stare formula subject to annual appropriation;
e) The City of Charlottesville will provide fiscal and Iegal services to the Commission for an adm'misrrarive
fee equal to 2% of the Commission's operating budget.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
MAYOR
Appro ea as to form
City Attorney
Approved as to form
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-61
§P-62
§P-61/62
OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY
A). Responsibility
The authorization and control of ail overtime work is the responsibility of the department head.
Overtimeshall be permitted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads shall
assure that adequate funds are available for payment for overtime work and be responsible for the
scheduling of compensatory time. Department heads may require that employees work additional
time or overtime to meet the needs of the department. Whenever possible, notice of this
requirementwill be provided in advance so that the employees can arrange their personal schedules
B). Eliqibility
Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those employees in bona fide professional,
administrativeor executive positions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, alias defined
by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The County Executive will approve a list indicating positions
determined to be exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be maintained
in the Human Resources Department and the status of individual positions shall be indicated in the
personnel files.
C). Comoutation of Overtime Pay
Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half times the employee's hourly rate of pay
for each hour of overtime worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing the
employee's annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. by the required number of
hours per year that an employee in that position would be regularly required to work.
D), Reportinq of Overtime
Additional hours shall be recorded, in writing, on the day that it is worked. Such records shall be
maintained by the employee's supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the end of the work
period.
E). Computation of Overtime Hours
1. Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational necessity, a non-exempt employee works
in excess of the maximum number of allowable hours in the work period.
2. The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County employees are as follows:
Category of Personnel Work Period (Consecutive Days) Maximum Allowable Hours
Law Enforcement 28 171
Fire Protection 28 212
All Other 7 40
Amended: August 4, 1993; August 3,1994; September 1997
The County Executive has established the official work period as extending from Saturday at
12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 midnight. The beginning and ending time for the 28 day work period
F).
for employees eligible for a 28 day work period uhder section 207(k) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act shall be determined by the Chief of Police for law enforcement officers and by
the Fire and Rescue Division Chief for fire protection employees. Changes to the established
work period may be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the department
provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to the employees and a copy is on file
in the Human Resources Department.
Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is absent from the service of the County
shall not be counted as hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of
hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not limited to, sick, annual,
compensatory, civil, personaland militaryleave, holidays, leaves of absence, lunch periods and
inclement weather days.
When non-exempt employees work during the scheduled lunch period, such time shall be
considered as hours worked. Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall
be documented on forms designated for that purpose.
When non-exempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur
outside of the County and which require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as
well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be considered hours worked.
Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms
designated for that purpose.
Department heads shall manage their employees' hours worked whenever possible within the
official seven day work period or, for law enforcement or fire protection purposes, the 28 day
work period, to avoid the accrual of overUme. For example, if an employee works more than
eight hours in one day, the number of additional hours worked that day may be given off during
another day in that work period so that the maximum number of hours (40) for that work
period is not exceeded. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such additional hours
worked should be offset with scheduled time off during the 28 day work period to avoid the
maximum number of hours (171 or 212) after which time and one-half compensation is
required.
Comeensatorv Leave or Compensatory Time
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, but who
do not exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, may be
granted compensatoryleave in the amount of one hour of leave for each hour worked or may
be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of compensatory leave for hours worked.
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, and the
hours exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, shall be given
the choice of overtime pay or compensatory leave in the amount of one and one-half hours of
leave for each hour worked during the work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours.
This choice shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the overtime.
Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual overtime shall only be compensated
monetarily. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other than
a sworn law enforcement employee, at the request of an outside entity and for which the
County is reimbursed by the outside entity the wages of the employee.
3. No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically approved by the department head in
advance of it being taken.
Compensatorytime shall be used within one year of its accrual or the employee shall be paid
for it. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it is
used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are available for payment of
compensatory time in lieu of compensatory leave.
2
Employees in sworn law enforcement positions and fire ~rotection positions eligible for a 28 day
work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act may accrue up to 480 hours
of compensatorytime. All other employees may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatorytime.
Employees shall be paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed for
accrual.
Non-exempt employees who are transferring to another department or who are promoted from
a non-exempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an
agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory teave or to be
paid for the unused compensatorytime balance. The employee's compensatory time balance
must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position.
Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time.
Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee's current
regular hourly rate.
Exempt employees shall not accrue compensatory time nor will they earn additional
compensation for hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week.
This does not, however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and granting
time off to exempt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules.
SECT/ONS G THROUGH .1 AI~E UNCHANGED
3
anlei J. Veiiky
P. O. Box 6711
Charlottesville, VA 22906-6711
(804) 973-2909
V. Wayne Cilimberg
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Sept. 24, 1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Pursuant to section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance, am
appealing the Albemarle County Planning Commissions denial of my preliminary plat to
the Board of Supervisors for the following reasons.
By our submittal of a profile showing cut and fill areas and typical sections for a public
vs. private road and comparison of these areas, we have demonstrated that there
would be a significant degradation to the-environment by the construction of a public
road in the amount of 35%. The county engineering department has concurred with
this assessment. The public/private road allignment is fixed at the entrance on State
Route 676 by the most westerly location that will meet VDOT sight distance
requirements. An internal re-alignment of the road in an easterly direction would place
the road closer to the reservoir, into steeper terrain, and entirely in a wooded area.
The above information was presented at the planning commission meeting. An internal
re-alignment of the road in a westerly direction would place the road in steeper terrain,
thus causing a greater amount of earth moving.
Section 18-22 (a)(part) pertains te final engineering design and calculations that are
not available at the preliminary plat stage of a development. This design and
calculations would require an unreasonable time delay and cost for a preliminary plat
approval. We are well aware that these concerns need to be addressed in our final
design and we will do So at that time.
We have cooperated with the staff and have submitted all information that was ask for
in their review of this plan. We are confident that we. have met the standard of design
for a preliminary plat as outlined in your ordinances and respectfully request your
approval of this plat.
copy: Roger W. Ray
Richard A. Carter ~¢,
?~ectfull~/A /
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Communi~ Dev¢lopmen~
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
September 18, 1997
Mr. Roger Ray, L.S.
Roger W. Ray and Associates, Inc.
1717-2B Allied Street
Charlottesville, VA 2290
Re: SUB 97-044 - Rivancrest Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Ray:
The development proposal referenced above was denied by the Planning Commission at its
meeting of September 16. 1997 based on its determination that the preliminary plat did not
satisfy the requirements of Sections 18-22(a) and 18-36 (b) (1) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Specifically, the Commission denied your request that the subdivision be served by a private
road pursuant to section 18~36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission determined
that you failed to' demonstrate to its reasonable satisfaction that the approval of the private road
"will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the
site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads in the
same alignments." (Subdivision Ordinance § 18-36(b)(l)(a)(part)) The Commission also
determined that you failed to demonstrate to its reasonable satisfaction that "[n]o alternative
public road alignment available to the subdivider.., would alleviate significant degradation of
the environment". (Subdivision Ordinance § 18-36(b)(l)(b)) In order to satisfy the criteria stated
in Subdivision Ordinance §§ 18-36(b)(1)(a) and (b), you need to demonstrate if there are
alternative private road alignments which would result in less environmental degradation than the
private road proposed.
The Commission also denied the preliminary plat because it failed to include provisions "for the
disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage
facilities as the commission, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, may deem
adequate." (Subdivision Ordinance § 18-22(a)(part)) Finally, the Commission determined that
the preliminary plat failed to make provisions "for the minimization of pollution of all
downstream water courses due to surface water runoff." (Subdivision Ordinance §
18-22(a)(part))
Page 2
September 18, 1997
Because of the proximity of the proposed subdivision to the Rivanna Reservoir, the Commission
concluded that you need to provide more information about the subdivision's design as it relates
to erosion and sediment control, stormwater managemem, and environmental protection than was
provided to assure that the erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans are
adequate.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by filing a written request with the
Director of Planning and Community Development within ten calendar days of Septemer 16,
1997. (Subdivision Ordinance Section 18-4)
Alternatively, the decision may he appealed to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
within sixty calendar days of this notice of disapproval. {Code of Virginia Section 15.1-475 (c)
(5)}
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
EKE/jcf
cc: Daniel Veliky
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey'
STAFF PERSON: ELAINE ECHOLS, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION: SEPTEMBER 16. 1997
(SUB97-044): RIVANCREST PRELIMINARY PLAT
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 5 lots on 26.42 acres in the
Rural Areas near the Rivanna Reservoir in the Earlysville area. The subdivision would
be served by a private road with access from Woodlands Road ~ Route 676).
Reason for Planning Commission Review: The use of private access requires Planning
Commission review and approval. ~/full review of the plat has been requested by two
adjacent property owners who are concerned with the location ora building site between
their two respective properties. ~See Attachment D.)
Location: The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 5, is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District. on the south side of Woodlands Road (Route 676), across Tuckahoe
Farm Lane and Rivanwood Drive (Route 1050). This property is in the Rural Areas
zoning district and is not in a designated growth area. It is located adjacent to a large
parcel which is part of the Ivy Creek Ag/Foresta~ District. No adverse impacts are
anticipated on that district as a result of this subdivision.
The property is heavily forested and has two houses on it which will be removed as a
result of the subdivision. The property has steep slopes, a stream, floodplain, and is
located in the South Fork Rivmma Reservoir watershed area.
STAFF COMMENT:
The preliminary plat meets all requirements of the subdivision ordinance and zoning
ordinance fo? development as shown. Private roads are proposed and supported by the
Engineering Department. Water provision and sewage disposal are proposed on site and
require the standard Health Department approval. All building sites are shown to be
outside of the floodplain, off of steep slopes and appropriately set back from the
watershed protection area.
Design Issues - Staffraised concern with the developer over the layout of Lots 1 and 5.
Lot 1 has 9.86 acres and the most developable property on the site. From the topography
shown, there are at least two building sites in that area, and possibly more. Rather than
using the most developable land for the division, however, the subdivider has chosen to
place a building site on Lot 5 in a place which requires an extended culvert for the private
road over the stream or a separate stream crossing to provide access from the private road
to the building site.
3_
Dasd P. Bow~rm~n
COUNTY OF ALBEMAR!_R
Offic~ of Board of Supervi~om
401 Mclniire Road
Charlottesville, Vh~jinia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chmdes S. Marlin
Walter E Perkins
White Ha~
Sa~y H, Thomas
October 6, 1997
Mrs. Angela G. Tucker
Resident Engineer
701 VDoT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dear Mrs. Tucker:
At its meeting on October 1, 1997. the Board of Supervisors made the following corrm~enrs
regarding transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 6.12. Road Name Change Requests. APPROVED as follows:
Changed the name of Stonehedge Farm Road to Liberty Comer Road. The property
owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Changed the name of Safari Camp Drive to Misty Mountain Road. The property owner
will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Changed the name of Turner Wood Road to Turner Mountain Wood Road. The
property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Changed the name of Faullmer Drive to Faullmer Way. The property owner will be
responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Item 6.14. Set public hearing for November 12, 1997. on a request from VDOT to
restrict through trucks on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the Charlottesville City limits.
Public Hearing set for November 12. 1997.
Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes.
Mrs. Humphtis said the minutes of September 6. 1995, include a lengthy discussion on
the restoration of Sugar Hollow Road. At the end of the discussion, the Board passed a motion
that a meeting take place between certain parties whereby they would develop a plan which
outlined how VDOT would deal with future emergencies, such as this in the County. This
would attempt to prevent VDOT from doing certain work ro a road not supported by the
County. She was not aware that had ever been done.
Printed on recycled paper
Angela Tucker
October 6- 1997
Page 2
You mentioned legislation introduced by Senator Couric that required holding a public
hearing before begmuing maintenance work under emergency conditions. You said a lot of the
controversy at Sugar Hollow evolved around VDOT's ordinary emergency operations: the fact
that they were not working sensitively within the scenic river boundaries, even beyond the
actual paving of the road. VDOT has policies and procedures on how to restore a road under
emergency conditions which would come into play before the state legislation would come into
effect. You suggested outlining, for the Board's information, these policies and procednres on
what VDOT is required to do in order to get a road reopened
Agenda Item No. 8a. Other Transportation Matters.
Regarding Item 6.16, Mrs. Humphris asked why the description for the work states to
"widen road" for Route 654 since that is not what they want to do. You explained that there is
no actual widening of the road planned, but VDOT did not want to prevent looking at
the potential to add tuna lanes, widen and pave existing shoulders, and adding bike lanes and
sidewalk.
Mrs. Humphris said Georgetown Road is a mess: it has patches on top of patches along
the surface. You said you would find out when it is due for a full overlay. There have been a
lot of impruvements.
You said the Hydraulic Road project is nearing completion. VDOT is fine tuning the
signals and doing some cleanup. They will be advertising the improvement of Rio Road from
the Rock Store around to Berkmar Drive in February, 1998. There will be a bit of a lapse
during the winter, but then VDoT will be back in the same area in the spring to construct Rio
Road.
Mr. Bowerman said there was a fence in front of the trailer park, which is located
behind the Rock Store on the west side. When the road improvements began, the fence was
taken down. A condition of approval of the site plan reqdires the installation of an opaque
screening fence. Without the fence it is an intrusion on the people who live there. It is also
unsightly from the highway. He has received a lot of calls from motorists. It is his
understanding the fence will be down for another year. and he asked if something can be done
temporarily. You said you would chedi into temporary private fencing.
Mr. Perkins asked for a status report on the bridges at Sugar Hollo~v. You responded
that the bridges are scheduled to be advertised for construction in the next two months. You
will provide the Board -Mth firmer details on the actual advertisement date. VDOT has
completed the design, held the public hearing and acquired the necessary right-of-way.
Mr. Perkins said the intersection of Route 240/Route 250 at the Mechums River Bridge
is becoming more hazardous citing another accident this morning. He thinks that either a
permanent light or a caution light should be installed. It is also difficult for motorists coming
ont of Browns Gap Road to get onto Route 240 or Route 250.
Angela Tucker
October 6. 1997
Page 3
You said you would have the area reviewed for a caution light. VDOT will look at the
accident history, traffic volumes and layout of the intersection.
Mr. Martin mentioned the foot traffic from Wilton Farms on Route 20 to Route 250,
There is no lighting and at night motorists cannot see people walldng along the edge of the
road. He believes it is a dangerous situation. He thinks it is incumbent upon the Board to
work with VDOT to address the issue. He thinks that until sidewalks are installed, there needs
to be some lighting.
You said this request could be made as a spot improvement, i.e., sidewalk and street
lighting, at the Spring Preallocation Hearing since this is along a primary road. It could be a
VDOT project, done under permit to the Department by either a developer or the County. or a
combination of both.
Mr. Tucker suggested staff meet with VDOT to see what can be done and to see what
projects can be shifted around.
Mr. Martin said recently he has received a lot of complaints from people about the type
gravel being used. They are saying it is very dusty. You said it sounds like they are getting a
lower quality of crushed stone. VDOT has also received some complaints. VDOT can attempt
to address some of the dust issues with dust control measures.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned the paved portions of several roads near the landfill (Dick
Woods Road. Miller School Road, Gilliums Ridge Road and Broad Axe Road). She believes the
roads are being impacted by large trucks. She said anything that can be done as far as
maintenance and cutting down on the washboarding would be appreciated.
Mrs. Thomas said she had a constituent express concern about the speed limit on
Owensville Road, near its intersection with Route 250, There are some places on Owensville
Road where VDOT has posted a lower advisory speed limit. She asked if this could be done on
other portions of the road, if not made the official speed limit, There are a number of
subdivisions and old driveways that enter the road.
Mrs. Thomas said some of the residents of West Leigh are concerned about who owns
the road and who is responsible for maintenance after the road is improved. You said the next
step is to bring the road into the State system. VDOT is doing the paperwork.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that someone had removed the graffiti from underneath the
bridge at the Bdlair Restaurant. She said if graffiti is a problem, there may need to be some
way to deal with it. Mr. Tucker did not think the County had that big of a problem with
graffiti. He suggested looking the issue, but did not want to give too much attention to it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was necessary to retain "no right turn on red" at the
intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North. There is a lot of backed up traffic which he
Angela Tucker
October 6. I997
Page 4
believes is creating some of the cut through traffic in the neighborhoods. You said after all the
signais in that corridor have been coordinated, the sign could be removed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT has a policy in place on traffic calming when 75 percent
of signatures have been collected. He has five neighborhoods in his district that want to do
something. He asked if the Board could be brought up-to-date on the policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said the policy is still in draft form. Staff has forwarded its comments
on the policy to VDOT. Staff had planned to provide the Board with a copy of its comments
on the policy for discussion at the November 5th Board meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said if citizens want the policy, then it needs to get it implemented. He
would like to see it pursued.
Mr. Bowerman asked if VDOT has a policy on jake brakes on trucks on primary roads
in the urban areas. The noise from these trucks, when they hit their brakes, is unbdievable.
He asked if there is some kind of signage that could be installed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if you had been approached by the owners of Crenshaw Mobile
Home Park regarding access to Townwood Road. You responde& "no".
You reported that Route 610 will be finished, from a construction status standpoint,
within the next two weeks.
ZWC
cc: Robert W. Tucker_ Jr.
Sincerely,
k~.kCarey, cMc. ~;~k~ ;f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Melvin A. Breeden. Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC ~,9~-
October 7. 1997
Board Actions of October i- 1997
At its meeting on October i. 1997. the Board of Superdsors took the follo*ving actions:
Item 6.1, Appropriation: Thomas Jefferson Health Department, $80.000 'Form #96084L
APPROVED.
Item 6.2. Appropriation: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant.. $62,715
Form #97018 APPROVED.
Item 6.3. Appropriation: Community Oriented Polidng Services (COPS, Grant, 851,346.69
Form #97019 APPROVED.
Item 6.4. Appropriation: Law Enforcement Block Grant. $18.000 Form #97020,.
APPROVED,
Item 6.5. Appropriation: Route 29 North Traffic Enforcement Grant, $1,340.82 Form
#97021,. APPROVED.
Item 6.6. Appropriation: County-wide Traffic Enforcement Grant, $4.285.01 (Form
#970221. APPROVED.
Item 6.7. Appropriation: Community Crime Prevention Grant, $20,295 tForm #97023
APPROVED.
Memo To: Melvin A. Breeden
Date: October 7. 1997
Page: 2
Item 6.8. Appropriation: Community Policing Grant 98A9687. $3.440 Form #97024 ,.
APPROVED.
Item 6.11. Resolution to Amend §P-61/62 Relating m Work Periods for Firefighters of the
County of Albemarle Personnel Policy. ADOPTED the attached Resolution.
Agenda Item No, 14. Discussion: Request for Career Firefighter/Emergency Medical
Technicians ~ EMTs).
APPROVED funding the additibnal personnel in the current year using carry-over funds and.
Staff to further research the Service District concept as a potential funding source for the full year
costs in the next fiscal year after a more comprehensive analysis is available.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: 800 MHZ Public Safety Radio System.
AUTHORIZED the 911 Management Board to move forcvard with the process to develop an
RFP for the system and associated financing so that a better cost analysis as well as engineering studies
on the design of the system can be completed
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
AUTHORIZED the County Executive to execute the Rivarma Service and Contribution
Agreement.
Mr. Tucker explained that this is an agreement with BFI for waste handling from Rivam~a that
will not go into affect until July, 1998, It is a ten year agreement ~vith two, five year renewals.
' ewe
Attachments 9~
cc: Roxanne White
Richard E. Huff. II
Robert Walters
John Miller
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96084
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO X
FUND HEALTH DEPT.
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR FY 96/97 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1855051025331000 REPAIRS AN~ MAINTo $3,900.00
1855051025530000 INSURANCE 2~100.00
1855093010930013 TRANSFER TO CIP 74~000.00
TOTAL $80,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2855015000150101 INTEREST ON DEPOSITS $2,800.00
2855015000150237 RENT 55,000.00
2855051000510100 HEALTH F/B 22,200.00
TOTAL $80,000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SI/PERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/'98 NI/MBER 97018
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TP~ANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICE SERVICES GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGOR¥ DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
152331010310000 PROF. SERVICES $2,000.00
152331010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 40,215.00
152331010800710 ADP SOFTWARE 20,500.00
TOTAL $62,715.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152333000330001 GEDERAL GR3%NT REVENI3E S47,036.00
2152351000510110 LOCAL GOV'T TRANSFER 15,679.00
TOTAL $62,715.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
S I GNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/'98 NI/MBER 97019
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GR3~NT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICE SERVICES GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1152131010120000 WAGES-O/T S12,862.69
1152131010210000 FICA 984.00
1152131010800700 ADP EQUIPMENT 37,500.00
TOTAL $51~346.69
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152133000330001 GEDERAL GRANT REVENUE $42,925.43
2152151000510100 FI/ND BALAiqCE 8,421.26
TOTAL ~51~346.69
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
/
/
DATE
- f7
FISCAL YEAR
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
97/98 NTJMBER
97020
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED o
YES
NO X
FUND GPJuNT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1153131010110000 WAGES $16,721.00
1153131010210000 FICA 1,279.00
TOTAL S18,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2153115000150101 INTEREST $269.32
2153151000510100 FUND BALANCE 17,730.68
TOTAL $18~000.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
7
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
PISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97021
TYPE OP APPROPRIATION ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES
NO X
FUND GRA/qT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV MINI GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1153231145120000 WAGES-O/T $1,245.54
1153231145210000 FICA 95.28
TOTAL S1,340.82
REVENIIE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2153251000510100 FI3ATD BALANCE S1,340.82
TOTAL $1,340.82
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
S I GNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97022
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ~ YES
NO X
FUND GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DMV PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1153331145120000 WAGES-O/T - $3,980.50
1153331145210000 FICA 304.51
TOTAL $4~285.01
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2153333000330011 FEDERAL GR3%NT $2,795.98
2153351000510100 FUND BALANCE 1,489.03
TOTAL $4,285.01
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
~~. I GNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97023
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMMI/NITY CRIME PREVENTION GRANT 98-8421.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1152029404110000
1152029404120000
1152029404210000
1152029404310000
1152029404320000
1152029404350000
1152029404390000
1152029404520100
1152029404550600
1152029404580000
1152029404600100
1152029404600106
1152029404601000
1152029404601700
1152029404800710
WAGES
WAGES-O/T
FICA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TEMPORARY HELP
PRINTING
OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES
POSTAGE
TP~AVEL
MISCELLANEOUS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FILM
POLICE SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
SOFTWARE
S4,616.81
3,520.96
623.23
876.00
2,500.00
500.00
5,000.00
200 00
950 00
300 O0
308 00
300 00
200 00
100 00
300 O0
TOTAL $20,295.00
REVENLTE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152033000330404 DCJS GRANT S15,222.00
2152051000512004 GENER3~L FUND TRANSFER 5,073.00
TOTAL $20,295.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
SIGNATURE
DATE
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 97/98 NUMBER 97024
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED
YES
NO X
FUND GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMMUNITY POLICING GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION A~OUNT
1152431012550400 EDUCATION - $960.00
1152431012601000 POLICE SUPPLIES 2,480.00
TOTAL S3,440.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152424000240500 STATE GtLANT REVENUE $2,580.00
2152451000512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER 860.00
TOTAL $3,440.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
S I GNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEM/[R E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Health Department
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
To appropriate funding for actual FY 96/97
expenditures.
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEVVED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
DISCUSSION:
During FY 1996/97, approvals were granted from the County and the City to use $74,000 from Health Department
Maintenance Fund to offset overruns in the renovation and expansion of the Health Department. These funds were
appropriated in the Capital Improvement Fund, however, we failed to get authorization to transfer the funds from
the Health Department Maintenance Fund. This request is to appropriate $74,000 in the Health Department Fund
to be transferred to the Capital Improvement Fund.
In addition, we are requesting the appropriatio~ of an additional $6,000 to cover miscellaneous repairs and
insurance costs incurred during FY 1996/97. The requested appropriation is based on actual expenditures made
from the Health Department Maintenance Fund and is funded by rental income from the health department building.
These expenses are not appropriated during the normal budget process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the apprepdation in the amount of $80,000 from the Health Department Maintenance
Fund as detailed on attached appropriation form #96084.
97.156
COUNTY OF ALBEMA .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropda§on - Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97019 in the amount of
$51,346.69.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Miller, Braeden, Walters; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
, REVIEWED BY:
ITEM rNUMI~ER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
This is the continuation of a U.S. Department of Justice grant that was approved through September 30, 1997. The intent of
the grant is to increase communibj oriented policing through increased overtime and use of hand held notepad computers. The
County of Albemarle proposes to purchase 15 notepad computers and pay for 2,000 hours of overtime under the COPS MORE
program to increase the presence of existing sworn officers in community policJng activities.
DISCUSSION:
The workto be performed bythe County of AIbemade will be funded by a $8,421.26 fund balance and additional COPS MORE
95 grant funds in the amount of $42,925.43, for a total appropriation request of $51,346.69. Additional local funds are not
required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97019 in the amount of $51,346.69.
97.173
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Communi~j Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97018 in the amount of
$62,715.00.
STAFF CONTACTIS):
Messrs. Tucker, Miller, Breeden, Walters; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
O~ober1,1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yesx~, -.
REVIEWED BY: /~J~
BACKGROUND:
The Count/of Albemarle has received notification from the Department of Justice that it has been awarded a technology grant.
The grant will provide a digital mug shot ima~ling system and five computer workstations for officers. The mug shot imaging
system will allow photographs to be captured and stored electronically. The officer workstations will upgrade older equipment
so officers will have full access to the records management system.
DISCUSSION:
The $62,715.00 grant award consists of $47,036 in federal funds and a local match of $15.B79. The local match was provided
for in the general fund budget process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97018 in the amount of $62,715.00.
97.174
8OARD OF SUPERVISORS
cg-?5-9?ACt?: 2' RC~D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropda§on - Law Enfomement Block Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97020 in the amount of
$18,000.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
· Ms.Whtie,Messm.Tu cke r,B reeden,Walters,Miller
AGENDA DATE:
October 1,1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: IN FO RMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes /~ ~.__.._.....~
REVIEWED BY: ? !
!
BACKGROUND:
This isthe second year of a two year grant. The purpose of the grant program is to reduce crimes and improve public safety.
This grant will utilize one officer on a part-time basis in the Esmont and Scottsville areas to provide a part-time neighborhood
police officer.
DISCUSSION:
The work to be performed by the County of Albemarle Police Deparlment will be ~nded by a 1996/1997 carry-over appmpriatien
of $17,730.68 and anticipated interest earnings of $269.32 for a total appropriation of $18,000.00, No additional funds are
required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 97020 in the amount of $18,000.00.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.175
Og-25-97A09:21 RCV:
OF
SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - 29N Traffic Enforcement Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97021 in the amount of
$1,340.82.
STAFF CONTACTtS):
Ms.White. Messrs.Tu cke r, Breed en,Waite rs,Miller
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATFACHMENTS: Yes///~/~~*~
REVIEWED BY: /
BACKGROUND:
U,S. Route 29 North of Charlottesville is the busiest and most crash prone area in the County. Patrol Officers on regular
assig nment do not have the opportunity to do much traffic enfomement. The primary proposed soJution is to increase traffic
enforcement through selective enforcement assignments employing one or two officers working overtime.
DISCUSSION:
This is a federal grant extending through September 30, 1997. It was originally appropriated in the 1996/97 fiscal year. This
request appropriates the fund balance. There are no additional funds requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval Appropriation 97021 in the amount of $1,340.82.
97.177
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYBOAP'D OF
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Countywide Traffic Enforcement Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97022 in the amount of
$4,285.0f
AGENDA DATE:
O~ober1,1997
AC~ON:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Y/~~
REVIEWED BY: ~
/
BACKGROUND:
Traffic activity is increasing in Albemarle County. Patrol Officem on regular assignment do not have the opportunity to do much
traffic enfomement. The primary proposed solution is to increase traffic enforcement through selective enforcement
assignments employing officers working overtime. This is a companion grant to the 29N traffic enforcement grant.
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Ms. White ,Messr$. Tucker , Breeden, Walters ,k ~ller
DISCUSSION:
This is a federal grant extending through September 30, 1997. It was originally appropriated in 1996~7. This request
appropriates the fund balance and the balance due from the federal government. No additional funds are required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval Appropriation 97022 in the amount of $4,285.01.
97.176
89-23-97P32;23 c£VD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Community Crime Prevention Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropria§on 97023 in the amount of
,$20,295.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breede n,Walters,Miller,Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
O~ober1,1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes/~
REVIEWED BY: ~,~ f~"'""-~"-'-"'-'
BACKG ROUND:
For several years, the County of Albemarle has experienced a steady increase in its crime rate. The County has seen
particularly dramatic increases in burglaries, lamenies, and motor vehicle thefts. The purpose of this grant is to continue to
develop a comprehensive cdme prevention network for the communi~/. Enhanced departmental crime prevention capabilities
have been a factor in some target crime category decreases since 1994.
DISCUSSION:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has renewed the Community Cdme Prevention Grant, 98-D8421. in the amount
of $20,295.00, $15,222.00 Federal funds and $5,073.00 local cash match. The local match will be funded out of current
buctgeted expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97023 in the amount of $20,295.00.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.178
09-24-9??02:06 RCVP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Community Policing Grant 98A9687
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation 97024 in the amount of
$3,440.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Miller, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ITEM NUMBER.:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~?~'~'~'~
BACKGROUND:
The Community Policing Unit of the Albemarle County Police Department is less than a year old. The Unit's increasing
involvement and level of activity have put stresses on it in terms of time and resources. The training and majority of supplies
funded by this grant will be used by of the Bike Patrol Team. The balance of the supplies will be used by citizen volunteers
involved in community policing.
DISCUSSION:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has approved this $3,440.00, $2,580.00 state funds and $860.00 local match.
The local match will be funded out of current budgeted expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation 97024 in the amount of $3,440.00.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.179
09-24-97?02: 05 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The Commission on Children and Families - Agreement
and Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval
of Agreement and Resolution establishing the
Commission on Children and Families for Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: yes//~
REVIEWED BY:
!
BACKGROUND:
At the Board's June 4 meeting, the Alliance~ a group composed of CACY members, Community Policy and
Management Team (CPM'F) members and City and County staff representatives, came before the Board to propose
a new Commission on Chitdren and Families (the "Commission") for Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville. The Alliance proposed restructuring the CPMT and the CACY commission to form a stronger
organization and a more streamlined and uniform process for assessing and delivering services to children, youth
and families. The Board, as well as City Council, approved the proposed restructuring of this new Commission,
and staff was to come back to the Board with the charge, membership and implementation procedures for final
approval and appointment of members. The attached "Agreement Between the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families" sets out the structure,
responsibilities, staffing and funding for the Commission. The attached Resolution officially establishes the
Commission on Children and Families for Albemarle County and dissolves the CACY Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission will be appointed by the County and the City and will consist of fifteen voting members, seven of
whom will be citizen representatives, three appointed by the County and three appointed by the City. At least one
appointee from each jurisdiction will be a parent. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their
designees: two School superintendents, two Social Service directors, one Juvenile Court Services director, one
Health Department director, and one Community Services Board director. One member will represent the University
of Virginia. In addition to the fifteen members, three ex-officio members will represent the County Executive's Office,
the City Manager's office and the United Way on the Commission.
Commission responsibilities will include planning, monitoring and evaluating all children and family services in the
community, as well as providing program and agency funding recommendations to the City and County. The
Commission will also be responsible for carrying out the mandated responsibilities of the CPMT for at risk children
that are set forth in the state code. A subcommittee structure will address finance and administration, planning, and
communication issues with future projects focused on streamlining and improving the juvenile justice system and
developing a comprehensive Healthy Families program.
Commission staff will be hired by the City and County with input from the Commission and will be City of
Charlottesville employees located in the current CACY office in City Hall. With the available revenues described
below, the Commission will be staffed by 4 FTE's, one Director. one Juvenile Justice Coordinator, a Comprehensive
Services Act (CSA) Case Manager. and either a full-time planner or a part-time planner and a part-time secretary.
OF SUPERVISOR
,~-27-9VAna:3~ r-' -
AGENDA TITLE:
The Commission on Children and Families - Agreement and Resolution
October 1, 1997
Page 2
With respect to funding for the Commission, the proposed available revenues are as follows:
State Dept of Juvenile Justice (D J J) $46,000
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds $45,500
Local Contributions (City and County share of CACY funding) $64,200
CSA adrninistrafive funds $19,300
Total Budget $175. O00
The Agreement and the Resolution stipulate that the County agrees to provide the required match for CSA based
on our jurisdiction's state formula and to continue providing the local matching funds required by the Virginia
Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant, which now helps to fund the CACY Commission. The
County and the City also agree to provide a mutually agreed upon annual contribution to the Commission. However,
the new Commission will not require any additional local funds over the current contribution to CACY.
With the combined oversight for VJCCCA juvenile justice programs and CSA expenditures, the Commission will be
administering over $2.5 million in CSA funds, $1.1 million in VJCCCA funds, as well as over $1.8 million in local
program review agency funds. To administer these funds and provide legal services to the Commission, the City
will receive an administrative fee equal to 2% of the Commission's operating budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Agreement Between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families and the accompanying Resolution to
officially create the new Commission. It the Board approves both the Agreement and the Resolution, the Board
could proceed with the appointment of the following mandated members to the new Commission, as well as initiate
joint advertising for the three County citizen members, three City citizen members and the one private service
provide~".
Dr. Kevin Castner
Dr. William Symons
Kathy Ralston
Buz Cox
Jim Peterson
Martha Carroll
Dr. Susan McLeod
Albemarle County Superintendent of Schools
City of Charlottesville Superintendent of Schools
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
City of Charlottesville Department of Social Services
Director, Region Ten Community Services Boar(~
Director, Court Services Unit
Director, Thomas Jefferson Health Department
97. t89
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALB, E~E COUNTY BOARD OF SUP,ERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council agree to jo~n together to form
the Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission" ) whose sole responsibility shall be ro plan,
coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal
of the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use
of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing so, we agree
to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a)
The Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of the members shall be citizen
representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
privare service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee f~om each jurisdiction must
be a parent and one musr be a youth. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their
designees: two School Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court
Services Director, one Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One
member will represent the University of Virginia. In addition to the seventeen members, three ex-Officio
members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way
on the Commission.
b)
Citizen members of the Commission shall be appointed for a three-year term and may be subject to
reappoinuuent; the private service provider shall be appointed to a two -year term and will not be subject
to reappoinumem; initial appointments may be staggered for continuity;
c) The Commission shall elect its own officers and establish its own by-laws.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that the
Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in the Virginia
Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 et seq.;
b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within the
Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing bodies within the
budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
d) Review and evaluate currem service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of children and families
are being met effectively and efficiently;
Management Team set forth in Virginia Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 and those of the
Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant programs set forth in
Virginia Code Chapter Title 66, Chapter 3, Section 66-31 of the Code of Virginia.
That the Commission on Children and Families shall advise the County Executive and the City
Manager in the adrainistration of children and family human service programs;
That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors intends to provide an annual contribution as
mutually agreed upon bythe County and the City for the operation of the Commission.
[, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the Board of Supervisors at a regular meeting held on October 1, 1997.
"~lerk, Board of County ~,~sors
97.048
RESOLUTION
Commission on Children and Families
WltEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council is committed to improving services to
children, youth and families m charlottesmlle; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Charlottesville have a vested interest in su:en~mahening
families and develop/ng positive attributes in their ckildren and youth; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission was
established in 1990 to serve as a comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluation body for
children and youth services for the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, the Community Policy and Management Team was established in 1993 to
serve the needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their families for the City and the County and
to maximize the use of state and community resources; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
Charlottesville Cty Council are recommending that the County join with the City m form a
comprehensive planning, coordinating and evaluation body for children and family services
composed of citizens and human service directors;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
I That the Mayor of the City of Charlottesville be authorized to execute an agreement
with Albemarle County to establish a Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission")
whose sole responsibility shall belto plan, coordinate, monitor and' evaluate a community-wide
system of all children and family agencies and programs. Such agreement shall contain
substantially the same terms as the attached draft agreement and be in a form meeting the
approval of the City and County Attorneys.
2. That the members of the Commission shall consist of seventeen (17) voting members:
Nine of the members shall be citizen representatives, four appointed by the City, four appointed
by the County and one jointly appointed service provider. Of the nine citizen members,, at least
one appointee from eachjurisdichon must be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members
will be public agency administrators or their designees: two School Superintendents, two
Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court Director, one Health Department
Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One member will repr~;~nt the
University of Virginia. In addition m the seventeen members, three ex officio inembers will
represent the City Manager's Offree, the County Executive's Office and the United Way on the
Commission.
3. That upon the execution of an agreement by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County establishing the Commission, the current Children and Youth Commission shall be
dissolved.
4. That the City agrees tO adhere to the res~ohsi~iiifies of the Community Policy and
Management Team set forth in Virginia Code Sections 2.1-745, et seq., and in accordance with
the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act as m funding for grant
programs, set forth in Virginia Code Sectiori 66~31.
5. That the Commission on Children and Families shall advise the City Manager and the
County Executive in the administration of children and family human service programs.
6. That the Charlottesville City Council intends to provide-an annual contribution as
mutually agreed upon by the County and the City for the operation of the Commission.
Approved by Council
October 21, 1997
City Coundil
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council a~ee to join together to form
the Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan,
coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal
of the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use
of public/private resources and to be responsive m the changing needs of the community. In doing so, we a~ee
to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF ~ COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a)
The Commission shall consist of seventeen voting members: Nine of the members shall be citizen
representatives, four appointed by the County, four appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the nine citizen members, at least one appointee from each jurisdiction must
be a parent and one must be a youth. Seven members will be public agency administrators or their
designees: two School Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court
Services Director, one Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One
member will represent the University of Vir~nia. In addition to the seventeen members, three ex-Officio
members will represent the County Executive's Office, the City Manager's Office and the United Way
on the Commission.
b)
Citizen members of the Commission shall be appointed for a three-year term and may be subject to
reappoinrrnent; the private service provider shall be appointed to a two -year term and will not be subject
to reappointment; initial appoinlxnents may be staggered for continuity;
c) The Commission shall elect its own officers a~d establish its own by-laws.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES O1: THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that the
Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities o f the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in the Virginia
Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 et seq.;
b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within the
Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
?7.
c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County govermng bodies within the
budgetary procedures and ggidelines set by each jurisdiction;
d) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of children and families
are being met effectively and efficiently;
e) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development for children and families;
Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs;
g) Participate in the yearly evaluation ofthe director of Commission staff;
h) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the needs of families, e.g.
public heatings, workshops, focus groups and work teams.
i) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure that the County and City
are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staffwill be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City and the County with
assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staffwill be employees of the City of Charlottesville subject to all persormel policies and entitled to all
its benefits;
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISION, the City and the County intend to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the Commission;
b)
Provide the local match required by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act
Grant Programs and adhere to the minimum standards set out in the Virginia Code Chapter , Section
subject to annual appropriation;
c) Direct the Commission on Ckildren and Families to actively seek fanding for children and family projects
from other sources, including public and private grants, local service groups and the business community;
Pool all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the operations of the Commission.
Each jurisdiction ~vill continue to provide the required matching funds for CSA services according to the
state fonnula subject to annual appropriation;
e) The City of Charlottesville vdll provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission for an administrative
fee equal to 2% of the Commission's operating budget.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council agree to join together to form
the Commission on Children and Families (the "Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan,
coordinate, mon/tor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal
of the Commission is to knprove services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use
of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing so, we agree
to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a)
The Commission shall consist of eighteen members: Seven of the members shall be citizen
representatives, three appointed by the County, three appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the seven citizen members, at least one appointee from each jurisdiction
must be a parent. Seven members w/Il be public agency administrators or their designees: two School
Superintendents, two Department of Social Service Directors, one Juvenile Court Serv/ces Director, one
Health Department Director, and one Community Service Board Director. One member will represent
the Urfiversity of Virginia, and three ex-Officio members will represent the County Executive's Office,
the City Manager's Office and the United Way.
b)
Citizen members of the Commission shall be appointed for a three-year term and may be subject to
reappointment; the private service provider shall be appointed to a two -year term and will not be sub.~6~
to reappointment; initial appointments may be staggered for continuity;
c) The Commission shall elect its own officers and establish its own by-laws.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that the
Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team set forth in the Virginia
Code Chapter 880, Section 2.1-745 et seq.;
b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family services within the
Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing bodies within the
budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
d) Review and evaluate current service delivery s~vstems to ensure that the needs of children and families
are being met effectively and efficiently;
Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program dewelopment for children and
families;
1
f) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth programs;
g) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Comnnssion staff;
h) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the needs of families, e.g.
public hearings, workshops, focus groups and work teams.
i) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure that the County and City
are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staff ~vill be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City and the County with
assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staff will be employees of the City of Charlottesville subject to all personnel policies and entitled to all
its benefits;
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISION, the City and the County intend m:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the Commission;
b)
Provide the local match required by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act
Grant Programs and adhere to the minimum standards set out in the Virginia Code Chapter , Section
subject to annual appropriation;
c)
Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for children and family
projects from other sources, including public and private grants, local service groups and the business
community;
Pool all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the operations of the Commissiom
Each jurisdiction will continue to provide the required matching funds for CSA services according to the
state formula subject to annual appropriation;
e) The City of Charlottesv/lle will provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission for an administrat/ve
fee equal to 2% of the Commission's operating budget
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY:
CHAIRMAN
2
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
BY:
MAYOR
County Attorney
Approved as to form
City Attorney
Approved as to form
3
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is committed to the identification,
development and delivery of services to children and youth in Albemarle County that will improve
the quality of life, enhance wholesome youth development and prevent juvenile delinquency; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County have a vested interest in the development of
positive attributes in its youth, and citizen participation is acka~owledged as beneficial to the
planning, development and coordination of services for children and youth; and
WHEREAS, the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act passed by the
Virginia General Assembly in 1990 endorses the establishment of a Youth Services Citizen Board;
and
WHEREAS, representatives of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
Charlottesville City Council are recommending that the County join with the present Charlottesvill~
Youth Commission to form a comprehensive planning, coordinafing and evaluating body for
children and youth services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
l'hat there be established a Children and Youth Commission which shall derive its
authority from, and be administered by, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
the Children and Youth Commission shall function in an advisory capacity in the
establishment of goals and objectives, and in the supervision and administration of
the office of Children andYouthin compliance with al/"Minimarn Standards for the
Delinquency Prevention andYouth Development Act Grants";
That the membership of the Commission shall be by appointment of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors and consist of seven citizens and youth. The
Commission shall elect its own officers and establish its own by-laws. A majority
of the Commission shall be citizens who are not elected government officials; at least
one member shall be below eighteen years of age; one member shall represent the
children and youth serving agencies in the community. No person, title or agency
shall be appointed m a permanent position on the Commission. Aduk members of
the Commission shall be appointed for terms of three years and eligible to serve two
consecutive terms; initial appointments shall be staggered for continuity. Youth
members of the Commission shall be appointed to a one year term and subject m
reappointment;
That the Children and Youth Commission established by the County will join the
current Charlottesville Youth Commission to become the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Children and Youth Commission;
4. That the responsibilities of the Commission shall include, but not be limited to:
Evaluating and monitoring current service delivery systems of children and
youth agencies to assure greater coordinationand communication ~vithin the
community;
Recommending any additions, deletions, or changes in laws. policies, or
procedures that will improve community conditions for children and youth
development;
Acting as an advocate for the improvement of children and youth services
and encouraging the involvement of the community in the solutions to
identified problems:
Providing a program of public education about the needs and problems of
youth in the community;
Participating with community representatives in the formulation of a
comprehensive plan for the development, coordination and evaluation of the
children and youth sermces program and making formal recommendations
m the governing authority at least annually concerning the comprehensive
plan and its implementation during the ensuing year.
That the Charlottesville/AlbemarleChildren and Youth Commission shall assist the
County Executive and the City Manager in the supervision and administration of the
office on Children and Youth. The Office on Children and Youth shall implement
strategies m accomplishthe goals and strategies established by the Commission, the
County Executive and the City Manager. The Office on Children and Youth shall
be managed by a full time staff person titled as Director;
That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors intends to fund its share of the
required local match (a proportionate share of twemy-five 125) percent of the total
program cost) for grants awarded pursuant to Title 66, Chapter 3, Section 66-31 of
the Code of Virginia.
1, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the Board of Supervisors at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
RWW/dbm
97.048
COUNTY OF ALBEM E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Park and Ride Contract
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve the use of County funds to add three churches
to insurance policy for use of park and ride lots.
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,Benish,Wade . REVIE~NED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On Thursday, August 28, 1997, JAUNT started the Route 29 north commuter route called BIG BLUE. In order to
make this route as successful as possible, staff has worked with JAUNT and RideShare to establish several park
and dde lots along the corridor.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Staff has worked with the County's Attomey, Finance, and Executive Offices in an effort to assume
the liability of adding three churches to its insurance policy to cover the use for the park and ride lot. The County
can add three churches to its insurance policy for approximately $179 a year. The three churches are Paran United
Methodist Church on Route 606. Peace Lutheran Church at Hollymead, and Maple Grove Christian Church on Profit
Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the park and ride agreements with Paran United Methodist
Church, Peace Lutheran Church, and Maple Grove Christian Church.
97.180
PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this~'~- day of Augnst by and bet~veen the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County," and Paran United Methodist Church, here'mafter referred to as the
"Owner."
WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a park and ride fac'flity on Route 29; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to allow the County to use part of its property for
such a fac'dity.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to allow the County to use part of the
Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools and
commuters.
Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this agreement, the Owner hereby
licenses to the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride,"
hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Exhibit "A," which is attached
hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number of park and ride spaces shall
not exceed five (S) spaces. (T~'bk~lle'~a~l'a{el~i~,~) C,'iD N xq~r, ~>-~'q~
Term: The term of this agreement shall be six months from the date hereof. Either
party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by giving one month's
notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
Uses of the Premises: The County may use the premises for a park and ride fac'dity, a
carpooling parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related uses.
Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's
property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the
park and ride facility and for cimulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpools.
Marking of Premises and Publicity: The County may install signs indicating that the
Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's
courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing
any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
Maintenance: The Owner shall arrange for regular and/or timely snow plowing of the
Premises at its sole expense. Extraordinary maintenance and repair of the Premises
arising from its additional usage pursuant to this agreement shall be performed by the
CounW at its sole expense.
Liabili .ty: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County's operation ora park and ride facility on
the Owner's property.
Title, Access and Authority: The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that
the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the Owner
is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person executing
this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized to bind the
O~vner hereto.
10.
Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between
the parties respecting the witl:~in subject matter.
II.
Modifications: This agreemem may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
Approvea as to mrm
E
.HOUSE.
PAR~ AIqD RIDE
PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT
rlI-IIS AGREEMENT is made this day of Aug':st by and between the County. of
Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County," and Peace Lutheran Church, hereinafter referred to as the
"Ownei'."
WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a park and ride facility on Route 29; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to allow the County to use part of its property for
such a facility.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to allow the County to use part of the
Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools and
commuters.
Premises: For the uses described in section 4 of this agreement, the Owner hereby
licenses to the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride,"
hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Attachment "A," which is attached
hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number ofparl~and ride spaces shall
nor exceed flee (5) Spaces. -
Term: The term of this agreement shall be six months from the date hereof. Either
party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by giving one
month's notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
Uses of the Premises: The County may use the premises for a park and ride facility, a
carpooJing Parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related
uses.
Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's
property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the
park and ride facility and for circulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpoois.
Marking of Premises and Publici _fy: The County may install signs indicating that the
Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's
courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing
any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
Maintenance: The Owner shall arrange for regular and/or timely snow plowing of the
Premises at its sole expense. Extraordinary maintenance and repair of the Premises
arising from its additional usage pursuant to this agreement shall be performed by the,
County at its sole expense. ~,~:~ ~ ~
~ue 2~9 ~997
Liability: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance
policy hs an additional insured for the County's operation ora park and ride facility on
the Owner's property.
Title, Access and Authority: The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that
the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the
Owner is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person
executing this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized to
bind the Owner hereto.
10.
Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between
the parties respecting the within subject matter.
11.
Modifications: This agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
COUNTY//Q./F ALBEIVI~E, VIRGINIA
Peace ,~eran Church
Approved as to form:
PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of Aa,~gu~t by and between the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as the "County," and Maple Grove Christian Chumh, hereinafter referred to as the
"Owner."
WHEREAS, the County desires to establish a park and ride facility on Route 29; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to allow the County to use part of its property for
such a facility.
WITNESS:
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual premises stated herein, the parties agree as
follows:
Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to allow the County to use pan of the
Owner's property as a park and ride facility for the benefit of persons in carpools and
commuters.
Premises: For [he uses described in section 4 of this agreement, [he Owner hereby
licenses to the County that part of the Owner's premises marked "Park and Ride,"
hereinafter referred to as the "Premises," shown on Attachment "A," which is attached
hereto and made a part of this agreement. The number oft>ark and ride spaces shall
not exceed ten (10) spaces.
Term: The term of this agreement shall be six months from the date hereof. Either
party, however, may terminate this agreement after three months by gMng one
month's notice to the other party of its intent to terminate.
Uses of the Premises: The County may use the premises for a park and ride facility, a
carpooling parking facility, vehicle and personal access, and all similar and related
uses.
Access: The County and patrons of the park and ride facility may use the Owner's
property surrounding the premises for vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the
park and ride facility and for circulation, excluding vans, and persons in carpools.
Marking of Premises and Publicity: The County may install signs indicating that the
Premises are available to persons in carpools and commuters as a result of the Owner's
courtesy. The County will obtain the Owner's written approval before placing
any improvements on the premises. Such permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
Liability: The County agrees to add the Owner to its general liability insurance
policy as an additional insured for the County's operation ora park and ride facility on
the Owner's property.
Title, Access and Authority: The Owner covenants and warrants to the County that
the Owner presently owns the fee simple interest in and to the Premises; that the
Owner is duly authorized and empowered to grant this License; and that the person
executing this license on behalf of the Owner warrants himself to be duly authorized m
bind the Owner hereto.
10.
Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties, and supersedes any prior understandings or oral or written agreements between
the parties respecting the within subject matter.
11.
Modifications: This agreement may not be modified, except in a writing signed by the
parties.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto bind themselves to this agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ~'~~' ~(']-~t'~,v~ ~,
Maple Grove Christian Church
Approved as to form:
I:\g\s\juan parkride.eon
~IBIT A
Tt~ CUUKCH HAS AGREED TO LET PAI~K AND RIDE
USERS USE AI~ 10 FARKING SPACES
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
R~:
Robert B. Brandenburger
Deputy Director of Human Resources
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
October 8, 1997
Board Actions of October 1, 1997
At its meeting on October 1, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted the attached
Resolution to amend~§P-61 62 relating to work periods for firefighters of the County of
Albemarle Personnel Policy.
ewc
Attachment
cc: Carl Pumphrey
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has adopted a personnel policy
for its employees pursuant to § 15.1-7. I of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended:
and
WHEREAS, Section 207 ~,k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C.
§2071 k ~, authorizes the County of Albemarle to adopt an alternative work schedule
that provides a partial exemption from overtime pa)- requirements for fire protection
and law enforcement personnel employed by the County; and
WHEREAS. under the 207 (k) exemption, nonexempt fire protection
employees are entitled to overtime' compensation only after working 212 hours in a
28-day period, and nonexempt law enforcement officers are entitled to overtime after
working more than 171 hours during the 28~day work period; and
WHEREAS, §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
sets forth the overtime/compensatory time policy employees of the County. and
currently provides for a 28-day ~vork period for nonexempt law enforcement
employees: and
WHEREAS. the Board of Supervisors wishes to amend these provisions
to establish a 28-day work period for fire protection employees as authorized bv
section 207(k~ of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Board wishes to claim partial
exemption from the overtime pay requirements of the Act.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby adopts and approves the
amendments to §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy as set forth
in the Policy attached hereto.
I. Ella W. Carev. do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true. correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
by vote of six to zero On October 1. 1997.
C~er¥<,'Board ~)f County~)bervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-61
§P-62
§P-61/62
OVERTIME/COMPENSATORY TiME POLICY
A). Resoonsibility
The authorization and controJ of alt overtime work is the responsibility of the department head.
Overtime shall be permitted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads shall
assure that adequate funds are available for payment for overtime work and be responsible for the
scheduling of compensatory time. Department heads may require that employees work additional
time or overtime to meet the needs of the department. Whenever possible, notice of this
requirementwill be provided in advance so that the employees can arrange their personal schedule~
B). Eliaibility
Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those employees in bona fide professional,
administrativeor executive gositions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, all as defined
by the Fair Labor Standards Ac~. The County Executive will approve a list indicating positions
determined to be exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be maintained
in the Human Resources Department and the status of individual positions shall be indicated in the
personnel files.
C). Comoutation of Overtime Pay
Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half times the employee's hourly rate of pay
for each hour of overtime worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing the
employee's annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, by the required number of
hours per year that an employee in that position would be regularly required to work.
D). Reportinq of Overtime
Additional hours shall be recorded, in writing, on the day that it is worked. Such records shall be
maintained by the employee's supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the end of the work
period.
E). ComPutation of Overtime Hours
1. Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational necessity, a non-exem gt employee works
in excess of the maximum number of allowable hours in the work period.
2. The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County employees are as follows:
Category of Personnel Work Period (Consecutive Days) Maximum Allowable Hours
Law Enforcement 28 171 J
Fire Protection 28 212
All Other 7 40
Amended: August 4, 1993; August 3,1994; September 1997
The County Executive has established the official work period as extending from Saturday at
12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 midnight. The beginning and ending time for the 28 day work period
F).
for employees eligible for a 28 day work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act shall be determined by the Chief of Police for law enforcement officers and by
the Fire and Rescue Division Chief for fire protection employees. Changes to the established
work period may be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the department
provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to the employees and a copy ~s on file
in the Human Resources Department.
Paid or unpaid time off dudng which the employee is absent from the service of the County
shall not be counted as hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of
hours has been exceeded. Such absences indude, but are not limited to, sick, annual,
compensatory, civil, personal and military leave, holidays, [eaves of absence, lunch periods and
inclement weather days.
When non-exempt employees work during the scheduled lunch period, such time shall be
considered as hours worked, Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall
be documented on forms designated for that purpose,
When non-exempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur
outside of the Countyand w~hich require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as
well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be considered hours worked.
Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms
designated for that purpose.
Department heads shall manage their emoloyees' hours worked whenever possible within the
official seven day work period or, for law enforcement or fire protection purposes, the 28 day
work period, to avoid the accrual of overtime. For example, if an employee works more than
eight hours ~n one day, the number of additional hours worked that day may be given off during
another day in that work period so that the maximum number of hours (4-0) for that work
period is not exceeded. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such additional hours
worked should be offset with scheduled time off during the 28 day work period to avoid the
maximum number of hours (~.71 or 212) alter which time and one-half compensation is
required.
Compensatory Leave or Compensatory Time
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, but who
do not exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, may be
granted compensatory leave in the amount of one hour of leave for each hour worked or may
be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of compensatory leave for hours worked.
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, and the
hours exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, shall be given
the choice of overtime pay or compensatoryleave in the amount of one and one-half hours of
leave for each hour worked during the work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours.
This choice shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the overtime.
Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual overtime shall only be compensated
monetarily. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other than
a sworn law enforcement employee, at the request of an outside entity and for which the
County is reimbursed by the outside entity the wages of the employee.
3. No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically approved by the department lead in
advance of it being taken.
4-.
Compensatorytime shall be used within one year of its accrual or the employee shall be paid
for it. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it is
used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are available for payment of
compensatory time in lieu of compensatory leave.
2
Err ~loyees in sworn law enforcement positions and fire protection positions eligible for a 28 aay
work period under section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act may accrue up to 480 hours
of compensatorytime. All other err 31oyees may accrue up to 240 hours of compensatory time.
Err ~loyees shall be paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed for
accrual
Non-exempt employees who are transferringto another department or who are promoted from
a non-exempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an
agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory ~eave or to be
paid for the unused compensatorytime balance. The employee's compensatory time balance
must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position.
7. Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time.
8. Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee's current
regular houdy rate.
Exempt employees shall not accrue compensatory time nor will they earn additional
compensation for hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week.
This does not, however, pr~eclude department heads from using their discretion and granting
time off to exempt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules.
SEt;/.tONS G THROUGH 3 ARE UNCHANGED
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment of Personnel Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amendment of §P-61/62 Relating to Work Pedods for
Firefighters
STAFF CONTACTfS):
Messrs. Tucker Huff and Davis
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ×
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Resolution; Proposed §P-61/62
/
Section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes the County to adopt a 212 hour, 28 day work period for
nonexempt fire protection employees. This provision recognizes the need for flexibility in scheduling firefighters to
address otherwise mandatory overtime pay requirements.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, §P-61/62 of the Personnel Policy provides for similar scheduling flexibility for law enforcement personnel.
Under § 207(k) law enforcement officers are allowed a maximum of 171 work hours in the 28 day work period. The
proposed policy amendment would provide a maximum of 212 work hours for firefighters in their 28 day work pedod.
Hours worked in excess of the maximum must be compensated at one and one half times the regular hourly pay
rate or by an appropriate amount of comp time.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to approve the referenced amendments to §P-
61/62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.191 09-25-97^09:52
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has adopted a personnel policy
for its employees pursuant to § 15.1-7.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended;
and
WHEREAS, Section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§207(k), authorizes the County of Albematle to adopt an alternative work schedule
that provides a partial exemption from overtime pay reqttirements for fire protection
and law enforcement personnel employed by the County; and
WHEREAS, under the 207(k) exemption, nonexempt fire protection
employees are entitled to overtime compensation only after working 2 t2 hours in a
28-day period, and nonexempt law enforcement officers are entitled to overtime after
working more than 171 hours during the 28-day work period; and
WHEREAS, §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
sets forth the overtime/compensatory time policy employees of the County; and
cunently provides for a 28-day work period for nonexempt law enforcement
employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to amend these provisions
to establish a 28-day work period for fire protection employees as authorized by
section 207(k) of the: Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Board wishes to claim partial
exemption from the overtime pay requirements of the Act.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby adopts and approves the
amendments to §P-61/§P-62 of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy as set forth
in the Policy attached hereto.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
by vote of six to zero on October 1, 1997.
CXl/eer~,'~3ard bf County~jbervisors
DRAFT
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-61
§P-62
§P-61~62
OVERTiME/COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY
A). Responsibility
The authorization and control of al: overtime work is the responsibility of the department head.
Overtime shall be permitted only when required by operational necessity. Department heads shall
assure that adequate funds are available for payment for overtime work and he responsible for the
scheduling of compensatory time. Department heads may require that employees work additional
time or overtime to meet the needs of the department. Whenever possible, notice of this
requirement will be provided in advance so that the employees can arrange their personal schedules.
Bi. Eliqibility
Employees are eligible to earn overtime except for those employees in bona fide professional,
administrative or executive positions, elected officials, and certain seasonal employees, all as defined
by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The County Executive will approve a list indicating positions
determined to be exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements. This list shall be maintained
in the Human Resources Department and the status of individual positions shall be indicated in the
personnel files.
C). ComDutation of Overtime Pay
Monetary overtime compensation shall be one and one-half times the employee's hourly rate of pay
for each hour of overtime worked. The hourly rate of pay shall be determined by dividing the
employee's annual salary, as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Ad;, by the required number of
hours per year that an employee in that position would be regularly required to work.
D). Reportinq of Overtime
AdditionaI hours shall be recorded, in wriUng, on the day that it is worked. Such records shall be
maintained by the employee's supervisor. Overtime hours shall be reported at the end of the work
period.
E). Computation of Overtime Hours
1. Overtime shall be earned when, due to operational necessity, a non-exempt employee works
n excess of the maximum number of allowable hours in the work period.
2. The work periods and maximum allowable hours for County employees are as follows:
Category of Personnel Work Period (Consecutive Days) Maximum Allowable Hours
Law Enforcement 28 171
Fire Protection 2~_~_8 212
All Other 7 40
Amended: August 4, 1993; August 3,1994; Seetember 1997
DRAFT
The County Executive has established the official work period as extending from Saturday at
~2:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 midnight. -~ ................. II ''] .......................
"~ ......... '"' ......................... ~e beoinnino and endin0 time for the 28
0ay work period for employees elioible for a 28 day work Period under se~ion 207(k~ of the
Fair Lair Standards ~shall be determined by the Chief of Police for law en~rcement o~cem
F).
and by the Fire and Rescue Division Chief for fire protection employees. Changes to the
established work period may be determined by department heads to meet the needs of the
department provided that the revised schedule is provided in writing to the employees and a
copy ~s on file in the Human Resources Department.
Paid or unpaid time off during which the employee is absent from the service of the County
shall not be counted as hours worked in determining if the maximum allowable number of
hours has been exceeded. Such absences include, but are not limited to, sick, annual,
comoensatory, civil, personal and military leave, holidays, eaves of absence, lunch periods and
inclement weather days.
When non-exempt employees work during the scheduled lunch period, such time shall be
considered as hours worked Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall
be documented on forms designated for that purpose.
When non-exempt employees are required to attend meetings or conferences that occur
outside of the County and which require travel time, the hours involved in the actual travel as
well as the hours involved in the training/meeting shall be considered hours worked.
Employees shall report this time to their supervisor and it shall be documented on forms
designated for that purpose.
Department heads shall manage their employees' hours worked whenever possible within the
official seven day work period or, for law enforcement or fire orotection purposes, the 28 day
work period, to avoid the accrual of overtime. For example, if an employee works more than
eight hours in one day, the number of additional hours worked that day may be given off during
another day in that work period so that the maximum number of hours (40) for that work
period is not exceedeo. Similarly, for law enforcement employees, such additional hours
worked should be offset with scheduled time off during the 28 day work period to avoid the
maximum number of hours (171 or 212) after which time and one-half compensation is
required.
Compensatory Leave or Compensatory Time
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, but who
do not exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, may be
granted compensatory leave in the amount of one hour of leave for each hour worked or may
be paid their regular hourly rate in lieu of compensatory leave for hours worked.
Non-exempt employees who work in excess of their regularly scheduled work hours, and the
hours exceed the maximum allowable number of hours as defined in (E), above, shall be given
the choice of overtime pay or compensatory leave in the amount of one and one-half hours of
leave for each hour worked during the work period in excess of the maximum allowable hours.
This choice shall be made prior to working the hours constituting the overtime.
Notwithstanding the choice option above, contractual overtime shall only be compensated
monetarily. Contractual overtime is defined as work hours assigned to an employee, other than
a sworn aw enforcement employee, at the request of an outside entity and for which the
County is reimbursed by the outside entity the wages of the employee.
DI~FT
No compensatory leave shall be used unless specifically approved by the department head in
advance of it being taken,
Compensatory time shall be used within one year of its accrual or the employee shall be paid
for it. Department heads shall be responsible for scheduling compensatory leave so that it is
used within one year or assuring that adequate funds are available for payment of
compensatory time in lieu of compensatory leave.
Employees in sworn law enforcement positions and fire protection positions elioible for a 28 day
work period under section 207(k) of the ?a/r labor Standards Ad-may accrue up to 480 hours
of compensatory time. All other employees may accrue up to 24-0 hours of compensatory time.
Employees shall be paid for all compensatory time in excess of the maximum allowed for
accrual.
Non-exempt employees who are transferring to another department or who are promoted from
a non-exempt into an exempt position shall, prior to assuming the new position, reach an
agreement with their department head to use their accumulated compensatory leave or to be
paid for the unused compensatory time balance. The employee's compensatory time balance
must be zero prior to the starting date for the new position.
Upon termination, non-exempt employees shall be paid for unused compensatory time.
Any payment for unused compensatory time shall be based upon the employee's current
regular hourly rate.
Exert: st employees shal not accrue compensatory time nor will they earn additional
compensation for hours worked in excess of the regularly scheduled hours in a work week.
This does not, however, preclude department heads from using their discretion and granting
time off to exert pt employees in recognition of time worked beyond normal work schedules.
SECTTONS G THROUGH 1 ARE UNCHANGED
I :\DEPT~A'~rORN EY~H R\MAN UA L\P61-62 .w PD
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMAI t)EP, D OFSUPERVI$Ot S
Og-25-9?A10:38 RCVD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Road Name Changes
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Road Name Change Requests
STAFF CONTACT[Si:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg, Weaver
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance
with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy requires that, with this phase of the project
corn F3leted, mo further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. Staff has been
made aware of four (4) situations for which mad name change requests should be further considered.
DISCUSSION:
1. Request to change the name of Stonehedge Farm Road to Liberty Corner Road (see Attachment A) at
the request of the property owner. The farm name has been changed to Liberty Comer. The property
owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Request to change the name of Safari Camp Drive to Misty Mountain Road (see Attachment B) at the
request of the property owner. The camp resort (Jellystone Park Camping Resort) name has been
changed to Misty Mountain. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new
signage.
Request to change the name of Tumer Wood Road to Turner Mountain Wood Roa~ (see Attachment
C) at the request of the property owners. The new road name will reflect the name of the subdivision
(Turner Mountain Wood). The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Request to change the name of Faulkner Drive to Faulkner Way (see Attachment D) at the request of
the property owner (The University of Virginia). The current name has been confused in some
instances with a similarly named road. The property owner will be responsible for costs associated with
new slgnage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Support the name changes as proposed and authorize staff to coordinate with property owners regarding
changes.
97.183
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY VIRGINIA
[ATTACHMENT Al
EE DETAIL 12BB
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2620
/
/
SN 117.3
IATTACHMENT BI
6734
ESN 1156
I ATTACHHENT C I
GL~NAIR
SE~ O~TAIL 58A
SE[ DE TAIL%58B
IVY
IVY
ESN 1155
'%
ESN
I ATTACHMENT D [
· COLTHURST (
· :
! SEE
DETAIL §OBC ·
· · ! SEE
· · ! DETAIL 60BD
ESN 11289
i$[E' D[tAIL
SEE
DETAIL 600A
~ SEE DETAIL
O ST. ANNES ~
!
ESI ;"'
1217:i
, ESN
· 1285
·
ESN
1287 ·
1046
1019
1046
OLD
;- IVY OAROEN
APTS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Utilities Easements - Monticello High School
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Grant Two (2) Virginia Power Utility Easements
STAFF CONTACT(SI:
Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer, Sterling
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
DISCUSSION:
Electrical Power is needed to serve the new Monticello High School and the football stadium complex. Two separate
easements are required for each facility. One easement is needed to serve the rear of the main building from the
Willow Lakes subdivision area. The other easement is needed from Avon St. Extended along the north skle of the
connector toed (recently named Mill Creek Drive) to serve the stadium.
'-' O~ MENDA O':
This is to recemmend that the Board set a public hearing on November 5, 1997, to dedicate these two utility
easements to Virginia Power.
OF SUPERVISORS
97H 86
09-25-97A09:20 RC
Right of Way Agreement
OCR 16-10-04
THISRIGHTOFWAYAGREEMENT, ismadeandanteredintothis 24ch dayof July
19 97 , by and between
THE COUNTY OF ALB~4ARLE,
("GRANTOR") and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, a Virginia public service corporation,
doing business in Virginia as Virginia Power, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia ("GRANTEE").
WITNESSETH.'
1. That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sutficiencywhereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR grants and
conveys unto GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and easement over, un-
der, through, upon and across the prope~y described herein, for the purpose of transmitting and
distributing electric power by one or more circuits; for its own telephone, television and other communication
purposes; for lighting purposes; and for the attachment of the wires and facilities of any other public service
company, including but not limited to the right:
1.1. to lay, construct, operate and maintain one or more lines of underground conduits and cables
including, without limitation, one or more lighting suppcrts and lighting fixtures as GRANTEE may fromtime
to time determine, and all wires, conduits, cables, transformers, transformer enclosures, concrete pads,
manholes, handholes, connection boxes, ground connections, meters, attachments, equipment,
Initials:
(Page 1 ofz'~ Pages)
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection therewith; the width of said easement shall extend
( 30 ) feet in width across the lands of GRANTOR; and,
2. The easement granted herein shall extend across the lands of GRANTOR situated in
Albemar'le Count7 , Virginia, as more fully described on Plat
81910086
No. , which is attached to and made a part of this Right of
Way Agreement; the location of the boundaries of said easement being shown in broken lines on said Plat,
reference being made thereto for a more particular description thereof,
3. All facilities constructed hereunder shall remain the property of GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall have the
right to inspect, reconstruct, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the easement, and make such changes,
alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as GRANTEE may from time to time
deem advisable.
4, GRANTEE shall have the dght to keep the easement clear of alt buildings, structures, trees, roots,
undergrowth and other obstructions which would interfere with its exercise of the rights granted hereunder,
including, without limitation, the dght to trim, top, retrim, retep, cut and keep clear any trees or brush inside
and outside the boundaries of the easement that may endanger the safe and proper operation of its facilities.
All trees and limbs cut by GRANTEE shell remain the property of GRANTOR.
5. For the purpose of exercising the rights granted herein, GRANTEE shall have the right of ingress to
and egress from this easement over such private roads as may now or hereafter exist on the property of
GRANTOR. 'The right, however, is reserved to GRANTOR to shift, relocate, close or abandon such private
Initials:
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
roads at any time. ff there are no public or private roads reasonably convenient to the easement. GRANTEE
shall have such right of ingress and egress over the lands of GRANTOR adjacent to the easement.
GRANTEE shall exercise such rights in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and
inconvenience to GRANTOR.
6. GRANTEE shall repair damage to roads, fences or other improvements outside the boundaries of the
easement and shall repair or pay GRANTOR, at GRANTEE's option, for other damage done to GRANTOR's
property outside the boundaries of the easement caused by GRANTEE in the process of the construction,
~nspection, and maintenance of GRANTEE's facilities, or in the exercise of its right of ingress and egress;
provided GRANTOR gives written notice thereof to GRANTEE within sixty (60) days after such damage
occurs.
7. GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, may use the easement for any reasonable purpose not
inconsistent with the dghts hereby granted, provided such use does not interfere with GRANTEE's exemise
of any of its rights granted hereunder. GRANTOR shall not have the rightto construct any building, structure,
or other above ground obstruction on the easement; provided, however, GRANTOR may construct on the
easement fences and below ground obstructions as long as said fences and below ground obstructions
do not interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted hereunder. In the event such use
does interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its dghts granted hereunder, GRANTEE may, in its
reasonable discretion, relocate such of its facilities as may be practicable to a new site designated
by GRANTOR and acceptable to GRANTEE. In the event any such facilities are so relocated, GRANTOR
shall reimburse GRANTEE for the coats thereof and convey to GRANTEE an equivalent easement at
the new site,
8. GRANTEE shall have the right to assign or transfer, without limitation, to any public service company all
or any part of the perpetual right, privilege and easement granted herein.
9. If there is an Exhibit A attached hereto, then the easement granted hereby shall additionally be subject
to all terms and conditions contained therein provided said Exhibit A is executed and acknowledged by
GRANTOR contemporaneously herewith and is recorded with and as a part of this Right of Way Agreement.
10. Whenever the context of this Right of Way Agreement so requires, the singular number shall mean the
plural and the plural the singular.
Initials:
(Page 3 Of 4 Pages)
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
11. GRANTOR covenants that it is seised of and has the right to convey this easement and the rights and
privileges granted hereunder; that GRANTEE shall have quiet and peaceable possesslor,, use and
enjoyment of the aforesaid easement, dghts and privileges; and that GRANTOR shall execute such further
assurances thereof as may be reasonably required.
12. The individual executing this Right of Way Agreement on behalfof GRANTORwarrantsthat GRANTOR
is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state hereinabove mentioned and that he or
she has been duly authorized to execute this easement on behalf of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has caused its corporate name to be signed hereto by its authorized
officer or agent, described below, on the date first above written.
The County of Albemarle
Corporate Name:
By:
Its:
State of Virginia
City/County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
by
(Name of officer or agent)
of The ComztT- of A]_be~arle
(Name of corporation)
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
(Date)
(Title of officer or agent)
a Virginia
(State of incorporation)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
APPR0vgo AS TO I~P~:
(Page 4 Of ~'~ p~es)
The County of Albemarle
Tax Parcel No.: 91-2
Hone±cello Hi~h School
Legend
Locaaon of Bounda~j tJnes of R~ht of Way
D~ct-Towmhip- Borough County-C~y S~.
Scottsville Alb~w~rIe VA
Office Plat Number
C~arlottesville 81970086
EstL~ate Num~ G~ Numb~
81-70400469 G0023
7/24/97
The County of Albemarle
T~x Parcel No.: 91-2
Monticello High School
Locaddon of Boundary Lines of Right of Way
Plat to Accompany
Right-of-Way ~greement
I/ COt:116
C[~rlo ttes~J_lle
District-Township--Borough County-Cit~ State
Scott~ille Alb~-*~rle VA
C~ce P~ Numbe~
Charlottesville 8I~7008~
~ Number ~ Number
$1-70400469 G0023
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
THISRIGHTOFWAYAGREEMENT, ismadeandenteredintothis 20t:h dayof Aug~ts~:
19 97 , by and between
'.L'J:L~ CO]~[~r OF
("GRANTOR") and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, a Virginia public service corporation,
doing business in Virginia as Virginia Power, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia ("GRANTEE"}.
WITNESSETH:
7. That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR grants and
conveys unto GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and easement over, un-
der, through, upon and across the property described herein, for the purpose of transmitting and
distributing electric power by one or more cimuits; for its own telephone, television and other communication
purposes; for lighting purposes; and for the attachment of the wires and facilities of any other public service
company, including but not limited to the right:
1.1. to lay, construct, operate and maintain one or more lines of underground conduits and cables
including, without limitation, one or more lighting supports and lighting fixtures as GRANTEE may from time
to time determine, and all wires, conduits, cables, transformers, transformer enclosures, concrete pads,
manholes, handholes, connection boxes, ground connections, meters, attachments, equipment,
Initials:
(Page
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-13-04
accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection therewith; the width of said easement shall extend
f'i fteezz { 15 ) feet in width across the lands of GRANTOR; and.
2. The easement granted herein shall extend across the lands of GRANTOR situated in
&].be,,,~'].e Cou]z[-7 ,Virginia. as more fulty described on Plat
8].970098
No. , which is attached to and made a part of this Right of
Way Agreement; the location of the boundaries of said easement being shown in broken lines on said Plat,
reference being made thereto for a more particular description thereof.
3. All facilities constructed hereunder shall remain the pmperfy of GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall have the
right to inspect, reconstruct, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the easement, and make such changes,
alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as GRANTEE may/rom time to time
deem advisable.
4. GRANTEE shall have the right to keep the easement clear of all buildings: structures, trees, roots,
undergrowth and other obstructions which would interfere with its exercise of the rights granted hereunder,
including, without limitation, the right to trim, top, retrim, retop, cut and keep clear any trees or brush inside
and outside the boundaries of the easement that may endanger the safe and proper operation of its facilities.
All trees and limbs cut by GRANTEE shall remain the property of GRANTOR.
5. For the purpose of exercising the dghts granted herein, GRANTEE shall have the right of ingress to
and egress from this easement over such pdvate roads as may now or hereafter exist on the property ot
GRANTOR. The dght, however, is reserved to GRANTOR to shift, relocate, close or abandon such pdvate
Initials:
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
roads at any time. If there are no public or pdvate roads reasonably convenient to the easement, GRANTEE
shall have such right of ~ngress and egress over the lands of GRANTOR adjacent to the easement.
GRANTEE shall exercise such rights in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and
inconvenience to GRANTOR.
6. GRANTEE shall repair damage to roads, fences or other improvements outside the boundaries of the
easement and shall repair or pay GRANTOR, at GRANTEE's option, for other damage done to GRANTOR's
property outside the boundaries of the easement Caused by GRANTEE in the process of the const~"dction,
'inspection, and maintenance of GRANTEE's facilities, or b the exercise of its right of ingress and egress;
provided GRANTOR gives written notice thereof to GRANTEE within sixty (60) days after such damage
Occurs.
7. GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, may use the easement for any reasonable purpose not
inconsistent with the dghts hereby granted, provided such use does not inter~ere with GRANTEE's exercise
of any of its rights granted hereunder. GRANTOR shall not have the right to construct any building, structure,
or other above ground obstruction on the easement; provided, however, GRANTOR may construct on the
easement fences and below ground obstructions as long as said fences and below ground obstructions
do not interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its dghts granted hereunder. In the event such use
does interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted hereunder. GRANTEE may, in its
reasonable discretion, relocate such of its facilities as may be practicable to a new site designated
by GRANTOR and acceptable to GRANTEE. In the event any such facilities are so relocated, GRANTOR
shall reimburse GRANTEE for the costs thereof and convey to GRANTEE an equivalent easement at
the new site.
8. GRANTEE shall have the right to assign or transfer, without limitation, to any public service company all
or any part of the perpetual right, privilege and easement granted herein.
9. If there is an Exhibit A attached hereto, then the easement granted hereby shall additionally be subject
to all terms and conditions contained therein provided said Exhibit A is executed and acknowledged by
GRANTOR contemporaneously herewith and is recorded with and as a part of this Right of Way Agreement.
10. Whenever the context of this Right of Way Agreement so requires, the singular number shall mean the
plural and the plural the singular.
Initials:
Right of Way Agreement
COR 16-10-04
11. GRANTOR covenants that it is seised of and has the right to convey this easement and the dghts and
privileges granted hereunder; that GRANTEE shall have quiet and peaceable possesmon, use and
enjoyment of the aforesaid easement, rights and privileges; and that GRANTOR shall execute such further
assurances thereof as may be reasonably required.
12. The individual executing this Right of Way Agreement on behalf of GRANTOR warrants that GRANTOR
is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state hereinabove mentioned and that he or
she has been duly authorized to execute this easement on behalf of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has caused its corporate name to be signed hereto by its authorized
officer or agent, described below, on the date first above written.
Corporate Name:
The County of Albemarle
By:
Its:
State of Virginia
City/County of
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
by
(Name of officer or agent)
of The Coamty of Albemarle
(Name of corporation)
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
(Date)
(Title of officer or agent)
a V±rg~a
(State of incorporation)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
APPROv~ AS TO FOI~[:
DATE
Location of ~able in field establishes
the cemter-line of right-of-way
boundary.
~e~end
__ __. Location of Bounda~ Lines of Right of Way
/
Existing Virginia Power
overhead line
Plat to Accompany
Right-of-Way Agreement
COR 16
Virginia Electric and Power Company
County-City Stam
Albemarle VA
Pl~Number
81970098
Distri~
Charlottesville
Distd~-Township-Bemugh
Scottsville
Charlottesville
Grid Number
G0023
Estimate Number
81-50500733
[3at
8~20/97
15'
Existing Virginia Power
overhead line
Location of 'cable in field establishes
the center-line of right-of-way
boundary.
Legen(J
__ Location of Boundary Lines of Right of Way
Plat to Accompany
Right-of-Way Agreement
COR 16
Virginia E]ec~¢ ar~ Power Company
District
Cha~lot tesville
District-Township-Borough County-City State
Scottsville Albemarle VA
Office ~ Number
Charlottesville 81970098
Estimate Number Grtcl Number
81-50500733 G0023
Date By
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Through Truck Restriction on Rio Road
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Support Resolution for this Request
AGENDA DATE:
October 'l, 1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
· ATTACHMENTS: Yes.~
STAFF CONTACTIS}. . / / ..~-----'-'"-"'~
Messrs. Tucker, Citimberg,Benish, Wade . REVIEWED BY.
/
BACKGROUND:
VDOT has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution supporting through truck restriction
on Rio Road from Hillsdale Road to the City limits (see AttaChment A).
DISCUSSION:
VDOT has proposed this restriction based upon safety concerns. Rio Road in this area is a narrow, curvy,
and hilly road that cardes approximately 17,500 vehicles tdps a day. According to the County Police
Department, there have been 72 reported accidents on Rio Road in this section between January 1, 1991
to June 3C, 1997: There were 31 persons injured, but no fatalities. The Police department considers this
to be a higher than expected frequency of accidents. VDOT is currently conducting survey work for the
installation of guardrails in a portion of this section. The alternative through truck route would be Route 29
to the 250 Bypass.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors support VDOT's request to restdct through trucks on Rio
Road from Hiltsdale Road to the City limits with the attached resolution and set a public hearing as
required by State Code §46.2-809 for November 12, 1997.
- - -"'~-~ 7A10 :;38 RCVD
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97.181
AT -ACHMENT AI
April 29, 1997
Board of Supervisors Meeting
April 2, 19~7
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carsy:
We offer the following commen~s regarding transpor~atibn matters tha~ were
discussed at the April 2nd Board meeting.
The Department is tentatively providin~ for preliminar~ engineering money fn
the primary six year plan for the four laning of Route ~0 south to the Route
742/Avon Street Connector Road, This funding should b~ approved for fiscal
year 97-98,
The Department anticipates additional funding for fisqal year 97-98 in the
secondary six year plan that pill cover the estlmat~ld cost of $180,000 to
S200,000 for the Wast Leigh Drive rura% addition/railroad crossing upgrade. We
are requesting that a resolution which supports the ~ddition of this rural
addition projec5 be f~rwarded to this office immedlatel~ A sample resolution
is attached and has also been forwarded to the County Engineer's office.
For your information please find attached recent correspondence to Senator
Emily Couric regarding clearing work along Route 20 nortM and Route 29 north.
o
Thru truck restriction signs on Georgetown Road (~oute 65~} have been
installed. By copy of this letter we are advising the C~unty Police o£ same.
The Department is proposing a thru truck restriction based upon safety concerns
for Rio Road (Route 631) from the City Limits ~o ~illsda]e Drive. A resolution
supporting this restriction would be appreciated. A sample resolution is
attached.
Please share this information with the board membe~, If there are any
questions regarding the above issues, I will be prepared to dzscusa them at the May
?th Board meeting.
Sincerely,
AGT/smk
attachments
cc: Chief John Miller
Jeff $. Heres
Jack Kelsey
A- ~. Tucker
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, received a requesc from the Virginia Deparnmenn of
Transportation to consider the prohibition of through truck traffic
on Rio Road (Route 631) as a means no address safety concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Deparnmenm of
Transportation, does hereby requesm the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to prohibit the use of through truck traffic on Rio Road
(Route 631). Further that this prohibition apply to any truck or
truck and trailer or semi-trailer combination, excepn a pickup
truck or panel truck; and
RESOLVES, that combinations of Roune 29-Seminole Trail and
Route 29-250 Bypass are reasonable alternatives to trucks now
traveling Rio Road to the Charlottesville City limits or Route 29.
FURTHER RESOLVES that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does support this request and snanes its intent
that it will use its good offices for enforcemenn of the proposed
prohibition by the appropriate local law enforcement agency.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing
is a true, correcn copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular
meenlng held on October 1, 1997
Clerk, Board of County Supervmsors
DAVID R. GEHR
COMM SSIONER
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH o[ VTRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTFESVILLE. 22911
September 22, 1997
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Board of Supervisors Meetings
Augusn 6 and September 3, 1997
Ms. Ella Carey, C.M.C.
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville. VA 22902
Dear MS. Carey:
We have the following commenns regarding transportation manners that were
discussed an the Augusn 6 and September 3 Board meetings.
c Vandalized screen signs along Route 20 South from Avon Street Extended Route
742 to Marshall Manor Subdivision have been repaired and/or replaced.
¢ Route markers s~ Berwick Circle (Route 1451' and Berwick Court Route lA41
have been replaced.
o The Department will review the section of Route 20 from Route 742 north for a
reduction of speed to 45 mph.
o The Deparnment will review Route 702 for curve warnzng and maxzmum safe speed
signs and guardrail.
o The Traffic signal au Old Brook Road Route 652 and Rio Road Route 631
should snare full speration by the first week in October, the second ~n the latest.
o The Deparnmenn has measured the sight distance an the Routes 81C'614
znnersecnion in Whitehall and nones that the required ~ommercial sight distance is
available. The hedge appears no block the line of sight, however, it is kept neatly
trimmed and only requzres that vehicles pull up sully to the STOP szgn at this
intersecnion
Please share this information with the Board members. If there are any
questions regarding the above issues, I will be prepared no discuss them a5 the
October 1 Board meeting.
AGY/smk
S, Hores w/attachmenT
Sincerely,
'A. G. Tucker
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
DAVID R, GEHR
COMMISSIONER
BOARD OF S! JPERVISORS
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOttESVILLE 22911
September 17, 1997
.~- G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Board of Snpervisors
401 Mclatire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board, at its July 17. 1997 meeting, apprOVed the
allocations for the Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year 1997-98. I am enclosing a copy of the
resolmion and a list showing the approved amounts and projects for Albemarle County. Please provide
this information to the members of the Board of Supervisors.
Ifthere ~e .any changes or modifications in the approved projects, please advise ttfis office so
we may revise accordingly.
Yours Truly,
Gerald G. Utz
Contract Administrator
/ggu
Attachments
cc: Mr. D. IL Askew Ms. Marsha C. Fiol
Mr. V: Wayne Cilimberg
TRANSPORTATION --OR THE 21ST CENTURY
Moved by Mr. Rich and seconded by Mr. White , that
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia prescribes the annual
allocation of state funds to provide ~ equivalent matching allocation for certain local
funds designated by the governing body to be placed in a special fund account known as
"County Primary and Secondary Road Fund"; and
WHEREAS, this special fund account "... shall be used solely for the purposes of
either (i) maintain'rog, improving, or constructing the primary and secondary system
within such county, or (ii) bringing subdivision streets, used prior to July 1, I985, up to
standards sufficient to qualify them for inclusion in the state pnmary and secondary
system..."; and
WHEREAS, the goveming bodies of the counties electing to participate in this
program for Fiscal Year 1997-98 have, with the Departmem, identified specific eligible
items of work to be financed from the special fund account as indicated on "Attachment
A"; and
WHEREAS, it appears that these items of work fall within the intent of Section
33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia, and comply with the guidelines of the Department for
use of such funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board hereby approves the allocation of these funds as set forth in
"Attachment A."
Motion Carried
7-17-97
ABG · FINANCIAL SERVICES, 1NC.
September 9, 1997
&
EO. Box 8
(~'HURCHVILLE MARYLAND 21028
a10-879-9918
FAX a10-838~5360
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Ms. Arlene Hemandez
Assistant Treasurer
The Bank ofNew York 09-~2-97^ O: ~8 RCVD
101 Barclay Street, 21W
New York, New York 10286
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Ms. Hernandez:
Enclosed please find copies of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the
months of July and August 1997.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Project Monitor
/shm
enclosure
cc: Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Effective July 31, 1997
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lc~h~rdstreet
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE:
Hydraulic Road Apartments - Arhor CrestApartm~nts
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"}, as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the 'Authority")~ and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser'), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
1)
The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 ·
2)
The number of. units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3}
Th'e number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 51 ·
4)
The percentage that the numbe~ of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23% .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6)
As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOP, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
Au§ust 5, 1997
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
Au/thorized R6presentative
&¢o.ll~ July Y~t' 1997
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)~o~ct Ih
I. ocllion: Charlottesville, VA
Loretta Wyatt
Subm,lle(~ l;¥. Mlna~r
I. LOW~lq INCOME
The IollOw~nG uB~I$ h&v~
NumbirofUml$
..~u~ust 5, 1997
Total Occupied
Bond Occupied
I 4 Arbor Crest Dr 21 .Beverly T. Lane 41
2 6 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Wilma M.,. Atkinson 42 .
:3 7 Arbor Crest Dr 23 Ruth M~,,Jones 43
4 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton
5--14 Arbor Crest Dr 25 .Betty L. Reed 45
6 18 Arbor Crest Dr 26 Ann S. Kemp 48
? 30 Arbor Crest Dr 27 Mary Cox Allen 47
8 44 Arbor Crest Dr 28 Sam Atherton 48...
9 ~56 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Harlan W. Hooe , 49.
~0 70 Arbor Crest Dr 30 .Ernest M. Nease ~0.
11 76,Arbor Crest Dr 31 _A. nn G. Saylor
~2..84 Arbor Crest Dr ~2 .Juanita Boliek 52
~3 88 Arbor Crest Dr 23 .,Nancy G. Foley 53
~4 90 Arbor Crest Dr 34 Betty B.. Elliott
]~ 94 Arbor Crest Dr q5 M. Eileen Knick 55
18 , , .38 ~8 ....
~9 ~9
20. 40
051-35371
66
Effective 7/31/97
62
65..
71..
76~.
?8,
~0.
66
i5
2 12 _ 2 ..
S ~S 5
$ 16 6
7 , ~7 7
~0 20 I0.
II
12._
13.
14.
$$,
'ti.
20.
Effective August 31, 1997
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
ABG Associates, Inc.
300 B. Lcr~k~rd Street
Baltimore, Maryland
21202
RE:
Hydraulic Road Apartments - Ark~r Crest A~a~U£ents
Char ~ottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed
Restrictions"), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virglnia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as
trustee, one undersigned authorized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Project"), that as of the date
shown below:
The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 15 ·
2)
The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
3)
The number of units
held available for
(1) and (2) is
rented and the number of units
rental other than as described in
4)
The pezcen=age that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 23Z .
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6)
As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the undersigned has signed this Report as of
September 4, 1997
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: Authorized Representative
I.%onl~ August YI,Af' 1997
I. LOWTR INC;OM~
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts. )~OiIK:! I: 051-35371
Numb4¢ of Unltl., 66
September 4, 1997 Effective 8/31/97
DaTe
Total Occupied 66
Bond Occupied 15
4 Arbor Crest Dr Beverly T. Lane
1 21. 41 ~1..
6 Arbor Crest Dr Wilma M. Atkinson
2 22 = 42 62.
3 7 Arbor Crest Dr 23 Ruth M., Jones 43 . 63,
4 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 44 54.
$ 14 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Betty L. Reed 45 65.
B 18 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Ann S. Kemp 46
7 30 Arbor Crest Dr 27 M~ry Cox Allen 47 ~7.
8 44 Arbor Crest Dr 28 Sam Atherton 48
56 Arbor Crest Dr Harlan W. Hooe
9 ,. 29 ,. 49 _
10 70 Arbor Crest Dr 30 Ernest M. Nease 50 70.
76 Arbor Crest Dr Ann G, Saylor
I1 31 ~1 , 71,
12 84 Arbor Crest Dr 32 Juanita Boliek 52 · . 72
13 88 Arbor Crest Dr 33 Nancy G. Foley. 53 73.,
14 90 Arbor Crest, Dr ~4 Betty B. Elliott 54 74.
94 Arbor Crest Dr M. Eileen Knick
15 ~5 55
t6 , 36 56 .. 76.
t? 37 57 77.
~6 38 58 78..
t9 39 . 59. 79
20 ,., 40 60 80
I ii · 1 11
2 12 2 12.,
3 13 3, 13.
4 _, 14 4 14.
5 tS _ 5 15,
6 16 6 16
7 .... %? 7 ....
8 ,, 18 6 18.
! 19 ,, 9. 19.
%0 . 20 10.. 20.
Governor
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
0'~-'7-97a'0:56 hCV£
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Valley Regional Office
Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
Mailing address: P.O. Boxl129, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-1129
Telephone (540} 574-7800 Fax (540) 574-7878
h t tp://www.deq.st a t e.va.u s
September 15, 1997
Thomas I~ Hopkins
Director
R. Bradley Chewning, P.E.
Valley Regional Director
--. . -, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Supervisors
22901
Re:
Notice of Receipt of a VWPP Application, City of
Charlottesville, Department of Public Works, Moores Creek
Chan~el Modification (JPA-97-1454)
Dear Mr. Bowie:
In accordance with the requirements of Section 62.1-44.14:5
of the Code of Virginia, this letter notifies you that the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received an
application for a Virginia Water Protection Permit (VWPP). A
copy of the application is enclosed. The application contains
the name of the applicant and the nature of the application and
the proposed discharge.
Should DEQ propose to issue a VWPP for the activity, a copy
of the public notice describing the proposed permit limitations
will be provided to your office as required by Section 62.1-
44.15:01 of the Code of Virginia. If you have any questions
concerning the application or the VWPP program, please call me at
(540) 574-7802.
Sincerel
Enclosure: City of Charlottesville
olication
An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat
BASIC APPUCATION FORM
JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN
WATERS AND WETLANDS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
P~ I~ASE PP~NT OR T~PE AI~ ANSWEI~:
Ifa questi~ n does. not ap. ply to your proje_ct please.p..ri~t. N/A (not applicable) in the block or space p. rovide~ I.f
additional space ts needed, attach extra 8-1/2" x 11 "sheets of paper, lf you are unsure of a parttcutar term, ptease
refer to the definitions section.
la. Applicant's name and complete address:
Mr., Mrs, Ms. (circle one)
Mr. William M. Letteri
City of Charlottesville
Department of Public Works
Post Office Box 911
Charlottesville, Virginia
Telephone numbem:
Home (AJC )
Work (AfC 804 ) 970-3307
lb.
Property Owner's name and complete address:
(if different from above)
Telephonenumbers:
Home(MC
Wo~ (A/C
1997
2. Authofizedagent's~ame
and complete address (~ applicable):
Mr. David J. Hirschman
County of A~bemarle
Department of Engineering
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
Telephone numbem:
Home (A/C
Work (A/C 804) 296-5861
22902-4596
3. Have you obtained a contractor for the project? ._Yes x._No If your answer is "yes" complete the
remainder of this question and submit the Applicant's and Contractor'~ AcV~nowledgement Form on page 47 with
your application. MAPINE RESOURCES CO~qSSlON
°ntract°rsnameanac°mp'eteanareI~~ .... :88 1997 t:iillTeleph°nenumbers:' Home (A/C )
!iii Work(MC
project Failure to complete this question may delay LocM and State processing.
Name and complete address: Telephone number.
The Daily Progress (MC ~O4 ) 978-7200
685 w. Rio Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
List the name, address, and telephone number of the newspaper having general circulation in the area of the
NAO FM 1065, Rev 30 APR 93/VlvlRC 30-300 Rev 30 APR 93
-3-
5. Please give the name of the wateflxxty at the project site, the county or city the project is located in, and
Moore ' $ Creek a tributary ~ Rivanna River
located ~ Charlottesvillo
Give descriptive directions m the project site from the nearest ~tersection of two sm~ roads within th~ county or
city and visib~ poin~ of reference:
Within Azalea Park, a City Park on the east side of 01d Lynchburg Road (Rt. 780)
~ust north of the 1-64 overpass.
IF TI~.IE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN AN UNDEVELOPED SUBDIVISION OR PROPERTY,
CLEARLY STAKE AND IDENTIFY PROPERTY LINES AND LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. A
SUPPLEMENTAL MAP THAT SHOWS HOW THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DIVIDED SHOULD
ALSO BE PROVIDED
Stat~ the project p~ and provide a brief description of the project:
Stream restoration project. The creek has badly eroding and unstable banks and
streambed. The project will use a stream morphology approach in conjunction with
soil bio-engineering techniques to create a stable and ecologically functioning
stream reach.
Please place a checkmark next to as many of the following that describe your project site: '
Tidal waters X lOO year floodplain
Tidal wetlands Lake or Pond
. x Nontidal waters Mudflats
-X- Nontidal wetlands x River
Vege!ated Shallows
~ Ofl~e~-(explain - e.g. Intermitteat slxeam, vernal pool, etc.)
Natural
Man-made
Unknown
Proposed use (check one):
Ptivat~
__ Industrial
__Other (explain):
x Community
__ Government
Commercial
Will the project impact (flood, drain: excavate, dredge, Fall, sba,~, etc.) wetlands ?
X Yes No Uncertain
If your answer is 'YES", please indicate:
A. vegetated wethnds area(s) %o be impacted?
tidal square feet nontidsl 6736 square feet
B~ nonveg~-tod tidal wetlands area(s) to,be impacmd?
. square feet
10. Will the project be located at the site of any historic property? (Note: historic propecdes include but are
not limited to archeological sites, Civil War earthworks, graveyards, buildings,.bridges, CanalS, e;~.)
Yes x No If "Yes", ptease provide a map showing the locauon.
11. Have you previously contacted the Departmeat of Historic Resources concerning thla project?
Yes x No If "Yes", please provide the following information:
a. VDHR file number:.
b. Response date:
c. Type of response (no effecffno adveme effect, additional inforraation requested, survey requested,
further consultation needed):
12. Is your project located within a historic district?
If "Yes", please indicate which district:
yes x No Uncertsin
13.
Has a survey to locate archeological sites and/or historic smactures been carried out on the properly?
Yes x No If "Yes", please provide the following information:
a. Date of survey:
b. Name of firm:
c. Is them a report on file with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources?
d. Was any historic property located?
14. Have you previously had a site visit, applied to, or obtained a permit from any agency (Federal, State, or
Local) for any portion of the project described in this application or any other project at the site?
x Yes No If your answer is "Yes", provide the following information:
Name of Repmsentative: David Knowles~ Jim Brogdon, Jay Roberts~ John Kauffman
~ Activity Application Number Action Taken (check
~2MitC, DEQ, Pre-application mtg. the appmpriate box)
Army Corps,
WCZF Issued Denied
Date Action taken
08/23/96
Withdrawn
x Site Visit
-5-
15. a) Has any work commenced or has any portion of the project for which you are seeking a permit been
completu~d? Yes ~t No
b) Are you s.u. bmitting.this application at the direction of any state, local or federal agency? ~Yes x No
If your answer to either qu.os. Uon above is "YES", give details below stating when the work was corapleted,' Who
pa'formed ~ work, and which ageacy (if any) directed you to submit the application. (Please clearly differentiate
on your aDvheat~on drawings that portion of the work which has been completed from that which i~ proposed,)
16. Approximately how long willit take to complete the project after all required permits have been issued?
6 . months
17. Approximate cost of the entire project (materlal% labor, em): $ 200,000.00 Approximate cost of only
that portion of the pwject which affects State Waters (below mean low water in tidal areas or ordinary high water
in nonfidal me_as): $50,000.00
18.
List the name and complete m~l~g address of each adjacent property owner to the projec[
Richard C., Sr. & Sharon T. Cason
Route 1, Box 287-A
Palmyra, Virginia 22963
19. List the name and complete mailin~ addre^~s of each waterfront property owner across the waterway from
the projech if the water body is less ~h~n 500 feet wide. Also, if the project is within a cove, ~ the name and
address of each property owner located on the cove.
Richard C., Sr. & Sharon T. Cason
Route 1, Box 287-A
Palmyra, Virginia 22963
20. All affected property owners must be nofif~xt of the proposed plans. If you do this yourseff, k will assist
ua in proce.~ng your application. Have you ~ this project with all affected parties and had them sign an
Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form? X Yes No Ifyour answer ~ yes, the
acknowledgement forms must be included with this apphcafiom
We are currently in negotiation with the adjacent property owner but have not
as of yet resolved ownership or easement arrangements. For this reason, the
acknowledgement form is not enclosed with this application. This information
will be forthcoming.
completed and submitted as part of your application. ~,amuonai appenmces can ye pmwaea upon nad
you are proposing multiple activities, you may submit one plan., view,drawip, g p. mv~?d all ~ .req,'.ui~ ou ma
information for eJach activity is included (e.g. if your proposal mcmaes a p~er, m~monse aha areogmg, y y
show all activilies on a single plan view drawing). A sample drawing for each activity is located on the back of
the corresponding appendix. Although thc sample drawings are condensed so that the plan viow, cross section,
end view, and vicinity maps are all on one page, you do not have to limit yo .t.~ drawings to one page. Drawings
submitted need not be prepared by a professional draftsman as in these samples.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix ~
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix O
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
I.~T OF APPENDICI~
Private Picts & Marginal Wharves
Boathouses
Marinas & Comm~-'ial ~
Dolphins-Mooring Piles-Buoys Not Associated w/Piers
Boat Rmnps
Bnlkhe~ls & Associat~ Backfill
Hit
Riprap & Associated Backfill
Marsh To~ Stablii?~tion
Dredgin gfMining/F, xcavafing
Groins & Je~es
Breakwaters
Beach Nourishment
Intake - Ouffall Swacmres
Su'e~m Channel Modifications
Impoundmenls/Dams
Utility Crossings
Road Crossings (Bridges-Tunn¢ls-Culverts)
Addendum
Deparunent of Environmental Quality Additional Requirements
ALL APPLICANTS MUST SIGN
I hereby apply for all necessary permits for the activities I have described herein. I agree to allow the duly
authorized representatives of any regulatory or advisory agency to enter upon the premises of the project site at
reasonable times to inspect and photograph site conditions.
I hereb~information submitted in this application is tree and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
REMINDER: BE SURE TO COMPLETE THE APPENDICES YOU CHECKED ABOVE AND SUBMIT
WITH THE BASIC APPLICATION FORM (PAGES 3-7). MAIL ALL INFORMATION TO:
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Habitat Management Division
P. O. Box 756
Newport News, Virginia 23607
-7-
APPI~DIX O - NONTIDALSTREAMC~ANNELMODIFICATIONS
pI~FASE COMPI.~:I~ ~-~T AND ANSWER TIlE ~ONS. TILE- DRAWINGS MUST
CONTAIN THE. FOLLOWING INFORMATION OR THEy WILL BE REIURNI~ AS ]NCOMPLEIE:
no-ah arrow
WS, terway n~tme
ordinary high water line
location, length and width of the existing channel
location, length and width of the proposed channel
width ofthe saeam (measuring from ordinary high water to ordinary high water)
location of existing and proposed non-vegetated or vegetated wetlands, bars, i~lands~ riffle and pool
complexes or other special aquatic sates at the project sate
shoreline, property lines, and location of adjacent property owners
direction of flow
location & dimensions of bang stabiliTation stroetur~
Cross Section Drawing (Prepare one drawing for the exis~ng channel and one for line proposed chm~)
x existing and proposed stream channels including depth,base width and ,top width
~ dimensions and slope of bank stab'flization structures
~ filter cloth
x ordinary high wnmr level
x existing contours of the bottom
~ location and dimensions of low flow channel (if applicable)
V'~nity Map The name of the map from which the vicinity map was taken and the exact location of the
project site must be included (U.S.G.S. quad sheet, street map, or county map is preferred).
Provide the following:
a) .approximate normal flow rate and drainage area of the existing waler body:
~. 4 els ] 3.4 square miles
b) approximate normal flow rate and drainage area of the new or modified water body
5,6 cfs 13. ~ square miles
c) method used to stabilize the banks: Soil Bio-engineering Techniques: Root Wads,
branch layering~ some rock~ streambank& flood plain plantings, etc.
d) type & approximate composition percentage of the existing stream bed (e.g. cobble 35%, rock 45%,
sand 20%, etc.): sand = 63%~ gravel = 35%~ cobble = 1%
Will low flow channels be maintained? x Yes No
Will any structures be placed in the stream to create fifties, pools, meanders, etc? If "Yes" please explain.
Yes, vortex rock weirs (typical plan & profile on plan sheets).
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO
SUBMIT THE ADDENDUM LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS APPLICATION
-37-
~DDEND1.)M
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON~AL QuaLITY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR VIRGINIA
WATER FROTE~.~ION PERMITS
The/ollov~ information is required/or all applications unless othenvise noted:
1. § 62.1-44.15'3 of State Water Control Law requires that before the Department may comider any
application for a permit to be complete, that lime applicant provide the Executive Director with a
notification from the local governing body of the county, city or town in which the discharge is to take
place that the location and operation of the facility is fully consistent with all ordinances adopted
pursuant to Chapter I1 (§ 15.1-427 et seq.) of Title 15.1. A form/or local government signature is
included with this appendL~ Please note that the local governing body must be presented with the -
Joint Permit Application. Failure to fulfill this requirement will prevent processing of your application
and may result in the administrative denial of your request.
Latitude: 38~00-.36
Hydrologic H28
Unit Code (HUC): 202080204-04R
· This infori~lioim is fou~l c~ the Hvch, olo~ie Un~ t Mm~. S-~ate oi~ ¥] _r~ia published by lhe U.q. ~ sm-v~.
4. Stream Classification (Check one):
Class I - Open Ocean
--x_. Class III - Nontidal Waters
__ Cqa~s V - Put & Take Trout
Waters
.,, Class VH- Swamp Waters
c%~s II - Estuarine Waters
-_ ola~s IV - Mountainous Zone
Waters
cqa~s VI - Natural Trout
Waters
5. Stream Drainage Area (check whichever applies) '
a, <1 square mile b. <5 square miles c. X>5 square miles
information (see section 11)
6. Existing beneficial uses of affected waters (check all that apply)**':
fish and wildlife habitat
_. public water supply
commercial/industrial supply
navigation
aesthetic value
recreation
,.. agriculture water supply
waste assimilation
X cultural value
other (please describe)
7. Uses which may be impacted by fi~e proposed project (check only those uses impacted) '"**:
The following will be "positively-impacted" (impacted in a positive way)
.-X- fish and wildlife habitat X recreation
_ public water supply agriculture water supply
.. commercial/industrial supply waste assimilation
navigation . X cultural value
"_"X aesthetic value .... other (please describe)
- A1 -
11. Applicants must complete Appendix N - Strum Intakes and Outfall Structures, Appendix O -
Stream Channel Modifications and/or Appendix P - Impoundments/Dams, whichever is (are)
appropriate.
12. What are the medL~n moathly stxeam flow~ in cubic feet per second (cfs) at ~ water intake or dam
site? No intake or dam proposed.
Median l~'[ow Medina Flow
Month (CFS) Month {CFS~
JAN JUL
~BB AUG
MAR SEP
APR OCT
MAY NOV
~o-N DEC
13. Describe below or on an attachment the stroamflow gauges, the type of calculations used and
period of record that was used to calculate the medlnn monthly flows in item 12, ar~ the average flows
provided in Appendices N, O and P.
__Average flow in appendix O calculated using baseflow re~dimgs at the Route 20 Crossing
__of Moorets Creek. The readings were taken in 1994 using a stream velocity
meter at a box culvert. 'I averaged the baseflow readings and prorated the
_,~verage flow to the appropriate watershed size.
14. What is the maximum instantaneous withdrawal and maximum daily withdrawal at ~ water
intake or dam site? Specify the units of measurement, e.g. million gallons per day, gallons per minute,
cubk feet per second, etc~ No withdrawal
Maximum instantaneous withdrawal
Maximum daily withdrawal
15. Describe the manner in which the withdrawal of water varies over time, for example, as a function
of the ffane of year, or time of day, or time of week.
No withdrawal
16. Describe below the amount of water that will be lost to consumptive use. For the purpose of this
application, consumptive use means the withdrawal of surface waters without recyde of said waters to
their source or basin of origin. Attach a map showing the location of the withdrawal and location of
the return flow.
No consumptive use
17. Describe below or in a separate attachment how ~ amount of water to be withdrawn was
calculated and any relevant assumptions made in that calculation. Also describe the proposed use of
the water withdrawal. No withdrawal
-I
CITY
CHARLOTTESVILLE
SECTION
CITY
OF
CHARLOTTESVII I F
SECTION 2-0
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORf~f
I, t,,/./~(D'7-'- (./-/./.v/ ,/'-'//~c....~ , own lsnd next to or across tbe wat~r from
(ADIACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME PRINTED)
the land of
(APPLICANTS NAME)
· I have reviewed the applicanfs project drawings dated
(bATE)
to be submitted for all necessary Local, Stat~, and Federal permits.
I ~/~VE NO CO~ , . DO NOT OBirEc'r
· DO OB~cL'T to the project.
The applicant has agreed to contact me. for additional comments if the proposal changes prior to conswacfion of the
project
(Before signing this form, please he sure you have checked the appropriate box above.)
NOTE; IF YOU OBIECT TO THE PROPOSAL - THE REASONS YOU OPPOSE THE PROJECT MUST BE
SUBMfI-I'~D TO VMR¢ IN WRITING. AN OBJECTION. WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN
DENIAL OF THE PROJECT, BUT. VALID COMPLAINTS WILL BE GIVEN FULl.
CONSIDERATION DURING THE PERMIT REVIEW PRO~E$.q.
NAO FM 1020, Rev 30 APR 93
NOTE: Please photocopy this form if additional copies are needed.
-47-
]'une 26, ~997
Braven B. Beaty
Richard J. Neves
Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife Sci.
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
David Hirschman
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Engineering & Public Works
401 Mclntire Road, Room 211
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Hirschman;
The section of Moores Creek in the city of Charlottesville adjacent to Azalea Park was
searched for freshwater mussels on June 20, 1997 by biologists (Beaty, Kinney) from the Virginia
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Virginia Tech. The conditions during the survey
were suitable; low water, good clarity, and sunny weather. The water temperature was 26°C.
Searching was conducted by snorkeling and by searching the stream bank for shell material. The
stream was surveyed from the tributary on the right ascending bank, downstream of the proposed
project area, to the tributary on the left ascending bank, upstream of the proposed project area, A
total of 6.0 man-hours was spent searching the stream reach.
This reach had a mix of habitat types. The stream width ranged from 3-6 m, with an
average width of about 4.5 m The substrate was mostly sand in mid-channel, with clay being the
dominant substratum along the banks. Much of the clay in the stream appeared to be material
which calved into the stream as the banks collapse. Large clods ofctay were present in the stream
along some of the more unstable areas of the bank. In addition, much of the stream bed was
covered by a layer of silt from a few millimeters deep in areas with flowing water to 5 cm in
backwater areas. Very few areas of the stream bed were clear of all silt. There are also three
riffles in the reach which have a mix of cobble and gravel substrata. The stream was generally
shallow in most areas with depths ranging from 0.25 m to 1.3 m. The average depth was
approximately 0.5 m. The right ascending bank throughout the upstream two-thirds of the reach
is very unstable and slumping. This has resulted in high, vertical banks and a meandering stream
course. However, the inside bends of the stream have formed gravel point bars which appear
stable,
The 6 hours of survey effort yielded no mussels. The amount of suitable substrate in this
reach is limited and may be the reason that mussels do not reside in this secuon Mussels require
a stable substrate to establish healthy populations. They also do not tolerate significant and
repeated siltation very well. This reach of Moores Creek has both unstable substrata and siltation.
Asian clams (CorbiculaJlumit~ea) were present in the stream reach but were not abundant, Few
Asian dlams were found in the reach except in the most upstream 50 m, where they were abundant
in sandy substrate with a thin silt layer The stream reach was populated with numerous fish. At
least four species, including moumain red-bellied dace (Phoxbms oreas), jumprock, shiners, and
chubs were present. Evidence of active spawning was present in the form of'male fish in breeding
colors, dense schools of fish, and ~he frequent occurrence of spawning mounds of gravel
constructed by chubs. There were very few crayfish and insects found in the stream reach. There
were also no snails found during the survey. The lack of a healthy benthic community indicates
that a chronic habitat or water quality problem exists in the stream
Because there are no mussels in the surveyed stream reach, this project will have no
adverse impact on mussel resources of concern To state or federal agencies.
Sincerely;
Braven B. Beaty
Richard J. Neves
2'30"
32'30" '16
717
/ 38~00,
q8 q~'~ E. 78*30'
ROAD CLASSIFICATION ~-~.~.~,.
Primary mgnway, Light-duty roaa, nara or
hard surface tmoroved surface
Secondary highway,
hard surface Unimoroved roaa ........
Inters~a[e Route ¢ U.S. Route State Route
CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST, VA.
N3800--W7530/7.5
1973
PHOTOREV!SED !978
MOORES CREEK tN
Scenes of Instability
Photographs: 7/10197
Sorry! This PaX Land is Off-Limits
Stream Erosion Threatens The Outfield,
Picnic Area, and Access Road Into The Park
Horseshoe Bend and Undercutting Toe:
Classic Instability
All This Sediment Is An Unwelcome
Site For Habitat & Aquatic Life
I
o
~J
Ill I
x ors
~ ~ ~P~ ~C~ated 09122197
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS
FY 97/98 PROJECT REPORT
Scheduled
Bud ecj~_ Completion %~ Complete Notes
SCHOOLS
Cale AddJtior
Crozet Addition
Stony Point Addition
Brownsville Addition
Woodbrook Addition
WAHS Renovations
Monticello H.S
Stony Point Parking and Playfielc
WAHS/CATEC Roofs
High School Technology Ed. Labs
Murray High School Renovations
Site ImDr (VVAHS, Yancey)
VMF Facility
Henley Middle School Addition
PREP Facility
Stone Robinson Addition
Chiller Re~)l. AHS/Hollymead
Greet HVAC Renovations
AHS Phase III Renovations
Subtota~
930.000 07/01/97 100% C Warranty Stage
884.645 08/15/97 98% C
1,204.667 08/15/97 98% C
1.773.470 08/15/97 98% C
2.245.550 08/15/97 98% C
2.700.000 08/30/97 99% C
29,743,000 06/15/98 45% C
193.000 06/30/98 80% D
1.022.500 08/01/98 80% P
230.000 08/01/98 05% P On Hold by Building Services
920.000 09/15/98 80% P
407.200 10/30/98 10% D
437.000 10/30/98 10% D
2.385.500 06/15/99 10% D
2.900.000 06/15/99 05% D
2.664.000 06/15/99 95% P
668.000 07/30/99 100% P
306.000 07/30/99 100% P
650.000 08/01/99 05% P
$52.264.532
ADMINISTRATION & COURTS
Court Square Painting
TJ Visitors Center Roof Painting Project
Replace Roof. COB
Seal Parking Lot COB
Courts Space Needs Study
Old Real Estate Building Drainage Design
Keene Landfill Remediation
Old Crozet School Roof
UST Replacement @ COB
COB Maintenance Program:
Misc. Building Renovations
Conference Rm Furniture ReD~acemen[
Misc. Carpet Replacement
New Sound System for Board Room
HVAC Control System
Subtotal
74.254 10/30/97 40% C
10.000 11/15/97 90% D
100.000 11/30/97 85% D
30.000 11/30/97 10% D
50.000 06/30/98 90% P
15.000 06/30/98 80% P
170.600 06/30/98 50% P
135.000 08/31/98 20% P
120.000 10/30/98 05% P
71.000 01/30/98 75% C
20,000 08/30/97 99% C
10.000 08/30/97 95% C
10.500 10/30/97 99% C
30.000 06/30/98 80% B
$846.354
HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
Airport Access Funds Agreement
North Berkshire Road
Rt 20 Connector Road
Hydraulic Rd Sidewalk
Trees for 29
West Leigh Drive Rural Addition
Meadowcrk Pkwy Engineering
Meadowcrk Pkwy Envirn. Irn~)act
Berkmar Dr. North Extension (Close cue
GE Fanuc Ind. Access Project
Street Lighting:
Airoort Acres
Rio/Old Brook Road
900.000 09/30/97 75% P
3.800 10/30/97 05% D
2.528.300 11/15/97 75% C
33.000 12/30/97 75% D
180.000 05/30/98 100% B
300.000 06/30/98 30% D
191,000 06/30/98 50% P
800.000 06/30/98 00% P
1.000 000 06/30/98 100% C
267.000 06/30/98 10% D
1.500 12/30/97
0 12/30/97
Co. Attorney Revising
Plats being rewsed
Planning Coordinating
Planning Coordinating
90% D Under Review by VDOT since 6/10
90% D Under Rewew by VDOT since 6/10
LEGEND: P= Programming D = Design B= Bid C = Construclon
Hydraulic/Commonwealth
Hydraulic/Georgetown
Whitewood/Georgetown
G eorgetown/Corn rn onwealth
Marshall Manor
Subtotal
STORMWATER CONTROL PROJECTS
Moores & Meadow Creek Studies
Woodbrook Channel Phase I
Lickinghole Basin (Close out)
Branchlands Wetland Dedication
Woodbrook Channel Phase II
Rio Hills Basin Dedication
Design Standards Manual - Needs Assrnt
Design Standards Manual - Final Design
Windharnn/Jarrnan Gap Channel
Peyton Basir
Ricky Road
Lynchburg Road Storm Sewer
Four Seasons Channe~
Four Seasons Basins
Birnarn Basin
Master Drainage Study
SW/Erosion Correction Projects:
Eastbrook Dr. Drainage Improvemenm
Kropf Drainage Improvements
Hasko Drainage Imorovemenm
Brookmere Rd. Drainage Improvements
Patrick Drainage Improvements
Westmoreland Ct. Drainage/mpmvemn~
Minor Ridge Drainage Jrnorovernen~s
Subtotal
PUBLIC SAFETY
UST Removal @ Regional Jail
Regional Jail Addition
Juvenile Detention Facility
Police Academy Training Facility
Subtotal
PARKS & RECREATION
Dorrier Park Shelter/Restroorn
Crozet Park Field
Subtotal
16,000
16,000
12,000
16,000
1,500
$6,266,100
184.600
20.265
1~972.880
21.000
28.035
4,700
11.980
38.000
82.000
156.500
39.900
17.500
23.100
96,100
98.485
205,400
8.072
1.550
4,870
4.250
2.500
30.000
30.000
$3,081,687
50.000
14.978 792
7.200.000
7.000.000
$29.228.792
56.000
640.000
$696.000
TOTAL $92,383,465
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
08/30/97
08/30/97
09/01/97
12/30/97
12/30/97
12/30/97
12/31/97
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
06/30/98
08/30/97
08/30/97
08/30/97
08/30/97
1 2/30/97
12/30/97
12/30/97
12~1~7
1~01/99
04~1~0
0~15/00
12/30/97
06/30/02
90% D Under Review by VDOT since 7/28
90% D Under Review by VDOT since 7/28
90% D Under Review by VDOT since 7/28
90% D Under Review by VDOT since 7/28
50% P
95% D
100% C
100% C
50% D
30% D
30% D
10% P
0% P
05% D
90% D
05% D
05% D
10% P
10% D
10% D
00% P
95% C
95% C
100% C
100% C
25% D
10% D
05% P
60% D
95% D
20% P
05% P
5O% S
95% P
2 meetings w/Focus Gm
Funds for Next Watershed
Pending RHH Final Site Plan
Consultant RFP Needed
LEGEND: P =Prograrnrning D = Design B = Bid C = Construction
To: Members, Board of Supervisors ,
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk~
Subject: Reading List for October I, 1997
Date: September 26, 1997
September 5, 1995 -
November I, 1995 -
March 12, 1997 -
March 19(N), 1997 -
May21, 1997-
Pages I - 17 (Item #7b) - Mrs. Humphris
Pages 17 (Item #7b) - 35 (Item # 13) - Mr. Martin
Pages I - 15 - Mr. Marshall
Pages 35 (Item # 10) - end - Mrs. Thomas
All - Mr. Marshall
Pages I - 15 (Item #7) - Mr. Thomas
Pages 15 (Item #7) - end - Mr. Martin
Pages I- 20 (Item #8) - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 20 (Item #8) - end - Mr. Perkins
To; Members Board of SL~erv~sors
From; Ella Washington Carey, CMC. Clerk ~. ~~
$,,bject;Reading List for October I, 997
I)ate; September 26. 1997
November I 995-
March 12. 997 -
March 19.N~. 1997 -
May21 1997-
Pages 17 (Item #7b) - 35 (Item # 131 - Mr. Martin
Pages I - 15 - Mr. Marsha
Pages 35 ~jtem # 0) - eno - Mrs. Thomas
All- Mr. Marsha
Pages t - 5 (Item #7) - Mr. Thomas
Pages 15 (item #7) - eno - Mr. Martin
Pages t- 20 'tem #8) - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 20 ~tem #8) - end - Mr. Perkins
u
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
09__25_97Ac~ .... ,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
1997-99 Work Plan for the County Development
Departments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work activity scheduled for FY97-99
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Huff, C~imbero, Maw/er, McCulley
AGENDA DATE:
Oct. 1,1997
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
This is the fourth edition of the Work Plan for the Albemarle County Development Departments. It is distributed to the
relevant boards/commissions, development community, and interested public. This informational listing is intended
as a means of assessing and prioritizing the many items which occupy the County's Development Departments time
and resources. This comprehensive report is broken into five easily identifiable categories: 1) the alphabetized work
item 2) the lead department & any supporting departments 3) the expected outcome/product 4) the anticipated two-
year time schedule and 5) one-time and ongoing activ'~es.
This product is intended as a communication tool to the many "customers" that the County's Development
Departments serve. To keep all interested parties informed and up to date, the work plan is revised god made
available yearly. The lime frames noted are estimates based on the latest obtainable information and are {subject to
change without prior notice as workloads and priorities shift.
DISCUSSION:
CounbJ staff modified the format of this year's edition to make it even more user friendly. For FY 1997, the work plan
has been reorganized to show those Rems/projects that occur one-time versus those that are on-going/continuous.
RECOMMENDATION:
No aclion is needed since the work plan is provided for your information and review. Comments and suggeslions are
welcome. Staff desires to review the major items so that there is an understanding of priorities that has been set. If
the Board wishes any of the priorities to be changed, that feedback would be helpful at this time.
97.185
n,' uJ
Zi---
ZO-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.AGENDA TITLE:
W.J. Kirtley Sr. - Request to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional
Area to provide Water and Sewer to Tax Map 59,
Parcel 23B(1).
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
October1, 1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, W.J. Kirtiey, Sr., has requested Ju~sdictional Area designation to provide sewer service to property located
on Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B(1)(See Attachment A). The applicant's property consists of 3.25 acres and is located outside
of the designated Development Area on Route 250 West in the Ivy area. The applicant's property is located in the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area for water omy and a portion of the property near Route 250 West is
designated for water and sewer (the Kirtley Realty Office site). In 1984, the Board established a policy regarding
properties in this area with pre-existing zoning that sewer service should be provided only to portions of the properties
which could be served by gravity flow and which drained away from the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. This action
added that po~on of this parcel that drained away from the South Rivanna River Watershed to the service area for sewer.
There are four buildings located on the total property. A realty office is located near Route 250 West and is within the
designated water and sewer area. Three attached warehouses (one structure) are located near the railroad tracks and
are located in the water only designated area. The applicant has stated that the drainfield serving the three warehouses
in the rear of the property has failed to the extent that the septic field needs to be pumped weekly. The applicant hired
a soil scientist to explore the possibility of locating a new draintield to serve these building (See Attachment B} The
Health Department, in a memo dated July 9, indicated that the system may be in the early stages of failure, although at
l~e lime of the inspector's site visit the system was functioning satisfactorily. One alternative location for a new drainfield
would require the abandonment of an existing well. A second atternative site is an "uphill" location which would require
pumping and would also taka up some of the reserve septic site for another building On the property (See Attachment
C). Connection to the public sewer would require connection to the ACSA collector tine on the north side of Route 250.
This would also require pumping.
DISCUSSION
The subject property for this request is not within a Development Area. The Compreheosive Plan provides the following
concerning water service in the Rural Area:
General Principle: UJflization of central water and/or sewer systems or the extension of public water or sewer into the
Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health and safety are at issue.
Recommendation: Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries in
cases where the property is: (1) adjacent to exi~ing lines; and (2) public health or safety is endangered.
An ACSA collector line is located a(~.acent to property on the north side of Route 250, so the application meets the
adjacent line requirement. With the applicant's septic system backing up, the request meets the health and safety criteria.
However. the warehouse site drains toward the water supply watershed and therefore, does not meet the Board's policy
for providing sewer service to this area.
09-2s-97~10:23 -tV}
AGENDA TITLE:
W.J. Kirtley Sr. - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area
August 6, 1997
Page 2
The applicant provided additional informalion at the previous Board meeting regarding the level of maintenance required
of the exislJng system (Attachment D). This information was given to the Health Department along with a clarification of
the status of the reserve septic field for the Kirtley Realty office building - that the reserve field is not necessary for the
office building since that part of the property is in the jurisdictional area for sewer service and can be served with public
sewer. Based on this additional information, the Health Department has provided revised comments (Attachment E)
which indicate that there is a "high probability" that the existing system is failing, and that the Kirtley Realty office reserve
field would be adequate to serve the warehouse.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request is consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of se[vice outside designated
DevaiopmentAreas in that there is high probability that the existing system is failing and the site is ad.iacent to an existing
sewer line. However, there appears to be a viable on-site alternative to the provision of public sewer service through
utilization of the e~-'ting reserve drain field for the office building. This will require pumping from the failing system to this
drain field, but pumping would also be necessary to connect to the public sewer line. Furthermore, this request is not
consistent with the policy of prohibiting service to properties in this area which drain to the South fork Rivanna Reservoir
watershed. Therefore, based upon the Health Department's review of the adequacy of the reserve drain field area, staff
believes this request may be premature for sewer service atthistime. However, should the Board decide to amend the
jurisdic~nal area. this area should be designated for limited sewer service to the three attached warehouses only (one
structure).
cc: Richard Carter
W.J. Kirtley, Sr.
Art Petrini
Bill Brent
David Hirschman
Bill Craun
WoJ. KIRTLEY Sr.
RequeSt for water and sewer
TM 59: P 23B[1)
Pal
58
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICT ONAL AREAS MAP KEY
SAMUEL MILLER
DISTRIOT
SECTION
59
IAT+ACHMENT
April 28, 1997
Mr, W,J. Klrtley
108 Drive
Cltarlottesx ille,~' Virginia 22901
Re: Soils Study
proposed Dminfi¢ld Sites for Kirtley Distributing Building
Kirtles, Property, Route 250 West-
Al~mat'le Connty
Dear Mr. Kirtley:
As requested we have completed a soils stud5, at the referenced site. The purpose of tile
study was to determiue the suitability of the soils for the disposal of sewage by means
of ~ septic tank drainlield system. The investigation h~ consisted o1' drilling a series of
hand aug~r test holes to .determine soil profiles at ,ave (2) pOtential sims that ym~ wanted
investigated. The first s~ is located dxreetly behind the existing two-story brick office
bui!diug in ~he front pomon. ~.f the property.. The second site is located in the gravel
parking lot m front of the ~xtstmg warehouse m the rear porti0n 0f the property. Alog
6f each test hole is shown on the enclosed individual soil profile sheets along with a
sketch showing the approximate hole locations. The holes at the first site have been
flagged With red ribl~on. The holes atthe second site have not been flagged Aisc
enclosed is a soil information summmT sheet for each site comalning information
pertinent to the design of the proposed drainfield.
Based on our investigation, we offer the following comments regarding file areas
investigated:
Site #1 (Behind tho existing two story office building): This area was
investigated with seven (7) soil profile holes. Two of the profile holes (4 and 7)
encountered bedrock at 44 and 42 inches, respectively. The depth to bedrock, coupled
with the fact that there, is anywhere from 18 to 26 inches of existing fill in the area, will
limii, tl~e potential dramfie.ld site to a small area in the vicinity of hole.s. 1,2,3,5 and 6.
Provided that no bedrock ts encountered at a depth above 54 inches thts arm will only
support, six (6) 67 foot lines. Using an estimated percolation rate of ,40 :minutes/inch
and an mstallation depth of 54 inches below the existing gro,und, su?'aee, this site can
dispose of approximately 60.,,0, gallons of water per day. If tins s~te ts approved by the
Health Depariment, a pump % stem will be required. ·
Site #2 (hr parl~i'ng lot in front o£ the existing warehouse bnilding): There is a
V?y small area in the vicinity of holes 1.2,5 and 6 that ,~hould support four. (4) 50 foot
hnes. Using an estimated pertolation rate of 40,minutes/inch and an installation depth of
42 inches below the exfisting parking lot, this site can dispose of approximatel~ 300
gallons of water per day, If this site is approved by the Health Department the parking
Soils Study
Proposed Drainfield Sites for Kirtley Distributing Building
Kiffiey Property - Route 250 West
Albemarle County
Page 2
lot will have to be paved and the existing well will'have to be abandoned iu accordance
with Health Department regulations.
We sugge~st that you discuss your situation with the Health Department to detem~ine
how much drainfield will be required iu order to accommodate the ehm~tges that you am
proposing.
The contents o1' this report reflect our opimon as to the suitability of the soils in the
areas investigated to support a septic tank/d ~r~infield system under the cma'ent Health
Department regulations, Final approval and design of the dmi~tfield rests with the
Chm'lottesville-Albemarle Health Department.
We hope this is the information you need. If you have any questions, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
EARTH TECH, Inc.
Steve Gooch
End.
Soil Profile
Proposed Drainfield Site for Kirtley Dist. Bldg.
Location Behind Existing Two Story Brick Office Bldg.
Kirtley Property - Route ,~50 West
All~emarle County
Hole
1
2
5
6
Depth
(in.)
0-24
24-72
0-20
20-24
24-41
41-72
0-26
26-30
30-43
43 -72
0-18
18-44
44-
0-18
18-21
21-72
0-26
26-29
29-72
0-19
19-22
22~42
42-
Material Description
Fill
Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) fine sandy loam
Fill
Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam (original topsoil layer)
Red (2.SYR 5/8) clay loam, friable
Yellowish red (5YR~ 5/g) fine sandy loam
Fill
Brown (10YR5B) sandy loam (original topsoil layer)
Yellowish red (5YR5/3) clas' loam, friable
Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam
Fill
Yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy loam
Hand auger refusal. - bedrock
Fill
Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam (original topsoil laye0
Reddish brown (5YR 5/4) sandy loam
Fill
Brown (10YR 5t3) sandy loam (original topsoil layer)
Reddish brown (SYR 5/4) sandy loam
Fill
Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) sandy loam (original topsoil laye0
Yetiowish brown (IOYR 518) fine sandy loam
Hand auger refusal - bedrock
Soil Texture
Group
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Soil Information Summary
Proposed Drainfield Site for Kirtley Distributing Bldg.
Location Behind Existing Two Story Office Bldg.
Kirtley Property - Route 250 West
Albemarle County
1) Position on slope information - Position satisfactory, gently sloping graded area
2) Slope - 3%
3) Depth to rock/impervious strata - 72 inches+ in vicinity of holes 1,2,3,5 and 6
4) Depth to seasonal water table - 72 inches+
Free water present - No
6) Soil percolation rate estimated - 40 @ 54 inches in vicinity of holes 1.2,3,5 and 6
7) Percolation tests performed - No
Comments: Recommend dralnfield lines be placed 54 inches below exi.sting ground
s,urface. This will place lines well below the 24 inches (+ or -) of existing fill on the
stte and will permit a payed parking lot to be placed over tl? drainfield in the furore.
it should be possible to tnstalt six (6) 6'/foot Ii, nas in .the vminity of holes 1,2,3 5 and
6. Using an'~stimated percolation rate of 40 mmuteshnch the dminfield should be
capable ~)f disposing of approximately 600 gallons of water per day. A pinup system
will be required.
U4/28/'J-'-rtBS '1 1:
(.la ~jc3
11:85
EAR]'tq IECIq
Soil Profile
Proposed Dr~,nficld Site for tOrtley Dist: BMg.
E×isfing Park~ug Lot in Front of Kiffiey
Kirtlcy Prope,~y - Route 250 West
Albemarle County
Hole
1
2
3
5
6
Depth
(in,)
0-12
12-60
0-12
12-34
34-60
0-10
10-36
36-60
0-7
7-28
28-60
0-12
12-4-2
42-60
0-10
10-16
16-60
Material Description
Crushed stone
Dark yellowish brown (10YR 414) loam
Crushed stone
Yellowish brown ( IOYR 5t8) sandy loam
Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4,t4) sandy loam
Crushed stone
Grayish brown (10YR 5~2) sandy loam, heavy manganese stains
below 36"
ReddiSh brown (2.SYR 5/4) sandy loam (.moist)
Crushed stone
Grayish brown [10YR 5/2) san.dy loam with heavy manganese
stains
Olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) sandy loam
Crashed stone
Yellowish brown (10YR 5/80 sandy loam
Dark yellowish brown (/0YR 4/4) sandy loam
Crushed stone
Reddish brown (5¥R $/4) clay loam
Yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy loam
Soil Texture
Group
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
Soil lnfonnation Summary
Proposed Drainfield Site for Kirtley Dist. Bldg.
Existing Parking Lot in Front of Kirfley Dist. Bldg.
Kirtle), pmpe~xy - Route 250 West
Albemarle County
1) Position on slope information - Position salisf~tory, existing paring lot.
2) Slope - 3%
3) Depth to rocldimpervious strata - (fi) inches+ iii vicinity o[ holes 1,2,5 and 6
Depth to seasonal water table - 60 inches+
5) Free water present - No
6) Soil percolation rate estimated - 40 @ 42" in vicinity of holes 1,2,5 and 6
Percolation tests performed - No
Comments: Area available for drainfieldis limited by possible restrictive layer in
soil profile (manganese stains in vic!nity of holes 3 and 4). It may be pos~ble to
inshqll four (4) 50 foot lines in the vicinity of holes 1,2.5 and 6. This will allow
for the disposal of approximately 300 gallor, s of water per day. In order to use
this area it will be necessary to abandon t? existing well in accordance
with the current Health Department regulatmns and the parking lot wilt
have to be paved.
/
04/28/1996
11:$5
8849776778
EARTH TECH
"'5
May 6, 1997
Department of Planning and
Gommunity Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902-4596
RE; W, J, Kirtley, Jr.
Dear Madam or Sir:
Enclosed is an application from W. J, Kirtley, Jr,, to amend
the service authority area to allow him to hook up to the public
sewer line at the front of this property on Route 250 West. There
is an office building in the front of the property which is within
the service area although it is not connected to the sewer. The
building on the rear of the property is not within the service area
because the sewage would have to be pumped to the sewer line.
The drainfield at the rear area has failed to the extent that
the septic tank needs to be pumped weekly. As you can see from
Steve Gooch~s report, there is not enough space in the rear of the
lot and because of the extreme rock formation there is probably not
enough space behind the office building in the front of the
property.
Enclosed are some pictures taken recently when the water line
was put in showing the rock content of the soil.
If you need any other information or have any questions,
please feel free co call me at the above number, or call Mr.
Kirtley ac 295-5090.
Very truly yours,
REC: smw
Enclosure
cc: client
hand delivered
COMMONWEALTH oi VIR( INIA
In Cooperation wilh the
State Department M Health
Office al Envlrenmenl~l Health
Phone {804] g?2~t25g
FA~ (804) ~724310
Thomas Jefferson Health Dbtrict
1138 Rose Hill Drive
R O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia ~290~
July 9, 1997
Mr. W. L Kirtloy
t08 Reynard Drive
Charfntlusvilla, Virginia 2290l
Dear Mr. Kiflley:
i httpc this will help to snmmarlz¢ our ttleeling last month concerning a building on yottr ptx~pelW,
located behind the Kifllay R~.'al Faints; office oil Rt. 250 West,
You informed mc thai the buHdlog had shoat 20 emoloyees and Ihat while there was m) leakage of
sewage, tlR: flow of water at the building is slow, This could be an early sigl~ of failure.
In order to repair the septic system, it will be necessary Io Install between 1000 - 1200 square feet
ofdrainfi~;Id. ~m i~ only enough space aroond tiffs building to install approx, halftMs alnOUnt .f
~Inflcld. It also would Involve abandoning un ~xlsti~g well, ~ Another option w~mld be lo install
~lield m an ~aa uphill, behind thc Kitlley o~gc building. This wm~M require pnmping and would
~ke up some rese~c arcs required Cor the Kirtley building,
Since a water lino has already been dug to connect to public water, I would rCCOllUnend that you
look |nra also ¢onn¢clthlg to publJ~ lewgr, as this would offer a meg ~n~lent sohlhon to the repair Slid
UnY l~ut r~ ptobl~ ns Ihat stay occur,
I shall bc happy It: dtsct ss this or aty related clatter as required.
William A, Cram,
Environmental ltcalth Specialist Senior
IATTACHe4ENT Ot
Elizabeth A. Kohn
241 Cordelia Drive
Charlottesville, VA
August 4~ 1997
W.J. Kirtley, Jr.
Charlottesville~ VA 22901
Dear Mr. Kirtley:
According to the records ef Kirtley Distributing Co., Inc.~ formerly
18cated at Rt. 10 Box 2, Charlottesville~ Virginia~ the following is a
summary of the number of times the septic ~ystem was~pumped in the
per~od from January !, ~995 to February 28, 1997.
January 1~ i995 to December 31, 1995 9 times
January 1, 1996 to December 31, i996 '141times
January l, 1997 to February 28, 1997 1 time
Distributing CO., Inc.
best of my knowledge and
I hereby certify, as the accountant 'For Kirtley
that these facts are true and accurate to the
belief based on the records available to me.
Sincerely,
Kohn
Acco~I~ ant
Transaction History-AP2070 J'~4~ 16~ 1997
ul 16~ 1997 10:1,.~ F'~4
Kirtley Dlstributi;]g Co.~ Inc.
ACCOUNTS PA~/ABLE ' ¢' ~ HISILRY REPORT
rRANoAbTION - "-' ~ -
Voided Voucher
Vendor Number Vendor Name
Voucher ..................................... Document ......................................... Applied
Number Numbe¥~ Type Date Source Amount Amount
ONETIME Crozet Sanitary Service
7180 ....
o,?~1 invoice 0'7/06/94 APCCR0087
,_ ¢08~- Comp. ChR. 02/09/96
L 55, IZ ZI
1'55.00
ONETIME Croze'~ Sanitary ~-~ '
7 ,...,- ~ 6409 Invoice L8/~/9 I. APCCR0087
29083 Comp, Chk. 02/09/96
150.00
150.00
ONETIME S.L. Williamson Company ]:nc
Use Up and []own Arro~s~ i:'gUp and PgDn, Home and IznO to vzew repert.
Pre.ss [SI to searvh. Press RETURN to continue.
._J
GENERAL LEOBER DETAIL ~CSOONT BALhHCE
For the Period Jan 81, D95 tn Dec 3t, t995
.................. ACCOUNT .................... BEGINNING ~LfiNCE
NUMBER DESERIPTIO~I POST G~TE TRX SOURCE SOURCE DOB J~NI_ NO
081-5300-880 Building & ~-aunds - Beer
81/31/95 E<LTRX0773
GbllG
01i3t/95 SLTRXQ773 G6t-~3
0!/3t195 GLTR×8781 APTR×
81/31/95 GLTRX0781 APTRX
02/88/95 2LTBX0709 26330
02/28/9~ GLTRX078~ 26336
88/28/95 6LT~X0797 PS'TRX
02/20/95 ~LTRX0797 flPTOX
02.128195 GLTRX0805 86484
83/31/95 GLTRX0885 26596
B~1~i/95 GLTRX8805 ~59B
83/31/95 ~LTGX8813 flPTGX
03/3i/95 GLTRX8813 ~PTRX
83/3t/95 GLTRX0813
04/£3/95 6LTRXOBi5 ~6853
0~/G8t95 GLTRX0815 26054
06/30195 GLTRX8816 APTRX
8g/~/98 GLTRX0816 GPTRX
84138195 GLTRXOBI6 APTRX
8~/30/95 GLTRX8816 APTRX
04/30t95 GLTRX0885 APTR×
84/38/95 GLTRX88~ flPlNX
85/31/95 GLTRXO829 27087
05/31/95 GLTRX8829 87890
~5/31/95 GLTRXO839 APTRX
06/30/~5 GLTRX884~ 87333
0&/30/95 GLTR~08~6 07334
06138/95 GLTRX0848
87/3~/95 ~TRX¢877 20RR
87/3!/95 GLTRX8877 CO~R
08/3i/% GLTRX~OM RPTRX
~/~1/95 GLTRX8861 ~TEX
8~/3~/95 GLTRX8881 ~PTRX
88131/95 GLTRX088) ~'TRX
88/31/95 GL~RX888i
88/~1/95 GLTEX8881 APlEX
38/31/95 GLTRX8881 APTRX
86/3t/95 GLTRX~881 ~PTRX
88/3t/95 GLTRX~¢81
88/31/95
88/31/95 GLTRX088} ~'TRX
~t/3t/95 GLTRX889] GJ6
8813]/95 [~TRXO891
Page
REFERENCE
OEOi I bE~ DI~NGE
CREDIT ENDING OALP~E
218.18 B E I
58.88 Orkin
45.00 A/P - TIGER 7553 Invoice
~56.85 fl/P - BR~OORS 7571 Invoice
218. I8 R F l
50,08 Orkin
~. 1~ A/P -- TIGER 7622 Credit
4.88 A/P - TIGER 7688 Invoice
414.46 Bl~e Ridge Deers
50.88 Orkin Pest Contro]
218.1~ BF!
~.gA- ~ ;h~',~,-. Wt~-~GW~! 7693 Invoice~
8'~t.59 A/P - HGER 7692 Invoice
!5~.52 A/P - 8Fl 7626 Invoice
81!½.1~ ~FI
50.00 Orkin
65.03 AP - B~OORS 7759 Invoice
;4~.80 AP -DRDOOOS 7760 Invoice
156.82 ¢¢' - CC$1MPBO 7785 lnvnice
63.78 %P - OFt 7780 Credit
50,80 Orkin
818.10 B F [
i63.58 AP - CO~,RO 7796 Invoice
218.84 B ~ [
51.~8 Ork~
98,89 PP C[~MPRO 7~Z5 Invoice
65t. I7 D F I
51.00 Orkin
189.75 ~ip - CON,RD 7892 Invoice
i5.~ PP --CDMNPRO 7585 Invoice
445.75 Turnket Signs - SiDe ~epair
2!4.38 led Con~ - PO Repair
I54.32 AP - BFi 7895 lnvo]ce
~3.78 ~P -BFI 7896 lnvo~ce
51,~ GP - ORRI~ 7987 Inwice
15~.;8 GP -BFI 8842 Invoice
63.78 FID - 8F] 8~3 invoice
50.80 AP - EHVLTRX 8086 Invoice
~n 77 nc, - COMMPRO ~BI! Invoice
8~5 Invoi~e~.~
~-!28.~J* ~' - 0NETIME 8~9 lnvoice~
200.75 AP - TIGER 8~3 Invoice
154.J~
63,78 Corrects
GE~RAL LEDGER DETAIL RCCOUUT DALAtlCE
................... ACCOUNI .................. BEfilteIING BALANCE
-T NL~BER DESCRIPTION POST DAIE TAX SOURCE SOURCE DOC JBNL NO
DEBIT
REFERENCE
YET CHANGE
CREDIT EHDING BALF~ICE
881-5380-000 Build[r,~ & Grounds -- Boor
88/3ti~5
69/28/95 [~TRX~637 APTRX
00/30/95 6LTRX0980 COBB 1
89120/~5 GLT~X090~ SOAR
89/28/95 GLTBX0904 GDRR
09/3~I95 6LTRX0904
10/28t95 GLTRX0910
10/26/95 GLIRX0910 APtRX
10/26/95 GLTRX0910 APTRX
10126/95 GLTBX091~ ~PTRX
10/86t95 GLTRX0918
i0/26/95 GLTBXO910 ~gTBX
10/26195 GLTRX0910 APTRX
i0/21/95 SL¥RXOg25 APTgX -
11/~0/95 GLTRX09~ APTR)
~i/~0/~5 6L~RXe~22 P~TRX
1t/~95 GL~EX8988 ~PTRX
~I/28/95 GLTRX8988 ~*T~
i[/28/~5 ~GLTRX892~ AP~R~
~I/3~/95 6LTRX0922
[~/3~t95 GLTRX~936 APTRX
it/2~/~5 ~TR10936 APTRX
12/~7/g5 6LTRXe~7 APTRX
i2/t~/95 ~LTRX~%~ MANC~ I~67
12/31195 6LT~X894~ f~'TRX
12/21/55 GLIRX8%3 APTRX
12/31/95 6LTBXe963
12/3t/9~' .GLT~X89~3 APTRX
'12/31/95 6LTEXl~82 CPA 1327
79 ENTRIES DCCOU~ TDIALS: .00
51.00 C~rocto
t59,96 AP -* COV~PRD 8137 invoice
50.D0 DOOR lO BEER ROOM
154.32 B F I - Sept
6~,78 B F ! - Sept
51,00 Or, in - Sop!
63,78 AP - BFI 8219 lnv~ace
154.32 AP - BFI 8220 lnv~ico
i49,40 AP - COMMPRO 8198 Invoice
8.98 ~:~ - COMMPRO ~2~9 invoice
5, AG AP - COD1)IPRO 8218 Invoice
51,~0 '~ - ORKIN 0!t5 Invoice
31,67 GP - ALBLOCR ~33 l~voico
!54.32 ~P - BFI 8310 Invoice
63,78 AP --8FI 0311 Invoice
t22.(~ AP - COMNDR[ ~248 Invoice
835,
51,00
63,78 AP - £~I 8432 lnvoico
t54,32 aP - itel 8433 Invoice
5i.~0 ~28467 Or~i~ DEC.
144,35 RP -- COMMPRD 8449 Invoice
i~2.84 AP - t~GLEAS 8530 Invoice
5l,~a_ ~ PF'-=n~K~_~I._ 8536 Invoice
80,50 OP -. 88I 8618 invoice
5{~,001( lo Reclass Pop Detail
0
i~, 779, 94 491.30 10,288, 64 $10,~6~, 6~
I ACCOUNT
79 TOTAL DETAIL ENTRIES GRAND TOTALS:
PARTIAL TRIAL BALANCE
.00 lv, t7g. ~> 491..~t, tB, 288, G4 $10,288.64
~** TOTALS ARE OUT OF BALP~NCE BY: $10,8~3, G4 **~
For the Ac~oont 53~o-eeo -
Kirtle~ Distributing.Co,, Inc,
SEMER~L LEDGER DETAIL ~CCOUNT DALAMCE
In loc~tion SequenEe +: Inactive Account
Paste
................ ACC~J~T .................... BEGIN~I~I8 BALANCE
HUMBER DE~P, IPTION ;'OST DATE TRX S0URCE SOURCE DOC
00i-52~0-0~0 ~uii~in~ ~ Grounds --6net ,eS
8i/~/% GLTRXIO~i ~770
~1/0~/% OLTRXI001 28771
~IIB~i% GLTRXIB~I
01/8~/% SLTRXi~OI 28775
~1/26/96 6LTRXI~OI 28897
01/31/% GLI~XO~7~ ~'IRX
01/21/% OLTRXO~7~
0i/31/% 8LTRX097~ APTRX
01131/% GLTRX097~
01131/% GLTRX097~
0i/~1/96 SLTRXO~7~ APTR~
01/31/96 GLTRXOg7~ APTRX
01131196 GLTRX0992
81/31196 GLTfiX0992 AF'TRX
81/31/96 GLTRXO~92
01/~11% ~JLTRXO~92
01131/96 GLTNX0998 OPTRX
01131196 GLTRX0952 ARTRX
81/31/96 BLTRX89~ APTRX
8i/3i/96 GLTRX0992 APTRX
02/09/96 GLTRX0993 ~P~RX
02/B~/% BL~RXBgg2 APTRX
82/0~/96 GLT~X~3 APTRX
82/~%/% GLTRX1816 ~'TRX
~2/2g/% GLT~XtB1G
82/~9/96 GLTRXI~16
0~/Z6/96 6LTRXI~33 ~PTRX
~3/28/% C~TRX1~33 ~PTRX
~3/28/56 GLTBXl~33 ~'TRX
~3/~8/96 GLTRXI823 ~PTRX
83/28/96 GLTRXi~3
~/e8/96 GLTRX!~23 ~PT~X
0~/25/9G C~TRXi~5
0~/25/% GLiRXIO5~
~a/25/~6 GLTRXI~5 ~TRx
04/25/% GLTRXI85t ~PTRX
~/25/96 GLTRXl~55 ~PTRX
84/25/% GLTRXI855 RPTRX
~/~1% GLTRX18~5 ~TRX
O~3O/gG GLTRXt05B ~PTRX
0~/2~/96 GLIRXl~63 flPTRX
JRNL NO
101
101
10!
DEBIT NET ~H~IN~c
CREDIT EiiDING _hFE adO-
ASeA-To Duep
{13.5~ RSVP-Refuse To Dump
~ B. Oickenson-Plu4bi~
(,.40,0[~' Butch Dickeneon ~
15~,38 AP - DF[ 8561 Invoice
63.78 ~' - BFI 8562 Invoice
139,36 AP - [OM¥~RO 8572 Invoice
~150.~0' , ,,AP - CSSi 6576 Invo~
27,~,~ oo - Km~F~S ASJT§"Invoice
~'~50.80~ AP- ONETIME 8598 Invo~o~
~1.8~ . 5~, - ~RKIN 858~ lnveice
~ AP- CSSI ~42 Inv~
~80.88~ AP - E~'~ 8671 Inv~ice~
3~A.8~ ~P - FCEI ~nw~ce
i~,~J ~P - H~bLE~S 866] Invoice
t35.33 AP - HMG~AS 8662 Invoice
31.~ AP - ~NGLE~S 8663 Invoice
!.26 AP - ~)GLE~S 86M invoxce
36.~ ~P- JEFFERS 668~ invoice
b8,56 ~ - V~EC 87~4 Invoice
1S6.63 ~P - BF1 86~ Invoice
64.7~ ~P - DF] 8655 Inveic~
~o, AP- CSSI BGq~
~i. a qo- TRtPLED 8713 Inwi~e
68.76 ~P- HMGLE~H 8765 Invoice
34.58 ~ - VWEC 88~9 Invoice
63.76 AP - BFi ~5 Invnice
154,3~ ~P - BFI 8886, Invoice
~8.5~ PP -,ERPS 88~7 in~oi~e~
36.04 ~P - J~FERS 887~ Invoice
25.8~ ~' - JEFFER8 8875 Invoice
59.84 ~ - JEFFERS 8876 Invoice
51,88 ~P - O~KIM 8877 I~wioe
257.44 2P - AMPYS 6942 Invoice
256. 00 ~P - £Fi 8~46 invozce
63,78 ~'- BFI 8~47 Invoice
154.32 ~P - BFI 8548 Invoice
80.~ AP - ERPS B975Credit
4.64~ AP - RAPS 8976 Invoice
51,80 ~P - D~KIN 9001 Invoice
- cssi invoic
368,18 A~P- V~)EC ' '9084 Invoice
Iui i6: i997' GENEF~LLEOGER DETAIL ACC[~NT
Eot tho Porind Jan 01~ 1996 co Dec 31~ i996
For the Account 5380-088 - In Location Sequence - * = Inactive Account
Pa§e
................ ACCOUNI-i-- BEGINNING B~U~NCE
NUMBER DESCRIPTION P~ST BATE TO× SOURCE SOURCE DOC 3RNL NO
081-5380-080
Building & 6rounno - Beer
~5/31/96 6LTRX10?9 APTGX
05/31/96 5LiRXi87~ PS'TRX
~5/21/% GLIB×IS79
86t38/96 BLTRXI898 APTRX
86/30/% GLIRX}098 APTRX
0D/38/96 SLTRX1098 APTRX
06/38/% 6LTRXi898
86/38/96 GLTRXI098
07/17/96 6LTRXIII7
87/31/% GLTRXIi18
07t3ti96 GLTRXli18 PS'TRX
87/31/96 GLTRXiilG
87/~1196 GLIRXIi1G
88/E8/.6 8LTRXI124 20688 367
08/31796 GLTRXI132 ~PTBX
~8/31/96 GLTRXII33 APTRX
08131196 GLTRXI133 PS[TRX
88/31/96 GLTRXi133
08/31/96 6LTRXII33 APT~
~8/31/96 GLTRXI13~ PS, OX
88/31/96 GLTRXiI33 APTR~
89138/96 GLTRXI16~
09/38/96 GLTRXII65 A~YS
~9/38/96 GLTR~1159 ~'TRX
09138/96 GLTRXl159 ~PTRX
89/38/96 GLTRXII59 APTRX
09/38/96 GLTRX1159
1~/15/96 ~LTRK1182 30079
18/38/96 GLlRX1178 ~PTRX
10/31/96 GLTRXII70 P~OTRX
10/31/96 GLTRXlI78 ~PTRX
11/01/96 GLTRX1178 ~PlRX
11/01/96 GLTRXI178 ~IRX
11/1£/96 6LTRX1178 RPTRX
11/12/% 6LTRX1178 APTRX
11/13/96 6LIRX1170 ~PTRX
11/2bY96 GLlRXiI83 31181 935
i2/8t/96 GLTRXt~I¢ ~PTRX
12/01/96 6LTRX121~
12/01/96 GLTRXi214 APTRX
1~/01/% GLTRXl~16
12/06/96 6LTRXlG20 3138~
1~/18/96 6LTRX1216 APTRX
12/231% BLTRXI220 31~18 1514
12/25/% GLTR×I214 APIRX
12/26/96 GLTRX1214 APTRX
12/31/96 GLTRX121& APTRX
REFERENCE
DEBIT NET CHANGE
CREDIT
ENDING B~LANGE
64,73 ~- BFI
t60,88 DP - BFI
L56,63 PS' - BFi
5t.00 PS'- ORKIN
129,60 PS'- fiFE
64,73 ~o- BFI
~56,63 ~P - BFI
51.88 AP - ORKIN
2~1.4t
57~,00
5i.00
59,57 AP - ECK
55.88 AP - EAN
37,28 AP - ECK
~7,~6 AP - ~EADONB
51,80 AP - ORKIN
257,44
168.49
63.78
5t.08
37.58
63,78
i6~.~9
63,76 ~ - GFi
160,49 AA - BF]
51,80 AP - ORKIN
53.00 ~P - TIGER
86.50 GP - RAJ
68.40
162.89
80, Q8
iZ5.08
195.99
:
°7.44
51.00
9887 Invoice
9888 Invoice
9889 invoice
9151 Invoice
9227 Invoice
9238 Invoice
9231 Invoice
9201 Invoice
~ - ~ 9289 Invoice
DF1
~ 9~57 Invoice
AP - ORKIN 9386 Invoice
.. PS' - VNEC 94{36 tnvnine
AP - NEBRO~N
BFI
9426 InvDice
94~ Invoice
9451 Invoice
9~2 Invoice
9469 Invoice
9473 Invoice
AP - BFI 9519 Invoice
AP - BF1 95~ Invoice
AP - ORKIN 9568 Invoice
DP - VWEC 9585 Invoice
OrkilExte~inat)n~
PS' - WEBRONN 9734 Invoico.~
9599 Invoice
9688 Invoice
9646 Invoice
9647 Invoice
9673 Invoice
9718 Invoice
9701 Invoice
Repair Max-Dishwasher
DP - BFI 9763 Invoice
AP - BFi 9764 ,lnvnice
AP -RAi 9865 invoice
AP - SLW 9878 Invoice
Buzz Fauiconer
AP - VNEC 9948 lnvnice
Am~' s Clo~iDo~ .
AP :NEBR-d~N
tip - TIGER 9891 Invoice
AP - ORKIN 98~0 Invoice
6ENERAL LEDBER DETAIL ~CCBU~- B~HN£E
For ~he Perind Jan 01 t997 to Sul 3i~ 1997
For the Aceonn~ 52~0-800 in Location Sequence - *: Inactive Acco~n~
................ ACCOUNI .................. ukOINNIND DALHNtE
NUMBER DESgRIPTiON POST DAlE TRX SOURCE ~OUR~E ADC JRNL NO
DEBIT
CREDIT
081-5380-080 Buildino & Grounds - Beer
01114/97 GLTR)IBI~ ~'TRX
~1t17/97 [~TRXtB16 DDTRX
01/8~/97 GLTRX1816 ADTRX
01/83/97 GLTRX1E38 ~'IRX
01/29/97 BLTRX12B§ ~TRX
0i129/97 ELTRXI~2~ ~DTRX
0i/2~97 GLTRXi217 APTRX
0i/~0/97 GLTRX1817 ~TRX
08/01/97 GLTRX1217 OPTRX
~2/0t/97 GLTRX1B~$ APTRX
02/01/9~ 'BLTRX1225 DPTRX
82187197 ~TRXI~4 51701
02/10/97 8LTRX122§ APTRX
02/13/97 GLTRXIB38 APTRX
03/0i/97 8tTRXI838 RPTRX
03i~i/97 GLTRXi246 ADTRX
02/01/9i 8LTRXI~B ~TRX
83/07/97 GLTRXt~6?
03tt0/97 GLTRXt267 DPTRX
~3/10197 GLTRX1867 DPTRX
03/18/97 OLTRX186~ DPTRX
~2/17/97 GLTRXI~67 ~TRX
~3/17/97 GLTRX1267 DPTRX
~3/17/97 GLTRX1267 ~PTRX
~/24~97 GLTRX1276 ~TRX
~2/2~197 GLTRX1875 3~67
~3/21/9~ GLTRXI276 DDTRX
02/31/97 ~T~XI~6~ ~PlRX
~/~t/~7 GLTRX1279 ~TRX
~/22/97 ~TRXI297 32132
~4/26/97 GtTRXI~ DPTRX
~4/26/97 ~TRX1314 DPTRX
~4/~9/97 ~TRXI~96 DFFDE
~/2~/97 ~TRX~2~9 ~167
~5/~1/97 GLTRX1314 RPTRX
~6/01/97 GLIRXI325 APTRX
8886
2270
REFERENCE
NE1 [HfiNGE
DtDING BALANCE
36 EI~RIES ACCOUNT TOTALS:
I ~CCO~NT
36 TOTAL DETAIL ENTRIES 8RHND TOTALS:
*** PARTIAL TRIAL BALANCE ~*~
51.80 F~,- ORKIN 9849 Invoice
~I.38 ~P' - ltGER ~943 Invoice
146,.q4 AP - WEBRDAN~976 Invoice
~ ~'~B~i0060 Iavoice
64,00 AP - WEBROWN./~00~ Invoice
7t,80 A~ - NEBROWI~'"'18034 Invoice
46,45 AP - BFI 9982 Invoice
]~0,49 ~P - BFI 9983 Invoice
51.00 AP - ORKIN 9995 Invoice
46,45 gP - BF] 18013 Invoice
16~,49 AP - BFI 10014 Invoice
50.16 Rivanna S~lid Haste
51.~ ~P - ORKIN 1~883 Invoice
18~.68 AP - ~GLEAS 1886~
160.49 ~'- BFi 101!8 invoice
153.3~ RP - BFI 10142 Invoice
153.39 HP - BFI 18152 Invoice
153.39 ~ - BFI 1~175
~0.0~ AP - DF] 1~143 Invoice
~,88 AP - BF] 18144 Invoice
1~G48.17 AP - BFI 1814~ l~ioe
294.85 tip - OF! 1~176 I~v~ice
46.97 J, Parham
5.84 ~P - ME~OOW8 '18177
.55 ~P - M~DOWB 18195 Creel1
566,78 ~' - BFI 18t~
58.54 Rivanna Solid Waste Auth.
3~888.~8 RP - WEBROWN' 1~15 Invoice
145.29 ~P - BFI 18826
1~882.82 Mon;ioello-ProD
130.00 AP - BF] 10825 Invoice
40,~8 AP - BFI 18839 Invoic~
· 00 8,150. i4 ~157.~
.00 8~150,14 4,157.00
· ** TOTALS ARE ~T OF BALANCE BY:
3,993. t4 $3~993.14
3~993.14 $3~993. 14
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the
State Deoar~mera of Health
Office of Environmental Health
Phone (804) 972-6259
FAX (804) 972-4310
Thomas Jefferson Health District
t138 Rose Hill Drive
P. O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
ALBEMARLE -- CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY IPALMYRA)
September 22. t 997
Mr. David Benish
Chief of Community Development
Community Development Division
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville~ VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Benish:
This letter is to summarize our discussion on September 19, 1997 regarding the Kirtley
property located on Route'250 West, approximately .25 miles west of the Boars Head
Iun.
According to the water usage report that was given to me and as I stated in an earlier
letter, there is a high probability that the septic system serving the warehouse is
begiun'mg to fail. The onlyway to know for sure would be to undercover the distribution
box so that a visual inspection can be done.
Behind the Kirtley office building, there is adequate area to install a reserve drain field
for the warehouse if needed. I understand that this building does have county permission
to hook to county sewer should a problem arise with the septic system~
Please let me know ifI can provide any additional information on this matter. I can be
reached most mornings, Monday through Friday, 8:30 - 9:30.
William A. Craun
Environmental Health Specialist Senior
David P. Bowerma~ COUNTY' OF ALBEMAR~ ,E Charles S.
Rio Rivanna
Office of Board of Superwsors
CharloRe Y. Humphris Walter E Perkins
'&a~o~a 401 McIntlre Road
Formst R. Marshall. Jr. Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4696 Sally H. Thomas
s~s-& (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
September 26. 1997
Mr. Daniel J. Veliky
PO Box 6711
Charlottesville, VA 22906-67tl
RE: SUB-97-044 - Rivancrest Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Veliky:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 24, 1997, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on the
above referenced development. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on October 1, 1997. at 11:00 a.m..
in Room 241 of the County Office Building on Mcintire Road in Charlottesville.
You or your representative is requested to be present at the Board of Supervisor's meeting. If you should have any queanons or
comments regarding, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned,
ewe
ccl
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Elaine Echols
Roger E. Ray & Associates
Sincerely,
l~!a~VSC~rey. Clerk. CMC [
/
Printed on recycled paper
Daniel J. Veiiky
P. O. Box 6711
Charlottesville, VA 22906-6711
(804) 973-2909
V. Wayne Cilimberg
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Se~.24,1997
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-25-9~AI0:38
Dear Mr, Cilimberg:
Pursuant to section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance, I am
appealing the Albemarle County planning Commissions denial of my preliminary plat to
the Board of Supervisors for the following reasons.
By our submittal of a profile showing cut and fill areas and typical sections for a public
vs. private road and comparison of these areas, we have demonstrated that there
would be a significant degradation to the environment by the construction of a public
road in the amount of 35%. The county engineering department has concurred with
this assessment. The public/private road allignment is fixed at the entrance on State
Route 676 by the most westerly location that will meet VDOT sight distance
requirements. An intemal re-alignment of the road in an easterly direction would place
the road closer to the reservoir, into steeper terrain, and entirely in a wooded area.
The above information was presented at the planning commission meeting. An internal
re-alignment of the road in a westeHy direction would place the road in steeper terrain,
thus causing a greater amount of earth moving.
Section 18-22 (a)(part) pertains to final engineering design and calculations that are
not available at the preliminary plat stage of a development. This design and
calculations would require an unreasonable time delay and cost for a preliminary plat
approval. We are well aware that these concerns need to be addressed in our final
design and we will do so at that time.
We have cooperated with the staff and have submitted all information that was ask for
in their review of this plan. We are confident that we have met the standard of design
for a preliminary plat as outlined in your ordinances and respectfully request your
approval of this plat.
copy: Roger W. Ray
Richard A. Carter ~,
To: Charlotte Humphr~s
From: David Tice
cc: G-reg Kampmer
Re: Rivancrest subdi~qsion proposal ($UB97-044)
29 September 1997
8 Pages
I want to state my opinion regarding the action of the Planning Commission in voting to den.,/the
subdivision prelimina~ plat for Rivancrest. These thoughts are mine alone and should not be
interpreted as representing the other Planning Commissioners. i also want to make clear that these
thoughts should not be viewed as a legal opinion of the ordinance; I wilt Ieave that ro the ComB'
Attorney's office. I simply want to state the wa), that I viewed both the ordinance and the specific
proposal in reaching the decision that I did in voting to deny the preliminary plat.
Let me begin by stating what T think are particularly relevant subsections of the County
SubdMsion Ordinance:
Section 18-22 (Flood Control and Drainage Structures)
%. The subdivider shall pro~Sde all information needed to determine wha*~ improvements
are necessary ro provide adequate drainage, including contour maps, drainage plans and
flood control devices .... Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water
runoff from the site. including such on-site and off-site drainage fac'dities as the
commission, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, may deem adequate ....
"In addition, provisions shall be made for the minimization of pollution of ali downstream
water courses ci~l~ to surface water runoff. The subdivider shall also pro'fide any other
information required by the board of supervisors, its agent or the highway en~neer."
(Emphasis added)
Section 18-36 (Private Roads)
%. The commission may approve any subdivision served by one or more private roads
under the following circumstances:
~1. For property zoned RA, Rural Areas, the subdivider, in accordance with
section 18-36(h) of this chapter, demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the
~ that:
"m Approval of such roads will allexdate a clearly demonstrable danger of
s~gnificant de~adarion to the environment of the site or ad_intent properties
which would be occasioned by the consTr~ction of public roacl~ ~n the same
ati~ments. For the purposes of this provision, in addition to such other
factors as the commission may ¢~r~i~ter, "significant degradation'' shall
mean an increase of thirty (30%) percent in the total volume of grading for
construction cfa public road as compared to a private road. As secondm'y
considerations, among other th/ngs, the commassion may consider actual
volume differential as well as sur~hce area differential and removal of
vegetative cover: and
*'b~ No alternative public road alignment available to the subdivider on the
adoption date of this section would alleviate si_m~ficant de~adation of the
environment; ...
(Emphasis added)
"c. In addition to the provisions of subsection 18-36(b), the commission may approve a
subdivision served by one or more private roads in any case in which the subdix4der, in
accordance with subsection 18-36(h) of this chapter, demonstrates to the reasonable
~afisfantion oftbe commission that:
"1. For a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest, as
opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better
served by the construction of such roads than by the construction of public
roads...."
(Emphasis added)
"h. A subdi~qder requestmg commission approval.., shall file with the agent a written
request which shall sate reasons and justifications for such request to~ether with such
~lternative~ as may be proposed by the subdivider...." (Emphasis added)
[Final Plats]
Sect/on 18-54 (Approvals and Conditions):
"b. Nothing herein shall require the approval of any subdi~'ision or any part or fea~re
thereof, which shall be found to constitute a nuisance, or tO constitute a danger to the
public healthi safety, or general welfare, or which shall be determined by the commissio~
the board of supervisors, or its agem, to be a departure from or a violation of sotmd
engineering design or standards." (Emphasis added)
I will address each of these sections separaxely
Agtions to Minimize Pollution
There are many actions which may be appropriate to be undertaken in response to Section 18-
22(a) to minimize pollution of downstream water courses. Some ofthese may be~:
AVOIDANCE
Where there are practicable and feasible alternatives that AVOID pollution of downstream
water courses, alternatives which do not avoid such pollution would fail to comply wSth
the Subdivision Ordinemce requirement for minimization of pollution, ffthere is a
practicable alternative to the proposed plan which would have less adverse impacz to
downstream watercourses, then the minimization requirement is not met by the proposed
plan. Consequently, the county, in reviewing a proposal under this section, should first
make a determination that potential water qualiw impacts have been avoided to the
maximum extent practicable.
What is a practicable alternative? An alternative is practicable ilk is available and capable
&being done, taking into account cost, lo, sties, and overall project purposes.
Ctm erosion crud storrm,;ater conditions achieve the sctme rea~dt as tn,oiditrg the impact
altogether? By design, few erosion control or stormwater management measures
completely eliminate pollutant loading or modifications to water flow. particularly for vety
large storm events. An extended detention basin, for example, can be destbmed to remove
anywhere from 25 to as much as 90% of the major pollutants for the ten-year-storm. This
means, though,, that between 10 to 75% of the pollutants get through the system to
downstream watercourses - and even higher amounts for storms of greater than the ten-
year-storm intensity. Consequently. no matter how well designed, such proposed projects
do not result in minimization of pol!ufion so lone as there is a practicable alternative that
would avoid th~ impacl: altogether. This assumption may be rebuttable in certain cases:
An exception might exist, for example, in cases where restoration to correct pre-existing
problems is possible as a part of the proposed project - where, even with the inherent
inefficiencies of'erosion/stormwater enbqneering, the net effect is demoasttated to be no
net increase in pollution downstream.
Where there does not appear to be likely that there is a practicable alternative that avoids the
impact, then a number of actions may be possible that would result in minimization. A partial list
- by no means exclusive - of such actions follows:
Actions concerning the location of the discharge of surface water:
(1) locating and confining the discharge re m/nimize smothering ore ~vganisms;
(2) designing the discharge to avoid a disruption ofperiodlc water inundation patterns:
21 have ok:rived much ortho listed actions from Stibpart H factions to Minimize Adverse ElTccts) o1'4-0
CFR Part 230. the guidelines for implementation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(3) selecting a discharge site that has been used prevSously for such discharge;
(4) selecting a discharge site at which the substrate is composed of material similar to that
being discharged;
(5) selecting a discharge site. the discharge poLnt and the method of discharge to minimize
the extent of any plume:
Actions concerning the material to be discharged:
(1) discharge in such a manner that physiochemical conditions are maintained and the
potency and availab'flity of pollutants are reduced:
(2) limiting the solid, liquid, and gaseous components of material to be discharged at a
particular site;
(3) add'rog treatment substances to the discharge material;
(4) utilizing chemical floculants to e~ance the deposition of suspended particulates in
diked disposal areas:
Actions controlling the material after discharge
(1) selecting discharge methods and sites where the potential for erosion, slumping or
leaching of materials into the surrounding ecosystem w/Il be reduced, such as:
(a) using containment levees, sediment basins and cover crops to reduce erosion:
(b) using lined containment areas to reduce leaching where leaching of chemical
constituents from the discharged material is expected to be a problem;
(2) maintaining and containing discharged material properly to prevent point and nonpoim
sources of pollution;
(3) timing the discharge to minimize impact, for instance during periods of unusual high
water flows.
Actions affecting the method of dispersion
(1) where en,flronmentally desirable, distributing the discharged material widely in a thin
layer at the site to maintain natural substrate contours and elevafion;
(2) using silt screens or other appropriate methods to confine suspended
particulates/turbidity to a small area where settling or removal can occur;
(3) making use of currents and ch-culafion patterns to mix. disperse and dilute the
discharge;
(4) minimizing water colunm turbidity by using a submerged diffuser system or
submerging pipeline discharges ot otherwise felons'rog materials near the bottom:
/5) selecting sites or managing discharges to confine and minimize the release of
suspended particulates m We decreased turbidity levels and to maintain light penetration
for organisms;
(6) setting limitations on the amount of material to be discharged per unit of time or
volume of receiving water.
Actions relating to technolo~
(1) usang appropriate equipment or machinery, including protective devices, and the use of
such equipment or machinery ia activities related to the discharge;
(2) employing appropriate maintenance and operation on equipment or machinery,
including adequate training, staffing, and working procedures;
(3) designing access roads and channel spanning structures using culverts, open channels.
and diversions that Mll pass both low and h/gh water flows, accommodate fluctuating
water levels, and maintain drculation:
_.Many of these actions are matters that can best be addressed in the erosiorv'runoff/stormwater
permitting actions of the county. Nonetheless, they illustrate that ghere is a large number of
actions and combinations of actions that can be tapped to meet the requirement for minimization
of pollution in cases where there is no practicable alternative that would avoid the impact
altogether.
It is also important to recobmize that there may be circumstances where the impacts of the
proposed project are so significant that even if alternatives are not available; the subdivision may
not be permitted regardless of any mitigation proposed. Such a determination is permitted under
subsection 18-54(b)of the ordinance.
Private Roads
While there seemed to be general agreement that the private road proposed by the applicant
would result in less emironmental damage than a public road in the same alibmmem, the ordinance
clearly allows us to look fhrther than that. While we may not be able to prescribe a specific lot
layout or road alignment, we can still take into account the availability of other alternatives -
including other private road r:dignments or other lot layouts that might allow a sho~er or different
private road alignment or one in which a driveway across a drainage would not be necessary.. -
that would result in even less envizo~unental damage than the private road proposed by the
applicant, particularly in the case of protecting public health, safety and general welfare with the
public water supply reservoir.
To allow a situation in which a subdivider could choose a lot la.your that would then require a
road to be placed in a position which creates adverse en~aronmental ett~cts - unnecessarily where
alternative lot layouts exist - would thwart the intent and goals of the ordinance. Section 18-36
(Private Roads) begins by stating that private roads are intended to be permitted as the exception.
and that "public roads are intended to promote sensitivity toward the natural characteristics of the
site...", among other intentions. A subdivider permitted to unnecessarily cross stream drainages
with a private road simply because they can show that a public road in the same aligunnent would
have 30% greater volume of grading - when there are alternative subdi~'ision or road alignments
that would create less impact - would thwart the intent and gOals of the ordinance. Similarly, if a
subdivider creates a lot layout that would force a road aiignmern in which a public road would
cause at least 30°/3 more ~ading than a private road - when it appears likely that an alternative
lay-out is available to the subdivider which would require a shorter road (public or private) or one
of a different alignment w/th less environmental impact - then, to approve the applicant's plan
would be to negate the purposes of the ordinance:
The ordinance states that the 30% greater volume criterion is a significant test, but not the only
one that the Commission can - or should - consider. Section 18-36C0)(1)(a) states that the 30%
rule is "in addition to tach other factors as the commission may consider" and goes on to state
secondary considerations ='among other things the commission may consider''. Sectionlg-
36(b)(I)Co) goes further by stating that "no alternative public road alignment available to the
subdivider" can exist that "would alleviate si~m~ificant degradation [defined in the previous
paragraph as the 30% rule] of the emfronment".
So. the Commission has considerable discretion in considering whether a private road proposal
meeis the test of resulting in less degradation of the environment than a public road. It seems
logical that the Commission is within its discretionary, authority to consider, then, whether there
m/ght exist other alternatives - public or private - that would be less damaging to the enviromnent.
Included in this consideration could be altematives of subdivision lay-om that would allow t'or a
road (public or private) in a different alignment. Again, to do otherwise would create a situation
in which subdMsions that are in conflict with the intentions of the ordinance - when there are
practicable alternatives - are essentially beyond control of the county simply by the applicant
choosing a route for a private road which would require 30% more graded volume were it to be a
public road.
Section 18-36(h) states that the applicant is to include "such alternatives" as the applicant may
propose. The Commission is clearly, though, not restricted to oonsideration of those alternatives_
if any, proposed by the applicant. Just because an applicam chooses not to state any alternatives
does not mean that practicable alternatives de not exist. Further, the Commission is not restricted
to assume that the only alternative to a pn'vate road is a public road in the same altgnmenr. Other
alternatives may include, among others, other alignments of private roads or other lot Layouts that
could be reasonably attained which might require less-damaging private roads (or public roads) of
different alignment or shorter length or such that would e~Zminate the need for a driveway having
to cross a drainage wis potential adverse water quality impacts.
Bur, t.f the count)' tt~rns down such a pre,,ate road proposat, do we risk the applicator going ahead
with a public road on the same alignment, with at least 30% mote grttded vohtme and a
prea~anp~ion qf significtmt degrada#on of the environment? I~o. Even if the applicant decides to
go forward with the subdivision plan with a public road rather than private road, the county
board, staffand/or commission can still subject the plan to review, including the test of
mimmization of pollution of downstream watercourses (Section 18-22). If, for example, the
commission is not reasonably satisfied that the applicant has made "provisions... for the
rdnim~z' ation of pollution", because there appear re be practicable alternatives available in the
layout of the subdivision that might be less erreironmentally damaging, the co~ranission could still
find the proposal to be in non-compliance with the ordinance and deny the subdivision or impose
conditions adequate to address the shortcomkngs of the proposal.
Further, the count), could invoke Section 18-54(b) in cases in which it finds that a proposal
constitutes a nuisance, or a danger re public health, safety or general, welfare, or is a depm-mre
fi.om or dolation of'sound engineering practice. A proposal that risks impairment to the public
water supply, particularly where the reservoir is ahead), ~mpalred due to *.he cumulative impact of
subdivisions and other land uses, might meet this test, particular~ when there are practicable
alternatives available to the owner that might avoid or minimize the potential impacts.
Sufficient Information
Both sections 18-22 and 18-36 require the applicant to produce sufficient information to enable
the Commission to make ks decision. Given the time constraints on the Commission for action
(60 days), which is generally near an end when the matter is brought before the Commission,
there may be situations in which the Commission finds that an applicant has failed to supply
sufficient information. In those cases, unless the applicant requests a deferral of action in order to
supply the information identified, the Commission may choose to deny a request based on non-
compliance with these provisions of the ordinance.
Rivancrest
It was these points that led me to conclude that the preliminary subdivision plan for Rivanerest
was not in compliance Mth the Subdivision Ordinance and should be denied. The proposal
includes several house sites grouped ar the edge of steep slopes leading directly to the reservok, a
private road crossing ora drainage leading into the reservoir, and a lot to the east that requires a
further driveway crossing of that same drainage leading into the reservoir. It appeared likely to
me that a reasonable and practicable alternative ex/sted to the subdivider to enable him to develop
this property in a way that would significantly further minimize pollution of the public water
supply. It appeared likely that there was sufficient area available that would make available a lot
corrfibmration that miy.~ht, among others, provide for one or more of the following:
move one or more house sites back fi-om the critical slope leading straight into the
reservoir, reducing the risk of runoff or slope stability impacts that might affect water
quality;
reduce the length of the private road, with reductions in impervious surfaces and runot~
reduce the need for an additional crossing of the drainage with a driveway, by moving the
lot from the east side to the west side of the property., with resulting minimization of
pollution effects downstream;
allow for more efficient best management practices for erosion/stormwarer concerns.
I felt the applicant had not submitted enough information for us to make a determination that his
proposal complied with the sections of the ordinance cited above and consequently voted to deny
the request.
Further, given the Board's consistent record of acfmg to protect the public water supply, I believe
it likely that a final plat based on the proposed preliminary plat would represent a risk to public
health, safety and general welfare and be grounds for denial under section I 8-54(b). Such a
determination should, hopefully, be unnecessary, as there appear to be alternatives available to the
applicant that are reasonable and practicable that will sigrdficantly minimize potential impacts and
can be resubmitted as a preliminary, plat reques~ for subdivision approval.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Melnfire Road, Room 218
Charlouesvilla, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax I804) 972 - 4035
September 18, 1997
Mr. Roger Ray, L.S.
Roger W. Ray and Associates, Inc.
17i7-2B Allied Street
Charlottesville, VA 2290
Re: SUB 97-044 - Rivancrest Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Ray:
The development proposal referenced ~l}ove was denied by the Planning Commission at its
meeting of September ltl. 1997 based bn its determination that the preliminary plat did not
satisfy the requirements of Sections 18-22(a) and t 8-36 (b) (t) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Specifically, the Commission denied yom request that the subdivision be served by a private
road pursuant to section 18-36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission determined
that you failed to demonstrate to its reasonable satisfaction that the approval of the private mad
"will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the
site or adjacent prope~ies which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads in the
same alignments," (Subdivision Ordinance § 18-36(b)(1)(a)(part)) The Commission also
determined that you failed to demonstrate to its reasonable satisfaction that "[n]o alternative
public mad alignment available to the subdivider.., would alleviate significant degradation of
the environment". (Subdivision Ordinance § 18-36(b)(1)Co)) In order to satisfy the criteria stated
in Subdivision Ordinance §§ 18-36(b)(1)(a) and (b), you need to demonstrate if there are
alternative private road alignments which would result in less environmental degradation than the
private road proposed.
The Commission also denied the preliminary plat because it failed to include provisions "for the
disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage
facilities as the commission, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, may deem
adequate." (subdivision Ordinance § 18-22(a)(part)) Finally, the Commission determined that
the preliminary plat failed to make provisions "for the minimization of pollution of all
downstream water courses due to surface water runoff." (Subdivision Ordinance §
18-22(a)(part))
Page 2~
September 18, 1997
Because of the proximity of the proposed subdivision to the Rivanna Reservoir, the Commission
concluded that you need to provide more information about the subdivision's design as it relates
to erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and environmental protection than was
provided to assure that the erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans are
adequate.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by filing a written request with the
Director of Planning and Community Development within ten calendar days of Septemer 16,
t 997. (Subdivision Ordinance Section I 8-4)
Alternatively, the decision may be appealed to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
within sixty calendar days of this notice of disapproval. {Code of Virginia Section 15.1-475 (c)
(5)}
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
gKE/jcf
cc: Daniel Veliky
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
ELAINE ECHOLS, AICP
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
(SUB97-044~: RIVANCREST PRELIMINARY PLAT
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 5 lots on 26.42 acres in the
Rural Areas near the Rivarma Reservoir in the Earlysville area. The subdivision would
be served by a private road with access from Woodlands Road (Route 676).
Reason for Planning Commission Review: The use of private access requires Planning
Commission review and approval. A full review of the plat has been requested by two
adjacent property owners who are concerned with the location of a building site between
their two respective properties. (See Attachment D.)
Location: The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 5, is located in the Jack Jouett
Magisterial District, on the south side of Woodlands Road (Route 676), across Tuckahoe
Farm Lane and Rivanwood Drive (Route t 050). This property is in the Rural Areas
zoning district and is not in a designated growth area. It is located adjacent to a large
parcel which is part of the Ivy Creek Ag/Forestal District. No adverse impacts are
anticipated on that district as a result of this subdivision.
The property is heavily forested and has two houses on it which will be.removed as a
result of the subdivision. The property has steep slopes, a stream, floodplain, and is
located in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed area.
STAFF COMMENT:
The preliminary plat meets all reqmrements of the subdivision ordinance and zoning
ordinance for development as shown. Private roads are proposed and supported by the
Engineering Department. Water provision and sewage disposal are proposed on site and
require the standard Health Department approval. All building sites are shown to be
outside of the floodplain, off of steep slopes and appropriately set back from the
watershed protection area.
Design Issues - Staff raised concern with the developer over the layout of Lots 1 and 5.
Lot 1 has 9.86 acres and the most developable property on the site. From the topography
shown, there are at least two building sites in that area, and possibly more. Rather than
using the most developable land for the division, however, the subdivider has chosen to
place a building site on Lot 5 in a place which requires an extended culvert for the private
road over the stream or a separate stream crossing to provide access from the private road
to the building site.
Staff encouraged the developer to redesign the property to avoid the stream crossing and
the extended culvert. The developer, however, declined to redesign the lots and offered
to place a driveway from Route 676 to' the building site on Lot 5, instead.
Staff consulted with the Coumy Attorney's office to ascertain whether or not the County
could require a redesign of the parcels as a result of these issues. The County Attorney's
office determined that neither the staff nor the Planning Commission has the authority to
require the reconfiguration of lots suggested by the staff.
Only one other alternative exists in order to avoid the stream crossing for the driveway
and that is for the Planning Commission to approve a separate driveway entrance from
Route 676. Staff has determined that the provision of a driveway from 676 across from
Rivanwood Drive would require over 30 trees to be cut from the adjoining parcel to
ensure adequate sight distance. The Water Resource Manager has said that minimal
stream impact would take place if the culvert on the private road which crosses the stream
is extended. Such an extension would allow for a driveway to cross into the proposed Lot
5 without a second stream crossing. Assuming a redesign of the lots is not going to be
undertaken, staff therefore recommends that the driveway to Lot 5 take access from the
private road and cross an extended culvert, rather than be given access from Route 676.
Private Roads - With the request for use of private roads, the Planning Commission must
determine if the standards have been met for approval under Section 18-36 b.l.a, of the
Subdivision Ordinance. This section of the ordinance requires a subdivider to
demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the commission that approval of a private
road will "alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the
environment of the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the
construction of public roads in the same alignments". Additionally, the subdivider must
demonstrate that the general public interest will be served by private roads, as opposed to
the proprietary interest of the subdivider.
The staff supports the provision of private roads for the lots because the difference in
earthwork will be at least 30% less than constructing a public road. According to the
Engineering Department, the reduction in earthwork is the result of a lesser road width, a
difference in vertical alignment, and a reduced amount fill in the ravine next to Route
676.
RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision plat and the use of private roads. The
following conditions are proposed:
The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the
following conditions are met:
2
Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan.
Engineering Department approval of final road plans and drainage
computations.
Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved private road plans.
History: Tax Map 45 Parcel 5 has full development rights and is currently served by a gravel
road on the far west side of the property.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The Land Use Plan recommends tltis area as
Rural Areas for agricultural and very low density residential uses.
School Impact: A total of twa students would be added to the school system as a result
ofthis subdivision. Schools affected would be Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.
Jack Jouett Middle School, and Western Albemarle High School.
Environmental Conditions: This 26 acre parcel contains small mounts of floodplain,
a few steep slopes, major forested areas, and a stream. Because of the location of the
building sites and roads on the parcel, the subdivision should not affect the floodplain or
steep slopes.
Utilities: Fire Protection: The parcel will be served with wells and septic systems, both
of which must be approved by the Health Department.
Stormwater Detention/Runoff Control: Stormwater management will be provided for
the subdivision in accordance with County regulations and will be provided at the time of
final plat submittal.
Transnortation: As previously described, aprivate road is to be provided for access
within the subdivision and to Woodlands Road. A sight easement has been shown on the
plat to satisfy VDOT requirements for adequate sight distance along Woodlands Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Reduced copy of Rivancrest Preliminary. Plat
D - Letters from Adjoining Property Owners Requesting PC Review
E - Letter from Applicant Requesting Private Roads
F - Memo from Engineering Regarding Private Roads
A:~RIVCRST.RPT
3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY IATTACHMENT Al
CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA
~JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION
MTN.
SUB 97-044
RIVANCREST
~g
- - - -'ii - -
I ATTACHFIENT D I
Augu~ 20,1997
County of Albemarle
Department of Plarming & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Planning Committee,
As an abutting proper~y owner, 35 lWoodlands Road lot 5A, I would like to request a full
review of the proposed SUB 97-044 Rivercrest Subdivision Plat. I have the following concerns:
1. What effect this development will have on the Reservoir in the way of silt and
erosion when the buffer zone of the trees are removed. Also the effect of more septic tanks. We
want to protect the Reservoir, yet more and more developments are being allowed.
2. This is a very dangerous strip of road, especially for the people entering from the
south side of Route 676 as there are two curves within this stretch and cars travel quite fast.
More cars entering from the south of Route 676 will increase this hazard.
Sincerely, _ / / .
Jane Holman
0 1997
P!enning
Daniel J. Veliky
P. O. Box 6711
Charlottesville, VA 22906-6711
(804) 973-2909
RECE ¥E
JUl_ 2 8. 1997
P,~nn!n~ Du_~r,
July 25, 1997
Albemarle County Planning Commission
c/o V. Wayne Cilimberg
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Sir or Madam:
By copy of this letter, I am requesting the use of a private road to serve my
RivanCrest Subdivision. Several subdivisions have been developed around the
reservoir and are served by private roads. Approving a private road to serve my
subdivision would allow us to be consistant and in harmony with surrounding
developments.
By utilizing a private road the volume of grading would be ~-~ % less. I believe
this to be a significant environmental consideration and respectfully request
your approval of this private road.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call.
/~'Sspectfully, ..., / .
IATTACHMENT F I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~
2 September 1997
Rivancrest Subdivision, private vs. public road comparisons
The earthwork comparison for Rivancrest Subdivision received on 28 August 1997 has been
reviewed. The approximate earthwork computations provided by the applicant demonstrate that
the difference in earthwork will be at least 30% as required by the Subdivision Ordinance.
section 18-36(b)(1)a. The Engineering Deparmaent recommends approval of the private road
request.
The large difference in earthwork is the result of the differences in required road widths, as given
in Table A of section 18-36, as well as the difference in vertical alignment, a large portion of
which is due to the required grade at the intersection with Rt. 676. The proposed fill in the
ravine next to Rt. 676 is severely affected by the grade of the proposed road. Refer to the road
profiles provided by the applicant.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional
information.
GEB/
Copy: SUB-97-44
File: RIVANCRE.P2
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
1998 Draft Legislative Program for the Thomas
Jefferson Planning Distdct
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Discussion and approval of the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission 1998 Draft Legislative
Pmgram
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, White, Davis, Fronfelter
AGENDA DATE:
October 1 1997
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
yes ~
BACKGROUND:
The County's legislative program is developed each year in a collaborative process with the County's legislative
liaison under the supervision of the Planning Distdct Commission. The affached 1998 Draft Legislative Program for
the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct is before the Board for discussion and approval
DISCUSSION:
n addition to the issues presented in the TJPDC program, the County will need to submit special legislation to allow
a Juvenile Commission. of which Albemarle is a member, to borrow funds for a juvenile detention facility. Although
the County has statutory authority to create a juvenile commission, the borrowing authority for that commission must
be granted by special legislation. This minor legislation can be drafted by the County Attorney and submitted to one
of our legislators for sponsorship.
The only other legislative issue specific to Albemarle County that has been discussed by the Board is the possibility
of Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) legislation. However, the County Attorney is still waiting on an Attorney General's
opinion on the current ADU enabling legislation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the TJPDC 1998 Draft Legislation Program with the understanding that any
suggested changes from ~he Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program. Ms.
Bonnie Fronfelter will be present at the meeting to address any questions from the Board.
97.190
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
0~-25-97AC9:38 ~CVD
1505 VA 22902-1505
{804) 979-PD10 (7310) + {804 979-1597 +
Lo~isa Com~t~
H.E. H~t~iuger
Ethan Call
Nelson Coma~
Samuel C. DeLaura. Jr.
Hughes C. Swain
Nancy K. O'Bfien,
Execufive Director
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Bonnie Fronfelter, TJPDC Legislative Liaison
September 23, 1997
Draft -- TJPDC 1998 Legislative Program
Enclosed please find copies of the dra~ TIPDC 1998 Legislative Program.
This year the documenfs format is changing somewhat in an effort to shorten
standing policies and positions and place emphasis on key issues.
I have developed issue papers on the following subjects this year and
encourage additional suggestions:
Computation of Composite Index for SOQ Funding
Finanmng/Funding for Education Infrastructure
Telecommunications
Deregulation of the Electric Utility Industry
Personal Property Tax
Economic Development Initiatives
(Please note that figures have been left blank under Personal Property
Tax and Deregulation of Electric Utilities as all have not been
compiled as of this mailing.)
Please remember that any member locality has veto power by a majority vote
of its board over any item in the program. I look forward to accepting your
comments and changes to the legislative program at the October 1 board
meeting.
Recommended Action: Approve draft legislative program with the
understanding that any changes the board suggests will be reflected in the
final version of the legislative program.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
1998 Draft Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
Basic Principles
We oppose efforts which seek to weaken local powers to regulate land uses and protect the
community's health, safety and welfare.
We support enabling legislation to give localities additional authority to raise adequate local
revenues.
The State should fund ail new mandates and establish a review of current mandates.
Whenever possible, localities should be given flexibility in the manner in which they meet
these mandates,
l[Action Items
Local Composite Index for Education Funding ....................................................
Funding for Education Infrastructure ...................................................................
Personal Property Tax Plans .................... ; .............................................................
Deregulation of Electric Utility Industry ...............................................................
Telecommunications ...............................................................................................
Economic Development Initiatives .........................................................................
IIAreas of Continuing Concern
Growth Management ..............................................................................................
Finance ....................................................................................................................
Education ................................................................................................................
Environmental Quality ...........................................................................................
Local Government Structure and Laws ................................................................
Housing. ...................................................................................................................
Public Safety ............................................................................................................
Transportation ........................................................................................................
Health and Human Services ...................................................................................
Economic Development ..........................................................................................
COMPOSITE INDEX
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support use of the composite index in
determining local share of educational funding. However, because the formula dictates rigidity
in determining local share, several member localities receive undue ratings of wealth based on
factors that localities are unable to tap as revenue. Furthermore, the formula does not take
into account the high debt certain localities incur due to school construction and renovation
costs.
Background: The composite index is a calculation of local ability to pay based on local real estate
values, local adjusted gross income and total state adjusted gross income, local and state average
daily membership in public schools and taxable retail sales.
ilssues:
[Revised 1996-98 Composite Index: I
Composite index does not recognize
counties that use the land use value
assessment programs or local debt
incurred for school construction and
renovation costs.
Using local adjusted gross income as a
factor penalizes localities with a
concentration of wealthy persons and
no means by which to capture revenue
from such income.
No consideration is made for ratios of
artificially high property values and
lower than average gross incomes.
No state appeals process exists for
localities to air such problems.
Albemarle .6080
Charlottesville .5447
Fluvanna .3755
Greene .3075
Louisa .6784
Nelson .4878
Note: Louisa ranks 6th, Albemarle 9th, and
Nelson 17th of Virginia's 95 counties
in local ability to pay.
Recommendation: Support a mechanism for appealing to the State Department of Education
concerning the composite index. Support a change in the formula to account for land use taxation
programs, as well as local school construction and renovation costs. Oppose any change in the
formula that results in cost-shifting to localities.
EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene. Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support an increase in the state's funding for
school construction and renovation costs. Currently, the state's role is limited to "buying
down" interest rates and making it easier for some localities to issue debt for school
construction and renovation by avoiding referenda. Local governments pay 100% of the cost
of school construction and renovation; however, the formula for determining local composite
indices for education funding does not factor in the annual debt service shouldered by
localities. This can be a significant amount, especially in urbanizing or rapidly growing
localities.
Background: Since the late 1980's, local spending on capital outlay and debt service for schools
has increased significantly. In 1981 local government expenditures on debt service totaled $135
million; by 1996 this amount had grown to $454 million. The State Department of Education's (DOE)
recent facility su~wey shows shortfalls in maintenance and capital needs in schools throughout the
state range from a conservative $2.1 billion to a possible $8.2 billion. Nearly 65% of Virginia's
schools are over 25 years old, coupling costly renovations with significant technology upgrades.
DOE's report concluded that "...for a vast majority, local tax funds cannot meet the projected debt
service required to upgrade and replace existing facilities or to build new facilities for increasing
enrollments. In some localities, property taxes could double and still not generate the revenue needed
to meet projected debt service for a modem school infrastructure."
IEstimated Spending on School Construction and Renovation by FY 2001:
Albemarle ........ $53.5 million
Charlottesville .... $ 8.3 million
Fluvanna ........ $10.0 million
Greene .......... $ 8.8 million
Louisa .......... $12.4 million
Nelson ........... $ 8.9 million
Recommendation: Support earmarking a revenue source for a school construction and
renovation capital assistance fund to be distributed to localities. Methods for making state allocations
to distribute funds could be based on a per pupil amount built into the basic aid payments, a
percentage of school construction and renovation costs, or a percentage of local debt service costs.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities oppose any attempt to restrict or eliminate
local sources of taxation, including personal property taxation unless local governments are
guaranteed the opportunity to replace lost sources of local revenue with comparable,
equivalent, independent local sources of revenue to allow localities to fulfill their public service
obligations.
Background: The Personal Property Tax comprises roughly 15% of locally-generated revenues,
second only to the real estate tax which accounts for almost 44% of local revenues produced in
V'trginia, The stability ora local government's revenue base is critical to obtaining a good bond rating,
Replacing a local taxing authority with a state reimbursement weakens its revenue producing abilities
in the eyes of the financial community. Furthermore, in times of economic downturn, state revenues
and funding reimbursements to the Commonwealth's localities is compromised. In 1979 large cities
gave up the fight to amiex. In exchange for subjecting themselves to this potential revenue loss, the
state agreed to provide a state block grant to provide assistance to localities with police departments
(known as HB 599 funding). Since the inception of I-lB 599, the state has failed to meet its
commitment to the tune of $420 million.
[~ersonal Property Tax Rates: (Per $100 of Assessed Value)
Albemarle ......... $ 4.28
Charlottesville ..... $ 4.20
Fluvanna ......... $ 3.70
Greene ........... $ 4.45
Louisa ........... $1.70
Nelson ............ $ 2.95
(Note: Rates have remained the same for the last __ years in all TJ'PDC localities)
IPersonal Proper~ Tax Revenues: (FY 93- FY 97)
Albemarle
Charlottesville
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
Nelson
FY93 Fy94 FY95 FY96 FY97
(Note: Approximately % of the Personal Property Tax collected is from automobiles for personal use.)
IAverage Annual Rate of Growth in Personal Proper~y Tax Revenues: (FY 93-FY 97) I
Albemarle ............ %
Charlottesville ........ %
Fluvanna ............ %
Greene .............. %
Louisa .............. %
Nelson ............... %
Recommendation: If the General Assembly feels it is necessary to reduce the tax burden in
Virginia, the tax relief should be realized through state tax reductions, not through state action to
abolish or reduce local taxing authority.
DEREGULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES
Legislative Position of T.~PDC, Charlouesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene. Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support efforts to provide greater uniformity
of tax treatment to create a "level playing field" for both in and out-of-state providers of
electricity in a deregulated environment. However, in achieving this objective it is essential to
retain current levels of revenue for the Commonwealth and its localities. We oppose any shift
in the apportionment of taxes among classes of customers (residential, commercial, industrial,
public authority) resulting in a greater tax burden than that currently placed on residential
customers.
Background: The electric industry in Virginia, like the rest of the country, is headed towards
deregulation and free market competition. A joint subcommittee (Senate Joint Resolution 259) was
established by the General Assembly in 1996 to address the restructuring of the electric utility
industries which are now heavily regulated by the State Corporation Commission and exist as
investor-owned public service corporations, rural cooperatives and municipal electrics. Virginia's state
and local governments rinse more than $400 million annually from electric providers and consumers.
Local governments collect revenues from electric providers and consumers through five mechanisms:
utility tax on consumers, gross receipts tax on providers, personal property and property tax on
providers and the motor vehicle license fee. The Commonwealth collects revenues from a 2% gross
receipts tax, the STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION special tax and the motor vehicle fuel tax.
Electric providers are exempt from the state income tax and state sales tax.
]Local Revenues Collected from Electric Providers in FY 97: I
Consumer Gross Personal Property Motor Total
Utility Tax Receipts ~ Property Tax Vehicle
Tax (.5%) Tax License Fee
Albemarle
C'ville
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
I
Total I
I Consumer Utility Rates in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District:
Albemarle:
Charlottesville:
lquvannfl:
Greene:
Louisa:
[elson:
Commercial: 2% of first $3000, 10% after
Residential: 20% of first $20 with a $4.00 cap
10% of first $3000, 4% of excess over $3000
Recommendation: Proceed with caution in selecting a tax or blend of taxes that preserves current
levels of revenue for the state and local governments. Avoid undue shifting of the apportioned tax
burden to residential consumers whose current consumption rate is 39.4% of the total electricity used
in the Commonwealtk, but who shoulder 47.6% of current taxes.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna. Greene. Louisa and Nelson
Bael~ground: In 1996 the Federal Telecommunications Act was adopted and brought with it
sweeping changes to the telecommunications industry. The new federal law is vague in some areas
(such as the regulation of cellular phone towers) and expressly permissive in other arenas, leaving
many issues to be resolved at the state level. Legislation (House Bill 2915 and Senate Bill 1013) was
introduced during the 1996 General Assembly session which would have changed state law to prevent
localities fi-om receiving fair compensation for the private use of public property as currently provided
in state law. Certainly, this issue along with other legislative proposals affecting local governments
will be introduced in 1997.
Re¢ol~r~¢rtrlatiott: Consider the following six principles when deliberating over any state
legislative action involving telecommunications:
Zoning and Land Use: The siting and placement of telecommunications equipment such as
towers and satellite dishes have a significant impact on the physical appearance ora locality.
Zoning and other placement decisions should be made at the local level, by local governments.
The state, federal government and regulatory agencies should not preempt or circumvent local
government's control over land use decisions.
Public Rights-of-Way: Local rights-of-way are public property and contain numerous
utilities and other facilities. These rights-of-way require proper management and maintenance
to ensure public safety, to preserve the integrity of the property, to guarantee the safety of
workers and to maintain the efficiency of local streets, utilities, and transportation facilities
and networks. Private use of public rights-of-way by multiple parties significantly increases
managemem and maintenance costs, laxpayers buy and maintain rights-of-way in their
communities through the'.: taxes. This public property should not be used for private purposes
without the approval of and compensation to local governments for the use of such space.
Local governments and the'.: taxpayers are entitled to a fair return for private business use of
public property and for reimbursement of all costs associated with those uses. Local
governments must have continued authority to control the rights-of-way for the safety and
convenience of its citizens.
Equitable Taxation: Telecommunications providers are valued members of our corporate
community and all corporate community members must pay taxes on an equitable basis as
appropriately determined by local governmems. No legislation should restrict the ability of
local governments to impose equitable taxes on telecommunications providers.
Universal Service and Consumer Access: Educational and community services are
provided via telecommunications. Providers must be responsive to citizen needs and concerns
and provide appropriate customer services to all segmems of our community, so that no
citizen or locality is disadvantaged due to income or geographic location in obtaining access
to new technology.
Competition: Local governments support healthy competition in the field of
telecommunicanons. To ensure a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory market, all
service providers must pay fair compensation for the use of public property. Local
governments should not subsidize some participants in free-market competition with charges
that are lower than those ~dictated by fair market values.
Local Governments as Customers: In many communities, local governments are the single
largest customers of telecommunications services (government offices, education facilities,
and emergency communications). As valuable customers, local governments should be treated
equitably.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Legislative Position of T, IPDC, Charlottesville
and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
The Planning District and its member localities support continued funding of the Governor's
Opportunity Fund, Community Development Block Grants and other sources of financial
assistance for localities in supporting economic development projects. We support review of
the awards distribnted from the Opportunity Fund to ensure that benefits of the Fund are
realized in all regions of the state.
Background: The Governor's Opportunity Fund supports industrial development projects that
create new jobs and investment in accordance with criteria established by state legislation in the early
90's. These criteria establish required investment amounts in concert with a number of jobs created.
(For example, a lnirdmum private investment orS10 million producing 100 new jobs is eligible for
funding.) Funds can be used for such things as site acquisition and development; transportation
access; training; constmctiun or build-out of publicly-owned buildings; or grant or loans to Industrial
Development Authorities. Matching local participation is required on a dollar for dollar basis. These
grants are made at the discretion of the Governor.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) are available to eligible cities, counties and towns
for industrial or commercial revitalization, site development, access road construction, raikoad span
construction, and water and sewer projecs. Communities may use these funds to support projects
which will create or maintain jobs for low- and moderate-income persons or which will address the
problems of community decline. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis for up to $700,000 and
the program is administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
for nonentitlement communities. HUD administers the program for entitlement communities
(Charlottesville).
Recommendation: Support funding for economic development initiatives such as the Opportunity
Fund, CDBGs and the Regional Competitiveness Fund. Support a periodic review of these grants to
gua[~antea that all areas of the state are benefitting from the programs. Support more flexibility in the
use of the Governor's Opportunity Fund in the matching requirements to allow local governments to
leverage dollars more effectively.
I GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The Planning District and member governments recognize the importance of a mix of vibrant growing
mban areas and preservation of rural areas. In order to maintain this balance, we support expanded
authority through enabling legislation to give local governments the tools to manage growth,
including transfer development rights (TDRS), purchase development rights (PDRs), impact fees and
adequate public facilities ordinances. We support legislation and incentives to encourage localities
to work together on a regional basis where effects of decisions are felt beyond the local level. We
oppose legislation that restricts or preempts existing local authority to develop, modi~ and enforce
their comprehensive plan or to regulate land use.
[[rJNANCE
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing governmem projects should
be a partnership between the state and localities. However, we are alarmed at the decreasing level of
support from the state, while demand for services increases. With our limited ability to raise funds,
we are o~en unable to meet services required by our residents and those mandated by the state. The
state should permit local governments maximum flexibility in their sources of local revenue. The
erosion of local revenue sources increases local governments' reliance on the property tax. The
General Assembly should not cap, remove or restrict any revenue sources, taxing authority or user
fees available tO localities. The state must broaden the revenue sources available to localities in the
form of a local option sales tax, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option
income tax or a portion of lottery revenues to reduce local governments' reliance on the property tax.
lIED UCA TION
The Planning District and its member localities share the state's interest in educational excellence.
Funding for education is a top priority for this region. We support full funding of the state's share of
the actual costs of the SOQ and full funding of all categorical educational mandates. We support a
study of the methodology for calculating the costs of the SOQ, focusing on whether the methodology
truly reflects the actual costs of meeting the standards. Most localities fund education beyond their
state-required share. Further, we recognize that proper infrastructure is essential to a good education
system. We support an increase in the state's funding for school construction costs Capital
improvements should be factored into the SOQ and the two current state financing sources (Literary
Fund and Virginia Public Building Authority) should be broadened. Lastly, we oppose any legislation
that limits the authority of local school boards and local governing bodies to finance and manage their
schools.
The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and enhancement of
the en,Aronment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to achieve a proper balance
between environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities. Environmental
quality should be promoted through a comprehensive approach and address issues of air and water
quality, solid waste management, protection of sensitive lands and sound land use policies. Such an
approach requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdictional nature of many environmental
resources and adequate state funding to match local efforts
IILOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LA WS
The Planning District and its member localities belie'ce that since so many governmental actions take
place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have
the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities. We support legislation to relax, to the extent
necessary, the Dillion Rule to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required
by their citizens and allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships.
We oppose intmsionary legislation involving meetings of governing bodies, purchasing procedures,
local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local
employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures for adopting
ordinances. We oppose any change in the current sovereign immumty laws seeking to narrow county
or municipal corporation immunity.
The Planning District and ks member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity
to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work towards
expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly,
the disabled and low-income and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and
planning should be implememed whenever possible. We support continued funding of the Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund from both the general fund and VI-IDA, creation of more local-option
funding sources such as tax increment financing and real estate transfer taxes. We support promotion
of new tools for affordable housing such as limited equity housing cooperatives and community land
trusts.
ITIll I ?ll~ I Il
[PUBLIC SAFETY
The Planmng District and its member localities recognize that the prime responsibility for law
enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services rests at the local
level. However, these needs can be met only with continued state and federal support. We support
restoration of funding for the HB 599 program at the level assured when the program was enacted.
We support full funding for state-mandated law enforcement officers, local correctional officers, court
security officers, and communications personnel training provided through certified academies. While
we support the concept ora family court system, we believe that the state must appropriate funds for
the state and local costs of the system, including capital and operating costs. We support legislation
to increase court fees to pay for courthouse maintenance, renovation and construction. These costs
should not be placed on the general population. The state should pay 50% of the costs to construct
regional jails with timely state reimbursement payments. Furthermore, the state should fully fund its
statutory funding commitment to regional jails including operational staff through the Compensation
Board and to locally operated group homes which includes reimbursing 50% of construction costs
and 66% of operational costs.
TRANSPOR TA TION
The Planning District and its member localities support the developmem of a comprehensive
statewide transportation plan that recognizes diverse transportation needs in urban, suburban and
rural areas. We support transportation plans that are consistent with and supportive of minimizing
the effect on the natural environment. We support a comprehensive approach to transportation that
is balanced and multimodal, integrating all forms of transportation in a manner that is economically
efficient, energy efficient, environmentally sound and promotes economic development
Transportation planning must be better coordinated and integrated witk local land use planning,
especially in rapidly growing areas. We support additional state funding for transit operating costs
as federal aid in this arena has decreased dramatically.
HEAL TH AND HUMAN SER VICES
The Planning District and its member localities recognize that special attention must be given to
developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the
elderly, can achieve their full potential. In achieving this ends, however, the limits of government must
be recognized. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal,
state and local agencies. We oppose any changes in state funding that result in an increase of the local
share of costs for human services. Moreover, we oppose any new state or federal entitlement
programs that require additional local funding.
IECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic developmem as essential to the
continued viability of the Commonwealth. The state needs to clarify its positions on growth and
development by enhancing the state economic development plan to more clearly deftne the
responsibilities of the state and of local governments. We support the development of the state
Economic Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth. The plan should include new tools
for local governments to use in attracting economic development opportunities such as a capital pool
to construct improvements for new or expanding businesses, tax increment financing, a grant or loan
program dedicated to enhancing local infrastructure systems and an expanded Enterprise Zone
Program.
Regional Competitiveness Funding. The Regional Competitiveness Act enacted in 1996 provides
local governments an opportunity to work regionally to find solutions to problems that negatively
affect Virginia's competitiveness in economic development. We support additional funding for the Act
to provide meaningful opportunities for regional projects to move for, var&
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Safety Personnel Request/Proposal
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for Career Firefighter/Emergency Medical
Technicians
STAFF CONTACT{Si:
Messrs. Tucker, Huff. Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION: ×
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
iNFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County, like many other localities across the country who rely on volunteers to staff the community's
response to fire and medical emergencies, continues to experience daytime manpower shortages. As early as
1978; Eadysviile Volunteer Fire Department indicated to the County that they were m need of career personnel to
supplement the volunteer system for adequate day time responses. Since that time, the level of volunteer
participation has ebbed and flowed, always struggling to cover daytime hours as members find work outside their
community or employers find it impossible to allow the volunteers to continue to leave work to respond to calls.
n early 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the purchase of an aedal truck to be manned by volunteers
supplemented by three career personne~ At that time, direction was given to assure that career personnel were
integrated hand-in-hand with the volunteer system to support their efforts, never to replace them. In April, 1997,
the County's first three career personnel began work and, since that time, their integration into the volunteer system
has been a successful one.
With the new model in place and working well with all parties, Eariysville and Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Departments have= by letter from their Board of Directors, asked the County to provide day time supplemental
support as well. Staff has met with the leadership from both companies who indicate that with increasing frequency,
they are unable to respond a crew at all during daylight hours for fire and EMS emergencies.
DISCUSSION:
These two departments, along with Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, provide coverage to the County's
busiest sectors. Because Eartysville and Stony Point are responsible for areas that reach the Orange County and
Greene County lines, and EMS responses will be coming from either Mclntire Road ICARS) or Crozet (WARS),
career EMT's in outlying areas of the County will significantly improve response times while allowing a "system"
response to other parts of the County. The concept of a coordinated system where all resources are fully utilized
is being fine tuned. For example, with additional resources in the nor[hem corridors, other resources can be made
more readily available to the south and east.
In order to meet the requests for manpower that have been submitted, three personnel for each station are needed.
Total costs including salary and equipment to hire the personnel in January is $148,350 for the current fiscal year.
Full year cost for next year will be approximately $250,260 for the six additional firefighters/EMT's.
N -?--07 N' ,n\ n
AGENDA TITLE:
Public Safety Personnel Request/Proposal
October 1, 1997
Page 2
In the past, the Board has discussed the concept of Service Districts as a method of providing necessary funding
for fire services. State statute allows the Board by ordinance to draw a district boundary that encompasses the
areas that are to receive the added service and assess an additional real estate tax. One alternative to using
General Fund monies to fund fire personnel is to levy an additional real estate tax for Service Districts that would
coincide with the response areas for the stations. For discussion purposes, a rough estimate of the cost of three
career personnel for Stony Point would result in a Fire District Tax of 5.2f;, 1.3¢ for Earlysville, and 1¢ for Seminole
Trail. This disparity in taxation in order to receive the same level of service needs to be fur[her studied in order to
pursue this issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board consider funding the additional personnel in the current year from carry-over funds
and further research the Service District concept as a potential funding source for the full year costs in the next fiscal
year after a more comprehensive analysis is available.
97.182
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
800 MHZ Trunked Radio System Worksession
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for authorization to solicit Requests for
Proposals for a new public safety radio system
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Hanson, Miller, Pumphrey
AGENDA DATE:
October 1, 1997
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the last two and a half to three years, members of the City, County and University Public Safety staffs have,
with the assistance of a radio communications consultant, analyzed the community's joint needs for public safety
radio communications and potential solutions to meet existing problems with current systems. The attached report
(see attachment 1) from a radio subcommittee presented to the 911 Management Board indicates the critical short
comings of the existing public safety radio system including insufficient radio coverage and in-building penetration,
insufficient channel capacity for public safety operations, lack of interoperability (police, tire, and EMS) due to
independent/individualized radio systems, and outdated current equipment which has exceeded its normal useful
life. Due to limited channel/frequency availability, application was made in 1995 for a sufficient number of
frequencies in the 800 MHz radio frequency range for a public safety radio system upgrade. These frequencies,
are extremely limited in their availability and so were secured at a time when a window of opportunity presented itself
which has since closed for the unrestricted frequencies which were secured.
The system being proposed, is an 800 MHz Trunked lO-channel radio system to serve the police, fire and EMS radio
needs of both of the City, County and University Public Safety Agencies. The technology involved in a trunked radio
system is similar to the concept of a trunked telephone system whereby users share available lines rather than each
individual station being assigned its own unique line. In much the same way, users would share available
frequencies allowing all agencies to communicate with each other using one radio system on an as needed basis.
DISCUSSION:
On September 16, 1997, the 911 Management Beard reviewed and agreed to pass on to the involved localities a
recommendation to move to the Request for Proposal stage for a community-wide Trunked 800 MHZ 10-channel
radio system. Total cost for the entire system for the City, County and University as well as the Joint Security
Complex, Airport and Town of Scottsville is approximately $6 million. This tigure includes both the radio equipment
required for mobile units as well as individual portable radios but also includes the infrastructure including tower
sites and associated equipment. The 911 Management Board has agreed to a formula to share in the cost of the
infrastructure based on the total number of mobile and portable units needed by its agency. Albemarle County's
share of the project includes $1,498,200 for radio equipment and $1,556,093 for associated infrastructure costs for
a total of $3,054,293. This includes County Police, County Fire, County Rescue, and County Sheriff's Department.
The City of Charlottesville's total cost is $1,753.417 with the balance of the cost being shared by the University,
Scottsville Police, Joint Security Complex and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. These costs are estimates at
this point and cannot be solidified until a Request for Proposal is issued and more definitive engineering and
equipment analysis is completed. BOARD OF SUPERV][SORS
3g-25-gffA!C :39 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
800 MHZ Trunked Radio System Workshop
October 1, 1997
Page 2
Several problems exist within the existing public safety radio independent systems. As examples, some of the radio
equipment currently used bythe City and the County fire departments is between 15-20 years old, operates on only
two channels on a Iow band frequency that does not allow sufficient channels for multiple operations, exhibits poor
coverage and in.building penetration throughout the County as well as increasing difficulty in finding replacement
parts for existing equipment. Under the existing systems, fire units are unable to talk directly to EMS units or police
and vice versa in instances where multiple responses are required
Financing for this project appears to be available most economically through a lease purchase arrangement on a
master contract for the entire 10 chanr~l system. Although this financing would be procured through a competitive
process, current estimates are that it can be obtained at an interest rate between 5% and 6%. A preliminary review
by staff of funding solutions indicate that one time monies and money currently programmed to improve existing
radio systems inthe CIP can be appropriated to this project bringing the amount to be financed down to $2,094,668
yielding an annual amortized cost over a ten year pedod at 5 1/2% of $263,408 (see attachment 2). Staff estimates
that once the current obligations on the 911 surcharge revenue source are fulfilled, $152,720 can be made available
annually toward this project. In addition to the on-going amortization costs, the maintenance of the system and its
electronics has also been considered as shown in attachment 2.
Timing for this project, if it moves forward, is projected such that requests for proposal and analysis of that request
and ultimate construction and installation will take 18 months to 2 years. FCC regulations that govern the
frequencies that were granted in 1995 require that the frequencies be used by the year 2000 or be forfeited for
redistribution to other entities given their scarce nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
The 911 Management Board has recommended that the localities approve the next step in the process to develop
an RFP for the system and associated financing so that a better cost analysis as well as engineering studies on the
design of the system can be completed. It is possible, once better budget numbers are developed, that financing
can ~e arranged to redistribute some ct'the up front costs to ease the amount needed in the first years of the loan
in the funding scenario shown in attachment 2. This worksession is designed to present the issue and begin to
understand what additional information might be needed to arrive at a decision of whether to move forward with an
RFP.
97.187
ATTACHMENT 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PROVIDERS
Multi-Radio Communications Report
Executive Summary
In [995, the County, City, and University jointly requested a radio consultant conduct a study of
the communications needs for all emergency and public service providers and develop a Multi-
Agency Radio Communications Plan. The review identified a number of deficiencies in the
present radio systems thereby resulting in a recommendation m develop a new radio system. It
was the consultant's opinion that the only system that could effectively address the identified
deficiencies and objectives was an 800 ~a4z mmked simulcast radio system at an estimated cost
range of $13-14 million.
At the request of the ECC Management Board Executive Committee/n February, the ESPAC
was requested to review alternative proposals for a multi-agency radio communications solution
due m apparent insufficient funds for the consultants original proposal. Therefore, in response to
this request the ESPAC through the efforts of the Radio Sub-Committee have prepared the
enclosed Multi-Radio Communications Report.
Although the ESPAC believes the original 800 m2 proposal is still the best plan to meet the
overall communication requirements for the County, City, and University both now and the
future, the Committee recommends as an alterative proposal the purchase or lease of a i
channel digital and analog 800 m trunked radio system for public safety at an estimated cost
range of $5-6 million. Ln recognition of the time sensitivity for the twenty (20) 800
frequencies obtained in 1995, the Committee has identified a phase II option to allow use of the
remaimng ten (10) 800 va~z frequencies that may be acceptable to the FCC. A cost range has not
been provided for this option. Life cycle costs were not prepared as well due to the uncerta'mty
of how the proposed system would be acquired (purchase or lease) if approved.
Finally, the ESPAC believes failure to immediately address the identified radio communications
deficiencies will significantly hinder public safety's ability to provide efficient emergency
response service, insure effective interagency radio communications in times of local
emergencies and disaster, and further jeopardize emergency responder safety.
Purpose of Report
To provide a Public Safety Radio
Communications System which will:
· Insure reliable efficient emergency response
services.
· Embrace a future option for expansion to include
other general government services.
Frequency Spectrum Availability
· A limited-regulated-naturalresource (The pie
doesn't get any bigger, it just keeps getting cur
into smaller pieces-a finite space).
· Refarming - the regulatory process by the FCC to
increase channel capacity through a two-step
transition to narrow band operation by reducing
the existing 25 Khz-wide channels (12.5/6.25)
effective 2/14/97 & 1/01/05.
· Highly volatileperiod of transition.
Frequency Spectrum Availability.
· Competition for frequencies very high- FCC
receives over 50,000 applications every year and
requests continue to increase.
· Radio spectrum is becoming more congested.
· Radio spectrum is being auctioned with revenues
being used to reduce the federal budget debt.
· The only spectrum left where you can find
relatively clean O~ree of interferenceJ pairs of
frequencies is the 800MHz band, which include
the NPSPAC (National Public Safety Planning
Advisory Committee) channels°
4
Frequency Spectrum Availability_
· Public safety is moving to the 800MHz band
(Research & Development- New Technology) for
protection from co-channel interference and
slow growth options.
· VI-IF/UHF does not have co-channel interference
protection or slow growth options, and sufficient
frequencies are not available in the Public Safety
pool
· Our 800MHz frequencies are very valuable
($$$- No Jurisdictional Boundaries
- Less Infrastructure Cost ).
CURRENT SYSTEM(S) DESC~PTION
Conventional VHF (EMS)
Conventional UHF (POLICE)
Conventional Low Band (FIRE)
Joint Emergency Commtmications Cemer (PSAP)
Fire Communications Center (Seeondary PSAP-Fire Only)
Issues and Concerns of Public
Safety Communications
· Responder Safety
· Coverage
· Channel Congestion
· Radio Interference
· Reliability
· Lack of Frequencies
· Lack of Disaster/Mutual Aid Channels
· Failure Considerations
· System Maintenance
· Population Growth (Workload Impact)
Critical Shortcomings of the
Public Safety Radio System
· Insufficient radio coverage and in-building
penetration. - 95% portable coverage / time.
· Insufficient channel capacity for Public Safety
Operations.
· Lack oflnteroperability (Police, Fire, and EMS)
due to independent/individualized radio systems.
· Majority of current equipment is older than the
normal useful life.
· Radio equipment manufacturers are generally, legally
bound to only provide parts 7 years after initial
production for mobiles and portables. And for 10 years
for base stations (transmitters/receivers).
Critical Shortcomings of the
Public Safety Radio System
[] No emergency or user I.D. notification.
[] Lack of System(s) redundancy.
[] Unable to identify or disable problem radios in
the field.
[] Daily radio interference.
[] Unable to use latest Emergency Alerting
Technology.
· UNRELIABLE!!!
CRITICAL SHORTCOMINGS OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS(con0
Fire Communications/Service
Current base stations/80% of existing equipment needs replacing due to
age(l 0-15 years and older).
Experience daily interference and radio "skip?.
Current system is a two channel system limiting ability to effectively
communicate-with field personnel during multiple incidents.
Less than 95% portable and mobile radio communications coverage in
response areas. ~'FtRE FIGHTER SAFETY }SSLFE",
Inadequate backup radio system(Command Bus):
No effective Radio Communications Interoperability with EMS &
Police,
Unable to use latest emer~gency alerting technology.
Unable to identify or disable problem radios in the field.
UNRELIABLE??!!
EMS Communications/Service
Current base stations need replacing due to age ( 8-t5 years ).
Current system is primarily a one channel system with limited tactical
channel capabilities 'wapacting the ability to effectively communicate
with field personnel during multiple incidents.
Less than 95% portable radio communications coverage in response
areas. "EMS RESPONDER SAFETY ISSUE".
Inadequate back-up radio system ( Command. Bus ).
No effective Radio Communications tntero_nerability with Fire& Police.
Unable to use latest emergency alerting technology.
Unable to identify or disable, problem radios in the field,
CRITICAl. SHORTCOMINGS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEMS(con0
Police Communications/Service
Current base stations/75% of existing equipment needs replacing due to
age (10-15 years and older).
Current systems are two or three channel systems which limit the ability
to effectively communicate with field personnel during multiple
incidents.
Expehence co-charmet interference.
Less than 95% portable radio communications coverage ha response
areas. "POLICE OFFICER SAFETY ISSUE"
Limited or no in-building radio signal penetration.
Inadequate back-up radio system (Command Bus ).
No effective Radio Communications tntero~rabiti~ with Fibre&EMS.
Unable to identify or disable problem radios in th~ field.
800 MHz Trunked Radio System
Description
· The automatic time sharing of afixed number of
radio channels over a large number of users using
computer controlled channel assignment.
· To properly work, it needs at least five (FCC
Mandate) relatively adjacent pairs of radio
frequencies.
· More efficient use is made of the channels.
· Similar ro telephone trunking.
800 MHz Tmnked Radio System
Description
· Available to any user (Every Public Safety Radio)
when required and returned when not in use.
· Provides interagency communications through
talk groups (Each radio owned by the separate
agencies are programmed to access only the talk
groups designated by their agency, plus some or
all of the "Common" talk groups). We no longer
think in terms of "channels". Instead, we think in
terms of"talk paths". In reality, the radios are
remote computers.
· Better in-buildingpenetration, and coverage.
· "INTEROPERABILITY"
800 MHz System Addresses
Critical Shortcomings
· Insufficient radio coverage
· Insufficient in-building penetration
· Insufficient channel capacity
· Lack oflNTEROPERABILITY
· Equipment replacement (use ful life)
· Emergency I.D. notification
· User I.D. notification
· System redundancy
· Identify problem radios in the field
· Disable problem radios in the field
· Radio interference
· Emergency alerting technology
· Reliability
· Responder Safety
I I ~ "Ir ¥]i I i' ~'*l~, I' III II
Additional Features of a 800Mhz
Tmnked Radio System
· Higher user capacity per channel.
· Doubles call- handling capacity
· Control of system in emergencies.
· Priority access
· Emergency access
· Regrouping
· Auto patch telephone capability
· Enhanced system management.
· Better day-to-day management of resources
· Serves widely differing requirements.
· Functional segregation (Agency/Department)
· Individual addressing
· Privacy
· Supports Digital Applications.
Other Local 800Mhz radio
Systems
[] City of Hampton
[] City of Virginia Beach
[] City of Norfolk
[] City of Alexandria
[] City of Portsmouth
[] Roanoke County
[] Hanover County
[] Arlington County
[] Chesterfield County
Other 800Mhz Systems to be
Installed
· City of Lynchburg
· City of Bedford
· City of Richmond
· City of Manassass
· Amherst County
· Bedford County
· Henrico County
· Fairfax County
· Prince William County
Recommendation
Phase 1
· Build and implement a new 10 channel Public
Safety Digital and Analog 800 MHz Trunked
Radio System.
Phase 2
· Slow growth implementation to a 20 channel
Regional Government (ie.; City, County, &
University) Digital and Analog 800Mhz
Trunked Radio System over the next five
years.
Phase 1 "Public Safety" 800Mhz Radio
Communications System Cost Estimate
Infrastructure $ 3,069,925
Radio Equipment + $ 2,865,800
Total $ 5,935,725
Financial Breakout
ALBEMARLE COUNTY $ 3.033,163
CHARLOTTESVILLE $1,741,264
UVA S 644,493
SCOTTSVILLE $ 30,488 *
JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX $ 362,187 ~
AIRPORT $124,130 *
~ Budget shares are projected to be paid from their awn agency or Town
revenues, not City, County, or University revenues.
Concluding Remarks
· A VHF/UItF Radio System is not recommended.
· Action is required to address our immediate radio
communications needs (ie.; Fire Communications,
Interoperability, Responder Safety, Etc.).
· Demonstrate to the FCC that our request for
800Mhz frequencies is valid and that we are
moving forward in developing an 800Mhz
Trunked Radio System.
Concluding Remarks
· Loss of our current licensed 800 MHz frequencies
would increase (Double) infrastructure costs under
other 800Mhz spectrum licensing (NPSPAC
frequencies-Region 42 Plan) options.
· The ESPAC believes the original 800Mhz
proposal is still the best plan to meet the
communication requirements for the County, City,
and University for the period 1997-2007 and
beyond, understanding however, that funding of
this plan may not be available at this time.
"1[~''r~'i! lr]i '[tl[] ,I~ III II
Concluding Remarks
· In recognition of the above the ESPACformally
requests consideration be given by the ECC
Management Board to the recommendation for
the purchase or lease of a 10 channel digital &
analog 800 MHz trunlced radio system (Phase I)
for Public Safe(y.
· The next step is to determine and consider
financing alternatives (ie.; E9-1-1 surcharge,
General Funds, Industrial Development Funds,
etc.) through a County, City, and University
financial work group.
~ l.q,l f
800 Mhz Trunked Radio System Project
County Funding Analysis
,.lOg
SI52.720
Attachment 2
Ne~ qoqey Needed
ll.tal !kfici~ (her Prior Year
SO q203...1(.)8 S i I (],68g S [ [ 0.688
NO ~203.408 SI 10.68~
. S0 52(6 ll]l()g q I i 0.688
S.'l 2.0nO N305..10~ g152,698
Sg?.S60 S350f6g S !9$.0,!8 q 15.3N)
S9q.855 ~35.t,262 52[~1,5.~:2 N3.195
S9.'[.~89 ~357.$96 $205. [76 S3.63 l
g98.268 %361 .o76 S2d8.956 b3.780
%102,199 %365.606 S2!2 g~6 S3.931
October 1, 1997
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 2.1-344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA UNDER:
· SUBSECTION 7 TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUES RELATING TO
INTER JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS AND TO CONSULT WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PROBABLE LITIGATION
AND REVERSION.
r o
Ceteb ati
Y~A~S
0rking Togethe
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
Sunday, October 12, 1997
Charlottesville .Downtown Mall Amphitheater
1:30
2:00
2:45
Charlottesville Municipal Band
Ceremony, Awards, Memories, & Music
Share our Birthday Cake, Play Games, Win a
Mug, Ride a Hot Air Balloon
Rain Location: Albemarle County Office Building
Harr 's-Kirtley
Debate
Paul HarriS (RepUblican) and Bruce Kirtley (Democrat)
Candidates for the 58th District
Virginia House of Delegates
Wednesday, October 1st at 7:30 p.m.
Albemarle County Courthouse
Hosted by Horizon Institute for Policy
Solutions, The Citizenship Project, and
Virginia Public Television (WVPT).
Light refreshments will be furnished by HotCakes.
For further information please contact Derek Jones
(Horizon Institute office 295-0295) or Brian Menard
(The Citizenship Project office 293-7645).
Hon o S:/ tute
FOR POLICY SOLUTIONS
201 East Main S~ee[ Suite M o Charlottesville, 5r~rginia 22902
804 295 0295 · Fax 295 0459 * honzon@maiI.horizoninst/mte.org ° w~w. horizoninsurure.org
Horizon Institute for Policy Solutions is a newly org~niT~d non-profit public policy
institute based in Charlottesville, Virginia which seeks to effect enduring improvements in the
quality of govemmenr and democratic life in Virginia and the nation. To this end the Institute
engages in three pmanry activities---educating the public, providing decision-makers with timely,
relevant, and unbiased information, and facff~tating constructive dialogue between and among
citizens, legislators, and interest groups in common pursuit of genuine progress. Horizon Institute
is truly unique both m its non-ideological approach to public affairs and its focus on the
Commonwealth of VirgnUa.
The Institute believes that there is a significant need in Virginia for an organization that
brings together people with diverse, if not divcrgen~ perspec~lives to talk in solution-oriented terms.
It is too often assumed by the stakeholders in a public issue that the only resolutions are zero-sam
- that a gain for one group is a loss for another. This does not have to be the case. We at Horizon
believe that there is synergy in intelligent compromise. The Institute facilitates such dialogue
between and among citizens, lawmakers, and interest groups~ in addressing a wide variety, of
substantive issues in communities throughout Virginia. In so doing, it does not merely prescribe
solutions, it catalyzes solutions by the people closest to the issue.
Horizon Institute is beginning five projects which advance its nuss~on.
· On the Horizon - This quarterly publication fatfditates citizens' interest in and
understanding of public policy by distilling salient policy information.
· Common Ground- The Institute seeks to educate and engage the voting public by
convening consensus-building public forums that encourage citizens' interaction with
decisionmakers and interest groups.
· The Beacon - This program consists of short reports on timely and relevant policy
issues, delivered weekly to the desks of Virginia's legislators to introduce them to
innovanve possibil/fies beyond the usual boundaries.
· The Better Schools Project - The project unifies the Institute's efforts to effect
anprovements in Virginia education by developing methods for minimizing disparities
in educational quality, raising achievement standards, and improving the system of
incentives for students, teachers and schools.
· Virginia Stewardship - This project focuses on developing efficient methods for
redressing threats to Virginia's environment, and establishing a structure of economic
incentives to encourage responsible land-use.
The Institute is actively seeking funding to permanently establish each one of these
projects.
By educating and engaging the public, by giving deeisionmakers the tools to make more
intelligent decisions, and by facilitating constructive and inclusive dialogue, Horizon Institute can
make a significant and lasting contribution towards improving our communities.
THE
-CITIZENSHIP
PROJECT
The Citizenship Project, a nonpartisan organization bused in-Charlottesville, is designed to address the need for
programs that fogter an understanding and habit of good citizenship among members of our community. The
Citizenship Project has as its mission "to help individuals find thek role in'the broader community." To this end,
The Citizenship Project follows two complementary tracks:
First, it develops and runs programs designed to teach and reinforce the practic~ of good citiz~enship. Examples of
programs include..
STUDENT MOCK ELECTION -- This hiterschool coordinated effort teaches the mechan/~m of voting and provides
a more comprehensive understanding of how individual votes contribute to a larger result. Crehting voting
conditions that mirror actual election day procedures, it culminates in a convention-like atmosphere where student
delegations from participating public and private schools tally their votes andreport results in roll call fashion amid
speeches and media coverage.
CHARLOTTESVILLE CONGRESS ~- This mock congress demystifies the making of policy and helps students see
what roles they can play by transferring the skills they learn to the real legislative process. By replicating the
congressional experience (complete with committee hearings, mark-up legislation, constituent and lobby pressures,
party leadership, etc.), area high school stodants learn how they may participate ~n the l~gislative process in many
different?vays.
FOUNDERS SCHOOL -- Afmr intensive study of original documents and lectures from a/:ea experts, participants in
Lifts week-long progIam for high school students entering their senior.years learn about the principles, interests, and
politics o£tha American Founding firsthand by reenacting the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Second, the Citizenship Project _serves a clearinghouse function to help groups, organizations, businesses,
governments, and individuals in the comrmmity with the development and/or farming of their own program ideas.
Examples 6f such program assistance include..
LEADERSHIP CHAP~OTTESVILLE -- The Citizenship Project has assisted with my 1o government" portion
of this very successful and long-nmmng Chamber of Commer6e program designed to help orient area business
people to the community.
COLLEGIATE PUBLIC AFFAIKS TELEVISION BROADCASTS -'Worklng with students at the University of
Vkgin/a, the Citizenship Project is helping to develop produce and air public affairs prograrnra/mg by and for
college students. Initiated by interested UVa students, the program is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 1997.
VOTER EDUCATION PROGRAMS -- In preparation for the 1996 election, at thq request of the Culpeper League
of Women Voters, the Citizenship Project developed a publl6 forum to inform voters aboi]t proposed amendments to
the Vkginia Constitution appearing on the ballot.
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS -- Public'interest in the Citizenship Project has flourished from its first days.
invitations from diffei'ent groups, organizations, and media to speak about ~ivic affair~, and about the Citizenship
'Project i~self, have come since the idea was launched in the spring of 1996. Contact the Citizenship Project to
inquire about speaking engagements, hosting civic discussions, sshool'programs, etc.
The Citizenship Project pursues neither partisan nor ideological agenda~. Its only presumption is that we all, us
citizen~, have some role to play in our community, region, state, and nation.' In a political system that relies on
public participation, the Citizenship Project attempts to improve the level and quklity of individual participation in
order that [he broader community may benefit.
For further background and program information regarding the Citizetiship Project, pleuse contact Brian R. Menard,
Executive Director, at 984-2823.
2123 Ivy Road. Suite 202 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
phone: (804) 984~2823 · fax: (804) 984-2122 - e-mail: brm2d@virginia.edu
September 18,1997
39-22-97^~, :al RCV~
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
cc: Mr. Kevin Huckstep- Building and Zoning Depl
From: Priscilla Harris
6t54 Raikoad Ave.
Crozet, Va. 22932
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Dear Board of Supervisors,
Enclosed you will find pictures of a building located on Ralkoad Avenue in Crozet,
owned by Mr. Johuny White.
Picture #t: The front of the building facing Railroad Ave. Mr. White was told by Mr.Kevin
Huckstep from the Building and Zoning Dept. to board up alt windows and lock the door.
As you can see, some windows are still not boarded up.
Picture #2: The back of the building facing towards St. George Ave.
Picture #3:Missing cinder block at lower end of building, exposed ,crumbling parking lot,
and a pile of debris from the deteriorated parking lot.
Picture #4: A closer took at the parking lot.
Picture #5: Separated c'mder block on side of building.
Picture #6.More separated cinder block.
Picture #7. A roof truss system put there by Mr. White a few years ago afrer an inspector
from the Building Code Services Dept. told him he had to put a new roof on. This job was
obviously never finished and the trusses are now rouen.
The building is locally referred to as the old laundromat since that is what it was. It still
contains tons of debris from that operation.
I have filed formal complaints wkh the Building Code and Zoning Dept. in the past.
Mr. Kevin Huckstep from that dept. followed up on my complaints, and deemed the
building structurally sound. I beg to differ ff someone took the time to walk inside, they
wilt clearly see daylight shining ali throughout the "ceiling'', and a car jack holding up the
right corner support beam. And how can it be structurally sound when the einderblock is
either misiing or separating from the joyces. Mr. I-Iuckstep stated it was due to
weathering. I agree, but that process is clearly not over.
I am concerned that the next sign'fficant snow wi~ bring the 'roo~" crashing in and posst'bly
cansi~g a fire. This build'mg is only a few feet away from my house and I am afraid such an
incklent wilt spread over to my house, and put my children's livesin danger.
At/tl~s point, I will only be satisfied if Mr. White is ordered to have the building
bulldozed or be seriously fined for non-compliance.
The people living in Crozet would only be too happy to see this horrific eye-sore
disappear, and trees planted instead which I would be glad to donate to Mr.W~. Should
this letter not accomplish anything, could you please advise me as to what my iiext step
should be? I am willing to co~it~nue filing complaints or whatever it takes.
RIVANNA SERVICE ANI) CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (Ll~s "Agreement") is made tbJs __ day of
1997, by and among RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and
corporate of the Connnonwealth of Virginia ("Authority"), THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF:CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ("City"), THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA ("County"), THE
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, with approval of the
Governor pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended ("UVA"), and
THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SCO1TSVILLE, VIRGINIA CScottsville").
R-1
RECITALS
By that certain Agreement For Municipal Solid Waste Disposal dated
1997, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "BFI
Agreement"), Authority and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. ("BFI")
provided for acceptance by BFI of certain non-hazardous solid waste at BFI's
Fluvaima Transfer Station in accordance with certain terms and conditions contained
therein. All capitalized terms used in this Agreement and not defined herein shall
have their meaning as de£med in the BFI Agreement.
City, County, UVA, and Scottsville have agreed with Authority to provide waste to
BFI's Fluvanna Transfer Station under the terms of the BFI Agreement and have
further agreed to certain other terms set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in
hand paid, the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
l. The BFI Agreement.
City, County, UVA, and S¢ottsville each hereby agrees to be bound by the
terms and conditions of the BFI Agreement, except as specifically provided herein.
2. Fees; Service Contribution.
a. Payment of Fees and Service Contribution. As Authority receives
monthly invoices from BFI for amounts due under the BFI Agreement, it shall in turn
present to each of City, County, UVA, and Scottsville appropriate monthly bills for
such party's respective share of such amounts, plus a service contribution equal to
Four Dollars ($4.00) per Ton of MSW delivered by such proxy under the BFI
Agreemem during the applicable invoice period (the "Contribution").
b. CPI-U Index Adjustment to Contribution. The Contribution which may
be charged by Authority in the second and subsequent years of the term hereof shall
be adjusted upward or downward in the same manner as provided in paragraph 3.~ of
the BFI Agreement.
3. Nonconforming Waste.
In the event Cky, County, UVA, or Scottsville delivers or causes to be
delivered under the BFI Agreemem any Nonconforming Waste, such responsible party
shall reimburse to Authority any additional costs paid by it in connection with the
handling of such Nonconforming Waste, as provided in Section 2.2.1 of the BFI
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall prohibit any party from
proceeding against any generator or hauler responsible for such Nonconforming Waste.
4. Miscellaneous.
a. Modifications and Waivers. No waiver, modification, discharge, or
amendment of this Agreement shall be valid in the absence of the w~itten and signed
consent of the party against which enforcement of such is sought.
b. Default. In the event that any party fails to perform any covenant or
breach any representation or warranty in this Agreemem, the other parties shall have
the right to exercise any remedies available at law or in equity to obtain damages or
enforcement of this Agreement, including specific performance.
c. Entire Agreemem. This Agreement, together with the BFI Agreement
incorporated hereinto, contains the entire agreement among the parties relating to the
transactions contemplated hereby. All prior or contemporaneous agreements,
understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged herein.
d. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application
thereof in any circumstance, is deemed to be unenforceable, the remainder shall not be
affected thereby and shall remain enforceable.
e. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed m
accordance with the laws of the Conm~onwealth of Virginia_
f. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterparts, all of which shall be deemed originals.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals,
all pursuant to due and proper authority.
AUTHORITY:
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, a public body politic
and corporate of the Commonwealth of Virginia
By:
Its:
CITY:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Its:
COUNTY:
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Its:
THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA
By:
Its:
SCOTTSVILLE:
THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE,
VIRGINIA
By:
Its:
U:L2541 ~DOCh~SWA.AGR.
-4-
AGREEM~NT FOR MUNICH'AL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this day of , 1997,
by and between RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, a public body politic and
corporate of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Authority") and BFI WASTE
SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation ("BFI').
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Authority invited bids pursuant to RFP 97-04 for the purpose of providing
a transfer station location to receive non-hazardous solid waste, including residential
waste collected by the City of Charlottesville, commercial waste contracted for
collection by the City of Charlottesville, institutional waste contacted for collection by
the University of Virginia, residential waste contracted for collection by the Town of
Scottsville, school systems and administrative governmental centers waste contracted
for colleetion by Albemarle County and portions of the privately collected waste from
Albemarle County, all in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
WFIER.EAS, Authority has awarded to BFI such contract and desires to deliver such
non-hazardous solid waste to BFI's Fluvanna Transfer Station in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, BFI desires to receive and dispose of such waste in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, Authority and BFI hereby mutually agree and undertake as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
"Affiliate" means an entity that directly, or indirectly, controls, or is controlled
by, or is under common control with, BFI.
"Agreement" means this Agreement for MSW disposal between BFI and
Authority, including any written amendments, modifications or supplements
thereto.
"Authority" means Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, a public body politic and
corporate of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and its successor or assigns.
22988-[
2~g~l
"BFI" means BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and its successors or assigns.
"CPI-U Index" means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,
Richmond, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics (the "Bureau"). If the Bureau fails to publish the CPI-U Index
throughout the term of this Agreement, but a comparable index is published by
the Bureau, or if the Bureau does not publish a comparable index, by another
government agency of the United States in the place thereof, then such
comparable index shall be the "CPI-U Index" used for the purposes of
computing the adjustments described in Section 3.2 with the same force and
effect as the original CPI-U Index. If no comparable index is published by the
Bureau or other governmental agency for any period and/or at any time an
adjustment is required by Section 3.2, such adjustment shall be made in
accordance with another index generally recognized as authoritative, or by use
of the most closely comparable statistics on the purchasing power of the
consumer dollar as published by a responsible regional or national governmantal
authority.
"Disposal Facility" means the Fluvaana Transfer Station located in Fluvanna
County, Virginia, which transfer station is owned and operated by BFL
"Disposal Fee" means the amoums, as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement,
which are payable by Authority to BFI for the disposal at the Disposal Facility
of each Ton of MSW in accordance with the provisions contained in this
Agreement.
"I-Iazardous Waste" means waste which is defined or listed as a hazardous waste
in the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC 3251), as amended, and all
regulations promulgated thereunder, or waste which is defined or listed as
hazardous waste in other applicable federal, state or local statutes or ordinances
and all amendments thereto, and all regulations promulgated thereunder. The
term ~Hazardous Waste" shall be construed to have the broader, more
encompassing defmilion where there exists a conflict in the definitions employed
by two or more governmental agencies or units having concurrent or
overlapping jurisdiction over Hazardous Waste.
"Medical Waste" means waste which may be reasonably considered infectious
or biohazardous, originating from hospitals, public or private medical clinics,
research laboratories or departments, pharmaceutical industries, blood bank,%
forensic medical departments, mortuaries, veterinary facilities and other similar
facilities and includes equipment, instrument, utensils, fomites, laboratory waste
(including pathological specimens and fomites attendant thereto), surgical
facilities, equipment bedding and utensils (including pathological specimens and
fomites attendant thereto), sharps (hypodermic needles, syringes, etc.), dialysis
unit waste, animal carcasses, offal and body parts, biological materials
(vaccines, medicines, etc.), and other similar materials, but does not include
any such waste which is determined by evidence reasonably satisfactory to BFI
to have been rendered non-infectious and non-biohazardous.
"Municipal Solid Waste" or "MSW' means all materials or substances that are
generally discarded or rejected as being spent, useless~ worthless or in excess to
the owners at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to,
trash, garbage, refuse, rubbish, discarded materials from residential,
commercial, municipal and industrial activities, yard waste and vegetative
waste, but not including Hazardous Waste, Medical Waste or Special Waste.
"Nonconforming Waste" means any waste provided to BFI at the Disposal
Facility which does not conform to the definition of "Municipal Solid Waste" as
defined by the Department of Environmental Qualify (DEQ) Regulations for the
State of Virginia.
"Rivanna Service Area" means the following geographic areas: the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia, the County of Albemarle, Virgin/a, the University of
Virginia, and the Town of Scottsville, Virginia.
'~Rivanna Service Area MSW' means MSW generated within the following
geographic areas: residential waste collected by the City of Charlottesville,
commercial waste contracted for collection by the City of Charlottesville,
institutional waste contracted for collection from the University of Virginia;
residential waste contracted for collection by the Town of Scottsville, school
systems and administrative governmental centers waste contracted for collection
by Albemarle County and portions of the privately collected waste from
Albemarle County, all in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
"Special Waste" means those wastes that present special or unusual disposal
requirements and/or have particular regulatory requirements impacting their
disposal.
The term Special Waste is meant to include, but not be limited to:
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
(g)
Contaminated soils and debris;
Pollution control wastes;
Manufacturing and industrial process wastes;
Medical and pharmaceutical wastes;
Radioactive wastes;
Resource exploration, mining and production wastes;
Asbestos/wastes from manufacturing or chemical facilities;
Any other waste not excluded below.
2~88-1
229~$-1
The term Special Waste is intended to exclude:
Co)
(c)
(d)
(e)
General household, waste; and similar wastes originating from offices,
apartments, etc.;
Landscap~ debris;
Uncontaminated construction and demolition debris;
Uncontaminated packaging material;
Uncontaminated asbestos from a building or structure that is not
involved with any manufacturing or chemical process;
Uncontaminated food or grain wastes.
"Ton~ means a "short ton~ of 2,000 pounds.
DESIGNATED WASTES
2.1 SCOPE
For and in consideration of Authority's payment of the respective
mounts set forth in Section 3, the Authority hereby agrees to deliver, or
cause to be delivered, to the Disposal Facility, and BFI hereby agrees to
receive and dispose of, all Rivanna Service Area MSW, in accordance
with the provisions contained in this Agreement.
2.2 DELIVERY
2.2.1 Nonconforming Waste
(a)
Authority shall prevent the delivery of Nonconforming
Waste to BFI hereunder. BFI shall utilize Reasonable
Business Efforts to identify Nonconforming Waste
delivered to BFI hereunder.
Any material provided to BFI which is determined to have
been Nonconforming Waste at the time of its receipt by
BFI shall be held for the acx. ount of Authority and all
costs of demurrage, handling, transportation, reloading,
and disposal of such Nonconforming Waste shall be
reimbursed to BFI by Authority or paid directly by
Authority. Upon discovering that it has been provided
with Nonconforming Waste, BFI shall promptly notify
Authority and use Reasonable Business Efforts to comply
with Authority's directions for the handling of such
Nonconforming Waste and transportation thereof to a
disposal facility that can lawfully accept such material.
BFI may, at its option, handle, transport and dispose of
Nonconforming Waste, or arrange for same, subject to
mutually agreeable terms and conditions, including,
without limitation, compensation.
2.2.2 Title
Title to MSW shall be transferred to BFI at the time that same
has been fully unloaded at the working face of the Disposal
Facility and the delivering vehicle has departed such working
face. Prior thereto, title to the MSW shall reside with the
collectors and/or haulers of such MSW. Title to Nonconforming
Waste shall remain with, and all risks and responsibilities
therefor shall be borne by, the collectors and/or haulers of such
Nonconforming Waste, and never be transferred to BFI.
2.3 DISPOSAL SERVICES
2.3.1 General
BFI shall receive and dispose of all Rivanna Service Area MSW
delivered to the Disposal Facility. In addition, BFI shall provide
a site at the Disposal Facility for two roll-off containers for the
Recyclables (both blue bag and newspaper) collected by the
Albemarle County waste haulers.
2.3.2 Weighing
The amoum of MSW delivered to BFI at the Disposal Facility
shall be determined by certified scales at the Disposal Facility.
The scales at the Disposal Facility shall be operated and
maintained by BFI.
2.3.3 Delivery_ Hours
BFI shall keep the Disposal Facility open for the receipt of MSW
during the following times:
Monday through Friday - 7:30 A.M. until 4:30 P.M.
Saturdays following the Holidays (listed in Section 2.3.4) - 7:30
A.M. until 4:30 P.M.
Delivery hours may be adjusted upon mutual consent.
'~2988-1
-5-
22985-1
2.3.4
Holidays
The following shall be holidays for the purposes of this
Agreement:
New Year's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Day
BFI may decide to observe any or all Of the above mentioned
holidays by suspension of deliveries to the Disposal Facility.
2.3.5 Disposal Facility Representations
BFI represents to Authority as follows:
The Disposal Facility is, as of the date hereof, in
compliance, as defined by DEQ, with all applicable
regulatory requirements imposed by federal, state, and
local laws or orders that pertain to its design, construction
and continued operation.
During the term of this Agreement, BFI shall operate and
maintain the Disposal Facility in compliance, as defined
by DEQ, with all applicable regulations or orders and
shall obtain and maintain all permits, licenses and
approvals necessary for the lawful operation of the
Disposal Facility, except to the extent excused by the
provisions of Section 6 hereof.
2.3.6 Inspection Rights
Authority may, upon reasonable notice and during normal
operating hours, inspect the manner of operation at the Disposal
Facility; provided, that Authority shall not interfere with BFI' s
use of and the operation of the Disposal Facility.
2.3.7 Audit Rights
Authority shall have the right to perform a quarterly waste
analysis or audit of waste delivered to the Disposal Facility at the
end of every fifth year during the term of this Agreement.
o
DISPOSAL RATES AND PAYMENTS
3.1 BASE DISPOSAL FEB
Authority shall pay BFI a Disposal Fee in the amount of Thirty and
79/100 Dollars ($30.79), adjusted in aceerdance with the provisions of
this Section 3, for each Ton of MSW disposed of at the Disposal
Facility.
3.2 CPI-U INDEX ADJUSTMENT
The Disposal Fee which may be charged by BFI for the second and
subsequent years of the term hereof shall be adjusted upward or
downward to reflect changes in the cost of operations, as reflected by
fluctuations in the CPI-U Index. The CPI-U Index will be provided for
the twelve months prior to March of the year this Agreement commences
and each year thereafter (the "Rate Modification Date"), the Disposal
Fee shall be increased or decreased for the ensuing one-year period in a
percentage amount equal to 100 percent of the net percentage change in
the CPI-U Index; provided, however, that such adjustment shall not
exceed 5 % in any one-year period. BFI will give RSWA at least ninety
(90) days prior written notice of any proposed price increase.
3.3 CHANGES 1N LAWS
The Disposal Fee which may be charged by BFI will be considered by
Authority for increase upon the Authority's receipt and review of
appropriate documentation by BFI to fully cover increases in costs
resulting from a change (including a change in construction or
interpretation or manner of enforcement), in any law, ordinance, code,
rule, regulation or guideline.
3.4 PAYMENT
22988-1
On or before the tenth (10th) day of each month, BFI shall invoice
Authority for the charges due BFI pursuant to Section 3 for MSW
disposed of by Authority during the immediately preceding month. All
of BFI's invoices submitted under this Agreement shall be fully paid by
Authority m accordance with the Virginia Procurement Act, Va. Code
Section 11-62.1 et.seq. Where Authority disputes a portion of any
invoice, Authority shall nevertheless timely pay in full the undisputed
portion. Authority shall pay a charge for all past due amounts for each
month or part thereof during which such invoiced amounts remain
pnpaid at the prime annual interest rate than established by Chase
-7-
Manhattan Bank, N.A., divided by twelve, but in no event higher than
the maximum rate allowed by applicable law. Invoices shall be payable
at the address specified therein or at such other address as BFI may
specify pursuant to Section 11.
3.5 AUTHORITY TO ACT AS COLLECTOR
Authority shall be responsible for submitting statements to and collecting
from all Rivanna Service Area haulers and other users who deliver MSW
to the Disposal Facility. BFI shall be entitled to payment for services
rendered hereunder irrespective of whether or not Authority collects
from such haulers or users. BFI agrees that, after receipt of written
notice from the Authority to BFI of the non-payment by any hauler, BFI
shall not accept any additional wastes from such hauler.
INDEMNIFICATION
BFI shall save harmless and indemnify Authority, its officers, directors, and
employees, from and against any and all suits, actions, legal proceedings,
claims, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorney's
fees), arising out of BFI's failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations
or arising out of a willful or negligent act or omission of BFI, its officers,
agents, servants and employees; provided, however, that BFI shall not be liable
for any suits, actions, legal proceedings, claims, demands, damages, costs,
expenses and attorney's fees arising out of a willful or negligent act or omission
of Authority, its officers, directors or employees.
INSURANCE
BFI shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in full force
and effect insurance coverage with minimum limits as follows:
(a) Workers Compensation - Statutory;
Co) Comprehensive General Liability Bodily Injury $1,000,000 and
Property Damage - $1,00{3,000;
(c)
Comprehensive Automotive Liability Bodily Injury $1,00t3,000 and
Property Damage $500,000.
To the extent permitted by law, a party may provide all or any part of the
insurance coverage it is required to maintain pursuant to this Section 5 under a
plan or plans of self insurance.
22988-1
-8-
PERFORMANCE STANDARD AND REMEDY
If the Fluvanna Transfer Station is not available for use by the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority for more than five (5) days in a year, as a result of unplanned
maintenance or repair, BFI will pay Rivanna $7 per ton for Authority waste that
was not able to be processed through the Fluvarma Transfer Station, such
payment not to exceed $5,000. The per ton penalty fee is subject to annual CPI
adjustments.
FORCE MAJEURE
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, neither party shall be
liable for the failure to wholly perform its duties if such failure is mused by
catastrophe, riot, war, governmental order or regulation, strike, fire, accident,
act of God or other similar or different contingency beyond the reasonable
control of such party.
DEFAIJLT AND TERlVl]2XlATION; DAMAGES
8.1 DEFAULT IN PAYlVlENT
In the event Authority defaults in the payment of any sum when due
hereunder, unless such default is cured within thirty (30) days after
receipt of written notice thereof by BFI, BFI may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Authority of such intention.
8.2 OTHER DEFAULT
In the event either party breaches or defaults under any material
representation, warranty, agreement or covenant contained herein (other
than the breach or default of a payment obligation), unless such default
or breach is cured within ttfirty (30) days following receipt of written
notice of such alleged default or breach, specifying in detail the nature
and circumstances thereof, given by the party alleging the existence of
such default or breach to the defaulting party, the nondefaulfing party
may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the defaulting party.
Notwithstanding the above, if any circumstance or occurrence giving rise
to any such breach or default (other than a breach or default of a
payment obligation) cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period,
the non-defaulting party shall not have the right to terminate this
Agreement if the defaulting party commences to cure or rectify the
circumstance or occurrence within such thirty 00) day period and
thereafter continues its attempts to cure or rectify the circumstances or
occurrence with ali due diligence.
22988-1
-9-
8.3. NO CONSEOUENTIAL DAlVIAGF~
Neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, punitive or
consequential damages in connection with any breach or default under
this Agreement, whether in contract (including breach of warranty), to~t
(including negligence), strict liability or otherwise.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Each party agrees that in the performance of its respective obligations
hereunder, it and its subcontractors will q, aliiy under, and comply with all
applicable existing and future Federal, State and local laws, rules and
regulations.
The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of ten (10) years
commencing on July t, 1998. At the election of Authority, this Agreement may
be renewed and extended for two (2) additional terms of five (5) years each.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the terms of this
Agreement may be renegotiated if both parties agree such renegotiations is
mutually beneficial.
11. OTHER AGREEMEI'qTS
11.1 CDD Waste
11.2
During the term of this Agreement, BFI shall deliver all construction and
demolition and vegetative wastes as defined by DEQ Regulations
collected by BFI within the Rivarma Service Area to the Ivy Landfill
which is operated by Authority. Such waste shall be delivered at the
then current gate disposal priee. ~f the Ivy kandfxX1 shall cede to have an
active disposal a~ea for CDD ~te than th~ section 1 I. I shall be nw~l
Acquisitions and void from tha~ point forward.
From July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2003, in the event that BFI acquires
ali of the stock or assets of a corporation providing MSW collection
within the Rivanna Service Area (the "Acquired Business"), then BFI
shall be required to pay to Authority Two and 00/100 Dollars ($2.00)
per Ton of MSW collected by the Acquired Business until June 30,
2003.
12. NOTICES
12.1 GENERAL
22988-1
All notices, demands, requests, proposals, consents or other
communications whatsoever which this Agreement contemplates,
authorizes, requires or permits any party to give to the other party,
except as provided in subsection 10.2, shall be in writing and shall be
personally delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, addressed to the respective party as specified in this
subsection. Any notice shall be deemed delivered on the date of personal
delivery or, if mailed, on the fifth (Sth) business day after dePosit in the
mail
Notice to BFI shall be addressed to:
BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc.
2490 Charles City Road
Richmond, Virginia 23231
Attention: Eddie Schneider
District Vice President
with a copy to:
If by mail:
P.O. Box 3151
Houston, Texas 77253
Attention: Secretary
If by hand:
757 N. Eldridge
Houston, Texas 77079
Attention: Secretary
Notices to the Authority shall be addressed to:
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
200 Franklin Street
Charlottesville, Virgin/a 22901
Atto: Director of Solid Waste
Any party may from time to time designate an alternative address by
notice to the other parties given in accordance with this subsection.
22988~1
13.
14.
15.
12.2 ROUTIN~ NOTICES
Except when expressly required by this Agreement to be in writing,
routine communications and advices relating to day to day operations
may be given orally or in writing, but need not be in the form of a
formal written notice to be operative.
WAIVER
The waiver by any party of any breach or violation of any term or condition of
this Agreement shall only be valid if in writing and signed by the waiving party
and shall not be deemed to be construed as a waiver by such party of any other
term or condition or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any
other term or condition.
ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, pledged or hypothecated by
any party without the written consent of the other party; provided, however,
that BFI shall have the right, without the prior written consent of Authority, to
assign this Agreement or any right or interest under this Agreement to any of its
Affiliates. Subject to the foregoing limitations on assignment, this Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Ihe parties hereto and their
respective permitted successors and' assigns.
PERFORMANCE BOND
15.1 Bond Reauired
BFI will be required to furnish a corporate surety bond as security for
the performance of the Agreement. Said surety bond must be in the
amount of exactly One Million One Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand
Dollars ($1,168,000) and must be annually renewed over the term of the
Agreement. Premium for the bond shall be paid by BFI and shall be
issued by a duly authorized corporate surety company authorized to do
business in Virginia.
15.2 Sole Remedy
Authority's sole remedy for breach of contract under this Agreement or
BFI's failure to perform shall be to make demand under the terms of the
performance bond.
22988~1
16, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
The work and labor herein provided for shall be performed and furnished by
BFI as an independent contractor and under the sole supervision, management,
direction and control of BFI in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Virginia.
SEVERABILITY
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be
determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties
hereto shall attempt to agree to such amendments, modifications or supplements
of or to this Agreement or such other appropriate actions as shall, to the
maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give
effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein, and the other provisions
of this Agreement shall, as so amended, modified or supplemented, or
otherwise affected by such action, remain in full force and effect.
MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written instrument duly
executed by both Authority and BFI.
ENTIRETY
Tiffs Agreement supersedes all prior representations, negotiations and verbal or
written communications by and between the parties hereto relating to the subject
matter hereof and constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto in
respect thereof.
It is further agreed this Agreement is subject to the appropriation by and actions
of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, City Council of the City of
Charlottesville, Town Council of Scottsville, and Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, from time to time.
22988-1
-13-
IN WITNESS WI-IERE~F, this Agreement is executed as of the date here'mabove set
forth.
BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH
AM~RICA, INC.
Title:
CBFI')
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
By:
Title:
("Authority")
22988-1